ART.

1161 Civil obligations arising

from criminal offenses shall be governed
by the penal laws, subject to the
provisions of article 2177, and of the
pertinent provisions of Chapter 2,
Preliminary Title, on Human Relations,
and of the Title XVII of this Book,
regulating damages. (Art. 1161, NCC)
• Oftentimes, the commission of a
crime causes not only moral evil
but also material damage. From
this principle, the rule has been
established that every person
criminally liable for an act of
omission is also civilly liable for
damages. (Art. 100, Revised Penal Code)
Scope of civil liability
The extent of the civil liability arising from
crimes is governed by the Revised Penal Code
and the Civil Code. This civil liability includes:
(1) Restitution
(2) Reparation for damaged caused
(3) Indemnification for consequential
damages. (Art. 104, RPC)
 ART. 1162. Obligations
derived from quasi-delicts
shall be governed by the
provisions of Chapter 2, Title
XVII of this Book, and by
special laws. (Art. 1162, NCC)
 A quasi-delict is an act of
or omission by a person (tort
feasor) which causes damage
to another 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. (Art.
2176, NCC)
Examples
• While driving a car recklessly, I injured a
pedestrian.

• While cleaning my window sill, my

negligence caused a flower pot to fall on
the street, breaking the arms of my
neighbor.
 Requisites of quasi-delict
• There must be an act or omission
• There must be fault or negligence
• There must be damage caused
• There must be a direct relation of cause and effect
between the act or omission and the damage
• There is no pre-existing contractual relation between
parties
Example: While playing softball with his friends, Francis broke
the window glass of Paul, his neighbor. The accident would
not have happened had they played a little farther from
the house of Paul.
 Test for determination of
Negligence
“The test in determining whether a person is negligent is
this: Would a prudent man (in his position) foresee harm to the
person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about
to be pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain
from that course, or to take precaution against its mischievous
results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable
foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born
of this provision, is the constitute fact of negligence”
 Crime distinguished from quasi-
delict
The following are the distinctions:
1. In crime, there is criminal or malicious intent or criminal
negligence, while in quasi-delict, there is only negligence;
2. In crime, the purpose is punishment, while in quasi-delict,
indemnification of the offended party;
3. Crime affects public interest, while quasi-delict concerns private
interest;
4. In crime, there are generally two liabilities: criminal and civil, while
in quasi-delict, there is only civil liability;
5. Criminal liability can not be compromised or settled by the
parties themselves, while the liability for quasi-delict can be
compromised as any other civil liability.
6. In crime, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt, while in quasi-delict, the fault or negligence of
the defendant need only be proved by pre-ponderance
(superior or greater weight) of evidence.
Nature and Effects of Obligations
ART. 1163. Every person obliged to give
something is also obliged to take care of it
with the proper diligence of a good father of
a family, unless the law or the stipulation of
the parties requires another standard of
care. (Art. 1163, NCC)