A2010 TORTS MAGIC NOTES FOR MIDTERMS

8/9/2019 A2010 TORTS MAGIC NOTES FOR MIDTERMS

1/44

TORTSAND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_)o PAGE 1

C L A S S N O T E STorts: not defined in the NCC nor in any Philippine LawBUT many scattered provisions on tortuous acts-usually defines as: (1) what it is not; (2) remediesgranted; (3) social/public policy protected

Damages: much longer treatment in the NCC; morepractical importance on damages

Practical Legal Relevance: vehicular accidents

Intentional tort: not a delict (any act or omissionpunishable by law)Why? Intentional act causing damage to another, not acrime

Act: intentional, voluntary-damage

-may or may not violate a crime

Negligence: any act or omission causing damage toanother but w/o intent (only difference w/intentional tort)

Strict liability: it doesnt matter if youre negligent or ifyou intended it as long as sets of circumstances makeyou liable

I. INTRODUCTIONA. Definitions

1. Tort and Quasi-delicta. Tort

Naguiat v NLRC

FACTS: Naguiat is the president and a stockholder ofClark Field Taxi, Inc. (CFT). Due to the phase-out of theUS bases in the country, Clark Air Base was closed andthe taxi drivers of CFTI were separated from service.The drivers filed a complaint for the payment of sep. paydue to the termination/phase-out. NLRC held Naguiatand the company solidarily liable for the payment of sep.pay.

ISSUE: WON Naguait should be held solidarily liable

with CFTI. YES.

HELD: Under the Corporation Code, Naguait is liablebec: (1) he actively managed the business; (2) therewas evidence that CFTI obtained reasonably adequateinsurance; and (3) there was a corporate tort in thiscase.

Our jurisprudence is wanting to the definite scope of

corporate tort. Essentially, tort consists in theviolation of a right given or the omission of a dutyimposed by law. Simply stated, it is a breach of legalduty.

C L A S S N O T E SCORPORATE TORT: in regards to liability of Presidentof CFTI: no definition of corporate tort2 definitions: long and short (legal basis)Short definition: from a law dictionaryWhats wrong with the definition in Naguiat? TOOBROAD. Any breach of legal duty becomes a tort (so it

would include crimes, QD, breach of contract)very sloppy definition but its the only case thatdefines TortWhy SC gave definition of Tort? They had to determinethe liability of the officers (Naguiat) so is it part of theratio of the case? NO. Obiter. They already found CFTIliable under the Labor Code so SC did not need toestablish liability through tort

AQUINO (pp. 1-2)Tort: taken directly from the French and is derivation ofthe Latin word torquere meaning to twist-common law: an unlawful violation of private right, notcreated by contract, and which gives rise to an action fordamages-an act or omission producing an injury to another,without any previous existing lawful relation of which thesaid act or omission may be said to be a naturaloutgrowth or incident (other definitions not discussed)-no universal formula for torts liability-includes intentional tort, negligence, and strict liability*Intentional tort: includes conduct where the actordesires to cause the consequences of his act orbelieves the consequences are substantially certain toresult from it.-includes assault, batter, false imprisonment,defamation, invasion of privacy and interference of

property

*Negligence: involves voluntary acts or omissionswhich result in injury to others, without intending tocause the same-actor fails to exercise due care in performing such actsor omissions*Strict Liability: where the person is made liableindependent of fault or negligence upon submission of

proof of certain facts

DE LEON (pp. 1-3)Tort: common law expression-used in French to mean wrong, derived from Latintortus meaning twisted, as if to say tortuous conduct istwisted conduct or conduct that departs from the existingnorm- a legal wrong that causes harm for which the violator issubject to civil liability-fundamental concept of tort: wrongful act or omission +resulting in breach of a private legal duty (distinguishedfrom a mere breach of contractual duty) + damage from

said breach of duty (of such character as to afford aright of redress at law in favor of the injured partyagainst the wrongdoer)Note (explained definition in Naguiat vs. NLRC): theterm tort used by SC has same meaning as tort incommon law jurisdictions, as it was used in casesinvolving QD and delictsTortious act: a wrongful act-commission or omission of duty of an act by one,without right, whereby another receives some injury,directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation(74 Am. Jur. 2d 620)Essence of tort: defendants potential for civil liability tothe victim for harmful wrongdoing and correspondingly

the victims potential fro compensation or other relief

b. Quasi-delict

Art. 2176, NCCWhoever by act or omission causes damage toanother, there being fault or negligence, is obliged topay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,if there is no pre-existing contractual relationbetween the parties, is called a quasi-delict and isgoverned by the provisions of this Chapter.


2/44


C L A S S N O T E SA 2176 explanation: First sentence refers to ALL CIVILLIABILITIES. Second sentence limits QD.

Barredo v Garcia

FACTS: A Head-on collision between a taxi andcarretela resulted in the death of a 16-yr old boy whowas a passenger of the carretela. The taxi driver wasconvicted in a crim case but the right to file a sep civilaction was reserved. The parents of the boy suedBarredo, the drivers employer for damages. Barredocontends that under the RPC, his liability is onlysubsidiary, hence he cannot be held liable as no civilaction has been filed against the driver.ISSUE: WON the plaintiffs, may bring this separate civilaction against Barredo, making him primarily liable asemployer under the CC. YES.

HELD: The same negligent act causing damage mayproduce civil liability arising from a crim under theRPC or create an action for quasi-delict under theCC. Thus, there were 2 liabilities of Barredo: asubsidiary one arising from the drivers crim negligencend a primary one as employer under the CC. Theplaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, andthey preferred the second remedy. They were actingwithin their rights in doing so.

C L A S S N O T E S-during that time, culpa aquiliana (QD) doesnt coveracts against law? A1903, old CC expressly excludeacts not punishable by law-SC needed to have very strong reason not to followwhat the old law says because if A1903 applied literallythere would be no culpa aquiliana, if read together withRPC (all acts would be under criminal negligence andimprudence)-so in this case, emphasize scope of culpa aquilianaand delict; why needed? Barredo was arguing that hewas not solidarily liable and should only be subsidiarilyliable-if applied today, would the result be the same? YESthrough stare decisis + QD definition changed, removedphrase not punishable by law

Elcano v Hill

FACTS: In criminal case where Reginald Hill wascharged with the killing of Agapito Elcano, the formerwas acquitted for lack of intent to kill, coupled withmistake. The deceaseds parents thereafter suedReginald and his father for dmages. CFI dismissed the

civil cases on the ground of res judicata.

ISSUE: WON the civil action for damages is barred byHills acquittal in the crim case. NO.

HELD: Hills acquittal in the crim case has notextinguished his liability for QD, hence the acquittal isnot a bar to the instant civil action.

Art. 2176 where it refers to fault or negligence,covers not only acts not punishable by law butalso acts criminal in character, whether intentionaland voluntary or negligent.

C L A S S N O T E S-why make intentional acts under QD? To make fatherand son liable-A 2177, NCC expressly points out that theres aseparate civil liability from criminal negligence BUT itseems to apply to QD only so court dealt with thislimitation by upholding the construction that upholdsthe spirit that giveth life rather than that which isliteral that killeth the intent of the lawmaker(A2176is not just QD, so A2177 really has no problem)

Cinco v Canonoy

FACTS: Cincos car and a eepney collided. Cinco filed acivil action for damage to property against the eepneysdriver and operators. Thereafter, he also filed a crimcase against the eepney driver. CFI upheld thesuspension of the civil case pending the determinationof the crim case.

ISSUE: WON there can be an independent civil actionfor damage to property during the pendency of thecriminal action. YES.

HELD: Liability being predicated on a QD, the civil case

may proceed as a separate and independent civil actionas specifically provided for in Art. 2177 of the CC.

Art. 2176 of the CC is so broad that it includes notonly injuries to persons but also damage toproperty. It makes no distinction bet. Damage topersons and damage to property.

C L A S S N O T E S

Relevance: clarified that QD includes damage toproperty (same highlight in reviewer)Problem: A2191(2) gave example where QD anddamage to property [liability of proprietors of excessivesmoke]; but this is a Tort on STRICT LIABILITY, not QD!

Baksh v CA

FACTS: Baksh was sued for damages for his breach ofpromise to marry. CA affirmed TCs award of damages,relying on Art. 21 CC.

ISSUE: WON damages may be recovered for a breachof promise to marry based on Art. 21 of the CC. YES.

HELD: Art. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise tomarry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction.Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or QDin this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy forthe untold no. of moral wrongs which is impossible forhuman foresight to specifically enumerate and punish inthe statute books.

Art. 2176 which defined a QD is limited to negligentacts or omissions and excludes the notion of

willingness or intent. Torts is much broader thanculpa aquiliana bec. it includes not only negligence,but intentional criminal acts as well.

C L A S S N O T E Sso whats correct? Include or not to include intentionalacts? In Baksh, Davide showed role of A21, so helimited A2176 to negligent acts or omissions. A2176discussion is not necessary for the disposition ofthe case (OBITER) THEREFORE, QD still includesintentional acts!

***Issue: WON QD covers intentional acts or not? If itcovers intentional acts..Fr litigation pt of view: it doesnt matter


3/44

TORTSAND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_)o PAGE 3Fr academic pt of view: it matters!

2. DamagesAQUINO (pp. 842-843)-Reason behind the NCC Title on Damages: to see to itthat whenever a right is transgressed, every manner ofloss or injury is compensated for in some way or

another.-A2195, NCC: provisions on damages are applicable toall obligations regardless of source (delict, QD, contract,or quasi-contract).-A2196: rules under title of damages are w/o prejudiceto special provisions on damages provided elsewhere inthe Code.-A2198: principles of general law on damages areadopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with theNCC.-Indemnity has to be proportionate to the fault and to theloss caused thereby.-In actions for damages, courts should award an amount

(money value) to the winning party and not its equivalentin property.

SANCO, (pp. 940-941)Basis of Law: introduced in NCC mostly from AmericanLaw since they were either not expressly recognized orrarely allowed under old code, particularly on subject ofmoral damages

Scope of applicability of provisions on damages:applicable to all obligations arising from sourcesenumerated in A1157, NCC, without prejudice to specialprovisions on damages formulated elsewhere in saidcode.

-dont apply to compensation of workmen and otheremployees in cases of death, injury or illness-in other special laws: same rules observed insofar asnot in conflict with Civil Code

Concept of damages:Damages: the sum of money which the law awards orimposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, orsatisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as aconsequence of a breach of a contractual obligation or atortious act-pecuniary consequences which law imposes for breachof some duty or violation of some right.

Kinds: compensatory, punitie, liquidated damages(damages recoverable upon breach of a contract, asstipulated by the parties), nominal damages (given invindication of a breach of duty which does not result inany actual or pecuniary damages)

Damage, damages, injury: material distinctions

Injury: Illegal invasion of a legal rightDamage: loss, hurt, or harm which results from aninjury; in a popular sense, it is the depreciation in value,regardless if caused by a wrongful or legal act; asdefined by statutes providing for damages: actionableloss, injury or harm which results from unlawful act,omission or negligence of another-not synonymous to example, fine, penalty, punishment,revenge, discipline, chastisementDamages: recompense or compensation awarded fordamages suffered.Pecuniary loss: loss of money or something by whichmoney or something of money value may be acquired

People v Ballesteros

FACTS: Ballesteros et al were convicted of murder.They were ordered to pay actual, compensatory, andmoral damages to the heirs of the deceased.

ISSUE: WON damages were correctly awarded. YES

HELD: Damages may be defined as the pecuniarycompensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injurysustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniaryconsequences which the law imposes for the breach ofsome duty or the violation of some right.

Actual orcompensatorydamages are those awardedin satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injurysustained. The party claiming such must present thebest evidence available such as receipts.

Moraldamages may be invoked when the complainanthas experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety,physical suffering, moral shock and so forth, and hadfurthermore shown that these were the proximate resultof the offenders wrongful act or omission.

Custodio v CA

FACTS: Custodio et al built an adobe fence making thepassageway to Mabasas apartment narrower. Mabasafiled a civil action for the grant of easement of right ofway against them. CA, aside from granting right of way,awarded damages to Mabasa.

ISSUE: WON award of damages was proper. NO

HELD: In the case at bar, although there was damage,there was no legal injury. Custodio et als act ofconstructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise oftheir right as owners.

Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right. Damage isthe loss, hurt or harm, which results from the injury.

Damages are the recompense or compensationawarded fro the damage suffered. Thus, there can bedamage without injury in those instances in which theloss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal

duty. These situations are often called damnumabsque injuria. In such cases, the consequences mustbe borne by the injured person alone.

b. Damnum absque injuria

AQUINO (pp. 843-845)-There is no liability even if there is damage becausethere was no injury. Mere damage without injury doesnot result in liability.-A related maxim is qui jure suo utitir nullum damnumfacit one who exercises a right does no injury.

Custodio v CA, supra

Thus, there can be damage without injury in thoseinstances in which the loss or harm was not the result ofa violation of a legal duty. These situations are oftencalled damnum absque injuria.

B. History and Development

AQUINO (pp.1-5)Tort provisions in our NCC were derived from Spanish,French and Anglo-American Law. Therefore, RP SCborrows heavily from decisions of the Court in othercountries especially Spain and US and relies from

annotation of foreign author.


4/44

TORTSAND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_)o PAGE 4Roman Law served as main inspiration of NCC, as quiteevident in the field of QD: it added 4 new category ofobligations that arise quasi ex delicto (a. liability of a judge who misconducts a case or gives a wrongdecision; b. liability of an occupier of a building fordouble the damage caused by anything thrown or forcedout of the building, no matter by whom, on to a public

place[A2193]; c. liability of the occupier if he keeps anyobject suspended from the building which would dodamage if it fell; and d. the liability of the shop keeper,innkeeper, or keeper of a stable for any theft or damagecaused by slaves or employees, or in case of theinnkeepers, of permanent residents [A2000].)-Code Commission initially wanted to adopt the wordtort in our NCC but decided later against it becausetort in Anglo-American law is much broader(includes negligence, intentional criminal acts, falseimprisonment, deceit) than the Spanish-Philippineconcept of obligations arising from non-contractualnegligence. Intentional acts would be governed byRPC. However, some provisions used tort andtherefore recognize it as a source of liability [Sec22& 100, Corporation Code; Art.68 Child and YouthWelfare Code; Sec. 17(a)(6) of the Ship MortgageDecree]. Even SC used the term tort in decidingcases involving negligent acts or omissions as wellas involving intentional acts. They defined it inNaguiat vs. NLRC.-There is an evident intent to adopt the common lawconcept of tort and to incorporate the different,intentional and unintentional common law torts in theNCC. Tortious conduct for which civil remedies areavailable are embodied in different provisions of thecode. E.g. Arts. 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36; A2199 on

contributory negligence and proximate cause (however,a blending of American and Spanish-Philippine Law)NCC

SANGCO (pp. xxxi-xl)Civil Code of the Philippines: based on Civil Code of1889 (Spanish and French in origin); but manyprovisions from codes of other countries were adopted.Rules from Anglo-American law were adopted becauseof element of American culture that has beenincorporated into Fil life during US occupation; becauseeconomic relations that continue between US and RP;and because US and English Courts have developed

certain equitable rules that are not recognized in the1889 Civil Code

1889 Civil Code1. Civil Liability Arising From Criminal OffensesA1089: Civil obligations arise only from law, contracts,quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law andquasi-delicts.-civil obligations from crime or misdemeanor was

governed only by Penal Code (A1092) so when criminalaction was instituted, the civil action arising from thecrime is impliedly instituted with the criminal actionunless the offended party expressly waives the civilaction or reserves his right to institute it separately(A122, Law of CrimPro)-right to recover damages arising from crime iscompletely dependent on the result of the criminal case.If an earlier civil action is instituted, upon start of criminalcase, the civil action is suspended and would bedetermined by the result of the criminal case. If criminalaction is dismissed, civil action is also deemeddismissed, regardless if instituted with the criminalaction or separately. Civil liability is treated as purelyincidental to the criminal liability of the offender. Thecases of Springer vs. Odin, Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf andPacific Co., US vs. Guy Sayco, US vs. Bernardo, andWise & Co. vs. Larion were ruled using this principle. Asruled in rakes, any civil action not predicated on offensecommitted or charged (based on law, contract, quasi-contract, or QD) cannot be instituted with the criminalaction.-When Penal Code revised, RPC retained what is nowcontained in A100; Rules on CRimPro retained what iscontained in Rule 107 (check if still correct)

2. Civil Liability arising from QD

A1902: Any person who by an act or omission causesdamage to another by his fault or negligence shall beliable fro the damage doneIn re: A1903: punish wrongful acts or omissions notpunishable by law-said articles are not applicable to acts of negligencewhich constitute either punishable offenses(delicts) orbreach of contract.-thus, the liability of employers, et. al. under now A2180are only subsidiary (in accordance with penal laws)-QD or culpa aquiliana or extra-contractual culpa:causative act or omission not punished by law and isdone ONLY negligently, where civil liability could arise

as governed by the Civil Code (not by penal laws), andthe party aggrieved could file an ordinary civil action for

damages using only preponderance of evidence. It givesrise only to civil liability. Here, the employers liability forhis employees NONCRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is directand primary and not subsidiary, and he could be directlyimputed in an action for recovery of damages.-an act or omission will give rise to civil liability only if itcauses damage or injury to another or others.

DE LEON (pp.4-8)Tort law emerged out of criminal law; originallyconcerned principally with violent breaches of the place.

(1) Common law tort judges usually define whatcounts as torts and how compensation is to bemeasured. Still, a statute or even Consti maymake certain conduct legally wrongful and maypermit recovery of damages for such conduct.

(2) No clear distinction between tort and crime initially, this was the case sine the developmentof anything like a clearly formulated conceptionof a tort is comparatively recent.

(3) Notion of tort as a specific wrong there wasan attempt in 1720 to consider several specificwrongs in a work consolidating them under thegeneral heading of torts. Torts of a specificcharacter have been increasing.

(4) Place of torts in the Philippine law even if RPwas a civil law country, some of the provisionsin the 1889 CC dealth with cases of the natureof torts + with US occupation, a number of lawspatterned after Anglo-American models havebeen passed amplifying the field of torts inPhilippine legal system.

Functions or goals of tort law

Medieval England: discourage violence and revengeToday: compensation of injured persons and deterrenceof undesirable behavior:System of thoughts (sorry, no parallelism in theenumeration of de leon):(1) Morality or corrective justice defendants shouldbe liable fro harms they wrongfully caused and noothers; liability imposed when and only when it is rightto do so(2) Social utility or policy a good-for-all-of-us view:provide a system of rules that works toward the good ofsociety(3) Legal process litigation process is a good to be

preserved rather than abstract ideal of justice or socialutility


5/44

TORTSAND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_)o PAGE 5(4) potential conflicts between justice and policyoutlook and legal process outlook(5) distribution of loss the cost of loss suffered byplaintiff is not simply transferred to the defendant but isdistributed through the defendant to a large number ofindividuals(6) redress of social grievances tort law a popular

mechanism that permits ordinary people to put authorityon trial(7) a mixed system tort law a mixed set of functions

CLASSES OF TORTS: Property torts and Personal torts

II. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT

A. Elements

Art. 2176, NCCWhoever by act or omission causes damage to another,there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for thedamage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no

pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, iscalled a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisionsof this Chapter.

Garcia v Florido

FACTS: A public utility car and a bus collided, resultingin injuries to Garcia et al. The chief of police filed acriminal case against the bus driver. Garcia et al filed acivil action for damages against the owners and driversof both vehicles. Bus company and driver filed a motionto dismiss. CFI dismissed the civil action holding that theright to file a separate civil action was not reserved andthat the action was not based on QD.

ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the case was proper. NO

HELD: The action was based on QD and it may proceedindependently. The essential averments for a QD actionare present in this case, namely:(1) act or omission of private respondents;(2) presence of fault or negligence or lack of due care inthe operation of the passenger bus by its driver resultingin the collision;(3) physical injuries and other damages sustained bypetitioners as a result of the collision;

(4) existence of direct causal connection between thedamage or prejudice and the fault or negligence ofprivate respondents; and(5) the absence of preexisting contractual relationsbetween the parties.

The allegation that private respondents violated traffic

rules does not detract from the nature and the characterof the actions as one based on culpa aquiliana.Excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clearindication of negligence.

C L A S S N O T E Important: Take note of 4 elements of QD: (1)

acts or omission constituting negligence; (2)damage; (3) direct causal connection betweendamage and act or omission; (4) no preexistingcontractual relation.

The case mentions 5 elements but Prof. Casismentioned 4.

Andamo v CA

FACTS: The Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salettecaused the construction of waterpaths and contrivancesin its compound. This allegedly caused flooding anddamage to the adjacent lot, property of the Andamospouses. The Andamos filed a criminal case fordestruction by means of inundation, and later also filed acivil action for damages against respondent corporation.The civil case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, asthe crim case was field ahead of it.

ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper.

HELD: NO. The civil action was based on QD and mayproceed independently of the criminal case. All theelements of QD are present in the complaint, to wit:(1) damages suffered by the plaintiff;(2) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some otherperson for whose acts he must respond; and(3) the connection of cause and effect between the faultor negligence of the defendant and the damagesincurred by the plaintiff.

C L A S S N O T E

Important: Take note of 3 elements of QD: (1)damages suffered by plaintiff; (2) fault ornegligence of defendant; (3) fault of defendantcaused damages suffered by plaintiff

Taylor v MERALCO

FACTS: 15-year old David Taylor with 2 others (Manueland Jessie) experimented with detonating caps weretaken from the premises of MERALCO. David andManuel ignited the contents of the cap, resulting in anexplosion which led to Davids loss of his right eye.Davids father filed an action for damages.

ISSUE: WON the plaintiff can recover damages in thiscase.

HELD: NO. In order to recover damages, the followingmust be established:(1) damages to the plaintiff;(2) negligence by act or omission of which defendant

personally, or some person for whose acts it mustrespond, was guilty; and(3) the connection of cause and effect between thenegligence and the damage.

C L A S S N O T E Important: Qualification of negligence fault or

negligence is a source of obligation whenbetween such negligence and the injury thereexists the relation of cause and effect

Tayag v AlcantaraFACTS: Tayag who was riding on a bicycle alongMcArthur Highway was bumped by a bus and died. Hisheirs sued the bus owner and driver for damages. Acrim case was also filed against the bus driver. The busdriver was acquitted in the crim case on the ground ofreasonable doubt. CFI sustained private respondentsMTS the civil case on the ground of lack of COA due tothe acquittal of the bus driver in the crim case.

ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper.

HELD: No. The petitioners COA being based on a QD,

the acquittal of the driver in the crim case is not a bar tothe civil case for damages based on QD.


6/44

TORTSAND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_)o PAGE 6All the essential averments for a QD action are

present, namely:1) Act or omission constituting fault or negligence

on the part of private respondent;2) Damage caused by the said act or omission;3) Direct causal relation between the damage and

the act or omission; and

4) No pre-existing contractual relation betweenthe parties.

C L A S S N O T EImportant: There must exist a direct causal connection

1. act or omission

I SANGCO (pp. 1-4)- Conduct may be legally described in terms of action

and inaction or misfeasance or nonfeasance.Misfeasance is active misconduct working positive

injury to others; while nonfeasance is passiveinaction or failure to take steps to protect them fromharm

- Liability in tort may be predicated upon an injuryresulting from an unlawful or illegal act or omission,whether injury is on property or person

2. cause damage

I SANGCO (pp. 87-90)- QD liability presupposes 2 conditions: (1) a

connection of cause and effect between the personliable and the fact from which damage results; (2) afault of this person, which implies at once an act ofintelligent volition that is illicit, or contrary to law

- It must be shown that the damage to the plaintiff,who must prove it, was the natural and probable, ordirect and immediate consequence of defendantsculpable act or omission

- Proximate cause is determined on the facts of eachcase upon mixed considerations of logic, commonsense, policy and precedent.

3. fault or negligence

I SANGCO (p5-7)

- Negligence is the failure to observe, for theprotection of the interest of another person, thatdegree of care, precaution and vigilance which thecircumstances reasonably impose. When thedanger is great a high degree of care is necessary,and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinarycare.

- Negligence is conduct, not a state of mind or theuse of sound judgment.

- Negligence is a matter of risk that is to say, ofcognizable danger of injury. The actor does notdesire to bring about the consequences whichfollow, nor does he know that they are substantiallyto occur, or believe they will. There is merely a riskof such consequences sufficiently great to lead areasonable man in his position to anticipate them,and to guard against them.

- The culpability of the actors conduct must bejudged in the light of the possibilities apparent tohim at the time and not by looking backward withthe wisdom born of the event. The standard mustbe one of conduct, rather than consequences. Atthe same time, the standard imposed must be anexternal one, based upon what society demands ofthe individual rather than upon his own notion ofwhat is proper.

- Intentional omissions must not be treated as casesof negligence. These are not cases of omissions;they are cases of positive action.

B. DistinguishedA. Quasi-delict v Delict

Art 2177, NCCResponsibility for fault or negligence under the

preceding article is entirely separate and distinct fromthe civil liability arising from negligence under the PenalCode. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice forthe same act or omission of the defendant.

Art 365, RPC. Imprudence and Negligence.Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but

without malice, doing or failing to do an act from whichmaterial damage results by reason of inexcusable lackof precaution on the part of the person performing orfailing to perform such act, taking into consideration hisemployment or occupation, degree of intelligence,

physical condition and other circumstance regardingpersons, time and place.

Simple imprudence consists in the lack ofprecaution displayed in those cases in which thedamage impending to be caused is not immediate nothe danger clearly manifest.

Barredo v Garcia, supra

RULE: A QD or culpa aquiliana is a separate legalinstitution under the CC, with a substantially all its own,and individuality that is entirely apart and independentfrom crime.

C L A S S N O T E SDelict Quasi-Delict

Public interest Private interestPenal Code Civil Code

Punished only by penallaw

Any kind of fault of negligence

Guilt beyond reasonabledoubt

Preponderance of evidence

People v Ligon

FACTS: Based on the testimony of a taxi driver, Gabatwas convicted of Robbery with Homicide committedagainst a 17-yo student working as a cigarette vendor.

ISSUE: WON Gabats guilt was proven BRD.

HELD: NO. Gabats guilt has not been establishedbeyond reasonable doubt, but preponderance ofevidence establishes that by his ct or omission, withfault and negligence, he caused damage to the victimand should answer civilly for the damage done.

It does not follow that a person who is not criminallyliable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt of theaccused in a criminal case must be established BRD,only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civilaction for damages. The judgment of acquittalextinguishes civil liability only when it includes adeclaration that the facts from which the civil liabilitymight arise did not exist.


7/44


C L A S S N O T E S Need to indemnify heirs even if not criminally

liable.

Padilla v CA

FACTS: Padilla, a municipal mayor, together withpolicemen and a civilian, demolished a store and tookaway its contents, pursuant to a municipal ordinance.CA acquitted them of the charge of grave coercionbased on reasonable doubt but ordered them to paydamages.

ISSUE: WON CA erred in requiring petitioners to paydamages after acquitting them of the criminal charge.

HELD: NO. The civil liability is not extinguished byacquittal where the acquittal is based on reasonablecount as only a preponderance of evidence is requiredin civil cases.

There is nothing contrary to Art 29,CC in therendition of a judgment of acquittal and a judgmentawarding damages in the same criminal action. The twocan stand side by side. A judgment of acquittal operatesto extinguish the criminal liability. It does not, however,extinguish the civil liability unless there is a clearshowing that the act from which civil liability might arisedid not exist.

Cruz v CA

FACTS: Ninevetch Cruz, a surgeon, was convicted ofreckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

ISSUE: WON Cruzs conviction is supported by theevidence.

HELD: Her guilt was not proved BRD. However, theCourt finds her civilly liable for the death of Lydia Umali,for while a conviction requires proof BRD, only apreponderance of evidence is required to establish civilliability.

C L A S S N O T E Important: elements of reckless imprudence:

(1) the offender does or fails to do an act; (2)doing or failure to do the act is voluntary; (3)without malice; (4) material damage resultsfrom the reckless imprudence; (5) there isinexcusable lack of precaution on the part ofthe offender, taking into consideration hisemployment or occupation, degree ofintelligence, physical condition, and othercircumstances regarding persons, time andplace

Philippine Rabbit v People

FACTS: Philippine Rabbits employee was convicted ofreckless imprudence resulting in triple homicide, multiplephysical injuries and damage to property, and was

sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to pay damages.The driver jumped bail. Phil Rabbits notice of appealwas dismissed.

ISSUE: WON an employer who dutifully participated inthe defense of its accused employee may appeal the judgment of conviction independently of the accused.NO.

HELD: The subsidiary liability of Phil. Rabbit isincidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civilliability of the accused-employee. Since the civil liabilityof the latter has become final and executory by reason

of his flight, then the formers subsidiary civil liability hasalso become immediately enforceable.

Under the 2000 Rules of Crim Proc., the civilliability of the accused arising from the crime is deemedimpliedly instituted in a crim action unless the offendedparty waives the action, reserves the rt to institute itseparately, or institutes it prior to the crim action. Hence,the subsidiary liability of the employer under Art 103,RPC, may be enforced by execution on the basis of thejudgment of conviction meted out to the employee.

The 2000 Rules of Crim Proc deleted therequirement of reserving independent civil actions and

allowed these to proceed separately from criminalactions. Thus, the civil actions referred to in Arts 32, 33,

34 & 2176 of the CC shall remain separate, distinct andindependent of any crim prosecution based on the sameact.

C L A S S N O T E

Important: Clarified 2000 Rules of Court

B. Quasi-Delict v. Breach of Contract

Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of theirobligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay,and those who in any manner contravene the tenorthereof, are liable for damages.

Art. 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud isdemandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an actionfor future fraud is void.

Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence inthe performance of every kind of obligation is alsodemandable, but such liability may be regulated bythe courts, according to the circumstances.

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligorconsists in the omission of that diligence which isrequired by the nature of the obligation andcorresponds with the circumstances of the persons, ofthe time and of the place. When negligence showsbad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201,paragraph 2, shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state thediligence which is to be observed in the performance,that which is expected of a good father of a familyshall be required.

Art. 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 arealso applicable to a quasi-delict.

Notes: Negligence for BoC and QD are defined in thesame way as provided by Art 2178.Therefore, if you suefor negligence, you can base the action on quasi-delict,delict, or contract.


8/44


Cangco v Manila Railroad

FACTS: Cangcos arm was amputated because he wasdrawn from under a railroad car. His foot alighted upon a

melon at the moment he stepped upon the platform. Hesues for negligence in the performance of a contract.MR argues that [1] the breach was due to negligence ofservant and [2] it exercised due diligence in selectionand supervision. Held: MR is liable. The contract totransport carries with it the duty to provide safe meansof entering and leaving the train. It is unnecessary forplaintiff for BoC to prove the breach was due tonegligence. When a contractual relation exists, theobligor may break the contract by means of an act whichwould have constituted a violation of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed.

Doctrine: QD and BoC are concentric, and QDs arebroader. Plaintiff with a pre-existing contractual relationmay still sue for QD so long as had there been a nocontract, there is still a quasi-delict.

Notes: SC held there was a contract of carriage even ifCangco did not pay for a ticket. Also, Sir took note of the4 main differences of QD and BoC in this case:

Under QD Under BoC

1. l iabili ty ofdefendantemployer

Presumptiveliability

Direct andimmediate

2. defendantemployersdefense

Rebutpresumptionthrough proof ofthe exercise ofdue care inselection andsupervision

Proveperformance ofcontract or contributorynegligence

3. vinculumjuris (legal tie)

Created by thewrongful or negligentact/omissionitself

Independent thebreach of theduty assumed bythe parties

4. what aplaintiff needs

to prove

Defendantsfault or

negligence

The contract andits

nonperformance.The negligence

need not beproven

C L A S S N O T E S What is the breach of contract committed?

Negligence, failure to exercise due care

Art. 1903 not applicable in cases where there ispreexisting relationship

Cangco did not pay for his fare so why is acontract of carriage at issue? It should be acontract of employment.

MERALCO was held liable for breach ofcontract. What was the breach?

Failure to exercise due diligence

This is a landmark case because there is aglaring statement in Cangco that contradictsthe other cases

True of False-a breach of contract is not abasis for QD: FALSE

Court in Sangco said that the circle isCONCENTRIC: QD is larger and that culpacontractual is the yolk

So Cangco doesnt say that the two aremutually exclusive and therefore Cangco isconsistent with Air France

Vinculum juris distinction doesnt matterbecause here the act & the breach coincided

Fores v Miranda

FACTS: Miranda was a passenger of a jeep which hit awall and fractured his right humerus. He sues undercontract of carriage. CA awarded him with moraldamages.

HELD: SC deleted moral damages. Moral damages arenot recoverable for actions based on BoC unless thereis bad faith. There was no bad faith because: [1] merecarelessness of the driver does not justify the inferenceof bad faith; and [2] under Art 1756, the presumption isthat common carriers acted negligently (and notmaliciously)

Doctrine: Differences between QD and BoC in

this case: Under QD Under BoC

1. moraldamages

Anywhere thereare physicalinjuries (Art2219[2])

Recoverableonly if passenger diesor there ismalice or badfaith

2. defendant

carriersdefense

Proof of due

di ligence inselection andsupervision

(proof of due

diligence notavailable)

3. what plaintiffneeds to prove

Carriers fault ornegligence

Injury topassenger. Noneed to prove itwas carriersFault

C L A S S N O T E S Does not say that when there is a contract, you

cant sue for QD.

A2176 expressly excludes cases where thereis a pre-existing contractual relationship. Buteven if there is a pre-existing contractualrelationship, there is still a cause of action forquasi-delict since it is not expressly prohibited.

The ruling on the interpretation of A2176 is notratio, just obiter.

Case is not basis of mutual exclusivity

Rakes v Atlantic

FACTS: Rakess leg was amputated because it was

crushed by an iron rail he was carrying on a hand car forAtlantic, his employer. He sues for damages because ofAtlantics negligence in not repairing the weakenedtrack. Atlantic argues that remedey for injuries throughnegligence lies only in a criminal action

HELD: Atlantics liability to Rakes ariss out of thecontract of employment because failure to provide ormaintain safe appliances for its workmen

Doctrine: Employers liability arising out of negligencein contract of employment may be enforced separatefrom criminal action.


9/44


C L A S S N O T E S Statement that you cant sue for QD when

there is a contract is mere obiter, not ratio.

Court already decided that employee is liable

Art 1092 & 1903 come from pre existingrelationship

Rakes is not the basis of the doctrine thatquasi-delict may arise from breach of contract.

If there is no contract, it does not mean thatthere is no existing relationship

Far East v CA

FACTS: Plaintiff Luna got a Far East credit card whichwas dishonored at a despedida party due to a hotlistpolicy compelled by the loss of the complementary card.He sues for damages. RTC awarded him moral and

exemplary damages.

HELD: Complaint is based on contract because withoutthe contract, the act or omission complained of cannotby itself be an actionable tort. Moral damages weredeleted because negligence in failing to give personalnotice to Luna is not gross as to amount to malice orbad faith. Exemplary damages were deleted because

DOCTRINE: The test to determine whether QD can bedeemed to underlie the BoC s where, without a pre-existing contract between 2 parties, an act or omissioncan nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself.

C L A S S N O T E Qualifies Air France case: QD should be

independent of BoC

Notes: Differences between QD and BoC in this case:

Unde QD Under BoC

1. award formoral damages

Injury If there was badfaith or grossnegligence

2. award forexemplary

damages

Gross negligenceas to

approximatemalice (Art 2231)

Act that iswanton,

fraudulent,reckless,

oppressive ormalevolent (Art.2232)

Air France v Carrasco

FACTS: Carraso was told by the manager that he mustvacate his 1st class seats because a white man who hada better right to it. RTC and CA awarded moraldamages. Air France argues that there was no finding ofbad faith to justify the award of moral damages

HELD: Although there was a pre-existing contract, thestress of the action was put on the wrongful expulsion,which is a violation of a public duty, which is a QD.Passengers have a right to be treated by the carriersemployees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due

consideration.

C L A S S N O T E SDoctrine: The act that breaks the contract may also be

a tort. why discuss this? To determine damages

contradicts A2176? No. This is tort not QD

PSBA v CA

FACTS: A PSBA student was stabbed and killed bynon-students while in the school premises. His parentssued PSBA and its officers under A2180 for ther

negligence, recklessness and lack of security measures.Defendants argue that they are not covered by 2180 asthey are an academic institution. RTC and CA deniedmotion to dismiss.

HELD: The school is not liable under QD because [1]A2180 applies only if damage was caused by studentsor pupils [2] a 2176 applies only if there isno contractualrelation. However, the SC ordered the remand of thecase because there was a contractual obligation toprovide both education and security. Trial must proceedto determine if the breach was due to negligence.

Doctrine: Qualif ied Air France v Carrascospronouncement by saying the phrase, the act that

breaks the contract may also bea tort only applies if theBoC was done in [1] bad faith and [2] in violation of Art21 (willfully causing loss or injury to another in a mannerthat is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy)

C L A S S N O T E QD not applicable when there is a contract

According to Prof. Casis, the court said thatA2176 only applies if no contract exists. But inthe latter part, it ruled that A2176 can apply if acontract exists.

This statement (cant have QD if theres acontract) contradicts Air France yet later on itcites Air France

Based on the cases, the second statement of2176 defines a QD but it is not laying down arule that when there is a pre-exist ing

contractual relationship, there can be no QD.Air France is safer, it said tort referring to firstsentence of 2176 such that if there is pre-existing contractual relationship there can stillbe a tort.

Syquia v CA

FACTS: The parents and siblings of the deceasedSyquia file suit for damages arising from BoC and/or QDagainst Manila Memorial Park Cemetery because thecoffin was flooded due to a hole in the wall of theconcrete vault placed by defendants. CA determined

that there was no negligence.

HELD: Action is based on BoC. The Deed of Sale andCertificate of Perpetual Care govern the relation of theparties and defined their rights and obligations. There isno stipulation that the vault would be waterproof. Plus,Memorial exercise the diligence of a good father of afamily in preventing the accumulation of the water insidethe vault which would have resulted in the caving in ofearth around the grave filling the same with earth.

Doctrines:[1] If there is a pre-existing contractualrelation, then any negligence would be actionable underBoC, not QD. [2] If there is no stipulation or legal

provision to the contrary, the diligence to be observed in


10/44

TORTSAND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_)o PAGE 10the performance of a contractual obligation is that whichis expected of a good father of a family.

C L A S S N O T E S

The notes in this case are rather confusing.Prof. Casis asks how putting a hole in the vaultwould prevent water from entering it.

AQUINO (pp. 25-26)1. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Culpa

Contractual

Culpa Aqui liana (QD) Culpa Contractual (BoC)

Independent contract Foundation of l iabi lity isthe contract and its breach

Defense is available No defense of dil igence of a good father of a family inthe selection andsupervision of employees

Employersresponsibil ity ispresumptive

employers liability isdirect and immediate

2. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Crimes

Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Crimes

Affect PrivateConcerns

Public Interest

IndemnificationRepairs Damage

Penal Code Punishesor Corrects

Broad- include all actswhere any fault ornegligence intervenes

Narrow punishedonly if there is a penallaw punishing it

Employers liability isdirect and primary

Employers liability issubsidiary

3. Concurrence of Causes of Action- Far East Banc v. CA a single act oromission may give rise to two or more causesof action (i.e. delict, QD, or BoC)- liability for a tort may arise even under a

contract, where tirt us that which breaks thecontract, where an act which constitutes a

breach would have itself constituted the sourceof a quasi-delictual liability has the contract notexisted.

De Leon (pp.157-160)

1. Requisites of QD:a. An act or omission by defendantb. Fault or negligence by defendantc. Damage or injury to plaintiffd. Direct relation of cause and effect

between act or omission and thedamage

e. No pre-existing contractualrelationship

2. Burden of Proofa. Falls on the person claiming damagesb. To be established with satisfactory

evidencec. Negligence is not presumed. Only

under Arts. 2180, 2183, and 2191 ispresumed and burden of proof shiftsto defendant

3. QD arising from BoCa. the existence of a contract does not

preclude the commission of a QD..b. Contractual responsibility and extra-

contractual liability exclude each otherand cannot be cumulated.

Tort liability arises from BoC when the isact or omission is in itself wrongfulindependent of the contract, the breach of

which being merely incidental to thecommission of the tort.

4. Culpa Aquil iana and Culpa ContractualDistinguished

Culpa Aquil iana (QD) Culpa Contractual(BoC)

Wrongful or negligentact or omission itselfthe source of theobligation

The act or omission ismerely an incident inthe performance of anobligation

Plaintiff has burden toprove the defendant

was at fault or negligent

Plaintiff need notplead or prove it was

defendants fault ornegligence

No presumption thatdefendant was at faultor negligent

Mere proof of existence of a contractand its breach raisespresumption of fault ornegligence

Governed by Art.2176; and also

governed by Art.1172-1174 under Art.2178

Governed by Arts.1170- 1174

Based on voluntary act or omission which hascaused damage to another

Requires only preponderance of evidence

C L A S S N O T E S Note from discussion: (hindi ko alam kung

saang case to related) if there is a pre-existing

contractual relation, base action on Art. 21.

III. NEGLIGENCEA. Concept of Negligence1. Definition; ElementsArt. 1173 The fault or negligence of the obligorconsists in the omission of that diligence whichis required by the nature of the obligation andcorresponds with the circumstances of thepersons, of the time and of the place. Whennegligence shows bad faith, the provisions ofarticles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 shall apply.

If the law or contact does not state

the diligence which is to be observed in theperformance, that which is expected of a goodfather of a father of a family shall be required.

C L A S S N O T E SAQUINO on negligence (pp. 23-27)

Actionable negligence may either be culpa contractual,culpa aquiliana and criminal negligence. Thus, an actionfor damages for the negligent acts of the defendant may

be based on contract, quasi-delict or delict. The bases


11/44

TORTSAND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_)o PAGE 11of liability are separate and distinct from each othereven if only one act or omission is involved.

Picart v Smith

FACTS: Picart improperly pulled his horse on the rightside (wrong side of the road) of the bridge. Smith drovehis car toward the horse, veering away only when thecar was only a few feet away from the horse. The horsegot spooked and got killed.

HELD: Smith is liable for damages because applyingthe standard of a prudent man, he was negligent. Aprudent man would have recognized that the coursewhich he was pursuing was fraught with risk, and wouldhave foreseen harm to the horse and rider as areasonable consequence of that course. Smith shouldhave: 1. Stopped 2. Slowed down or 3. Veered to theright.Doctrines: 1. The Constitutive fact of negligence is thereasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring ofthe admonition born of this pre-vision.2. Test of negligence would a prudent man foreseeharm to the person injured as a reasonableconsequence of the course about to be pursued?3. Take note however, that a person can be expected totake care only when there is something before them tosuggest or warn of danger. Omniscience of the future isnot a requirement.

Notes: The car was on the proper side of the bridge.Sir thinks that the ruling is problematic because had thecar veered away, it would then be on the improper sideof the road.

C L A S S N O T E S definition: conduct is said to be negligent when

a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasorwould have foreseen that an effect harmful toanother was sufficiently probable to warrant hisforegoing conduct or guarding against its

consequences.

Test: prudent mano fictitious character: ordinary prudent

mano can be reasonably foreseen

o knowledge of tortfeasor at that time

Wright v MERALCO

FACTS: An intoxicated Wright was thrown off hiscalesa after it was pitched forward by Meralcosprotruding railtrack. CFI awarded him damages butapportioned the same since he was negligent as well,although not as negligent as Meralco in failing tomaintain the tract. Both appealed.

HELD: Wright was not negligent because the suddenfalling of the horse, would ordinarily be sufficient tothrow a sober man from the vehicle.Doctrine: If a persons conduct is characterized by s

proper degree of care and prudence, it is immaterialwhether hi is drunk or sober.

Notes: Sir asks the question following the doctrine: Ifthis happened today, would an intoxicated driver be heldliable for hitting a man?

C L A S S N O T E S- mere intoxication is not in itself negligence- inconclusive factor

Corliss v Manila

FACTS: Plaintiff orliss husband died of some seriousburns because the jeep he was driving collided withManila Railroads train at the railroad crossing becauseof his eagerness to beat the locomotive and reach theother side.

HELD: Complaint is dismissed. Husband was negligentbecause [1] one approaching a railroad crossing do socautiously and carefully. He should look and listen anddo everything that a reasonably prudent man would dobefore he attempts to cross the track; [2] a prudent manunder similar circumstances would have heeded the

siren of the oncoming train, stopped and allowed thetrain to pass; [3] the train driver had already applied itsbrakes and was running at 23-30kph; and [4] he had theduty to stop his jeep to avoid a collision because thedriver of the locomotive was not qualified to do so at thetime.

Doctrine: Negligence is defined as the want of carerequired by the circumstances. It is not an absoluteterm and its application depends upon the situation ofthe parties and the degree of care and vigilance whichthe circumstances reasonably require. Where thedanger is great, a higher degree of care is necessary.

Notes: Sir says that based on jurisprudence, thestandard of care required for crossing railroads is stop,look and listen. Nevertheless as provided by the SC inthis case, we cannot provide a standard for all specificcases because it is difficult. There is no formula todetermine negligence. Every case must be dependent ofits facts.

Valenzuela v CA

FACTS: Plaintiff Valenzuela was hit by defendants carwhile she was attending to a flat tire. She sued fordamages based on QD. He argues that he is not liablebecause of her contributory negligence in parking in ano-park zone and he was driving at a safe speed of55kph.

HELD: The average motorist alert to road conditionswould have had no difficulty applying the brakes to a cartraveling at the speed claimed by him. Therefore his

failure to be alert must be due either to his intoxicationor his speeding. Also there was no contributorynegligence because the Emergency Rule exemptsplaintiff from negligence since the time for reflectivethought or opportunity to weight the situation was absentbecause she was confronted by danger.Doctrines: [1] adds to the definition in Corliss v. Manilanegligence is conduct which creates an undue risk ofharm to others it is the failure to observe that degree ofcare, precaution and vigilance which the circumstancejustly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury[2]the emergency rule can be considered a defense.

Notes: SC took into consideration normal humancircumstances in determining WON defendant was


12/44

TORTSAND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_)o PAGE 12negligent. (Examples: the light rainfall, visibility of thestreet 100 meters away, etc.)

Far Eastern v CA

FACTS: While on compulsory pilotage for docking, thevessel rams into pier because anchor did not take hold

HELD: Both the shipmaster and compulsory pilot areliable. The shipmaster is liable because of his blindreliance on the compulsory pilot and because hesupinely stood by with no watchful vigilance on hispart. The compulsory pilot is liable because he failed toreact (or reacted too late) and because he miscalculatedthe bulk and size of the vessel.

Doctrines: [1] Unmindful disregard or neglectfulrelinquishment of duty is tantamount to negligence [2]Extraordinary risk demands extraordinary diligence. [3]The presumption of fault against a moving vessel thatstrikes a stationary object is rebuttable by proof that thedriver was without fault, the collision was the fault of thestationary object, or that it was the result of an inevitableaccident.

Notes: The defense of liability of another person is notavailable to join tortfeasors.

Civil Aeronautics v CA

FACTS: The plaintiff broke his thigh bone because heslipped over a 4-inch elevation at the end of theviewing deck of the airport since he wanted a betterview of the incoming passengers including his futureson- in- law. He filled an action for damages based onQD.

HELD: Defendant is liable for exemplary damages sincethere was gross negligence in failing in its duty to insurethe safety of the viewers because the tendency of theviewers on the deck would be to look to where theplanes and the incoming passengers are and not to lookdown on the floor or pavement.

Doctrines: [1] An object can still be placed negligentlyeven if it has a legitimate purpose for being there. [2]Definition of gross negligence as equivalent tonotorious negligence which consists in the failure toexercise even slight care

Notes: SC, just like in Valenzuela v. CA, took into

consideration normal human circumstances (i.e. thatpeople would be looking up) in determining WONdefendant was negligent. But sir asks, what if theplanes had already landed?

2. Standard of conduct

1. the prudent men2. children3. experts. Professionals4. intoxication5. insanity

1. The Prudent Man

Picart v Smith

Doctrines: [1] The standard of care is that of a prudentman [2] the conduct of a prudent man is determined inthe light of human experience an in the particular case

I Sangco (pp.7-8) 1) STANDARD OF CONDUCT

- it is impossible to fix in advance definite rules for allconceivable human conduct because of the infinitevariety of situations which may arise

- standard of conduct must be:i. external and objectiveii. the same for all personsiii. must make allowance for the risk apparent to

the act for his capacity to meet i t and for thecircumstances under which he must act

a. Children

Article 8, RPCA minor fifteen years of age is presumed to be capableof committing a crime and is to be held criminally liabletherefore. (this was in Taylor. This also might mean Art80 RPC)???

C L A S S N O T E S The new law on negligence of children would

still not affect the laws on negligence outlinedby Sangco because it does not expresslyrepeal the provisions of the RPC.

RA 9344 does not affect presumptions ofnegligence. However, it affects Art. 2180, CC.

Taylor v Manila Railroad

FACTS: David Taylor, 15, and MANUEL, 12, wereexperimenting with fulminating caps they found lyingaround the companys premises. After applying a lightedmatch to an opened cap, it exploded causing injuries.Davids father filed a complaint for damages.

HELD: In the Turntable and Torpedo cases, the ownerof the premises was held liable because of the doctrine

of implied invitation1. This doctrine, however wasoverturned by Railroad Company vs. Stout which heldthat while it is the general rule in regard to an adult thatto entitle him to recover damages for an injury resultingfrom the fault or negligence of another he must havebeen free from fault, such is not the rule in regard to aninfant of tender years. The care and caution required ofa child is according to his maturity and capacity only,and this is to be determined in each case by thecircumstances of the case. The law fixes no arbitraryage at which a minor can be said to have the necessarycapacity to understand and appreciate the nature andconsequences of his own acts, so as to make it

negligence on his part to fail to exercise due care andprecaution in the commission of such acts. Plaintiff wassui juris in the sense that his age and his experiencequalified him to understand and appreciate the necessityfor the exercise of that degree of caution which wouldhave avoided the injury which resulted for his owndeliberate act. Although the owner of the premises was

1In the case of young children, and other persons not

fully sui juris, an implied license might sometimes arisewhen it not on behalf of others. Thus leaving atempting thing for children to play with exposed, wherethey would be likely to gather for that purpose, may beequivalent to an invitation to them to make use of it;and perhaps, if one were to throw upon his premises,near the common way, things tempting to children, thesame implication should arise.


13/44

TORTSAND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_)o PAGE 13negligent leaving the caps exposed n its premises,plaintiffs own act was the principal and proximate causeof the accident.

RULE: The care and caution required of a child isaccording to his maturity and capacity only and this is tobe determines in each case by the circumstances of the

case.

C L A S S N O T E S when children trespass

child & adult: not same appreciation withregard to contributory negligence

for children, you dont stop at age, you look atcircumstances as well

2 cases: Torpedo (flare gun cases) andTurntable (DJ stuff) cases: the questioninvolved has been whether a railroad companyis liable for an injury received by an infant oftender years, who from mere idle curiosity, orfor purposes of amusement, enters upon therailroad company's premises, at a place wherethe railroad company's premises, at a placewhere the railroad company knew, or had agood reason to suppose, children who wouldlikely to come, and there found explosive signaltorpedoes left exposed by the railroadcompany's employees, one of which whencarried away by the visitor, exploded and

injured him; or where such infant found uponthe premises a dangerous machine, such as aturntable left in such condition as to make itprobable that children in playing with it wouldbe exposed to accident or injury therefrom andwhere the infant did in fact suffer injury inplaying with such machine. In these, and in agreat variety of similar cases, the great weightof authority holds the owner of the premisesliable.

Examples: What if its a 25-year old with themental capacity of a 9-year old? What if its a9-year old with the mental capacity of a 25-year

old? Would the doctrine still apply?

Jarco Marketing v CA

FACTS: Zhieneth, 6, was pinned by the bulk of thedepartment stores gift-wrapping counter/structure anddied. The department store contended that it was thechilds own act of climbing into the structure that was the

proximate cause of the fall of the counter.

HELD: (Citing Sangco) Since negligence may be afelony and a quasi-delict and required discernment as acondition of liability, either criminal or civil, a child under9 years of age is, by analogy, conclusively presumed tobe incapable of negligence; and that the presumption oflack of discernment or incapacity for negligence in thecase of a child over 9 but under 15 years of age isrebuttable, under our law. The rule, therefore, is that thechild under 9 years of age must be conclusivelypresumed incapable of contributory negligence as amatter of law.

RULE: A child under 9 years of age must beconclusively presumed incapable of contributorynegligence as a matter of law.

Casis: Does this mean that Sangco did not set astandard of conduct for children but merely a formula?No. The court did not cite him correctly. Sangco had thestandard of an ordinary prudent child.

C L A S S N O T E S Make a distinction between children as a

tortfeasor and children as a victim

If a child is 8 years old and makes a counterfall over another person who dies, QD can stillbe filed because negligence is not equal toliability

Difference between accident and negligence:an accident cannot be foreseen whilenegligence can be foreseen. So in this case,negligence and accident cannot coincide.

Companys counterargument: It neverhappened before.

In citing Sangco, there is an analogy between

the RPC and the new Civil Code. If below 9,presumed incapable of negligence (conclusive

presumption), if above 9 and below 15,rebuttable presumption of incapacity ofnegligence, if above 15, that of a prudent childor adult.

Prof. Casis asks what about a child who isexactly 9 years old? Apply the rules on above9 below 15 because the law should be

construed in favor of the accused. Is there mutual exclusivity between negligence

and accident? According to the Jarco case,none.

Magtibay v Tiangco

FACTS: Rowel Tiangco, under 18, was found guilty ofhomicide through reckless imprudence. Being under 18,his sentence was suspended until he reached majority.Later, in view of his conduct, his lawyer recommendedthe dismissal of his case. CFI dismissed but reversedthe right of the heirs to recover damages in a civil action.

HELD: The suspension of sentence did not wipe out hisguilt , but merely put off the imposit ion of thecorresponding penalty in order to give the delinquentminor a chance to be reformed. When, therefore, afterhe had observed good conduct, the criminal case wasdismissed, this does not mean that he was exoneratedfrom the crime charged, but simply that he would sufferno penalty. Nor did such dismissal of the case obliterateis civil liability for damages.

RULE: Liability of an infant in a civil action for his torts isimposed as a mode, not of punishment but of

compensation. For every tortuous act of violence orother pure tort, the infant tort-feasor is liable in a civilaction to the injured person in the same manner and inthe same extent as an adult.

C L A S S N O T E S Minority is not a factor to escape liability

because even though minority is not a factorfor negligence, it is a factor for liability


14/44


Del Rosario v Manila Electric

FACTS: Alberto Del Rosario, 9, despite the warning ofone of his companions, after saying that he had been inthe habit of touching wires, put out his index finger andtouched a fallen electrical wire. He immediately fell facedownwards, exclaiming Ay! Madre. The end of the wire

remained in contact with his body which fell near thepost. Upon being taken to the hospital, he waspronounced dead.

HELD: It is doubtful whether contributory negligencecan be properly imputed to the deceased, owing to hisimmature years and natural curiosity which a child wouldfeel to do something out of the ordinary, and the merefact that the deceased ignored the caution of acompanion of the age of 8 years does not alter the case.But even supposing that the contributory negligencecould in some measure be properly imputed to thedeceased, yet such negligence would not be wholly fatalto the right of action in this case,not having been thedetermining cause of the accident.

RULE: It is doubtful whether contributory negligencecan be properly imputed to the deceased, owing to hisimmature years and natural curiosity.

C L A S S N O T E S Different from Taylor:

o Taylor contributory negligence, child

as tortfeasoro Del Rosario victim only

Immaturity and natural curiosity taken intoaccount

Ylarde v Aquino

FACTS: Edgardo Aquino ordered his students to digbeside a 1 ton concrete block in order to make a wholeto bury huge stones. He left four of them to level theloose soil around the open hole but allegedly tellingthem not to touch the stone. They, however, playfully jumped into the pit and caused the top of the concrete

block to fall towards the opening. Ylarde wasnt able toclimb out and he died because of the injuries sustained.

HELD: The child Ylarde cannot be charged withreckless imprudence. (citing Sangco) The degree ofcare required to be exercised must vary with thecapacity of the person engendered to care for himself. Aminor should not be held to the same degree of care asan adult, but his conduct should be judged according to

the average conduct of persons of his own age andexperience. The standard of conduct to which a childmust conform for his own protection is that degreeof care ordinarily exercised by children of the sameage, capacity, discretion, knowledge and experienceunder the same or similar circumstances. (RULE)

C L A S S N O T E S Kid was 10/11 yo: *disputable presumption

under Sangco*

*in a case between children and adults, the

trend is that adults should know better*

SANGCO (pp. 70-74)

UNDER 9 YEARS conclusively presumed to haveacted without discernment and is exempt from criminalliability

OVER 9 BUT UNDER 15 may or may not be guiltyof contributory negligence, depending upon his mentaldevelopment and other circumstances (rebuttablepresumption)

OVER 15 YEARS presumed to have sufficient

capacity and understanding to be sensible of dangerwith the power to avoid it(STANDARD is still that of a child his age and capacity,and not that of an adult.)STANDARD: ORDINARILY PRUDENT CHILD

The standard of conduct which a child mustconform for his own protection is that of areasonable person of like age, intelligence andexperience under like or similar circumstancesor that degree of care ordinarily exercised bychildren of the same age, capacity, discretion,knowledge and experience under the same orsimilar circumstances.

TEST as to whether an infant can be subjected to thesame standard of care as an adult:

1. type of activity involved is one that is usuallyengaged in by children2. one involving the use of potentiallydangerous, adult-oriented instrument, like a car.

WHERE CHILD IS HELD TO THE STANDARD OFCARE OF AN ADULT, his violation of a statute or

other enactment entails the same consequences asthose of an adult.

3. Experts, professionals

Culion v Phil. Motors

FACTS: When Culion wanted to get his motorschooner repaired, he went to PMC where Quest,

PMCs manager decided to oversee the repairs.Apparently, the tube connecting the carburetor andthe fuel tank was not well-fitted, such that the fuelmixture leaked and dripped down to the enginecompartment. Quest attention was called on this but hetook it lightly. When the engine was started, therewas a backfire and burned the boat.

HELD: Ordinarily, a backfire from an engine wouldnot be followed by any disaster, but here the leakalong the pipeline and the flooding of thecarburetor created a dangerous situation, which aprudent mechanic, versed in repairs of boatengines, would have taken precaution to avoid.

When a person holds himself out as beingcompetent to do things requiring professional skill,he will be held liable for negligence if he fails toexhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled inthe particular work which he attempts to do. Questis experienced in fixing car and tractor engines, butnot that of boats. A person skilled in dealing withboats would have been sufficiently warned by thecircumstances to cause him to take precautionagainst the danger. Quest did not use the skill thatwould have been exhibited by one ordinarily expertin repairing gasoline engine on boats.

RULE: When a person holds himself out as beingcompetent to do things requiring professional skill,


15/44

TORTSAND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_)o PAGE 15he will be held liable for negligence if he fails toexhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled inthe particular work which he attempts to do.

C L A S S N O T E S Johnny Quest when a person who holds himself out as being

competent to do things, he will be held liablefor negligence if he fails to exhibit the care &skill of an expert

high degree of care

US v Pineda

FACTS: Pineda, a pharmacist, sold bariumchlorate(poisonous) instead of potassium chloratewhich killed 2 horses.

HELD: The profession of pharmacy is one demandingcare and skill. The responsibility to use care hasbeen variously qualified as ordinary care, care ofa specially high degree, the highest degree ofcare known to practical men, which is the highestpracticable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness,vigilance, and the most exact and reliablesafeguards consistent with the reasonable conductof business, in order that human life may notconstantly be exposed to danger flowing from thesubstitution of deadly poison for harmless medicine.The care required must be commensurate with the

danger involved, and the skill employed mustcorrespond with the superior knowledge of thebusiness which the law demands. The question ofnegligence or ignorance is irrelevant. The druggist isresponsible as an absolute guarantor of what hesells.

RULE: The profession of pharmacy is one demandingcare and skill. The responsibility to use care hasbeen variously qualified as ordinary care, care ofa specially high degree, the highest degree ofcare known to practical men.

C L A S S N O T E S Relationship: danger

o pharmacist: knowledgeable

o

buyer: cant check for himself Consider nature of work and danger involved

Cruz v CA

FACTS: Lydia Umali underwent a surgery under Dr.Ninevetch Cruz wherein the untidy clinic ran out ofmedicine, blood and oxygen that the patient had to betransferred to another hospital, where she died.

HELD: While it may be true that the circumstancesseemed beyond cavil to constitute reckless imprudenceon the part of the surgeon, this conclusion is bestarrived at not through the educated surmises norconjectures of laymen, including judges, but by theunquestionable knowledge of expert witnesses. Forwhether a physician or surgeon has exercised therequisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of hispatient is, in the generality of cases, a matter of expertopinion. The deference of courts to the expert opinionof qualified physicians stems from its realization that thelatter possess unusual technical skills which laymen inmost instances are capable of intelligently evaluating.Expert testimony should have been offered to prove thatthe circumstances cited are constitutive of conductfalling below the standard of care employed by other

physicians in good standing when performing the sameoperation.

RULE: The deference of courts to the expert opinion ofqualified physicians stems from its realization that thelatter possess unusual technical skills which laymen inmost instances are capable of intelligently evaluating.

C L A S S N O T E S Plaintiff has burden of proof; present expert

testimony

BPI v CA

FACTS: BPIs money market people pre-terminatedFernandos placement through a phone call and onlyverified her identity by phone. The phony Fernandodeposited the two BPI checks to China Bank andthereafter withdrew it all. BPI claimed reimbursementfrom China Bank under its clear warranty.

HELD: By the very nature of their work the degree ofresponsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of theiremployees and officials is far greater than those ofordinary clerks and employees. For obvious reasons,the banks are expected to exercise the highest degreeof diligence in the selection and supervision ofemployees. No matter how many justifications bothbanks present to avoid responsibility, they cannot erasethe fact that they were both guilty in not exercisingextraordinary diligence in the selection and supervisionsof employees.RULE: The banks are expected to exercise the highestdegree of diligence in the selection and supervision ofemployees (stems from the nature of their industry)

C L A S S N O T E S Nature of banks: imbued with public interest so

there is a higher degree of diligence required

4. Intoxication

C L A S S N O T E S Not negligence in itself but it can be a factor

*questions to ask: (1) how do you know if aperson is intoxicated or not? (2) when is it afactor enough that it impairs your judgment?*

Wright v Manila Electric

FACTS: Plaintiff drove home in a calesa and in crossingthe tracks to enter his premises the horse stumbled,leaped forward, and fell, causing the vehicle to strike outof the rails with great force, throwing the plaintiff fromthe vehicle and causing injuries. The tops of the rails


16/44

TORTSAND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_)o PAGE 16appear to be 5 or 6 inches more above the level of thestreet. Plaintiff was intoxicated at the time.

HELD: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does themere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinarycare. General rule: it is immaterial whether a man isdrunk or sober if no want of ordinary care or prudence

can be imputed to him, and no greater degree of care isrequired to be exercised by an intoxicated man for hisown protection than by a sober one. If ones conduct ischaracterized by a proper degree of care and prudence,it is immaterial whether he is drunk or sober. It isimpossible to say that a sober man would not havefallen from the vehicle under the conditions. A horsecrossing the tracks with not only the rails but a portion ofthe ties themselves aboveground, stumbling by reasonof unsure footing and falling, the vehicle crashingagainst the rails with such force as to break a wheel, thismight be sufficient to throw a person from the vehicle nomatter what his condition; and to conclude that a soberman would not have fallen while a drunken man did, isto draw a conclusion which enters the realm ofspeculation and guesswork.

RULE: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does themere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinarycare.

C L A S S N O T E S Mere intoxication is not in itself negligence

Inconclusive factor

5. Insanity

Art. 2180, NCCThe obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable

not only for one's acts or omissions, but also for those ofpersons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, themother, are responsible for the damages caused by theminor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by theminors or incapacitated persons who are under their

authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment orenterprise are likewise responsible for damages causedby their employees in the service of the branches inwhich the latter are employed or on the occasion of theirfunctions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused bytheir employees and household helpers acting within the

scope of their assigned tasks. Even though the formerare nor engaged in any business or industry.

The state is responsible in like manner when it actsthrough a special agent; but not when the damage hasbeen caused by the official to whom the task doneproperly pertains, in which case what is provided inArticle 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of artsand trades shall be liable for damages caused by theirpupils and students or apprentices, so long as theyremain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall ceasewhen the persons herein mentioned prove that theyobserved all the diligence of a good father of a family toprevent damage. (1903a)

Art. 2182If the minor or insane person causing damage has noparents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall beanswerable with his own property in an action againsthim where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed.

US v Baggay

FACTS: In a song service, Baggay suddenly, withoutprovocation attacked a woman with a bolo on her head ,from which she died. He likewise inflicted variouswounds on other women with the same bolo, includinghis own mother. Since defendant was suffering frommental aberration, trial court rendered him exempt fromcriminal liability but was obligated to indemnify the heirsof the murdered woman.

HELD: In the case of a lunatic or insane person who, inspite of his irresponsibility on account of the deplorablecondition of his deranged mind, is still reasonably andjustly liable with his property for the consequences of hisacts, even though performed unwittingly, for the reasonthat his fellows ought not to suffer from the disastrousresults of his harmful acts more than is necessary, in

spite of his unfortunate condition. According to law, theperson in the first place liable are those who have the

insane party under their care or guardianship, unlessthey prove that there was no blame or negligence ontheir part; but if the demented person or imbecile lack aguardian or some person charged with his care, or if thelatter be insolvent, then his own property must meet thecivil liability.

RULE: Although he may not be held criminally liable, alunatic or imbecile is still held civilly liable. The personin the first place liable is those who have the insaneparty under their care orguardianship.

C L A S S N O T E S Exemption form criminal liability doesnt mean

exemption from civil liability

B. Degrees of Negligence

Art. 2231In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted ifthe defendant acted with gross negligence.

C L A S S N O T E SGrossly negligent vs slightly negligent degree of danger

cf. value

RA 9044 Sec. 6: child 15 & below-incapable ofnegligence

question still to be resolved is the laws effecton 2180 CC

Amedo v Rio

FACTS: Filomeno Manguit, a seaman, jumpedoverboard from his ship into the water to retrieve a 2-

peso bill that was blown by the breeze to the sea. Hedrowned.


17/44


HELD: He failed to exercise even the slightest care anddiligence, that he displayed a reckless disregard of thesafety of his person, that he could not have been butconscious of the probable consequences of hiscarelessness and that he was indifferent, or worse, tothe danger of his injury. There is more reason to hold

that his death was caused by his notorious negligence.If while he was working, his bill merely fell from hispocket, and as he picked it up from the floor somethingaccidentally fell upon him and injured him, he wouldsurely be entitled to compensation, his act beingobviously innocent. Jumping into the sea, however, isentirely different, the danger which it entails being clear,potent and obvious.

RULE: Notorious negligence has been held to betantamount to gross negligence, which is want ofeven slight care and diligence.

- what determines if an act if negligent is the

danger of an act- the nature of the act of jumping into the sea

involves danger

C L A S S N O T E S What determines if an act if negligent is the

danger of an act.

The nature of the act of jumping into the seainvolves danger per se.

Why notorious negligence? Becausecompared with other cases, the danger isapparent and imminent because the shore is1 miles away from the location of the ship. Itwas not a case of the money falling offsomeones pocket to the floor. He is not saidto be a good swimmer but he jumped into thewater as opposed to Cuervo vs. Barrettowherein the emoloyer ordered him to jump intothe water to protect the property of thecompany.

What determines the grossness of negligence?The degree of danger and other factors whichwould justify the dangerous act.

Marinduque Iron Mines v Workmen'sCompensation

FACTS: Mamador hitched a ride together with otherlaborers on a company-owned truck. When the trucktried to overtake another truck, it collided with a coconuttree, which resulted in his death. There was a company

prohibition against laborers riding the haulage trucks.Petitioner claims that such violation was the laborer'snotorious negligence which, under the law, precludesrecovery.

HELD: Mere riding on a haulage truck or stealing a ridethereon is not negligence, ordinarily. Violation of a rulepromulgated by a commission or board is notnegligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence.Under the circumstances, the laborer could not bedeclared to have acted with negligence since theprohibition had nothing to do with the personal safety ofriders. Getting or accepting a free ride on the company'shaulage truck couldn't be gross negligence, because nodanger or risk was apparent.

RULE: Violation of a rule promulgated by acommission or board is not negligence per se; but itmay be evidence of negligence.

C L A S S N O T E S Theres only an alleged prohibition on part of

employer

Even if there was indeed a prohibition, violation

of policy is not necessarily negligence per sebut it may be an evidence of negligence

SANGCO (10-12)

The amount of care demanded by the standard ofreasonable conduct must be proportionate to theapparent risk.

DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE:

SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE - an absence of that degree of

vigilance which persons of extraordinary prudence and

foresight are accustomed to use. (failure to exercisecare)

GROSS NEGLIGENCE described as failu

Documents

A2010 TORTS MAGIC NOTES FOR MIDTERMS