Torts and Damages

September 11, 2015

Sources of Obligations 1157: LCQAQ
Art 29.
Ways of acquittal: reasonable doubt (valid defense or not all elements proved), not
author of the crime (not there)
Rules re separate civil action based on delict v independent civil action based on quasi
delict (32 - govt pub off defeat liberties,33 - defamation fraud P.I., 34 - ,2176)
Vicarious Liability - employer may be held liable by reason of q-delict
Subsidiary civil liability - in case of insolvency.. from delict.
~People v Bayotas case: extinguishment of criminal liability extinguishes civil liability
when the source of civil liab is also from delict. Not so when it arises from a different
source.
~DMPI case: estafa case no need for reservation unless separate civil action.
~Padilla case: mayor wielding axe-grave coercion case, acquitted based on r.d., civil liab
survives when action proved thru preponderance of evidence (Art. 29)
2177: Double Recovery - can't collect twice from same act/ommission?
~PH Rabbit Bus Lines (do not ride Philippine Rabbit!): driver absconded, company held
subsidiary liable, company appealed review case
~Manliclic case: if an accused is acquitted based on reasonable doubt on his guilt, his civil
liability arising from the crime may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. However, if
an accused is acquitted on the basis that he was not the author of the act or omission complained
of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise
did not exist), said acquittal closes the door to civil liability based on the crime or ex delicto. In
this second instance, there being no crime or delict to speak of, civil liability based thereon or ex
delicto is not possible. In this case, a civil action, if any, may be instituted on grounds other than
the delict complained of.
Defenses: not done in conduct of work, no employee-er relationship, due diligence in
selection and supervision

~Air France: bumped off seat because "white man" deserved it more. Sued based on contract or
treatment
~LRTA: drunk man run over by train. Contract of carriage exists from moment token was
bought,
~Far East Bank: Credit card case in Intercon hotel. There was a contractual relationship (no
malice on part of bank so only nominal damages were awarded and not moral damages) here so
can't claim based on quasi-delict (will apply only when there is no contract).
~Andamo case: construction of water path.
~Castro case: Reedley educator case.
*exam question: what are the cases you can file on a 3 way collision?

September 18, 2015

remember requisites of quasi delict (1) damage to plaintiff (2) negligence on the part of
defendant (3) connection between
net mtg: Negligence: - 1173; Picart v Smith(horse case); Cusi v Phil Natl Railways 1979; Gan v
CA; Valenzuela v CA 1986; Anzuara v CA; Prudential Bank v CA; , Proximate Cause: Bataclan
v Medina; Umali v Bacani; Bacarro v Castano; Pheonix v IAC; Smith Bell v CA; Fernando v
CA; Radiotape v CA; Benguet v CA; Austria v CA; Consolidated Bank v CA; PNR v CA; PLDT
v CA 57079

October 9, 2015
Art. 1173 : Fault or Negligence - want/failure of exercise of due diligence required by nature of
obligation w. circumstances.
If theres BF? Liable for everything that can be reasonably attributed to it.
Remember Proximate Cause (memorize)
nxt mtg: PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE (Res Ipsa Loquitur) Africa, FF Cruz, Batiquin,
Ramos 1999, Ramos 2002, Reyes, DM Consunji, Perla Compania, Macalinao, Capili, Cantre v
Spouses
RESPONDENT SUPERIOR Castilex, Ramos (the 2 cases), Nograles, Professional
Services
TRAFFIC VIOLATION RULES Art 2184, United States v Crame, Caedo et al, BLT

BUus Co, FGU insurance Corp

DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND SUBSTANCES Art. 2188
October 16, 2015
Difference between Ramos cases
Respndent Superior
Sue hospital, er-ee relationship
Doctrine of Apparent authority = exception to rule if no er-ee
Why is Respndent Superior placed in presumption of negligence? If employee messes
up, employer fails in its duty to selection and supervise. But such presumption may be
rebutted.
Pater Familias
2184.
Akin to a 3 strike rule - Traffic Violations Rule
2188 - when theres death or injury, presumption of negligence if w/ possession of
possession of drugs or dangerous substance
(e) when it is due to profession like a chemist of police officer.
net mtg: Free Cut
POST MIDTERMS