GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS/CONCEPTUAL .
FRAMEWORK: TORTS & DAMAGES
.
-
All Sorts of Torts
.
Etymology
.
From the French word “torquere”
which means “to twist.”
The term “Tort” is of Anglo-American
law-common law which is broader in
scope than the Spanish-Philippine
concept which is limited to negligence
while the former includes intentional
or criminal acts. Torts in Philippine law
is the blending of common-law and
civil law system.
Concept of Torts
1.
2.
3.
4.
facts. The conduct is
generally not wrongful but
the wrong consists in causing
harm by engaging in certain
types of risky activities.
(Article 2187 and Article of
Consumer Act).
-
-
Purposes Of Tort Law
.
TO provide means for adjusting
the rights of parties who might
otherwise take the law into their
own hands;
Deter wrongful conduct;
Encourage socially responsible
behavior and;
Restore injured parties to their
original condition.
.
Characteristics Of Tort
.
It is a legal wrong.
It is civil in nature.
Wrong causes damage or injury.
It provides remedy for injured
party.
Kinds Of Tort Liabilities
.
a) Negligence
-Voluntary acts or
omissions that results in injury
to others without intention.
- Omission of that
degree of diligence which is
required by the nature of the
Obligation.
2. Intentional Acts
- Desires to cause the
consequences.
3. Strict Liability
-Where the person is
made liable independent of
fault or negligent upon
submission of proof of certain
-
-
Elements Of Tort (Row)
.
Legal Right in favor of a person
(plaintiff).
A correlative legal Obligation on
the part of another to respect or
not to violate such right and;
A wrong in the form of the act or
omission in violation of the said
legal right and duty with
consequent injury or damage.
Quasi-Delict V. Torts
.
Quasi-Delicts is known as culpaaquiliana is a civil law concept while Torts is
Anglo- American or common law concept.
Torts is broader than culpa-aquiliana
because it includes not only negligence, but
intentional criminal acts as well. However,
Article 21 with Art 19 and 20, greatly
broadened the scope of the law on civil
wrongs; it has become more supple and
adaptable than the Anglo-American law on
torts.
Reason for the use of Quasi-Delict instead of
Tort in NCC — the term quasi-delict was
deliberately use to designate obligations
which do not arise from law, contracts,
quasi- contracts, or criminal offenses. The
term tort was not used because it is broader
in coverage as it covers, in common law
countries, acts which are intentional or
malicious, which latter acts in the general
plan of the Philippine system am governed
by the Revised Penal (Pineda). However,
there is an intent to the concept of tort.
(Aquino)
Quasi-Delict covers Punishable and NonPunishable Negligence — traditional
concept of quasi-delict is one that excludes
acts which are intentional or malicious and
acts which arise from pre-existing contracts.
However, the case of Barredo v. Garcia, in
effect, followed the English Law on torts
which makes no distinction intentional and
negligent injuries (Pineda).
Nature Of Delicts
.
Art 1157 Obligations arise from:
a) law
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) Acts or omissions punished by
law (Delicts)
e) Quasi-delicts
Art. 2176.
Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Elements Of Quasi- Delict
.
1. Act or omission
2. There is no pre-existing contractual
relations between the parties
3. Damage or injury is caused to
another
4. Fault or negligence
5. Causal connection between damage
done and act/omission (Andamo v.
IAC G.R. No. 74751 November 6,
1990)
Scope: Intentional Acts
.
There is no justification for limiting
the scope of Article 2176 of the Civil Code to
acts or omissions resulting from negligence.
Well-entrenched is the doctrine that Article
2176 covers not only acts committed with
negligence, but also acts which are voluntary
an intentional. (Elcano v. Hill 77 98).
Scope: Damage To Property
.
The
concept
of
quasi-delict
enunciated in Article 2176 of the New Civil
Code is so broad that is includes not only
injuries to person but also damage to
property. It makes no distinction between
“damage to persons” on the one hand and
“damage to property” on the other. The
word “damage” is used in two concepts: the
“harm” done and “reparation” for the harm
done. And with respect to “harm” it is plain
that it includes both injuries to person and
property since “harm” is not limited to
personal but also to property injuries. (Cinco
v. Canonoy G.R no. L-33171, May 31, 1979)
Catch-All Provisions Under Ncc
.
Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise
of his rights and in the performance of his
duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to
law, willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
Article 21. Any who willfully causes loss or
injury to another in manner that is contrary
to morals, customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
Is Tort Crime Or Is Crime Tort?
.
Tort is not a crime because it is
another source of obligation but crime may
be classified as tort when damages exist,
such as when the elements of quasi-delict
exist.
Philippine Laws Include The
.
Following Torts:
.
1. Defamation
2. Fraud
3. Physical Injuries
4. Violation of Constitutional Rights
5. Negligence
6. Interference
with
Contractual
Relations
7. Violation of Privacy
8. Malicious Prosecution
9. Product Liability
10. Strict Liability for Possession of
Animals
11. Abuse of Right
12. Act which Violate Good Morals
13. Civil Liability Arising from Criminal
Liability
Quasi-Delict V. Delict
Sources of
Vinculum
Juris
Quasi-Delict
Negligent
act/omission
(culpa,
imprudence)
Delict
Act/omissio
n
committed
by increase
of dolo
(deliberate,
.
malicious, in
bad faith)
Proof
Preponderan
Proof
Required
ce of
beyond
evidence
reasonable
doubt
Burden of
Victim must
Accused is
Proof
prove:
presumed
1. Negligenc
innocent
e
until the
2. Causal
contrary is
Connectio
proved.
n between
negligence
and
damage
done
Liability of
Solidary
Subsidiary
Employer
Reservatio
Civil aspect
Civil aspect
n
of quasiis impliedly
Requireme
delict is
instituted
nt
impliedly
with
instituted
criminal
with criminal
action
action but
under the
Rules it is
separate and
independent
Effect of
Not a bar to Not a bar to
judgment
recover civil recover civil
of
damages
damages
acquittal in except when
a criminal
judgment
case
pronounces
involving
that
same
negligence
act/omissi from which
on
damage arise
is nonexistent
Culpa Aquilian V. Culpa Contractual
Basis of
Liability
Nature of
Negligence
Quantum of
Proof
Existence of
PreContractual
Relationshi
p
Applicabilit
y of
Defense
“Good
father of a
Family”
Culpa
Aquiliana
Fault or
Negligence
resulting in
damage or
injury to
other (Civil
Code Art.
2176)
Direct,
substantive,
and
independen
t
Preponde
rance of
Evidence
(ROC,
Rule 133
Sec.1)
None
A complete
and proper
defense as
regards to
vicarious
liability
(Civil Code)
Culpa
Contractual
Obligation
arises from
the breach
of contract
because of
defendant’s
failure to
exercise
due care in
its
performanc
e(Civil Code
Art 1173)
Negligence
is a merely
incidental
to the
performanc
e of an
existing
obligation
Prepondera
nce of
Evidence
(ROC, Rule
133 Sec.1)
Exists
Not a
complete
and proper
defense in
the
selection
and
.
Presumptio
n of
Negligence
Governing
Laws
Burden of
Proof
None,
injured
party must
prove the
negligence
of the
defendant
supervision
of
employees
but can
mitigate
liability for
damages
Presumptio
n of
negligence
immediately
attaches by
failure of a
covenant or
its tenor
Arts. 11701174 of the
Civil Code
Arts. 2176,
1172-1174
of the Civil
Code
Victim must Party prove
prove:
the
1.
following:
Negligence
1. existence
2. Causal
of contract
Connection 2. breach
between
negligence
and damage
done
Is Tort Law Applicable To Contracts? .
GENERAL RULE:
NO. (ARTICLE 2176)
EXCEPTIONS:
The act that breaks the contract may
also be a Tort. (Air France vs Carrascoso)
Who Can Sue? Will Civil Personality.Matter .
-
Liabilities
CORPORATIONS
PARTNERSHIP
STATE
.
-
Remedies
Compensatory
Preventive
.
Alternative Compensation Schemes .
- Insurance
- Worker's Compensation
.
Q and A
.
Is tort a crime?
No. Because the very nature of tort is
civil liability. Whereas in crime we go after
the criminal liability.
Is crime a tort?
There will be instances where
particular act may result in to two liability,
criminal and civil liability aside from the fact
that criminal act necessarily includes civil
liability. You may also civilly liable based on
quasi-delict.
What is article 19 of the civil code?
Every person must, in the exercise of
his rights and in the performance of his
duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith.
What was the purpose of the framers of
our civil code in introducing article 19 in
the civil code?
It is a catch-all provision that covers
those acts whatever acts or omission not
written in any other law are cover with this
provision in relation that cause damage to
another together with art. 20 and 21 of the
same code.
It likewise talks about the abuse of
right. So when a person exercises his right,
he must do so within the confines of his
liberties without prejudiced to the rights of
third persons.
What is a quasi-delict?
Is an act or omission which causes
damage to another by means of fault or
negligence.
What is the difference between torts and
quasi-delict?
In torts in can be intentional or by
fault or negligence. While on quasi-delict it
should be purely negligence based on the
elements provided under art. 2176.
What concept applies in our Philippine legal
system? Law on torts or law on quasidelict?
Blending of law on torts and quasidelict because the original intention of our
framers of our new civil code was to limit the
nature of quasi-delict only to negligent act.
However, the SC and likewise in the earlier
provisions of the new civil code likewise
admits or recognizes other intentional act
which may be source of obligation as
damages.
Can someone who is acquitted for a crime
of homicide be again charged civilly for
damages? The reason of such acquittal is
that the prosecution failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
Yes. There are instances when the
acquittal of the accused is based on the fact
that he is not the perpetrator of the crime.
So another person was actually criminally
liable and another person was another
person who caused damage to the person of
the victim. So what will happen? Necessarily,
that particular accused will not be likewise
civilly liable because he was not the source
of the damage. Based on the elements of
quasi-delict, it should be the same person is
the source of injury who inflicts such injury
to another person. In such case that the guilt
of the accused is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Nagkaroon lang ng doubt
yung court with respect to that person’s
criminal liability but the civil liability may still
be prosecuted.
Can the State be liable to tort?
As a general rule, NO, the State is not
liable to tort. The only time that the state is
liable to tort when the State entered into
agreement in its personal capacity.
Can a corporation be liable to tort? Who
will be liable? The stockholders, members
of such corporation or the Board of
Directors?
Yes. As a general rule, the
corporation itself is liable because the
corporation has a separate personality from
its members, etc. However, in cases of close
corporations, the stockholders, etc. will be
held liable under the torts they committed
because they are the ones who directly
manages the corporation.
NOTE:
Res ipsa loquitur can be applied in cases of
negligence where the evidence of causation
is inaccessible to the plaintiff because under
the second requisite of res ipsa loquitur,
there would be impossibility to the part of
the aggrieved party to have access to those
pieces of evidence.
Any practice which are dangerous to human
life cannot ripen into customs which will
protect anyone which follows it. In addition,
the fact that you abide a particular custom,
whether such custom endangers one’s life or
not, does not necessarily mean that you are
not negligent.
NEGLIGENCE
.
Actionable negligence:
.
1. Culpa contractual
2. Culpa aquiliana
3. Criminal negligence
Art. 1157 sources of obligations:

.
1. Law
2. Contracts (ART. 1170 – 1174 of NCC)
3. Quasi-Contracts
4. Delict
5. Quasi-Delict
Delict



.
RPC. – ART. 365. IMPRUDENCE AND
NEGLIGENCE. – Any person who, by
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE, shall commit any
act which, had it been intentional, would
constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the
penalty of ARRESTO MAYOR in its
maximum period to prision correccional
in its maximum period; if it would have
constituted a less grave felony, the
penalty of ARRESTO MAYOR in its
minimum period shall be imposed.
Any person who, by SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE
OR NEGLIGENCE, shall commit an act
which would otherwise constitute a grave
felony shall suffer the penalty of ARRESTO
MAYOR in its medium and maximum
periods; if it would have constituted a less
serious felony, the penalty of ARRESTO
MAYOR in its minimum period shall be
imposed.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE consists in
voluntary, but without malice, doing or
failing to do an act 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.
SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE consists in the lack
of precaution displayed in those cases in
which the damage impending to be
caused is not immediate nor the danger
clearly manifest.
Elements of Delict:
.
1. The offender does/fails to do an act;
2. The doing/failure to do that act is
voluntary;
3. It is without malice;
4. The material damage results from
the reckless imprudence; and
5. There is inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the
offender taking into consideration
his~
a. Employment/occupation
b. Degree of intelligence
c. Physical condition
d. Other circumstances regarding~
i. Persons
ii. Time; and
iii. Place
Quasi delict
.
NCC. – ART. 2176. Whoever by act or
omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is
called QUASI-DELICT and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
Requisites:
1. There must be an act or omission
constituting fault or negligence.
2. Damage caused by the said act or
omission.
3. Causal relation between the damage
and the act or omission.
Culpa Contractual vs. Culpa Aquiliana .
Culpa Contractual
Culpa Aquiliana
 The foundation  It is a separate
of the liability of
source
of
the defendant is
obligation
the contract.
independent of
contract
 In breach of
contract
 In
quasi-delict
committed
the presumptive
through
the
responsibility for
negligence
of
the negligence of
employee, the
his servants can
employer cannot
be rebutted by
erase his primary
proof of the
and
direct
exercise of due
liability
by
care in their
invoking exercise
selection
and
of diligence of a
supervision.
good father of a
family in the
selection
and
supervision
of
the employee.
Culpa Aquiliana vs. Delict
Culpa Aquiliana
Crime
Only involves private
concern
The Civil Code by
means
of
indemnification
merely
repairs the damage
Includes all acts in
which any kind of
fault or negligence
intervenes
Affect
the
public
interest
The Revised Penal
Code
punishes
or
corrects criminal act
Liability is direct and
primary
in
quasidelict
Punished only if there
is a penal law clearly
covering them
Liability
of
the
employer
of
the
actor-employee
is
subsidiary in crimes
Definition of Negligence
.
The omission of that degree of
diligence which is required by the nature of
the obligation and corresponding to the
circumstances of persons, time and place.
(Article 1173 Civil Code).
Tests of Negligence
.
1. Did the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act use the
reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent person would
have used in the same situation?
2. Could a prudent man, in the case
under consideration, foresee harm
as a result of the course pursued?
.
NOTES:
 Negligence is a conduct - the
determination of the existence of
negligence is concerned with what the
defendant did or did not do.

Negligence is a conduct that creates
an undue risk of harm to others.

The determination of negligence is a
question of foresight on the part of the
actor – FORESEEABILITY.
 Forseeability involves the question of
PROBABILITY, that is, the existence of
some real likelihood of some damage
and the likelihood is of such appreciable
weight reasonably to induce, action to
avoid it.
Circumstances to consider
in determining negligence
1.
.
:.
Time
Place
The place of the incident is
also material.
3.
4.
5.
5.
Person exposed to the risk
The character of the person
exposed to the risk is also a
circumstance that should be
considered in determining
negligence.
Emergency Rule
The time of the day may
affect the diligence required
of the actor.
2.
7.
Emergency
“Who
can
be
wise,
temperature and furious,
loyal and neutral, in a
moment? No man.”
Gravity of Harm to be avoided
Even if the odds that an injury
will result are not high, harm
may still be considered
foreseeable if the gravity of
harm to be avoided is great.
Alternative Course of Action
The gravity of the injury that
will result if the actor took the
alternative course of action
was also considered.
Social value or utility of activity
The absence of a viable
alternative should also be
examined in the light of the
social value of the activity
involved.
.
GENERAL RULE:
An individual who suddenly finds
himself in a situation of danger and is
required to act without much time to
consider the best means that may be
adopted to avoid the impending danger is
not guilty of negligence if he fails to
undertake what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to be a better
solution.
EXCEPTION:
When the emergency was brought by
the individual’s own negligence.
Good father of a family (pater familias): .
-A man of ordinary intelligence and
prudence or an ordinary reasonable prudent
man.
Special rules
1.
.
Children
The action of the child will not
necessarily be judged according to
the standard of an adult. But if the
minor is mature enough to
understand and appreciate the
nature and consequence of his
actions, he will be considered
negligent if he fails to exercise due
care and precaution in the
commission of such acts.
2. Physical Disability
Mere weakness of a person will not
be an excuse in negligence cases.
3. Experts and Professionals
They should exhibit the care and skill
of one who is ordinarily skilled in the
particular field that he is in.
4. Nature of Activity
There are activities which by nature
impose duties to exercise a higher
degree of diligence.
Example:
Banks, by the very nature of their
work, are expected to exercise the
highest degree of diligence in the
selection and supervision of their
employees.
5. Intoxication
GENERAL RULE:
Mere intoxication is not negligence,
nor does the mere fact of
intoxication establish want of
ordinary care. But it may be one of
the circumstances to be considered
to prove negligence.
EXCEPTION:
Under Art. 2185 of the Civil Code, it is
presumed that a person driving a
motor vehicle has been negligent if at
the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation.
6. Insanity
Bases for holding an insane person
liable for his tort:
a. Where one of two innocent
persons must suffer a loss, it
should be borne by the one
who occasioned it.
b. To induce those interested in
the estate of the insane
person to restrain and control
him.
c. The fear that an insanity
would lead to false claims of
insanity and avoid liability.
7. Women
In determining the question
of contributory negligence in
performing such act, the age,
sex, and condition of the
passengers are circumstances
necessarily affecting the
safety of the passenger, and
should be considered.
Other Factors to Consider in
Determining Negligence:
.
.
A. VIOLATION OF RULES AND
STATUTES
1. Statutes
GENERAL RULE:
Violation of a statutory duty is
s. When the Legislature has spoken,
the standard of care required is no
longer what a reasonably prudent
man would do under the
circumstances but what the
Legislature has commanded.
EXCEPTIONS:
a.
When unusual conditions
occur and strict observance may
defeat the purpose of the rule and
may even lead to adverse results.
b.
When the statute expressly
provides that violation of a statutory
duty
merely
establishes
presumption of negligence.
a
2. Administrative Rule
Violation of a rule promulgated by
administrative agencies is not
negligence per se but may be
EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE.
3. Private Rules of Conduct
Violation of rules imposed by private
individuals is merely a POSSIBLE
EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE.
B. PRACTICE AND CUSTOM
Compliance with the practice and
custom in a community will not
automatically result in a finding that the
actor is not guilty of negligence.
Non-compliance with the practice or
custom in the community does not
necessarily mean that the actor was
negligent.
C. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES
Compliance with a statute is not
conclusive that there was no negligence.
Degrees of Diligence
.
1. Extraordinary diligence
2. Ordinary diligence
3. Slight diligence
Degrees of Negligence
1. Gross negligence
2. Ordinary negligence
3. Contributory negligence
.
Gross Negligence
.
Negligence where there is want of
even slight care and diligence.
Proof of Negligence
.
GENERAL RULE:
If the plaintiff alleged in his
complaint that he was damaged because of
the negligent acts of the defendant, the
plaintiff has the burden of proving such
negligence.
EXCEPTIONS:
Exceptional cases when the rules or
the law provides for cases when negligence
is presumed.
A.
Presumptions of Negligence
B.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
A. Presumptions of Negligence
.
1.
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner
is presumed negligent if he was in the vehicle
and he could have used due diligence to
prevent the misfortune. (Article 2184 Civil
Code)
2. It is disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice for the next
preceding two months. (Article 2184 Civil
Code)
3. The driver of a motor vehicle is presumed
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation. (Article 2185
Civil Code)
4. GENERAL RULE: Prima facie presumption
of negligence of the defendant arises if
death or injury results from his possession
of dangerous weapons or substance.
EXCEPTION: When such
possession or use is indispensable to
his occupation or business. (Article
2188 Civil Code)
5. GENERAL RULE: Presumption of
negligence of the common carrier
arises in case of loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods, or in case
of death or injury of passengers.
EXCEPTION: Upon proof of
exercise of extraordinary diligence.
B. Res Ipsa Loquitur
.
- “The thing or transaction speaks for
itself.”
- It is a rule of evidence peculiar to the law
of negligence which recognizes that prima
facie negligence may be established in the
absence of direct proof, and furnishes a
substitute for specific proof of negligence.
REQUISITES OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR:
1. The accident was of a kind which
ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someone’s negligence;
2. The instrumentality which caused
the injury was under the exclusive
control and management of the
person charged with negligence; and
3. The injury suffered must not have
been due to any voluntary action or
contribution on the part of the
person
injured;
absence
of
explanation by the defendant.
.
Q and A
.
Mr. A has with him a gun with the intention
of shooting B, in fact, he already pointed to
the gun to B. However, C see Mr. A pointed
the gun to Mr. B but Mr. A already triggered
the gun. Mr. C wanted to pari the gun shot
to that effect natabig niya ung kamay ni A.
to that effect, Mr A. fails to shoot Mr. B.
however, since Mr. A already fired the gun,
it hits the tire of a bus, to that effect the bus
bumped and 3 persons died, D, E, and F.
May A be charge for negligence for the
death of D, E, and F?
No. The definition of negligence case
is omission of the due diligence required
based on the nature of the obligation
corresponding to person, time, and place. It
does not fit the definition of negligence.
The
abovementioned
separate
criminal negligence from actual criminal
delict. Because when we speak of criminal
delict, palaging may kasamang intent when
we speak of delict. Eto ung nagseseparate sa
negligence, when there’s negligence there’s
an absence of intent, negligence lang ang
nandon.
What are the two test of negligence?
Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use the reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person
would have used in the same situation?
Could a prudent man, in the case under
consideration, foresee harm as a result of
the course pursued?
Is negligence the absence of diligence?
Yes. Negligence the absence of
diligence, so that when a person was not
actually diligence, he is negligent. However,
when we speak of diligence under our civil
code, there are degrees of diligence required
for every situation or for every person in the
performance of his act or in the exercise of
his function.
Which must be prove in court, is it the
negligence or is it the diligence?
Negligence act must be prove in
court.
Is that absolute?
No, because sometimes in proving
that you have the diligence to compete may
be held as a valid defense against
negligence.
What are the instances that when the
plaintiff did not need to prove the
negligence? It’s the defendant that must
prove that he is diligent.
When there’s a presumption of
negligence and in cases of res ipsa loquitur.
When the accused pleads justifying,
exempting,
and
other
justifiable
circumstances. In that case, he has to prove
that such circumstances exist.
What is the very rationale why the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur is being applied here in
the Philippines or even in various
countries? Why in the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur we tend to shift the burden to the
defendant in proving that he is indeed
diligence?
Because there is no direct evidence
to prove that the defendant is liable, only
circumstantial. Ditto pumpasok yung direct
exclusive control and management of the
person charged with negligence.
NOTES:
When medical practitioners did not
give help to those persons that are in distress
in case of emergency they are civilly liable
because they have special oaths, under that
oath they are liable.
If they are liable under their oath will they
be civilly liable or administratively liable?
Both because in all other cases that
cannot be covered by the civil code, there is
an all and compassing provisions (Art. 1921). However, unlike in criminal liability that
it is together with civil liability.
-
-
AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES
.
Tort
.
The tort is a civil wrong or a breach of
duty which is caused by one person
and on the basis of that fault, the
court imposes liability and provides
compensation for personal injury
caused or damage to any property.
NATURE OF MISFEASANCE AND
NONFEASANCE
.
.
Misfeasance
.
Breach of General Negative Duty
It means the “Improper performance
of some lawful act”. Misfeasance
means carrying out legal and
improper action, but it is done in
such a way that it harms others or
causes injury to other people.
Examples:
1. If a doctor performs an operation by using
rusted tools or leaves an alien object in the
stomach during the procedure. Generally,
the defendant will be liable for misfeasance
as the defendant owes a duty of care
towards the plaintiff and did not perform his
duty properly.
Hence, doing an operation is a lawful
act but there is an improper performance of
the lawful act.
2. A janitor is cleaning a restroom in a
restaurant and is irresponsible and leaves
the floor wet without any warning sign or
board. In such a case, he or his employer
could be held liable for any injury caused
because of the wet floor. This is because the
janitor owed a duty of care toward users of
the restroom, and he breached that duty by
leaving the floor wet and therefore would be
held liable.
It will come under misfeasance as the
act was lawful but there was an improper
performance of the lawful act.
Nonfeasance
-
-
.
Breach of Affirmative Duties
Nonfeasance is the intentional
failure to perform a required duty or
obligation.
It is an act of intentionally neglecting
to carry out a duty which is an
obligation and because of the failure
to perform the duty, someone is
harmed or injury has been caused.
Example:
A clock tower fell down in India,
many people were injured and many died.
The clock tower was not repaired for many
years and the municipal corporation was
required to maintain it. The Municipal
Corporation failed to do so and the tower
collapsed. The municipal corporation was
held liable as it was their duty to repair the
clock which they failed to do so.
It can be called as nonfeasance as
there was an omission in performing the
compulsory act.
Difference between Misfeasance
and Nonfeasance


Misfeasance
Nonfeasance
It
means  Nonfeasance,
“improper
on the other
performance of
hand, is an
some
lawful
omission from
act”.
discharging
The
term
duty.
“misfeasance” is  The term nonutilized in Tort
feasance
.
.
law to describe
any act that is
lawful yet which
has
been
performed
inappropriately
or
in
an
unlawful
manner.
describes the
failure to do any
act that causes
harm
to
another person.
In conclusion, misfeasance is the
commission of a lawful act in an improper
manner and nonfeasance means failure to
perform an act where there is a necessity to
perform the act.
DUTY TO RESCUE
.
Z, an electric company, after multiple
emergency report, failed to repair or
reconnect a live wire that was cut and was
hanging because of a typhoon. The owner of
the house went to Z office to request for
reconnection. In the meantime, the live wire
electrocuted X, who is a child. Seeing the
incident, Y hurried to X to help him by taking
off his wooden shoes and sticking the wire
away in his desire to save X. Unfortunately,
when the wire was released from
underneath X’s body, the wire coiled around
Y’s leg.
A. Is Z liable for the injury that Y incurred
in saving X?
B. Should Y be guilty of contributory
negligence because of his actions to save
X that results to his own injury?
Good Samaritan Rule: Duty to the Rescuer.


Rousseau believes that we have “an
innate repugnance at seeing a fellow
creature suffer. That it is this compassion
that hurries us without reflection to the
relief of those who are in distress.
It is in this consideration that courts
make defendants/torfeasor liable for
the injuries to person who rescue
people in distress because of the acts or
omissions of the said defendants.
Answers:
A. The SC held that one who was hurt while
trying to rescue another who was injured
through negligence of another may recover
damages.
Here, the delay of Z company to
provide technical assistance despite the
number of emergency reports constitutes
negligence. Hence, the court held that
awarding of damages to Y is proper.
NOTE:
According to Justice Cardozo in Wagner v. .
International Ry. Co.,
.
“Danger invites rescue.” The cry of fistress is
the summons to relief......The wrong that
imperils life is a wrong to the imperilled
victim; it is wrong also to his rescuer.
Example:
Based on the case of Santiago v. De Leon,
Contributory Negligence is a
behavior that contributes to one’s own
injury or loss and fails to meet the standard
of prudence that one should observe for
one’s own good.
B. No. Y should not be guilty of contributory
negligence. The court held that conduct
which might otherwise be considered
contributory negligence may not be so
considered where a person is injured in
attempting to save others from imminent
danger of personal injury or death.
The court further stated that to act
immediately was the pressing need of the
moment and to be unduly cautious would
have been fatal to the child.
Hence, Y is held justified in assuming
greater risks in the protection of human life
(X).
Duty to Rescue
.
This legal duty pertains to the liability on
the part of the person (rescuer) who should
have acted in a manner that is consistent
with mans natural compassion. However,
the question is:
a. Is a person who did not rescue another
who is in distress liable to the latter? Is
there a general duty to rescue?
b. How about the eyewitnesses in a crime,
should they be obligated to rescue the
victim?
General rule:
A. A person has no duty to rescue another
person who is in peril. Even if the failure to
help a victim of an accident might be morally
reprehensible, the person who abstained
from helping the victim is not legally
responsible.
Hence, even in an extreme situation,
such as where an adult sees a child trapped
on top of railroad tracks, courts generally
find that a person is under no duty to come
to the aid of another.
B. The non-imposition of a duty to rescue is
true even in cases involving intentional acts,
such as in the case of eyewitness who were
able to see such commission of the crime.
Thus, witnesses to commission of crimes are
not expected to help the victims of the said
crime.
The courts stated that, witnessing a
crime is an unusual experience which elicits
different reactions from the witnesses and
for which no clear-cut standard form of
behavior can be drawn.
Exceptions:
1. Exceptions under the Revised Penal Code
and Special Law;
2. Exceptions Imposed on Persons with
Special Relationship;
Exceptions under the Revised Penal Code .
and Special Law
.
1. Article 275. Abandonment of Persons in
Danger and Abandonment of One's Own
Victim. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall
be imposed upon:
 Anyone who shall fail to render
assistance to any person whom he
shall find in an uninhabited place
wounded or in danger of dying,
when he can render such
assistance without detriment to
himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense.
 Anyone who shall fail to help or
render assistance to another whom
he has accidentally wounded or
injured.
 Anyone who, having found an
abandoned child under seven years
of age, shall fail to deliver said child
to the authorities or to his family,
or shall fail to take him to a safe
place.
2. R.A. No. 4136, Land Transportation and
Traffic Code
SECTION 55. Duty of Driver in Case of
Accident. – In the event that any accident
should occur as a result of the operation of a
motor vehicle upon a highway, the driver
present, shall show his driver’s license, give
his true name and address and also the true
name and address of the owner of the motor
vehicle.
No driver of a motor vehicle
concerned in a vehicular accident shall leave
the scene of the accident without aiding the
victim, except under any of the following
circumstances:
1. If he is in imminent danger of being
seriously harmed by any person or persons
by reason of the accident;
2. If he reports the accident to the nearest
officer of the law; or
3. If he has to summon a physician or nurse
to aid the victim.
Special Relationship
.
A defendant may be under a duty to
rescue if the defendant has a special
relationship with the victim, such as in an
employer-employee, parent/guardian-child,
or a school-student relationship.
Owners, Proprietors, and Possessors
protection or even to protect him from
concealed danger. The trespasser comes on
to the premises at his own risk. The owner
has no duty to maintain his property in such
a danger free state just to prevent trespasser
from being injured.
B. State of Necessity
Owners and possessors of real estate
owe a duty to allow trespassers, who are in
a state of necessity, to enter their
properties. Art. 432 of the Civil Code states
that the owner of the thing has no right to
prohibit the interference of another with the
same, if the interference is necessary to
avert an imminent danger and threatened
damage, compared to damages arising to
the owner from the interference, is much
greater.
C. Tolerated Possessor
.
The owner is liable if the plaintiff is
inside his property by tolerance or by
implied permission, such as in the case of
Rodrigueza v. Manila Railrod Co.
.
D. Visitors
Generally, the owner is not liable to
any person who might be damaged if he is
merely exercising his right as such.
Damage to any person resulting from
the exercise of any of the rights of ownership
is damage without injury. It can even be
argued that the owner commits no
negligence even if he carelessly caused
damage by the exercise of his right because
no duty of care is owed to anybody.
A. Trespassers
.
.
The owner has no duty to take
reasonable care towards trespasser for his
.
Under the same line of reasoning,
owners of buildings or premises owe a duty
of care to visitors.
In the case of Cabigao, the plaintiff
sat on a concrete bench inside the Dental
Building of defendant University while
visiting a student therein. When the plaintiff
moved over from the bench, one of its
concrete legs fell upon the left foot of the
plaintiff causing fracture thereto.
The court awarded damage in favor
of plaintiff and rejected the argument of the
defendant that plaintiff was a trespasser
because the defendant’s answer contains an
admission that she was a visitor.
D.1. Visitors in Common Carriage
.
Common carriers may also be held
liable for negligence to persons who stay in
their premises even if they are not
passengers.
Such duty of common carriers to
provide safety to its passengers so obligates
it not only during the course of the trip but
for so long as the passengers are within its
premises and where they ought to be in
pursuance to the contract of carriage.
E. Children and Attractive Nuisance Rule .

children. The owner of a private
property is not liable if he merely
duplicated the work of nature by
creating an artificial pool on his
own property without adding
new danger.
Another qualification to the rule that
owners do not have a duty of care
towards uninvited persons is what is
knows as the “Attractive Nuisance
Rule”.
 This rule, however, serves as limitation
to the rule of contributory negligence.
Under the rule, an owner is liable if he
maintains in his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a
character likely to lure children in play
and he fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children of tender age from
playing therewith.
 The court recognized railway turntables,
explosives,
electrical
conduits,
smoldering fires, and rickety structure as
Attractive premises/instrumentalities.
 How about a swimming pool? Can that
be considered as an attractive nuisance?
- The court held that a swimming
pool or pond or reservoir of
water is not considered attractive
nuisance. The court explained
that nature has created streams,
lakes, and pools which attract
F. State of Necessity
-
-
.
Owners and possessors of real estate
also owe a duty to allow trespassers,
who are in a state of necessity, to
enter their properties.
Art. 432 of the Civil Code states that
“the owner of the thing has no right to
prohibit interference of another with
the same, if the interference is
necessary to avert an imminent
danger and threatened damage,
compared to damages arising to the
owner from the interference, is much
greater.”
G. Liability to Neighbors s
and Third Persons
.
.
Art, 431 of the NCC provides that an
owner cannot use his property in such a
manner as to injure the rights of others.
Thus, an exercise of the right of the owner
may give rise to an action based on quasidelict, if the owner negligently exercises
such right to the prejudice of another.
Example:
If the owner negligently constructed
a pond on its property and allows it to
overflow to the neighboring lots. Liability
shall be imposed to the owner of a piggery
farm because the land of his neighbor was
flooded by waste water containing pig
manure.
G.1. Negligence of Manufacturers
and Other Establishments
.
.
H. Employers and Employees

In the same manner, the negligence
of the business establishments would make
them liable for the damage and injury
caused to their neighbors.
Example:
A fire started in the business
establishment and broke out because of
their negligence thereby destroying the
neighboring houses.
H. Liability of Proprietors of Building s.


Article 2190. The proprietor of a building
or structure is responsible for the
damages resulting from its total or
partial collapse, if it should be due to the
lack of necessary repairs. (1907)
Article 2191. 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.
(1908).

.
Employers, by engaging the services of
another as employee, impliedly agree to
use reasonable care to provide
reasonably safe premises and places in
and about which the servant is required
to work, to furnish reasonably safe and
suitable machinery, and a sufficient
supply of proper materials, tools , and
appliances.
Along with the equipment supply, the
employer shall provide a training for the
utilization of the equipment and
provide warning of any secret danger
which the employer is aware.
Question:
1. X, an employeee of ABC Company
allegedly
suffered
incurable
workcontracted disease becaue of continued and
prolonged exposure to textile dust seriously
inimical to his health. (Indophil Textile Mills,
Inc. v. Adviento)
Is ABC liable for damages against X?
Answer:
Employing this rule, ABC company
shall be liable for its gross negligence in its
failure to provide safe, healthy and workable
environment for X. Hence, ABC shall
indemnify X for damages.
Thus, proper maintenance of the
workplace or the provision of adequate
facilities to ensure the safety of the
employees is imposed upon employers.
Failure on their part to comply with such
mandatory act may be considered
negligence on their part.
2. X, the Vice President of ABC company,
signed checks and disbursed funds of the
corporation for an unauthorized trip abroad
of another employee. (Araneta v. De Joya)
Should X be liable for the monetarial
loss incurred by ABC?
Answer:
Employees are also bound to
exercise due care in the performance of their
functions for the employers. Absent such
care, the employee may be held liable. The
liability may be based on negligence
committed while in the performance of the
duties of the employee.
Hence, in the case at bar, X shall be
held liable because he is guilty of neglecting
to perform his duties properly to the damage
of the company.
MALPRACTICE
Malpractice (negligence of experts)
.
.
2. The breach of duty by the physician's
failing to act in accordance with the
applicable standard of care;
1. Healthcare Professionals
2. Lawyers
3. Accountants and Auditors
Negligence of health care professionals
.
A. Medical Malpractice
B. Liability of Hospitals
C. Nurses
D. Pharmacists
E. Clinical Laboratories
Medical Malpractice
1.
2.
3.
4.
3. The causation (i.e., there must be a
reasonably close and casual connection
between the negligent act or omission and
the resulting injury); and
4. The damages suffered by the patient.
Doctor-Patient Relationship
.
It is a particular form of negligence
which consists in the failure of a physician or
surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine
that degree of care and skill which is
ordinarily employed by the profession
generally under similar conditions, and in
like surrounding circumstances.
Elements of liability
For Medical Malpractice
specific norms or standards established by
his profession (standards of care);
.
.
Duty
Breach
Proximate causation
Injury
Dr. Fernando P. Solidum vs. People, G.R.
No. 192123, 10 March 2014, Specifically,
the Supreme Court explained that it is
necessary to prove by competent evidence
the following elements:
1. The duty owed by the physician to the
patient, as created by the physicianpatient
relationship, to act in accordance with the
.
A physician-patient relationship may
be created when the professional services of
a physician are rendered to and accepted by
another for purposes of medical or surgical
treatment.
Physician-patient relationship may
arise when a physician gives advice to a
patient, even if the advice is communicated
through another health care professional.
Duty
.
A physician is under a duty to
exercise that degree of care, skill, and
diligence which physicians in the same
general neighborhood and in the same
general line pf practice ordinarily possess
and exercise in like cases. (Lucas vs Tuano)
Duty refers to the standard of
behaviour which imposes restrictions on
one's conduct. The standard in turn refers to
the amount of competence associated with
the proper discharge of the profession.
(Spouses Flores vs. Spouses Pineda)
Doctors have a duty to use at least
the same level of care that any other
reasonably competent doctor would have
use to treat a condition under the same
circumstances. (Garcia-Rueda vs Pascasio)
Breach
.
There is breach of duty of care, skill
and diligence, or the improper performance
of such duty, by the attending physician
when the patient is injured in body or in
health [and this] constitutes the actionable
malpractice.
Proof of such breach must likewise
rest upon the testimony of an expert witness
that the treatment accorded to the patient
failed to meet the standard level of care, skill
and diligence which physicians in the same
general neighborhood and in the same
general line of practice ordinarily possess
and exercise in like cases.
Proximate Cause and Injury
.
There must be a causal connection
between said breach and the resulting injury
sustained by the patient.
"Injury for which recovery is sought
must be the legitimate consequence of the
wrong done; the connection between the
negligence and the injury must be a direct
and natural sequence of events, unbroken
by intervening efficient causes"; that is, the
negligence must be the proximate cause of
the injury. And the proximate cause of an
injury is that cause, which, in the natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would
not have occurred.
Standard of Care
.
The doctor must use at least the
same level of care that any reasonably
competent doctor would use to treat a
condition under the same circumstances.
The standard contemplated is not
the average merit among all known
practitioners from the best to the worst and
from the most to the least experienced, but
the reasonable average merit among the
ordinarily good physicians.
General Practitioners vs Specialist
.
The standard of care demanded from
a General Practitioner is ordinary care and
diligence in the application of his knowledge
and skill in his practice of the profession.
A Specialist’s legal duty to the
patient is generally considered to be that of
an average specialist, not that of an average
physician.
National Standards
.
Each physician may with reason and
fairness be expected to possess or have
reasonable access to such medical
knowledge as is commonly possessed or
reasonable available to competent physician
in the same specialty or general field of
practice in the Philippines.
The standard is a national standard
and not the standard of a particular
community.
Locality Rule in Relation to Facilities
.
Each physician has a duty to have a
practical working knowledge of the facilities,
equipment, resources, and
options
reasonably available to him or her as well as
the practical limitations on the same.
Neighborhood Rule
.
A physician is under a duty to the
patient to exercise that degree of care, skill,
and diligence which physicians in the same
general neighborhood and in the same
general line of practice ordinarily possess
and exercise in like case.
Common Professional Practice
.
“Resident doctors” are licensed
doctors under training for a particular
specialty. They are merely “subordinate who
usually defer to the attending physician on
the decision to be made and on the action to
be taken.”
While attending and resident
physicians share the collective responsibility
to deliver safe and appropriate care to the
patients, it is the attending physician who
assumes the principal responsibility of
patient care.
Doctors are not Warrantors
Error in Judgment
.
1. Our duty in medical malpractice cases is to
decide - based on the evidence adduced and
expert opinion presented whether a breach
of duty took place.
.
Compliance
with
common
professional practice in a similar situation is
a strong evidence that the doctor has not
been negligent.
Doctors do not usually adopt a
practice unless it is consistent with the
degree of case required of them under the
circumstances
Negligence of Residents
Error of judgment will not necessarily
make the physician liable.
.
Physicians are not warrantors of
cures or insurers against personal injuries or
death of the patient. Difficulties and
uncertainties in the practice of profession
are such that no practitioner can guarantee
results.
2. When the physician's erroneous diagnosis
was the result of negligent conduct (e.g.,
neglect of medical history, failure to order
the appropriate tests, failure to recognize
symptoms), it becomes an evidence of
medical malpractice.
3. Error is possible as the exercise of
judgment is called for in considering and
reading the exhibited symptoms, the results
of tests, and in arriving at definitive
conclusions. But in doing all these, the
doctor must have acted according to
acceptable medical practice standards."
Expert Testimony
.
Expert testimony should be offered
to prove that the circumstances cited by the
courts below are constitutive of conduct
falling below standard of care employed by
other physicians in good standing when
performing the same operation.
What must be established?
1. The standard of care that the defendant
was bound to observe under the
circumstances;
2. That the defendant's conduct fell below
the acceptable standard; and
3. That the defendant's failure to observe
the industry standard caused injury to his
patient.
Res ipsa loquitur
.
It allows the mere existence of an
injury a presumption of negligence on the
part of the person who controls the
instrument causing the injury, provided that
the following requisites concur:
1. The accident is of a kind which
ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someone's negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality
within the exclusive control of the defendant
or defendants; and
3. The possibility of contributing
conduct which would make the plaintiff
responsible is eliminated.
Doctrine of Common Knowledge
Lost Chance Rule
.
One of the problem regarding
medical malpractice is the right to recover in
lost chance cases. The question is whether
the patient can recover for the lost
opportunity to obtain a better degree if
recovery.
Doctrine of Informed Consent
.
Unless excused, the doctor must
secure the consent of his patient to a
particular treatment or an investigative
procedure.
Consent is an integral part of the
physician-patient relationship and doctors re
duty bond to obtain the authorization for
care carried out in their offices or elsewhere.
However, consent of the patient may be
express or implied.
.
The Doctrine of Common Knowledge
is applied in the following cases involving
medical practitioners:
1. Where a patient who was
scheduled for a cholecystectomy
(removal of gall stones) but was
otherwise
healthy
suffered
irreparable brain damage after
being administered anesthesia
prior to the operation;
2. Where after giving birth, a woman
woke up with a gaping burn
wounds close to her left armpit;
3. The removal of the wrong body
part during the operation;
4. Where an operating surgeon left a
foreign object inside the body of
the patient.
Exception:
1. Emergency situation. Consent to
treatment generally need not to be
secured if time is of the essence.
2. Where the patient is unconscious or
otherwise incapable of consenting
and harm from failure to treat is
imminent and outweighs any harm
threatened by the proposed
treatment.
Elements of Liability:
a. Existence
of
doctor-patient
relationship;
b. The physician has a duty to disclose
material risk;
c. The physician failed to disclose or
inadequately disclosed those risks;
d. As a direct and proximate result of
the failure to disclose, the patient
consented to treatment she
otherwise would not have consented
to; and
e. The plaintiff was injured by the
proposed treatment.
Captain of the Ship Doctrine
.
The doctor cannot blame
assisting nurse for his own omission.
the
Liability of Hospitals
-



.
Between the hospital and the doctor
practicing within its premise.
Between the hospital and the patient
being treated or examined within its
premises.
Between the patient and the doctor.
Where an employment relationship
exists, the hospital may be held
vicariously liable under Article 2176 in
relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code
or the principle of respondent superior.
Even when no employment relationship
exists but it is shown that the hospital
holds out to the patient that the doctor
is its agent, the hospital may still be
vicariously liable under Article 2176 in
relation to Article 1431 and Article 1869
of the Civil Code or the principle of
apparent authority.
Moreover, regardless of its relationship
with the doctor, the hospital may be held
directly liable to the patient for its own
negligence or failure to follow
established standard of conduct to which
it should conform as a corporation."
may be held directly liable to the patient for
its own negligence or failure to follow
established standard of conduct to which it
should conform as a corporation."
The hospital has the duty to make a
reasonable effort to monitor and oversee
the treatment prescribed and administered
by the physicians practicing in its premises.
"The corporate negligence doctrine imposes
several duties on a hospital: (i) to use
reasonable care in the maintenance of safe
and adequate facilities and equipment; (ii) to
select and retain only competent physicians;
(iii) to oversee as to patient care all persons
who practice medicine within its walls; and
(iv) to formulate, adopt, and enforce
adequate rules and policies to ensure quality
care for its patients.
Nurses: RA No.9173
"Carries with it the profession's
responsibility
for
continuing
high
educational standards and the individual
nurse's responsibility to conduct herself or
himself in a professional manner. The
hallmark of the professional is the skill to
know the limits of one's professional
knowledge.
A nurse who assumes the care of a
patient must exercise that degree of skill,
care, and knowledge ordinarily possessed by
other nurses under the same circumstances.
The nurse must exercise her professional
judgment but such judgment must not
represent
a
departure
from
the
requirements of accepted nursing practice.
Pharmacist: RA No. 5921
Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility
.
.
.
The Court observed in Professional
Services, Inc. v. Agana, "0 that "regardless of
its relationship with the doctor, the hospital
Pharmacists are to use the degree of
care that persons of ordinary prudence
engaged in the profession are accustomed to
use under the same or similar
circumstances. The ordinary care required
has been further defined as the highest
practicable
degree
of
prudence,
thoughtfulness, and vigilance, and the most
exact and reliable safeguards consistent with
the conduct of the profession, in order that
human life may not constantly be exposed to
the danger flowing from the substitution of
harmful medicines for harmless ones.
Clinical Laboratories
Accountants
The accountant is liable based on
contract and quasi-delict for any negligent
act that caused damage or injury to its client.
The standard to be applied is that of
an ordinary accountant skilled in the
knowledge, science skill and practice of
accounting rendering his professional
services for his or her client.
.
Auditors
Need for a licensed physician:
The
rules requiring licensed
practitioners are intended for the protection
of the public by preventing performance of
substandard clinical examinations by
laboratories whose personnel are not
properly supervised. The public demands no
less than an effective and efficient
performance
of
clinical
laboratory
examinations through compliance with the
quality standards set by laws and
regulations. If the clinical laboratory lacks
the required license and personnel, the
operator of the clinical laboratory is deemed
negligent because violation of a statutory
duty is negligence.
Negligence of Lawyers
.
.
BASIS OF RESPONSIBILITY:
 CANON 18: A lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence
 CANON 18.03: A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
 SC: An attorney is not bound to
exercise extraordinary diligence, but
only a reasonable degree of care and
skill, having reference to the character
of the business he undertakes to do.
.
The financial statements are
representations of the client; but it is the
auditor who has the responsibility for the
accuracy in the recording of data that
underlies their preparation, their form of
presentation, and the opinion expressed
therein.
In general, an accountant's liability to third
person is determined by balancing various
factors, including extent to which
transaction was intended to affect the third
party, the foreseeability of harm to third
party, the closeness of the connection
between accountant's conduct and injury
suffered, the moral blame attached to the
accountant's conduct and the policy of
preventing future harm.
.
Q and A
.
What are the elements of liability for
medical malpractice?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Duty
Breach
Proximate causation
Injury
Let’s say that a doctor or hospital does not
have the license to practice medically? Can
he be civilly liable under the concept of
torts?
Yes. Even in the absence of the
requisites in medical malpractice such
doctor or hospital is liable because the
absence of medical license is a negligent act
per se in medical malpractice.
What if the doctor left a foreign
object/instrument inside the body of the
patient, and because of that foreign object
left in a body it causes damage to that
person. Do we need still to prove the
elements of medical malpractice?
No. When it comes to those cases,
under the control and supervision of the
doctor/hospital there is a prima facie
presumption under the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur. Which means that since there’s a
prima facie presumption of negligence,
there’s no need to prove all other elements
since the burden of proof now shifts to the
practitioner to prove that he is no negligent.
What if it was not the doctor who was not
the one who forgot, e.g. the nurse. Would
the doctor be liable?
Yes. Under the Captain of the ship
rule, despite the fact that he/she is not the
one who made the actual breach, he is liable.
Because he is responsible for everything that
should takes place within his jurisdiction or
within his control or supervision.
Allan, a grab driver, one night when he is
waiting for client over the platform.
Christine, a client, booked a ride. At first, it
was an ordinary booking but later on he
realize that Christine was his previous lover
during his law school days. When Allan
realize that fact, he then suddenly
experience a palpitation then Christine, a
registered nurse, sudden noted what’s
happening, to that effect the latter gives a
first aid to the former (CPR). Instead that
Allan gets into better condition, it got
worsen. Is Christine Liable?
No. Under the Good Samaritan Rule,
a person who comes to the aid of an injured
or ill person is protected from being sued for
contributory negligence as long as the
volunteer aid-giver acted with reasonable
care and in good faith. Christine would only
be liable if she is not permitted or license to
give such first aid.
NOTE:
Medical practitioner cannot be held liable
for a mere error in judgment.
NEGLIGENCE OF SELECTED
USINESS ORGANIZATIONS
Business Organization
.
.
.
• An entity formed for the purpose of
carrying on commercial enterprise or
generating profits
• Business enterprises customarily take one
of three forms: individual proprietorship,
partnership, or corporation.
1. Schools and Administrators
.

Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility
Every
corporation
which
undertakes to operate a business enterprise
which is of the kind and nature that it invites
the public to cater to its services, is bound to
ensure that those who avail of its services
are duly protected and that the corporation
has a duty to exercise reasonable care to
protect the availing public from harm when
he uses its facilities, including the obligation
to oversee and supervise all persons who
operate such facilities, as well as the
obligation to take an active step in
remedying the negligence committed within
its premises.
• Schools can be made directly liable for
negligence based on contract or quasi-delict
in the performance of their contractual
duties.
• Special Parental Authority (Family Code)
- Art. 218. The school, its
administrators and teachers, or the
individual, entity or institution engaged in
child care shall have special parental
authority and responsibility over the minor
child while under their supervision,
instruction or custody. Authority and
responsibility shall apply to all authorized
activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school, entity or institution.
- Art. 219. Those given the authority
and responsibility under the preceding
Article shall be principally and solidarily
liable for damages caused by the acts or
omissions of the unemancipated minor. The
parents, judicial guardians or the persons
exercising substitute parental authority over
said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
The respective liabilities of those
referred to in the preceding paragraph shall
not apply if it is proved that they exercised
the proper diligence required under the
particular circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this
and the preceding articles shall be governed
by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasidelicts.
a. Liability of schools based on contract .
• School-student relationship is contractual
in nature which gives rise to bilateral or
reciprocal rights and obligations.
“The school is still liable because all
academic institutions enter into a contract
with all its enrollees. Part of the obligations
of this contract is the providence of an
adequate atmosphere of safety for its
students to maintain peace and order.” (Phil.
School of Business Administration vs. CA)
b. Liability of schools for quasi-delict
.
• Even in the absence of contract, the school
may still be liable as employer under Article
2176 of the Civil Code.
• It was established that liability from tort
may still exist even if there is a contract,
because the act that breaks the contract may
also be a tort. (Regino vs. Pangasinan
Colleges of Science andTechnology)
1.01. Examples of negligence of Schools .
and Administrators
.
Exposing a student in danger
- Trapped in a comfort room
- Slipped on a wet floor due to water leak
- Accidents and injuries
2. Banks
.
• Public interest
• With meticulous care
• High degree of obligation
• Fiduciary nature
• Utmost fidelity
• Depositor may file action for damages
(Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA)
• Forgery in the check drawn against a bank
(Sec. 23 of NIL)
3.02. Security Agency and Guards
• “The guard and his security agency are
liable for the former’s negligence in handling
firearms.”(Safeguard Security Agency, Inc.
vs.Tangco)
• Solidary liability for damages imposed on
the security agency and security guard.
(Lamis vs.Ong)
4. RESORT and SWIMMING POOL
OPERATOR
3.01. Firearms Dealer
.
.
• Exercise of ordinary care and prudence in
the management and maintenance of
resorts, making them reasonably safe for
visitors. (Ong vs. Metropolitan Water
District”
5. Hotels
3. Firearms Related Negligence
.
.
.
.
• Higher degree of care (possession of
dangerous weapons or substances)
• Duty to take exceptional precautions to
prevent an injury
• Gun storeowner
- Presumed to be knowledgeable
about firearms safety
- Never keep a loaded weapon in
store
- Duty to ensure that all guns in his
store are not loaded
- Firearms should be stored
unloaded and separate from
ammunition
- Guns accepted by the store for
repair should not be loaded (Pacis
vs. Morales)
• Article 102, RPC Subsidiary civil liability of
innkeepers, tavern keepers and proprietors
of establishments. - In default of the persons
criminally liable, innkeepers, tavern keepers,
and any other persons or corporations shall
be civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation
of municipal ordinances or some general or
special police regulation shall have been
committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable
for the restitution of goods taken by robbery
or theft within their houses from guests
lodging therein, or for the payment of the
value thereof, provided that such guests
shall have notified in advance the innkeeper
himself, or the person representing him, of
the deposit of such goods within the inn; and
shall furthermore have followed the
directions which such innkeeper or his
representative may have given them with
respect to the care and vigilance over such
goods. No liability shall attach in case of
robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons unless committed by
the innkeeper's employees.
Necessary Deposit
.
• Article 1998. The deposit of effects made
by travellers in hotels or inns shall also be
regarded as necessary. The keepers of hotels
or inns shall be responsible for them as
depositaries, provided that notice was given
to them, or to their employees, of the effects
brought by the guests and that, on the part
of the latter, they take the precautions
which said hotel-keepers or their substitutes
advised relative to the care and vigilance of
their effects. (1783)
• Article 1999. The hotel-keeper is liable for
the vehicles, animals and articles which have
been introduced or placed in the annexes of
the hotel. (n)
• Article 2000. The responsibility referred to
in the two preceding articles shall include
the loss of, or injury to the personal property
of the guests caused by the servants or
employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as
well as strangers; but not that which may
proceed from any force majeure. The fact
that travellers are constrained to rely on the
vigilance of the keeper of the hotels or inns
shall be considered in determining the
degree of care required of him. (1784a)
• Article 2001. The act of a thief or robber,
who has entered the hotel is not deemed
force majeure, unless it is done with the use
of arms or through an irresistible force. (n)
• Article 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free
himself from responsibility by posting
notices to the effect that he is not liable for
the articles brought by the guest. Any
stipulation between the hotel-keeper and
the guest whereby the responsibility of the
former as set forth in articles 1998 to 2001 is
suppressed or diminished shall be void. (n)
6. Theater
.
Exercise of due diligence includes
compliance of laws such as:
• National Building Code
• Considered as a public assembly building
(Revised Fire Code of the Philippines)
Sec. 8, Fire Code
.
SECTION 8. Prohibited Acts. -The following
are declared as prohibited act and
omission:
a. Obstructing or blocking the exit ways or
across to buildings clearly marked for fire
safety purposes, such as but not limited to
aisles in interior rooms, any part of
stairways, hallways, corridors, vestibules,
balconies or bridges leading to a stairway or
exit of any kind, or tolerating or allowing said
violations;
b. Constructing gates, entrances and
walkways to building components and yards,
and temporary or permanent structures on
public ways, which obstruct the orderly and
easy passage of fire fighting vehicles and
equipment;
c. Prevention, interference or obstruction of
any operation of the fire service, or of duly
organized and authorized fire brigades;
d. Obstructing designated fire lanes or
access to fire hydrants;
e. Overcrowding or admission of persons
beyond the authorized capacity in movie
houses, theaters, coliseums, auditoriums or
other public assembly buildings, exception
other assembly areas on the ground floor
with open sides or open doors sufficient to
provide safe exits;
f. Locking fire exits during period when
people are inside the building;
g. Prevention or obstruction of the
automatic closure of fire doors or smoke
partitions or dampers;
h. Use of fire protective or firefighting
equipment of the fire service other than for
firefighting except in other emergencies
where their use are justified;
i. Giving false or malicious fire alarms;
accident is such as in the ordinary course of
events would not have happened if proper
care had been exercised, its occurrence
raises a presumption or permits of an
inference of negligence on the part of the
defendant.”(Gotesco Investment Corp. v.
Chatto)
7. Electric and Power Companies
a. Burning wires (Julian Del Rosario vs.
Meralco)
b. Sagging and dangling wires (Napocor vs.
Heirs of Noble Casionan)
j. Smoking in prohibited areas as may be
determined by fire service, or throwing of
cigars, cigarettes, burning objects in places
which may start or cause fire;
c. Dangerous place of installation and
uninsulated wires
8. Building Contractors
k. Abandoning or leaving a building or
structure by the occupant or owner without
appropriate safety measures;
l. Removing, destroying, tampering or
obliterating any authorized mark, seal, sign
or tag posted or required by the fire service
for fire safety in any building, structure or
processing equipment; and
m. Use of jumpers or tampering with
electrical wiring or overloading the electrical
system beyond its designated capacity or
such other practices that would tend to
undermine the fire safety features of the
electrical system.
a. Inference of Negligence
.
.
• “Where a patron of a theater or other
place of public amusement is injured, and
the thing that caused the injury is wholly and
exclusively under the control and
management of the defendant, and the
.
a. Contractual Obligations
• Contract for a piece of work
• Contractors of buildings are
contractually bound to the owners of
buildings or structures that they are
constructing.
- Liable for his negligent performance
of the contractual obligation to
construct the building
- Liable for not only his acts but also
for the works of persons employed
by him
Warranty against collapse of the building .
Article 1723, NCC The engineer or
architect who drew up the plans and
specifications for a building is liable for
damages if within fifteen years from the
completion of the structure, the same
should collapse by reason of a defect in
those plans and specifications, or due to the
defects in the ground. The contractor is
likewise responsible for the damages if the
edifice falls, within the same period, on
account of defects in the construction or the
use of materials of inferior quality furnished
by him, or due to any violation of the terms
of the contract. If the engineer or architect
supervises the construction, he shall be
solidarily liable with the contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after
completion, does not imply waiver of any of
the cause of action by reason of any defect
mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The action must be brought
within ten years following the collapse of the
building.
b. Liability for Quasi-delict to the Owner .
Defect – design or construction
• Article 2190. The proprietor of a building
or structure is responsible for the damages
resulting from its total or partial collapse, if
it should be due to the lack of necessary
repairs.
• Article 2191. 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. (1908)
• Article 2192. If damage referred to in the
two preceding articles should be the result
of any defect in the construction mentioned
in article 1723, the third person suffering
damages may proceed only against the
engineer or architect or contractor in
accordance with said article, within the
period therein fixed.
c. Liability to Third Persons
.
• Article 1727. The contractor is responsible
for the work done by persons employed by
him.
• Article 1728. The contractor is liable for all
the claims of laborers and others employed
by him, and of third persons for death or
physical injuries during the construction. The
contractor is liable for injuries that occur
after the construction of the building caused
by the negligent construction of the building.
d. Effect of Approval of Plans
by Building Official
.
.
Defect in the construction cannot be
justified by the approval of the structural
plans.
9. Towage
.
• One vessel is hired to bring another vessel
(boat, ship, barge), to another place. In
Maritime law, it refers to a service rendered
to a vessel by towing for the mere purpose
of expediting her voyage without reference
to any circumstances of danger.
• Observe due diligence of a good father of
the family
– The party that provides the service in
a contract of towage
- Can be held liable for damages
resulting from the loss suffered by the
obligee.
- Duty to ensure that its tugboat is free
of mechanical problems.
10. Stevedoring
.
• Refers to the act of loading or offloading
cargo to and/or from a ship
• Responsibility of the stevedore ends upon
the loading and stowing of the cargo in the
vessel.
• Stevedore is NOT a common carrier observe due diligence of a good father of the
family.
• Mainly provides labor in loading and
stowing of cargoes for its clients.
11. Common Carriers
.
• Bound to observe extraordinary diligence
• Common carriers shall be responsible for
all the loss, destruction or deterioration of
the goods UNLESS the same is due to any of
the following reasons:
1. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning,
or other natural disaster or calamity;
2. Act of the public enemy in war,
whether intentional or civil;
3. Act or omission of the shipper or
owner of the goods;
4. The character of the goods or defects
in the packing or in the containers; and
5. Order or act of competent public
authority.
a. Presumption
.
Common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault of have acted negligently even
in those cases where there is allegedly no
liability. Same presumption is present in case
of death or injuries to passengers. Burden of
proof rests with the carrier.
b. Privity
.
• Duty to exercise extraordinary diligence of
common carriers is usually owed to the
passenger and the shipper of goods.
• Case against common carrier is for the
enforcement of an obligation arising from
breach of contract
• Extraordinary diligence owed by common
carriers to third persons
c. Concurrence of Causes of Actions
.
• The same act which breached the contract,
gives rise to an action based on quasi-delict.
• Presumption of negligence does not apply
if the action is one based on quasi-delict.
11.01 Trains
.
Carrier is liable for damage or injury caused
to the passenger and/or third persons when:
1. The injury was sustained because its
platform was unsafe;
2. The railroad tracks were poorly
maintained or were defective causing
the derailment of the train;
3. The railroad company did not exercise
due care in preventing damage to the
properties near the tracks;
4. There was negligent in maintaining the
railroad crossings; or
5. The damage resulted because the
train was over speeding.
a. Duties of a Person Approaching
Railroad Crossing
.
.
General rule:
The rights and obligations between
the public and the railroad company at a
public crossing are mutual and reciprocal.
.
Q and A
.
How can then the school scape the principal
and solidary liability imposed upon them
under the special parental authority?
None. Special authority and
corporate responsibility is different because
in corporate responsibility the possible
liability of the school is subsidiary liability.
While in special authority the liability is
principal and solidary. So it means that if
that’s the case, what are the defenses
applicable. Except they prove that they
exercise due diligence that the law
mandated.
What if there’s a waiver signed by the
parents of the student and an accident
happened and causes injury, will the school
be still held liable?
Yes. Such waiver will not defeat the
very purpose of the law and it will not form
any waiver insofar as any possible injury may
be inflicted upon the person of the student if
in case the school or the teachers who are
assigned to that particular student are
negligent. In addition, it is against public
policy.
When does a robbery/theft can be
considered as exoneration of liability of
hotelkeepers/owners?
When it is the employees of the hotel
are the ones who committed the theft.
When it is done with use of firearms
and irresistible force – robbery.
Under Article 2180 it speaks of vicarious
liability, now, in educational institution
when we speaks of vicarious liability as
provided by Art. 2180, who is the
person/institution primarily liable?
It is the school who is primary and
solidarily liable under vicarious liability
because they have the supervision on the
selection of the employees that they will
hire.
For example there is a taxi driver, such
driver nakasaga and cause injury to that
person. To that effect, the victim sue the
driver for a criminal offense and sue the
employer of the taxi driver for civil liability.
Now, the employer contends that the driver
should be adjudged first that it is negligent,
meaning that there should a conviction first
to the driver before the victim may go
against the employer as regards to the civil
case. Is the contention of the employer
correct?
No. The sources of their liability are
different. The nature of liability of the
employer with respect to the civil case for
torts and/or contracts is vicarious liability to
the negligent act of his employee.
When will the liability of the employer be
subsidiarily liable with the liability of his
employee?
When it comes to criminal cases,
after the judgment of conviction against the
driver/employee and such driver/employee
does not have the capacity to answer for
damages, that is the case when the liability
of the employer is subsidiarily liable with his
employee. But when it comes to civil case, it
is not needed to have a final judgment for
the negligence of the employee to
determine the liability of the employer.
NOTE:
There should be no double recovery. We
should not profit from our injuries.
Even if in the presence of the contract, if
there’s a contract that exist between the
school and the student if it’s the tort itself
that breaks the contract the school may be
liable under quasi-delict.
The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from
responsibility by posting notices to the effect
that he is not liable for the articles brought
by the guest. Any stipulation between the
hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the
responsibility of the former as set forth in
articles 1998 to 2001 is suppressed or
diminished shall be void. (n)
DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASE
.
Contents of this chapter
- Defenses which may be raised by
the defendants in negligence cases.
Defenses may either be:
.
1. Partial Defenses
• defenses that may either mitigate
liability
• include contributory negligence
2. Complete Defenses
• completely bar recovery
• include assumption of risk and
fortuitous
Plaintiff’s conduct
.
quite strong, and he feared that the banca,
which had a high prow, might collide with
the plane and damage either the wing or the
pontoon thereof.
It appears that at the moment the
pontoons touched bottom and while the
pilot was signalling to the banca, the plaintiff
unfastened the straps around him and, not
even waiting to put on his hat, climbed over
the door to the lower wing, went down the
ladder to the pontoon and walked along the
pontoon toward the revolving propeller. The
propeller first grazed his forehead and, as he
threw up his arm, it was caught by the
revolving blades thereof and so injured that
it had to be amputated.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own
negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages.
But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendants lack
of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the court shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded.
Plaintiff’s Own Negligence as the
Proximate Cause
.
.
Kim vs Philippine Aerial Taxi
FACTS:
The plaintiff disembarked from an
airplane that landed in the waters of
Guimaras Island. When the pilot observed
that a banca was approaching rapidly on the
right hand side of the plane, he arose,
signalled and shouted to the boatman to
keep his banca at a distance from the plane,
inasmuch as the waves and current were
liable
RULING:
The Court ruled that the plaintiff
acted with reckless negligence in
approaching the propeller while it was still
in motion, and when the banca was not yet
in a position to take him. The plaintiff's
negligence alone was the direct cause of
the accident and he alone should suffer the
consequences of his act.
Proximate Cause
Is defined as 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.
Contributory Negligence
Comparative Negligence Rule
- Extent of Mitigation
Contributory Negligence mitigates liability
- Test of Negligence
.
Comparative Negligence Rule
.
Include any rule under which the
relative degree of negligence of the parties is
considered in determining whether, and to
what degree, either should be responsible
for his negligence.
Doctrine of Contributory Negligence .
The negligence of the defendant,
which contributes to his injury, completely
bars recovery
NOTE: The contributory negligence rule in
common law is different from the concept of
contributory negligence under the New Civil
Code.
Doctrine of Comparative Negligence .
Does not completely bar recovery
but merely mitigates the same.
NOTE: The Supreme Court sustained in
various cases different percentage of
mitigation: -20%, 40% or 50%
Test of Negligence
.
Test of Negligence – FORESEEABILITY
when a party’s act showed lack of ordinary
care and foresight that such an act could
cause him harm or put his life in danger
"There is contributory negligence when the
party's act showed lack of ordinary care and
foresight that such act could cause him harm
or put his life in danger."
Contributory negligence is defined as
conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he
has suffered, which falls below the standard
to which he is required to conform for his
own protection.
How to prove?
Contributory Negligence
Mitigates Liability
.
.
Contributory Negligence is defined as
conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he
has suffered, which falls below the standard
to which he is required to conform for his
own protection.
Result: Mitigation of liability
Extent of Mitigation
Who will determine
Mitigation?
Court
the
extent
.
of
Establish a causal link, although not
proximate, between the negligence of the
party and the succeeding injury.
JOSE CANGCO v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.
FACTS:
Cangco was alighting from a moving
train when he stepped on a sack of
watermelons on the platform, causing him
to fall and be drawn under the train. His right
arm was crushed and subsequently
amputated. He filed an action for damages
against Manila Railroad, claiming negligence
on the part of the company. CFI denied his
claim, citing contributory negligence. But the
SC held that Manila Railroad was liable, not
because of a quasi-delict (culpa extra
contractual), but on account of breach of the
contract of carriage (culpa contractual)
between the company and Cangco.
RULING:
The SC held that in a case of
negligence which presupposes the existence
of a contractual obligation, the plaintiff
should only prove that the contract exists
and that the defendant has breached it—it is
not necessary for the plaintiff to prove
negligence. As such, it is obvious that proof
on the part of defendant that the negligence
or omission of his servants or agents caused
the breach of the contract would NOT
constitute a defense to the action.
The facts averred show a contract of
carriage. It is not necessary for Cangco to
specify in his pleadings whether the breach
of the contract is due to willful fault or to
negligence on the part of the Manila
Railroad or of its employees. Proof of the
contract and of its nonperformance is
sufficient prima facie to warrant a recovery.
Manila Railroad is liable due to its
breach of its contract of carriage with
Cangco, not by reason of vicarious liability
due to its employees’ negligence. Thus, it
cannot excuse itself from liability by showing
that it exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of its employees.
Imputed Contributory Negligence
.
Some points to consider:

NEGLIGENCE IS IMPUTED if
the actor is different from the person
who is being made liable. This rule is
applicable where the negligence was
on the part of the person for whom
the plaintiff is responsible, and
especially, by negligence of an
associate in the transaction where
he was injured.
 RESULT: the defendant will be
subject to mitigated liability even if
the plaintiff was not himself
personally negligent but because the
negligence of another is imputed to
the plaintiff.
MASTER – SERVANT RELATIONSHIP
 Imputed negligence of employer in a
master-servant
relationship
is
instructive.
 Master may be held for his servant's
wrongful act. The law imputes to the
master the act of the servant, and if
that act is negligent or wrongful and
proximately results in injury to a third
person, the negligence or wrongful
conduct is the negligence or
wrongful conduct of the master, for
which he is liable.
Yamada vs The Manila Railroad Co.
FACTS:
Butaro Yamada et al hired a taxi
owned and operated by Bachrach
Garage & Taxicab Co. so that they may
travel to Cavite Viejo
The journey to Cavite Viejo was made
without incident but, on the return trip,
while crossing the tracts of defendant
railroad company in the barrio of San
Juan, Cavite Viejo, the automobile was
struck by a train and the plaintiffs were
injured. The defendant railroad company
argued that the plaintiffs cannot recover
for the reason that the negligence of the
driver of the automobile, if any, was
imputable to them, they having
permitted the driver to approach and
pass over the railroad crossing without
the use of ordinary care and diligence to
determine the proximity of a train, and
having made no effort to caution or
instruct him or compel him to take
reasonable care in making the crossing.
ISSUE:
Who are liable for damages in the
instant case.
RULING:
It was established that the driver was
negligent. Manila Railroad and its
employees are not negligent as showed
by
the
evidence
which
were
uncontroverted hence no liability can be
had against them.
Bachrach Garage however is liable
for damages as an employer. Bachrach
Garage did not perform its full duty when
it furnished a safe and proper car and a
driver with a long and satisfactory
record. It failed to comply with one of the
essential requirements of the law of
negligence in this jurisdiction, that of
supervision and instruction, including
the promulgation of proper rules and
regulations and the formulation and
publication of proper instructions for
their guidance in cases where such rules
and regulations and instructions are
necessary.
A. When there is no Imputed
Contributory Negligence?
.
.
The negligence of a driver, who, in
turn, is guilty of contributory negligence,
cannot be imputed to a passenger who has
no control over him in the management of
the vehicle and with whom he sustains no
relation of master and servant. This rule is
applied more strictly when, hired cars or
those engaged in public service, are
involved."
B. Imputed Negligence to Plaintiff
as Proximate Cause
.
e
If the master is injured by the
negligence of a third person and by the
concurring negligence of his own servant or
agent, the latter’s negligence is imputed to
his superior and will defeat the superior’s
claim against the third person if the
negligence is the proximate cause.
C. Violation of Statute or Victim’s Agent .
 Negligence per se EXCEPT if provided by
law otherwise
 Depend on:
• Merely contributory negligence
• Proximate cause
• Neither contributory nor proximate
cause.
Neither Contributory Negligence
Nor Proximate Cause
.
.
 The absence of proper lights on a
bicycle at night, as required by
statute or ordinance, may constitute
negligence barring or diminishing
recovery if the bicyclist is struck by a
motorist as long as the absence of
such lights was a proximate cause of
the collision;
 However, the absence of such lights
will not preclude or diminish
recovery if the scene of the accident
was well illuminated by streetlights,
if substitute lights were present
which clearly rendered the bicyclist
visible, if the motorist saw the bicycle
in spite of the absence of lights
thereon, or if the motorist would
have been unable to see the bicycle
even if it had been equipped with
lights.
Assumption of Risk:
1. Plaintiff must know that the risk is
present.
2. He must further understand its
nature.
3. His choice to incur it is free and
voluntary.
Assumption of Risk
 the standard to be applied is
subjective
 about voluntariness (knowingly and
voluntarily assuming a risk or if one
had a choice)
Primary Assumption of Risk
Exceptions:
1. If emergency is found to exist.
2. If the life/property of another is in
peril or seeks to rescue his endangered
property.
Assumption of Risk
.
“Means that one who voluntarily
exposes himself to an obvious, known and
appreciated danger assumes the risk of
injury that may result therefrom. It rests on
the fact that the person injured has
consented to relieve the defendant of an
obligation of conduct toward him and to
take his chance of injury from a known risk,
and whether the former has exercised
proper caution or not is immaterial.”
In other words, it is based on
voluntary consent, express or implied, to
accept danger of a known and appreciated
risk; it may sometimes include acceptance of
risk arising from the defendant's negligence,
but one does not ordinarily assume risk of
any negligence which he does not know and
appreciate.
Doctrine of Contributory Negligence .
 the standard to be applied is
objective
 deals with reasonableness of the
conduct of the plaintiff
.
- The law assumes that there are
risks that are deemed assumed. Hence, the
question to be resolved no longer starts with
the determination if the risk was voluntarily
assumed but goes directly into the question
of whether the risk that the plaintiff took is
an inherent part of the activity.
Example:
Where
a
person
voluntarily
participates in a lawful game or contest, he
is deemed to have voluntarily assumed the
ordinary risks of such game or contest so as
to preclude recovery from the promoter or
operator of the game or contest for injury or
death resulting therefrom. Proprietors of
amusements or of places where sports and
games are played are not insurers of safety
of the public nor of their patrons.
Kinds:
1. Express waiver of right to recover
Express Consent Perspective
i. Before negligent act – invalid
ii. After negligent act – valid
iii. Future fraud – invalid
iv. Exemplary damages – invalid
2. Implied assumption
3. Dangerous conditions
4. Incident of contractual relations
- Defense of employer in tort case
filed by employee
5. Dangerous activities
- Awareness of risk assessed against
background of skill and expertise
6. Defendant’s negligence
- If plaintiff voluntarily decided to
encounter it.
1. Express Consent Perspective
.
GENERAL RULE: There is assumption of risk
if the plaintiff, in advance, has expressly
waived his right to recover damages for the
negligent act of the defendant. He has given
his express consent to relieve the defendant
of an obligation of conduct toward him, and
to take his chances of injury from a known
risk arising from what the defendant has to
do or leave undone.
Example:
If the plaintiff received a warning
that it is still dangerous to take the vehicle
from the repair shop because the repairs are
still untested, there would be an express
assumption of risk if he nevertheless took
the vehicle from the shop with the express
waiver of liability in favor of the proprietor.
EXCEPTION: Rights can be waived unless the
waiver is contrary to law, public order, public
policy, morals or good customs, or
prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law.
1. Future fraud - waiver of the right to
recover damages that will arise
through future fraud is void under
Article 1171.
2. Waiver and Quit Claim - the victim
did not understand the document
that she signed. She also did not
understand the nature and extent of
her waiver as the content of the
document was not explained to her.
The waiver is therefore void because
it is contrary to public policy.
3. Effect of Free and Harmless Clause parties to a contract can stipulate
that one party holds the other free
and harmless from any claim of third
persons. However, injured third
persons are not bound by the
contractual stipulation and can still
sue both contractual parties when
both of them were negligent.
4. Minority - written waiver by a minor
was not an effective form of express
or implied consent. Minors does not
comprehend the risk involved in a
known situation because of his
youth, or lack of information or
experience and thus will not be
taken to consent to assume the risk.
Implied Assumptions
.
1. Dangerous Conditions & Activities
2. Contractual Relations
3. Employment
4. Joining Sports Events
5. Defendant’s Negligence
1. Dangerous Conditions & Activities person who, knowing that he is exposed to a
dangerous condition, voluntarily assumes
the risk of such dangerous condition may not
recover from the defendant who maintained
such dangerous conditions.
2. Contractual Relations - entering into a
contractual
relationship
freely
and
voluntarily where the negligence of the
defendant is obvious, the plaintiff may be
found to accept and consent to it, and
relieve the defendant of the duty.
3. Employment - based on the implied
consent of the employee to accept or
continue in the employment after becoming
aware of the risk which resulted in his injury.
4. Joining Sports Events - where a person
voluntarily participates in a lawful game or
contest, he assumes the ordinary risks of
such game or contest so as to preclude
recovery from the promoter or operator of
the game or contest for injury or death
resulting
therefrom.
Proprietors
of
amusements or of places where sports and
games are played are not insurers of safety
of the public nor of their patrons. Example:
professional athletes
5. Defendant’s Negligence - when the
plaintiff is aware of the risk created by the
defendant's negligence, yet he voluntarily
decided to proceed to encounter it.
Fortuitous Events
.
Under Article 1174 of the New Civil Code, a
person is not liable if the cause of damage
was fortuitous; an event which could not be
foreseen, or which though foreseen, was
inevitable
Fortuitous event may either be:
• Act of God
• Natural Occurrences - floods or
typhoons
• Act of Man - riots, strikes or wars
Elements of Fortuitous Events
2. Event must be impossible to foresee, if
not, impossible to avoid;
3. Occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner;
4. Obligor free from any aggravation of the
injury resulting to the creditor.
Fortuitous Event
.
Effect of Negligence:
 The negligence of the defendant
which concurred with the fortuitous
event or which resulted in the
aggravation of the injury of the
plaintiff will make him liable even if
there was a fortuitous event.
 When an act of God combines or
concurs with the negligence of the
defendant to produce an injury, the
defendant is liable if the injury would
not have resulted but for his own
negligent conduct or omission. The
whole occurrence is humanized and
removed from the rules applicable to
acts of God
Mitigation Due to Fortuitous Event:
 Even if the defendant is still liable
because of its concurring negligence,
courts may equitably mitigate the
damages if the loss, even in part,
would have resulted in any event
because of the fortuitous event.
.
Effect of Death of Defendant
1. Cause of unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence or failure of the debtor to comply
with his obligation must be independent of
human will;
.
NOTE: DEATH NOT A DEFENSE!
 Death of the defendant will not
extinguish the obligation based on
quasi-delict.
 In fact, an action survives even if the
defendant dies during the pendency
of the case if the said case is an
action to recover for an injury to
persons or property by reason of tort
committed by the deceased.
 The case will continue through the
legal representative who will
substitute the deceased
Rules of Court Provisions:
.
Section 16 of Rule 3 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that whenever a
party to a pending action dies, and the claim
is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the
duty of his counsel to inform the court within
30 days after such death of the fact thereof,
and to give the name and address of his legal
representative or representatives. Failure of
counsel to comply with this duty shall be a
ground for disciplinary action.
Section 16 of Rule 3 further provides
that the court shall order the legal
representative or representatives to appear
and be substituted within a period of 30 days
from notice. If no legal representative is
named by the counsel for the deceased party
or if the one so named shall fail to appear
within the specified period, the court may
order the opposing party, within a specified
time, to procure the appointment of an
executor or administrator for the estate of
the deceased and the latter shall
immediately appear for and on behalf of the
deceased. The court charges in procuring
such appointment, if defrayed by the
opposing party, may be recovered as costs.
Prescription
When period commences?
.
The prescriptive period for quasi-delict is
four (4) years counted from the date of the
accident.
Right of Action accrues when there exists a
cause of action, which consists of three
elements:
a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by
whatever means and under
whatever law it arises or is created;
b) an obligation on the part of the
defendant to respect such right; and
c) an act or omission on the part of
such defendant violative of the right
of the plaintiff.
The prescriptive period must be counted
when the last element of commission of an
act or omission violative of the right of the
plaintiff occurs, which is the time when the
cause of action arises.
Doctrine Of Relations Or
Relations Back Doctrine
.
.
The doctrine should be applied
where the injury was discovered long after
the accident. The offended party should not
be prejudiced in such case and the
prescriptive period should commence to run
only upon discovery of the injury. It is not
unusual that the effect of the negligent act is
latent and may become apparent only after
quite some time. Thus, if the injury becomes
apparent only after several years, the
prescriptive period should commence to
run only after discovery.
Example:
A doctor negligently transfused
blood to a patient that was contaminated
with HIV. If the effect became apparent only
after five years, the four-year prescriptive
period should commence only when it was
discovered after five years and not when the
negligent act was committed.
Effect of Prescription on Other
Sources of Obligation
.
.
The prescription of the action ex
quasi delicto or quasi-delict does not
operate as a bar to an action to enforce the
civil liability arising from crime.
Involuntariness
.
1. OTHER SOURCES OF OBLIGATION
There is no specific provision dealing with
the effect of involuntariness in quasidelictual actions.
 LAW ON CONTRACTS - force and
intimidation result in vitiated
consent and the resulting contract is
considered voidable.
 REVISED PENAL CODE - the person
acting because of the force or
intimidation employed upon him is
subsidiarily liable to the offended
party. In such a case, however, the
liability is not based on negligence
but may be classified as strict liability.
2. COMPLETE DEFENSE
Involuntariness is a complete defense in
quasi-delict cases and the defendant is
therefore not liable if force was exerted on
him. (self-preservation is the first law of
nature.)
Example:
Defendant was forced to drive his
vehicle by armed men. He was, at pain of
death, forced to drive at a very fast clip
because the armed men were escaping from
policemen. It is believed that the defendant
cannot be held liable, if a bystander is hit as
a consequence.
State of Most Significant Relationship Rule .
To determine the State which has the most
significant relationship, the following
contacts are to be taken into account:
(a) the place where the injury occurred;
(b) the place where the conduct causing
the injury occurred;
(c) the domicile, residence, nationality,
place of incorporation and place of
business of the parties; and
(d) the place where the relationship, if
any, between the parties is centered
Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals
FACTS:
Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA) hired
Milagros Morada as a Flight Attendant for its
airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. While
on a lay-over in Jakarta, Morada went to a
disco with fellow crew members Thamer &
Allah, both Saudi nationals. Because it was
almost morning when they returned to their
hotels, they agreed to have breakfast
together at the room of Thamer. In which
Allah left on some pretext. Thamer
attempted to rape Morada but she was
rescued by hotel personnel when they heard
her cries for help. Indonesian police came
and arrested Thamer and Allah, the latter as
an accomplice.
Through the intercession of Saudi
Arabian government, Thamer and Allah
were deported and, eventually, again put in
service by SAUDIA. But Morada was
transferred to Manila.
Morada filed a complaint for damages
against SAUDIA, with the RTC of QC. SAUDIA
filed Omnibus Motion to Dismiss which
raised the ground that the court has no
jurisdiction, among others which was denied
ISSUE:
Whether RTC of QC has jurisdiction
to hear and try the case
RULING:
YES. The Situs is the Philippines
where the tort is committed (lex loci delicti
commissi), it is in the Philippines where the
defendant allegedly deceived the plaintiff, a
citizen residing and working here and the
fact that certain acts or parts of the injury
occurred in another country is of no
moment, for what is important is the place
where the over-all harm or the totality of the
injury to the person, reputation, social
standing and human rights of the plaintiff
had lodged. However there is the
widespread criticism of the traditional rule
of lex loci delicti commissi.
Apply State of the Most Significant
Relationship Rule:
1) The place where the injury occurred
2) The place where the conduct causing
the injury occurred
3) The domicile, residence, nationality,
place of incorporation and place of business
of
the parties;
4 The place where the relationship, if
any, between the parties is centered
The Philippines is the situs of the tort
complained of and the place "having the
most interest in the problem", the
Philippine Law on tort liability should have
paramount application to and control in the
resolution of the legal issues arising therein
in view of the foregoing.
1) The respondent is a resident Filipina
National
2) The petitioner is a resident foreign
corporation engage here in the business of
international air carriage
3) The relationship was centered in the
Philippines
4) The Philippines has the most
significant contact with the matter in this
dispute
5) The Philippines is the situs of the tort
complained of
6) The Philippines has the most interest
in the problem
7) The RTC has jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter of the
complaint.
.
Q and A
.
Regarding to mitigating circumstances, e.g.
involving mitigating circumstances, what
would be mitigated? Is it the damage or the
amount of damage?
The
mitigated.
award
damages
will
be
NOTE:
There are instances where there are times
that the victim are also at fault, it is not
because someone died, it is already your
liability.
We cannot profit from our injuries.
CAUSATION
.
I. Proximate Cause
.
- is that cause which produces the injury in
natural, continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause. In short,
Proximate cause is the dominant, moving, or
producing cause. Under Torts law, may
kadikit na element ng foreseeability, which
as discussed prior, inquires whether a
person could or should reasonably have
foreseen the harms that resulted from their
actions.
-That cause which in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury,
without which the result would not have
occurred.
- Proximate cause has been defined in this
case as ‘any cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
result complained of and without which
would not have occurred and from which it
ought to have been foreseen or reasonably
anticipated by a person of ordinary case that
the injury complained of or some similar
injury, would result therefrom as a natural
and probable consequence. (Pilipinas Bank
v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 105410 July 25,
1994])
Pilipinas Bank v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105410, July 25, 1994
FACTS:
Florencio Reyes issued postdated
checks to Winner Industrial Corporation
(P20,927.00) and Vincent Tui (P11,419.50) as
payments for the purchased shoe materials
and rubber shoes. To cover the face value of
the checks, Reyes requested PCIB Money
Shop’s manager to effect the withdrawal of
32k from his savings account and have it
deposited with his current account with
Pilipinas Bank. Roberto Santos was
requested to make the deposit.
In depositing in the name of Reyes,
Santos inquired from the teller Reyes’
current account number to complete the
deposit slip he was accomplishing. He was
informed that it was “815” so that was the
number he placed on the slip. Noting that
the account number coincided with the
name “Florencio,” Efren Alagasi (Pilipinas
Bank Current Account Bookkeeper) thought
it was for Florencio Amador, so he posted
the deposit in the account of Amador.
The check in favor of Winner was
presented for payment. Since Reyes’ ledger
indicated that his account only had 4k~
balance, the check was dishonored. This
check was redeposited 4 days later but it was
dishonored again. This also happened with
the check issued in Tui’s favor. Tui returned
the check to Reyes and demanded a cash
payment of its face value. This prompted
Reyes to confront Pilipinas Bank, and only
then did the bank noticed the error. The
32,000 posted in Amador’s account was
transferred to Reyes’ account upon being
cleared by the former that he did not effect
a deposit of 32,000.
The bank then honored the checks,
but private respondent Reyes proceeded to
file a complaint for moral damages. The trial
court ordered herein petitioner to pay the
damages, as upheld by the Court of Appeals
with modification.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred
in not applying Art. 2176 of NCC that it was
Reyes’ own representative who committed
the mistake in writing down the account
number.
HELD:
No. The Court held that the cause-infact is the negligence of petitioner's
employee in erroneously posting the cash
deposit of private respondent in the name of
another depositor who had a similar first
name. The bank employee, deemed to have
failed to exercise the degree of care required
in the performance of his duties.
No. The Court held that the cause-infact is the negligence of petitioner's
employee in erroneously posting the cash
deposit of private respondent in the name of
another depositor who had a similar first
name. The bank employee, deemed to have
failed to exercise the degree of care required
in the performance of his duties.
Proximate cause has been defined in
this case as ‘any cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
result complained of and without which
would not have occurred and from which it
ought to have been foreseen or reasonably
anticipated by a person of ordinary case that
the injury complained of or some similar
injury, would result therefrom as a natural
and probable consequence. In the case at
bench, the proximate cause of the injury is
the negligence of petitioner's employee in
erroneously posting the cash deposit of
private respondent in the name of another
depositor who had a similar first name.
Proximate Cause as Distinguished from .
Remote Cause
it is defined as ‘that cause which
some independent force merely took
advantage of to accomplish something not
the natural effect thereof. In short, hindi siya
ang proximate cause and will never be
considered as is dahil auxiliary event lang
siya na nangyari independent of proximate
cause. That said, the remote cause doesn’t
necessarily transpire after the proximate
cause, or that causes prior to the occurrence
of damages is presumed to be the proximate
cause.
That cause which some independent
force merely took advantage of to
accomplish something not the natural effect
thereof.
Nearest Cause
That cause which is the last link in the
chain of events; the nearest in point of time
or relation. Proximate cause is not
necessarily the nearest cause but that which
is the procuring efficient and predominant
cause.
Concurrent Causes
Where several causes producing an
injury are concurrent and each is an efficient
cause without which the injury would not
have happened, the injury may be attributed
to all or any of the causes and recovery may
be had against any or all of the responsible
persons although under the circumstances
of the case, it may appear that one of them
was more culpable, and that the duty owed
by them to the injured person was not the
same. No actor's negligence ceases to be a
proximate cause merely because it does not
exceed the negligence of other actors. Each
wrongdoer is responsible for the entire
result and is liable as though his acts were
the sole cause of the injury.
The proximate cause is not
necessarily the sole cause of the accident.
The defendant is still liable in case there is
concurrent causes brought about by acts or
omissions of third persons. The actor is not
protected from liability even if the active and
substantially simultaneous operation of the
effects of a third person’s innocent, tortious
or criminal act is also a substantial factor in
bringing about the harm so long as the
actor’s negligent conduct actively and
continuously operate to bring about harm to
another.
In the same vein, the primary cause
remains the proximate cause even if there is
an intervening cause which merely
cooperated with the primary cause and
which did not break the chain of causation.
II. Tests of Proximate Cause
.
CAUSE–IN–FACT
In determining the proximate cause of
the injury, it is first necessary to determine if
defendant’s negligence was the cause-infact of the damage to the plaintiff. If
defendant’s negligence was not a cause-infact, the inquiry stops; but if it is a cause-infact, the inquiry shifts to the question of limit
of liability of the defendant. In other words,
the question of proximate cause does not
only involve cause and effect analysis. It also
involves policy considerations that limit the
liability of the defendants in negligence
cases.
1. ‘But For’ Test
The ‘But For’ test requires a
plaintiff to establish that the act
complained of probably caused the
subsequent disability.
The test applied to determine
whether negligent conduct was the
efficient, or proximate cause of the
injury or loss suffered by the claimant
is whether such conduct is a cause
without which the injury would not
have taken place, or is the efficient
cause which set in motion the chain
of circumstances leading to the
injury.
2. Substantial Factor Test
It is the rule that if the actor's
conduct is a substantial factor in
bringing about harm to another, the
fact that the actor neither foresaw
nor should have foreseen the extent
of the harm or the manner in which
it occurred does not prevent him
from being liable.
NOTE: If the defendant’s conduct
was already determined to be the
cause in fact of the plaintiff’s damage
under the but-for test, it is
necessarily the cause-in-fact of the
damage under the substantial factor
test. In other words, if the accident
would not have occurred had there
been no negligence of the part of the
defendant, the defendant’s conduct
is a substantial factor in bringing
about the damage or injury.
NECESSARY ELEMENT OF A SUFFICIENT SET
(NESS) TEST
This test is especially effective in solving
problems regarding concurrent causes. In a
sense, this is a modified “But-For test”.
Under this test, the negligent act of omission
is a cause-in-fact of the damage if it is a
necessary element of a sufficient set. The
candidate condition may still be termed as a
cause where it is shown to be a necessary
element in just one of several co-present
causal set each independently sufficient for
the effect.
1. Duplicatives Causation
When two or more sets
operate simultaneously to produce
the effect; the effect is overdetermined.
2. Pre-emptive Causation
When, though coming about
first in time, one causal set trumps
another potential set lurking in the
background; the causal potency of
the latter is frustrated.
POLICY TEST
The law, as a matter of policy, may limit the
liability of the defendant to certain
consequences of his action. If the damage or
injury to the plaintiff is beyond the limit of
the liability fixed by law, the defendant’s
conduct cannot be considered the proximate
cause of the damage. Such limit of liability is
determined by applying what are known as
policy tests. The policy tests which are being
used to determine the extent of the
defendant’s liability for negligence includes
the following:
1. Foreseeability test
2. Natural and probable consequence
test
3. Natural and ordinary or direct
consequences test
4. Hindsight test;
5. Orbit of risk test
6. The substantial factor test
III. Efficient Intervening Cause
.
Efficient Intervening Causes are
causes that destroys the causal connection
between the negligent act and injury and
thereby negatives liability. An intervening
cause, to be considered efficient, must be
one not produced by a wrongful act or
omission, but independent of it, and
adequate to bring the injurious results. It
must break the continuity of causal
connection between the original negligent
act or omission and the injury so that the
former cannot be said to have been the
efficient cause of the latter.
There is no efficient intervening
cause if the force created by the negligent
act or omission have either:
1. Remained active itself;
2. Created another force which
remained active until it directly
caused the result, or;
3. Created a new active risk of being
acted upon by the active force that
caused the result.
Phoenix Construction, Inc., et. al. v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, et. al.
G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987
FACTS:
At about 1:30 a.m. on November 15,
1975, private respondent Leonardo Dionisio
was on his way home from cocktails and
dinner meeting with his boss. He was
proceeding down General Lacuna Street
when he saw a Ford dump truck parked
askew, partly blocking the way of oncoming
traffic, with no lights or early warning
reflector devices. The truck was driven
earlier by Armando Carbonel, a regular
driver of the petitioner company. Dionisio
tried to swerve his car to the left, but it was
too late. He suffered some physical injuries
and nervous breakdown.
Dionisio filed an action for damages
against Carbonel and Phoenix Insurance.
Petitioners countered the claim by imputing
the accident to respondent’s own negligence
in driving at high speed without curfew pass
and headlights, and while intoxicated. The
trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in
favor of private respondent.
At about 1:30 a.m. on November 15,
1975, private respondent Leonardo Dionisio
was on his way home from cocktails and
dinner meeting with his boss. He was
proceeding down General Lacuna Street
when he saw a Ford dump truck parked
askew, partly blocking the way of oncoming
traffic, with no lights or early warning
reflector devices. The truck was driven
earlier by Armando Carbonel, a regular
driver of the petitioner company. Dionisio
tried to swerve his car to the left, but it was
too late. He suffered some physical injuries
and nervous breakdown.
Dionisio filed an action for damages
against Carbonel and Phoenix Insurance.
Petitioners countered the claim by imputing
the accident to respondent’s own negligence
in driving at high speed without curfew pass
and headlights, and while intoxicated. The
trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in
favor of private respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether the collision was brought
by respondent’s own negligence.
consequence of the truck driver's
negligence. The defendant cannot be
relieved from liability by the fact that the risk
or a substantial and important part of the
risk, to which the defendant has subjected
the plaintiff has indeed come to pass.
Foreseeable intervening forces are within
the scope original risk, and hence of the
defendant's negligence. The courts are quite
generally agreed that intervening causes
which fall fairly in this category will not
supersede the defendant's responsibility.
Thus, a defendant who blocks the sidewalk
and forces the plaintiff to walk in a street
where the plaintiff will be exposed to the
risks of heavy traffic becomes liable when
the plaintiff is run down by a car, even
though the car is negligently driven; and one
who parks an automobile on the highway
without lights at night is not relieved of
responsibility when another negligently
drives into it.
The Court holds that private
respondent Dionisio's negligence was "only
contributory," that the "immediate and
proximate cause" of the injury remained the
truck driver's "lack of due care" and that
consequently respondent Dionisio may
recover damages though such damages are
subject to mitigation by the courts.
Cause and Condition
.
HELD:
No. The Court held that Dionisio is
guilty of contributory negligent but the legal
and proximate cause of the collision was
brought about by the way the truck was
parked. The legal and proximate cause of the
accident and of Dionisio's injuries was the
wrongful or negligent manner in which the
dump truck was parked in other words, the
negligence of petitioner Carbonel.
The collision of Dionisio's car with the
dump truck was a natural and foreseeable
Courts have sought to distinguish
between the active “cause” of the harm and
the existing “conditions” upon which that
cause operated. If the defendant has created
only a passive static condition which made
the damage possible, the defendant is said
not to be liable. But so far as the fact of
causation is concerned, in the sense of
necessary antecedents which have played an
important part in producing the result, it is
quite impossible to distinguish between
active forces and passive situations,
particularly since, as is invariably the case,
the latter are the result of other active forces
which have gone before (Phoenix
Construction vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court).
Types of Dangerous Conditions
.
First One (Those that inherently dangerous)
Includes things which are inherently
dangerous because they retain their
potential energy in full, even if they are
stored or handled with utmost care.
The smallest application of force, or
small change in conditions can release or
otherwise set in motion large forces that can
cause harm in the narrow sense of that term
Second One (Those where a person places a
thing which is not dangerous in itself, in a
dangerous position)
Includes cases where objects are
placed in such a way that other people’s
right of way is not recognized.
Third One (Those involving products and
other things which are dangerous because
they are defective)
Includes defective construction of a
building.
NOTE:
A cause is not an intervening cause if it is
already in operation at the time the
negligent act is committed
Foreseeable Intervening Causes
ordinary human experience is reasonably to
be anticipated, or one which the defendant
has reason to anticipate under the particular
circumstances, the defendant may be
negligent, among other reasons, because of
failure to guard against it; or the defendant
may be negligent only for that reason.
.
A Foreseeable Intervening Causes
exists if the intervening cause is one which in
Medical Treatment
As Intervening Cause
.
.
Under this principle, a tortfeasor is
liable for the consequence of negligence,
mistake, or lack of skill of a physician or
surgeon whose treatment aggravated the
original injury. The same is considered a
normal and foreseeable risk.
The rule is based on the reasoning
that the additional harm is either: (1) a part
of the original injury, (2) the natural and
probable consequences of the tortfeasor’s
original negligence or (3) the normal
incidence of medical care necessitated by
the tortfeasor’s original negligence.
Filomeno Urbano v. Intermediate
Appellate Court
G.R. No. 72964, January 7, 1988
FACTS:
Marcelino Javier opened the
irrigation of a canal by means of cutting grass
which caused the flooding of the storage
area of the petitioner. Petitioner got angry
and demanded Javier to pay for the soaked
palay. Javier refused and a quarrel between
them ensued. Urbano unsheathed his bolo
and hacked Javier hitting him on the right
hand and left leg. Javier went to the hospital
for the treatment of the wounds. Two weeks
after, Javier returned to his farm and tended
to his tobacco plants.
Then, on a fateful day of November
14, Javier was rushed to the hospital.
Doctors findings showed that he was
suffering from tetanus infection. The next
day, Javier died. RTC and CA found the
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
homicide. Petitioner raised the case to the
SC arguing that the cause of the death of
Javier was due to his own negligence.
ISSUE:
Whether Urbano’s action was the
proximate cause of the death of Javier.
HELD:
No. Pursuant to this provision “an
accused is criminally responsible for acts
committed by him in violation of law and for
all the natural and logical consequences
resulting therefrom. The rule is that the
death of the victim must be the direct,
natural, and logical consequence of the
wounds inflicted upon him by the accused.
The petitioner reiterates his position
that the proximate cause of the death of
Marcelo Javier was due to his own
negligence, that Dr. Mario Meneses found
no tetanus in the injury, and that Javier got
infected with tetanus when after two weeks
he returned to his farm and tended his
tobacco plants with his bare hands exposing
the wound to harmful elements like tetanus
germs. Consequently, Javier’s wound could
have been infected with tetanus after the
hacking incident.
Considering
the
circumstance
surrounding Javier’s death, his wound could
have been infected by tetanus 2, 3 or a few
but not 20 to 22 days before he died. The
medical findings, however, lead the Court to
a distinct possibility that the infection of the
wound by tetanus was an efficient
intervening cause later or between the time
Javier was wounded to the time of his death.
The infection was, therefore, distinct and
foreign to the crime.
Proximate legal cause is that acting
first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by setting other events in
motion, all constituting a natural and
continuous chain of events, each having a
close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural
and probable result of the cause which first
acted, under such circumstances that the
person responsible for the first event should,
as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent
person, have reasonable ground to expect at
the moment of his act or default that an
injury to some person might probably result
therefrom.
Unforeseen and Unexpected Act or Cause .
An unforeseen and unexpected act of
a third person may not be considered
efficient intervening cause if it is duplicative
in nature or if it merely aggravated the injury
that resulted because of a prior cause. The
same conclusion can be reached if the third
person’s act is part of the causal set,
together with defendant’s negligence, that
operated to cause the injury.
IV. Contributory Negligence
.
It is the conduct on the part of the
injured party, contributing as a legal cause to
the harm he has suffered, which falls below
the standard to which he is required to
conform for his own protection
Plaintiff’s Negligence is the Cause
In this situation defendant’s act or
omission is neither necessary nor sufficient
to cause damage or injury. This situation
may include the cases when only the plaintiff
was negligent while the defendant is not
negligent or defendant’s negligence is not
part of the causal set or the causal chain.
Another situation included in the first group
are cases when plaintiff’s negligence is preemptive in nature.
the doctrine of avoidable consequences, as
the case may be.
Compound Causes
There might be compound causes
and plaintiff’s negligence may have
duplicative effect, that is, it is sufficient to
bring about the effect but his negligence
occurs simultaneously with that of the
defendant. The latter’s negligence is equally
sufficient but not necessary for the effect
because the damage would still have
resulted due to the negligence of the
plaintiff. It is submitted that in these cases,
no recovery can be had. The plaintiff’s
negligence is not merely contributory
because it is a concurring proximate cause.
Under this doctrine, where both parties
are negligent but the negligent act of one is
appreciably later in point of time than that of
the other, or where it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence
brought about the occurrence of the
incident, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the impending harm
but failed to do so, is chargeable with the
consequences arising therefrom. The
following are the requisites:
Part of the Same Causal Set
Neither plaintiff’s negligence nor
defendant’s negligence alone is sufficient to
cause the injury; the effect would result only
if both are present together with normal
background conditions. Negligence of the
plaintiff cooperated with the negligence of
the defendant in order to bring about the
injury; determination of proximate cause is
only a matter of degree of participation.
Defendant’s Negligence is the Only Cause
The defendant’s negligence may be
sufficient and necessary to cause the
damage and plaintiff’s act or omission is
neither necessary nor sufficient. Damage to
the plaintiff was solely the result of the
defendant’s negligence. However, the
plaintiff’s negligence may have increased or
aggravated the resulting damage or injury. In
this particular case, the liability of the
defendant should also be mitigated under
the contributory negligence rule or under
V. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
.
1. Plaintiff was in a position of danger
by his own negligence;
2. Defendant knew of such position of
the plaintiff;
3. Defendant had the last clear chance
to avoid the accident by exercise of
ordinary care but failed to exercise
such last clear chance, and;
4. Accident occurred as proximate
cause of such failure.
ALTERNATIVE VIEWS
Prevailing Doctrine
Even if the plaintiff was guilty of
antecedent negligence, the defendant is still
liable because he had the last clear chance of
avoiding injury.
The law is that the person who has
the last fair chance to avoid the impending
harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without reference to the
prior negligence of the other party.
Minority View
The historical function of the
doctrine was to mitigate the harshness of
the common law rule of contributory
negligence which prevented any recovery at
all by the plaintiff who was also negligent
even if his negligence was relatively minor as
compared with the wrongful act or omission
of the defendant.
Third View
There can be no conflict between the
doctrine of last clear chance and doctrine of
comparative negligence if the former is
viewed as a rule or phrase of proximate
cause; however, the doctrine of last clear
chance is no longer applicable if the force
created by the plaintiff’s negligence
continues until the happening of the
injurious event.
Cases when the Doctrine was Applied .
The doctrine is being applied for the
purpose of determining the proximate cause
of the accident. The Supreme Court do not
relate the doctrine of the last clear chance to
the rule on contributory negligence or
comparative negligence. In fact, in most
cases, the Supreme Court used the doctrine
in determining if the negligence of the
defendant was the proximate cause and that
of the plaintiff as contributory.
crossing the bridge, the cargo truck and the
jeep collided as a consequence of which
Engineer Calibo died while Roranes and
Patos sustained physical injuries. Zacarias
was unhurt. As a result of the impact, the left
side of the truck was slightly damaged while
the left side of the jeep, was extensively
damaged. After the impact, the jeep fell and
rested on its right side on the asphalted road
a few meters to the rear of the truck, while
the truck stopped on its wheels on the road.
A case for damages was filed by the
surviving spouse and children of the late
Engineer Calibo against the driver and
owners of the cargo truck with the CFI of
Bohol. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the
complaint “for insufficiency of evidence”
The Court of Appeals saw things
differently. It rendered judgment 9 on the
plaintiffs’ appeal, reversing the decision of
the Trial Court. It found Zacarias to be
negligent and his negligence “gave rise to
the presumption of negligence on the part of
his employer, and their liability is both
primary and solidary.” It therefore ordered
“the defendants jointly and solidarily to
indemnify the plaintiffs. The defendants
have appealed to this Court on certiorari and
pray for a reversal of the judgment of the IAC
which, it is claimed, ignored or ran counter
to the established facts.
ISSUE:
Glan People’s Lumber And Hardware, Et.
Al. V. IAC, Et. Al.
G.R. No. 70493, May 18, 1989
FACTS:
Engineer Calibo, Roranes, and Patos
were on the jeep, with Calibo at the wheel,
as it approached a bridge going towards the
direction of Davao City. At about that time,
the cargo truck, Zacarias coming from the
opposite direction of Davao City had just
crossed said bridge. At about 59 yards after
Whether the doctrine of last clear
chance is applicable in this case.
HELD:
Yes. Even, however, ignoring these
telltale indicia of negligence on the part of
Calibo, and assuming some antecedent
negligence on the part of Zacarias in failing
to keep within his designated lane,
incorrectly demarcated as it was, the
physical facts would still absolve the latter of
any actionable responsibility for the accident
under the rule of the last clear chance.
Both drivers, as the Appellate Court
found, had had a full view of each other’s
vehicle from a distance of 150 meters. The
truck had been brought to a stop while the
jeep was still thirty meters away. From these
facts the logical conclusion emerges that the
driver of the jeep had what judicial doctrine
has appropriately called the last clear chance
to avoid the accident, while still at that
distance of thirty meters from the truck, by
stopping in his turn or swerving his jeep
away from the truck, either of which he had
sufficient time to do while running at a speed
of only thirty kilometers per hour. In those
circumstances, his duty was to seize that
opportunity of avoidance, not merely rely on
a supposed right to expect the truck to
swerve and leave him a clear path.
Cases when the Doctrine in Inapplicable .
The instances that the Doctrine of Last
Clear Chance is inapplicable? Those are as
follows:
1. If the plaintiff was not negligent.
2. The party charged is required to act
instantaneously, and if the injury
cannot be avoided by the application
of all the means at hand after the
peril is or should have been
discovered.
3. If defendant’s negligence is a
concurrent cause and which was still
in operation up to the time the injury
was inflicted.
4. Where the plaintiff, a passenger,
filed an action against a carrier based
on contract.
5. If the actor, though negligent, was
not aware of the danger or risk
brought about by the prior fraud or
negligent act.
Bustamante v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 89880, February 6, 1991
FACTS:
At about 6:30 in the morning of April
20, 1983, a collision occurred between a
gravel and sand truck, with Plate No. DAP
717, and a Mazda passenger bus with Motor
No. Y2231 and Plate No. DVT 259 along the
national road at Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite. The
front left side portion (barandilla) of the
body of the truck sideswiped the left side
wall of the passenger bus, ripping off the said
wall from the driver’s seat to the last rear
seat. Due to the impact, several passengers
of the bus were thrown out and died as a
result of the injuries they sustained.
The trial court held that the negligent
acts of both drivers contributed to or
combined with each other in directly causing
the accident which led to the death of the
passengers. It could not be determined from
the evidence that it was only the negligent
act of one of them which was the proximate
cause of the collision. In view of this, the
liability of the two drivers for their
negligence must be solidary. The Court of
Appeals ruled on the contrary, it held that
the bus driver had the last clear chance to
avoid the collision and his reckless
negligence in proceeding to overtake the
hand tractor was the proximate cause of the
collision.
ISSUE:
Whether the Doctrine of Last Clear
Chance applies in the case at bar.
HELD:
No. The principle of “last clear
chance” applies “in a suit between the
owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. It
does not arise where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations. For it would be
inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of
the jeepney and its owners on the ground
that the other driver was likewise guilty of
negligence.”
Furthermore,
as
between
defendants: The doctrine cannot be
extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as
a test of whether only one of them should be
held liable to the injured person by reason of
his discovery of the latter’s peril, and it
cannot be invoked as between defendants
concurrently negligent. As against third
persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by
pleading that another had negligently failed
to take action which could have avoided the
injury.
NOTE:
In applying the test of proximate cause, it is
like a stage, it should not be applied
separately and you cannot choose what test
to apply. The first thing to look for is the
cause-in-fact test, it was the test that will
determine if there’s a proximate cause. The
first question is “was the defendant the
cause in fact” or “mag o-occur ba yung injury
or damage dahil sa ginawa ni defendant”, if
NO, the defendant has no liability. If YES, the
next question is what is policy is applicable.
Because after the determination that
defendant’s action is the proximate cause of
the injury, the next thing to determine is the
extent of liability of the defendant, in such
case, the policy test will apply.
In substantial factor test, we only
used this kind of test when there’s a
concurring causes. It is use to determine
among which causes is the proximate cause
of that damage or injury to determine who is
the one liable.
HUMAN RELATIONS: INTENTIONAL TORTS .
General Concepts
.
It is so broad that it covers cases that are
considered contrary to morals under Article
21
CATCH ALL PROVISIONS
Principle of Abuse of Rights
Article 19
Every person must, in the exercise of
his rights and in the performance of
his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith
Article 20
Every person who, contrary to law,
willfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify
the latter for the same.
Article 21
Any person who willfully causes loss
or injury to another in a manner that
is contrary to morals, good
customers or public policy shall
compensate the latter of damages.
Article 19
.
Every person must, in the exercise of
his rights and in the performance of his
duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Article 19 is believed to be a mere
declaration of principles that are being
implemented by other provisions. It declares
the principle of law; It lays down a rule of
conduct for the government of human
relations and for the maintenance of social
order, but it does not provide a remedy for
its violation; It is not the basis of an
actionable tort.
It describes the degree of care
required so that an actionable tort may arise
when it is alleged together with Article 20
and 21
.
A person has the right to exercise his
rights, but in so doing, he must be mindful of
the rights of another and if he causes
damage to another; he can be liable for
damages.
The rule allowing the recovery for
abuse of right is a departure from the
traditional view that a person is not liable for
damages resulting from the exercise of one’s
right.
It prescribes that a person should not
use his right unjustly or in bad faith,
otherwise he opens himself to liability for
damages
Elements of Abuse of Rights:
1. There is a legal right or duty
2. The legal right or duty is exercised in
bad faith; and
3. The exercise is for the sole intent of
prejudicing or injuring another
4. The complainant was prejudiced or
injured as a result of the said exercise
or performance by the defendant
Test of Abuse of Rights
1. Dependent on circumstances of each
case.
2. Rests on court’s sound discretion
NOTE:
1. There is not hard and fast rule which can
be applied to determine whether the
principle of abuse of rights may be invoked.
a. Modern jurisprudence does not
permit acts which although not
unlawful, are anti-social. There is
undoubtedly an abuse of right when
a legal right is exercised in bad faith
and for the sole purpose of
prejudicing or injuring another.
When the objective of the actor is
illegitimate, the illicit act cannot be
concealed under the guise of
exercising a right
b. The exercise of a right must be in
accordance with the purpose for
which it was established and must
not be excessive or unduly harsh.
Every abnormal exercise of a right,
contrary to it’s socio-economic
purpose, is an abuse that will give
rise to liability.
2. The courts, in the exercise of their
discretion, will have to determine all the
facts and circumstances when the exercise
of a right is unjus, or when there has been an
abuse of right.
Cases when there is Abuse of Rights
a. Abuse of Rights of Creditors
b. Abuse of Right of Principal
c. Abuse of Right of Agents
d. Abuse of Right of Public Officers
e. Abuse of Court Processes
f. Abuse of Right by Contracting Party
g. Deprivation of Water Service
h. Abuse of Right of Schools
Abuse of Rights of Creditors
Velayo v. Shell Co
ISSUE:
Can Shell Company in the Philippines be
made liable to pay for damages to the other
creditors?
Ruling:
Yes, because it did not show good faith and
honesty, invoking Article 19 of the New Civil
Code, which provides that “every person
must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith.
PNB vs Court of Appeals
Where the bank refused to approve the
lease of sugar quota by its debtormortgagor, knowing that the agricultural
year was about to expire at which time the
mortgagor would not be able to utilize the
mortgaged sugar quota although the
difference between the price demanded by
the bank and the proposed lease was only a
small amount (about 200 pesos) and hardly
anybody was willing to lease at a higher rate.
Abuse of Right of Principal
.
▣ A creditor taking advantage of his
knowledge
that
insolvency
proceedings will be instituted by the
debtor.
▣ A bank refused to approve the lease
of sugar quota by its debtormortgagor just because it wanted to
raise the consideration for the lease.
.
▣ A principal unreasonable terminated
a general agency agreement so that
it can appropriate the insurance
business of the agent and receive the
commission
Arturo Valenzuela v. CA
We agree with the court a quo that the
principal cause of the termination of
Valenzuela as General Agent of Philamgen
arose from his refusal to share his Delta
commission. The records sustain the
conclusions of the trial court on the
apparent bad faith of the private
respondents in terminating the General
Agency Agreement of petitioners. It is
axiomatic that the findings of fact of a trial
judge are entitled to great weight and should
not be disturbed on appeal unless for strong
and cogent reasons, because the trial court
is in a better position to examine the
evidence as well as to observe the demeanor
of the witnesses while testifying. In the case
at bar, the records show that the findings
and conclusions of the trial court are
supported by substantial evidence and there
appears to be no cogent reason to disturb
them (Mendoza v. Court of Appeals. 156
SCRA 597 [1987]).
Abuse of Right of Agents
.
▣ An agent took advantage of their
position when they bought the
housing units for themselves and
violating the trust reposed to them as
negotiators on behalf of the tenants.
Abuse of Right of Public Officers
.
▣ A public officer who had authority to
approve clearances of resigning
employees did not issue a clearance
to one employee but issued the same
to all other employees who were
similarly situated.
Llorente vs Sandiganbayan
The general rule is that this Court is
bound by the findings of fact of the
Sandiganbayan.
As we said, the acts of the petitioner
were legal (that is, pursuant to procedures),
as he insists in this petition, yet it does not
follow, as we said, that his acts were done in
good faith. For emphasis, he had no valid
reason to "go legal" all of a sudden with
respect to Mr. Curio, since he had cleared
three employees who, as the Sandiganbayan
found, "were all similarly circumstanced in
that they all had pending obligations when,
their clearances were filed for consideration,
warranting similar official action."
The Court is convinced that the
petitioner had unjustly discriminated against
Mr. Curio.
It is no defense that the petitioner
was motivated by no ill-will (a grudge,
according to the Sandiganbayan), since the
facts speak for themselves. It is no defense
either that he was, after all, complying
merely with legal procedures since, as we
indicated, he was not as strict with respect
to the three retiring other employees. There
can be no other logical conclusion that he
was acting unfairly, no more, no less, to Mr.
Curio.
It is the essence of Article 19 of the
Civil Code, under which the petitioner was
made to pay damages, together with Article
27, that the performance of duty be done
with justice and good faith. In the case of
Velayo vs. Shell Co. of the Philippines, 13 we
held the defendant liable under Article 19 for
disposing of its propertv — a perfectly legal
act — in order to escape the reach of a
creditor. In two fairly more recent cases,
Sevilla vs. Court of Appeals 14 and
Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, 15 we held
that a principal is liable under Article 19 in
terminating the agency — again, a legal act
— when terminating the agency would
deprive the agent of his legitimate business.
We believe that the petitioner is
liable under Article 19.
Abuse of Court Processes
.
▣ Petitioners
commenced
the
demolition of the house of the
respondents under the authority of a
writ of demolition that was issued by
the trial court.
▣ The winning party in a court litigation
did not give the occupants of the
house sought to be demolished
sufficient time to remove their
personal belongings.
Abuse of Right by Contracting Party
.
▣ The petitioner terminated its hauling
contract with the respondent
because the latter sympathized with
the picketing workers of the
petitioner.
Petrophil v. Court of Appeals
Two questions must initially be
resolved: (1) whether or not the hauling
contract needed interpretation, and (2)
whether petitioner was guilty of arbitrary
termination of the contract, which would
entitle Dr. Cruz to damages.
On the first issue, we agree with
petitioner that the contract clearly provided
for two ways of terminating the contract,
and, one mode does not exclude the other.
Although the contract provided for causes
for termination, it also stated in paragraph
11 that the contract was for an indefinite
term subject to the right of Petrophil to
terminate it any time after a written notice
of 30 days. When the language of a contract
is clear, it requires no interpretation.15
Thus, the finding that the termination of the
contract was "for cause", is immaterial.
When petitioner terminated the contract
"without cause", it was required only to give
Dr. Cruz a 30-day prior written notice, which
it did in this case.
However, we differ with petitioner
on the second issue. Recall that before
Petrophil terminated the contract on May
25, 1987, there was a strike of its employees
at the Pandacan terminal. Dr. Cruz and her
husband were seen at the picket line and
were reported to have instructed their truck
drivers not to load petroleum products. At
the resumption of the operation in Pandacan
terminal, Dr. Cruz's contract was suspended
for one week and eventually terminated.
Based on these circumstances, the Court of
Appeals like the trial court concluded that
Petrophil terminated the contract because
of Dr. Cruz's refusal to load petroleum
products during the strike. In respondent
court's view, the termination appeared as a
retaliation or punishment for her
sympathizing with the striking employees.
Nowhere in the record do we find that
petitioner asked her to explain her actions.
Petrophil simply terminated her contract.
These factual findings are binding and
conclusive on us, especially in the absence of
any allegation that said findings are
unsupported by the evidence, or that the
appellate and trial courts misapprehended
these facts.16 In terminating the hauling
contract of Dr. Cruz without hearing her side
on the factual context above described, a
petitioner opened itself to a charge of bad
faith. While Petrophil had the right to
terminate the contract, petitioner could not
act purposely to injure private respondents.
In BPI Express Card Corporation vs. CA, 296
SCRA 260, 272 (1998), we held that there is
abuse of a right under Article 19 if the
following elements are present: 1) there is a
legal right or duty; 2) which is exercised in
bad faith; 3) for the sole purpose of
prejudicing or injuring another. We find all
these three elements present in the instant
case. Hence, we are convinced that the
termination by petitioner of the contract
with Dr. Cruz calls for appropriate sanctions
by way of damages.
Deprivation of Water Service
.
▣ MWSS sent a notice of investigation
to the plaintiff prior to the
disconnection of the latter’s water
services but this was done only a few
hours
before
the
actual
disconnection.
MWSS vs Act Theater
While it is true that MWSS had sent a notice
of investigation to plaintiff-appellee prior to
the disconnection of the latters water
services, this was done only a few hours
before the actual disconnection. Upon
receipt of the notice and in order to
ascertain the matter, Act sent its assistant
manager Teodulo Gumalid, Jr. to the MWSS
office but he was treated badly on the flimsy
excuse that he had no authority to represent
Act. Acts water services were cut at midnight
of the day following the apprehension of the
employees.Clearly, the plaintiff-appellee
was denied due process when it was
deprived of the water services.As a
consequence thereof, Act had to contract
another source to provide water for a
number of days.Plaintiff-appellee was also
compelled to deposit with MWSS the sum of
P200,000.00 for the restoration of their
water services.
There is, thus, no reason to deviate
from the uniform findings and conclusion of
the court a quo and the appellate court that
the petitioners act was arbitrary, injurious
and prejudicial to the respondent, justifying
the award of damages under Article 19 of
the Civil Code.
Abuse of Rights of Schools
.
▣ An educational institution is guilty of
misleading a student into believing
the latter had satisfied all the
requirements for graduation when
such is not the case.
UE vs Jader
Educational institutions are duty-bound to
inform the students of their academic status
and not wait for the latter to inquire from
the former. The conscious indifference of a
person to the rights or welfare of the
person/persons who may be affected by his
act or omission can support a claim for
damages.10 Want of care to the conscious
disregard of civil obligations coupled with a
conscious knowledge of the cause naturally
calculated to produce them would make the
erring party liable.11 Petitioner ought to have
known that time was of the essence in the
performance of its obligation to inform
respondent of his grade. It cannot feign
ignorance that respondent will not prepare
himself for the bar exams since that is
precisely the immediate concern after
graduation of an LL.B. graduate. It failed to
act seasonably. Petitioner cannot just give
out its student's grades at any time because
a student has to comply with certain
deadlines set by the Supreme Court on the
submission of requirements for taking the
bar. Petitioner's liability arose from its
failure to promptly inform respondent of the
result of an examination and in misleading
the latter into believing that he had satisfied
all requirements for the course. Worth
quoting is the following disquisition of the
respondent court.
Cases when there is No Abuse of Right .
a. Absolute Rights
b. Rights of the Corporation and its
officers and Directors
c. Exercise of Rights Included in
Ownership
d. Rights of Schools, Teachers and
Administrator
e. Right to Sue
f. Contracting Parties
Absolute Rights
.
▣ The refusal to enter into a contract
NOTE: Absolute Rights can never be the basis
of liability
Rights of the Corporation and its Officers .
and Directors
.
▣ The petitioner was removed as
executive director by the board of
the society in accordance with the
constitution and by-laws.
▣ A nonstock corporation sending
demand letters to its member for the
payment of unpaid charges when the
tenor of the letters do not deviate
from the standard practice.
Exercise of Rights Included in Ownership .
▣ An owner of a lot that adjoins the
highway fenced his property.
NOTE: No abuse of right was committed
although the tenants in the inner lot can no
longer pass through his property. In the
absence of an easement of right of way, the
owner is free to enclose his property even if
damage to another will result. (Damnun
Absque Injuria)
Rights of Schools, Teachers,
and Administrator
.
.
▣ The Department Head, Assistant
Division Superintendent and the
Principal placed a teacher in the list
of excess teacher, but the action was
not motivated by undue motives
▣ A school did not confer upon a
student a degree with honors.
NOTE:
There was no abuse of right because
the action is not motivated by undue
motives
Conferment of honors is an exercise
of discretion. However if these was already
an order from a superior officer to allow a
person to graduate with honors, the officer
who failed to implement the order is liable
for damages for neglect of duty.
Right to Sue
.
▣ A plaintiff who rejected the
defendants offer of settlement and
subsequently filed an action for
collection.
Contracting Parties
.
▣ Refusal of a party to renew a
distributionship agreement
▣ Cancellation of provisions of Project
Management Agreement when the
agreement
allowed
unilateral
cancellation
▣ Foreclosure of a mortgaged property
of a debtor
Article 20
.
Every person who, contrary to law,
willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
Scope:
▣ Violations of existing law
▣ Covers all legal wrongs done in
violation of law, whether willfully or
negligently.
NOTE:
It pervades (spread through and
perceived in every part of) the entire legal
system, and renders it impossible that a
person who suffers damage because
another violated some legal provisions,
should find himself without relief
It furnishes general sanction for
violations of other laws which do not
specifically provide any sanction, penalty or
liability for such violation but nevertheless
violates certain rudimentary rights of the
injured or aggrieved party.
It also provides the legal basis for the
award of damages to a person who suffers
damage whenever another commits a
violation of some legal provision
It concerns violations of existing law
as basis for an injury.
It allows recovery should the act have
been willful or negligent
Willful may refer to which is
considered by the plaintiff in tort action as
injurious
Negligence may refer to a situation
where the act was consciously done but
without intending the result which the
plaintiff considers as injurious
The rule allowing the recovery for
abuse of right is a departure from the
traditional view that a person is not liable for
damages resulting from the exercise of one’s
right
It prescribes that a person should not
use his right unjustly or in bad faith,
otherwise he opens himself to liability for
damages
The rule in Article 20 (together with Article
21) complements the principle of abuse of
rights enumerated in Article 19
Conduct under Article 20 may be
both a crime and a quasi-delict - a felony
may be committed by means of deceit (when
performed with deliberate intent) or by
means of fault or negligence.
(Art 3 of RPC) ARTICLE 3. Definition.
— Acts and omissions punishable by law are
felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed
not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also
by means of fault (culpa).
If the fault or negligence does not
constitute a penal offense, the actor is liable
only for quasi-delict under Article 2176
ART. 2176. Whoever by act or
omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done.
Article 21
.
Any person who willfully causes loss
or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customers or public
policy shall compensate the latter of
damages.
NOTE:
It requires that the act be willful that
there was an intention to do the act and a
desire to achieve the outcome.
The legal issues revolve around
whether such outcome should be
considered a legal injury on the part of the
plaintiff or whether the commission of the
act was done in violation of the standards of
care required in Article 19
Acts Contra Bonus Mores
.
A loss or injury is caused by acts
which are not necessarily proscribed by law.
It seeks to remedy the “countless gaps in the
statutes, which leave so many victims of
moral wrongs helpless, even though they
have actually suffered mental and moral
injury.” (Globe Mackay Cable v. Court of
Appeals)
Breach of Promise to Marry
.
General Rule: Breach of promise to marry by
itself is not actionable.
Exception: It becomes actionable if there are
additional circumstances that make it fall
within the purview of Article 19, 20,21 or
2176 of the New Civil Code.
NOTE:
▣ Broad Coverage
□ It gives adequate legal remedy for
that untold number of moral wrongs
which is impossible for human
foresight to provide for specifically in
the statutes.
□ It includes injurious acts that are
contrary to public policy but are not
forbidden by statute
NOTE:
The rule allowing the recovery for abuse of
right is a departure from the traditional view
that a person is not liable for damages
resulting from the exercise of one’s right
It prescribes that a person should not use
his right unjustly or in bad faith, otherwise
he opens himself to liability for damages
▣ Rationale
□ “a prudent earnest of justice in the
face of impossibility of enumerating,
one by one, all wrongs which cause
damage.”
Elements of Acts Contra Bonus Mores:
1. There is an act which is legal
2. The act is contrary to morals, good
custom, public order or public policy;
and
3. The act is done with intent to injure
These include cases where:
1. There was financial damage – one of
parties incurred expenses for the
wedding and other incidents thereof
2. Social humiliation was caused to one
of the parties – the parties set the
wedding and went through all the
preparations and publicity but one of
the parties walked out of it when the
matrimony was about to be
solemnized.
3. Where there was moral seduction –
although moral seduction is not
punishable, it connotes essentially
the ideo of deceit, enticement,
superior power or abuse of
confidence on the part of the seducer
Action may prosper if the breach was
done in such manner that is clearly contrary
to good morals (Bunag Jr v. Court of Appeals)
Claim for damages rejected because there
was no moral seduction (Constantino v.
Mendez)
Action for damages will prosper if
there is fraud (Gashem Shookat Baksh v.
Court of Appeals)
In pari delicto rule does not apply in
breach of promise to marry cases where the
defendant is guilty of moral seduction
(Gashem Shookat Baksh v. Court of Appeals)
Seduction and Sexual Assault
.
Seduction, by itself, without breach
of promise to marry is an act contrary to
morals, good customs and public policy.
NOTE:
The defendant is liable if he employed
deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse
of confidence in successfully having sexual
intercourse with another.
Desertion by a Spouse
.
A spouse has a legal obligation to live
with his or her spouse. He/She may be held
liable if he does not perform his or her duty
to the other.
Trespass and Deprivation of Property
.
▣ It is a tort committed when a person
unlawfully invades the real property
of another, or a person is deprived of
his personal property even in the
absence of criminal liability
▣ Trespass to and/or deprivation of
real property
▣ Trespass to Personal Property
NOTES:
Damages may be awarded to the real
owner is he suffered damages because he
was deprived possession of his property by a
possessor in bad faith or by a person who
does not have any right over the property.
There is view that trespass may be
committed even in good faith.
Example:
A employs a surveyor of recognized
ability to make a survey of his land. The
survey shows that a particular strip of land is
within his boundaries. In consequence, A
clears this land of timber and prepares it for
cultivation. In act, the survey is mistaken and
the strip in question is part of the tract
owned by his neighbor, B. A is subject to
liability to B.
It is believed, however, that Article
448 of the Civil Code in relation to Article
456, does not permit an action for damages
where the builder, planter or sower acted in
good faith. The landowner is limited only to
the options given to him under Article 448,
that is, to appropriate whatever was built or
planted or to compel the builder or planter
to purchase the portion of the lot enrouched
upon. The law does not allow recovery of
damages in either case. This is consistent
with the basic rule on accession continua
that a person in good faith is not liable but
responsible. There is only liability if the
builder in good faith acted negligently.
[2]Accession Continua – the right
pertaining to the owner of a thing over
everything that is incorporated or attached
thereto either naturally or artificially; by
external forces.
Article 448
The owner of the land on which
anything has been built, sown or planted in
good faith, shall have the right to
appropriate as his own the works, sowing or
planting, after payment of the indemnity
provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to
oblige the one who built or planted to pay
the price of the land, and the one who
sowed, the proper rent. However, the
builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy
the land if its value is considerably more than
that of the building or trees. In such case, he
shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the
land does not choose to appropriate the
building or trees after proper indemnity. The
parties shall agree upon the terms of the
lease and in case of disagreement, the court
shall fix the terms thereof.
Article 456
In the cases regulated in the
preceding articles, good faith does not
necessarily exclude negligence, which gives
right to damages under article 2176.
Trespass may include cases covered
by accession continua with respect to
movable property where the person who
took possession of the property of another
was in bad faith.
In the case of Magbanua v. IAC, it was
ruled that the landlord is liable for damages
to the tenants when he deprived then of
water in order to force the said tenants to
vacate the lot that they were cultivating
Manila Electric Company v. Court of
Appeals, an electric company certainly has
the right to disconnect the electric service of
a customer is the latter unreasonably fails to
pay his bills. However, the right to
disconnect and deprive the customer of
electricity should be exercised in accordance
with law and rules. (e.g. if the company
disconnect the service without prior notice
or even with notice but the timing of the
notice is unreasonable), the company
commits tort under Article 21.
Abortion and Wrongful Death
▣ There is a right to recover damages
against a physician who caused an
abortion, if the abortion was caused
through the physician’s negligence.
(Geluz v. Court of Appeals)
.
NOTE:
In this case, the Court found no basis
to award moral damages because the
husband was not able to show factual basis
for the award of such damages (such as
distress or anguish)
A doctor who performs illegal
abortion is criminally liable. In fact, criminal
and civil liability will also result even if the
abortion is unintentional.
Illegal Dismissal
.
▣ An employer has a right to dismiss an
employee on the grounds provided
under the Civil Code.
NOTE:
Article 21 in relation to Article 19
However, such exercise of the right
to terminate must be consistent with the
general principles provided under article 19
and 21. Non-compliance may render the
employer liable for damages.
If the dismissal is done anti-socially
or oppressively then the employer should be
deemed to have violated Article 1701 and
Article 21.
An employer may also be held liable
for damages if the manner of dismissing the
employee is contrary to morals, good
customers and public policy (e.g. done by
false imputation of misdeed to justify
dismissal). There was an abuse of right when
an employer dismissed an employee on the
ground of serious losses although there were
no such serious losses.
Malicious Prosecution
.
It is an action for damages brought by
one against another whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or other legal
proceedings has been instituted maliciously
and without probable cause, after the
termination of such prosecution suit or
proceeding in favor of the defendant.
Elements of Malicious Prosecution:
1. The fact of the prosecution and the
further fact that the defendant was
himself the prosecutor, and that the
action was finally terminated with an
acquittal;
2. That bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable
cause;
3. The prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by Malice
Malicious Prosecution
.
A. Malice – The prosecutor acted with
“inexcusable intent to injure,
oppress, vex, annoy or humiliate”
B. Acquittal – A criminal information
filed in the court and final judgement
is rendered dismissing the case
against the accused.
NOTE:
It is not sufficient that a person is
discharged on a writ of habeas corpus and
granted bail. Such discharge is not
considered termination of the action.
However, acquittal may include dismissal
even if the prosecutor/defendant repeatedly
filed cases which were obviously unfounded,
which in this case a person will be allowed to
file a malicious prosecution case.
C. Control by Prosecutor – A person
may still be held liable for malicious
prosecution even if the public
prosecutor controlled the litigation.
D. Civil Cases – There can be malicious
prosecution in civil cases.
In the case of Inhelder Corporation v. CA
The Court clarified that there is no
distinction between actions for criminal
prosecutions and civil suits. Both classes
require substantially the same essentials.”
Thus malice and lack of probable cause are
also indispensable.
Alternative to malicious prosecution, a
plaintiff may also file an action for damages
for abuse of processes under articles 2176.
In the case of Gregorio v. CA
Gregorio was charge with the violation
of BP 22 which was then dismissed because
it was established that Gregorio was not a
signatory of the bounced check.
Sansio and Datuin are in error when they
insist that Gregorio’s complaint is based on
malicious prosecution. In an action to
recover damages for malicious prosecution,
it must be alleged and established that
Sansio and Datuin were impelled by legal
malice or bad faith in deliberately initiating
an action against Gregorio, knowing that the
charges were false and groundless,
intending to vex and humiliate her. As
previously mentioned, Gregorio did not
allege this in her complaint. Moreover, the
fact that she prayed for moral damages did
not change the nature of her action based on
quasi-delict. She might have acted on the
mistaken notion that she was entitled to
moral damages, considering that she
suffered physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright,
serious
anxiety,
besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
and social humiliation on account of her
indictment and her sudden arrest.
Verily, Gregorio was only acting within
her right when she instituted against Sansio
and Datuin an action she perceived to be
proper, given the factual antecedents of the
case.
realized the supposed non-payment.
(California Clothing v. Quinones)
Public Humiliation
.
Catch All Provisions
Award for damages can be sustained
when a person suffered humiliation through
the positive acts of another directed to him.
NOTE:
-Slapping someone in public, Patricio v.
Oscar Leviste,
The act of private respondent in
hitting petitioner on the face is contrary to
morals and good customs and caused the
petitioner mental anguish, moral shock,
wounded feelings and social humiliation
Maria Ford v. Court of Appeals
The same was punishable under the
RPC, it is committed by any person who
performs an act that costs dishonor,
discredit or contempt.
Slander by deed when someone
slapped a priest before a large congregation
while the priest was officiating a religios
ceremony.
Clearly, these statements are
outrightly accusatory. Petitioners accused
respondent that not only did she fail to pay
for the jeans she purchased but that she
deliberately took the same without paying
for it and later hurriedly left the shop to
evade payment. These accusations were
made despite the issuance of the receipt of
payment and the release of the item
purchased. There was, likewise, no showing
that respondent had the intention to evade
payment. Contrary to petitioners’ claim,
respondent was not in a rush in leaving the
shop or the mall. This is evidenced by the
fact that the Guess employees did not have
a hard time looking for her when they
.
Article 19
Every person must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.
- It enumerates the standards of
conduct
Article 20
Every person who, contrary to law, willfully
or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same
- It provides for violation of other
laws
Article 21
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury
to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customers or public policy shall
compensate the latter of damages
- It provides the remedy for the
person injured by the willful or
negligent act of another
NOTE:
Although the requirements of each provision
are different, Articles 19, 20 and 21 are all
related to each other.
- Article 19 – Enumerates the
standards of conduct
- Article 20 – provides for violation of
other laws
- Article 21 – provides the remedy for
the person injured by the willful or
negligent act of another
Catch All Provisions
.
Article 19
It enumerates the standards of conduct
Article 20
It provides for violation of other laws
Article 21
It provides the remedy for the person injured
by the willful or negligency act of another
NOTE:
Although the requirements of each
provision are different, Articles 19, 20 and 21
are all related to each other.
Article 19 is the general rule which
governs the conduct of human relation,
describing the degree of care required so
that an actionable tort may arise when
alleged together with Articles 20 and 21.