Concept of quasi-delict
 Quasi-delict may be defined as an act or omission by a person
(tortfeasor) which causes damage to another in his person, property,
or rights, giving rise to an obligation to pay for the damage done, there
being fault or negligence but there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties.
 The basic principle of our law on quasi-delict is that a person cannot be
held liable for damage caused by him, unless he is at fault or is
negligent and the damage is produced by his wrongful act or omission.
Scope of Article 2176
 Article 2176 is the basic provision on quasi-delict which means culpa
aquiliana, culpa extra-contractual, or quasi-delictos as the fifth source
of civil obligations.
 The term “quasi-delict” refers to those obligations which do not arise
from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or criminal offenses.
 Limited concept of quasi-delict:
o The Code Commission which drafted the Civil Code decided to
use the term quasi-delict instead of “tort’’ in Anglo-American
jurisprudence because the latter term has a broader scope as it
“includes not only negligence, but also intentional criminal
acts.”
o Thus, Article 2176 covers all wrongful acts or omissions which
do not constitute breach of contract or the commission of a
crime.
 Expanded concept of quasi-delict:
o Fault or negligence in Article 2176 covers not only acts or
omissions “not punishable by law” but also acts criminal in
character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.
o In other words, the same negligent act or omission may create
an action for damages due to quasi-delict under the Civil Code,
or an action also for damages arising from a crime or delict
under the Revised Penal Code or special law, which civil action Quasi-delict arising from breach of contract
may be maintained separately at the election of the plaintiff.
Delicts Quasi-Delicts
Acts or omissions punished Acts or omissions not
by law. punished by law.
Civil obligations arising from Obligations derived from
delicts are governed by quasi-delicts are governed by
penal laws. the Civil Code and by special
laws.
 It very evident that Article 2176 can only refer to “quasi-delicts,”
excluding conduct punishable by law.
 However, for purposes of recovering civil liability arising from a crime
or felony, the plaintiff is given the privilege or option to treat the
offense as a quasi-delict, and not as a delict, and accordingly, base his
civil action for damages which shall be entirely separate and distinct
from, and shall proceed independently of, the criminal prosecution, on
the theory of quasi-delict.
Requisites of quasi-delict
(1) There must be an act or omission by the defendant;
(2) There must be fault or negligence of the defendant;
(3) There must be damage or injury caused to the plaintiff;
(4) There must be a direct relation or connection of cause and effect
between the act or omission and the damage; and
(5) There is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.
Burden of proof
 In an action for quasi-delict, the burden of proof is generally on the
person claiming damages to prove that the legal cause of his damage
or injury was the fault or negligence of the defendant or of one for
whose acts he must respond and the damages suffered by him.
 As a rule, negligence is not presumed.
 Mere suspicion, surmise, or speculation cannot be the basis of an
award for damages.
 Where negligence is presumed by law, the burden of proof is shifted to
the defendant.
 Article 2176 expressly excludes any “pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties.”
 Quasi-delict is essentially extra-contractual in nature.
 However, the existence of a contract does not preclude the
commission of a quasi-delict by one against another and the
consequent recovery of damages against the former.
  When an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself was not at fault or negligent
constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract
existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been Primarily governed by Article Governed by Articles 1170-1174.
breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply. 2176.
 In other words, the tort liability is said to arise from a breach of Require only preponderance of Require only preponderance of
contract when the act or omission is in itself wrongful, independently evidence. evidence.
of the contract, the breach of which being merely incidental to the Rule of respondeat superior is Rule of respondeat superior is
commission of the tort. not followed. followed.

Culpa aquiliana and culpa contractual distinguished
 Culpa, or fault or negligence, may either culpa aquiliana (also known as
culpa extra-contractual) or culpa contractual.
Culpa Aquiliana Culpa Contractual
The wrongful or negligent act or That act or omission considered as
omission which of itself is the an incident in the performance of
source of the obligation an obligation already existing and
separate from, and independent which constitutes a breach
of, contract thereof.
Based upon a voluntary act or Based upon a voluntary act or
omission which has caused omission which has caused
damage to another. damage to another.
Where liability arises from culpa The defense of exercising “all the
aquiliana, not a breach of diligence of a good father of a
positive obligation, an employer family to prevent the damage” is
or master may excuse himself not available if the liability of the
under the last paragraph of employer or master arises from a
Article 2180 by proving that he breach of contractual duty.
had exercised “all the diligence
of a good father of a family to
prevent the damage.”
The plaintiff has the burden of It is not necessary for the plaintiff
proving that the defendant was to plead or prove that the
at fault or negligent. violation of the contract was due
to fault or negligence.
No presumption that the Mere proof of the existence of the
defendant was at fault or contract and its breach raises such
negligent. presumption and the burden is on
the defendant to prove that he
Negligent non-performance of duties assumed by contract
 The obligations of tort law are for the most part non-consensual and
independent of contract.
 They are generally imposed on men by law simply as part of the price
of living in society.
 Contract obligations, on the other hand, are for the most part based on
manifested consent.
 Contract obligations are generally owed only to the parties with whom
the agreement was made.
 Yet in any case there may be negligence in carrying out the contract or
in failing to carry it out, and this negligent “misfeasance’’ or
“nonfeasance’’ may hurt someone.
 Where defendant’s negligence ends merely in non-performance of the
contract and where defendant is not under any recognized duty to act
apart from contract, the courts generally still see no duty to act
affirmatively except the duty based on — and limited by defendant’s
consent.
 Whether the action is viewed as one in contract or in tort, only parties
to the contract (or intended beneficiaries) may complain, and their
complaint will be confined to the contract measure of damages.