TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
ARTICLE 2177: Responsibility for fault or negligence
under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act
or omission of the defendant.
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE vs CIVIL NEGLIGENCE
Criminal Negligence violation of criminal law
Civil Negligence distinct and independent negligence
w/c is culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict, having its own
foundation and individuality, separate from criminal
negligence.
Note: However, the same negligence causing damage may
produce liability arising from a crime, that is, if the act or
omission is punished by the RPC, or may create an action
for quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual under the New
Civil Code.
ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO VICTIMS OF NEGLIGENCE
Victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice between:
1. An action to enforce the civil liability arising from
culpa criminal under Art 100 of the RPC; and
2. An action for quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under
Arts. 2176-2194 of the Civil Code.
Note:
1. Under 2180, the liability of the employer is direct or
immediate it is not conditioned upon
- prior recourse against the negligent employee and
- prior showing of insolvency of such employee.
2. The circumstance that NO RESERVATION TO INSTITUTE
A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES WAS MADE
WHEN THE CRIMINAL CASE WAS FILED is of no moment
where the criminal case was dismissed without any
pronouncement having been made therein in reality,
IT IS AS IF THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL CASE TO SPEAK OF
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
MODES FO ENFORCING CIVIL LIABILITY DUE TO FAULT
OR NEGLIGENCE
The injured party has the option:
1. To pursue a criminal action which includes the claim for
civil liability arising from the crime based on Art 100 of
the RPC
2. To pursue an independent civil action based on quasi-
delict under Arts 2176-2194 of the Civil Code
Note: The Court MAY ACQUIT AN ACCUSED on reasonable
doubt and STILL ORDER PAYMENT OF CIVIL DAMAGES in the
same case.
ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER
Primary liability under Art 2180
Subsidiary liability under art 103 of the RPC
Note: He cannot recover damages twice for the same act
or omission.
TWO SEPARATE CIVIL LIABILITIES ARISING FROM THE
SAME ACT OR OMISSION
2 Separate Civil Liabilities on the Part of the
Offender:
1. Civil Liability Ex Delicto under Art 100 of the RPC
2. Independent Civil Liabilities, such as those arising from:
a. Culpa contractual under Art 31
b. Intentional torts under Arts 32 & 34
c. Culpa aquiliana under Art 2176 of the Civil Code
d. Where the injured party is granted a right to file an
action indepen-dent and distinct from criminal actions
under Art 33 of the Civil Code.
PURPOSE: The purpose of an action or suit and the law
to govern it is to be determined not by the claim of the
party filing the action, made in his argument or brief
but rather
- By the complaint itself;
- Its allegations; and
LAW (ILIGAN)
- Prayer for relief.
Note: Article 2176, where it refers to a fault or
negligence, covers not only acts not punishable by law
but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and
voluntary or negligent.
CIVIL LIABILITY WHEN EXTINGUISHED BY DEATH OF
ACCUSED:
Mansion Biscuit Corporation vs CA
1. Death of the accused, pending appeal of his
conviction, extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the
same may also be predicated on the source of
obligation other than delict.
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in
No1, an action for recovery therefore may be
pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil
action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the
1984 Rules of CrimProc, as amended.
4. The private offended party need not fear a
forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil
action by prescription, in cases where during the
prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its
extinction, the private offended party instituted
together therewith the civil action.
EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED ON HIS
CIVIL LIABILITY
Note:
- Acquittal in criminal cases will not necessarily
exonerate him from civil liability.
- The civil liability which may arise from culpa
aquiliana or quasi-delict WAS NEVER INTENDED BY
LAW TO BE MERGED IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION.
- The criminal prosecution is not a condition
precedent to the enforcement of the civil rights.
AZUCENA vs POTENCIANO:
To subordinate the civil action contemplated in Arts 33 and
2177 to the result of the criminal action WOULD RENDER
MEANINGLESS THE INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION AND THE
INJUNCTION IN ART 31 that such civil action MAY PROCEED
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY
EXTINGUISH THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSE, EXCEPT:
1. When it declares that the FACTS from which the
civil liability might arise DID NOT EXIST;
2. When it declares that the ACCUSED IS NOT THE
AUTHOR OF THE CRIME;
3. When the judgment expressly declares that the
liability is only civil in nature;
4. Where the civil liability is not derived or based on
the criminal act of which the accused was
acquitted.
5. Where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt;
6. Where the civil action has prescribed.
NO RESERVATION IS REQUIRED IN THE CRIMINAL
CASE FOR THE FILING OF CIVIL ACTION ARISING FRO
QUASI-DELICT
Under the 1964, 1985 and 1988 amendments of the
Revised Rules of CrimPro
-it was required that the injured party must make a
reservation in the criminal case for the filing of a
civil action based on quasi-delict. The failure to
do so will result in the inclusion of the claim for civil
liability in the criminal case and bars any separate
civil action based on the same act or omission.
HOWEVER, under the 2000 amendments of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure
1|Page
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
-the reservation required before was deleted. The new
amendment now conforms to the express mandate of
the New Civil Code that a quasi-delict may be
prosecuted separately and independently of the
criminal case arising from the same act or
omission, just like the other independent civil actions
under Arts 32, 33, and 34 of the New Civil Code.
LEGAL RESTRICTION ON RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
The plaintiff is not allowed to recover damages twice for
the same act or omission of the defendant.
DAMAGES not intended to enrich the complainant at the
expense of the defendant.
- Awarded only to enable the injured party:
o to recover his losses for the things he was
deprived of, or
o to enable him to obtain means, diversion or
amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral
suffering he has undergone because of the
culpable acts of the defendant.
COMPULSION OF ADVERSE PARTY TO TESTIFY
In Civil Cases adverse party in an action based on quasi-
delict may be compelled to testify, unlike in criminal cases.
In Criminal Cases the accused cannot be compelled to
testify for the prosecution for he cannot be compelled to
testify against himself.
ARTICLE 2178: The provisions of Articles 1172 to
1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict.
APPLICABILITY OF SOME PROVISIONS IN THE LAW
ON OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
The following articles are expressly made applicable to
quasi-delicts:
Art 1172 Responsibility arising from negligence in the
performance of every kind of obligation is also
demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the
courts, according to the circumstances.
Art 1173 The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in
the omission of that diligence which is required by the
nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place.
When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Arts
1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence,
which is to be observed in the performance, that which is
expected of a good father of a family shall be required.
Art 1174 except in cases expressly specified by the law,
or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which could
not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable.
ARTICLE 2179: When the plaintiffs own
negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover
damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendants lack
of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the Courts shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
-the adequate and efficient cause as in the natural order of
events, and under the particular circumstances
surrounding the case, would necessarily produce the
event.
-It is one which in natural sequence, undisturbed by any
independent cause, produces the result complained of.
LAW (ILIGAN)
-The result must be the natural and probable consequence
such as ought to have been foreseen as likely to flow
from the act complained of.
-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.
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 is the omission of the diligence required by the
circumstance by virtue of which a person could have
avoided injury to himself.
-May be an omission of diligence by which the injured party
contributed to the cause which gives rise to the injury.
-May be the failure to take the caution to avoid or minimize
such injury.
-The plaintiff failed to use reasonable care for his own safety
and this contributed to his own damages.
-Contributory negligence requires foreseeability of harm to
oneself.
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.
Note: The underlying precept on contributory negligence is
that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own
injury should not be entitled to recover damages in
full but must bear the consequence of his own
negligence.
Are children below 9 years capable of contributory
negligence?
NO. A child under 9 years of age is conclusively presumed
incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
In our jurisdiction, a person under 9 years old is
conclusively presumed to have acted without
discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from
criminal liability. Judge Sangco
EFFECT OF PLAINTIFFS CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE; DOCTRINE OF COMPARATIVE
NEGLIGENCE
1. If the proximate cause of the injury is the contributory
negligence of the plaintiff, there can be no recovery for
damages;
A plaintiff is barred from recovering the damages for
loss or injury caused by the negligence of defendant
only when plaintiffs negligence is the sole legal cause
of the damage, or the negligence of the plaintiff and
some person or persons other than the defendant or
defendants was the sole cause of the damage.
Note: If the plaintiff and defendant are both at fault, the
former may recover, but the amount of his recovery
may only be such proportion of the entire damage
plaintiff sustained as the defendants negligence
bears to the combined negligence of both the plaintiff
and the defendant.
2. DOCTRINE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE If the
proximate cause of the injuries is still the negligence of
the defendant, despite the contributory negligence of
the plaintiff, the latter can still recover damages from
the former. However, damages will be reduced due to
the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.
Purpose in comparing the negligence of plaintiff and
defendant:
- Reaching an equitable apportionment of their
respective liabilities for the damages caused and
suffered by the plaintiff.
2|Page
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
3. Jurisprudence regarding the imputed negligence of the
master-servant relationship instructive. Since a master
may be held for his servants wrongful act, the law
imputes to the master the act of the servant, and if the
act is negligent or wrongful and proximately results in
injury to a third person, the negligence or the wrongful
conduct is the negligence or wrongful conduct of the
master, for which he is liable.
General Rule:
If the master is injured by the negligence of a third
person and by the concurring contributory negligence of
his own servant or agent, the latters negligence is
imputed to his superior and will defeat the superiors
action against the third person, assuming, of course
that the contributory negligence was the proximate
cause of the injury of which complaint is made.
4. Contributory negligence in common carriers does not
bar recovery of damages if the proximate cause of the
death of the passenger is the negligence of the
common carrier:
Article 1762 The contributory negligence of
the passenger does not bar recovery of
damages for the death or injuries, if the
proximate cause thereof is the negligence of
the common carrier, but the amount of
damages shall be equitably reduced.
CAN THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
APPLY IN CRIMINAL CASES?
It cannot be used as defense in criminal cases THROUGH
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE.
Why?
Because one cannot allege the negligence of another to
evade the effects of his own negligence.
NOTE: It may however, mitigate the civil liability of the
defendant but cannot affect his criminal liability.
PRINCIPLE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE; NOT APPLICABLE
TO ACTIONS INVOLVING BREACH OF CONTRACT
The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only for
actions of quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach
of contract.
Why? The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a
person where there is no relation between him and another
party.
Note: the obligation is created by the law itself. Where
there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, it is the parties themselves who create the
obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate
the relation thus created.
TEST TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF PROXIMATE
CAUSE
1. Foreseeability Test where the particular harm was
reasonably foreseeable at the time of the defendants
misconduct, his act or omission is the legal cause
thereof.
Note:
To be negligent, the defendant must have acted or
failed to act in such a way that an ordinary reasonable
man would have realized that certain interests of
certain persons were unreasonably subjected to a
general but definite class of risk which made the actors
conduct negligent, it obviously the consequence for the
actor must be held legally responsible.
2. Natural and Probable Consequence Test Where
the defendants liability is recognized only if the harm
or injury suffered is the natural and probable
consequence of his act or omission complained of.
LAW (ILIGAN)
3. Sine qua non Test where the defendants conduct
will not be considered as proximate cause of the event
if the event just the same would have occurred without
it.
4. Cause and Conditions Test where a distinction is
made between the active cause of the harm or injury
and the existing conditions upon which that cause
operated.
Note: if the defendant has created only a passive (not
active) static condition, which made the damage
possible, he is not liable.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
1. A caretaker of a carabao got gored to death by the
animal while tending it, cannot recover under Art 1902
(now Art 2176) there being an assumption of risk unless
it is alleged and proved that there was fault or
negligence on the part of the owners of the carabao.
2. Taking an extension seat in the jeepney of the
defendant which is overloaded is not an implied
assumption of risk on the part of the passenger.
3. Riding on a vehicle driven by a drunk.
ATTRACTIVE NUSIANCE
One who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to
attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary
care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting
thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured
thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the
premises.
Reason: The condition or appliance in question although in
danger is apparent to those of age, is so enticing and
alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to
approach, get on or use it and this attractiveness is an
implied invitation to such children.
Note: The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine is generally not
applicable to bodies of water, IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME
UNUSUAL CONDITION OR ARTIFICIAL FEATURES other than
the mere water and its location.
REASONS WHY SWIMMING POOL OR POND NOT
CONSIDERED AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE
According to Indiana Appellate Court:
Nature has created streams, lakes and pools attract
children. Lurking in their waters is always the danger of
drowning. Against this danger, children are early instructed
so that they are sufficiently presumed to know the danger;
and if the owner of the private property, merely duplicating
the work of nature, without adding any new danger x x x
he is not liable because of having created an attractive
nuisance.
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
-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 the impending harm
and fails to do so, is chargeable with the consequences,
without reference to the prior negligence of the other
party.
Purpose:
To mitigate the harshness of the common law rule of
contributory negligence, the principle of last clear chance
was also adopted here to allow recovery to plaintiff who
happened to have been negligent also,
PROVIDED, the defendant has the last opportunity to avoid
the accident but failed to do so.
NOTE:
Viewed as a phase of proximate cause, the negligence
of the plaintiff is just a remote cause of the accident.
The proximate cause is still the subsequent negligence
3|Page
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
of the defendant in failing to exercise ordinary care to
avoid the accident.
To allow recovery, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE BE
TIME SEQUENCE, that is an interval in which the
plaintiffs act of negligence is complete and in which the
defendant by the exercise of reasonable care has had
an opportunity to avert disaster.
DLCC is also called HUMANITARIAN NEGLIGENCE
DOCTRINE
Reason:
It being an exception to the rule on contributory
negligence.
It proceeds from the precepts of humanity and of
natural justice.
Note:
It is predicated on the theory that if a plaintiff puts himself
in a place of danger and his negligence and danger are
discovered by the defendant, there devolves upon the
latter a new duty which intervenes or arises
subsequent to the negligence of the plaintiff; and
that duty is to save the plaintiff if he can, from the
consequence of his negligence.
DLCC is also called DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING
NEGLIGENCE
Reason: After the plaintiffs negligence had been
concluded, another negligence coming from the defendant
intervenes.
ELEMENTS OF DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
Plaintiff is placed in danger by his own negligent acts
and he is unable to get out from such situation by any
means;
Defendant knows that the plaintiff is in danger and
knows or should have known that the plaintiff was
unable to extricate himself therefrom; and
Defendant had the last clear chance or opportunity to
avoid the accident through the exercise of ordinary care
but failed to do so, and the accident occurred as a
proximate result of such failure.
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE, WHEN NOT
APLICABLE
1. Collapse of a building or structure;
- Art 2190 of the Civil Code: the proprietor of a
building or struc-ture is responsible for the damage
resulting from its total and partial collapse, it should
be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
2. When the claim or demand of the injured passenger is
the enforcement of the carriers contractual obligation
to bring him safely to his destination; and
- DLCC applies in a suit between the owners and
drivers of colliding vehicles.
- It does not arise when the passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations.
3. When the injury or accident cannot be avoided by
application of all means at hand after peril has been
discovered.
HAS THE DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE BEEN
ABOLISHED?
Phoenix Contstruction, Inc vs IAC
-The principle of last clear chance is inapplicable in the
instant case, as it only applies in a suit between the
owners and drivers of colliding vehicles.
RES IPSA LOQUITOR
Concept: The thing or transaction speaks for itself.
Conditions:
1. The accident was of such character as to warrant an
inference that it would not have happened except for
defendants negligence;
2. The accident must have been caused by an agency or
instrumentality within the exclusive management or
LAW (ILIGAN)
control of the person charged with the 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.
Requisites:
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 have happened if those who had control
or management used proper care; and
4. The absence of explanation by the defendant.
In other words
Where the thing which causes 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 that the accident arose from
want of care, in the absence of an explanation by the
defendant.
Cantre vs Go
In cases involving medical negligence, the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur allows the mere existence of an injury to
justify a presumption of negligence on the part of the
person who controls the instrument causing the injury,
provided that the following requisites concur:
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;
and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would
make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
NEGLIGENCE PRESUMED BY LAW IN RES IPSA
LOQUITUR
It is not necessary to state that petitioner was negligent in
the supervision and selection of its employees because it is
already presumed by operation of law.
NOTE: The presumption of negligence arising from the
principle of res ipsa loquitur may be rebutted. It is not
conclusive.
How? By contending that the plaintiff exercised the due
diligence of a good father in the selection and supervision
of employees.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR IS AN EVIDENTIARY RULE
It 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.
PRINCIPAL DEFENSES IN ACTIONS BASED ON
NEGLIGENCE
1. Emergency Rule
- One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger
is not
guilty of negligence,
required to act without time to consider the best
means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger but he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may have been a
better method,
UNLESS the emergency in which he finds
himself is brought about by his own
negligence.
2. Assumption of Risk
- Voluntary assumption of a risk of harm arising from
the negligent conduct of the defendant. (injured
waives the negligence of the defendant)
- Presupposes an intentional exposure to a known peril.
4|Page
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

- Express Assumption of Risk when stated

explicitly in a contract
- Implied Assumption of Risk when based on the
conduct of the plaintiff.
- Note: Not applicable in cases covered by the
Workmens Compensation Act

Wherein the the employer is liable for the damage or

compensation for the employee for any injuries
which the latter may suffer from any accident arising
out and in the course of his employment or other
venue directly caused by such employment.
3. Contributory Negligence
- When the plaintiffs own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury
- In this case, plaintiff cannot recover damages.
4. Volenti Non Fit Injuria
- To which a person assents is not esteemed in law as
injury.
- One is not legally injured if he has consented to the
act complained of or was willing that it shall occur.

GUIDELINES IN APPORTIONING NEGLIGENCE WHEN

BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE NEGLIGENT
- Where both the plaintiff and defendant contributed to
the occurrence of the damage or injury, the doctrine
of comparative negligence applies.

TWO WELL-KNOWN RULES IN THE UNITED STATES

1. Pure Comparative Negligence Rule
- Plaintiff can recover from the defendant regardless
of the extent of the negligence of the former.
2. Arkansas Comparative Negligence
- Plaintiff can recover PROVIDED that his negligence is
lesser in degree than that of the defendant.
- If the combined negligence of both parties falls on a
50/50 basis, PLAINTIFF CANNOT RECOVER.

NOTE:
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.

RESCUE DOCTRINE or HUMANITARIAN DOCTRINE

-One who has, through his negligence, endangered safety of
another may be held liable for injuries sustained by
third person who attempts to save another from injury.

Example:
A reckless and over-speeding vehicle is about to hit a child
in a sidewalk. A man saw the incident and hurriedly came
in the rescue of the child. The child was saved but the man
himself was injured caused by the negligence of the driver.
The latter will be liable for damages suffered by the
rescuer.

Note:
As a matter of law, one who sees a person in imminent and
serious peril through negligence of another CANNOT be
charged with contributory negligence in risking his own life
or serious injury in attempting to effect a rescue, provided
the attempt is not recklessly or rashly made.

5|Page
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
ARTICLE 2180: The obligation imposed by Art
2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their
company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on
the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused
by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it
acts through a special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to whom
the task done properly pertains, in which case
what is provided in Art 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of
arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they remain in their
custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall
cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.
PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS OR IMPUTED LIABILITY
One is not only liable for his own quasi-delictual acts BUT
ALSO FOR THOSE PERSONS FOR WHOM HE IS
RESPONSIBLE UNDER THE LAW.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY the liability for the acts of others
enumerated in this article.
QUASI-TORTS in the American sense, this is the violation
of the provisions of Article 2180.
MINORITY refers to those who are below 21 years and
not those below 18 years old.
Note: The amendment whereby the minority is reduced
from 21 years old to 18 years old do not cover Art.
2180.
PD 603: THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE
Art 58: Parents and guardians are responsible for the
damage caused by the child under their parental
authority in accordance with the civil code.
Note: Where at the time of the commission of the crime,
the accused was minor under the parental authority of
his parents, the latter are primarily and directly liable
for the damages sustained by the heirs of the victim.
INCAPACITATED PERSONS persons beyond 21 years of
age but are incapacitated such as those who are insane
and imbecile.
PATER FAMILIAS AS BASIS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY
LAW (ILIGAN)
The basis of Art 2180 is PATER FAMILIAS, not RESPONDEAT
SUPERIOR.
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR negligence of the servant is
conclusively the negligence of the
master.
PATER FAMILIAS negligence of the person is rebuttable,
not conclusively the negligence of the
master.
Reason: Negligence in the supervision of his subordinates.
However, the master in pater familias under Art
2180 will be freed from liability IF HE CAN PROVE
THAT HE HAD OBSERVED ALL THE DILIGENCE OF A
GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY TO PREVENT THE
DAMAGE.
ACTUAL TORTFEASOR IS NOT EXEMPT FROM
LIABILITY
Note:
Minor, ward, employee, special agent, pupil, students
and apprentices who actually committed the delictual
acts are NOT EXEMPTED BY THE LAW FROM PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY.
They may be sued and made liable ALONE as when the
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM OR VICARIOUS
OBLIGOR PROVES THAT HE EXERCISED THE DILIGENCE
OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY.
Minor or insane person may be sued and made liable
alone when he has no parents or guardians. (They are
answerable with their own property.
NATURE OF RESPONSIBILITY OF VICARIOUS OBLIGOR
Primary and direct, not subsidiary.
He is solidarily liable with the tortfeasor.
His responsibility is not conditioned upon the insolvency
of or prior recourse against the negligent tortfeasor.
WHY ARE PARENTS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE?
It is a necessary consequence of the parental authority
they exercise over them which imposes upon the parents
the duty of supporting them, keeping them in their
company, educating them in proportion to their means,
while, on the other hand, gives them the rights to correct
and punish them in moderation.
Note: The only way they can relieve themselves of this
liability is IF THEY PROVE THAT THEY EXERCISED ALL
THE DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY TO
PREVENT THE DAMAGE.
LIABILITY OF THE MOTHER
Not simultaneous with fathers liability despite the fact that
they exercise joint parental authority over their minor
children.
Mother is liable only in the case of death or incapacity of
the father.
When mother is impleaded or co-impleaded with the
father, the case may be moved to be dismissed on the
grounds of prematurity.
ABSENCE OF FATHER, EFFECT
If the father is absent, under Art 390 or 391 of the Civil
Code, the mother who is present and with whom the minor
children live with will be the one vicariously liable.
REQUISITES OF VICARIOUS OR IMPUTED LIABILITY
OF PARENTS
1. The child is below 21 years old;
2. The child committed a tortious act to the damage and
prejudice of another person; and
3. The child lives in the company of the parent concerned
whether single or married.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MINOR ADOPTED CHILDREN
Domestic Adoption Act of 1988: Judicially adopted children
are considered legitimate children of
their adopting parents.
6|Page
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
Thus, adopters are civilly liable for their
tortious/criminal acts if the children live with
them and are below 21 years old.
Adoption de facto adoption which are extra judicial.
- it creates no legal relation between the
child and the caretaker.
Note: It is submitted however, that the foster parent of
such child may also be held civilly liable just like
adopting parent, if the conditions of vicarious
liability are present. This is justified by the fact that
the child lives with the foster parent over whom he
should exercise proper care and supervision.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
1. Acknowledged by father and lives with the father
father is liable.
2. Not recognized by putative father but is under mothers
custody mother is the one vicariously liable.
MAY THE SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF PARENTS
ARISING FROM THE CRIMINAL ACTS OF THEIR MINOR
CHILDREN WHO ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT BE
DETERMINED UNDER ART 2180?
Yes, according to the Supreme Court.
Reason: This is to avoid the absurdity (ridiculousness)
that while Art 2180 applies to quasi-delicts, it would not
apply to damages caused with criminal intent.
In other words, SC finds it ridiculous that 2180 cannot
be applied to damages with criminal intent. LOL.
Note: the subsidiary liability of parents arising from the
criminal acts of their minor children, who acted with
discernment, is determined under Art 2180 of the Civil
Code and Art 101 of the RPC.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF GUARDIANS
Same rule as in the liability of parents with respect to
their children below 21 years old, and who live with
them.
If there are 2 guardians: one over his person and one
over his property, the guardian over his person shall be
liable (Personal Acts of the ward)
ARE DE FACTO GUARDIANS COVERED BY PARAGRAPH
3, ARTICLE 2180?
YES. This is to compel them to exercise control and
supervision over the orphans over whom they
VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED THE DUTIES OF
PARENTHOOD.
De facto guardians relatives and neighbors who take
unto themselves the duty to care and
support orphaned children without
passing through judicial proceedings.
REQUISITES OF EMPLOYERS LIABILITY UNDER
PARAGRAPH 4
1. That the employee was chosen by the employer
personally or through another;
2. That the service is 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.
Note:
Before the employers subsidiary liability is exacted, there
must be ADEQUATE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THAT:
1. They are indeed the employers of the convicted
employees;
2. That the employers engaged in some kind of industry;
3. That the crime was committed by the employees in the
discharge of their duties; and
4. That the execution against the employee has not been
satisfied due to insolvency.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF OWNERS AND MANAGERS
LAW (ILIGAN)
Paragraph 4 refers to OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF
ESTABLISHMENTS AND ENTERPRISES and who have
employees under them.
A manager who is not an owner but who assumes the
responsibility of supervision over the employees of the
owner may be held liable for the acts of the employees.
Note:
The terms employers and owners and managers of
an estab-lishment or enterprise are used in the sense
of employer and do not include the manager of the
corporation who himself is just an employee.
The liability under paragraph 4 of Art 2180 applies to all
those who by their industry or profession or other
enterprise have other persons in their service or under
supervision.
LIABILITY OF RADIO STATION FOR THE
BROADCASTERS VIOLATION OF THE RADIO CODE
Both the broadcasters (Rima and Alegre) and the FBNI
(radio station owner) are liable for moral damages to
the complaining party (AMEC-BCCM).
The FBNI failed to prove that it exercised the diligence
of a good father of a family in the supervision of Rima
and Alegre.
NEGLIGENCE OF PROFESSOR IS NEGLIGENCE OF THE
SCHOOL
Petitioner (UE) cannot pass on its blame to the professors
to justify its own negligence that led to the delayed relay of
information to respondent.
A person should be protected only when he acts in the
legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when he acts with
prudence and in good faith, but not when he acts with
negligence or abuse.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE
An independent contractor is not an employee of the
person who engaged his services.
The independent contractor is free to execute the work
without being subject to the orders of the employer on
the details of the work.
If the employer retains the control and supervision over
the person engaged with respect to the work to be
done, there is between them an employer-employee
relationship.
LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS UNDER PARAGRAPH 5 OF
ARTICLE 2180
It speaks of employers even if not engaged in business.
It covers the tortious acts of household helpers, like:
Family cooks;
Gardeners;
Yayas; and
Servants, etc.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PARAGRAPH 4 AND 5
Paragraph 4 requires engagement in business on the
part of the em-ployers as the law speaks of
establishment or enterprise
Paragraph 5 employers referred to need not be
engaged in business or industry.
in other words, employers may be engaged in
business.
Note: If the employers in Paragraph 5 are engaged in
business, same in paragraph 4, employers shall be
liable for the tortious acts of their employees while
acting or performing their assigned functions.
Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5
Owners and managers of To employers in general
an establishment or whether or not engaged in
enterprise any business or industry
Covers negligent acts of Encompasses negligent
7|Page
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
employees committed acts of employees ating
ether in the service of the within the scope of their
branches or on occasion assigned task.
of their functions
Note:
Under the 5th paragraph, whether or not engaged in any
business or industry, an employer is liable for the torts
committed by employee within the scope of his assigned
tasks
How?
1. Employer-Employee relationship must first be
established.
2. Plaintiff must show that the employee was acting within
the scope of his assigned task when the tort
complained of was committed.
3. Then, employer may interpose the defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee.
EMPLOYEE MUST BE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS
ASSIGNED TASK WHEN THE INJURIOUS ACT
COMMITTED
TO MAKE THE EMPLOYER LIABLE UNDER PAR. 4 AND 5, it
must be established that the injurious or tortious act was
committed at the time the employee was performing his
functions.
Note:
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.
An 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.
If there is a deviation from the scope of employment,
the employer is not liable, no matter how short in time
is the deviation.
Except: Art 1759
Common carriers are liable for the death of or
injuries to passengers through the negligence or
willful acts of the formers employees, although
such employees may have acted beond the scope
of their authority in violation of the orders of the
common carriers.
This liability of the common carriers does not
cease upon proof that they exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of their employees.
By the nature of the business of the common carriers
and for reason of public policy, EXTRA-ORDINARY
DILIGENCE is required of them in the vigilance over the
goods and for the safety of the passengers transported
by them.
PRINCIPLES IN AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE ON
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY FOR THE INJURIES INFLICTED
BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN EMPLOYEE IN THE USE
OF AN EMPLOYERS MOTOR VEHICLE
An employee who uses his employers vehicle in going
from his work to the place where he intends to eat or in
returning to work from a meal is not ordinarily acting
within the scope of his employment in the absence of
evidence of some special business benefit to the
employer.
Evidence that by using the employers vehicle to go to
and from meals, an employee is enabled to reduce his
time-off and so devote more time to the performance of
his duties supports the finding that an employee is
acting within the scope of his employment while driving
the vehicle.
OPERATION OF EMPLOYERS VEHICLE IN GOING TO
OR FROM WORK
LAW (ILIGAN)
Absence of some special benefits to the employer other
than the mere performance of the services available by
the place where he is needed, the employee is not
acting within the scope of his employment even though
he uses his employers motor vehicle.
The employer may be liable where he derives some
special benefits from having the employee at work
earlier and spending more time at his actual duties.
Special Errand Rule or Roving Commission Rule
where an employer:
requires an employee to circulate in a general area with
no fixed place or hours or work, and his employer
furnishes him with a vehicle to use in his work, or
requires the employee to go to and from his home to
various outside places of work, and his employer
furnishes him with a vehicle to use in his work
Note:
Under the Special Errand Rule and/or Roving
Commission Rule, it can be found that the employee
continues in the service of his employer until he
actually reaches home.
If the employee has left the direct route to his work or
back home and in pursuing a personal errand of his
own, the employer is not liable for the employees
negligence at the time of the accident.
USE OF EMPLOYERS VEHICLE OUTSIDE REGULAR
WORKING HOURS
Employer not liable when:
He loans his motor vehicle to an employee for the
latters personal use outside working hours even when
the employer contemplates that a regularly assigned
motor vehicle will be used by the employee for personal
as well as business purposes and there is some
incidental benefit to the employer;
Even where the personal purpose in using the vehicle
has been accomplished and he has started to return trip
to his house where the vehicle is normally kept,
because it has been held that he has not resumed his
employment.
APPLICABILITY OF THE ABOVE AMERICAN
PRINCIPLES
Whether the fault or negligence of the employee is
conclusive on his employer as in American law or
jurisprudence, or merely gives the presumption juris
tantum of negligence on the employer as in ours, it is
indespansable that the employee was acting in his
employers business or within the scope of his assigned
task.
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR IS AN AMERICAN DOCTRINE
WHICH IS ALMOST SIMILAR TO ARTICLE 2180, PAR 4
AND 5
Resondeat superior let the master answer.
Master is liable in certain cases for the
wrongful acts of his servant, and a
principal for those of his agent.
Master is responsible for want of care on
servants part toward those to whom
master owes duty to use care, provided
failure of servant to use such care
occurred in course of his employment
An employer is liable for injury to person
or property of another proximately
resulting from acts of employee done
within scope of him employment in the
employers service.
Note:
-Doctrine applies only when relation of master and servant
existed between defendant and wrongdoer at time of
injury sued for, in respect to very transaction from
which it arose.
-If deviation be only slight or incidental, employer may still
be liable.
8|Page
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

NATURE OF EMPLOYERS LIABILITY

Direct and immediate.
It is not conditioned on a prior recourse against the
negligent employee, or a prior showing of insolvency of
such employee.
Joint and solidary with the employee.

PRIMARY LIABILITY AND SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF

EMPLOYERS, DISTINGUISHED; OPTIONS ON
REMEDIES
The injured party has 2 options in pursuing the civil liability
of the employer for the acts of his employee:
1. Filing of Civil Action for Damages liability of
employer is primary, direct and solidary; and not
conditioned on the insolvency of the employee.
PRIMARY LIABILITY the injured party may recover
from the employers directly,
regardless of the solvency of their
employees.
2. Filing of Criminal Case liability of employer is
subsidiary
Employer cannot use as defense the
exercise of the diligence of a good
father of a family.

Note:
The judgment in the criminal action pronouncing the
employee to be also civilly liable is conclusive on the
employer not only as to the actuality of that liability but
also as to the amount.
The employer, under Art 103 of the RPC, is subsidiarily
liable, if it can be shown that the commission thereof
was in the discharge of the duties of the employee.
Previous dismissal of an action based on culpa aquiliana
could not be a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary
liability required by said Article 103 of the RPC.

ENFORCEMENT OF SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF

EMPLOYER
To enforce the employers subsidiary liability, there must
be adequate evidence establishing that:
1. He is indeed the employer of the convict
2. That he is engaged in some kind of industry
3. That crime was committed by the employee in the
discharge of his duties; and
4. Execution against the employee is unsatisfied.

Note:
The exemption (proof of diligence in the selection and
supervision) from civil liability established in the last
paragraph of Art 2180 does not apply to the subsidiary
civil liability under the RPC.
Mere formulation of various company policies on safety
without showing that they were being complied with is
not sufficient to exempt an employer from liability
arising from negligence of its employees.
Presumption of vicarious liability may be overcome only
by satisfactorily showing that the employer exercised
the care and the diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection and supervision of its employee.

9|Page
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
WHEN THE EMPLOYEES CIVIL LIABILITY HAS
BECOME FINAL, SO MUST ALSO THE SUBSIDIARY
LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYERS
Where the civil liability of the accused-employee has
become final and enforceable by reason of his flight (jump-
bail), then his employers subsidiary civil liability has also
become immediately enforceable.
Note: It is the height of absurdity for this single case to be
final as to the accused who jumped bail, but not as to
an entity whose liability is dependent upon the
conviction of the former.
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE
PRESUMED
Note:
It is necessary for the plaintiff to establish it by
evidence.
Failure to do this was fatal to its action.
He who alleges rests in him the burden to prove the
allegation.
Note: If the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of
proving his cause of action fails to show in a
satisfactory manner the facts upon which he based his
claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove
his exception or defense.
EMPLOYER WHO IS MADE LIABLE MAY SEEK
REIMBURSEMENT
Should the employer be held liable solidarily for the
damages caused by the tortious acts of his employee, he
may seek reimbursement from the latter for the amount he
paid to the offended party for the satisfaction of claim.
STATES IMPUTED LIABILITY
The State is only liable for the negligent acts of its:
Officers; when they are acting
Agents; and as SPECIAL AGENTS, in
which case
Employees, the Govt assumed liability for their
acts.
Special Agent one who receives a definite and fixed
order of com-mission, foreign to the exercise
of the ordinary duties of his office
Note: An employee who on his own responsibility performs
the functions inherent in his office and naturally
pertaining thereto is NOT A SPECIAL AGENT.
ASPECTS OF LIABILITY OF THE STATE, CATEGORIZED
1. Public or Governmental where the State is liable only
for the
tortious acts of its special
agents
2. Private or Non-Governmental when the State is
engaged in private
business or enterprises, it
becomes
liable as an ordinary
employer
Proprietary Function when a service provided by a private
corporation and the private corporation
collects revenues from it.
Note:
If the special agent is not a public official and is
commissioned to perform non-governmental functions,
then the State assumes the role of an ordinary
employer and will be held liable as such for the tortious
acts of said agent.
If the State commissioned a private individual to
perform a special governmental task, it is acting
through a special agent within the meaning of this
provision.
LAW (ILIGAN)
Note:
The State may designate a public officer as a SPECIAL
AGENT to perform governmental work, in which event,
it assumes liability for the tortious acts of the officer
done in the pursuit of his assignment.
If the public officer committed tortious acts unrelated to
his special assignment, he alone is is responsible.
Note: If the special agent appointed by the State is
assigned to perform acts for private and business
interests of the State, then it assumes the
responsibility of an ordinary employer should the
agent commit tortious acts in the pursuit of his
assignment.
Note:
The State may designate a private person as a special
agent, in which case, the State is considered as an
ordinary employer.
The state may also commission a private person to do a
governmental function, in which case, the State is
acting through a special agent falling under paragraph
5 of Art 2180.
TWO SITUATIONS PRESENTED IN PARAGRAPH 6
1. When the State acts through special agent.
- The State is subject to liability for damages caused
by the special agent.
2. When the act is performed by an official upon whom
previously devolved the duty of doing the act
performed.
- It is the official, not the State, who is liable for
damages caused by the act he performed.
Special Agent vs Official
Comprises all officials and
employees of the government who
exercise duties of their respective
public offices
All others who are acting
by commission of the government,
whether individual or juridical bodies.
IMPUTED LIABILITY OF TEACHERS AND HEADS OF
SCHOOLS; CONCEPT EXPANDED
Exconde vs Capuno: Teachers and directors of arts and
trades do not include teachers and
heads of academic institutions.
Note: Paragraph 7 contemplates a situation where the
pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such that
the control, direction and influence on the pupil
supersedes those of a parent.
Palisoc vs Brilliantes: The president of a vocational
school and the instructor of the student
of said school, who caused the death of
his classmate were made solidarily
liable for damages to the parents of the
deceased who was fatally injured at the
schools laboratory room.
Salvosa vs IAC: The Baguio Colleges Foundation and
its president were held liable for the
damage caused by the armorer of the
schools ROTC unit who fatally shot a person
within the school premises citing the case of
Palisoc vs Brillantes
In Palisoc vs Brillantes and Salvosa vs IAC, the schools
are not schools of arts and trades.
Amadora vs CA: It has been held that the provision in
Article 2180 involving teachers or heads of
establishments of arts and trades should
10 | P a g e
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
apply to all schools, as well as non-academic
ones.
Ylarde vs Aquino: Where a school teacher was held liable
for the death of the pupil while in school.
Observations:
In Exconde, the provision was declared restrictive;
In Palisoc and Amadora, it was made liberal to include
both the academic and non-academic schools.
In Pasco vs CFI of Bulacan, it was held again that Art
2180 applies only to teachers or heads of schools of
arts and trades, which returned to the restrictive rule.
Strictly speaking, THE EXCONDE CASE PROVIDES THE
CORRECT RULE!
The law is very clear. It needs no interpretation. It
speaks of ESTABLISHMENTS OF ARTS AND TRADES.
The Congress of the Philippines should make the
necessary curative amendments to accommodate the
courts liberal interpretation in Palisoc and Amadora
cases to avoid any further see-saw decisions on this
matter.
DELINEATION OF RESPONSIBILITY
School is ACADEMIC rather than technical or vocational in
nature
responsibility for the tort committed by the student
will attach to the teacher-in-charge of such students,
following the first part of the provision.
Establishments of arts and trades
it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held
liable as an exception to the general rule.
Reddendo Singula Singulis referring each to each
Paragraph 7: Lastly, teachers or heads of
establishments of arts and trades shall be
liable for damages caused by their pupils
and students or apprentices, so long as
they remain in their custody.
Teachers should apply to the words pupils and students
Heads of Establishments of Arts and Trades should apply
to the words
apprentices
LIMITATION TO THE LIABILITY OF TEACHERS AND
HEADS OF SCHOOLS
The teachers or heads of schools are only liable if the
students remain in schools.
If they are no longer in school, their responsibility shall
attach no more. Their parents become responsible for
them.
SCHOOL OR INSTITUTION INVOLVED IN CHILD CARE
Art 218:
The school, its administrators and teachers, or the
individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall
have special parental authority and responsibility over the
minor child while under their supervision, instruction or
custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized
activities whether inside or outside the premises of the
school, entity or institution.
Art 219:
Those given the authority and responsibility under the
preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for
damages caused by the act or omission of the
unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or
the persons exercising substitute parental authority over
the said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the
preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they
exercised the proper diligence required under the particular
circumstances.
LAW (ILIGAN)
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding
articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil
Code on quasi-delicts.
PHRASE SO LONG AS THE STUDENTS REMAIN IN
THEIR CUSTODY
The protective and supervisory custody that the school
and its head and teachers exercise over the pupils and
students holds true for as long as they are at
attendance at the school, including recess time.
Nothing in the law requires that such liability to attach,
the pupil or student who commits the tortious act must
live and board at the school.
NO NEED FOR THE STUDENT TO BE A BOARDER
Custody requirement does not mean that the student
should be within the control and under
the influence of the school authorities
at the time of the occurrence of the
injury.
This does not necessarily mean that such custody be
co-terminus with the semester, beginning with the
start of classes and ending upon the close thereof,
and excluding the time before or after such period,
such as the period of registration, and in the case of
graduating students, the period before the
commencement exercises.
Note: The student is in the custody of the school
authorities as long as he is under the control and
influence of the school and within its premises,
whether the semester has yet begun or has already
ended.
STUDENTS PRESENCE IN SCHOOL, SUFFICIENT
As long as it can be shown that the student is in the
school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student
right, the responsibility of the school authorities over
the student continues.
Even if the student should be doing nothing more than
relaxing in the campus in the company of his
classmates and friends and enjoying the ambiance and
atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody
and under the discipline of the authorities under the
provisions of Art 2180.
TEACHER-IN-CHARGE, ANSWERABLE
During all these occasions, it is the teacher-in-charge
who must answer for the students torts, just like the
parents are when the students are under the latters
custody.
Teacher-in-charge the one designated by the dean,
principal, and other administrative superior to exercise
supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or
sections to which they are assigned.
CUSTODY OF STUDENTS, COVERAGE
Note: At the time of the injury, it is not necessary that the
teacher be physically present and at the position to
prevent it.
Custody does not connote immediate and actual
physical control.
it refers more to the influence exerted on the child
and the discipline instilled in him as a result of
such influence.
Note: For the injuries caused to the student, the teacher
and NOT THE PARENT shall be held responsible if the
tort was committed within the premises of the school
at anytime when its authority could be exercised over
him.
ARE STUDENTS OF AGE WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF
PARAGRAPH 7, ARTICLE 2180?
YES, if they are equally in the custody of the school and
subject to the schools discipline, just like pupils.
11 | P a g e
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
Note: Unlike the parent, who will be liable only if the child
is still a minor, the teacher is held answerable by the
law for the act of the student under him regardless of
the age of the student.
WORKING SCHOLARS, STATUS
Note: Students (Working Scholars) and
Schools/Colleges/Universities have NO employer-
employee relationship.
Working Student Scholarship where students work
for the school in exchange for
the privilege to study free of
charge provided the students
are given real opportunity,
including such facilities as may
be reasonable, necessary to
finish their chosen courses
under such arrangement.
FCI vs CA: For the tortious act of the student in causing
injuries to Kapunan, Sr. in recklessly driving the
schools jeepney, the said school is exonerated
from liability.
RATIONALE OF SCHOOL HEADS AND TEACHERS
LIABILITY FOR TORTIOUS ACTS OF THEIR PUPILS AND
STUDENTS
Teachers and schools stand in loco parentis (in the place of
a parent).
Therefore:
They are called upon to exercise reasonable
supervision over the conduct of the child.
It becomes their obligation to provide proper
supervision of the students activities during the whole
time;
To take the necessary precautions to protect the
students in their custody from dangers and hazards that
would reasonably be anticipated, including injuries that
some student themselves may inflict willfully or through
negligence on their fellow students.
Reason: The parent is not supposed to interfere with the
discipline of the school nor with the authority and
supervision of the teacher while the child is under
instruction. The school itself, likewise has to respond
for the fault or negligence of its head and teachers
under the same cited article.
DEFENSE IN ARTICLE 2180; DILIGENCE OF A GOOD
FATHER OF A FAMILY
Parent
Guardian shall be exempted from liability if
they can prove that
Employer they have exercised all the diligence
of a good father
State of the family to prevent damage.
Teacher
Diligence which an ordinary
prudent man
would exercise with regard to his
own property.
BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL DUTY NEGATES DEFENSE
OF EXERCISE OF DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A
FAMILY
When the employee is guilty of BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL
DUTY, the employers defense of having exercised the
diligence of a good father of family to prevent the damage
does not apply to an employer.
Take note, REQUISITES OF EMPLOYERS LIABILITY, NO. 3,
the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion
or by reason of the functions entrusted to him or in
the discharge of the employees duties.
In other words, the employer doesnt need to prove
diligence because in the first place, the negligence of the
LAW (ILIGAN)
employee was not during the latters discharge of his
duties.
REASON BEHIND THE PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
AGAINST THE EMPLOYER
Presumption is either in the:
Selection of the servant or employee (culpa in
eligiendo)
Supervision over him after the selection (culpa
vigilando)
Reasons:
It is indeed difficult for any person injured by the
carelessness of a driver to prove the negligence or lack
o due diligence of the owner of the vehicle in the choice
of the driver.
Were we to require the injured party to prove the
owners lack of diligence, the right will in many cases
prove illusory, as seldom does a person in the
community, especially in the cities, have the
opportunity to observe the conduct of all possible car
owners therein.
So the law imposes the burden of proof of innocence on
the vehicle owner.
As earlier pointed out, this burden of all owners of
private and public utility vehicles is imposed as a
matter of public policy for the protection of the public.
ARTICLE 2181: Whoever pays for the damage
caused by his dependents or employees
may recover from the latter what he has
paid or delivered in satisfaction of the
claim.
OBLIGATION OF THE TORTFEASOR TO REIMBURSE
PAYOR
The vicarious debtor who paid for the damage or injuries
caused by the tortfeasor is entitled to be reimbursed for
what he paid.
The tortfeasor who actually caused the damage or injuries
cannot just be exempted from the consequences of his
own acts.
ARTICLE 2181 APPLIED BY ANALOGY
Where a railroad company had been compelled to pay a
judgment for damages for injuries sustained by a
passenger as a result of the maltreatment and misconduct
of the conductor the Court held that THE SERVANT WAS
LIABLE TO HIS MASTER FOR ALL LOSS AND DAMAGE
SUSTAINED BY IT.
ARTICLE 2182: If the minor or insane person causing
damage has no parents or guardian, the
minor or insane person shall be
answerable with his own property in an
action against him where a guardian ad
litem shall be appointed.
WHERE THE MINOR OR INSANE WHO CAUSED
DAMAGE OR INJURY HAS NO PARENTS OR GUARDIAN;
CONSEQUENCES
Dependent Child is one who is without a parent,
guardian or custodian; or one whose
parents, guardian or other custodian for
good cause desires to be relieved of his
care and custody; and is dependent upon
the public for support.
JURISDICTION OF APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN
If the tortfeasor is:
MINOR whether sane or insane, the complaint and the
application
for guardianship shall be filed with the Family
Court.
OF LEGAL AGE the provisions of Rules 92 to 97 of the
Rules of Court
shall apply.
ARTICLE 2182 SUPPLEMENTED BY ARTICLE 222,
FAMILY CODE
12 | P a g e
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
The Courts may appoint a:
Guardian over the childs property; or
Guardian ad litem when the best interests of the child so
require.
ARTICLE 2183: The possessor of an animal or
whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage which it may
cause, although it may escape or be lost.
This responsibility shall cease only in
case the damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage.
DAMAGE OR INJURY CAUSED BY ANIMALS
Animals covers all kinds of animals.
Tame or domesticated; if they retain the habit of
returning to the
premises of the possessor
Wild or Vicious are possessed only while they are under
ones
control
NATURE AND BASIS OF OBLIGATION IN ARTICLE 2183
Natural Equity / Principle of Social Interest
He who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or
service, must answer for the damages which such
animal may cause.
WILD BEAST THEORY
The person who for his own purposes brings on his land
and collects and keeps there anything likely to do
mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he
does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the
damages which is the natural consequence of its
escape.
It is therefore unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove
negligence.
Defendant has no defense to prove that he has taken all
possible precautions to prevent damage.
POSSESSOR NEED NOT BE THE OWNER
Note: The person in charge of the animal need not be the
owner, although the possessor may also be the owner
at the same time.
If the animal was borrowed by someone for his own use, he
alone should be held liable for the damage caused while
the animal was under his control.
The bailee of an animal has a qualified ownership over it,
which imposes on him the duty to exercise due care in
managing it.
Breach of which renders him
liable to their parties for injuries
inflicted by animals in his custody
and attributable to his negligence.
Damage may be caused upon PERSONS or upon PROPERTY.
For personal injuries the essence and measure
of damage
are those generally applied to personal
injury cases.
physical pains
mental anguish
serious anxiety
For recovery of damages to plaintiffs property
like crops,
when destroyed by animals, the measure
of
damages is the value of the properties at
the time the same were destroyed
without prejudice to consideration of
unrealized profits if the same can be
proved.
Vestal vs IAC
What must be determined is the possession of the dog that
admittedly was staying in the house in question,
regardless of the ownership of the dog or of the house.
LAW (ILIGAN)
Even if the animal was removed from the control of the
possessor, the latter is still liable as when the animal
had escaped or got lost.
Afialda vs Hisole
A person hired a caretaker of a carabao gored him to death
and his heirs thereupon sued the owner of the animal for
damages. The complaint was dismissed on the ground that
it was the caretakers duty to prevent the carabao from
causing injury to anyone, including himself.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF LIABILITY OF THE
POSSESSOR
These exceptions to the rule of liability on the part of the
possessor of the animal constitute defenses in the action
filed against him:
1. If the damage was caused by force majeure
- If by the tooting of a horn of a car, a horse was
frightenedand instinctively run causing injuries and
death to a person, the possessor is not liable. The
event is considered fortuitous.
2. If the damage was caused by the fault of the
plaintiff or person injured
- A caretaker of a carabao who was being paid for his
work, was gored by one of the carabaos under his
responsibility and as a result, he died. The owner of
the carabao was exempted from liability.
Reason: The caretaker has assumed the risk of the
occupation he accepted. It was the duty of the
caretaker to prevent the carabao from causing
injury to anyone, including himself.
Note:
The contributory negligence of the plaintiff is a
defense under Article 2183.
A person is unnecessarily or without cause or excuse
knowingly places himself within the reach of a wild
animal securely fastened which he knows to be
dangerous, he cannot recover for the injury resulting
from an attack by such animal.
A plaintiff may also deprive himself of a right to
complain, if notwithstanding warnings given to him
and without the knowledge of the keeper, he
exposes himself to be attacked.
3. If the damage was caused by the act of a third
person
- If a third person excites or provokes the animal,
which in turn injures another, he is liable for the
resulting damage and not the possessor.
Note: If the one who excites or provokes the animal is
an employee or child, or a ward for whom the
possessor is imputable liable under 2180, the
possessor would still be responsible for the injuries
caused by the animal.
ARTICLE 2184: In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner
is solidarily liable with his driver, if the
former, who was in the vehicle, could
have, by the use of due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is
disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the
next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor
vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180
are applicable.
RATIONALE BEHIND ARTICLES 2184-2186
- To cope with the alarming increase of vehicular
mishaps.
13 | P a g e
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
IS THE ARTICLE APPLICABLE TO A CALESAS
MISHAP?
- Though the article speaks of motor vehicle mishaps, it
has been applied to a calesa mishap.
LIABILITY OF THE CAR OWNER IF PRESENT IN THE
CAR AND/OR IF NOT PRESENT IN THE CAR
a. If present in the car
- The owner is liable if he could have prevented the
mishap by the exercise of due diligence but did not
do so.
Note: Car owners are not held to a uniform and
inflexible standard of diligence as are professional
drivers.
What would be a negligent omission on
the part of the car owner who is in the
prime of age and knows how to handle a
car, is not necessarily so on the part of an
old and infirm person who is not similarly
equipped
b. If not present in the car
- If the owner is not in the car, but his driver was
negligent, the injured party MAY STILL sue the car
owner under Art. 2180 for imputed liability. Defense
of car owner is diligence of a good dad.
Note: The masters liability in civil law is NOT
respondeat superior but rather the relationship of
pater familias.
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR negligence of the servant
is conclusively the negligence of
the master.
PATER FAMILIAS negligence of the person is
rebuttable, not conclusively the
negligence of the master.
THEORY: 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.
Note: As a matter of fact, many car-owners precisely
hire drivers since the former for one reason or
another cannot drive their cars themselves. Hence,
the care or vigilance demanded of them cannot be
uniform; each case must stand on its own.
EFFECT, WHEN DRIVER IS FOUND NEGLIGENT
The law presumes the vehicle owner equally negligent and
imposes upon the latter the burden of proving proper
selection of employee as a defense.
The presumption is not conclusive but ONLY
REBUTTABLE.
The vehicle owner, to
overcome the
presumption, must
present clear, strong and
convincing evidence.
Note: Malfunction or loss of brake is not a fortuitous event.
The carrier remains liable.
EFFECT OF RATIFICATION OF TORTIOUS ACT OF
DRIVER OR EMPLOYEE
- If the employer ratifies the wrongful acts of the employee,
the employer will still be held liable even if he has
proved diligence in the selection and supervision.
- When the employer is in the car when his driver has run
over somebody and instead of ordering the driver to
stop the car, he allowed the driver to proceed with his
driving, he has RATIFIED the act of the driver.
ARTICLE 2185: Unless there is a proof to the
contrary, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been
LAW (ILIGAN)
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he
was violating any traffic regulation.
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE OF DRIVER
A person driving a motor vehicle who was violating any
traffic regulation at the time of the accident is presumed to
be negligent.
rebuttable
Traffic laws issued
during certain
Ordinances
occasions promulga-
Special rules ted by
competent
and regulations authority
INSTANCES OF TRAFFIC RULES UNDER LAND
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CODE (RA 4136)
1. Section 32(a)
Exceeding registered capacity No person
operating any motor vehicle shall allow more
passengers or more freight or cargo in his vehicle
than its registered capacity.
2. Section 54
Obstruction of Traffic No person shall drive his
motor vehicle in such a manner as to obstruct or
impede the passage of any vehicle, nor, while
discharging or taking on passengers or loading or
unloading freight, obstruct the free passage of
other vehicles on the highway.
ARTICLE 2186: Every owner of a motor vehicle shall
file with the proper government office a
bond executed by a government-
controlled corporation or office, to
answer for damages to third persons.
The amount of the bond and other terms
shall be fixed by the competent public
official.
MOTOR VEHICLE BOND
Note: No known implementing rules on the filing of the
bond to answer for damages to third persons.
HOWEVER,
A car owner cannot renew the registration of his car
without first securing an insurance against third party
liability.
Different from other
comprehensive insurance
coverage for theft, loss or own
damage for the protection of the
car owner.
Note: The registered owner of any vehicle is directly and
primarily responsible to the public and third persons
while it is being operated.
Whether the driver is authorized
or not by the actual owner 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.
ARTICLE 2187: Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and
similar goods shall be liable for death or
injuries caused by any noxious or
harmful substances used, although no
contractual relation exists between
them and the consumers.
PRINCIPLE OF STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT APPLIES
Strict Liability proof of negligence is not necessary.
It applies even if the defendant manufacturer
or pro-cessor has exercised all the possible
14 | P a g e
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION)
care in the preparation and sale of his
product.
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
MANUFACTURERS/ PROCES-SORS AND CONSUMERS
IS NOT NECESSARY
Note:
Even if the consumer is not a direct buyer, as when he
acquired the foodstuffs through intermediate dealers,
the manufacturers and processors are liable by express
provision of the law.
There is no need for the existence of a contractual
relation.
Manufacturers or processors are presumed to have
assumed responsibility to the consuming public that
their products are safe and not harmful or injurious.
Manufacturers duties:
Their duty of care must be exercised with respect to the
ingredients of his product
See to it that in the process of manufacture of a food
product, no deleterious or poisonous matter enters it.
Reason: They have the opportunity and the means to
insure that no noxious or injurious substances shall
get into the can.
Note:
Where a packer of boneless chicken advertises that
the bones have been removed from the chicken, this
assurance requires him to exercise as much care as will
enable consumers to rely on reasonable safety on such
assurance.
The manufacturers and processors who may be sellers
of their own products to the public must exercise all
possible care and precaution in the preparation,
manufacture or processing of their products.
Extra-ordinary diligence is required of them because the
life or health of the consuming public is involved in the
consumption of the foodstuffs or processed products.
Art 2187 is broad enough to cover all processing of
foodstuffs, drinks, and other similar products.
PRESENCE OF CONTRACT BETWEEN MANUFACTURER
OR PROCESSOR WITH PLAINTIFF, EFFECT
If there is a contractual relation between the parties,
the plaintiff is not precluded from filing a suit based on
the breach of warranty, whether express or implied.
The principle of strict liability still applies.
The consumers cause of action does not depend upon
the validity of his contract with the person from whom
he acquires the product, and it is not affected by any
disclaimer or other agreement, whether it be between
the seller and the immediate buyer, or attached to and
accompanying the product into the consumers hands.
REQUISITES OF STRICT LIABILITY
To establish the liability of the manufacturer or processor
under the article, the following requisites must be
established:
1. The defendant is the manufacturer;
2. The defendant used noxious or harmful substances in
the manufacture or processing;
3. Plaintiff used or consumed such product unaware of the
injurious condition of the product;
4. Plaintiffs injury or death was caused by the product
used or consumed;
5. The forms or kinds of damages suffered and the amount
thereof.
Note: The plaintiff has the burden of proof that at the time
the product left the hands of the defendant, the
product was in a defective or injurious condition.
Otherwise, his case will fall.
OPTIONS ON REMEDIES
LAW (ILIGAN)
The plaintiff has four options if he desires to pursue a
complaint against the manufacturer or processer under Art
2187. He may base his complaint on the:
1. Theory of strict liability in torts;
2. Fault or negligence;
3. Breach of warranty;
4. Crime anchored on violation of the Foods and Drugs Act
Wherein the enforcement
of which the doctrine of
absolute criminal liability
may be applied
ARTICLE 2188: There is prima facie presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant
if the death or injury results from his
possession of dangerous weapons or
substances, such as firearms and poison,
except when the possession or use
thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business.
DEATH OR INJURY RESULTING FROM POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR SUBSTANCES
When death or injury results from the defendants
possession of dangerous weapons or substances, there is a
presumption that he is negligent.
Rebuttable:
The burden of evidence is on him
to establish that he was not
negligent at all.
Note: The presumption prevails if he fails to overcome it
by clear, strong and convincing evidence.
ILLUSTRATIONS
A has in his area bottles of muriatic acid. Children
playing around got affected and were injured with the
acid.
General Rule:
A is presumed to be negligent in the keeping of
the acid.
Exception:
If As occupation is one of being a dealer of such
muriatic acid.
Hence:
There is no presumption of negligence.
Plaintiffs duty:
Injured party must present evidence to prove the
negligence of A which allegedly caused the
damage or injury.
A is a licensed gunholder. While he was carrying his
gun on his waist, it fell and fired off harming somebody.
A is presumed to be negligent. However, if he is a
policeman, the presumption is not applicable.
ARTICLE 2189: Provinces, cities and municipalities
shall be liable for damages for the death
of, or injuries suffered by, any person by
reason of the defective condition of
roads, streets, bridges, public buildings,
and other public works under their
control or supervision.
DEFECTIVE CONDITION OF THE ROADS, STREETS,
BRIDGES, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND OTHER PUBLIC
WORKS
Note:
The political subdivisions
(provinces/cities/municipalities) are liable to the death
or injuries caused to persons by reason of the defects in
existing roads, streets, bridges, etc., which are under
their control and supervision.
If the damage consists in injury to property, it is
submitted that the same is deemed covered by analogy.
Example: If there is an open manhole in an unlighted
street under the supervision of a city, a car fell into
it and was destroyed, the city should be held liable
for the resulting damage.
15 | P a g e
 TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

OWNERSHIP OF ROADS, ETC. IS NOT REQUIRED He has to overcome the presumption with sufficient
Roads Need not be owned by the political units. evidence to avoid responsibility.
Streets It suffices that there is control or super-
Bridges vision over them by the political unit. EXCESSIVE SMOKE
Smoke when excessive and prolonged is harmful to
Guilatco vs City of Dagupan persons or property.
It is not necessary for the defective road or street to The same is a nuisance.
belong to the province, city or municipality for liability It can be abated in accordance with law and without
to attach. prejudice to payment of damages by the proprietor of
The article only required that either control or the thing emitting the smoke.
supervision is exercised over the defective road or
street. FALLING TREES
General Rule: If a tree falls, the owner thereof is liable for
ARTICLE 2190: The proprietor of a building or the damage or injury caused to another.
structure is responsible for the damages Exception: If it shall be caused by force majeure.
resulting from its total or partial
collapse, if it should be due to the lack Note: The owner is required to cut or fell the tree or to
of necessary repairs. remove it, if the tree is imminently inclined to fall in
such a way as would cause damage to persons or
APPLICABILITY property.
This applies when a building or structure collapsed and
caused harm to somebody due to necessary repairs. HARMFUL OR INJURIOUS EMANATIONS FROM TUBES,
The collapse may be total or partial. CANALS, SEWERS OR DEPOSITS OF INFECTIOUS
Total or partial, the owner or proprietor shall be MATTERS
responsible for the damage or injury caused. General Rule: If the emanations or deposits of infectious
matter become injurious because of improper
ARTICLE 482 construction of the tubes, canals, etc., the
If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is in proprietor shall be liable for the resulting
danger of falling, the owner shall be obliged to demolish it damage.
or to execute the necessary work in order to prevent it Exception: The defect in the construction is covered by
from falling. Art 1723, in which case the
If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the contractor/engineer/architect is the liable.
administrative authorities may order the demolition of the INJUNCTION MAY BE RESORTED TO PREVENT
structure at the expense of the owner, or take measure to DAMAGE OR INJURY
insure public safety. Affected party may seek:
Writ of Preliminary Injunction to prevent the
Note: If the collapse is due to force majeure or defect in construction of any
the construction contemplated under Art 1723 AND structures, tubes, canals,
NOT DUE TO LACK OF NECESSARY REPAIRS, the owner etc., that threaten to cause
is not responsible for the resulting damage or injury. explosion, emit excessive
smoke or harmful ema-
ARTICLE 2191: Proprietors shall also be responsible nations therefrom.
for damages caused: Mandatory Preliminary Injunction to compel the
1. By the explosion of machinery which proprietor to per-
has not been taken care of with due form, or do something to
diligence, and the inflammation of prevent explosion of
explosive substances which have not machinery, emission of
been kept in a safe and adequate excessive smoke or infectious
place; mat-ter, or to remove a
2. By excessive smoke, which may be falling tree.
harmful to person or property;
3. By the falling of trees situated at or
near highways or lanes, if not caused
by force majeure;
4. By emanations from tubes, canals,
sewers or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions
suitable to the place.

PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
If any of the four enumerated events occurred, the
proprietor of the machinery is presumed negligent.
Not necessarily the owner of the tenement where it is
located.

16 | P a g e