Professional Documents
Culture Documents
215
A. NEGLIGENT TORTS
TORT
NEGLIGENCE
The omission of that degree of
diligence which is required by the
nature of the obligation and
corresponding to the circumstances
of persons, time and place. (Article
1173 Civil Code)
Kinds of Negligence:
1. Culpa Contractual (contractual
negligence)
Governed by CC
provisions on
Obligations and
Contracts,
particularly Arts.
1170 to 1174 of the
Civil Code.
2. Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)
Governed mainly by Art. 2176 of the
Civil Code
3. Culpa Criminal (criminal negligence)
Governed by Art. 365 of the Revised
Penal Code.
NOTES:
The 3 kinds of negligence furnish
separate, distinct, and independent
bases of liability or causes of action.
A single act or omission may give rise
to two or more causes of action.
Culpa Contractual
Culpa Aquiliana
The foundation
of
the liability of the
defendant
is the contract
In breach of contract
committed
through
the negligence
of
employee,
the
employer
cannot
erase his primary and
direct liability
by
invoking exercise of
diligence of a good
father of a family in
the selection
and
supervision of
the
employee.
It is
a
separate
source
of obligation
independent
of
contract
In quasi-delict the
presumptive
responsibility for the
negligence of his
servants can be
rebutted by proof of
the exercise of due
care in their selection
and supervision.
Culpa Aquiliana
Crime
Affect
the
public
interest
The
Revised Penal
Code
punishes or
corrects criminal act
Punished only if there
is a penal law clearly
covering them
Liability
of
the
Liability is direct and employer
of
the
primary in
quasi- actor-employee
is
delict
subsidiary in crimes
QUASI-DELICT
Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault
or negligence is obliged to pay for
the damage done. (Article 2176 Civil
Code)
Calculation of Risk
Interests are to be balanced only in
the sense that the purposes of the
actor, the nature of his act and the
harm that may result from action or
inaction are elements to be
considered.
Circumstances to consider in
determining negligence: (PEST-GAP)
1. Time
2. Place
3. Emergency
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
a. Banks,
b.
by the very
nature of their work, are
expected to exercise the
highest
degree
of
diligence in the selection
and supervision of their
employees.
Common carriers are
required
to
exercise
extraordinary diligence in
the vigilance over their
passengers
and
transported
goods.
(Article 1733 Civil Code).
5. Intoxication
GENERAL RULE: Mere intoxication is
not negligence, nor does the mere fact
of intoxication establish want of ordinary
care. But it may be one of the
circumstances to be considered to prove
negligence.
EXCEPTION: Under Art. 2185 of the
Civil Code, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap,
he was violating any traffic regulation.
6. Insanity
The insanity of
a person does
not excuse him
or his guardian
from liability
based on quasidelict.
Bases
for
holding
an
insane person
liable for his
tort:
1. In
motor
vehicle
mishaps, the owner is
presumed negligent if he
was in the vehicle and he
could have used due
diligence to prevent the
misfortune. (Article 2184
Civil Code)
2. It is disputably presumed
that
a
driver
was
negligent if he had been
found guilty of reckless
driving
or
violating
traffic regulations at
least twice for the next
preceding two months.
(Article 2184 Civil Code)
3. The driver of a motor
vehicle
is
presumed
negligent if at the time
of the mishap, he was
violating
any
traffic
regulation. (Article 2185
Civil Code)
4. GENERAL RULE: Prima
facie presumption of
negligence
of
the
defendant arises if death
or injury results from his
possession of dangerous
weapons or substance.
EXCEPTION: When such possession or
use is indispensable to his occupation or
business. (Article 2188 Civil Code)
5. GENERALRULE:
Presumption
of
negligence
of
the
common carrier arises in
case of loss, destruction
or deterioration of the
goods, or in case of
death or injury of
passengers.
EXCEPTION: Upon proof of exercise of
extraordinary diligence.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
B. Duty to rescue
GENERAL RULE: 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.
EXCEPTIONS: A limited duty to rescue
is imposed in certain cases:
Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of ones own victim is
considered, under certain circumstances
as a crime against security (Article 275
RPC); and
No driver of a motor vehicle concerned
in a vehicular accident shall leave the
scene of the accident without aiding the
victim unless he is excused from doing
so. (Section 55 RA 4136 [Land
Transportation and traffic Code])
2. Owners, Proprietors and Possessors
of Property
Four elements
in medical
negligence
cases: duty,
breach, injury
and proximate
causation
E. LIABILITY OF
HOSPITALS
AND
CONSULTANTS
There is no employer-employee
relationship
between
the
hospital
and
a
physician
admitted in the said hospitals
medical staff as an active or
visiting consultant which would
hold the hospital liable solidarily
liable for the injury suffered by a
patient under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code. (Ramos vs. CA GR No
124354, April 11, 2002)
The contract between the
consultant and the patient is
separate
and
distinct
the
contract between the hospital
and the patient. The first has
for its object the rendition of
medical
services
by
the
consultant to the patient, while
the
second
concerns
the
provision by the hospital of
facilities and services by its staff
such as nurses and laboratory
personnel necessary for the
proper treatment of the patient.
(Ramos vs. CA GR No 124354,
April 11, 2002)
7. Lawyers
An attorney is not bound to
exercise
extraordinary
diligence but only a reasonable
degree of care and skill, having
reference to the business he
undertakes to do.
DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE
CASES Kinds of defenses:
A. Complete completely bars recovery
B. Partial mitigates liability
1. PLAINTIFFS CONDUCT AND
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
policemen.
The
defendant
cannot be held liable, if a
bystander
is
hit
as
a
consequence.
CAUSATION
7. INVOLUNTARINESS
It is a complete defense in quasidelict cases and the defendant is
therefore not liable if force was
exerted on him. (Aquino, Torts
and Damages)
EXAMPLE: When the defendant
was forced to drive his vehicle by
armed men. He was, at pain of
death, forced to drive at a very
fast clip because the armed men
were escaping from the
Proximate Cause
That cause which in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury,
without which the result would
not have occurred.
Remote Cause
That
cause
which
some
independent force merely took
advantage of to accomplish
something not the natural effect
thereof.
Nearest Cause
That cause which is the last link
in the chain of events; the
nearest in point of time or
relation.
Proximate
cause
is
not
necessarily the nearest cause
but that which is the procuring
efficient and predominant
cause.
Concurrent Causes
The actor is liable even
if the active and
substantially
simultaneous operation
of the effects of a third
persons innocent,
tortious or criminal act
is also a substantial
factor in bringing about
the harm so long as the
actors negligent
conduct actively and
continuously operate to
bring about harm to
another. (Africa vs.
Caltex)
Where several causes
producing the injury are
concurrent and each is
If
the
defendants negligence was not
the cause-in-fact, the inquiry
stops.
If it is, the
inquiry shifts to the question of limit
of the defendants liability. (Policy
test)
CAUSE-IN-FACT TESTS:
1. But-For Test
The defendants conduct is the
cause-in-fact if damage would
not have resulted had there been
no negligence on the part of the
defendant.
Conversely,
defendants negligent conduct is
not the cause in fact of the
plaintiffs damage if the accident
could not have been avoided in
the absence thereof.
2. Substantial Factor test
The conduct is the cause-in-fact
of the damage if it was a
substantial factor in producing
the injuries.
In order to be a substantial
factor in producing the harm, the
causes set in motion by the
defendant must continue until
the moment of the damage or at
least down the setting in motion
of the final active injurious force
which immediately produced or
preceded the damage.
NOTE: If the defendants conduct was
already determined to be the cause in
fact of the plaintiffs damage under the
but for test, it is necessarily the cause in
fact of the damage under the substantial
factor test.
3. NESS Test
The candidate condition may still
be termed as a cause where it is
shown to be a necessary element
in just one of several co-present
causal set each independently
sufficient for the effect.
Two ways by which co-presence may
manifest itself:
a.
Duplicative causation
Direct
consequences
are those
which follow in
sequence from
the effect of
defendants act
upon
conditions
existing and
forces already
in operation at
the time
without
intervention of
any external
forces, which
come into
active
operation later.
Tests applied in the Philippines:
New Civil Code has a
chapter on Damages
which specifies the kind
of damage for which the
defendant may be held
liable and the extent of
damage to be awarded
to the plaintiff.
Cause-in-fact Tests:
1. But-for test
2. Substantial
Factor test
3. NESS test
Policy
test :
The
directne
ss
approac
h is
being
applied
in this
jurisdict
ion.
NOTE: The definition of proximate cause
which includes the element of foresight
is not consistent with the express
provision of the Article 2202 of the New
Civil Code; a person may be held liable
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
A cause
is not an
interveni
ng cause
if it was
already
in
operatio
n at the
time the
negligent
act is
committ
ed.
Foreseea
ble
interveni
ng causes
cannot
be
consider
ed
sufficient
interveni
ng
causes.
The
intervent
ion of
unforese
en and
unexpect
ed cause
is not
sufficient
to
relieve
the
wrongdo
er from
conseque
nces of
negligenc
e if such
negligenc
e directly
and
proximat
ely
cooperat
es with
the
independ
s
n
e
g
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
m
a
y
h
a
v
e
d
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
,
t
h
a
t
i
t
,
i
t
g
e
n
c
e
o
c
c
u
r
s
s
i
m
u
l
t
a
n
e
o
u
s
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
d
e
f
e
n
d
a
n
t
;
t
h
e
a
t
t
e
r
s
n
s
s
a
r
y
e
g
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
b
r
i
n
g
i
s
e
q
u
a
l
l
y
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
b
u
t
n
o
t
n
e
c
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
t
o
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
d
a
m
a
g
e
w
o
u
l
d
t
i
f
f
.
P
r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
g
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
i
s
n
e
g
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
o
o
t
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
y
t
h
e
p
l
a
i
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
l
a
i
n
t
i
f
f
s
n
m
e
r
e
l
y
c
c
a
n
b
e
i
t
h
a
d
i
s
.
(
c
o
n
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
q
u
i
n
o
,
T
o
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
r
t
s
a
n
d
c
a
u
s
e
.
N
o
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
D
a
m
a
g
e
s
)
C. Part of the same causal
set
Neither plaintiffs negligence
nor defendants negligence
alone is sufficient to cause
the injury; the effect would
result only if both are present
together
with
normal
background conditions.
Negligence of the plaintiff
cooperated
with
the
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
plaintiff
who
was
also
negligent
even
if
his
negligence
was relatively
minor as compared with the
wrongful act or omission of
the defendant.
The doctrine has no role in
this
jurisdiction
where
common law concept of
contributory negligence has
itself been rejected in Article
2179 of the Civil Code.
3. Third View
There can be no conflict
between the doctrine of last
clear chance and doctrine of
comparative negligence if the
former is viewed as a rule or
phrase of proximate cause;
However, the doctrine of last
clear chance is no longer
applicable
if
the
force
created by the plaintiffs
negligence continues until the
happening of the injurious
event.
Cases when the doctrine was held
inapplicable (PICCA)
1. If the p laintif f was not
negligent.
3.
4.
5.
B. INTENTIONAL TORTS
Include
conduct
where the actor
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
HUMAN RELATIONS
1. Principle of Abuse
(ART.19)
of
Rights
Elements:
a. Legal right or duty;
P
L
E
:
If
t
h
e
p
ri
n
c
i
p
a
l
u
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
a
n
a
g
e
n
c
y
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
s
e
lf
i
s
h
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
l
e
n
z
u
e
l
a
v
s
.
C
A
,
1
9
0
S
C
R
A
1
)
NOTE: This rule is a departure from the
traditional view that a person is not
liable for damages resulting from the
exercise of ones right.
2. Article 20 of the Civil Code
Speaks
of the
general
sanction
for all
other
provisio
ns of
law
which
do not
especial
ly
provide
for their
own
sanction
.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Elements:
Act which is legal;
a.
b. The act is contrary to morals, good
b. Seduction
without
promise to marry
breach
of
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
2) Trespass to or deprivation of
personal property
c. Sexual assault
Defendant is liable for all
forms of sexual assault
including
crimes
defined
under the RPC as rape, acts of
lasciviousness and seduction.
d. Desertion by a spouse
A spouse has a legal
obligation to live with his/her
spouse.
If a spouse does not perform
his/her duty to the other, he
may be liable for damages for
such omission because the
same is contrary to law,
morals, good customs and
public policy.
e. Trespass
Property
and
Deprivation
of
2 KINDS:
1)
Trespass
to
and/or
deprivation of real property
f.
h. Malicious Prosecution
An
action
for
damages
brought by one against
another whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or
other legal proceeding has
been instituted maliciously
and without probable cause,
after the termination of such
prosecution,
suit
or
proceeding in favor of the
defendant therein.
The gist of the action is
putting legal process in force
regularly, for mere purpose of
vexation or injury. (Drilon vs.
CA [1997])
Elements:
g. Illegal Dismissal
The right of the employer to
dismiss an employee should
not be confused with the
manner in which the right is
exercised and the effects
flowing therefrom;
If the dismissal was done
anti-socially and oppressively,
the employer should be
deemed to have violated
Article 1701 of the Civil Code
(which prohibits acts of
oppression by either capital
or labor against the other)
and Article 21 NCC.
i.
Public Humiliation
Damages may be awarded in
cases where the plaintiff
suffered humiliation through
the positive acts of the
defendant directed against
the plaintiff.
Example: The defendant was
held liable for damages under
Art. 21 for slapping the
plaintiff in public. (Patricio
vs. Hon. Oscar Leviste,
[1989])
NOTES:
Under
Article
21,
damages
are
recover
able
even
though
no
positive
law was
violated
.
An
action
can only
prosper
when
damage,
material
or
otherwis
e, was
suffered
by the
plaintiff
. An
action
based
on
Articles
19-21
will be
dismisse
d if the
plaintiff
merely
seeks
recogn
ition.
Under
Articles
19 and
21, the
defenda
nt may
likewise
be guilty
of a tort
even if
he acted
in good
faith.
(Grand
Union
Superm
arket vs.
Espino)
Defamation
1. As to gravamen of claim
The gravamen
of The gravamen
of
claim is not
the claim is the reputareputational
harm tional harm
but
rather
the
embarrassment of a
person being
made
into some-thing he is
not
2. As to publication
The statement should Publication
is
be actually made in satisfied if a letter is
public
sent to a third person
3. As to the defamatory character of the
statements
Defendant may
still What is published
be held liable even if lowers the esteem in
the statements tells which the plaintiff is
something
good held
about the plaintiff
d.
Commer
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
Half-truths are
likewise included; it is actionable if
the withholding of that which is not
stated makes that which is stated
absolutely false.
Misrepresentati
on upon a mere matter of opinion is
not an actionable deceit.
C.
Physical injuries
Battery an intentional infliction
of a harmful or offensive bodily
contact; bodily contact is offensive if
it offends a reasonable persons
sense of dignity.
Assault intentional conduct by
one person directed at another which
places the latter in apprehension of
immediate bodily harm or offensive
act.
Includes bodily injuries causing
death.
Physical injuries which resulted
because of negligence or imprudence
is not included in Article 33; they are
already covered by Article 2176 of
the Civil Code.
3. Neglect of duty by police officers
(Article 34)
Subsidiary liability of cities and
municipalities, is imposed so that
they will exercise great care in
selecting conscientious and duly
qualified policemen and exercise
supervision over them in the
performance of their duties.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT
Every person criminally liable for
a felony is also civilly liable. (Article
100 RPC)
The reason is because a crime
has a dual character: as an offense
against the State and against the
private person injured by it.
Dual character of crimes applies
to cases governed by special laws.
Example: violation of the BP 22
results in criminal and civil liability.
There is civil liability even if the
offense is a public offense, like in
bigamy.
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
NOTES:
The basis of liability for the
acts or omissions of their minor
children is the parental authority
that they exercise over them,
except for children 18 to 21.
The same foreseability test
of negligence should apply to
parents when they are sought to
be held liable under Art. 2180,
NCC
The liability is not limited to
parents, the same is also
imposed on those exercising
substitute and special parental
authority, i.e., guardian.
The liability is present only
both under Art 2180 of the NCC
and Art 221 of the Family Code if
the child is living in his parents
company.
Parental authority is not the
sole basis of liability. A teacher in
charge is still liable for the acts
of their students even if the
minor student reaches the age of
majority.
The parents or guardians can
still be held liable even if the
minor is already emancipated
provided that he is below 21
years of age.
Parents and other persons
exercising parental authority can
escape liability by proving that
they observed all the diligence of
a good father of a family to
prevent damages. (Art. 2180)
2. Guardians
For damage caused by
a. minors or incapacitated
persons
b. under their authority
c. living in their company
3. Owners and managers of
establishments
For damage caused by:
a) their employees
b) in the service of the branches in
which they are employed, or
c) on the occasion of their
functions
4. Employers
For
damages
cause by:
a) 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
industry
NOTES:
Liability of the employer can be
established by proving the existence
of
an
employer-employee
relationship with the actor and the
latter caused the injury while
performing his assigned task or
functions.
The vicarious liability attaches only
when the tortuous conduct of the
employees relates to or is in the
course of his employment.
While the employer incurs no
liability
when
an
employees
conduct, act or omission is beyond
the range of employment, a minor
deviation from the assigned task of
6. Schools,
Teachers
and
Administrators
For damage caused by:
a) pupils
and
students
or
apprentices
b) in their custody
statutory basis:
if student is minor Art. 219, FC
if student is no longer a
minor Art. 2180, Civil Code
NOTES:
Applies also to teachers of
academic institutions.
Liability attaches to the
teacher-in-charge.
The school itself is now
solidarily liable with the teacherin-charge.
The liability extends to acts
committed even outside the
school so long as it is an official
activity of the school.
Whenever the school or
teacher is being made liable, the
parents and those exercising
substitute parental authority are
taken by robbery or
theft within their houses
from guests lodging
therein, or for payment
of the value thereof,
provided that:
a.
b.
The
innkeeper
was notified
in advance
of the
deposit of
such goods
within the
inn; and
The guest
shall have
followed
the
directions
which such
innkeeper
or his
representati
ve may have
given with
respect to
the care
and
vigilance
over the
goods.
2. Partnership
Partnership or every partner is
liable for torts committed by
one of the partners acting
within the scope of the firm
business, though they do not
participate in, ratify, or have
knowledge of such torts.
Partners are liable as joint
tort-feasors.
Vicarious liability is similar to
the common law rule on
respondeat superior.
Liability is entirely imputed
and the partnership cannot
obviously invoke diligence in
the selection and supervision
of the partner.
3. Spouses
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
absolu
te
comm
unity
of
proper
ty
The
absolute
community
property
shall
be for liabilities
incurred
by
either
spouses
by reason of
crime or quasidelict in case of
absence
or
insufficiency of
the
exclusive
property of the
debtor-spouse.
(Article
94
Family Code)
Payments shall
be
considered
advances to be
deducted from
the share of the
debtor
spouse
upon liquidation
of
the
community.
b.
conjug
al
partne
rship
of
gains
partners
hip, or
2) If one of
the
spouses
committ
ed the
tort
while
performi
ng a
business
or if the
act was
supposed
to
benefit
the
partners
hip.
c.
regim
e of
separa
tion
of
proper
ty
Each spouse is responsible for
his/her
separate obligation.
C. STRICT LIABILITY
When the person is made
liable independent of fault or
negligence upon submission of
proof of certain facts
specified by law.
NOTE: Strict liability tort can be
committed even if reasonable care was
exercised and regardless of the state of
mind of the actor at that time.
TYPES:
1. Animals
the
acts of a
third
person
cannot
be
foreseen
or
prevente
d, then
the
situation
is similar
to that
of force
majeure
and the
possessor
is
not
liable.
(Francisc
o, Torts
and
Damages
)
Art. 2183
is
applicabl
e
whether
the
animal is
domestic
,
domestic
ated, or
wild.
2. Falling objects
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. (Article 2193 Civil
Code)
The term head of the
family is not limited to the
owner of the building, and it
may even include the lessee
thereof.
(Dingcong
vs.
Kanaan, 72 Phil 14)
3. Liability of employers
Article 1711 of the NCC
imposes an obligation on
owners of enterprises and
other employers to pay for
the death or injuries to their
employees.
Liability is strict because it
exists even if the cause is
purely accidental.
If the mishap was due to the
employees own notorious
negligence, or voluntary act
or drunkenness, the employer
shall not be liable for
compensation.
When the employees lack of
due care contributed to his
death
or
injury,
the
compensation
shall
be
equitably reduced.
If the death or injury is due to
the negligence of a fellowworkman the latter and the
employer shall be solidarily
liable for compensation.
If
a
fellow-workers
intentional or malicious act is
the only cause of the death or
injury, the employer shall not
be answerable unless it should
be shown that the latter did
not exercise due diligence in
the selection or supervision of
the plaintiffs fellow-worker.
4. Nuisance
Any
act,
omission,
establishment,
business,
condition of property, or
anything else which:
a. Injures or endangers the health or
safety of others;
b. Annoys or offends the senses;
c. Shocks, defies or disregards decency
or morality;
d. Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or
street, or any body of water; or
or inadequate information on
the use and hazards thereof.
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
2)
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
DAMAGES
DAMAGE
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
Damage
Damages
Loss,
hurt The
recomor
harm pense
or
which
compensation
results
awarded for
from
the the
damage
injury
suffered
NOTES:
A
complaint for damages is a personal
NOTE:
Life expectancy is computed as
follows:
{ 2/3 x (80-age at death) }
Net earnings is the total of the
earnings less expenses necessary for
the creation of such earnings and
less living or other incidental
expenses.
Loss of profits
May be determined by considering
the average profit for the preceding
years multiplied by the number of
years during which the business was
affected by the wrongful act or
breach.
Attorneys fees
They are actual damages. It is due to
the plaintiff and not to the counsel.
Plaintiff must allege the basis of his
claim for attorneys fees in the
complaint; the basis should be one
of the 11 cases specified in Article
2208 of the Civil Code.
Interests
B. DAMAGES
Contributory
Negligence
Plaintiffs act or
omission
occurs
before or at the
time of the act or
omission of
the
defendant
MORAL
damages; and
causal relation to the
defendants act
EXCEPTION: Moral damages may be
awarded to the victim in criminal
proceedings without the need for
pleading of proof of the basis thereof.
2. Its
C.
NOMINAL
DAMAGES
Nominal damages are adjudicated in
order that a right of the plaintiff,
which has been violated or invaded
by the defendant, may be vindicated
or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff
for any loss suffered by him.
(Article2221 Civil Code)
Small sums fixed by the court
without regard to the extent of the
harm done to the injured party.
Law presumes damage although
actual or compensatory damages are
not proven.
They are damages in name only and
are allowed simply in recognition of
a technical injury based on a
violation of a legal right.
Nominal damages cannot co-exist
with
actual
or
compensatory
damages.
D. TEMPERATE OR
MODERATE
DAMAGES
These are damages, which are more
than
nominal
but
less
than
compensatory, and may be recovered
when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but
its amount cannot be proved with
certainty. (Article 2224 Civil Code)
F. EXEMPLARY OR
CORRECTIVE
DAMAGES
Imposed by way of example
or correction for the public
good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated
or compensatory damages.
Requisites for the award of
exemplary damages:
1. They are imposed by way
of example in addition to
compensatory damages
and Imposed only after
the claimants right to
them
has
been
established;
2. They
cannot
be
recovered as a matter of
right,
their
determination depending
upon the amount of
compensatory damages
that may be awarded;
3. The
act
must
be
accompanied by bad
faith or done in wanton,
fraudulent, oppressive or
malevolent manner.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON: Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP: Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon SUBJECT HEADS:
Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations), Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma. Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah Dumama(Sales and Lease), John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and Damages), Anthony Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)