Civil Law Quasi

Civil Law
QUASI-DELICT/TORT
Quasi-delict The law prohibits plaintiff from recovering

damages twice under delict and quasi-delict for
Art. 2176 CC
the same act or omission.
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to The failure of recovery in one will not preclude
another, there being fault or negligence is
the recovery in other.
obliged to pay for the damage done.
Even if the cause of action ex quasi
Requisites: C,D,F delicto had already prescribed, the
1. Damage suffered by the plaintiff; subsidiary liability under delict can still
2. Fault or negligence of defendant; be enforced.
3. Connection of cause and effect Culpa Aquiliana
between the fault or negligence of
defendant ad the damage incurred by Wrongful or negligent act or omission which
plaintiff creates a vinculum juris and gives rise to an
obligation between two persons not formally
Prescriptive period: bound by any obligation
An action based on quasi-delict must be
Culpa Contractual
instituted within FOUR YEARS
Fault or negligence incident in the performance
Scope of an obligation which already existed and
Not limited to acts or omission resulting from which increases the liability from such existing
negligence. obligation.
Art. 2176 covers not only acts committed with Culpa Aquiliana Culpa Contractual
Cause of Action
negligence but also which are voluntary and
Negligence Negligence in the
intentional.
performance of a
contractual obligation
Two kinds of Civil Liability
Negligence is considered
1. Civil liability arising from the crime Culpa is substantive Considered as an
under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal and independent accident in the
which of itself performance of an
Code;
constitutes the source obligation already
2. Civil liability arising from quasi-delict of an obligation existing
under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code Proof
Negligence should be Mere proof of
Note: clearly established existence of the
because it is the basis contract and the
The two civil liabilities are distinct and
of the action failure of its
independent of each other. compliance justify,
prima facie a
corresponding right of
1
Civil Law
QUASI-DELICT/TORT
relief Emergency rule is not applicable where

Law governing the danger or emergency is caused by
Article 2176 Article 1170 to 1174 the actor’s own negligence.
LIABILITY
Effect of pre-existing contractual relations
Defendant
The court has repeatedly held that the
existence of a contract between the parties To be held liable, there must be a finding that
does not bar the commission of a tort by one the act or omission considered as negligent was
against the other and the consequent recovery the proximate cause of the injury caused by
of damages. negligence must have a causal connection to
the accident.
The liability of tort may even arise under a
contract where tort is that which breaches the Requisite
contract.
The injury must be shown that the injury for
Negligence (CULPA) which the recovery is sought must be the
legitimate consequence of the wrong done.
Failure to exercise the standard of care that a
reasonably prudent person would have Doctrine of Proximate cause
exercised in a similar situation.
Applicable only in actions for quasi-delict .
Test to determine existence of negligence
Proximate cause
1. Foreseeability Test- to be negligent, a
defendant must have acted or failed to That cause, which in natural and continuous
act in such a way that an ordinary sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
reasonable man would have realized cause, produces the injury and without which
that certain interests of certain persons the result would not have occurred.
were unreasonable subjected to a
Damage must be a natural and probable result
general but definite class of risks.
of the act or omission.
2. Emergency rule- an individual who
suddenly finds himself in a situation of Plaintiff
danger and is required to act without
much time to consider the best means When he plaintiff’s own negligence was the
that may be adopted to avoid the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
impending danger, is not guilty of cannot recover damages
negligence if he fails to undertake what
BURDEN OF PROOF
subsequently and upon reflection may
appear to be a better solution, unless General rule: Plaintiff in quasi-delict who has
the emergency was brought by his own the burden of proof and who is required to
negligence. establish the existence of negligence
2
Civil Law
QUASI-DELICT/TORT
Exceptions: b. It does not arise where a passenger

demands responsibility from the carries
i. When law provides for presumption
to enforce its contractual obligations.
of negligence;
ii. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
applicable
The thing speaks for itself.
Evidence required: Preponderance of evidence.
It holds a defendant liable where the thing
DOCTRINES which caused the injury complained of is shown
to be under the latter’s management and the
Doctrine of Contributory Negligence accident is such that, in the ordinary course of
If the negligence of the plaintiff was only things, cannot be expected to happen if those
contributory, the immediate and proximate who have its management or control use proper
cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of care.
due care, the plaintiff may recover damages but
Requisites:
the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded. 1. The event is of a kind which does not
ordinarily occur in the absence of
Contributory negligence of the injured will nit negligence;
defeat the action it is shown that the defendant 2. Other causes, including the conduct of
might be, by the exercise of reasonable care the plaintiff and third persons, are
and prudence, have avoided the consequences. sufficiently eliminated by the evidence;
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance 3. It is caused by an instrumentality within
the exclusive control of the defendant.
Both parties are negligent, but the negligent act
of one is appreciably later in time than that of Instances where negligence is presumed
the other, or when is impossible to determine
Motor vehicle mishaps
whose fault or negligence should be attributed
to the incident, the one who had last clear
opportunity to avoid the impending harm and
failed to do so is chargeable with the
consequences thereof.
Not applicable:
a. Where the party charged is required to

act instantaneously and the injured
cannot be avoided by the application of
all means at hand after the peril is or
should have been discovered.

Civil Law Quasi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Law Quasi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Law Quasi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Law

Quasi-delict The law prohibits plaintiff from recovering

relief Emergency rule is not applicable where

Exceptions: b. It does not arise where a passenger

a. Where the party charged is required to

You might also like