Torts Reviewer PDF
Torts Reviewer PDF
Torts Reviewer PDF
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Classes of torts:
Intentional torts conduct where the
actor desires to cause the consequences
of his acts or believes that consequences
are substantially certain to result from it.
Battery, assault, false imprisonment,
defamation, invasion of privacy,
interference of property
Negligence voluntary acts or omissions
which result in injury to another without
intending to cause the same. The actor
fails to exercise due care in performing
such acts or omissions
strict liability the person is made liable
independent of fault or negligence upon
submission of proofs of certain facts.
DEMOCRACY
democracy being more than a mere form of
government, affecting as it does, the very
foundations of human life and happiness,
cannot be overlooked by an integral civil
code.
Art. 32 provides for independent civil
actions for damages against any public
officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates, or in any
manner impedes or impairs the civil rights
and liberties of another person.
Fundamental principles:
These purposes of tort law are sought to be
achieved in the pursuit of fundamental principles
upheld under the NCC.
EQUITY & JUSTICE
NCC upholds the spirit that giveth life
rather than the letter that killeth
Art. 21 & 26 of NCC
justice and equity demand that persons
who may have damaged by the wrongful or
negligent act of another are compensated.
Acting with justice involves the duty to
indemnify for damages caused under Arts.
20,21,28,27; to indemnify by reason of
unjust enrichment under Arts. 22 & 23; and
to protect the weaker party under Art. 24
the precepts of law are these, to live
honestly, not to injure others, and to give
each one his due.
Justice is a steady and unceasing
disposition to render every man his due.
2 levels of justice
social
distributive address the allocation
of social goods and bads
concern of our democratic
jmvdg
institutions
retributive sanctions or penalties
that are applied to those who
engage in cetain kinds of antisocial
behavior
individual
compensatory a person who
wrongfully inflicts harm on another
or that person's property must
repay or repair the damage
commutative fairness of a private
bargain or exchange
equity is defined as justice according to
natural law and right.
Justice outside legality
invoked in justifying the rule regarding
mitigation of liability if the plaintiff was
guilty of contributory negligence
Moral perspective
tort liability may be justified because
the conduct is considered moral wrong.
The law of torts abounds in moral
phraseology it has much to say of
wrongs, malice, fraud, intent and
negligence. Hence, it may naturally be
supposed that the risk of man's
conduct is thrown upon him as a result
of some moral shortcomings.
Ubi jus ibi remedium (there is no wrong
without remedy)
moral turpitude was considered the
outstanding though not exclusive
principle of tortious liability.
Alternative
compensation
schemes
include
insurance & work employees compensation
CHAPTER 2
NEGLIGENCE
Kinds of Negligence:
culpa contractual (contractual negligence)
culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict)
culpa criminal (criminal negligence)
Quasi-Delict
used by the Code Commission to
designate negligence as a separate source
of obligation because it more nearly
corresponds
to
the
Roman
Law
classification and is in harmony with the
nature of this kind of liability.
fault or negligence of a person who, by his
acts
or
omission,
connected
or
unconnected with, but independent from,
any contractual relation, causes damage to
another person. (Art. 2176 of the CC)
covers not only those that are not punished
by law but also those acts which are
voluntary and negligent
Requisites:
act or omission constituting fault or
negligence
damage caused by the said act or
omission
causal relation between the damage
and the act or omission
absence
of
contractual
relation
between plaintiff and defendant. (no
longer cited because an action based
on quasi-delict can be maintained even
if there is an existing contractual
relation between the parties)
Plaintiff:
Any person who had been injured by
reason of a tortious conduct can sue the
tortfeasor.
Plaintiff can be a natural person or juridical
person.
An unborn child is not entitled to damages.
But the bereaved parents may be entitled
to damages, on damages inflicted directly
upon them. (Geluz vs. CA, 2 SCRA 802)
Defendant:
may be held liable even if he does not
know the identity of the plaintiff at the time
of the accident.
Can either be a natural or juridical being
Delict
criminal negligence; covered by Art. 365 of
RPC
elements:
offender does or fails to do an act
that the doing or the failure to do the
act is voluntary
jmvdg
Contract
governed by CC provisions on Obligations
and Contracts particularly Arts. 1170-1174
by express provision Arts. 2178, 1172 to
1174 are applicable to quasi-delict cases
vs
Culpa aquiliana
Separate source
of
oligation
independent
of
contract
definition
Substantive and
independent
characterist
ic
Party
relationship
Culpa
contractual
Incident of the
performance of an
obligation
Pre-existing
contractual
relation
Breach of contract
Negligence of the
defendant
What needs
to be
proven
Existence of the
contract and its
breach
Prof of diligence is
a valid defense
Availability
of diligence
Proof of diligence
is not a defense
Culpa aquiliana
Foundation
of
liability is contract
Source of
obligation
Defendant's
negligent act or
omission
Crimes
or
test of negligence:
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent
act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinary prudent person would have used in the
same situation?
jmvdg
physical disability
weakness of a person will not be an
excuse in negligent cases (common
law)
the Constitution mandates the creation
of a special agency for disabled
persons for their rehabilitation, selfdevelopment and self-reliance, and
their integration in the mainstream of
the society. (Sec. 13, Art. XIII)
the standard of conduct to which a
disabled person must conform to avoid
being negligent is that of a reasonable
6
Insanity
RPC: insane persons are exempted
from criminal liability.
In case of lunatic and demented
person, they may still be liable with
their property for the consequences
of their acts, even though they be
performed unwittingly
Civil Code: The insanity of the person
does not excuse him or his guardian
from liability based on quasi-delict (Art.
2180 & 2182, NCC)
bases for holding a permanently insane
person liable for his torts
where 1 of 2 innocent persons must
suffer a loss it should be borne by
the 1 who occasioned it.
To induce those interested in the
estate of the insane person who
restrain and control him.
The fear that an insanity defense
would lead to false claim of insanity
to avoid liability.
Women
Dean Guido Calabrese: there should
be uniform standard of care for men &
women
nature of activity
persons impose upon themselves
certain obligations and non-compliance
therewith
will
be
considered
negligence.
There are activities which by nature
impose duties to exercise a higher
degree of diligence. (e.g. banks &
common carriers)
Others
Violation of Rules & Statutes
statutes & ordinance
violation of these will be either
treated as:
circumstance that establish
negligence
negligence per se (+)
circumstance that should
be taken as an evidence of
negligence.
the statute or ordinance
becomes the standard of care
or conduct to which the
reasonably prudent person is
held.
Since negligence is a breach of
legal duty, the violator of a
intoxication
mere intoxication is not negligence, nor
does the mere fact of intoxication
establish want of ordinary care.
If one's conduct is characterized by a
proper degree of care and prudence, it
is immaterial whether he is drunk or
sober. (Wright vs. MERALCO)
intoxication is of little consequence in
negligence cases if it was not shown
that such drunkenness contributed to
the accident or that the accident would
have been avoided had he been sober.
jmvdg
jmvdg
Degrees of Negligence
ordinary negligence
Gross negligence
recognized in Art. 2231 of the Civil
Code
where there is want of even slight care
and diligence. (Amadeo vs Olabarrieta)
implying conscious indifference to
consequences; pursuing a course of
conduct which would naturally and
probably result to injury;
utter disregard of consequences
basis for the award of exemplary
damages
CHAPTER 3
AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES
AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
1. DUTY TO RESCUE
duty to the rescuer
we have an innate repugnance at
seeing a fellow creature suffer
(Rousseau)
courts make defendants liable for the
injuries to persons who rescue people
in distress because of the acts or
omission of said defendant.
One who was hurt while trying to
rescue another who was injured
through negligence may recover
damages.
duty to rescue
there is no general duty to rescue
a person is not liable for quasi-delict
even if he did not help a person in
distress.
Except: Art. 275, RPC; Sec, 55, RA
4136
there are individuals who are required
by law to take care another person,
hence, they are legally compelled to
rescue the other person under their
care or custody
responsible is eliminated.
Applied in conjunction with the doctrine of
common knowledge.
Theoretically based on necessity (some
evidence may not be available)
tolerated possession
owner is liable if the plaintiff
is inside his property by
tolerance or by implied
permission
visitors
owners of a building or premises
owe a duty of care to visitors
common carriers
common carriers may
be held liable for
negligence to persons
who stay in their
premises even if they
are not passengers.
The
person
who
purchases a ticket from
the carrier must present
himself at the proper
place and in the proper
manner
to
be
transported.
children and attractive nuisance
rule
an owner is liable if he
maintains in his premises
dangerous instrumentalities
or appliances of a character
likely to lure children in play
if he fails to exercise
ordinary care to prevent
children of tender age from
playing
therewith
or
resorting thereto.
Liability exists even if the
child is a trespasser so long
as he is not of sufficient age
or discretion
nuisance
vs
attractive
nuisance
nuisance by its very
nature, harmful to the
community or to certain
persons
attractive nuisance
considered
nuisance
only because it attracts
certain kind of persons jmvdg
recovery of damages
4. BANKS
business of banks is one affected with
public interest
a bank is under obligation to treat the
accounts of its depositors with
meticulous care, always having in mind
the
fiduciary
nature
of
their
relationships
5. COMMON CARRIERS
Arts. 1733 & 1755, NCC: carriers, by
reason of public policy and the nature
of their business, are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods and for the safety of
passengers transported by them
according to all circumstances of each
case.
Presumption: common carriers have
been at fault or have acted negligently
the case against common carrier is for
the enforcement of an obligation from
breach of contract.
6. DOCTORS
they are required to exercise utmost diligence
in the performance of their work.
standard of care
medical malpractice form of
negligence which consists in the
failure of a physician or surgeon to
apply to his practice of medicine
that degree of skill and care which
is ordinarily employed by the
profession generally under similar
conditions and in like surrounding
circumstances.
General Practitioners vs Specialist
standard of care demanded
from a general practitioner is
ordinary care and diligence in
the
application
of
his
knowledge and skill in the
practice of a profession.
A specialist's legal duty to the
patient is generally considered
jmvdg
to be that of an average
specialist, not that of an
average physician.
Advances of the profession is
taken into account in either
case
captain of the ship doctrine
doctor as head of the surgical team
he has the responsibility to it that
those under him perfrom the task in
the proper manner.
The doctor is likened to a captain of
the ship who must not only be
responsible for the safety of the
crew but also of the passengers of
the vessel.
Physicians are not warrantors
difficulties and uncertainties in the
practice of the profession are such
that no practitioner can guarantee
results
Proof
there is a presumption that in
proper cases, the physician takes
the necessary precaution and
employs the best of his knowledge
and skills in attending to his clients.
Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is
limited to cases where the court
from its fund of common knowledge
can determine the standard of care
required.
liability of hospital and consultants
in cases of consultants, the hospital
itself is not liable under Art. 2180,
CC in the absence of employeremployee relationship
7. LAWYERS
conduct of lawyers is governed by the
Code of Professional responsibility
Canon 18
a lawyer is not bound to exercise
extraordinary
diligence,
but
a
reasonable degree of care and skill,
having reference to the character f the
business he undertakes to do.
11
CHAPTER 4
DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
3. FORTUITOUS EVENTS
caso fortuito; an event which could not be
foreseen, or which though foreseen, was
inevitable. (Art. 2181)
a person is not liable if the cause of the
damage was fortuitous (Art. 1174)
characteristics of fortuitous event:
the cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or of the
failure of the debtor to comply with his
obligation, must be independent of the
human will
must be impossible to foresee the event
or if it is foreseen, it must be impossible
to avoid
occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner
obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of the
injury resulting to the creditor
the negligence of the defendant which
occurred with the fortuitous event or which
resulted in the aggravation of the injury of
the plaintiff will make him liable even if
there was a fortuitous event.
Nevertheless, even if the defendant is still
liable, courts may equitably mitigate the
damages if the loss, even in part, would
have resulted in any event because of the
fortuitous event
1. PLAINTIFF'S
CONDUCT
AND
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
the victim of negligence is likewise required to
exercise due care in avoiding injury to himself
Art. 2179
Plaintiff's own negligence as the proximate
cause bars him from recovering anything
contributory negligence of the victim has
the effect of mitigating or reducing the
damages that the victim may recover (Art.
2179 & Art. 2174)
contributory negligence conduct on the
part of the injured party, contributing as
legal cause to the harm he has suffered,
which falls below the standard to which he
is required to conform for his own
protection.
rule of comparative negligence any
rule under which the relative degree of
negligence of the parties is considered in
determining whether, and to what degree,
either should be responsible for his
negligence.
Apportionment of damages
pure type of comparative negligence
plaintiff's contributory negligence does
not operate to bar his recovery
altogether but does serve to reduce his
damage in proportion to his fault.
Prevailing doctrine
Time of Civil Code: contributory
negligence
1991: comparative negligence
The court is free to determine the extent of
the mitigation of the defendant's liability
depending on the circumstances.
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
consistent with the maxim, volenti non fit
injuria
requisites
plaintiff must know that the risk is
present
he must further understand its nature
his choice to incur it is free and
voluntary
plaintiff is excused from the force of the rule
if an emergency is found to exist or if the
life or property of another is in peril or when
12
jmvdg
(common carriage)
dangerous activities
persons
who
voluntarily
participate
in
dangerous
activities assume the risk which
are usually present in such
activities.
Awareness of the risk is not to
be determined in a vacuum but
must be assessed against the
background of the skill and
experience of the particular
plaintiff.
defendant's negligence
plaintiff is aware of the risk
created by the defendant's
negligence, yet he voluntarily
decided
to
proceed
to
encounter it.
5. DEATH
death of the defendant will not extinguish
the obligation based on quasi-delict.
The case will continue through the legal
representative who will substitute the
deceased.
6. PRESCRIPTION
action based on quasi delicts prescribes in
4 years, counted from the date of the
accident (Art. 1146)
relations back doctrine an act done at one
time is considered by fiction of law to have
been done at some antecedent period.
Acquisitive prescription vs. extinctive
prescription
7. INVOLUNTARINESS
believed to be a complete defense in a
quasi-delict case
CHAPTER 5
CAUSATION
PROXIMATE CAUSE
cause which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and
13
jmvdg
Construction vs IAC)
if no danger existed in the condition except
because of the independent cause, such
condition was not the proximate cause
if an independent negligent act or defective
condition sets in the operation the
circumstances which result in the injury
because the prior defective condition, such
subsequent act or condition is the
proximate cause.
Even if the defendant had only created a
condition, he may be held liable for
damages if such condition resulted in harm
to either person or property.
Types of dangerous conditions
inherently dangerous
they retain their potential energy in
full, even if they are stored or
handled with utmost care.
in a dangerous position
like
the
case
of
Phoenix
Construction vs. IAC
includes cases where the object is
placed in an unstable position
where the application of small force
will permit the release of some
greater force.
defective products
the thing itself is not supposed to
be dangerous but it was negligently
or
erroneously
produced
or
constructed
i.e defective buildings
the result.
Equivalent to the pre-emptive cause
referred to in the NESS test of Professor
Wright
the test for efficient intervening cause is
found in the nature and manner in which it
affects the continuity of operation of the
primary cause or the connection between it
and the injury
such intervening cause must be:
new
independent or one not under the
control of the official wrongdoer
one which by the exercise of
reasonable foresight and diligence, he
should have anticipated and guarded
against it
it must break the continuity of causal
connection between the original
negligent act or omission and the injury
so that the former cannot be said to
have been the efficient cause of the
latter
a cause is not an intervening cause if it is
already in operation at the time the
negligent act is committed.
Foreseeable intervening cause
cannot
be
considered
sufficient
intervening causes.
A medical treatment is an intervening cause
the intervention of an unforeseen and
unexpected cause, is not sufficient to
relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of
negligence, if such negligence directly and
proximately
cooperates
with
the
independent cause in the resulting injury.
An unforeseen and unexpected act of a
3rd person may not be considered
efficient intervening cause of it is
duplicative in nature or it merely
aggravated the injury that resulted
because of the prior cause.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm
he has suffered, which falls below the
15
CHAPTER 6
HUMAN RELATIONS: INTENTIONAL TORTS
CATCH ALL PROVISIONS:
Art. 19, NCC
believed to be a mere declaration of
principles which is being implemented by
other provisions
abuse of rights, elements:
there is a legal right or duty
such right or duty was exercised in bad
faith
for the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another
sets certain standards which may be
observed not only in the exercise of one's
rights but also in the performance of one's
duties
to act with justice
to give everyone his due
to observe honesty and good faith
Art. 20, NCC
renders it impossible that a person who
suffers damage because another has
violated some legal provision, should find
himself without relief
16
17
CHAPTER 7
HUMAN DIGNITY
Privacy
a)constitutional right to privacy
rights included
right against unreasonable search and
seizures (Sec. 2, Constitution)
the right to privacy of one's
communication and correspondence
(Sec. 3 (1), Constitution)
right against self incrimination (Sec. 17,
Constitution)
the Court ruled that in passing laws and
rules, adequate safeguards should be
maintained
regarding
the
people's
expectancy of privacy.
2 part-test
whether by his conduct, the individual
has exhibited an expectation of privacy
whether this expectation is one that
society recognizes as reasonable
special laws
Anti Wiretapping Law
Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act
Intellectual Property Code
violation of the constitutional right to privacy
that causes damage to another makes the
actor liable under Art. 32, NCC
18
latter's consent
regardless of WON such publicity
constitutes a criminal offense
publication made for profit or with
intent to gain aggravates the
violation of the right.
Newsworthiness
the claim of newsworthiness can be
sustained if the facts to be
published are strange and unusual
official proceedings
the publication of facts derived form
the records of official proceedings,
which are not otherwise declared
by law as confidential, cannot be
considered tortious.
official functions
the right to privacy belongs to the
individual acting in his private
capacity and not to governmental
agency or officers tasked with, and
acting in, the discharge of public
duties
false light
the interest to be protected in this tort is
the interest of the individual in not
being made to appear before the public
in an objectionable false position
False light
Defamation
Gravamen
is
the Gravamen
embarrassment of a reputational harm
person being made into
something he is not.
is
jmvdg
Personal in nature
Belongs to the reactive Calls for the application
harm
of the relational harm
principle
Publication
necessary
jmvdg
Discrimination
laws against discrimination
Universal Declaration Of Human
Rights
International
Convention
On
Economic, Social, And Cultural
Rights
International Convention On The
Ekements Of All Forms Of Racial
Discrimination
Convention Agaisnt Discrimination
In Education
Convention
Concerning
Discrimination In Respect Of
Employment And Occupation
Art. 135, Labor Code
RA 7277, Magna Carta For
Disabled Persons
RA 8504 (discrimination Against
20
AIDS Victims)
RA 8972 (Discrimination against
solo parent)
sexual harassment
RA 7877, Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
of 1995
policy: value the digity of every
individual, enhance the development of
its human resources, guarantee full
respet for human rights, and uphold the
dignity of works, employees, applicants
for employment, students or those
undergoing training
may be committed by one having
authority,
influence
or
moral
ascendancy over another in a work,
education, or training setting
quid pro quo cases
defendant
condition
employment benefits, onors,
awards, or privileges on sexual
favors
hostile environment case
involve the allegation that
employees
or
students
work/study in an offensive or
abusive environment
test: Won an ordinary prudent
person would engage in the
allegedly harassing conduct
elements:
plaintiff was subjected to
sexual advances, requests
for sexual favors, or other
verbal or physical conduct
of sexual nature
that
the
defendant's
conduct was unwelcome
that the conduct was
sufficiently
sever
or
pervasive to alter the
conditions of the victim's
employment and create an
abusing work environment
punishment: imprisonment of 1mo. to
6mo. or a fine of 10k-20k
3 years prescriptive period
CHAPTER 8
TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
violation of civil rights
violation of political rights
defamation
fraud
physical injuries
neglect of public officers
examples:
Art. 32, NCC
Art. 33, NCC
Art. 34, NCC
Art. 135 of the Labor Code
Section 5 of the Anti-Sexual Harassment
Act
Concept:
The underlying principle under consideration is to
allow the citizen to enforce his rights in a private
action brought by him regardless of the action of
the State Attorney. x x x while the State is the
complainant in the criminal case, the injured
individuals is the most concerned because it is he
who has suffered directly. He should be permitted
to demand reparation for the wrong which
particularly affects him. - (Report, p. 46, Civil Code
Commission)
2 views:
Tolentino
the civil actions are ex-delicto (civil
liability arising from delict)
Caguioa
the tortious of the actions are more of
culpa aquiliana
ARTICLE 32
provides for an independent civil action for
violation of civil and political rights.
Rationale:
because the Fiscal is burdened with too
many caseso bacause he belived the
evidence was insufficient, as as to
disinclination to prosecute a fellow
jmvdg
21
jmvdg
it must defamatory
it must be malicious
prompted by ill-will or spite and
speaks not in response to a
duty but merely to injure the
reputation of the person who
claims to have been defamed
malice in law or malice in fact
it must be given publicity
communication to a single
individual is sufficient
the victim must be identifiable
includes natural and juridical
persons
groups libel statements
directed against a fairly large
group
in our jurisdiction, the relatives
of the deceased can file an
action for damage to the
reputation of the latter.
a man's reputation is not the good
opinion he has of himself, but the
estimation in which others hold him.
Kinds:
slander or oral defamation
libel or written defamation
persons liable: (Art. 360, RPC)
any person who shall publish,
exhibit, or cause the publication or
exhibition
author or editor of the book or
pamphlet
editor or business manager of a
daily newspaper, magazine, or
serial publication
every
defamatory
imputation
is
presumed to be malicious even if it be
true (Art. 354, RPC)
Defenses:
absolutely privileged matters
Section 11.
A Senator or
Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all
offenses punishable by not
more
than
six
years
imprisonment, be privileged
22
Exceptions:
contravention of ordinance
violation of game laws
infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody
is hurt
treason
rebellion
espionage
contempt, etc.
The presence of civil liability in offenses is not
determined by the fact that the crime is public or
private.
CHAPTER 9
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT
Art. 110.
Several
and
subsidiary
liability
of
principals,
accomplices and accessories of a felony
Preference in payment. Notwithstanding
the provisions of the next preceding article,
the
principals,
accomplices,
and
accessories, each within their respective
class, shall be liable severally (in solidum)
among themselves for their quotas, and
subsidiaries for those of the other persons
liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be
enforced, first against the property of the
principals; next, against that of the
accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the
accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum
or the subsidiary liability has been
enforced, the person by whom payment
has been made shall have a right of action
against the others for the amount of their
respective shares.
Effect of Death:
Death of the person liable after the final
judgment extinguishes the criminal liability
but will not extinguish the civil liability. The
obligation to make restoration and
reparation for damages ad indemnification
for consequential damages devolves upon
he heirs of the person liable.
Death of the accused before the final
judgment relieves the accused of both
criminal and civil liability arising from the
criminal liability.
Aggrieved party in a libel or physical
injuries case (including homicide or
murder) who initially opted to claim
damages in the criminal case can file
another case to enforce his claim under
Art. 33, NCC
jmvdg
Joint tort-feasors
their liability is solidary (Art. 2194, NCC)
motor vehicle mishaps 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 (Art. 2184)
test of negligence: omission to do
which the evidence of his own senses
tell him he should do in order to avoid
the accident.
Vicarious liability
a person is not only liable for torts
committed by himself, but also for torts
committed by others with whom he has a
certain relationship and for whom he is
responsible.
Doctrine of imputed negligence
the person is being made liable not only
because of the negligent or wrongful act of
the person for whom they are responsible
but also because for their own negligence
legal bases:
Civil Code: Art. 2180 to 2182 of NCC;
Art. 58, Child and Youth Welfare Code;
Arts. 219, 221, and 236 of the Family
Code
Revised Penal Code: Arts. 101, 102
and 103
CHAPTER 10
THE DEFENDANTS
Doctrine of Respondeat Superior the liability is
strictly imputed, the employer is liable not because
of his act or omission but because of the act or
omission of the employee; employer cannot
escape liability by claiming that he exercised due
diligence in the selection or supervision of the
employee.
GENERAL RULE:
Vicarious liability in the
Philippines is not governed by the doctrine of
respondeat superior; employers or parents are
made liable not only because of the negligent or
wrongful act of the person for whom they are
responsible but also because of their own
negligence:
1)
Liability is imposed on the employer
because he failed to exercise due diligence
in the selection or supervision of the
employee
2)
Parents are made liable because
they failed to exercise due diligence
EXCEPTION: Doctrine of respondeat superior is
applicable in:
1)
liability of employers under Article
103 of the RPC
2)
liability of a partnership for the tort
committed by a partner
25
Employers
the responsibility of employers for the
negligence of their employees in the
performance of their duties is primary
Civil Code
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code provides
that the employer's liability is direct and
primary
the employer can escape this
liability by proving that he exercised
due diligence in the selection and
supervision of the employee
formulating SOP, monitoring
their
implementation,
and
imposing
discipline
for
breaches thereof.
presence of employer-employee
relationship must be proven
control test person for whom
the services are to be
performed controls not just the
result but also the means and
manner to achieve such end or
result
if only the employer is sued, he
may recover from the employee
what he has paid or delivered in
satisfaction of the claim. If only the
employee is sued, no right of
reimbursement accrues.
it is not necessary that the employer is
engaged in some kind of industry or
work (Castillex vs. Vasquez)
26
jmvdg
CHAPTER 11
STRICT LIABILITY
Spouses
Absolute Community of Property
default marriage settlement
all the properties of the marriage are
jointly owned by the spouses
vicarious liability based on paragraph
(9), Art. 94, Family Code
Conjugal Partnership of Gains
default marriage settlement prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code
pecuniary indemnities imposed upon
the husband or wife are not chargeable
against the conjugal partnership but
against the separate properties of the
wrongdoer.
Regime of separation of property
Art. 145, Family Code
each spouse shall own, dispose of ,
possess, administer and enjoy his or
her own separate estate.
Each spouse is responsible for his or
her own obligation.
strict liability
if one is made liable independent of fault,
negligence or intent after establishing
certain facts specified by law.
Can be committed even if reasonable care
was exercised and regardless of the state
of mind of the actor at that time.
Liability without fault.
ANIMALS
Art. 2183, NCC
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. (1905)
FALLING OBJECTS
Art. 2193, NCC
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. (1910)
State
LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS
Art. 1171, NCC
Municipal Corporations
liability of municipal corps for damages
arising
from
injuries
suffered
by
pedestrians from the defective conditions
of roads is expressed in Art. 2189, NCC
the article only requires that either control
or supervision is exercised over the
defective road or street.
Public officers
public officers who are guilty of tortious acts
are personally liable for their actions.
Section 38, Administrative Code of 1987
jmvdg
28
NUISANCE
jmvdg
remedies
civil action
abatement
without
judicial
proceedings
remove or destroy the thing
which constitutes the nuisance
(must be with the assistance of
the local police)
nuisance per se
nuisance under any and al
circumstances
nuisance per accidens
becomes nuisance under certain
conditions and circumstances
there is strict liability on the part of the
owner or possessor of the property where
a nuisance is found because he is obliged
to abate the same irrespective of the
presence or absence of fault or negligence.
Private
person
or
public
official
extraordinarily abating a nuisance shall be
liable for damages in 2 cases:
if he causes unnecessary injury
if an alleged nuisance is later declared
by the courts to be not a real nuisance.
The action to abate a nuisance is
imprescriptible
it is believed that the only effect of estoppel
at most is that the private party who is so
estopped may be deemed to have waived
his or her rights to damages.
CHAPTER 12
PRODUCT AND SERICE LIABILITY
Product Liability
law which governs the liability of
manufacturers and sellers for damages
resulting from defective products
statutory basis: Consumer Act of the
Philippines
alternative theories:
fraud or misrepresentation
may be based on Art. 33, NCC
usual exaggeration in trade are not
actionable misrepresentations
breach of warranty
29
30
CHAPTER 13
BUSINESS TORTS
ARTICLE 1314. Any third person who induces
another to violate his contract shall be liable for
damages to the other contracting party. (n)
31
Unfair Competition
Art. 28, NCC
see Article 186, RPC; Section 2 of Art. XIV,
Constitution; Section 168 (Sec. 168.2 and
168.3 [a] and [b]), IPCode;
includes the cases involving the tort of
interference with contractual relations and
interference with prospective advantage
also present is the defendant committed
fraudulent
appropriation
against
competition
also present in the case of predatory
pricing
practice of selling below costs in the
short run in the hoe of obtaining
monopoly gains later, after driving the
1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
CHAPTER 14
DAMAGES
Justice Regalado
injury legal invasion of a right;
damage lost, hurt or harm
damages compensation of the lost, hurt or harm
caused by the legal invasion of a right
types of damages:(mental)
moral
awarded to afford plaintiff the means of
diversion or to alleviate moral
sufferings
malice on the part of the defendant
should be proven
Bagumbayan Corp. vs IAC: juice
was spilled to one patron of a
restaurant; no ground to award
moral damages
Sps. Herbosa vs PBE, January 25,
2002; videography of a wedding;
moral damages was awarded
Buenaventura vs Buenaventura,
March 21, 2005: moral damages
against
a
spouse
who
is
jmvdg
32
psychologically
incapacitated;
award of moral damages is
improper
WON a juridical entity is capable of
being awarded an award for moral
damages: Generally NO.
Exception:
Besmirched
reputation
(Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Jan
17, 2005:libel and defamation with
moral damages)
exemplary
corrective damages
Art. 2229, NCC
in addition to the other forms of
damages
bad faith, gross negligence or malice
on the part of the defendant
nominal
stand alone award of damages
Cathay Pacific vs. Vasquez; passenger
moved from economy class to business
class
Agabon vs NLRC: reverted to the
Wenphil doctrine(?) with regard to
award of backwages; there is valid
ground to dismiss the employee; right
to due process was violated; nominal
damages was awarded
temperate
award of damage sustained cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty
Ramos
vs
CA;
medical
malpractice;captain
of
the
ship
doctrine; 1.5M award of temperate
damages
actual/compensatory damages
the 2 are treated the same
doctrine of foreseeability of the injury
plaintiff has to prove his cause of action
types
danjo emergente loss of what the
plaintiff has
lucro cessante loss of profit; loss
of earning capacity
legal interest
Eastern Shipping vs CA (Vitug)
distinguish obligation from a loan or
1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
Source:
TORTS AND DAMAGES by Timoteo B. Aquino, 2nd
edition, 2005
jmvdg