Torts & Damages Case Doctrines

7/21/2019 Torts & Damages Case Doctrines

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-damages-case-doctrines 1/17

1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005MIDTERMS 2015-2016

CASE DOCTRINE

CASE SET 11 Velayo vs Shell Company In the absence of law, is Article 21 of the Civil Code which states:

“Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public

policy shall compensate the latter for the damage”.

Thus at one stroke, the legislator, if the forgoing rule is approved (as it was approved), would vouchsafe adeuate legal re!ed" for

that untold nu!bers of !oral wrongs which is i!possible for hu!an foresight to provide for specificall" in the statutes# A !oral wrong

or in$ur", even if it does not constitute a violation of a statute law, should be co!pensated b" da!ages# %oral da!ages (Art# 221&)

!a" be recovered (Art# 221')#

In Article 2, the liabilit" for da!ages arises fro! a willful or negligent act contrar" to law# In this article, the act is contrar" to !orals,

good custo!s or public polic"#2 Sau! A"a#!an A!"l!nes vs CA connecting factor or point of contract could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred#

And appl"ing the torts principle in a conflicts case, we f ind that the *hilippines could be said as a situs of the tort (the places where

the alleged tortious conduct took place)# This is because it is in the *hilippines where petitioner allegedl" deceived private

respondent, a +ilipina residing and working here#

According to her, she had honestl" believed that petitioner would, in the eercise of its rights and in the perfor!ance of its duties, act

with $ustice, give her due and observe honest" and good faith# Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she clai!ed# That certain acts

or parts of the in$ur" allegedl" occurred in another countr" is of no !o!ent#

+or in our view what is i!portant here is the place where the over-all har! or the totalit" of the alleged in$ur" to the person,

reputation, social standing and hu!an rights of co!plainant, had lodged, according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent)#

All told, it is not without basis to identif" the *hilippines as the situs of the alleged tort#

. $lo#e Ma%&ay an Ra!o Co"p

vs CA

To constitute !alicious prosecution, there !ust be proof that the prosecution was pro!pted b" a design to ve and hu!iliate a

person and that it was initiated deliberatel" b" the defendant knowing that the charges were false and groundless#

The !ere dis!issal b" the fiscal of the cri!inal co!plaint is not a ground for an award of da!ages for !alicious prosecution if there

is no co!petent evidence to show that the co!plainant had acted in bad faith#

According to the principle of damnum absque injuria, da!age or loss which does not constitute a violation of a legal right or

a!ount to a legal wrong is not actionable#

%/0A A%A3456 04C/740A84 I9 CA545 %49TI/94 I9 A0TIC4 21 /+ T4 CI7I C/4# ;<*=er epress provision of

Article 221' (1) of the 9ew Civil Code, !oral da!ages are recoverable in the cases !entioned in Article 21 of said Code#

That if gross negligence warrants the award of ee!plar" da!ages, with !ore reason is its i!position $ustified when the act

perfor!ed is deliberate, !alicious and tainted with bad faith#

> Amonoy vs $u!'!e""e( *0I9CI*4 /+ DA!" A#$%"& '!(")'A# ; ?ell-settled is the !ai! that da!age resulting fro! the legiti!ate eercise of a

person@s rights is a loss without in$ur" ; damnum abs*ue injuria ; for which the law gives no re!ed"# In other words, one who

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005!erel" eercises one@s rights does no actionable in$ur" and cannot be held liable for da!ages#

9/T A**ICA84 I9 CA54 AT 8A06 04A5/95# ; True, petitioner co!!enced the de!olition of respondents@ house on %a" .,

1'B under the authorit" of a ?rit of e!olition issued b" the 0TC# 8ut the records show that a Te!porar" 0estraining /rder (T0/),

en$oining the de!olition of respondents@ house, was issued b" the 5upre!e Court on une 2, 1'B# The CA also found, based on the

Certificate of 5ervice of the 5upre!e Court process server that a cop" of the T0/ was served on petitioner hi!self on une ># 1'B#

*etitioner, however, did not heed the T0/ of this Court# ?e agree with the CA that he unlawfull" pursued the de!olition of

respondents@ house well until the !iddle of 1'&# Although the acts of petitioner !a" have been legall" $ustified at the outset, their

continuation after the issuance of the T0/ a!ounted to an insidious abuse of his right# Indubitabl", his actions were tainted with bad

faith# ad he not insisted on co!pleting the de!olition, respondents would not have suffered the loss that engendered the suit before

the 0TC# 7eril", his acts constituted not only an abuse of a right, but an in+alid exercise of a right that had been suspended when he

received the T0/ fro! this Court on une >, 1'B# 8" then, he was no longer entitled to proceed with the de!olition#

D%A9 04ATI/956 C/9C4*T /+ A8D54 /+ 0I3T6 A**ICATI/9 I9 CA54 AT 8A0# ; In Albenson &nterprises orp. +. A,

the Court discussed the concept of abuse of rights as follows: Article 1', known to contain what is co!!onl" referred to as the

principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which !a" be observed not onl" in the eercise of one@s rights but also in the

perfor!ance of one@s duties# These standards are the following: to act with $ustice6 to give ever"one his due6 and to observe honestl"

and good faith# The law, therefore6 recogniEes the pri!ordial li!itation on all rights: that in their eercise, the nor!s of hu!an

conduct set forth in Article 1' !ust be observed# A right, though b" self-legal because recogniEes originated b" law as such, !a"

nevertheless beco!e the source of so!e illegall"# ?hen a right is eercised in a !anner which does not confor! with nor!s

enshrined in Article @, 1' and results in da!age to another, a legal wrong is thereb" co!!itted for which the wrongdoer !ust be heldresponsible # # # # Clearl" then, the de!olition of respondents@ house b) petitioner, despite his receipt of the T0/ was not only an

abuse but also an unlawful exercise of such right # In insisting on his alleged right, he wantonl" violated this Court@s /rder and

wittingl" caused the destruction of respondents@ house#

A%A3456 *0I9CI*4 /+ DA!" A#$%"& '!(") %D5T 84 *04%I54 /9 A 7AI 4F40CI54 /+ 0I3T# ; *etitioner

cannot invoke damnum abs*ue injuria, a principle pre!ised on the valid eercise of a right# An"thing less or be"ond such eercise

will not give rise to the legal protection that the principle accords# And when da!age or pre$udice to another is occasioned thereb",

liabilit" cannot be obscured, !uch less abated# In the ulti!ate anal"sis, petitioner@s liabilit" is pre!ised on the obligation to repair or

to !ake whole the da!age caused to another b" reason of one@s act or o!ission, whether done intentionall" or negligentl" and

whether or not punishable b" law#

G )E vs *ae" SC+OO, ,IA,E .OR T+E NE$,I$ENCE O. ITS /RO.ESSORS ; The college dean is the senior officer responsible for the

operation of an acade!ic progra!, enforce!ent of rules and regulations, and the supervision of facult" and student services# e

!ust see to it that his own professors and teachers, regardless of their status or position outside of the universit", !ust co!pl" withthe rules set b" the latter#

The negligent act of a professor who fails to observe the rules of the school, for instance b" not pro!ptl" sub!itting a student@s

grade, is not onl" i!putable to the professor but is an act of the school, being his e!plo"er#

Considering further, that the institution of learning involved herein is a universit", which is engaged in legal education, it should have

practiced what it inculcates in its students, !ore specificall" the principle of good dealings enshrined in Articles 1' and 2 of the Civil

Code#

Article 1' was intended to epand the concept of torts b" granting adeuate legal re!ed" for the untold nu!ber of !oral wrong,

which is i!possible for hu!an foresight to provide specificall" in statutor" law# In civiliEed societ", !en !ust be able to assu!e that

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005others will do the! no intended in$ur" ; that others will co!!it no internal aggressions upon the!6 that their fellow!en, when the"

act affir!ativel" will do so with due care which the ordinar" understanding and !oral sense of the co!!unit" eacts and that those

with who! the" deal in the general course of societ" will act in good faith#

4ducational institutions are dut"-bound to infor! the students of their acade!ic status and not wait for the latter to inuire fro! the

for!er# *etitioner ought to have known that ti!e was of the essence in the perfor!ance of its obligation to infor! respondent of his

grade# It cannot feign ignorance that respondent will not prepare hi!self for the bar ea!s since that is precisel" the i!!ediate

concern after graduation of an #8# graduate# *etitioner cannot $ust give out its student@s grades at an" ti!e because a student has

to co!pl" with certain deadlines set b" the 5upre!e Court on the sub!ission of reuire!ents for taking the bar#

*etitioner@s liabilit" arose fro! its failure to pro!ptl" infor! respondent of the result of an ea!ination and in !isleading the latter

into believing that he had satisfied all reuire!ents of the course# *etitioner cannot pass on its bla!e to the professors to $ustif" its

own negligence that led to the dela"ed rela" of infor!ation to respondent#

?hen one of two innocent parties !ust suffer, he through whose agenc" the loss occurred !ust bear it# The !odern tendenc" is to

grant inde!nit" for da!ages in cases where there is abuse of right, even when the act is not illicit# If !ere fault or negligence in one@s

acts can !ake hi! liable for da!ages for in$ur" caused thereb", with !ore reason should abuse or bad faith !ake hi! liable# A

person should be protected onl" when he acts in the legiti!ate eercise of his right, that is, when he acts with prudence and in good

faith, but not when he acts with negligence or abuse#CASE SET 2

1 M+/ $a"men's vs CA A case for unfair co!petition, the progression of ti!e between the receipt of the infor!ation and the raid of the stores of the thereinprivate respondents@ pre!ises showed that there was sufficient ti!e for the therein petitioners and the raiding part" to appl" for a

$udicial warrant# Het the" did not appl" for one# The" went on with the raid and seiEed the goods of the private respondents# Dnder

the circu!stances, this court upheld the grant of da!ages b" the trial court to the private respondents for violation of their right

against unreasonable search and seiEure#

8asis of da!ages:

Art# .2# An" public officer or employee, or any pri+ate indi+idual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in an"

!anner i!pedes or i!pairs an" of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for da!ages#

(

') The rights to be secure in one@s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seiEures#

The inde!nit" shall include !oral da!ages# 4e!plar" da!ages !a" also be ad$udged#

Art# 221'# %oral da!ages !a" be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(B) Illegal search6

(1) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 2B, 2&, 2, 2', ., -2 , .>, and .G#

*ursuant to the foregoing provisions, a person whose constitutional rights have been violated or i!paired is entitled to actual and

!oral da!ages fro! the public officer or employee responsible therefor # In addition, ee!plar" da!ages !a" also be awarded#

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005

The ver" nature of Article .2 is that the wrong !a" be civil or cri!inal# It is not necessar" therefore that there should be !alice or bad

faith# To !ake such a reuisite would defeat the !ain purpose of Article .2 which is the effective protection of individual rights# *ublic

officials in the past have abused their powers on the pretet of $ustifiable !otives or good faith in the perfor!ance of their duties#

*recisel", the ob$ect of the Article is to put an end to official abuse b" plea of the good faith# In the Dnited 5tates this re!ed" is in the

nature of a tort# (e!phasis supplied)

2 MVRS /u#l!a'!on vs Islam!%

Da34ah Coun%!l o 'he

/h!l!pp!nes

*A0# > A0T# 2B T404/+6 I9T49TI/9A I9+ICTI/9 /+ %49TA I5T04556 04DI04%49T5 /+ I84 944 9/T 84

5ATI5+I4 84+/04 *AI9TI++ CA9 04C/740 A%A345 T404D9406 CA54 AT 8A0# ; *rivate respondents clai! that the

newspaper article asserts that uslims worship the pig as their god , was published with intent to hu!iliate and disparage %usli!s

and cast insult on Isla! as a religion in this countr"# The publication is not onl" grossl" false, but is also the co!plete opposite of

what %usli!s hold dear in their religion# The trial court found that the newspaper article clearl" i!putes a disgraceful act on %usli!s#

owever, the trial court ruled that the article was not libelous because the article did not identif" or na!e the plaintiffs # # # The Court

of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court on appeal # # # on the ground that the newspaper article was libelous # # # Thus, both

the trial and appellate courts found the newspaper article in uestion insulting and hu!iliating to %usli!s, causing wounded feelings

and !ental anguish to believers of Isla!# This is a finding of fact that the Court is dut" bound to respect# This finding of fact

establishes that petitioners have inflicted on private respondents an intentional wrongful act ; hu!iliating persons because of their

religious beliefs# ike the trial and appellate courts, we find the newspaper article in uestion dripping with etre!e profanit", grossl"

offensive and !anifestl" outrageous, and devoid of an" social value# The article evidentl" incites religious hatred, discri!ination and

hostilit" against %usli!s# *rivate respondents have certainl" suffered hu!iliation and !ental distress because of their religious

beliefs#

Article 2B specificall" applies to intentional acts which fall short of being criminal offenses# Article 2B itself epressl" refers to tortuous

conduct which !a" not constitute cri!inal offenses# The purpose is precisel" to fill a gap or lacuna in the law where a person who

suffers in$ur" because of a wrongful act not constituting a cri!e is left without an" redress#

Dnder Article 2B, the person responsible for such act beco!es liable for da!ages, prevention and other relief# In short, to preserve

peace and har!on" in the fa!il" and in the co!!unit", Article 2B seeks to eli!inate cases of damnum abs*ue injuria in hu!an

relations#

Conseuentl", the ele!ents that ualif" the sa!e acts as cri!inal offenses do not appl" in deter!ining responsibilit" for tortuous

conduct under Article 2B# ?here the tortuous act hu!iliating another because of his religious beliefs is published in a newspaper, the

ele!ents of the cri!e of libel need not be satisfied before the aggrieved person can recover da!ages under Article 2B#

In intentional tort under Article 2B, the offensive state!ents !a" not even be published or broadcasted but !erel" hurled pri+ately at

the offended part"# In intentional infliction of !ental distress, the grava!en of the tort is not the in$ur" to plaintiff@s reputation, but thehar! to plaintiff@s !ental and e!otional state# In libel, the gist of the action is the in$ur" to plaintiff@s reputation#

0eputation is the co!!unit"@s opinion of what a person is# In intentional infliction of !ental distress, the opinion of the co!!unit" is

i!!aterial to the eistence of the action although the court can consider it in awarding da!ages# ?hat is !aterial is the disturbance

on the !ental or e!otional state of the plaintiff who is entitled to peace of !ind#

The offensive act or state!ent need not identif" specificall" the plaintiff as the ob$ect of the hu!iliation# ?hat is i!portant is that the

plaintiff actuall" suffers !ental or e!otional distress because he saw the act or read the state!ent and it alludes to an identifiable

group to which he clearl" belongs#. Con%ep%!on vs CA ATT49A9T +ACT5 *0/7I4 49/D3 8A5I5 I9 A? +/0 A?A0 /+ A%A345 +/0 045*/949T5# ; The factual

findings provide enough basis in law for the award of da!ages b" the Court of Appeals in favor of respondents# ?e re$ect petitioner@s

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005posture that no legal provision supports such award, the incident co!plained of neither falling under Art# 221' nor Art# 2B of the Civil

Code# It does not need further elucidation that the incident charged of petitioner was no less than an invasion on the right of

respondent 9estor as a person#

The philosoph" behind Art# 2B underscores the necessit" for its inclusion in our civil law# The Code Co!!ission stressed in no

uncertain ter!s that the hu!an personalit" !ust be ealted# The sacredness of hu!an personalit" is a conco!itant consideration of

ever" plan for hu!an a!elioration#

The touchstone of ever" s"ste! of law, of the culture and civiliEation of ever" countr", is how far it dignifies !an# If the statutes

insufficientl" protect a person fro! being un$ustl" hu!iliated, in short, if hu!an personalit" is not ealted ; then the laws are indeed

defective# Thus, under this article, the rights of persons are a!pl" protected, and da!ages are provided for violations of a person@s

dignit", personalit", privac" and peace of !ind# It is petitioner@s position that the act i!puted to hi! does not constitute an" of those

enu!erated in Arts# 2B and 221'# In this respect, the law is clear#

The violations !entioned in the codal provisions are not eclusive but are !erel" ea!ples and do not preclude other similar or

analogous acts# a!ages therefore are allowable for actions against a person@s dignit", such as profane, insulting, hu!iliating,

scandalous or abusive language#

Dnder Art# 221& of the Civil Code, !oral da!ages which include ph"sical suffering, !ental anguish, fright, serious aniet",

bes!irched reputation, wounded feelings, !oral shock, social hu!iliation, and si!ilar in$ur", although incapable of pecuniar"

co!putation, !a" be recovered if the" are the proi!ate result of the defendant@s wrongful act or o!ission#> El%ano vs +oll The acuittal of 0eginald in the cri!inal case does not bar the filing of a separate civil action#

A separate civil action lies against the offender in a cri!inal act, whether or not he is cri!inall" prosecuted and found guilt" or

acuitted, provided that the offended part" is not allowed, if accused is actuall" charged also cri!inall", to recover da!ages on both

scores, and would be entitled in such eventualit" onl" to the bigger award of the two, assu!ing the awards !ade in the two cases

var"#

In other words, the etinction of civil liabilit" referred to in *ar# (e) of 5ection ., 0ule 111, refers eclusivel" to civil liabilit" founded on

Article 1 of the 0evised *enal Code, whereas the civil liabilit" for the sa!e act considered as a *uasidelict onl" and not as a

cri!e is not etinguished even b" a declaration in the cri!inal case that the cri!inal act charged has not happened or has not been

co!!itted b" the accused# 8riefl" stated, culpa a*uiliana includes voluntar" and negligent acts which !a" be punishable b" law#

?hile it is true that parental authorit" is ter!inated upon e!ancipation of the child (Article .2&, Civil Code), and under Article .'&,e!ancipation takes place Jb" the !arriage of the !inor childK, it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article .'', e!ancipation b"

!arriage of the !inor is not reall" full or absolute# Thus J4!ancipation b" !arriage or b" voluntar" concession shall ter!inate

parental authorit" over the childLs person# It shall enable the !inor to ad!inister his propert" as though he were of age, but he cannot

borrow !one" or alienate or encu!ber real propert" without the consent of his father or !other, or guardian# e can sue and be

sued in court onl" with the assistance of his father, !other or guardian#K

Therefore, Article 21 is applicable to %arvin ill M the 5C however ruled since at the ti!e of the decision, 0eginald is alread" of

age, %arvinLs liabilit" should be subsidiar" onl" M as a !atter of euit"#

G C!n%o vs Canonoy ACTI/9 +/0 A%A345 8A54 /9 %"A$' D&/'0 %AH *0/C44 I94*4949TH# ; ?here the plaintiff !ade essential

aver!ents in the co!plaint that it was the driver@s fault or negligence in the operation of the $eepne" which caused the collision

between his auto!obile and said $eepne"6 that plaintiff sustained da!ages because of the collision6 that a direct causal connection

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005eists between the da!age he suffered and the fault or negligence of the defendant-driver and where the defendant-operator in their

answer, contended, a!ong others, that the" observed due diligence in the selection and supervision of their e!plo"ees, a defense

peculiar to actions based on *uasidelict , such action is principall" predicated on Articles .21&B and 21 of the 9ew Civil Code

which is *uasidelictual in nature and character# iabilit" being predicated on *uasidelict , the civil case !a" proceed as a separate

and independent court action as specificall" provided for in Article 21&&#

54CTI/9 .(b), 0D4 111 /+ T4 0D45 /+ C/D0T 3/74095 CI7I ACTI/95 ?IC %D5T 84 5D5*494 A+T40 T4

C/%%49C4%49T /+ T4 C0I%I9A# ; 5ection . (b), 0ule 111 of the 0ules of Court refers to other civil actions arising fro!

cases not included in 5ection 2 of the sa!e rule in which, once the cri!inal action has been co!!enced, no civil action arising

fro! the sa!e offense can be prosecuted and the sa!e shall be suspended in whatever stage it !a" be found, until final $udg!ent in

the cri!inal proceeding has been rendered# The civil action referred to in 5ection 2(a) and .(b), 0ule 11 of the 0ules of Court which

should be suspended after the cri!inal action has been instituted is that arising fro! the cri!inal offense and not the civil action

based on *uasi delict.

%A"$'D&/'0 I9CD45 A%A34 T/ *0/*40TH# ; The concept of *uasidelict enunciated in Article 21&B of the 9ew Civil

Code is so broad that it includes not onl" in$uries to persons but also da!age to propert"# It !akes no distinction between da!age

to persons on the one hand and da!age to propert" on the other# The word da!age is used in two concepts: the har! done

and reparation for the har! done# And with respect to har! it is plain that it includes both in$uries to person and propert" since

har! is not li!ited to personal but also to propert" in$uries# An ea!ple of *uasidelict in the law itself which includes da!age to

propert" in Article 21'1(2) of the Civil Code which holds proprietors responsible for da!ages caused b" ecessive s!oke which !a"

be har!ful to person or propert"#B $asheem Shoo&a' a&s%h vs CA The eisting rule is that a breach of pro!ise to !arr" per se is not an actionable wrong#

This, notwithstanding, Art# 21 is designed to epand the concept of torts or uasi-delict in this $urisdictions b" granting adeuate legal

re!ed" for the untold nu!ber of !oral wrongs which is i!possible for hu!an foresight to specificall" enu!erate and punish in the

statute books#

Art# 21 defines uasi-delict:

hoe+er by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. $uch

fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called *uasidelict and is go+erned by the

i+il ode3.

It is clear that petitioner harbors a condescending if not sarcastic regard for the private respondent on account of the latterLs ignoble

birth, inferior educational background, povert" and, as perceived b" hi!, dishonorable e!plo"!ent# +ro! the beginning, obviousl",he was not at all !oved b" good faith and an honest !otive# Thus, his profession of love and pro!ise to !arr" were e!pt" words

directl" intended to fool, dupe, entice, beguile and deceive the poor wo!an into believing that indeed, he loved her and would want

her to be his life partner# is was nothing but pure lust which he wanted satisfied b" a +ilipina who honestl" believed that b"

accepting his proffer of love and proposal of !arriage, she would be able to en$o" a life of ease and securit"# *etitioner clearl"

violated the +ilipino concept of !oralit" and so braEenl" defied the traditional respect +ilipinos have for their wo!en# It can even be

said that the petitioner co!!itted such deplorable acts in blatant disregard of Article 1' of the Civil Code which directs ever" person

to act with $ustice, give ever"one his due, and observe honest" and good faith in the eercise of his right and in the perfor!ance of

his obligations#

9o foreigner !ust be allowed to !ake a !ocker" of our laws, custo!s and traditions#

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 2013400055he is not in pari delicto with the petitioner# *ari delicto !eans in eual fault# At !ost, it could be conceded that she is !erel" in

delicto#

4uit" often interfered for the relief of the less guilt" of the parties, where his transgression has been brought about b" the i!position

of undue influence of the part" on who! the burden of the original wrong principall" rests, or where his consent to the transaction

was itself procured b" fraud#

& Dulay vs CA CI7I A?6 T/0T5 A9 A%A3456 %"A$'D&/'04 C/95T0D4# ; ?ell-entrenched is the doctrine that Article 21&B covers not

onl" acts co!!itted with negligence, but also acts which are voluntar" and intentional# As far back as the definitive case of &lcano +.

5ill (&& 5C0A ' <1'&&=), this Court alread" held that:# # # Article 2167, where it refers to 8fault or negligence,8 co+ers not only acts 8not punishable by law8 but also acts criminal

in character, whether intentional and +oluntary or negligent. onse*uently, a separate ci+il action lies against the offender

in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or ac*uitted, pro+ided that the offended party

is not allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to reco+er damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such

eventualit" onl" to the bigger award of the two, assu!ing the awards !ade in the two cases var"# In other words, the

etinction of civil liabilit" referred to in *ar# (e) of 5ection ., 0ule 111, refers eclusivel" to civil liabilit" founded on Article

1 of the 0evised *enal Code, whereas the civil liabilit" for the sa!e act considered as *uasidelict onl" and not as a

cri!e is not etinguished even b" a declaration in the cri!inal case that the cri!inal act charged has not happened or has

not been co!!itted b" the accused# 8riefl" stated, ?e here hold, in reiteration of 3arcia, that culpa a*uiliana includes

+oluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law #

The sa!e doctrine was echoed in the case of Andamo +. 'ntermediate Appellate ourt(1'1 5C0A 1'G <1''=), wherein the Court

held: Article 2167, whene+er it refers to 9fault or negligence,9 co+ers not only acts 9not punishable by law9 but also acts

criminal in character, whether intentional and +oluntary or negligent # Conseuentl", a civil action lies against the offender

in a cri!inal act, whether or not he is prosecuted or found guilt" or acuitted, provided that the offended part" is not

allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actuall" also charged cri!inall"), to recover da!ages on both scores, and would be entitled in

such eventualit" onl" to the bigger award of the two, assu!ing the awards !ade in the two cases var"# <Citing :irata +.

;choa, 1 5C0A >&2=

0D4 ?49 A9 I9D0H I5 CAD54 8H T4 943I349C4 /+ T4 4%*/H44# ; Dnder Article 21 of the 9ew Civil Code as

aforeuoted, when an in$ur" is caused b" the negligence of the e!plo"ee, there instantl" arises a presu!ption of law that there was

negligence on the part of the !aster or e!plo"er either in the selection of the servant or e!plo"ee, or in supervision over hi! after

selection or both (/ayugan +. 'ntermediate Appellate ourt , 1B& 5C0A .B. <1'=)# The liabilit" of the e!plo"er under Article 21 is

direct and i!!ediate6 it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent e!plo"ee and a prior showing of the insolvenc"

of such e!plo"ee (<apalaran #us /ines +. oronado, 1&B 5C0A &'2 <1''=)# Therefore, it is incu!bent upon the privaterespondents to prove that the" eercised the diligence of a good father of a fa!il" in the selection and supervision of their e!plo"ee#

$a"%!a vs C.I essential aver!ents for a uasi-delictual action under Articles 21&B-21'> of the 9ew Civil Code are present, na!el": a) act or

o!ission of the private respondents6 b) presence of fault or negligence or the lack of due care in the operation of the passenger bus

9o# 2G b" respondent *edro Tu!ala resulting in the collision of the bus with the passenger car6 c) ph"sical in$uries and other

da!ages sustained b" petitioners as a result of the collision6 d) eistence of direct causal connection between the da!age or

pre$udice and the fault or negligence of private respondents6 and e) the absence of pre-eisting contractual relations between the

parties

It is true that under 5ec# 2 in relation to 5ec# 1 of 0ule 111 of the 0evised 0ules of Court which beca!e effective on anuar" 1, 1'B>,

in the cases provided for b" Articles .1, .., .' and 21&& of the Civil Code, an independent civil action entirel" separate and distinct

fro! the civil action, !a" be instituted b" the in$ured part" during the pendenc" of the cri!inal case, provided said part" has reserved

his right to institute it separatel", but it should be noted, however, that neither 5ection 1 nor 5ection 2 of 0ule 111 fies a ti!e li!it

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005when such reservation shall be !ade# In 0acta*uin +. =alileo, 2 where the reservation was !ade after the tort-feasor had alread"

pleaded guilt" and after the private prosecutor had entered his appearance $ointl" with the prosecuting attorne" in the course of the

cri!inal proceedings, and the tort-feasor was convicted and sentenced to pa" da!ages to the offended part" b" final $udg!ent in

said cri!inal case, ?e ruled that such reservation is legall" ineffective because the offended part" cannot recover da!ages twice for

the sa!e act or o!ission of the defendant# ?e eplained in eneses +s. /uat that when the cri!inal action for ph"sical in$uries

against the defendant did not proceed to trial as he pleaded guilt" upon arraign!ent and the Court !ade no pronounce!ent on the

!atter or da!ages suffered b" the in$ured part", the !ere appearance of private counsel in representation of the offended part" in

said cri!inal case does not constitute such active intervention as could i!part an intention to press a clai! for da!ages in the sa!e

action, and, therefore, cannot bar a separate civil action for da!ages subseuentl" instituted on the sa!e ground under Article .. of the 9ew Civil Code

' Anamo vs IAC All the ele!ents of a uasi-delict are present, to wit:(a) da!ages suffered b" the plaintiff6(b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or so!e other person for whose acts he !ust respond6 and(c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the da!ages incurred b" the plaintiff#

(Ta"lor vs# %anila 4lectric Co!pan", 1B *hil# 6 7ergara vs# Court of Appeals, 3#0# 9o# &&B&', 5epte!ber ., 1'&, 1G> 5C0A GB>)

Article 21&B of the Civil Code i!poses a civil liabilit" on a person for da!age caused b" his act or o!ission constituting aul' o"

nel!en%e, and whenever Article 21&B refers to fault or negligence, it covers not onl" acts not punishable b" law but also acts

cri!inal in character, whether intentional and voluntar" or negligent# Conseuentl", a separate civil action lies against the offender in

a cri!inal act, whether or not he is cri!inall" prosecuted and found guilt" or acuitted, provided that the offended part" is not

allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actuall" charged also cri!inall"), to recover da!ages on both scores, and would be entitled in such

eventualit" onl" to the bigger award of the two, assu!ing the awards !ade in the two cases var"# (7irata vs# /choa, 3#0# 9o# -

>B1&', anuar" .1, 1'&, 1 5C0A >&2)

According to the 0eport of the Code Co!!ission, Article 21&& of the Civil Code though at first sight startling, is not so novel or

etraordinar" when we consider the eact nature of cri!inal and civil negligence# The for!er is a violation of the cri!inal law, while

the latter is a distinct and independent negligence, which is a culpa auiliana or uasi-delict, of ancient origin, having alwa"s had its

own foundation and individualit", separate fro! cri!inal negligence# 5uch distinction between cri!inal negligence and culpa etra-

contractual or cuasi-delito has been sustained b" decisions of the 5upre!e Court of 5pain # # #

In A>ucena +s# =otenciano, (G 5C0A >B, >&->&1), the Court declared that in uasi-delicts, (t)he civil action is entirel" independent

of the cri!inal case according to Articles .. and 21&& of the Civil Code# There can be no logical conclusion than this, for to

subordinate the civil action conte!plated in the said articles to the result of the cri!inal prosecution ; whether it be conviction or

acuittal ; would render !eaningless the independent character of the civil action and the clear in$unction in Article .1, that his

action !a" proceed independentl" of the cri!inal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter#

In the case of astillo +s# ourt of Appeals (1&B 5C0A G'1), this Court held that a uasi-delict or culpa a*uiliana is a separate legal

institution under the Civil Code with a substantivit" all its own, and individualit" that is entirel" apart and independent fro! a delict or

cri!e ; a distinction eists between the civil liabilit" arising fro! a cri!e and the responsibilit" for uasi-delicts or culpa etra-

contractual# The sa!e negligence causing da!ages !a" produce civil liabilit" arising fro! a cri!e under the *enal Code, or create

an action for uasi-delicts or culpa etra-contractual under the Civil Code# Therefore, 'he a%7u!''al o" %onv!%'!on !n 'he %"!m!nal

%ase !s en'!"ely !""elevan' !n 'he %!v!l %ase8 unless8 o %ou"se8 !n 'he even' o an a%7u!''al 9he"e 'he %ou"' has e%la"e 'ha'

'he a%' "om 9h!%h 'he %!v!l a%'!on a"ose ! no' e:!s'8 !n 9h!%h %ase 'he e:'!n%'!on o 'he %"!m!nal l!a#!l!'y 9oul %a""y 9!'h

!' 'he e:'!n%'!on o 'he %!v!l l!a#!l!'y

It !ust be stressed that the use of one@s propert" is not without li!itations# Article >.1 of the Civil Code provides that the owner of a

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005thing cannot !ake use thereof in such a !anner as to in$ure the rights of a third person# 5IC DT404 TD/ DT AI49D% 9/9

A4A5# %oreover, ad$oining landowners have !utual and reciprocal duties which reuire that each !ust use his own land in a

reasonable !anner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others# Although we recogniEe the right of an owner to build

structures on his land, such structures !ust be so constructed and !aintained using all reasonable care so that the" cannot be

dangerous to ad$oining landowners and can withstand the usual and epected forces of nature# If the structures cause in$ur" or

da!age to an ad$oining landowner or a third person, the latter can clai! inde!nification for the in$ur" or da!age suffered#

1 +e!"s o /e"o Taya vs

/h!l!pp!ne Ra#!' us ,!nes All the essential aver!ents for a uasi delictual action are present, na!el":

(1) an act or o!ission constituting fault or negligence on the part of private respondent6

(2) da!age caused b" the said act or co!!ission6

(.) direct causal relation between the da!age and the act or co!!ission6 and (>) no pre-eisting contractual relation between the

parties

&lcano +s. 5ill , 16 this Court held that: J## a separate civil action lies against the offender in a cri!inal act, whether or not he is

cri!inalit" prosecuted and found guilt" or acuitted, provided that the offended part" is not snowed, if he is actuall" charged also

cri!inall", to receiver da!ages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventualit" onl" to the bigger award of the two,

assu!ing the awards !ade in the two cases var"# In other words, the etinction of civil liabilit" referred to in *ar# (e), 5ection ., 0uleIII, refers eclusivel" to civil liabilit" founded on Article 1 of the 0evised *enal Code, whereas the civil liabilit" for the sa!e act

considered as a uasi-delict onl" and not as a cri!e is not etinguished even b" a declaration in the cri!inal case that the cri!inal

act charged has not happened or has not been co!!itted b" the accused# 8riefl" stated, ?e here hold, in reiteration of 3arcia that

culpa auiliana includes voluntar" and negligent acts which !a" be punishable b" law#K

11 /a!lla vs CA The etinction of the civil action b" reason of acuittal in the cri!inal case refers eclusivel" to civil liabilit" ex delicto founded on

Article 1 of the 0evised *enal Code (4lcano + # ill, && 5C0A '6 7irata + # /choa, 1 5C0A >&2)# In other words, the civil liabilit"

which is also etinguished upon acuittal of the accused is the civil liabilit" arising fro! the act as a cri!e#

4CA0ATI/9 TAT T4 +ACT5 +0/% ?IC T4 CI7I %I3T A0I54 I 9/T 4FI5T, I9I5*495A84# ; The $udg!ent

of acuittal etinguishes the liabilit" of the accused for da!ages onl" when it includes a declaration that the facts fro! which the civil

!ight arise did not eist# Thus, the civil liabilit" is not etinguished b" acuittal where the acuittal is based on reasonable doubt

(*98 + # Catipon, ' *hil# 2B) as onl" preponderance of evidence is reuired in civil cases6 where the court epressl" declares that

the liabilit" of the accused is not cri!inal but onl" civil in nature (e 3uE!an + # Alvia, 'B *hil# GG6 *eople + # *antig, supra) as, for instance, in the felonies of estafa, theft, and !alicious !ischief co!!itted b" certain relatives who thereb" incur onl" civil liabilit"

(5ee Art# ..2, 0evised *enal Code)6 and where the civil liabilit" does not arise fro! or is not based upon the cri!inal act of which the

accused was acuitted (Castro + # Collector of Internal 0evenue, > 5C0A 1'.6 see 0egalado, 0e!edial aw Co!pendiu!, 1'..

ed#, p# B2.)#

A?A0 /+ A%A345 I9 5A%4 D3%49T /+ ACDITTA D5TI+I46 04A5/95# ; There appear to be no sound reasons to

reuire a separate civil action to still be filed considering that the facts to be proved in the civil case have alread" been established in

the cri!inal proceedings where the accused was acuitted# ue process has been accorded the accused# e was, in fact,

eonerated of the cri!inal charge# The constitutional presu!ption of innocence called for !ore vigilant efforts on the part of

prosecuting attorne"s and defense counsel, a keener awareness b" all witnesses of the serious i!plications of per$ur", and a !ore

studied consideration b" the $udge of the entire records and of applicable statutes and precedents# To reuire a separate civil action

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005si!pl" because the accused was acuitted would !ean needless clogging of court dockets and unnecessar" duplication of litigation

with all its attendant loss of ti!e, effort, and !one" on the part of all concerned#

+II93 /+ I94*4949T CI7I ACTI/9 +/0 A%A345 *D05DA9T T/ A0TIC4 2', 94? CI7I C/4, 9/T A9 4FCD5I74

04%4H# ; Article 2' of the 9ew Civil Code clearl" and epressl" provides a re!ed" for the plaintiff in case the defendant has

been acuitted in a cri!inal prosecution on the ground that his guilt has not been proved be"ond reasonable doubt# It !erel"

e!phasiEes that a civil action for da!ages is not precluded b" an acuittal for the sa!e cri!inal act or o!ission# The C!v!l Coe

p"ov!s!on oes no' s'a'e 'ha' 'he "emey %an #e ava!le o only !n a sepa"a'e %!v!l a%'!on A sepa"a'e %!v!l %ase may #e !le

#u' 'he"e !s no s'a'emen' 'ha' su%h sepa"a'e !l!n !s 'he only an e:%lus!ve pe"m!ss!#le moe o "e%ove"!n amaesThe"e !s no'h!n %on'"a"y 'o 'he C!v!l Coe p"ov!s!on !n 'he "en!'!on o a ;umen' o a%7u!''al a9a"!n amaes !n 'he

same %"!m!nal a%'!on The '9o %an s'an s!e #y s!e A ;umen' o a%7u!''al ope"a'es 'o e:'!nu!sh 'he %"!m!nal l!a#!l!'y

unless 'he"e !s a %lea" sho9!n 'ha' 'he a%' "om 9h!%h %!v!l l!a#!l!'y mus' a"!se ! no' e:!s'#

CASE SET <

1 C"u( vs CA octors are protected b" a special rule of law# The" are not guarantors of care# The" do not even warrant a good result# The" are not

insurers against !ishaps or unusual conseuences# +urther!ore the" are not liable for honest !istakes of $udg!ent

It is in this aspect of !edical !alpractice that e:pe"' 'es'!mony is essential to establish not onl" the standard of care of the

profession but also that the ph"sician@s conduct in the treat!ent and care falls below such standard#

there is an inevitable presu!ption that in proper cases he takes the necessar" precaution and e!plo"s the best of his knowledge

and skill in attending to his clients, unless the contrar" is sufficientl" established# .2 This presu!ption is rebuttable b" epert

opinionN

In han /ugay +. $t. /u?e8s 5ospital, 'nc #, 1 CA 0eports >1G <1'BB=, where the attending ph"sician was absolved of liabilit" for the

death of the co!plainant@s wife and newborn bab", this Court held that: In order that there !a" be a recover" for an in$ur", however,

it !ust be shown that the @in$ur" for which recover" is sought !ust be the legiti!ate conseuence of the wrong done6 the connection

between the negligence and the in$ur" !ust be a direct and natural seuence of events, unbroken b" intervening efficient causes#@ 'n

other words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. @or, 8negligence, no matter in what it consists, cannot create a

right of action unless it is the proximate cause of the injury complained of.@ And @the proi!ate cause of an in$ur" is that cause, which,

in natural and continuous seuence, unbroken b" an" efficient intervening cause, produces the in$ur", and without which the result

would not have occurred#@

*04*/940A9C4 /+ 47I49C4, 04DI046 IA8IITH 45TA8I54 I9 CA54 AT 8A0# ; The probabilit" that "dia@s death

was caused b" IC was unrebutted during trial and has engendered in the !ind of this Court a reasonable doubt as to thepetitioner@s guilt# Thus, her acuittal of the cri!e of reckless i!prudence resulting in ho!icide# ?hile we condole with the fa!il" of

"dia D!ali, our hands are bound b" the dictates of $ustice and fair dealing which hold inviolable the right of an accused to be

presu!ed innocent until proven guilt" be"ond reasonable doubt# 9evertheless, this Court finds the petitioner civill" liable for the

death of "dia D!ali, for while a conviction of a cri!e reuires proof be"ond reasonable doubt, onl" a preponderance of evidence is

reuired to establish civil liabilit"# +or insufficienc" of evidence this Court was not able to render a sentence of conviction but it is not

blind to the reckless and i!prudent !anner in which the petitioner carried out her duties# A precious life has been lost and the

circu!stances leading thereto eacerbated the grief of those left behind# The heirs of the deceased continue to feel the loss of their

!other up to the present ti!e and this Court is aware that no a!ount of co!passion and co!!iseration nor words of bereave!ent

can suffice to assuage the sorrow felt for the loss of a loved one# Certainl", the award of !oral and ee!plar" da!ages in favor of

the heirs of "dia D!ali are proper in the instant case#

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 2013400052 /h!l!pp!ne Ra##!' us ,!nes vs

/eople o 'he /h!l

?hen the accused-e!plo"ee absconds or $u!ps bail, the $udg!ent !eted out beco!es final and eecutor"# The e!plo"er cannot

defeat the finalit" of the $udg!ent b" filing a notice of appeal on its own behalf in the guise of asking for a review of its subsidiar" civil

liabilit"# 8oth the pri!ar" civil liabilit" of the accused-e!plo"ee and the subsidiar" civil liabilit" of the e!plo"er are carried in one

single decision that has beco!e final and eecutor"

Liability of an Employer in a Finding of Guilt

Article 12 of the 0evised *enal Code states the subsidiar" civil liabilities of innkeepers, as follows:

In default of the persons cri!inall" liable, innkeepers, tavern keepers, and an" other persons or corporations shall be civill"

liable for cri!es co!!itted in their establish!ents, in all cases where a violation of !unicipal ordinances or so!e general

or special police regulation shall have been co!!itted b" the! or their e!plo"ees#

Innkeepers are also subsidiar" liable for restitution of goods taken b" robber" or theft within their houses fro! guests

lodging therein, or for pa"!ent of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper

hi!self, or the person representing hi!, of the deposit of such goods within the inn6 and shall further!ore have followed the

directions which such innkeeper or his representative !a" have given the! with respect to the care and vigilance over suchgoods# 9o liabilit" shall attach in case of robber" with violence against or inti!idation of persons unless co!!itted b" the

innkeeperLs e!plo"ees#

%oreover, the foregoing subsidiar" liabilit" applies to e!plo"ers, according to Article 1. which reads:

The subsidiar" liabilit" established in the net preceding article shall also appl" to e!plo"ers, teachers, persons, and

corporations engaged in an" kind of industr" for felonies co!!itted b" their servants, pupils, work!en, apprentices, or

e!plo"ees in the discharge of their duties#

/nl" the civil liabilit" of the accused arising fro! the cri!e charged is dee!ed i!pliedl" instituted in a cri!inal action6 that is, unless

the offended part" waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separatel", or institutes it prior to the cri!inal

action#1 ence, the subsidiar" civil liabilit" of the e!plo"er under Article 1. of the 0evised *enal Code !a" be enforced b"

eecution on the basis of the $udg!ent of conviction !eted out to the e!plo"ee

The cases dealing with the subsidiar" liabilit" of e!plo"ers unifor!l" declare that, strictl" speaking, the" are not parties to the

cri!inal cases instituted against their e!plo"ees#2 Although in substance and in effect, the" have an interest therein, this fact should

!Ty"# $#r#%



1


be viewed in the light of their subsidiar" liabilit"# ?hile the" !a" assist their e!plo"ees to the etent of suppl"ing the latterLs law"ers,

as in the present case, the for!er cannot act independentl" on their own behalf, but can onl" defend the accused#

The subsidiar" liabilit" of petitioner is incidental to and dependent on the pecuniar" civil liabilit" of the accused-e!plo"ee# 5ince the

civil liabilit" of the latter has beco!e final and enforceable b" reason of his flight, then the for!erLs subsidiar" civil liabilit" has also

beco!e i!!ediatel" enforceable# 0espondent is correct in arguing that the concept of subsidiar" liabilit" is highl" contingent on the

i!position of the pri!ar" civil liabilit"Dnder Article 1. of the 0evised *enal Code, e!plo"ers are subsidiaril" liable for the ad$udicated civil liabilities of their e!plo"ees in

the event of the latterLs insolvenc"

8efore the e!plo"ersL subsidiar" liabilit" is eacted, however, there !ust be adeuate evidence establishing that

(1) the" are indeed the e!plo"ers of the convicted e!plo"ees6

(2) that the for!er are engaged in so!e kind of industr"6

(.) that the cri!e was co!!itted b" the e!plo"ees in the discharge of their duties6 and

(>) that the eecution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvenc"#G

. /eople o 'he /h!l!pp!nes vs

Roel!o ,!on y T"!as

C0I%I9A *0/C4D046 D3%49T /+ ACDITTA /45 9/T ADT/%ATICAH 4FTI93DI5 CI7I IA8IITH# ; owever,

it does not follow that a person who is not cri!inall" liable is also free fro! civil liabilit"# ?hile the guilt of the accused in a cri!inal

prosecution !ust be established be"ond reasonable doubt, onl" a preponderance of evidence is reuired in a civil action for

da!ages# The $udg!ent of acuittal etinguishes the civil liabilit" of the accused onl" when it includes a declaration that the facts

fro! which the civil liabilit" !ight arise did not eist#

0ATI/9A4# ; The reason for the provisions of Article 2' of the Civil Code, which provides that the acuittal of the accused on the

ground that his guilt has not been proved be"ond reasonable doubt does not necessaril" ee!pt hi! fro! civil liabilit" for the sa!e

act or o!ission, has been eplained b" the Code Co!!ission as follows:

The old rule that the acuittal of the accused in a cri!inal case also releases hi! fro! civil liabilit" is one of the !ost

serious flaws in the *hilippine legal s"ste!# It has given rise to nu!berless instances of !iscarriage of $ustice, where theacuittal was due to a reasonable doubt in the !ind of the court as to the guilt of the accused# The reasoning followed is

that inas!uch as the civil responsibilit" is derived fro! the cri!inal offense, when the latter is not proved, civil liabilit"

cannot be de!anded# # # # This is one of those cases where confused thinking leads to unfortunate and deplorable

conseuences# 5uch reasoning fails to draw a clear line of de!arcation between cri!inal liabilit" and civil responsibilit",

and to deter!ine the logical result of the distinction# The two liabilities are separate and distinct fro! each other# /ne

affects the social order and the other, private rights# /ne is for the punish!ent or correction of the offender while the other

is for reparation of da!ages suffered b" the aggrieved part"# The two responsibilities are so different fro! each other that

article 11. of the present (5panish) Civil Code reads thus: There !a" be a co!pro!ise upon the civil action arising

fro! a cri!e6 but the public action for the i!position of the legal penalt" shall not thereb" be etinguished#

CA54 AT 8A0# ; In the instant case, we find that a preponderance of evidence eists sufficient to establish the facts fro! which the

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005civil liabilit" of 3abat arises# /n the basis of the trial court@s evaluation of the testi!onies of both prosecution and defense witnesses

at the trial and appl"ing the uantu! of proof reuired in civil cases, we find that a preponderance of evidence establishes that 3abat

b" his act and o!ission with fault and negligence caused da!age to 0osales and should answer civill" for the da!age done#

3abat@s wilfull act of calling 0osales, the cigarette vendor, to the !iddle of a bus" street to bu" two sticks of cigarettes set the chain

of events which led to the death of 0osales# Through fault and negligence, 3abat (1) failed to prevent the driver fro! !oving forward

while the purchase was co!pleted6 (2) failed to help 0osales while the latter clung precariousl" to the !oving vehicle, and (.) did not

enforce his order to the driver to stop# +inall", 3abat acuiesced in the driver@s act of speeding awa", instead of stopping and picking

up the in$ured victi!# These proven facts taken together are fir! bases for finding 3abat civill" liable under the Civil Code for the

da!age done to 0osales#> Can%o vs Man!la Ra!l"oa Co %A5T40 A9 5407A9T6 C/9T0ACT6 943I349C4# ; +ailure to perfor! a contract cannot be ecused upon the ground that

the breach was due to the negligence of a servant of the obligor, and that the latter eercised due diligence in the selection and

control of the servant#

(1) That when an in$ur" is caused b" the negligence of a servant or e!plo"ee there instantl" arises a presu!ption of law that there

was negligence on the part of the !aster or e!plo"er either in selection of the servant or e!plo"ee, or in supervision over hi! after

the selection, or both6 and

(2) that that presu!ption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and conseuentl", !a" be rebutted# It follows necessaril" that if the

e!plo"er shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervision he has eercised the care and diligence of a good

father of a fa!il", the presu!ption is overco!e and he is relieved fro! liabilit"#

This theor" bases the responsibilit" of the !aster ulti!atel" on his own negligence and not on that of his servant# This is the notable

peculiarit" of the 5panish law of negligence# It is, of course, in striking contrast to the A!erican doctrine that, in relations with

strangers, the negligence of the servant in conclusivel" the negligence of the !aster#

2# C/9T0ACT56 943I349C4:6 CD*A ADIIA9A6 CD*A C/9T0ACTDA# ; The distinction between negligence as the

source of an obligation (culpa auiliana) and negligence in the perfor!ance of a contract (culpa contractual )#

.# CA00I4056 *A554934056 943I349C46 AI3TI93 +0/% %/7I93 T0AI9# ; It is not negligence per se for a traveler to

alight fro! a slowl" !oving train#

The test b" which to deter!ine whether the passenger has been guilt" of negligence in atte!pting to alight fro! a !oving railwa"

train, is that of ordinar" or reasonable care# It is to be considered whether an ordinaril" prudent person, of the age, se and

condition of the passenger, would have acted as the passenger acted under the circu!stances disclosed b" the evidence# This

care has been defined to be, not the care which !a" or should be used b" the prudent !an generall", but the care which a !an of

ordinar" prudence would use under si!ilar circu!stances, to avoid in$ur"# (Tho!pson, Co!!entaries on 9egligence, vol# ., sec#

.1#)G .o"es vs M!"ana A%A3456 ACTDA A%A3456 ATT/094H@5 +445 I9CD4 I9 T4 C/9C4*T6 A?A0 8H C/D0T /+ A**4A5 %/TD

*0/*0I/# ; Although the Court of +irst Instance did not provide for attorne"@s fees in the su! of *., and no appeal to the

Court of Appeals was interposed on the point, it was not an error for the Court of Appeals to award the! motu propio because

attorne"@s fees are included in the concept of actual da!ages under the Civil Code and !a" be awarded whenever the court

dee!s it $ust and euitable#

%/0A A%A345 9/T 04C/740A84 I9 ACTI/9 /9 804AC /+ C/9T0ACT /+ T0A95*0/TATI/9# ; %oral da!ages

are generall" not recoverable in da!age actions predicated on a breach of contract of transportation in view or the provisions of

Articles 221 and 222 of the new Civil Code# M 4FC4*TI/9 T/ TI5 I5 I9 CA54 /+ T4 4AT /+ *A5549340# ; The

eception to the basic rule of da!ages is a !ishap resulting in the death of a passenger, in which case Article 1&B> !akes the

co!!on carrier epressl" sub$ect to the rule of Art# 22B, of the Civil Code that entitles the spouse, descendants and ascendants

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005of the deceased passenger to de!and !oral da!ages for !ental anguish b" reason of the death of the deceased# (9ecesito vs#

*aras 3# 0# 9o# -1BG, 0esolution on !otion to reconsider, 5ept# 11, 1'G)#

9/ 4AT6 *0//+ /+ %AIC4 /0 8A +AIT 04DI04# ; ?here the in$ured passenger does not die, !oral da!ages are

not recoverable unless it is proved that the carrier was guilt" of !alice or bad faith# The !ere carelessness of the carrier@s driver

does not per se constitute or $ustif" an inference of !alice or bad faith on the part of the carrier#

943I349C46 9/T CA00I40@5 8A +AIT# ; ?hile it is true that negligence !a" be occasionall" so gross as to a!ount to

!alice, that fact !ust be shown in evidence# A carrier@s bad faith is not to be lightl" inferred fro! a !ere finding that the contractwas breached through negligence of the carrier@s e!plo"ees#

+AID04 T/ T0A95*/0T *A55493405 5A+4H# ; The theor" that carrier@s violation of its engage!ent to safel" transport the

passenger involves a breach of the passenger@s confidence, and therefore should be regarded as a breach of contract in bad faith,

$ustif"ing recover" of !oral da!ages, under Article 222 of the 9ew Code is untenable, for under it the carrier would alwa"s be

dee!ed in bad faith in ever" case its obligation to the passenger is infringed and it would never be accountable for si!ple

negligence while under Article 1&GB of the Civil Code the presu!ption is that co!!on carriers acted negligently and not

!aliciousl", and Article 1&B2 speaks of negligence of the co!!on carrier#

CA00I4056 ACTI/95 +/0 804AC /+ C/9T0ACT6 ?49 *045D%*TI/9 /0 CA00I40@5 IA8IITH A0I545# ; An action

for breach of contract i!poses on the carrier a presu!ption of liabilit" upon !ere proof of in$ur" of the passenger6 the latter does

not have to establish the fault of the carrier, or of his e!plo"ees, and the burden is placed on the carrier to prove that it was due toan unforeseen event or to force majeure (Congco vs# %anila 0ailroad Co# . *hil#, &B, &&&#) %orever, the carrier, unlike in suits

for uasi-delict !a" not escape liabilit" b" proving that it has eercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its

e!plo"ees# (Art# 1&G' 9ew Civil Code, Cangco vs# %anila 0ailroad Co# $upra6 *rado vs# %anila 4lectric Co#, G1 *hil#, '

B .a" Eas' an& an T"us'

Company vs CA

A%A3456 %/0A A%A3456 ?49 %AH 84 04C/7404 I9 CA54 /+ "/=A ;!0)A0"A/6 0D46 CA54 AT 8A0# ;

In culpa contractual, !oral da!ages !a" be recovered where the defendant is shown to have acted in bad faith or with !alice in the

breach of the contract# 8ad faith, in this contet, includes gross, but not si!ple, negligence# 4ceptionall", in contract

of carriage, !oral da!ages are also allowed in case of death of a passenger attributable to the fault (which is presu!ed) of the

co!!on carrier# Concededl", the bank was re!iss in indeed neglecting to personall" infor! uis of his own card@s cancellation#

9othing in the findings of the trial court and the appellate court, however, can sufficientl" indicate an" deliberate intent on the part of

+48TC to cause har! to private respondents# 9either could +48TC@s negligence in failing to give personal notice to uis be

considered so gross as to a!ount to !alice or bad faith# %alice or bad faith i!plies a conscious and intentional design to do a

wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or !oral obliuit"6 it is different fro! the negative idea of negligence in that !alice or bad faith

conte!plates a state of !ind affir!ativel" operating with furtive design or ill-will# Article 21 of the Code, it should be observed,conte!plates a conscious act to cause har!# Thus, even if we are to assu!e that the provision could properl" relate to a breach of

contract, its application can be warranted onl" when the defendant@s disregard of his contractual obligation is so deliberate as to

approi!ate a degree of !isconduct certainl" no less worse than fraud or bad faith# %ost i!portantl", Article 21 is a !ere declaration

of a general principle in hu!an relations that clearl" !ust, in an" case, give wa" to the specific provision of Article 222 of the Civil

Code authoriEing the grant of !oral da!ages in culpa contractual solel" when the breach is due to fraud or bad faith#

A**ICATI/9 /+ T4 *0/7I5I/9 /9 DA5I-4ICT# ; The Court has not in the process overlooked another rule that a uasi-

delict can be the cause for breaching a contract that !ight thereb" per!it the application of applicable principles on tort even where

there is a pre-eisting contract between the plaintiff and the defendant (=hil. Airlines +s. ourt of Appeals, 1B 5C0A 1>.6 $ingson

+s. #an? of the =hil. 'slands, 2. 5C0A 111&6 and Air @rance +s. arrascoso, 1 5C0A 1GG)# This doctrine, unfortunatel", cannot

i!prove private respondents@ case for it can aptl" govern onl" where the act or o!ission co!plained of would constitute an

!Ty"# $#r#%



1

TORTS DOCTRINES (2015) – Atty. Fajarito 2013400036 / 201340005actionable tort independentl" of the contract#

The test (whether a uasi-delict can be dee!ed to underlie the breach of a contract) can be stated thusl": ?here, without a pre-

eisting contract between two parties, an act or o!ission can nonetheless a!ount to an actionable tort b" itself, the fact that the

parties are contractuall" bound is no bar to the application of uasi-delict provisions to the case# ere, private respondents@ da!age

clai! is predicated solel" on their contractual relationship6 without such agree!ent, the act or o!ission co!plained of cannot b"

itself be held to stand as a separate cause of action or as an independent actionable tort#

4F4%*A0H /0 C/004CTI74 A%A3456 ?49 A7AIA84# ; 4e!plar" or corrective da!ages, in turn, are intended toserve as an ea!ple or as correction for the public good in addition to !oral, te!perate, liuidated or co!pensator" da!ages (Art#

222', Civil Code6 see =rudenciado +s. Alliance 0ransport $ystem, 1> 5C0A >>6 /ope> +s. =an American orld Airways, 1B 5C0A

>.1)# In criminal offenses, ee!plar" da!ages are i!posed when the cri!e is co!!itted with one or !ore aggravating

circu!stances (Art# 22., Civil Code)# In *uasidelicts, such da!ages are granted if the defendant is shown to have been so guilt" of

gross negligence as to approi!ate !alice (5ee Art# 22.1, Civil Code6 // &.. ochangco or?ers "nion +s. !/) , 1B1 5C0A

BGG6 lobe ac?ay able and )adio orp. +s. A, 1&B 5C0A &&# In contracts and *uasicontracts, the court !a" award ee!plar"

da!ages if the defendant is found to have acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or !alevolent !anner (Art# 22.2, Civil

Code6 =!# +s. en. Acceptance and @inance orp., 1B1 5C0A >>')#

9/%I9A A%A3456 ?49 A7AIA846 A**ICATI/9 I9 CA54 AT 8A0# ; The bank@s failure, even perhaps inadvertent, to

honor its credit card issued to private respondent uis should entitle hi! to recover a !easure of da!ages sanctioned under Article

2221 of the Civil Code providing thusl": Art# 2221# 9o!inal da!ages are ad$udicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which hasbeen violated or invaded b" the defendant, !a" be vindicated or recogniEed, and not for the purpose of inde!nif"ing the plaintiff for

an" loss suffered b" hi!#.INA,S 2015-2016

CASE DOCTRINE

1 VESTI, VS IAC Article 21. reads as follows:

The possessor of an ani!al or whoever !a" !ake use of the sa!e is responsible for the da!age which it !a" cause, although it

!a" escape or be lost# @This responsibilit" shall cease onl" in case the da!ages should co!e fro! force majeure fro! the fault of

the person who has suffered da!age

Article 21. of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if the ani!al should escape or be lost and so be re!oved fro! his

control# And it does not !atter either that, as the petitioners also contend, the dog was ta!e and was !erel" provoked b" the child

into biting her# The law does not speak onl" of vicious ani!als but covers even ta!e ones as long as the" cause in$ur"

According to %anresa the obligation i!posed b" Article 21. of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the presu!ed

lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the ani!al causing the da!age# It is based on natural euit" and on the principle of

social interest that he who possesses ani!als for his utilit", pleasure or service !ust answer for the da!age which such ani!al !a"

cause

2 DIN$CON$ VS =ANAAN As ose ingcong $oint tenant and !anager of the hotel, with full possession of the top of the house, "ou !ust answer for da!ages

caused b" things that were thrown or fell f ro! it (Article 1'1 Civil Code)#

ingcong ose, did not practice diligence of a good father# e could have prevented the da!age, since he knew of it he could have

caused the repair of the pipes# 4chevarria as a hotel guest is presu!ed to use the tap, thus it is the responsibilit" of ingcong to

provide adeuate drainage or proper pipe s"ste!#

COCA-CO,A VS CA The vendee@s re!edies against a vendor with respect to the warranties against hidden defects of or encu!brances upon the thing

!Ty"# $#r#%





1


/ne who wrongfull" interferes in a contract between others, and, for the purpose of gain to hi!self induces one of the parties to

break it, is liable to the part" in$ured thereb"6 and his continued interference !a" be ground for an in$unction where the in$uries

resulting will be irreparable#

In$unction is the proper re!ed" to prevent a wrongful interference with contract b" strangers to such contracts where the legal

re!ed" is insufficient and the resulting in$ur" is irreparable# And where there is a !alicious interference with lawful and valid

contracts a per!anent in$unction will ordinaril" issue without proof of epress !aliceN 8ut the re!ed" b" in$unction cannot be used

to restrain a legiti!ate co!petition, though such co!petition would involve the violation of a contractK6 SO /IN$ )N VS CA a!age is the loss, hurt, or har! which results fro! in$ur", and da!ages are the reco!pense or co!pensation awarded for the

da!age suffered

/ne beco!es liable in an action for da!ages for a nontrespassor" invasion of anothers interest in the private use and en$o"!ent of

asset if

(a) the other has propert" rights and privileges with respect to the use or en$o"!ent interfered with,

(b) the invasion is substantial,

(c) the defendants conduct is a legal cause of the invasion, and

(d) the invasion is either intentional and unreasonable or unintentional and actionable under general negligence rules

The ele!ents of tort interference are:

(1) eistence of a valid contract6

(2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the eistence of contract6 and

(.) interference of the third person is without legal $ustification or ecuse

A dut" which the law of torts is concerned with is respect for the propert" of others, and a cause of action ex delicto !a" be

predicated upon an unlawful interference b" one person of the en$o"!ent b" the other of his private propert"

5ection 1.1> of the Civil Code categoricall" provides also that, An" third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be

liable for da!ages to the other contracting part"

ack of !alice, however, precludes da!ages# 8ut it does not relieve petitioner of the legal liabilit" for entering into contracts and

causing breach of eisting ones#

!Ty"# $#r#%

Documents

Torts & Damages Case Doctrines