GENERAL

PRINCIPLES
It is a civil wrong wherein
one person’s conduct causes
a compensable injury to the
person, property or
recognized interest of
another, in violation of a
duty imposed by law.
Contract duties are
created by the
promises of the
parties, while tort
duties are imposed as
rules of law
1. Compensation and Restitution
– To compensate persons
sustaining loss or harm as
a result of another’s act or
omission, placing the cost
of that compensation on
those who, in justice ought
to bear it.
2. Prevention
– To prevent future
losses and harm.
1. Civil liability
ex delicto
NOTE: Every person
criminally liable
for a felony is also
civilly liable
(RPC, Art.100).
2. Independent
civil liabilities,
such as those:
a. Not arising from an act or
omission complained of as a
felony, e.g., culpa contractual or
obligations arising from law
under Article 31 of the New
Civil Code (such as breach of
contract or tort), intentional torts
under Articles 32 and 34, and
culpa aquiliana under Article
2176 of the New Civil Code.
b. Where the injured party
is granted a right to file an
action independent and
distinct from the criminal
action under Article 33 of
the New Civil Code (in
cases of defamation, fraud
and physical injuries).
NOTE: Either of these liabilities
may be enforced against the
offender subject to the caveat
under Article 2177 of the New
Civil Code that the plaintiff
cannot recover damages twice
for the same act or omission of
the defendant (Santos v. Pizardo, G.R.
No. 151452, July 29, 2005).
It is a wrongful act. It is the
commission or omission of
an act by one, without right,
whereby another receives,
some direct or indirect
injury, in person, property,
or reputation (De Leon, 2012).
GR: An action for
damages can only be
maintained by the
person directly
injured, not by one
alleging the collateral
injury.
XPN: There are instances
where injury to one may
operate as an injury to
another, e.g. a lone parent
cannot sue for the injury
suffered by his child, but may
maintain an action in his own
right for any damages suffered
as a result of the injury.
1. Compensatory
– actions for sum
of money for the
damage suffered.
2. Preventive – prayer for
injunction, a writ of
preliminary injunction, and a
temporary restraining order,
enjoining the defendant from
continuing the doing of the
tortious conduct.
3. Restitution – to
return gains that
the defendant
wrongfully obtained
by tort.
Defendants in tort
cases can either
be natural or
artificial beings.
Pursuant to vicarious
liability, a corporation
may be held directly and
primary liable for tortious
acts of its officers or
employees (NCC, Art. 2180).
The responsibility of
two or more persons
who are liable for
quasi-delict is
solidary (NCC, Art. 2194).
Each are liable as
principals, to the same
extent and in the same
manner as if they had
performed the wrongful act
themselves (Ruks Konsult and
Construction v. Adworld Sign and Advertising Corp.,
G.R. No. 204866, January 21, 2015).
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 the due diligence,
prevented the misfortune.
It is disputably presumed
that a driver was
negligent, if he had been
found guilty or reckless
driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice
within the next preceding
two months (NCC, Art. 2184).
If the car owner is not
present in the vehicle and
the driver was negligent, the
injured party may still sue
said owner under Article
2180 par. (5) of the New Civil
Code for imputed liability.
NOTE: 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 (NCC, Article 2180 par. 5).
An owner of a vehicle cannot
be held liable for an accident
involving the said vehicle if
the same was driven without
his consent or knowledge and
by a person not employed by
him (Duavit v. CA, G.R. No. 82318,
May 18, 1989).
1. The proprietor of a
building or structure is
responsible for the damages
resulting from its total or
partial collapse, if it should
be due to the lack of
necessary repairs (NCC, Art.
2190). (1990, 2007 BAR)
2. They shall also be
responsible for damages
caused by emanations from
tubes, canals, sewers or
deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without
precautions suitable to the
place (NCC, Art. 2191). (2002 BAR)
1. The collapse of the
building must be
within 15 years from
the completion of
the structure.
NOTE: The collapse is by
reason of a defect in the
engineer or architect’s
plans and specifications,
or due to the defects in
the ground
2. The prescriptive
period is 10
years following
the collapse.
3. The liability
applies to collapse
or ruin, not to
minor defects.
4. Even if payment
has been made,
an action is still
possible.
NOTE: Acceptance of
the building, after
completion, does not
imply waiver of any of
the cause of action by
reason of any defect.
5. If the engineer or
architect supervises
the construction, he
shall be solidarily
liable with the
contractor.
NOTE: 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.
GR: No one can be held
liable in view of the
fortuitous event if the
proximate cause of the
collapse of the building
is an earthquake.
XPN: If the proximate
cause is the defective
designing or construction,
or directly attributable to
the use of inferior or
unsafe material, it is clear
that liability exists (NCC, Art.
1723; Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. CA, G.R. No. L-
47851, October 3, 1986).
Two or more persons who act
together in committing a wrong,
or contribute to its commission,
or assist or participate therein
actively and with common
intent, so that injury results to
a third person from the joint
wrongful act of the wrongdoers
(De Leon, 2012).
Whether the plaintiff has a
single cause of action
against such tortfeasors,
or whether he has only
several causes of action
against each of them.
NOTE: They are solidarily liable
for the damage caused (Art. 2194;
Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. CA, G.R.
No. 126395, November 16, 1998).
They are
liable as principals to the same
extent and in the same manner as
if they had performed the
wrongful act themselves (Worcester
v. Ocampo, 22 Phil. 42, 1912).
Where the concurrent or
successive negligent acts or
omissions of two or more persons,
although acting independently,
are in combination the direct and
proximate cause of a single injury
to a third person
If several persons jointly
commit a tort, the plaintiff or
person injured, has his
election to sue all or some of
the parties jointly, or one of
them separately, because the
tort is in its nature a separate
act of each individual (Dean
Worcester v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 5932,
February 27, 1912).
In case of injury to a
passenger due to the
negligence of the driver of the
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
 ACT OR
OMISSION AND
ITS MODALITIES
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 (NCC, Art. 2176)
NOTE: While it may be true that the
pre-existing contract between the
parties may, as a general rule, bar the
applicability of the law on quasi-
delict, the liability may itself be
deemed to arise from quasi-delict,
i.e., the acts which breaks the
contract may also be a quasi-delict
(Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 110295, 18 October 1993).
1. Damage to
the
Plaintiff;
NOTE: While it may be true that the
pre-existing contract between the
parties may, as a general rule, bar the
applicability of the law on quasi-
delict, the liability may itself be
deemed to arise from quasi-delict,
i.e., the acts which breaks the
contract may also be a quasi-delict
(Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 110295, 18 October 1993).
2. Negligence, by act or
omission, of which
defendant, or some
person for whose acts,
must respond, was
guilty; and
3. Connection of cause
and effect between
such negligence and
damage (FGU Insurance
Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 118889,
March 23, 1998).
NOTE: An action
based on quasi-delict
must be instituted
within four (4) years.
It is any bodily movement
tending to produce some
effect in the external world, it
being unnecessary that the
same be actually produced, as
the possibility of its
production is sufficient (People v.
Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990).
It 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 (NCC, Art. 1173).
The test to determine the
existence of negligence is
whether a prudent man could
foresee harm as a result of
the course actually pursued
(Picart v. Smith, Jr., G.R. No. L-
12219, March 15, 1918).
NOTE: The existence of negligence
in a given case is not determined by
reference to the personal judgment
of the actor in the situation before
him. The law considers what would
be reckless, blameworthy, or
negligent in the man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence and
determines liability by that (Ibid.).
When negligence shows
bad faith, responsibility
arising from fraud is
demandable in all
obligations (NCC, Art. 1171).
Furthermore, 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 nonperformance of the
obligation (NCC, Art. 2201).
GR: Negligence is
excused when events
that transpired were
unforeseen or, which
though foreseen, were
inevitable (NCC, Art. 1174).
XPN:
1. In cases specified by
law;
2. When declared by
stipulation; or
3. When the nature of the
obligation requires the
assumption of risk.
The obligation imposed by
Article 2176 of the NCC for
quasi-delicts is demandable
not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those
persons for whom one is
responsible (NCC, Art. 2180).
NOTE: A person or
juridical entity is made
liable solidarily with a
tortfeasor simply by
reason of his relationship
with the latter.
The presumption of law is that
there was negligence on the
part of the master or employer
either in the selection of the
servant or employee (culpa in
eligendo) or in the supervision
over him after the selection
(culpa vigilando), or
NOTE: The presumption is juris
tantum (rebuttable), not juris et
de jure (conclusive), and can be
rebutted only by showing proof
of having exercised and observed
all the diligence of a good father
of a family (diligentissimi patris
familias) (Tamagro v. CA, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992).
Primary and direct, 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 (De Leon Brokerage v. CA, G.R.
15247, February 28, 1962).
1. Father, or in case of death
or incapacity, mother:
a. Damage caused by
minor children
b. Living in their
company
2. Guardians:
a. For minors or
incapacitated persons
b. Under their authority
c. Living in their
company
3. Owners and managers of
establishments:
a. For their employees
b. In the service of the
branches in which they
are employed, or;
c. On the occasion of their
functions
4. Employers:
a. Damages caused by
employees and household
helpers
b. Acting within the scope of
their assigned tasks
c. Even if the employer is
not engaged in any
business or
5. State – acting through a
special agent and not
when the damage has
been caused by the
official to whom the
task done properly
pertains.
6. Teachers or heads of
establishments:
a. Of arts and trades
NOTE: Article 2180 of the NCC
is applicable to all schools,
whether it be academic or
nonacademic (Amadora v. CA,
G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988).
b. For damages caused by
their pupils and
students or apprentices
c. So long as they remain
in their custody (NCC,
Art. 2180).
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. In the latter instance,
they are answerable with their
own property (Pineda, 2009).
The vicarious liability shall
cease when the defendants
prove that they observed all
the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent
damage (NCC, Art. 2180; Cuadra v.
Monfort, G.R. No. L-24101 September
30, 1970).
VICARIOUS
LIABILITY:
PARENTS
This liability is made natural
as a logical consequence of the
duties and responsibilities of
parents exercising parental
authority which includes
controlling, disciplining and
instructing their children.
In this jurisdiction the parent’s
liability is vested by law which
assumes that when a minor or
unemancipated child living with
their parent, commits a tortious
act, the parents are presumed
negligent in the performance of
their duty to supervise the
children under their custody
(Tamagro v. CA,G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992).
1. The child is below 21
years of age;
2. The child Committed a
tortious act to the
damage and prejudice of
another person; and
3. The child Lives in the
company of the parent
concerned whether
single or married
(Pineda, 2009).
 Minor Incapacitated Persons
Those who are below 21 years Persons beyond 21 years of
of age. age but are incapacitated
NOTE: R.A. 6809, An Act such as those who are insane
Lowering the Age of Majority or imbecile.
from Twenty One to Eighteen
Years, did not amend Article
236 of the Family Code with
regard to age.

“Nothing in this code shall be construed to derogate

from the duty or responsibility of parents and guardians
for children and wards below 21 years of age mentioned
in the second and third paragraphs of Art. 2180 of the
Civil Code” (RA 6809)
Thus, under Article 221 of
the Family Code, there is no
more alternative
qualification as to the civil
liability of parents. The
liability of both father and
mother is now primary and
not subsidiary (Libi vs. IAC, G.R. No.
70890, September 18, 1992).
Otherwise stated,
their responsibility is
now simultaneous,
and no longer
alternative (Rabuya,
2017).
NOTE: Parents and other persons
exercising parental authority shall
be civilly liable for the injuries and
damages caused by the acts or
omissions of their unemancipated
children living in their company
and under their parental authority
subject to the appropriate defenses
provided by law (FC, Art.221)
In default of the parents or
a judicially appointed
guardian, parental
authority shall be exercised
by the following persons in
the order indicated:
1. Surviving grandparents;
2. Oldest sibling, over 21
years old unless unfit or
unqualified; or
3. Child’s actual
custodian, over 21
years old unless unfit or
disqualified
Judicially adopted
children are
considered legitimate
children of their
adopting parents
(RA, 8552, Sec. 17).
Thus, adopters are
civilly liable for the
tortious/criminal acts
of their minor children
who live with them.
NOTE: Parental authority may not
be given retroactive effect so as to
make the adopting parents the
indispensable parties in a damage
case filed against their adopted
child, for acts committed by the
latter, when actual custody was yet
lodged with the biological parents
(Tamargo v. CA, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992).
As for an illegitimate
child, if he is
acknowledged by the
father and lives with the
latter, the father shall be
responsible.
However, if he is not
recognized by the putative
father but is under the
custody and supervision of
the mother, it is the latter
who is the one vicariously
liable (Pineda, 2009).
VICARIOUS
LIABILITY:
GUARDIANS
Guardians are liable for
damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated
persons who are under
their authority and live
in their company (NCC,
Art. 2180).
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
(NCC, Art. 2182).
NOTE: The rules on
vicarious liability of
parents are applicable
to vicarious liability
of guardians.
De facto guardians are
relatives and neighbors who
take upon themselves the
duty to care and support
orphaned children without
passing through judicial
proceedings.
NOTE: They are liable for
acts committed by children
while living with them and
are below 21 years of age,
the law being applied by
analogy (Pineda, 2009).
VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
OWNERS AND
MANAGERS OF
ESTABLISHMENTS AND
ENTERPRISES
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
[NCC, Art. 2180(4)]
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
[Ibid. (5)]. (2005 BAR)
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
The terms “owners and
managers” are used in the
sense of “employer” and
do not include the
manager of a corporation
who himself is just an
employee (Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v.
Phil. American Forwarders, Inc., G.R. No. L-
25142, March 25, 1975).
To make the employer
liable under Art. 2180 of
the NCC, it must be
established that the
injurious or tortious act was
committed at the time the
employee was performing
his functions (Marquez v. Castillo, G.R.
No. 46237, September 27, 1939).
NOTE: However, a manager
who is not an owner but who
assumes the responsibility of
supervision over the
employees of the owner may
be held liable for the acts of
the employees (Pineda, 2009).
1. The employee was
chosen by the
employer personally
or through another;
2. The service is to be
rendered in
accordance with
orders which the
employer has the
authority to give 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:
EMPLOYERS
An employer includes any
person acting directly or
indirectly in the interest of
an employer in relation to an
employee and shall include
the government and all its
branches, subdivisions and
instrumentalities,
all government owned
or controlled
corporations and
institutions, as well as
non-profit private
institutions, or
organizations (PD 442, Art. 97)
The negligence of the
employee is presumed to be
the negligence of the
employer because the
employer is supposed to
exercise supervision over the
work of the employees.
This liability of the
employer is primary
and direct (Standard
Vacuum Oil Co. vs. Tan
and Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-13048.
February 27, 1960).
Once the employee’s fault is
established, the employer can
then be made liable on the basis
of the presumption that the
employer failed to exercise
diligentissimi patris familias
(diligence of a good father of a family)
in the selection and supervision
of its employees (LRTA v. Navidad, G.R.
No. 145804, February 6, 2003).
 Employers
Owners/Managers
(Par 5, Art. 2180, NCC)
(Par 4, Art. 2180, NCC)
Requires engagement in
business on the part of
The employers need not
the employers as the law
be engaged in business or
speaks of “establishment
industry.
or enterprise.”

Covers negligent acts of

employees committed Covers negligent acts of
either in the service of the employees acting within
branches or in the the scope of their
occasion of their assigned tasks.
functions
1. If he chooses to file a civil
action for damages based on
quasi-delict under Article
2180 of the New Civil Code
and succeeds in proving the
negligence of the employee,
the liability of the employer
is primary, direct and
solidary.
It is not conditioned on
the insolvency of the
employee (Metro Manila
Transit Corp. v. CA,
G.R. No. 118069,
November 16, 1998).
2. If he chooses to file a
criminal case against the
offender and was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, the
civil liability of the employer
is subsidiary. The employer
cannot use as a defense the
exercise of the diligence of a
good father of a
NOTE: Once there is a
conviction for a felony, final in
character, the employer under
Article 103 of the RPC, is
subsidiary liable, if it be shown
that the commission thereof was
in the discharge of the duties of
the employee.
A previous dismissal of an
action based on culpa
aquiliana could not be a bar to
the enforcement of the
subsidiary liability required
by Art. 103 of the RPC (Jocson,
et al. v. Glorioso, G.R. No. L-
22686, January 30, 1968).
GR: It is required
that the employee
must be performing
his assigned task at
the time that the
injury is caused.
XPN: However, it is not
necessary that the task
performed by the employee is
his regular job or that which
was expressly given to him by
the employer. It is enough that
the task is indispensable to the
business or beneficial to the
employer (Filamer Christian Institute v. IAC,
G.R. No. 75112, August 7, 1992).
NOTE: It is not required
that the employer is
engaged in some kind of
industry or work (Castilex
Industrial Corporation v.
Vasquez, G.R. No. 132266
December 21, 1999).
When a criminal case is
filed against the
offender, before the
employer’s subsidiary
liability is exacted,
there must be proof
that:
1. They are indeed the
employer of the
convicted employee;
2. The former are
engaged in some
kind of industry;
3. The crime was
committed by
the employees in
the discharge of
their duties; and
4. That the execution
against the latter
has not been
satisfied due to
insolvency (Philippine
Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People,
G.R. No. 147703, April 14, 2004).
NOTE: The determination of these
conditions may be done in the same
criminal action in which the
employee’s liability, criminal and
civil, has been pronounced, in a
hearing set for that precise purpose,
with due notice to the employer, as
part of the proceedings for the
execution of the judgement [Rabuya (2017),
citing Calang v. People, 626 SCRA 679, 2010)].
A: YES, there is a presumption
of negligence on the part of
the employer. However, such
presumption is rebuttable. The
liability of the employer shall
cease when they prove that
they observed the diligence of
a good father of a family to
prevent damage (Art. 2180).
When the employee causes
damage due to his own
negligence while performing his
own duties, there arises the
juris tantum presumption that
the employer is negligent,
rebuttable only by proof of
observance of the diligence of a
good father of a family
Likewise, if the driver is
charged and convicted in a
criminal case for criminal
negligence, BT is
subsidiarily liable for the
damages arising from the
criminal act.
A: NO. The insurance
company is not liable
because when the
accident occurred,
Alberto was not acting
within the assigned tasks
of his employment.
It is true that under
Art. 2180(5), employers
are liable for damages
caused by their
employees who were
acting within the scope
of their assigned tasks.
However, the mere fact that
Alberto was using a service
vehicle of the employer at
the time of the injurious
accident does not
necessarily mean that he
was operating the vehicle
within the scope of his
employment.
In Castilex Industrial
Corporation v. Vasquez, G.R.
No. 132266, December 21,
1999, the Supreme Court
held that notwithstanding
the fact that the employee
did some overtime work for
the company, the former
was, nevertheless,
engaged in his own affairs or
carrying out a personal
purpose when he went to a
restaurant at 2:00 a.m. after
coming out from work. The
time of the accident (also
2:00 a.m.) was outside
normal working hours.
An employee who uses his
employer’s vehicle in going from
his work to a 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
However, evidence that by using
the employer’s vehicle to go to
and from meals, an employee is
enabled to reduce his time-off
and so devote more time to the
performance of his duties,
supports the finding that an
employee is acting within the
scope of his employment while
so driving the vehicle
1. Exercise of due
diligence in the
selection and
supervision of its
employees (except in
criminal action); and
NOTE: In the selection of prospective
employees, employers are required to
examine them as their qualifications,
experience, and service records. On the
other hand, with respect to the
supervision of employees, employers
should formulate standard operating
procedures, monitor their
implementation, and impose
disciplinary measures for breaches
thereof.
To establish these factors in a
trial involving the issue of
vicarious liability, employees
must submit concrete proof,
including documentary
evidence (Metro Manila
Transit v. CA, G.R. No. 141089,
August 1, 2002).
2. The act or omission
was made outside
working hours and in
violation of
company’s rules and
regulations.
A: NO. The defense of diligence
in the selection and supervision
of the employee under Article
2180 of the New Civil Code is
available only to those primarily
liable thereunder, but not to
those subsidiary liable under
Article 103 of the Revised Penal
Code (Yumul v. Juliano, G.R. No.
47690, April, 28, 1941).
NEW CIVIL CODE RPC
Liability is Liability is
direct, primary,
and solidary - subsidiary.
the employer
may be sued
even without
suing the
employee.
 NEW CIVIL CODE RPC
Diligence of Diligence of
a good father a good father
of a family is of a family is
a defense. not a
defense.
 NEW CIVIL CODE RPC

Employer is Petitioner
liable even must prove
if not that the
engaged in employer is
business. engaged in
business.
 NEW CIVIL CODE RPC

Proof of Proof
negligence beyond
is by mere reasonable
prepondera doubt is
nce of required.
evidence.
A: 1. YES. Dennis can file
an independent civil action
against Carlos and his
father for damages based on
quasi-delict there being an
act or omission causing
damage to another without
contractual obligation.
Under Section 1 of Rule 111
of the 2000 Rules on
Criminal Procedure, what is
deemed instituted with the
criminal action is only the
action to recover civil
liability arising from the act
or omission punished by law.
An action based on
quasi-delict is no longer
deemed instituted and
may be filed separately
(Sec. 3, Rule 111, Rules
of Court).
2. NO, Benjamin cannot
raise the defense that the
vehicle is not registered in
his name. His liability,
vicarious in character, is
based on Article 2180
because he is the father of a
minor who caused damage
due to negligence.
While the suit will
prosper against the
registered owner, it is
the actual owner of the
private vehicle who is
ultimately liable (See
Duavit v.CA, G.R. No. L-29759, May
18, 1989).
The purpose of car
registration is to reduce
difficulty in identifying
the party liable in case
of accidents (Villanueva v.
Domingo, G.R. No. 144274,
September 14, 2004).
A: 1. YES, their action
will prosper. The liability
of the employer in this
case may be based on
quasi-delict and is
included within the
coverage of independent
civil actions.
It is not necessary to enforce the
civil liability based on culpa
aquiliana that the driver or
employee be proven to be
insolvent since the liability of
the employer for the quasi-delict
committed by their employees is
direct and primary subject to the
defense of due diligence on their
part (NCC, Art. 2176; NCC, Art. 2180).
2. YES, the parents of the boy
can enforce the subsidiary
liability of the employer in the
criminal case against the driver.
The conviction of the driver is a
condition sine qua non for the
subsidiary liability of the
employer to attach. Proof must
be shown that the driver is
insolvent (RPC, Art. 103)
VICARIOUS
LIABILITY:
STATE
1. Public/Governmental
– Where the State is liable
only for the tortious acts
of its special agents. The
State has voluntarily
assumed liability for acts
done through special
agents (Pineda, 2009).
2. Private/Non-governmental
– When the State is engaged
in private business or
enterprise, it becomes
liable as an ordinary
employer (NIA v. Fontanilla, G.R.
No. 61045, December 1, 1989).
NOTE: The State is only
liable for the negligent
acts of its officers,
agents and employees
when they are acting as
special agents.
A special agent is one
who receives a definite
and fixed order or
commission, foreign to
the exercise of the
duties of his office.
An employee who on his
own responsibility
performs functions
inherent in his office and
naturally pertaining
thereto is not a special
agent
NOTE: Where the
government commissions a
private individual for a
special governmental task,
it is acting through a
special agent within the
meaning of the provision
(Largo, 2007).
As for local government units,
“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
(NCC, Art. 2189).
NOTE: It is not even necessary
for the defective road or street to
belong to the province, city or
municipality for liability to
attach. The article only requires
that either control or supervision
is exercised over the defective
road or street (Guilatco v. City of Dagupan,
G.R. No. 61516, 21 Mar 1989).
The LGU cannot be
relieved of liability based
on its purported lack of
knowledge of the
excavation and the
condition of the road when
the accident
Its obligation to maintain
the safe condition of the
road within its territory is a
continuing one which is not
suspended while a street is
being repaired (Municipality of San
Juan v. CA, G.R. No. 121920, 9 Aug 2005).
VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
TEACHERS AND HEADS
OF ESTABLISHMENTS
OF ARTS AND TRADES
Teachers or directors of
arts and trades are
liable for any damages
caused by their pupils
or apprentices while
they are under their
custody.
In the case of Ylarde v.
Aquino, G.R. L-33722, July
29, 1988, the teacher
Edgardo Aquino, after
bringing his pupils to an
excavation site dug by them,
left them all by themselves,
and one of the pupils fell into
the pit.
The teacher acted with fault
and gross negligence
because a teacher who
stands in loco parentis to
his pupils would have made
sure that the children are
protected from all harm in
his company.
The application of
Article 2180 of the New
Civil Code is not
limited to schools of
arts and trades.
There is really no
substantial distinction
between the academic
and the non-academic
schools insofar as torts
committed by their
students are concerned.
The same vigilance is
expected from the
teacher over the students
under his control and
supervision, whatever the
nature of the school
where he is teaching.
There is no reason why
different degrees of
vigilance should be
exercised by the school
authorities on the basis
only of the nature of their
respective schools (Amadora v.
CA, G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988).
NOTE: Although Art. 2180 is
applicable to all schools, the
distinction between an academic
school and an establishment of
arts and trades is still essential to
distinguish the liability of the
teacher from that of the head of
the establishment.
GR: Where the school is
academic rather than
technical or vocational in
nature, responsibility for the
tort committed by the student
will attach to the teacher in
charge of such student.
XPN: In the case of
establishments of arts and
trades, it is the head thereof,
and only he, who shall be
held liable as an exception to
the general rule.
In other words, teachers in
general shall be liable for the
acts of their students except
where the school is technical
in nature, in which case it is
the head thereof who shall be
answerable (Ibid.).
They are acting in Loco
Parentis (in place of parents).
However, teachers are not
expected to have the same
measure of responsibility as
that imposed on parent for
their influence over the child
is not equal in degree.
The parent can instill more
lasting discipline on the child
than the teacher and so
should be held to a greater
accountability than the
teacher or the head for the
tort committed by the child
(Amadora v. CA, G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988).
Art. 218. The school, its
administrators and teachers, or
the individual, entity or
institution engaged in child are
shall have special parental
authority and responsibility over
the minor child while under their
supervision, instruction or
custody.
Authority and
responsibility shall apply
to all authorized activities
whether inside or outside
the premises of the school,
entity or institution.
Art. 219. Those given the
authority and responsibility
under the preceding Article
shall be principally and
solidarily liable for damages
caused by the acts or omissions
of the unemancipated minor.
The parents, judicial
guardians or the persons
exercising substitute
parental authority over
said minor shall be
subsidiarily liable.
The rationale of school heads
and teachers liability for
tortious acts of their pupil
and students, so long as they
remain in custody, is that
they stand, to a certain
extent,
as to their pupils and students,
in loco parentis and are called
upon to “exercise reasonable
supervision over the conduct of
the child.” This is expressly
provided for in Articles 349,
350 and 352 of the Civil Code
(Pineda, 2009).
Even if the student has
already reached the age
of majority, the liability
can be imputed to the
teacher-incharge. Under
Article 2180, age does
not matter.
Unlike the parent who will be
liable only if the child is still
a minor, the teacher is held
answerable by the law for the
act of the student regardless
of the age of the student
liable (Amadora v. CA, G.R. No. L-
47745, April 15, 1988).
Teachers and Heads of schools
are only liable if the students
remain in schools. If they are
no longer in such premises,
their responsibility shall
attach no more. Their parents
become responsible for them
(Pineda, 2009).
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 not ended, or
has ended or has not yet
begun.
The term “custody” signifies that
the student is within the control
and influence of the school
authorities. The teacher in charge
is the one designated by the dean,
principal, or other administrative
superior to exercise supervision
over the pupils or students in the
specific classes or sections to
which they are assigned.
It is not necessary that
at the time of the
injury, the teacher is
physically present and
in a position to prevent
it.
 ARTICLE 218 of the ARTICLE 2180 of the
Family Code New Civil Code

School, its Teachers, head

administrators, of
teachers establishment
engaged in in arts and
child care are trades are
made expressly made expressly
liable. liable.
 ARTICLE 218 of the ARTICLE 2180 of the
Family Code New Civil Code

Liability of Neither such

school, its express
administrators, solidary nor
and teachers is subsidiary
solidary and liability is
parents are stated.
made subsidiary
liable.
 ARTICLE 218 of the ARTICLE 2180 of the
Family Code New Civil Code

Students Students
involved involved are
must be a not
minor. necessarily
minors.
Their responsibility will
cease when they prove
that they observed all
the diligence of a good
father of a family to
prevent damage (NCC, Art. 2180).
As for the employer, if he shows
to the satisfaction of the court
that in the selection and in the
supervision of his employees he
has exercised the care and
diligence of a good father of a
family, the presumption is
overcome and he is relieved from
liability
A: Under Article 218 of the
Family Code, the school, its
administrators and teachers, or
the individual, entity or
institution engaged in child
care shall have special parental
authority and responsibility
over the minor child while
under their supervision,
instruction or custody.
Authority and
responsibility shall apply
to all authorized
activities whether inside
or outside the premises
of the school, entity or
institution.
1.Vicarious liability
as an employer
under Art. 2180
of the NCC;
2. Direct liability:
a. for quasi-delicts under Art.
2176 of the NCC;
b. as an institution
exercising special parental
authority over minor
children under Art. 219 of
the FC;
c. for breach of contract; or
NOTE: When a student enrolls, a
contract is entered into between
him and the school. Under this
contract, the school is supposed to
ensure that adequate steps are
taken to provide an atmosphere
conducive to study and ensure the
safety of the student while inside
its premises (Saludaga v. FEU, G.R. No. 179337, April 30, 2008).
Thus, any quasi-delict
committed by the school’s
employee against the
student is also actionable
under breach of contractual
obligations.
3. Subsidiary liability for
felonies committed by
their servants, pupils,
workmen, apprentices, or
employees in the
discharge of their duties,
under Art. 103 of the
RPC.
PROXIMATE
CAUSE
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 (Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty,
G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 2009).
NOTE: Proximate cause
is not necessarily the
immediate cause; it’s not
necessarily the nearest
time, distance or space
(People v. Elizalde, 59 Off. Gaz. 1241).
The doctrine of
proximate cause is
applicable only in
actions for quasi-delict,
not in actions involving
breach of contract.
The doctrine is a
device for imputing
liability to a person
where there is no
relation between him
and another party.
In such a case, the obligation is
created by law itself. But, where
there is a pre-existing
contractual relation between
the parties, it is the parties
themselves who create the
obligation, and the function of
the law is merely to regulate the
relation thus created
(Calalas v. CA, G.R. No. 122039. May 31, 2000).
Where the concurrent or
successive negligent acts or
omissions of two or more
persons, although acting
independently, are in
combination with the direct and
proximate cause of a single
injury to a third person,
and it is impossible to
determine what proportion
each contributed to the injury,
either of them is responsible
for the whole injury, even
though his act alone might not
have caused the entire injury
(Sabido v. Custodio, G.R. No. L- 21512,
August 31, 1966).
An efficient intervening
cause is one which destroys
the causal connection
between the negligent act
and the injury and thereby
negatives liability (Morril v. Morril,
60 ALR 102, 104 NJL 557).
There is no efficient
intervening cause if the
force created by the
negligent act or
omission have either:
1. Remained active itself;
or
2. Created another force
which remained active
until it directly caused
the result; or
3. Created a new active
risk of being acted
upon by the active
force that caused the
result (57 Am. Jur. 2d 507).
 It is the cause which,
in natural and
continuous sequence,
PROXIMATE unbroken by any
CAUSE efficient intervening
cause, produces the
injury, and without
which the result would
not have occurred.
 One that destroys the
causal connection
between the negligent
INTERVENING act and injury and
CAUSE
thereby negatives
liability.
NOTE: Foreseeable
Intervening causes cannot
be considered sufficient
intervening causes.
 That cause which
some independent
force merely took
REMOTE advantage of to
CAUSE accomplish
something not the
natural effect
thereof.
 Causes brought about
by the acts and
omissions of third
persons which makes
CONCURRENT the defendant still
CAUSE
liable. Here, the
proximate cause is not
necessarily the sole
cause of the accident.
 LEGAL
INJURY
In order that a plaintiff may
maintain an action for the
injuries of which he complains,
he must establish that such
injuries resulted from a breach
of duty which the defendant
owed to the plaintiff- a
concurrence of injury to the
plaintiff and legal responsibility
by the person causing
The underlying basis
for the award of tort
damages is the premise
that an individual was
injured in
contemplation of law.
Thus, there must first be a
breach of some duty and the
imposition of liability for that
breach before damages may be
awarded; and the breach of
such duty should be the
proximate cause of the injury
(Equitable Banking Corp. v. Calderon, G.R.
No. 156168. December 14, 2004).
 Injury The illegal invasion of
a legal right.
Damage The loss, hurt, or
harm which results
from the injury.
Damages The recompense or
compensation
awarded for the
damage suffered.
A right is a legally
enforceable claim of one
person against another,
that the other shall do a
given act, or shall not do
a given act (Pineda, 2011).
A quasi-delict can be the cause
for breaching a contract that
might thereby permit the
application of principles
applicable to tort even when
there is a pre-existing contract
between the plaintiff and the
defendant.
Where, without a pre-existing
contract between two parties,
an act or omission can
nonetheless amount to an
actionable tort by itself, the fact
that the parties are
contractually bound is no bar to
the application of quasidelict
provisions to the case.
This rule can govern only
where the act or omission
complained of would
constitute an actionable
tort independently of the
contract (Far East Bank and Trust
Company v. CA, G.R. No. 108164,
February 23, 1995).
NOTE: The act that
breaks the contract
may be also a tort (Air
France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No.
L-21438, September 28, 1966).
CLASSIFICATION
OF TORTS
Torts are
classified
as either:
1.Negligent
Torts;
2. Intentional Torts; or
a. Intentional Physical Harms
i. Battery
ii. Assault
iii. False imprisonment
iv. Trespass to land
v. Trespass to chattels
vi. Conversion
b. Intentional Non-Physical Harms
i. Violation of personal dignity
ii. Infliction of emotional
distress
iii. Malicious prosecution
iv. Defamation
v. Fraud or Misrepresentation
vi. Seduction
vii. Unjust dismissal
viii. Violation of rights
committed by public officers
c. Interference with
Relations
i. Family relations
ii. Social relations
iii. Economic relations
iv. Political relations
3. Strict Liability
Torts
a. Possessor and
user of an
animal
b. Nuisance
NEGLIGENT
TORTS
Negligence is the omission of
that degree of diligence
which is required by the
nature of the obligation and
corresponding to the
circumstances of the
persons, time and place (NCC,
Art. 1173).
The test is would a prudent
man, in the position of the
tortfeasor, foresee harm to
the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of
the course about to be
pursued?
If so, the law imposes a
duty on the actor to take
precaution against its
mischievous results, and
failure to do so constitutes
negligence (Picart v. Smith, G.R. No.
L- 12219, March 15, 1918).
NOTE: The determination
of negligence is a question
of foresight on the part of
the actor (Phil. Hawk Corp.
v. Vivian Tan Lee, G.R. No.
166869, February 16, 2010).
1. Simple negligence
– Want of slight care
and diligence only.
2. Gross negligence
– There is a glaringly
obvious want of
diligence and implies
conscious indifference
to consequences (Amadeo
v. Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc., G.R. No.
L-6870, May 24, 1954);
pursuing a course of
conduct which would
probably and naturally
result to injury (Marinduque
Iron Mines Agents, Inc. v. The
Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, G.R. No. L- 8110 June
30, 1956).
1. Person Exposed to
the Risk
– A higher degree of
diligence is required
if the person
involved is a child.
2. Emergency
– The actor confronted
with an emergency is
not to be held up to the
standard of conduct
normally applied to an
individual who is in no
such situation.
3. Social Value or Utility of
Action
– Any act subjecting an
innocent person to
unnecessary risk is a
negligent act if the risk
outweighs the advantage
accruing to the actor and
even to the innocent person
himself.
4. Time of the day
– May affect the diligence
required of the actor
(NCC, Art. 1173); e.g. a
driver is required to
exercise more prudence
when driving at night.
5. Gravity of the Harm to
be Avoided
– Even if the odds that an
injury will result are not
high, harm may still be
considered foreseeable if
the gravity of harm to be
avoided is great.
6. Alternative Cause of Action
– If the alternative presented
to the actor is too costly,
the harm that may result
may still be considered
unforeseeable to a
reasonable man. More so if
there is no alternative
thereto.
7. Place – A man who should
occasion to discharge a gun on
an open and extensive marsh, or
in a forest would be required to
use less circumspection and
care, than if he were to do the
same thing in an inhabited
town, village or city (A Selection of
Cases Illustrative of the English Law of
Tort, Kenny, 1928).
8. Violation of Rules
and Statutes
a. Statutes
b. Administrative
Rules
c. Private Rules of
Conduct
9. Practice and Custom
– A practice which is
dangerous to human life
cannot ripen into a
custom which will
protect anyone who
follows it (Yamada v. Manila
Railroad Co., G.R. No. 10073, December
24, 1915).
The quantum of proof
is preponderance of
evidence [Rules of
Court, Rule 133(1)].
GR: Plaintiff alleging
damage due to
negligent acts in his
complaint has the
burden of proving such
negligence.
XPN: When the
rules or the law
provide for cases
when negligence
is presumed.
1. Motor vehicle
mishaps
– a driver is
presumed negligent
if he:
a. was found guilty of
reckless driving or
violating traffic
regulations at least
twice within the
preceding two months
(NCC, Art. 2184); or
b. was violating
any traffic
regulation at
the time of the
mishap (NCC, Art. 2185).
2. Possession of dangerous
weapons or substances,
results in death or injury,
except when the
possession or use thereof
is indispensable in his
occupation or business
(NCC, Art. 2188).
3. Common carriers are
presumed to have been at
fault or acted negligently in
cases of death or injuries to
passengers. Unless they
prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence
(NCC, Art. 1733 & 1755).
Mere intoxication is not
negligence per se nor
establishes want of ordinary
care. But it may be one of
the circumstances to be
considered to prove
negligence (Wright v. MERALCO, G.R.
No. L-7760, October 1, 1914).
The negligence of both the
plaintiff and the defendant are
compared for the purpose of
reaching an equitable
apportionment of their
respective liabilities for the
damages caused and suffered by
the plaintiff (Pineda, 2009).
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).
NOTE: Under the modified form,
the plaintiff can recover only if
his negligence is less than or
equals that of the defendant.
Expressed in terms of
percentages, a plaintiff who is
charged with 80% of the total
negligence can recover only 20%
of his damages (De Leon, 2012).
 GOOD FATHER
OF A FAMILY OR
REASONABLY
PRUDENT MAN
Bonus Pater
Familias or that
of a good father
of a family.
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 [NCC, Art. 1173 (2)].
He is not and is not supposed to
be omniscient of the future;
rather, he is one who takes
precautions against any harm
when there is something before
him to suggest or warn him of the
danger or to foresee it (Picart v. Smith,
G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918).
The law requires a man
to possess ordinary
capacity to avoid
harming his neighbors
unless a clear and
manifest incapacity is
shown;
but it does not generally
hold him liable for
unintentional injury
unless, possessing such
capacity, he might ought
to have foreseen the
danger (Corliss v. Manila Railroad Co.,
G.R. No. L-21291, March 28, 1969).
1. Art. 1173, NCC - Provides that
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 of the NCC
shall apply.
2. Art. 2201, NCC - In contracts
and quasi-contracts, 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.
NOTE: 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 (Ibid.)
Good faith refers to the state of
the mind which is manifested
by the acts of the individual
concerned. It consists of the
intention to abstain from taking
an unconscionable and
unscrupulous advantage of
another (DBP v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 137916, December 8, 2004).
GR: The action of a
child will not
necessarily be judged
according to the
standard of an adult.
XPN: If the minor is
mature enough to
understand and appreciate
the nature and
consequences of his
actions. In such a case, he
shall be considered to have
been negligent.
NOTE: Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006 (RA
9344): 15 years of age or
younger – age of absolute
irresponsibility.
Nevertheless, absence of
negligence does not absolutely
excuse the child from liability,
as his properties, if any, can
be held subsidiarily liable. Nor
will such absence of
negligence excuse the child’s
parent from vicarious liability.
The conduct that should
be examined in negligence
cases is prior conduct or
conduct prior to the injury
that resulted or, in proper
cases, the aggravation
thereof.
STANDARD
OF CARE
 In General
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
[Article 1173(2)].
 In General
NOTE: Diligence of a good father
of a family – bonus pater familias -
A reasonable man is deemed to
have knowledge of the facts that a
man should be expected to know
based on ordinary human
experience (PNR v. IAC, G.R. No. 7054, January 22, 1993).
 Persons who have Physical
Disability
GR: A weak or accident
prone person must come
up to the standard of a
reasonable man,
otherwise, he will be
considered as negligent.
 Persons who have Physical
Disability
XPN: If the defect
amounts to a real
disability, the standard of
conduct is that of a
reasonable person under
like disability.
Experts and Professionals
GR: They should
exhibit the case and
skill of one who is
ordinarily skilled in
the particular field
that he is in.
Experts and Professionals
NOTE: This rule does
not apply solely or
exclusively to
professionals who have
undergone formal
education.
 Experts and Professionals
XPN: When the activity,
by its very nature,
requires the exercise of a
higher degree of diligence
e.g. Banks; Common
carriers
 Insane Persons
The insanity of a person does
not excuse him or his guardian
from liability based on quasi-
delict (NCC, Arts. 2180 & 2182).
This means that the act or
omission of the person suffering
from mental defect will be
judged using the standard test
of a reasonable man.
 Insane Persons
The bases for holding a
permanently insane person
liable for his torts are as
follows:
1. Where one of two innocent
person must suffer a loss it
should be borne by the one
who occasioned it;
 Insane Persons
2. To induce those interested in
the estate of the insane
person (if he has one) to
restrain and control him; and
3. The fear that an insanity
defense would lead to false
claims of insanity to avoid
liability (Bruenig v. American Family
Insurance Co., 173 N.W. 2d 619, (1970)).
 Insane Persons
NOTE: Under the RPC, an insane
person is exempt from criminal
liability. However, by express
provision of law, there may be civil
liability even when the actor is
exempt from criminal liability. An
insane person is still liable with his
property for the consequences of
his acts, though they performed
unwittingly (US v. Baggay, Jr. G.R. No. 6659, September 1, 1911).
 Employers
That degree of care as
mandated by the Labor Code
or other mandatory
provisions for proper
maintenance of the work
place or adequate facilities to
ensure the safety of the
employees.
 Employers
NOTE: Failure of the
employer to comply
with mandatory
provisions may be
considered negligence
per se.
 Employees
Employees are bound to
exercise due care in the
performance of their functions
for the employers. Liability may
be based on negligence
committed while in the
performance of the duties of the
employee (Araneta v. De Joya,
G.R. No. L-25172, May 24, 1974).
 Employees
NOTE: The existence of
the contract constitutes
no bar to the commission
of torts by one against the
other and the consequent
recovery of damages.
 Owners, Proprietors and
Possessors of Property
GR: The owner has no
duty to take reasonable
care towards a trespasser
for his protection or even
to protect him from
concealed danger.
 Owners, Proprietors and
Possessors of Property
XPNs:
1. Visitors – Owners
of buildings or
premises owe a duty
of care to visitors.
 Owners, Proprietors and
Possessors of Property
2. Tolerated Possession
- Owner is still liable if the
plaintiff is inside his property
by tolerance or by implied
permission. However, common
carriers may be held liable for
negligence to persons who stay
in their premises even if they
are not passengers.
 Owners, Proprietors and
Possessors of Property
3. Doctrine of Attractive
Nuisance
4. State of Necessity
– A situation of present danger
to legally protected interests, in
which there is no other remedy
than the injuring of another’s
also legally protected interest.
 Doctors
If a General Practitioner
– Ordinary care and
diligence in the
application of his
knowledge and skill in
the practice of his
profession.
 Doctors
If a Specialist
– The legal duty to the
patient is generally
considered to be that
of an average
physician.
 Lawyers
An attorney is bound to
exercise only a
reasonable degree of care
and skill, having
reference to the business
he undertakes to do (Adarne
v. Aldaba, A.M. No. 801, June 27, 1978).