Rachel’s Torts reviewer -1-

A negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising

A. General Principles from a crime under the RPC or a separate responsibility for fault or
negligence.
Art. 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 ∆ Elcano v Hill
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this chapter. Facts: Defendant is married but is still a minor who lives with
parents and getting subsistence from them. In the criminal case, he
was acquitted.
Elements
Held:
1. Act or omission with fault or negligence The concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in
2. Damage or injury is caused to another character or in violation of the penal law, whether voluntary or
3. No pre-existing contractual relation between the parties negligent
4. Causal connection between damage done and
act/omission.
∆ Garcia v Florido

Requisites Facts: Spouses hire PU for road trip. Collided with passenger bus.
Both drivers were negligent. Crim cases filed. Defense of defendant
1. Negligence was that since crim case was filed first no civil action could be filed.
2. Damage
3. Causal connection Held:
The same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability
arising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict. The former is
Concepts a violation of crim law while the latter is a distinct and independent
negligence having always had its own foundation and individuality.
Quasi-delict – Source of obligation wherein by the act or omission of
somebody, there being fault or negligence, he causes damage to
another for which he is liable to the latter and there is no pre-
existing contract between them. ∆ Cinco v Canoy

Tort –an act which causes damage to another person. It is a civil
wrong consisting of a violation of a right or a breach of duty for
which the law grants a remedy in damages or other relief.
(Therefore, a tort encompasses a broader concept than quasi-delict;
it also includes breach of contract and crimes)
Negligence – 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 person suffers
injury.
Facts: Collision between Cinco’s car and jeepney. Criminal and civil
action instituted. Defendants move to suspend civil action pending
criminal action.
Held: Quasi-delict is an independent source of obligation hence there
can be an independent civil action for damages to property during
pendency of criminal action.
∆ Mendoza v Arrieta

Fault – a condition where a person acts in a manner contrary to what Facts: 3 way accident with Truck hits jeep which in turn hits Benz.
normally should’ve done Crim case absolved jeep. Suit against truck.

Damage – loss, hurt or harm which results from injury.
Scope
All wrongful acts or omissions as long as:
1. They do not constitute a breach of contract
2. They are not punishable as offenses.
Held: Civil case based on quasi-delict may proceed independently
regardless of result of crim case. Hence failure to reserve right to
file independent civil action in crim does not bar civil action based
on quasi-delict which is distinct and different from civil liability
arising from RPC.
Quasi-Delict distinguished from crime

Basis Quasi-Delict Crime

Classes of Actions
Legal basis of Fault or negligence Law punishing the act
liability resulting in damage
1. Quasi-delict: based on negligence
2. Breach of Contract: based on existence of a Criminal intent Not necessary essential
contract
3. Torts in human Relations: based on intentional act
of the tort-feasor Nature of right Private right: Public right:
violated Against private Against the state
4. Crime: based on violation of a penal statute
individual
Liability for Always gives rise to Some crimes do not
damages liability for damages give rise to liability for
Cases damages
Quantum of Preponderance of Proof beyond
∆ Barredo v Garcia proof evidence reasonable doubt

Facts: Collision between taxi and carretela. Criminal action filed

Sanction or Reparation or Imprisonment, fine or
against driver and this suit against taxi owner. Taxi owner contends penalty indemnification of both. Also accessory
liability is governed by RPC which is only subsidiary. injury or damages penalties
Held:
A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under Quasi-delict distinguished from contract
the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own and individuality that is
entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime. Basis Quasi-delict Contract
Merely incidental to the
Negligence is direct, performance of the
 Rachel’s Torts reviewer -2-
Nature of substantive and contractual obligation. Facts: Filipino passenger flying first class was forced to vacate his
negligence independent There is a preexisting seat for a white man who had a “better right.” He files for damages.
contract or obligation.
Held: Although the relation between a passenger and the carrier is
(Rakes v Atlantic) contractual both in origin and nature, the act that breaks the
(Rakes v Atlantic) contract may also be a tort.
Complete and proper Not a complete and
Defense of defense insofar as proper defense in the
good father of those vicariously liable selection and ∆ City of Manila v IAC
family are concerned supervision of
employees. Facts: Widow suddenly finds her husband’s remains removed from
cemetery. Her contract with City of manila was for 50 years. After 5
(Art 2180, last par.) (Cangco v MRC) years husband’s body was exhumed and removed and the cemetery
Gen rule: injured party There is presumption as lot was leased to another person. Defense of City Manila: Immune
must prove negligence long as it can be proved from suit
otherwise complaint will that there was a breach
Presumption be dismissed. of the contract. Held: Operations and functions of a public cemetery are proprietary.
of negligence Defendant must prove Hence breach of contract between lessee and the city gives rise to
(Cangco v MRC) there was no damages.
negligence.
Except: cases specified
by law Interference with Contracts
(Cangco v MRC)

Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his
∆ Cangco v MRC contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.

Facts: Guy alighted from train and stepped on watermelons. Results Elements of interference:
in violent fall. Suit for damages. Defense of good father of family in 1. Existence of a valid contract
selection and supervision of employees. 2. Knowledge on the part of the 3rd party of the existence of
the contract
Held: Liability arose from contract of carriage. 3. Inducement or interference of the 3rd party without legal
Since there is breach of contract: justification or excuse
4. breach of contract
Negligence on part of the employees which resulted in the breach 5. causes damage to the other party
would make MRC liable even if it proves diligence in selecting and
supervising employees. Possible defenses:
1. Business competition where lawful means are used
Negligence is not even necessary in order to make it liable. As long > No intent to cause damage
as there is a breach, liability may arise. 2. honest advice
> made good faith
> performance of duty as an adviser
∆ Manila Railroad v. Compania Transatlantica 3. lack of element of inducement

Facts: MRC has contract with Transatlantica to transport 2 ∆ Gilchrist v Cuddy

locomotive boilers. Transatlantica contracted with Atlantic Company
for discharging the heavy cargo from the ship to the port. Atlantic
Company messed up in lifting the boilers from the ship and as a
result they were badly damaged. Suit against Transatlantica.
Defense: Points finger at Atlantic Company.
Held: There is a contract bet MRC and Transatlantica. Hence
Transatlantica is liable for injury done to the boiler while it was being
discharged from the ship.
Negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation is distinct
from negligence in quasi-delict. They are governed by different
provisions.
Facts: Cuddy owns film Zigomar, has a contract with Gilchrist to
show film in the latter’s theater. Cuddy backs out of the contract
saying he had made other arrangements with the film with Espejo.
Held: Espejo liable. Interference of contracts.
Malice is not an element. Fact of no malice does not relieve them of
legal liability for interfering with contact and causing its breach.
Their liability arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual
obligation.
No Double Recovery Rule

Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding

Quasi-delictual liability where there are contractual relations
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
∆ Singson v BPI
defendant.
Facts: Checks of Singson were rejected because his account with
BPI was mistakenly garnished. Singson files suit for damages under
quasi-delict. Lower court dismissed saying that the relation between
the parties is contractual in nature so it does not fall under quasi- Basic Elements
delict.

Held: Act or omission in breach of a legal duty

The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the
commission of a tort by the one against the other and the
consequent recovery of damages. Where the act that breaks the
contract may also be a tort, the contractual relation of the parties Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
does not bar the recovery of damages. 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.
∆ Air France v Carrascoso

∆ Rakes v AG&P
Facts: While transporting rails from a barge, the track sagged
causing rails to slide off which caught Rakes and as a result broke
his leg (which was later amputated). Rakes files for damages. Both
claim the other was negligent.
Held: AGP was negligent. It was duty of defendant to build and
maintain its track in reasonably sound condition so as to protect its
workingmen from unnecessary danger. It is plain that in one respect
or the other it failed in its duty, otherwise the accident could not
have occurred.
∆ Cangco v MRC
Held: In contract of carriage there is duty to carry passenger in
safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains.
Defendant breached this duty by leaving watermelons on an unlit
platform where the same can cause injury.
∆ Lilius v Manila Railroad Co.
Facts: Lilius and family on road trip. Collided with train at a railroad
crossing. There was nothing to indicate that the crossing existed
and that it was impossible to see an approaching train since there
were many houses and shrubs and trees blocking the view.
Held: Railroad Company had failed in its duty to install a sephamore
at a crossing and to see to it that its flagman and switchman are
faithfully complying with their duties of remaining at the crossing
when train arrives. Hence company is liable for damages suffered
by plaintiff and his family.
∆ Yamada v Manila Railroad Co.
Facts: Plaintiffs rented a car with chauffeur for road trip. On the way
back car was struck by a train while crossing tracks of defendant
Railroad Company. Taxi did not reduce its speed while crossing the
tracks.
Held: Railroad Company not negligent. Taxicab company is. The
taxicab did not perform its full duty when it furnished a safe and
proper car and a driver with a long and satisfactory record. It was
also negligent in approving custom of drivers to pass over railroad
crossings without any effort to determine the proximity of trains,
and the company made no effort to change such custom or to
instruct its drivers
∆ Del Rosario v MERALCO
Facts: Live wire was reported to MERALCO at 2pm. At 4pm little kid
touched the wire (ay! Madre!) and was electrocuted. Father sues.
Held: After it received a report, MERALCO had the duty to address
the problem immediately. Undue delay in leaving danger unguarded
and unattended for so long after report was received constituted
negligence.
∆ Del Prado v MERALCO
Facts: Del Prado hails a street car at an undesignated stop. Street
car slowed and plaintiff seized handpost with left hand and puts one
foot on the platform when suddenly driver speeds up causing
plaintiff to lose balance and fall where his foot was crushed by the
moving car.
Held: It was the motorman’s duty to do no act that would gave the
effect of increasing the plaintiff’s peril while he was attempting to
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -3-
board the car. The premature acceleration of the car was a breach of
this duty.
∆ Astudillo v MERALCO
Facts: Teenager Astudillo died by electrocution when he grasped a
charged electric wire with his right hand.
Held: MERALCO negligent in placing its pole and wires within
proximity to a place frequented by many people with the possibility
ever present of someone losing his life by coming in contact with a
highly charged and defectively insulated wire
The duty of exercising high degree of diligence and care
extends to every place where persons have a right to be.
Fault or Negligence
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of an obligor consists in the
omission of the diligence required by the obligation and the
circumstances of the persons, time and place. When
negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Art 1171 and 2201 par.
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.
Negligence – Want of care required by the nature of the obligation
and the circumstances of the persons, time and place.
The Test
Would a prudent man, in the position of the person to
whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the
person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course
about to be pursued?
If so, the law imposed a duty on the actor to refrain from
the course or take precaution against its mischievous
results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.
(Picart v Smith)
∆ Wright v MERALCO
Facts: horse stumbled and caused the vehicle to hit one of the rails
of defendant’s rail tracks. It is shown that the rails were a few
inches above the level of the street. Defendant was negligent in
maintaining its tracks as described. Its defense was that plaintiff was
also negligent by coming home intoxicated.
Held: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of
intoxication establish a want of ordinary care.
∆ Corliss v Manila Railroad Co.
Facts: Collision between jeep and train in Clark Air force Base. Jeep
slowed down before reaching the crossing but did not stop even
though the locomotive could be clearly seen 300 meters away and
which also blew its siren. Widow seeks damages.
Held: Negligence is want of the car required by the circumstances. It
is a relative or comparative term and its application depends upon
the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance
which the circumstances reasonably require. Where danger is great,
a high degree of care is necessary and the failure to observe it is a
want of ordinary care under the circumstances.
A railroad track is in itself a warning and those who ignore
such warning do so at their own risk and responsibility. It is by no
means proper care to cross a railroad track without taking
reasonable precautions against a train…
 Rachel’s Torts reviewer -4-
Negligence – failure to observe for the protection of the interests of
another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which Doctrine of the Last Clear Chance
the circumstances justly demand, whereby such person suffers
injury. A person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of
avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts
∆ Umali v Bacani of the other party is considered in law solely responsible
for the consequences of the accident.
Facts: Storm caused banana plant to fall on electric wires. Live
Elements:
electric wire was cut and one end fell to the ground under fallen
1. Prior negligence on part of plaintiff (antecedent
banana plants. Following morning, 3 yr old child gets electrocuted
negligence)
and dies. Defense of force majeure and contributory negligence of
2. Defendant is aware of the plaintiff
parents.
3. Defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the
accident by exercise of ordinary care but failed to
Held: Defendant electric plant liable. Negligent in allowing the
exercise such last clear chance and
banana plants to grow taller than the electric post when it could
4. Accident occurred as proximate cause of such failure.
have easily seen that even in case of moderate winds the electric
line would be endangered. Company did not even take necessary
(Applies usually to motor collision cases)
precaution to eliminate the source of danger nor did they cut off the
flow of electricity when warned by the existence of the live wire
pending its inspection.

Contributory Negligence
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But
if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care,
the plaintiff may recover damages but the courts shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded.
Art 2179
∆ Picart v Smith
Facts: Pony crossing a bridge. Automobile coming from other
direction sounds horn and moves to the right expecting pony to
move to other side. Pony did not. Automobile does not slow down.
Realizing too late that pony cannot get to other side it swerved in
order to avoid hitting the pony. Pony becomes frightened and turned
its head toward railing, got hit tuloy… pony died of injuries…
Held:
The person who has the last fair chance to avoid impending
harm and fails to do so is chargeable with consequences
without reference to prior negligence of other party.

The defendant can show that the The defendant can also show
immediate and proximate cause that although the proximate
of the injury was the negligence cause of the injury was
of the plaintiff himself. defendant’s lack of due care, the
plaintiff also contributed to the
Operates as a complete defense. injury with his own negligence.
Defendant not liable
Operates as a partial defense.
Defendant is still liable but his
liability may be mitigated by the
court.
∆ Rakes v AG&P
Comparative Contributory Proportional
negligence Negligence damages
(common law)
Last clear chance --- “Even though a person’s own acts may have
placed him in a position of peril and an injury results, the injured is
entitled to recover if the defendant through the exercise of
reasonable care and prudence might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff.”
∆ Phoenix Construction v IAC
Facts: Collision between drunk driver and parked truck. No
headlights (suddenly failed daw), no curfew pass. Truck was parked
askew.
Held: Court used Art 2179 on contributory negligence saying that
Last clear chance doctrine should not be applied in negligence cases
in the Philippine Civil law system

Allows recovery Any negligence, Reducing the award ∆ Glan People’s Lumber v CA
provided his however slight, on to a plaintiff in
negligence was the part of person proportion to his Facts: Drunk, zigzagging, jeepney driver collides with truck. Truck
slight compared with injured which is one responsibility for the run some 25cm to the left of center of road. Before jeep collided, the
that of defendant of the causes accident. truck was at full stop already. Skid marks indicate truck had applied
proximately brakes while jeepney did not.
contributing to his
injury, bars his Held: Jeepney had last clear chance to avoid the accident. He should
recovery have stopped or swerved his jeep away from the truck which he had
sufficient time to do running at 30km/h. His duty was to seize the
opportunity of avoidance and not merely rely on a supposed right to
expect the truck to serve.
Held: Where he contributes to the principal occurrence as one of its
determining factors, he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with
the occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may
recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event ∆ Bustamante v CA
should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed equivalent for his
own imprudence. Facts: Collision between gravel and sand truck and passenger bus.
Negligence of Rakes will not totally bar him from Suit brought by passenger.
recovering anything from Atlantic, although the liability of the latter
will be mitigated as a result of Rakes’ contributory negligence, the Held: Principle of last clear chance applies in a suit between the
primary causes of the accident was still the weak rails which Atlantic owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a
refused to repair. passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce
its contractual obligations.
Last Clear Chance

∆ McKee v. IAC
Facts: Mckee swerved onto the other side of road to avoid hitting
pedestrians who suddenly darted to the middle of his lane. He
switched on headlights and applied brakes and attempted to return
to his lane. Before doing so it collided with a cargo truck.
Held: Court applied…
The Emergency Rule
One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and
is required to act without time to consider the best means
that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is
not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have
been a better method, unless the emergency in which he
finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.
Presumed Negligence
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by
the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably
presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within
the next preceding two months.
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that
a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of
the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
The driver is disputably presumed negligent if:
1. he had been found guilty of recklessly driving at least
twice within the next preceding two months.
2. he had been found guilty of violating traffic regulations at
least twice within the next preceding two months
3. at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation.
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the
part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his
possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms
and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is
indispensable in his occupation or business.
Art. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to gave acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 ad 1755.
Respondeat superior – “let the employer/principal be responsible. If
negligence of the employee has been proved, there is no need to
prove the negligence of the employer. The employer is already
presumed negligent in hiring and/or supervision of the employee.
The presumption is rebuttable. – usually applies to common carriers.
Defenses – when defendant is presumed negligent, he may invoke
the ff defenses:
1. contributory negligence
2. assumption of risk
3. last clear chance
4. prescription
5. fortuitous events
6. diligence
7. mistake and waiver
8. others.
∆ Teague v Fernandez
Facts: Stampede in beauty school causes death. Violation of
ordinance requiring 2 stairways.
Held: The violation of a general statute or ordinance is not rendered
remote as the cause of an injury by the intervention of another
agency is the occurrence of the accident, in the manner in which it
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -5-
happened was the very thing which the statute or ordinance was
intended to prevent.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
(the deed speaks for itself)
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Where the thing which caused injury, without fault of the
injured person, is under the exclusive control of the
defendant and the injury is such as in the ordinary course
of things does not occur if he having such control used
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
absence of the explanation, that the injury arose from
defendant’s want of care.
Elements:
1. Thing that caused the injury is under exclusive
control of defendant.
2. No fault of the injured person.
3. Injury would not have occurred if the person who
controlled the thing used proper care.
4. Fault or negligence is not directly imputable to
anyone or there is no direct evidence supporting the
same
(applies when one cannot point out
the cause or the breach)
∆ Africa v Caltex
Facts: Caltex gas station –Fire breaks out while gasoline was being
hosed from tank truck to underground storage. Fire spreads and
burns nearby houses.
Held: Gas station with all its appliances, equipment and employees
is under the control of Caltex. Person who knew or could’ve
explained how the fire started were appellees and their employees,
but they gave no such explanation. It is a fair and reasonable
inference that the incident happened because of want of care.
∆ Republic v Luzon Stevedoring Corporation
Facts: Barge towed by tugboats rammed against bridge. At the time,
river was swollen.
Held: Considering that the bridge was an immovable and stationary
object and provided with adequate openings for passage of
watercraft, it is undeniable that the unusual event that the barge,
exclusively controlled by appellant, rammed the bridge, supports the
presumption of negligence on the part of appellant or its employees
manning the barge or the tugs that towed it. For in the ordinary
course of events, such a thing does not happen if proper care is
used.
∆ F.F. Cruz v CA
Facts: Fire broke out in furniture manufacturing shop. Both shop and
adjacent house were razed to the ground. Prior to fire, a repeated
request for a firewall to be built had been made by adjacent house.
Request was ignored.
Held: Res ipsa loquitur applies, considering that in the normal course
of operations of a furniture manufacturing shop, combustible
material such as wood chips, sawdust and paint… may be found
thereon.
∆ Layugan v IAC
Facts: Plaintiff was repairing tire of truck in highway. Defendant’s
truck (driven recklessly) bumped into the parked car and injured
plaintiff. Defense of defendant was res ipsa loquitur –parked truck
was presumed negligent because there were no early warning
devices.

Held: Clear and convincing evidence shows that there was a lighted
kerosene lamp 3-4 meters from the rear of the truck as an early
warning device.
The doctrine of is not a rule of substantive law but merely
a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. It does not
dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable negligence. It
merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence
thereof and facilitates the burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of
the duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked when and only
when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is
absent and not readily available.
Assumption of Risk
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it
is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for
those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though
foreseen, were inevitable.
Assumption of Risk
Involves an action to which one consents, and the injury
suffered is due to a risk involved in that action.
A plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm arising
from the negligent or reckless conduct of a defendant
cannot recover for such harm.
It is one of the principal defenses available to a defendant
in an action for negligence
Requisites:
1. That plaintiff had actual knowledge of the danger
2. That the plaintiff understood and appreciated the risk
3. That the plaintiff voluntarily exposed himself to the
risk
∆ Afialda v Hisole
Facts: Afialda was the caretaker of carabaos of defendant. While
tending the animals, he was gored by one of them and later died as
a result of his injuries.
Held: As caretaker, it was his duty to prevent the animal from
causing damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by
the animal under those circumstances was one of the risks of the
occupation that he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must
take the consequences.
Causal Relation Between Act or Omission and injury
Art. 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.
Plaintiff’s own conduct caused the harm
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But
if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care,
the plaintiff may recover damages but the courts shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded.
∆ Del Prado v MERALCO (dissent)
One is not entitled to recover damages for personal injuries that he
himself, through his own negligence, occasioned, without any
negligence, imprudence or malice on the part of the person or entity
charged with causing said damages.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -6-
∆ MERALCO v Remoquillo
Facts: Magno was repairing a media agua of his brother in law when,
holding a galvanized iron sheet and standing on the media agua,
swung around and hit the electric wire with the lower end of the iron
sheet. He died from electrocution.
Held: Proximate cause of the accident was the reckless or negligent
act of Magno himself in turning around and swinging the iron sheet
in his hands without looking hence the company should not be held
guilty of negligence.
∆ Bernardo v Legaspi
Facts: 2 automobiles collide. Both found to be negligent
Held: Where the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his own
carelessness contributes to principal occurrence, he cannot recover.
Since both of them equally contributed to the principle occurrence as
determining cause thereof, neither can recover of the other for the
damages suffered.
Plaintiff’s Conduct is only a Remote Cause
∆ Bernal v House
Facts: After attending a religious procession. Mother lets daughter
walk some distance ahead of her. Automobile comes and scares the
child causing her to run. As a result child falls into the street gutter
where there was hot water coming from the Electric and Ice plant of
J.V. House. Child died from 3rd degree burns from all over the body.
Mother files suit. Defense was contributory negligence.
Held: Mother and child had a perfect right to be on the street on the
evening when the religious procession was held. There was nothing
abnormal in allowing the child to run along a few paces in advance of
the mother. No one could foresee the coincidence of an automobile
appearing and of a frightened child running and falling into a ditch
with hot water. Contributory negligence of the child and her mother
does not operate as a bar to recovery, but in its strictest sense could
only result in reduction of damages.
Proximate Cause
∆ Bataclan v Medina
Facts: One of front tires of passenger bus burst causing bus to fall
into a canal on the right side of the road and turn turtle. Rescuers
carrying torches fueled by petroleum arrived and fire started
because of the leaking gasoline. Those trapped in the bus died
because of the fire. Defense of bus: it’s the fault of the rescuers!
Held: Proximate cause was the overturning of the bus because by
turning completely on its bank, the leaking of the gasoline from the
tank was not unnatural and unexpected. The coming of the men
with torches was to be expected because of call for help. Also, The
driver and the conductor must have known there was leaking gas
since it could be smelt and detected even from a distance.
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.
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 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.
∆ MERALCO v Remoquillo
Held: A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis 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 circumstances which result in injury because of the
prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the
proximate cause.
∆ Taylor v MERALCO
Facts: 15 year old picks up fulminating caps from premises of
MERALCO and takes them home and conducts experiments. He cut
open the fulminating cap and lit the contents with a match.
Explosion causes him to lose his right eye.
Held: MERALCO is negligent in leaving the caps exposed on the
premises however this is not the proximate cause of the injury
received by plaintiff. Plaintiff's action in cutting open the detonating
cap and putting a match to its contents was the PROXIMATE CAUSE
of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted upon
the plaintiff.
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. Where he
contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its determining
factors, he cannot recover.
(Rakes v AGP)
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 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.
Rationale:
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.
∆ Hidalgo v Balandan
Facts: 8 year old boy takes a swim in water tank of defendant
company’s ice plant factory. He drowns. Lower court held defendant
liable because of attractive nuisance doctrine.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -7-
Held: 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.
There are numerous cases in which the attractive nuisance doctrine
has been held not to be applicable to ponds or reservoirs, pools of
water, streams, canals, dams, ditches, culverts, drains, cesspools or
sewer pools.
WHY?
Nature has created streams, lakes, and pools which attract children.
Lurking in their waters is always the danger of drowning. Against
this danger children are early instructed so that they are sufficiently
presumed to know the danger; and if the owner of private property
creates an artificial pool on his own property, merely duplicating the
work of nature without adding any new danger, he is not liable
because of having created an attractive nuisance
∆ Teague v Fernandez
Held: Violation of statute or ordinance is the proximate cause of an
injury if injury sustained was that which was precisely intended to be
prevented by the violated statute or ordinance.
∆ Gabeto v Araneta
Facts: Araneta stopped horse protesting that he hailed it first. Driver
jerked the reins to free the horse from control of Araneta. Because
the bridle was loose or rotten, the bit came out of horses mouth.
Driver jumps out to fix it but horse goes berserk and runs around.
Passenger Gabeto jumped out of the “speeding” vehicle and died as
result of injuries. Widow sues Araneta.
Held: Stopping of the rig by Araneta was too remote a cause from
the accident that presently ensued to be considered a proximate or
legal cause.
∆ Gregorio v Go Chong Bing
Facts: Defendant asked his cargador to drive his truck. The cargador
is only a student driver. Later he lets policeman Orfanel do the
driving since the policeman insisted. Truck hits pedestrian Gregorio.
Gregorio dies. Suit for damages.
Held: Proximate cause was negligence of Orfanel who took the wheel
from defendant’s cargador, in spite of protest of the latter
There is no direct and proximate causal connection between the
negligence or violation of the law (allowing student driver to drive)
by the defendant to the death of Gregorio
∆ NPC v CA (series)
Facts: Typhoon hits. Water in Angat dam rises. NPC opens spillway
gates causing damage to property, neighborhoods etc…
Held: Even though the typhoon was an act of God or what we may
call FORCE MAJEURE, NPC cannot escape liability because its
negligence was the proximate cause of the loss and damage.
When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found to
be in part the result of the participation of man, whether it be from
active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole occurrence
is thereby humanized, as it was, and removed from the rules
applicable to the acts of God.
Persons Generally Liable
Tortfeasor, for His Own Acts
Art. 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.
Art. 2181 Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents
or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or
delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
Persons Liable for the Acts of Others
Vicarious Liability – Liability for acts of others based solely on a
relationship between two persons.
Art. 2180 The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not
only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those persons for
whom one is responsible…
Defense common to all
…The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease
when persons herein mentioned prove that they observed
all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage.
Art 2180 last par.
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no
parents or guardians, the minor or insane person shall be
answerable with his own property in an action against him where a
guardian ad litem shall be appointed
Others vicariously liable:
O Parents
O Guardians
O Employers
O Owners/Managers
O State through special agent
O Teachers/ heads of arts & trades
O Minor (if w/o parents/guardians)
Parents
Art. 2180 (1)
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live
in their company.
Art. 221 Family Code
Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be
civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or
omission of their unemancipated children living in their company and
under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses
provided by law.
Requisites:
1. Child is below 18
2. Child committed tortuous act
3. Child lives in the company of parent concerned whether single
or married.
∆ Salen v Balce
Facts: Minor Balce convicted of homicide. Was insolvent and could
not pay. Demand for the father to pay. Defense: civil liability arises
from criminal liability and therefore liability must be determined by
RPC. RPC does not provide for civil liability of a minor.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -8-
Held: Absent a rule in RPC, general rule should apply. Art 2180 also
applies to obligations arising from criminal offenses. It is absurd that
liability of parents attaches if there is mere negligence but not when
there is criminal intent.
∆ Libi v IAC
Facts: Rejected ex-boyfriend shoots girlfriend then commits suicide.
Gun used belongs to father. Parents negligent and not keeping gun
in safe place.
Held: Liability of parents is PRIMARY. If it was subsidiary then
parents cannot invoke the defense of diligence of good father of the
family. If it is primary, diligence would constitute a valid and
substantial defense. Art 2180 provides for a defense of diligence.
Hence it is primary. Such interpretation reconciles art 2180 with
2194 which calls for solidary liability of joint tortfeasors.
∆ Exconde v Capuno
Facts: Defendant’s son attends parade and drove jeep they were
riding. Jeep turned turtle, death of plaintiff’s daughter. Resulted.
Defendant did not know that his son was attending a parade.
Held: Civil liability imposed on father is a “necessary consequence of
the parental authority they exercise over them which imposes upon
the parents the duty of supporting them, keeping them in their
company, educating them and instructing them in proportion to their
means while on the other hand, gives them the right to correct and
punish them in moderation.
Only way defendant can relieve themselves is if they prove
diligence.
∆ Fuellas v Cadano
Facts: Fuellas’ son Rico hid pencil of classmate in pocket of injured
party Pepito. When classmate asked return of the pencil, Pepito gave
it to him. Rico got angry. After fighting, he managed to break
Pepito’s arm. Parents sue Fuellas for his son’s acts. Defense: Art
2180 only applies if there is fault or negligence on part of his son.
Here son’s acts were deliberate.
Held: Civil liability under 2180 bases liability of the father ultimately
on his own negligence and not that of his son (relationship of
paterfamilias).
Children and wards do not yet have the capacity to govern
themselves, the law imposes upon the parents and guardians the
duty of exercising special vigilance over the acts of their children
and wards in order that damages to 3rd persons due to ignorance,
lack of foresight or discernment of such children may be avoided.
If the parents & guardians fail to comply with this duty they should
suffer the consequences of their abandonment or negligence by
repairing the damage caused.
∆ Cuadra v Monfort
Facts: 2 girls weeding grass in school. Monfort’s daughter decided to
frighten Cuadra’s daughter by tossing a plastic headband saying it
was an earthworm. Headband hits the eye of Cuadra’s daughter
which resulted in blindness. Suit filed against the Monfort parents.
Held: Vicarious liability is merely a prima facie presumption and
therefore may be rebutted as indicated by last par. of Art 2180
providing for defense of diligence.
In determining the degree of diligence required, the law implies a
consideration of the attendant circumstances in every individual
case, to determine whether or not by the exercise of such diligence
the damage could have been prevented.
There was no indication that respondent parents could have
prevented the damage or that they were in any way remiss in their
authority in failing to foresee the occurrence of the incident. On the
contrary, his child was at school, where it was his duty to send
her and where she was, as he had the right to expect her to
be, under the care and supervision of the teacher.

It was an innocent prank not unusual among children at play and
which no parent, however careful, would have any special reason to
anticipate, much less guard against.
∆ Elcano v Hill
Held: Emancipation by marriage is not full or absolute. son, although
married, was still living with his father and getting subsistence from
him. Therefore he was still subservient to and dependent on his
father.
However since son had attained age, as a matter of equity, the
liability had become merely subsidiary to that of his son.
∆ Rodriguez-Luna v IAC
Facts: Roberta Luna was killed in a collision with a Toyota driven by
a 13 yr old with no license. Heirs sued father of the 13 yr old. They
were held liable but they failed to pay the amount. Father contends
that his son is now of age and as a matter of equity, his liability
should be subsidiary only.
Held: Son is abroad and beyond the reach of Philippine Courts. he
does not have any property either in the Philippines or elsewhere. In
fact his earnings are insufficient to support his family. Strict law
should be applied in order to serve ends of justice.
∆ Tamargo v CA
Facts: 10 yr old Bundoc shot Tamargo with an air rifle. Bundoc
acquitted in crim case. Natural parents of Bundoc contend that they
should not be liable since Bundoc was already adopted. The adopting
parents should be liable.
Held: Liability is anchored on parental authority. In this case, the act
occurred when natural parents still exercised parental authority.
Retroactive effect may NOT be given to decree of adoption. At the
time the adopting parents were abroad, it would be unfair if they
were held liable for something unforeseen.
Doctrine of Imputed Negligence
Liability is extended so as to include responsibility for the
negligence of those persons whose acts or omissions are
imputable, by legal fiction, to others who are in a position
to exercise an absolute or limited control over them.
This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to
exercise due care in one’s own acts, or in having failed to
exercise due diligence and care in the selection and
control of one’s agents or servants, or in the control of
persons who, by reasons of their status, occupy a position
of dependency with respect to the person made liable for
their conduct.
Guardians
Art. 2180 (2)
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their
company.
O If ward is incapacitated, he does not need to be below 21. What
is important is guardianship is subsisting.
O Law applies to de facto guardians –to compel them to exercise
control and supervision over orphans whom they voluntarily
assumed the duties of parenthood.
Art. 216 Family code
In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the ff
persons shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in
the order indicated:
1. The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art 214.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -9-
2. The oldest brother or sister, over 21 yrs of age, unless
unfit or disqualified.
3. The child’s actual custodian, over 21 yrs, unless unfit or
disqualified.
Whenever the appointment of a judicial guardian over the property
of the child becomes necessary, the same order of preference shall
be observed.
Order of Preference:
1. Father
2. Mother *in case of death/incapacity of father*
3. Judicially appointed guardian
4. Surviving grandparent
5. Oldest brother/sister
6. Actual custodian
Art. 217 Family code
In case of foundlings, abandoned, neglected or abused children,
parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial
proceedings to heads of children’s homes, orphanages and similar
institutions duly accredited by the proper government agency.
Owners/Managers
Art. 2180 (3)
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
Employers
Art. 2180 (4)
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.
Requisites:
1. Employee was chosen by the employer personally or through
another
2. Service to be rendered is in accordance with orders which the
employer has the authority to give at all times
3. That the illicit act of the employee was in the occasion or by the
reason of the functions entrusted to him.
∆ Ortaliz v Echarri
Facts: Plaintiff’s son was struck by a car driven by employee of
defendant.
Held: Cause of action is in Art 2180. it even provides that employers
can be held liable even if the are not engaged in any business or
industry.
∆ Cuison v Norton and Hamson
Facts: 7 yr old was walking when large pieces of lumber fell from
truck and pinned the boy almost causing instant death. Ora was
owner of truck. Driver was employee of Ora and Ora was employee
of Norton. Duty of Ora to direct the loading and transpotation of
lumber.
Held: Basis of civil law liability is NOT respondeat superior but the
relationship of paterfamilias. This theory bases the liability of the
master ultimately on his own negligence and not that of his servant.
Norton liable because Ora was is employee charged with duty of
directing and loading lumber in which it was the negligence in
loading the lumber was what caused the death.
∆ China Airlines v CA
Facts: Plaintiff bought ticket from PAL office for flight with China
Airlines. He was informed that his flight was at 5:20 pm. When he
arrived at airport the plane had already left earlier that morning. PAL
was a ticket agent for China Airlines. China Airlines had informed all

of change of schedule. Complaint for moral damages against China
Airlines
Held: No basis to hold China Airlines liable. It is not the employer or
PAL. PAL is only an agent of China Airlines. For liability to attach,
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE relationship must be established.
PAL is liable instead.
∆ Filamer Christian Inxtitute v IAC
Facts: Funtecha is janitor and student of Filamer. He is assigned to
clean school premises. He has a student’s license and requested
Allan Masa, the school’s driver/security guard to drive on the way to
house of school president. Truck nearly hit them, the car swerved
and hit pedestrian Kapunan. Defense: Driving was not in the scope
pf Futencha’s duties as janitor.
Held: Driving the vehicle to and from the house of school president
is an act in furtherance of the interest of petitioner school.
As an employee, he need not have an official appointment
for drivers position in order that petitioner may be held responsible
for his grossly negligent act, it being sufficient that the act of driving
at the time of the incident was for the benefit of the employer.
∆ Duavit v CA
Held: Owner cannot be held liable for the acts of a driver who was
not an employee of the owner and did not have permission to drive
the vehicle.
∆ Dulay v CA
Held: When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee,
there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence
on the part of the master or employer in supervision and selection or
both. Liability is direct and immediate. Prior recourse against
negligent employee not necessary
∆ De Leon Brokerage v CA
Held: Owners of an establishment or enterprise are solidarily liable
with their driver for any accident resulting from the latter’s negligent
operation of the vehicle even if said owners are not riding therein at
the time.
∆ Bahia v Litonjua
Held: Presumption of negligence is rebuttable. Defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of his employee is available
and if proved, he is relieved from liability.
∆ Yamada v Manila Railroad
Held: Civil Code bases the responsibility if the master, in cases
contemplated by Art 2180, ultimately on his own negligence and not
that of his servant.
∆ Metro Manila Transit v CA
Held: It is not enough to invoke existence of guidelines and policies
in hiring to prove due diligence in selection and supervision. He
must show that the proper requirement procedures and company
policies on safety were followed.
∆ Metro Manila Transit Corp. v CA
Held: In order for defense of due diligence to prosper, the ff
requisites must be met:
In selection of prospective employees – employers are required to
examine them as to their qualification, experience and service
records.
With respect to supervision of employees – employers should
formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -10-
implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breach
thereof.
∆ Guitierrez v CA
Facts: Workers of Guiterrez dig and dump dirt against exterior side
of school fence via a crane. Portion of fence gave way and pinned
student.
Held: Employer liable since the contract specifically stipulated an
employer-employee relationship.
∆ Walter Smith & Co. v Cadwallader
Held: Employment of a duly licensed captain, authorized to direct
and navigate a vessel of any tonnage, hired because of his
reputation as a captain, constitutes due diligence that overcomes the
presumption.
∆ Ong v Metropolitan Water district
Held: Person claiming damages has the burden of proving that the
damage is caused by the fault or negligence of the person from
whom the damage is claimed, or his employees.
∆ St. Francis High School v CA
Held: Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of
his employees, the act or omission that caused the damage must
have occurred while the employee was in the performance if its
assigned tasks.
∆ Beliza v Brazas
Held: Although Art 2180 provides for liability of an employer for
tortuous act of his employees, this does not exempt employees from
personal liability, especially if there are no persons having direct
supervision against them, or there is proof of negligence on their
part. One can sue both employer and employee at the same time as
joint defendants.
State
Art. 2180 (5)
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a
special agent; but not when the damage had been caused by the
official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what
is provided in Art. 2176 is applicable
Special Agent – receives a definite and fixed order of commission,
foreign to the exercise of the ordinary duties of his office.
The Test
(Anything performed not within ordinary duties) –“an
employee who on his own responsibility performs the
functions inherent in his office and naturally pertaining
there to is not a special agent.”
Aspects of Liability of the State
1. Public or governmental  State Liable for tort of its special
agents
2. Private or non-governmental  State is liable as an
ordinary employer
Note: Characterization in Art 2180 only determines liability.
 It is entirely different from suability.
Gen Rule:
 Rachel’s Torts reviewer -11-
State cannot be sued without its consent. Exceptions are when Art. 2180 (6)
there is express legislative consent and when the State filed the Teachers or heads of establishment of arts and trades shall be liable
case. for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so
long as they remain in their custody.
Take note that SUABILITY is different from LIABILITY. Suability
considers whether an action can be filed while liability considers the Gen Rule:
actual award already. Teachers are liable for acts of their students.

∆ Merrit v Government Exception:

Facts: Collision between motorcycle and ambulance. Accident was
due solely to the negligence of the ambulance driver. There is a
legislative act that allows plaintiff to sue the Government. Is the
State liable since driver is an agent?
Held: Legislative act was only consent to be sued and not an
admission of liability. A SPECIAL AGENT is not a mere official who
does job in discharge of function of his office BECAUSE neither fault
nor negligence can be presumed on the part of the State in the
organization of branches of the public service and appointment of its
agents. The State is only liable for torts caused by its special
agents, specifically commissioned to carry out the acts complained
of outside the agent’s regular duties.
Ambulance driver was not a special agent
∆ Rosete v Auditor General
If technical school then the head of the institution is liable.
Art. 218. Family Code
The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity
or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental
authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their
supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities
whether inside or outside the premises of the school entity or
institution.
Art. 219. Family Code
Those given authority in 218 shall be principally and solidarily liable
for damages caused by the act/omission of the unemancipated
minor. Parents shall be subsidiarily liable

Facts: Employee ignited recklessly a cigarette lighter near a 5 gallon Art 218 of F.C. Art 2180 C.C.
drum of gasoline stored in ECA warehouse. Fire started which caused
School, administration, teachers Teachers, heads of establishment
damages to buildings belonging to plaintiff
engaged in child care are made in Arts and Trades are made
expressly liable expressly liable.
Held: Negligence was not done by a special agent. Officers of ECA
Liability of school, admin, No such express solidary nor
did not act as special agents of the government
teachers is solidary and parents subsidiary liability is stated
are made subsidiarily liable
Dissent: ECA is not a branch or office of the govt. It was an agency Students involved must be Students involved are not
set up for specific purposes which were not attainable through the minor necessarily minor.
official functions entrusted by law to the government or its branches

Basis of Liability of Teachers:

∆ Palafox v Province of Ilocos Norte Principle of loco parentis (stand in place of parents)

Facts: Palafox got ran over by a driver of District Engineer.

Held: State not liable since driver not special agent. Besides Art
2180 only applies to the Insular as distinguished from the provincial
or municipal governments. Respondent superior should be applied
since it concerns liability of municipal corporations. Employee is
engaged in governmental function –construction and maintenance of
roads hence the government is not liable.
∆ Republic v Palacio
Facts: Irrigation Service Unit induced Handong Irrigation Association
to occupy land of plaintiff. Question of whether its function is
governmental or not.
Held: ISU was not established to earn profit or gain. It is for the
benefit of the farmers Court looked at nature of funds. Even if it
makes profit it does not convert this economic project of the
government into a corporate activity.
∆ Fontanilla v Maliaman
Facts: NIA’s driver caused injuries to plaintiff’s son who died as a
result. Defense is that NIA does not perform solely and primarily
proprietary functions but is an agency of govt tasked with
governmental functions.
Held: Principal aim of NIA is irrigation of lands. It is a government
agency invested with a corporate personality separate and distinct
from government. It has its own assets and liabilities and has
corporate powers. Therefore its function is basically proprietary in
nature even if its responsibility concerns public welfare and public
benefit.
Teachers , et. Al.
Development of Jurisprudence
Exconde v Capuno
 Art 2180 only applies to teachers or directors of schools of
arts and trades and not academic educational institution.
Mercado v CA
 Upheld Exconde Ruling and ruled that custody refers to
pupils living and boarding with teacher such that the control,
direction and influence on the pupil supersedes those of the
parents.
Palisoc v Brillantes
 Court defined custody as protective and supervisory custody
that the school and its heads exercise over the pupils and
students for as long as they are at attendance in the school,
including RECESS time.
Amadora v CA
 There is really no substantial distinction between the
academic and non-academic schools. Article 2180 should be
applied to ALL schools, academic as well as non-academic. The
same vigilance is expected from teacher over students under
his control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school
where he is teaching.
 As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school
premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the
exercise of a legitimate student right and even in the
enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility
of the school authorities over the student continues.
Salvosa v CA
 Recess is a temporary adjournment of school activities
where the student still remains within call of his mentor and is
not permitted to leave the school premises or the area within
which the school activity is conducted. Hence recess does not
include dismissal.

Ylarde v Aquino
 It is only the teachers and not the principal or head of an
academic school who should be answerable for torts committed
by their students. In the case of a school of arts and trades, it
is only the head of the school which can be held liable.
PSBA v CA
 Art 2180 only applies when damage is caused or inflicted by
pupils or students of the educational institution and not by
outsiders.
 However school can be liable for breach of contract. Where
school has duty to provide a safe environment for learning.
Soliman v Tuazon
 Affirms PSBA ruling.
St. Francis High School v CA
 School can be made liable as employer if teacher is the
culprit.
D. Particular Persons Held Liable by Law
Possessor or User of Animal
Art. 2183
The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may
escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the
damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage.
Damage caysed by: Animal
Person Primarily liable:
1. Possessor of animal
2. Whoever may make use of the same.
Defenses available:
1. Force Majeure
2. Contributory negligence/ fault of plaintiff
3. Damage was caused by act of 3rd person
∆ Vestil v IAC
Facts: Dog bites 3 year old. Died from rabies.
Held: Ownership of dog is immaterial. Law holds the POSSESSOR
liable, he may not necessarily be the owner.
Obligation is not based on negligence but on the principle that “he
who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must
answer for the damages which such animal may cause.”
If animal escaped or is lost –possessor is still liable.
Owner of Motor Vehicle
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by
the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably
presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within
the next preceding two months.
If owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Art 2180 are
applicable.
Damage caysed by: Driver of motor vehicle
Person Primarily liable: Owner of the motor vehicle
Requisites of liability of owner:
1. Owner is in the vehicle at the time of the mishap
2. The owner could have prevented the misfortune by the
use of due diligence.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -12-
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that
a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of
the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with proper
government office a bond executed by a government-controlled
corporation or office, to answer for damages to 3rd persons. The
amount of the bond and other terms shall be fixed by the competent
public official.
∆ De Leon Brokerage v CA
Held: In order that an owner of a motor vehicle may be relieved
from liability, the said employee must have abandoned completely
his master’s business to engage in some purpose wholly his own.
Art 2184 only applies to owners of vehicles who are not included in
art 2180.
∆ Chapman v Underwood
Facts: Plaintiff got hit by Underwood car. Driver negligent.
Held: An owner who sits in his automobile and permits his driver to
continue in a violation of the law by the performance of negligent
acts, after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe them and
to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself
responsible for such acts.
If the driver, by a sudden act of negligence and without the owner
having a reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its
continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner
of the automobile, although present therein at the time of the act
was committed, is not responsible therefore.
The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the
owner for such length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence,
makes his driver’s act his own.
∆ Caedo v Yu Khe Thai
Facts: Driver of defendant tried to pass a carretela and instead
caught the rig’s wheel and wrenched it off and the car skidded to the
other lane, colliding with plaintiff’s car.
Held: If the causative factor was the driver’s negligence, the owner
of the vehicle is likewise liable if he could have prevented the mishap
by the exercise of due diligence.
Basis of liability is not respondeat superior but rather the
relationship of paterfamilias. The theory is that ultimately the
negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of
timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to
correct it in order to prevent injury or damage.
The test of imputed negligence (see p11 of this reviewer) under Art
2184 is necessarily subjective. Car owners are not held to a uniform
and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional drivers.
∆ Duavit v CA
Held: An owner cannot be held liable for any negligent acts
perpetrated by driving the said owner’s car when negligent party is
under no authority to drive the car and is indeed not an employee of
the said owner.
Manufacturers
Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet
articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused
by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual
relation exists between them and the consumers.
Requisites:
1. Defendant is manufacturer of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet
articles and similar goods involved.
2. Defendant uses noxious or harmful substances in the
manufacture and processing

3. Plaintiff used/consumed the product, unaware of injurious
condition
4. Plaintiff’s injury/death was caused by product used or
consumed.
Theory of Strict Liability:
Applies even if manufacturer has exercised all the possible care in
preparation/sale of product.
Under the Consumers Act RA No. 7394:
 The manufacturer, importer, and seller can be held liable for
actual injury or damage incurred.
 Prescription: 2 years
 Sanctions: Fine of P5000 and imprisonment of not more than 1
year
 Note: An action based on RA 7394 does not preclude filing of case
under Art 2187.
Provinces, Cities and Municipalities
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for
damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by
reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public
buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.
Sec 24. Local govt code
Local Government Units and their officials are not exempt from
liability for death or injury to persons or damage to property.
Damage caysed by: defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings and other public works
Person Primarily liable: Provinces, cities, municipalities
Condition: The road, street, bridge, public building and public work
must be under the control or supervision of province, city or
municipality
Defense: Due diligence
∆ City of Manila v Teotico
Facts: Teotico (plaintiff) fell inside an uncovered manhole when he
stepped down a curb to board a jeepney. He sues City.
Held: RA 409 deals with a general subject matter— “damages
arising from failure of city officers…” whereas Art 2189 constitutes a
particular prescription making “provinces, cities and municipalities
liable for damages due to the defective condition of roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings and other public words under their control
or supervision. Hence Art 2189 is applicable.
Under Art 2189, it is not necessary that the defective roads or
streets belong to the city. What said article requires is that the city
have either control or supervision over said street or road.
∆ Jimenez v City of Manila
Facts: Petitioner buys bagoong at public market. He falls into an
uncovered opening which could not be seen because of the rain
water, causing a dirty and rusty 4 inch nail to pierce his left leg. City
has a contract with Asiatic Integrated Corporation that AIC shall be
liable for any injury suffered by 3rd persons.
Held: City still liable because despite the contract, stipulations
therein showed that public market remained under the control and
supervision of the City
∆ Guilatco v City of Dagupan
Facts: Plaintiff fell into manhole while boarding a tricycle. Defense is
that road is a national road which is not under its control. It is the
ministry of Public Highways who exercises control
Held: Maintenance foreman and maintenance engineer who are
employed by the National Government are detailed with the City and
receives instructions and supervision from the city through the City
engineer. Hence the city still has supervisory authority over public
works in question.
Proprietor of building, factory, etc..
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -13-
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible
for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it
should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
Art. 2191. The proprietor of a building shall also be responsible for
damages caused
1. By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken
care of with due diligence and the inflammation of explosive
substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate
place.
2. By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to person or
property.
3. By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or
lanes, if not caused by force majeure.
4. By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of
infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to
the place.
∆ Gotesco v Chatto
Facts: Mother and daughter went to see the movie “Mother Dear” in
defendant’s theater. !0 mins into the movie the balcony collapsed
causing injury to both. Defense of force majeure and approval of
structural design and plans of building
Held: Even though design and plans were approved by city engineer
it does not prove that there were no defects in the construction,
especially as regards the ceiling, considering that there was no
proper investigation conducted to find out the cause of the collapse.
Engineers/Architects/contractors
Art. 2192. If damages referred to in Art 2190 and 2191 should be
the result of any defect in the construction mentioned in Art 1723,
the 3rd person suffering damages may proceed only against the
engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article,
within the period therein fixed.
Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and
specifications for a building is liable for damages if within 15 years
from the completion of the structure, the same should collapse by
reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the
defects in the ground.
The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice
falls, within the same period, on account of defects in the
construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by
him or due to any violation of the terms of contract. If the engineer
or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable
with the contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver
of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in
the preceding paragraph.
The action must be brought within 10 years following the collapse of
the building.
Head of the Family
Art. 2193. The head of the family that lives in a building or a part
thereof is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling
from the same.
∆ Dingcong v Kanaan
Facts: Dingcong brothers operated hotel. They leased ground floor to
plaintiff who operated a merchandise store. One night one of the
guests of the hotel left faucet running. Water seeped to the floor
which damaged merchandise in store below.
Held: Dingcong did not exercise due diligence since he knew water
pipes were then under repair and he knew that it was inevitable that
his guest would use the faucet. He should have provided some form
of drainage to prevent the occurrence.
Joint and solidary Liability of Tortfeasors

Art. 2194. The responsibility of 2 or more persons who are liable
for a quasi-delict is solidary
F. Civil Liability Arising from Crime
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176 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 defendant.
Rule 111, Sec. 1 :: Rules of Court.
Institution of criminal and civil actions –
(a). When a criminal action is institutes, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be
deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
Waives the civil action,
Reserves the right to institute it separately or
Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action
shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence
and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunity to make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the
accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary
damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or
information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien on
the judgment awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the
complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid
by the offended party upon filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be
required for actual damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed
by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which
could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate
civil action.
(b) The criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to
include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil
action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint and criminal and civil actions, the
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of
the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages
claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover
liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the amount alleged
therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of the damages
are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the
amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has
not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action
upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in
accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the
civil and criminal actions.
Rule 111, Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended --
After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil
action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has
been entered in the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already
been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it
may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall
last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action.
Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil
action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be
consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal
action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the
civil action shall be deemed reproduced in the criminal action
without prejudice to the right of prosecution to cross-examine the
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -14-
witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case and
of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated
criminal and civil action shall be tried and decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period
of prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted
separately or whose proceeding had been suspended shall be tolled.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on
delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final
judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which
the civil liability may arise did not exist.
Rule 111, Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently –
In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought
by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal
action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no
case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for
the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.
Rule 111, Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions –
The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency
of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from
the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted under
Section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce
liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued
against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper
substitution or against said estate. The heirs of the accused may be
substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad
litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative/s
to appear and be substituted within a period of 30 days from notice
A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party
shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules
for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.
If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed
without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file
against the estate of the deceased.
Rule 111, Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar –
A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant
from civil liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the
defendant for the same act or omission subject of the civil action.
Distinguished from Independent Civil Actions and Liability for
Quasi-Delict
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising
from the act or omission complained of in a felony, such civil action
may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings regardless of
the result of the latter.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual,
who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any
manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties
of another person (Bill of Rights) shall be liable to the latter for
damages.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
defendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and
distinct civil action for damages and for other relief. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter
be instituted) and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages
may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge
unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
or other penal statute.

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil
action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require
only a preponderance of evidence.
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses
or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to
life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for
damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
responsible therefore. The civil action herein recognized shall be
independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
evidence shall suffice to support such action.
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176 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 defendant.
∆ Abellana v Marave
Facts: Plaintiffs failed to reserve right to institute an independent
civil action when criminal case for physical injuries through reckless
imprudence. Accused was found guilty. The offended party filed
with another branch a separate independent civil action while the
criminal case was on appeal.
Held: Article 33 is quite clear. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence. That is a substantive right, not to be
frittered away by a construction that could render it nugatory, if
through oversight, the offended parties failed at the initial stage to
seek recovery for damages in a civil suit. The grant of power to this
Court, both in the present Constitution and under the 1935 Charter,
does not extend to any diminution, increase or modification of
substantive right.
∆ Yakult Phil. v. CA
Facts: 5 yr old sideswiped by motorcycle owned by Yakult. Yakult
contends that civil action for damages for physical injuries cannot be
made separately without a reservation.
Held: SC retroactively applied 1985 Rules of Court retroactively.
Since father of 5 yr old initiated the separate civil action before the
prosecution in the criminal case started presenting its evidence and
the judge was informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil
action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of
an express reservation that should be made by the offended party
before the prosecution presents its evidence.
Note: Court said that previous reservation includes recovery of
indemnity under RPC, Art 32-34 and 2176. (1990 case)
∆ Andamo v IAC
Facts: Petitioners filed a civil case for damages after criminal case
for destruction by means of inundation. Case was suspended and
then subsequently dismissed since criminal case was not yet
resolved.
Held: Court distinguished between civil liability arising from crime
and that arising from quasi-delict. They are independent of each
other. Therefore, an acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is
entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless 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 criminal liability
will carry with it extinction of civil liability.
∆ San Idelfonso Lines v. CA
Facts: Toyota van collides with passenger bus. Crim case filed
against bus. Insurer of van files case for damages though there was
no reservation. TC held that civil action may be instituted even in
absence of reservation. CA affirmed.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -15-
Held: Court used 1988 amendments which used the phrase “the
independent action which has been reserved” and concluded that
prior reservation is a condition sine qua non before any
independent civil action can be instituted and thereafter have a
continuous determination apart from or simultaneous with the
criminal action.
Note: 2000 Rules now provide that reservation is not required for
independent civil action.
Effect of Acquittal
Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on
the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may
be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of
evidence.
Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to
file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be
found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon
reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any
declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the test of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
∆ Jarantilla v CA
Facts: Jarantilla was acquitted in a criminal case for serious physical
injuries thru reckless imprudence on the ground of reasonable
doubt. There was no reservation. Private respondent filed a civil
action based on the same subject matter and act complained of in
the criminal case.
Held: The well-settled doctrine is that a person, while not criminally
liable may still be civilly liable. The judgment of acquittal
extinguishes the civil liability of the accused only when it includes a
declaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did
not exist
Article 29 enunciates the rule that a civil action for damages is not
precluded by an acquittal.
∆ People v Ritter
Facts: Foreigner acquitted in criminal case for rape of young girl who
later died from a foreign object found inside her vagina. However
court pronounced that he was guilty of pedophilia which was
injurious to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the
people. It does not necessarily follow that a person while not
criminally liable may still be civilly liable.
Held: While the guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution must
be established beyond reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of
evidence is required in a civil action for damages. The 2 liabilities
are separate and distinct from each other. One affects the social
order and the other, private rights. One is for punishment or
correction of the offender while the other is for the reparation of
damages suffered by the aggrieved party.
Prejudicial Questions
Art. 36. Prejudicial questions, which must be decided before any
criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall be
governed by the rules of court which the Supreme Court shall
promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of
the Civil Code.
Rule 111, Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. –
A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the
pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the

office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary
investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for
trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal
action at any time before the prosecution rests.
The Test
Rule 111, Sec. 7. Elements of a prejudicial question –
The elements of prejudicial question are:
(a) the previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the subsequent criminal action,
(b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
∆ Jarantilla v CA
Facts: Jarantilla was acquitted in a criminal case for serious physical
injuries thru reckless imprudence on the ground of reasonable
doubt. There was no reservation. Private respondent filed a civil
action based on the same subject matter and act complained of in
the criminal case.
Held: The well-settled doctrine is that a person, while not criminally
liable may still be civilly liable. The judgment of acquittal
extinguishes the civil liability of the accused only when it includes a
declaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did
not exist
Article 29 enunciates the rule that a civil action for damages is not
precluded by an acquittal.
∆ Zapanta v Montesa
Facts: Wife files case for bigamy against husband alleging that
husband had a prior marriage which has not been dissolved.
A month later husband files case for annulment on ground of duress,
force and intimidation. Husband then files petition to suspend based
on prejudicial question.
Held: A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case, the
resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
therein and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.
The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before
the court and jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in another
court. Petition granted.
Note: crim case was filed before civil case. No amendment yet so
court ruled this way.
∆ Merced v Diez
Facts: Husband filed for annulment of 2 nd marriage based on force
and duress. Next month wife filed action for bigamy. Husband filed
motion to suspend because of prejudicial question.
Held: In this jurisdiction, where the courts are vested with both civil
and criminal jurisdiction, the principle of prejudicial question is to be
applied even of there is only one court before which the civil action
and the criminal action are to be litigated. But in this case the court,
when exercising its jurisdiction over the civil action for the
annulment of marriage, is considered as a court distinct and
different from itself when trying the criminal action for bigamy.
∆ People v Aragon
Facts: Husband is charged with bigamy. His wife also files for
annulment based on force and intimidation. Husband wants
provisional dismissal on ground of prejudicial question
Held: The nullity of the marriage is not a defense to the criminal
action for bigamy filed against him. If the wife was the one who was
charged with bigamy then she could perhaps raise force or
intimidation as a defense, but not the other party who used the force
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -16-
or intimidation. The latter may not use his own malfeasance to
defeat the action based on his criminal act.
Human Relations
Basic Principles; Abuse of Right
Art. 19. Every person, must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due
and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently
causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in
a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
shall compensate the latter for the damage.
∆ Pe v Pe
Facts: Daughter was swept away by a collateral relative who
frequented their house on pretext of wanting to learn the rosary.
Daughter never returned. Family filed for damages under Art 21.
Held: Circumstances under which defendant tried to win the
daughter’s affection show that it was done through an ingenious
scheme or trickery. Such caused the family immeasurable wrong
considering the fact that he is a married man. Verily, he has
committed an injury to the family in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the
new Civil Code.
∆ Hermosisima v CA
Facts: Plaintiff was a teacher who was engaged with defendant who
was 10 yrs younger. She gave up teaching and intimacy developed.
She got pregnant and defendant promised to marry her. Defendant
married another woman after baby was born. She filed for moral
damages for breach of promise to marry
Held: Award of moral damages is untenable in the light of clear and
manifest intention of the law-making body not to sanction actions for
breach of promise to marry.
History:
Spanish civil code – had breach of promise to marry provisions.
These articles were never in force in the Phils. The proposed civil
code had a chapter on this but was eliminated because of the reason
that “no other action has more readily lent itself to abuse by
designing women and unscrupulous men” (De Jesus v Syquia)
∆ Wassmer v Velez
Facts: Velez & Wassmer were engaged and set the date for the
wedding. 2 days before the big day, Velez left a note saying that
wedding would have to be postponed since his mother opposed it.
The next day he sent a telegram saying nothing has changed. He
never returned. Wassmer sued Velez and the court awarded her for
damages and cost.
Held: While mere breach of promise to marry is NOT an actionable
wrong, Art 21 says when a person willfully causes loss or injury
contrary to good custom, he shall compensate the latter for
damages. It is the abuse of right which can be a cause for moral
and material damages. To formally set a wedding and go through all
the expenses and planning only to walk out in the end is
unjustifiably contrary to good customs.
∆ Gashem Shookat Baksh v CA
Facts: Iranian courted girl and proposed to marry her. They agreed
to get married at end of sem. Guy even visited parents to get
permission. He forced her to live with him where she lost her
virginity. It turned out that he was already married to someone else.
Girl files for breach of promise to marry.
Held: Petitioner really had no intention of marrying her and that the
promise was only a subtle scheme to entice her to accept him and
obtain her consent to the sexual act and could justify an award of
damages under Art 21. Such acts of petitioner (Iranian), who is a

foreigner and who has abused Philippine hospitality have offended
our sense of morality, good custom and culture.
∆ Velayo v Shell
Facts: CALI was indebted to Shell. CALI called a meeting with its
creditors to inform them of its insolvency. Creditors agreed to settle
among themselves about the preferences of credits, shell included.
Shell goes behind the back of CALI and other creditors and got
CALI’s plane in the US.
Held: Art 19 is a declaration of principle while Art 21 implements
such principle. Shell infringed upon the rights of the other creditors
by taking advantage of its knowledge that CALI would institute
insolvency proceedings in the event the creditors would not come
into an agreement. Shell cannot be said to have a vested right to
betray the creditors.
Malicious Prosecution
To constitute malicious prosecution there must be proof
that the prosecution was prompted by a design to vex and
humiliate a person and that it was initiated deliberately by
the defendant knowing that the charges were false and
groundless.
∆ Globe Mackay v CA
Facts: Tobias, an employee of Globe discovered fictitious purchases
and other fraudulent transactions. He reported this to his superior.
He then became the #1 suspect and was dismissed. A lot of cases
one after the other were filed against him. His superior threatened
him and even said bad things to the employee’s prospective
employer so that he would not be hired.
Held: Principle of Abuse of Right under Art 19 sets certain standards
which must be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but
also in the performance of one’s duties. A right though itself legal
because recognized or granted by law as such may nevertheless
become the source of some illegality. The right to institute criminal
prosecutions cannot be exercised maliciously and in bad faith.
In this case, petitioners acted in bad faith since police reports
already exculpated the employee and they still hastily filed 6
criminal cases and threatened to file 100 more cases. Court is led to
no other conclusion than that petitioners were motivated by
malicious intent.
∆ Albenson v CA
Facts: Albenson delivered steel plates to Guaranteed industries.
Eugenio Baltao paid by check. Check bounced and so a demand was
made upon Baltao. Baltao denied that he issued the check.
Complaint for BP 22 was filed against him. He was acquitted. He filed
a case for malicious prosecution. It turns out that his son was also a
Eugenio Baltao and had an office in the same building. It was the
son who signed the check.
Held: Petitioners did not violate the principle of abuse of right. What
prompted them to file the case was their failure to collect the
amount. Through their inquiries and investigations, the name of
Balao came up which let them to honestly believe that he was the
one who issued the check. Balao did not even try to clarify the
matter by informing them that he had a name sake. The filing of the
case was a sincere attempt on the part of petitioners to find the best
possible means by which they could collect the sum of money due
them.
Elements of Abuse of Right
(1) There is a legal right or duty
(2) Which is exercised in bad
faith
(3) For the sole intent of
prejudicing or injuring another
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -17-
Elements of Art 21
(1) There is an act which is legal
(2) But which is contrary to morals, good custom, public
order or public policy
(3) And it is done with the intent to injure
Unjust Enrichment
Art. 22. Every person who through an act or performance of
another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground,
shall return the same to him.
Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s
property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the
latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited.
Art. 2154. If something is received when there is no right to
demand it and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the
obligation to return it arises.
Protection of Disadvantaged
Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of
the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence,
ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other
handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
Art. 1332. When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the
contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or
fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that
the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former.
Ostentatious Display of Wealth
Art. 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or
display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be
stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or
private charitable institution.
Respect for Dignity, Personality, Privacy & Peace of Mind of
Another
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy,
peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief.
(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from
his friends
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth,
physical defect, or other personal condition.
∆ Ayer v Capulong
Facts: An Australian film maker wanted to make a film about EDSA
revolution but Enrile wanted them stopped coz it would violate his
right to privacy.
Held: Right to privacy is not an absolute right. The right of privacy
cannot be invoked to resist publication and dissemination of matters
of public interest. The interest sought to be protected by the right of
privacy is the right to be free from “unwarranted publicity, from the
wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and activities of an
individual which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern.”
∆ Tenchavez v Escano
Facts: Vicenta Escano had a secret marriage with Pastor Tenchavez,
they were about to elope when the family found out and separated
them saying that they should have a recelebration to validate the
marriage, this time with the Archbishop’s approval. The couple was
estranged and Escano left for the States and divorced Tenchavez.

Escano found another husband. Tenchavez filed a complaint against
Vicenta’s family for alienating her affections.
Held: A parent is liable for alienation of affections resulting from his
own malicious conduct, as where he wrongfully entices his son or
daughter to leave his or her spouse, but he is not liable unless he
acts maliciously, without justification and from unworthy motives.
In this case the parents of Vicenta acted without malice, all they
wanted was a recelebration of marriage, and when it did not happen
they just respected their daughter’s decision or abided her resolve,
which in law does not constitute alienation of affection.
Dereliction of Duty
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a
public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause,
to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other
relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary
administrative action that may be taken.
∆ Amaro v Samanguit
Facts: Amaro was assaulted and shot near the city government
building. He and his father went to the Chief of Police for assistance
but instead they were harassed and terrorized, the defendant
ordering them to appear in his office when he was absent and then
threatening to arrest them. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages
against the Chief of Police but the same was dismissed in the lower
court on the ground that facts do not state a cause of action.
Held: The basis for relief was not harassment but the refusal of the
Chief of Police to render assistance. Such constituted a dereliction of
duty under Art. 27. Although the complaint is vague and imperfectly
drafted, all that the Rules require is that there be a showing, by a
statement of ultimate facts, that the plaintiff has a right and such
right has been violated by the defendant.
∆ Zulueta v Nicolas
Facts: Plaintiff filed a complaint for libel against the governor of Rizal
and the members of the Phil. Free Press. The fiscal conducted an
investigation. After such investigation the fiscal decided that there
was no prima facie case. Plaintiff then filed a complaint against the
fiscal based on Art 27.
Held: Art 27 contemplates a refusal or neglect without just cause by
a public servant or employee to perform his official duty. The fiscal
has a legal duty to prosecute crimes when there is enough evidence
to justify such action. BUT it is equally his duty no to prosecute
when after such investigation he has become convinced that the
evidence available is not enough to establish a prima facie case.
Unfair Competition
Art. 27. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial
enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method
shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers
damage.
Separate Civil Actions
Violation of Civil Rights
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual,
who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any
manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties
of another person (enumeration of Bill of Rights) shall be liable to
the latter for damages.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
defendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and
distinct civil action for damages and for other relief. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter
be instituted) and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages
may also be adjudicated.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -18-
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge
unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
or other penal statute.
∆ Lim v Ponce de Leon
Facts: A motor launch was sold to a person. The motor launch was
then forcibly taken by the seller and sold to a 3 rd party. A complaint
was filed. Fiscal Ponce de Leon after conducting a PI found out that
the motor launch was in Palawan in the possession of Lim. The
motor launch was seized and impounded without a warrant.
Held: Without the proper search warrant, no public official has the
right to enter the premises of another without his consent for the
purpose of search and seizure. Defendants have violated the
constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. A
person whose constitutional rights have been violated is entitled to
actual and moral damages from the public officer or employee
responsible therefore under Article 32.
∆ Aberca v Ver
Facts: Illegal searches and seizures and other violations of rights and
liberties of plaintiffs were made by various intelligence units of the
AFP pursuant to the order by General Ver to conduct pre-emptive
strikes against communist-terrorists. A complaint was filed against
them. Their defense was State immunity since they were merely
responding to their duty.
Held: This duty cannot be construed as a blanket license or a roving
commission untrammeled by any constitutional restraint, to
disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties of the individual
citizens enshrined and protected by the Constitution. Art 32 does not
exempt the respondents from responsibility. Only judges are
exempted under said article provided their acts or omissions do not
constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. The
respondent’s superior, General Ver is also liable since Art 32 speaks
of an officer or employer or person “directly” or “indirectly”
responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties
of another. Thus, it is not the actor alone who must answer for
damages under Art 32; the person indirectly responsible has also to
answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party.
∆ MHP Garments v CA
Facts: MHP garments had the exclusive franchise to sell and
distribute Boy Scouts uniforms, supplies, badges and insignias. They
were also given authority to undertake the prosecution in court of all
illegal sources of scout uniforms and other scouting supplies. Later
they received information that some others were selling uniforms
without authority. They asked the police to investigate and the police
raided the said store and seized the uniforms without warrant.
Held: The right against search and seizure protects not only those
who appear to be innocent but also those who appear to be guilty
but are nevertheless presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
There was enough time to get a warrant from the time of receipt of
the information up to the time of the raid. MHP Garments was
indirectly involved in transgressing the right of private respondents
since the raid was conducted with the active participation of their
employee who was present in the raid but did not lift a finger to stop
the seizure.
Defamation, fraud & physical injuries
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil
action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require
only a preponderance of evidence.
∆ Carandang v Santiago
Facts: Valenton was found guilty of frustrated homicide. On appeal a
separate civil action was filed for damages. Trial judge ruled civil
action should be suspended pending the criminal action arguing that
physical injuries is used to designate a specific crime in the RPC and
so frustrated murder doesn’t fall within the separate civil action in
Art 33.
Held: Art 33 uses defamation and fraud in their ordinary sense
because there are no specific provisions in the RPC using these

terms as offenses defined therein. Therefore the term “physical
injuries” should also be understood in the generic sense.
∆ Marcia v CA
Facts: Bus collides with jeep. An information was filed for reckless
imprudence resulting in death and physical injuries. Defendant was
acquitted saying that negligence was wanting and what happened
was pure accident but the plaintiffs filed a separate civil action for
damages anyway.
Held: Art 33 speaks only of defamation, fraud and physical injuries.
The charge against the defendant was not one for homicide or
physical injuries but for reckless imprudence or criminal negligence.
Such is not one of the 3 crimes mentioned in Art 33 and therefore no
civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution,
Nonfeasance of Police
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses
or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to
life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for
damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
responsible therefore. The civil action herein recognized shall be
independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
evidence shall suffice to support such action.
When no independent civil action is provided
Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal
offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent
civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice
of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has
been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to
institute criminal proceedings, the complainant may bring a civil
action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action
may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the
defendant’s motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond
to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to
be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be
presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be
suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.
H. Nuisance
Definition
Art. 694. A nuisance is any act or omission, establishment,
condition of property or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of
others
(2) Annoys or offends the senses
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of
any public highway or street, or any body of water
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property
Kinds
Public or Private
Art. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance
affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of
persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage
upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one that is
not included in the foregoing definition.
Per se or Per accidens
Definitions
Nuisance per se – act, occupation or structure which is a
nuisance at all times and under any circumstances
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -19-
regardless of location or surroundings. It is anything
which of itself is a nuisance because of its inherent
qualities, productive of injury or dangerous to life or
property without regard to circumstance.
Nuisance per accidens – act, occupation or structure
not a nuisance per se, but which may become a nuisance
by reason of circumstances, location or surroundings.
∆ Iloilo Cold Storage v Municipal Council
Facts: Ice and cold storage plant. Nearby residents complained of
the smoke coming from the plant. Council formed a committee and
upon its findings it passed a resolution requiring ISC to elevate the
smokestacks in a month otherwise it will close down or suspend the
operations of the plant.
Held: Plant is not a nuisance per se. Although the municipal council
may be empowered to declare and abate nuisances it cannot find as
a fact that a particular thing is a nuisance when such a thing is not a
nuisance per se. It cannot authorize extrajudicial condemnation of a
nuisance per accidens. It must be determined by the courts.
∆ Tan Chat v Municipality of Iloilo
Facts: An ordinance was passes that the storing and keeping of
lumber stores was considered a public nuisance since the area is a
densely populated commercial and residential zone which require
fire-proof buildings and that lumber stores were potential sources for
fires. Tan Chat et al were lumber merchants and filed a case to
annul the ordinance.
Held: Municipalities have the power to enact ordinances for
purposes of declaring and abating nuisances under the
Administrative Code, a power conferred by legislation under the
State’s police power. Tan Chat’s store is a nuisance since it can be a
fire menace, a source of danger to and destruction of surrounding
property. The location should at least be within the control of proper
municipal authorities of every city or village having a population and
built up district sufficiently large to render them a menace to public
order and safety.
∆ Salao v Santos
Facts: Salao owned and operated a smoked fish factory prior to the
enactment of an ordinance that provided for requirements for
operating such factories. A complaint was filed against Salao for
maintaining a nuisance since it did not comply with the requirements
of the ordinance.
Held: Municipal ordinance are to be construed as having only
prospective operation unless the intention to give them retrospective
effect is expressly declared or necessarily implied in the language
used. There is nothing in the ordinance showing the intention to give
it a retrospective effect.
Nuisances per se constitute a direct menace to public health or
safety and for that reason may be abated summarily under the
undefined law of necessity. On the other hand nuisances per
accidens depends upon certain conditions and circumstances; and its
existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due
hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a
thing does in law constitute a nuisance.
Salao’s factory is not a nuisance per se hence the order of the
municipal president to summarily abate the factory is null and void.
∆ Sitchon v Aquino
Facts: Houses occupied certain portions of a public street in such a
way that the roads and drainage on both sides were obstructed. City
Engineer advised the residents to vacate as they were to be
demolished. Residents are claiming violation of right to due process.
Held: It is clear that houses standing on public streets are public
nuisances. Houses constructed, without governmental authority on

public streets and waterways, obstruct at all times the free use by
the public of said streets and waterways and accordingly constitute
nuisances per se aside from public nuisances. As such the
summary removal thereof without judicial process or proceedings
may be authorized despite the due process clause.
∆ Ramcar v Millar
Facts: Ramcar had an auto repair and body building shop within a
residential zone. The noise it emitted annoyed the neighbors and the
filed a case claiming it violated the zoning ordinance. Ramcar argued
that the ordinance allowed garages and gasoline service stations. CA
ordered the removal of the shop.
Held: Ramcar’s shop did not fall under the permitted “garage” found
in the ordinance. A garage involves minor repairs. “Repairs” does not
include building and remodeling of bodies or structures which is the
principal business of Ramcar. The municipal officers do not have
exclusive power whether or not the subject matter is a nuisance. The
courts may look into it. Even if the shop was covered by a valid
license, the abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of
any person injured to recover damages for its past existence (art
697).
However CA erred in ordering the removal of the buildings and
structures. The establishment is not a nuisance per se, it only
became a public nuisance because of its location. To abate it, it is
not necessary to remove all buildings and structures because
it may be utilized for other pursuits not forbidden by law. It is
enough to enjoin the operation of the business in its present location
without requiring the demolition of the existing buildings.
∆ Ayala v Barretto
Facts: Barretto wants to build a brewery/iceplant in a residential
street. The street turns out to be semi-industrial in nature since
there are already existing industries within the vicinity. Residents
complain that the brewery would be a nuisance.
Held: The proposed brewery is not a nuisance.
One who becomes a resident of a trading or manufacturing
neighborhood or who remains while a residence district gradually
becomes a trading or manufacturing neighborhood, should be held
bound to submit to the ordinary annoyances, discomforts and
injuries which are fairly incidental to the reasonable and general
conduct of such business in his chosen neighborhood.
∆ Velasco v MERALCO
Facts: Velasco sold 2 out of 3 of his lots to MERALCO which
constructed a substation. The 3rd lot he built his house on. A sound
continuously emanated from the substation for which Velasco filed
an action seeking judicial decree for abatement.
Held: To constitute an actionable nuisance, it must be a noise which
affects injuriously the health or comfort of ordinary people in the
vicinity to an unreasonable extent. The noise continuously emitted
constitutes an actionable nuisance for which Velasco is entitled to
relief.
Test for Actionable Nuisance
Whether the rights of property and health or comfort are
so injuriously affected by the noise that the sufferer is
subjected to a loss which goes beyond the reasonable
limit imposed upon him by the condition of living, or of
holding property, in a particular locality devoted to uses
which involve the emission of noise although ordinary
care is taken to confine it within reasonable grounds.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -20-
General Rule: Everyone is bound to bear the habitual or customary
inconvenience that result from the proximity of others, and so long
as this level is not surpassed, he may not complain against them.
Exception: If it exceeds the inconveniences that such proximity
brings, the neighbor who cause such disturbance is held responsible
for the resulting damage causing nuisance.
(Velasco v Meralco)
Abatement
Art. 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails
or refuses to abate a nuisance in that property started by a former
owner or possessor is liable therefore in the same manner as the
one who created it.
Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right
of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence.
Art. 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether
public or private.
Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
(1) A prosecution under the RPC or any local
ordinance
(2) A civil action
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings
∆ Timoner v People
Facts: Mayor Timoner ordered laborers to fence off stalls which
protruded into the sidewalk of a highway. These establishments had
been recommended for closure for non-compliance with certain
health and sanitation requirements. Timoner was charged with grave
coercion. Timoner argues that the sealing off of the stalls was done
in abatement of a public nuisance.
Held: The barbershop stall in question did constitute a public
nuisance since it occupied a portion of the sidewalk of a highway and
had been recommended for closure by the Municipal Health officer.
There is no semblance of any legality or right that exists in favor of
defendants to build a stall and conduct their business in a sidewalk,
especially in a highway where it constitutes a menace to the health
of the general public passing through the street. Even if it has been
there for a number of years does not lend legality to an act which is
a nuisance per se. Even without a judicial pronouncement, Timoner
cannot be faulted for fencing off the barbershop since Art 699
provides for abatement of a public nuisance without judicial
proceedings.
Art. 700. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of
the remedies against a public nuisance are availed of.
Art. 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance
of a public nuisance, such action shall be commenced by the city or
municipal mayor.
Art. 702. The district health officer shall determine whether or not
abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against
a public nuisance.
Art. 703. Any private person may file an action on account of a
public nuisance, if it is especially injurious to himself.
Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is
specially injurious to himself by removing, or if necessary, by
destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing
a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is
 Rachel’s Torts reviewer -21-
necessary: ∆ Hidalgo v Balandan

Facts: 8 year old boy takes a swim in water tank of defendant

(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor
of the property to abate the nuisance
(2) That such demand has been rejected
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health
officer and executed with the assistance of local police
(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed 3000
pesos.
Art. 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are:
(1) A civil action
(2) Abatement; without judicial proceedings
Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by
removing, or if necessary by destroying the thing which constitutes
the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing
unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the procedure
for extra-judicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person
be followed.
company’s ice plant factory. He drowns. Lower court held defendant
liable because of attractive nuisance doctrine.
Held: 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.
There are numerous cases in which the attractive nuisance doctrine
has been held not to be applicable to ponds or reservoirs, pools of
water, streams, canals, dams, ditches, culverts, drains, cesspools or
sewer pools.
WHY?
Nature has created streams, lakes, and pools which attract children.
Lurking in their waters is always the danger of drowning. Against
this danger children are early instructed so that they are sufficiently
presumed to know the danger; and if the owner of private property
creates an artificial pool on his own property, merely duplicating the
work of nature without adding any new danger, he is not liable
because of having created an attractive nuisance
Damages

Art. 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating General Provisions
a nuisance shall be liable for damages:
(1) If he causes unnecessary injury Art. 2195. The provision of this Title shall be respectively
(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article 1157.
courts to be not a real nuisance.
Art. 2196. The rules under this Title are without prejudice to
special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in this Code.
Easement Against nuisance Compensation for workmen and other employees in case of death,
injury or illness is regulated by special laws. Rules governing
Art. 682. Every building or piece of land is subject to the easement damages laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as they
which prohibits the proprietor from committing nuisance through are not in conflict with this Code.
noise, jarring, offensive odor, smoke, heat, dust, water, glare and
other causes. Art. 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory

Art. 683. Subject to zoning, health, police and other laws and (2) Moral
regulations, factories and shops may be maintained provided the (3) Nominal
least possible annoyance is caused to the neighborhood.
(4) Temperate or Moderate
(5) Liquidated
Attractive Nuisance (6) Exemplary or corrective.

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 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.
Art. 2198. The principles of the general law on damages are
hereby adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Code.
Concept: Damages refer to the pecuniary compensation,
recompense or satisfaction for an injury sustained by the injured
party to be paid by the person who caused the injury. It is the
pecuniary consequences imposed by law or agreement of the
parties for breach of some duty or violation of some right

Rationale: Examples Actual Damages

The condition or appliance in question although its danger A robber steals a ring. value of the ring
is apparent to those of age, is so enticing or alluring to Someone beats you up. expenses for going to the
children of tender years as to induce them to approach, hospital, doctor, medicine.
get on or use it, and this attractiveness is an implied
Contract with supplier of raw unrealized profit.
invitation to such children.
materials. Supplier fails to
comply and because of that, the
∆ Taylor v MERALCO buyer fails to manufacture his
products.
Facts: 15 year old picks up fulminating caps from premises of
MERALCO and takes them home and conducts experiments. He cut
open the fulminating cap and lit the contents with a match. General Principles of Damages
Explosion causes him to lose his right eye.
(1) The amount should be fair and just and
Held: MERALCO is negligent in leaving the caps exposed on the commensurate to the damage.
premises however this is not the proximate cause of the injury (2) Damage and the amount must be proven by
received by plaintiff. Plaintiff's action in cutting open the detonating competent evidence. “Competent” means that it is admissible.
cap and putting a match to its contents was the PROXIMATE CAUSE
of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted upon Ex: You lost jewelry to robbers. To prove the amount of
the plaintiff. damages, you must present documentary evidence,
such as receipts. But you probably don’t keep the

receipts of your jewelry around, so you can also present
testimonial evidence of an expert witness, such as a
jewelry appraiser.
(3) Only proximate damages, not remote or
speculative, can be recovered.
Ex: If you run over a chicken, you only pay the value of
the chicken, not the eggs that it would have produced.
Actual or Compensatory Damages
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is
entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss
suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is
referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
Article 2199 provides the general rule that one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him
as he has duly proved.
The exceptions are:
1. Provided by law: example is the fixed indemnity. If someone is
killed, automatically, an indemnity of 50K is awarded. There is only a
need to prove the fact of death.
2. Stipulation: if the parties stipulate the amount of damages in case
of breach of contract, it becomes liquidated damages.
Component Elements
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only
the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the
obligee failed to obtain.
Actual damages may be:
Under Article 22OO
a. Value of the loss suffered
b. Profits which the obligee failed to obtain
(unrealized profit)
How to prove this: documentary evidence
Example: X and Y killed A and threw his body into a river,
not knowing that he had P100K in his pocket. X and Y are
liable for 100K in actual damages because they are liable
for all the damages attributed to their criminal act, even if
they did not know of or contemplate the loss of the 100K.
Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered:
(1) For loss or impairment of earning
capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal
injury
(2) For injury to the plaintiff’s business
standing or commercial credit
Under Article 22O5
1. Loss or impairment of
earning capacity due to temporary or permanent injury.
“Permanent injury” does not mean that you’re a vegetable
but that you cannot do the same job as before because of
the injury
How to prove this: present documentary evidence, such
as the ITR, payroll
2. Injury to the plaintiff’s
business standing or commercial credit
How to prove this: present documentary evidence, such
as contracts for future business or comparison or earnings
before and after the injury.
Dumdum emerges: Value of actual pecuniary loss
Lucrum Cessans: Expected Profits not realized because of the act
of the offender.
∆ General Enterprises v Lianga Bay Logging
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -22-
Facts: Contract for certain number of logs to be produced by Lianga
bay Co. and for General Enterprises to distribute it to the market for
a 13% commission. Lianga bay stopped supplying the logs, thereby
breaching the contract. General enterprises sued.
Held: Under Art 2200, indemnification for damages comprehends not
only the value of the loss suffered but also that of the profits which
the creditor fails to obtain. Lucrum cessans is also basis for
indemnification. The question that then arises is: Has plaintiff failed
to make profits because of defendant’s breach of contract, and in the
affirmative, is there any basis for determining with reasonable
certainty such unearned profits? In this case had Lianga Bay Logging
continued to deliver the logs it is reasonable to expect that General
Enterprises would have continued earning its commission in the
same manner as it used to in connection with the previous shipment
of logs.
∆ Basilan lumber Co v Cagayan Timber Export Co.
Facts: Basilan entered into a contract with Cagayan where it would
sell logs supplied by Cagayan to a Jap company. The contract
provides that in case Cagayan fails to deliver, it would be liable for
amount Basilan will be held liable for by the Japs. Cagayan failed to
deliver. Basilan filed an action for damages even if it hasn’t yet been
liable by the Jap buyer. It was actually an intermediary that paid for
the damages to the japs.
Held: Art 2199 provides that damages must be duly proved. Such
provision denies the grant of speculative damages or damages not
actually proved to have existed and to have been caused to the
party claiming the same. In this case, the actual damage was caused
to the intermediary since it was the one who paid the Japanese
buyers and not Basilan. Basilan has not paid anything yet and so it
has yet to sustain actual damage; its claim is premature.
∆ GA Machineries Inc v Yaptinchay
Facts: GA Machineries sold Yaptinchay a “brand new” engine. A week
after delivery the engine malfunctioned and was repaired. It
malfunctioned again and again… Turns out it wasn’t brand new.
Yaptinchay sued. To prove damages he showed documents that only
proved that every time a truck travels he earns P369. this amount
was then multiplied the number of trips the truck would have
traveled. Actual damages were awarded. But the amount for
probable income was not since mere assertions of a loss is not the
“best evidence”
Held: When the existence of a loss is established, absolute certainty
as to its amount is not required. The benefit to be derived from a
contract which one of the parties has absolutely failed to perform is
of necessity to some extent, a matter of speculation, but the injured
party is not to be denied all remedy for that reason alone. He must
produce the best evidence of which his case is susceptible and if
that evidence warrants the inference that he has been damaged by
the loss of profits which he might with reasonable certainty have
anticipated but for the defendant’s wrongful act, he is entitled to
recover.
What Yaptinchay should’ve done was present evidence that prove
average actual profits in order to prove unearned profits.
NOTE: Best evidence should not be confused with the best evidence
rule in Evidence. Best evidence in damages means ‘preponderance of
evidence’
∆ Songco v Sellner
Facts: Songco and Sellner were neighboring sugar cane farms.
Sellner wanted to mill his cane at a nearby sugar central but was
refused. He found out that the central was milling his neighbor’s
canes. He decided to buy Songco’s sugar canes. He paid only 2/3.
Songco recovered the balance in a suit. Sellner then sues Songco for
damages for the wrongful attachment of his property by his
creditors.
Held: The attachment was wrongfully sued out BUT damages arising
from this is remote and speculative. It is not a probable
consequence that the suing out of this attachment that the hands of
the creditors would come down upon their unfortunate client with

disastrous results; and Songco should not be held liable for the
complication of Sellner’s affairs.
∆ Seavan Carrier v GTI Sportswear
Facts: Seavan lost 294 cartons of denim jeans owned by GTI
sportswear. GTI claims damages for unearned profits.
Held: GTI failed to furnish the best evidence obtainable or even to
warrant the P2M it claims to have lost as expected profits. Their only
basis was testimony that customers who learned of the loss
cancelled orders No document or written instrument was shown.
The evidence cannot warrant the amount of damages for the loss of
anticipated profits much less P2M which is way above the value of
the cartons of denim jeans actually lost.
Subrogation
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff’s property has been insured, and he has
received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss
arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the
insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured
against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract.
If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover
the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the
deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.
∆ Pan Malayan Insurance Corp v CA
Facts: A car insured by Pan Malayan was hit by a pickup and suffered
damages. Pan Malayan paid the insured and subsequently filed a
complaint for damages against the owner of the pick up.
Held: Pan Malayan has a cause of action. Under 2207, it is
subrogated to the rights of the insured.
Principles of Subrogation
 If the insured property is destroyed or damaged
through the fault or negligence of a party other than
the insured, then the insurer, upon payment to the
insured, will be subrogated to the rights of the
insured to recover from the wrongdoer the extent
that the insurer has been obligated to pay.
 Payment by the insurer to the insured operates
as an equitable assignment to the former of all
remedies which the latter may have against the 3 rd
party whose negligence or wrongful act caused the
loss.
 The right of subrogation is not dependent upon,
nor does it grow out of any privity of contract or
upon written assignment of claim. It accrues
simply upon payment of the insurance claim by
the insurer.
Exceptions:
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -23-
1. If the insured by his own act releases the
wrongdoer or 3rd party liable for the loss or damage,
the insured’s right of subrogation is defeated.
2. Where the insurer pays the insured the
value of the lost goods without notifying the 3 rd party
who has in good faith settled the claim or loss, the
settlement is binding on both the insured and the
insurer and the latter cannot bring an action on his
right of subrogation.
3. Where the insurer pays the insured for a
loss which is not a risk covered by the policy,
thereby effecting “voluntary payment” the former
has no right of subrogation against the 3rd party
liable for the loss.
Attorney’s Fees and Expenses of Litigation
∆ RCPI v Rodriguez
Facts: Rodriguez sent 2 telegrams to important people abroad
informing them of his arrival in Sudan for the purposes of their
upcoming convention. Telegram never reached its destination and so
no one came to pick Rodriguez up and so he was forced to sleep in
the airport and the convention was subsequently cancelled.
Rodriguez sued.
Held: Attorney’s fees were denied because such was not alleged in
the complaint and there was no evidence presented to prove it. The
reason for the award of attorney’s fees must be stated in the text of
the court’s decision otherwise if it is only stated in the dispositive
portion the same must be disallowed on appeal. The lower court
stated that the amount for attorney’s fees was reasonable but it
failed to justify its payment hence it must be disallowed and deleted.
∆ Polytrade Corp. v Blanco
Facts: Plaintiff filed a case to recover the purchase price of rawhide it
delivered to defendant. Plaintiff was awarded damages for each of
the 4 causes of action. In addition, defendant is to pay attorneys
fees, and the costs of the suit. Defendant protests on the ground
that the sum is “exorbitant and unconscionable.”
Held: Attorney’s fees here are not the attorney’s fees recoverable as
between client and attorney. Rather they are in the nature of
liquidated damages. As such it is aptly called a penal clause.
Such is binding upon defendant as long as it does not contravene
law, morals, or public order. Governing law is Art 2227, for this
reason we do not really have to strictly view the reasonableness of
the attorney’s fees in the light of such factors as the
 Amount and character of the services rendered,
 The nature and importance of the litigation and
the professional character and
 The social standing of the attorney.
We do concede, however, that these factors may be an aid in the
determination of the iniquity or unconscionableness of
attorney’s fees as liquidated damages.
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered,
except:
(1) When exemplary damages are
 Rachel’s Torts reviewer -24-

awarded
(2) When the defendant’s act or Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed
omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with 3rd upon damages awarded for breach of contract.
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest
(3) In criminal cases of malicious
Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the
prosecution against the plaintiff damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil the court.

action or proceeding against the plaintiff

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is
and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this
point.
plainly valid, just and demandable claim
(6) In actions for legal support
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims
or damages, except when the demand can be established with
of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers
reasonable certainty.
(8) In actions for indemnity under
workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws Central Bank Circular no. 416. By virtue of the authority under
(9) In a separate civil action to recover the Usury Law, the Monetary Board has prescribed the rate of
interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits
civil liability arising from a crime and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of express
(10) When at least double judicial costs contract as to such rate of interest, shall be 12% per annum. This
circular shall take effect immediately.
are awarded
(11) In any other case where the court ∆ Reformina v Tomol
deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees and
Held: An action for damages for injury to persons and property does
expenses of litigation should be recovered. not involve any loan, much less forbearances of any money goods or
credits. Central bank circular does not apply. Interest should be 6%.
In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be
reasonable. ∆ Eastern Shipping Lines

Facts: Drums of riboflavin were shipped. Arrived to the consignee

Interest damaged.

Held: When an obligation, regardless of its source is breached, the

Rules on Interest contravenor can be held liable for damages. With regard to an award
or interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the
1. If there is a stipulation
rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed as follows:
as to the rate of interest, apply the rate unless it is contrary
to law, morals, and good customs, in which case apply the
legal rate.  When the obligation is
breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money
2. If interest is imposed, (i.e., a loan or forbearance of money), the interest due should
but no rate is stipulated, or there is delay, apply the legal
rate (either 6% or 12%) be that which may have been stipulated in writing.
Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest
a. When the obligation involves the payment of from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of
indemnities in the concept of damage, the legal rate
stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be
or interest is 6% computed as follows:
computed from default i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial
i From demand under and subject to the provision of Article 1169 of
date of demand if the amount of indemnities can
be established with reasonable certainty; the Civil Code.

ii If not,
from the date of the judgment of the trial court.
b. When the obligation consists of a loan or
forbearance of money, goods or credits as well as
judgment involving such loan or forbearance, the legal
rate of interest shall be 12% per annum computed
from default, that is, from judicial or extrajudicial
demand.
c. In both cases, the legal rate of interest shall
be 12% from the finality of judgment until the
judgment is paid.
Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of
money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages,
there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of
the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal
interest, which is 6% per annum.
 When an obligation, not
constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an
interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed
at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No
interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or
damages except when or until the demand can be established
with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is
established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to
run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially
but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at
the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run
only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which
time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have
been reasonably ascertained). The actual base of the
 Rachel’s Torts reviewer -25-

computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the Held: The life expectancy of the deceased or the beneficiary
whichever is shorter is a an important factor in measuring the value
amount finally adjudged. of a human life. Other factors include:
 Pecuniary loss to plaintiff/beneficiary
 When the judgment of the  Loss of support
court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory,
 Loss of service
 Loss of society
the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under
 Mental suffering of the beneficiaries
paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 above shall be 12% per annum  Medical and funeral expenses
from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being
deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
Loss of Earning Capacity
Loss of earning capacity – This presupposes that the person concerned is
 Extent or scope of actual
dead.
damages
How to compute:

Contracts and quasi-contracts First step: Determine the life expectancy:

x ( )
Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which 2 80 –
the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are ______ Age at death
the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the
obligation, and which the parties have reasonably foreseen at the 3
time the obligation was constituted.

In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor

shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably Second step: Compute for earning capacity:
attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. ( - )x

Gross Necessary Life

Art. 2215. In contracts and quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the
earnings per living expectancy
court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstance other
year expenses
than the case referred in the preceding article, as in the following
instances:
How do you prove the net earnings per year:
(1) that the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the
a. documentary evidence: ITR,
contract payroll
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of b. Oral testimony on minimum wage
(but this is not always admitted)
the contract
(3) In cases where exemplary damager are to be awarded, Some cases say that the net earnings of the deceased is divided by two
since the law presumes that half of it goes to his living expenses. But if
that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
other evidence is presented to establish the actual personal expenses of the
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event deceased, then this figure may be used instead.
(5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done
his best to lessen the plaintiff’s loss or injury
∆ People v Quilaton
∆ Mendoza v PAL
Facts: Quilaton killed his superior after an altercation with the latter
over Quilaton’s habits of sleeping in and bringing women to the
Facts: Mendoza owned a theater. He ordered a film from manila to
office. Earning capacity computed differently.
be shown in time for the fiesta in the City. He advertised the film
extensively but was not able to show the film since PAL failed to
Held: Number of years the victim would have lived and the rate of
deliver the film on the day of the fiesta.
loss sustained by the deceased’s heirs were taken into consideration.
Life expectancy also has gone up since the Villa Rey case due to
Held: Mendoza did not specify that the film was to be shown under
technology, improved nutrition.
the special circumstances then PAL is not liable for the damages
claimed by Mendoza since it should only be liable for the natural
consequences. PAL could not have foreseen the damages at the time
the film was ordered. Σ (Lx+1, Lx+2,…,Lx+n), where n = 100 – x
________________________________________________________
Note: Maam disagrees. Contract of carriage requires extraordinary _________
diligence which PAL failed to show. Lx x = age upon death
L = number of people in sample surv
∆ Cariaga v LTB Co number of years

Facts: Bus accident leads to injury of med student. Injury left him
physically and intellectually impaired. (parts of brain got sliced off)
Held: Court in this case in addition to medical expenses awarded
damages for loss of earning capacity since it could be reasonably
foreseen that he would’ve passed the board exam and become a
physician.
∆ Villa Rey Transit v CA
Court also took into consideration that a man does not continue
working up to the final month in his life. Years considered should be
reduced up to retirement age.
∆ PAL v CA
Facts: PAL plane crashed killing passenger. Mother sued PAL for
damages. PAL wanted computation of earnings based on life of the
beneficiary and not the deceased

Facts: Bus hit a bull cart in the dark. Pole from the cart went through Held: Although US jurisprudence provides that damages should be
the windshield and impaled passenger. computed from “life expectancy of deceased or the beneficiary
whichever is shorter”, Philippine laws provide that award should be
computed in the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased.
 Rachel’s Torts reviewer -26-
∆ Metro Manila Transit Corp. v CA  Article 2206 applies to death of a passenger
due to breach of contract of common carrier by express
Facts: 3 year UPIS student got hit by bus in along Katipunan.
rd
provision of Article 1764.

Held: Compensation should be allowed for loss of earning capacity ∆ Heirs of Raymundo Castro v Bustos
resulting from death of a minor who has not yet commenced
employment or training for a specific profession if sufficient evidence Facts: Bustos killed Castro in a fit of passion and was convicted
is presented to establish the amount thereof.
Held: When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the
Crimes and quasi-delicts deceased are entitled to the ff:
1. Fixed indemnity P12, 000 (now
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants shall be P50,000) even if there are mitigating circumstances
liable for all damages which are the natural and probable 2. Loss of earning capacity
consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not 3. Moral damages
necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have 4. Exemplary damages
reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. 5. Attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation
Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the 6. Interests in proper cases
diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages
resulting from the act or omission in question.
7. It must be emphasized that the loss
of earning capacity and moral damages are recoverable
separately from and in addition to the fixed indemnity.
Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be
respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or ∆ People v Quilaton
mitigating circumstances.
Facts: Quilaton killed his superior after an altercation with the latter
Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the over Quilaton’s habits of sleeping in and bringing women to the
plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. office. Earning capacity computed differently.

Held: Aside from ordinary indemnity for death which is P50,000,

Art. 2215. In contracts and quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the
court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstance other
than the case referred in the preceding article, as in the following
instances:
(6) that the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the
contract
(7) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of
the contract
(8) In cases where exemplary damager are to be awarded,
that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
(9) That the loss would have resulted in any event
(10) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done
his best to lessen the plaintiff’s loss or injury
appellant is obliged to
1. Compensate the heirs for loss of earning capacity
2. give support to dependents for 5 years
3. Pay for moral damages
Sample Problem:
Andrew was a 40 year-old company executive earning P400,000 a
year. His wife Rose was engaged in the realty business and was
earning P20,000 a month on the average. One day, they were on the
way to a meeting where Rose would buy a land which she intended
to resell at a profit of P200,000 when a speeding truck hit their
P500,000 car. The injured Andrew was brought to the hospital but
late died, and Rose was incapacitated for 3 months. Hospital and
funeral expenses cost P100,000 and P80,000. Their car was totally
wrecked and the P50,000 money Rose was carrying as down
payment for the land was lost or stolen. Compute for the actual
damages.

Crimes and quasi-delicts 1. Under Article 2200

resulting in death a. value of the loss suffered:

Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or  Hospital expenses P100K
quasi delict shall be at least P3000, even though there may have  Funeral expenses P80K
been mitigating circumstance. In addition:  Car P500K
 Money lost P50K
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid b. profits which the obligee failed to obtain
to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every (unrealized profit)
case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the
deceased on account of permanent physical disability not  Expected profit from the sale of land
caused by the defendant, had mo earning capacity at the P200K
time of his death.
2. Under Article 2205
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to a. loss or impairment of earning capacity due to
the provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not an temporary or permanent injury
heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by law of testate
or intestate succession, may demand support from the  Earnings of Rose for 3 months P20K x 3 months
person causing the death, for a period not exceeding 5 = P60K
years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court.
b. injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and commercial credit:
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral
damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of  not applicable
the deceased.
3. Fixed indemnity: 50K for death of Andrew
Note:
 Jurisprudence has fixed the amount of damages 4. Loss of earning capacity of Andrew:
for death to P50,000 due to the devaluation of the peso.
 First Step: Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80-40) =
26.67 years

 Second Step: Earning capacity = (400,000/2) x
26.67 years = P5,333,333
5. Interest: 6%
Moral Damages
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may
be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated
damages, is left to the circumstances of each case.
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though
incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's
wrongful act for omission.
Art. 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental
value of property, real or personal, may be considered.
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused,
referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may
bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order
named.
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for
awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the
circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies
to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in
bad faith.
Art. 309. Any person who shows disrespect to the dead, or
wrongfully interferes with a funeral shall be liable to the family of the
deceased for damages, material and moral.
Note: Moral damages must be proven, but the amount is
determined by the judge. Plaintiff must prove the legal basis for the
award; actual amount is up to the judge.
Factors in determining the amount of moral damages:
1. political, social, financial standing of offended party and
offender
2. Mental anguish
Example: Compare the mental anguish of two mothers whose
sons died in two different incidents. One son was shot to death,
and he died instantly. The other son was partying at Ozone
when it burned down. He suffered for several weeks with
painful burns before he finally died. The mental suffering of the
Ozone victim’s mother is greater than that of the mother of the
son who was shot to death, since the former had to watch as
her son had to withstand the agony of the burns.
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -27-
3. Sentimental value
Example: Two rings – one with a huge stone that you won at a
raffle and another with a tiny stone that was given to you by
your one true love. Of course, the senntimental value of the
second ring is greater.
When recoverable
Contractual relation
∆ Lopez v Pan Am
Facts: Senator Lopez and family bought first class tickets. When they
got to Tokyo and were ready to board the plane to San Francisco,
they were forced to fly in the economy class.
Held: Senator and family suffered social humiliation, mental
anguish, and serious anxiety. A lot of schwar schwar on him being a
senate president pro tempore, prestigious sya eklat. According to
SC-- It may not be humiliating to travel as tourist
passengers; it is humiliating to be compelled to travel as
such, contrary to what is rightfully to be expected from the
contractual undertaking. In conclusion, SC wanted to stress that
amount of damages awarded in this appeal has been determined by
adequately considering the official, political, social, and financial
standing of the offended parties on the one hand, and the business
and financial position of the offender on the other, And further
considering the present rate of exchange and the terms at which the
amount of damages awarded would approximately be in US dollars.
∆ Zulueta v Pan Am
Facts: Zulueta got off-loaded from the plane on Wake Island because
of a fight with the manager of the airport and the pilot. The case of
the “beach is my toilet”
Held: The records amply establish plaintiff’s right to recover moral
damages, there was mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
feelings, moral shock and social humiliation due to the defendants
acts:
 Rude and rough reception of plaintiff upon
returning from the beach
 Menacing attitude in which he asked plaintiff to
open his bags
 Abusive language and scornful reference to
them as “monkeys”
 Unfriendly attitude, ugly stares and unkind
remarks by other passengers
 Wife suffered nervous breakdown as a result of
the embarrassment, insults and humiliations
∆ Yutuk v MERALCO
Facts: Yutuk was accused by MERALCO’s lineman of using a
“jumper”. Turns out Yutuk’s electricity was maliciously disconnected
by the lineman. MERALCO maliciously filed a case for theft of
electricity against Yutuk and even supported the lineman against her
complaint for slander.
Held: Moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation may
be awarded provided that they are the proximate result from the
defendant’s wrongful act or omission. In this case the lineman and
MERALCO’s acts were wrongful and reckless and they directly
resulted in Yutuk’s mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock and social humiliation.
∆ RCPI v Rodriguez
Held: Moral damages are awarded only to enable the injured party
to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to
alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the
defendant’s culpable action. The award of moral damages must be
proportionate to the suffering inflicted.
∆ Simex International v CA
Facts: Simex checks were dishonored because bank made an error.
As a result his business standing in the community was severely
affected.

Held: As a general rule juridical persons cannot suffer moral
damages since it cannot experience physical suffering or such
sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish
and moral shock but it does have a business reputation which can be
tarnished and reduced hence moral damages may be awarded in
such cases.
Extra-contractual
∆ Magbanua v IAC
Facts: Defendants diverted the free flow of water from the
Magbanua’s land with intent to force them to vacate the land.
Held: Art 2219 permits the award of moral damages for acts
mentioned under Art 21. Defendants unjustifiably diverted the water
violating the rights of the plaintiffs hence moral damages should be
awarded.
∆ Tan Kapoe v Masa
Facts: Masa wanted to convert his share tenancy to one of leasehold
which Tan Kapoe rejected. Masa asked the court and was granted.
Tan Kapoe retaliated by filing 6 criminal cases against Masa but were
eventually dismissed. Complaint for malicious prosecution.
Held: Moral damages may be awarded for malicious prosecution
under Art 2219. Tan kapoe filed the criminal cases to harass and
embarrass Masa and a s a retaliatory measure for the conversion
case, making the latter suffer moral suffering and anxiety.
∆ Ford v CA
Facts: Fabrigar was slapped by her ninang in public because of
Fabrigar’s fight with the son of the Bgy Captain regarding the
referendum held that day.
Held: Art 2219 permits the award of moral damages for acts
mentioned under Art 21. Defendants unjustifiably diverted the water
violating the rights of the plaintiffs hence moral damages should be
awarded.
When not recoverable
∆ Mercado v Lira
Facts: Bus plunges into a ravine. Plaintiffs want to recover moral
damages for death and physical injuries.
Held: Moral damages resulting from breach of contract may be
awarded to death but not physical injuries. Art 2220 expressly
requires that bad faith or malice be proved in order to recover moral
damages.
automatic reward of moral damages:
 Rape
 Death
Cariaga v LTB Co.
Held: moral damages can be awarded on account of breach of
contract since defendant did not act fraudulently or in bad faith in
connection therewith
∆ Bagumbayan v IAC
Facts: Waiter spilled drinks on customer during the a nice show.
Customer had to go to the ladies room and missed the show. She
was so drenched that she had to remove her dress and was not even
given a towel. She felt embarrassed since a lot of people witnessed
the event
Held: Damages for mental anguish are limited to cases in which
there has been a personal physical injury or where the defendant
willfully, wantonly, recklessly or intentionally caused mental anguish.
In short moral damages consisting of embarrassment and mental
suffering may be awarded when
 Act is willful or wanton even if there is no physical
injury or
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -28-
 Act is negligent only, there is no intent BUT it results in
physical injuries
Nominal Damages
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may
be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated
damages, is left to the circumstances of each case.
Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right
of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant,
may be vindicated or recognized and not fir the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every
obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157 or in
every case where any property right has been invaded.
Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude
further contest upon the right involved and all accessory questions,
as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and
assigns.
Nominal – not for indemnification of loss but vindication of a right
violated
∆ Vda de Medina v Cresencia
Facts: Medina died when jeepney he was riding crashed into a post
Held: Nominal damages may not be awarded where there are
already compensatory and exemplary damages awarded since
compensatory and exemplary damages are in themselves judicial
recognition that rights were violated.
∆ Northwest Airlines v Cuenca
Facts: Classic case of first class passenger downgraded to tourist.
Held: Nominal and exemplary damages can go together. The
defendant’s tortuous act was committed with knowledge that plaintiff
was a public official, the nominal damages recognized that wrongful
act while exemplary damages punish the wanton, oppressive and
reckless manner of defendant in committing said act.
∆ Cogeo-Cubao Operators v CA
Facts: LSTC was awarded a certificate of public convenience to
operate a jeepney service on the Cogeo-cubao route. Defendants
formed a human barricade and prevented LSTC from dispatching
their jeepneys
Held: Certificate of public convenience is considered a property right.
The court may award damages in every case where any property
right has been invaded.
Temperate or Moderate Damages
Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than
nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered
when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but
its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with
certainty.
Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the
circumstances.
∆ Araneta v Bank of America
Facts: Classic case of dishonored check because of bank’s error.
Held: Injury to one’s commercial credit or to the good will of the
business firm is often hard to show with certainty in terms of money.
Temperate damages are awarded where definite proof of pecuniary
loss cannot be offered but the court is convinced that there has been
a loss.

Liquidated Damages
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the
parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity
or penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or
unconscionable.
Art. 2228. When the breach of contract committed by the
defendant is not one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon
the liquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of
damages and not the stipulation.
∆ NPC v NAMERCO
Held: Proof of pecuniary loss is not necessary. The stipulation for
liquidated damages is intended to obviate controversy on the
amount of damages.
Exemplary or Corrective Damages
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are interposed, by
way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of
the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are
separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended
party.
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if
the defendant acted with gross negligence.
Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award
exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of
right; the court will decide whether or not they should be
adjudicated.
Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not
be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral,
temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider
the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be
awarded. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, no
proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may
be recovered, nevertheless, before the court may consider the
question of granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated
damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral,
temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation
for liquidated damages.
∆ Singson v Aragon
Held: Amount of exemplary damages need not be proved because it
is dependent upon what court may award as compensatory
damages. Since it need not be proved, it also need not be alleged or
pleaded in the complaint because the same cannot be pre-
determined. One need only ask that it be determined by the court in
the exercise of its discretion if the same is warranted by the
evidence.
∆ San Miguel Brewery v Magno
Held: Just because a case is found unmeritorious doesn’t mean that
case is frivolous and warrants exemplary damages. Otherwise it
would violate people’s rights to free access to the courts.
∆ Pan Pacific Co. v Phil Advertising Corp.
Held: Court may award exemplary damages if defendant acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
∆ Munsayac v De Lara
Rachel’s Torts reviewer -29-
Held: Principal cannot be held liable for exemplary damages for the
acts of its agent. Exemplary damages can only be awarded against
the one who has participated in the offense.
∆ Octot v Ybanez
Held: In the absence of proof that the Regional Director acted in bad
faith & with grave abuse of discretion, Octot is not entitled to
backwages & consequently cannot claim for damages. The officials
were not motivated by ill will or personal malice in dismissing Octot
but only their desire to comply with mandates of PD 6.
∆ RCPI v CA
Facts: Condolence message on happy birthday stationary and xmas
envelope.
Held: Gross negligence resulting in a breach of contract constitutes
wanton misconduct hence exemplary damages may be awarded.
Filing fees for actions with damages
Rule 111, Sec. 1 :: Rules of Court.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the
accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary
damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or
information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien on
the judgment awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the
complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid
by the offended party upon filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be
required for actual damages
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint and criminal and civil actions, the
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of
the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages
claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover
liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the amount alleged
therein. If the amounts are not so alleged, but any of the damages
are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the
amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
∆ People v Escano
Held: No filing fees for actual damages needed. Only for moral,
nominal, temperate or exemplary damages are alleged. If not
alleged then it constitutes a first lien on the judgment and need not
be paid
∆ General v Claravall
Held: Manchester rule says that in cases of intentional non-filing of
fees, the court should dismiss case for intention to defraud court.
This rule was relaxed in the Sunlife and Tacay cases, where it held
that unpaid filing fees should constitute a lien on final judgment.
Lien should be allowed when the filing fee cannot be ascertained and
was only proven during the trial.
-Finis-