TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Sources of Law on Torts and Damages
(1) Chapter on Quasi-Delicts (Articles 2176
to 2194);
(2) Chapter on Quasi-Contracts
(3) Chapter on Human Relations (Articles
19 to 36)
(4) Articles 1172 to1174 of the New Civil
Code which are made applicable to quasidelicts;
(5) Article 1723, New Civil Code;
(6) Article 2003, New Civil Code;
(7) Article 309, New Civil Code;
(8) Art. 1314 (Contractual Interference),
NCC;
(9) Family Code of the Philippines
(Executive Order 209)
(10) Articles 100 to 103 of the RPC;
(11) Title XVIII (Damages) covering
Articles 2195 to 2235, NCC;
(12) Chapter on Nuisance (Articles 694 to
707, NCC);
(13) Chapter III, Section 4 (Common
Carriers) covering Articles 1755 to 1763,
NCC;
(14) R.A. No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual
Harrassment Act;
(15) Supreme Court Decisions;
(16) American law and jurisprudence; and
(17) Opinion of legal authors.
Quasi-Delict, Concept:
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 preexisting contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict.
Tort, Concept:
A tort is a wrong independent of a contract,
which arises from an act or omission of a
person which causes some injury of damage
directly or indirectly to another person.
It may be either:
(1) a direct invasion of some legal right of
the individual;
(2) the infraction of some public duty by
which special damage accrues to the
individual;
(3) the violation of some private obligation
by which like damage accrues to the
individual.
Tort contradistinguished from a Crime:
Tort is a private wrong or injury. It is an
infringement of the private or civil rights of
another, hence, pursued by the private
individual. It seeks indemnity for damage or
injury sustained without seeking the
imprisonment of the tortfeasor.
Crime, on the other hand, is an offense
against the public being a punishable act and
is pursued by the sovereign authority. It
generally seeks curtailment of the liberty or
imprisonment of the offender with possible
civil liability.
Quasi-Delict Covers Both Punishable and
Non-Punishable Negligence
Case: Barredo v. Garcia
Quasi-delict includes punishable and nonpunishable acts or omission so that the same
act or omission give rise to two obligations
against both the author thereof and those
legally responsible for the latter, to wit: one
based on the crime committed, and another
based on quasi-delict; and the injured party
is free to choose which of the two liabilities
he shall enforce against them.
Article 2176. Whoever by act or
omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done.
1
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing
contractual
relation
between the parties, is called a quasidelict and is governed by the provisions
of this Chapter.
Elements of Quasi-Delict:
(1) Damage sustained by the plaintiff;
(2) Negligence or fault on the part of the
defendant;
(3) Causal connection between the fault or
negligence and the damage cause; and
(4) No pre-existing contractual relation
between the plaintiff and defendant
Damage:
It is loss, hurt, or harm which results from
injury.
Fault:
It is that condition where a person acts in a
way or manner contrary to what normally
should have been done.
Negligence:
It consists of omission to do acts required
under the attendant circumstances resulting
in damage or injury to another.
Quantum of Proof in Quasi-delict and in
Breach of Contract of Carriage:
Case: Calalas v. CA
In quasi-delict, the negligence or fault
should be clearly established because it is
the basis of the action, whereas in breach of
contract, the action can be prosecuted
merely by proving the existence of the
contract and the fact that the obligor, in this
case the common carrier, failed to transport
his passenger safely to his destination.
Are Moral Damages Recoverable in
Brach of Contract of Carriage?
Generally, moral damages are not available
in breach of contract of carriage. As
exception, such damages are recoverable:
(1) in cases in which the mishap results in
the death of the passengers;
(2) in cases in which the carrier is guilty of
fraud or bad faith.
Test of Determining Negligence:
Would a prudent man, in the position of the
person to whom negligence is attributed,
foresee harm to the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course about
to be pursued? If so, the law imposed a duty
on the actor to refrain from the course or
take precaution against its mischievous
results, and the failure to do so constitutes
negligence.
Case: FGU Corp vs. CA (two-car collision)
Held: We agree with respondent court that
petitioner failed to prove the existence of the
second requisite, i.e., fault or negligence of
defendant FILCAR, because only the fault
or negligence of Dahl-Jensen was
sufficiently established, not that of
FILCAR. It should be noted that the damage
caused on the vehicle of Soriano was
brought about by the circumstance that
Dahl-Jensen swerved to the right while the
vehicle that he was driving was at the center
lane. It is plain that the negligence was
solely attributable to Dahl-Jensen thus
making the damage suffered by the other
vehicle his personal liability. Respondent
FILCAR did not have any participation
therein.
General Rule: If there is pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, the
proper cause of action is not anchored in
quasi-delict but breach of contract or culpa
contractual.
2
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Exception to the Rule: When the contract is
grossly violated. The tort liability is not
based on the contract but on some other
bases like deliberate and malicious violation
of the contract.
Case: Go vs. CA
The defendant Nancy Go was contracted by
a couple to cover by video tape the latter's
wedding ceremonies. While the occasion
was taped, the tape was not delivered
because its contents were erased. Moral
damages were awarded to the plaintiffs
based on quasi-delict despite the existence
of the contract of services because the
breach thereof was palpably wanton,
reckless, malicious, or in bad faith,
oppressive, or obscure.
Quasi-delict distinguished from Delict or
Crime
Basis
Quasi-delict
Delict
or
Crime
1. Legal There can be There is no
basis of quasi-delict as crime unless
liability long as there is there is a law
fault
or clearly
negligence
punishing the
resulting
in act
damage
or
injury
to
another
2.
Not necessary Essential for
Criminal for quasi-delict criminal
intent
to exist
liability
3.
Private right
Public, crime
Nature
is a wrong
of right
against
the
violated
State
4.
Every
quasi- Some crimes
Liability delict gives rise do not give
for
to liability for rise to liability
damages damages
for damages
5. Proofs Preponderance Proof beyond
needed
of evidence
reasonable
6.
Sanction
or
penalty
doubt
Reparation or Imprisonment,
indemnification fine or both,
of the injury or sometimes
damage
accessory
penalties are
imposed
Quasi-delict distinguished from Culpa
Contractual
Basis
Quasi-delict Culpa
Contractual
1. Nature of Direct,
Incidental to
negligence
substantive
the
and
performance
independent of
the
contractual
obligation
2. Defense of Complete
Not complete
a good father and proper and proper in
of a family
defense
the selection
insofar
as and
parents,
supervision
guardians,
of employees
employers
are
concerned
3.
No
There
is
Presumption presumption presumption
of
of
of negligence
negligence
negligence,
as long as it
injured party can
be
must prove proved that
the
there
was
negligence
breach
Medical Malpractice:
A particular form of negligence which
consists in the failure of the 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.
3
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Elements of Medical Negligence:
(1) duty
(2) breach
(3) injury
(4) proximate causation
Case: Professional Services Inc. vs. Agana
Held: Dr Ampil did not inform Natividad
about the missing two pieces of gauze.
Worse, he even misled her that the pain she
was experiencing was the ordinary
consequence of her operation.
Dr. Ampil as the lead surgeon, had the duty
to remove all foreign objects, such as
gauzes, from Natividad's body before
closure of the incision. When he failed to do
so, it was his duty to inform Natividad about
it. Dr. Ampil breached both duties. Such
breach caused injury to Natividad,
necessitating her further examination by
American doctors and another surgery. That
Dr. Ampil's negligence is the proximate
cause of Natividad's injury could be traced
from his act of closing the incision despite
the information given by the attending
nurses that two pieces of gauze were still
missing. That they were later extracted from
Natividad's vagina established the causal
link between Dr. Ampil's negligence and the
injury.
Can the hospital be held liable for the fault
of negligence of the physician in the
treatment of the patients?
The nature of the relationship between the
hospital and the physicians is rendered
inconsequential in view of our categorical
pronouncement in Ramos v. Court of
Appeals that for purposes of apportioning
responsibility in medical negligence cases,
an employer-employee relationship in effect
exists between hospitals and their attending
and visiting physicians.
Private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real
control over their attending and visiting
„consultant‟ staff. While „consultants‟ are
not, technically employees, x x x, the control
exercised, the hiring, and the right to
terminate consultants all fulfill the important
hallmarks of an employer-employee
relationship, with the exception of the
payment of wages. In assessing whether
such a relationship in fact exists, the control
test is determining. Accordingly, on the
basis of the foregoing, we rule that for the
purpose of allocating responsibility in
medical negligence cases, an employeremployee relationship in effect exists
between hospitals and their attending and
visiting physicians. "
Its liability is also anchored upon the agency
principle of apparent authority or agency by
estoppel and the doctrine of corporate
negligence which have gained acceptance in
the determination of a hospital‟s liability for
negligent acts of health professionals. The
present case serves as a perfect platform to
test the applicability of these doctrines, thus,
enriching our jurisprudence.
Apparent authority, or what is sometimes
referred to as the "holding out" theory, or
doctrine
e of ostensible agency or agency by
estoppel, has its origin from the law of
agency. It imposes liability, not as the result
of the reality of a contractual relationship,
but rather because of the actions of a
principal or an employer in somehow
misleading the public into believing that the
relationship or the authority exists.
Highest Degree of Diligence Required in
the Practice of Medicine:
The conduct of doctors also strictly
governed by Hippocratic Oath, an ancient
4
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
code of discipline and ethical rules which
doctors have imposed upon themselves in
recognition and acceptance of the great
responsibility.
There is no need to expressly require of
doctors the observance of “extraordinary
diligence”. As it is now, the practice of
medicine is already conditioned upon the
highest degree of diligence (Reyes vs.
Mercy Hospital)
A medical negligence is a type of claim to
redress a wrong committed by a medical
professional, that has caused bodily harm to
or the death of a patient. A physician is
expected to use at least the same level of
care that any other reasonably doctor would
use under the same circumstances. Breach of
duty occurs when the physician fails to
comply with these professionals standards
(Flores vs. Pineda)
Case: Ramos vs. CA
Although
generally,
expert
medical
testimony is relied upon in malpractice suit
to prove that a physician has done a
negligent act or that he has deviated from
the standard medical procedure, when the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the
plaintiff, the need for expert testimony is
dispensed with because the injury itself
provides the proof of
negligence. The
reason is that the general rule on the
necessity if expert testimony applies only to
such matters clearly within the domain of
medical science, and not to such matters
clearly within the common knowledge of
mankind which may be testified to by
anyone familiar with the facts. Testimonies
as to the statements and acts of physicians
and surgeons, external appearances and
manifest conditions which are observable by
anyone may be given by non-expert
witnesses. Hence, in cases where res ipsa
loquitur is applicable, the court is permitted
to find the physician negligent upon proper
proof of injury to the patient, without the aid
of expert testimony, where the court from
and of common knowledge can determine
the proper standard of care
“Captain of the Ship Doctrine” Lays The
Responsibility In The Hands of the Lead
Surgeon
Case: Professional Services vs. Agana
Res Ipsa Loquitur means the thing speaks
for itself. It is the rule that the fact of the
occurrence of injury, taken with the
surrounding circumstances, may permit an
inference or raise a presumption of
negligence or make out a plaintiff‟s prima
facie case and present a question of fact for
defendant to meet with an explanation.
Doctrine of Corporate Negligence or
Responsibility in Medical Malpractice:
Case: Professional Services vs. Agana
In the present case, it was established that
PSI operates the Medical City Hospital for
the purpose and under the concept of
providing comprehensive medical services
to the public. Accordingly, it has the duty to
exercise reasonable care to protect from
harm all patients admitted into its facility for
medical treatment. Unfortunately, PSI failed
to perform such duty.
Can there be a tort in malpractice in law?
Yes. They must exercise not lesser than
diligence of a good father of a family in the
handling of cases which they accepted from
clients (Vetanilla vs Centeno)
Respondent
lawyer,
in
failing
to
immediately secure a bail bond, clearly
5
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
neglected to exercise ordinary diligence or
that reasonable degree of care and skill
required by the circumstances (Adrimisin vs.
Javier)
Negligence of Health Care Providers;
Test:
Did the health providers either fail to do
something which a reasonably prudent
health care provider would not have done
and that failure or action caused injury to the
patient.
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or
negligence under the preceding article
is entirely separate and distinct from
the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But
the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of
the defendant.
Criminal Negligence is a violation of
criminal law while Civil Negligence is a
distinct and independent negligence which is
culpa aquiliana or quasi- delict of ancient
origin, having always its own foundation
and individuality, separate from criminal
negligence.
Actions available to victims of negligence:
An action to enforce the civil liability arising
from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code and an action for quasidelict under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the
Civil Code.
Action against the employer:
The offended party may choose the remedy
of primary responsibility allowed in Article
2180 or subsidiary liability of the employer
under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code
Two separate Civil liabilities arising from
the same act or omission:
An act or omission causing damage to
another may give rise to two separate civil
liabilities on the part of the offender (1) civil
liability ex delicto under Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code and (2) independent
civil liabilities
Effect of acquittal of the accused on his
civil liability:
The acquittal of the accused in the criminal
case will not necessarily exonerate him from
civil liability.
The judgment of acquittal does not
necessarily extinguished the civil liability
of the accused except:
1. When judgment declares that the facts
from which civil liability might arise did
not exist
2. When it declares that the accused is not
the author of the crime
3. When the judgment expressly declares
that the liability is only civil in nature
4. Where the civil liability is not derived or
based on the criminal act of which the
accused was acquitted
5. Where the civil action has prescribed.
Legal restriction on recovery of damages:
The plaintiff is not allowed to recover
damages twice for the same act or omission
of the defendant
Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles
1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a
quasi-delict
Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from
negligence in the performance of every
kind of obligation is also demandable, but
such liability may be regulated by the
6
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
courts, according to the circumstances.
(1103)
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the
obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature
of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time
and of the place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171
and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the
diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a
good father of a family shall be required.
(1104a)
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly
specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or
when the nature of the obligation requires
the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could
not be foreseen, or which, though
foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)
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 defendant's lack of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.
Proximate Cause:
Adequate and efficient cause as in the
natural order of events, and under the
particular circumstances surrounding the
case, would necessarily produce the event
It is cause which is in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces injury and
without which the result would not have
occurred.
It is not necessarily the immediate cause; it
is not necessarily the nearest time, distance
or space.
Case: Vda. De Bataclan vs. Medina
We do not hesitate to hold that the
proximate cause of the death of Bataclan
was the overturning of the bus, this is for the
reason that when the vehicle turned not only
on its side but completely on its back, the
leaking of the gasoline from the tank was
not unnatural and unexpected; that the
coming of men with lighted torch was in
response for the call to the call of help, made
not only by passengers but most probably by
the driver and the conductor themselves.
Case: Urbano vs IAC
The death of the victim must be direct,
natural and logical consequence of the
wound inflicted upon him by the accused
and since we are dealing with s criminal
conviction, the proof that the accused caused
the victim‟s death must convince a rational
mind beyond reasonable doubt. The medical
findings, lead us 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.
Contributory Negligence, concept:
Act or omission amounting to want of
ordinary care on the part of the person
injured which, concurring with the
defendant‟s negligence, is the proximate
cause of the injury
7
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Contributory negligence:
Omission of the diligence required by the
circumstances by virtue of which a person
could have avoided injury to himself. It may
be an omission of diligence by which the
injured party contributed to the cause which
give rise to the injury or it may be the failure
to take the caution to avoid or minimize
such injury (Umali vs. Bacani)
Case: NPC vs Heirs of Noble Casionan
No contributory negligence on the part of
Noble. Contributory negligence as a legal
cause to the harm he has suffered, which
falls below the standard which he is required
to conform for his own protection. 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 to danger.
In this case, the trail where Noble was
electrocuted was regularly used by the
members of the community. There were no
warning signs to inform the passersby of the
impending danger to their lives should they
accidentally touch the high tension wires.
Are the children below 9 years capable of
Contributory Negligence?
No. A child under 9 is conclusively
presumed
incapable
of
contributory
negligence
Effect
of
plaintiff‟s
contributory
negligence; Doctrine of Comparative
Negligence:
1. If the proximate cause of the injury is the
contributory negligence of the plaintiff,
there can be no recovery for damages
2. A plaintiff is barred from recovering the
damages for loss or injury caused by the
negligence if defendant only when
plaintiff‟s negligence is the sole legal
cause of the damage, or the negligence
of the plaintiff and some person or
persons other than the defendant or
defendants was the sole cause of the
damage.
If the plaintiff or defendant are both at fault,
the former may recover but the amount of
his recovery may only be such proportion of
the entire damage plaintiff sustained as
defendant‟s negligence bears to the
combined negligence of both the plaintiff
and the defendant.
Case: Taylor vs. Manila Electric
The proximate cause is the putting of lighted
match on the yellowish substance. As the
palintiff‟s own negligence, as one of the
determining factors, he cannot recover.
Can the principle of Contributory
Negligence Apply in a Criminal Case?
The principle of contributory negligence
cannot be used as defense in criminal
cases through reckless imprudence
because one cannot allege the negligence of
another to evade the effects of his own
negligence. But may mitigate the civil
liability of the defendant but cannot affect
his criminal liability.
(People vs.
Sobremonte)
Principle of Proximate Cause; Not
Applicable To Actions Involving Breach
of Contract:
It is applicable only for actions of quasidelict, not in actions involving breach of
contract; a device imputing liability to a
person where there is no relation between
him and another party.
Tests to determine existence of proximate
cause:
1. Foreseeability test – Where the
particular harm was foreseeable at
8
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
the time of the defendant‟s
misconduct, his act or omission is
the legal cause thereof
2. Natural and probable consequence
test – Where the defendant‟s liability
is recognized only if the harm or
injury suffered is the natural and
probable consequence of his act or
omission complained of
3. Sine qua non test – Where the
defendant‟s conduct will not be
considered as proximate cause of the
event if the event just the same
would have occurred without it
(Defendant‟s conduct is a cause of the event
if it was a material element and a substantial
factor in bringing it about – Minnesota Rule)
4. Cause and conditions test – Where
a distinction is made between the
active cause of the harm or injury
and the existing ”conditions” upon
which that cause operated
Doctrine of attractive nuisance:
One who maintains on his premises
dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of
a character likely to attract children in play,
and who fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing therewith or
resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender
years who is injured thereby, even if the
child is technically a trespasser in the
premises
- generally not applicable to bodies of
water, in the absence of some unusual
condition or artificial features other than
the mere water and its location.
Reason for doctrine: The condition or
appliance in question although in danger is
apparent to those of age, is so enticing and
alluring to children of tender years as to
induce them to approach, get on or use it and
this attractiveness is an implied invitation to
such children.
Case: Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. vs.
Balandan
The reason why a swimming pool or pond or
reservoir of water is not considered an
attractive nuisance is that “lurking in their
waters is always the danger of drowning.
Against this danger, children are early
instructed so that they are sufficiently
presumed to know the danger; and if the
owner of the private property, creates an
artificial pool on his own, merely
duplicating the work of nature, without
adding any new danger * * * (he) is not
liable because of having created an attractive
nuisance.”
Doctrine of last clear chance or
Humanitarian negligence doctrine or
Doctrine of supervening negligence:
-
-
-
the negligence of the claimant does not
preclude a recovery for the negligence of
the defendant where it appears that the
latter, by exercising reasonable care and
prudence might have avoided injurious
consequences
to
the
claimant
notwithstanding his negligence
to allow recovery, it is necessary that
there be a time sequence, that is an
interval in which the plaintiff‟s act of
negligence is complete and in which the
defendant by the exercise of reasonable
care has had the opportunity to avert
disaster
where both parties are negligent but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later
than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence caused the loss, the one who
had the last clear opportunity to avoid
the loss but failed to do so is chargeable
with the loss.
9
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Elements of doctrine of last clear chance:
1. Plaintiff is placed in danger by his
own negligent acts and he is unable
to get out from such situation by any
means;
2. Defendant knows that the plaintiff is
in danger and knows or should have
known that the plaintiff was unable
to extricate himself therein; and,
3. Defendant had the last clear chance
or opportunity to avoid the accident
through the exercise of ordinary care
but failed to do so, and the accident
occurred as a proximate result of
such failure.
Case: De Roy vs. CA
The doctrine of last clear chance is
inapplicable to cases involving a collapse of
a building or structure, but applicable to
vehicular accidents.
Case: Bustamante vs. CA
The doctrine of last clear chance applies in a
suit between the owners and drivers of
colliding vehicles. It does not arise when the
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.
Case: Pantranco North Expressway vs.
Baesa
The doctrine of last clear chance is
inapplicable when the injury or accident
cannot be avoided by application of all
means at hand after peril has been
discovered.
Case:
Construction Development Corporation vs.
Estrella
In case of injury to a passenger due to the
negligence of the driver bus on which he
was riding and of the driver of another
vehicle, the drivers as well as the owners of
the two vehicles are jointly and severally
liable for damages.
Res ipsa loquitor: “the thing or transaction
speaks for itself”
Requisites:
Wild Valley Shipping Co., Ltd. vs. CA
1. The accident was of such character
as to warrant an inference that it
would not have happened except for
defendant‟s negligence;
2. it must have been cause by an agency
or instrumentality within the
exclusive management or control of
the person charged with the
negligence complained of; and
3. it must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on
the part of the person injured.
Professional Services, Inc. vs. Agana
1. the occurrence of an injury;
2. the thing which caused the injury
was under the control and
management of the defendant;
3. the occurrence was such that in the
ordinary course of things, would not
have happened if those who had
control or management used proper
care (most instrumental requisite);
and,
4. the absence of explanation by the
defendant.
Case: Africa vs. Caltex
It is fair and reasonable to infer that the fire
occurred for want of due care on the part of
the gas station employees.non The
employee‟s negligence was the proximate
cause of the fire which in the ordinary
course of things does not happen.
Case: Capili vs. Cardaña
10
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
The fact that a pupil died as a result of the
dead rotting tree within the school‟s
premises shows that the tree was indeed an
obvious danger to anyone passing by and
calls for application of the principle of res
ipsa loquitor. The principal who failed to see
such immediate danger is liable for her
failure to exercise the responsibility
demanded from her by her position.
Case: Espiritu vs. Philippine Power and
Dev. Co.
Where the thing which causes that injury,
without fault of the injured person, is under
the exclusive control of the defendant and
the injury is such as in the ordinary course of
things does not occur if he having such
control used proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation, that the injury arose from the
defendant‟s want of care, and the burden is
shifted to him to establish that he had
observed due care and diligence. In the
absence of contributory negligence, the face
that the wire snapped suffices to raise a
reasonable presumption of negligence in its
installation, care and maintenance.
Case: Child Learning Center, Inc. vs.
Tagorio
Petitioners, with the due diligence of a good
father of the family, should have anticipated
that a student, locked in the toilet by a nonworking door, would attempt to use the
window to call for help or even to get out.
Considering all the circumstances, therefore,
there is sufficient basis to sustain a finding
of liability on petitioners‟ part. CLC‟s
liability is under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code, premised on the fact of its own
negligence in not ensuring that all its doors
are properly maintained.
Case: Cantre vs. Go
In cases involving medical negligence, the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the mere
existence of an injury to justify a
presumption of negligence on the part of the
person who controls the instrument causing
the injury, provided that the requisites of the
doctrine concur.
 Negligence is presumed by operation of
law in the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
However, the presumption of negligence
arising from the principle of res ipsa
loquitur may be rebutted. It is not
conclusive.
 Being mere evidentiary rule, this
doctrine does not per se create or
constitute an independent or separate
ground for liability.
Principal defenses in actions based on
negligence:
a. Emergency rule –
Case: Mc Kee vs. IAC
One who suddenly finds himself in a place
of danger, and is required to act without time
to consider the best means that may be
adopted to avoid the impending danger, is
not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt
what subsequently and upon reflection may
have been a better method, unless the
emergency in which he finds himself is
brought about by his own negligence.
b. Assumption of risk –
- a voluntary assumption of risk of harm
arising from the negligent conduct of the
defendant
- presupposes an intentional exposure to a
known peril
- assumption may be expressed (when
stated explicitly in a contract) or implied
(when based on the conduct of the
plaintiff)
Case: Alfiada vs. Hasole
Being injured by the animal was one of the
risks of the occupation which petitioner had
voluntarily assumed and for which he must
take that consequences.
Exception:
11
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Assumption of risk is not applicable in
cases
involving
the
Workmen‟s
Compensation Act wherein the employer is
liable for the damage or compensation for
the employee for any injuries which the
latter may suffer from any accident arising
out and in the course of his employment or
other venue directly caused by such
employment.
c. Contributory negligence –
- When plaintiff‟s own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages.
Case: PLDT vs. CA
As a resident of Lacson St., he passed on
that street almost every day and had
knowledge of the presence and location of
the excavation there. His negligence
exposed him to danger. Hence, he is solely
responsible for the consequence of his
imprudence.
Case: Ilusorio vs. CA
Proximate cause is that cause, which, in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred. Petitioner has
sufficient opportunity to prevent or detect
any misappropriation by his secretary had he
only reviewed the status of his accounts
based on the banks statements sent to him
regularly. His own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, and no recovery could be had for
damages.
(d) Volenti Non Fit Injuria (to which a
person assents is not esteemed in law as
injury)
- This maxim means that “one is not legally
injured if he has consented to the act
complained of or was willing that it shall
occur
- A specie of assumption of risk by conduct
Case: Ilocos Norte Co. vs. CA
Issue: Whether or not the doctrine of
Volenti Non Fit Injuria is applicable to the
act of deceased in protecting her goods from
the floods
Held: No, clearly an emergency was at hand
as the deceased‟s property, a sourced of
livelihood as faced with an impending loss.
Doctrines: A person is excused from the
force of the rule that when he voluntarily
assents to a known danger he must abide by
the consequences, if an emergency is found
to exist or if the life or property of another is
in peril or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property.
“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.
Guidelines in Apportioning Negligence
When Both Plaintiff and Defendant are
negligent:
- Where both the plaintiff and defendant
contributed to the occurrence of the damage
or injury, the doctrine of comparative
negligence applies. However, the law is not
clear on its application.
- There are two well-known rules in the
United States.
1. Pure
Comparative
Negligent Rule – Under this
rule, the plaintiff can recover
from the defendant regardless
of the extent of the
negligence of the former. If
the plaintiff, for instance, is
90% negligent and the
defendant is 10% negligent,
plaintiff can still recover
from the defendant the
monetary equivalent of the
loss suffered up to 10%.
12
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
2. Arkansas
Comparative
Negligence Rule – Under
this rule, the plaintiff can
recover if his negligence is
lesser in degree that that of
the
defendant.
If
the
combined negligence of both
parties falls on a 50/50 basis
plaintiff cannot recover.
Case: Ngo Sin Sing vs Li Seng Giap & Sons,
Inc
Doctrine: Contributory Negligence is
conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he
has suffered.
To prove contributory negligence, it is till
necessary to establish a causal link although
not proximate, between the negligence of the
party and the succeeding injury.
Rescue Doctrine or Humanitarian
Doctrine:
Under this doctrine one who has through his
negligence, endangered safety of another
may be held liable for injuries sustained by
third person who attempts to save another
from injury.
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by
Article 2176 is demandable not only for
one's own acts or omissions, but also for
those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, are responsible
for the damages caused by the minor
children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages
caused by the minors or incapacitated
persons who are under their authority
and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches
in which the latter are employed or on
the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the
damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in
any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner
when it acts through a special agent;
but not when the damage has been
caused by the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which case
what is provided in Article 2176 shall
be applicable.
Lastly,
teachers
or
heads
of
establishments of arts and trades shall
be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, so
long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this
article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.
(1903a)
Principle of Vicarious or Imputed
Liability:
One is not only liable for his own quasidelictual acts but also for those persons for
whom he is responsible under the law. The
liability for the acts of others enumerated in
13
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
the article is popularly known as vicarious
liability or imputed liability
Quasi-Torts:
A person or juridical entity is made liable
solidarily with a tortfeasor simply by reason
of his or its relationship with the latter.
Minority, Meaning:
Minors here refer to those who are below
twenty-one years and not to those below 18
years. The law reducing the majority age
from 21 to 18 years did not amend
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 2180
Incapacitated Persons:
Person beyond twenty-one (21) years of age
but are incapacitated such are those who are
insane or imbecile.
Basis of Vicarious Liability; Pater
Familias not Respondeat Superior:
Respondeat superior – under American
jurisprudence means that the negligence of
the servant is conclusively the negligence of
the master. The reason for the master‟s
liability is negligence in the supervision of
his subordinates.
The basis of Article 2180 is the principle of
Pater Familias.
In pater familias under Article 2180, the
“master” will be freed from liability if he
can prove that he had observed al the
diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent the damage.
The responsibility imposed by Article 2180,
arises by virtue of a presumption juris
tantum of negligence on the part of the
persons made responsible under the article,
derived from the failure to exercise due care
and vigilance over the acts of subordinates
to prevent them from causing damage.
Actual Tortfeasor Is Not Exempt From
Liability:
The minor, ward, employee, special agent,
pupil, students and apprentices who actually
committed the delictual acts are not
exempted by the law from personal
responsibility. They may be sued and made
liable alone as when the person responsible
for them or vicarious obligor proves that he
exercised the diligence of a good father of a
family or when the minor or insane person
has no parents or guardians.
Nature of Responsibility of Vicarious
Obligor:
The liability of the vicarious obligor is
primary and direct and not subsidiary. He is
solidarily liable with the tortfeasor. His
responsibility is not conditioned upon the
insolvency of or prior recourse against the
negligent tortfeasor.
Reason For Vicarious Liability of
Parents:
A necessary consequence of the parental
authority they exercise over them which
imposes upon the parents the “duty of
supporting them, keeping them in their
company, educating them in proportion to
their means”, while on the other hand, gives
them the rights to correct and punish them in
moderation.
Liability of the Mother:
The law does not make the father and
mother simultaneously liable. It is only in
case of death or incapacity of the father, that
the mother may be held liable. She may
move to dismiss the case filed against her
for being premature.
Absence of Father, Effect:
The mother who is present and with whom
the minor children live with will be the one
who is vicariously liable.
14
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Vicarious or Imputed Liability of
Parents; Requisites:
To sustain the liability of the father or the
mother in proper cases, it is necessary that –
(1) The child is below twentyone (21) years.
(2) The child committed a
tortious act to the damage and
prejudice of another person.
(3) The child lives in the
company of the parent
concerned whether single or
married.
Responsibility For Minor Adopted
Children:
Judicially adopted children are considered
legitimate children of adopting parents.
Thusly, the adopters are civilly liable for
their tortious/ criminal acts if the children
live with them are below twenty-one (21)
years old.
Can be applied by analogy to those extrajudicial adoptions.
Responsibility for Illegitimate Children:
If the child is illegitimate and acknowledged
by the father and lives with the latter, the
father shall be responsible. However, an
illegitimate child who is not recognized by
the putative father but is under custody and
supervision of the mother, it is the latter who
is the one vicariously liable.
May the Subsidiary Liability of Parents
Arising From The Criminal Acts Of Their
Minor Children Who Acted With
Discernment Be Determined under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code:
Affirmative. To hold that Article 2180 only
covers quasi-delicts and not obligations
which arise from criminal offenses, would
result in the absurdity that while for an act
where mere negligence intervenes, the father
or mother may stand subsidiarily liable for
the damage caused by his or her son, no
liability would attach if the damage is
caused with criminal intent.
Vicarious Liability of Guardians:
The liability of guardians with respect to
their wards is governed by the same rule as
in the liability of parents.
In guardianship, however, the ward may be
an adult or of age like an incompetent or
incapacitated adult. What is important is that
the guardianship is subsisting.
If the ward has two guardians, one over his
person, and the other over his property, one
the former shall be liable because he is
under obligation to supervise the personal
acts of the ward.
Are De Facto Guardians Covered by Par.
3 of Article 2180?
Yes, can be applied by analogy.
Requisites of Employer‟s Liability, Under
Par. 4, Article 2180:
To sustain claims against employers for the
acts of their employees, the following
requisites must be established:
(1) That the employee was
chosen by the employer
personally
or
through
another;
(2) That the service is to be
rendered in accordance with
orders which the employer
has the authority to give at all
times; and
(3) That the illicit act of the
employee was on the
occasion or by reason of the
functions entrusted to him.
Vicarious Liability
Managers:
of
Owners
and
15
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
The terms “employers” and “owners and
managers of an establishment or
enterprise” are used in the sense of
employer.
A mere manager who does not own the
business is not to be considered an employer
because as manager, he is just a high class
employee. However, a manager who is not
an owner, but assumes the responsibility of
supervision over the employees of the owner
may be held liable for the acts of the
employees.
Case: Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc.
vs Ago Medical
Issue: Whether or not the Radio Station is
liable for the Broadcasters‟ Violation of the
Radio Code
Held: Both the broadcasters and the FBNI
are liable for damages. The FBNI failed to
prove that it exercised the diligence of a
good father of a family in the supervision of
its employees.
Negligence of Professor is Negligence of
the School.
Independent
Contractor
Not
An
Employee:
The Independent Contractor is free to
execute the work without being subject to
the orders of the employer on the details of
the work.
Liability of Employers Under Paragraph
5 of Article 2180:
It speaks of employers even if not engaged
in business.
Distinctions Between Paragraphs 4 and 5.
Case: Castilex Industries Corp. vs Vasquez,
Jr.
Facts: Abad was involved in an accident
while driving with a company-given car
after his work.
Issue: Whether or not Castilex Industries
Corp is liable for Abad tortious act.
Held: Abad was engaged in his own or
carrying out a personal purpose not in line
with his duties at the time he figured in a
vehicular accident.
Doctrine:
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 5
It
requires The
employers
engagement
in referred to need not
business on the part be
engaged
in
of the employers as business or industry.
the law speaks of
“establishment
or
enterprise”
It
applies
to It
applies
to
employers:
To employers:
To
owners and managers employers
in
of an establishment general whether or
or enterprise.
not engaged in any
business or industry.
It covers negligent It
encompasses
acts of employers negligent acts of
committed either in employees
acting
the service of the within the scope of
branches or on the their assigned task.
occasion of their It is an expansion of
functions.
par. 4 in both
employer coverage
and acts included.
There is an overlapping only of the
provisions if the employers in par. 5 are
engaged in business. In which case, same
principle as par. 4 shall apply, that is, the
employers shall be liable for the tortious acts
of their employees while acting or
performing their assigned function.
Employee Must Be in the Performance of
His Assigned Task When the Injurious
Act Was Committed:
16
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
To make the employer liable under Article
2180 (pars. 5 and 6), it must be established
that the injurious or tortious act was
committed at the time the employee was
performing his functions.
Rule of Deviation:
If there is deviation from the scope of
employment, the employer is not liable, no
matter how short in time is the deviation.
There is, however an exception to the rule of
deviation provided in Article 1759
Article 1759. Common carriers are liable
for the death or injuries to passengers
through the negligence or willful acts of
the former‟s employees, although such
employees may have acted beyond the
scope of their authority in violation of the
orders of the common carriers.
Principles In American Jurisprudence on
Employer‟s Liability For the Injuries
Inflicted By the Negligence of An
Employee In The Use of An Employer‟s
Motor Vehicle:
It has been held that an employee who uses
his employer‟s vehicle in going from his
work to the place where he intends to eat or
in returning to work from a meal is not
ordinarily acting within the scope of his
employment in the absence of evidence of
some special business benefit to the
employer.
Operation of Employer‟s Vehicle in
Going To or From Work:
In the absence of some special benefits to
the employer other than the mere
performance of the services available by the
place where he is needed, the employee is
not acting within the scope of his
employment even though he uses his
employer‟s motor vehicle.
“Special
Errand”
Commission” Rule:
or
“Roving
Under which it can be found that the
employee continues in the service of his
employer until he actually reaches home.
It is applied where the employee‟s duties
require him to circulate in a general area
with no fixed place or hours of work, or to
go to and from his home to the various
outside places of work and his employer
furnishes him with a vehicle to use in his
work.
Exception: the employer is not liable for the
negligence of employee where at time of the
accident, the employee has left the direct
route to his work or back home and in
pursuing a personal errand of his own.
Use of Employer‟s Vehicle Outside
Regular Working Hours:
An employer who loans his motor vehicle to
an employee for the latter‟s personal use
outside of working hours is generally not
liable for the employer‟s negligent operation
of the vehicle during the period of
permissive use where the employer
contemplates that a regularly assigned motor
vehicle will be used by the employee for
personal as well as business purposes and
there is some incidental benefit to the
employer.
Applicability of the Above American
Principles:
Applicable in our jurisdiction albeit based
on the doctrine of respondeat superior and
not on the principle of bonus pater familias.
Respondeat Superior Is An American
Doctrine Which is Almost Similar to
Article 2180 (4) and (5):
Respondeat Superior means “let the master
answer”.
This doctrine or maxim means that a master
is liable in certain cases for the wrongful
17
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
acts of his servant and a principal for those
of his agent.
Under this doctrine, master is responsible
for want of care on servant’s part toward
those to whom master owes duty to use care
, provided failure of servant to use such care
occurred in course of his employment.
Doctrine applies only in relation of master
and servant existed between defendant and
wrongdoer at time of injury sued for, in
respect to very transaction from which it
arose.
Nature of Employer‟s Liability:
Under At. 2180, the liability is DIRECT &
IMMEDIATE. But, it is also JOINT &
SOLIDARY with the employee.
Primary
Liability
and
Subsidiary
Liability of Employers, Distinguished:
1. If the injured party (IP) chooses to
file a civil action for damages based
on quasi-delict under Art.2180 and
succeeds proving the negligence,
liability of the employer is
PRIMARY,
DIRECT
&
SOLIDARY.
2. If IP chooses to file a criminal case,
and the offender was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, the civil
liability is SUBSIDIARY. Employer
cannot use the defense the exercise
of the diligence of the good father of
a family.
Requisites to enforce
liability of employer:
subsidiary
a. He is indeed the employer of the
convict;
b. He is engaged in some kind of
industry;
c. Crime was committed by the
employee in the discharge of his
duties; and
d. Execution against the employee
is unsatisfied.
When the employee‟s civil liability has
become final, so must also the subsidiary
liability of the employers.
Employer-employee relationship CANNOT
be presumed.
Case: JAYME v. APOSTOL
In the case at bar, it is imperative to find out
if the Mayor is indeed, the employer of
Lozano. To determine the existence of an
employment relationship, the Court rely on
the four-fold test. This involves:
1) the employer‟s power of selection;
2) payment
of
wages
or
other
remuneration;
3) employer‟s right to control the method
of doing the work; and
4) employer‟s right of suspension or
dismissal.
Employer who is made solidarily liable for
damages, may seek reimbursement from his
employee who committed the tortuous act
for the amount he paid to the offended party.
State is only liable for the negligent acts of
it‟s officers, agent, and employees when
they are acting as SPECIAL AGENTS.
SPECIAL AGENTS:
One who receives a definite and fixed order
of commission, foreign to the exercise of the
ordinary duties of his office.
Case: MERITT v. GOV’T OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
18
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Facts: Meritt was the victim in an accident
caused by the recklessness of the ambulance
driver of the PGH.
Issue: WoN the Gov‟t is liable for the
tortuous act of the ambulance driver.
Ruling: NO. The driver was NOT a special
agent of the Gov‟t. He was in the
performance of his regu.lar and special
duties as driver.
Aspects of Liability
Categorized:
of
the
State,
1. Public or government: State is liable
ONLY for the tortuous act of its
special agents.
2. Private or non-governmental: State is
engaged in private business, it
becomes liable as an ordinary
employer.
Imputed liability of Teachers and Heads
of Schools:
In the Exconde case, it was held that the
“teachers and directors of art arts and trades”
do not include teachers and heads of
academic institutions. This paragraph 7 of
Art.2180 was declared restrictive. However,
In Palisoc and Amadora, it was made liberal
to include both the academic and nonacademic schools.
In Pasco v. CFI of Bulacan, this is a return
to the restrictive rule. It speaks of
establishments of arts and trades. These are
not academic schools. In deviating from the
clear and provision of the law even to allow
a good intention, the Court has practically
made a legislation which is beyond its
prerogative.
General Rule: Where the school is
academic in nature, responsibility for the
tort committed by the student will attach the
teacher in charge of such students.
Exception: in the case of arts and trades, it
is the HEAD thereof, and only he, who shall
be held liable.
School or Institution Involved in Child
Care:
It means that the protective and supervisory
custody that the school and its head and
teachers exercise over the pupils and
students holds true for as long as they are at
attendance at the school, including recess
time. Nothing in the law requires that such
liability to attach, the pupil or student who
commits the tortuous act must live and board
at the school.
The student is in the custody of the school
authorities as long as he is under the control
and influence of the school and within its
premises, whether the semester has yet
begun or has already ended.
Working Scholars:
There is no employer-employee relationship
between students on one hand, and schools,
colleges or universities on the other, where
students work for the latter in exchange for
the privilege to study free of charge
provided the students are given real
opportunity, including such facilities as may
be reasonable, necessary to finish their
chosen courses under such arrangement.
Defense in Article 2180: Assuming there is
a tort committed, the parent, guardian,
employer, state, teacher, and the like shall be
exempted from liability if they can prove
that they exercised all the diligence of a
good father of the family to prevent damage.
The diligence of a good father of a family
requires only that diligence which an
ordinary prudent man would exercise with
regard to his own property.
ARTICLE 2181: Whoever pays for the
19
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
damage caused by his dependents or
employees may recover from the latter
what he has paid or delivered in
satisfaction of the claim.
Obligation of the Tortfeasor to
Reimburse Payor:
The vicarious debtor who paid for the
damage or injuries caused by the tortfeasor
is entitled to be reimbursed for what he paid.
Case: SARKIES v. IAC
Facts: Petitioner Sarkies organized a tour in
Corregidor where the Dizon‟s purchased six
round trip tickets from the former. On the
following day, Dizon‟s boarded M/V Edisco
which was owned and operated by Mendoza.
On the return trip to Manila, a disaster
struck, the boat capsized. The Dizon family
was saved, except for their six year old
child. The Dizon‟s filed a complaint for
damages for the drowning of Merceditas
against Sarkies and Mendoza. Sarkies
alleged that it is not the owner of M/V
Edisco. Mendoza , on the other hand, denied
liability claiming that he is not the registered
owner. TC exonerated Sarkies from liability,
CA reversed and held that both Sarkies and
Mendoza were held to be jointly and
severally liable.
Issue: WoN Sarkies has a right of
reimbursement against Mendoza.
Ruling: Yes. The actual negligence for the
drowning was the responsibility of
Mendoza. It is but fair that Sarkies should
have a right of action against Mendoza for
reimbursement. The provision is based on
Anglo-American Law. “where a railroad
company had been compelled to pay a
judgment for damages for injuries sustained
by a passenger as a result of the
maltreatment and misconduct of the
conductor..the Court held that the servant
was liable to his master and for all loss and
damage sustained by it.
ARTICLE 2182: If the minor or insane
person causing damage has no parents
or guardian, the minor or insane
person shall be answerable with his
own property in an action against him
where a guardian ad litem shall be
appointed.
If he commits a tort, he shall be answerable
with his own property in an action filed
against him. To grant him due process, the
court shall appoint a guardian ad litem who
will represent him in the case.
ARTICLE 2183: The possessor of an
animal or whoever may make use of the
same is responsible for the damage
which it may cause, although it may
escape or be lost. This responsibility
shall cease only in case the damage
should come from force majeure or
from the fault of the person who has
suffered damage.
(Nature and Basis of Obligation)
Case: VESTIL v. IAC
Held: It is based on natural equity and on the
principle of social interests that he who
possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or
service must answer for the damages which
such animal may cause.
WILD BEAST THEORY:
The person who for his own purposes brings
on his land and collects and keeps there
anything likely to do mischief if it escapes,
must keep it at his peril, and if he does not
do so, is prima facie answerable for all the
damages which is the natural consequence
of its escape.
The person in charge of the animal need not
be the owner, although the possessor may
also be the owner at the same time.
20
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
EXCEPTIONS to the rule of liability of
the possessor:
1. If the damage was caused by FORCE
MAJEURE.
2. If the damage was caused by the
FAULT OF THE PLAINTIFF OR
THE PERSON INJURED.
3. If the damage was caused by the
ACT OF A THIRD PERSON.
The above exceptions to the rule of liability
on the part of the possessor of the animal
constitute defences in the action filed against
him.
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the
owner is solidarily liable with his
driver, if the former, who was in the
vehicle, could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It
is disputably presumed that a driver is
negligent, if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the
next preceeding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle,
the provisions of Article 2180 are
applicable.
Rationale of 2184 to 2186 – “to cope with
the alarming increase of vehicular mishaps.”
Article applicable to a “Calesa” Mishap:
The article speaks of motor vehicle mishaps.
However, the principle in the article has
been applied to a “calesa” mishap where it
was held that the owner of the “calesa” who
was not in the “calesa” at the time of the
incident is not liable for the acts of his
“cochero.”
Liability of the car owner:
(a) If present in the car: he is liable if he
could have prevented the mishap by the
exercise of due diligence but did not do so.
Negligence under Article 2184 is to great
degree, necessarily subjective.
(b) If not present in the car: If the owner is
not in the car, but his driver is negligent, the
party may still sue the car owner under
Article 2180, paragraph 5 for imputed
liability. The car owner may avail himself of
the defense of having exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.
Effect, When Driver is Found Negligent:
Once a driver is proven negligent in causing
damage, the law presumes the vehicle owner
equally negligent and imposes upon the
latter the burden of proving the proper
selection of employee as a defense.
The presumption is not conclusive, but only
rebuttable. However, the vehicle owner, to
overcome the presumption must present
clear, strong and convicing evidence.
Malfunction or loss of break is not a
fortuitous event.
Effect of Ratification of Tortious Act of
Driver or Employee:
Even if the employer can prove diligence in
the selection and supervision of the
employee, still if he ratifies the wrongful
acts, or takes no step to avert further
damage, the employer would still be liable.
Art. 2185. Unless there is a proof to the
contrary, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle is negligent if at
the time of the mishap, he was violating
any traffic regulation.
21
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
A person driving a motor vehicle who was
violating any traffic regulation at the time of
the accident is presumed to be negligent.
Traffic regulations include traffic laws,
ordinances, special rules and regulations
issued during certain occasions promulgated
by competent authority.
Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor
vehicle shall file with the proper
government office a bond executed by a
government-controlled corporation or
office, to answer for damages to third
persons. The amount of the bond and
other terms shall be fixed by the
competent public official.
Motor Vehicle Bond -There are no known
implementing rules on the filing of the bond
to answer for damages to third persons.
proof of negligence is not necessary. It
applies even if the defendant manufacturer
or processor has exercised all the possible
care in the preparation and sale of his
product.
Contractual
Relationship
Between
Manufacturers Or Processors And
Consumers Is Not Necessary – Even if the
consumer or the user who was injured in the
consumption of the injurious foodstuffs,
drinks, etc. is not a direct buyer, as when he
acquired the foodstuffs through intermediate
dealers, the manufacturers and processors
are liable by express provision of the law.
The rule of strict liability is justified because
the manufacturers or processors have
assumed responsibility to the consuming
public that their products are safe and not
harmful or injurious.
Requisites Of Strict Liability:
However, a car owner cannot renew the
registration of his car without first securing
an insurance against third party liability.
This is different from other comprehensive
insurance coverage for theft, loss or own
damage for the protection of the car owner.
The registered owner of any vehicle is
directly and primarily responsible to the
public and third persons while it is being
operated.
Art.
2187.
Manufacturers
and
processors of food stuffs, drinks, toilet
articles and similar goods shall be liable
for death or injuries caused by any
noxious or harmful substances used,
although no contractual relation exists
between them and the consumers.
Principle of Strict Liability in Tort – The
principle of strict liability in tort means that
1. The defendant is the manufacturer or
processor of foodstuff, drinks, toilet
articles and similar goods involved;
2. The defendant used noxious of
harmful
substances
in
the
manufacture or processing of the
foodstuff, drink or toilet articles and
similar goods;
3. Plaintiff used or consumed such
product unaware of the injurious
condition of the product;
4. Plaintiff‟s injury, or death was
caused by the product used or
consumed;
5. The forms of kinds of damages
suffered and the amount thereof.
The plaintiff has the burden of proof that at
the time the product left the hands of the
defendant, the product was in a defective or
injurious condition. Otherwise, his case will
fall.
22
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Options or Remedies – The plaintiff has
four (4) options if he desires to pursue a
complaint against the manufacturer or
processor under Article 2187. He may base
his complaint on the (1) theory of strict
liability in torts; (2) fault or negligence; (3)
breach of warranty; or (4) crime anchored on
violation of the Foods and Drugs Act
wherein the doctrine of absolute criminal
liability may be applied.
Art. 2188. There is prima facie
presumption of negligence on the part
of the defendant if the death or injury
results form his possession of
dangerous weapons or substances, such
as firearms and poison, except when the
possession
or
use
thereof
is
indispensable in his occupation or
business.
When death or injury results from the
defendant‟s possession of dangerous
weapons or subtances, there is rebuttable
presumption that he is negligent. The burden
of evidence is on him to establish that he
was not negligent at all. The presumption
prevails if he falls to overcome it by clear,
strong and convincing evidence.
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and
municipalities shall be liable for
damages for the death of, or injuries
suffered by, any person by reason of the
defective condition of roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings, and other
public works under their control or
supervision.
If by reason of the defects in existing roads,
streets, bridges, etc., which are under the
control and supervision of provinces, cities
and municipalities, death or injuries are
caused to persons, the said political
subdivisions are liable therefor.
If damage consists in injury to property, it is
submitted that the same is deemed covered
by analogy.
Case: Guilatco vs City of Dagupan
Facts: Petitioner fell on a manhole and
fractured her leg.
Held: It is not necessary for the defective
road or street to belong to the province, city
or municipality for liability to attach. The
article only required that either control or
supervision is exercised over the defective
road or street.
Case: City of Manila vs Teotico
Facts: Teotico was at the corner of Old
Luneta within the loading and unloading
zone, waiting for a jeepney. As he stepped
down to board a jeepney, he fell inside the
manhole. Due to the fall, his head hit the rim
of the manhole breaking the eyeglasses and
causing broken pieces thereof to pierce his
eyelid.
Held: Under Article 2189 of the Civil Code,
it is not necessary for the liability therein
established to attach that the defective roads
or streets belong to the province, city or
municipality from which responsibility is
exacted. What the said article requires is that
the province, city or municipality has wither
“control or supervision” over the said the
street or road. The city is liable.
Case: Municipality of San Juan, Metro
Manila vs CA
Held: For liability to arise under Article
2189 of the Civil Code, ownership of the
roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and
other public works, is not a controlling
factor, it being sufficient that a province,
city, or municipality has control or
supervision thereof.
The municipality‟s liability for injuries
caused by its failure to regulate the drilling
and excavation of the ground for the laying
of gas, water, sewer, and other pipes,
attaches regardless of whether the drilling or
23
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
excavation is made on a national road or
municipal road, for as long as the same is
within its territorial jurisdiction.
sewers or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed
without
precautions
suitable to the place.
Art. 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
lack of necessary repairs.
If any of the four enumerated events
occurred, the proprietor of the machinery,
not necessarily of the owner of the tenement
where it is located, is presumed negligent.
He has to overcome the presumption with
sufficient evidence to avoid responsibility.
Any party may seek a writ of preliminary
injunction to prevent the construction of any
structures, tubes, cabals, etc., that threaten to
cause explosion, emit excessive smoke or
harmful emanations therefrom. He may also
seek a mandatory preliminary injunction to
compel the proprietor to perform, or do
something to prevent explosion of
machinery, emission of excessive smoke or
infectious matter, or to remove a falling tree.
The article applies when a building or
structure, due to lack of necessary repairs,
collapsed and caused harm to somebody.
The collapse may be total or partial. In either
case, the owner or proprietor shall be
responsible for the damage or injury caused.
If the collapse is not due to lack of necessary
repairs but to some other causes like force
majeure or defect in the construction
contemplated in Article 1723, the owner is
not responsible for the resulting damage or
injury.
Case: De Roy vs CA
Facts: A building got burned and its firewall
collapsed resulting in the destruction of the
tailoring shop. The members of the family
therein were injured.
Held: The doctrine of last clear chance is
not applicable to buildings, the defendant or
owner of the building is liable for damages.
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,
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.
Article 1723. 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
24
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
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.
If the building or structure referred to in
Articles 2190 and 2191 were constructed
with substantial defects which defects are
the cause of the damage or injury, the
injured party may proceed only against the
engineer or architect or contractor in
accordance with Article 1723.
The prescriptive period for the filing of the
action for damages is fifteen (15) years from
the time of the cause of action had accrued.
In lease and usufruct, the possession of the
subject property is transferred to the lessee
or usufructuary. If during the existence of
the lease or usufruct, the events mentioned
in the article occurred by reason of the sole
negligence of the lessee or usufructuary,
then he is liable. If the lessor or owner is
also negligent, both will be liable for the
damage or injury caused to another.
Article 2193. The head of a family that
lives in a building or a part thereof, is
responsible for damages caused by
things thrown or falling from the same.
Head of family is usually the father; in his
absence, the mother. A single person may
also be the head of the family if he is the one
supporting his family which he may include
as members, adopted children, unemployed
parents, brothers and sisters.
As head of the family, he/she is under
obligation to supervise the members of the
family. Even if he had nothing to do with the
occasioning of the damages, he/she is coresponsible with the actual tortfeasor
whether a member of the family; guest or
domestic helper. It is an imputed ability in
nature and solidarily in consequence. If
he/she paid for the damages, he/she may
recover from the tortfeasor.
Nature of liability is both absolute and
exclusive. It is absolute in the sense that as
long as he is the head of the family that lives
in the building or part thereof like a rented
room, he is liable even if he is not present at
the time of the incident. It is exclusive in the
sense that it is only the head of the family
who is made liable.
Article 2194. The responsibility of two
or more persons who are liable for
quasi-delict is solidary.
The article applies only when there is joint
tortfeasorship. Hence, it is necessary that
there be one quasi-delict.
The responsibility in the article is civil
liability arising from quasi-delict. The joint
tortfeasors are solidarily liable for the
damage caused.
The term “joint tortfeasors” includes all
persons who command, instigate, promote,
encourage, advise, commence, cooperate in,
aid or abet the commission of a tort. Or who
approve of it after it is done for their benefit.
They are each liable as principals, to the
same extent and in the same manner as if
they had performed the wrongful act
themselves.
In case of injury to a passenger due to the
negligence of the driver of the bus and of the
driver of another vehicle, the drivers as
wells as the vehicle owners are jointly and
severally liable for damages.
25
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
TITLE XVIII – DAMAGES
Damage – The word “damage” in these
articles comprehends all that are embraced
in its meaning. It includes any and all
damages that a human being may suffer in
any and all the manifestations of his life:
physical or material, moral or psychological,
mental or spiritual, financial, economic,
social, political, religious.
If plaintiff failed to pay filing fees for the
damage claimed, the court acquired no
jurisdiction over the claims. However,
compulsory counterclaims for damages and
attorney‟s fees are not subject to payment of
filing fees.
Article 2195. The provisions of this
Title shall be respectively applicable to
all obligations mentioned in article
1157.
Sources of Obligations: 1) Law; 2)
Contracts; 3) Quasi-contracts; 4) Acts or
Omissions punishable by law; and 5) Quasidelicts.
Article 2196. The rules under this Title
are without prejudice to special
provisions on damages formulated
elsewhere in this Code. Compensation
for workmen and other employees in
case of death, injury or illness is
regulated by special laws. Rules
governing damages laid down in other
laws shall be observed insofar as they
are not in conflict with this Code.
In case of conflict between the Civil Code
and special laws, the former prevails insofar
as issues of damages are concerned.
However, compensation for workmen and
other employees in case of death, injury or
illness shall be regulated by special laws and
not by the Civil Code. It has been held by
the Supreme Court that the employee may
either
sue
under
the
Workmen‟s
Compensation Act or under the Civil Code/
After having chosen one, he cannot choose
the other.
Under the law, the jurisdiction of Labor
Arbiters and the National Labor Relations
Commission is comprehensive enough to
include claims for all forms of damages
arising from employer-employee relations.
Regular courts have jurisdiction over actions
for damages where the employer-employee
relationship is merely incidental and the
cause of action proceeds from a different
source of obligation, such as where the
damages claimed were based on tort,
malicious prosecution, breach of contract, or
when the claimant seeks to recover debt
from a former employee or seeks liquidated
damages for enforcement of a prior
employment contact.
Article 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
Damages, Concept:
Damages
refer
to
the
pecuniary
compensation, recompense, or satisfaction
for an injury sustained by the injured party
to be paid by the person who caused the
injury. Stated otherwise, the term “damages”
refers to the pecuniary consequences
imposed by law or by agreement of the
parties for breach of some duty or violation
of some right.
26
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Damages, Contradistinguished From
Damage Or Injury:
Damages
refer
to
the
pecuniary
compensation or recompense paid to the
injured party. It is the measure of recovery.
While damage or injury refers to the
wrongful or tortious act or the legal wrong
which caused the loss or harm to the
aggrieved party.
There is material distinction between
damages and injury – injury is the illegal
invasion of a legal right while damage is the
loss, hurt or harm which results from the
injury, and damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage
suffered.
Damages distinguished from Debt:
Damages are not debts. An action to recover
damages is not an action to recover costs.
Aims of the Law on Damages: The law on
damages is intended to repair the damages
done by putting the plaintiff in the same
position, as far as pecuniary compensation
can do, that he would be, had the damage
not been inflicted
Art. 2198. The principles of the general
law on damages are hereby adopted
insofar as they are not inconsistent with
this Code.
Illustrations on the Application of the
General Law on Damages:
1. A public officer who goes beyond the
scope of his duty particularly when acting
tortiously is not entitled to protection on
account of his office but he is liable for his
own acts slike any private individual.
Consequently, an action for damages may br
filed against such officer.
2. Public officers are not liable for damages
for performing their legal duties in good
faith
3. Pains and sufferings, whether physical
and mental, are NOT elements of actual or
compensatory damages in this jurisdiction.
Aside from this exception, the measurr of
damages in this country and the United
States is arrived by the same evidence.
4. The word "damage" in these articles
comprehends all that are embraced in its
meaning. It includes any damages that a
human being may suffer in any and all the
manifestations of his life: physical or
material, miral or psychological, mental or
spiritual, financial, economic, social,
political, religious.
5. With respect to actual or compensatory
damages, the law mandates that the same be
proven.
6. One who exercises his rights does not
cause injury (Exception to this rule is when
there is abuse of right) Que jure suo ititur
nullum damnum facit.
If damage results from a person's
exercise of his legal rights, it is damnum
absque injuria.
7. There is no question that when a party is
unable to fulfill his obligation because of
"force majeure,"
General Rule: He cannot be held liable for
damages for non-performance
Exception: Article 1174
CHAPTER II
ACTUAL and COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or
stipulation, one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he
has duly proved. Such compensation is
27
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
referred to as actual or compensatory
damages.
and make a finding thereon in the body of
the decision.
Concept:
Actual or compensatory Damages are those
awarded to the aggrieved party as adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss
suffered by him as he alleged and duly
proved. Pecuniary loss is a measurement in
terms of money
Allegation and Proof; General Prayer:
Must be especially alleged and substantiated
by proof. Generally, what is not alleged,
may not be proved.
Purpose or Aim:
To simply make good or replace the loss
caused by a wong wrong. They proceed
from a sense of natural justice, and are
designed to repair that which one had been
deprived by the wrong of another.
Best Evidence Available to the injured party
must be presented
Actual damages in Kidnapping for
Ransom:
Case:
People vs. Solongan
Ruling: Actual damages may be awarded
representing the amount of the ransom paid.
In addition, they are also entitled to moral
damages.
Actual damages are NOT DIFFERENT
from Compensatory damages for they are
synonymous:
Case: People vs. Laceste
Ruling: In the first place, actual damages are
not different from compensatory damages.
Under Chapter 2, Title XVIII, Book IV of
the Civil Code, actual and compensatory
damages are synonymous; hence the title of
the Chapter as well as Article 2199 thereof
refer to them as actual and compensatory
damages. They are, as well, different from
moral damages under Article 2217 of the
Civil Code. In every case then, courts must
specify the award for each item of damages
Must be competent proof of the actual
amount of loss.
The court cannot rely on uncorroborated
testimony whose truth is suspect but must
depend upon competent proof that damages
have been actually suffered.
Not essential that the exact amount of the
damages be proved. Absolute certainty as to
the amount is not required. It is enough that
the loss is proved and if the amount awarded
by the court is fair and reasonable, this will
be allowed.
The damages awarded must be based on the
evidence adduced and not on the personal
knowledge of the court. They are not
presumed.
No Filing Fee for Actual Damages:
For filing a claim for actual damages in
criminal cases, no filing fee is required
*Where the amount of actual damages
cannot be determined because of the absence
of documentary evidence to prove the same,
but it is shown that the heirs of the victims
are entitled thereto, temperate damages may
be awarded.
Case: Integrated Packing Corporations vs.
CA
Ruling: while indemnification for damages
28
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
comprehends not only the loss suffered, that
is to say actual damages (damnum
emergens), but also profits which the oblige
failed to obtain, referred to as compensatory
damages, it is necessary to prove with
reasonable degree of certainty premised
upon competent proof and the best
evidence obtainable by the injured party, the
actual amount of loss.
Distinctions:
Civil Liability Ex Delicto vs. Actual (or
Compesatory) Damages
These two species of damages differ
basically in that civil indemnity ex delicto
can be awarded without need of further
proof than the fact of commission of the
felony itself, while actual or compensatory
damages to be recoverable must additionally
be established with reasonable degree of
certainty.
Effect of Absence of proof or when proof
is Flimsy and Unsubstantial: damages
should NOT be awarded.
Case: Capco vs. Macasaet
Ruling: actual or compensatory damages are
those recoverable because of pecuniary loss
in business, trade, property, profession, job
or occupation, and the same must prove;
otherwise, if the proof is flimsy and
unsubstantial, no damages will be given.
Actual and compensatory damages require
evidentiary proof. They cannot be presumed.
*It is elementary that actual and
compensatory damages, unlike moral and
exemplary damages, cannot be left to the
sole discretion of the court.
Limitation on the Award for Damages:
In no instance shall the judge grant damages
more than what had been proved in court. It
is well-settled that actual or compensatory
damages must be duly proved and proved
with reasonable degree of certainty and not
predicated on mere conjecture or guesswork.
The indemnity authorized by our criminal
law as civil indemnity ex delicto for the
offended party, is itself equivalent to actual
or compensatory damages.
Term “Except as provided by Law or By
Stipulation,” Its Significance:
General Rule: Damages must be proved
Exceptions:
1. When a penalty clause is agreed upon in
the contract between the parties (Art.1226)
2. When liquidated damages have been
agreed upon (Art. 2226)
3. When loss is presumed as when a child or
spouse dies as a result of the act or omission
of a person
4. Forfeiture of bonds in favor of the
Government for the purpose ofpromoting
public policy or interest.
5. Death caused within the contemplation of
Article 2206.
In the above situations, actual or
compensatory damages need not be proved.
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages
shall comprehend not only the value of
the loss suffered, but also that of the
profits which the obligee failed to
obtain.
Kinds of Actual of Compensatory
Damages:
a. Damnum Emergens (or dono emergente)
– this is the value of the actual pecuniary
loss for what the claimant already possesses
before the incident which must be supported
by receipts or the best evidence available.
Illustration: Watch unlawfully taken worth
20, 000php (evidenced by receipt or best
evidence available), this amount is the dano
29
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
emergente that must be paid as adequate
compensation for the watch.
b. Lucrum Cessans (or lucro cessante) –
this refers to the expected profits which were
not realized by reason of the act of the
offender
or
tortfeasor.
Illustration: if A is delivering 1000 chicken
eggs to a hotel at a price of 10.00php a piece
which he bought from a poultry farm at
6.00php a piece he expects a profit of
4,000.00php, nut by the acts of B, all the
eggs were broken. A can recover
4,000.00php as unrealized profits as well as
6,000.00php representing the capital he
spent for the eggs as actual loss.
Loss of Profit cannot be shouldered by
the Insurer: the assured‟s loss of profit
cannot be shouldered ny the insurer whose
obligation is limited to the object of
insurance, the stock-in-trade, and not the
expected loss of income or profit.
Both Actual (Damnum Emergens) and
Compensatory (Lucrum Cessans) CAN be
granted at the same time to the Plaintiff:
Case: RCPI vs CA
Ruling: It is not entirely erroneous to grant
both items of damages. Indemnification for
damages shall comprehend not only the
value of the loss suffered, or actual damages
(“damnum emergens”), but also that of the
profits which the oblige failed to obtain, or
compensatory damages (“lucrum cessans”).
Basis of Loss of Earning Capacity (Not
Lost Earnings or Income): it is well-settled
that to be compensated for the loss of
earning capacity, it is not necessary that the
victim, at the time of injury or death, be
gainfully employed – compensation of this
nature is awarded not for loss of earnings
but for loss of incapacity to earn money
The computation for the loss of
earning capacity should be based not on the
net monthly income of the deceased but on
his gross annual income minus the necessary
and incidental living expenses which the
victim would have incurred if he were alive,
estimated at 50% of the gross annual
income.
Factors to consider in determining the loss
of earning capacity:
1. The number of years for which the
victim would have otherwise lived; and
2. The rate of loss sustained by the
heirs of the deceased.
Art. 2201. In contracts and quasicontracts, the damages for which the
obligor who acted in good faith is liable
shall be those that are the natural and
probable consequences of the breach of
the obligation, and which the parties
have foreseen or could have reasonably
foreseen at the time the obligation was
constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith,
malice or wanton attitude, the obligor
shall be responsible for all damages
which may be reasonably attributed to
the non-performance of the obligation.
Presumptive Concept – presupposes the
existence of a pre-existing contractual
relationship between the parties. It is the law
which provides for the missing consent
referred to as presumptive consent
Case: Hicks vs, Manila Hotel Co.
Facts: Hicks entered in 1912 into a written
contract by which defendant, Manila Hotel
Co. ceded to Hicks th exclusive rights to
serve its patrons with his cars for one year,
“with preference over others of renewing”
for another year. The Manila Hotel did not
renew the contract.
30
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Issue: Is the Manila Hotel liable for damages
for violation of the contract?
Ruling: As the Manila Hotel violated the
contract, it is liable for damages under Arts.
1106 and 1107 of the Civil Code, now Arts.
2200 and 2201.
Distinction between the first and second
paragraph
1st paragraph
- Defendant is in good faith
- Liable for the natural and
probable consequences of the
breach of the obligations
- Refers to mere carelessness
2nd paragraph
- Defendant is in bad faith
- Liable for all the damage which
he may be reasonably attributed
to the breach of the obligation
- Refers to deliberate or wanton
wrong-doing
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts,
the defendants shall be liable for all the
damages which are the natural and
probable consequences of the act or
omission complained of. It is not
necessary that such damages have been
foreseen or could have reasonably been
foreseen by the defendant.
Civil Liability of Defendant in Crimes
and Quasi-Delicts:
The defendant is liable for ALL damages
which are the natural and probable
consequence of the act or omission
complained of.
It is NOT NECESSARY that the
consequences or damages have been
foreseen or could have reasonably been
foreseen by the defendant .
*In Article 2201 there is a contract existing
between the parties
In Article 2202 there is no contract existing.
Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or
injury must exercise due diligence of a
good father of a family to minimize the
damages resulting from the act or
omission in question.
Duty imposed upon the victim:
To take such reasonable measures as
prudent
men
usually
take
under
circumstances as would reduce the damage
as much as possible.
e.g. An employee who has been discharged
is under obligation to use reasonable
diligence to obtain suitable employment.
Burden of proof:
Defendant has burden of proof to establish
that the victim by the exercise of due
diligence could have mitigated the damages
(Lemoine vs. Aklan)
Art. 2204. In crimes the damages to be
adjudicated may be respectively
increased or lessened according to the
aggravating
or
mitigating
circumstances.
Aggravating circumstances, concept:
Those which, if present in the commission
of the crime, serve to increase the penalty
because of the unusual perversity manifested
by the offender.
Mitigating circumstances, concept:
Those which, if present in the commission
of the crime, serve to decrease the penalty
imposable by law.
Presence of aggravating circumstances:
Award of exemplary damages. Otherwise, it
shall not be imposed.
31
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered:
1. For the loss of or impairment of
earning capacity of temporary or
permanent personal injury;
2. For the injury to the plaintiff‟s
business standing or commercial credit.
Coverage of Actual Damages.
Aside from actual pecuniary loss which has
to be proved, actual damages also cover:
a. Loss or impairment of earning capacity
of temporary or permanent personal injury.
(which must also be duly proved)
Formula for Computation of Unearned
Income:
Net earning capacity (x) = life expectancy x
gross annual income less living expenses
(50% of the gross annual income)
Life expectancy – remains at 80
b. Injury to plaintiff’s business standing or
commercial credit.
loss of goodwill and loss of customers or
shippers who shifted their patronage to
competitors caused by a transmission of an
erroneous telegram from “No truck
available” to Truck Available (Radio Com.
of Phil. Inc. vs. CA)
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for
death caused by a crime or quasi-delict
shall be at least Three thousand pesos,
even though there may have been
mitigating circumstances. In addition:
1. The defendant shall be liable for the
loss of the earning capacity of the
deceased, and the indemnity shall be
paid to the heirs of the latters, such
indemnity shall in every case be
assessed and awarded by the court,
unless the deceased on account of
permanent physical disability not
caused by the defendant, had no
earning capacity at the time of his
death;
2. If the deceased was obliged to give
support according to the provisions of
Article 291, the recipient who is not an
heir called to the decedent‟s inheritance
by the law of testate or intestate
succession, may demand support from
the person causing the death, for a
period not exceeding five years, the
exact duration to be fixed by the court;
3. The spouse, legitimate and
illegitimate descendants and ascendants
of the deceased may demand moral
damages for mental anguish by reason
of the death of the deceased.
Applicability: Article applies only in case
of death of a person by reason of a crime or
quasi-delict.
If victim merely injured, article is not
applicable. But he is entitled to moral
damages –
1. If the physical injuries are caused by a
crime (Art. 2219 [1])
2. If the injuries are caused by a quasi-delict
(Art. 2219 [2])
3. If caused by breach of contract (such as
common carriage) if the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith (Art. 2220)
32
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Civil Indemnity in case of Death is
different from Actual Damages:
Article 2206 applies to death of passenger
due to breach of contract of common
carrier
Latest SC decisions – amount subject of
this article is now raised to Php 50,000
Award of civil indemnity ex delicto – no
other proof is necessary other than the fact
of death of the victim and the accused‟s
responsibility.
Other items of damages recoverable in
addition to compensatory damages.
The heirs are entitled to the following:
1. Indemnity for loss of earning capacity.
Unbiased proof of the deceased‟s average
income must be presented (not just gross
income). Otherwise, court may not grant
damages for loss of income.
Factors to Consider; Loss of Earning
Capacity
2 factors to determine he amount:
a. Number of years on the basis of which the
damages shall be computed; and
b. The rate at which the losses sustained by
the widow and her children should be fixed
(Benguet Elec. Coop. Inc. vs. CA)
General Rule: Indemnity for loss of earning
capacity cannot be awarded in the absence
of documentary evidence.
Exceptions:
1. If the deceased is self-employed earning
less than the minimum wage under current
labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken
of the fact that in the victim‟s line of work
no documentary evidence is available.
2. If the deceased is employed as a daily
wage worker earning less than the minimum
wage under the current laws
(People vs. Oco)
Relatives entitled to Moral Damages.
1. surviving spouse
2. descendants (children and grandchildren,
legitimate or illegitimate)
3. ascendants (parents and grandparents,
legitimate or illegitimate)
Notes: a. brothers and sisters of deceased
not accorded the right to recover moral
damages
b. adopted and legitimated children –
considered legitimate children.
Note: earning capacity will not be
considered if the deceased had no earning
capacity at the time of his death.
(However, such must not be due to
defendant‟s fault)
c. illegitimate children – necessary that
they must have been previously
recognized by the deceased. (otherwise, no
right to seek damages of any kind as
heirs)
2. Moral Damages (Art. 2217)
Including mental anguish, serious anxiety
and wounded feelings, may be recovered in
criminal offenses resulting in the victim‟s
death.
Moral damages to the heirs should be
made individually and in varying
amounts:
Depending upon proof of mental anguish
and depth or intensity of the same.
33
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Civil Indemnity ex delicto vs. Actual or
compensatory damages:
Former – can be awarded without further
proof other than commission of felony itself
Latter – must be established with reasonable
degree of certainty
Support to a recipient who is not an heir:
The offender should be ordered to continue
the giving of support for a period not
exceeding five (5) years but the exact
amount and period of which shall be
determined by the court using its sound
discretion.
Exemplary damages are also recoverable.
Cases where Article 2206 was not found
applicable:
1. The father of the fetus which was aborted
without former‟s consent.
(reason: fetus did not acquire juridical
personality)
2. The brother of a person who died in a
collision between a car and a train of the
sugar central, although considered a next of
kin of the decedent.
(spouse, descendants and ascendants are the
ones entitled)
3. Expenses relating to 9th day, 40th day and
1st year death anniversaries
4. When widow did not testify on any
mental anguish or emotional distress
suffered upon husband‟s death
5. Offense filed is only for illegal possession
of firearm and killing merely aggravated it.
Factors in determining reasonableness of
damages under 1764 in conjunction with
Art. 2206:
a. life expectancy and loss of earning
capacity
b. pecuniary loss, loss of support and service
c. moral and mental sufferings
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff‟s property has
been insured, and he has received
indemnity for the insurance company
from the injury or loss arising out of
wrong
or
breach
of
contract
complained of, the insurance company
shall be subrogated to the rights of the
insured against the wrongdoer or the
person who has violated the contract. If
the amount paid by the insurance
company does not fully cover the injury
or loss, the aggrieved party shall be
entitled to recover the deficiency from
the person causing the loss or injury.
Effect of Receipt of Insurance Indemnity
by Plaintiff:
The insurer who has paid shall be
subrogated in the place of the injured party
in the latter‟s rights against the offender or
violation of contractual commitment.
Consent of the debtor is not required for
the effectuation of the subrogation.
Equitable Assignment of All Remedies:
Payment by the insurer to the assured
operates as an equitable assignment to the
former of all remedies which the latter may
have against the third party negligence or
wrongful act caused the loss.
Instances when principle of subrogation
does not apply:
1. When the assured by his own act releases
the wrongdoer or third person liable for the
loss or damage from liability.
34
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
2. When the insurer pays the assured the
value of the loss goods without notifying the
carrier who has in good faith settled the
assured‟s claim for loss.
and evident bad faith in refusing to
satisfy the plaintiff‟s plainly valid, just
and demandable claim;
6. In actions for legal support;
3. When the insurer pays the assured for a
loss which is not a risk covered by the
policy.
7. In actions for the recovery of wages
of household helpers, laborers and
skilled workers;
Effect if insurance indemnity received is
not sufficient to cover the damage or
injury:
Injured party shall be entitled to recover the
deficiency from the person who caused the
loss or injury.
8. In actions for indemnity under
workmen‟s
compensation
and
employer‟s liability laws;
NOTE: Article 2207 not applicable to loss
of human life or injury to natural persons
9. In a separate civil action to recover
civil liability arising from a crime;
10. When at least double judicial costs
are awarded;
Property insurance is intended to reimburse
the insured for loss of property.
11. In any other case where the court
deems it just and equitable that
attorney‟s fees and expenses of
litigation should be recovered;
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation,
attorney‟s fees and expenses of
litigation, other than judicial costs,
cannot be recovered, except:
In all cases, the attorney‟s fees and
expenses of litigation must be
reasonable.
1. When
awarded;
exemplary
damages
are
2. When the defendant‟s act or
omission compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with third persons or to incur
expense to protect his interest;
3. In criminal cases of malicious
prosecution against the plaintiff;
4. In case of a clearly unfounded civil
action or proceeding against the
plaintiff;
Applicability.
Exceptional grant of:
1. Attorney‟s fees; and
2. Litigation expenses
Nature of Attorney‟s Fees.
Extraordinary attorney‟s fees which are
items of actual damages.
Two concepts of attorney‟s fees.
1. Ordinary
- reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer
for the legal advices he has rendered to a
client who has engaged him. (fact of
employment of the lawyer by the client)
5. Where the defendant acted in gross
35
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
2. Extraordinary
- indemnity for damages ordered by
court to be paid by the losing party to
prevailing party in a litigation.
(payable to the client, unless agreed that
award shall pertain to the lawyer
additional compensation)
the
the
the
as
Stipulation on payment of extraordinary
attorney‟s fees.
It is not improper for them(client and
lawyer) to agree that the lawyer‟s fees shall
be based on a certain percentage of the
amount of the principal obligation.
(fees agreed upon are in the nature of
liquidated damages)
However, if amount fixed is iniquitous or
unconscionable, the court may reduce the
same to a reasonable amount.
Absence of stipulation on attorney‟s fees.
Attorney‟s fees are not recoverable, except
in cases mentioned in this Article (2208)
Attorney‟s fees and litigation expenses are
not a matter of right.
Ordinary attorney‟s fees payable even if
not expressly agreed upon.
- basis for this is quasi-contract
Attorney‟s Fees must be justified in the
text of the decision.
The award of attorney‟s fees must be stated
in the text of the court‟s decision, otherwise,
if it stated only in the dispositive portion, the
same must be disallowed on appeal.
Award of attorney‟s fees – exception rather
than general rule.
Attorney‟s Fees and Litigation Expenses
are not a matter of right
Exception to the rule – Article 2208 of the
CC
Ordinary Attorney‟s fees payable even if
not expressly agreed upon
-Lawyer is entitled to ordinary attorney‟s fee
as long as he rendered services to the client
-Basis for payment is quasi-contract – for no
one should be enriched at the expense of
another
-Quantum meruit/ as much as one deserves
determination of the amount to be paid
Attorney‟s fees must be justified in the
text of the decision
-court must make express factual findings to
justify grant of counsel‟s fee because its
grant is an exception rather than the rule.
- applies whether attorney‟s fee is
extraordinary or ordinary
Attorney‟s fee must be alleged and prayed
for
- if not prayed for it is barred
General prayer, not sufficient to justify
attorney‟s fee
- must be specifically prayed for
Attorney‟s fee cannot be consolidated
with moral damages
- because each must be specifically
determined
-attorney‟s fee and nominal damages may be
granted together. But nominal cannot coexist with the other kinds of damages
Attorney‟s fee – requires judicial discretion
when granted; not taxed as cost
Cost – their taxation is ministerial duty of
the court
It was only after the New Civil Code took
effect when the right to collect attorney‟s fee
was recognized
Case: Justiva vs Gustilo
36
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
-GR: attorney‟s fee is not the proper element
of damages, for it is not sound policy to set a
premium on the right to litigate. No right to
such fees can accrue merely because of an
adverse decision
-Exception: Article 2208
Quantum meruit
-When stipulated attorney‟s fee appears to
be unconsciounable and unreasonable –
court must fixed it based on quantum meriut
-lawyer as a court officer, his fees should be
subject to judicial control
Discussion of the exceptional cases when
the attorney‟s fees (extraordinary
concept) are allowed as items of actual
damages
1. When exemplary damages are awarded
2. When the plaintiff was compelled to
litigate or to incur expenses to protect his
interest because of defendants act or
omission
3. Malicious prosecution in criminal cases
4. Clearly unfounded Civil action or
proceeding against the plaintiff
5. Where the defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
paintiff‟s plainly valid, just and demandable
claim.
6. Actions for legal support
7. Actions for recovery of wages of
household helpers, laborers and skilled
workers
8. Actions for indemnity under workmen‟s
compensation and employers liability laws
9. In a separate Civil action to recover civil
liability arising from a crime
10. When at least double judicial costs are
awarded
11. In any other cases where the court deems
it just and equitable that attorney‟s fees and
expenses of litigation should be recovered
When barred – if not pleaded and prayed
for in the complaint
Where to pursue claims for ordinary
attorney‟s fees:
1) may be asserted either in the very action
in which the services in question had been
rendered or
2) in a separate action filed against the client
in another forum
The amount of the attorney‟s fees DOES
NOT affect the jurisdiction of the court
Effect
of
charging
exorbitant
extraordinary attorney‟s fees; denial is
proper:
Case: Globe Assurance vs Arache
Plaintiff not entitled to attorney‟s fees. The
defendant‟s refusal to pay the amount
claimed was not due to malice but because
the plaintiff demanded more than what is
should. Hence the defendant had a right to
refuse it.
Case: Soberano vs Manila Railroad
Where the defendant companies offered to
settle the case by offering P500 to the
appellants, which, they, however, rejected
and they proceeded to the court to recover
damages in the total sum of P76,757.76. It is
clear that defendant companies did not
compel appellants to litigate, or to incur
expenses in connection with the litigation
instituted by them. Appellants went to court,
after rejecting the defendant companies‟
offer to settlement. The latter cannot be
considered to have acted in gross and
evident bad faith in not satisfying the claims
of appellants “have asked for too much,”
and the “defendant was justified in resisting
this action”
Charging of Exorbitant Ordinary
Attorney‟s fee; Reduction is proper
37
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Art. 2209 If the obligation consists in
the payment of a sum of money, and the
debtor incurs the delay, the indemnity
for damages, there being no stipulation
to the contrary, shall be the payment of
the interest agreed upon, and in the
absence of stipulation, the legal interest,
which is six percent per annum.
Effect of Delay in the payment of sum of
money
When there is delay, the measure of damges
is limited to:
1. to the interest stipulated by the parties; or
2. to the legal interest (6% per annum)
provided by the law in the absence of
stipulation
3. If there is stipulation for payment of
interes in forbearance of money but the
percentage is not agreed upon, the interest is
12% per annum.
Case: Philippine tobacco Administration vs
Tensuan
Held: The Reformina case was an Action for
Damages for injury to persons and loss of
property which was held not to involve any
loan, much less forbearance of any money,
goods or credits and therefore the law
applicable law is Art 2209 of the CC and not
the Central Bank Cir. No. 416. To make the
latter law applicable to any case other than
those specifically provided for by the Usury
Law would be to violate the principle of
undue delegation of legislative powers since
the Monetary Board will be exercising
legislative functions which was beyond the
intendment of PD 116.
Reckoning Period for payment of interest
- reckoned from the date of demand which
could either be judicial or extrajudicial
- if there is no evidence of an extrajudicial
demand, the period shall be counted from
the judicial demand
In money judgment, rate of interest is
12% from finality
When the judgment of the court awarding a
sum of money becomes final and executor,
the rate of legal interest, regardless of
whether the obligation involves a loan or
forbearance of money, shall be 12% per
annum from such finality until its
satisfaction, this interim period being
deemed to be by then an equivalent to
forbearance credit.
Art. 2210 Interest may, in the discretion
of the court, be allowed upon damages
awarded for breach of contract.
In case of breach of contract, court has
discretion to impose interest upon the
damages awarded.
Reckoning period – from the date the
judgment of the trial court was rendered.
Case: Pleno vs CA
Facts: The Court of First Instance ordered
the payment of the sum of money with
interest. The same was appealed to the CA
on question of prescription. The CA
affirmed the judgement but neglected to give
the interest granted by the lower court.
Issue: Should the extension of the judgment
include the interest?
Ruling: The answer is in the affirmative
inspite of the silence of the judgment of the
CA. The reason is that the CA decided
merely the issue of prescription. Interest was
not discussed in its judgment. The
affirmance also of the grant of interest.
If no stipulation for payment of interest,
the principal shall not bear the interest
38
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
-However if the exemption from the interest
covers only a fixed period, it is understood
that interest shall be due outside the said
period.
Effect of absence of stipulation to pay
ineterest
- there would be no compounding of interest
Obligations with a penal clause
- penalty shall substitute the indemnity for
damages and the payment of interest in case
of noncompliance, if there is no stipulation
to the contrary.
- penalty may be enforced only when it is
demandable
Applicability of Art. 2212
-applicable where conventional interest had
accrued which would earn interest upon
judicial demand
-compounding interest is applicable only to
obligations containing stipulations for
interest.
Stipulation on penalty
-Art. 1226 permits an agreement upon a
penalty apart from the interest
- penalty and interest are two and distinct
things which may be demanded separately
Art. 2213 Interest cannot be recovered
upon unliquidated claims or damages,
expect when the demand can be
established with reasonable certainty.
Art. 2211 In crimes and quasi-delicts,
interest as a part of the damages may,
in proper case, be adjudicated in the
discretion of the court.
- basis of interest- 6% per snnum
- no interest shall be adjudged on
unliquidated claims or damages expect
when or until the demand can be ascertained
with reasonable certainty
Art. 2212 Interest due shall earn legal
interest from the time it is judicially
demanded, although the obligation may
be silent on this point.
Accrued interest – interest due in an
obligation
- accrued interest earns legal interest (6%
per annum) from the time of judicial demand
and not from default
-legal interest earned even if it is not
mentioned in the contract
-filing of complaint constitute the judicial
demand
Unliquidated claims or damages
- not fixed or predetermined
Hence no interest can be imposed upon
them.
Reckoning time when legal interest may
be collected form unliquidated damages
-should start from the date of the decision of
the trial court as it is only then that the
claims or damages are definitively
ascertained.
-computed from the time of the finality of
the decision and not from the filing of the
complaint against the accused.
Art. 2214 In quasi-delicts, the
contributory negligence of the plaintiff
shall reduce the damages that he may
recover.
The contributory negligence of the plaintiff
has the effect of reducing or mitigating the
damages he can recover from the defendant.
Art. 2215 In contracts, quasi-contracts,
and quasi-delicts, the court may
39
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
equitably mitigate the damages under
circumstances other than the case
referred to in the preceding article, as
in the ff.:
1. the plaintiff himself has contravened
the terms of the contract;
2. the plaintiff has derived some benefit
as a result of the contract
3. in case where exemplary damages are
to be awarded, that the defendant acted
upon the advice of the counsel;
4. loss would have resulted in any event
5. that since the filing of the action, the
defendant has done his best to lessen
tha plaintiff‟s loss or injury
Mitigation of damages in contracts, quasicontracts and quasi delicts
-Reason for the mitigation of damages in
quasi-delict: contributory negligence of the
plaintiff although the immediate and
proximate cause of his damage is still
mainly the negligence or omission of the
defendant
-plaintiff‟s partial contribution to his injury
justifies the reduction of the damages
Instances of grounds for mitigation of
damages
a. for contracts
1. Violation of terms of the contract by the
plaintiff himself;
2. obtention or enjoyment of benefits under
the contract by the plaintiff himself.
3. Defendant acted upon advice of counsel
in cases where exemplary damages are to be
awarded such as under Article 2230, 2231,
2232
4. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff‟s injury or loss
b. For Quasi-Contracts
1. in cases where exemplary damages are to
be awarded such as Art. 2232;
2. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff‟s injury or loss
c. For quasi-delicts
1. that the loss would have resulted in any
event because of the negligence or omission
of another , and where such negligence or
omission is the immediate and proximate
cause of the damage or injury
2. defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff‟s injury or loss.
Enumeration of mitigating events, not
limitative
-Art 2215 is not exclusive.
-other circumstances of similar in nature
may be considered to mitigate damages
Rule when contracting parties are in paridelicto:
Case: Hulst vs PR Builders, Inc.
Held: Since petitioner and his wife, being
Dutch Nationals, are proscribed under the
Constitution from acquiring and owning real
property, it is unequivocal that the Contract
to Sell entered into by petitioner together
with his wife and respondent is void….
A void contract is equivalent to nothing.
Parties to a void contract cannot expect the
aid of the law; the courts leave them as they
are, because they are deemed in pari delicto.
No damages are recoverable.
CHAPTER III
OTHER KINDS OF DAMAGES
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is
necessary in order that moral, nominal,
temperate, liquidated or exemplary
damages, may be adjudicated. The
assessment of such damages, except
liquidated ones, is left to the discretion
of the court, according to the
circumstances of each case.
40
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Coverage (aside from actual/compensatory)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Moral (Art. 2217)
Nominal (Art. 2221)
Temperate (Art. 2224)
Liquidated (Art. 2226)
Exemplary/Corrective (Art. 2229)
Important points in other kinds of damages:




Assessment (except liquidated damages)
is discretionary to the Court.
No proof of pecuniary or monetary loss
is required.
Essential that there should be a clear
showing of the facts giving rise to such
damage.
It is essential that the claimant should
satisfactorily prove the (1) factual basis
of the moral damages and its (2) causal
relation to the defendant‟s act.
-Reason: Moral damages is an award to
compensate the claimant and not to
impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.
Same reason with exemplary damages.
SECTION 1.
MORAL DAMAGES
Art. 2217. Moral damages include
physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury. Though incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate
result of the defendant's wrongful act
or omission.
 Ancient maxim: “When there is wrong,
there is a remedy.”
 PURPOSE: Moral damages are awarded
to allow the plaintiff to obtain means,
diversion, or amusements that will serve



to alleviate the moral suffering he has
undergone due to the defendant‟s
culpable action and must, perforce, be
proportional to the suffering inflicted.
The provision did not define the term
moral damages since it as many injuries
similar or having resemblance to the
different pains enumerated therein might
be excluded.
8 enumerations of moral damages are
NOT exclusive because of the term “and
similar injury.”
Nature of moral damages:
 An award designed to compensate
the claimant
 The compensation is not a penalty
 Incapable of pecuniary estimation
 Right to recover is based on equity
 He who comes to court to demand
equity must come with clean hands.
WHEN recoverable:

It must be established that the act or
omission of defendant is the
proximate cause of the damage or
injury suffered by the plaintiff.
CANNOT be recovered:





in the absence of wrongful act,
omission, fraud, or bad faith
mere vexation or mental anguish
feelings which are products of
sensitiveness
embarrassment allegedly suffered by
the customer when the waiter
accidentally lost his grip on a tray
containing soft drinks, overturned
and fell on the customer
worries and anxieties of a defendant
in a litigation that was not
maliciously instituted
41
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19







cannot be recovered from a person
who has filed a complaint in good
faith against another
when the filing of the case by the
plaintiff was due to an honest
mistake in the appreciation of the
applicable law and jurisprudence
when complaint filed was found
reasonable
husband or next of kin is not entitled
to moral damages for the physical
injuries suffered by the wife
mere sympathy cannot justify moral
damages (unless plaintiff is physical
injured)
mere sympathy for a close relative‟s
physical hurt
Whims and caprices of courts are not
tolerated. The court‟s discretion in
granting or refusing damages is
governed by reason and justice.
Art. 2218. In the adjudication of moral
damages, the sentimental value of
property, real or personal, may be
considered.
 Sentimental value of property- the value
placed by the owner on the said property
which is more than its actual value by
reason of some sentiments of longing,
desire, affection to the property, or
respect and honor to its grantor.
 Examples: personal things like:
 Donated jewelry
 Medals and trophies
 Plaques of merits or achievements
 Certificates or appreciation
 Antiquated religious images
 Family bibles
 Portraits
Sentimental Value
Goodwill
- refers to personal
attachment of the
owner
to
the
property
- refers to public
patronage to one‟s
business like a
shop, resort, hotel,
etc. which enhances
its public image
and reputation
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be
recovered in the following and
analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in
physical injuries; (*no proof of
pecuniary loss is necessary)
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical
injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other
lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or
arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of
defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in
Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34,
and 35.
The parents of the female seduced,
abducted, raped, or abused, referred to
in No. 3 of this article, may also recover
moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants,
and brothers and sisters may bring the
action mentioned in No. 9 of this article,
in the order named.



The enumeration is NOT EXCLUSIVE.
Analogous cases may also justify
recovery.
General Rule: Moral damages are not
presumed; PROOF IS NECESSARY.
42
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19


Except: In rape cases.
The grant of moral damages is
automatically made without need of
proof for it is assumed that the
complainant has sustained mental,
physical, and psychological sufferings.
Mental Anguish – a mental suffering of
high degree and not a mere
disappointment or regret.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER FOR
RECOVERY OF MORAL DAMAGES:
1. There must be physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety personally suffered by the
plaintiff, which must be proved by
testimonial evidence, among others;
2. The case must be one of those
enumerated in Art. 2219 and 2220;
and
3. There must be bad faith or wrongful
act or omission.

REQUISITES FOR AWARD OF
MORAL DAMAGES:
1. There must be an injury (whether
physical, mental or psychological)
2. There must be a culpable act or
omission factually established;
3. The wrongful act or omission of
defendant is the proximate cause of
the injury sustained by claimant; and
4. The award of damages is predicated
on any of the cases stated in Article
2219 of the Civil Code.

Moral damages are different from
compensatory
damages
or
civil
indemnity, and should be awarded
separately.
o Based on different jural
foundations and assessed by
the court in the exercise of
sound discretion.

Civil indemnity in rape is different from
moral damages. Civil indemnity is
mandatory upon the finding of the fact of
rape.

CASES OR INSTANCES JUSTIFYING
RECOVERY OF MORAL DAMAGES:
1. Criminal offenses resulting in
physical injuries (includes death); if
there
is
NO
DEATH
OR
PHYSICAL
INJURIES,
moral
damages cannot be recovered in
criminal cases.
- No proof of loss is necessary in
order that such damages may be
adjudicated
- A taxi company is not liable for
moral damages based on criminal
negligence of driver – taxi driver
can be held liable for moral
damages; but not the taxi
company for the latter did not
commit
the
crime
nor
participated in its commission.
2. Quasi-delicts causing physical
injuries
- Quasi-delicts just like in crimes,
must result in physical injuries to
justify grant of moral damages.
- Quasi-delicts which do not give
rise to physical injuries are
deemed excluded from the
coverage of the article except
Arts. 21, 26-30, 32, 34 and 35,
Art. 309 (special torts).
** If by reason of a crime or quasi-delict
death is caused, Art. 2206 specifically
applies.
3. Seduction, abduction, rape, or other
lascivious acts.
- Entitles the victim AND the
parents
(simultaneously)
to
awards of moral damages
43
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
-
SEDUCTION:
Breach
of
promise to marry- no moral
damages unless there is a
criminal seduction or violation of
morals, good customs and public
policy.
*CASE: People vs. Fontanilla: “Moral
damages must be awarded simultaneously to
the victim and her parent.”
- ABDUCTION: Moral damages
may be recovered in cases of
abduction.
- RAPE: Victim and parents are
entitled to moral damages
- Under RA 8353, a victim may
now be a male
- Parents of the minor male victims
are also entitled to moral
damages
- In rape, moral damages are
automatically granted without
need of pleading or proof
- Similarly, civil indemnity is
mandatory upon the finding of
the fact of rape and is
automatically imposed without
need of proof other than the fact
of the commission of the rape
- When fact of rape had been
proved, moral damages are
automatically granted without
need of proof.
- Civil indemnity in rape cases is
mandatory
- If qualifying circumstance is
present, civil indemnity should
be no less than P75, 000; if rape
is simple, P50, 000.
- Civil indemnity is different from
moral damages (based on
different jural foundations and
assessed by the court in the
exercise of sound discretion;
4.
5.
6.
7.
awarded separately from each
other)
- Reason why no proof is
necessary:
Victim‟s
injury
necessarily results
from the
odious crime of rape to warrant
per se the award of moral
damages
- ACTS
OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS:
Victim
may be a male.
- Sexual intercourse is not an
element of the crime.
Adultery or Concubinage
- Private
crime;
cannot
be
prosecuted without the complaint
of the offended spouse.
- Bigamy is not included in the
enumeration – there is no legal
basis for the imposition of moral
damages
Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest
- Kidnapping and failure to return
a minor – analogous to illegal or
arbitrary detention or arrest
- If crime committed is with abuse
of public position, exemplary
damages is also justified
Illegal search
- Also gives rise to an independent
civil action
- Unlawful search warrant – void
- Items obtained are “fruits of the
poisoned tree”
Libel, slander or any other forms of
defamation
Art. 2219 (7) CC. Moral Damages maybe
recovered from the publication and
circulation of the subject defamatory and
libelous material itself.
Imperial Case- defendants made serious
libelous charges through mimeographed
44
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
article and letters assailing his integrity as
chairman of COMELEC.
Damages are allowable for actions against a
person‟s dignity such as profane, insulting,
humiliating, scandalous or abusive language,
slapping the face of a teacher in public
which is an unlawful aggression.
Doctrine of Ancient Respectability
Defamatory words will fall under one or the
other, depending not only upon their sense,
grammatical significance and accepted
ordinary meaning but also upon the special
circumstances of the case, antecedents or
relationship bet the parties, which might
tend to prove the intention of the offender at
the time.
The expression “Putang ina mo” is not really
to slander but rather to express anger and
displeasure.
Who can initiate an action for
Defamation?
Sec. 5, Rule 110- Only the offended party
Case: Filipinas Broadcating Network, Inc.
vs Ago Medical and Educational Center
A juridical person such as a corporation may
validly complain for libel or any other form
of defamation and claim for moral damages.
The corporation which operates the radio
station, and who is the employer of the radio
hosts, is solidarily liable to pay for damages
arising from libelous broadcasts.
8. Malicious Prosecution
Includes unfounded civil actions instituted
just to vex and humiliate the defendant
despite the absence of a cause of action or
probable cause against him.
Art. 2208 (3) justifies grant of attorney‟s
fees as item of damage.
Requisites:
In criminal cases
1. Defendant
was
himself
the
prosecutor and the action was finally
terminated with acquittal
2. Prosecutor acted without probable
cause, and
3. Prosecutor was actuated or impelled
by legal malice.
Prosecutor includes: the complainant
who initiated the case, the
prosecutor, any other public officer
authorized to file and prosecute.
Mere witnesses are not included but
are liable for false testimony or
perjury for their falsehoods.
Malice and absence of probable
cause/cause of action must concur in
both criminal and civil
In civil cases
1) Defendant filed a civil action
2) Action was dismissed for clear
lack
of
merit,
baseless,
unfounded and malicious;
3) Defendant was motivated by illwill
4) Present plaintiff suffered injury /
damage by reason of previous
complaint filed against him.
Prematurity of action in malicious
prosecution
If the action filed is still pending trial, an
action based on malicious prosecution is
premature
The mere filing does not render the plaintiff
liable for malicious prosecution should he be
unsuccessful. The law does not impose a
penalty on the right to litigate.
45
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
The repeated filing of a complaint all of
which were dismissed, shows malicious
prosecution
It is discretionary upon the court whether to
grant moral damages.
A damage suit for mp is not grounded on
defamatory imputations but predicated on
the legal malice of the person instituting a
criminal prosecution.
9. Disrespect for the Dead and Wrongful
Interference with Funerals (Art. 309)
- Liable for damages to the family of the
deceased. Funeral rites include wake,
necrological services, procession and burial;
- Removal of a dead body from its place and
refused to disclose its whereabouts;
- Unauthorized autopsy on the dead body;
- Unnecessarily mutilating it;
-Withholding it from those entitled to its
possession;
-Unauthorized removal from its grave;
- Preventing the burial by causing boisterous
disturbance;
- Firing of guns to disperse people attending
the funeral rites;
- Digging the grave for jewelry;
- Removing the corpse from coffin and
running away with it is either theft or
robbery.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES may also be
awarded:
If the act committed Is wanton and
malicious or the result of gross negligence or
reckless disregard or the rights of the family
of the deceased.
Who can file action for damages?
Spouse, Descendants, Ascendants, Brothers
and sisters (full or half-blood)
A dead person may be the object of libel
(Art. 353)
10. Acts and actions referred to in
Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and
35:
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes
loss or injury to another in a manner that
is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy shall compensate the latter
for the damage.
Illustrative Cases:
Moral and exemplary damages are proper
when the dismissal of an employee is
attended by bad faith or fraud, or constitutes
act oppressive to labor or done with
harassment or arbitrary termination
A public officer may be liable for moral
damages for as long as the moral damages
suffered were the proximate result of
petitioner‟s wrong
Loss of boyfriend after the accident suffered
by the plaintiff due to her physical injuries is
not a legal basis for award of moral
damages.
Guidelines for the grant of moral damages
Yardstick or Guideline For the Grant of
Moral Damages; Malice or Bad Faith
Immaterial:
46
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Amount awarded is not palpably and
scandalously excessive
The grant should be governed by reason and
justice.
The initial carelessness of the bank,
aggravated by its lack of promptness in
repairing its error, justifies the grant of
exemplary damages.
The trial court is given the discretion to
determine the amount of damages. The
appellate court may modify or change the
amount when it is inordinate.
It must be proportional to and in
approximation of the suffering inflicted.
However, in culpa contractual, when a
passenger died by reason of the negligence
of the carrier, moral damages are
recoverable. If the common carrier is guilty
of fraud or bad faith, it is liable for moral
damages. The two are exceptions to the
general rule.
Factors considered:
Professional, social, political and financial
standing of the offended parties
Business and financial position of the
defendant
„‟Ánalogous Cases‟‟ meaning:
The 10 cases mentioned in art 2219 are not
exclusive.
Illustrative Cases:
In a breach of contract cannot be considered
as included because the definition of quasidelict expressly excluded the cases where
there is pre-existing contractual relations
between the parties.
Liability of Banks for Moral Damages:
- Even if the negligence of the bank is not
attended with malice or bad faith, moral
damages may be granted.
- Gross negligence of a bank in handling of
its client‟s deposit amounts to bad faith.
- Exemplary damages is awarded where
bank failed to prevent unauthorized
withdrawals from petitioner‟s deposits.
A bus passenger who was merely injured by
reason of the negligence of the common
carrier (culpa contractual) no moral damages
are recoverable.
- Act of the bank of allowing a complete
strangers to take possession of the owner‟s
duplicate certificate even if the purpose is
merely for photocopying constitutes
manifest negligence, liable for damages
under art. 1170.
- Banks negligence to record the deposit,
exemplary damages is justified.
Where the family were deprived of the
comfort and the safety of a house brought
about by unreasonable delay in the
construction, entitled to award of moral
damages.
- The level of meticulousness must be
maintained at all times. When prudential
bank dishonored the check who turned out to
have sufficient funds, the bank is liable for
moral and exemplary damages.
Another check was previously dishonored,
and a dishonor of a succeeding check, a
party may claim damages.
Case: Prudential Bank vs CA
Facts: Prudential Bank dishonored the check
issued by the private respondent who turned
out to have sufficient funds with petitioner.
The bank‟s negligence was result of lack of
due care and caution required for managers
47
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
and employees of a firm engaged in so
sensitive and demanding business banking.
Issue: Is the bank liable for damages?
Held: The bank is liable for moral and
exemplary damages by way of example for
the public good. The public relies on the
banks‟ sworn profession of diligence and
meticulousness in giving irreproachable
service. The level of meticulousness must be
maintained at all times by the banking
sector. Hence, the CA did not err in
awarding exemplary damages. In view,
however, the reduced amount of P20,000.00
is more appropriate.
Case: Bautista vs Mangaldan Rural Bank
Cristeta Bautista mortgaged her conjugal
share of ½ of the land to defendant
Mangaldan Rural Bank in 1975 which was
inscripted on the back of the title specifically
states that only ½ portion of the subject land
is mortgaged.
After the plaintiff failed to redeem the
mortgaged property, ownership was
consolidated in the name of the bank. The
bank sold it in favor of its codefendant.
Complaint filed for the cancellation of the
sale.
Issue:
Is she entitled to damages as well as
attorney‟s fees as a result of the admitted
mistake of the respondent bank
Held:
The mistake was not a slight or minor
infraction. The initial carelessness, it‟s sale
or the entire property and the lack of
promptness to rectify the mistake after its
discovery, constitutes gross negligence and
bad faith which are sufficiently established.
The bank and its manager were grossly
negligent in handling the business
transaction involved herein and latter
showing bad faith by refusing to rectify the
wrong done to petitioners. They are jointly
and severally liable for moral damages. The
bank likewise has to pay exemplary
damages to serve as deterrence from
repeating similar acts.
Case: PNB vs CA
HELD:
While the negligence may not have been
attended with malice and bad faith,
nevertheless, it caused serious anxiety,
embarrassment and humiliation to private
respondent for which she is entitled to
recover reasonable moral damages.
Moral Damages Not Recoverable in
Breach of Contract of Transportation;
Exceptions:
1) Where the mishap results in the
death of the passenger, and
2) Where it is proved that the carrier
was guilty of fraud or bad faith, even
if death does not result
- Mere carelessness of the driver does not
per se constitute or justify an inference of
malice or bad faith on said carrier‟s part.
- Amount of moral damages should be
reasonable and should not be scandalously
excessive and should not be out of
proportion to the injury suffered.
May an artificial person suffer moral
damages?
It depends.
General Rule: No. Being an artificial
person, it has no feelings, no emotions, no
senses. It cannot experience physical
sufferings and mental anguish, which can be
experienced only by one having a nervous
system.
Exceptions:
If it has a GOOD moral reputation that is
DEBASED or BESMIRCHED resulting in
48
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
social humiliation if warranted by the
evidence.
In Asset Privatization Trust vs CA, The
Supreme Court ruled that How could MMIC be entitled to a big
amount of moral damages when its credit
reputation was not sound and wholesome.
Under 2217 of the Civil Code, moral
damages include besmirched reputation
which a corporation may possibly suffer. A
corporation whose overdue and unpaid debts
to the government alone reached a
tremendous amount of 22 billion pesos
cannot certainly have a solid business
reputation to brag about.
- Summing up, a corporation with reputation
to protect is entitled to moral damages if the
basis of the claim is either1) If its good reputation has been
besmirched
2) Its complaint is for libel or any form
of defamation
- A juridical person is not entitled to moral
damages under art. 2217 but only under art
2219 such as for libel, slander or any other
form of defamation.
- A corporation maybe granted actual,
compensatory, temperate, liquidated and
exemplary damages. These forms of
damages are not mental feelings and do not
require a central nervous system to suffer
them. If any of the above is granted, nominal
damages cannot be granted anymore because
the grant thereof is already a recognition of
the right of the corporation which is the
purpose of awarding nominal damages.
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property
may be a legal ground for awarding
moral damages if the court should find
that, under the circumstances, such
damages are justly due. The same rule
applies to breaches of contract where
the defendant acted fraudulently or in
bad faith.
Examples of Willful Injury to Property:
 Malicious Mischief
 Arsons
Note: The civil aspects of these crimes are
deemed instituted with the criminal actions
unless reservation is made to prosecute it
independently or are filed ahead of the
criminal actions.
Breaches of Contracts; When Moral
Damages Recoverable
 GR: Breaches of contract do not
justify moral damages. It cannot be
awarded.
 Exceptions: unless acted:
(1) fraudulently
(2) bad faith
(3) gross negligence amounting to
bad faith
(4) wanton disregard of contractual
obligations
Malice or Bad Faith Defined
 Implies a conscious or intentional
design to do a wrongful act for a
dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.
Moral Damages in Breach of Contracts
Involving Telegraphic Messages; use of
wrong and improper forms:
Case: RPCI vs. CA
The case: The condolence telegram is
typewritten in a “Happy Birthday” card and
placed inside a “Christmasgram” envelope.
49
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
RPCI claim that the sender did not avail of
the social condolence forms. Is RPCI liable
for damages?
Ruling/Doctrine: Yes. The sender in this
case was not informed of the exhaustion of
such forms. RPCI did not also supply such
forms in its various stations. RPCI did not
comply with its contract as intended by the
parties and instead of transmitting the
condolence message in an ordinary form, in
accordance with its guidelines placed the
message in the forms conveying joy and
happiness. These acts constitute gross
negligence or carelessness. Knowing also
that there are no such forms, but still entered
into a contract for the transmission of
messages in the same forms constitutes acts
of bad faith, fraud and malice.
Omission to Deliver Message:
Case: Telefast Com. (Phil.) Wireless, Inc.
vs. Castro
The Case: Because of the failure of Telefast
to send the cable to the relatives of the
deceased in US, only the decedent‟s
daughter, who is the sender, was able to
attend the funeral. Is Telefast liable?
Ruling/Doctrine: Yes. Art. 2217 of the
Civil Code is applicable. It provides that
moral damages include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feeling,
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury. Though incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of
the defendant‟s wrongful act or omission.
Damages in Sexual Harassment –
Employer is liable to employee for the
anxiety, the seen and unseen hurt that she
suffered.
Damages in Common Crimes – Grant of
moral damages is not automatic unlike in
rape cases.
Disconnection of electricity without prior
notice constitutes breach of contract
 This is in violation of Art. 21 of the
Civil Code which is reiterated by
Paragraph 10 of Art. 2219. The
award of moral damages is
sanctioned by Art. 2220 whenever
there is a willful injury to property
and breach of contract that is
fraudulent and in bad faith.
 Default in the payment of bills
cannot be utilized by petitioner to
defeat or nullify the claim for
damages. This circumstance can only
be considered as a mitigating factor
in ascertaining the amount for
damages.
NOMINAL DAMAGES
Art. 2221. Nominal Damages are
adjudicated in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized, and not for
the purpose of indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Concept as held in the case of Algarra vs.
Sandejas, 27 Phil. 284.
 Mere non-compliance with the
obligations of a contract is not
sufficient to sustain the judgment for
damages. It must be shown that the
damages actually existed.
50
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Nature and Purpose – Not to indemnify
loss suffered but to vindicate or recognize
the right to property that has been violated
or invaded.
d. Employer‟s grant of other
termination benefits in favor
of employees
e. Whether there was a bona
fide attempt to comply with
the notice requirements as
opposed to giving no notice
at all.
Notes:
 Assessment of Nominal Damages is
left to the sound discretion of the
court in accordance with the
circumstances of each case.
 Nominal damages cannot be awarded
together with exemplary and
compensatory damages because
when the latter has awarded, it is
already a juridical recognition that
plaintiff‟s right was violated.
 Award of actual, moral, temperate or
moderate
damages
precludes
nominal damages.
 Attorney‟s fees may be awarded
together with nominal damages.
Instances of Nominal Damages in Labor
Cases
1. Dismissal due to authorized cause,
dishonesty, or just cause but is done
in violation of due process.
Employee‟s indemnification is in the
form of Nominal Damages but the
dismissal is still effective.
2. Factors to consider to determine the
amount of damages to be awarded:
a. The authorized cause invoked
b. Number of employees to be
awarded
c. Capacity of the employers to
satisfy
the
awards
considering their prevailing
financial status as borne by
the records
Art. 2222. The court may award
nominal damages in every obligation
arising from any source enumerated in
Art. 1157, or in every case where any
property right has been invaded.
Notes:
 The court may award nominal
damages in any obligations arising
from law, contracts, quasi-contracts,
acts or omissions punishable by law,
and quasi-delicts.
 May also be awarded when property
right has been invaded.
 The award does not run counter to
the maxim de minimio non curat lex
(the law does not cure or bother with
trifles)
 Damages in name only and not in
fact.
Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal
damages shall preclude further contests
upon the right involved and all
accessory questions, as between the
parties to the suit, or their respective
heirs and assigns.
 This is in the concept of Res
Judicata,
TEMPERATE OR MODERATE
DAMAGES
51
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate
damages, which are more than nominal
but less than compensatory damages,
may be recovered when the court finds
that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot from the
nature of the case, be proved with
certainty.
Concept – These are damages the amount of
which is left to the sound discretion of the
court, but is necessary that there be some
injury or pecuniary loss established, the
exact amount of which, could not be
determined by the plaintiff by reason of the
nature of the case.
Ratio: as held in the case of GSIS vs.
Labung-Deang, 365 SCRA 341
Case: People vs. Principe
The Case: The court in this case awarded
the sum of P21, 307 representing funeral
expenses to the heirs of deceased. Is the
award proper?
Ruling/Doctrine: Yes. Although the
amount of funeral expenses mentioned is
self serving and not proved, under Art. 2224,
if it is shown that such party suffered some
pecuniary loss but the amount cannot, from
the nature of the case, be proved with
certainty, then temperate or moderate
damages may be awarded. In this case, there
is no doubt that the heirs incurred funeral
expenses although the amount is not proved.
Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be
reasonable under the circumstances.
Reasonableness of Temperate Damages
 There are cases where from the
nature of the case, definite proof of
pecuniary loss cannot be offered,
although that the court is convinced
that there has been such loss.
Damages should not be denied for
such reason that is why the judge is
empowered to calculate moderate
damages rather than let the plaintiff
suffer
without
redress
from
defendant‟s wrongful act.
Damages for Loss of Goodwill or
reputation – falls under actual or
compensatory damages. Even if it is not
recoverable as compensatory, it may still be
awarded in the concept of temperate or
moderate damages.
Requisites to justify award of temperate
or moderate damages – there must be
“some pecuniary loss” that has been suffered
but its exact amount cannot, from the nature
of the case, be proved with certainty.
 It depends upon the circumstances of
each case
 It is reasonable when neither
excessive nor very low in the
estimation of men of ordinary
intelligence and discretion
 Based on the sound discretion of the
court
 Award should be one half of the
indemnity for death
 In case of death, where no
documentary evidence of actual
damages (receipts of funeral
expenses) was presented, it is
reasonable to award P25, 000 as
temperate damages because when
death occurs, it is presumed that the
heirs incurred funeral expenses.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are
52
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
agreed on the amount of damages to
be paid in case of breach of contract.
those agreed upon by the parties to a
contract, to be paid in case of breach
thereof.
Nature


These are fixed damages previously
agreed by the parties to the contract
and payable to the innocent party in
case of breach by the other.
Where the principal obligation is
void, there is no contract that could
be breached. Thus it follows that the
accessory obligation of liquidated
damages are also null.
Penalty Distinguished from Liquidated
Damages
Penalty – is an agreement to pay stipulated
sum on breach of contract, irrespective of
the damages sustained. It involves the idea
of punishment for default. The essence of
this is the payment of money stipulated as a
terrorem of the offending party
Liquidated Damages – the essence of this
is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of
damages.
Similarity with Penalty in a contract with
a Penalty Clause



The same as far as legal results are
concerned.
A stipulation on liquidated
damages is a penalty clause where
the obligor assumes a greater liability
in case of breach. The court has
power to reduce the penalty if it is
iniquitous or unconscionable.
Actual damages need not be proved
because the parties had already
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages,
whether intended as an indemnity or a
penalty, shall be equitably reduced if
they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
Ratio: The stipulation is a contra bonos
mores under Art. 1306 of the Civil Code.
Equitable Reduction – Reduced to a
reasonable level, to the equities of the case.
Effect of Partial Performance – the total
amount of the liquidated damages agreed
upon cannot be enforced because the
liquidated damages are presumed to be only
for a total breach of contract. However, the
liquidated damages are equitably reduced.
Art. 2228. When the breach of the
contract committed by the defendant is
not the one contemplated by the parties
in agreeing upon the liquidated
damages, the law shall determine the
measure of damages, and not the
stipulation.

Stipulation may be disregarded when
the breach is not the one
contemplated by the parties. In this
case, the damages are determined by
the law. By analogy, Art. 1229 of the
Civil Code applies.
EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE
DAMAGES
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective
damages are imposed, by way of
example or correction for the public
good, in addition to the moral,
53
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages.
Punitive or Vindictive Damages


Also known as exemplary or
corrective damages
It is intended to serve as a deterrent
to serious wrongdoings and as a
vindication of undue sufferings and
wanton invasion of the rights of an
injured or a punishment for those
guilty of outrageous conduct.
Ratio – required by public policy, for
wanton acts must be suppressed. It serves as
a deterrent to serious wrongdoings.
Nature



Exemplary damages are mere
accessories to other forms of
damages
(Moral,
Temperate,
Liquidated or Compensatory) except
nominal damages.
The award for other forms of
damages must first be obtained
before the exemplary.
Moral damages cannot be lumped
with exemplary damages because
they are based on different jural
foundations.
Notes:
 Vehicle owner is not liable for
exemplary damages. It is the actual
driver of the vehicle who caused the
injuries to the victim is the one
liable.
 The registered owner of any vehicle
however would be the primarily
responsible to the public or to third
persons for injuries caused the latter
while the vehicle was being driven
on the highways or streets.
 The agency of the state can also be
subjected
to
temperate
and
exemplary damages whenever it
exercises its delegated power of
eminent
domain
disregarding
procedural requirements.
 There is also award of exemplary
damages for unjustified refusal to
grant academic honors.
When can an Employer be liable for
exemplary damages for the acts of his
Employee?
Case: Munsayac vs. De Lara
The Case: A jeepney driver was found
recklessly negligent in causing injuries to
passengers. Is the employer liable for
damages?
Ruling/Doctrine: As a rule no. Liable only
when he participated in the doing of such
wrongful act, or has previously authorized or
subsequently ratified it, with full knowledge
of the facts. The exemplary damages punish
the intent – and this cannot be presumed on
the part of the employer merely on the intent
of the agent.
Grant of Academic Honors as part of
academic freedom:
Case: University of San Carlos vs. CA
Doctrine: Schools of learning are given
ample discretion to formulate rules and
guidelines in the granting of honors for
purposes of graduation. This is part of
academic freedom. Within the parameters of
these rules, it is within the competence of
universities and colleges to determine who
are entitled to the grant of honors among the
graduating students. Its discretion on this
academic matter may not be disturbed much
54
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
less controlled by the courts unless there is
grave abuse of discretion in its exercise.
Cases Where Exemplary Damages May Be
Imposed As Accessory Damages:
1. Criminal Offense – when the crime was
committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances (Art. 2230);
2. Quasi-delicts – when the defendant
acted with gross negligence (Art. 2231);
3. Contracts and Quasi-contracts – when
defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent
manner. (Art. 2232).
Conditions for the Grant of Exemplary
Damages
Plaintiff must prove that he is entitled to:
a. Moral;
b. Temperate; or
c. Compensatory (actual) damages.
 Moral and exemplary damages may be
awarded without proof of pecuniary loss.
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary
damages as a part of the civil liability may
be imposed when the crime was committed
with
one
or
more
aggravating
circumstances. Such damages are separate
and distinct from fines and shall be paid to
the offended party.
Case: Bantoto v. Bobis
W/N exemplary damages may be imposed
against an employer even if no exemplary
damages were imposed upon the employee.
Held: No. The employer, as person subsidiarily
liable, cannot incur greater civil liability than
his convicted employee.
 People v. Catubig – An aggravating
circumstance,
whether
ordinary
or
qualifying, should entitle the offended party
to an award of exemplary damages.
 People v. Ariola – The generic aggravating
circumstance, although proven by the
prosecution and admitted by the accused,
cannot justify the award of exemplary
damages if this fact was not alleged in the
Information.
Fines – payable to the State.
Exemplary Damages – payable to the
injured party.
Is It Necessary That The Aggravating
Circumstance/S Be Alleged In The
Information To Justify A Grant Of
Exemplary Damages?
Cases which required that aggravating
circumstance/s need not be alleged for the grant
of exemplary damages:
1. People v. Lambid – The presence of an
aggravating circumstance justifies an
award of exemplary damages even in the
absence of an allegation in the
Information.
2. People v. Dagami - Aggravating
circumstances, even if not alleged in the
Information, can be considered as basis
for an award of exemplary damages.
3. People v. Legaspi – Notwithstanding the
failure
to
allege
aggravating
circumstances, the proven presence
thereof is still material in the
determination of exemplary damages to
be awarded to the complainant.
4. People v. Suela – While a non-alleged
but proven aggravating circumstance
cannot be used to increase the penalty,
nonetheless it ca be the source of civil
awards.
However, the following cases required proper
allegation and proof of aggravating
circumstances:
55
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
1. People v. Manalo – Exemplary
damages cannot be awarded inasmuch
as no aggravating circumstances was
alleged or proven during trial.
2. People v. Cachapero – Exemplary
damages may be given only when one or
more aggravating circumstances are
alleged in the Information and proven
during trial.
Author‟s Opinion:
As long as aggravating circumstances had been
proved and established by evidence, the same
may be used as basis in the determination and
grant of the exemplary damages. It is
understood, however, that the penalty for the
crime cannot be increased by reason thereof,
there being no specific allegation of the
circumstance.
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary
damages may be granted if the defendant
acted with gross negligence.
 FEBTC v. Hon. Luis Luna - Gross
negligence is tantamount to bad faith.
 Even if there is gross negligence, the grant
is not automatic. It is still subject to the
discretion of the court.
Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts,
the court may award exemplary damages if
the defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
Willful, Wanton and Reckless Manner – these
three terms have been treated as meaning the
same thing, or at least coming out at the same
legal exit. They apply to conduct which merely
negligent, rather than actually intended to do
harm, but which is so far from a proper state of
mind that is treated in many respects as if it
were intended.
Bad Faith – Bad faith does not simply connote
bad judgment or negligence, it imports a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known
duty through some motive or interest or ill will
that partakes the nature of fraud.
Fraudulent – The act considered fraudulent if it
is tainted with deception or injurious
misrepresentation of which the plaintiff is
unaware.
Oppressive – arbitrary or compulsive.
Malevolent – If act is done in bad faith.
Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be
recovered as a matter of right; the court
will decide whether or not they should be
adjudicated.
 Exemplary damages
are
merely
additional to other forms of damages
(except nominal) which the court may or
may not grant.
 Lao v. Standard Insurance Co., Inc. –
Although exemplary damages cannot be
recovered as a matter of right, they also
need not be proved.
Art. 2234. While the amount of the
exemplary damages need not be proved,
the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to
moral,
temperate
or
compensatory
damages before the court may consider the
question of whether or not exemplary
damages should be awarded. In case
liquidated damages have been agreed upon,
although no proof of loss is necessary in
order that such liquidated damages may be
recovered, nevertheless, before the court
may consider the question of granting
exemplary in addition to the liquidated
damages, the plaintiff must show that he
would be entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages were it not for the
stipulation for liquidated damages.
 PLDT v. Paguio – No exemplary
damages can be awarded in the absence
of moral or actual damages and where
the awards for moral and exemplary
56
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
damages are eliminated, so must the
award for attorney‟s fees.
Requisites for Award of Exemplary Damages
1. They may be imposed by way of
example in addition to compensatory
damages, and only after the claimant‟s
right has been established;
2. That they cannot be recovered as a
matter of right, their determination
depending the amount of compensatory
damages that may be awarded to the
claimant;
3. The act must be accompanied by bad
faith or done in in wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent
manner.
Amount of Exemplary Damages Need Not Be
Alleged or Proved
 Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc., v.
CA – The amount of exemplary
damages need not be pleaded in the
compliant because the same cannot be
predetermined.
 If the amount of exemplary damages
need not be proved, it need not also be
alleged because it is merely incidental or
dependent upon what the court may
award as compensatory damages.
 Sison v. CA – public officials ought to
act with highest degree of excellence,
professionalism, intelligence and skill,
and for failure to act with such, a public
official may be held liable, in his
personal capacity for exemplary
damages.
Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby
exemplary damages are renounced in
advance shall be null and void.
Exemplary damages already determined and
granted by the court in a final judgment may be
renounced by the winning party to a case.
57
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
COMPARATIVE CHART IN THE GRANT OF DAMAGES, INTERESTS AND ATTORNEY‟S FEES
BASIS
(1)
Crimes or
delicts
(2)
Quasidelicts or
culpa
aquiliana
(3)
(4)
Contracts
Quasicontracts
ACTUAL
DAMAGES
MORAL
DAMAGES
EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES
Grantable [Art.
2219 (1); (3);
(4); (5) & (6)]
Grantable as part of
civil liability if
committed with one
or more
aggravating
circumstances (Art.
2230)
Not applicable
Grantable
(Art. 2202)
Grantable [Art.
2219 (2)]
Not grantable
unless defendant
acted with gross
negligence (Art.
2231)
Not applicable
Grantable
(Art. 2201)
Not grantable
unless the
breach is
fraudulent or
done in bad
faith (Art.
2220)
Grantable
(Arts. 2202;
2206)
Grantable
(Arts. 2201;
2167)
Not
applicable
Not grantable
unless defendant
acted in wanton,
fraudulent,
reckless,
oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
(Art. 2232)
Not grantable
unless defendant
acted in wanton,
fraudulent,
reckless,
oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
(Art. 2232)
LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES
Grantable (Art.
2226)
Not applicable
TEMPERATE OR
MODERATE
DAMAGES
Grantable when
pecuniary loss has
been suffered but
from the nature of
the case, cannot be
proved with
certainty. (Art.
2224)
Grantable when
pecuniary loss has
been suffered but
from the nature of
the case, cannot be
proved with
certainty. (Art.
2224)
Grantable when
pecuniary loss has
been suffered but
from the nature of
the case, cannot be
proved with
certainty. (Art.
2224)
Grantable when
pecuniary loss has
been suffered but
from the nature of
the case, cannot be
proved with
certainty. (Art.
2224)
NOMINAL
DAMAGES
INTERESTS
OR AS PART
OF THE
DAMAGES
ATTORNEY‟S
FEES
(EXTRAORDINARY)
Grantable in
trespass to
dwelling (Art,
2221; 2222)
Grantable (Art.
2211)
Allowable (Art. 2208 [3]
& [9])
Grantable
(Art. 2222)
Grantable (Art.
2211)
Allowable (Art. 2208 [2]
& [11])
Grantable
(Art. 2222)
May be
stipulated (e.g.
loan), (Art.
1933, 3rd par.;
Art. 2209 & Art.
2210)
Allowable as penalty
(Art. 1226; Art. 2208
[11])
Grantable
(Art. 2222)
Grantable
(solutio indebiti)
when
acceptance of
undue payment
was in bad faith
(Art. 2159)
Allowable (Art. 2208 [5]
& [11])
58
TORTS & DAMAGES MIDTERM REVIEWER | S.Y. 2018-19
(5)
Damage
to
property
Grantable
(Art. 2200)
Grantable (Art.
2200) if injury
to property is
willful
Grantable if
necessary for public
good, and is in
addition to other
damages except
nominal damages.
(Art. 2229)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Grantable
(Art. 2222,
last phrase)
Not applicable
Allowable (Art. 2208
[5]; [9]; & [11])
59