TOPIC: INTRODUCTION (KINDS OF TORTS LIABILITIES)
While the property involved in the cited case belonged to the public domain and the property subject of the instant
Gashem Baksh vs CA
• Breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. Article 21, which is designed to expand the
concept of torts or quasi-delict in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number
of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the
statute books. Not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and
the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter.
Quasi-delict, is a civil law concept while torts is an Anglo-American or common law concept. Torts is much broader
than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but international criminal acts as well such as assault
and battery, false imprisonment and deceit.
Intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be governed by the Revised Penal Code while
negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code. In between these opposite spectrums
are injurious acts which, in the absence of Article 21, would have been beyond redress. Thus, Article 21 fills that
vacuum.
Exxon Shipping vs CA
The prevailing American rule limits punitive damages to cases of “enormity” in which a defendant’s conduct is
outrageous, owing to gross negligence, willful, wanton, and reckless indifference for others’ rights, or even more
deplorable behavior. The consensus today is that punitive damages are aimed at retribution and deterring harmful
conduct. Further, a penalty should be reasonably predictable in its severity, so that even Holmes’s “bad man” can
look ahead with some ability to know what the stakes are in choosing one course of action or another. And a penalty
scheme ought to threaten defendants with a fair probability of suffering in like degree for like damage.
TOPIC: QUASI-DELICT (Article 2176 of the New Civil Code)
Andamo vs IAC
• The waterpath and contrivances built by respondent corporation have inundated the land of petitioners.
Such act is one for tort. Hence, respondents are required to pay despite the subject land is a public
domain. The fact remains that petitioners have sustained and will continue to sustain damage.
Elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the
defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect
between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.
There is therefore, an assertion of a causal connection between the act of building these waterpaths and the damage
sustained by petitioners. Such action if proven constitutes fault or negligence which may be the basis for the
recovery of damages.
1
case is privately owned, the fact remains that petitioners' complaint sufficiently alleges that petitioners have
sustained and will continue to sustain damage due to the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent
corporation.
A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own,
and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime — a distinction exists between the civil
liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual. The same negligence
causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for quasi-
delicts or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is
entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless, of course, in the event of an acquittal where the court has declared that
the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist, in which case the extinction of the criminal liability would carry
with it the extinction of the civil liability.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code imposes a civil liability on a person for damage caused by his act or omission
constituting fault or negligence. It covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character,
whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a
criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended
party is not allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally), to recover damages on both scores, and
would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two
cases vary.
Child Learning vs Tagorio
• Petitioners are liable for failure to see that the doors of their school toilets are at all times in working
condition.
Fault, in general, signifies a voluntary act or omission which causes damage to the right of another giving rise to an
obligation on the part of the actor to repair such damage. Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of
the interest of another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand.
Fault requires the execution of a positive act which causes damage to another while negligence consists of the
omission to do acts which result in damage to another.
Huang vs Philippine Hoteliers
• The petitioner is not entitled to the damages claimed because such fault was due to her own negligence.
Significant to take note of the following differences between quasi-delict (culpa aquilina) and breach of contract
(culpa contractual). In quasidelict, negligence is direct, substantive and independent, while in breach of contract,
negligence is merely incidental to the performance of the contractual obligation; there is a pre-existing contract or
obligation. In quasi-delict, the defense of "good father of a family" is a complete and proper defense insofar as
parents, guardians and employers are concerned, while in breach of contract, such is not a complete and proper
defense in the selection and supervision of employees. In quasi-delict, there is no presumption of negligence and it
is incumbent upon the injured party to prove the negligence of the defendant, otherwise, the former's complaint will
be dismissed, while in breach of contract, negligence is presumed so long as it can be proved that there was breach
of the contract and the burden is on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence in the carrying out of the
terms of the contract; the rule of respondeat superior is followed.
Lucas vs Tuaño
• The petitioner is not entitled to damages claimed as there was no medical negligence.
In medical negligence cases, also called medical malpractice suits, there exist a physician-patient relationship
between the doctor and the victim. But just like any other proceeding for damages, four essential (4) elements i.e.,
(1) duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation, must be established by the plaintiff/s. All the four (4)
elements must co-exist in order to find the physician negligent and, thus, liable for damages.
It must be remembered that a physician is not an insurer of the good result of treatment. The mere fact that the
patient does not get well or that a bad result occurs does not in itself indicate failure to exercise due care. The result
is not determinative of the performance [of the physician] and he is not required to be infallible.
What constitutes proper medical treatment is a medical question that should have been presented to experts. If no
standard is established through expert medical witnesses, then courts have no standard by which to gauge the
basic issue of breach thereof by the physician or surgeon.
TOPIC: QUASI-DELICT VS OTHER SOURCES
Air France vs Carrasco
• Carrasco is entitled to damages despite such breach is based on the contract of breach of common
carriage, by virtue of Article 21.
Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees could give ground for an action for damages. Damages here are
proper because the stress of respondent's action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion, which is a violation of a
public duty by petitioner-aircarrier — a case of quasi-delict.
The responsibility of an employer for the tortious act of his employees is well settled in law. (Art. 2130, Civil Code).
Petitioner aircarrier must answer for the willful, malevolent act of its manager.
The Civil Code gives the court ample power to grant exemplary damages, the only condition being that defendant
should have "acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner." As the manner of
ejectment of plaintiff from his first class seat fits into this legal precept, exemplary damages are well awarded, in
addition to moral damages.
2
Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees
with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal
misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So, any rude or discourteous conduct
on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier. Although
the relation of passenger and carrier is contractual both in origin and nature, nevertheless, the act that breaks the
contract may also be a tort.
“Bad faith", as understood in law, contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with
some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purpose.
Philippine School of Business Administration vs CA
• The school is still liable for tort even if the ones who committed such act is not its students.
Negligence: is statutorily defined to be the omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of
the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time and place.
When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established a contract between them,
resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with.
A perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual
obligations, arise only between parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied. However, this
impression has not prevented from determining the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract.
Liability from tort may exist even if there is a contract, for the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort even if
such contract is based on other source. Also, an act which breaches a contract in bad faith and in violation of Article
21 constitutes quasi-delict.
A contractual relation is a condition sine qua non to the school's liability. The negligence of the school cannot exist
independently on the contract, unless the negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in Article 21 of the
Civil Code.
Defense of the school: Conceptually a school, like a common carrier, cannot be an insurer of its students against
all risks. It would not be equitable to expect of schools to anticipate all types of violent trespass upon their premises,
for notwithstanding the security measures installed, the same may still fail against an individual or group determined
to carry out a nefarious deed inside school premises and environs. Should this be the case, the school may still
avoid liability by proving that the breach of its contractual obligation to the students was not due to its negligence.
Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the rule in in loco parentis. It had been
stressed that the law (Article 2180) plainly provides that the damage should have been caused or inflicted by pupils
or students of the educational institution sought to be held liable for the acts of its pupils or students while in its
custody. However, this material situation does not exist in the present case for, as earlier indicated, the assailants
of Carlitos were not students of PSBA, for whose acts the school could have been made liable.
Manila Railroad vs La Compania
• There was a contractual relation between the Steamship Company and Manila Railroad. There was also
a contractual relation between the Steamship Company and Atlantic. But there was no contractual
relation between the Railroad Company and Atlantic Company. Since there was no contract between the
Railroad Company and Atlantic Company, Railroad Company can had no right of action to recover
damages from Atlantic Company for the wrongful act which constituted the violation of the contract. The
rights of Manila Railroad can only be made effective through the Steamship Company with whom the
contract of affreightment was made.
The contractor is responsible for the work executed by persons whom he employs in its performance. That
liability arising from negligence is demandable in the fulfillment of all kinds of obligations.
The duty thus to use due care is an implied obligation, of a quasi contractual nature, since it is created by implication
of law in the absence of express agreement. A person who takes possession of the property of another for the
purpose of moving or conveying it from one place to another, or for the purpose of performing any other service in
connection therewith (locatio operis faciendi), owes to the owner a positive duty to refrain from damaging it, to the
same extent as if an agreement for the performance of such service had been expressly made with the owner.
Negligence incident to the performance of a contractual obligation (culpa contractual) is entirely distinct from
negligence considered as an independent source of liability in the absence of special relation. The latter species of
negligence is the culpa aquiliana of the civil law; and liability arising therefrom is governed by articles 1902-1904 of
the Civil Code; while the liability incident to the performance of contractual obligations is governed by articles 1101
et seq. and other special provisions relative to contractual obligations.
Culpa, or negligence, may be understood in two different senses, either as culpa, substantive and independent,
which of itself constitutes the source of an obligation between two persons not formerly bound by any other
obligation; or as an incident in the performance of an obligation which already existed, which cannot be presumed
to exist without the other, and which increases the liability arising from the already existing obligation.
A steamship company is liable upon its contract of carriage for damage resulting to cargo by reason of the
negligence of a contracting company in discharging the freight from the ship's hold; and the circumstance that the
steamship company had used due diligence in selecting a competent person to discharge the cargo does not exempt
the ship's company from liability. The failure to comply with a contractual obligation cannot be excused by proof that
the damage was due to the negligence of one whom the contracting party has selected to perform the contract.
A contract exempting a party from liability for the damages consequent upon accidents occurring in the course of
certain operations will not be construed to extend to damages resulting from the negligence of the contracting party
3
or its servants in conducting such operations, unless the contract is so explicit as to leave no room for doubt that
the parties so intended. Contracts against liability for negligence are not favored in the law and should be strictly
construed, with every intendment against the party claiming the benefit of the exemption from such liability.
Light Rail Transit vs Navidad
• If there is any liability of the Security Agency, it I one for tort under Article 2176 in relation to 2180.
The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons
with due regard for all circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates
it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where they
ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.
An employer cannot be held liable for damages absent proof of fault or negligence on the part of its employees. The
foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the
breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier. In the
discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its own employees or
avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task. In either case, the common
carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage.
That liability could only be for tort under the provisions of Article 2176 and related provisions, in conjunction with
Article 2180, of the Civil Code. The premise, however, for the employer's liability is negligence or fault on the part
of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on the basis of the
presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris familias in the selection and
supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the
selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been shown. Absent such a showing, one
might ask further, how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor,
on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when
the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana,
Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is
that which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have
itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract
can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
TOPIC: QUASI-DELICT vs DELICT/CULPA CRIMINAL
Barredo vs Garcia
• The plaintiff may file a separate civil action against the employer being primarily and directly responsible
in damages under 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code.
A quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana " is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own,
and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime. Upon this principle and article 1903 of
the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.
Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code and the culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito under the
Civil Code are:
1. That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-delitos are only of private concern.
2. That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by
means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage.
3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because the former are punished only if there is a penal
law clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which "any king of fault or
negligence intervenes."
The action can be brought directly against the person responsible (for another), without including the author of the
act. The action against the principal is accessory in the sense that it implies the existence of a prejudicial act
committed by the employee, but it is not subsidiary in the sense that it cannot be instituted till after the judgment
against the author of the act or at least, that it is subsidiary to the principal action; the action for responsibility (of the
employer) is in itself a principal action. The same negligent act may produce either a civil liability arising from a
crime under the Penal Code, or a separate responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the
Civil Code.
A distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for cuasi-delitos or culpa
extra-contractual. The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under
article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under articles
1902- 1910 of the Civil Code. Plaintiffs were free to choose which remedy to enforce.
Elcano vs Hill
• The present civil action for damages is not barred by the acquittal of the criminal case.
The the dual character, criminal and civil, of fault or negligence as a source of obligation which was firmly established
in this jurisdiction. The same act is under the Penal Code and the Civil Code. The same act of negligence being a
proper subject matter either of a criminal action with its consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an entirely
separate and independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code. Thus, in this
jurisdiction, the separate individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana, under the Civil Code has been fully and
clearly recognized, even with regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and
convicted in a criminal case and for which, after such a conviction, he could have been sued for this civil liability
arising from his crime. Furthermore, the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is
required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages
4
Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligencia covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal
in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the
offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the
offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and
would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two
cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers
exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same
act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not estinguished even by a declaration in the criminal
case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused
TOPIC: PROSCRIPTION AGAINST DOUBLE RECOVERY
Equitable Leasing vs Lucita
• Petitioner is required to pay being primarily liable for the deaths and injuries arising from the negligence
of the driver because it remained the registered owner of the tractor even if it is not one for public service.
However, liability ex delicto and civil liability ex quasi delicto may be availed of in negligence cases but
offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission-having failed to recover
anything in the criminal case, they elected to file a separate civil action for damages, based on quasi delict
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. The evidence is clear that the deaths and the injuries suffered by
respondents and their kins were due to the fault of the driver of the Fuso tractor.
The employers may be held subsidiarily liable for felonies committed by their employees in the discharge of the
latter's duties. This liability attaches when the employees who are convicted of crimes committed in the performance
of their work are found to be insolvent and are thus unable to satisfy the civil liability adjudged.
Under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, an action predicated 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 enforcement of the judgment against the employer for an action based on Article 2176 does not require the
employee to be insolvent, since the liability of the former is solidary —the latter being statutorily considered a joint
tortfeasor. To sustain a claim based on quasi delict, the following requisites must be proven: (a) damage suffered
by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, and (c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.
Lim vs Ping
• The filing of the collection case after the dismissal of the estafa cases against [the offender] did not amount
to forum-shopping.
The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment. Although the cases filed by [the offended
party] arose from the same act or omission of [the offender], they are, however, based on different causes of action.
The criminal cases for estafa are based on culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is anchored on culpa
contractual. Moreover, there can be no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law expressly allows the
filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal action. This is because civil liabilities
arising from felonies and those arising from other sources of obligations are authorized by law to proceed
independently of each other.
A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on
the part of the offender — (1) civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal offense under
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and (2) independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that may be pursued
independently of the criminal proceedings. The independent civil liability may be based on "an obligation not arising
from the act or omission complained of as a felony," as provided in Article 31 of the Civil Code (such as for breach
of contract or for tort). It may also be based on an act or omission that may constitute felony but, nevertheless,
treated independently from the criminal action by specifoc provision of Article 33 of the Civil Code
("in cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries"). The civil liability arising from the offense or ex delicto is based
on the acts or omissions that constitute the criminal offense; hence, its trial is inherently intertwined with the criminal
action. For this reason, the civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the criminal offense. If the action for
the civil liability ex delicto is instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of the criminal action, its proceedings are
suspended until the final outcome of the criminal action. The civil liability based on delict is extinguished when
the court hearing the criminal action declares that "the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist."
On the other hand, the independent civil liabilities are separate from the criminal action and may be pursued
independently, as provided in Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Code.
TOPIC: NEGLIGENCE
Picart vs Smith
The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the
defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that person would have used in the same situation?
The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in
the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.
The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of course be always
determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case.
5
The proper criterion for determining the existence of negligence in a given case is this: Conduct is said to be
negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another
was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences.
Corliss vs Manila Railroad
Under the Civil Code, negligence is created by whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
negligence, is under obligation to pay for the damage done. And with respect to the application of this liability, are
those referring to the determination of the damage or prejudice, and to the fault or negligence of the person
responsible therefor. These are the two indispensable factors in the obligations under discussion, for without
damage or prejudice there can be no liability, and although this element is present no indemnity can be awarded
unless arising from some person's fault or negligence'.
Each negligence case must be decided in accordance with the peculiar circumstances.
The circumstances indicative of lack of due are must be judged in the light of what could reasonably expected of
the parties.
Mestres Doctrine: a suit arising from a collision between an automobile and a street car is substantially similar. It
is where a person is nearing a street crossing toward which a car is approaching, the duty is on the party to stop
and avoid a collision who can most readily adjust himself to the exigencies of the case, and where such person can
do so more readily, the motorman has a right to presume that such duty will be performed.
Gaid vs People
Negligence has been defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
suffers injury.
The elements of simple negligence: are (1) that there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender; and (2) that
the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest. Therefore, Reasonable
foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this provision, is always necessary before
negligence can be held to exist.
Proximate cause: that which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause
produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. In order to establish a motorist's liability
for the negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that there was a direct causal connection between such
negligence and the injuries or damages complained of. Thus, negligence that is not a substantial contributing factor
in the causation of the accident is not the proximate cause of an injury.
Pacis vs Morales
Under Article 116 of the Civil Code, petitioners may enforce their claim for damages based on the civil liability arising
from the crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code or they may opt to file an independent civil action for
damages under the Civil Code.
Unlike the subsidiary liability of the employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the liability of the
employer, or any person for that matter, under Article 2176 of the Civil Code is primary and direct, based on a
person’s own negligence.
A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under his control an instrumentality
extremely dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in possession or
control of dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury being done
thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or business which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with
dangerous weapons requires the exercise of a higher degree of care.
Civil Aeronautics Administration vs CA
Where such power to sue and be sued has been granted without any qualification, it can include a claim based on
tort or quasi-delict or the grant of the power to sue and be sued upon it necessarily implies that it can be held
answerable for its tortious acts or any wrongful act for that matter.
Contributory negligence under Article 2179 of the Civil Code contemplates a negligent act or omission on the part
of the plaintiff, which although not the proximate cause of his injury, contributed to his own damage, the proximate
cause of the plaintiffs own injury being the defendant's lack of due care.
Gross negligence is equivalent to the term "notorious negligence" and consists in the failure to exercise even slight
care.
Makati Shangri-La vs Harper
• Hotel owner is liable for the death of the hotel guest even made by a stanger.
The hotel business is imbued with public interest. Hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for their guests
but also security to their persons and belongings to their guest. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business
(Arts 2000-2001 New Civil Code).
“The test of negligence is objective. The act or ommission of the tortfeasor with a perspective as that of an ordinary
reasonable person who is similarly situated is being considered. The test, as applied to the extant case, is whether
or not [Shangri-la Hotel], under the attendant circumstances, used that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinary person would have used in the same situation.”
Dyteban vs Jose Ching
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.
6
The test of negligence is objective: measure the act or omission of the tortfeasor with that of an ordinary reasonable
person in the same situation.
Proximate cause: 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. It is that cause acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous
chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such
circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person,
have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably
result therefrom.
There is no exact mathematical formula to determine proximate cause. It is based upon mixed considerations of
logic, common sense, policy and precedent. Plaintiff must, however, establish a sufficient link between the act or
omission and the damage or injury. That link must not be remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no liability will attach. The
damage or injury must be a natural and probable result of the act or omission.
The necessary link that must be established between the act or omission and the damage or injury.
The damage or injury must be a natural or probable result of the act or omission.
Associated Bank vs Tan
Under ordinary banking practice, after receiving a check deposit, a bank either immediately credit the amount to a
depositors account; or infuse value to that account only after the drawee bank shall have paid such amount. Before
the check shall have been cleared for deposit, the collecting bank can only assume at its own risk.
The lack of diligence of a servant is imputed to the negligence of the employer, when the negligent or wrongful act
of the former proximately results in an injury to a third person.
The banking business is impressed with public interest. Consequently, the highest degree of diligence is expected,
and high standards of integrity and performance are even required of it.
By the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care.
It is vested with the trust and confidence of the public; hence the appropriate standard of diligence must be very
high, if not the highest, degree of diligence.
The standard applies, regardless of whether the account consists of only a few hundred pesos or of millions.
Francisco vs Chemical Bulk
Standard of conduct is the level of expected conduct that is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponding to the circumstances of the person, time and place.
The most common standard of conduct is that of a good father of a family or that of a reasonably prudent person. To
determine the diligence which must be required of all persons, we use as basis the abstract average standard
corresponding to a normal orderly person.
However, one who is physically disabled is required to use the same degree of care that a reasonably careful person
who has the same physical disability would use. Physical handicaps and infirmities, such as blindness or deafness,
are treated as part of the circumstances under which a reasonable person must act. Thus, the standard of conduct
for a blind person becomes that of a reasonable person who is blind.
Phil Hawk Corp vs Vivian Tan
• Petitioner is liable to respondent, since it failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in
the selection and supervision of its bus driver, Margarito Avila, for having failed to sufficiently inculcate in
him discipline and correct behavior on the road. Indeed, petitioners tests were concentrated on the ability
to drive and physical fitness to do so. It also did not know that Avila had been previously involved in
sideswiping incidents.
Foreseeability is the fundamental test of negligence. To be negligent, a 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 risks.
The indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased is provided for by Article 2206 of the Civil Code.
Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings, but for loss of capacity to earn money.
Li vs Soliman
Medical malpractice or medical negligence: is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to
redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. In order to successfully pursue
such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either failed to do
something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that
a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that that failure or action caused injury to the patient.
Best proved by opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the same general neighborhood and in the same general
line of practice as defendant physician or surgeon. The deference of courts to the expert opinion of qualified
physicians stems from the formers realization that the latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in most
instances are incapable of intelligently evaluating, hence the indispensability of expert testimonies.
7
Doctrine of informed consent: a physician has a duty to disclose what a reasonably prudent physician in the
medical community in the exercise of reasonable care would disclose to his patient as to whatever grave risks of
injury might be incurred from a proposed course of treatment, so that a patient, exercising ordinary care for his own
welfare, and faced with a choice of undergoing the proposed treatment, or alternative treatment, or none at all, may
intelligently exercise his judgment by reasonably balancing the probable risks against the probable benefits.
The scope of disclosure is premised on the fact that patients ordinarily are persons unlearned in the medical
sciences. Proficiency in diagnosis and therapy is not the full measure of a physicians responsibility. It is also his
duty to warn of the dangers lurking in the proposed treatment and to impart information which the patient has every
right to expect. Indeed, the patients reliance upon the physician is a trust of the kind which traditionally has exacted
obligations beyond those associated with arms length transactions. The physician is not expected to give the patient
a short medical education, the disclosure rule only requires of him a reasonable explanation, which means generally
informing the patient in nontechnical terms as to what is at stake; the therapy alternatives open to him, the goals
expectably to be achieved, and the risks that may ensue from particular treatment or no treatment.
There must be a causal relationship between the physicians failure to divulge and damage to the patient.
EXCEPTION:
Cited as exceptions to the rule that the patient should not be denied the opportunity to weigh the risks of surgery or
treatment are emergency cases where it is evident he cannot evaluate data, and where the patient is a child or
incompetent.
The patients right of self-decision can only be effectively exercised if the patient possesses adequate information to
enable him in making an intelligent choice. The scope of the physicians communications to the patient, then must
be measured by the patients need, and that need is whatever information is material to the decision. The test
therefore for determining whether a potential peril must be divulged is its materiality to the patients decision.
There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice action based upon the doctrine of informed
consent: (1) the physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed
those risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment she
otherwise would not have consented to; and (4) plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment. The gravamen in
an informed consent case requires the plaintiff to point to significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment
which would have altered her decision to undergo it.
In a medical malpractice action based on lack of informed consent, the plaintiff must prove both the duty and the
breach of that duty through expert testimony. Such expert testimony must show the customary standard of care of
physicians in the same practice as that of the defendant doctor.
Calvo vs UCPB
The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires the common carrier to
know and to follow the required precaution for avoiding damage to, or destruction of the goods entrusted to it for
sale, carriage and delivery. It requires common carriers to render service with the greatest skill and foresight and to
use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise
due care in the handling and stowage, including such methods as their nature requires.
Ridjo Tape vs Chemical Corp
• Liability of petitioners for consumed but unrecorded electricity must be limited by MERALCO’s negligence.
MERALCO has the imperative duty to make a reasonable and proper inspection of its apparatus and equipment to
ensure that they do not malfunction, and the due diligence to discover and repair defects therein. Failure to perform
such duties constitutes negligence.
MERALCO has the imperative duty to make a reasonable and proper inspection of its apparatus and equipment to
ensure that they do not malfunction, and the due diligence to discover and repair defects therein. Failure to perform
such duties constitutes negligence. The rationale behind this ruling is that public utilities should be put on notice, as
a deterrent, that if they completely disregard their duty of keeping their electric meters in serviceable condition, they
run the risk of forfeiting, by reason of their negligence, amounts originally due from their customers.
The Heirs of Redentor vs Sgt Amando
• Driver failed to exercise reasonable diligence which was the proximate cause of the injury. And the
employer is also liable as he failed to overcome the legal presumption that employers are negligent in
selection and supervision of his employees.
Article 2180 cited - obligation imposed by NCC 2176 is demandable also for those persons for whom one is
responsible. Employers are liable for damage caused by employees, but the responsibility ceases upon proof that
employers observed the diligence of the good father of the family in the selection and supervision of employees. The
burden of proof is on the employer. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for QD is solidary. The
employer's civil liability for his employee's negligent acts is also primary and direct, owing to his own negligence in
selecting and supervising them, and this liability attaches even if the employer is not in the vehicle at the time of
collision.
In the selection of employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and
service records. With respect to supervision, employers should formulate SOPs and monitor their implementation,
and impose disciplinary measures for breaches. To establish these factors in a trial involving the issue of vicarious
[secondary] liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence.
Hidalgo vs Balandan
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance: 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
8
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.
Ratio: The principle reason for the doctrine is that the condition or appliance in question although its danger is
apparent to those of age, is so enticing or 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.
EXCEPTION:
The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the
absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location.
TOPIC: NEGLIGENCE AS PROXIMATE CASE/DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
Honoria vs Go Chong
• It is evident that the proximate, immediate and direct cause of the death of the plaintiffs' intestate was the
negligence of Orfanel, a uniformed policeman, who took the wheel of the truck from defendant's cargador,
in spite of the protest of the latter. There is no direct and proximate causal connection between the
negligence or violation of the law by the defendant to the death of the plaintiff's intestate.
In order that a person may be held guilty for damage through negligence, it is necessary that there be an act or
omission on the part of the person who is to be charged with the liability and that damage is produced by the said
act or omission.
That the burden thereof is upon the plaintiff, it is apparent that it is the duty of him who shall claim damages to
establish their existence.
The first setting forth in detail the necessary points of the proof, which are two: An Act or omission on the part of the
person who is to be charged with the liability, and the production of the damage by said act or omission. This
includes, by inference, the establishment of a relation of cause or effect between the act or the omission and the
damage; the latter must be the direct result of one of the first two.
It is necessary that the damages result immediately and directly from an act performed culpably and wrongfully;
'necessarily presupposing, a legal ground for imputability.’
Bataclan vs Medina
• The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus which was caused by the negligence of the driver
because he was speeding and also he was already advised by Medina to change the tires yet he did not.
Such negligence resulted to the overturning of the bus.
The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events
in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result
of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as
an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default
that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.
Fernando vs Court of Appeals
• The municipality is not held liable because the accident occurred because the victims on their own and
without authority from the public respondent opened the septic tank. Considering the nature of the task of
emptying a septic tank especially one which has not been cleaned for years, an ordinarily prudent person
should undoubtedly be aware of the attendant risks. There was also an invitation to bid after informing the
situation.
The proper criterion for determining the existence of negligence in a given case is this: Conduct is said to be
negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another
was sufficiently probable warrant his foregoing the conduct or guarding against its consequences.
To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of another, a claimant must establish the
relation between the omission and the damage. He must prove under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code that the
defendant's negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. Proximate cause has been defined
as 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.
Proof of such relation of cause and effect is not an arduous one if the claimant did not in any way contribute to the
negligence of the defendant. However, where the resulting injury was the product of the negligence of both parties,
there exists a difficulty to discern which acts shall be considered the proximate cause of the accident.
Difficulty seems to be apprehended in deciding which acts of the injured party shall be considered immediate causes
of the accident. The test is simple. Distinction must be made between the accident and the injury, between the event
itself, without which there could have been no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it, independent
of it, but contributing to his own proper hurt.
Urbano vs IAC
• The medical findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus
was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death.
The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
• The act of hijacking in the palm was not the proximate cause because there was an intervening cause
which occurred. The connection between the proximate cause and the damages was cut by the
intervening cause which is the tetanus caused by the bacteria.
9
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted
upon him by the accused.
"A prior and remote cause cannot be made the be of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish
the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such
prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though
such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except
because of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent
act or defective condition sets into operation the instances which result in injury because of the prior defective
condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause."
Mercury Drug vs Baking
• The proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the Mercury Drug employee. Vehicular
accident could not have occurred had the drugstore employee been careful in reading the prescription;
without the potent effects of Dormicum, a sleeping tablet, it was unlikely that Baking would fall asleep
while driving his car, resulting in a collision.
Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred otherwise. Proximate cause is
determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy, and
precedent..
When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of the law that
there has been negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selection of his employee or in the supervision
over him, after such selection.
Umali vs Bacani
• Because of the aforementioned series of negligence on the part of defendants' employees resulting in a
live wire lying on the premises without any visible warning of its lethal character, anybody, even a
responsible grown up or not necessarily an innocent child, could have met the same fate that befell the
victim.
Art. 2179 of the Civil Code provides that if the negligence of the plaintiff (parents of the victim in this case) 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. This law may be availed of by the
petitioner but does not exempt him from liability. Petitioner's liability for injury caused by his employees negligence
is well defined in par. 4, of Article 2180.
SD Martinez vs Buskirk
• The cochero of the defendant was not negligent in leaving the horses in the manner described by the
evidence in this case. It appears from the undisputed evidence that the horses which caused the damage
were gentle and tractable; that the cochero was experienced and capable; that he had driven one of the
 horses several years and the other for five or six months; that he had been in the habit, during all that
time, of leaving them in the condition in which they were left on the day of the accident.

The degree of care required of the plaintiff, or those in charged of his horse, at the time of the injury, is that which
would be exercised by a person of ordinary care and prudence under like circumstances. Where reasonable care
is employed in doing an act not itself illegal or inherently likely to produce damage to others, there will be no liability,
although damage in fact ensues.

Acts the performance of which has not proved destructive or injurious and which have, therefore, been acquiesced
in by society for so long a time that they have ripened into custom, cannot be held to be themselves unreasonable
or imprudent.

BPI vs Suarez
• Suarez failed to establish that his claimed injury was proximately caused by the erroneous marking of
DAIF on the checks.

Proximate Cause has been defined as any cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the result complained of and without which would not have occurred.

10