KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts essentials

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty
Tesoro)
Torts:
1) US vs barias
Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another
person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demands
The diligence with which the law requires the individuals at all times to govern his
conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed and with the
importance of the act which he is to perform
2) Samson vs Dioniso et al
any person who without authority constructs a bank or dike , stopping the flow or
communication between a creek or a lake and a river, thereby causing loss or
damage to a third party who, like the rest of the residents, is entitled to the use
and enjoyment of the stream or lake, shall be liable to the payment of an
indemnity for loss and damage to the injured party
3) Uy Piaco vs Osmena
The defendant sheriff in disregarding the claim of the plaintiff's attorney in fact
and maintaining the attachment on the property of the said plaintiff, the same not
being subject to the liability of the Chinese debtors of Martina Rodriguez, has
injured the said plaintiff by depriving him of the possession of his personal
property for about seventy-five days, and in consequence thereof is bound to
repair the injury caused, in accordance with the provisions of article 1902 of the
Civil Code, which treats of obligations arising from fault or negligence.
4) Elcano vs Hill
the concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in character
whether voluntary or not
a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he
is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the victim do
not recover damages on both scores.
Vicarious liability of the parents on account of a delict committed by their minor
child is not extinguished by the fact that the said child who is living with and
dependent upon said parent is married.
o Reason behind the joint and solidary liability of both parents with their
offending child under 2180 is that it is the obligation of the parents to
supervise their minor children in order to prevent them for causing
damage to third persons.
5) Tenchavez vs Escano
invalid divorce entitles innocent consort to recover damages
6) Bacolod-Murcia milling co vs first farmers milling
doing of an act, like extension of credit, which is lawful, does not render one liable
for tort simply because the act enables another to accomplish a wrong.
7) Vasquez vs De borja
the fault and negligence referred to in articles 1101-1104 of the civil code are
those incidental to the fulfillment or nonfulfillment of a contractual obligation;
while the fault or negligence referred to in article 1902 is the culpa aquiliana of
the civil law, homologous but not identical to tort of the common law, which gives
rise to an obligation independently of any contract
the fact that the corporation, acting thru its manager, was guilty of negligence in
the filfillment of the contract, did not make the agent principally or even
subsiiarily liable for such negligence.
8) air france vs carrascoso

Tesoro)
Deficiency in a complaint with regard to averment of moral damages may be

cured by evidence
9) schimitz tansport vs transport ventures

a customs broker may be regarded as a common carrier
o common carrier = persons engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both by land ,water or air for
compensation , offering their services to the public
private carrier is under no duty to observe extraordinary diligence, it is still
required to observe ordinary diligence
Quasi Delict = when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have
itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contact existed
between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort,
thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply
Liability of a common carrier and independent contractor is solidary
10) singson v BPI
existence of a contract between parties is not a bar to the commission of a tort by
the one against another
11) araneta vs De joya
company vice president who signed payroll checks for the salary of employee
whose travel abroad is unauthorized is guilty of quasi-delict and liable for
expenses incurred by the company for the trip
contractual employee may be guilty of tort against the company
12) far east bank vs manila road
in culpa contractual , moral damages may be recovered where the defendant is
shown to have acted in bad faith or malice to breach the contract
o bad faith in this context includes gross, but not simple negligence
o malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a
wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity
a quasi-delcit can be the cause for breaching a contract that might thereby permit
the application of applicable principles on tort even where there is a pre-existing
contract between the plaintiff and defendant
o the test (whether a tort can be deemed to underlie the breach of contract)
can be stated where, w/o a pre-existing contract between two parties, an
act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself, the
fact that the parties are contractually bound is no bar to the application of
the quasi-delcit provisions to the case.
13) cangco vs manila road
failure to perform a contract cannot be excused upon the ground that the breach
was due to negligence of a servant of the obligor and that the latter exercised due
diligence in the selection and control of the servant
the distinction between negligence as the source of an obligation (culpa aquiliana)
and negligence in the performance of a contract (culpa contractual) rests upon
the fact that in cases of non-contractual obligation it is the wrongful or negligent
act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas in contractual
relations the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary. duty
assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation.
14) Rodrigueza vs manila road
Owner of a house (that burnt down) due to the negligence of a railroad
company cannot be said to be guilty of contributory negligence, in relation to
such fire, merely because the house is built partly on the land of the same

Tesoro)
railroad company. Especially when the house was built before the laying down
of the railroad track
15) custodio vs court of appeals
to warrant the recovery of damages, there must be a right of action for a legal
wrong inflicted by the defendant and damage resulting to the plaintiff
o wrong w/o damage or damage w/o wrong does not constitute a cause
of action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the
injury caused by a breach or wrong
o injury = the illegal invasion of a legal right
o damage =loss hurt or harm which results from the injury
o damages= the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage
suffered
o damage w/o injury = damnum absque injuria
to maintain an action for injuries, plaintiff must establish that such injuries
resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff
o underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an
individual was injured in contemplation of law
law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not
amount to a legal injury or wrong
16) philam insurance vs CA
negligence is the want of care required by the circumstance. It is a conduct
that involves an unreasonable great risk of causing damage ; or more fully, a
conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of
others against unreasonably great risk of harm
the question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a
given situation must of course be always determined in the light of human
experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case
res ipsa loquitor merely provides a rebuttable presumption of negligence
17) Flores vs Pineda
a medical negligence is a type of claim to redress a wrong committed by a
medical professional, that has caused bodily harm to or the death of a patient
o elements involved in a medical negligence case:
duty
breach
injury
proximate causation
o physician is expected to use at least the same level of care that any other
reasonably competent doctor would use under the same circumstances
o breach of duty occurs when the physician fails to comply with these
professional standards.
Plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence that:
o ONE (the physician either failed to do something which a reasonable
prudent man health care provider would have done OR he did something
that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done)
o TWO (the failure or action caused injury to the patient)
Expert testimony is essential
The critical and clinching factor in a medical negligence case is proof of the causal
connection between the negligence which the evidence established and the
plaintiffs injury
Causation MUST be proven within a reasonable medical probability based on
competent expert testimony
18) culion ice vs Philippine motors

Tesoro)
a person who holds himself out as being competent to do work requiring

special skill is guilty of negligence if he fails to exhibit the care a prudent
person would exhibit who is reasonably well skilled in the particular work
undertaken
19) abaya vs favis

There must be proof of breach of duty on the part of the surgeon as well as a
causal connection of such breach and the resulting death of the patient. In the
performance of Dr. Favis professional duties, there is no fixed rule for a physician
to follow. If he has the necessary qualifications, he needs only such degree of skill
and ordinary learning as this and that circumstance may require, using the care
and diligence as the best of his judgment would dictate, and as each particular
circumstance or circumstances may require.
All that is needed in this case is that the physician had employed conscientiously
his best judgment such as the circumstances may require
20) rasuman et al vs manila reyna hospital
Where the proximate cause of death of a patient is the operation handled
negligently by the hospital and physician, because tetanus germs entered the
patient's body while still in the responsibility of the hospital and physician,
compensatory damages were awarded.
21) Mendoza vs casumpang
an operation requiring the placing of sponges in the incision is not complete until
the sponges are properly removed and it is settled that the leaving of sponges or
other foreign substances in the wound found after the incision has been closed is
at least prima facie negligence by the operating surgeon
a surgical operation is the responsibility of the surgeon performing it. He must
personally ascertain that the counts of instruments and materials used before the
surgery and prior to sewing the patient up have been correctly done
22) De guia vs manila electrical railroad
in determining the extend of liability for losses or damages resulting from
negligence in the fulfillment of a contractual obligation, the courts have
discretionary power to moderate liability according to the circumstances
upon failure to comply with its obligation, the carrier incurs the liability commonly
incident to the breach of contractual obligations
o delinquency is due to the negligence of its employee, the carrier cannot
avail itself of the defense that it had exercised due care in the selection
and instruction of such employee and that he was in fact experienced and
reliable servant.
A company which has exercised due care in the selection and instruction of the
motorman upon one of its cars should be considered a debtor in good faith as
regards liability towards a passenger who is injured by negligence
23) carlos vs manila electric
care and caution required of electric companies is not simply the ordinary care of
a reasonably prudent man, but the highest degree practicable to avoid injury to
everyone who may be in the proximity to their wires and likely to come in contact
with them.
o HOWEVER such companies are bound only to anticipate such combinations
of circumstances and accidents and injuries there from as they may
reasonably forecast as likely to happen
An electric company is not, as a rule, negligent in failing to shut off its current
upon its own initiative during a storm where it is shown that municipal authorities
have general supervision and a real control over such company and has
designated one of its public officials to act in such matters.

Tesoro)
24) Picart vs Smith
the test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby
injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: would a
prudent man , in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed,
foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course
about to be pursued
where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one succeeds
that of the other by an appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last
reasonable opportunity to avoid impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable
with the consequences ,w/o reference to the prior negligence of the other party
25) Corinthian gardens vs tanjangco
in every tort case filed, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
o 1) the damage suffered by the plaintiff
o 2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person whose act
he must respond
o 3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and
the damages incurred
a negligent act is an inadvertent act, it may be merely carelessly done from a lack
of ordinary prudence and may be the one which creates the situation involving an
unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a
third person, an animal or a force of nature.
26) jarco marketing corporation vs CA
accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches
to the defendant
negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by
those circumstances which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would
do or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do
accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory, one cannot exist with the
other
children below 9 years old are conclusively presumed incapable of contributory
negligence
27) light rail transit authority vs navidad
the law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost
diligence of every cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances
the statutory provisions render carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers :
o a) through the negligence or willful acts of its employees
o b) on account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of
strangers if the common carriers employees through the exercise of due
diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission
in case of death, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent
o the premise for the employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of
the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be
made liable on the basis of the preseumption of juris tantum that the
employer failed to exercise dilgentissimi patris families in the selection and
supervision of its employees.
The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due
diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.
28) Philippine national railways corporation vs vizcara
negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided, by
considerations which ordinary regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something a prudent man and reasonable man would not do.
A reliable signaling device in good condition, not just dilapidated stop look and
listen signage is needed to give notice to the public.

Tesoro)
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing

as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which
he is required to conform for his own protection.
29) lilius vs manila railroad

The diligence of a good father of a family, which the law requires in order to avoid
damage, is not confined to the careful and prudent selection of subordinates or
employees but includes inspection of their work and supervision of the discharge
of their duties.
30) wright vs manila electric
Mere intoxication is not negligence, nor does the mere fact of intoxication
establish a want of ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be considered with
the other evidence tending to prove negligence.
It is immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary care of
prudence can be imputed to him, and no greater degree of care is required to be
exercised by an intoxicated man for his own protection than by a sober one.
31) United States v Gacutan
Whatever may have been the cause of an automobile accident, if it cannot be
attributed to the misconduct or the negligence of the operator in the
management of his machine, he cannot be held liable civilly or criminally
Boys 10-12 years of age assumed to be able to take care of themselves
It would place an intolerable burden on all wheeled vehicles if they had to reduce
their speed every time they would see a child on the street
32) United States v Tanedo
If a life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is in the performance of
a lawful act executed with due care and without intention of doing harm, there is
no criminal liability
33) United States v Tayotong
In order to support a conviction it must be shown that the accused was actually
guilty of negligence and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the
death
With regard to contributory negligence it cannot be a defense where it appears
that the accused was also negligent and that negligence was the proximate cause
of the death
34) Barcelo v Manila Electric Co.
The breaking out of a fire near an electrical installation cannot be presumed to be
the origin of a fire unless there is satisfactory proof that no other reasonable
ground exists where a fire might start
The Burden of proof rests in the one seeks to recover damages to prove by clear
and convincing evidence the negligence of another
35) Ong v Metropolitan Water District
The Burden of proof rests in the one seeks to recover damages to prove by clear
and convincing evidence the negligence of another
Owner of swimming pool will not be liable if it exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of its employees and followed the diligence required by
law
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE: A person who has the last clear chance or
opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his
opponent or the negligence of a third person which is imputed to his opponent, is
considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident

Tesoro)
36) BPI v Lifetime Marketing Corp.
There are three elements in a quasi delict (1) Fault or negligence of the
defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond (2) damages
suffered by the plaintiff (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault
or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred
The Degree of Diligence from Banks: More than that of a reasonable man or a
good father of the family. The fiduciary nature of their relationship with their
depositors require banks to be duty bound to treat the accounts of their clients
with the highest degree of care
Proximate Cause: is that cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence
unbroken by any efficient intervening causes, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred
37) Penullar v PNB
He whose negligence had enabled a third person to cause damages shall, as
between two innocent parties, bear the loss
38) Canlas v CA
The Degree of Diligence from Banks: More than that of a reasonable man or a
good father of the family. The business of a bank is affected by public interest,
holding in trust the money of the depositors, the bank should guard against loss
due to negligence or bad faith, by reason of which the bank would be denied the
protective mantle of the land registration law accorded to purchasers or
mortgagees for value and in good faith
Doctrine of last clear chance: Where both parties are negligent but the negligence
act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence
of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending
harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom
39) Gan v CA
-Test of negligence: Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom
negligence is attributed foresee harm to the person Injured as a reasonable
consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes the duty
on the doer to take precaution against its mischievous results and the failure to
do so constitutes negligence
Emergency rule: A person who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is
required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted is to
avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method,
unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own
negligence
40) People v Santos (CA)
An automobile driver cannot put himself in a position where in order to save
himself, he must injure someone else.
41) Phoenix Construction Co. v IAC
Last clear chance doctrine
Employer is responsible for the negligence of its employee by allowing said
employeed to improperly park the dump truck at the employees home
Improper parking of the truck created an unreasonable risk for anyone driving on
that street, dionisios negligence was mere contributory negligence while that of
the truck driver can be considered as the proximate and immediate cause of the
accident
42) Mckee v IAC

Tesoro)
The responsibility arising from fault or negligence in a quasi delict is entirely

separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
penal code.
Emergency rule: A person who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger,
and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be
adopted is to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he
fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been
a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought
about by his own negligence
Proximate Cause: is that cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence
unbroken by any efficient intervening causes, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred
A person driving a vehicle is presumed to have been negligent if he was found
to be violating any traffic regulation
Doctrine of last clear chance: Where both parties are negligent but the
negligence act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the
other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable
with the consequences arising therefrom
43) ORIX Metro Leasing and Finance Group v Mangalinao

Emergency rule: A person who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger,
and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be
adopted is to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he
fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been
a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought
about by his own negligence
Actual Damages: One is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proven
Temperate damages: Damages in lieu of loss of earning, is given only when
net income has been sufficiently proven
Moral damages: Damages that will serve to alleviate moral suffering he had
undergone due to other partys culpable action and must, perforce, be
proportional to the suffering inflicted
Exemplary damages: Granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence
44) Sanitary steam laundry, inc. v CA
A party who asserts that another person, by violation of the land transportation
and traffic code, contributed to the collision of vehicles, has the burden of
showing a causal connection between the injury received and the alledged
violation.
The violation of the statute was the proximate or legal cause of the inury or that it
substantially contributed thereto
Negligence consisting in whole or in part of violation of the law: Like any other
negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of injury
Psychological and physical tests: although no law requires it, such circumstance
would certainly be a reliable indicator of the exercise of due diligence
More diligence on choosing a driver: Driving exacts more than the usual toll on the
senses therefore employers must exert extra effort in selecting and supervising
their employees.
45) Corpus v Lugue
Proximate Cause: Proximate legal cause is the cause that is that acting first and
producing the injury either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal

Tesoro)
connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause
which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the
first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to
some person might probably result there from
A person cannot be deemed negligent for failing to prevent a collision even after
applying all means available to him within the few instance he had discovered the
impending danger
Last Clear Chance Doctrine (when NOT applied): The last clear chance doctrine
can never apply where a party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if
the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril
is or should have been discovered
46) Gabeto v Araneta

Proximate Cause: The defendants acts of fixing the bit was improper but it was
too remote from the accident which presently ensued ti be considered the legal or
proximate cause thereof
47) Manila Electric Co. v Remoquillo
Where it is shown that the deat of the deceased was primarily caused by his own
negligence, the company could not be guilty of negligence and therefore cannot
be sued for damages
Rule on Remote and Proximate Cause: A prior and remote case cannot be made
the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the
condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if
there intervened between such prior or remote and the injury, a distinct,
successive, unrelated and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury
would not have happened but for such condition or occasion.
48) Vda. De Bataclan v Medina
Proximate Cause: the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing
the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain events, each having a close causal
connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable results of the cause
which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for
the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury
to some person might probably result therefrom
Carriers Negligence: The failure if the driver and the conductor to have
cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted torch
too near the bus, constitutes negligence on the part of the agents of the
carrier.
49) Delgado cda. De Gregorio v. Go Chong Bing
Where the death or accident is caused by an act or omission of a person who is
not in any way related to the defendant and the said act is the proximate,
immediate and direct cause of the death of the victim or accident which is
punishable by law, defendant should be absolved from any civil liability. The
reason is not because one responsible for the accident had already received
indemnification therefor, but because there is no direct and proximate causal
connection between the negligence or violation of the law by the defendant to the
death of the victim
50) Umali v Bacani

Tesoro)
Where negligence of the electricity company was proximate cause of the childs
death, parental negligence in allowing the child to go to the place where the fallen
live wire was located is merely contributory negligence
Employers negligence:The negligence of the employee is presumed to be the
negligence of the employer. This liability of the employer is primary and direct. In
fact, the proper defense for the employer to raise so that he may escape liability
is to prove that he exercised the diligence of a good father of the family to
prevent damage not only in the selection of his employees but also in adequately
supervising them over their work.
51) Vda. De Imperial v Heald Lumber Co.

Where it appears that the pilot who was flying the helicopter at the time was not
licensed but was merely in the initial stage of his training and that the planes
engine has ceased to function due to exhaustion of fuel, thus resulting in the
impairment of its maneuverability and that the defendants companys cable
against which the plane allegedly crashed, did not constitute a hazard to aerial
navigation because they were not within the navigable airspace, it is clear that
the accident occurred because of the pilots negligence, the defendant should be
absolved from liability
52) Bernal and Erverso v House et al.
There is nothing abnormal in allowing a child to run about a few paces in advance
of his/her mother. No one could foresee the coincidence of an appearing
automobile and the child suddenly falling into a ditch filled with hot water
The defendant was negligent in permitting hot water to flow through public
streets to endanger the life of passer bys who were unfortunate enough to fall into
it
53) Bayasen v CA
Negligence must be proven by sufficient proof
Where the proximate cause of the accident was unforeseen, in this case the
skidding of the rear wheels of the jeep and not the unreasonable speed of the
accused driver, no negligence can be attributed to the driver. Skidding being an
unforeseeable event and proof of negligence being insufficient accused is deemed
not to be negligent
54) Sabido v Custodio
Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more
persons, although acting independently of each other are in combination the
direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is impossible
to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is
responsible for the whole injury, or the same damage might have resulted from
the acts of the other tort feasor
55) Teague v Fernandez
Failure of the respondents to comply with ordinances requiring buildings to
provide two stairways constitutes an act of negligence
The general principle is that violation of a statute or ordinance is not rendered
remote as the cause of injury by the intervention of another agency occurrence of
the accident, in the manner in which it happened, was the very thing which the
statute or ordinance was intended to prevent.
56) Cipriano v CA
Violation of a statutory duty is negligence in itself
The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar a finding of
negligence under the principles of quasi delict. Private respondent is not being
held liable for breach of his contractual contract due to negligence but for his
negligence in not complying with a duty imposed on him by law

Tesoro)
57) Calalas v CA
Quasi Delict v Breach of Contract: In quasi delict the negligence or fault should be
clearly established because it is the basis of the action, whereas in breach of
contract, the action can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the
contract and the fact that the obligor, in this case the common carrier failed to
transport his passenger safely to his destination
Doctrine of proximate cause is only applicable in quasi delicts not in breach of
contract
Common Carriers: Upon an accident there is a presumption that the common
carrier was negligent unless it clearly proves that it undertook the extraordinary
negligence or the negligence of a good father of the family
The taking of the extension seat is not an implied assumption of risk on the part
of the passenger. A caso fortuito is an event which could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, was inevitable. This requires the following requirements
to be present a) the cause of the breach is independent of the debtors will, b) the
event is unforeseeable or unavoidable c) the event is such as ti render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner and d) the
debtor did not take part in causing the injury to the creditor. Petitioner should
have foreseen the danger of parking his jeepney with its body protruding two
meters into the highway
Moral damages cannot be predicated on a breach of contract as a general rule but
there is a exception if a) the mishap results in the death of a passenger and b)
where the common carrier has been guilty of fraud or bad faith as provided in
article 2220 of the civ code
The common carriers admission in open court that his driver failed to assist the
injured passenger in going to a nearby hospital cannot be construed as an
admission of bad faith
58) PNB v Cheah Chee Chong
Probable Cause: Any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would
not have occurred otherwise
Contributory negligence: 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
59) Philtranco Service Enterprise Inc. v Paras
Moral damages by exception can be predicated on a breach of contract if a) the
mishap results in the death of a passenger and where the common carrier has
been guilty of fraud or bad faith as provided in article 2220 of the civ code
Damages may be recovered for loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of
temporary or permanent personal injury. Indeed, indemnification for damages
( damnum emergens) but also the claimants lost profits (Compensatory damages
or lucrum cessans)
60) Mercury Drug Corp v Baking
Requisites of sustaining a claim for negligence: a) damages suffered by the
plaintiff b) fault or negligence of the defendant, c) connection of cause and effect
between fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the
plaintiff
Probable Cause: Any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would
not have occurred otherwise
When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises
a presumption of the law that there has been negligence on the part of the
employer, either in the selectionof his employee or the supervision over him.

Tesoro)
61. Novo & co v.ainsworth
every injury to a person or his rights, by acts of omission or commission entitles
the person injured to damages but such injury can only prejudice the person
causing it, and his negligence cannot affect a third party. The party guilty of
negligence must repair the injury caused thereby.
The action to recover damages caused by negligence or by culpable acts of
omission or commission requires proof of one or the other of the causes which
constitute the basis of the right of recovery and the burden of proof is upon the
plaintiff.
62. Cenzo v atlantic gulf
Under the common law in the US, an wmployer was obliged to provide reasonably
safe ways, works and machinery for his employees. He could defend an action for
damages arising out of an industrial accident by proving his own freedom from
negligence, the plaintiffs contributory negligence that the injury was caused by
the negligence of a fellow servant or that it happened through one of the risks
assumed by the employee
An employee cannot recover for a defect in the ways, works or machinery when
he was not called upon to encounter the danger for the reasons that it was in fact
located at a point upon the premises where his duties did not call him and where
he had no right to be there.
After providing reasonably safe ways, works and machinery, and exercising the
care of a good father of a family, the employers liability is limited to those
accidents which could have been forseen.
63. afialda vs hisole
The owner of an animal is not liable for the injury caused by it to its caretaker
65. Ilocos norte electric cooperative v CA
When an act of god combines with the defendants negligence to produce an
injury, defendant is liable if the injury would not have resulted but for his own
negligent conduct
Award of damages and attorneys fees is unwarranted if the action is filed in good
faith, there should be no penalty on the right to litigate.
66. Nikko Hotel vs Reyes
The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (to which a person assents is not esteemed
in law as injury) refers to a self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which
precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily
exposed himself to danger even if he is not negligent in doing so.
67. Tamayo vs Gsell
The employers act does not affect the doctrine of assumption of risks and
contributory negligence. It does abolish in part the fellow servant doctrine, that is
to say, so far as it relates to the negligence of superintendents.
It is actionable negligence for an employer to place at a dangerous

machine a infant or minor who lacks sufficient age and capacity to comprehend
and avoid the dangers of the employment. The infant employees capacity is the
criterion of his responsibility.
68. Rakes vs Atlantic gulf
In order to enforce the liability of an employer for injuries to his employee, it is not
necessary that a criminal action be first prosecuted against the employer or his
representative primarily chargeable with the accident
The responsibility of an employer to his employee arises out of the contractual
relations between them

Tesoro)
FELLOW-SERVANT doctrine: exonerating the employer where the injury was

incurred through the negligence of a fellow-servant of the employer injured
though the negligence of a fellow-servant of the employee injured, is NOT
adopted in Philippine jurisprudence
Contributory Negligence: the negligence of an injured person contributing to his
injury but not being the determining causes of the principal accident, does not bar
recovery, but only in reduction of his damages. Each party is chargeable with
damages in proportion to his fault
69. teh vs Philippine aerial taxi

Contributory Negligence: the plaintiffs negligence alone was the direct cause of
the accident is clear and the injury is entirely and exclusively due to his own
imprudence and not to the slightest negligence attributable to the defendant and
therefore he alone should suffer the consequences of his act
70. bernardo vs legaspi
Where two automobiles, going in opposite directions, collide on turning a street
corner, and it appears from the evidence and is found by the trial court that the
drivers thereof were equally negligent and contributed equally to the principal
occurrence as determining causes thereof, neither can recover of the of the other
for the damages suffered
71. Phil. Rabbit vs IAC
Doctrine of clear last chance applies in a suit between the owners and drivers of
two colliding vehicles , not where the passenger demands responsibility from the
carrier to enforce the contractual obligations
A carrier is presumed at fault or negligent , the moment a passenger dies or is
injured
Accident caused either by defects in the automobile or negligence of a driver is
not a caso fortuito
The driver is not jointly and severally liable with carrier in case of breach of
contract of carriage
72. Bustamante v CA
DOCTRINE of last clear chance: the doctrine broadly states that the negligence of
the plaintiff does not preclude the recovery for the negligence of the defendant
where it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence,
might have injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiffs
negligence
73. taylor vs manila electric
Contributory negligence: when the immediate cause of an accident resulting in an
injury is the plaintiffs own act, which contributed to the principal occurrence as
one of its determining factors, he can not recover damages for injury
74. Del Prado v manila electric
Contributory negligence upon part of a plaintiff, not amounting to proximate
cause of his injury is not completely destructive of his right of action in cases
where liability arises from breach of a contractual duty; but such contributory
negligence in mitigation of damages under 1103 of civil code
75. astudillo vs manila electric
The liability of electric light companies for damages for personal injuries is
governed by the rules of negligence.
o 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.

Tesoro)
o
The duty in of exercising this high degree of diligence and care extends to
every place where persons have the right to be
76. del rosario vs manila electric

The circumstance that the boy who was killed touched the wire after one of his
companions had warned him not to do so, did not relieve the company of the
responsibility of owing to his immature years and the natural curiosity of a child to
do something out of the ordinary.
77. ngo sin sing v Li sen giap
Contributory negligence: contributory negligence is conduced on the part of the
injured party, contributing a legal cause to harm he has suffered, which falls
below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection
Requistes of a Quasi-delict:
o There must be an act or omission
o Such act or omission causes damage to another
o Such act or omission is caused by fault or negligence
o There is no existing contractual relation between the parties
The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for the quasi-delict is
solidary
78. National power corporation vs heirs of noble casiman
One cannot excuse himself from its failure to properly maintain the wires by
attributing negligence to the victim
o Responsibility of maintaining the rails for the purpose of preventing
derailment accidents belonged to the company
Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another
person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such person suffers injury.
o It was held that to hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it
must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in
disregard of warnings or signs of impending danger to health and body
o The court held that the violation of a statute is not sufficient to hold that
the violation was the proximate cause of the injury unless the very injury
that happened was precisely what was intended to be prevented by the
statute.
In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages are awarded where the offender was guilty of
gross negligence
o Gorss Negligence: the want or absence of even slight care or diligence as
to amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of the person or property. It
evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any
effort to avoid them
79. PNR vs Brunty
Negligence is the want of the care required by the circumstances, it is a relative or
comparative, not absolute term and its application depends on the situation of the
parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably
require
Requisites of Quasi-delicts:
o Damage to the plaintiff
o Negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant , or some other person
whose acts he must respond was guilty
o Connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damages
Contributory Negligence: is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing a
legal cause to harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is
required to conform for his own protection

Tesoro)
DOCTRINE of LAST CLEAR CHANCE: the doctrine of last clear chance states that
where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later
than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid
the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss.
A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and
amount of damages, but must depend upon the competent proof that they have
suffered and on evidence of the actual amount thereof.
The relatives of the victim who incurred physical injuries in a quasi-delict are not
proscribed from recovering moral damages in meritorious cases
82. Africa vs Caltex

Presumption of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur:
o Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be
under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident
is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who
have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable
evidence in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from want of care
The intervention of an unforeseen and unexpected cause is not sufficient to
relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of negligence , if such negligence directly
and proximately cooperates with the independent cause in the resulting injury.
83. republic vs Luzon steveroing
the fact that Nagtahan bridge was a stationary object and uncontrovertedly
provided with adequate openings for the passage of water craft, it is undeniable
that the unusual event that the barge exclusively controlled by Luzon ram the
bridge support raises a presumption of negligence on the part of Luzon and its
employees. Luzon stresses that they took extra precautions so the accident
should be deemed a fortuitous event but this statement precisely negates their
argument because force majeure are events not foreseeable or avoidable. It must
be impossible to foresee or avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is
not impossibility to foresee the same. The very measures adopted prove that the
possibility of danger was foreseeable.
84. FF Cruz vs CA
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, may be stated as follows: Where the thing which
caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the
defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of
things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper
care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the
defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.
85. Layugan v IAC
the existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by the personal
judgment of the actor in a given situation; it is the law that determines what
would be reckless or negligent
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, may be stated as follows: Where the thing which
caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the
defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of
things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper
care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the
defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.
o The doctrine of res ispa loquitur can be invoked when and only when
,under the circumstance involved m direct evidence is absent and not
readily available.
The presumption of negligence on the part of the master or employer is juris
tantum and not juris et jure and consequently may be rebutted; it may be

Tesoro)
overcome by proof that the employer exercised the diligence of a good father of
family in the selection or supervision of his employees
86. macalinao v song
The issue of negligence is factual and in quasi-delicts, crucial in the award of
damages, as a rule, factual findings of the CA are deemed to be conclusive in
cases brought to the SC on appeal (general rule)
87. Ramos vs CA (1999 case)
Mere invocation of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not dispense with the
requirement of proof of negligence
o Requisites before the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be allowed:
1) the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someones negligence
2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of
the defendant or defendants
3) the possibility of contributing conduct which would make the
plaintiff responsible is eliminated
when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for
expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the
proof of negligence
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be
perfunctorily used but a rule to be cautiously applied depending upon the
circumstances of each case
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not available in a malpractice suit if the only
showing is that the desired result of an operation or treatment was not
accomplished
Proximate cause: that, which in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred.
87. Ramos vs CA (2002 case)
The conduct of a preanesthetic/preoperative evaluation prior to an operation,
whether elective or emergency cannot be dispensed with-such evaluation is
necessary for the formulation of a plan of anesthesia care suited tot eh needs of
the patient concerned
CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP doctrine: a surgeon is likened to a captain of the ship , in
that it is his duty to control everything going on in the operation room
o There is a trend in American jurisprudence to do away with the captain of
the ship doctrine does not mean the SC will ipso facto follow the trend. Due
regard for the peculiar factual circumstances obtaining in the instant case
may justify the application of the doctrine
88. Jarcia jr. v People
The doctrine of res ipsa Loquitur: Where the thing which causes the injury is
shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as
in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care
The doctrine of res ipsa Loquitur: Rule of evidence whereby negligence of the
alleged wrong doer may be inferred from the mere fact that the accident
happened provided the character of the accident and the circumstances attending
it lead reasonably to belief in that in the absence of negligence it would not have
occurred and that the thing which caused injury is shown to have been under the
management and control of the alleged wrong doer

Tesoro)
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur as unusual to the law of negligence which recognizes
prima Facie negligence may be established without direct proof: The doctrine is
not a rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural
convenience. The rule, when applicable to the facts and circumstances of a given
case is not meant to and does not dispense with the requirement of proof of
culpable negligence on the party charged. It merely regulates what shall be prima
facie evidence and helps in proving a breach of duty
Requisites of Res ipsa loquitur:

1) The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone
is negligent
2) The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the
exclusive control of the person in charge
3) The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution of the person injured
Negligence: Failure to observe the degree of care for the protection of the
interests of another person
Reckless Imprudence: Failing to do, without malice, an act from which material
damage results by reason of an excusable lack of precaution on the part of the
person performing or failing to perform such act
Requisites of simple negligence:

1) That there is lack of precaution to on the part of the offender
2) That the damage impending to be caused is not the immediate or the
danger is not clearly manifest
Criminal Conviction: Beyond Resonable doubt, Civil Liability: Preponderance of

Evidence
89. Bontilao v Gerona
The doctrine of res ipsa Loquitur: Rule of evidence whereby negligence of the
alleged wrong doer may be inferred from the mere fact that the accident
happened provided the character of the accident and the circumstances attending
it lead reasonably to belief in that in the absence of negligence it would not have
occurred and that the thing which caused injury is shown to have been under the
management and control of the alleged wrong doer
Res Ipsa Loquitur is a rebuttable presumption or inference that the defendant was
negligent

1) The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is
negligent
2) The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive
control of the person in charge
Res Ipsa Loquitur is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used but a
rule to be cautiously applied depending upon the circumstances of each case
Res Ipsa Loquitur in Malpractice cases: The doctrine is generally restricted to

situations where a layman is able to say, as a matter of common knowledge and

Tesoro)
observation, that the consequences of professional care were not as such as
would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised
91. Capili v Cardena
Negligent act: Is an advertent act it may be merely carelessly done from a lack of
ordinary prudence and it may be one which creates a situation involving an
unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a
third kind person, animal or a force of nature
Negligent Act: is one from which ordinary prudent person in the actors position, in
the same or similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable risk of
harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a more careful
manner
Res Ipsa Loquitur applies to the principal of the school: The probability that the
branchesof a dead and rotting tree could fall and harm someone is foreseeable. As
the school principal, petitioner was tasked to see to the maintenance of the school
grounds and the safety of the children within the school and its premises. The
fact that the principal failed to see the immediate danger posed by the tree shows
she failed to exercised the responsibility demanded by her position
Every Tort filed under article 2176 of the civil code has to be proven by a
preponderance of evidence:
1) The damages suffered by the plaintiff
2) The Fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose
act he must respond
3) Connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the
damages incurred

1) The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless
someone is negligent
92. Reyes v sisters of mercy hospital
Res Ipsa Loquitor: There is a case when expert testimony may be dispensed with
and that is under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. Medical testimony is relied
upon in malpractice suits to prove that a physician has done a negligent act. The
reason is that the general rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies only
to such matters that are within the domain of medical science. Ordinarily only
physicians are competent to testify as to whether a patient has been treated or
operated upon with a reasonable degree of skill and care.

1) The Accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless
someone is negligent
Res Ipsa Loquitor is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used but a
rule to be cautiously applied depending on the circumstances of each case. It is

Tesoro)
generally restricted to situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able to
say, as a matter of common knowledge and observation, that the consequences
of professional care were not as would ordinarily have followed if due care had
been exercised.
The doctrine of re sipsa loquitur is not applicable in a suit against a physican or a

surgeon which involves the merits of diagnosis or of scientific treatment
Standard needed: The standard needed is not what is actually the average merit
among all known practitioners but from the best to the worst and from the most
to the least experienced but reasonable average merit among ordinarily good
physicians
There is no need to expressly require doctors the observance of extraordinary

diligence. The standard contemplated by the physician is the reasonable skill and
competence that a physician in the name or similar locality should apply
93. Perle cie d seguros v sarangya III
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor: Res Ipsa Loquitor literally means the thing or the
transaction speaks for iself.It relates to the fact of an injury that sets out an
inference to the cause thereof or establishes the plaintiffs prima facie case. The
doctrine rests on inference and not presumption. The doctrine is based on the
theory that the defendant either knows the cause of the accident or has the best
opportunity of ascertaining it and the plaintiff, having no knowledge thereof, is
compelled to allege negligence in general terms
Test in Determining negligence: The test to determine the existence of negligence

in a particular may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in committing the
alleged negligent act, use reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily
prudent person in the same situation would have employed? If not, then he is
guilty of negligence
In a vehicular accident mechanical defect will not release the defendants from
liability if it is shown that the accident could have been prevented had he properly
maintain and taken good care of the vehicle.
Requisites of a Fortuitous event:

1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was independent of the
human will
2) It was impossible to foresee the event which constituted the caso fortuito, or if it
could be foreseen it was impossible to avoid
3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible to perform an obligation in
a normal manner
4) The person tasked to perform the obligation must not have participated in any
course of conduct that aggravated the situation
Vicarious Liability: In the supervision of employees, the employer must formulate

standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation and impose
disciplinary measures for the breach thereof
94. NPC V CA

Tesoro)
In crimes and quasi delict the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are
the natural and probable consequence of the act or omission complained of
Ma-ao Sugar Central v CA

There is no question that the maintenance of the rails for the purpose of
preventing derailments was under the supervision of the petitioner and that his
responsibility is not discharged. He should have taken more prudent steps in
preventing such accidents instead of waiting for a life to be lost
Doctrine of Contributory negligence: The act or omission amounting to want of
ordinary care on the part of the person injured which concurring with the
defendants negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. It has been held that
tro hold a person as having contributed to his injuries it must eb shown that he
performed an act that brought about his injuries disregarding signs or warnings of
an impending danger to his body
95. Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Court of Appeals
Contributory negligence has been defined as the act or omission amounting to

want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which, concurring with the
defendants negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury. It has been held
that to hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that
he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings or
signs of an impending danger to health and body.
96. Ferrer v. Ericta
Actions for damages arising from physical injuries because of tort must be filed
within four years from the day the quasi-delict is committed or the date of the
accident
97. Solid Homes, Inc. v. Tan

Presidential Decree No. 957; Were the Court to follow the letter of Article 1385 of
the Civil Code, it will in effect be paving the way to an absurd situation whereby
subdivision developers who have reneged on their contractual and legal obligation
to provide utility systems and facilities for the use of subdivision lot owners may
themselves profit from their very own wrongs and shortcomings; In case the
subdivision developer fails to deliver the lot to the buyer, it should pay not the
purchase price paid plus interest but the current market value thereof.
98. Banco Filipino v. Court of Appeals (banking case to! D ko alam bakit kasama!)
Under Article 1150 of the Civil Code, the time for prescription of all kinds of
actions, when there is no special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be
counted from the day they may be brought.
The cause of action for annulment of loan contract based on unilateral increased
rate of interest accrues only from date of receipt of the statement of account
showing such increased rate of interest.
It is the material allegations in the complaint, not the legal conclusions made
therein or the prayer that determines the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled.
Escalation Clauses; Central Bank Circular 494, although it has the force and effect
of law, is not a law and is not the law contemplated by the parties which
authorizes the petitioner to unilaterally raise the interest rate of the loan.
Doctrine of Stare Decisis; While a judgment in a case cannot bind persons who

Tesoro)
were not parties thereto, the doctrine enunciated therein is that a judicial decision
forms part of the legal system of the land, a precedent which must be adhered to
under the doctrine of stare decisis
99. Lafarge Cement Phils, Inc. v. Continental Cement Corp. 443 SCRA 522, 544-548
Obligations arising from tort are, by their nature, always solidary.
The fact that the liability sought against the corporation is for specific
performance and tort, while that sought against the individual respondents is
based solely on tort does not negate the solidary nature of their liability for
alleged tortuous acts.
In cases filed by the creditor, a solidary debtor may invoke defenses arising from
the nature of the obligation, from circumstances personal to it, or even from those
personal to its co-debtors
101. Fuellas v. Cadano
The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor children
imposed by Art. 2180 of the new Civil Code covers obligations arising from both
quasi-delicts and criminal offenses.
The subsidiary liability of parents arising from the criminal acts of their minor
children who act with discernment is determined under the provisions of Art.
2180, N.C.C. and under Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code, because to hold
that the former only covers obligations which arise from quasi-delicts and not
obligations which arise from criminal offenses, would result in the absurdity that
while for an act where mere negligence intervenes the father or mother may
stand subsidiarily liable for the damage caused by his or her son, no liability
would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent.
102. Paleyan v. Bangkili
It is true that under Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code, a father is made civilly
liable for the acts committed by his son only if the latter is an imbecile, an insane,
under 9 years of age, or over 9 but under 15 years of age, who acts without
discernment, unless it appears that there is no fault or negligence on his part. This
is because a son who commits the act under any of these conditions is by law
exempt from criminal liability (Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3, Revised Penal
Code). The idea is not to leave the act entirely unpunished but to attach certain
civil liability to the person who has the delinquent minor under his legal authority
or control.
A minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability,
for which reason the Code (Revised Penal Code) is silent as to the subsidiary
liability of his parents should he stand convicted. In that case, resort should be
had to the general law which is our Civil Code. The particular law that governs this
case is Article 2180. To hold that this provision does not apply to the instant case
because it only covers obligations which arise from quasi-delicts and not
obligations which arise from criminal offenses, would result in the absurdity that
while for an act where mere negligence intervenes the father or mother may
stand subsidiarily liable for the damage caused by his or her son, no liability
would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent. Verily, the void that
apparently exists in the Revised Penal Code is subserved by this particular
provision of our Civil Code, as may be gleaned from some recent decisions of this
Court which cover equal or identical cases.
Article 2180 does not provide for any exemption except proof that the defendant
parent observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage.
103. Cuadra v . Monfort
In the present case there is nothing from which it may be inferred that the
defendant could have prevented the damage by the observance of due care, or

Tesoro)
that he was in any way remiss in the exercise of his parental authority in failing to
foresee such damage, or the act which caused it. On the contrary, his child was at
school, where it was his duty to send her and where she was, as he had the right
to expect her to be, under the care and supervision of the teacher. And as far as
the act which caused the injury was concerned, it was an innocent prank not
unusual among children at play and which no parent, however careful, would have
any special reason to anticipate, much less guard against. Nor did it reveal any
mischievous propensity, or indeed any trait in the childs character which would
reflect unfavorably on her upbringing and for which the blame would be attributed
to her parents.
BARREDO, J.:dissenting
o What constitutes fault within contemplation of law on torts; Knowledge of
consequence of minors acts could be determined by her age.
13 years and should have known that by jokingly saying aloud that
she had found an earthworm and, evidently to frighten the Cuadra
girl, tossed the object at her, it was likely that something would
happen to her friend, as in fact, she was hurt.
No evidence that he had properly advised his daughter to behave
properly and not to play dangerous jokes on her classmates and
playmates, the father can be liable under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code.
104. Tamargo v. Court of Appeals
The natural parents of a minor still living with the former when the latter
accidentally shot a girl with an air rifle are liable for damages thus caused rather
than the adopter even if petition for adoption filed before the accident and
granted thereafter.
parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the
period of trial custody, i.e., before the issuance of a decree of adoption, precisely
because the adopting parents are given actual custody of the child during such
trial period.
105. Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court
the subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor children
imposed by Article 2180 of the New Civil Code covers obligations arising from
both quasi-delicts and criminal offenses
o We believe that the civil liability of parents for quasi-delicts of their minor
children, as contemplated in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is primary and
not subsidiary. In fact, if we apply Article 2194 of said code which provides
for solidary liability of joint tortfeasors, the persons responsible for the act
or omission, in this case the minor and the father and, in case of his death
or incapacity, the mother, are solidarily liable. Accordingly, such parental
liability is primary and not subsidiary, hence the last paragraph of Article
2180 provides that (t)he 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.
106. Amadora v. Court of Appeals
Article 2180 of the Civil Code should apply to all schools, academic as well as nonacademic.
No substantial distinction between the academic and the non-academic schools
insofar as torts committed by their students are concerned
Article 2180 of the Civil Code does not mean that the student must be boarding
with the school authorities but the student should be within the control and under
its influence at the time of the occurrence of the injury.
As long as the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate
purpose, the responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues.
Teacher-in-charge must answer for his students torts.
o The teacher-in-charge is the one designated by the dean, principal, or

Tesoro)
other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in the

specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. It is not necessary
that at the time of the injury, the teacher be physically present and in a
position to prevent it. Custody does not connote immediate and actual
physical control but refers more to the influence exerted on the child and
the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence. Thus, for the
injuries caused by the student, the teacher and not the parent shall be
held responsible if the tort was committed within the premises of the
school at any time when its authority could be validly exercised over him.
The school may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers or even of the head
thereof under the general principle of respondent superior but may exculpate
itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus
paterfamilias.
As long as the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trade can show that
he had taken the necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of, he
can exonerate himself from the liability imposed by Article 2180.
Liability attaches to the teacher and the head of the technical school although the
wrongdoer was already of age
107. Pasco v. CFI of Bulacan

Article 2180 of the Civil Code which refers to liability of teachers or heads of
establishments of arts and trades for damages caused by students who are in
their custody, does not apply to the school or the university itself or to
educational institutions which are not schools of arts and trades
SARMIENTO, J., dissenting

o Interpretation; Article 2180 of the Civil Code may be construed as basis for
liability of the school as the employer for failure of its teachers or school
heads to perform their mandatory duty as substitute parents.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting
o While the educational institution is not civilly liable, yet the school, as the
employer, may be held liable for failure of its teachers or school heads to
perform their mandatory legal duties as substitute parents, but the school
may interpose due diligence to exculpate itself.
108. Ylarde v. Aquino

It is only the teachers and not the principal or head of an academic school who
should be answerable for torts committed by their students. In a school of arts
and trades, it is only the head of the school who can be held liable. Under
Section 2180 of the Civil Code, the teacher-in-charge of school children should be
held liable for negligence in his supervision over them and his failure to take the
necessary precautions to prevent any injury on their persons.
A teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils should make sure that the
children are protected from all harm in his company.
109. Salvosa v. Intemediate Appellate Court
Under the penultimate paragraph of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, teachers or heads
of establishments of arts and trades are liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The
rationale of such liability is that so long as the student remains in the custody of a
teacher, the latter stands, to a certain extent, in loco parentis [as to the student]
and [is] called upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the
[student]. Likewise, the phrase used in [Art. 2180]so long as (the students)
remain in their custody means the protective and supervisory custody that the
school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as
long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time.
A student not at attendance in school cannot be in recess

Tesoro)
o
the mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a school without
more does not constitute attending school or being in the protective
and supervisory custody of the school, as contemplated in the law.
110. PSBA. v. Court of Appeals

Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the
rule of in loco parentis.
o In all such cases, it had been stressed that the law (Article 2180) plainly
provides that the damage should have been caused or inflicted by pupils
or students of the educational institution sought to be held liable for the
acts of its pupils or students while in its custody.
An academic institution enters into a contract when it accepts students for
enrollment; The contract between school and student is one "imbued with public
interest"
Article 21; Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals,good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage.
111. Soliman, Jr. v .Tuason
It is settled that where the security agency recruits, hires and assigns the work of
its watchmen or security guards, the agency is the employer of such guards or
watchmen.
The duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of
the guards cannot in the ordinary course of events be demanded from the client
whose premises or property are protected by the security guards
112. Saludaga v. FEU
Where a student is enrolled in an educational institution, there is created a
contractual obligation between the two partiesthe student is obliged to comply
with the rules and regulations of the school while the latter, as a learning
institution, is mandated to impart knowledge and equip its students with the
necessary skills to pursue higher education or a profession, as well as to ensure
and take adequate steps to maintain peace and order within the campus.
A learning institution should not be allowed to completely relinquish or abdicate

security matters in its premises to the security agency it hiredto do so would
result to contracting away its inherent obligation to ensure a safe learning
environment for its students.
An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to take steps
to forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a loss.
For breach of contract due to negligence in providing a safe learning environment,
an educational institution is liable to petitioner for damages
Where the security agency recruits, hires and assigns the works of its watchmen
or security guards to a client, the employer of such guards or watchmen is such
agency, and not the client, since the latter has no hand in selecting the security
guardsthe duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family cannot be
demanded from the said client.
Third-Party Complaints; The third-party complaint is a procedural device whereby
a third party who is neither a party nor privy to the act or deed complained of
by the plaintiff, may be brought into the case with leave of court, by the
defendant, who acts as third-party plaintiff to enforce against such third-party
defendant a right for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in
respect of the plaintiffs claim (this is not related to torts but this was part of my
recit)
113. St. Francis High School v. Court of Appeals
Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee, the
act or omission which caused damage or prejudice must have occurred while an

Tesoro)
employee was in the performance of his assigned tasks.

Where no negligence was established no moral damages can be recovered.
114. Regino v. Pangasinan College of Science & Technology

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies has no application where a
student is not asking for the reversal of the policies of an educational institution
nor demanding that she be allowed to take the final examinations that she was
prevented from taking but is praying for damages
o The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is basic. Courts, for
reasons of law, comity, and convenience, should not entertain suits unless
the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the
proper authorities have been given the appropriate opportunity to act and
correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum.
o Exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable when there is
competence on the part of the administrative body to act upon the matter
complained ofthe CHED does not have the power to award damages
o One of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine is when the issue is
purely legal and well within the jurisdiction of the trial courtan action for
damages inevitably calls for the application and interpretation of the Civil
Code.
The school-student relationship is contractual in nature
o Consequences appurtenant to and inherent in all contracts of such kindit
gives rise to bilateral or reciprocal rights and obligations. The school
undertakes to provide students with education sufficient to enable them to
pursue higher education or a profession. On the other hand, the students
agree to abide by the academic requirements of the school and to observe
its rules and regulations.
The terms of the school-student contract are defined at the moment of its
inceptionupon enrolment of the student.
An academic institution may be held liable for tort even if it has an existing
contract with its students where the act that violated the contract may also be a
tort.
115. St. Marys Academy v. Carpitanos
For a school to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or omission
considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because
the negligence must have a causal connection to the accident.
The proximate cause of an injury is 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
The registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for public service, would
primarily be responsible to the public or to third persons for injuries caused the
latter while the vehicle was being driven on the highways or streets.
116. Child Learning Center Inc. v. Tagorio

In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove
by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the
fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must
respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence and the damages incurred. Fault, in general, signifies a voluntary act
or omission which causes damage to the right of another giving rise to an
obligation on the part of the actor to repair such damage. Negligence is the failure
to observe for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of care,
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. Fault requires
the execution of a positive act which causes damage to another while negligence
consists of the omission to do acts which result in damage to another.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where (1) the accident was of such

Tesoro)
character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for
the defendants negligence, (2) the accident must have been caused by an
agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the
person charged with negligence complained of, and, (3) the accident must not
have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person
injured; The fact that a student had to go through the window, instead of the door,
shows that something was wrong with the door.
Due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is applicable where
the employer is being held responsible for the acts or omissions of others under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code, not when the liability is under Article 2176,
premised on the fact of the defendants own diligence in not ensuring that all its
doors are properly maintained.
117. Martin v. Court of Appeals

The rule contemplated in Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is applicable only if there is
an employeremployee relationship although it is not necessary that the
employer be engaged in any business or industry
To hold the employer liable under Art. 2180 for torts committed by his
employees within the scope of their assigned task, it is necessary to establish
the employment relationship.
118. Heirs of Redentor Completo v. Albayda,Jr.
It is a rule in negligence suits that the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of evidence the motorists breach in his duty of care owed to the
plaintiff, that the motorist was negligent in failing to exercise the diligence
required to avoid injury to the plaintiff, and that such negligence was the
proximate cause of the injury suffered.
The bicycle occupies a legal position that is at least equal to that of other
vehicles lawfully on the highway, and it is fortified by the fact that usually more
will be required of a motorist than a bicyclist in discharging his duty of care to
the other because of the physical advantages the automobile has over the
bicycle; While the duty of using reasonable care falls alike on a motorist and a
bicyclist, due to the inherent differences in the two vehicles, more care is
required from the motorist to fully discharge the duty than from the bicyclist.
When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, a legal presumption
instantly arises that the employer was negligent, which presumption may be
rebutted only by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he exercised
the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his
employee.
The civil liability of the employer for the negligent acts of his employee is also
primary and direct, owing to his own negligence in selecting and supervising his
employee
With respect to the supervision of employees, employers should formulate
standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose
disciplinary measures for breaches thereof.
Temperate damages, more than nominal but less than compensatory damages,
may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with
certaintythe damages must be reasonable under the circumstances
119. Yamada v. Manila Railroad
The Civil Code, in. dealing with the liability of a master for the negligent acts of
his servant, makes a distinction between private individuals and public
enterprises.
Where an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee of a public
enterprise, 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 the selection, or both. But that

Tesoro)
presumption may be rebutted.

o If, in such a case, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that
in the selection of the employee and in his supervision over him he has
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the
presumption of negligence on his part is overcome and he is relieved from
liability.
It is the duty of every person crossing a railroad to use ordinary care and diligence
to determine the proximity of a train before attempting to cross.
A garage and taxicab company whose business it is to let automobiles and
taxicabs for hire and to furnish drivers therefor is negligent where it appears that
it was the custom of the drivers, known to the officers of the company, to pass
over railroad crossings without any effort to determine the proximity of a train,
and the company made no effort to change the custom or to instruct its drivers to
the effect that railroad crossings should not be passed over without due diligence
being observed to determine the approach of trains.
120. Phil. Rabbit Lines, Inc. v. Phil. American Forwarders, Inc

Term employers does not include manager of a corporation.
121. Filamer Christian Institute v. Intermediate Appellate Court
In relation to the school, Funtecha was an employee even if he was assigned to
clean the school premises for only two (2) hours in the morning of each school
day
Fact that Funtecha was not the school driver or was not acting within the scope
of his janitorial duties does not relieve the petitioner of the burden of rebutting
the presumption juris tantum that there was negligence on its part either in the
selection of a servant or employee or in the supervision over him.
Supervision includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulation for the
guidance of its employees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for
the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations
through his employees.
Liability of the employer under Article 2180 is primary and solidary.
123. Cuison v. Norton & Harrison Co.
The basis of civil law liability is not respondent superior but the relationship of
paterfamilias. This theory bases the liability of the master ultimately on his own
negligence and not on that of his servant.
Under the civil law, an employer is only liable for the negligence of his employees
in the discharge of their respective duties. The employer would not be liable for
the negligence of an independent contractor.
o One, O, had a contract with the firm N, but at the same time O was an
employee of the firm N, charged with the duty of directing the loading and
transportation of lumber. It is held that O was not an independent
contractor but was the servant of the defendant, and that for his
negligence the defendant was responsible. The reason for this distinction is
that the employer retained the power of directing and controlling the work.
124. Go v. Intermediate Appellate Court 197 SCRA 22
Although as a rule, there should be no penalty on the right to litigate, but under
the peculiar circumstances of this case showing that it was the bank officers
gross negligence which caused inconvenience, humiliation and embarrasment to
private respondent, the latter is entitled to an award of damages
bank cannot disclaim liability for the negligence of its employees, because it failed
to prove not only that it exercised due diligence to prevent damage but that it was
not negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees

Tesoro)
125. Ortaliz v. Echarri 101 Phil 947
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged
in any business or industry.
In cases of physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require
only a preponderance of evidence.
126. MRR v. Cia Transatlantica & Atlantic Gulf 38 Phil 875
A steamship company is liable upon its contract of carriage for damage resultingto cargo by reason of the negligence of a contracting company in discharging the
freight from the ship's hold; and the circumstance that the steamship company
had used due diligence in selecting a competent person
127. Allied Banking Corp. v. Lim Bio Wan
549 SCRA 504
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code pertains to the vicarious liability of an employer for
quasi-delicts that an employee has committedsuch provision of law does not
apply to civil liability arising from delict
128. Jayme v. Apostol 572 SCRA 41
Vicarious Liability; To make the employee liable under paragraphs 5 and 6 of

Article 2180, it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act was
committed at the time the employee was performing his functions.
o Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that a person is not only liable for
ones own quasi-delictual acts, but also for those persons for whom one is
responsible for. This liability is popularly known as vicarious or imputed
liability. To sustain claims against employers for the acts of their
employees, the following requisites must be established: (1) That the
employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another; (2)
That the service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the
employer has the authority to give at all times; and (3) That the illicit act of
the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted
to him. Significantly, to make the employee liable under paragraphs 5 and
6 of Article 2180, it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act
was committed at the time the employee was performing his functions.
Vicarious Liability; In the absence of an employer-employee relationship

establishing liability, the drivers negligence should not be attributed to a fellow
employee who only happens to be an occupant of the vehicle.
It has been held that the failure of a passenger to assist the driver, by providing
him warnings or by serving as lookout does not make the passenger liable for the
latters negligent acts
State Immunity; The municipality may not be sued because it is an agency of the
State engaged in governmental functions and, hence, immune from suit.
129. Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Velasquez Jr. 321 SCRA 393
The phrase even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry
found in the fifth paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code should be interpreted
to mean that it is not necessary for the employer to be engaged in any business

Tesoro)
or industry to be liable for the negligence of his employee who is acting within the
scope of his assigned task
Fourth and Fifth Paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, Distinguished;
Admittedly, employees oftentimes wear different hatsthey perform functions
which are beyond their office, title or designation but which, nevertheless, are still
within the call of duty.A distinction must be made between the two provisions to
determine what is applicable. Both provisions apply to employers: the fourth
paragraph, to owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise; and the
fifth paragraph, to employers in general, whether or not engaged in any business
or industry. The fourth paragraph covers negligent acts of employees committed
either in the service of the branches or on the occasion of their functions, while
the fifth paragraph encompasses negligent acts of employees acting within the
scope of their assigned task. The latter is an expansion of the former in both
employer coverage and acts included. Negligent acts of employees, whether or
not the employer is engaged in a business or industry, are covered so long as
they were acting within the scope of their assigned task, even though committed
neither in the service of the branches nor on the occasion of their functions. For,
admittedly, employees oftentimes wear different hats. They perform functions
which are beyond their office, title or designation but which, nevertheless, are still
within the call of duty.
Under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180, whether or not engaged in any business
or industry, an employer is liable for the torts committed by employees within the
scope of his assigned tasks. But it is necessary to establish the employeremployee relationship; once this is done, the plaintiff must show, to hold the
employer liable, that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned
task when the tort complained of was committed. It is only then that the employer
may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection
and supervision of the employee.
Whether the fault or negligence of an employee is conclusive on his employer as

in American law or jurisprudence, or merely gives rise to the presumption juris
tantum of negligence on the part of the employer as in ours, it is indispensable
that the employee was acting in his employers business or within the scope of his
assigned task
Where there is paucity of evidence that an employee was acting within the scope
of the functions entrusted to him when a tortious act occurred, the employer has
no duty to show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in
providing the employee with a service vehicle, and the employer is thus relieved
of vicarious liability for the consequences of the negligence of the employee.
130. Almirez v. Infinite Loop Technology Corp. 481 SCRA 364
Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the

person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only
the end to be achieved but also the manner and means to be used in reaching
that end.
131. Acevedo v. Advanstar Co. Inc 474 SCRA 656
Labor-only contracting is an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor

merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job, work or service for a
principal.
The labor-only contractor is considered merely as an agent of the employer, the

employer having been made, by law, responsible to the employees of the labor-

Tesoro)
only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by it.
Permissible job contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereby a

principal agrees to put out or farm out with the contractor or subcontractor the
performance or completion of a specific job, work or service within a definite or
predetermined period regardless of whether such job, work, service is to be
performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal.
The test to determine the existence of an independent contractorship is to

determine whether the one who claims to be an independent contractor has been
contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being
subject to the employers control except only as to the results.
132. Hernandez v. Dolor
435 SCRA 668
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, an employer may be held solidary liable for
the negligent act of his employee.
To exempt from liability the owner of a public vehicle who operates it under the
boundary system on the ground that he is a mere lessor would be not only to
abet flagrant violations of the Public Service Law, but also to place the riding
public at the mercy of reckless and irresponsible drivers
Temperate or moderate damages are damages which are more than nominal but
less than compensatory which may be recovered when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the
case, be proved with certainty.
The award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible,
of the spiritual status quo ante, and therefore, it must be proportionate to the
suffering inflicted; Truly, the pain of the sudden loss of ones offspring, especially
of a son who was in the prime of his youth, and who holds so much promise
waiting to be fulfilled is indeed a wellspring of intense pain which no parent should
be made to suffer
133. Cereno v, Court of Appeals 682 SCRA 48
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 the
failure or action caused injury to the patient. Stated otherwise, the complainant
must prove: (1) that the health care provider, either by his act or omission, had
been negligent, and (2) that such act or omission proximately caused the injury
complained of.
The best way to prove medical malpractice is through the opinions of expert
witnesses belonging in the same neighborhood and in the same general line of
practice as defendant physician or surgeon
In medical negligence cases, it is settled that the complainant has the burden of
establishing breach of duty on the part of the doctors or surgeons. It must be

Tesoro)
proven that such breach of duty has a causal connection to the resulting death of
the patient
134. Cayao-Lasam v. Spouses Ramolete 574 SCRA 436
Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure

of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care
and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar
conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances; There are four elements
involved in medical negligence casesduty, breach, injury and proximate
causation
The breach of 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, and as to this aspect of medical malpractice,
the determination of the reasonable level of care and the breach thereof, expert
testimony is essential
Medical malpractice, in our jurisdiction, is often brought as a civil action for

damages under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, and the defenses in an action for
damages are provided for under Article 2179; Proximate cause is that which, in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces injury, and without which the result would not have occurred
Where the immediate cause of an accident resulting in an injury is the plaintiffs

own act, which contributed to the principal occurrence as one of its determining
factors, he cannot recover damages for the injury; Contributory negligence is the
act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person
injured, which, concurring with the defendants negligence, is the proximate cause
of the injury
135. Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center 511 SCRA 204
The control test essentially determines whether an employment relationship

exists between a physician and a hospital based on the exercise of control over
the physician as to details.
Doctrine of Apparent Authority; An exception to the general rule that a hospital is

not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor-physician is when the
physician is the ostensible agent of the hospital, which exception is also known
as the doctrine of apparent authority.
The doctrine of apparent authority is a species of the doctrine of estoppel.

o The doctrine of apparent authority is a species of the doctrine of estoppel.
Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that [t]hrough estoppel, an
admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person
making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying
thereon. Estoppel rests on this rule: Whenever a party has, by his own
declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to
believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in
any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted
to falsify it.
Even simple negligence is not subject to blanket release in favor of

establishments like hospitals but may only mitigate liability depending on the
circumstances.

Tesoro)
136. Professional Services Inc.v. Agana 513 SCRA 478; 544 SCRA 170; 611 SCRA 282
(below are the doctrines of the 3 separate cases)
The leaving of sponges or other foreign substances in the wound after the incision
has been closed is at least prima facie negligence by the operating surgeon
Literally, res ipsa loquitur means the thing speaks for itself. It is the rule that the
fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may
permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiffs
prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an
explanation. Stated differently, where the thing which caused the injury, without
the fault of the injured, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the
injury is such that it should not have occurred if he, having such control used
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation that the
injury arose from the defendants want of care, and the burden of proof is shifted
to him to establish that he has observed due care and diligence. From the
foregoing statements of the rule, the requisites for the applicability of the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur are: (1) the occurrence of an injury; (2) the thing which caused
the injury was under the control and management of the defendant; (3) the
occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have
happened if those who had control or management used proper care; and (4) the
absence of explanation by the defendant. Of the foregoing requisites, the most
instrumental is the control and management of the thing which caused the
injury.
Res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive law, hence, does not per se create or
constitute an independent or separate ground of liability, being a mere
evidentiary rule.
Professionals are considered personally liable for the fault or negligence they
commit in the discharge of their duties and their employer cannot be held liable
for such fault or negligence.
In this jurisdiction, the nature of the relationship between the hospital and the
physicians is rendered inconsequential in view of the pronouncement in Ramos vs.
Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 584 (1999), that for purposes of apportioning
responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in
effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians.
In cases where it can be shown that a hospital, by its actions, has held out a
particular physician as its agent and/or employee and that a patient has accepted
treatment from that physician in the reasonable belief that it is being rendered in
behalf of the hospital, then the hospital will be liable for the physicians
negligence.
The doctrine in Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 584 (1999), still obtains, i.e.,
for the purpose of allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases, an
employer-employee relationship exists between hospitals and their consultants.
While in general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent

contractor-physician, the hospital may be liable if the physician is the ostensible
agent of the hospital, an exception also known as the doctrine of apparent
authority or sometimes referred to as the apparent or ostensible agency theory
The act of a hospital in displaying the names of physicians in the public directory
at the lobby of the hospital amounts to holding out to the public that it offers
quality medical service through the listed physicians; Under the doctrine of
apparent authority, the question in every case is whether the principal has by his

Tesoro)
voluntary act placed the agent in such a situation that a person of ordinary
prudence, conversant with business usages and the nature of the particular
business, is justified in presuming that such agent has authority to perform the
particular act in question.
Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility; The duty of providing quality medical service

is no longer the sole prerogative and responsibility of the physician because the
modern hospital now tends to organize a highly-professional medical staff whose
competence and performance need also to be monitored by the hospital
commensurate with its inherent responsibility to provide quality medical care.
Duties Imposed upon the Hospital under the Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility.
The corporate negligence doctrine imposes several duties on a hospital: (1) to
use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and
equipment; (2) to select and retain only competent physicians; (3) to oversee as
to patient care all persons who practice medicine within its walls; and (4) to
formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care
for its patients. These special tort duties arise from the special relationship
existing between a hospital or nursing home and its patients, which are based on
the vulnerability of the physically or mentally ill persons and their inability to
provide care for themselves.
Corporate Negligence; Ostensible Agency; Court holds that Professional Services,

Inc. (PSI) is liable to the Aganas not under the principle of respondent superior for
lack of evidence of an employment relationship with Dr. Ampil but under the
principle of ostensible agency for the negligence of Dr. Ampil and pro hac vice
under the principle of corporate negligence for its failure to perform its duties as a
hospital.
While in theory a hospital as a juridical entity cannot practice medicine, in reality

it utilizes doctors, surgeons and medical practitioners in the conduct of its
business of facilitating medical and surgical treatment; Three legal relationships
crisscross within that reality
Regardless of its relationship with the doctor, the hospital may be held directly
liable to the patient for its own negligence or failure to follow established standard
of conduct to which it should conform as a corporation
Employer-Employee Relationship; Court still employs the control test to

determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship between hospital
and doctor
Control as a determinative factor in testing the employer-employee relationship

between doctor and hospital under which the hospital could be held vicariously
liable to a patient in medical negligence cases is a requisite fact to be established
by preponderance of evidence.
137. Dr. Rubi Li v. Spouses Soliman 651 SCRA 32
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.
Doctrine of Informed Consent; Informed consent evolved into a general principle

of law that a physician has a duty to disclose what a reasonably prudent physician
in the medical community in the exercise of reasonable care would disclose to his
patient as to whatever grave risks of injury might be incurred from a proposed
course of treatment, so that a patient, exercising ordinary care for his own

Tesoro)
welfare, and faced with a choice of undergoing the proposed treatment, or
alternative treatment, or none at all, may intelligently exercise his judgment by
reasonably balancing the probable risks against the probable benefits.
Proficiency in diagnosis and therapy is not the full measure of a physicians

responsibility; The physician is not expected to give the patient a short medical
education, the disclosure rule only requires of him a reasonable explanation,
which means generally informing the patient in nontechnical terms as to what is
at stake, the therapy alternatives open to him, the goals expectably to be
achieved, and the risks that may ensure from particular treatment or no
treatment.
Four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice action based upon
the doctrine of informed consent.There are four essential elements a plaintiff
must prove in a malpractice action based upon the doctrine of informed consent:
(1) the physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or
inadequately disclosed those risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of the
failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment she otherwise would not
have consented to; and (4) plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment. The
gravamen in an informed consent case requires the plaintiff to point to
significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment which would have
altered her decision to undergo it.
138. Aquino v. Heirs of Raymundo Calayog 678 SCRA 609
Medical Malpractice; Medical malpractice is a form of negligence which consists in

the physician or surgeons failure to apply to his practice that degree of care and
skill that the profession generally and ordinarily employs under similar conditions
and circumstances
Four basic things that the plaintiff should establish to successfully mount a
medical malpractice action.To successfully mount a medical malpractice action,
the plaintiff should establish four basic things: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and
(4) proximate causation. The evidence should show that the physician or surgeon,
either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon
would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent
physician or surgeon would not have done; and that the failure or action caused
injury to the patient.
139. Lucas v. Tuao 586 SCRA 173
The present controversy is a classic illustration of a medical negligence case

against a physician based on the latters professional negligence, and in this type
of suit, the patient or his heirs, in order to prevail, is required to prove by
preponderance of evidence that the physician failed to exercise that degree of
skill, care, and learning possessed by other persons in the same profession, and
that as a proximate result of such failure, the patient or his heirs suffered
damages.
For lack of a specific law geared towards the type of negligence committed by
members of the medical profession, such claim for damages is almost always
anchored on the alleged violation of Article 2176 of the Civil Code; In medical
negligence cases, also called medical malpractice suits, there exist a physicianpatient relationship between the doctor and the victim.
When a patient engages the services of a physician, a physician-patient

relationship is generated; In treating his patient, a physician is under a duty to the
former to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence which physicians in the

Tesoro)
same general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice ordinarily
possess and exercise in like cases, which standard level of care, skill and diligence
is a matter best addressed by expert medical testimony, because the standard of
care in a medical malpractice case is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of
experts in the field
There is breach of duty of care, skill and diligence, or the improper performance of
such duty, by the attending physician when the patient is injured in body or in
health [and this] constitutes the actionable malpractice; In order that there may
be a recovery for an injury, it must be shown that the injury for which recovery is
sought must be the legitimate consequence of the wrong done; the connection
between the negligence and the injury must be a direct and natural sequence of
events, unbroken by intervening efficient causesthat is, the negligence must
be the proximate cause of the injury
The mere fact that the patient does not get well or that a bad result occurs does
not in itself indicate failure to exercise due care.
The critical and clinching factor in a medical negligence case is proof of the causal
connection between the negligence which the evidence established and the
plaintiffs injuries.
140. Bahia v. Litonjua & Leynes 30 Phil 624
Under article 1903 of the Civil Code, if an injury is caused by the negligence of a
servant or employee, the law presumes 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 the selection, or both.
o Such presumption is not a conclusive presumption, but is a rebuttable one;
and if the master or employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in
selection and supervision he exercised the care and diligence of a good
father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from
liability
SUPERVISION BY EMPLOYER.Supervision includes, in proper cases, the making
and promulgation by the employer of suitable rules and regulations and the
issuance of suitable instructions for the information and guidance of his
employees, designed for the protection of persons with whom the employer has
relations through his employees.
A person engaging temporarily an automobile, with a driver and mechanic, for the
carrying of passengers for hire, who obtains the machine, driver and mechanic
from a reputable garage, selecting a machine at the time in apparent good
condition and a driver and mechanic of experience and reputation and duly
licensed under the law, is not liable for the death of a child who was struck by the
automobile, it appearing that the accident was caused by a defect in the steering
gear, neither the employer nor his employees having notice, either actual or
constructive, of such defect.
141. YHT Int'l v. Court of Appeals 451 SCRA 638 ( I added the damages issues, it might
be helpful in the future topics)
Where the loss of a hotel guests money was consummated through the
negligence of the hotel employee in allowing the companion of said guest to open
the safety deposit box without the guests consent, both the assisting employees
and the hotel owner and operator are solidarily liable.
hotel-keepers are bound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests but also
security to their persons and belongingsa twin duty which the law does not
allow to be negated or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called
undertakings that ordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers

Tesoro)
on guests for their signature.

With greater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper be enforced when the
missing items are taken without the guests knowledge and consent from a safety
deposit box provided by the hotel itself.
Article 2002 of the Civil Code which exempts the hotel-keeper from liability if the
loss is due to the acts of his guest, his family, or visitors presupposes that the
hotel-keeper is not guilty of concurrent negligence or has not contributed in any
degree to the occurrence of the lossa depositary is not responsible for the loss
of goods by theft, unless his actionable negligence contributes to the loss
The hotel was guilty of concurrent negligence in allowing the hotel guests
companion, who was not the registered guest, to open the safety deposit box of
the guest, even assuming that the latter was also guilty of negligence in allowing
another person to use his keyto rule otherwise would result in undermining the
safety of the safety deposit boxes in hotels for the management will be given
imprimatur to allow any person, under the pretense of being a family member or
a visitor of the guest, to have access to the safety deposit box without fear of any
liability that will attach thereafter in case such person turns out to be a complete
stranger
A tort liability can exist even if there are already contractual relationsthe act
that breaks the contract may also be tort.
It is within the province of lower courts to settle factual issues such as the proper
amount of damages awarded
Although trial courts are given discretion to determine the amount of moral
damages, the appellate court may modify or change the amount awarded when it
is palpably and scandalously excessive.
142. Brito Sy v. Malate Taxicab

In an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not make an express
finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it
responsible to pay the damages sought for by the passenger. By the contract of
carriage, the carrier assumes the express obligation to transport the passenger to
his destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for
all the circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by the passenger is
right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier (Article 1756, new
Civil Code). This is an exception to the general rule that negligence must be
proved, and it is therefore incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has
exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the
new Civil Code.
143. Belizar v. Brazas
Although Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides for the liability of an employer for
the tortious acts of his employees, this does not exempt the employees from
personal liability, especially if there are no persons having direct supervision over
them, or if there is proof of the existence of negligence on their part. So the
injured party can bring an action directly against the author of the negligent act or
omission, although he may sue as joint defendants such author and the person
responsible for him
144. Filcar Transport Services, Inc. v. Espinas
As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act or omission. Thus, a
person will generally be held liable only for the torts committed by himself and
not by another. This general rule is laid down in Article 2176 of the Civil Code,
which provides to wit: Article 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. Based on the above-cited article, the obligation to indemnify another for

Tesoro)
damage caused by ones act or omission is imposed upon the tortfeasor himself,
i.e., the person who committed the negligent act or omission. The law, however,
provides for exceptions when it makes certain persons liable for the act or
omission of another.
Under Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code, an action
predicated on an employees act or omission may be instituted against the
employer who is held liable for the negligent act or omission committed by his
employee. Although the employer is not the actual tortfeasor, the law makes him
vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law principle of pater familias for failure
to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of ones subordinates to prevent
damage to another. In the last paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the
employer may invoke the defense that he observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.
In case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered owner of the motor vehicle is
considered as the employer of the tortfeasor-driver, and is made primarily liable
for the tort committed by the latter under Article 2176, in relation with Article
2180, of the Civil Code.
o Whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the
registered owner and the driver is irrelevant in determining the liability of
the registered owner who the law holds primarily and directly responsible
for any accident, injury or death caused by the operation of the vehicle in
the streets and highways
145. Genson v. Adarie

No sufficient basis for the "masterservant" doctrine in tort law to apply. It is
doubtful if the district engineer can be considered "employer" to make him liable
for tort liability
A public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever
damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith
beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.
146. Genato Commercial Co. v. MRR
The arrastre operator cannot be sued by the consignee, except within one (1)
year, either from the date of the discharge of the goods, or from the date when
the claim for the value thereof shall have been rejected or denied by the arrastre
operator.
When the arrastre operator fails to deny or reject the claim of the consignee, the
term for the exercise of the latters right of action shall begin to run upon
expiration of one (1) year from the date of discharge of the last package upon
the custody of said operator.
147.. Ramos et al. v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co
where it was proven that the employer had carefully examined the erring driver as
to his qualifications, experience and record of service, such evidence is sufficient
to show that the employer exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection of the driver and rebuts the juris tantum presumption that the
employer was negligent in selecting said driver
149. Maxion v. MRR
While the exercise of due care by the master in choosing a competent servant is
admissible to prove the exercise of due diligence on the part of the master to
prevent damage, such circumstance is not conclusive; and the master will be held
liable for a wrongful act done by his servant in the character of vice principal
where it appears that the master, upon full information as to the character of the
act done, took no affirmative steps to avert further damage, and on the contrary
maintained the situation created by the servant, to the subsequent serious
damage of the parties concerned.
150. Smith & Co. v. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber Co.

Tesoro)
By virtue of the facts stated in the decision and the doctrines therein cited, H is
held: That, inasmuch as the defendant company, owner of the steamer Helen C,
which caused the damages, giving rise to the controversy at the wharf of the
plaintiff, had employed a duly licensed captain, authorized to navigate and direct
a vessel of any tonnage, and inasmuch as the appellee contracted his services
because of his reputation as a captain, the presumption of liability against the
defendant has been overcome by the exercise of the care and diligence of a good
father of a family in selecting said captain.
151. Marquez v. Castillo

The subsidiary civil liability of the master, according to the provisions of article
103 of the Revised Penal Code, arises and takes place only when the servant,
subordinate or employee commits a punishable criminal act while in the actual
performance of his ordinary duties and service, and he is insolvent thereby
rendering him incapable of satisfying by himself his own civil liability. The general
rule regarding the obligation to repair the damage done, besides the one
established in article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, is that he, who by an act or
omission causes the damage through his fault or negligence, is the one called
upon to repair the same (art. 1902, Civil Code).
152. Duquillo v. Bayot
Under the proven facts the defendant cannot be held liable for anything. At the
time of the accident, J. McG. was the one driving the truck, and he was not an
employee of the defendant, nor did he have anything to do with the latter's
business. Neither the defendant nor F. A., who was in charge of her business,
consented to have any of her trucks driven on the day of the accident, as it was a
holy day, and much less by a chauffeur who was not in charge of driving it. The
use of the defendant's truck in the circumstances indicated was done without her
consent or knowledge; it may, therefore, be said that there was not the remotest
contractual relation between the deceased P. D. and the defendant, wherefore,
articles 1101 and following of the Civil Code are without application to the case at
bar.
153
Universal Aquarius, Inc. v. Quezon City Human Resources Mgmt. Corp.

It is settled that an employers liability for acts of its employees attaches only
when the tortuous conduct of the employee relates to, or is in the course of, his
employmentan employer incurs no liability when an employees conduct, act or
omission is beyond the range of employment; When employees stage a strike,
they are acting on their own, beyond the range of their employment
154
Campo et ai. v. Camarote & Genilge

Under the new Civil Code the owner of the vehicle is included among the persons
who may respond for the acts of their employees who cause damage to third
persons in the course of their employment. By reason of this provision, the owner
of a jeep driven by another becomes responsible for the drivers negligence
unless he proves that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent the damage. In the case at bar, the jeepney owner was not in the jeep
and the only manner in which he could have avoided damage to third persons
would have been by the exercise by him to the diligence of a good father of a
family in the choice or selection of his driver.
The mere fact that the driver was a professional driver is not a sufficient exercise
of the diligence required of a good father of a family, which would exempt him
from responsibility.
155. Duavit v. Court of Appeals

An owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the said
vehicle if the same was driven without his consent or knowledge and by a person
not employed by him.

Tesoro)
156
De Leon Brokerage v. Court of Appeals ; 114 Phil 437

A complaint which alleged that the complainant suffered injuries as a result of the
collision between the jeepney in which she was riding and the petitioner's cargo
truck recklessly driven by its employee, and for which the latter had been
prosecuted and convicted, is not a suit for civil liability arising from crime but one
for damages resulting from a quasi-delict. Mention of the criminal conviction
merely tended to support the claim that the driver had been recklessly negligent
in driving the truck.
157. Fabre, Jr. v. Court of Appeals

Due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied by finding that the
applicant possessed a professional drivers license. The employer should also
examine the applicant for his qualifications, experience and record of service. Due
diligence in supervision, on the other hand, requires the formulation of rules and
regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions
as well as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with
the rules.
The existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies cannot be casually
invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence on the part of an employer.
As common carriers, the Fabres were bound to exercise extraordinary diligence
for the safe transportation of the passengers to their destination. This duty of care
is not excused by proof that they exercised the diligence of a good father of the
family in the selection and supervision of their employee.
159. Chapman v. Underwood
The owner of an automobile, present in the vehicle, is not liable for the negligent
acts of a competent driver unless such acts are continued for such a length of
time as to give the owner a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct
the driver to desist therefrom, and to fail to do so.
o If a competent driver of an automobile in which the owner thereof is at the
time present, by a sudden act of negligence, without the owner having a
reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, violates the
law, the owner of the automobile is not responsible, either civilly or
criminally, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the
presence of the owner for such a length of time that he, by acquiescence,
makes his driver's act his own.
Whether the owner of an automobile would be responsible for the acts of a
competent driver, whether present or not, where the automobile causing the
injury is a part of a business enterprise and is being driven in furtherance of the
owner's business at the time the injury complained of is caused.
160. Caedo v. Yu Ke Thai
The basis of the master's liability in civil law is not res-pondeat superior but rather
the relationship of paterfamilias. The theory is .that ultimately the negligence of
the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him,
reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or
damage.
The test of imputed negligence under Article 2184 of the Civil Code is, to a great
degree, necessarily subjective. Car owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible
standard of diligence as are professional drivers. In many cases they refrain from
driving their own cars and instead hire other persons to drive for them precisely
because they are not trained or endowed with sufficient discernment to know the
rules of traffic or to appreciate the relative dangers posed by the different
situations that are continually encountered on the road. What would be a
negligent omission under the aforesaid Article on the part of a car owner who is in
the prime of age and knows how to handle a motor vehicle is not necessarily so
on the part, say, of an old and infirm person who is not similarly equipped.

Tesoro)
161. Serra v. Mumar
employers are liable for the damages caused by their employees acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks; Under Article 2184 of the Civil Code, if the
causative factor was the drivers negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was
present is likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap by the
exercise of due diligence.
Damages for loss of earning capacity is in the nature of actual damages, which as
a rule must be duly proven by documentary evidence, not merely by the selfserving testimony of the widow. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning
capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1)
the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current
labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceaseds line
of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as
a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor
laws.
162. Pleyto v. Lomboy
Article 2185 of the Civil Code lays down the presumption that a person driving a
motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating
any traffic regulation.
A driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle
in an ordinary situation has the duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to
proceed if he cannot do so in safety.
When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing
his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is
negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father
of a family.
To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the
actual amount of loss, credence can be given only to claims which are duly
supported by receipts.
Moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of
an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury and are not
meant to enrich complainant at the expense of defendant.
163. Mallari Sr. v. Court of Appeals
Rule is settled that a driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of
overtaking another vehicle in an ordinary situation has the duty to see to it that
the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do so in safety.
Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, 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 a traffic regulation
Liability of the common carrier does not cease upon proof that it exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of its employees.
164. Aonuevo v. Court of Appeals
An automobile driver must at all times use all the care and caution which a
careful and prudent driver would have exercised under the circumstances
While the duty of using ordinary care falls alike on the motorist and the rider or
driver of a bicycle, it is obvious, for reasons growing out of the inherent
differences in the two vehicles, that more is required from the former to fully
discharge the duty than from the latter.
It is the law which determines what would be reckless or negligent.
The mere fact of violation of a statute is not sufficient basis for an inference that
such violation was the proximate cause of the injury complained. However, if the
very injury has happened which was intended to be prevented by the statute, it
has been held that violation of the statute will be deemed to be the proximate

Tesoro)
cause of the injury
o The generally accepted view is that violation of a statutory duty
constitutes negligence, negligence as a matter of law, or, according to the
decisions on the question, negligence per se, for the reason that nonobservance of what the legislature has prescribed as a suitable precaution
is failure to observe that care which an ordinarily prudent man would
observe, and, when the state regards certain acts as so liable to injure
others as to justify their absolute prohibition, doing the forbidden act is a
breach of duty with respect to those who may be injured thereby; or, as it
has been otherwise expressed, when the standard of care is fixed by law,
failure to conform to such standard is negligence, negligence per se or
negligence in and of itself, in the absence of a legal excuse. According to
this view it is immaterial, where a statute has been violated, whether the
act or omission constituting such violation would have been regarded as
negligence in the absence of any statute on the subject or whether there
was, as a matter of fact, any reason to anticipate that injury would result
from such violation
The rule on negligence per se must admit qualifications that may arise from the
logical consequences of the facts leading to the mishap. The doctrine (and Article
2185, for that matter) is undeniably useful as a judicial guide in adjudging
liability, for it seeks to impute culpability arising from the failure of the actor to
perform up to a standard established by a legal fiat. But the doctrine should not
be rendered inflexible so as to deny relief when in fact there is no causal relation
between the statutory violation and the injury sustained. Presumptions in law,
while convenient, are not intractable so as to forbid rebuttal rooted in fact. After
all, tort law is remunerative in spirit, aiming to provide compensation for the
harm suffered by those whose interests have been invaded owing to the conduct
of others.
To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link,
although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the succeeding
injury.
165. Mendoza v. Soriano
In cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the
causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court; Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily
and effectively actions for the recovery of a sum of money for the damages for
tortious acts.
The circumstances that the victim was thrown five meters away after he was hit
and that the vehicle stopped only some 25 meters from the point of impact
support the conclusion that the vehicle was overspeedingunder Article 2185 of
the Civil Code, a person driving a motor vehicle is presumed negligent if at the
time of the mishap, he was violating traffic regulations.
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for the damages caused
by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, which liability
arises due to the presumed negligence of the employers in supervising their
employees unless they prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father
of a family to prevent the damage.
The accident victim is guilty of contributory negligence if he did not use the
pedestrian overpass while crossing the avenue.
166. Merritt v. Gov't of the Phil. Islands
An act permitting a suit against the state gives rise to no liability not previously
existing unless it is clearly expressed in the act.
The Government of the Philippine Islands its only liable for the negligent acts of its
officers, agents, and employees when they are acting as special agents within.
the meaning of paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code, and a chauffeur of
the General Hospital is not such a special agent.

Tesoro)
167. Rosete v. Auditor General
GOVERNMENT LIABLE WHEN ACTING THROUGH SPECIAL AGENT; EMERGENCY
CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, OFFICERS OF, NOT SPECIAL AGENTS; ACT No. 327
DOES NOT MAKE ALL CLAIMS ALLOWABLE.
PERFECTO, J., dissenting
o All persons and entities acting by commission of the Government, such as
government enterprises and other organs of government created for
activities ordinarily of ungovernmental nature, are special agents. They are
special in contradistinction with the officers and employees of government
who are ordinary agents.
o Under article 1903 of the Civil Code, the government is responsible for
damages caused by ECA.
o The theory of the States immunity for whatsoever wrong it may
perpetrate, must be rejected, as part of a totalitarian philosophy.
189. Iloilo Cold Storage v .Municipal Council 24 Phil 471

- Nuisances may be divided into two classes: Nuisances per se and nuisances per
accidens. The former are recognized as nuisances under any and all
circumstances. The latter are such only because of the special circumstances and
conditions surrounding them.
- A nuisance which affects the immediate safety of persons or property, or which
constitutes an obstruction to the streets and highways under circumstances
presenting an emergency, may be summarily abated under the undefined law of
necessity. But, in any case, the declaration of the municipal council that the thing
or act is a nuisance is not conclusive. The owner of the alleged nuisance has the
right to test the validity of the action of the council in a court of law.
- If no compelling necessity requires the summary abatement of a nuisance, the
municipal authorities, under their power to declare and abate nuisances, do not
have the right to compel the abatement of a particular thing or act as a nuisance
without reasonable notice to the person alleged to be maintaining or doing the
same of the time and place of hearing before a tribunal authorized to decide
whether such a thing or act does in law constitute a nuisance.
- A city cannot burden the property of a citizen with the cost of abating a nuisance
per accidens without a judicial hearing and judgment as to its existence.
- Injunction lies to restrain a city from proceeding with the abatement of a
nuisance per accidens before it has been judicially declared to be such.
190. Ayala v. Barretto 33 Phil 538
- A nuisance which affects the immediate safety of persons or property, or which
constitutes an obstruction to the streets and highways under circumstances
presenting an emergency, may be summarily abated under the undefined law of
necessity. But, in any case, the declaration of the municipal council that the thing
or act is a nuisance is not conclusive. The owner of the alleged nuisance has the
right to test the validity of the action of the council in a court of law.
- If no compelling necessity requires the summary abatement of a nuisance, the
municipal authorities, under their power to declare and abate nuisances, do not
have the right to compel the abatement of a particular thing or act as a nuisance
without reasonable notice to the person alleged to be maintaining or doing the
same of the time and place of hearing before a tribunal authorized to decide
whether such a thing or act does in law constitute a nuisance.
- A city cannot burden the property of a citizen with the cost of abating a nuisance
per accidens without a judicial hearing and judgment as to its existence.
- Injunction lies to restrain a city from proceeding with the abatement of a
nuisance per accidens before it has been judicially declared to be such.
191. Sitchon v. Aquino 98 Phil 458

Tesoro)
- Houses constructed, without governmental authority, on public streets and river
beds, obstruct at all times the free use by the public of said places and,
accordingly, constitute nuisances per se, aside from public nuisances, under
Articles 694 and 695 of the Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386). As such, they may
be summarily removed, without judicial proceedings, despite the due process
clause.
- It is true that Articles 700 and 702 of the Civil Code, empower the district health
officer to determine whether or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is
the best remedy against public nuisance. However, section 31 of Republic Act No.
409 (Revised Charter of the City of Manila), specifically places upon the city
engineer such duty, Obviously, the provisions of the Civil Code, being general
provisions applicable throughout the Philippines, should yield to section 31 of
Republic Act No. 409, which is a special provision specifically designed from the
City of Manila. Moreover, section 1122 of the Revised Ordinance of the City of
Manila (No. 1600) explicitly authorizes the city engineer to remove, at the owners
expenses, unauthorized obstructions, whenever the owner or person responsible
therefor shall, after official notice, refuse or neglect to remove the same.
192. Velasco v. Manila Electric 40 SCRA 342
- The general rule is that everyone is bound to bear the habitual or customary
inconveniences that result from the proximity of others, and so long as this level is
not surpassed, he may not complain against them. But if the prejudice exceeds
the inconveniences that such proximity habitually brings, the neighbor who
causes such disturbance is held responsible for the resulting damage, being guilty
of causing nuisance.
- A noise may constitute an actionable nuisance, but it must be a noise which
affects injuriously the health or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an
unreasonable extent. Injury to a particular person in a peculiar position or of
specially sensitive characteristics will not render the noise an actionable nuisance.
In the conditions of present living noise seems inseparable from the conduct of
many necessary occupations. Its presence is a nuisance in the popular sense in
which that word is used, but in the absence of statute noise becomes actionable
only when it passes the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the
locality and of the needs of the listener. What those limits are cannot be fixed by
any definite measure of quantity or quality. They depend upon the circumstances
of the particular case. They may be affected, but are not controlled, by zoning
ordinances. The delimitation of designated areas to use for manufacturing,
industry or general business is not a license to emit every noise profitably
attending the conduct of any one of them.
- The test is whether rights of property, of health or of comfort are so injuriously
affected by the noise in question that the sufferer is subjected to a loss which
goes beyond the reasonable limit imposed upon him by the condition of living, or
of holding property, in a particular locality in fact devoted to uses which involve
the emission of noise although ordinary care is taken to confine it within
reasonable bounds; or in the vicinity of property of another owner who though
creating a noise is acting with reasonable regard for the rights of those affected
by it.
- There can be no doubt but that commercial and industrial activities which are
lawful in themselves may become nuisances if they are so offensive to the senses
that they render the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable.
- The creation of trifling annoyance and inconvenience does not constitute an
actionable nuisance, and the locality and surroundings are of importance. The fact
that the cause of the complaint must be substantial has often led to expressions
in the opinions that to be a nuisance the noise must be defending or loud or
excessive and unreasonable. Usually it was shown to be of that character. The
determining factor when noise alone is the cause of complaint is not its intensity
or volume. It is that the noise is of such character as to produce actual physical
discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent
property less comfortable and valuable. If the noise does that it can well be said
to be substantial and unreasonable in degree; and reasonableness is a question of

Tesoro)
fact dependent upon the circumstances and conditions. There can be no fixed
standard as to what kind of noise constitutes a nuisance.
- The noise continuously emitted by a Meralco substation, day and night,
constitutes an actionable nuisance for which the appellant is entitled to relief, by
requiring the appellee company to adopt the necessary measures to deaden or
reduce the sound at the plaintiffs house, by replacing the interlink wire fence with
a partition made of sound absorbent material, since the relocation of the
substation is manifestly impracticable and would be prejudicial to the customers
of the Electric Company who are being serviced from the substation.
- There are several factors that mitigate defendants liability in damages. The first
is that the noise from the substation does not appear to be an exclusive causative
factor of plaintiff-appellants illnesses. Financial worries can affect unfavorably the
debtors disposition and mentality. The other factor militating against full recovery
by the petitioner Velasco is his passivity in the fact of the damage caused to him
by the noise of the substation. Realizing as a physician that the latter was
disturbing or depriving him of sleep and affecting both his physical and mental
well being, he did not take any steps to bring action to abate the nuisance or to
remove himself from the affected area as soon as the deleterious effects became
noticeable.
- Injured party must minimize damages: Article 2203 of the Civil Code clearly
obligates the injured party to undertake measures that will alleviate and not
aggravate his condition after the infliction of the injury, and places upon him the
burden of explaining why he could not do so.
- It was not the City Engineers duty to require the Meralco to secure a permit
before the construction but for Meralco to apply for it, as per Section 1, Ordinance
No. 1530, of Quezon City. No law or ordinance has been cited specifying that it is
the city engineers duty to initiate the removal or demolition of, or for the criminal
prosecution of, those persons who are responsible for the nuisance. [Velasco vs.
Manila Electric Co., 40 SCRA 342(1971)]
193. Cardona v. de Brozas 1 CAR 219
194. Ramcar v. Millar et al. 6 SCRA 517; 116 Phil 825
- Whether a particular thing is or is not a nuisance is a question of fact (Iloilo
Cold Storage Co. vs. Municipal Council, 24 Phil. 471; 61 C.J.S. 864) and is
properly within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, whose findings of fact
are conclusive on the Supreme Court.
-
While Section 18 of Republic Act No. 409 grants legislative powers to the
municipal board to declare, prevent, and provide for the abatement of
nuisances, inaction by the board does not preclude the ultimate power of
courts to determine the existence of a nuisance in a particular case tried
before them (Rutton vs. City of Camden, 23 Am. Rep. 203, 209; Iloilo Cold
Storage Co. vs. Municipal Council, 24 Phil. 471).
The award of damages arising from a nuisance is authorized under Articles

697 and 2196 of the Civil Code.
The business of car body building is not a nuisance, per se; it becomes a
nuisance only on account of its location. To abate it, it is not necessary to
remove all buildings and structures built in the place where it is presently
located, as these, or parts thereof, may be utilized for pursuits that are not
forbidden by law or ordinance.
195. Tan Chat v. Municipality of lloilo 60 Phil 465

Tesoro)
- The defendant municipality, in the exercise, of the powers delegated to it by the
Legislature, and by virtue of the police power conferred tipon it by the express
provisions of section 2242 (h) of the Revised Administrative Code, has the power
to enact ordinances for the purpose of regulating and abating public nuisances
particularly when the measure is sound and redounds to the benefit of the
inhabitants of the locality and is reasonably exercised.
- Taking into consideration the nature of the plaintiffs' business which consisted of
a saw mill and lumber yards, and the indisputable fact that the conduct thereof
necessarily disturbs passers-by and the neighbors, Held: That such business
constitutes nuisances per accidens or per se.
196. Umali v. Aquino 1 CAR 339, 58 OG 248
197. City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. 455 SCRA 308
- The Ordinance does not specify the standards to ascertain which establishments
tend to disturb the community, annoy the inhabitants, and adversely affect
the social and moral welfare of the community. The cited case supports the
nullification of the Ordinance for lack of comprehensible standards to guide the
law enforcers in carrying out its provisions. Petitioners cannot therefore order the
closure of the enumerated establishments without infringing the due process
clause. These lawful establishments may be regulated, but not prevented from
carrying on their business. This is a sweeping exercise of police power that is a
result of a lack of imagination on the part of the City Council and which amounts
to an interference into personal and private rights which the Court will not
countenance. In this regard, we take a resolute stand to uphold the constitutional
guarantee of the right to liberty and property.
198. Homeowners Assoc. of El Deposito v. Lood 47 SCRA 174
- The following considerations show that the court a quo did not abuse its
discretion in denying the petition to stay demolition and removal of the
constructions made by the petitioners: (a) the petitioners' basis for non-removal
of their constructions was on grounds already reiterated before and denied by the
court a quo in an order upheld by the Court of Appeals; (b) the petitioners already
definitely lost their bid to re-open the cadastral proceedings to pursue their
alleged claims of ownership over the lands occupied by their constructions; (c) the
petitioners failed to show that they have even a color of title to entitle them to
exercise the right of possession to the premises in question; (d) the land in
question is admittedly public land; and (e) the very evidence adduced by
petitioners before the Court of Appeals shows that their houses were built on
government land.
- The ordinance may not be faulted for being ex post facto in application where it
does not seek to punish an action done which was innocent before the passage of
the same since it punishes the present and continuing act of unlawful occupancy
of public property or properties intended for public use.
- Public nuisances per se (without provision for accumulation or disposal of waste
matters and constructed without building permits contiguously to and therefore
liable to pollute one of the water pipelines which supplies potable water to the
Greater Manila area) may be abated without judicial proceedings under the Civil
Code.
- police power of the state justifies the abatement or destruction by summary
proceedings of public nuisances per se.
199. San Rafael Homeowners Assoc.v. City of Manila 46 SCRA 40
- It is entirely pointless to go into an academic discussion of the relative merits
of the composting and the incineration methods of garbage and refuse
disposal for purposes of deciding whether or not at this stage prohibition
should issue to stop the bidding called for by the respondents. The instant
petitions for that purpose are premature. The Supreme Court will not
substitute its judgment for the City officials even before the bidding is begun
and on a purely theoretical basis, rule that the bids submitted should not be

Tesoro)
opened, or if opened should not be accepted, because not one of the plants
therein offered to be established would serve the purpose envisaged and
because, if so established, it would so pollute the environment as to constitute
a nuisance. If and when such a result becomes a reality, or at least an
imminent threat, that will be the time the petitioners may come to court.
200. Farrales v. City Mayor of Manila 44 SCRA 239
- The abatement thereof was not summary but through a judicial proceeding.
The appellant, after having been warned by the city police of Baguio that the
lean-to she had put up without a permit would be demolished, went to court
and asked for an injunction. A hearing was then held and the court refused to
issue the writ unless she showed the proper permit. The denial of her petition
for injunction upon her failure to produce such a permit was in effect an
authority for the police to carry out the act which was sought to be enjoined.
And it was an authority which was later confirmed by the same court in its
decision.
-
It is true that under article 702 of the Civil Code the District Officer shall
determine whether or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best
remedy against a public nuisance; but in this case the failure to observe this
provision is not in itself a ground for the award of damages in favor of the
appellant and against the appellees. According to article 707 of the same
Code, a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for
damages in only two cases: (1) if he causes unnecessary in jury, or (2) if an
alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.
201. Timoner v. People 125 SCRA 830

- Municipal Mayor not criminally liable when he acted in good faith in authorizing
the fencing of a barbershop for being a public nuisance because it occupied a
portion of the sidewalk of the poblacions main thoroughfare.But even without
this judicial pronouncement, petitioner could not have been faulted for having
fenced off said barbershop. Paragraph 3, Article 699 of the Civil Code authorizes
the abatement of a public nuisance without judicial proceedings. The remedies
against a public nuisance are: [1] A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local
ordinance; or [2] A civil action; or [3] Abatement, without judicial proceedings. In
the case at bar, petitioner, as mayor of the town, merely implemented the
aforesaid recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Having then acted in
good faith in the performance of his duty, petitioner incurred no criminal liability.
202. Owner of 51 of the Jackpot Slot Machines v. Director of the NBI 10 SCRA 395
-
Criminal law; Gambling; Slot machines; Not illegal when duly licensed by law
and city ordinance; Case at bar By virtue of the Charter of Pasay City (Rep. Act
No. 183, section 16 [n]) which expressly authorizes its Municipal Board to
regulate and fix the amount of license fees for slot machines, said board
passed Municipal Ordinance No. 106 fixing the amount of said license fees
which the owners of the slot machines in the case at bar paid, thereby
securing the corresponding licenses. Held: The operation of said slot machines
is neither illegal nor constitutes a nuisance.
203. Kapisanan Lingkod Bayan Inc.v. Lacson (CA) 61 OG 2487

- Article 694 of the New Civil Code defines nuisance as follows:

Tesoro)
A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of
property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others;
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or
street, or any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property,
C. Examples of Nuisances. 1. Houses constructed, without governmental
authority, on public streets and waterways, obstruct at all times, the free use
by the public of said streets and waterways, and, accordingly, constitute
nuisances per se, aside from public nuisances.
204. AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corp. 506 SCRA 625
- We agree with the ruling of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that as gleaned from
the material averments of the complaint as well as the character of the relief
prayed for by respondent in its complaint before the RTC, the petition is one for
the judicial abatement of a private nuisance, more specifically the noise
generated by the blowers of the airconditioning system of the Feliza Building
owned by petitioner, with a plea for a writ of preliminary and permanent
injunction, plus damages. Such action of respondent is incapable of pecuniary
estimation because the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a
sum of money. Although respondent prayed for judgment for temperate or
moderate damages and exemplary damages, such claims are merely incidental to
or as a consequence of, the principal relief sought by respondent. An action
incapable of pecuniary estimation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC as
provided in Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691.
In Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, 207 SCRA 157 (1992), the Court ruled that a
simple suit for abatement of a nuisance is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Court of First Instance, now the RTC.
- The term nuisance is so comprehensive that it has been applied to almost all
ways which have interfered with the rights of the citizens, either in person,
property, the enjoyment of property, or his comfort; A private nuisance is one
which violates only private rights and produces damage to but one or a few
persons while a nuisance is public when it interferes with the exercise of public
right by directly encroaching on public property or by causing a common injury,
an unreasonable interference with the right common to the general public.
Article 694 of the New Civil Code defines a nuisance as follows: Art. 694. A
nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2)
Annoys or offends the senses; or (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or
morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public
highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) Hinders or impairs the use of
property. The term nuisance is so comprehensive that it has been applied to
almost all ways which have interfered with the rights of the citizens, either in
person, property, the enjoyment of his property, or his comfort. According to
Article 695 of the Civil Code, a nuisance may be either public or private: Art. 695.
Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or
neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the
annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private
nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition. A private nuisance
has been defined as one which violates only private rights and produces damages
to but one or a few persons. A nuisance is public when it interferes with the
exercise of public right by directly encroaching on public property or by causing a
common injury. It is an unreasonable interference with the right common to the
general public.
- Under Article 705 of the New Civil Code, a party aggrieved by a private nuisance
has two alternative remedies: (1) a civil action; or (2) abatement, without judicial
proceedings. A person injured by a private nuisance may abate it as provided in
Article 706: Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by

Tesoro)
removing, or if necessary by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance,
without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it
is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public
nuisance by a private person be followed. A private nuisance action is the remedy
for an invasion of a property right. On the other hand, the action for the
abatement of a public nuisance should be commenced by the city or municipality.
A private person may institute an action for the abatement of a public nuisance in
cases wherein he suffered a special injury of a direct and substantial character
other than that which the general public shares. The district health officer shall
determine whether or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best
remedy against a public nuisance.
205. Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon City 658 SCRA 853
- Article 694 of the Civil Code defines nuisance as any act, omission, establishment,
business, condition or property, or anything else that (1) injures or endangers the
health or safety of others; (2) annoys or offends the senses; (3) shocks, defies or
disregards decency or morality; (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of
any public highway or street, or any body of water; or, (5) hinders or impairs the
use of property. A nuisance may be per se or per accidens. A nuisance per se is
that which affects the immediate safety of persons and property and may
summarily be abated under the undefined law of necessity.
- Neither does the MMDA have the power to declare a thing a nuisance. Only courts
of law have the power to determine whether a thing is a nuisance. In AC
Enterprises v. Frabelle Properties Corp we held that, under Section 447(a)(3)(i) of
R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang
Panglungsod is empowered to enact ordinances declaring, preventing or abating
noise and other forms of nuisance. It bears stressing, however, that the
Sangguniang Bayan cannot declare a particular thing as a nuisance per se and
order its condemnation. It does not have the power to find, as a fact, that a
particular thing is a nuisance when such thing is not a nuisance per se; nor can it
authorize the extrajudicial condemnation and destruction of that as a nuisance
which in its nature, situation or use is not such. Those things must be determined
and resolved in the ordinary courts of law. If a thing be in fact, a nuisance due to
the manner of its operation, that question cannot be determined by a mere
resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan.
206. Canlas et al. v. de Aquino et al. 2 SCRA 814

Where, in granting a motion for the dissolution of a writ of preliminary injunction
against the construction of a ricemill in front of a hospital, the Judge stated that
he had received privately very reliable information that these days a ricemill
can be operated without causing any noise or emitting any smoke in such a way
as (not) to be a nuisance to the neighborhood, and that the court intended to
inspect the ricemill and see whether it really can be operated without noise or
smoke, and, if the ricemill was then found to cause noise and emit smoke while
in operation, the court would immediately enjoin its operation, his process of
reasoning entails such a serious error of judgment as to constitute a grave abuse
of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
The operation of a hospital is a matter that, not only concerns its owners or
operators, but, also, if not more particularly, affects the health and welfare of the
community, and the damages sustained by the latter, in consequence, either of
the obstruction to the proper operation of said hospital or of its closing, can not
possibly be compensated in full.
207. Reyes et al. v. Villegas et al. 12 CAR 302

Tesoro)
208. Farrales v. Dacanay
8 CAR 687
209. Magtibay v. Goco 1 CAR 418
210. Estate of Gregorio Francisco v. Court of Appeals 199 SCRA 595

Petitioner was in lawful possession of the lot and quonset building by virtue of a
permit from the Philippine Ports Authority (Port of Zamboanga) when demolition
was effected. It was not squatting on public land. It was entitled to an impartial
hearing before a tribunal authorized to decide whether the quonset building did
constitute a nuisance in law. There was no compelling necessity for precipitate
action. It follows then that respondent public officials of the Municipality of
Isabela, Basilan, transcended their authority in abating summarily petitioners
quonset building. They had deprived petitioner of its property without due process
of law. The fact that petitioner filed a suit for prohibition and was subsequently
heard thereon will not cure the defect, as opined by the Court of Appeals, the
demolition having been a fait accompli prior to hearing and the authority to
demolish without a judicial order being a prejudicial issue.
Respondents can not seek cover under the general welfare clause authorizing the
abatement of nuisances without judicial proceedings. That tenet applies to a
nuisance per se, or one which affects the immediate safety of persons and
property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity.
While the Sangguniang Bayan may provide for the abatement of a nuisance (Local
Government Code, Sec. 149 [ee]), it can not declare a particular thing as a
nuisance per se and order its condemnation. The nuisance can only be so
adjudged by judicial determination.
211. Tamin v. Court of Appeals 208 SCRA 863

- A public plaza is outside the commerce of man and constructions thereon can be
abated summarily by the municipality.
212. Telmo v. Bustamante 592 SCRA 552
- A nuisance per se is that which affects the immediate safety of persons and
property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity.
Evidently, the concrete posts summarily removed by petitioner did not at all pose
a hazard to the safety of persons and properties, which would have necessitated
immediate and summary abatement. What they did, at most, was to pose an
inconvenience to the public by blocking the free passage of people to and from
the national road.
213. Tayabas v. People 517 SCRA 488
- The abatement of nuisances without judicial proceedings applies to nuisances per
se, or those which affect the immediate safety of persons and property and may
be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity. Petitioners claim that
the public market would pose danger to the safety and health of schoolchildren if
it were built on the place being contested. However, petitioners never made
known their supposed concerns either to the Governor or to the CEB. Instead,
they took the law into their own hands and precipitately demolished the subject
structures that were built without the benefit of any hearing or consultation with
the proper authority, which in this case is the CEB.

Tesoro)

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts essentials

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts essentials

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

Deficiency in a complaint with regard to averment of moral damages may be

9) schimitz tansport vs transport ventures

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

a person who holds himself out as being competent to do work requiring

19) abaya vs favis

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing

29) lilius vs manila railroad

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

The responsibility arising from fault or negligence in a quasi delict is entirely

43) ORIX Metro Leasing and Finance Group v Mangalinao

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

46) Gabeto v Araneta

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

51) Vda. De Imperial v Heald Lumber Co.

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

It is actionable negligence for an employer to place at a dangerous

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

FELLOW-SERVANT doctrine: exonerating the employer where the injury was

69. teh vs Philippine aerial taxi

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

76. del rosario vs manila electric

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

82. Africa vs Caltex

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

Requisites of Res ipsa loquitur:

Requisites of simple negligence:

Criminal Conviction: Beyond Resonable doubt, Civil Liability: Preponderance of

89. Bontilao v Gerona

Requisites of Res ipsa loquitur:

Res Ipsa Loquitur in Malpractice cases: The doctrine is generally restricted to

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

Requisites of Res ipsa loquitur:

92. Reyes v sisters of mercy hospital

Requisites of Res ipsa loquitur:

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

The doctrine of re sipsa loquitur is not applicable in a suit against a physican or a

There is no need to expressly require doctors the observance of extraordinary

93. Perle cie d seguros v sarangya III

Test in Determining negligence: The test to determine the existence of negligence

Requisites of a Fortuitous event:

Vicarious Liability: In the supervision of employees, the employer must formulate

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

Ma-ao Sugar Central v CA

Contributory negligence has been defined as the act or omission amounting to

96. Ferrer v. Ericta

97. Solid Homes, Inc. v. Tan

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in the

107. Pasco v. CFI of Bulacan

SARMIENTO, J., dissenting

108. Ylarde v. Aquino

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty

110. PSBA. v. Court of Appeals