Art. 277.

In case the recognition is made by only one of the parents, it shall be

presumed that the child is natural, if the parent recognizing it had legal capacity to
contract marriage at the time of the conception. (130)

Art. 281. A child who is of age cannot be recognized without his consent.
When the recognition of a minor does not take place in a record of birth or in a
will, judicial approval shall be necessary.
A minor can in any case impugn (means-challenge) the recognition within four
years following the attainment of his majority. (133a)
Art. 282. A recognized natural child has the right:
(1) To bear the surname of the parent recognizing him:
(2) To receive support from such parent, in conformity with article 291;
(3) To receive, in a proper case, the hereditary portion which is determined
in this Code. (134)
Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of
obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts,
according to the circumstances. (1103)
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.
(1104a)
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise
declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption
of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen,
or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)
CHAPTER 2
QUASI-DELICTS
1

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under
the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act
or omission of the defendant. (n)
Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasidelict. (n)
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for
one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for
the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons
who are under their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches
in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but
not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done
properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be
applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for
damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody.
2

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent damage. (1903a)
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees
may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the
claim. (1904)
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or
guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in
an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost.
This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (1905)
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver,
if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if
he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least
twice within the next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are
applicable. (n)
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation. (n)
Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the proper government
office a bond executed by a government-controlled corporation or office, to
answer for damages to third persons. The amount of the bond and other terms
shall be fixed by the competent public official. (n)
Art. 2187. 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 between them and the
consumers. (n)
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons
or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use
thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (n)

Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the
death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition
of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their
control or supervision. (n)
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages
resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of
necessary repairs. (1907)
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with
due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not
been kept in a safe and adequate place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not
caused by force majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious
matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place. (1908)
Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result
of any defect in the construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third person
suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or
contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed. (1909)
Art. 2193. 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. (1910)
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasidelict is solidary. (n)

The TORT doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom t
he person has a specialrelationship (such as Parent and
Child, employer and employee, or owner of vehicle and driver), to exercise such care as areasonabl
y prudent person would use under similar circumstances.
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause th
e injury but who has aparticular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. It is also refe
rred to as imputed Negligence. Legalrelationships that can lead to imputed negligence include the r
elationship between parent and child, Husband and

Wife, ownerof a vehicle and driver, and employer and employee. Ordinarily the independent neglige
nce of one person is not imputable toanother person.
Other theories of liability that are premised on imputed negligence include the Respondeat
Superior doctrine and the family car doctrine.
The doctrine of respondeat superior (Latin for "let the master answer") is based on the employeremployee relationship. Thedoctrine makes the employer responsible for a lack of care on the part of
an employee in relation to those to whom theemployer owes a duty of care. For respondeat superior
to apply, the employee's negligence must occur within the scope of heremployment.
The employer is charged with legal responsibility for the negligence of the employee because the em
ployee is held to be an
agent of the employer. If a negligent act is committed by an employee acting within the general scop
e of her or hisemployment, the employer will be held liable for damages. For example, if the driver of
a gasoline delivery truck runs a redlight on the way to a gas station and strikes another car, causing i
njury, the gasoline delivery company will be responsible forthe damages if the driver is found to be n
egligent. Because the company will automatically be found liable if the driver isnegligent, respondeat
superior is a form of Strict Liability.
Another common example of imputed negligence is attributing liability to the owner of a car, where th
e driver of the carcommitted a negligent act. This type of relationship has been labeled the family car
doctrine. The doctrine is based on theassumption that the head of the household provides a car for t
he family's use and, therefore, the operator of the car acts as anagent of the owner. When, for exam
ple, a child drives a car, registered to a parent, for a family purpose, the parent isresponsible for the
negligent acts of the child at the wheel.
Liability can also be imputed to an owner of a car who lends it to a friend. Again, the driver of the car
is acting as the agent ofthe owner. If the owner is injured by the driver's negligence and sues the driv
er, the owner can lose the lawsuit because thenegligence of the driver can be imputed to the owner,
thereby rendering him contributorily negligent. This concept is known asimputed contributory neglige
nce.

DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA

A loss or damage without injury.
There are cases when the act of one man may cause a damage or loss to another, but for
which the latter has no remedy. He is then said to have received damnum absque injuria.
For example, if a man should set up a school in the neighborhood of another school, and

by that means, deprive the former of its patronage; or if a man should build a mill along
side of another, and consequently reduce its business.
Another instance may be given of the case where a man excavating for a foundation with proper
care and diligence, injures the adjoining house due to the unsuitable materials used in such
house; here the injury is damnum absque injuria.

When a man slanders another by publishing the truth, the person slandered is said to have
sustained loss without injury.
The Treatment of Medical Malpractice in the Philippines
Proving medical malpractice in the Philippines one of the more difficult civil
cases in the Philippines. Medical procedures involve, to a great degree,
technical matters, which must be clearly understood first, prior to pursuing a
claim that a treatment was attended with malpractice. Moreover, in order to
prove the existence of medical malpractice in any case, the legal
requirements of the law must be completely satisfied.
Medical malpractice suits fall into the genre of claims based on tort,
called quasi-delicts. In general, negligence suits require proof that a party
failed to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. It is the omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. (Layugan vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, citing Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition,
930).
The Supreme Court, in a case, also had occasion to explain that doctors,
because of their training and the very nature of their work, doctors or
physicians are required to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of
their tasks, to wit:
Throughout history, patients have consigned their fates and lives to the skill
of their doctors. For a breach of this trust, men have been quick to demand
retribution. Some 4,000 years ago, the Code of Hammurabi then already
provided: If a physician make a deep incision upon a man with his bronze
lancet and cause the mans death, or operate on the eye socket of a man
with his bronze lancet and destroy the mans eyes, they shall cut off his
6

hand. Subsequently, Hippocrates wrote what was to become part of the

healers oath: I will follow that method of treatment which according to my
ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain
from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. . . . While I continue to keep
this oath unviolated may it be granted me to enjoy life and practice the art,
respected by all men at all times but should I trespass and violate this oath,
may the reverse be my lot. At present, the primary objective of the medical
profession is the preservation of life and maintenance of the health of the
people.
Needless to say then, when a physician strays from his sacred duty and
endangers instead the life of his patient, he must be made to answer
therefor. Although society today cannot and will not tolerate the punishment
meted out by the ancients, neither will it and this Court, as this case would
show, let the act go uncondemned.
xxx

xxx

As a final word, this Court reiterates its recognition of the vital role the
medical profession plays in the lives of the people, and the States
compelling interest to enact measures to protect the public from the
potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance in those who
would undertake to treat our bodies and minds for disease or trauma.
Indeed, a physician is bound to serve the interest of his patients with the
greatest of solicitude, giving them always his best talent and skill. Through
her tortious conduct, the petitioner endangered the life of Flotilde Villegas, in
violation of her professions rigid ethical code and in contravention of the
legal standards set forth for professionals, in general, and members of the
medical profession, in particular. (Dr. Victoria L. Batiquin and Allan Batiquin
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118231, 05 July 1996.)
If the application of the foregoing rulings of the Supreme Court to an incident
will show the presence of negligence, i.e., when a doctor, hospital or medical
professional failed to perform the necessary medical services on a patient
according to the degree of skill required from an ordinary practitioner of their
respective professions, then a cause of action arising from negligence or
quasi-delict exists.

However, being a distinct type of tort, the Supreme Court stated that, to
prove medical malpractice or medical negligence, four (4) elements have to
be established, to wit:
A word on medical malpractice or negligence cases.
In its simplest terms, the type of lawsuit which has been called medical
malpractice or, more appropriately, medical negligence, is that type of claim
which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by
a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. In order to
successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care
provider, in most cases a physician, either failed to do something which a
reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she
did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and
that that failure or action caused injury to the patient. Hence, there are four
elements involved in medical negligence cases: duty, breach, injury and
proximate causation.
As with any civil case, substantial evidence must be presented to establish
the liability of the responsible party. If the elements of duty, breach, injury
and proximate causation are established with substantial evidence, then a
hospital, doctor, or other medical professional will be held liable for
malpractice. Civil liability, in the form of damages, may be awarded by the
court in such instances.
When a doctor or hospital accepts a patient for treatment, a physicianpatient relationship is created. The first element of duty arises at this stage.
By accepting a case, the doctor or hospital commenced the duty to render
medical service in favor of the patient in accordance with the expected
training and skill of a medical practitioner. This is in line with the ruling of the
Supreme Court in the case of Leonila Garcia-Rueda v. Wilfred L. Pacasio, et.
al, to wit:
Evidently, when the victim employed the services of Dr. Antonio and Dr.
Reyes, a physician-patient relationship was created. In accepting the case,
Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes in effect represented that, having the needed
training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing in the
same field, they will employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of
their patients. They have a duty to use at least the same level of care that
any other reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under
8

the same circumstances. The breach of these professional duties of skill and
care, or their improper performance, by a physician surgeon whereby the
patient is injured in body or in health, constitutes actionable malpractice.
Consequently, in the event that any injury results to the patient from want of
due care or skill during the operation, the surgeons may be held answerable
in damages for negligence.
The second element of breach is present when the hospital or doctor does
treatment in breach of professional duties. An example of this would be a
doctor that applies treatment without consulting the patients history. It is a
standard operating procedure for all doctors to apprise themselves about the
medical history of a person before they decide on taking him/her as a
patient. This process is necessary so that the doctor can gauge whether
he/she is capable of successfully helping the patient and also for the doctor
to make the proper preparations and decisions with respect to how to treat
said patient.
It is also worthy to note that under Section 2 Article II of the Code of Ethics
promulgated by the Board of Medicine to govern the conduct of doctors
practicing medicine in the Philippines, a physician has the obligation not to
abandon a patient under any circumstance, to wit:
Section 2. A physician is free to choose whom he will serve. He may refuse
calls, or other medical services for reasons satisfactory to his professional
conscience. He should, however, always respond to any request for his
assistance in an emergency. Once he undertakes a case, he should not
abandon nor neglect it. If for any reason he wants to be released from it, he
should announce his desire previously, giving sufficient time or opportunity
to the patient or his family to secure another medical attendant.
Thus, it can be said that when a doctor or hospital unjustifiably refuses to
proceed with treatment, or just suddenly abandons his or her patient, the act
can be considered as breach of duty.
The presence of the third element arises where injury, liability or even death
arises as a consequence of a negligent medical treatment or procedure.
The last element to establish medical malpractice or medical negligence, is
however, the most difficult one to prove. Medical procedures are fraught with
varying consequences, and affected by innumerable factors such as the
9

environment, personal health, health of the other members of the family,

food intake, medicine, activities of the patient, such that it would be difficult
to establish, to a convincing degree, whether the injury is the proximate
result or directly arose from the procedure conducted.
However, there are instances of medical malpractice or medical negligence
that involve the application of the familiar doctrine res ipsa loquitur. The
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which directly translates to the thing speaks for
itself, governs cases where negligence is clear by a simple examination of
the injury or the circumstances surrounding the medical treatment given,
such as where a gauze or a pair of scissors are left inside the body cavity
after it has been sutured, or blood of a different type is infused to a patient.
In sum, the difficulty in successfully prosecuting medical negligence lies in
the fact that medicine is not an exact science. There are numerous lifesaving procedures that are experimental, or even not experimental, but are
fraught with consequences, such that even the best doctors cannot predict
the outcome of the treatment. Also, countless environmental variable play a
direct hand in the effectiveness of a treatment.
All that any medical professional or hospital has to do to avoid medical
malpractice is to study the procedure well including the patients history,
keep the patient well-informed of the procedure which the doctor or hospital
intends to perform, conduct the treatment in good faith, and with the
required degree of competence, diligence and skill. This way, any claim of
malpractice may be avoided.

Fortuitous events or force majeure are those which could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
As a general rule, a person is not responsible for fortuitous events. These are the
exceptions: (1) when it is otherwise expressly specified by law; (2) when
otherwise declared and stipulated by the parties; or (3) when the nature of the
obligation requires assumption of risk.
For 1st exception, the law may still hold a person liable despite the existence of a
fortuitous event. For instance, a debtor who is in delay, or who has promised to deliver

10

the same thing (whether determinate or indeterminate) to at least two persons not
having the same interest, for any fortuitous event until delivery has been made.
As to the 2nd exception, the parties may so stipulate that a fortuitous event does not
relieve either one of them from liability. The law itself allows such stipulation.
With respect to the 3rd exception, obligations which require an assumption of risk may
still result in liability regardless of a force majeure. However, this exception as its own
exceptions, namely: (1) when there is an emergency; (2) acts are pursuant to the
protection of ones life and property; and (3) acts are for the protection of life and
property of another.
Afialda v. Hisole
G.R. No. L-2075, 29 November 1949
Margarita Afialda, heir of decedent Lorito Afialda, instituted a Complaint to recover
damages against defendant Basilio Hisole. Previously, defendant tasked decedent
Afialda to take care of a carabao. The decedent Afialda was gored to death by the said
animal.
HELD: Defendant Hisole was not liable. Being injured by the animal was one of the
risks of the occupation which Afialda had voluntarily assumed and for which he must
take the consequences. When damage is an assumed risk from plaintiffs (voluntarily
assumed) occupation, he alone is liable.
In the present case, the animal was in custody and under the control of the caretaker,
who was paid for his work as such. Obviously, it was the caretakers business to try to
prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And
being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the
occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the
consequences.
The Ilocos Norte Electric Company v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. L-53401, 06 November 1989
Complainants, heirs of deceased Isabel Lao Juan, initiated a Complaint to recover
damages from defendant The Ilocos Norte Electric Company. Previously, Isabel Lao
Juan was on her way to her store to check for damage to her merchandise when she
was electrocuted while wading through waist-deep water caused by recent typhoon
Gening. There was a dangling electric wire moving in snake-like fashion in the water.
As a defense, the company claimed that the unfortunate incident was a result of
11

fortuitous event and that the decedent assumed the risk when she waded through the
water.
HELD: Ilocos Norte Electric was liable. The cause of the death of the decedent was the
failure of the Company to repair the damage brought by the typhoon. When a storm
occurs that is liable to prostate the wires, due care requires prompt efforts to discover
and repair broken lines. No assumption of risk attributable to Isabel since she was
responding to an emergency to protect her property.
Indeed, under the circumstances of the case, [the Company] was negligent in seeing to
it that no harm is done to the general public considering that electricity is an agency,
subtle and deadly, the measure of care required of electric companies must be
commensurate with or proportionate to the danger. The duty of exercising this high
degree of diligence and care extends to every place where persons have a right to
be x x x. The negligence of petitioner having been shown, it may not now absolve itself
from liability by arguing that the victims death was solely due to a fortuitous event.
When an act of God combines or concurs with the negligence of the defendant to
produce an injury, the defendant is liable if the injury would not have resulted but for his
own negligent conduct or omission x x x
As for the defense on assumption of risk, the same was not tenable. The doctrine
of volenti non fit injuria means that when someone voluntarily assents to a known
danger then he must abide by the consequences. These are the exceptions: (1) when
there is an emergency; (2) protection of ones life and property; and (3) protection of life
and property of another. Here, the decedent was moved to act to protect her property.

12