TORTS AND DAMAGES

PERSONS WHO CAN SUE AND BE SUED

TORTS FOR TORT

Tort - tort is an unlawful violation of private 1. Plaintiffs - Persons entitled for damages
right, not created by contract or any previous 2. Defendants - Persons who may be liable
existing lawful relation, and which gives rise to
an action for damages.
REMEDIES
Philippine Tort Law
1. Compensatory - action for damages
Sources: 2. Preventive - Prayer for injunction or
temporary restraining order
1. The New Civil Code is the primary statute
that governs torts in the Philippines. ALTERNATIVE COMPENSATION SCHEMES

 Art. 1157 includes Quasi-Delict as source 1. Insurance

of obligation 2. Worker’s Compensation
 Other tort provisions are found in other
titles of the code and in special laws NEGLIGENCE

Torts in Anglo-American Law concept includes Negligence is the omission to do something

intentional criminal acts which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the
Quasi-delict or Culpa Aquiliana is limited to conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
negligent acts or omissions. doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would do.

PURPOSE OF TORTS Definition under the Civil Code

1. To provide a peaceful means for adjusting Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the
the rights of parties who might otherwise take obligor consists in the omission of that
the law into their own hands; diligence which is required by the nature of the
2. Deter wrongful conduct; obligation and corresponds with the
3. To encourage socially responsible circumstances of the persons, of the time and
behaviour; of the place. When negligence shows bad
4. To restore injured parties to their original faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201,
condition, insofar as the law can do this, by paragraph 2, shall apply.
compensating them for their injury.
Short Definition
Fundamental Principles
Failure of one to observe reasonable care or
1. Equity and Justice - this principle demands diligence required by law which a prudent and
that persons who may have been damaged by reasonable man would do.
wrongful or negligent acts of another are
compensated. KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE

2. Democracy - torts is used to control to 1. Culpa Contractual - Negligence incident to

minimize wrongful acts or omissions. the performance of a contractual obligation
2. Culpa Aquiliana - Quasi-Delict
3. Respect for Human Dignity - torts is a form 3. Culpa Criminal - acts or omissions resulting
of compensation to show that law recognizes from imprudence, negligence, lack of skill, lack
the human dignity. of foresight.

TEST OF NEGLIGENCE
 has some reason of his own for such conduct
Did the defendant in doing the alleged (referred to as the collateral object);
negligent act use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person 4. The probability that the collateral object will
would have used in the same situation? be attained by the conduct which involves risk
to the principal (the utility of the risk);
Note: Forseeability in negligence requires that 5. The probability that the collateral object will
the risk or danger is apparent. be attained without taking the risk (the
necessity of the risk).
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEGLIGENCE
(NUFR) Example

1. Negligence is a conduct - state of mind of “The plaintiff’s intestate, seeing a child on a

the actor is not important railroad track in front of a rapidly approaching
2. Unreasonable or Undue Risk - it is a train, went upon the track to save him. He did
conduct that creates undue risk to others save him, but was himself killed by train.
3. Forseeability - The risk or danger must be
apparent The jury were allowed to find that he had not
4. Probability - great probability that damage been guilty of contributory negligence. The
would result from the action or inaction. question was of course whether he had
exposed himself to an unreasonable great risk.
ONG vs. Metropolitan Water District
Here the above-mentioned elements of
A boy scout drowned in a swimming pool. The reasonableness were as follows:
parents as plaintiffs filed an action to recover
from defendant and its employees.

The issue is whether the defendant is

negligent.

Held: The present action is governed by Article

2176 in relation to Article 2080 of the new Civil
Code. The first article provides that “whoever
by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to
pay for the damages done.” Such fault or
negligence is called quasi-delict. Under the
second article, this obligation is demandable
not only for one’s own acts or omissions but
also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY AFFECT
NEGLIGENCE

CALCULATION OF RISK 1. Time - example: driving during night

2. Place - example: Discharging a gun in
What must be considered: (MPCUN) crowded than isolated and uninhabited place
3. Emergency - Emergency rule, one who finds
1. Magnitude of risk himself in a place of danger, and is required to
2. The value or importance of that which is act without time to consider the best means
exposed to the risk, which is the object that the that may be adopted to avoid the danger, is not
law desires to protect, and may be called the guilty of negligence.
principal object; 4. Gravity of Harm to be Avoided
3. A person who takes a risk of injuring the 5. Alternative Course of Action - example:
principal object usually does so because he collision to truck and the alternative is colliding
to a tree instead.
6. Social Value or Utility of Activity - Danger in 3. Physical Disability
use of high voltage wires is disregarded
because of social value of providing electricity In The Common Law, Justice Holmes
to the public. explained that the weaknesses of a person will
7. Person Exposed to Risk - higher degree of not be an excuse in negligence cases. A weak,
diligence if the person involved is a child. clumsy or accident prone person must come
up to the standard of a reasonable man,
STANDARD OF CONDUCT otherwise, he will be considered negligent.

- Diligence of a good father of a family. However, the rule is different if the defect is not
a mere weakness but one amounting to real
What should be determined in negligence disability. The Constitution recognizes the
cases is what is foreseeable to a good father of rights of disabled persons. In fact, it mandates
a family. A good father of a family is likewise the creation of a “special agency for disabled
referred to as the reasonable man, man of persons for their rehabilitation, self-
ordinary intelligence and prudence, or ordinary development and self-reliance, and their
reasonable prudent man. integration in the mainstream of the society.”
(Section 13, Article XIII, 1987 Constitution).

ATTRIBUTES OF A GOOD FATHER OF A 4. Experts and Professionals

FAMILY
An expert should exhibit the care and skill of
Circumstances that are material in the one ordinarily skilled in the particular field that
determination of negligence. he is in. In fact, when a person hold himself out
as being competent to do things requiring
1. Knowledge and experience of the actor professional skills, he will be held liable for
negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and
If he has knowledge of the possible occurrence skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular
of the danger or risk, despite lack of signs or work which he attempted to do.
warnings, he may be found negligent.
5. Nature of Activity
2. Children
There are activities, however, which by nature
The rule in this jurisdiction is that “the care and impose duties to exercise a higher degree of
caution required of a child is according to his diligence. Banks, for instance, “handle daily
maturity and capacity only and this is to be transactions involving millions of pesos. By the
determined in each case by the circumstances very nature of their work, the degree of
of the case.” responsibility, care and trustworthiness
expected of their employees and officials is far
Child may still be liable even negligence on his greater than those of ordinary clerks and
part is absent. Under the RPC, he can still be employees.
subsidiarily liable with his properties. This is
liability without fault. Common carriers are also required to exercise
utmost diligence
A child aged 9 or below is CONCLUSIVELY in the performance of their functions.
PRESUMED to be incapable of negligence
6. Intoxication
A child aged above 9 but below 15 years old
creates a disputable presumption of absence Mere intoxication is not negligence, nor does
of negligence. The rule regarding maturity and the mere fact of intoxication establish want of
capacity applies only to this age. ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be
considered with the other evidence tending to
This rule is based on exempting circumstances prove negligence. It is a general rule that it is
under RPC. immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if
no want of ordinary care or prudence can be
imputed to him, and no greater degree of care physically stronger than a woman and the
is required to be exercised by an intoxicated same should be taken into consideration in
man for his own protection than a sober one. If determining if the defendant, who is a woman,
one’s conduct is characterized by a proper was negligent.
degree of care and prudence, it is immaterial
whether he is drunk or sober. There is no question that when it comes to
physical features, there is a distinction
However, as pointed out earlier, intoxication between man and woman. A man is generally
may be one of the circumstances to be physically stronger than a woman and the
considered to prove negligence. For instance, same should be taken into consideration in
intoxication may be considered to prove determining if the defendant, who is a woman,
negligence in driving a motor vehicle. was negligent.

7. Insanity eg. Woman driving a car stopped at a lighted

place in order to change flat tires. (Valenzuela
Under the Revised Penal Code, an insane vs CA)
person is exempt from criminal liability.
However, by express provision of law, there It is believed that it can also be reasonably
may be civil liability even when the perpetrator argued that the same conclusion that was
is held to be exempt from criminal liability. reached by the Court can be reached if it was
“Such is the case of a lunatic or demented a man who was in the position of the actor in
person who, in spite of his deranged mind, is Valenzuela. A man is not necessarily as brave
still reasonably and justly liable with his as the Court may presume him to be. On the
property for the consequences of his acts, other hand, many women may find the
even though they be performed unwittingly. conclusion of the Court as too patronizing.
They may find it insulting to be treated in such
The same rule is applicable under the Civil a stereotypical manner.
Code. The insanity of a person does not
excuse him or his guardian from liability based Dean Calabresi believes that there should be
on quasi-delict. uniform standard.

The bases for holding a permanently insane STANDARD vs SPECIFIC RULES

person liable for his tort are as follows:
Standards are the legal norms that are being
(a) Where one of two innocent persons must followed in deciding negligence cases. Courts
suffer a loss it should be borne by the one who apply a standard in the light of the
occasioned it; circumstances obtaining in the particular case
they are deciding. The courts do not prescribe
(b) to induce those interested in the estate of specific rules of conduct to be followed by all
the insane person (if he has one) to restrain persons.
and control him; and

(c) the fear that an insanity defense would lead OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN
to false claims of insanity to avoid liability. DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE

(Breunig vs. American Family Insurance Co., 1. Violation of rules and statutes
173 N.W. 2d 619 [1970]). 2. Practice and custom
3. Compliance with rules and statutes

8. Women DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE

There is no question that when it comes to Not recognized in some jurisdictions. The word
physical features, there is a distinction “gross” is of no significance.
between man and woman. A man is generally
In Philippines, the presence of GROSS character of accident and circumstances
NEGLIGENCE is statutorily recognized. Art. attending it lead reasonably to belief that in
2231 of the Civil Code provides that “(i)n absence of negligence it would not have
quasidelicts exemplary damages may be occurred and that thing which caused injury is
granted if the defendant acted with gross shown to have been under management and
negligence.” control of alleged wrongdoer.

Gross negligence is defined in this jurisdiction

as negligence where there is failure to exercise CULPA CONTRACTUAL
even slight care and diligence.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur generally finds
relevance whether or not a contractual
relationship exists between the plaintiff and the
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE defendant, for the inference of negligence
arises from the circumstances and nature of
1. Burden of proof - duty of the party to present the occurrence and not from the nature of the
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to relation of the parties.
establish claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law.

However, there are instances when the law

provides presumption of negligence. PROXIMATE CAUSE

2. Presumptions That cause which, in natural and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient
Driver is negligent - when he is found guilty of intervening cause, produces the injury, and
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations without which the result would not have
at least twice within the next preceding 2 occurred.
months (Art. 2184-2185)
REMOTE CAUSE
Presumption of negligence may also be
present in contracts. Example: passenger was That cause which some independent force
injured in an accident involving his carrier. merely took advantage of to accomplish
something not the natural effect thereof.

RES IPSA LOQUITUR It is an independent force that may have

contributed to the happening of something.
It means “the thing speaks for itself.” It creates
a rebuttable presumption that the defendant NEAREST CAUSES
was negligent.
It means the immediate cause before the
Its function is to aid the plaintiff in proving the incident or event took place.
elements of a negligence case by
circumstantial evidence. CONCURRENT CAUSES

Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself Other causes in the unbroken sequence other
Rebuttable presumption or inference that than proximate cause.
defendant was negligent, which arises upon
proof that instrumentality causing injury was in
defendant's exclusive control, and that the IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
accident was one which ordinarily does not
happen in absence of negligence. Res ipsa Negligence is imputed if the actor is different
loquitur is rule of evidence whereby negligence from the person who is being made liable. As
of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from applied to contributory negligence, the
mere fact that accident happened provided defendant will be subject to mitigated liability
even if the plaintiff was not himself personally
negligent but because the negligence of
another is imputed to the plaintiff.

FORTUITOUS EVENT

Under Article 1174 of the New Civil Code, a

person is not liable if the cause of damage was
fortuitous; an event which could not be
foreseen, or which though foreseen, was
inevitable.

ASSUMPTION OF RISK

Requisites:

1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is

present
2. He must further understand its nature
3. His choice to incur it is free and voluntary.

PRESCRIPTION

Prescriptive period for quasi-delict is 4 years

counted from date of accident.

MEMORIZE:

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission

causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own

negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover
damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant's lack
of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages,
but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded. (n)