QUASI-DELICTS (Art.

2176-2194)
-

May be defined as the fault or

negligence of a person, who, by his
act or omission, connected or
unconnected with, but independent
from, any contractual relation,
causes damage to another person.
It may be also be defined as an act,
whether
punishable
or
not
punishable
by
law,
whether
criminal
or
not
criminal
in
character, whether intentional or
voluntary or negligent, which
results in damage to another.
(Elcano vs. Hill, 77 S 98)
The SC has consistently ruled that
the act that breaks the contract
may also be a tort. There is
fiduciary relation between a bank
and a depositor, imposing utmost
diligence in managing the accounts
of the depositor. The dishonor of
the check adversely affected the
credit standing of the petitioner.
(Singson vs. BPI, June 27, 1968)
The following can be held liable for
damages arising from quasi-delicts:
(1)The father, in case of his death
or incapacity, the mother, with
respect to damages caused by
the minor children who live in
their company;
(2)Guardians with respect to
damages caused by the minors
or incapacitated person who are
under their authority and who
live in their company;
(3)The owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise,
with respect to damages caused
their employees in the service
of the branches in which the
latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions;

(4)Employers, with respect to

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;
(5)The State, when it acts through
a special agent; but not when
the damages caused by the
official to whom the task done
properly pertains; and
(6)Lastly, teachers or heads of
establishments of arts and
trades, with respect to damages
caused by their pupils and
students or apprentices, so long
as they remain in their custody.
(Art. 2180, NCC)
The law prohibits recovery of
damages by the injured party
twice.
o The aggrieved party has the
choice between:
(a)An action to enforce civil
liability arising from crime
under Art. 100 of the RPC; or
(b)A separate action for quasidelict under Art. 2176, NCC.
When the choice is made, the
injured party cannot avail
himself of any other remedy
because he cannot recover
damages twice for the same
negligent act or omission of the
accused.

Employees liability with respect to the

damages caused by his employee are
based on the ff.:
1. Art. 2176, in rel. to Art. 2180, NCC

necessitating
only
a

preponderance of evidence to
prevail.
- Employers
liability
for
the
negligent
conduct
of
the
subordinate is direct and primary,
subject to the defense of due
diligence in the selection and
supervision of the employee.
- The enforcement of the judgment
against the employer in an action
based on Art. 2176 does not
require the employee to be
insolvent since the nature of the
liability of the employer with that of
the employee is solidary. They are
considered statutorily tortfeasors.
2. Art. 103 of the RPC which provides
that an employer may be held
subsidiarily civilly liable for a felony
committed by his employee in the
discharge of his duty.
- This liability attaches when the
employee is convicted of a
crime done in the performance
of his work and is found to be
insolvent that renders him
unable to properly respond to
the civil liability adjudged.
- A hearing must be set of the
purpose of determining:
(1) The existence of employeremployee relationship;
(2) That
the
employer
is
engaged in some kind of
industry;
(3) That
the
employee
is
adjudged
guilty
of
the
wrongful act and found to
have committed the offense
in the discharge of his duties
(not necessarily any offense
he commits while in the
discharge of such duties);
and

(4) That the said employee is

insolvent.
Schloendorff doctrine regards a
physician, even if employed by a
hospital, as an independent contractor
because of the skill he exercises and
the lack of control exerted over his
work.
-

Under this doctrine, hospitals

are exempt from the application
of the respondeat superior
principle for fault or negligence
committed by physicians in the
discharge of their profession.

HOWEVER, the court then concluded

that there is no reason to exempt
hospital from the universal rule of
respondeat superior.
In the case of Ramos vs. CA, the
Court ruled that an employeremployee
relationship
exists
between
hospitals
and
their
physicians.
Furthermore,
the
liability of hospitals is anchored
upon
the
agency
principle
authority or agency by estoppel
and the doctrine or corporate
negligence.
Apparent authority or also known
as holding out theory or doctrine
of ostensible agency or agency by
estoppel imposes liability upon
hospitals because of the hospitals
actios as principal or as employer
in somehow misleading the public
into believing that the relationship
or the authority exists.
o The hospital is now estopped
from passing all the blame to
the physicians whose names it
proudly paraded in the public

directory leading the public to

believe that it vouched for their
skill and competence.
Under the doctrine of corporate
negligence, hospitals now have
the duty to make reasonable effort
to monitor and oversee the
treatment
prescribed
and
administered by the physicians
practicing
in
its
premises.
Accordingly, it has the duty to
exercise
reasonable
care
to
protect from harm all patients
admitted into its facility for
medical treatment.
Hence,
physicians
guilty
of
malpractice
are
therefore
solidarily liable for damages.
(Professional Services, Inc. vs.
Agana, January 31, 2007).
o

Under Art. 2180 of the NCC, when

an injury is caused by the
negligence of the employee, there
instantly arises a presumption of
law that there was negligence on
the part of the master or employer
either in the selection of the
servant or
employee, or in
supervision over him after selection
or both.
There arises a juris tantum
presumption that the employer is
negligent, rebuttable only by proof
or observance of the diligence of a
good father of a family. (Manliclic
vs. Calaunan, January 25, 2007)
Under Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure, what is
deemed instituted with the criminal
action is only an action to recover
civil liability arising from the act or
omission punished by law, hence,

an independent civil action against

a respondent for damages based
on quasi-delict may be filed there
being an act or omission causing
damage
to
another
without
contractual obligation.
The
liability
of
the
parent
responsible of a minor who cause
damage due to negligence is
vicarious in character.
o While the suit will prosper
against the registered owner, it
is the actual owner of the
private vehicle who is ultimately
liable.
o The purpose of car registration
is to reduce difficulty in
identifying the party liable in
case of accidents.

(Villanueva vs. Domingo, September

14, 2004)
-

The following are the requisites

necessary in order that the
defendant can be held liable for
damages in a quasi-delict case:
(1)The fault or negligence of the
defendant;
(2)The
damage
suffered
or
incurred by the plaintiff; and
(3) The relation of cause and effect
between the fault or negligence
of the defendant and the
damage
incurred
by
the
plaintiff. (Taylor vs. Manila
Electric, Co., 16 P 8)
Araneta vs. De Joya, 57 S 59
The Supreme Court ruled in this
case that the fact that defendant
was
occupying
a
contractual
position at the office of plaintiff is
of no moment. The existence of a
contract between the parties

constitutes
no
bar
to
the
commission of a tort by one
against
the
other
and
the
consequent recovery of damages.
This is now settled. As a matter of
fact, the action of recovery of
damages may even be predicated
on both breach of contract and a
tort at the same time.
(1)Proximate cause - the relation
of cause and effect between the
defendants negligence and the
damage or injury which he has
incurred.
- Known as the doctrine of
proximate cause defined as
that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury and
without which the result would
not have occurred.
(2) Doctrine of contributory
negligence if the negligence
of the plaintiff cooperated with
the negligence of the defendant
in bringing about the accident
causing the injury complained
of, such negligence of the
plaintiff would be an absolute
bar to recovery.
- If the negligence of the plaintiff
was merely contributory to his
injury, the immediate and
proximate cause of the accident
causing the injury being the
defendants negligence, such
negligence would not be a bar
to recovery, but the amount
recoverable shall be mitigated
by the courts.
- Negligence is contributory only
when it contributes proximately

to the injury, and not simply a

condition for its occurrence.
(3)Doctrine
of
imputed
negligence refers to the rule
whereby the negligence of a
certain person in a transaction
or act which gave rise to the
injury
complained
of
is
imputable or chargeable against
the person for whom he was
acting or against his associates.
(4)Doctrine
of
last
clear
chance, otherwise known as
the doctrine of discovered
peril or the humanitarian
doctrine where both parties
are negligent in such a way that
it would be impossible to
determine whose negligence
was the proximate cause of the
accident, the party who had the
last clear chance or opportunity
to avoid the accident by the use
of proper care but failed to do
so is considered in law solely
responsible
for
the
consequences of the accident.
(Picart vs. Smith, 37 P 809)
(5)Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor
where a thing is shown to be
under the management of the
defendant or his servants, and
the accident is such as is in the
ordinary course of events does
not happen if those who have
the management had used
proper
care,
it
affords
reasonable evidence, in the
absence of explanation by the
defendant, that the accident
arose from want of care. (Africa
vs. Caltex, 16 S 448)
- Requisites:

(1) The accident must be of a

kind which ordinarily does
not happen in the absence of
someones negligence;
(2) It must be caused by an
agency or instrumentality
within the exclusive control
of the defendant;
(3) It must not be due to any
voluntary
action
or
contribution on the part of
the plaintiff.
In cases involving medical
negligence, the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitor allows the mere
existence of an injury to justify
a presumption negligence on
the part of the person who
controls the instrument causing
the
injury,
provided
the
foregoing
requisites
concur.
(Cante vs. Sps. John Go, April
27, 2007
Quasi-delict vs. Criminal offense
1. Crimes
affect
the
public
interest, while quasi-delicts are
only of private concern;
2. The Penal Code punishes or
corrects the criminal act, while
the
NCC,
by
means
of
indemnification, merely repairs
the damages incurred;
3. Crimes are not as broad as
quasi-delicts,
because
the
former are punished only of
there is a law clearly covering
them, while the latter include all
acts in which any kind of fault or
negligence intervenes. (Barredo
vs. Garcia and Almario, 73 P
607)
Notes:

1. If injured party institutes two

actions simultaneously, and
varying amounts are awarded in
the two cases, he may recover
only the bigger amount. If there
has already been a recovery in
one case and in the other case
the amount adjudged is bigger,
he shall be entitled in the
second case only to the excess.
But if he had already been paid
a bigger amount in the first
case, he may not recover
anymore in the second case.
2. In civil action based on culpa
criminal, proof of due diligence
in the selection and supervision
of employees will not relieve the
employers of liability. They are
still subsidiarily liable under Art.
103, RPC.
3. However, if the employers
prove such diligence in culpa
contractual and culpa aquiliana,
they may not be relieved but
the
amount
of
damages
recoverable may be mitigated.
4. A dismissal of the action based
on culpa aquiliana could not be
a bar to the enforcement of the
subsidiary
liability
of
the
employer for criminal offenses
committed by his employees
while performing their duties.
5. The subsidiary liability of the
employer, however, arises only
after conviction of the employee
in the criminal case.
6. In
negligence
cases,
the
offended party or his heirs has
the option between an action
for the enforcement of civil
liability based on culpa criminal
under Art. 100 of the RPC and

an action for recovery of

damages
based
on
culpa
aquiliana under Art. 2177 of the
NCC.
- These 2 concepts of fault are so
distinct from each other that
exoneration from one does not
result in exoneration from the
other.
7. Erezo vs. Jepte (102 P 103): The
registered owner of a motor
vehicle is not allowed to show
proof of the ownership of such
vehicle in order to escape
liability. Otherwise, it would be
easy for him, by collusion with
others, to escape responsibility
by transferring the vehicle to
one who possesses no property.
8. The registered owner of the
vehicle, even if not used for a
public service, is primarily
responsible under Art. 2180 of
the NCC to the public or to third
persons for injuries caused to
the latter.
9. Vicarious liability of employers
is provided in Art. 2180, NCC.
This is based on employers own
negligence in the selection and
supervision of their employees.
10.Art. 2154 of the NCC provides
that 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 due
diligence,
prevented
the
misfortune. However, in one
case, the SC held that the
owner cannot be held liable if
he himself did not know how to
drive.

11.The state is liable for quasidelict only when it acts through

a special agent; but not when
the quasi-delict is committed by
the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which
case such official and not the
State shall be liable.
12.By special agent, the law
refers
to
a
government
employee who is performing a
job or act foreign to his usual
duties. In other words, the State
is liable only for torts caused by
its special agents, specifically
commissioned to carry out the
acts complained of outside of
such agents regular duties.
13.In Art. 2184, the NCC declares
that 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 due
diligence,
prevented
the
misfortune x x x if the owner
was not in the motor vehicle,
the provisions of Art. 2180 are
applicable. From this provision,
it is clear that the liability of an
owner who was in the vehicle at
the time of the mishap and that
of one who was not in the
vehicle may be distinguished
from each other in the following
ways:
(1) White the owner who was in
the vehicle at the time of the
mishap, and who could have,
by the use of diligence,
prevented the misfortune,
cannot avail himself of the
defense of due diligence in
the selection and supervision

of his employees, the owner

who was not in the vehicle
can avail himself of such
defense.
(2) While the owner who was in
the vehicle at the time of the
mishap is solidarily liable
with his driver, the owner
who was not in the vehicle is
not solidarily liable with his
driver; in other words, while
the owner who was in the
vehicle, after payment of the
claim of the victim, can
demand from the driver
reimbursement of only of
the entire amount which he
has paid, the owner who was
not in the vehicle, after
payment of the claim of the
victim, can demand from the
driver reimbursement of the
entire amount which he has
paid.
14.Under Art. 2189 of the NCC, it is
not necessary for the liability
therein established to attach that

the defective road or street should

belong to the province, city or
municipality
from
which
responsibility is exacted. What said
article requires is that the province,
city or municipality has either
control or supervision over said
road or street. (City of Manila vs
Teotice, 22 S 267).
15.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.
(Art. 2190, NCC)
16.The role of the common law last
clear chance doctrine in relation
to Art. 2179 of the NCC is merely to
mitigate
damages
within
the
context of contributory negligence.
17.According to Art. 2194 of the NCC,
the responsibility of 2 or more
persons who are liable for a quasidelict is solidary.