Review Notes on Torts and Damages

On Articles 2180 to 2194, Civil Code, as amended

Based on De Leons, Tolentinos, and Paras Torts and Damages, and other various references.
By Anton John Vincent M. Frias
Points of consideration:
1. Tort may be intentional where the intended act is contra bonus mores, or not punishable by
law, OR may be negligent where there is failure to act according to the standard of diligence
required under the attendant circumstances.
2. Direct tortfeasor is liable for damages, under Articles 19, 20, 21, and 2176, NCC.
3. Solidary liability means that the injured can sue ALL of the tortfeasors, or SOME of them, or
just ONE of them, and he is or they are answerable for the whole damage. If one or some are
sued and convicted, he or they can run after the other tortfeasors for reimbursement.
4. Joint liability means that the injured SHOULD sue ALL tortfeasors. Thus he cannot sue only
one joint tortfeasor.
5. Strict liability means that the tortfeasor is liable even if there is no fault or negligence, or there
is good faith. It only requires proof of certain facts. It is based on the breach of an absolute duty
to make something safe, and on public policy. It often applies to ultra-hazardous activities or
product liability cases. It also known as absolute liability or liability without fault. It is
imposed by Articles
1. 1314
2. 1711
3. 1712
4. 1723
5. 2182
6. 2183
7. 2187
8. 2189-2193 (5 Articles)
6. Joint tortfeasors under Article 2194 are SOLIDARILY liable. Thus, since the injury is indivisible
in this case, yet they are solidarily liably, at least one tortfeasor in this case may be sued to answer
for the whole damage.
They are, under case law:
1. All persons
2. Command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet
3. In the commission of a tort, or
4. Approve of it after it is done,
5. If done for the their benefit.

Article 2180
Persons vicariously liable:
Note: The injured can sue either or both the tortfeasor, and the person vicariously liable in case the
former is insolvent, under Article 2180. Then the latter can sue the former for reimbursement,
under Article 2181.
1. Parents, etc. over minors:
MACCS
1. Both mother and father are jointly liable, under the FC
*The mother for illegitimate children
2. Adopters
3. Court-appointed guardians
4. Substitute parental authorities

Grandparents
Oldest qualified sibling over 21 years old
Childs actual custodian who must be qualified and over 21 years old
5. Special parental authorities
2. Guardians over incompetent or incapacitated:
1. With penalty of civil interdiction
2. Prodigals
3. Deaf and dumb who cannot read and write
4. With unsound mind
5. With sound mind but, due to age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot
take care of themselves or manage their property, under the Rules of Court.
Note: If without guardian or parent, the minor or insane tortfeasor is answerable under
Article 2182:
1. With his own property
2. In an action against him
3. Where a guardian ad litem will be appointed
3. School, teachers and administrators over students, apprentices in their custody
Note:
Teacher in charge is liable for the acts of his students in his custody
Head of establishment, over the acts of apprentices
School (Not generally liable), over students who are below 18 years old
4. Owners and managers of establishments (EXC managers of corporations) over
employees serving the offices of the former, or during exercise of functions
5. Employers over their employees
Note: GR: They are not liable over independent contractors, EXC they control the latters work.
Note: The ER need not be engaged in a business or industry.
Note:
Under case law, the employer of a driver who is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide is VICARIOUSLY liable. The employer should be the registered owner of the driven
vehicle.
Defense of ER is bonum pater familias in the selection and supervision of the driver.
But if he is in the vehicle during the negligence, he is SOLIDARILY liable.
Defense of ER includes:
Bonum pater familias to prevent the negligence from happening, or
Volenti non fit injuria or third person liability, where the victim has assumed the risk.
Note: Under case law, it is the security agency who is responsible of security guards torts, and not
the clients or customers of said agency.
Note: Under the Registered Owner Rule, the registered owner remains liable even if he has leased
the vehicle to another, or even if he is not in the vehicle or is not using it, or if he has sold it yet
remains the registered owner.
His remedy is to transfer the registration of the vehicle to the buyer.
6. The State over his special agents, for damages by defective public works

Note: GR It cannot be sued, EXC

1. It filed a case where it impliedly waived its immunity, or
2. There is an express legislative consent:
Article 2180, as a government entity over its special agents VICARIOUSLY, and
Article 2189, for damages due to defective public works,
3. In its proprietary character, as a corporate entity, over its employees like a private entity
PRIMARILY
Note: A special agent is an official given a definite and fixed order or commission by the State or
Government, through a contract, which is foreign to his office.

Article 2181
The provision
1. Whoever pays for the damage
2. Caused by his dependents or employees
3. May recover from the latter
4. What he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
It refers to the right of reimbursement by the persons with vicarious liability in Article 2180.
1. Parents, etc. over minors
2. Guardians over incompetent or incapacitated
3. School, teachers and administrators over students, apprentices in their custody
4. Owners and managers of establishments over employees serving the offices of the
former
5. Employers over employees
6. The State, ie. the Government over its special agents
Note:
Their defense is the exercise of bonum pater familias in the selection and supervision of the
persons they are responsible of, unless the latter has been convicted of criminal negligence.
Note:
If the person they are responsible of is declared guilty of criminal negligence, they cannot raise
bonum pater familias in his selection and supervision, and they cannot appeal the conviction.
Note:
The injured can sue either or both the tortfeasor, and the person vicariously liable in case the
former is insolvent, under Article 2180. Then the latter can sue the former for reimbursement,
under Article 2181.

Article 2182
The provision

If without guardian or parent, the minor or insane tortfeasor is answerable under Article
2182:
1. With his own property
2. In an action against him
3. Where a guardian ad litem will be appointed
Note:
It is strict liability

Article 2183
The provision
1. The possessor OR the user of an animal
2. Is responsible for the damage
3. Caused by the animal
4. Although it may escape or be lost,
5. Unless caused by force majeure OR by the victim
It is a strict liability. It is not based on the negligence or lack of vigilance of the possessor or user.
It is based on natural equity and social interest.
It is limited to the possessor or user, thus excluding the owner.
It covers all animals that are possessed or useddomestic, domesticated, wild, or flying.
Under case law, the caretaker of an animal nor his heirs cannot sue his employer since his job is to
take care of the animal.
Under case law, the issue is possession, even without actual control, and not ownership.
Note:
Defenses of the tortfeasor are:
1. Force majeure which should be unforeseen and extraordinary and inevitable.
2. Assumption of risk by the victim or volenti non fit injuria
3. Acts of third person like a child, ward, or employee where Article 2180 applies.

Article 2184
The provision
1. In motor vehicle mishaps
2. The OWNER is SOLIDARILY liable
3. With his driver,
4. If he was INSIDE the vehicle
5. And could have prevented the misfortune,
6. By the use of due diligence.
7. If the OWNER is NOT INSIDE the vehicle,
8. He is VICARIOUSLY liable if the driver is insolvent.
9. The DRIVER is disbutably negligent
10. If he had been found guilty of reckless driving OR
11. Violating traffic regulations
12. At least twice two months before a mishap.
It only applies to private vehicles. It cannot apply to public vehicles since the operator, a
corporation, cannot be inside the vehicle during the mishap.

But if the manager of such operating bus company is inside the vehicle during the mishap, the
owner of the bus company is solidarily liable.
Note:
Elements of Article 2184, or the owners solidary liabililty are
1. The driver is negligent
2. The owner is inside during the mishap
3. He had had reasonable opportunity to prevent the mishap
Note:
Under case law, the owner who had reasonable opportunity to prevent the damage but not did not
do so, may be sued criminally and civilly. Otherwise, he cannot be sued criminally, but only civilly
as an employer of the driver vicariously liable under Article 2180, NCC.
Note:
Under the imputed negligence test, the owner is negligent if it will be proven that he is
indeed young and he knows how to drive. Such test does not apply to an old person-owner
who is old and does know how to drive a motor vehicle.

Article 2185
The provision
1. A person is presumed to be negligent
2. If at the time of the mishap,
3. He was violating any traffic regulation,
4. Unless he proves otherwise.
Note:
There are three instances when the driver is presumed negligent:
1. At least twice two months before the mishap, he had been found guilty of reckless
driving, OR
2. At least twice two months before the mishap, he had been found guilty of any traffic
regulation (Article 2184), OR
3. If at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
Note:
Degree of care required in the operation of motor vehicles is
prudent management and consideration of others rights as may be consistent with safety

Article 2186
The provision
1. Every owner of a motor vehicle
2. Shall file with the proper government office, eg. insurance company
3. Surety bond OR third party liability insurance
4. Executed by a GOCC
5. To answer for damages
6. To third persons.
7. The amount of the bond and other terms shall be fixed by the competent public official.

Note:
The Articles that are deemed necessary by the Code Commission to cope with motor
vehicle mishaps are: 2184 to 2186.

Note:
Under case law, the insurer is primarily liable and accrues immediately upon the occurrence of the
injury.
Under case law, the injured may sue the insurer immediately.
Note:
The registered owners remedies are
1.
2. Volenti non fit injuria
3. Exercise of due diligence to prevent the mishap from happening
4. Proof that he had no reasonable opportunity to prevent the mishap from happening
5. The car has been sold to a buyer during the accident, and was registered to the Land
Transportation Office.
Under case law:
In negligent cases,
The injured or aggrieved party may file two civil suits against the negligent party:
1. Against the driver for civil liability ex delicto or damages based from the crime, under Article
100, RPC (criminal negligence)
2. Against the registered owner for civil liability ex quasi delicto or damages based from a quasidelict, under Article 2176, NCC (civil negligence)
In the criminal negligence: when the driver is convicted of the crime, and is later insolvent, the
employer is subsidiarily liable under Article 103, RPC.
While, in the civil negligence, where the driver need not be insolvent, the employer is solidary liable
as a joint tortfeasor. To hold the employer liable, the plaintiff should prove the following:
1. He suffered damage
2. Caused by the fault or negligence of the employer-defendant
3. Which is reasonably connected to said damage.
Note:
In the said civil suits, the injured or aggrieved party can only recover once. He should
choose whichever is higher.
Note:
In case the registered owner is not the actual owner and employer of the driver, the registered
owner remains the principal, and the actual owner-employer of the driver is the agent. Thus, in
case of mishap, the registered owner is liable solidarily for a quasi-delict, or liable subsidiarily for
the insolvency of the driver guilty of reckless imprudence.

Article 2187
The provision
1. Manufacturers and processors
2. Of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
3. Are liable for the death or injuries
4. Caused by any noxious or harmful substances used,
5. Although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers.
It is a strict liability, based on public policy.
It is not affected by presence of intermediaries.
Note:

Elements of Article 2187:

1. Defendant is a manufacturer or processor
2. The products belong to the general class of food products and toilet articles
3. Defendant used noxious or harmful substances in the manufacturing or processing
4. Which caused the death or injury of the aggrieved party
5. The victim is a consumer.
Defenses of the manufacturer or processor:
1. Misuse or improper use of the victim, except contributory negligence
2. Volenti non fit injuria

Article 2188
Elements of the provision
1. PRIMA FACIE presumption that defendant is negligent if
2. A person dies and is injured and
3. The death or injure is reasonably caused by the possession of dangerous weapons or
substances eg explosives.
Defense of the defendant-possessor
1. The possession is indispensable in his occupation or business

Article 2189
Elements of the provision
1. The defective roads, and other public works
2. Are under the control and supervision
3. Of the LGU or DPWH.
It is strict liability, based on public policy.
Note:
Said roads need not belong to said LGU or DPWH.
Note:
Under case law, Article 2189 prevails over the Charter of Manila which imposes liability on the city
officer in charge of the defective street. Thus, Manila City was held liable for the damage caused to
a person who fell into a manhole along its streetP. Burgos Avenue.

Article 2190 and 2191

Elements of the provisions
1. The registered proprietor or owner of a building or structure
2. Is prima facie negligent for the damages
3. Resulting from the:
Total or partial collapse due to lack of necessary repairs
Explosion of the machinery not taken care with due diligence
Inflammation of explosive substances not kept in a safe and adequate place
Excessive smoke harmful to persons or property
Falling of trees near or at highways or lanes, unless there is force majeure
Emanations from tubes etc. without precautions suitable to the place.

Defenses of the proprietor:

1. It was in good state of repair
2. The construction is defective within 15 years thus the engineer or architect, or the
contractor is liable, as the case may be under Article 1723. If the former merely
supervises the latter, he is solidarily liable with latter.
Note:
The action against the persons under Article 1723 should be brought within 10 years.
Acceptance by the registered owner after construction is not a waiver of any future defect
within 15 years.
Lease nor usufruct will not exempt the registered owner from the damages under Article
2190.
In case of lease or usufruct, the registered owner can reimburse from the lessee or
usufructuary if the latter failed to advise or notify the former of the collapse resulting to
injury to strangers.

Article 2192
The provision
It is similar to Article 1723 discussed above.

Article 2193
The provision
xxx
The head of a family is not technically the father of the family. Rather, it includes whoever
manages the house eg a lessee or usufruct.

Article 2194
The provision
The liability of joint tortfeasorsresponsibility of two or more persons liable for a quasidelictis solidary.
Under GR 144360, Equitable Leasing Corp. v. Suyom et al., the enforcement of judgement
against the employer based on Article 2176, does not require the employee to be insolvent,
since the liability of the employer is solidary, the employee being considered statutorily a
joint tortfeasor. Thus, both are joint tortfeasors.