You are on page 1of 11




Definition of “tort”

From the French word, torquere, meaning to twist.

Common law definition
Black’s Law Dictionary

Classes of Tort/Kinds of tort liabilities

Intentional torts
Negligence or negligent torts
Strict liability tort

Philippine Tort Law

Article 1157 of the NCC is the primary statute that governs torts in the Philippines.

Article 1157. Obligations arise from: (1) Law; (2) Contracts; (3) Quasi-contracts; (4)
Acts or omissions punished by law; and (5) Quasi-delicts. (1089a)

Art. 1157 of the NCC includes quasi-delict as a source of obligation. This source of
obligation is classified as “extra-contractual obligation” and is governed by Chapter XVII,
Chapter 2 of the Code consisting of Arts. 2176 to 2194. Other provisions that are considered
“tort” provisions can be found in other titles of the Code and in special laws.

Scope and Applicable Laws

Article 19, Article 20, Article 21.

Arts. 19, 20, and 21 are the “catch-all” provisions that serve as basis of any imaginable
tort action. The Articles provide for general concepts that make persons liable for every
conceivable wrongful acts. There is a general duty owed to every person not to cause harm
to either willfully or negligently. To These Arts are provisions on human relations that
“were intended to expand the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal
remedy for untold number of moral wrong s which is impossible for human foresight to
specifically provide in the statutes.” (PNB vs. CA, 83 SCRA 237)


Statutory Basis and Requisites.

There are five sources of obligations under Article 1157 of the NCC—law, contracts,
quasi-contracts, delict and quasi-delict.

“No obligation will be recognized and enforced by our courts unless the plaintiff can
justify said obligation as arising from one of the sources enumerated in Article 1157.
(Mla. Railroad Co. vs Compania Transatlantica citing Sanchez Roman). Fault or
negligence is an indispensable requirement of an obligation based on quasi delict
under Art 2176, NCC and the crime defined under Art. 365 RPC.

Kinds of Negligence:

1. CULPA CONTRACTUAL (contractual fault) is governed by the provisions on

Obligations and Contracts under Art. 1170 to 1174 NCC; by express provisions, Arts.
2178, 1172-1174 of the NCC are applicable to quasi-delict cases. Action for damages
based on contracts are not tort actions.

2. CULPA AQUILIANA (quasi-delict)

Art. 2176 NCC. “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, thee
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 quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

Requisites: 3 (Taylor vs Mla Electric Co.16 Phil 8)

1. There must be an act or omission constituting fault or negligence;

2. Damage caused by the said act or omission; and
3. Causal relation between damage and the act or mission

A 4th requisite has been added by the SC in some cases, that is, the absence of
contractual relation bewtween the plaintiff and the defendant. (as cited in the
case of Gregoria vs CA, G.R. No. 179799, Sept. 11, 2009)

3. DELICT (Criminal negligence) is found in Article 365, RPC.

Elements of a crime
1. The offender does or fails to do an act;
2. The doing or failure to do that act is voluntary;
3. It is without malice;
4. The material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and
5. There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking
into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition, and other circumstances regarding person, time and place
(Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 282 SCRA 188)

Cases: Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf, 7 Phil 359

Wright vs. Manile Electric, 28 Phil 122
Samson vs. Dionisio, 11 Phil 538
Tenchavez vs. Escano, 15 SCRA 355

Test to determine whether or not person is negligent

III. ARTICLE 2176 to 2194

Art. 2176.
Requisites of quasi-delict.
A quasi-delict is a civil wrong, not a crime, because it is caused by an intentional or
malicious act, but by mere fault of negligence.

Negligence is the omission of that diligence which is required by the circumstances of

persons, place and time. (Article 1173, /CC)

Test to determine whether or not person is negligent? (Picart vs. Smith)

In relation to the discussion on quasi-delict or negligence, reference must also be made

to Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 365, Imprudence and Negligence.
In Article 365 of the RPC, there is reference not only to negligence but also to
imprudence. As a matter of fact, imprudence precedes negligence in Article 365.
Elements of Article 365
Distinction between culpa aquiliana and crime

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

As the doctrine usually is stated, a person who has the last 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.

Doctrine of Proximate Cause

Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The person claiming damages has the burden of proving the existence of the fault or
negligence causing such damages. The fact of negligence must be affirmatively established
by competent evidence.

The condition usually stated as necessary for the application of the principle of res
ipsa loquitur are:(a) The accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someone’s negligence;(b) It must be caused by an agency or instrumentality
within the exclusive control of the defendant; and(c) It must not have been due to any
voluntary action of contribution on the part of the plaintiff. Some authorities suggest that the
additional requirement that evidence as to the explanation of the accident must be more
readily accessible to the defendant than to the plaintiff. The better view would seem to be
that this is not essential, so long as the circumstances give rise to a reasonable inference of

Cases: Africa vs Caltex et al

Republic vs Luzon Stevedoring

Doctrine of Damnum Absque Injuria (Damage without injury)

Principle of Fortuitous Event

Art. 2177.
This Article emphasizes the distinct liability arising from Article 2176 and negligence
under the RPC. The article proscribes double recovery.
Distinction between civil liability arising from the quasi delict (Article 2176) from
civil liability arising from crime.
Cases: Urbano vs, IAC, G.R. No. 72964 Jan 7, 1988
People vs. Ritter, G.R. No. 88582, March 5, 1991

Read Sections 1-4, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court

Differentiate, Civil Liability Arising from Quasi-Delict from Civil Liability Arising
from crime

Understand Art. 2177 by relating it with Section 1-4 Rule 111 of the ROC

Art. 2178.
Please do your readings on Article 1172 to 1174 and bear in mind that these provision
are applicable to a quasi-delict.

Give examples of application/relation of articles

Cases: Bachelor Express vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 216

NPC et. al. vs Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 102442, May 21,
Juan Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals,, G.R. No. L-47851,
October 2,1986
Art. 2179.
This Article partakes of two instances:
1st plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate case of his injury
2nd plaintiff’s own negligence is only contributory; and the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury is defendant’s lack of due care.

Two doctrines/principles under this Article:

Proximate Cause
Contributory Negligence

Cases: Ramos vs C.O.L. Realty, GR No. 184905, August 28, 2009

Pilipinas Bank vs Ca, G.R. No. 97873 August 12, 1993
Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, GR. No. 65295, March 10, 1987
Cadiente vs. Macas, G.R. No. 161946, Nov. 14, 2008
NPC vs. Heirs of Casionan, GR No. 165969, Nov. 27, 2008

Art. 2180.
Cases: NPC vs. CA, GR No. 96410 July 3, 1992
Libi vs. IAC GR No. 70890, Sept. 18, 1992
Spouses Jaime vs. Apostol, GR No. 163609, Nov. 27, 2008
St. Francis High School et. al vs. CA, GR No. 82465, Feb. 25, 1991
Estacion vs. Bernardo, GR No. 144723, Fe. 27, 2006
City Government of Tagaytay vs. Guerrero,
GR No. 140743 & 140745, Sept. 17, 2009

Art. 2181.

Reason for the rule: It should be the person who caused the injury who should pay for
the damage done. The fact that another person paid the obligation does not exempt
him from liability because of the principle that no one shall enrich himself at the
expense of another.

Art. 2182.

Important: There must be the appointment of a guardian ad litem in case minor has no
parents before child can be made to pay from his own funds.

Art. 2183.

Art. 2184.

Nature of liablity of employer

Case: Manlangit vs. Urgel
Caedo vs. Yu Khe Tai, L-20392, Dec. 18, 1968

Art. 2185.

Case: Guillang et. al vs. Bedania et. al. GR NO. 162987, May 21, 2009

Art. 2186.

Art. 2187.

Art. 2188.

Art. 2189.
Cases: City of Manila vs. Teotico (L-23052, Jan. 29, 1968)
QC Government and Engr. Timazon vs. Dacara, GR No. 150304,
June 15, 2005

Art. 2190.

Art. 2191.

Art. 2192.
Case: De Roy vs. CA, G.R. No. 80718, Jan. 29, 1988.

Relate 2192 with Artile 1723

Art. 2193.
Case: Dingcong vs. Kanaan 72 Phil 14

Art. 2194.

Solidary Liability under this Article applies only when:

1. When there are two ro more persons who are joint tortfeasors; and
2. Whn they are guilty of only one quasi delict

Be ready to make distinction/difference between Article 2184 and 2194

Prescription of action based on quasi-delict is four years (Art. 1146 CC), counted from the
say the quasi-delict was committed)

What are the defenses that can be raised in quasi-delict

1. Contributory negligence-defendant may claim that plaintiff’s own negligence
contributed to the injury.
2. Proximate cause of the loss or injury is the negligence of the plaintiff.
3. Last clear chance.
4. Assumption of risk.
5. Defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.
6. Force majeure.
7. Prescription
8. Fault of negligence of engineer, architect of contractor


Manner of exercising rights and duties

Velayo vs Shell Co
PNB vs. CA

Damages for acts contrary to morals, good customs, public policy

Mla Gas Corp vs CA
Grand Union Supermarket vs. Espino Jr.
Quisumbing vs ICAO
Pe et al vs Pe
Wassmer vs. Velez

Return of things acquired without just or legal cause

Liability for benefits received although not due to fault or negligence

Duty of courts to give protection in certain cases

Extravagant expenses in period of public want or emergency

Right of privacy

Interference with family relations

Vexing or humiliating a person

Refusal or neglect to perform official duty

Jovellano et al vs Tayo
Zulueta vs. Nicolas
Phil Match Co. Ltd vs. City of Cebu

Unfair Competition

Civil action where accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt

Bernardes vs. Bohol Land Transp.
Violation or obstruction of civil or political rights
Lim and Taja vs. Ponce de Leon

Separate and independent action for fraud, defamation and physical injuries
Carandang vs Santiago and Valenton

Refusal or failure of police to render assistance

Where no independent civil action is granted and the municipal judge or fiscal fails or
refuses to institute criminal action

Pre-judicial questions

The time to ask for suspension or criminal action


Kinds of nuisance

Remedies against public nuisance

Liability for extra-judicial abatement

Easement against nuisance

Ayala vs Baretto
Sitchon et al vs. Aquino
Velasco vs Mla Electric
Tat Chan vs. Mun of Iloilo


History under the Common La in the Philippines


Dual aspect of crime

People and Manuel vs Coloma

Subsidiary liability of innkeepers and proprietors

Arambulo vs. Manila Electric
Yumul vs. Juanito & Pamapanga Bus Co.

Employer’s liability being subsidiary, employee must be convicted first

Jamilo vs Serfino
Joaquin vs Aniceto

Employer liable only when engaged in industry; meaning of “industry”

Telleria vs. Garcia
Clemente vs Foreign Mission Sisters

Employee’s conviction conclusive upon employer

Martinez vs Barredo
Orsal vs Arisbo
Miranda vs Malate Garage

Employee’s insolvency not necessary for employer’s subsidiary liability

Bntot vs Bobis

Crime must be in the discharge of employee’s duty

Basa Marketing Corp. vs Bolinao Security et. al.

What is included in civil liability

Padua vs. Roblez
Lanuza vs Ping
Manio vs Gaddi
Chan vs yatco 103 Phil 1126
Mendoza vs Arrieta
Elcano vs Hill
PNB vs Purisima
Albornos vs Racela




Art. 2195.
Art. 2196.
Art. 2197
Art. 2198.


Art. 2199 to Art. 2215.

Art. 2216 to Art. 2223.

SECTION 3. - Temperate or Moderate Damages

Art. 2224, Art. 2225.

SECTION 4. - Liquidated Damages

Art. 2226, Art. 2227, Art. 2228.

SECTION 5. - Exemplary or Corrective Damages

Art. 2229 to Art. 2235.

Meaning of Damages

The law on damages-where found

Fundamental rule on damages

Damages and its amount must be proved

Only proximate cause, not remote cause recoverable

Juntilla vs. Fontanar,

GR No. L-45637, May 31, 1985

Speculative damages, not recoverable

Damages recoverable

Lopez et al vs PANAM
Air France vs Carrascoso
Ortigas vs Lufthansa German Airlines

Damages recoverable in quasi-delict

Duty of injured party to minimize damages

Lasam vs Smith

Damages increased or diminished by aggravating or mitigating circumstances

Damages for impairment of earning capacity

Borromeo vs Mla Electric Co
Soberano vs Mla Railroad
Marchan vs Mendoza

Damages for injury to business standing

Factors to be considered in determining damages in case of death of person

Cilla Ray Transit vs CA

Subrogation on insurance company

Attorney’s fees when recoverable

Payment on interest
Effect of plaintiff’s contributory negligence
Rakes vs Atlantic Gulf
Taylor vs Mla electric
Laguna Tayabas Bus vs Cornista

Power of courts to mitigate damages on equitable grounds

No proof of pecuniary loss necessary to recover moral, nominal, temperate or liquidated or
exemplary damages, but factual basis must be shown

Moral damages

Cases where moral damages may be recovered

Moral damages for breach of contract

Acts contrary to moral, public policy, good customs
Araneta vs Bank of America