Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
215
TORT
F An unlawful violation of private
right, not created by contract, and which
gives rise to an action for damages.
F It is an act or omission producing an
injury to another, without any previous
existing lawful relation of which the said
act or omission may be said to be a
natural outgrowth or incident.
Kinds of Negligence:
1. Culpa Contractual (contractual
negligence)
F Governed by CC provisions on
Obligations and Contracts, particularly
Arts. 1170 to 1174 of the Civil Code.
NOTES:
? An unborn child is NOT entitled to
damages. But the bereaved parents may
be entitled to damages, on damages
inflicted directly upon them. (Geluz vs.
CA, 2 SCRA 802)
? Defendants in tort cases can either
be
natural
or
artificial
being.
Corporations are civilly liable in the
same manner as natural persons.
? Any person who has been injured by
reason of a tortious conduct can sue the
tortfeasor.
? The primary purpose of a tort action
is to provide compensation to a person
who was injured by the tortious conduct
of the defendant.
? Preventive remedy is available in
some cases.
NOTES:
Classes of Torts:
A. Negligent Torts
B. Intentional Torts
C. Strict Liability
Culpa Aquiliana
It is a separate
source of obligation
independent
of
contract
is the contract
In breach of contract
committed through
the negligence of
employee,
the
employer
cannot
erase his primary and
direct liability by
invoking exercise of
diligence of a good
father of a family in
the selection and
supervision of the
A. NEGLIGENT TORTS
F Involve voluntary acts or omissions
which result in injury to others without
intending to cause the same or because
the actor fails to exercise due care in
performing such acts or omissions.
Culpa Contractual
The foundation of
the liability of the
defendant
In quasi-delict the
presumptive
responsibility for the
negligence of his
servants can be
rebutted by proof of
the exercise of due
care in their
selection and
supervision.
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
employee.
Culpa Aquiliana
Crime
NOTES:
? Negligence is a conduct - the
determination of the existence of
negligence is concerned with what the
defendant did or did not do
F The state of mind of the actor is
not important; good faith or use of
sound judgment is immaterial. The
existence of negligence in a given
case is not determined by reference
to the personal judgment but by the
behavior of the actor in the situation
before him. (Picart vs. Smith)
? Negligence is a conduct that creates
an undue risk of harm to others.
? The determination of negligence is a
question of foresight on the part of the
actor FORESEABILITY.
F Even if a particular injury was not
foreseeable, the risk is still foreseeable
if possibility of injury is foreseeable.
F Forseeability involves the question of
PROBABILITY, that is, the existence of
some real likelihood of some damage and
the likelihood is of such appreciable
weight reasonably to induce, action to
avoid it.
Punished
only
if
there is a penal law
clearly covering them
Liability
of
the
employer
of
the
actor-employee
is
subsidiary in crimes
QUASI-DELICT
F Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence is obliged to pay for the
damage done. (Article 2176 Civil Code)
Essential Requisites
delictual action:
for
Calculation of Risk
F Interests are to be balanced only in
the sense that the purposes of the actor,
the nature of his act and the harm that
may result from action or inaction are
elements to be considered.
quasi-
Circumstances
to
consider
in
determining negligence: (PEST-GAP)
1. Time
2. Place
3. Emergency
F Emergency rule
GENERAL RULE: An individual who
suddenly finds himself in a situation
of danger and is required to act
without much time to consider the
best means that may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger is not
guilty of negligence if he fails to
Tests of Negligence
1. Did the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act use the
reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent person would
have used in the same situation?
F If not then he is guilty of
negligence.
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
4.
5.
6.
7.
SPECIAL RULES
1. Children
F The action of the child will not
necessarily be judged according to the
standard of an adult. But if the minor is
mature enough to understand and
appreciate the nature and consequence
of his actions, he will be considered
negligent if he fails to exercise due care
and precaution in the commission of such
acts.
4. Nature of activity
F There are activities which by nature
impose duties to exercise a higher
degree of diligence.
Examples:
a.
Banks, by the very nature of their
work, are expected to exercise the
highest degree of diligence in the
selection and supervision of their
employees.
b.
Common carriers are required to
exercise extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over their passengers and
transported goods. (Article 1733 Civil
Code).
NOTES:
? The law fixes no arbitrary age at
which a minor can be said to have the
necessary capacity to understand and
appreciate the nature and consequence
of his acts. (Taylor vs. Meralco, 16 Phil
8)
? Applying the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, Judge Sangco takes
the view that a child who is 9 or below is
conclusively presumed to be incapable of
CIVIL
LAW
COMMITTEE
5. Intoxication
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
6. Insanity
F The insanity of a person does not
excuse him or his guardian from liability
based on quasi-delict.
F Bases for holding an insane person
liable for his tort:
a.
Where one of two innocent persons
must suffer a loss, it should be borne by
the one who occasioned it.
b.
To induce those interested in the
estate of the insane person to restrain
and control him.
c.
The fear that an insanity would
lead to false claims of insanity and avoid
liability.
7. Women
F In determining the question of
contributory negligence in performing
such act, the age, sex, and condition of
the
passengers
are
circumstances
necessarily affecting the safety of the
passenger, and should be considered.
(Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. GR
No.12191, October 14, 1918)
F Although there is no unequivocal
statement of the rule, Valenzuela vs. CA
253SCRA303 appears to require a
different standard of care for women
under the circumstances indicated
therein.
F However, Dean Guido Calabresi
believes that there should be a uniform
standard between a men and a women.
2.
Administrative Rule
F
Violation of a rule promulgated by
administrative agencies is not negligence
per se but may be EVIDENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE.
3.
Private Rules of Conduct.
F
Violation of rules imposed by
private individuals (e.g. employers) is
merely a POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE.
B. PRACTICE AND CUSTOM
F Compliance with the practice and
custom in a community will not
automatically result in a finding that the
actor is not guilty of negligence. Noncompliance with the practice or custom
in the community does not necessarily
mean that the actor was negligent.
F In Yamada vs. Manila Railroad Co.,
the owner of an automobile struck by a
train while crossing the tracks sought to
establish absence of negligence of its
driver by evidence of a custom of
automobile drivers of Manila by which
Other
Factors
to
Consider
in
Determining Negligence:
A. VIOLATION OF RULES AND
STATUTES
1. Statutes
GENERAL RULE:
Violation of a
statutory duty is NEGLIGENCE PER SE
(Cipriano vs. CA, 263SCRA711). When the
Legislature has spoken, the standard of
CIVIL
LAW
COMMITTEE
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
A. Presumptions of Negligence
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
AFFIRMATIVE
DUTIES
AND
MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES:
1. Duty to Rescue
A. Duty to the rescuer
F
The defendants are liable for the
injuries to persons who rescue people in
distress because of the acts or omissions
of the said defendants.
F
There is liability to the rescuer
and the law does not discriminate
between the rescuer oblivious to the
peril and the one who counts the costs.
F
The risk of rescue, if only not
wanton, is born of the occasion.
F
One who was hurt trying to
rescue another who was injured through
negligence may recover damages.
(Santiago vs. De leon CA-GR No.16180-R
March 21, 1960)
F
Danger of personal injury or
death.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. Visitors and tolerated possession
F The owner is still liable if the
plaintiff is inside his property by
tolerance or by implied permission.
F Owners of buildings or premises
owe duty of care to visitors.
b. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
F One who maintains on his
premises dangerous instrumentalities
or appliances of a character likely to
attract children in play, and who
fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent
children
from
playing
therewith or resorting thereto, is
liable to a child of tender years who
is injured thereby, even if the child
is technically a trespasser in the
premises.
NOTE: A swimming pool or pond or
reservoir of water is NOT considered
attractive
nuisance.
(Hidalgo
Enterprises vs. Baladan 91 Phil 488)
c. State of Necessity
F The owner of a thing has no right
to prohibit the interference of
another with the same if the
interference is necessary to avert
imminent danger and the threatened
damage, compared to the damage
arising to the owner from the
interference, is much greater.
(Article 432 Civil Code)
F It is also a recognized justifying
circumstance under the RPC.
B. Duty to rescue
GENERAL RULE: There is no general
duty to rescue; a person is not liable for
quasi-delict even if he did not help a
person in distress.
EXCEPTIONS: A limited duty to rescue
is imposed in certain cases:
Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of ones own victim is
considered, under certain circumstances
CIVIL
LAW
COMMITTEE
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
4. Banks
F The business of banks is one affected
by public interest.
Because of the
nature of its functions, a bank is under
obligation to treat the accounts of its
depositors with meticulous care, always
having in mind the fiduciary nature of
their relationship. (PBC vs. CA [1997])
5. Common carriers
F From the nature of their business
and for reasons of public policy, they are
bound
to
exercise
extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods
and the safety of the passengers.
F The case against the common carrier
is for the enforcement of an obligation
arising from breach of contract.
F The same act which breached the
contract may give rise to an action based
on quasi delict. (Air France vs
Carrascoso, L21438, Sept. 28, 1996)
6. Doctors
A. STANDARD OF CARE
F
The proper standard is whether,
the physician if a general practitioner,
has exercised the degree of care and
skill
of
the
average
qualified
practitioner, taking into account the
advances in the profession.
F
A physician who holds himself out
as a specialist should be held to the
standard of care and skill of the average
member of the profession practicing the
specialty, taking into account the
advances in the profession.
B. Employees
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
D. PROOF
F
Expert testimony should be offered
to prove that the circumstances are
constitutive of conduct falling below the
standard of care employed by other
physicians in good standing when
performing the same operation.
F
Medical malpractice can also be
established by relying on the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitor; in which case the need
of expert testimony is dispensed with
because the injury itself provides the
proof of negligence. (Ramos vs. CA, GR
No.124354, December 29, 1999)
F
Example: The doctrine was applied
in a case of removal of the wrong part of
the body when another part was
intended.
completely
recovery
B. Partial mitigates liability
1. PLAINTIFFS
CONDUCT
AND
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
a. Plaintiffs own negligence as the
proximate cause
F When the plaintiffs own negligence
was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. (Article 2179
Civil Code)
b. Contributory negligence
F Conduct on the part of the injured
party contributing as a legal cause
to the harm he has suffered which
falls below the standard to which
he is required to conform for his
own protection. (Valenzuela vs. CA
253SCRA303)
F If the plaintiffs negligence was
only contributory, the immediate
and proximate cause of the injury
being the defendants lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover
damages but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be
awarded (Article 2179 Civil Code).
F Doctrine
of
Comparative
Negligence
?
The relative degree of
negligence of the parties is
considered in determining whether
and to what degree, either should
be responsible for his negligence
(apportionment of damages).
?
This is the doctrine being
applied in our jurisdiction wherein
the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff does not completely bar
recovery but merely results in
mitigation of liability; it is a partial
defense.
bars
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
2. IMPUTED
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE
F Negligence is imputed if the actor is
different from the person who is
being made liable.
F The defendant will be subject to
mitigated liability even if the
plaintiff was not himself personally
negligent but because the negligence
of another is imputed to the
plaintiff.
F It is applicable if the negligence was
on the part of the person for whom
the plaintiff is responsible, and
especially, by negligence of an
associate in the transaction where he
was injured.
3. FORTUITOUS EVENTS
F Essential requisites:
a. The cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or of the
failure of the
debtor to comply
with his obligation, must be
independent of the human will;
b. It must be impossible to foresee
the event which constitutes the
caso fortuito, or if it can be
foreseen, it must be impossible to
avoid;
c. The occurrence must be such as to
render it impossible for the debtor
to fulfill his obligation in a normal
manner; and
d. The obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of
the injury resulting to the creditor.
NOTE: When an act of God concurs
with the negligence of defendant to
produce an injury, the defendant is
liable if the injury would not have
resulted but for his own negligent
conduct or omission. The whole
occurrence is humanized and removed
from the rules applicable to acts of
God. (NAPOCOR vs. CA [1993])
GENERAL RULE: It is a complete
defense and a person is not liable if
the cause of the damage is a fortuitous
event.
CIVIL
LAW
COMMITTEE
KINDS:
a.
Express waiver of the right to
recover
b.
Implied Assumptions
i. Dangerous Conditions
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
6. PRESCRIPTION
F An action based on quasi-delict
prescribes in four years from the date of
the accident. (Article 1146 Civil Code)
7. INVOLUNTARINESS
F It is a complete defense in quasidelict cases and the defendant is
therefore not liable if force was exerted
on him. (Aquino, Torts and Damages)
F EXAMPLE: When the defendant was
forced to drive his vehicle by armed
men. He was, at pain of death, forced to
drive at a very fast clip because the
armed men were escaping from the
policemen. The defendant cannot be
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
CAUSATION
Proximate Cause
F That cause which in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, without which the result would
not have occurred.
NOTE:
Primary cause remains the
proximate cause even if there is an
intervening
cause
which
merely
cooperated with the primary cause and
which did not break the chain of
causation.
Remote Cause
F That cause which some independent
force merely took advantage of to
accomplish something not the natural
effect thereof.
Nearest Cause
F That cause which is the last link in
the chain of events; the nearest in point
of time or relation.
F Proximate cause is not necessarily
the nearest cause but that which is the
procuring efficient and predominant
cause.
Concurrent Causes
F The actor is liable even if the active
and substantially simultaneous operation
of the effects of a third persons
innocent, tortious or criminal act is also
a substantial factor in bringing about the
harm so long as the actors negligent
conduct actively and continuously
operate to bring about harm to another.
(Africa vs. Caltex)
F Where several causes producing the
injury are concurrent and each is an
efficient cause without which the injury
would not have happened, the injury
may be attributed to all or any of the
causes and recovery may be had against
any or all of the responsible persons.
F Where the concurrent or successive
negligent acts or omissions of two or
more
persons,
although
acting
independently, are in combination the
direct and proximate cause of a single
injury to a third person, and it is
impossible to determine what proportion
each contributed to the injury, either of
them is responsible for the whole injury,
even though his act alone might not have
CIVIL
LAW
COMMITTEE
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
3. NESS Test
F The candidate condition may still be
termed as a cause where it is shown to
be a necessary element in just one of
several co-present causal set each
independently sufficient for the effect.
Multiple causation
F
If there are a number of candidate
conditions, which, taken one at a time,
would not in fact have been sufficient to
cause the accident and the accident was
a cumulative effect of all the candidate
conditions.
Policy Tests:
1. Foreseeability Test
2. Natural and Probable Consequence
Test
3. Natural and Ordinary or Direct
Consequence Test
4. Hindsight Test
5. Orbit of Risk Test
6. Substantial Factor Test
Policy Tests may be divided into Two
Groups:
1. FORESIGHT PERSPECTIVE/
FORESEEABILITY TESTS
F The defendant is not liable for the
unforeseeable consequences of his acts
F Liability is limited within the risk
created by defendants negligent acts.
CIVIL
LAW
COMMITTEE
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
NOTES:
? A cause is not an intervening cause if
it was already in operation at the time
the negligent act is committed.
? Foreseeable intervening causes
cannot
be
considered
sufficient
intervening causes.
? The intervention of unforeseen and
unexpected cause is not sufficient to
relieve
the
wrongdoer
from
consequences of negligence if such
negligence directly and proximately
cooperates with the independent cause
in the resulting injury.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
A. Plaintiffs negligence is the cause
F Plaintiffs
negligence
is
not
contributory if it is necessary and
sufficient to produce the result.
F EXAMPLES:
1.
Only the plaintiff was negligent.
2.
Defendants negligence is not a
part of the causal set which is a part of
the causal chain.
3.
Plaintiffs negligence was preemptive in nature.
Alternative Views:
1. Prevailing view
F Doctrine is applicable in this
jurisdiction.
F Even if plaintiff was guilty of
antecedent negligence, the defendant is
still liable because he had the last clear
chance of avoiding the injury.
B. Compound Causes
F Plaintiffs negligence may have
duplicative effect, that it, it is sufficient
to bring about the effect but his
negligence occurs simultaneously with
the defendant; the latters negligence is
equally sufficient but not necessary to
bring about the effect because damage
would still have resulted due to the
negligence of the plaintiff.
CIVIL
LAW
COMMITTEE
2. Minority View
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
HUMAN RELATIONS
1. Principle
(ART.19)
3. Third View
F There can be no conflict between
the doctrine of last clear chance and
doctrine of comparative negligence if
the former is viewed as a rule or phrase
of proximate cause;
F However, the doctrine of last clear
chance is no longer applicable if the
force
created
by
the
plaintiffs
negligence continues until the happening
of the injurious event.
Abuse
of
Rights
F Elements:
a. Legal right or duty;
b. The right or duty is exercised in
bad faith; and
c. For the sole intent of prejudicing
or injuring another.
F EXAMPLE:
If
the
principal
unreasonably terminated an agency
agreement
for
selfish
reasons.
(Valenzuela vs. CA, 190 SCRA 1)
NOTE: This rule is a departure from the
traditional view that a person is not
liable for damages resulting from the
exercise of ones right.
B. INTENTIONAL TORTS
F Include conduct where the actor
desires to cause the consequences of his
act or believes that the consequences
are substantially certain to result from
it.
of
F Elements:
a.
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
F Kinds:
a. Breach of promise to marry
c. Sexual assault
d. Desertion by a spouse
NOTES:
? Moral
e. Trespass
Property
and
Deprivation
of
F 2 KINDS:
breach
of
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
2) Trespass to or deprivation of
personal property
g. Illegal Dismissal
F EXAMPLE:
f.
h. Malicious Prosecution
spouses if:
1)
the abortion was caused through
the physicians negligence, or
2)
was done intentionally without
their consent
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
1.
The fact of the prosecution and
the further fact that the defendant was
himself the prosecutor; and that the
action was finally terminated with an
acquittal;
2.
That in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable
cause;
3.
The prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice.
NOTES:
i.
NOTES:
GENERAL RULE: Right to privacy can
be invoked only by natural persons;
Juridical persons cannot invoke such
right because the entire basis of right to
privacy is an injury to the feelings and
sensibilities of a party, a corporation
would have no such ground.
EXCEPTION: Right against unreasonable
searches and seizure can be invoked by a
juridical entity.
Public Humiliation
NOTES:
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
Defamation
1. As to gravamen of claim
The gravamen of The gravamen of
claim is not the claim is the reputareputational
harm tional harm
but
rather
the
embarrassment of a
person being made
into some-thing he is
not
2. As to publication
The statement should Publication
is
be actually made in satisfied if a letter is
public
sent to a third person
3. As to the defamatory character of the
statements
Defendant may still What is published
be held liable even if lowers the esteem in
the statements tells which the plaintiff is
something
good held
about the plaintiff
d. Commercial appropriation of
likeness
F The unwarranted publication of a
persons name or the unauthorized
use of his photograph or likeness for
commercial purposes is an invasion
of privacy.
F With respect to celebrities,
however, the right of publicity is
often treated as a separate right that
overlaps but is distinct from the right
of privacy. They treat their names
and likeness as property and they
want
to
control
and
profit
therefrom.
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
not
actionable unless found to have
been
made
without
good
intention or justifiable motive.
NOTES:
Test
in
determining
the
defamatory
character
of
the
imputation: A charge is sufficient if
the words are calculated to induce the
hearers to suppose and understand
that the person/s against whom they
were uttered were guilty of a certain
offense, or are sufficient to impeach
their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or
to hold the person/s up to public
ridicule.
? Dissemination to a number of
persons
is
not
required,
communication to a single individual
is sufficient publication.
GENERAL RULE: Every defamatory
imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be true, if no
good intention or justifiable motive
for making it is shown.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. A private communication
made by any person to another
in the performance of any legal,
moral or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made
in good faith, without any
comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative or other
official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of
any statement, report, or speech
delivered in said proceedings or
CIVIL
LAW
COMMITTEE
B. Fraud
F Elements of deceit
1)The defendant must have made
false representation to the
plaintiff
2)The representation must be one
of fact
3)The defendant must know that
the representation is false or be
reckless about whether it is false
4)The defendant must have acted
on the false representation
5)The
defendant
must
have
intended
that
the
false
representation should be acted
on
6)The plaintiff must have suffered
damage as a result of acting on
the false representation
F Half-truths
are
likewise
included; it is actionable if the
withholding of that which is not
stated makes that which is stated
absolutely false.
F Misrepresentation upon a mere
matter of opinion is not an
actionable deceit.
C. Physical injuries
F Battery an intentional infliction
of a harmful or offensive bodily
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
2. Exempting Circumstances
F They do not erase the civil
liability.
3. Mitigating
and
Aggravating
Circumstances
F Damages to be adjudicated may
either be decreased or increased
depending on the presence of
mitigating
or
aggravating
circumstances.
Effect of Death
A. DEATH AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT:
extinguishes criminal liability of the
person liable but will not extinguish
the civil liability.
Effect of Pardon
F Pardon does not erase civil liability.
F While pardon removes the existence
of guilt so that in the eyes of the law the
offender is deemed innocent and treated
as though he never committed the
offence, it does not operate to remove
all the effects of the previous conviction.
DEFENDANTS IN TORT CASES
Concurrent Negligence or Acts
1. Joint Tort-feasors
F
All the persons who command,
instigate, promote, encourage, advice,
countenance, cooperate in, aid, or abet
the commission of a tort, or who approve
of it after it is done, if done for their
benefit; they are each liable as a
principal, to the same extent and in the
same manner as if they have performed
the wrongful act themselves.
F The responsibility of two or more
persons liable for quasi-delict is solidary
(Article 2194 Civil Code); they are not
liable pro rata, they are jointly and
severally liable for the whole amount.
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
minor children
living in their company
F This has already been modified by
Art. 221 of the Family Code to the extent
that the alternative qualification of the
liability of the father and the mother has
been removed.
NOTES:
(Article
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
2. Guardians
F For damage caused by
a. minors or incapacitated persons
b. under their authority
c. living in their company
3. Owners
and
managers
establishments
F For damage caused by:
5. State
F For damage caused by:
a) a special agent
b) not when the damage has been
caused by the official to whom the
task done properly pertains
F Public officers who are guilty of
tortuous conduct are personally liable for
their actions.
of
a) their employees
b) in the service of the branches in
which they are employed, or
c) on the occasion of their
functions
6. Schools,
Teachers
and
Administrators
F For damage caused by:
a) pupils
and
students
or
apprentices
b) in their custody
statutory basis:
if student is minor Art. 219, FC
if student is no longer a minor
Art. 2180, Civil Code
4. Employers
NOTES:
NOTES:
?
?
academic institutions.
Liability attaches to the teacherin-charge.
The school itself is now solidarily
liable with the teacher-incharge.
The liability extends to acts
committed even outside the
school so long as it is an official
activity of the school.
Whenever the school or teacher
is being made liable, the parents
and those exercising substitute
parental authority are not free
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
3. Spouses
a. absolute community of property
F
The
absolute
community
property shall be for liabilities incurred
by either spouses by reason of crime or
quasi-delict in case of absence or
insufficiency of the exclusive property of
the debtor-spouse. (Article 94 Family
Code)
F
Payments shall be considered
advances to be deducted from the share
of the debtor spouse upon liquidation of
the community.
b. conjugal partnership of gains
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
3. Liability of employers
TYPES:
1. Animals
NOTES:
4. Nuisance
property,
or
2. Falling objects
F The head of a family that lives in a
building or a part thereof is responsible
for damages caused by things thrown or
falling from the same. (Article 2193 Civil
Code)
of
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
2. Warranties
F The Consumer Act recognizes that
the provisions of the Civil Code on
conditions and warranties shall govern all
contracts of sale with conditions and
warranties.
F Retailer shall be subsidiarily liable
under the warranty in case of failure of
both the manufacturer and distributor to
honor the warranty.
F Privity of contract is not necessary.
3. Negligence
F In product liability law, certain
standards are already imposed by special
laws, rules and regulations of proper
government agencies; certain acts or
omissions are expressly prohibited by the
statutes
thereby
making
violation
thereof negligence per se.
F It is negligence per se if
manufacturer manufactured products
which do not comply with the safety
standards promulgated by appropriate
government agencies.
4. Delict
F The liability may be based on
criminal negli-gence under the RPC or
violation of any special law.
5. Strict liability
F Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles, and
similar goods, shall be liable for death or
injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used although no contractual
relation exists. (Article 2187 Civil Code)
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
F DEFENSES:
A. The
manufacturer,
builder,
producer, or importer shall not be liable
when it evidences:
1) That it did not place the product
on the market
2) That although it did place the
product on the market such product
had no defect
3) That the consumer of third party
is solely at fault. (Article 97
Consumer Act)
B. The supplier of the services shall not
be held liable when it is proven:
1) That there is no defect in the
service rendered
2) That the consumer of third party
is solely at fault. (Article 99 Consumer
Act)
2. Interference
with
prospective
advantage
F It is a tort committed when there is
no contract yet and the defendant is only
being sued for inducing another not to
enter into a contract.
F Requisites:
3. Unfair competition.
F Unfair Competition in agricultural,
commercial, or industrial enterprises, or
in labor, through the use of force,
intimidation , deceit, machination or any
unjust or oppressive or highhanded
method shall give rise to a right of action
by a person who thereby suffers damage.
(Article 27 Civil Code)
F CASES INCLUDED:
a. passing off and disparagement of
products
b. interference
c. misappropriation
d. monopolies and predatory pricing
BUSINESS TORTS
1. Interference of contracts
F Elements:
a. existence of a valid contract
b. knowledge on the part of the third
person of the existence of the contract
c. interference of the third person
without legal justification.
F The existence of a contract is
necessary and the breach must occur
because of the alleged act of
interference;
No
action
can
be
maintained if the contract is void.
F Malice is not essential.
F Elements of privilege to interfere
1)The defendants purpose is a
justifiable one, and
CIVIL
LAW
COMMITTEE
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
Legal
invasion of
a
legal
right
DAMAGE
F The detriment, injury or loss which
are occasioned by reason of fault of
another in the property or person.
DAMAGES
F The
pecuniary
compensation,
recompense or satisfaction for an injury
sustained or as otherwise expressed, the
pecuniary consequences which the law
imposes for the breach of some duty or
violation of some rights.
INJURIA
(Damage
A. ACTUAL
OR
COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES
F Comprehends not only the value of
the loss suffered but also that of the
profits which the obligee failed to
obtain.
F Classification:
1. Dano emergente loss of what a
person already possesses
2. Lucro cessante failure to
receive as a benefit that would
have pertained to him
NOTE: The latter type includes:
1. Loss or impairment of earning
capacity in cases of temporary or
permanent personal injury.
2. Injury to the plaintiffs business
standing or commercial credit.
Damage
The recompense
or
compensatio
n
awarded
for
the
damage
suffered
NOTES:
? A complaint for damages is a
personal action. (Baritua vs. CA, 267
SCRA 331)
? Proof of pecuniary loss is necessary
to
successfully
recover
actual
damages from the defendant. No
proof of pecuniary loss is necessary
in
case
of
moral,
nominal,
temperate, liquidated or exemplary
damages.
? The assessment of such damages,
except liquidated ones, is left to the
discretion of the court according to
the circumstances of each case.
II. DAMAGES
DAMNUM ABSQUE
Without Injury)
Loss, hurt
or
harm
which
results
from
the
injury
Damages
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
F
F
NOTE:
? Life expectancy is computed as
follows:
{ 2/3 x (80-age at death) }
? Net earnings is the total of the
earnings less expenses necessary for
the creation of such earnings and
less living or other incidental
expenses.
Loss of profits
F May be determined by considering
the average profit for the preceding
years multiplied by the number of
years during which the business was
affected by the wrongful act or
breach.
Attorneys fees
F They are actual damages. It is due to
the plaintiff and not to the counsel.
F Plaintiff must allege the basis of his
claim for attorneys fees in the
complaint; the basis should be one of
the 11 cases specified in Article 2208
of the Civil Code.
Interests
F Award of interest in the concept of
actual and compensatory damages
actual damages.
CIVIL
LAW
COMMITTEE
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
a
person who reasonably attempts to
minimize his damages can recover
the expenses that he incurred.
Doctrine of
Avoidable
Consequences
Acts
of
the
plaintiff
occur
after the act or
omission of the
defendant
C. NOMINAL DAMAGES
F Nominal damages are adjudicated in
order that a right of the plaintiff,
which has been violated or invaded
by the defendant, may be vindicated
or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff
for any loss suffered by him.
(Article2221 Civil Code)
F Small sums fixed by the court
without regard to the extent of the
harm done to the injured party.
F Law presumes damage although
actual or compensatory damages are
not proven.
F They are damages in name only and
are allowed simply in recognition of
a technical injury based on a
violation of a legal right.
F Nominal damages cannot co-exist
with
actual
or
compensatory
damages.
Contributory
Negligence
Plaintiffs act or
omission occurs
before or at the
time of the act or
omission of the
defendant
B. MORAL DAMAGES
F Includes physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings,
moral
shock,
social
humiliation, and similar injury.
F No proof of pecuniary loss is
necessary.
GENERAL RULE: The plaintiff must
allege and prove:
1. The factual basis for moral
damages; and
2. Its causal relation to the
defendants act
EXCEPTION: Moral damages may be
awarded to the victim in criminal
proceedings without the need for
pleading of proof of the basis thereof.
D.
TEMPERATE
OR
MODERATE
DAMAGES
F These are damages, which are more
than
nominal
but
less
than
compensatory,
and
may
be
recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot be
proved with certainty. (Article 2224
Civil Code)
F In cases where the resulting injury
might be continuing and possible
future complications directly arising
from the injury, while certain to
occur are difficult to predict,
temperate damages can and should
be awarded on top of actual or
compensatory damages; in such
cases there is no incompatibility
between actual and temperate
damages.
E. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
F Those agreed upon by the parties in
a contract, to be paid in case of
breach thereof.
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)
F. EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES
OR
CORRECTIVE
F Requisites
&CHAIRPERSON:
Romuald
Padilla
& ASST.CHAIRPERSON:
Vida
Bocar,
Joyce
Vidad
& EDP:
Alnaiza
Hassiman,
Dorothy
Gayon
&
SUBJECT
HEADS:
Christopher
Rey
Marasigan
(Persons
and
Family
Relations),
Alejandro
Casabar(Property),
Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills
and
Succession),
Ian
Dominic
Pua(Obligations
and
Contracts),
Sha
Elijah
Dumama(Sales
and
Lease),
John
Stephen
Quiambao(PAT),
Christopher
Cabigao(Credit
Transactions),
Ligaya
Alipao(Torts
and
Damages),
Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma.
Ricasion
Tugadi
(Conflicts
of
Law)