TORTS AND DAMAGES  Damage is the loss, hurt or harm which
results from injury
1. WHAT IS TORT?
In common law, tort is an unlawful violation
of private right, not created by contract, and
which gives rise to an action for damages. It is
an act or omission producing an injury to
another, without any previous existing lawful
relation of which the said act or omission may
be said to be a natural outgrowth or incident.
(Robles vs. Castillo, 61 O.G. 1220, 5 C.A.R.213).
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission
causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.
2. KINDS OF TORT
 A direct invasion of some legal right
of the individual
 Infraction of some public duty by
which special damage accrues to
the individual
 The violation of some private
obligation which like damage
accrues to the individual
3. SOURCES OF OBLIGATION
 Law
 Contract
 Quasi contract
 Delict
 Quasi-delict
4. REQUISITES OF QUASI-DELICT (DNC)
a. Damage to plaintiff
b. Negligence, by act or omission, of
which defendant, or some person for
whose act he must respond, was
guilty
c. Connection of cause and effect
between such negligence and
damage; fault
COVERAGE OF NEGLIGENCE
covers not only acts “not punishable by
law” but also acts criminal in character,
whether intentional and voluntary or
negligent.
5. DAMAGE vs. DAMAGES
 Damages refers to the recompense or
compensation awarded for the
damage suffered
6. FAULT vs. NEGLIGENCE
 Fault is that condition where a person
acts in a way or manner contrary to
what normally should have been
done
 Fault consists in the execution of a
positive act but the act was done
contrary to the normal way of doing it
and ultimately causing damage or
injury to another
 Negligence consists in the omission to
do acts required under the attendant
circumstances resulting to damage
or injury to another
Article 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 articles 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.
7. CAN THE HOSPITAL BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE
FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF THE PHYSICIAN IN
THE TREATMENT OR OPERATION OF PATIENTS?
For purposes of apportioning
responsibility in medical negligence cases,
an employer-employee relationship in effect
exists between hospitals and their attending
and visiting physicians.
Moreover, the hospital’s liability is also
anchored upon the agency principle of
apparent authority or agency by estoppels
and the doctrine of corporate negligence
which have gained acceptance in the
determination of a hospital’s liability for
negligent acts of health professionals.
8. LIABILITY OF EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS

9. CAN THERE BE MALPRACTICE IN LAW?
 Yes. While lawyers are not required to
exercise the extra-ordinarily diligence of
a common carrier, they must exercise
diligence not lesser than the diligence
of a good father of a family in the
handling of cases which they accepted
from clients.
 Adrimisim v. Javier- Respondent lawyer,
in failing to immediately secure a bail
bond, clearly neglected to exercise
ordinary diligence or that reasonable
degree of care and skill required by the
circumstances
 Negligence, to be “excusable,” must be
one which ordinary diligence and
prudence could not have guarded
against
 RPC, Art. 209: A lawyer commits the
crime called “betrayal of trust” if he
would maliciously breach
10. ARTICLE 2177
11. ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO VICTIMS OF
NEGLIGENCE
12. DEFENSE OF EMPLOYER UNDER ART. 2180
“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.”
CASE: Construction Development Corp. of the
PH vs. Estrella, GR 147791
Facts:
Respondents Rebecca G. Estrella and her
granddaughter, Rachel E. Fletcher, boarded in
San Pablo City, a BLTB bus bound for Pasay
City. However, they never reached their
destination because their bus was rammed
from behind by a tractor-truck of CDCP in the
South Expressway. The strong impact pushed
forward their seats and pinned their knees to
the seats in front of them. They regained
consciousness only when rescuers created a
hole in the bus and extricated their legs from
under the seats. They were brought to the
Makati Medical Center where the doctors
diagnosed their injuries.
Thereafter, respondents filed a Complaint for
damages against CDCP, BLTB, Espiridion
Payunan, Jr. and Wilfredo Datinguinoo before
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 13.
They alleged that Payunan, Jr. and
Datinguinoo, who were the drivers of CDCP
and BLTB buses, respectively, were negligent
and did not obey traffic laws and that BLTB
and CDCP did not exercise the diligence of a
good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of their employees. RTC ruled in
favor of the complainants. CA affirmed RTC’s
decision.
Issue:
(1) Whether or not BLTB and its driver
Wilfredo Datinguinoo are solely liable for
the damges sustained by the
respondents? NO.
(2) Whether or not Employers are liable for
the action for the actions of their
employees? YES.
(1) In a "joint" obligation, each obligor answers
only for a part of the whole liability; in a
"solidary" or "joint and several" obligation, the
relationship between the active and the
passive subjects is so close that each of them
must comply with or demand the fulfillment of
the whole obligation.
It was clearly stated in the lower court’s
decision that petitioner and its driver Payunan,
Jr., are jointly and solidarily liable for moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 to
respondent Fletcher and P25,000.00 to
respondent Estrella.20 Moreover, there could be
no double recovery because the award in
paragraph 2 is for moral damages while the
award in paragraph 1 is for actual damages
and attorney's fees.
(2) Damages; Quasi-Delicts; Employer is liable
for the acts of its employees; An action based
on quasi-delict may be instituted against the
employer for an employee’s act or omission—
the liability for the negligent conduct of the
subordinate is direct and primary, but is subject
to the defense of due diligence in the selection
and supervision of the employee.—The case
filed by respondents against petitioner is an
action for culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict under
Article 2176 of the Civil Code. In this regard,
Article 2180 provides that the obligation
imposed by Article 2176 is demandable for the
acts or omissions of those persons for whom
one is responsible. Consequently, an action
based on quasi-delict may be instituted
against the employer for an employee’s act or
omission. The liability for the negligent conduct
of the subordinate is direct and primary, but is
subject to the defense of due diligence in the
selection and supervision of the employee. In
the instant case, the trial court found that
petitioner failed to prove that it exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of Payunan, Jr.
13. CAN THE COURT ORDER THE PAYMENT OF
CIVIL DAMAGES IN THE SAME CASE EVEN IF
THE ACCUSED WAS ACQUITTED DUE TO LACK
OR ABSENCE OF REASONABLE DOUBT?
CASE: Yadao vs. People, GR No. 150917
Same; Same; Damages; Settled in
jurisprudence is the principle that a court may
acquit an accused on reasonable doubt and
still order payment of civil damages in the
same case.—The heirs of the victim, however,
have not completely lost their case. Settled in
jurisprudence is the principle that a court may
acquit an accused on reasonable doubt and
still order payment of civil damages in the
same case. In this case, though petitioner
Yadao is acquitted, nonetheless, his liability for
damages is not considered extinguished since
the judgment of acquittal is not based on a
pronouncement that the facts from which civil
claims might arise did not exist. Accordingly,
this Court awards P50,000.00 as civil damages
to the heirs of the victim.
14. EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED ON HIS
CIVIL LIABILITY
CASE: Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus
Company (BLTN) vs. CA, GR No. L-33138-39
Same; Same; A separate civil action based
on quasi delict may be filed independently of
and notwithstanding the pendency of, the
criminal action against the offender because
responsibility for fault or negligence based
on quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct
from civil liability arising from negligence under
the Penal Code.—Nor is this all. It is to misread
the opinion of Justice Capistrano in Paje if it is
made to yield a significance that would under
the circumstance of this case reduce to a
barren form of words the jural concept of a
quasidelict as an independent source of
obligation. The law is anything but that. The
Civil Code speaks unequivocally to the
contrary. Article 2176 provides: “Whoever by
act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to
pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.” x x x What is more,
there is this new provision in 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.” This
Court in appropriate cases has given force
and effectivity to the mandates thus so clearly
expressed.
CASE: Azucena vs. Potenciano, GR No. L-14028
Actions; Civil action for recovery of damages
based on quasidelict; Acquittal in criminal
action not a bar to civil action.—A civil action
to recover damages on the theory of quasi-
delict may proceed although the defendant
therein was acquitted in the criminal case,
because, according to Articles 33 and 2177 of
the Civil Code, the civil action is entirely
independent of the criminal case. To
subordinate the civil action contemplated in
said articles to the result of the criminal
prosecution would render meaningless the
independent character of the civil action and
the clear injunction in Article 31 that such
action "may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the
result of the latter."
Same; Same; Same; Civil action under Article
88, new Civil Code, unrelated to criminal
aspect of the case.—Article 33 of the Civil
Code contemplates a civil action for the
recovery of damages that is entirely unrelated
to the purely criminal aspect of the case. This is
the reason why only a preponderance of
evidence and not proof beyond reasonable
doubt is deemed sufficient.
15. As a geneal rule, THE JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY
EXTINGUISH THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE
ACCUSED, EXCEPT:
a) In the case of BERMUDEZ VS. JUDGE
MELENCIO-HERRERA;
b) In the case of ALBORNOZ VS. ALBORNOZ;
c) SAPIERA VS. CA;
d) When the judgment expressly declares
that the liability is only civil in nature;
e) Where the acquittal is based on
reasonable doubt; and
f) Where the civil action has prescribed.
CASE: Bermudez, Sr. vs. Judge Melencio-
Herrera, GR No. L-32055
Quasi-Delict; Actions; Damages; Injured party
or his heirs has the choice between an action
to enforce civil liability arising from crime under
article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an
action for quasidelict under Articles 2176-2194
of the Civil Code.—ln cases of negligence, the
injured party or his heirs has the choice
between an action to enforce the civil liability
arising from crime under Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi-
delict under Article 2176-2194 of the Civil 21. WHAT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE
Code. If a party chooses the latter, he may 22. CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER IN
hold the employer solidarily liable for the DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE
negligence act of his employee, subject to the  TIME
employer's defense of exercise of the diligence  PLACE
of a good father of the family.  GRAVITY OF HARM TO BE AVOIDED
 SOCIAL VALUE OF UTILITY OF ACTIVITY
Same; Same; Same; Same; Fact that
appellants reserved their right in the criminal
case to file an independent civil action did not
preclude them from choosing to file a civil
action for quasi-delict.—In the case at bar, the
action filed by appellant was an action for
damages based on quasi-delict. The fact that
appellants reserved their right in the criminal
cases to file an independent civil action did
not preclude them from choosing to file a civil
action for quasi-delict.

CASE: Albornoz vs. Albornoz, GR No. L-7081

ACTION; ClVIL LlABILITY WHEN BARRED BY

JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL ACTION.—Where the
judgment in a criminal action contains an
express declaration that the basis of claimant’s
action did not exist, the latter’s action for civil
liability is barred under section 1(d) Rule 107 of
the Rules of Court.

CASE: Sapiera vs. Court of Appeals, GR No.

128927

Actions; Damages; Criminal Procedure; The

civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal
where: (a) the acquittal is based on
reasonable doubt; (b) where the court
expressly declares that the liability of the
accused is not criminal but only civil in nature;
and, (c) where the civil liability is not derived
from or based on the criminal act of which the
accused is acquitted.—The judgment of
acquittal extinguishes the liability of the
accused for damages only when it includes a
declaration that the fact from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist. Thus, the civil
liability is not extinguished by acquittal where:
(a) the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt; (b) where the court expressly declares
that the liability of the accused is not criminal
but only civil in nature; and, (c) where the civil
liability is not derived from or based on the
criminal act of which the accused is acquitted.

16. ARTICLE 2177

17. CIVIL LIABILITY WHEN EXTINGUISHED BU
DEATH OF ACCUSED
18. ARTICLE 2178
19. STANDARD CONDUCT/REQUIRED DEGREE OF
DILIGENCE
20. ARTICLE 2179