Review Outline in Torts and Damages by Atty. Aliakhbar Jumrani

8/16/2019 Review Outline in Torts and Damages by Atty. Aliakhbar Jumrani

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/review-outline-in-torts-and-damages-by-atty-aliakhbar-jumrani 1/10

2015 Review Outline in Torts and Damages by Atty. Aliakhbar A. Jumrani for Jurists Bar Review Center™.

All rights reserved 2015 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly

prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office

of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 1 of 10

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™ REVIEW OUTLINE IN TORTS AND DAMAGES

Atty. Aliakhbar A. Jumrani

Book I – Torts

I. Definition

Quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana refers to fault or negligence which results in damage to another, there

being no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, and is governed by Art. 2176, Civil Code. Torts,

which is a much broader concept, includes intentional and malicious acts and is covered by Articles 19, 20 and 21

of the Civil Code and by the Revised Penal Code.

Requisites before a person may be liable under quasi-delict:

1.

There must be an act or omission;

2.

There must be damage or prejudice;

3.

There must be causal relationship between the act or omission and the damage done;

4.

There must be no pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties.

II. Classification of torts

1.

Intentional torts – Articles 20, 21 and 26 of the Civil Code

2.

Negligent torts – any other act or omission where there is fault or negligence3.

Strict liability – liability independent of fault or negligence

III. The Tortfeasor

1.

Principal or sole tortfeasor – the person whose act or omission directly or principally causes the injury or

damage

2.

Joint tortfeasor – the person who has responsibility over the principal tortfeasor and is held liable because

he abetted, encouraged or promoted the act of the latter, or because he failed to exercise such degree of

diligence in order to prevent the injury or damage

Note:

The obligation to indemnify another for damage caused by one’s act or omission is imposed upon the

tortfeasor himself, i.e., the person who committed the negligent act or omission. The law, however, provides for

exceptions when it makes certain persons liable for the act or omission of another. These exceptions are found

under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. (Filcar Transport vs. Espinas, G.R. No. 174156, June 20, 2012)

Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons, although acting

independently of each other, are, in combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third

person, and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible







for the whole injury, even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury, or the same damage

might have resulted from the acts of the other tort-feasor. (Sabido vs. Custodio, L-21512, Aug. 31, 1966)

Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two or more persons, although acting

independently, are in combination the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, it is

impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury and either of them is responsible forthe whole injury. Where their concurring negligence resulted in injury or damage to a third party, they become

joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable for the resulting damage under Article 2194 of the Civil Code. (Far Eastern

Shipping vs. CA, G.R. No. 130068 & 130150, October 1, 1998)

IV. Dual liability arising from the same act or omission

1.

Civil liability ex delicto - the indemnity authorized in our criminal law for the offended party, in the

amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and apart from other proven actual damages,

which itself is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. This award stems from Art.

100 of the RPC which states, "Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.” (Peoplevs. Combate, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010)

2.

Civil liability ex quasi delicto – the liability predicated on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil

Code

Note:

It is a settled rule that the same act or omission can create two kinds of liability on the part of the

offender, that is, civil liability

ex delicto and civil liability

ex quasi delicto. Since the same negligence can give rise

either to a delict or crime or to a quasi-delict or tort, either of these two types of civil liability may be enforcedagainst the culprit, subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot

recover damages under both types of liability. (Jarantilla vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80194, March 21, 1989)

V. Proximate Cause

Proximate cause is 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. (Vda de Bataclan

vs. Medina, 101 Phil 181[1957])

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. (Manila Electric

Co. vs. Remoquillo, L-8328, May 18, 1956)

The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving

breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between

him and another party. In such a case, the obligation is created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing







contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties themselves who create the obligation, and the function

of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created. (Calalas vs. CA, G.R. No. 122039, May 31, 2000)

Where the resulting injury was the product of the negligence of both parties, there exists a difficulty to

discern which acts shall be considered the proximate cause of the accident. In Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad

and Light Co. (16 Phil. 8, 29-30), this Court set a guideline for a judicious assessment of the situation: x x x Wherehe 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 should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his

own imprudence. (Fernando vs. CA, G.R. No. 92087, May 8, 1992)

VI. Legal Injury

Legal injury is based on the idea that injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; that damage is the loss,

hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and that damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for

the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was

not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person

alone, the law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or

wrong. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. (BPI Express Card Corporation vs. Court of

Appeals, G.R. No. 120639, September 25, 1998)

VII. Intentional Torts

These are acts or omissions that may constitute a felony but, nevertheless, treated independently from

the criminal action, such as:

1.

Art. 26, Civil Code (Violation of the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of other persons)

2.

Art. 32, Civil Code (Violation of the freedoms and liberties of another person)

3.

Art. 34, Civil Code (Refusal or failure by the police to render aid or protection)

These acts give rise to a civil action for damages separate and independent of the criminal action. (Lim vs.

Ping, G.R. No. 175256, August 23, 2012)

VIII. Negligence

According to Article 1173 of the Civil Code, the fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission

of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the

persons, of the time and of the place.

On the other hand, according to Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, reckless imprudence consists in

voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of

inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into

consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances

regarding persons, time and place.

In addition, according to author Timoteo Aquino, the following factors should also be considered: (1)

emergency, (2) gravity of harm to be avoided, (3) alternative course of action, (4) social value or utility of activity,

(5) person(s) exposed to the risk







Finally, according to Bulilan vs. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 130057, December 22, 1998), negligence or

diligence is determined by (1) the nature of the situation in which he happens to be, and

(2) the importance of the act which he has to perform.

The test of negligence is: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care

and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of

negligence. (Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 [1918])

In the following instances, a presumption arises that the defendant was negligent:

1.

If the drive was violating traffic rules and regulations at the time of the collision. (Kapalaran Bus Line vs.

Coronado, G.R. No. 85331, August 25, 1989)

2.

Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost,

destroyed or deteriorated. (Bascos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101089, April 7, 1993)

3.

In case of death of or injuries to passengers, the law presumes said common carriers to be at fault or to

have acted negligently. (Pilapil vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 52159, December 22, 1989)

Note: The law does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its

passengers

4.

The finding of negligence on the part of the employee gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the

part of the employer in the selection and supervision of the employee. (Pantranco vs. Baesa, G.R. Nos.

79050-51, November 14, 1989)

5.

In case of a forged indorsement of a check and the check was encashed, the collecting bank is presumed

negligent. Similarly, when the signature of the drawer is forged and, for which reason, the check was

encashed, it is the drawee bank which is presumed negligent. (Associated Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.No. 107382, January 31, 1996)

Defenses in Negligence Cases:

1.

Prescription

2.

Fortuitous event

3.

Assumption of risk

4.

Contributory negligence

5.

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

6.

Emergency Rule7.

Involuntariness

8.

Accident

IX. Special Liability in Particular Activities

Under the principle of vicarious liability under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, the obligation imposed by

Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one

is responsible. The activities or situations where vicarious liability attaches are as follows:

1.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused bythe minor children who live in their company.







Note:

a.

The civil liability of parents for quasi-delicts of their minor children, as contemplated in Art. 2180 of

the Civil Code, is primary and not subsidiary. (Libi vs. IAC, G.R. No. 70890, September 18, 1992)

b.

The civil liability is based upon parental authority. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated

child living with its parents commits a tortious act, the parents were negligent in the performance of

their legal and natural duty to supervise the child who is in their custody and control. (Tamargo vs.

Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992)

2.

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

authority and live in their company.

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.

Note:

a.

The terms "employers" and "owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise" do not include

the manager of a corporation. It may be gathered from the context of Art. 2180 that the term

“manager” is used in the sense of “employer”. He, himself, may be regarded as an employee of his

employer, the corporation. (Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. Phil-American Forwarders, L-25142, March

25, 1975)

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.

Note:

a.

The responsibility of employers for the negligence of their employees in the performance of their

duties is primary and, therefore, the injured party may recover from the employers directly,

regardless of the solvency of their employees. (Victory Liner vs. Heirs of Malecdan, G.R. No. 154278,

December 27, 2002)

b.

The responsibility of employers is premised upon the presumption of negligence of their employees.

Therefore, before the presumption of the employer’s negligence in the selection and supervision of its

employees can arise, the negligence of the employee must first be established. (Jose vs. Court of

Appeals, G.R. No. 118441-42, January 18, 2000)

c.

Where the security agency recruits, hires and assigns the work of its watchmen or security guards, the

agency is the employer of such guards or watchmen. Liability for illegal or harmful acts committed by

the security guards attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients or customers of such

agency. (Soliman vs. Tuazon, G.R. No. 66207, May 18, 1992)







d.

Due diligence in the supervision of employees includes formulation of suitable rules and regulations

for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of

the public and persons with whom the employer has relations through his or its employees and the

imposition of necessary disciplinary measures upon employees in case of breach or as may be

warranted to ensure the performance of acts indispensable to the business of and beneficial to their

employer. (Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993)

5.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has

been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in

article 2176 shall be applicable.

Note:

a.

The liability of the State has two aspects, namely: (1) its public or governmental aspects where it is

liable for the tortious acts of special agents only, and (2) its private or business aspects (as when it

engages in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer. (Fontanilla vs.

Maliaman, G.R. No. 55963, December 11, 1989)

b.

A special agent is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise

of the duties of his office if he is a special official. (Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands, 34

Phil. 311 [1916])

6.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their

pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

Note:

a.

The phrase used in Art. 2180 – “so long as they remain in their custody”—means the protective and

supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students

for as long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time. There is nothing in the law

that requires that for such liability to attach, the pupil or student who commits the tortious act must

live and board in the school. (Palisoc vs. Brillantes, L-29025, October 4, 1971)

b.

Where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort

committed by the student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student. In the case of

establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable. In

other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school

is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. (Amadora vs.

Court of Appeals, L-47745, April 15, 1988)

c.

Under Art. 219 of the Family Code, if the person under custody is a minor, those exercising special

parental authority ([a] the school, its administrators and teachers, and [b] the individual, entity or

institution engaged in child care) are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts

or omissions of the unemancipated minor while under their supervision, instruction or custody. (St.

Mary’s Academy vs. Carpitanos, G.R. No. 143363, February 6 , 2002)







X. Strict Liability

1.

Possessor of animal

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. (Art.

2183, Civil Code)

Note:

Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal should "escape or be

lost" and so be removed from his control. And it does not matter either that the dog was tame or was

merely provoked by the child into biting her. The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers

even tame ones as long as they cause injury. x x x The obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code

is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal

causing the damage. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who

possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may

cause. (Vestil vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74431, November 6, 1989)

2.

Food manufacturers and processors

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. (Art. 2187, Civil Code)

Note: Under R.A. No. 7394, the Consumer Act of the Philippines, the guilty manufacturer or

manufacturer is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment.

3.

Provinces, cities and municipalities

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. (Art. 2189, Civil Code)

Note:

It is not necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province, city or municipality

for liability to attach. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the

defective road or street. (Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516, March 21, 1989)

4.

Proprietors of buildings

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. 2190, Civil Code)







The proprietors 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 persons 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. (Art. 2191, Civil Code)

Book II – Damages

I. Definition

Damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered, that is, the loss, hurt or

harm which results from the injury. (Far East Bank vs. Pacilan, Jr., G.R. No. 157314, July 29, 2005)

II. Actual and Compensatory Damages

Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be duly proved, and proved with a

reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and

amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered and on evidence of

the actual amount thereof. (Sui Yong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 64398, November 6, 1990)

III. Moral Damages

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 defendant’s wr ongful act or

omission. (People vs. Baylon, 129 SCRA 62 [1984])

Moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of award designed to

compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. (Prudenciado

vs. Alliance Transport, L-33836, March 16, 1987)

Moral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded

only to allow the former to obtain means, diversion, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering

he has undergone due to the defendant’s culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering

inflicted. (PAL vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120262, July 17, 1997)

A juridical person is not entitled to moral damages under Article 2217 of the Civil Code. It may avail of

moral damages under the analogous cases listed in Article 2219, such as for libel, slander or any other form of

defamation. (Republic vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. 148246, February 16, 2007)

As a general rule, indeed, moral damages are not recoverable in an action predicated on a breach of

contract. This is because such action is not included in Article 2219 of the Civil Code as one of the actions in which

moral damages may be recovered. By way of exception, moral damages are recoverable in an action predicated







on a breach of contract: (a) where the mishap results in the death of a passenger, as provided in Article 1764, in

relation to Article 2206 (3) of the Civil Code; and (b) where the common carrier has been guilty of fraud or bad

faith, as provided in Article 2220 of the Civil Code. (Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs. Felix Paras, et al., G.R.

No. 161909, April 25, 2012)

IV. Nominal Damages

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. (Cogeo-Cubao Operators and Drivers

Association vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100727, March 18, 1992)

It is wrong to award, along with nominal damages, temperate or moderate damages. The two awards are

incompatible and cannot be granted concurrently. Nominal damages are given in order that a right of the

plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the

purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. (Citytrust Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,

G.R. No. 84281, May 27, 1994)

V. Temperate Damages

When the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature

of the case, be proved with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. Temperate damages may be

allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although

the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss. (Premiere Development Bank vs.

Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159352, April 14, 2004)

The record however does not show that petitioner presented proof of the actual amount of expenses he

incurred which seems to be the reason the trial court awarded to him temperate damages instead. This is an

erroneous application of the concept of temperate damages. While petitioner may have indeed suffered

pecuniary losses, these by their very nature could be established with certainty by means of payment receipts. As

such, the claim falls unequivocally within the realm of actual or compensatory damages. (Barzaga vs. Court of

Appeals, G.R. No. 115129, February 12, 1997)

VI. Liquidated Damages

Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of a breach

thereof. Liquidated damages are identical to penalty insofar as legal results are concerned. Intended to ensure

the performance of the principal obligation, such damages are accessory and subsidiary obligations. x x x Since

the principal obligation was void, there was no contract that could have been breached by petitioners; thus, the

stipulation on liquidated damages was inexistent. The nullity of the principal obligation carried with it the nullity

of the accessory obligation of liquidated damages. (Menchavez vs. Teves, G.R. No. 153201, January 26, 2005)

VII. Exemplary or Corrective Damages

In contracts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,

reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. (Maersk Line vs. Court of Appeals, GR. No. 94761, May 17, 1993)



Documents

Review Outline in Torts and Damages by Atty. Aliakhbar Jumrani