TORTS AND DAMAGES

Benjamin R. Samson, MBA

Prosecutor, Department of Justice
SYLLABUS
Torts and Damages, although a mere 2-unit.subject in law school, is important
because it touches on topics pertaining
to civil law, ciiminal law and even remedial law.
Thus, at the end of the class, students are expected to have a clear understanding of
holv tort liability arises and how damages may be recovered.
The subject is best taught by correlating the relevant provisions
of
law to the
peftinent jurisprudence
on the subject.
The first half shall be devoted to torts while the scond half shall focus on
damages.
TORTS
Provisions of Law:
1. Articles 2L76-2794, Civil Code, as amended;
2. Articles 29-33, Articles 1159-1162, Civil Code, as amended;
3. Article 100, Article 365, paragraph
3, Revised Penal Code, as amended; and
4. Rule 111, sections 1 and 2, Revised Rules of cr:iminal
procedure
Cases:
1. Syquia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98695
,
27 )anuary L993;
2. Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, 68 SCAD 113;
3. Africa v. Caltex, G.R. No. L-12986, 31 March 1966;
4. Farolan v. solmac Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 83589, 13 March 1991;
5. Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809;
6. Ong v. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil. 398;
7. Phoenix Construction v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G;R. No. 65296, 10
March L9B7;
B. Air Frdnce v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. L-21438, 28 September 1966;
9. BLTB Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-33138-39, 27 lune t975;
10"Garcia v. Florido, G.R. No. L-3S095, 31 August Lg73;
ll.Abellana v. Maraue, G.R. No. L-2l76O, Zg May L974;
12.Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.-No. 70890, 18 September 1992;
13. st. Francis High School v. court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82465, z-5 February
1991;
14.Go v. Intrmediate Appellate Court, G.R. No" 68138, 13 May IggL;
15. So Ping Bun v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. t20544,21 September 1999;
-l
I
l;
I
I
i"
t
I
I
16.Vector Shipping Corp., et al. v. American Home ComPdnY, et al., G.R. No.
L592L3,03 July 2013;
17. Martin v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 82258, 30 January 1992;
lB.Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 180440, 05 December
2012;
19.Cangco v. Manila Railroad;
20.Tamargo, et al. v. CA, et al.; G.R. No. 85044; June 3, L992;
21.Syki v. Begasa; G.R. No. L49L49; October 23,2003
22.Soliman, Jr. v. Hon. Tuazon, et al.; G.R. No. 662CI7; May 18, 1992;
23.Metro Manila Transit Corp., et al. v. CA, et al.; G.R. No. 116617; November
L6,1998;
24.Rosales, et al, v. CA, et al.; G.R. No. 126395; November 16, 1998;
25.Spouses Jayme, et al. v. Apostol, et al.; G.R. No. 163609; November 27,
2008;
26.Spouses Mamaril v. BSP, et al.; G.R. 179382; January L4,70L3;
L7.CDCP v. Estrella, et al.; G.R. No. L47791; September B, 2006;
28.PSBA, et al. v. CA, et al.; G,R. No. 84698; February 4, L992;
29. Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas; G.R. No. 174156; June 20, 2OL2;
30.Martin v. CA, et al.; G.R. No. 82248; January 3A, 1992
Session 1:
a. House Rules
b. Recap of pertinent provisions (Articles 29-33, Articles 1159-1162, Civil Code,
as amended, and Article 100, Article 355,
paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code,
as amended)
Session 2:
a. Sources of civil liabilitY
b.
Quasi-Delict:
definition, basic concepts and elements
Session 3:
a.
Quasi-Delict:
definition, basic concepts and elements
b. Negligence: basic coneepts
Session 4:
a. Negligence:
proof and presumptions
b. Proximate cause: definition and basic concepts
Session 5:
a. Defenses
Session 6:
a. Primary liability
Session 7:
a. Vicarious liability
Session B:
a. Review
Session 9:
a. Mid-Term Examination