UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINESCOLLEGE OF LAW

LAW 104: TORTS & DAMAGES1st Semester 2011-2012

Class II-B and II-D

Prof. Rommel J. CasisRm. 302, Malcolm HallEmail: prof.casis@gmail.comConsultation hours: MTTHF 3-5 pm, W 3-7 pm or by appointment

Pre-requisite:

Law 101: Obligations and Contracts

Course Description:

The law of torts, quasi-delicts, and damages based on the Civil Code and relevant special laws

Class Requirements/Grading:

I.Recitation-50 pts

This is determined by multiplying average recitation grades by 10.

II.Exam-50 pts

This is determined by dividing final exam score by 2.

Grade Equivalent of Points:

1 = 96 1002.0 = 76 803 = 56 60

1.25 = 91 952.25 = 71 754 = 51 55

1.5 = 86 902.5 = 66 705 = 50 & below

1.75 = 81 852.75 = 61 65

SYLLABUS

TORT AND QUASI-DELICT

- Week 1 -

I.The Conceptual Framework

A.The Concept of a Tort

1.Tort in Common Law

a.Etymology

Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th ed) ["Prosser"] pp. 1-2

b.Definition

Prosser, pp. 1-486 C.J.S Torts 1 (2012)74 Am. Jur. 2d Torts 1 (2012)Warren Seavey, Principles of Torts, 56 Harv. L. Rev. 72-73 (1942)2.Tort under Philippine law

a.Existence of "Philippine Tort Law"

Hilarion Jarencio, Torts and Damages in Philippine Law ["Jarencio"] v., p. 1 (1977)Maloles and Martin, Report of the Code Commission (1948) pp. 161-163Aquino, Torts and Damages pp. 4-5 (2005)Eutiquiano Garcia, Torts Under Spanish Law 2 Phil. L. J. 27-28 (1913) ["Garcia"]Article 1902 Old Civil Code (cf Article 2176 Civil Code)

b.Scope of Philippine Tort Law

Jarencio, p.1Antonio Carpio, Intentional Torts in Philippe Law 47 PLJ 649-651 (1973)

c.Definition of Tort Under Philippine Law

Naguiat v. NLRC G.R. No. 116123. March 13, 1997Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune G.R. No. 141309. June 19, 2007

d.Elements of Tort

Prosser and Keeton, pp. 164-165Garcia v. Salvador G.R. No. 168512, March 20, 2007Ocean Builders v. Spouses Cubacub, G.R. No. 150898, April 13, 2011

- Week 2 -

3.The Purpose of Tort Law

Jarencio, p. 6Prosser, pp. 5-674 Am. Jur. 2d Torts 2 (2012)Scott Hershovitz, Harry Potter and the Trouble with Tort Theory pp. 101-102http://ssrn.com/abstract=1687923

B.The Concept of Quasi-Delict

1.Historical Background

Maloles, p. 161Barredo v. Garcia G.R. No. 48006, July 8, 1942[footnoteRef:1] [1: A case in italics means that only the relevant principle(s) stated in that case will be discussed and not the case in full.]

2.Nature

Articles 1157 (cf. 1089 old Code)Garcia, p. 29

3.Governing Provisions

Article 1162

4.Definition

Article 2176 Civil Code (cf. 1902 old Code)

5.Scope

a."Intentional" acts

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, G.R. No. 12191. October 14, 1918Article 2176Elcano v. Hill G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977Andamo v. IAC G.R. No. 74761, November 6, 1990Baksh v. CA G.R. No. 97336. February 19, 1993.

b.Damage to Property

Cinco v. Canonoy 90 SCRA 369

6.Elements

Article 2176Andamo v. IAC G.R. No. 74761. November 6, 1990

C.The Relationship Between Tort and Quasi-Delict

Coca-Cola Bottlers v. CA 227 SCRA 292

D.Tort, Quasi-Delict & Delict

1.Distinctions

Prosser and Keeton, pp. 7-9Barredo v. Garcia, supra

2.Intersections

Barredo v. Garcia, supraElcano v. Hill, supraAndamo v. IAC supraL.G. Foods v. Philadelfa G.R. No. 158995. September 26, 2006

- Week 3 -

E.Culpa aquiliana and Culpa Contractual

1. Distinctions

a. Source

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra

b. Burden of proof

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supraFGU Insurance v. Sarmiento G.R. No. 141910. August 6, 2002

c. Applicability of doctrine of proximate cause

Calalas v. CA G.R., supra

d. Defense of Employer for Negligence of Employee

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra

2. Intersections

Article 2176Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supraFores v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-12163. March 4, 1959Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. L-21438. September 28, 1966Far East v. CA G.R. No. 108164. February 23, 1995PSBA v. CA G.R. No. 84698. February 4, 1992.Syquia v. CA G.R. No. 98695. January 27, 1993Light Rail Transit v. Navidad G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003Consolidated Bank v. CA G.R. No. 138569. September 11, 2003.

- Week 4 -

II.Negligence

A. Concept of Negligence

1.Under the Common Law

Prosser, pp. 169-173

2.Under Philippine Law

a.Definition

Articles 1173, 2178PNR v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891, November 2, 2006PNR v. CA G.R. No. 157658, October 15, 2007Corinthian Gardens v. Spouses Tanjangco G.R. No. 160795. June 27, 2008

b.Determining the diligence required

Article 1173Jorge v. Sicam G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. October 1, 1998

B. Degrees of Negligence

Prosser, pp. 208-214Amedo v. Rio G.R. No. L-6870, May 24, 1954.Marinduque v. Workmens G.R. No. L-8110, June 30, 1956Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo G.R. No. 172406, October 11, 2007

C. Standard of conduct

1. Importance of a Standard of Conduct

Prosser, pp. 173-174

2.The Fictitious Person

Prosser, pp. 174-175Picart v. Smith G.R. No. L-12219. March 15, 1918Sicam v. Jorge, G.R. No. 159617. August 8, 2007.Corinthian Gardens v. Spouses Tanjangco G.R. No. 160795. June 27, 2008

2. Special Circumstance

Heirs of Completo v. Albayda G.R. No. 172200. July 6, 2010Pacis v. Morales G.R. No. 169467. February 25, 2010

3. Children

Prosser and Keeton, pp. 179-182, 399-411Sangco Vol I pp. 70-74Taylor v. Manila Railroad 16 Phil 8Jarco Marketing v. CA 321 SCRA 375Ylarde v. Aquino G.R. No. L-33722. July 29, 1988

- Week 5 -

4. Experts

a. In general

Prosser and Keeton, pp. 185-186Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. October 1, 1998.Culion v. Philippine Motors G.R. No. 32611. November 3, 1930

b.Pharmacists

US v. Pineda G.R. No. L-12858. January 22, 1918Mercury Drug v. De Leon G.R. No. 165622. October 17, 2008

c.Medical professionals

Cruz v. CA G.R. No. 122445. November 18, 1997Professional Services v. Agana G.R. No. 126297. January 31, 2007Cayao-Lasam v. Spouses Ramolete G.R. No. 159132. December 18, 2008Lucas v. Dr. Tuano G.R. No. 178763. April 21, 2009Prosser and Keeton, pp. 186-193

D.Proving Negligence

1.In general

Rule 131 Section 1 Rules of Court

2.Presumptions

a. In motor vehicle mishaps

Article 2184-2185

b. Possession of dangerous weapons or substances

Article 2188

c. Common carriers

Article 1734-1735

d.Res ipsa loquitur

Layugan v. IAC 167 SCRA 363Ramos v. CA 321 SCRA 584

- Week 6 -

Tan v. JAM Transit G.R. No. 183198. November 25, 2009Cantre v. Go, G.R. No. 160889. April 27, 2007Batiquin v. CA G.R. No. 118231. July 5, 1996Professional services v. Agana, supraDM Consunji v. CA 357 SCRA 249College Assurance v. Belfranlt G.R. No. 155604. November 22, 2007Prosser and Keeton, pp. 242-262

E. Defenses against charge of negligence

1. Plaintiffs negligence is proximate cause

Article 2179 Bernardo v. Legaspi G.R. No. 9308. December 23, 1914PLDT v. CA G.R. No. 57079 September 29, 1989Manila Electric v. Remoquillo G.R. No. L-8328. May 18, 1956

2. Contributory negligence of plaintiff

Article 2179, 2214NPC v. Heirs of Casionan G.R. No. 165969. November 27, 2008Genobiagon v. CA G.R. No. 40452. October 12, 1989M.H. Rakes v. The Atlantic G.R. No. L-1719. January 23, 1907Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon G.R. No. 160709. February 23, 2005PNR v. Brunty, supraProsser and Keeton, pp. 468-477

3. Fortuitous event

Article 1174 Juntilla v. Fontanar G.R. No. L-45637. May 31, 1985

- Week 7 -

Southeastern College v. CA G.R. No. 126389. July 10, 1998Sicam v. Jorge, supra

4. Plaintiffs assumption of risk/volenti non fit injuria

Afialda v. Hisole G.R. No. L-2075. November 29, 1949Ilocos Norte v. CA G.R. No. 53401. November 6, 1989Calalas v. CA, supraNikko Hotel v. Roberto Reyes G.R. No. 154259. February 28, 2005Pantaleon v. American Express G.R. No. 174269. August 25, 2010Prosser and Keeton, pp. 480-498

5. Prescription

Article 1146Kramer v. CA G.R. No. 83524. October 13, 1989

III.The Cause

A. Different Categories

1.Proximate

Prosser and Keeton, 263-265, 272-277Bataclan v. Medina 102 Phil 181Mercury Drug v. Baking G.R. No. 156037. May 25, 2007Pilipinas Bank v. CA G.R. No. 105410. July 25, 1994

2.Concurrent

Far Eastern v. CA G.R. No. 130068. October 1, 1998

3.Remote

Gabeto v. Araneta 42 Phil 252Manila Electric v. Remoquillo, supra

4.Intervening

Phoenix Construction v. IAC 148 SCRA 353Prosser and Keeton, pp. 301-319

- Week 8 -

B. Tests to Determine Proximate Cause

Prosser and Keeton, pp. 265-269, 277-280Dy Teban v. Jose Ching G.R. No. 161803. February 4, 2008Phoenix Construction v. IAC, supraPicart v. Smith, supraBustamante v. CA 193 SCRA 603Phoenix v. IAC supraPhil Bank of Commerce v. CA 269 SCRA 695Glan v. IAC G.R. No. 70493. May 18, 1989Pantrangco v. Baesa 179 SCRA 384Canlas v. CA 326 SCRA 415Consolidated Bank v. CA 410 SCRA 562Engada v. CA 404 SCRA 478PNR v. Brunty, supraLapanday v. Angala 525 SCRA 229Sangco Vol I, pp. 74-81Prosser and Keeton, pp. 462-468

IV.Persons Vicariously Liable

1. Parents /Guardians

Article 2180 - 2181Article 216-217, 221, 236 Family Code101 Revised Penal CodeSec. 6 Republic Act No. 9344Libi v. IAC 214 SCRA 16Tamargo v. CA 209 SCRA 518

- Week 9 -

2. Teachers/School

Article 2180Article 218 Family CodeArticle 102-103 RPCPalisoc v. Brillantes 41 SCRA 548Amadora v. CA 160 SCRA 315Salvosa v. IAC 166 SCRA 274St. Marys Academy v. Carpitanos 376 SCRA 473Aquinas School v. Inton G.R. No. 184202. January 26, 2011

3.Owners/Managers of Establishments/Employers

Article 2180Cangco v. Manila Railroad supraPhil Rabbit v. Phil American 63 SCRA 231Lampesa v. De Vera G.R. No. 155111. February 14, 2008Spouses Jayme v. Apostol G.R. No. 163609. November 27, 2008Castilex v. Vasquez 321 SCRA 393Filamer v. IAC 212 SCRA 637NPC v. CA 294 SCRA 209Valenzuela v. CA 253 SCRA 303Professional Services v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297. January 31, 2007, G.R. No. 126297. February 11, 2008 G.R. No. 126297. February 2, 2010Mercury Drug v. Huang 525 SCRA 427

- Week 10 -

4.State

Article 2180Meritt v. Government 34 Phil 311Rosete v. Auditor General 81 Phil 453Mendoza v. De Leon 33 Phil 508Fontanilla v. Maliaman G.R. No. 55963. December 1, 1989; G.R. Nos. 55963 & 61045. February 27, 1991

VI. Persons Specifically Liable

A. Possessor or User of Animals

Article 2183Vestil v. IAC 179 SCRA 47

B. Owner of motor vehicles

Article 2184Chapman v. Underwood 27 Phil 374Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai 135 Phil 399

C. Provinces, Cities, Municipalities

Article 2189Guilatco v. Dagupan 171 SCRA 382Quezon City v. Decara G.R. No. 150304. June 15, 2005

D. Proprietors of buildings

Article 2190 2192

E. Engineer/Architect of Collapsed Building

Article 1723

F. Head of a family for things thrown/falling

Article 2193Dingcong v. Kanaan 72 Phil 14

G. Owners of Enterprises/other employers

Articles 1711-1712Afable v. Singer Sewing Machine 58 Phil 39Alarcon v. Alarcon 112 Phil 389

- Week 11 -

H. Manufacturers/Producers

Article 2187, 1170-117297, 99, 106 Consumer ActRepublic Act No. 9803

I.Persons Who Interfere with contractual relations

Article 1314Gilchrist v. Cuddy 29 Phil 542So Ping Bun v. CA G.R. No. 120554 September 21, 1999Lagon v. CA 453 SCRA 616Go v. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703. May 4, 2010Prosser and Keeton, pp. 978-1004

V.Independent Civil Actions

A.Violation of Civil and Political Rights

Article 32MHP Garments v. CA 126 SCRA 227Silahis v. Soluta 482 SCRA 660Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune 525 SCRA 11Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune G.R. No. 141309. December 23, 2008

- Week 12

I. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries

Article 33Joaquin v. Aniceto G.R. No. L-18719. October 31, 1964Madeja v. Caro 211 Phil 469Arafiles v. Phil Journalists 426 SCRA 336MVRS v. Islamic G.R. No. 135306. January 28, 2003Prosser and Keeton, pp. 771-785Heirs of Simon v. Elvin Chan G.R. No. 157547. February 23, 2011.Capuno v. Pepsi Cola 13 SCRA 658Corpus v. Paje 28 SCRA 1062Bonite v. Zosa 162 SCRA 173Jervoso v. People 189 SCRA 523Dulay v. CA 243 SCRA 220

J. Neglect of Duty

Article 34Sangco Vol I 334-335

E.Catch-All Independent Civil Action

Article 35

- Week 13 -

VI.Human Relations Torts

A. Abuse of Rights

Article 19Velayo v. Shell G.R. No. L-7817. October 31, 1956Globe Mackay v. CA G.R. No. 81262. August 25, 1989Albenson v. CA G.R. No. 88694. January 11, 1993Amonoy v. Gutierrez G.R. No. 140420. February 15, 2001UE v. Jader G.R. No. 132344. February 17, 2000Barons Marketing v. G.R. No. 126486. February 9, 1998Diaz v. Davao Light G.R. No. 160959. April 4, 2007Pantaleon v. American Express, supra

B. Illegal Acts

Article 20Garcia v. Salvador supra

C. Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Article 21Velayo v. Shell, supraAlbenson v. A, supraWassmer v. Velez G.R. No. L-20089. December 26, 1964Tanjanco v. CA G.R. No. L-18630. December 17, 1966Baksh v. CA G.R. No. 97336. February 19, 1993Pe v. Pe G.R. No. L-17396. May 30, 1962Que v. IAC G.R. No. 66865. January 13, 1989Drilon v. CA G.R. No. 107019. March 20, 1997Prosser and Keeton, pp. 870-896Magbanua v. Junsay 515 SCRA 419Grand Union v. Espino 94 SCRA 953Carpio v. Valmonte 438 SCRA 38Quisaba v. Sta Ines 58 SCRA 771- Week 14 -

D. Violation of Human Dignity

Article 26St Louis v. CA 133 SCRA 179Gregorio v. CA, supraSpouses Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la G.R. No. 190601. February 7, 2011Prosser and Keeton, pp. 849-856

E. Dereliction of Duty

Article 27

F. Unfair Competition

Article 28

DAMAGES

I. The Concept of Damages

People v. Ballesteros 285 SCRA 438Custodio v. CA 253 SCRA 483Articles 2195-2196, 2198

B.The Types of Damages

Article 2197

II.Actual or Compensatory

1. Definition/Purpose

Article 2199Oceaneering Contractors v. Baretto G.R. No. 184215. February 9, 2011

2. Proof required

PNOC v. CA, supraOceaneering Contractors v. Baretto, supra

3. Loss covered

a.In general

Article 2200PNOC v. CA 297 SCRA 402

b. In contracts and quasi-contracts

Article 2201

c. In crimes and quasi-delicts

Article 2202, 2204

d. Earning capacity, business standing

Article 2205Gatchalian v. Delim 203 SCRA 126Candanao v. Sugata-On G.R. 163212 March 13, 2007

e. Death by crime or quasi-delict

Article 2206 People v. Buban G.R. 170471 May 11, 2007People v. Apacible G.R. No. 189091. August 25, 2010Crisostomo v. People G.R. No. 171526. September 1, 2010Philippine Hawk v. Lee G.R. No. 166869. February 16, 2010

f. In rape cases

People v. Astrologo G.R. 169873 June 8 2007

- Week 15 -

g. Attorneys Fees

Article 2208Quirante v. IAC G.R. No. 73886. January 31, 198Manila Electric Company v. Ramoy G.R. No. 158911. March 4, 2008Briones v. Macabagdal G.R. No. 150666. August 3, 2010Bank of America v. Philippine Racing Club G.R. No. 150228. July 30, 2009Spouses Andrada v. Pilhino Sales G.R. No. 156448. February 23, 2011

h. Interest

Article 2209-2213Frias v. San Diego-Sison G.R. No. 155223. April 3, 2007Soriamont v. Sprint G.R. No. 174610. July 14, 2009Pan Pacific v. Equitable G.R. No. 169975. March 18, 2010

3. Duty to minimize

Article 2203, 2214-2215

III.Moral Damages

A. Purpose

Kierulf v. CA 269 SCRA 433Sulpicio Lines v. Curso G.R. No. 157009. March 17, 2010B.F. Metal v. Lomotan G.R. No. 170813. April 16, 2008Expert Travel v. CA G.R. No. 130030. June 25, 1999Spouses Valenzuela v. Spouses Mano G.R. No. 172611. July 9, 2010PNR v. Brunty, supraABS-CBN v. CA G.R. No. G.R. No. 128690. January 21, 1999

B. When recoverable

Articles 2217, 2219 -2220 Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, supraB.F. Metal v. Lomotan, supraExpert Travel v. CA, supraIndustrial Insurance v. Bondad G.R. No. 136722. April 12, 2000Triple Eight v. NLRC G.R. No. 129584. December 3, 1998People v. Pirame G.R. No. 121998. March 9, 2000Carlos Arcona y Moban v. CA G.R. No. 134784. December 9, 2002Heirs of Completo v. Albayda, supraSpouses Valenzuela v. Spouses Mano, supraRegala v. Carin G.R. No. 188715. April 6, 2011ABS-CBN v. CA, supraRepublic v. Tuvera G.R. No. 148246. February 16, 2007

C. Factors considered in determining amount

Kierulf v. CA, supraLopez v. Pan American 16 SCRA 431B.F. Metal v. Lomotan, supraExpert Travel v. CA, supraValenzuela v. CA, supraPNR v. Brunty, supraPeople v. Lizano G.R. No. 174470 April 27 2007

- Week 16 -

IV.Nominal Damages

A.Nature and Purpose

Article 2221Robes-Francisco v. CFI G.R. No. L-41093. October 30, 1978Gonzales v. People G.R. No. 159950. February 12, 2007

B.When awarded

Article 2222Francisco v. Ferrer G.R. No. 142029. February 28, 2001Spouses Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la, supraPeople v. Marquez G.R. No. 181440. April 13, 2011.

C.Effect of Award

Article 2223

V.Temperate damages

A.When recoverable

Article 2224-2225Pleno v. CA G.R. No. G.R. No. 56505. May 9, 1988Ramos v. CA, supraRepublic v. Tuvera, supraTan v. OMC Carriers G.R. No. 190521. January 12, 2011

B.Factors in determining amount

Serrano v. People G.R. No. 175023. July 5, 2010People v. Murcia G.R. No. 182460. March 9, 2010

VI.Liquidated damages

A. Definition

Article 2226Pentacapital v. Mahinay G.R. No. 171736. July 5, 2010

B.Determining the amount

Article 2227-2228Titan v. Uni-Field G.R. No. 153874. March 1, 2007

- Week 17 -

VII.Exemplary/Corrective damages

A. Purpose

Article 2229Republic v. Tuvera, supra

B. When imposed

1. In general

Article 2229, 2233-2235PNB v. CA G.R. No. 108630. April 2, 1996Republic v. Tuvera, supra

2. In crimes

Article 2230People v. Dalisay G.R. No. 188106. November 25, 2009People v. Diunsay-Jalandoni G.R. No. 174277. February 8, 2007.People v. Capanas. G.R. No. 172321. February 9, 2011.

3. quasi-delicts

Article 2231

4. In contracts and quasi-contracts

Article 2232

1Last updated on 23 June 2012