Torts Magic Notes

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010
2008
PRELIMINARY MATTERS:
*Those in SMALL CAPS (and underlined) were highlighted by Sir
Casis during the class. If none are found, just refer to those in
bold letters and those in the Notes. Good luck classmates!
torts magic notes team
VI. PERSONS LIABLE

A. The Tortfeasor
Art. 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)
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused
by his dependents or employees may recover from
the latter what he has paid or delivered in
satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more
persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
(n)
CLASS NOTES
There can be more than one tortfeasor and
they are called JOINT TORTFEASORS
Are you suppose to sue all of them? NO
because you can get relief from one of
them.
Do they have to act in concert? NO
Worcester v. Ocampo
February 27, 1912
FACTS: Dean Worcester filed an action to recover
damages resulting from an alleged libelous publication
against Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, Lope K.
Santos, Fidel A. Reyes, Faustino Aguilar, et al, as the
owners, directors, writers, editors and administrators of
the daily newspaper El Renacimiento (Spanish
version) and Muling Pagsilang (tagalong version).
Worcester alleged that the defendants have been
maliciously persecuting and attacking him in the
newspapers for a long time and they published an
editorial entitled Birds of Prey with the malicious intent
of injuring Worcester, both as a private person and as a

government official as the editorial obviously referred to
him.
Worcester alleged that he was likened to birds of prey
in the following manner: Such are the characteristics of
the man who is at the same time an eagle who
surprises and devours, a vulture who gorges himself on
the dead and putrid meats, an owl who affects a
petulant omniscience and a vampire who silently sucks
the blood of the victim until he leaves it bloodless.
TC: In favor of Worcester; Defendants jointly and
severally liable for the P60k total damages.
ISSUE: WON the defendants individual properties can
be made jointly and severally liable for the damages
under the civil and commercial codes,
HELD: Yes. TC modified. Damages reduced, Santos
absolved.
The present action is a tort.
Universal doctrine: each joint tortfeasor is not only
individually liable for the tort in which he participates,
but is also jointly liable with his tortfeasors.
If several persons 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 .
It is not necessary that cooperation should be a direct,
corporal act- e.g. assault and battery committed by
various persons, under the common law, they are all
principals.
Under common law, he who aided or counseled, in any
way, the commission of a crime, was as much a
principal as he who inflicted or committed the actual
tort.
General Rule: Joint tortfeasors are all the persons who
command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise,
countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission
of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for
their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to the
Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-
same extent and in the same manner as if they had

performed the wrongful act themselves.
Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the
tort which they commit.
Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. The damages
can not be apportioned among them, except among
themselves. They cannot insist upon an apportionment,
for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part. They are
jointly and severally liable for the full amount.
A payment in full of the damage done by one tortfeasor
satisfies any claim which might exist against the others.
The release of one of the joint tortfeasors by agreement
generally operates to discharge all.
The court however may make findings as to which of
the alleged joint tortfeasors are liable and which are
not, even if they are charged jointly and severally.
Art. 2184*. 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.
*this was drafted with Chapman v. Underwood in mind.
CLASS NOTES
Sir highlighted that Tort is in its nature a
separate act of each individual so no need
to sue all of the tortfeasors!
Chapman v. Underwood
March 28, 1914
FACTS: J.H. Chapman was trying to board a San
Marcelino car trough the rear platform when he was
struck by Mr. James Underwoords automobile, which
was at that time driven by his chauffer.
Underwoods driver was guilty of negligence
because he was passing an oncoming car upon the
wrong side when he ran over Chapman. Chapman, was
not obliged for his own protection to observe whether a
car was coming upon him from where he was because
according to the law, no automobile or other vehicle

2008
coming from his left should pass upon his side of the
car.
TC: In favor of Underwood
ISSUE: WON Underwood is responsible for the
negligence of his driver.
HELD: No. TC affirmed. The interval between unlawful
act and the accident was so small as not to be sufficient
to charge Underwood with the negligence of the driver.
The driver does not fall within the list of persons in Art.
1903 (now 2180) for whose acts Underwood would be
responsible.
This rule applies even if the owner of the
vehicle was present at the time of the accident, unless
THE NEGLIGENT ACTS OF THE DRIVER ARE CONTINUED FOR
SUCH A LENGTH OF TIME AS TO GIVE THE OWNER A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE AND TO DIRECT
HIS DRIVER TO DESIST THEREFROM.
When will the owner be liable?- An owner who sits in

his vehicle, and permits his driver to continue in a
violation of the law by the performance of his negligent
acts, after he had A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
OBSERVE THEM AND TO DIRECT THAT THE DRIVER CEASE
THEREFROM, BECOMES HIMSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH
ACTS.
When will the owner be NOT liable?-if the driver by a

sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having
reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its
continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal
law, the owner of the vehicle, present therein at the time
the act was committed, is not responsible, etiher civilly
or criminally, therefor.
The act complained of must be continued in the
presence of the owner for such a length of time that
the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his drivers
act his own.
RULE: Underwood is not liable for his drivers act even
if he was inside the car at the time of the accident
(unless he let the negligence continue for a long time
without correcting it) because the driver is not listed in
1903 (now 2180) as one of the persons whose acts
Underwood would be responsible for.
Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai

December 18, 1968
FACTS: Marcial Caedo, with his family, was driving his
Mercury car on EDSA. On the opposite direction was
the Cadillac of Yu Khe Thai, driven by Rafael Bernardo.
They were both traveling at moderate speeds and the
headlights were mutually noticeable from a distance.
Ahead of the Cadillac was a carretela. Bernardo
testified that he saw the carretela only when it was
already only 8 meters away from him (This is the 1st
sign of negligence because the carretela was lightedhence shouldve given him sufficient warning). But
Bernardo, instead of slowing down or stopping, tried to
overtake the carretela by veering to the left. The cars
right rear bumper caught the wheel of the carretela and
collided with the Mercury.
Caedo in the meantime, slowed down, and
thought that the Cadillac would wait behind the
carretela. He tried to avoid the collision at the last
moment by going farther to the right but was
unsuccessful.
TC: Bernardo and Thai jointly and severally liable for
damages
ISSUE: WON Yu Khe Thai, as the owner of the
Cadillac, is solidarily liable with his driver.
HELD: No. TC modified. Thai not solidarily liable with
Bernardo.
Art. 2184 applies: 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.
Under Art. 2184, if the causative factor was
the drivers negligence, the owner of the vehicle who
was present is likewise held liable if he could have
prevented the mishap by the exercise of due diligence.
This rule is not new, although formulated as a law for
the first time in the new Civil Code. It was expressed in
Chapman v. Underwood.
Basis of masters liability in civil law:

NOT
respondeat superior but paterfamilias. The theory is
that ultimately, the negligence of the servant, if known
to the master and susceptible of timely correction by
him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in
order to prevent injury or damage.
Bernardo was a pretty good driver and had no record.
No negligence for having employed him may be
imputed to Thai. The only negligence that can be
imputed to Bernardo was when he tried to overtake the
carretela instead of stopping or waiting-and this cannot
be imputed to Thai because there were no signs for him
to be in any special state of alert. He could not have
anticipated his drivers sudden decision to pass the
carretela. The time element was such that there was
no reasonable opportunity for Thai to assess the
risks involved and warn the driver accordingly.
Test of imputed negligence under 2184: -to a great
degree, necessarily subjective. Car owners are not held
to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are
professional drivers.
The law does not require that a person must possess a
certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the
mechanic of driving or in the observance of traffic rules
before they can own a motor vehicle.
Test of negligence within the meaning of 2184: -his
omission to do that which the evidence of his own
senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the
accident.
RULE: negligence must be sought in the immediate
setting and circumstance of the accident, i.e. in his
failure to detain the driver form pursuing a course which
not only gave him clear notice of the danger but also
sufficient time to act upon it.
NOTES: Art. 2184 is based on Chapman. Unless the
owner couldve prevented the negligence, or he
was negligent in selection and supervision, he
cannot be held liable.
Art. 2184: owner can be held solidarily
liable with the driver only if the owner is IN the car.
Courts test: 1. senses of owner
2. circumstances

2008
CLASS NOTES
The standard set in this case is still REASONABLE

OPPORTUNITY.
Difference between respondeat superior vs.
paterfamilias
Respondeat superior: acts under orders (1 negligent
the one who gave the orders)
Paterfamilias: acts under guidance (2 negligent both
the owner and the driver)
TEST of imputed negligence: SUBJECTIVE
*not all owners are learned/professional drivers thats
why they hire drivers for them!
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: found in Article 2180 (but use
the term tortfeasors instead of one
-a tortfeasor would be liable not only for his own acts or
omissions but also for those of persons for whom he is
responsible
Take note of difference between NCC and FC:
under the NCC: the father, and in cases of his death
or incapacity, the mother, will be responsible for the
damages caused by their minor children who live in
their company
under the FC: 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.
Portions of 2180modified by FC
Does RA9344 affect the liability of parents and
guardians? NO
Basis of liability of parents and minor children:
PARENTAL AUTHORITY
How does the FC affect 2180? Is the person below
21 still liable?
For those above 15 but below 18 who acted with
discernmentbasis to use is 2180
B. Vicarious Liability aka Imputed Negligence
CLASS NOTE
In this section, a person is held liable for
acts not his own but because of the
existence of a relationship.
Presidential Decree No. 603

December 10, 1974
THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE
Chapter 4-Liabilities Of Parents
Art. 58. Torts. - Parents and guardians are
responsible for the damage caused by the child
under their parental authority in accordance with
the Civil Code.
Family Code
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. (349a)
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 respective liabilities of those referred to in the
preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that
they exercised the proper diligence required under the
particular circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding
articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil
Code on quasi-delicts. (n)
Art. 221. 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. (2180(2)a and (4)a )
Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate

parental authority over the person and property of the
child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all
acts of civil life. (412a)
Revised Penal Code

Title Five-Civil Liability
Chapter One-Person Civilly Liable for Felonies
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony.
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable.
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain
cases. The exemption from criminal liability
established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12
and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12,
the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or
insane person, and by a person under nine years of
age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age,
who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon
those having such person under their legal authority or
control, unless it appears that there was no fault or
negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane,
imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship
or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane,
imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property,
excepting property exempt from execution, in
accordance with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article
11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been
prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the
benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the
proportionate amount for which each one shall be
liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably
determined, even approximately, or when the liability
also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of
the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever

2008
the damages have been caused with the consent of the

authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be
made in the manner prescribed by special laws or
regulations.
commission of the offense shall be exempt from

criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected
to an intervention program pursuant to Sec. 20 of this
Act.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and

trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of

Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the
fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if
there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be
liable, saving always to the latter that part of their
property exempt from execution.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers,
tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments.
In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,
tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations
shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation of
municipal ordinances or some general or special police
regulation shall have been committed by them or their
employees.
A child above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years

of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability
and be subjected to an intervention program, unless
he/she has acted with discernment, in which case such
child will be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease

when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage. (1903a)
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution

of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses
from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the
value thereof, provided that such guests shall have
notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person
representing him, of the deposit of such goods within
the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the
directions which such innkeeper or his representative
may have given them with respect to the care and
vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in
case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons unless committed by the innkeeper's
employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.
The subsidiary liability established in the next
preceding article shall also apply to employers,
teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any
kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants,
pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
discharge of their duties.
RA 9344
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
April 23, 2006
Sec. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal responsibility- A
child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the
The Exemption from criminal liability herein established

does not include exemption from civil liability, which
shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
Civil Code
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions,
but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, are responsible for the damages caused
by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors
or incapacitated persons who are under their authority
and live in their company.
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.
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.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
through a special agent; but not when the damage has
been caused by the official to whom the task done
properly pertains, in which case what is provided in
Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his

dependents or employees may recover from the latter
what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the
claim. (1904)
Art. 2182. 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. (n)
CLASS NOTE
Basis: parental authority
Are the parents still liable for if above 18 but
below 21? Yes. Legal basis: PD 603
1. Parents (see table after cases)

Exconde v. Capuno
June 29, 1957
FACTS: Dante Capuno, 15 years old, a student of the
Balintawak Elementary School, was instructed by the
city schools supervisor to attend a parade in honor of
Rizal in San Pablo City. From the school, the students
boarded a jeep, and when it started to run, Dante took
hold of the wheel, while the driver sat on his left side
(remember that the steering wheel is at the LEFT side).
The jeep turned turtle and 2 passengers died.
Delfin Capuno, the father, was not with Dante at the
time of the accident, nor did he know that Dante was
going to attend a parade. He only found out after the
accident when Dante told him about it.
Criminal case:
TC: Dante was convicted for Double homicide
through reckless imprudence.
CA: affirmed

2008
Civil case: against Delfin and Dante Capuno
(reserved by Sabina Exconde, mother of one of the
deceased):
TC: Convicted ONLY Dante to pay the damages.
CA: certified to SC
ISSUE: WON Delfin Capuno can be held civilly
liable, jointly and severally with his son for
damages.
HELD: Yes. TC Modified. Delfin and Dante are jointly
and severally liable for the damages.
1
Art. 1903 applies: The obligation imposed by the

next preceding articles is enforceable not only for
personal acts and omissions, but also for those persons
for whom another is responsible.
The father, and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, are liable for any damages caused by the
minor children who live with them.
Xxx
Finally, teachers or directors of arts and trades are
liable for any damages caused by their pupils or
apprentices while they are under their custody.
1. School is NOT liable
Art. 1903 (now 2180) about teachers applies only to
institutions of arts and trades and not to any academic
educational institution. Balintawak Elementary School
is an academic institution, hence neither the teacher
nor the head can be held liable.
Even if Dante was on the jeep pursuant to the city
school supervisors instruction, neither the head of the
school nor the city schools supervisor could be held
liable because Dante was not a student of an institution
of arts and trades.
12180 now: The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Xxx
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused
by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
2. Delfin, as the father IS liable. He failed to prove that

he exercised all the diligence of a good father of the
family to prevent the damage.
The civil liability which the law impose upon the
father, or the mother as the case may be is a necessary
consequence of the parental authority they exercise
over them. This parental authority imposes upon the
parents the duty to support and instruct them in
proportion to their means and gives them the right to
correct and punish them in moderation.
1. Art. 1903 interpretation too limited. Teacher, master,

or in the absence of, school authorities should be liable
for the negligence.
2. Once the parent entrusts custody to the school
authorities, presumption is rebutted and burden of proof
is shifted to claimant to show actual negligence on the
part of the parent in order to render him liable.
How to avoid liability: prove that they exercised all

the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the
damage,
Salen and Salbanera v. Balce

April 27, 1960.
DISSENT: Reyes
He wants TC affirmed (relieving Delfin of liability): There
is no sound reason for limiting Art. 1903 to teachers of
arts and trades and not to academic institutions.
The phrase teachers or heads of establishments of
arts and trades does not qualify teachers but only
heads of establishments.
FACTS: Carlos Salen (single) died due to wounds

caused by Gumersindo Balce, 18, single and living with
Jose Balce, his father. Gumersindo was convicted of
homicide and was sentenced to imprisonment and to
pay Carlos heirs indemnity. But Gumersindo was
insolvent, hence Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera
(Salens), the parents (and heirs) of Carlos, demanded
from Jose to pay but he refused. Hence the suit.
NOTES: This case is cited as basis of liability arising

from parental authority.
If the basis of presumption of negligence in Art. 1903 is

some culpa in vigilando that the parents, teachers, etc.
are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their
authority, hence, when the parent places the child under
the effective authority of the teacher, the teacher, and
not the parent should be the one answerable for the
torts committed while under his custody.
Why? for the very reason that the parent is not
supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school
nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher
while the child is under instruction. If there is no
authority, there can be no responsibility.
TC: dismissed. Sustained Joses theory that the civil

liability of Gumersindo arises from his criminal liability
and therefore must be determined under the RPC, and
not under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, which only
applies to obligations arising form QDs.
There is no law which holds the father either
primarily or subsidiarily liable for the civil liability
incurred by the son who is a minor of 18 years.
Hence, Delfin should not be made liable for a tort that

he was in no way able to prevent, and which he had
every right to assume the school authorities would.
He rebutted the presumption of negligence
under 1903 when he proved that he entrusted custody
of Dante to the school authorities.
HELD: Yes. Jose Balce is ordered to pay the indemnity.

TC reversed.
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
RULES:
Majority:
Liability of teachers or directors are limited to
institutions of arts and trades.
Dissent:
ISSUE: WON Jose Balce can be held SUBSIDIARILY

liable to pay the indemnity his son was sentenced to
pay in the criminal case against him (the son).
As a rule, the civil liability arising form a crime shall

be governed by the RPC. But since the RPC is silent
as to the subsidiary liability of parents for a minor over
15, who acts with discernment, resort should be made
to the general law which is the Civil Code. And Art.
2180 is the law that applies.
To hold that Art. 2180 applies only to QDs will result in
an absurdity that while for an act where mere
negligence intervenes, the father or mother may be

2008
held subsidiarily liable, no liability would attach if the
damage is caused with criminal intent. The void that
apparently exists in the RPC is subserved by 2180 of
the Civil Code as may be gleaned from some recent SC
decisions:
Exconde v. Capuno-where the father was held
solidarily liable for the crime his son committed.
Araneta v. Arreglado-(where Arreglado fired at
Araneta because he resented the remarks Araneta
made about his leaving Ateneo and enrolling in La
Salle. The court convicted Arreglado but suspended his
sentence because he was only 14.) The court held the
father, the mother and the son to pay the Aranetas
damages.
CLASS NOTE
In this case, the liability of father was
deemed to be subsidiary.
Fuellas v. Cadano
October 31, 1961
FACTS: Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas, both 13,
were classmates at St. Marys High School. While
Pepito was studying, Rico took a classmates pencil
and put it in Pepitos pocket. When the classmate
asked Rico for the pencil, it was Pepito who returned it.
This angered Rico, thus he held Pepito by the neck and
pushed him to the floor. A teacher broke up the fight
and sent them home.
Pepito has just gone down from the school
house when he was met by a still angry Rico. A
classmate asked them to shake hands but instead of
shaking Pepitos extended hand, Rico held him by the
neck, put him off-balance which caused Pepito to land
on his right side, breaking his arm. Rico just got up and
ran away.
Up to the last day of the hearing of the case,
Pepitos forearm was seen to be shorter than his left
and cannot be fully used.
2 separate actions were instituted:
1. Criminal case against Rico for Serious
Physical Injuries
2. Civil case for damages against Agapito
Fuellas, Ricos father.
Criminal case:
TC: Rico guilty. Civil liability to be determined in the
civil case
Civil case:
TC: Agapito liable under 2180 for medicine, MD, ED
and attys fees.
CA: Reduced MD
ISSUE: WON Agapito Fuellas, Ricos father is liable for
damages.
HELD: Yes. Agapito is liable for damages. CA affirmed
1. Agapito contends that he cannot be liable under
2180 in connection with 2176 there being no fault or
negligence but deliberate intent to cause injury.
SC: Jurisprudence proves him wrong.
Araneta v. Arreglado-(the Arreglados-father,
mother and son were held liable for damages) civil
law liability under 2180 is not respondeat superior
but pater familias, which bases the liability of the
father ultimately on his own negligence and not on that
of his minor son, and that if an injury is caused by the
fault or negligence of his minor son, the law presumes
that there was negligence on the part of his father.
Exconde v. Capuno-(the father was held solidarily
liable with his son for damages) The civil liability of the
father is a necessary consequence of the parental
authority he exercises. Only defense is proof of
diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the
damage.
Manresa: Children and wards do not have the capacity
to govern themselves so parents and guardians have
the duty to exercise special vigilance. If they fail to
comply with this duty, they should suffer the
consequences of their abandonment or negligence by
repairing the damage caused.
2. Agapito claims that he could only be liable if the
action was based on the subsidiary liability of the
parents under the RPC. And since Rico acted with
discernment, the provisions do not cover the case.
SC: Case law is against him again.
Salen and Salbarena v. Balce- (where father was

made to pay the indemnity his 18 year old son was
sentenced to pay because his son was insolvent) Since
the RPC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of a minor
over 9 but under 15 who acted with discernment, resort
should be made to the general law which is the Civil
Code, specifically 2180.
3. CA decided the case based on the evidence
submitted by both parties, independently of the criminal
case. Responsibility for fault or negligence under 2176
(upon which this action is instituted) is entirely separate
and distinct from the civil liability arising from fault or
negligence under the RPC, hence, any discussion of
Ricos criminal intent is of no moment.
CLASS NOTES
In this case, parental liability was primary.
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
September 23, 1931
Note: The injured and the accused have the same surname.
FACTS: The car, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Gutierrez and

driven by Bonifacio Gutierrez, 18 years old, with his
mother and 7 other members of the family,
EXCLUDING Mr. Gutierrez, the father, collided with a
passenger truck while attempting to pass each other.
As a result, Narciso Gutierrez, a passenger, suffered a
fractured leg.
ISSUES: 1. WON Manuel Gutierrez, the father is liable
for damages (yes)
2. WON the truck owner and driver are liable
for damages. (yes)
HELD: Manuel Gutierrez, the owner and the driver of
the truck are jointly and severally liable for damages.
1. Anent Manuel Gutierrezs liability:

2008
The guaranty given by the father at the time the son

was granted a license to operate motor vehicles made
the father responsible for the acts of his son.
1st CA: affirmed in toto
Bonifacio was an incompetent driver, was speeding

and lost his head when he approached the bridge and
the truck.
The dela Rosas failed to pay because they had no

cash. The writ of execution yielded only a nominal
amount.
Present status of Luis: married with 2 kids, living with
uncle in Madrid, earnings hardly enough to support his
family, has no assets of his own.
Based on these facts, and pursuant to 1903 (now

2180) the father alone, and not the minor or the
mother, would be held liable for the damages caused
by the minor.
In the US, it is uniformly held that the head of a house,
the owner of an automobile, who maintains it for
general use of his family is liable for its negligent
operation by one of his children, whom he designates
or permits to run it, where the car is occupied and being
used at the time of the injury for the pleasure of other
members of the owners family than the child driving it.
The theory of this law is that running of the machine
by the child to carry the other members of the family is
within the scope of the owners business, so that he is
liable for the negligence of the child because of the
relationship of master and servant.
2. Anent the owners and drivers liability:
Basis: contract. The position of the truck, the speed and
lack of care employed by the driver make them both
liable.
Question: Under 1903, only if the father is dead,
incapacitated or absent will the mother be held liable. If
this case were decided now, with the FC, what would
be the effect?
Rodriguez-Luna v. IAC
February 28, 1985
FACTS: Roberto Luna, driving a go-kart and Luis dela
Rosa, driving a Toyota collided in the go-kart practice
area in Greenhills. Roberto died. At that time, Luis was
only 13 and had no drivers license. The heirs of
Roberto (will be referred to as the Lunas) sued for
damages.
TC: Jose dela Rosa (father) and Luis dela Rosa are
jointly and severally liable.
2nd CA: reduced unearned earnings award
ISSUE: Whether the father, Jose, should be made

primarily or subsidiarily liable for the liability of his son
Luis.
HELD: Primary liability. Jose is liable for his sons
liability. 2nd CA set aside. 1st CA reinstated with the
modification that the attys fees will earn interest.
Dela Rosas invoke Elcano v. Hill to support their calim
for subsidiary liability only. In Elcano, it was held that
Art. 2180 applied to Atty. Hill despite the emancipation
by marriage of his son, but since his son attained age,
as a matter of equity, Atty. Hills liability had become
merely subsidiary to that of his son.
September 18, 1992

FACTS: Julie and Wendell were sweethearts for 2
years when Julie broke it off due to Wendells sadistic
and irresponsible nature. A month after their break-up,
Julie and Wendell died each from a single gunshot
wound traced to the gun licensed in the name of
Cresencio Libi, the father of Wendell. There were 2
versions of the story:
Libis: another man shot the 2
Gotiong: Wendell shot Julie and then
committed suicide.
The Gotiongs (julies parents) fiuled for damages
against the Livis under Art. 2180.
TC: dismissed for insufficiency of evidence
IAC: Set aside TC and found the Libis subsidiarily
liable.
ISSUE: WON Art. 2180 was correctly applied to hold
the Libis liable.
HELD: Yes. Libis are primarily liable CA affirmed.
SC: Unwilling to apply equity instead of strict law in this

case because it will not serve the ends of justice. Luis
is abroad and beyond the reach of Philippine courts.
Plus, he does not have nay property and his earnings
are insufficient to support his family.
The Libis were grossly negligent from preventing

Wendell from having access to the key to the safety
deposit box where the gun was stored. Diligence
required is that of instruction and supervision of the
kid.
Other issues:
1. CAs reduction of life expectancy: SC said go-kart not
dangerous.
BUT, liability is not subsidiary, it is PRIMARY
2. CAs reduction of net annual income of Roberto due

to increasing annual personal expenses: SC said if
personal expenses increase, it would not be
unreasonable to suppose that his gross income would
also increase.
3. SC granted award of attys fees plus interest from
date of TCs decision.
NOTES: technically, the son should pay because he is
of age already
Libi v. IAC
Rule on parents liability is correct but characterization

of their nature must be given a second look (coz SC
held in some cases that the liability of parents is
subsidiary).
If the liability of the parents for crimes or QDs
of their minor children is subsidiary, then they can
neither invoke nor be absolved of civil liability on the
defense that they acted with the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damages.
But if the liability is direct and primary, the
diligence would constitute a valid and substantial
defense.

2008
Hence, the liability of parents for QDs of their minor
kids as contemplated in 2180 is PRIMARY and not
subsidiary.
In fact, applying 2194 (solidary liability of join
tortfeasors) the parent is also solidarily liable with the
child.
The liability of parents for felonies is likewise
PRIMARY & not subsidiary. Art. 101, RPC says so.
For both QDs and crimes, the parents primarily respond
for such damages is buttressed by the corresponding
provisions in both the RPC and CC that the minor
transgressor shall be answerable or shall respond with
his own property only in the absence or in case of the
insolvency of the parents. Arts. 21822, CC and 1013,
RPC support this.
RULES:
1. For civil liability from crimes committed by
minors under the legal authority or control or who
live in the company of the parents: PRIMARY
-Premised on Art. 101, RPC with respect to
damages ex delicto by kids 9 or under, or 9-15 but
without discernment
-Premised on Art. 2180, CC for kids 9-15 with
discernment, or 15-21 (now 18)
2. Liability effected against father or mother? BOTH
PARENTS AND THOSE WHO EXERCISE PARENTAL
AUTHORITY OVER THE MINOR.
Under 2180, the liability shall be effected
against the father, and in case of his death or incapacity
the mother-which rule was amplified by the Youth and
Welfare Code.
2 Art. 2182. 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. (n)
3 Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases.

xxx
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal
guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall
respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with
the civil law.
BUT, under the Family Code, this civil liability

is now, without such alternative qualification, the
responsibility of the parents and those who exercise
parental authority over the minor offender.
3. For civil liability arising from QDs committed by
minors: same rules in accordance with 2180 and 2182,
as so modified.
NOTES: This case cleared up the issue on whether
the parents liability is primary or subsidiary.
CLASS NOTES
What is the basis of the doctrine that liability of
parents is primary and not solidary? Why?
o 2 legal bases: 101 RPC and 2182 CC
Why?-provisions provide for such defense
liability of parents is primary
According to the Court, the reliance on Fuellas
v. Cadano was NOT correct because the
liability in fuellas was PRIMARY (syllabus can
be wrong kasi)
Why primary liability? 1. law provides a
defense; 2. property of minor only liable when
parents are insolvent
Tamargo v. CA
June 3, 1992
FACTS: Adelberto Bundoc, 10 years old, shot Jennifer
Tamargo with an air rifle, causing injuries which
resulted in her death. Adelbertos natural parents for
damages. Adelberto was living with his natural parents
at the time of the accident but a petition for his adoption
has already been filed by the Rapisura spouses. This
petition was granted after the shooting of Jennifer.
The Tamargos filed:
1. criminal complaint for homicide through
reckless imprudence but Adelberto was
acquitted and exempted from criminal liability
2.
on the ground that he had acted without

discernment.
civil complaint against the Bundocs, the
natural parents of Adelberto.
The Bundocs claimed that the Rapisuras should be

held liable instead, that they are indispensable parties
because parental authority had already shifter to them
the moment the successful petition for adoption was
filed.
TC: dismissed the complaint. The Bundocs are not
indispensable parties to the action.
CA: dismissed petition. Tamargos lost their right to
appeal.
ISSUE: Who are the indispensable parties? The
Bundocs or the Rapisuras?
HELD: The natural parents, the Bundocs, are the
indispensable parties. CA reversed and set aside,
complaint reinstated and case remanded.
When Adelberto shot Jennifer, parental authority was
still lodged in the Bundocs, his natural parents. Hence,
they who had actual custody of Adelberto, are the
indispensable parties to the suit for damages.
Ratio:
The act of Adelberto gave rise to a cause of action on
QD, under 2176 against him. On the other hand, the
law imposes civil liability upon the father and, in case of
his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages
that may be caused by a minor child who lives with
them.
The principle of parental liability is a species of what is
frequently designated as vicarious liability, or the
doctrine of imputed negligence, where a person is
not only liable for the torts committed by himself, but
also for torts committed by others with whom he has a
certain relationship and for whom he is responsible.
Thus, parental liability is made a natural or logical
consequence of the duties and responsibilities of
parentstheir parental authoritywhich includes the
instructing, controlling and disciplining of the child.

2008
The basis for the doctrine of vicarious liability was
explained in Cangco v. Manila Raildroad:
With respect to extra contractual obligations
arising from negligence, whether of act or omission, the
legislature has elected to limit such liability to cases in
which the person upon whom such an obligation is
imposed is morally culpable, or on the contrary, for
reasons of public policy, to extend that liability, without
regard to the lack of moral culpability, so as to include
responsibility for the negligence of those persons
whose acts or omissions are imputable, by legal fiction,
to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute
or limited control over them.
The legislature which adopted our civil code
elected to limit extra contractual liabilitywith certain
well-defined exceptionsto cases in which moral
culpabilityu can be directly imputed to the persons to
be charged. This moral responsibility may consist in
having failed to exercise due care in ones own acts, or
in having failed to exercise due care in the selection
and control of ones own agents or servants, or in the
control of persons who, by reasons of their status,
occupy a position of dependency with respect to
the person liable for their conduct.
Basis of civil liability imposed on parents for torts
of their minor kids living with them: PARENTAL
AUTHORITY vested by the civil code.
In other words, parental liability is anchored upon
parental authority coupled with presumed parental
dereliction in the discharge of the duties
accompanying such authority. Parental dereliction is
only a PRESUMPTION which can be overturned under
2180 by proof of all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage.
The basis of parental liability for the torts of a minor
child is the relationship existing between the parents
and the minor child living with them and over whom, the
law presumes, the parents exercise supervision and
control.
Art 58 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code:
responsibility for child under parental authority
Art. 221, FC: child (tortfeasor) must be in the
actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable
Anent the retroactivity of parental authority to the
time of filing of the petition for adoption:
Retroactive effect may perhaps be given where such is

essential to permit the accrual of some benefit or
advantage in favor of the child.
Here, no presumption of parental dereliction on the
Rapisuras could have arisen since Adelberto was not in
fact subject to their control at the time the tort was
committed.
RULE: Parents must have actual or physical custody
over the minor to be held liable.
NOTES: Only benefits retroact to the time of filing of
the petition for adoption, not parental authority
Parental Authority: Control and supervision
over children. Hence, no PA, no parental liability.
Case
Exconde
vs.
Capuno
(BSP asked
by school
head to go
to the
parade)
Action
for
Civil action
for
damages
(father and
son
impleaded)
Salen and
Salbanera
vs. Balce
(son above
15 but
below 18
killed 18 yr
old)
Criminal
case with
civil liability
arising
from it
Fuellas vs.
Cadano
(stole
pencil and
had the
nerve to be
mad by
breaking
classmates
arm!)
Criminal
action vs.
Rico for
Serious
Physical
Injuries
Civil action
vs Agapito
(the father)
only
Who held
liable
TC: only son
liable
SC: Pa and
son jointly
and severally
liable
-not the
school
because not
a school of
arts and
trades
SC: Father
liable
subsidiarily
-child above
15, below 18
SC: Pa liable
Basis for
liability
A1903 (now
2180): FATHER
liable for acts of
MINOR SON
-civil liability is a
necessary
consequence of
parental
authority they
exercise over
their MINOR
children
A101 RPC
incomplete so
resort to A2180
of NCC (apply
Exclusio Unus,
Exclucio
Ulterus)
MINOR son
LIVING in their
company
A2176 an
A2180 (not
based on RPC)
-even if son
caused injuries
with deliberate
intent (and not
merely
negligence)
-note: not
subsidiary liable
Guitierrez
vs.
Guitierrez
(bus
collision,
family
except pa
in the car
driven by
minor)
RodriguezLuna vs.
IAC
(go-cart vs.
Toyota)
Civil action
vs. Manuel
Guitierrez
(the father)
only (+ bus
driver and
owner)
SC: The
father, bus
driver and
owner jointly
and severally
liable
Civil action
vs. pa and
son
Libi vs.
IAC
(Suicide or
homicide?)
Civil action
vs. parents
SC: Pa made
primarily
liable for the
injury caused
by son (son
already of
age, said to
be insolvent
but in
Madrid!)
SC: Libis are
primarily and
directly liable
as mentioned
under Libi vs.
IAC
A2180,
common law,
master and
servant (not
paterfamilias)
ma not liable
even if present
during time of
incident
A2180, strict
law
-dont apply
Elcano v. Hill
where court
allowed only
subsidiary
liability because
it will not serve
ends of justice
Art 221, FC; Art
2180, NCC; Art
101, RPC
Why primarily
liable:
1. If liability of
the parents for
crimes or QDs
of their minor
children is
subsidiary, then
they can neither
invoke nor be
absolved of civil
liability on the
defense that
they acted with
the diligence of
a good father of
a family to
prevent
damages.
2. The liability of
parents for
felonies is
likewise Primary
and not
subsidiary under
A101 of RPC:
minor only liable
if parents are
insolvent (A101

2008
Tamargo
vs. CA
(adopted
child still
with
parents at
time of
incident)
Criminal
complaint
Civil
complaint
vs. Natural
parents of
child
SC: Bundocs
(natural
parents) are
indispensable
parties
-the adopting
parents had
no actual
custody yet
par3)
Art. 2176,
parental
authority
coupled with
presumed
parental
dereliction in
the discharge
of duties
accompanying
such authority,
doctrine of
vicarious
liability as
explained in
CANGCO VS.
MANILA
RAILROAD
*IMPORTANT:
PARENTS MUST
HAVE ACTUAL OR
PHYSICAL
CUSTODY OVER
THE MINOR TO BE
HELD LIABLE
2. Guardians
Family Code
Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed
guardian, the following person shall exercise substitute
parental authority over the child in the order indicated:
(1)The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 2144;
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years
of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and
(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years
of age, unless unfit or disqualified.
Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over
the property of the child becomes necessary, the same
order of preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a,
354a)
4 Art. 214. In case of death, absence or unsuitability of the parents, substitute parental authority
shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent. In case several survive, the one designated by
the court, taking into account the same consideration mentioned in the preceding article, shall
exercise the authority. (355a)
Art. 217. In case of foundlings, abandoned neglected or

abused children and other children similarly situated,
parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial
proceedings to heads of children's homes, orphanages
and similar institutions duly accredited by the proper
government agency. (314a)
CLASS NOTE
What is a foundling? A baby deserted by unknown

parents. (e.g. those left at the doorstep)
responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the
minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.
their functions.
10

Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
dependents or employees may recover from the latter
what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the
claim. (1904)
3. Teachers and Heads of Institutions

Family Code
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. (349a)
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 respective liabilities of those referred to in the
preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that
they exercised the proper diligence required under the
particular circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding
articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil
Code on quasi-delicts. (n)
responsible.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and

trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the

mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the
minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors

or incapacitated persons who are under their authority
and live in their company.

2008
11
1.

their functions.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts
and trades shall be liable for damages caused by
their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as
they remain in their custody.
Mercado v. CA, et al
May 30, 1960
FACTS: Augusto, 9 years old, lent his pitogo to
Benedicto who lent it to Renato. When Augusto tried to
retrieve his pitogo, Manuel Jr, thinking it was
Benedictos, interfered and told Augusto not to get it
from Renato as Renato was better at putting the chain
into the holes of the pitogo. Augusto resented this
remark and aggressively poushed him. A fight ensued
and Augusto wounded Manuel Jr. on the right cheek
with a piece of razor.
The doctor who testified did not declare the amount he
collected as fees and Manuel Jr. was not hospitalized.
TC: dismissed the complaint filed by Manuel Jr. and
his father
CA: Ordered Ciriaco Mercado (the father) to pay for the
medical expenses and MD, but no MD for the parents.
ISSUE: WON the teacher or head of the school should

be held responsible (instead of the father) since the
fight happened during recess time in school (Lourdes
Catholic School).
HELD: No. The pupils were not in the custody of the
school. CA Reversed as to MD but affirmed the award
of medical expenses.
This was answered in Exconde v. Capuno through
Justice Bautista: we find merit in this claim. It is true
that under the law, teachers or directors of arts and
trades are liable for any damage caused by their pupils
or apprentices while they are under their custody. But
this provision only applies to an institution of arts
and trades and not to any academic educational
institution.
Custody (memorize!): SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN
THEIR CUSTODY- CONTEMPLATES A SITUATION WHERE THE
PUPIL LIVES AND BOARDS WITH THE TEACHER , SUCH THAT
THE CONTROL DIRECTION AND INFLUENCE ON THE PUPIL
SUPERSEDES THOSE OF THE PARENTS . In these
circumstances the control or the influence over the

conduct and actions of the pupil would pass from the
father and mother to the teacher; and so would the
responsibility for the torts of the pupil.
Such a situation does not appear in the case at bar.
The pupils go to school during school hours and go
back home to their parents after.
The situated contemplated in the last par. of art.
2180 (I think he meant 2nd to the last par) does not
apply, nor does par 25 which makes the father or
mother responsible for the damages caused by
their minor children.
Hence, the claim of Mercado that responsibility
should pass to the school, must be held to be
without merit.
Anent the MD:
Only possible circumstance in which MD may be
granted is if a felony or QD has been committed.
no criminal action for physical injuries

has been presented
2. even if this is a QD within the meaning of Art. Art. 2219, par 26, the facts show that Augustos act was
occasioned by the fact that Manuel Jr. tired to intervene
or interfere with Augustos attempt to recover his pitogo.
Hence, the proximate cause of Manuel Jrs injury is his
own fault or negligence for having interfered.
Hence, no MD coz the cases in Art. 2219 were not
shown to exist.
RULE:
1. exconde v. capuno doctrine7: academic institutions
not included in Art. 2180
2. exconde v. capuno doctrine: responsibility passes
from parents to teachers or heads of ONLY
institutions of arts and trades
3. Lourdes is not liable because they dont retain
custody (custody=living with the teachers or
heads) of their pupils.
4. Ciriaco Mercado is not responsible even under Art.
2180 par. 2-probably because Manuel Jr. did not
die nor was he incapacitated.
5.
No moral damages because cases in Art. 2219
were not shown to exist.
6. Augusto was only 9 and was not shown to act with
discernment
7. Even if there was a QD on Augustos part, the
proximate cause of the injury was Manuel Jrs own
act of interference.
DOCTRINE: what Art. 2180 means by custody
Palisoc v. Brillantes
October 4, 1971
FACTS: Dominador Palisoc, 16 years old and Virgilio
Daffon, of age, were classmates at the Manila Technical
Institute. During recess, while working on a machine,
Daffon made a remark that Palisoc was like a foreman
because he was merely watching them. Irked, Palisoc
bitch-slapped Daffon. In retaliation, Daffon gave Palisoc
6Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
5 The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company.
7 Although later cases say this is a mere obiter because the issue was won the father had civil
liability

2008
a strong flat blow on the face, followed by fist blows on
the stomach. Palisoc tried to retreat, but Daffon
followed him. They exchanged fist blows until Palsioc
stumbled on an engine block which caused him to fall
face downward. He fainted and never regained
consciousness. The autopsy report said he died of
broken ribs and hemorrhage on the brain caused
probably by strong fist blows.
TC: Daffon liable for QD under 2176.
Absolved the following because 2180 is not
applicable: It applied Mercado v. CAs definition of
custody
1. Brillantes-member of the board of directors of MTI
2. Valenton, president of MTI
3. Quibulue, instructor of the class.
ISSUE: WON the other defendants (board member,
president and instructor) should be held solidarily liable
with Daffon
HELD: Yes. TC Modified. Daffon, Valenton and
Quibulue are solidarily liable for damages.
Under 2180, the president and instructor are
liable solidarily for damages.
Brillantes is not liable because he is a mere
member of the board (he could have been liable if not
for the incorporation of the school, making a corporation
the owner of the school and not him anymore).
The school cannot be held liable as it was not
impleaded as a party defendant.
The TC based its decision on Mercado v. CA, which in
turn was based on a dictum in Exconde v. Capuno. The
case here was instituted directly against the defendants
(as against the cited cases where the father was the
defendant). The parents here are not involved since
Daffon was already of age at the time of the incident.
MTI is unquestionably a non-academic school.
1. custody
The TC erred in absolving the defendants on the
ground that they can only be held liable if they lived
and boarded with his teacher or the other defendantsschool officials.
The phrase so long as (the students) remain in
their custody means THE PROTECTIVE AND
SUPERVISORY CUSTODY THAT THE SCHOOL AND ITS HEADS
AND TEACHERS EXERCISE OVER THE PUPILS AND

STUDENTS FOR AS LONG AS THEY ARE AT ATTENDANCE IN
THE SCHOOL, INCLUDING RECESS TIME. (MEMORIZE)
NOTHING IN THE LAW REQUIRES THAT FOR SUCH

LIABILITY TO ATTACH , THE PUPIL-TORTFEASOR MUST LIVE
AND BOARD IN THE SCHOOL.
2. Rationale of the liability
The rationale of the liability of school heads and
teachers 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.
3. Governing Principle in law of torts
In the law of torts, the governing principle is that the
protective custody of the school heads and teachers is
mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, and
hence it becomes their obligation as well as that of the
school itself to provide proper supervision of the
students activities during the whole time that they are
at attendance in the school, including recess time, as
well as to take the necessary precautions to protect the
students in their custody from dangers and hazards that
would reasonably be anticipated, including injuries that
some students themselves may inflict willfully or
through negligence on their fellow students.
4. Mercado overturned. Reyes dissent rules!
Adheres to Reyes dissent in Exconde: If the basis of
presumption of negligence in Art. 1903 is some culpa
in vigilando that the parents, teachers, etc. are
supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their
authority, hence, when the parent places the child under
the effective authority of the teacher, the teacher, and
not the parent should be the one answerable for the
torts committed while under his custody.
Why? for the very reason that the parent is
not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the
school nor with the authority and supervision of the
teacher while the child is under instruction. If there is
no authority, there can be no responsibility.
Hence, the president and instructor must be held
solidarily liable unless they prove that they observed
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the
damage-which they failed to do.
12
Dissent: Makalintal
Wants Mercado sustained. Its unfair to hold teachers
and/or administrative heads responsible for tortuous
acts of their students considering the high number of
enrollment. It would demand responsibility without the
commensurate authority.
Moreover, since the responsibility stems from loco
parentis, then it follows that
1. custody= live in company (like for parents
and guardians) and
2. responsibility limited to minors only (like for
parents and guardians)
Concurring: Reyes
Concurs with majority but dissents with the dissent.
Makalintals interpretation not in accord with the law.
1.
Only the guardians and parents are exempt once
the child reaches majority
2.
The authority and custodial supervision (of the
teachers and heads) over the pupil exists
regardless of the pupils age.
RULE:
1. Mercado doctrine abandoned/overturned
2. Wants to overturn Exconde (to include academic
institutions in the scope of 2180) but has no chance
because MTI is anon-academic institution.
3. Definition of custody= the protective and
supervisory custody that the school and its heads and
teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as
long as they are at attendance in the school, including
recess time. (MEMORIZE)
Amadora v. CA
April 15, 1988
FACTS: Alfredo Amadora, 17 yrs old, was shot by his
classmate Pablito Daffon, 3 days before his high school
graduation, while he was at the auditorium of the
Colegio de San Jose-Recolectos either to finish a
Physics experiment or to submit a Physics report.
Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless
imprudence. The Amadoras sued for damages against
the School (Colegio), the dean of boys and, the physics
teacher and Daffon.
TC: defendants are liable for damages

2008
CA: All the defendants were absolved. Colegio is not a
school of arts and trades and Daffon was not in custody
since the semester already ended.
ISSUE: Interpretation of Art. 2180
There is no substantial distinction between an

academic and a non-academic school 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 he is teaching.
HELD: Petition denied. None are liable.

The SC summarized 3 cases which have been decided
in connection with 2180:
Exconde-school not liable because it is not a
school of arts and trades
-Reyes dissent-rule was imposed on
teachers in general and heads OF establishments of
arts and trades.
Mercado-reiterated Exconde. School not
liable because it is not an establishment of arts and
trades
-Defined custody as living and
boarding with the teacher
Palisoc- Set aside/abandoned the doctrines in
Exconde and Mercado.
-Defined custody to mean that the
protective and supervisory custody of the school and its
heads and teachers over the students are in force so
long as they remain in school including recess time.
-in a footnote, Tehankee (the ponente) said
that he agreed with Reyes in his Exconde dissent to
include academic schools but had no chance because
the school involed is a non-academic one. Amadora is
the case!
1. Art. 2180 applies to both academic and nonacademic schools
Reddendo Singula Singulis8
a. if academic- teacher is liable for the pupils
and students (General Rule)
b. if non-academic- head is liable for the
apprentices (Exception)
*But same vigilance is required!
Reason for disparity: historically the
heads of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage
over his pupils than the head of an academic school.9
2. Art. 2180 applies so long as the student is under

the control and custody and within the school
premises, regardless of whether the semester has
not yet begun or has already ended (Duration of
Responsibility)
(MEMORIZE
STANDARD ):
CUSTODY IS NOT COTERMINOUS WITH THE SEMESTER. AS LONG AS IT CAN BE
SHOWN THAT THE STUDENT IS IN THE SCHOOL PREMISES IN
PURSUANCE OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT OBJECTIVE, IN THE
EXERCISE OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT RIGHT, AND EVEN IN
THE ENJOYMENT OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT PRIVILEGE,
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES OVER
THE STUDENT CONTINUES.
Even if the student should be doing nothing

more than relaxing in the campus in the company
of his classmates and friends and enjoying the
ambience and atmosphere in the school, he is still
within the custody and subject to the discipline of
the school authorities under the provisions of Art.
2180.
Custody does not connote immediate and actual
physical control but refers more to the influence exerted
on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result
of such influence.
3. Liability imposed not on the school itself
It should be noted that the liability imposed is
supposed to fall directly on the teacher or the head of
the school of arts and trades and not on the school
itself.
If at all, the school, whatever its nature may be held
to answer for the acts of its teachers and heads under
the general principle of respondeat superior, it may
exculpate itself by proof of exercise of diligence of
bonus paterfamilias.defense which is also available
to the teacher or the head.
8 Referring each to each; referring each phrase or expression to its appropriate object or let each
be put in its proper place, i.e. the words should be taken distributively
9 This disparity no longer exist in view of the increase in enrollment. But thats a task for the
legislature.
13
4. Pupil not required to be a minor to hold teacher

liable
Unlike the parent who will be liable only for his minor
child, the teacher is answerable for torts of his students
regardless of the students age.
Hence:
1. Alfredo Amadora was still in the schools custody
when the incident happened
2. rector, high school principal and dean of boys NOT
liable because none of them were the teacher-in charge
(they only exercised a general authority and not the
direct control and influence exerted by the teacher-incharge)
Dean of boys not liable although he earlier
confiscated a gun because it was not shown that the
gun he confiscated and the gun that was used in the
shooting were the same.
3. Physics teacher not liable because there was no
showing that he was negligent in his duties. His
absence cannot be taken against him as he was not
required to report to school that day.
4. Colegio not liable because 2180 does not apply to
school but only to its teachers and heads.
CONCURRING & DISSENTING: Melencio-Herrera
-teacher in 2180 should not be limited to the teacherin-charge
-the school may be held responsible under 2180 as the
employer of the teachers and heads
CONCURRING: Gutierrez, Jr.
-reiterates the need for an amendment due to the nonexistent disparity between teachers of academic
schools and heads of arts and trades
RULE: 1. Custody definition
2. application of 2180 to both academic and
non-academic schools
3. teachers is to pupils and students as heads is
to apprentices
4. school not directly liable under 2180 par 7.
NOTES: dangerous definition of custody because it is
so broad (even if just walking around school enjoying
its ambience and atmosphere)

2008
CLASS NOTE
facts: in Academic school, by student of the
school, after sem ends
A2180 applies to both ACADEMIC and
NONACADEMIC schools
Academic: teacher-in-charge:: Institute of Arts
and Trades: Heads
Custody does not connote INFLUENCE
exerted on the child and the DISCIPLINE
instilled in him as a result of such influence
pupil is not required to be a minor for the
teacher to be liable! (A2180 doesnt require
minority)
Applicability to academic institutions WAS an
issue prior to this casesee Exconde
Despite the broadness of the definition of
custody, NO ONE was held liable in Amadora!
Sarmiento
Par 510 of 2180 may be construed as the basis of
liability of the school as the employer for the failure of
its teachers or heads to perform their mandatory legal
duties as substitute parents.
Melencio-Herrera
Joins Sarmiento in his dissent. School may exculpate
itself by proving diligence of a good father of a family.
QUESTION: Would the school be held liable after the
Family Code?
ANSWER: Yes! School can be held liable under 218,
FC11
Pasco v. CFI of Bulacan, Branch V

April 25, 1988
FACTS: Reynaldo Pasco was mauled by a group of
Muslim students and stabbed by Abdul while walking
inside the Araneta University (Araneta). Pasco had just
finished his classes and the Muslim group were also
students of Araneta. Pasco, assisted by his father sued
Abdul and Araneta for damages.
TC: dismissed case against Araneta
ISSUE: WON Art. 2180 is applicable to academic
institutions.
HELD: petition dismissed. Wrong issue.
There is no need to discuss the applicability of 2180 to
educational institutions for the issue is actually
whether or not, under 2180, the school or the
university ITSELF (as distinguished form teachers
or heads) is liable.
Answer to that issue: NO! the provision
speaks only of TEACHERS or HEADS.
CLASS NOTE
facts: by students, w/n school premises,
against ACADEMIC school
A2180 doesnt include Academic schools (this
is the case where the court researcher was not
aware of the ruling in Amadora vs. CA)
Dont sue school based on 2180 (7)
Ylarde vs. Aquino

July 29, 1988
FACTS: Edgardo Aquino, a teacher in Gabaldon
Primary School gathered his male students aged 10-11
to clean-up the remnants of WWII. They had to dig a
hole to bury the concrete blocks. He left while the work
was unfinished and the kids, jumped in the pit. One of
the kids jumped on the concrete block causing it to fall
in the pit and pinning Ylarde who was not able to get
out of the in time. Ylarde sustained injuries which
caused his death 3 days later. The Ylardes (mom and
dad) sued Aquino and Soriano, the principal for
damages.
10 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.
11
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
DISSENT:
inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a)
14
TC: dismissed the complaint.

1. digging was part of work education
2. Aquino exercised utmost diligence
3. Ylardes death was due to his own reckless
imprudence.
CA: Affirmed TC
ISSUE: WON both Aquino and Soriano may be held
liable.
HELD: Aquino is liable for indemnity, ED and MD
under 2176 (art. The petition is based on) and may
be held liable under 2180. Soriano, as a head of an
academic school, cannot be held liable. CA
reversed and set aside.
1. Soriano cannot be held liable
a. He is a Head of an academic school and
not of a school of arts and trades (in line with Amadora)
b. He did not order the digging
2. Ylarde may be held liable under 2180 as the
teacher-in-charge
He was negligent in his supervision and he
failed to take the necessary precautions. BUT, the
Ylardes based their petition on 2176.
3. Aquino is liable for damages under 2176 (Q: WON
the act or omission of Aquino amounting to fault or
negligence has a direct causal connection to Ylardes
death)
a. 5 negligent acts of Aquino
i. he shouldve used adult laborers and
not 10 year olds
ii. he required the kids to remain inside the
pit, knowing that a huge block was just nearby
iii. the stone was obviously at the brink of
falling, yet he require the kids to level the soil around
the excavation
iv. he left the kids
v. he left the kids near an attractive
nuisance
b. the negligent act of Aquino in leaving the
kids in such a dangerous site has a direct causal
connection to the death of Ylarde.
It was but natural for kids to play around
c. digging was not part of work education/

2008
d. a truly careful and cautious person wouldve
acted in all contrast to the way Aquino did.
4. Ylarde cannot be charged with reckless
imprudence
The degree of care required to be exercised must
vary with the capacity of the person to care for himself.
A minor should not be held to the same degree of care
as an adult, but his conduct should be judged according
to the average conduct of persons of his age and
experience,
The standard of conduct to which a child must
conform for his own protection is that degree of care
ordinarily exercised by children of the same age,
capacity, discretion, knowledge and experience under
the same or similar circumstances.
CLASS NOTE
facts: students, teachers and principal
impleaded
Applied Amadora doctrine:
(teacher:ACAD::heads:Establishments of arts
and trade)
Salvos v. IAC
October 5, 1988
FACTS: Jimmy Abon, was a student of the BCF and an
employee of AFP (as an armorer for the BCF-ROTC
unit) with work premises inside the BCF. Abon shot
Napoleon Castro, a commerce student of BCF with an
unlicensed gun from the ROTC armory, at the BCF
parking lot at around 8pm. He was convicted of
Homicide. Napoleons heirs (Castros) sued for
damages impleading Abon, The ROTC Commandant,
B. Salvosa-president and chairman of BCF board, J.
Salvosa-the EVP of BCF, the dean and BCF.
TC: Solidary liability of Abon, B. Salvosa and BCF
Absolved other defendants
IAC: Affirmed but modified award
ISSUE: WON Salvosa and BCF can be held solidarily
liable with Abon for damages under 2180.
HELD: No. Abon was not in the custody of BCF at the

time of the incident. IAC Reversed in so far as it holds
Salvosa and BCF solidarily liable with Abon.
1. Rationale for liability
Reiterated Palisoc: The rationale of the liability of
school heads and teachers 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.
2. Abon was not in the custody of BCF when he
shot Napoleon
DEFINITION OF CUSTODY (MEMORIZE!)-- THE
PROTECTIVE AND SUPERVISORY CUSTODY THAT THE
SCHOOL AND ITS HEADS AND TEACHERS EXERCISE OVER
THE PUPILS AND STUDENTS FOR AS LONG AS THEY ARE AT
ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL, INCLUDING RECESS TIME.
Qualifying custody
In line with Palisoc, RECESS IS A TEMPORARY
ADJOURNMENT EMBRACED IN THE CONCEPT OF AT
ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL. IT IS A SITUATION WHERE
THE STUDENT STILL REMAINS WITHIN THE CALL OF HIS
MENTOR AND IS NOT PERMITTED TO LEAVE THE SCHOOL
PREMISES OR THE AREA WITHIN WHICH THE SCHOOL
ACTIVITY IS CONDUCTED. RECESS BY ITS NATURE DOES
NOT INCLUDE DISMISSAL . Plus, the mere fact of being
enrolled or being in the premises of a school without

more does not constitute attending school or being in
the protective and supervisory custody of the school,
as contemplated in the law.
Abon cannot be considered to have been in
attendance in the school, or in the custody of BCF
when he shot Napoleon. Plus, he was supposed to be
working when the incident happened.
RULE: Defines recess
Qualified Custody
NOTE: Salvosa mitigates the effects of Amadora-but
this was not cited in Salvosa.
CLASS NOTE
School: ACAD + Institute of Arts and Trade
Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007
15
time: dismissal, where: in parking lot of school,

against who: student of University of Baguio
Memorize: recess and custody
Amadora: legitimate student objectiveVictim
is own student
Salvosa: applied Palisoc, definition of
custodyVictim is student of another school
Ponente forgot Amadoradecided 6 months
earlier. So to reconcile both cases: If victim is a
student of schoolAmadora; If victim is NOT a
student of school-Salvosa
St. Francis High School vs. CA

February 25, 1991
FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo, 13, and a freshman at St.
Francis High School, drowned during a school picnic
while trying to save a female teacher. The Castillos
sued the school, the principal and the 6 teachers who
were at the picnic for damages.
TC: Held the 6 teachers solidarily liable for AD & MD
Absolved the school and the principal
Both appealed
CA: Modified TC. Held the school, the principal and 4
teachers solidarily liable for AD, MD and ED.
ISSUE: WON 2180 is applicable.
HELD: No. CA set aside. No one is guilty under 2180.
No MD coz case does not fall under any of the grounds
for MD and they are not guilty of negligence.
1. None of them are guilty of either their own
negligence or of the negligence of those under
them
2. School not liable under 2180
TO BE HELD LIABLE UNDER 2180, THE ACT OR OMISSION
MUST HAVE OCCURRED WHILE AN EMPLOYEE WAS IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS ASSIGNED TASKS. The picnic
was not a sanctioned school activity nor an extracurricular activity.

3. The Principal is not liable under 2180
Mere knowledge of the picnic is not enough

2008
He did not consent to the picnic
4. Teachers are not negligent hence not liable
a.
instructors and scout masters who had
knowledge in 1st aid and swimming were
invited
b.
life savers were brought
c.
they did all that is humanly possible to
save Ferdinand
DISSENT: Padilla
1. teachers were negligent.
a. They failed to observe the proper diligence BEFORE
THE INCIDENT (water was deep, only oral instructions
were given)
b. The supposed life guards were not there! They were
having a drinking spree
2. Principal was negligent
He knew of the activity and he did not take the
appropriate measures to ensure the safety of his
students.
3. School is liable under 2180 par. 5
The negligence of an employee in causing injury or
damage gives rise to a presumption of negligence on
the part of the owner and/or manager of the
establishment.
Activity was stamped with school authority. Many of
the teachers were present, and the activity was
organized by the teachers for the students.
RULE: Liability only for failure to perform assigned
tasks
NOTES: Authority in saying that diligence should be
BEFORE and not after the FACT
PSBA vs. CA
February 4, 1992
FACTS: Carlos Bautista was stabbed to death by
outsiders within PSBAs premises. The Bautistas sued
PSBA and its corporate officers for damages. PSBA
and its officers filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground
that 2180, as per jurisprudence, does not include
academic institutions.
TC: MTD denied
16
HELD: No. But case is remanded to determine if PSBA

failed to discharge its obligations under its contract with
Bautista
FACTS: Maximo Soliman Jr, a student of the Republic

Central Colleges, was shot by Jimmy Solomon, a
security guard assigned to the school. Solomon was
employed by RL Security Agency. Soliman sued
Solomon, RCC and the RL for damages. RCC filed a
MTD on the following grounds:
1. RCC not the employer of Solomon
2. Art. 2180 n/a because Solomon was not a student
of RCC
CA correct in denying MTD but on the wrong grounds.
TC: granted MTD
1. Art. 2180 doe not apply because offender was not

a student of PSBA
ISSUE: WON the RCC may be held liable under 2180
CA: Affirmed TC coz 2180 applies to all kinds of

educational institutions.
ISSUE: WON PSBA can be held liable under 2180
Under 2180, the offender should be a pupil of the

school. In this case, it was established that the
offenders were not PSBA students.
2. PSBA may be held liable based on breach of
contract
When a student enrolls, there is an established
contract between him and the school, resulting in a
bilateral obligation---therefore, this is not based on a
QD which arises when parties are not bound by any
contract.
Although a QD may still arise even when there is a
contract, if the act which breaches the contract is done
in BF & be violative of Art. 21.
In this case though, PSBAs negligence would only
be relevant in the existence of a contract. PSBAs
negligence cannot exist independently of the contract,
unless the negligence occurs under the circumstances
set out in Art. 21.
RULE: Art. 2180 applies only if the offender was a
student of the school
HELD: No. Because Solomon was not an employee of

RCC and neither was he a student. But, under the case
of PSBA, RCC may be held liable under the a contract.
Case remanded to determine if there was a breach of
contract.
1. Art. 2180, par 512 does not apply
RCC was not the employer of Solomon. RCC was
only a client of RL-the employer of Solomon, hence
RCC had no hand in the selection and supervision
process.
2. Arts. 2180 par. 7,13 349, 350, & 35214 does not
apply
12
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.
13
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
14 Art. 349. The following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority:
(2) Teachers and professors;
xxx
(4) Directors of trade establishments, with regard to apprentices;
CLASS NOTE
A2180 applies to schools only if student liable
but if student a victim, BOC
Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon

May 18, 1992
Art. 350. The persons named in the preceding article shall exercise reasonable supervision over
the conduct of the child.
Art. 352. The relations between teacher and pupil, professor and student, are fixed by
government regulations and those of each school or institution. In no case shall corporal
punishment be countenanced. The teacher or professor shall cultivate the best potentialities of
the heart and mind of the pupil or student.

2008
17
Solomon was not a student of RCC. Hence, school

had no substitute parental authority over him.
3. PSBA applies
RCC may be held liable under the implied contract
between RCC and Soliman. Under this contract, the
school has an implicit obligation to provide students
with an atmosphere conducive to learning.
2. The Daniels were held subsidiarily liable in the event

of St. Marys insolvency.
3. James was absolved due to his minority.
4. Villanueva was likewise absolved.
b. Theres no evidence that St. Marys allowed

the minor James to drive the jeep. It was the grandson
of Villanueva, who had control and possession of the
jeep who allowed James to drive.
CA: Affirmed but reduced AD.
ISSUE: WON St Marys is liable
2. Parents are Primarily liable

Whether the accident was due to James negligence
or the mechanical failure, the parents must be held
primarily liable.
St. Marys negligence was only a remote cause, and
either the Daniels negligence or the mechanical failure
was the intervening cause.
CLASS NOTES
A2180 not applicable to nonstudents, to nonemployees
This case should have used the provisions
from the Family Code.
St. Marys Academy v. Carpitanos

February 6, 2002
FACTS: St. Marys Academy conducted an enrollment
drive for the incoming school year. This involved
visitation of schools. Sherwin Carpitanos, who was part
of the campaigning group rode the jeep, along with
other HS students. The jeep was owned by Villanueva
and was driven by James Daniel II, a 15 year old
student. They were on their way to an elementary
school when the jeep turned turtle due to James
reckless driving. Sherwin sustained injuries which
caused his death. The Carpitanos sued St. Marys,
James, the Daniels (parents of James) and Villanueva.
TC: 1. St. Marys is liable for damages under 218 &
21915, FC
15
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. (349a)
Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be
HELD: No. CA reversed and set aside. Case remanded

for determination of liability of defendants excluding St.
Marys.
1. St. Marys is not liable
The special parental authority under 218, FC applies
to:
1. the school, its administrators and teachers
2. the individual, entity or institution engaged in child
care
This special parental authority and responsibility
applies to all authorized activities, whether inside or
outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.
Such authority and responsibility applies to field
trips, excursions, and other affairs of the pupils and
students outside the school premises whenever
authorized by the school or its teachers.
Under 219, FC, if the person under custody is a
minor, those exercising special parental authority are
principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by
the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor
under their supervision, instruction or custody.
3. Villanueva, as the registered owner of the jeep is

liable for damages
Overwhelming evidence that the accident was due to
the detachment of the steering wheel guide.
NOTES: applied FC-this seems to imply strict liability
but SC here allowed defense of diligence.
CLASS NOTE
school liable if Proximate Cause of the injury
is their negligence
special parental authority applies as long as
the activity was approved by an office of the
school
Who liable
But, for St. Marys to be held liable, there must be a

finding that the act or omission considered a s negligent
was the proximate cause of the injury caused because
the negligence, must have a causal connection to the
accident.
a. The proximate cause of the accident was
not the negligence nor the reckless driving of James,
but the mechanical defect of the jeep. The steering
wheel guide was detached while the jeep was running.
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 respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions
proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances.
of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n)
For
damages
caused by
FC
A218: school, its
administrators and
teachers, or the
individual, entity or
institution engaged
in child
have special
parental authority
and responsibility
to all authorized
activities whether
inside or outside
the premises of the
school, entity or
institution
Minor child while
under their
supervision,
NCC
A2180, par7:
teachers or heads
of establishments
of arts and trades
*In St. Francis
Case, activity
should be inside
school premises
Their pupils and

students or
apprentices, so

2008
Liability
instruction or
custody
A219:
unemancipated
minor
Principally and
solidarily liable
schools
Subsidiarily liable
parents, judicial
guardians, persons
exercising
substitute parental
authority
long as they
remain in their
custody
Primarily and
directly
Important to note that:
Under the FC, no distinction is made WON

School is ACADEMIC or NONACADEMIC
Incident happened WITHIN OR OUTSIDE school
premises.
2180 not limited to minors and liability of

teacher is only when academic and not arts
and trades
Summary of cases:
1. Exconde: Primary liability of parent
2180 applies only to arts and trades
2. Salen: subsidiary liability of parent
3. Fuellas: primary liability of parent (did not
categorically state that parent is subsidiarily liable)
4. Rodriguez-Luna: primary liability of parent
5. Libi: Primary liability of parent-CLEARED UP ISSUE
ON PRIMARY OR SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY
6. Mercado: Custody=living and boarding with teacher
or head
7. Palisoc: custody-protective and supervisory custody.
Does not have to live or board with teacher or head
Overturned Mercado. No chance to
Overturn Exconde.
8. Amadora: 2180 applies to all schools. Overturned
Exconde
-Academic school-teacher-pupil
-Arts & trades-head-apprentice

Broad definition of custody
9. Pasco: 2180 applies to teachers or heads not to
school itself.
18
ISSUE: WON Balingit is liable under 2180. (WON

employers/owners/managers
of
an
establishment/enterprise includes managers of
corporations)
HELD: No.
10. Ylarde: head of an academic school not liable.

11. Salvosa: defines recess;
(mitigates amadoras effects)
qualifies
custody
12. St. Francis: 2180 applies to school sanctioned

activities and in the failure to perform assigned tasks.
13. PSBA: offender must be a student of the school;
not an outsider for 2180 to apply. But may invoke
contractual obligation
14. Soliman: No substitute parental authority over
security guard who was neither an employee nor a
student
15. St. Marys; Who may be liable under special
parental authority.
4.
Owners
Establishments
and
Managers
of
*Rationale of employers being liable: policy

considerationallocating risks
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. PhilAmerican Forwarders, Inc

March 25, 1975
FACTS: Fernando Pineda, driver of a Philippine
American Forwarders freight truck hit a Philippine
Rabbit Bus along a national highway. The bus driver
suffered injuries and the bus was unusable for 79 days
resulting in loss of income.
Balingit, as the manager of PAF and Pineda
were sued based on a QD. (Balingits defense was that
he was not the employer of Pineda)
TC: Dismissed complaint against Balingit as he is not
the manger contemplated under 2180.
1. Balingit is not the manager contemplated in

2180
their functions.
The terms employers and owners and managers of
an establishment or enterprise DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
MANAGER OF A CORPORATION.
THE TERM MANAGER (DIRECTOR IN SPANISH VERSION) IS
USED IN THE SENSE OF EMPLOYER WHICH IS NOT EQUAL TO
A MANAGER OF A CORPORATION WHO IS ALSO AN
EMPLOYEE (DEPENDIENTE) OF THE CORPORATION.
2. PAF is a corporation with a personality separate

and distinct from that of Balingit (this was not
alleged in the complaint).
The argument that PAF is a mere business conduit
of the Balingit spouses implies the piercing of the veil of
corporate fiction. Since this was not raised in the lower
court, it cannot be countenanced in this appeal.
5. Employers
NOTES: JURIS TANTUM (REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION)
WHY?-coz hard for victim to prove that employer was
not negligent (similar to res ipsa), hence employer
should prove diligences as a defense
WHY OWNER?-deeper prockets
Philtranco v. CA
June 1997
FACTS: A Philtranco bus, driven by Manhilig was being
pushed and jumpstarted along a perpendicular street. It
started suddenly and ran over Acuesta, a biker. The
driver didnt stop, but was forced to by a cop who saw
the accident and boarded the bus.

2008
Acuestas heirs sued Manhilig and Philtranco for QD.
Philtranco argues it exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of its employees, saying
Manhilig had an excellent record and exercised the
diligence of a very cautious person.
ISSUE: WON Philtranco may be held liable for the act
of Manhilig
HELD: YES. The action is an action for damages for
QD under Art 2176 and 2180. The Court has
considered the liability of a registered owner of a public
service vehicle for damages arising from tortuous acts
of the driver as primary, direct and joint and several or
solidary with the driver (Art 2194)16. The employers
only recourse is to recover what it has paid from the
employee who committed the fault or negligence (Art
2181)17.
CLASS NOTE
Employers liable because of paterfamilias
FACTS: Abad, a production manager of Castilex, was

driving his company-issued vehicle after office hours.
He hit Vasquez, who had a students permit, and on a
motorcycle. Abad brought him to the hospital, but he
died anyway.
The criminal case did not prosper for failure to
prosecute. The civil case for damages was filed by
Vasquezs parents. TC and Ca ruled for Vasquezs.CA
held the liability of Cadtilex was vicarious not solidary
contrary to TCs ruling.
ISSUE 1: WON CA erred in applying par 5 and not par
4 of Art 2180
th
HELD: NO. SC ruled that the 5 par merely says being

engaged in a business is not necessary for the
16 Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
(n)
19
paragraph to apply. The Court made distinctions

between the 2 paragraphs.
a general area for work. The latter is called the special

errand or roving commission rule.
4th par
Owners and managers
Use of Employers Vehicle Outside Regular Working

Hours
The employer is liable if he derives some incidental
benefit. The employer is not liable when the vehicle is
used for a personal benefit and returned to where it is
normally kept.
Note: This seems to contradict with Valenzuela v CA.
Sir says there is no contradiction. The place where the
employee is coming from is material.
Covers negligent acts or

employees
committed
either in the service of
the branches or on
occasion
of
their
functions
5th par
Employers, in general,
WON engaged in a
business or industry
Encompasses negligent
acts of employees as long
as they were acting within
the
scope
of
their
assigned tasks
NOTE: Sir says this case has the implication that par 4
is superfluous because par 5 encompasses everything.
ISSUE 2: WON Castilex has the burden of proving that
Abad was not working within the scope of his assigned
tasks
Castilex v. Vasquez
December 1999
17
HELD: NO. The plaintiffs have the burden. He who

alleges must prove.
ISSUE 3: WON Abad was working within the scope of
his assigned tasks, making Castilex liable
HELD: NO. The fact that Abad was a manager and
driving a company-issued vehicle is not sufficient to
charge Castilex with liability. He was working beyond
office hours and was coming from a place where he had
snacks. The Court cited principles in American
Jurisprudence even if the relationship is Respondeat
superior18 not Pater familias..
Operation of Employers Motor Vehicle in Going to
and From Meals
The employer is liable if the vehicle is used to reduce
his time-off and devote more time to the performance of
is duties.
Operation of Employers Vehicle in Going to and
From Work
The employer is liable if he derives some special
benefit such as more time for the performance of duties
or that such duties require the employee to circulate in
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may
recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
18 The act of the agent is the act of the principal.
NOTES: IMPLICATION: 4th par covered by 5th par,

hence 4th paragraph is useless
5th par-an expansion of the 4th par in both employer
coverage and acts included
cf Valenzuela-why different results? coz
Valenzuela, Abad came from a different place.
in
CLASS NOTES
Castilex sold furniture (relevance: on engaged
in a business or industry under A2180, par5)
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR: CONCLUSIVE
FAULT/NEGLIGENCE OF EMPLOYEE
PATERFAMILIAS : PRESUMPTION JURIS TANTUM
(REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION)
Whats the rule if we combine 2180 (4) and (5)
as regards the liability of employer for the acts
or omissions of employees? Requisites to hold
the employer liable for torts under 2180:
1. ER-EE relationship
2. Employee must be acting within the scope
of his assigned task
American Jurisprudence: 3 situations (General
Rule: Employer NOT liable; Exception:
Employer LIABLE when he derives special
business benefit)
1. GOING TO AND FROM MEALS
General rule: ER is not liable.
Exception: Benefit to the ER
2. GOING TO AND FROM WORK
General rule: ER not liable
3. OUTSIDE REGULAR WORKING HOURS

2008
Filamer v. IAC
August 1992
FACTS: Funtecha is a part-time janitor and scholar of
Filamer. Having a drivers license, he requested Masa,
driver and son of school president, to let him drive them
home where Funtecha also lives. Masa yielded and on
the way they hit a pedestrian, Kapunan, because
Funtecha swerved right to avoid a fast-moving truck. It
appears that Agustin Masa, school president, knew of
the license.
ISSUE: WON Filamer is liable
HELD: YES. The clause within the scope of their by
assigned tasks for the purpose of raising the
presumption of liability of an employer includes ANY ACT
DONE BY THE EMPLOYEE, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYER OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF
THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME OF THE INFLICTION OF THE
INJURY. THAT IS APPLICABLE EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEE
DERIVES SOME BENEFIT FROM THE ACT. In this case,
Funtecha drove the jeep not for his enjoyment but for
the service of Filamer. The fact that he was not the
school driver is insignificant. Besides, Filamer did not
exercise the diligence of a good father of the family.
Presumptive liability of employer (when employee is
driving a company vehicle) is determined by answering
this Q: WON the servant was at the time of the accident
performing any act in furtherance of his masters
business.
Supervision includes: 1. formulation of suitable rules
and regulations for the guidance of its employers; and
2. the issuance of proper
instructions intended for the protection of the public and
persons with whom the employer has relations through
his employees.
NOTE: Sir thinks this is a dangerous doctrine because
even if the activity is far removed from the
business/institution, the employer may be held liable if it
is in furtherance of the latters interests.
Q: is there an ER-EE relationship between the school
and the student working part-time in the school?
CLASS NOTE
Labor Code provision that there is an ER-EE
relationship is not applicable
NPC v. CA
August 1998
FACTS: A dump truck driven by Ilumba and owned by
NPC collided with a Toyota Tamaraw, resulting in the
death of 3 persons in the Tamaraw and injuries to 17
passengers. PHESCO supplied Ilumba as a driver to
NPC. NPC and PHESCO are pointing fingers, each
claiming Ilumba is the employee of the other.
ISSUE: Who is the employer of Ilumba, and therefore,
liable with him
HELD: NPC. PHESCO is a labor-only contractor
because it does not carry on an independent business
and does not have substantial capital. It is merely an
agent of NPC. The Civil Code and NOT the Labor Code
applies to determine NPCs liability because the action
here is based on the recovery of damages as a result of
QD. The Labor Code applies only to liability caused by
non-compliance with substantive labor standards on
working conditions, etc.
Requisites to hold the employer liable for torts
under 2180:
1. there must exist an ER-EE relationship
2.
employee must be acting within the
scope of his assigned task
NOTE: In Filamer, Labor Code provisions do not apply
even n the determination of an employer-employee
relationship. Sir says there is a policy considerations.
The Court tries to utilize doctrine to support their cause.
CLASS NOTES
par4 and 5 of 2180, NCC applies! LC not
strictly applied, just used to determine the
existence of EER
LRT v. Navidad
February 2003
20
FACTS: Nicanor was drunk when he entered the LRT

station after buying a token. He got into a fistfight with
Escartin, a security guard and he fell unto the tracks.
The train hit him and he died instantly. Nicanors widow
and children sued Escartin, Roman (the train driver),
LRTA, Metro Transit and Prudent (security agency).
LRTA and Roman filed counterclaims and Prudent
denied liability, averring it exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of its employees.
ISSUE: WON LRTA is liable
HELD: YES. The presumption of liability was overcome.
Common carriers, by the nature of its business and
reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of
exercising utmost diligence. This duty is not only during
the course of the trip but for as long as the passengers
are within the premises and where they ought to be in
pursuance of the contract of carriage.
PROVISIONS OF LAW RENDER A COMMON CARRIER LIABLE
FOR DEATH AND INJURY OF PASSENGERS :
Through negligence or willful acts of its

employees
On account of willful acts or negligence of

other passengers or of strangers if the common
carriers employees through the exercise of due
diligence could have prevented the act or omission
In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety
of passengers, it may hire its own employees or avail of
the services of a contractor. In either case, the carrier is
not relieved of its responsibility under the contract of
carriage.
Employers liability under 2180:
1. establish 1st employees fault or negligence
2.
presumption juris tantum that employer failed
to exercise the diligence of a good father of the
family in selection and supervision
3.
PRIMARY LIABILITY-but can be negated by
due diligence in selection and supervision
McKee v. IAC
July 1992

2008
FACTS: A head-on collision between a cargo truck
driven by Galang and a Ford Escort driven by Jose
Kho, resulting in the death of 3 and injuries to 3 others,
all passengers of the Ford. The accident was caused by
2 boys who darted into the street causing Kho, driver of
the Ford, to swerve into the trucks lane.
and only incidentally the private purposes of the

employee who uses the car. Li, an Asst. Mngr of the
company, uses the car to facilitate meetings with
clients. At the time of the accident, he came from a coemployees place in BF Homes Pque. The presumption
is they came from a company function or discussed
work-related matters.
ISSUE: WON the employer of Galang is liable
HELD: YES. There is a presumption of negligence on

the part of the employer. The only defense is due
diligence of a good father of a family. They did not
interpose nor prove this defense.
Note: Why is there a presumption? Sir says it is
because it is difficult to prove the employer did not
exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision
of the employee.
CLASS NOTES
presumption that they are negligent flows from
the negligence of their employee
liability: primary, direct and solidary
Valenzuela v. CA
February 1996
FACTS: Valenzuela had a flat tire and had to park her
midnight blue Mitsubishi lancer on the side of the road.
While standing on the left rear side of the car, watching
someone changed her tire, she was bumped by Li
(allegedly drunk). The car of the latter was registered to
Alexander Commercial. She had lost her left leg (only
some skin and muscle connected to the rest of her
body) and had to be fitted with a prosthetic leg.
ISSUE: WON Alexander was liable
HELD: YES. The relationship between Li and Alexander
is Pater familias not Respondeat superior,, in which the
ultimate liability falls upon the employer. In this case,
the Court averred the privilege of using a company car
serves 2 purposes:
1. Image of success
2. Practical and utilitarian reasons (to reach
clients conveniently)
Thus, the use of the car principally serves the business
the private purposes and the goodwill of the company
CLASS NOTES
not liable simply because of company car but
because of bonus pater familias standard in
A2180 did not prove diligence and under 2nd
instance discussed in Castilex
juris tantum presumption (rebuttable) vs. juris
et jure (conclusive)
cf with Castilex: compare the place where
Abad and Li came from along with the nature
of Lis job which required him to have a car.
This case is more of a roving commision
Valenzuela case says that A2180 was modified
by FC.
take note of discussion on practice of
companies in issuing company cars
6. State
-not liable for acts of its officers, agents and employees
(unless special agent; and except when state acts as a
juridical person capable of acquiring rights and
contracting obligations)
CLASS NOTE
Very useful provision in our day and age
Merritt v. Government
March 1916
FACTS: Plaintiff Merritt suffered severe injuries as his
motorcycle collided with a PGH ambulance due to the
negligence of the latters vehicles driver. The
Government passed an Act authorizing Merritt to sue
the Government.
ISSUE: WON the State is liable for damages
21
HELD: NO. Though the State waived its immunity from

suit, it did not concede liability to Merritt. The State is
not liable for torts, except when it acts through a special
agent. In this case, the driver is not a special agent
within the contemplation of the law. Although the
accident was caused by a government employee, the
State did not undertake to guarantee to third persons
the acts of all its employees for that would subject the
State to countless suits, which is subversive to public
interest. The State is not responsible for the damages
suffered by private individuals in consequence of the
acts performed by its employees pertaining to their
office because neither fault nor negligence can be
presumed on the part of the State in the
organization of branches of public service and
appointment of its agents.
CLASS NOTES
This case defined actually defined special
agent (although sir didnt seem to remember):
receives a definite and fixed order or
commission, foreign to the exercise of duties
of his office if he is a special officer
So in this case the chauffeur still was acting
within his duty as a driver when he hit Merritt
Merritt was one of the best constructors of
wooden buildings at that time!
Rosete v. Auditor General

August 1948
FACTS: Employees of the Emergency Control
Administration had gasoline stored in their warehouse.
Such storage was contrary to a Manila ordinance.
Frayno negligently lit a cigarette 5 meters from a gas
drum. Rosetes building were damaged.
ISSUE: WON the Government should pay damages
HELD: NO. There is no showing that whatever
negligence may be imputed to the ECA or its officers
was not done by any special agent, because the
officers of the said institution did not act as special
agents within the contemplation of Art 1903 in storing
gasoline in the warehouse. In a case for damages, the
responsibility of the State is limited to that which it
contracts through A SPECIAL AGENT DULY EMPOWERED BY

2008
DEFINITE ORDER OR COMMISSION TO PERFORM AN ACT OR
CHARGED WITH A DEFINITE PURPOSE WHICH GIVES RISE TO
THE CLAIM NOT WHERE THE CLAIM IS BASED ON ACTS OR
OMISSIONS IMPUTABLE TO A PUBLIC OFFICIAL CHARGED
WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR TECHNICAL OFFICE WHO CAN
BE HELD TO THE PROPER RESPONSIBILITY IN A MANNER
LAID DOWN BY THE LAW ON CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY.
RULE:
OFFICIALS: comprises all officials and employees of
the government who exercise duties of their respective
public officers
SPECIAL AGENTS: all others who are acting by
commission of the government, whether individual or
juridical bodies.
CLASS NOTE
Differentiated special agent from officials
The case used Merritts definition of special
agent
Perfecto dissented, saying ECA special agent,
as opposed to ordinary government officials
who were also agents
Mendoza v. De Leon
February 1916
FACTS: This is an action for damages against the
individual members of the municipal council of
Villasis,Pangasinan. The council revoked a lease for an
exclusive ferry privilege, which was awarded to
Mendoza and gave it to someone else.
ISSUE: WON the individual members of the council are
liable
HELD: YES. There is no justifiable reason for revoking
the lease awarded to Mendoza. The municipality has 2
functions: governmental and proprietary/corporate. The
award of the lease was a proprietary function. In such a
case, the tortfeasors may be sued in capacities such as
those in private corporations. Respondeat superior
applies.
CLASS NOTES
when state acts in their proprietary function,
they can be suedindividual members of
municipal council can be sued
Does A2180 apply to municipalities? Yes
delegation of powers
Fontanilla v. Maliaman
February 1991
FACTS: National Irrigation Administration was created
for the purpose of constructing, improving, rehabilitating
and administering all national irrigation systems of the
Philippines. NIAs driver caused the death of Fontanilla
due to the fault and/or negligence. His parets fled a suit
for damages.
ISSUE: WON NIA is liable
HELD: YES. NIAs functions are basically proprietary
and incidentally governmental. RA 3601 and PD 552
provide that NIA is a body corporate invested with a
corporate personality and distinct from the government.
So, it may be sued. At the time, the driver was an
agent. Where a private individual is commissioned to do
a special task, he may be considered a special agent
within the contemplation of the provision.
CLASS NOTES
added special agent: aside from special
commission, COMMISSION HAS TO BE FOREIGN
FROM ITS FUNCTIONS (but this was already in
the definition given in Merritt so ewan ko kay
sir kung ano bago dito!)
Art. 2189. 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 supervision. (n)
City of Manila v. Teotico

January 1968
22
FACTS: Teotico was waiting a jeepney. As he was

about to board one, he fell into an uncovered and
unlighted manhole/catchbasin. He hit his head on the
rim, broke his glasses and the pieces of which pierced
his eyelid. He also got contusions and abrasions on
other parts of his body. He filed a suit for damages
against the City of Manila, mayor, city engineer, city
health officer, city treasurer and chief of police.
ISSUE: Which applies: Sec 4 of RA 409 (Charter of the
City of Manila) or the Civil Code
HELD: CIVIL CODE. It applies because it is ore
specific. Whereas SEC 4 RA 409 REFERS TO LIABILITY
ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE, IN GENERAL, ART 2189
GOVERNS LIABILITY DUE TO DEFECTIVE STREETS, IN
PARTICULAR. Manilas assertion that it did not own the
street is of no moment. The fact that it is under their
control or supervision is enough to make them
liable.
CLASS NOTES
comment ni sir: charter is supposed to be
more specific since it only applies to city of
manila but civil code is more specific in
determining liability for defective streets
You can argue either way. Court always makes
someone liable. Its all about allocating risks.
C. Others
1. Proprietor of Buildings
Art. 2190. 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. (1907)
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for
damages caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been
taken care of with due diligence, and the inflammation
of explosive substances which have not been kept in a
safe and adequate place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to
persons or property;

2008
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or

lanes, if not caused by force majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
deposits of infectious matter, constructed without
precautions suitable to the place. (1908)
CLASS NOTES
*under Lease Contract: the lessor is responsible for

necessary repairs!
2. Employees
CLASS NOTES
A2176 to make fellow employee liable
Sir: take note of 1723 (interesting provision)
Araneta v. Joya
May 1974
FACTS: De Joya, general manager, proposed to Ace
Management to send Taylor to the US for further
studies. De Joya sent Taylor despite the Boards
disapproval. Travel expenses and salaries were paid to
Taylor from company funds (signed by Vicente and Luis
Araneta). Araneta discovered the arrangement and
sued De Joya.
ISSUE: WON De Joya is liable
HELD: YES. Vicente and Luis were informed about
Taylors trip and gave their approval. All threes acts
made them liable for the unauthorized disbursement of
company funds. They were joint tortfeasors and have
solidary liability under Art 2194. Aranetas defense of
good faith falls on its face when he didnt testify to prove
it. He remained passive and even approved the payroll
thrice. The existence of a contract between parties is
not a bar to the commission of a tort by one against the
other and consequent recovery of damages.
CLASS NOTES
Relevance: A2176 in this case was used to

show a liability of a fellow employee
3. Engineer/Architect
Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the
plans and specifications for a building is liable for
damages if within fifteen years from the completion of
the structure, the same should collapse by reason of a
defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the
defects in the ground. 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. If the engineer or architect supervises the
construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the
contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not
imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of
any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The action must be brought within ten years following
the collapse of the building. (n)
23
3. Solidary liability-In case the engineer or the

architect supervised or directed the construction,
he shall be solidarily liable (see Arts. 1207 19,
121620) with the contractor.
Art. 1723 speaks of a building that should
collapse or edifice that falls, hence, it does not
apply to minor defects.
A 3rd person suffering damage as a result of any
defect in the construction may proceed, against
the engineer or architect or contractor.
4. Effect of acceptance of work- Gen. Rule in a
contract for a piece of work is that acceptance of
the work by the employer relieves the contractor
of liability for any defect in the work. 21 But mere
acceptance of the building after completion, does
not imply waiver of any of the causes of action
arising from any defect in the construction.
De Leon 455-456
Liability of engineer or architect/contractor for
collapse of building constructed:
1. Liability of engineer or architect.-The
engineer or architect who drew up the plans and
specifications shall be liable for damages, if:
a. The collapse took place within 15 years
from the completion of the structure
b. it took place by reason of a defect in
the plans and specifications, or due to defects in
the ground; and
c. the action for damages is brought
within 10 years following the collapse
VII. TORTS W/ INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
2. Liability of contractor.-if
a. the edifice falls within the same period
b. the collapse took place 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; and
c. the action for damages is brought
within 10 years following the collapse
20 Art. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of
A. Violation of Civil and Political Rights

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
19 Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the
same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each
one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation. There is a solidary
liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the
obligation requires solidarity. (1137a)
them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those
which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully
collected. (1144a)
21 Art. 1719. Acceptance of the work by the employer relieves the contractor of liability for any
defect in the work, unless:
(1) The defect is hidden and the employer is not, by his special knowledge, expected to
recognize the same; or
(2) The employer expressly reserves his rights against the contractor by reason of the defect. (n)

2008
following rights and liberties of another person shall be
liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain
a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property
without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private
property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the
same;
(11)
The privacy of communication and
correspondence;
(12)
The right to become a member of
associations or societies for purposes not contrary to
law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable
assembly to petition the government for redress of
grievances;
(14)
The right to be free from involuntary
servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive
bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy
and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and
to have compulsory process to secure the attendance
of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness
against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt,
or from being induced by a promise of immunity or
reward to make such confession, except when the
person confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and
unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or
inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not
been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or
not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to

commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action
for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if
the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a
preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary
damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable
from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a
violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
CLASS NOTES
Art. 32 is the basis for a civil action for violation
of civil liberties.
Special rule: Judges are not covered unless
done in excess of jurisdiction.
Take note: Art. 32 says DIRECTLY or
INDIRECTLY
Private persons may be sued under this!
Lim v. Ponce de Leon

August 1975
FACTS: Jikil Taha sold Timbangcaya a motor launch.
Taha forcibly took the launch back so Timbangcaya filed
a complaint. Fiscal Ponce de Leon filed an info against
Taha. After discovering where the launch was, Ponce
ordered Provincial Commander of Palawan Maddela to
impound the vehicle even though it had already been
sold to a third party, Lim. After initial hesitation, Maddela
seized the launch so Lim filed this case.
ISSUE: WON Ponce de Leon may seize the launch
without warrant
HELD: NO. The right against unreasonable searches
and seizures is protected by the Constitution. There is
no law which authorizes the fiscal to seize the corpus
delicti of the crime. Only judges may issue warrants for
seizure not fiscals. Ponce de Leon claimed there was
no time to get a warrant, but records show there was
ample time. He next claims good faith, but this does not
matter because ART 32 DOES NOT REQUIRE A SHOWING
OF GOOD FAITH/BAD FAITH. IT IS ENOUGH THERE WAS A
Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007VIOLATION OF

PROHIBITION)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.
24
(ABSOLUTE
CLASS NOTES
Who can contest? Only the parties whose
rights have been impaired
Why is good faith not a defense? It will be
contrary to purpose of the law.
Subordinate officer not liable illogical
because Court already said that good faith is
not a defense.
Provincial commander NOT LIABLE because
of chain of command Subordinate, just follow
orders but GF not needed
Aberca v. Ver
April 1988
FACTS: Task Force Makabansa, intelligence units of
the AFP, conducted pre-emptive strikes against known
communist-terrorist underground houses. It conducted
raids with defective search warrants where personal
items were confiscated, people were arrested without
warrant and interrogated without proper procedures.
The violations of the plaintiffs rights were geared
towards obtaining evidence to incriminate them. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
the writ of habeas corpus was suspended and that they
were only performing their official duties.
ISSUE: WON the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus bars the civil action for damages.
HELD: NO. The suspension does not destroy the right
or cause of action for illegal arrest and other violations
of constitutional rights. What is merely suspended is the
right to seek release through the writ as a speedy
means of obtaining liberty. ART 32 RENDERS THE
DEFENDANTS LIABLE, INCLUDING THEIR SUPERIORS, AS THE
PROVISION INCLUDES NOT ONLY THOSE DIRECTLY BUT ALSO
INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE. The invocation of state
immunity is misplaced because there is no blanket

license to transgress upon rights and liberties
guaranteed by the Constitution.

2008
CLASS NOTE
May superiors be liable? Yes, because they
are indirectly responsible
Writs effect: suspension immaterial
Respondeat
superior:
liable
because
INDIRECTLY responsible (A32)
MHP Garments v. CA
September 1994
FACTS: MHP was awarded the exclusive franchise to
sell and distribute official uniforms and supplies of the
Boy Scouts of the Philippines. They were informed that
Cruz, Lugatiman and Gonzales were selling BSP
uniforms without authority. They sought the aid of the
Philippine Constabulary. Constabulary men and De
Guzman, representative of MHP, went to the stalls,
seized the goods and caused a commotion, all without
warrant.
ISSUE: WON MHP and De Guzman may be held liable
HELD: YES. The Constitution protects people against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The evidence
presented did not justify the treatment of the
respondents. MHP was indirectly involved. They
instigated the raid which was conducted with the active
participation of De Guzman. The proper method would
have been to report the matter and secure a warrant.
CLASS NOTE
Take note: even private persons who
participate can be held liable under Article 32
(2) The requirement of proof beyond reasonable

doubt often prevented the appropriate punishment.
(3) Direct and open violations of the Penal code
trampling upon the freedoms named are not so frequent
as those subtle, clever and indirect ways which do not
come within the pale of penal law.
- A violation of any of the individual rights and liberties
enumerated in Art. 32 may or may not constitute a
criminal offense.
- If act constitutes a criminal offense, the victim may opt
between a civil action under Art. 100 of the RPC and an
independent civil action under Art. 32.
- If act is not a criminal offense, the civil action to
enforce liability for damages is governed by the
provisions of the Civil Code according to Art. 1162
thereof, and the Rules on Civil Procedure.
- The right to institute an independent civil action under
Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is a
substantive right intended as an exception to and held
as an amendment of the general rule in Sec. 1 of Rule
107 of the 1940 Rules of Court ( Sec. 1 Rule 111 of the
1964 Revised rules of Court)
- These independent actions should not be deemed
instituted with the criminal action and the right to
institute them should not be made subject to their prior
reservation.
B. Defamation, Fraud and Physical Injuries

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical
injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the
injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence.
-the nature of civil action for damages which Art. 33
allows to be instituted is ex delicto. criminal in nature,
hence not negligence.
1 Sangco 228-255 (1993)

- Code Commission: The creation of an absolutely
separate and independent civil action for the violation of
civil liverties is essential to the effective maintenance of
democracy,for these reasons:
(1) In most case, the threat to freedom originates
from abuse of power by government officials and peace
officers.
Revised Penal Code

Title Thirteen-CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Chapter One-LIBEL
Section 1 Definitions, forms, and punishment of
this crime.
{{{
Art. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is public and

malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect,
real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition,
25
status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor,

discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or
to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. Every
defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious,
even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable
motive for making it is shown, except in the following
cases:
(1) A private communication made by any person
to another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and
(2) A fair and true report, made in good faith,
without any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative or other official proceedings which are not of
confidential nature, or of any statement, report or
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other
act performed by public officers in the exercise of their
functions.
Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means.
A libel committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting,
theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any
similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging
from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil
action which may be brought by the offended party.
Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present
such publication for a compensation. The penalty
of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any person who threatens
another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents,
spouse, child, or other members of the family of the
latter or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the
publication of such libel for a compensation or money
consideration.
Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in
the course of official proceedings. The penalty of
arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor or
manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall
publish facts connected with the private life of another
and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said
person, even though said publication be made in
connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary

2008
in the narration of any judicial or administrative
proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned.
Art. 358. Slander. Oral defamation shall be
punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a
serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall
be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
Art. 359. Slander by deed. The penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in
its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall
perform any act not included and punished in this title,
which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon
another person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the
penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos.
Marcia v CA
January 27, 1983
FACTS: Victory Liner bus driven by Paje collided with a
jeep driven by Marcia. Marcia died and 2 other were
seriously injured. An info for homicide and double
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence
was filed against Paje. Heirs of Marcia reserved the
right to file a civil action separately and later did. CA
acquitted Paje stating that the case was a pure
accident. Heirs of Marcia instituted this separate civil
action for damages. Trial court dismissed.
ISSUE: Won the acquittal of the accused serves as a
bar to the civil action for damages
HELD: The charge against Paje was not for homicide
and physical injuries but for reckless imprudence or
criminal negligence resulting in homicide and physical
injuries They are not one of the three crimes mentioned
in Article 33 of the Civil Code and, therefore, no civil
action shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution.
CLASS NOTE
Reckless Imprudence is not included in Art. 33
no independent civil action
Article 33 construed strictly
Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007Madeja v Caro

December 1983
FACTS: A criminal action was filed against Dr. Japzon

for the death of Madeja after an appendectomy.
Pending the criminal case, his widow filed a civil action
for damages, alleging gross negligence, but this was
dismissed.
Note: According to Sir, the point of this case is that one

may file a criminal complaint and a civil one in one court
and both could proceed independently of each other.
*Crim case and civil case (for the same act) may
proceed independently of each other
ISSUE: WON Judge Caro erred in dismissing the civil

action
HELD: YES. Under the Rules of Court and Art 33, a
separate civil action may be instituted. The civil action is
ex-delicto and aimed to allow the offended party to
enforce his rights in a private action. Physical injuries is
used in the generic sense, meaning bodily injury not the
crime in the RPC. To be liable under Art 33, the damage
should arise from a crime. This case also says Corpus v
Paje, saying reckess imprudence is not included in Art
33, is not authoritative.
Note: Madeja v Caro is a division case. It cannot
overturn an en banc decision.
Arafiles v. Phil. Journalists

March 2004
FACTS: Despuig filed a complaint against Arafiles for
forcible abduction with rape and forcible abduction with
attempted rape. She executed a sworn statement to
that effect witnessed by Morales. The latter interviewed
the former and wrote an article about the incident.
Arafiles filed a complaint for damages against Morales,
his editor and the president of the publisher, saying his
reputation was ruined by the story.
ISSUE: WON the accused were liable for damages
HELD: NO. In actions for libel, the published work must
be examined and viewed as a whole. It depends on the
scope, spirit and motive of the piece. It must be read in
the sense readers to whom it is addressed would
ordinarily understand it. Morales could have used better
words, but he did state that his story was based on the
account of Despuig at the station.
26
CLASS NOTE
Art 33 does not affect in any way the criminal
action.
1. Defamation
MVRS v. Islamic
January 2003
FACTS: An issue of Bulgar wrote an article stating that
Muslims dont eat pigs because they treat them as
Gods. Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines and
individual Muslims filed a complaint for damages,
alleging the story was a product of sheer ignorance but
with the intent to hurt the feelings, cast insult and
disparage Muslims of the world.
ISSUE: WON MVRS may be held liable
HELD: NO. The libel suit will not prosper because IT DID
NOT IDENTIFY SPECIFICALLY NOR REFER TO ANY
PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THE
PUBLICATION. They cannot be held liable just because
the words were insulting or offensive. According to

Puno, there are prerequisites to recovery:
1. published statement
2. which is defamatory
3. of and concerning the plaintiff
If the article refers to a group, for a member to have a
cause of action, he must prove that the article
particularly pertains to him.
NOTE: cf Worcester
CLASS NOTES
important: definition of defamation, what is the
relation to libel and slander (big circle):

2008
Definition of defamation broader than

slander/libel
you have to prove specific damage to you and
that there was an intent to damage or hurt you.
2. Fraud
Salta v. Veyra
September 1982
FACTS: Salta was an employee of PNB. As a manager,
he indiscriminately granted some loans in a manner
characterized by negligence fraud, manifest partiality
and upon securities not commensurate to the loan. The
criminal case was dismissed, but 2 civil cases were
filed. Salta filed motions to dismiss based on the
acquittal. Judge de Veyra denied one MTD, but Judge
Purisima granted the other. Acquittal was based on
insufficiency of evidence.
HELD: NO. THE ACQUITTAL IN THE CRIMINAL CASE WILL

NOT BE AN OBSTACLE FOR THE CIVIL CASE TO PROSPER
UNLESS THERE IS A FINDING IN THE CRIMINAL CASE THAT
EVEN CIVILLY THE ACCUSED IS NOT LIABLE. There is no
such finding in this case. Art 33 applies, there being an

allegation of fraud and negligence.
CLASS NOTES
fraud here is not simply estafa. Swindling
is just a specie of an offense committed by
means of fraud.
Prudential Bank v. IAC

December 1992
FACTS: Philippine Rayon enetered into a contract with
Nissho for the importation of textile machineries under a
5-year deferred-payment plan. Rayon applied for a
commercial letter of credit with Prudential in favor of
Nissho. A trust receipt was signed in favor of Prudential.
The letter of credit and trust receipt remained unpaid.
The machinery was sold and the proceeds kept.
Prudential filed an action for damages against Rayon
and its president.
27
ISSUE: WON Rayon is liable
Anent Art. 33, The Court said that it included bodily

injury resulting in death.
HELD: YES. There is a fiduciary relationship between

Rayon and Prudential. Rayon sold the machinery
without turning over the proceeds to Prudential as
agreed upon so it violated the agreement. Rayon
wilfully and fraudulently misapplied or converted the
money for their own use.
There is no obstacle for the filing of a separate
complaint for damages even if there is already a
criminal complaint for violation of Sec 3 of the Trust
Receipts Law. Sec 13 of the same law considers the
violation as Estafa. ESTAFA COMES UNDER FRAUD AND SO
AN ACTION UNDER ART. 33 MAY BE BROUGHT.
ISSUE: WON the MTD should be granted
CLASS NOTES
violation of a trust receipt is a violation
under Article 33
Since there is FRAUD, can file independent
and distinct civil action based on Article 33
3. Physical Injuries
Capuno v. Pepsi
April 1965
FACTS: A Pepsi delivery truck driven by Elordi collided
with a private car driven by Capuno. Capuno and his
passengers, Buan spouses, died. Elordi was charged
with triple homicide through reckless imprudence. While
the case was pending, the estate and heirs of the Buan
spouses filed a separate complaint for damages against
Pepsi and Elordi. The parties in the latter case
compromised so the case was dismissed. Later,
Capuno heirs filed a similar complaint.
ISSUE: WON the action is barred by the Statute of
Limitations
HELD: YES. THE CASE FOR RECOVERY UNDER QD MUST
BE INSTITUTED WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE ACCRUAL OF
THE RIGHT OF ACTION. Contrary to the Capunos
assertion, the prescription period was not interrupted by
the filing of the criminal action inasmuch as they never
waived nor reserved to file the civil action separately.
CLASS NOTE
This case demonstrates a literal reading of A33

The action filed was based on A31 and A33
ON A33: civil action for damages could have
been commenced by Capunos immediately upon
death of Cipriano Capuno
Corpus v. Paje
July 1969
FACTS: Victory Liner bus driven by Paje collided with a
jeep driven by Marcia. Marcia died and 2 other were
seriously injured. An info for homicide and double
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence
was filed against Paje. Heirs of Maria reserved the right
to file a civil action separately and later did.
ISSUE: WON the acquittal of Paje in the criminal case
bars the civil action
HELD: YES. The acquittal was based on the ground
that the reckless imprudence or criminal negligence
charged did not exist and the collision was pure
accident. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, THAT IS RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE, IS NOT ONE OF THE 3 CRIMES MENTIONED IN
ART 33 WHICH AUTHORIZES THE INSTITUTION OF AN
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION.
CLASS NOTES
Law punishes the negligent act.

Action has also already prescribed.
According to Sangco, reckless imprudence is
included in A365.
Rule: RI not included in Art. 33 hence the effect:
NO independent civil actionArt. 100 will apply
with respect to civil liability
In
Criminal
negligence,
act
punished
negligent/careless act, not the result

2008
Dulay v. CA
April 1995
FACTS: Torzuela, a security guard, shot Atty. Dulay
while he was on duty at the Big Bang sa Alabang due
to some altercation. Dulays widow filed an action for
damages against Torzuela, Superguard and Safeguard
(both companies believed to be Torzuelas employers).
ISSUE: WON an independent civil action may proceed
HELD: YES. The act of the Dulays of instituting a
separate civil action under Art 33 is allowed. The term
physical injuries has been held (in Madeja vs. Caro) to
include consummated, attempted and frustrated
homicide. SC, looking at Art 111 of the ROC, said that
the civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal
action unless the offended party (Civil action deemed
instituted):
1. waives the civil action
2. reserves the right to institute it separately
3. institutes it prior to the criminal action
This case differs from Marcia v CA, in that, here, the
crime is homicide not reckless imprudence so a
separate civil action may be filed.
Madeja v. Caro
December 1983
FACTS: A criminal action was filed against Dr. Japzon
for the death of Madeja after an appendectomy.
Pending the criminal case, his widow filed a civil action
for damages, alleging gross negligence, but this was
dismissed. (reasoned that Instant civil action may be
instituted ONLY AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT in criminal
action)
ISSUE: WON Judge Caro erred in dismissing the civil
action
HELD: YES. Under the Rules of Court and Art 33, a
separate civil action may be instituted. The civil action is
ex-delicto and aimed to allow the offended party to
enforce his rights in a private action. PHYSICAL INJURIES
IS USED IN THE GENERIC SENSE, MEANING BODILY INJURY
NOT THE CRIME IN THE RPC. TO BE LIABLE UNDER ART 33,
THE DAMAGE SHOULD ARISE FROM A CRIME. This case
28
also says Corpus v Paje, saying reckess imprudence is

not included in Art 33, is not authoritative because no
sufficient number of votes).
Note: Madeja v Caro is a division case. It cannot
overturn an en banc decision.
arising from a quasi-delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil

Code; (3) a civil action for physical injuries under Art.
33, also of the Civil Code.
C. Neglect of Duty
CLASS NOTES
Art. 33: ex-delicto acts acts should constitute a

crime.
In Corpus v Paje, only 9 justices took part, 4 of
which merely concurred with the result.
However, based on the Constitution, a division
case cannot overturn an en banc decision.
Sir does not think that physical injuries should
be limited to the crime with the same name.
2 things to remember about A33, CC:
1. Physical injury refers to bodily injury and is
not the same as physical injury as defined in
the RPC.
2. Civil action is ex-delicto
1 Sangco 255-282 (1993)

- According to the Code Commission, this article
creates an independent civil action in case of
defamation, fraud, or physical injuries. This separate
civil action is similar to the action in Tort for libel or
slander, deceit, and assault and battery under American
law.
- Meaning and scope of physical injuries: Like that
provided in Art. 32, the independent civil action
contemplated in Art. 33 is for damages caused by
defamation, fraud or physical injuries which may or may
not constitute criminal offenses.
- On Corpus and Marcia: This is an apparent
misconception of the independent civil action
contemplated in Art. 33 and of reckless imprudence
being the crime itself and not its results. Reckless
imprudence is not a crime in itself. It is simply a way of
committing it and merely determines a lower degree of
criminal liability. (People v Feller)
- Where the physical injuries results from a negligent
act or omission, the injured party will have three causes
of action to choose from and bring a civil action for,
namely: (1) a civil action for damages resulting from
reckless imprudence under Art. 100 in relation to Art.
365 of the RPC; (2) a civil action for physical injuries
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police

force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any
person in case of danger to life or property, such peace
officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city
or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor.
The civil action herein recognized shall be independent
of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
evidence shall suffice to support such action.
1 Sangco 334-335 (1993)

The basic function of government is the protection of
life and property and it is also the main justification
for the existence and maintenance of its police
force. For this, members of the force are directly and
personally liable for damages caused by their refusal or
failure to render this basic service.
Since policemen are usually insolvent, the law secures
payment by holding the City or municipality subsidiarily
liable. This is clearly an exception to its non-suability
as a political subdivision of the State. This is
analogous but not identical to that provided in Art 102
and 103 of the RPC because the conviction of the
defendant policemen is absolutely immaterial and
irrelevant to the citys or municipalitys liability.
The direct and personal liability for nonfeasance
contained in Art 27 is general and does not constitute a
criminal act nor provide for subsidiary liability of the
locality. Art 34 specifically applies only to members of
the police force of the city or municipality.
Key elements of a civil action for damages under Art 34:
1. The defendant is a member of the city or
municipality police force.
2. The plaintiff either sought police assistance
or protection against danger to his life or
property, or defendant was aware of plaintiffs
need for such assistance or protection, but the
latter refused or failed to render the same.

2008
3.
4.
As a consequence of such refusal or failure to

render assistance or protection, the plaintiff
suffered damages.
The civil action for damages may be instituted
independently of the institution or pendency of
any criminal proceedings arising from the
same dereliction and regardless of the result
thereof, and may be proved by preponderance
of evidence.
D. Action for Damages where no independent

civil action is provided
Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a
criminal offense, charges another with the same, for
which no independent civil action is granted in this
Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace
finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has
been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or
fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may
bring a civil action for damages against the alleged
offender. Such civil action may be supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's
motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond
to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should
be found to be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information
should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the
civil action shall be suspended until the termination of
the criminal proceedings.
catch all provision

whats punished in 365, RPC is the negligence
and the resulting damage
Take note of thisnot a very often used
provision
1 Sangco 335-338 (1993)

- In all cases not covered by Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176
of the Civil Code or by a special law, any person who
believes that he is the victim of a criminal offense- but
the judge or the prosecuting attorney finds no
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed and the latter refuses or fails to institute
criminal proceedings- may bring a civil action for
damages under Art. 35.
- Implicit are the ff propositions of fact and law:
1. Aggrieved part has opted not only to recover his

damages in a civil action therefore under Art. 100 of the
RPC, but also to institute such civil action ahead of and
separately from the criminal action to enforce
defendants criminal liability
2. Aggrieved party believes that the act or omission
which cause the injury constitutes a criminal offense
3. Civil Code or any special law does not grant him the
right to institute a civil action for damages
independently of the criminal action
4. He is granted the right to institute such civil action for
damages WON the criminal action upon which it is
based is filed; prosecute it to final judgment, and prove
the same by a preponderance of evidence, if no
criminal action is filed during its pendency.
5. If the criminal action is filed during its pendency, such
civil action shall be suspended until final judgment in
the criminal case, which may or may not affect it, is
rendered. It may also be consolidated with the criminal
action. because it is based on civil liability arising
from a criminal offense
6. Where no criminal action is instituted because a
prima facie case cannot be established, plaintiff may file
a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the
complaint should be found to be malicious. there is a
bond because of the high probability that the suit may
be malicious
7. Where a criminal action is subsequently instituted,
presumably no indemnity bond may be sought or
required since there is no apparent justification for it.
- Distinguished from Art. 30: Under Art. 30, plaintiff is
not required to file an indemnity bond because there is
no possibility that it was maliciously instituted. But this
must be further qualified. Under Art. 35, there is no
need to file an indemnity bond where a crime has
indubitably been committed or such a criminal action is
subsequently instituted.
- An aggrieved party need not be the victim of a criminal
or punishable act or omission to be entitled to
damages. So long as the act or omission complained
of, WON it is punishable, is alleged and shown to be the
proximate cause of the damage or injury he sustained,
he is entitled to bring a civil action therefor and obtain a
judgment on the basis thereof.
VIII. INTENTIONAL TORTS

Art. 19 - principle of abuse of rights
29
Art. 20 - general sanction for all other provisions of law

which do not essentially provide for their own sanction
Art. 21 - deals with acts contra bonus mores
Casis: real catch-all; covers everything
A. Abuse Of Rights
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honest and good
faith.
Velayo, etc. v. Shell Co. of the Phils, et al.

October 31, 1956
FACTS: CALI informed its principal creditors that it was
in a state of insolvency and had to stop operations. The
creditors agreed to form a committee that would take
charge of the distribution of assets. Fitzgerald, an
employee of Shell, was appointed a member of the
committee. After the committee met, Shell made a
transfer of credit against CALI to American Shell Oil
Company. American Shell Oil filed a complaint against
CALI and a writ of attachment was issued on CALIs C54 plane.
ISSUE: WON Shell can be held for damages. YES
HELD: Even though Arts. 19, 21, and 23 only came
into effect after the incident, they are still
applicable. Shell had no vested right to betray the
confidence of the insolvent CALI or of its creditors.
Shells act of taking advantage of his knowledge of the
plane showed bad faith and betrayed the confidence
and trust of the other creditors.
Standards:
1. A- to act with justice
2.
3.
G- to give everyone his due

O -to observe honesty and GF
CLASS NOTES

2008
A19 is a mere declaration of principle which
provides for the standard of conduct.
A21 implements A19 by providing for a
consequence which is not found in A19.
A19s lofty ideal is to VOUCHSAFE ADEQUATE
LEGAL REMEDY FOR THAT UNTOLD NUMBERS OF
MORAL WRONGS WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HUMAN
FORESIGHT TO PROVIDE FOR SPECIALLY IN THE
STATUTES CATCH ALL
What constitutes the abuse of right? Not the

transfer of credit per se but Mr. Fitzgerald was
already appointed as 1 of the members in the
working committee tasked to determine the division
of assets. The working committee was formed
specifically for the creditors to not sue CALI
The court used A2253 and A2254, NCC to rule
upon the issue
Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA

October 8, 1998
FACTS: Morada was employed by Saudi Arabian
Airlines as a flight attendant. Her two co-workers tried
to rape her. She filed a case against them. However,
she was pressured to drop the case while her
employers Chief Legal Officer stood by. She then
attended a hearing, after being assured by her
employer that it was routinary. She was shocked when
she was sentenced to be imprisoned for adultery, going
to disco, and socializing with male crew, in violation of
Islamic laws, and was sentenced to be lashed. He
employer refused to help her.
ISSUE: Morada had cause of action. YES
HELD: Article 19 merely declares a principle of law
and Article 21 gives flesh to its provisions.
Philippine Law applied because it is where Saudi
Arabian deceived Morada. According to her, she
honestly believed that her employer would act with
justice and give her what is due. Instead, her employer
failed to protect her.
CLASS NOTES
In the context of international law, this case is
actually wrong: If the concept of Lex Loci
delicti commisi would be followed, the place
where most of the crimes was committed

would determine what law should be applied.
In this case, most of the violation of rights were
committed in SAUDI!
BUT COURT HELD THAT RP LAWS SHOULD
BE APPLIED: no unnecessary difficulties and
inconvenience shown by either parties if RP +
Saudi already submitted to the jurisdiction of
QC RTC
This case demonstrates the broad application
of A19 and A21.
A 19, 20, 21 are not conflicts of law provisions
but were applied in a conflicts of law case.
Globe Mackay v. CA
August 25, 1989
FACTS: Tobias was employed by Globe Mackay as a
purchasing agent. He uncovered certain fraudulent
transactions. However, Hendry, an EVP, accused him
of being a crook and a swindler. Tobias was charged
with estafa. The cases against him were dismissed.
Despite this, Tobias was fired. Hendry then sent a letter
to Tobias potential employer alleging his dishonesty.
Tobias filed an action for damages against Hendry and
Globe.
ISSUE: WON Tobias was entitled to damages. YES
HELD: There is no rigid test to determine when Art.
19 has been violated; this is to be determined upon
the unique circumstances of each case. Upon the
facts of the present case, it is clear that the petitioners
abused the right that they invoke right to dismiss an
employee. Although an employer who suspects an
employee to be dishonest may dismiss the latter, the
employer may not do so in an abusive manner.
RULE: Q of WON the principle of abuse of rights has
been violated resulting in damages under Art. 20 or 21
or other applicable provisions, depends on the
circumstances of each case.
CLASS NOTES
Right to dismiss should not be confused with
the manner in which the right is exercised:
there was name-calling, threats, You Filipinos
cannot be trusted!
30
A19: Principle of abuse of rights; set certain

standards which must be observed not only in
the exercise of ones rights but also in
performance of ones duties
to act with justice
to give everyone his due
to observe honesty and good faith
Albenson v. CA
January 11, 1993
FACTS: Guaranteed issued Albenson a check as
payment for the mild steel plates it ordered. The check
bounced. Albenson found out that the check belonged
to Eugenio Baltao. It filed a complaint for violation of
BP 22 against Eugenio S. Baltao. However, it appears
that the respondent had a namesake, his son Eugenio
Baltao III. The elder Baltao then filed a suit for
damages against Albenson.
ISSUE: WON Albenson was liable for damages. NO
HELD: When a right is exercised in a manner which
does not conform with the norms of Article 19 and
results in damage to another, a LEGAL WRONG is
committed for which the wrongdoer must be held
responsible.
The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19
are:
1. There is a legal right or duty
2.
3.
Which is exercised in bad faith

For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another.
In this case, Albensons complaint was a sincere

attempt to find the best possible means to collect the
money due to them. The law does not impose a
penalty on the right to litigate.
Arts. 19-21-expand the scope of our law on civil wrongs
Common element under 19 and 21: act must be
intentional
CLASS NOTE

2008
Question: Why did this case enumerate the

elements of an abuse of right under Art. 19
when there is supposedly no hard and fast
rule?
Art 19 and 21- intentional acts; Art 20intentional or negligent acts (does not
distinguish)
Albenson claims that MP should have been
filed, not a civil case based on A19
Baltao did not clarify that there were 3 of them
Amonoy v. Gutierrez
February 15, 2001
FACTS: The lot on which the Gutierrez spouses built
their house was bought by Amonoy in an auction sale.
Amonoy was granted an order for the demolition of the
house. However, a temporary restraining order was
granted enjoining the demolition. The SC then made
the TRO permanent. However, by the time the decision
was rendered, the house was already destroyed. The
Gutierrez spouses then filed a suit for damages.
ISSUE: WON Amonoy was liable for damages. YES
HELD: Even though Amonoys actions were legally
justified at the start, their continuation even after the
TRO was issued amounted to an abuse of his right.
The exercise of a right ends when the right
disappears, and it disappears when it is abused,
especially to the prejudice of others. Amonoys acts
constituted not only an abuse of a right, but an invalid
exercise of a right that was suspended.
CLASS NOTES
Rule: Action which was originally legal can
become illegal if exercised abusively.
The legal principle applied in this case is
damnum absque injuria.
What we have here is an illegal act. There was
no more right for him to abuse! This is not a
case of abuse of right.
A19 presupposes an existing right; What
Amonoy did was contempt of court
Problem: relied upon Testimony solely of
Guitierrez (when it is self-serving)
UE v. Jader
February 17, 2000
FACTS: Jader was a law student at the University of
the East. He failed to take the regular exam for
Practice Court I so he was given an incomplete grade.
He took the removals but he was given a grade of five.
Jader attended the graduation and prepared for the bar.
He later learned of his deficiency. Jader sued UE for
damages. UEs defense was that Jader should have
verified grade!
ISSUE: WON UE was liable for damages. YES
HELD: UE had the contractual obligation to inform
its students as to whether or not all the
requirements for the conferment of a degree have
been met. It also showed bad faith in belatedly
informing Jader of the result of his removals,
particularly when he was already preparing for the bar.
ABSENCE OF GOOD FAITH MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY
ESTABLISHED FOR A SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION BY THE
AGGRIEVED PARTY IN A SUIT FOR ABUSE OF RIGHT UNDER
ARTICLE 19. Good faith connotes an honest intention to
abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even

though the forms and technicalities of the law, together
with the absence of all information or belief of facts,
would render the transaction unconscientious.
On Art. 19:-intended to expand the concept of torts by
granting adequate legal remedy for the untold moral
wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to
provide specifically in statutory law.
-the ultimate thing in the theory of liability is justifiable
reliance under conditions of civilized society
-A person should be protected only when he acts with
providence and in GF, but not when he acts with
negligence or abuse
NOTES: -does not adhere strictly to the 3 elements
-seems to say that Art. 19 can be committed via
negligence
- abuse of duty is not a right
CLASS NOTES
31
Schools and professors cannot just take

students for granted and be indifferent to them,
for without the latter, the former are useless.
Petitioner (university) cannot just give out its
students grades at any time
Can you sue professor for not giving grades on
time? No. Should be the school.
Garciano v. CA
August 10, 1992
FACTS:
Garciano, a teacher at the Immaculate
Concepcion Institute was granted an indefinite leave of
absence to go to Austria. She was later sent a letter
informing that Fr. Wiertzs, the schools founder,
decided to terminate her services (BUT ONLY Board of
Directors has the power to terminate her services). The
Board of Directors reinstated her. The ICI faculty has
reacted acidly her reinstatement. Garciano then filed
a complaint for damages.
ISSUE: WON respondents were liable for damages.
NO
HELD: Whatever loss Garciano may have incurred in
the form of lost earnings was self-inflicted. (Volenti
non fit injuria). Garciano failed to report back in time,
indefinite LOA, refused to sign written employment
contact, did not report for work. Her claim for moral
damages under Art 21 also fails. The provision, being
based on equity, it may only be invoked by
someone who comes to court with clean hands. In
this case, Garciano was also at fault. She did not
comply with the order to return to work.
CLASS NOTE
Respondents did not physically prevent her
from working
Teachers were simply exercising Right to
speech, right to dissent from boards decision
Board ordered her to report to work!
Barons Marketing Corp. v. CA

February 9, 1998
FACTS: Phelps Dodge appointed Barons as one of its
dealers of electrical wires and cables.
Barons

2008
purchased items on credit, which it sold to MERALCO.
Barons asked if it can pay its outstanding account in
monthly installments but Phelps declined. Phelps filed
a complaint to recover the amount. In its answer,
Barons admitted purchasing the items but denied the
amount. It also stated that it suffered injury to its
reputation. (damages as result of creditors abuse;
HOW ABUSE? Rejection, considering relationship of
the parties)
ISSUE: WON Barons was entitled to damages. NO
HELD: Phelps had legitimate reasons for rejecting
Barons offer and instituting the action for collection. A
person who, in exercising his rights, does not act in
an abusive manner is not deemed to have acted in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs, or
public policy as to violate Article 21. In this case, it
is plain to see that its a mere exercise of rights, and not
an abuse thereof.
Art. 19 prescribes a primordial limitation on all rights by
setting certain standards that must be observed in the
exercise thereof.
Citing Tolentino:
Test of Abuse of Right: modern jurisprudence does
not permit an act although lawful is anti-social.
An abuse of right exists when it is exercised for
the ONLY PURPOSE of prejudicing or injuring another
Acts which without legitimate purpose cause
damage to another violate the concept of social
solidarity which considers law as rational and just.
Every abnormal exercise of a right, contrary to its
socio-economic purpose is an abuse which will give rise
to liability.
The exercise of a right must be in accordance with
the purpose for which it has established, and must not
be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be NO
INTENTION TO INJURE ANOTHER.
BF not proven (that Phelps just wanted to

directly deal with Meralco); Rejection of offer of
payment is not an abuse of right
BPI v. CA
FACTS: Atty. Marasigans credit card was denied
at Caf Adriatico after he failed to pay his
outstanding balance. One of his guests had to pay
the bill. He sued BPI for damages claiming that he
had an agreement with BPI and that he sent a
check to BPI to cover the balance and future bills
in exchange for non-suspension of his credit card.
TC: in favor of Marasigan. BPI abused its right to
suspend or cancel the card because it did not
mention to Marasigan that his card will be
suspended despite several communciations.
CA: Affirmed
ISSUE: WON BPI abused its right to suspend the
card.
HELD: No.
1. The terms and conditions of the contract
were clear=automatic suspension for failure to
pay outstanding balance after 30 days from
original bill.
=automatic cancellation after 60 days
2. Marasigan was not able to comply with their
agreement. He issued a postdated check.
Settled doctrine: check is not a substitute for
money.
3. Elements of Art. 19:
1. there is a legal right or duty
2. which is exercised in bad faith
3. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another
BF (on BPIs part) was not proven. GF presumed.
CLASS NOTE
Violate concept of social solidarity
32
BPI did not capriciously and arbitrarily

canceled the use of the card. It gave Marasigan
a chance to settle his account.
There is no need for BPI to notify Marasigan of
the suspension or cancellation. Their contract
provides for automatic suspension or cancellation.
The underlying basis for the award of tort damages
is the premise that an individual was injured in
contemplation of the law.
CLASS NOTE
There was no arbitrariness on the part of BPI.
Damnum absque injuria; there was damage
but no injury (Custodio vs. CA)
B. Acts Contra Mores

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damage.
CLASS NOTE
Art. 21 is the actual catch-all provision
according to Sangco.
1. Elements
Ruiz v. Secretary of National Defense
December 28, 1963
FACTS: A contract was executed between Allied
Technologies and the Republic of the Philippines to
build the Veterans Memorial Hospital. The construction
of the hospital was terminated. Ruiz and Herrera,
together with Panlillo, were the architects of the building
but only Panlillo was recognized. Ruiz and Herrera
citing Article 21, sued to be recognized as the architects
of the hospital.
ISSUE: WON Article 21 was applicable. NO

2008
HELD: Article 21 contemplates a situation where a
person has a legal right and such right is violated
by another in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policy. It presupposes losses or
injury, material or otherwise, which one may suffer
as a result of said violation. A judicial declaration of
professional prestige is unnecessary because a brilliant
professional is respected even without a court
declaration.
Art. 21-injury refers not only to any indeterminate
right or property, but also to honor or credit. [as cited in
Tolentino]
Albenson v. CA, supra.

FACTS: Baltao case.
ISSUE: WON there was a violation of Article 21.
HELD: No. The question of whether or not there was
abuse of rights, resulting in damages under Article 20
and 21 or other applicable provision of law depends on
the circumstances of each case.
The elements of Article 21 are:
1. There is an act which is legal
2. But which is contrary to morals, good custom,
public order, or public policy
3. And it is done with intent to injure
2. Examples
a.
Breach of Promise to Marry,
Seduction, and Sexual Assault
CLASS NOTES
Who is Agonciila? Unmarried woman of chaste
character
Seduction of Agoncilla- actionable under A 21,
crime if under 18 years old, moral wrong
No seduction if promise came after Agoncilla
became pregnant
Wassmer v. Velez
December 26, 1964
FACTS:
Wassmer and Velez were about to get
married. However, two days before the wedding, Velez
wrote a note stating that they would have to postpone

the wedding because his mother was opposed to it. A
day before the wedding, he wired Wassmer a note
saying that he would return soon. He never showed up
again. Wassmer sued for damages.
ISSUE: WON Velez can be held liable for damages.
HELD: YES. This is not a case of mere breach of
promise to marry. MERE BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY
IS NOT AN ACTIONABLE WRONG. But to formally set a
wedding and go through all the above-described
preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the
matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different.
This is PALPABLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY CONTRARY TO GOOD
CUSTOMS for which Velez must be held answerable in
damages in accordance with Article 21.
Tanjanco v. CA
December 17, 1966
FACTS: Tanjanco, courted the Santos, both being of
adult age. In consideration of Tanjanco's promise of
marriage, Santos consented to sexual intercourse.
Tanjanco succeeded in having carnal access with
Santos until Dec. 1959. As a result, Santos got
pregnant. To avoid embarrassment, Santos resigned
from her job. Santos then sued Tanjanco for damages.
ISSUE: WON Tanjanco was liable for damages. NO
HELD: To constitute seduction there must in all cases
be some sufficient promise or inducement and the
woman must yield because of the promise or other
inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust
and the intercourse is from mutual desire, there is no
seduction. In this case, Santos was of age. Also, she
maintained sexual relations with each other for one
year. Such conduct is incompatible with the idea of
seduction.
CLASS NOTES
Issue of deceit: Deceit can come in many
forms and can result in attraction (so there is
no moral seduction.)
33
Critique of Tanjanco: Seduction in this case

only covers the initial sexual contact.
Rule in Buenaventura: For seduction to be

actionable, there must be deception and the
woman must have yielded because of the
inducement.
There is no seduction when there is mutual

desire and the opportunity was merely
afforded to the woman.
Code commission damages for seduction
CA misapplied the example.
Seduction: 1. inducement by deceit, 2. yield

because of that
Sir: as if seduction can be ratified if court takes into
consideration time and frequency and subsequent
sexual acts
Baksh v. CA
February 19, 1993
FACTS: Baksh, an Iranian, courted Gonzales. She
accepted his love on the condition that they would get
married. When Baksh visited her home, Gonzales
parents allowed them to sleep together. Baksh then
forced her to live with him. He beat her. Gonzales later
found out that Baksh was already married. Gonzales
sued for damages.
ISSUE: WON Baksh was liable for damages. YES
HELD: If a man's promise to marry is the proximate
cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual
congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of
marrying her and that the promise was only a ploy to
obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the
award of damages pursuant to Article 21. This is not
because of such promise to marry but because of the
fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her
honor and reputation that followed. It is essential that
such injury should have been committed in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy. In this case, Gonzales was a victim of moral
seduction.
On Art. 21: designed to expand the concept of torts or
QD in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal
remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is

2008
impossible for human foresight to specifically
enumerate and punish in the statue of torts.
CLASS NOTES
Judicial notice that the cherished possession
of every single Filipina is her virginity
If the man never intended to marry the woman
BUT STILL promised to marry her, it would be
equivalent to inducement and he would be
liable under A21
Bunag, Jr. v. CA
July 10, 1992
FACTS: Bunag brought Zenaida Cirilo to a motel
where he raped her. He then brought her to his
grandmothers house where they lived together as
husband and wife for 21 days. Bunag and Cirilo then
filed for a marriage license. Bunag then withdrew his
application. Cirilo filed for a complaint for damages for
breach of promise to marry.
ISSUE: WON Bunag was liable for damages. YES
HELD: A breach of promise to marry per se is not
actionable, except where the plaintiff has actually
incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary
incidents thereof. However, the award of moral
damages is allowed in cases specified in or
analogous to those provided in Article 2219.
Correlatively, under Article 21, any person who
willfully causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs,
or public policy shall compensate the latter for
moral damages.
In this case, Bunags actions constitute acts contrary to
morals and good customs.
Compare this case with Tanjanco

In this case, Bunag just wanted to marry Cirilo
to ESCAPE LIABILITY (so promise to marry
BUT NO INTENT TO MARRY so actionable)
Constantino v. Mendez
May 14, 1992
FACTS:
Constantino and Mendez met at Tonys
Restaurant, where she was a waitress.
Mendez
professed his love during their first date. Through a
promise of marriage, he succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with Constantino. Mendez then confessed
that he was married. Despite this, they had repeated
sexual contact. Constantino got pregnant. She then
sued for recognition of her unborn child and damages
for breach of promise to marry.
HELD: Mere sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis

for recovery. Damages should only be awarded if
sexual intercourse is NOT A PRODUCT OF
VOLUNTARINESS AND MUTUAL DESIRE.
In this case,
Constantino was already 28 years old.
More
importantly, she admitted that SHE WAS ATTRACTED TO
MENDEZ. Their repeated sexual intercourse indicates
that passion, and not the alleged promise of marriage,
was the moving force that made her submit herself to
Mendez.
CLASS NOTE
This case is similar to say Tanjanco.
Even if there is deceit but the deceit resulted in
attraction of the woman to the man, then there
will be no more seduction.
CLASS NOTE
ISSUE: WON Quimiguing had cause of action. YES

HELD: Independently of the right to support the child
she was carrying, Quimiguing herself had a cause of
action for damages. A victim of rape may recover
moral damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code. It
is also supported by Article 2219.
FACTS: Quimiguing and Icao, a married man, were

neighbors. Icao succeeded in having carnal intercourse
with Quimiguing several times through force and
CLASS NOTE
Sexual assault = rape
There was a criminal action for rape in this
case
Pe v. Pe
May 30, 1962
FACTS: Alfonso Pe, a married man and a collateral
relative, frequented Lolitas house on the pretext that he
wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary.
Alfonso and Lolita then fell in love. Lolita's parents
heard about the affair (exchange of notes, trysts in
different barrios) so they refused to let them see each
other. Lolita left the house and disappeared. Lolitas
relatives filed an action for damages.
ISSUE: WON Alfonso was liable for damages. YES
HELD: Alfonso, a married man, seduced Lolita through
trickery to the extent that she fell in love with him.
Alfonso committed an INJURY TO LOLITA'S FAMILY IN A
MANNER CONTRARY TO MORALS , GOOD CUSTOMS AND
PUBLIC POLICY AS CONTEMPLATED IN ARTICLE 21 of the
new Civil Code.
Quimiguing v. Icao
July 31, 1970
34
intimidation. She became pregnant. Quimiguing sued

for damages and support.
ISSUE: WON Mendez was liable for damages. NO
RULE: Generally, a breach of promise to marry is NOT

PER SE actionable EXCEPT WHERE PLAINTIFF HAS
ACTUALLY INCURRED EXPENSES FOR THE WEDDING AND
THE NECESSARY INCIDENTS THEREOF
CLASS NOTE
The lower court presented a more romantic
version of the love story
Both Alfonso and Lolita were of age
b. Malicious Prosecution

2008
Que v. IAC
January 13, 1989
FACTS: Que filed a complaint for estafa against
Nicolas because of the checks the latter issued as
payment for canvass strollers were dishonored. Nicolas
allegedly did not continue payment because of the
defective canvass strollers which he never returned to
Que. The charge was dismissed in the fiscal level.
Nicolas filed a complaint for malicious prosecution.
ISSUE: WON Que was guilty of malicious prosecution.
NO.
HELD: Neither of them is GUILTY OF MALICE. To
constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof
that the prosecution was:
1. Prompted by a sinister design to vex and
humiliate a person
2. Initiated deliberately by the defendant
3. Knowing that his charges were false and
groundless.
The presence of probable cause signifies as a legal
consequence the absence of malice. ONE CANNOT BE
HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR MALICIOUSLY INSTITUTING
A PROSECUTION WHERE HE ACTED WITH PROBABLE
CAUSE.
General Rule: one cannot be held liable in damages for

maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted
with Probable Cause. In other words, a suit will lie only
in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on
without probable cause.
If the charge, although false, was made with an
honest belief in its truth and justice, and there were
reasonable grounds on which such a belief could be
founded, the accusation could not be held to have been
false in the legal sense.
To constitute MP, there must be proof that the
prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex
and humiliate a person that it was initiated deliberately
by the defendant knowing that his charges were false
and groundless. Concededly, the mere act of submitting
a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make
one liable for MP.
CLASS NOTE
Dismissal of the case does not automatically
give rise to a cause of action for malicious
prosecution
If there is probable cause, there is no malice
Drilon v. CA
April 20, 2001
FACTS: A letter complaint sent to Drilon resulted in an
order to investigate several individuals, including
Adaza, for their participation in the failed Dec. 89 coup.
The preliminary investigation stated that there was
probable cause to hold respondents for the crime of
rebellion with murder and frustrated murder. Adaza
filed a complaint for damages against Drilon for
malicious prosecution.
ISSUE: WON Drilon et al was guilty of malicious
prosecution. NO.
HELD: There is no malicious prosecution in this case
because the presence of probable cause signifies the
absence of malice.
*MEMORIZE! MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: AN ACTION FOR
DAMAGES BROUGHT BY ONE AGAINST 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 OTHER PROCEEDING IN FAVOR OF
THE DEFENDANT THEREIN. THE GIST OF THE ACTION OF
THE PULLING OF LEGAL PROCESS IN FORCE, REGULARLY,
FOR THE MERE PURPOSE OF VEXATION OR INJURY.
TO CONSTITUTE MP, THERE MUST BE PROOF THAT THE

PROSECUTION WAS PROMPTED BY A SINISTER DESIGN TO
VEX AND HUMILIATE A PERSON, AND THAT IT WAS INITIATED
DELIBERATELY BY THE DEFENDANT KNOWING THAT HIS
CHARGES WERE FALSE AND GROUNDLESS. CONCEDEDLY,
THE MERE ACT OF SUBMITTING A CASE TO THE
AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE
LIABLE FOR MP.
3 ELEMENTS OF MP:
35
1. THE FACT OF THE PROSECUTION AND THE FURTHER

FACT
THAT
THE
DEFENDANT
WAS
HIMSELF
THE
PROSECUTOR AND THAT THE ACTION FINALLY TERMINATED
WITH AN ACQUITTAL.
2. THAT IN BRINGING THE ACTION, THE PROSECUTOR
ACTED WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE
3. THAT THE PROSECUTOR WAS ACTUATED OR IMPELLED
BY A LEGAL MALICE THAT IS BY IMPROPER OR SINISTER
MOTIVE
Once cannot be held liable for maliciously instituting a
prosecution where one has acted with probable cause.
WHY? coz it would be a very great discouragement to
public justice, if prosecutors, who had tolerable ground
of suspicion, were liable to be sued at law when their
indictment miscarried.
A suit for MP will lie only in cases where a legal
prosecution has been carried on without probable
cause.
CLASS NOTES
Reminder: memorize the definition of
malicious prosecution.
There is no malicious prosecution because
none of the three elements were present (not
terminated with an acquittal, Drilon acted with
probable cause as found in PI, no sinister
motive could be imputed).
If there is probable cause, there is no malice.
Take note of the statutory basis of malicious
prosecution.
Hernandez case ruling:
- If doubtful or difficult question of law is
applied the law always accords to public
officials the presumption of good faith
- This is not applicable if the doctrine is clear
enough.
Globe Mackay v. CA, supra

FACTS: Tobias was alleged to be the #1 suspect for the
fraudulent transactions he allegedly uncovered. He was
illegally dismissed and Hendry filed 6 criminal
complaints against him although the findings of the

2008
Police Chief Document Examiner absolved him from
guilt. All the complaints were dismissed in the fiscal
level.
2.
ISSUE: WON there was malicious prosecution. YES
3.
HELD: The mere dismissal by the fiscal of the

criminal complaint is not a ground for an award of
damages for malicious prosecution if there is no
competent evidence to show that the complainant
acted in bad faith. (Even if still in the fiscal level, if
acted with BF then liable for damages)
However, in this case, there was a malicious intent as
shown by the facts:
1. The complaints were filed during the pendency
of the illegal dismissal case (2 of which were
refilled with Judge Advocate Generals office of
the AFP to subject Tobias to military courts),
2. The threat of further suits by Hendry (that
theyll be willing to file hundreds of suits
against him just to find him liable)
3. The filing of the cases despite the police
reports exculpating Tobias
4. The eventual dismissal of the cases
CLASS NOTE
Competent proof of bad faith in filing the suit is
essential.
Cited Manila Gas definition of Malicious
prosecution
the prosecutor, and that the action was

finally terminated with an acquittal
That in bringing the action, the prosecutor
acted without probable cause
The prosecutor was actuated or impelled
by legal malice.
FACTS: the 3 Baltao case where funds for check was

demanded by the company from the father Baltao
ISSUE: WON there was malicious prosecution. NO
HELD: The MERE ACT SUBMITTING a case to the
authorities for prosecution (only fiscal level) DOES NOT
MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
The elements of malicious prosecution are:
1.
The fact that the prosecution and the

further fact that the defendant was himself
Gross negligence can prove bad faith.

Bad faith = gross negligence. No gross
negligence in this case. It was an innocent
mistake.
Cited Manila Gas definition of malicious
prosecution and Que for probable cause
Manila Gas v. CA
October 30, 1980
FACTS: Manila Gas installed additional appliances and
gas service connections in Ongsips compound. Since
no gas consumption was registered in the meter, Manila
Gas issued instructions to change the gas meter.
Coronal then went to the compound and changed the
meter without informing Ongsip. Coronal returned in
the afternoon and took pictures. When Ongsip asked
about it, he was told to just go to the office. In the
office, he was told of the existence of a jumper and was
threatened with deportation. A complaint for qualified
theft was filed against Ongsip but it was later dismissed.
Ongsip then filed a complaint for damages
HELD: To constitute malicious prosecution, there must

be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a
sinister design to vex and humiliate a person that it was
initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his
charges were false and groundless. THE MERE ACT OF
SUBMITTING
A
CASE
TO
THE
AUTHORITIES
FOR
PROSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. However, in this case, the
circumstances of the case showed that there was

malicious intent in the filing of the complaint for qualified
theft.
36
Dismissal of qualified theft case in fiscal level

only still possible to file MP.
If the case only reached fiscal level
GEN RULE: no MP
EXCEPTION: if BF, with Malicious intent
CLASS NOTE
ISSUE: WON there was malicious prosecution. YES
Albenson v. CA, supra
CLASS NOTE
c. Public Humiliation
Patricio v. Leviste
April 26, 1989
FACTS: Leviste smashed a beer bottle on the table
causing his hand to bleed. He then approached
Patricio, a Catholic priest, and slapped him. Patricio
filed a complaint for slander by deed which was
dismissed. He then filed for damages.
ISSUE: WON Leviste was liable for damages. YES.
HELD: Article 2219 applies. The act of slapping was
contrary to morals and good customs and caused
Patricio mental anguish, moral shock, wounded feelings
and social humiliation.
On Moral Damages: The fact that no AD or CD was
proven before the TC, does not adversely affect the
petitioners right to recover MD.
MD may be awarded in appropriate cases referred to in
the chapter on human relations of the CC (Arts. 19-36),
without need of proof that the wrongful act complained
of has caused any physical injury upon the
complainant.
THE REASON UNDERLYING THE AWARD OF DAMAGES
UNDER ART. 21, IS TO COMPENSATE THE INJURED PARTY
FOR THE MORAL INJURY CAUSED UPON HIS PERSON. (from
report of the code)
CLASS NOTE
Art 21 applies to even a slap in the face
Grand Union v. Espino

December 28, 1979

2008
FACTS: Jose Espino forgot to pay for a cylindrical rat
tail file when he left Grand Union Supermarket. He was
approached by the guard and made to file an incident
report. Espino offered to pay for the file but instead, his
money was taken as an incentive to the guards for
apprehending pilferers. A lot of people witnessed the
incident.
ISSUE: WON Espino can claim damages. YES.
HELD: Espino was falsely accused of shoplifting.
Defendants willfully caused loss or injury to the plaintiff
in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public
policy making them amenable to damages under Arts.
19 and 21 in relation to Art. 2219 of the Civil Code.
It is against morals, GC, and public policy to humiliate,
embarrass and degrade the dignity of a person.
Everyone must respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.
(Art. 26). And one must act with justice, give everyone
his due and observe honesty and GF (Art. 19).
PURPOSE
OF
MD: ESSENTIALLY INDEMNITY OR
REPARATION, BOTH PUNISHMENT OR CORRECTION
NOT INTENDED TO ENRICH A COMPLAINANT AT THE
EXPENSE OF A DEFENDANT; THEY ARE AWARDED ONLY TO
ENABLE THE INJURED PARTY TO OBTAIN MEANS, DIVERSION
OR AMUSEMENTS THAT WILL SERVE TO ALLEVIATE THE
MORAL SUFFERING HE HAS UNDERGONE, BY REASON OF
THE DEFENDANTS CULPABLE ACTION.
IN OTHER WORDS: THE AWARD OF MD IS AIMED AT
RESTORATION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE POSSIBLE, OF
THE SPIRITUAL STATUS QUO ANTE, AND IT MUST BE
PROPORTIONATE TO THE SUFFERING INFLICTED.
PURPOSE OF ED OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES: IMPOSED BY

WAY OF EXAMPLE OR CORRECTION FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD,
IN ADDITION TO THE MORAL, TEMPERATE, LIQUIDATED OR
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES (ART. 2229).
CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT; THE
COURT WILL DECIDE WON THEY COULD BE ADJUDICATED.
CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE AWARDED FOR WANTON
ACTS, THAT THEY ARE PENAL IN CHARACTER GRANTED NOT
BY WAY OF COMPENSATION BUT AS A PUNISHMENT TO THE
OFFENDER AND AS A WARNING TO OTHERS AS A SORT OF
DETERRENT.
Carpio vs. Valmonte
September 9, 2004
FACTS: Valmonte, a wedding coordinator, was publicly
accused by the brides aunt, Carpio, of stealing her
jewelry. She was searched and questioned by the
guard and the police. Carpio refused to apologize so
Valmonte filed a suit for damages.
ISSUE: WON Valmonte should be awarded damages.
YES
HELD: Carpio willfully caused Valmonte injury in a
manner contrary to morals and good customs.
Although Carpio had the right to know the identity of the
thief, she should not have openly accused Valmonte
without further proof.
Moral damages are awarded whenever the defendants
wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the
plaintiffs physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury specified or analogous to those provided in Article
2219 of the Civil Code.
To warrant recovery of damages, there must be both a
right of action, for a wrong inflicted by the defendant
and the damage resulting therefrom to the plaintiff.
Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong,
does not constitute a cause of action.
Arts. 20 & 21 provide the legal bedrock for the award of
damages.
MD not awarded to penalize defendant or to enrich
complainant, but to enable the latter to obtain means,
diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the
moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of
defendants culpable action.
In any case, award of MD must be proportionate to the
sufferings inflicted.
CLASS NOTE
Manner of attacking without any amount of
proof- contrary to morals and good customs.
37
d. Unjustified Dismissal
Quisaba v. Sta. Inez
August 30, 1974
FACTS: Quisaba, an internal auditor of Sta. Ines, was
ordered by Robert Hyde, the VP, to purchase logs for
the companys plant. Quisaba refused because it
wasnt part of his job. As a result, he was demoted.
Quisaba filed a complaint for damages, termination pay,
and attorneys fees. Sta. Ines said that the NLRC had
jurisdiction.
ISSUE: WON the regular courts had jurisdiction. YES
HELD: Quisabas complaint was grounded not on his
dismissal but rather ON THE MANNER OF HIS DISMISSAL
AND ITS CONSEQUENT EFFECTS. IF THE DISMISSAL WAS
DONE ANTI-SOCIALLY OR OPPRESSIVELY, THEN THE
RESPONDENTS VIOLATED ARTICLE 1701, which prohibits
acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the
other, and Article 21, which makes a person liable for
damages if he willfully causes loss or injury to another
in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or
public policy.
CLASS NOTE
Standard of dismissal laid down in this case:
dismissal was done anti-socially or
oppressively.
Medina v. Castro-Bartolome
September 11, 1982
FACTS: Cosme de Aboitiz, President and CEO of
Pepsi, shouted and cursed at the plaintiffs in front of
their subordinate employees. The petitioners filed a
case of oral defamation against de Aboitiz. It was
dismissed since the jurisdiction of claims was
transferred from the CFI to the Labor Arbiters.
ISSUE: WON the Labor Code applies. NO
HELD: The plaintiffs did not allege any unfair labor
practice. It was an action for damages for tortious
acts allegedly committed by the defendants. Such

2008
being the case, the governing statute is the Civil Code
and not the Labor Code.
ISSUE: WON the Amaros action under Article 21

and/or 27 would prosper. YES
HELD: The Amaros claim for relief was based on the
Chief of Polices refusal to give assistance, which was
his duty to do as an officer of the law. What is
required under Art. 27 is that the refusal must be
without just cause.
B. Unfair Competition
Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural or industrial
enterprises or in labor through the use of force,
intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust,
oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to
aright of action by the person who thereby suffers
damage.
IX. OTHER TORTS

A. Dereliction of Duty
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss
because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty
may file an action for damages and other relief against
the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary
administrative action that may be taken.
CLASS NOTE
Elements:
(1) material or moral loss
(2) public servants refusal or neglect to perform duty
(3) without just cause
Amaro v. Sumaguit
July 31, 1962
FACTS: Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot near the
city government building. The following day, he along
with his father and witnesses, went to the Chief of
Police to seek assistance but were not rendered
assistance. The city attorney was about to file an
information for illegal discharge of firearms against the
assailant. However, the Chief of Police started to harass
the Amaros, coercing them to sign an affidavit absolving
the police officers of any liability. The Amaros then filed
a suit for damages.
CLASS NOTE
Unfair competition: designed to place your
products in a better light.
Should be in the context of giving advantage to
one party (eg. derogatory commercials)
C. Violation of Human Dignity

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbor
and other persons. The following and similar acts,
though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention, and
other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of anothers residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from
his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth,
physical defect, or other personal condition.
St. Louis v. CA
November 14, 1984
FACTS: St. Louis Realty caused to be published an ad
depicting the Arcadio Family in front of Dr. Aramils
residence, making it appear that the house was owned
by the Arcadios. Aramil protested. Plaintiff stopped
38
publication, but did not rectify. Aramil extra judicially

demanded damages. This is when St Louis Realty
published a new ad showing the Arcadios in their real
home. Aramil filed complaint for damages claiming
mental anguish and reduction in income. TC awarded
actual and moral damages. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: WON acts and omissions of the firm fall under
Art. 26
HELD: Yes. St. Louis Realty was grossly negligent in
mixing up the residences. It never made any written
apology and explanation of the mix-up. Persons who
know Dr. Aramil were confused by the distorted
lingering impression that he was renting his residence.
His private life was mistakenly and unnecessarily
exposed. He suffered diminution of income and mental
anguish.
Damages fixed by TC are sanctioned by Arts. 2200,
2208 and 2219 of the Civil Code. Art. 2219 allows moral
damages for acts and actions mentioned in Art. 26.
CLASS NOTE
This is an action for damages for wrongful
advertisement shows that Art 26 is very
broad.
Concepcion v. CA
January 31, 2000
FACTS: Florence Concepcion, lessor of the Nicolas
spouses, joined Nestor Nicolas business venture by
contributing capital. Rodrigo, Florences brother-in-law,
angrily accosted Nestor at the latters apartment and
accused him of conducting an adulterous relationship
with Florence. As a result, Nestor felt extreme
embarrassment. He could not face his neighbors
anymore. Florence also backed out of the venture, so
that the business declined. Nestors wife started to
doubt his fidelity and even threatened to leave him. The
spouses filed a civil suit against Rodrigo for damages.
ISSUE: WON spouses can recover damages
HELD: Yes. Examples mentioned in Art. 2219 and 26
are not exclusive but are merely examples and do not

2008
preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages
therefore are allowable for actions against a persons
dignity. Under Art. 2217, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendants wrongful act or omission.
*Philosophy behind Art. 26: THE TOUCHSTONE OF
EVERY SYSTEM OF LAW, OF THE CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION
OF EVERY COUNTRY IS HOW FAR IT DIGNIFIES MAN. THUS,
UNDER THIS ARTICLE, THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS ARE AMPLY
PERFECTED AND DAMAGES ARE PROVIDED FOR VIOLATIONS
OF A PERSONS DIGNITY, PERSONALITY, PRIVACY AND
PEACE OF MIND.
Human personality must be exalted. Sacredness of

human personality is the concomitant consideration of
every plan for Human Amelioration.
PECUNIARY CONSEQUENCES WHICH THE LAW IMPOSES FOR

THE BREACH OF SOME DUTY OR THE VIOLATION OF SOME
RIGHT.
Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded

in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury
sustained, whereas moral damages may be invoked
when the complainant has experienced mental anguish,
serious anxiety, physical suffering, moral shock, and so
forth, and had furthermore shown that these were the
proximate result of the offenders wrongful act or
omission.
CLASS NOTES
Important for the definition of damages
For actual damages, the party making claim
must present best evidence.
39
exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The

assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones,
is left to the discretion of the court, according to the
circumstances of each case.
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation,
one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages.
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall
comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but
also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain.
Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered:
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases
of temporary or permanent personal injury;
(2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or
commercial credit.
X. DAMAGES
Custodio v. CA
CLASS NOTE
Damages is not limited to quasi-delicts
(also includes contracts, quasi-contracts
and delicts).
I. Definition and Concept

Art. 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be
respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in
Article 1157.
Art. 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
People v. Ballesteros
FACTS: Murder, through gunshot wounds, question amt
of damages awarded
*DAMAGES may be defined as THE PECUNIARY
COMPENSATION, RECOMPENSE, OR SATISFACTION FOR AN
INJURY SUSTAINED, OR AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSED, THE
FACTS: built Adobe fence on the right of way

There is a material distinction between damages and
injury. INJURY is the ILLEGAL INVASION OF A LEGAL
RIGHT; DAMAGE is the LOSS, HURT, OR HARM WHICH
RESULTS FROM THE INJURY; and DAMAGES are the
RECOMPENSE OR COMPENSATION
DAMAGES SUFFERED.
AWARDED
FOR
THE
CLASS NOTES
Important for the distinction between damage,
injury and damages
Mere fact that plaintiffs suffer damage doesnt
mean that theres right of action
To warrant recovery of damages:
-Legal right on the part of plaintiff
-Injury caused to plaintiff
II. Kinds of Damages

A. Actual or compensatory
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in
order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or
CLASS NOTES
It is expressly provided for in Art. 2199 that
there should be proof of pecuniary damages
for AD or CD
Take note of what indemnity is included in Art.
2200
Art. 2205 provides for the kinds of AD which
the plaintiff may recover
Algarra v. Sandejas
FACTS: Plaintiff Algarra received personal injuries from
a collision with the defendant Saldejas automobile due
to the negligence of the defendant, who was driving the
car. Plaintiff sold the products of a distillery as a
commission agent and had about twenty regular
customers, who purchased his wares in small
quantities, necessitating regular and frequent deliveries.
Being unable to attend to their wants during their wants
during the two months he was incapacitated due to the
accident, his regular customers turned their trade to
other competing agents.

2008
HELD: Under both the Spanish Civil Code and
American law of damages, actual damages for a
negligent act or omission are confined to those which
were foreseen or might have been foreseen or those
which were the natural and probable consequences or
the direct and immediate consequences of the act or
omission.
In this jurisdiction, the author of a negligent act or
omission which causes damage to another is obliged to
repair the damage done. No distinction is made
between damage caused maliciously and intentionally
and damages caused through mere negligence in so far
as civil liability is concerned. Nor is the defendant
required to do more than repair the damage done or to
put the plaintiff in the same position that he would have
been in had the damage not been inflicted.
This is practically equivalent to compensatory or actual
damages as those terms are used in American law.
*THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN AWARDING ACTUAL
DAMAGES IS TO REPAIR THE WRONG THAT HAS BEEN DONE,
TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INJURY INFLICTED, AND NOT TO
IMPOSE PENALTY.
Pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, are not
elements of actual or compensatory damages in this
jurisdiction. Aside from this exception, the measure of
damages in this country and in the US is arrived at by
the same evidence.
Loss of profits of an established business which was
yielding fairly steady returns at the time of its
interruption by defendants wrongful act is not so
speculative or contingent that a court of justice may
refuse to allow the plaintiff any damages at all.
1. Kinds
PNOC v. CA
FACTS: The M/V Ma. Efigenia XV, owned by
respondent Ma. Efigenia Fishing Corp. collided with the
vessel Petroparcel which at the time was owned by the
Luzon Stevedoring Co. The Board of Marine Inquiry
rendered a decision finding the Petroparcel at fault and
thus the respondent filed an action for damages against
Luzon Stevedoring and the Petroparcels captain.
During the pendency of the case, petitioner PNOC

acquired the Petroparcel and was substituted in place
of Luzon Stevedoring in the complaint.
HELD: ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE THOSE
AWARDED IN SATISFACTION OF, OR IN RECOMPENSE FOR
LOSS OR INJURY SUSTAINED. THEY PROCEED FROM A
SENSE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ARE DESIGNED TO
REPAIR THE WRONG THAT HAS BEEN DONE, TO
COMPENSATE FOR THE INJURY INFLICTED AND NOT TO
IMPOSE A PENALTY .
In actions based on QD-AD include all the natural and

probable consequences of the act or omission
complained of.
2 kinds of AD or CD:
1. The loss of what a person already possesses
(dao emergente)
2. the failure to receive as a benefit that which
would have pertained to him (lucro cesante)
On Nominal Damages:
When awarded: in the absence of competent proof
on the AD suffered-entitled to ND, which the law says is
adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which
has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be
vindicated and recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered.
-awarded in every obligation arising from law, contracts,
quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law and
QDs, or in every case where property right has been
invaded.
ND are damages in NAME only and NOT IN FACT.
Where these are allowed, they are not treated as an
equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply in recognition
of the existence of a technical injury.
The amount to be awarded as ND shall be equal or
at least commensurate to the injury sustained
considering the concept and purpose of such damages.
CLASS NOTES
The basic rule in recovering AD: it is sufficient
that damages are capable of proof in order to
recover (AD)
40
There should be a record to serve as proof

presented before the Court
There are cases which say that providing a list

of expenses is not enoughthere has to be
receipts, etc.PROOF SHOULD BE VERY
FACTUAL
Proof required: reasonable certainty upon

competent proof
Two (2) kinds of AD or CD:

1. Dano emergente-actual
2. Lucro cesante-loss of profit
Integrated Packing v. CA
Petitioner Integrated Packing Corporation (IPC) and
respondent Fil-Anchor Paper entered into an
agreement whereby Fil-Anchor bound itself to deliver
3,450 reams of printing paper to IPC, to be paid within
30 to 90 days from delivery. Later, IPC entered into a
contract with the Philippine Appliance Corporation
(Philacor) to print three volumes of Philacor Cultural
Books.
However, IPC encountered problems paying Fil-Anchor
and became heavily indebted to the latter. This led to
Fil-Anchor suspending deliveries of paper to IPC. Thus,
out of the agreed upon 3,450 reams, only 1097 were
delivered., despite demand by IPC for Fil-Anchor to
deliver the balance.
Meanwhile, IPC entered into an additional printing
contract with Philacor. Unfortunately, IPC failed to fully
comply with its contract for the printing of Philacors
books and thus Philacor demanded compensation for
delay and damage suffered.
Because IPC also not able to fully settle its
indebtedness to Fil-Anchor, the latter filed a collection
suit against it. In its counterclaim, IPC alleged that
because Fil-Anchor was only able to deliver 1097
reams of paper it was unable to fulfill its contract with
Philacor and thus failed to realize expected profits.
Indemnification for damages comprehends not only the
loss suffered, that is to say actual damages
(damnum emergens), but also profits which the
obligee failed to obtain (lucrum cessans).

2008
CLASS NOTES
The Court here gave the two kinds CDdano
emergente and lucro cesante
Problem with the evidence presentedmere
estimates
Court disallowed mere estimates because they
are highly speculative and manifestly
hypothetical
CD here was strictly construed
2. Extent
Art. 2201, CC - 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.
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.
Art. 2202, CC - In crimes and quasi-delicts, the
defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the
natural and probable consequences of the act or
omission complained of. It is not necessary that such
damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably
been foreseen by the defendant.
-possible that the exact value (peso) is not known.
PNOC v. CA
FACTS: Collision of 2 vessels
Certainty: to enable an injured party to recover AD or
CD, he is required to prove the actual amount of loss
with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon
competent proof and on the best evidence available.
Burden of Proof: on the party who would be defeated if
no evidence would be presented on either side.
Evidence Required: He must establish his evidence by
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, which means that
the evidence, as a whole, adduced by one side is
superior to that of the other.
Damages are not presumed: damages cannot be
presumed and courts, in making an award must point
out specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring
whatever CD or AD are borne.
41
proceedings of any kind, appropriated Cubas leasehold

rights over the fishpond.
3. Certainty
CLASS
NOTES
Art. 2201 lays down the distinction between
good faith and bad faith (in bad faith
whatever damage happens)
Last sentence of Art. 2202 problematicsome
cases use forseeability as an element of QD
Forseeability:
In elements: may be required
In damages: not required
Reasonable certainty required: allege specific
facts, Present best evidence
Quantum of evidence required: preponderance
of evidence
CLASS NOTES
Problem here with preponderance of evidence
is that it became COMPARATIVEall things
being equal, the person who has more pieces
of evidence wins
What should be the basis: admissibility issue
aside: number and quality of evidence
presented and this is what makes it
preponderant
you should also prove your allegations though
not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt
Subsequently, DBP executed a deed of conditional sale

in favor of Cuba over the same fishpond. However,
Cuba once again was unable to meet the amortizations
stipulated which led to DBP rescinding the deed of
conditional sale and taking possession of not only the
fishpond but also a house Cuba had built next to it as
well, along with all the personal belongings,
machineries, equipment, and tools therein, which
subsequently, it was claimed, went missing.
DBP allegedly also prevented Cuba and her
representatives from feeding the fish already in the
fishpond which led to their loss.
As to the losses Cuba allegedly suffered when DBP
took possession of the fishpond, the court said: Actual
or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but
must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A
court cannot rely on speculation, conjectures, or
guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but
must depend upon competent proof that they have
been suffered by the injured party and on the best
obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. It
must point to specific facts which could afford a basis
for measuring whatever compensatory or actual
damages are borne.
DBP v. CA
Lydia Cuba was the grantee of a fishpond lease
agreement with the government, the rights to which she
assigned to DBP as security for loans the latter
extended to her. After Cuba failed to meet the terms of
payment on the loans, the DBP, without foreclosure
CLASS NOTES
DBPs acquisition of the leasehold rights
wasnt valid
Problem with AD here: Court said AD was
speculative because actual ocular inspection
was done after the filing of the complaint and
that they should have made an inventory
Sir: Just because certain damages were found
out after the filing of the compliant doesnt
make the damages speculative. Besides who
in the provinces makes an inventory of
bangus, etc.
This case shows that you should be ready with
documents
Fuentes, Jr. v. CA

2008
Julieto Malaspina was at a benefit dance when
Alejandro Fuentes, Jr. put his arm on the formers
shoulder saying Before, I saw you with long hair but
now you have a short hair, whereupon Fuentes
stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting knife
and fled.
Subsequently, Fuentes was convicted of murder. During
the trail, Malaspinas sister testified that she incurred
expensed of P8,300 in connection with his death and
the trial court awarded this amount as actual damages.
However, the Supreme Court held that the trial court
was in error to have awarded the P8,300 as actual
damages on the basis of mere testimony of the victims
sister, without any tangible document to support such
claim.
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant is liable for
all damages which are the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained of. To
seek recovery for actual damages it is essential that the
injured party proves the actual amount of loss with
reasonable degree of certainty premised upon
competent proof and on the best evidence available.
Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or
guesswork in determining the fact and amount of
damages.
Of the expenses alleged to have been incurred, the
Court can only give credence to those supported by
receipts and which appear to have been genuinely
expended in connection with the death of the victim.
CLASS NOTES
This case demonstrates how important the
quality of your evidence is (i.e. testimony for
damages by someone who is an interested
party is weak)
Talisay-Silay v. Assosiacion
August 15, 1995
FACTS: On the 15th of February, 1966, the Talisay-Silay
Milling Co. (TSMC) and the Talisay-Silay Industrial
Cooperative Association, Inc. (TSICA) instituted an
action for damages against defendants Asociacion de

Agricultores de Talisay-Silay, Inc. (AATSI), First
Farmers Milling Co., Inc. (FFMCI), Dominador
Agravante and other individual sugar planters. And
Ramon Nolan in his personal and official capacity as
administrator of the Sugar Quota administration,
alleging an illegal transfer of sugar quota allotment or
production allowance from TSMC to FFMCI.
In short, what happened was that instead of having the
sugar forming their export quota milled by TSMC as
they had always done in the past, the defendants had
their sugar milled at FFMCI instead, in violation of
Section 4 of RA 1825, An Act to Provide for the
Allocation, Re-allocation and administration of Absolute
Quota on Sugar, which provides certain requirements
that need to be met before a sugar planters sugar
quota allotment can be transferred from one mill to
another.
This started nearly thirty years of litigation between the
parties. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that the
transfer of their export sugar quota by AATSI and
certain individual planters from TSMC to FFMCI was
illegal and invalid and found the defendants liable to the
plaintiffs for damages.
TC: 15.4 M
CA: reduced it to 1M
ISSUE: WON the extent of the unrealized profits
suffered by the plaintiffs were proven with the certainty
required by law.
HELD: Yes. The rule is that damages consisting of
unrealized profits, frequently referred to as ganancias
frustradas or lucrum cessans, are not granted on the
basis of mere speculation, conjecture or surmise but
rather by reference to some reasonably definite
standard such as market value, established experience
or direct inference from known circumstances.
Uncertainty as to whether or not a claimant suffered
unrealized profits at all, i.e. uncertainty as to the very
fact of injury, will, of course, preclude recovery of this
species of damages. Where, however, it is reasonably
certain that injury consisting of the failure to realize
otherwise reasonably expected profits had been
incurred, uncertainty as to the precise amount of such
42
unrealized profits will not prevent recovery or the award

of damages. The problem then would be ascertainment.
In the instant case, plaintiffs computations as to the
amount of unrealized profit were based on fairly
definite standards utilized by the governmental agency
having relevant administrative jurisdiction over the
subject matter and accounting standards widely
employed in the world of business and commerce.
Combined with credible testimony, these provide
sufficient basis for a reasonable estimate of the
unrealized net income or profit sustained by plaintiffs.
CLASS NOTES
Financias Postradas?
oLost profits
oStandard required by the Court for this:
accounting standards, pricing of Sugar Quota
Administration
When a property is damaged and you claim
AD, PNOC case provides for guidelines on
how to determine value of property (at what
point do you count)
Court here said: value AT TIME OF LOSS. If
this takes into account profits=FMV
Bottom line if FMV-but this can be construed in
a # of ways
Why FMV: Assessed value is lower (thats why
this is being used as basis for tax)
The company in PNOC did differentit took
into account inflation
4. Damage to property
PNOC v. CA
Where goods are destroyed by the wrongful act of the
defendant the plaintiff is entitled to their value at the
time of destruction, that is, normally, the sum of money
which he would have to pay in the market for identical
or essentially similar goods, plus in a proper case
damages for the loss of use during the period before
replacement.

2008
In other words, in the case of profit-earning chattel s,
what has to be assessed is the value of the chattel to its
owner as a going concern at the time and place of the
loss, and this means, at least in the case of ships, that
regard must be had to existing and pending
engagements.
In the instant case, the pieces of documentary evidence
proffered by private respondent with respect to the
items and equipment lost show similar items and
equipment with corresponding prices approximately ten
years after the collision.
NOTES: Rule: amount at the time of the loss. cf
Gatchalian v. Delim (where the girl was given 15k for
plastic surgery)
CLASS NOTES
PNOC gives guidance as to how actual
damages are computed:
1. Price (fair market value) at the time of
loss, not what the price is at the time
of the ruling
2. In PNOC, inflation was taken into
account.
3. If fair market value already includes
the possible contracts, then that is the
value to be used.
shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the

court, unless the deceased on account of permanent
physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no
earning capacity at the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support
according to the provisions of Article 291, the recipient
who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance
by the law of testate or intestate succession, may
demand support from the person causing the death, for
a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to
be fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants
and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral
damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of
the deceased.
CLASS NOTES
Art. 2206 provides for earning capacity which
is NOT equal to actual income
Ramos v. CA
December 29, 1999
FACTS: under a coma because of wrongful intubation
TC: 8k per month from time when moved from hospital
to the time of trial (the 8k was an estimate of the
expenses incurred and proven before time of trial)
CA: reversed, Ramos pay for hospital bills
HELD:
5. Personal Injury and Death

Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by
a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand
pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the
earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity
shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity
Amount of AD recoverable in suits arising from

negligence: should at least reflect THE CORRECT
MINIMUM COST OF PROPER CARE (SA CASE OPTIMAL CARE
FOR THEIR LOVED ONE IN A FACILITY WHICH GENERALLY
SPECIALIZES IN SUCH CARE), not the cost of the care the
family is usually compelled to undertake at home to
avoid bankruptcy (but the CC presents us with
difficulties)
Well-settled rule: that AD which may be claimed by the
plaintiff are those suffered by him as he has duly
43
proved. (problem NATURE of AD: only award for AD

proven up to the time of trial)
Continuing injury: if the amount of damages has not
yet been completely liquidated because the resulting
injury is continuing, then the amount of damages
which should be awarded, if they are to adequately
correspond to the injury caused should be one which
compensates for the pecuniary loss incurred and
proved, up to the time of the trial; and one which would
meet pecuniary loss certain to be suffered but which
could not, from the nature of the case be made with
certainty.
In other words, temperate damages can and should
be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages
in instances where the injury is chronic and continuing
(There is no incompatibility when both AD and TD are
provided for).
CLASS NOTES
According to the Court, the standard is the
correct minimum cost of proper care and not
what they actually spent in order not to
prejudice those who are poor
SC is limited to 8k/month because of the
NATURE OF AD: must be proven
Ramos case is important because AC is not
just those up to the time of trial but also those
certain to be suffered
Lesson here: dramatize plight of your client
If opposition: minimize plight of victim
Gatchalian v. Delim
October 21, 1991
FACTS: Reynalda Gatchalian boarded, as a paying
passenger, a minibus owned by the Delim spouses,
respondents in this case. She was allegedly on her way
to confer with the district supervisor of public schools for
a substitute teachers job.
Later, while the bus was running along the highway, a
snapping sound was suddenly heard and shortly
thereafter, the vehicle bumped a cement flower pot on
the side of the road, went off the road, turned turtle and
fell into a ditch.

2008
Several passengers, including Gatchalian, were injured
and were promptly taken to a hospital for medical
treatment.
The aforementioned events led Gatchalian to file an
action extra contractu to recover compensatory and
moral damages. She alleged in her complaint that her
injuries had left her with a conspicuous white scar on
her forehead, generating mental suffering and feeling of
inferiority on her part.
She also alleged that the scar diminished her facial

beauty and deprived her of opportunities for
employment.
ISSUE: WON the Delims are liable for the cost of
plastic surgery to remove the scar on Gatchalians
forehead.
HELD: Yes. A PERSON IS ENTITLED TO THE PHYSICAL
INTEGRITY OF HIS OR HER BODY; IF THAT INTEGRITY IS
VIOLATED OR DIMINISHED, ACTUAL INJURY IS SUFFERED
FOR WHICH ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE
DUE AND ASSESSABLE . Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled
Sir: technology makes things cheaper but SC

here gave a presumption
Most intriguing is the language of the Court
the longer the scar has been, the more difficult
it is to remove
Gatchalian ruling is OK but the reasoning is
funny
This is still law so women can take advantage
of this
The case also cited Araneta vs. Areglado
where a young boy sued for costs of surgery
for removal of his scar on his face which
caused a degenerative process and inferiority
complex to the boy. Therefore since in this
case it was just a boy, it was easier to remove
the scar. In Reynaldas case, she was older so
SC ASSUMED that removing scar would be
harder
Skewed in favor of the beautiful
Relevance nung snapping sound accdg to
sir: baka naman may turtle kaya nag-turn turtle
ung bus!
to be placed as nearly as possible in the condition that

she was in before the mishap.
People v. Mangahas
July 28, 1999
A SCAR, ESPECIALLY ONE ON THE FACE OF A WOMAN,

RESULTING FROM THE INFLICTION OF INJURY UPON HER, IS
A VIOLATION OF BODILY INTEGRITY, GIVING RISE TO A
FACTS: The accused Rufino Mangahas and the late

Rufino Gestala were drinking at a store near the latters
house when an altercation between the two, allegedly
over the sale of a handgun, ensued and ending with
Gestalas death from three gunshot wounds.
LEGITIMATE CLAIM FOR RESTORATION TO HER CONDITION

ANTE.
CLASS NOTES
This case is always cited to support that
plastic surgery can be the subject of AD.
Nature of action here: breach of contract of
common carrier
Sir: is there a health risk if you have a scar?
So purely aesthetic?
What was the proof offered for the scar?
Expert testimony: alleged cost of 5-10k
Yet SC granted 15k based on a presumption
that plastic surgery would cost more after
several years (SO AD became speculative
AND NOT PROVEN).
During the trial, an aunt of the victim was presented and

testified mainly on the expenses their family incurred as
a result of the death of the victim.
After trial, Mangahas was found guilty sentenced to
reclusion perpetua.
P14, 950 was also awarded for funeral and burial
expenses as well as P28, 890 for food during the vigil,
9th day, 40th day, and 1st year anniversaries of the death
of the victim.
ISSUE: WON the award of damages for funeral, burial,
and food expenses was proper.
44
HELD: Not entirely. Of the expenses allegedly incurred,

the Court can only give credence to those supported by
receipt and which appear to have been genuinely
incurred in connection with the death, wake, or burial of
the victim.
Thus, the Court cannot take account of receipts
showing expenses incurred before the date of the
slaying of the victim; those incurred after a
CONSIDERABLE LAPSE OF TIME FROM THE BURIAL and
which do not have any relation to the death, wake or
burial of the victim; or those incurred for purely
aesthetic or social purposes, such as the lining of the
tomb.
CLASS NOTES
SC-removed from AC what it thought was extravagant
Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Heirs of Andres

Malecdan
December 27, 2002
FACTS: While Andres Malecdan, a 75 year-old farmer,
was crossing the National Highway on his way home
from the form, a Dalin Liner bus stopped to allow him
and his carabao to pass. However, as Malecdan was
crossing the highway, a bus of petitioner Victory Liner
bypassed the Dalin bus and in doing so hit the old man
and his carabao, eventually killing both of them.
The trial court found both the driver and Victory Liner,
Inc. guilty of gross negligence and awarded, among
others, actual damages amounting to P88, 339.
ISSUE: WON the award of P88, 339 in actual damages
is proper.
HELD: No, it is not. To justify an award for actual
damages, there should be proof of the actual amount of
loss incurred in connection with the death, wake or
burial of the victim.
The Court cannot take into account receipts showing
expenses incurred some time after the burial of the
victim, such as expenses relating to the 9th day, 40th day
and 1st year death anniversaries.

2008
45
In the instant case, the trial court awarded P88, 339 as

actual damages. While these are duly supported by
receipts, these included the amount of P5, 90, the cost
of one pig, which had been butchered for the 9 th day
death anniversary. This item cannot be allowed,
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's

compensation and employer's liability laws;
through his counsel, Atty. John Quirante, sued both

Guerrero and PHILAMGEN.
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability

arising from a crime;
PRIMARY Responsibility of employers: for the

negligence of their employees in the performance of
their duties, therefore the injured party may recover
from the employers DIRECTLY, regardless of the
solvency of their employees.
(10) When at least double judicial costs are

awarded;
The trial court found for Dr. Casasola and aside from
awards of actual, moral, and exemplary damages,
ordered PHILAMGEN to pay the plaintiff the amount of
the surety bond equivalent to P120, 000.
On Exemplary Damages: imposed not to enrich one

party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent
against or as a negative incentive to curb socially
deleterious actions.
CLASS NOTES
The Court cherry-picked! Specifically deleted
an item which was too extravagant.
5. Attorneys Fees
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees
and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs,
cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it

just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation must be reasonable.
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has

compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to
incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution
against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's
plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of
household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
CLASS NOTES
Attorneys fees are in the form of damages
(nasa title on damages)
Also in the form of AD
MEMORIZE THIS ARTICLE!
You cant recover outside the listing of 2008
unless there is a stipulation
AS regards the gen rule and exception, sir said
it can be BOTH
Why may one recover attorneys fees under
those listed? person is forced to protect his
interest and for at least double judicial costs,
the person must have done something really
bad AND be liable for a greater degree
Why ED only? Why not for other damages as
well?
What is the rationale for the enumeration? A
person is free to litigate. (Except 2208)
Quirante v. Intermediate Appellate Court

January 31, 1989
FACTS: Dr. Indalecio Casasola had a contract with a
building contractor named Norman Guerrero. The
Philippine American General Assurance Co. Inc.
(PHILAMGEN) acted as bondsman for Guerrero.
In view of Guerreros failure to perform his part of the
contract within the period specified, Dr. Casasola,
PHILAMGEN filed a notice of appeal but the same was

not given due course because it was supposedly filed
out of time. The trial court thereafter issued a writ of
execution.
A petition was filed before the IAC to compel the trial
court to give due course to the appeal. However, the
petition was dismissed and so the case was elevated to
the Supreme Court. In the meantime, Dr. Casasola died
leaving his widow and several children.
After Casasolas death, Quirante filed a motion in the
trial court for the confirmation of his attorneys fees
alleging that there was an oral agreement between him
and the late Dr. Casasola with regard to the said fees
and allegedly confirmed by his widow in writing.
The trial court granted the motion despite opposition
thereto hence the instant petition before the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE: WON the attorneys fees being claimed are the
same attorneys fees contemplated in article 2208 of the
Civil Code.
HELD: No. What is being claimed here as attorneys
fees is different from attorneys fees as an item of
damages provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code,
wherein the award is made in favor of the litigant, not of
his counsel, and the litigant, not his counsel, is the
judgment creditor who may enforce the judgment for
attorneys fees by execution.
Here, the petitioners claims are based on an alleged
contract for professional services, with them as the
creditors and the private respondents as the debtors.
CLASS NOTES
Attorneys fees referred to by Quirante not the
same as attorneys fees in 2208

2008
What the difference?Attys fees in 2208 are

a form of AD and hence need to be proven.
This is not something that goes to the attorney
but to the litigant
7. Interest
Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a
sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the
indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the
contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed
upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal
interest, which is six per cent per annum.
Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be
allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract.
Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part
of the damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated
in the discretion of the court.
Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from
the time it is judicially demanded, although the
obligation may be silent upon this point.
Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon
unliquidated claims or damages, except when the
demand can be established with reasonably certainty.
Crismina Garments v. CA
March 9, 1999
1. Rules on Interest
In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the
Court gave the following guidelines for the application
of the proper interest rates:
With regard particularly to an award of interest in the
concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate
of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed,
as follows:
When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the
payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance
of money, the interest due should be that which may
have been stipulated in writing.
Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal
interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the
absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12%
per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from
judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the

provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or
forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the
amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the
discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum.
No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated
claims or damages except when or until the demand
can be established with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, where the demand is established with
reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from
the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially but
when such certainty cannot be so reasonably
established at the time the demand is made, the
interest shall begin to run only from the date the
judgment of the court is made (at which time the
quantification of damages may be deemed to have
been reasonably ascertained).
The actual base for the computation of legal interest
shall, in any case, be xxx the amount finally adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of
money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal
interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or
paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such
finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being
deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of
credit.
In Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v. CA, we also
ruled that the monetary award shall earn interest at
twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of the
finality of the judgment until its satisfaction,
regardless of whether or not the case involves a loan
or forbearance of money. The interim period is deemed
to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
Rule:
1.
2.
3.
stipulation; if none:
loan or forbearance-12%
not loan or forbearance-6%
Forbearance of money: contractual obligation of

lender or creditor to refrain during a given period of
46
time, from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a

loan or debt then due or payable.
CLASS NOTES
12% from CB Circular 416-for loan and
forbearance of money; as opposed to 6%
which was imposed by A2209
Forbearance of money: basically a loan, a
credit but loan has a specific legal definition
under the Civil Code
Memorize rules laid down in Eastern Shipping
Lines, Inc. v. CA
Take note of complications like compounding
of interest
When would interest accrue? From time of
judicial demand
8. Mitigation of Liability
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences:
-if the plaintiff does not try to reduce damages, he
might not be able to recover
-plaintiff must try to avoid further damage
Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to
minimize the damages resulting from the act or
omission in question.
Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated
may be respectively increased or lessened according to
the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence
of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may
recover.
Art. 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasidelicts, the court may equitably mitigate the damages
under circumstances other than the case referred to in
the preceding article, as in the following instances:
(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the
terms of the contract;

2008
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a
result of the contract;
(3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be
awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice of
counsel;
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any
event;
(5) That since the filing of the action, the
defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss
or injury.
CLASS NOTES
2203 is known as the Doctrine of Avoidable
Consequences which is different from the
Doctrine of Contributory Negligence
DOCTRINE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES, the
party has to minimize the damages; in
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, the damages to
be paid would be diminished if you contributed
to the damage incurred!
There is an obligation on the part of the party
suffering to mitigate the loss.
Cerrano v. Tan Chuco

August 1, 1918
FACTS: The defendant Tan Chuco, who was then the
owner of casco No. 1033, rented it to the plaintiff
Vivencio Cerrano at a monthly rental of P70. There was
no express agreement as regards the duration of the
contract, the rent being payable at the end of each
month.
Some time during the month of May, 1916, the
defendant notified the plaintiff that the following month it
would be necessary to send the casco off for repairs.
Plaintiff then informed defendant that he would like to
rent the casco again after the repairs had been
completed, to which the defendant indicated that he
was willing but that the rent would be increased to P80.
About one week before the end of the repair period the
defendant sold the casco to Siy Cong Bieng and Co.
Santos, the man who had been employed by the
plaintiff as the patron of the casco went to the office of

Siy Cong Bieng and was hired by the latter in the same
capacity.
Upon the arrival of the casco in Manila, however, the
plaintiff claiming that he was entitled to the possession
of the casco under his contract with the defendant
induced Santos to refuse to take orders from the new
owners.
47
Defendant says that liability is mitigated

because plaintiff could have found another
casco at the same price
SC-no mitigation of liability
Damage = profit which he would have made
had the contract been performed
CASCO: a barge
PATRON: the captain of the barge
After trial, the lower court found defendant liable to the

plaintiff for damages resulting from breach of contract.
ISSUE: WON the plaintiffs right is limited to the
recovery of the difference between the contract price at
which the casco was hired by him and such higher rate
as he might have been compelled to pay for the hire of
a similar casco in the open market.
HELD: No.
*DOCTRINE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES: IT IS A WELLRECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT DAMAGES RESULTING
FROM AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE BREACH OF A
CONTRACT ARE NOT RECOVERABLE. IT IS THE DUTY OF ONE
INJURED BY THE ACT OF ANOTHER TO TAKE SUCH
MEASURES AS PRUDENT MEN USUALLY TAKE UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES TO REDUCE THE DAMAGE AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE.
B. Moral
1. Concept
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act for omission.
CLASS NOTES
If the professor allowed you to stand for three (3) hours,

you cant claim moral damages because there was an
intervening causeyour inability to answer the
questions
Burden of Proof: rests on the defendant that the

PLAINTIFF MIGHT HAVE (COULD HAVE) REDUCED THE
DAMAGE.
Kierulf v. CA
March 13, 1997
In the instant case the defendant made no effort

whatsoever to show that any other similar cascos were
in fact available to the plaintiff, or the price he would
have been able to obtain the use of one.
FACTS: One of Pantrancos buses was traveling along

EDSA when the driver lost control of the bus, causing it
to swerve to the left, and then to fly over the center
island, ending up on the wrong side of the road.
In the absence of evidence it will not be presumed that

plaintiff could have secured another casco at the same
price had he looked for one.
The front of the bus bumped the front portion of an

Isuzu pickup driven Porfirio Legaspi, causing damage
to both vehicles and injuries to both Legaspi and his
passenger Lucila Kierulf, wife of Victor Kierulf, owner of
the pickup and employer of Legaspi.
CLASS NOTES
Whats the connection of this case with the
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences?
As a consequence of the incident, Lucila suffered

injuries which required major surgery and prolonged
treatment by specialists.

2008
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found for
Legaspi and the Kierulfs.
HE/SHE
HAS
UNDERGONE,
BY
DEFENDANT'S CULPABLE ACTION.
The spouses Kierulf, however, averred that the

disfigurement of Lucilas physical appearance due to
the accident could not but affect their marital right of
consortium and asked that the moral damages awarded
be increased from P100, 000 to one million pesos, not
only for Lucila, but also for her husband.
ITS AWARD IS AIMED AT RESTORATION, AS MUCH AS

POSSIBLE, OF THE SPIRITUAL STATUS QUO ANTE; THUS, IT
MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE SUFFERING INFLICTED.
SINCE EACH CASE MUST BE GOVERNED BY ITS OWN
PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST
RULE IN DETERMINING THE PROPER AMOUNT.
They also averred that the social and financial standing

of Lucila should also be considered in fixing the award
of moral damages.
The yardstick should be that the amount awarded

should not be so palpably and scandalously excessive
as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice
or corruption on the part of the trial judge.
ISSUE: WON an increase in the amount awarded as

moral damages is warranted given the circumstances.
REASON
OF
THE
Neither should it be so little or so paltry that it rubs salt

to the injury already inflicted on plaintiffs.
HELD: The Court increased the moral damages

awarded but ruled against awarding moral damages
based on loss of consortium or considerations of social
and financial standing.
In the instant petition, a California case, Rodriguez v.

Bethlehem was cited as authority for the claim of
damages based on loss of marital consortium.
In order that moral damages may be awarded, there

must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental
anguish, fright and the like. While no proof of pecuniary
loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be
awarded, it is nevertheless essential that THE CLAIMANT
The Court noted that the Rodriguez case clearly

reversed the original common law view first enunciated
in the case of Deshotel vs. Atchison, that a wife could
not recover for the loss of her husband's services by the
act of a third party.
SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS

DAMAGES AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO
DEFENDANTS ACTS.
FOR
THE
In Francisco vs. GSIS, the Court held that there must

be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of
mental suffering. Thus, if the plaintiff fails to take the
witness stand and testify as to his/her social humiliation,
wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages cannot
be awarded.
In Cocoland Development Corporation vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, the Court held that
"additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant
the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these
being, x x x social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave
anxiety, etc., that resulted therefrom."
*MORAL DAMAGES ARE AWARDED TO ENABLE THE INJURED
PARTY TO OBTAIN MEANS, DIVERSIONS OR AMUSEMENTS
THAT WILL SERVE TO ALLEVIATE THE MORAL SUFFERING
Rodriguez ruled that when a person is injured to the

extent that he/she is no longer capable of giving love,
affection, comfort and sexual relations to his or her
spouse, that spouse has suffered a direct and real
personal loss.
The loss is immediate and consequential rather than
remote and unforeseeable; it is personal to the spouse
and separate and distinct from that of the injured
person.
However, Victor's claim for deprivation of his right to
consortium, although argued before Respondent Court,
was not supported by the evidence on record.
His wife might have been badly disfigured, but he had
not testified that, in consequence thereof, his right to
marital consortium was affected. Clearly, Victor (and for
that matter, Lucila) had failed to make out a case for
loss of consortium, unlike the Rodriguez spouse.
48
The social and financial standing of Lucila cannot be

considered in awarding moral damages. The factual
circumstances prior to the accident show that no "rude
and rough" reception, no "menacing attitude," no
"supercilious manner," no "abusive language and highly
scornful reference" was given her.
The social and financial standing of a claimant of moral
damages may be considered in awarding moral
damages only if he or she was subjected to
contemptuous
conduct
despite
the
offender's
knowledge of his or her social and financial standing.
Be that as it may, it is still proper to award moral
damages to Petitioner Lucila for her physical sufferings,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety and wounded
feelings. She sustained multiple injuries on the scalp,
limbs and ribs. She lost all her teeth. She had to
undergo several corrective operations and treatments.
Despite treatment and surgery, her chin was still numb
and thick. She felt that she has not fully recovered from
her injuries. She even had to undergo a second
operation on her gums for her dentures to fit. She
suffered sleepless nights and shock as a consequence
of the vehicular accident.
RULES:
When social & financial standing may be
considered in awarding MD: only if he or she was
subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the
offenders knowledge of his or her social and financial
standing.
On Exemplary Damages:
-designed to permit the courts to mould behavior
that has socially deleterious consequences, and its
imposition is required by public policy to suppress the
wanton acts of an offender. However, it cannot be
recovered as a matter of rightit is based entirely on
the discretion of the court.
Requirements before ED may be awarded:
1.
by way of example or correction in
addition to CD
2.
claimant must 1st establish his right to
moral,
temperate,
liquidated
or
compensatory damages; &
3. the wrongful act must be accompanied by
BF, and the award would be allowed only
if the guilty party acted in a wanton,

2008
fraudulent,
manner.
oppressive
or
malevolent
On Moral Damages:
-MD, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are
in the category of an award designed to compensate
the claimant at the expense of the defendant.
-awarded to enable the injured party to obtain
means, diversity or amusement that will serve to
alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by
reason of the defendants culpable action. Its award is
aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the
spiritual status quo ante; thus it must be proportionate
to the suffering inflicted.
There is no hard and fast rule in determining the
proper amount since each case must be governed by
its own peculiar circumstances.
CLASS NOTES
Rodriguez case-different from what happened
to Lucila (there was nothing wrong with
possible performance. Equipment was not
damaged.)
Sir: what kind of evidence will you present
without embarrassing yourself to prove loss of
consortium?
This case can be used in the futureeven if
reason is only lack of visual stimulation
Another factor to determine amount of moral
damages: social and financial standing (but
wouldnt it be discriminating since you only
award damages to those who are rich?)
Epilogue by ponente: there should be:
Factual basis of mental anguish, etc.
Causal connection between factual basis and
defendants wrongful act or omission
Visayan Sawmill Co. Inc. v. CA

March 3, 1993
FACTS: Plaintiff RJH Trading. and defendant Visayan
Sawmill Co. entered into a sale involving scrap iron
located at the stockyard of defendant corporation
subject to the condition of plaintiff opening a letter of
credit in the amount of P250, 000 in favor of defendant
on or before May 15, 1983.
On may 17, 1983, plaintiffs employees started to gather

scrap iron at the defendants premises until May 30
when defendant allegedly directed plaintiffs employees
to desist from pursuing the work. Defendant alleged
that it sent a telegram to plaintiff canceling the sale
because of the failure of the latter to obtain a letter of
credit in its favor.
On May 24, plaintiff informed defendant that a letter of
credit had been opened with BPI but that the transmittal
of the same was delayed. On May 26, defendants
received a letter of advice from BPI informing them that
a letter of credit had been opened in their favor.
On July 19, the plaintiff sent a series of telegrams to the
defendant demanding that the latter comply with the
deed of sale. However, the defendant informed them
that they were unwilling to continue with the sale due to
failure by the plaintiffs to comply with the essential
preconditions of the contract.
The plaintiff filed a petition for preliminary attachment
but it was returned unserved because the scrap iron as
well as other pieces of machinery could no longer be
found on the defendants premises.
ISSUE: WON the moral damages awarded in favor of
RJH trading were proper.
HELD: No. The Court noted the palpably excessive
and unconscionable moral and exemplary damages
awarded by the trial court to the private respondent
despite a clear absence of any legal and factual
basis therefore.
In contracts, MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE RECOVERED IF
DEFENDANTS ACTED FRAUDULENTLY AND IN BAD FAITH ,
while EXEMPLARY DAMAGES MAY ONLY BE AWARDED IF
DEFENDANTS ACTED IN A WANTON, FRAUDULENT,
RECKLESS, OPPRESSIVE OR MALEVOLENT MANNER.
Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich
a complainant at the expense of the defendant. They
are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain
means, diversion or amusements that will serve to
obviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by
reason of the defendants culpable action.
49
Its award is aimed at the restoration, within the limits of

the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante, and it must
be proportional to the suffering inflicted.
CLASS NOTES
What to prove in breach of contract:
Defendants acted fraudulently and in bad faith
Purpose of MD reiterated in this case

*SC held that Visayan Sawmill DID NOT HAVE ANY
OBLIGATION to sell because RJH breached agreement
on 3 counts (did not comply with suspensive conditions)
2. Proof and Proximate Cause

Compania Maritima v. Allied Free
Workers Union
May 24, 1977
FACTS: The Compania Maritima and the Allied Free
Workers Union entered into a written contract whereby
the Union agreed to perform arrastre and stevedoring
work for the companys vessels at Iligan City. It was
stipulated that the management could revoke the
contract before the expiration of the term if the union
failed to render proper service. The contract itself could
be renewed by agreement of the parties.
The Union found out later that the contract was to be
oppressive and unduly favorable to the company.
This was because while he shippers and consignees
paid the Union only for the arrastre work, claiming that
the company was the one obligated to pay for the
stevedoring services, the company itself also refused to
pay for the stevedoring services because the contract
explicitly provided that the compensation for both
arrastre and stevedoring would be paid by the shippers
and consignees.

2008
Thus the Union was only compensated for arrastre work
performed and not for stevedoring. This led to a labor
dispute and a strike by the workers of the Union.
During the litigation, the company claimed actual and
moral damages resulting from the strike. The court,
however, found that their claim for actual damages was
baseless.
ISSUE: WON the company is entitled to moral
damages.
HELD: No. Considering that the companys claim for
moral damages was BASED ON THE SAME FACTS ON
WHICH IT PREDICATED ITS CLAIM FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES,
WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE GROUNDLESS (NO SALES
INVOICES PRESENTED, JUST SELF-SERVING TESTIMONIES;
THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR HIRED WAS ACTUALLY A
FRIEND OF THE BRANCH MANAGER), it follows that the
company, a juridical person, is not entitled to moral
damages.
Also, the COMPANY DID NOT PLEAD AND PROVE moral
damages. It MERELY CLAIMED MORAL DAMAGES in the
prayer of its complaint. This was not held to be
sufficient.
RULE: In order to recover MD, one must plead and
prove
CLASS NOTES
Nature of contract was for arrastre and stevedoring

services
ARRASTRE: hauling of cargo, handling of cargo

on the wharf or between the establishment of
the consignee or shipper and the ships tackle
STEVEDORING: handling of cargo in the holds of

the vessel or between the ships tackle and the
holds of the vessel
Miranda-Ribaya v. Bautista
January 28, 1980
FACTS: Mrs. Niceta Miranda-Ribaya was in the
pawnshop business and in the business of buying and
selling jewelry. Sometime in 1968, she was informed by
one of her agents that a wealthy logger by the name of
Marino Bautista was interested in buying some of her

jewelry.
Accompanied by her agent, she visited Bautista in his
Greenhills home and was impressed by the size of his
residence. She subsequently sold him several pieces of
jewelry paid for with postdated checks issued by
Bautista.
When the maturity of the checks given in payment
arrived, all of them were dishonored for the reason that
the accounts of Bautista were closed. Much to chagrin,
Miranda-Ribaya later discovered that most of the
jewelry she had sold to Bautista had been pledged to
various pawnshops.
She was, however, able to confront Bautista and obtain,
with great difficulty, the pawnshop tickets for the jewelry
she had sold him which she used, at her own expense,
to redeem the same from the pawnshops where they
had been pledged.
ISSUE: WON Miranda-Ribaya is entitled to an award of
moral damages.
HELD: Yes. The Court differentiated the instant case
from Francisco v. GSIS because in Francisco, therein
Plaintiff failed to take the witness stand and defendants
breach of contract was held to be not malicious and
fraudulent.
In the instant case, the petitioner took the witness stand
and established by uncontradicted testimony that due to
defendants deceitful and malevolent acts of
defraudation she had suffered extreme anguish and
could not sleep for three months.
The Court did not share the appellate courts narrow
view that petitioners failure to use in her testimony the
precise legal terms or sacramental phrases of mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, or
moral shock and the like justified the denial of the
claim for damages.
It was held to be sufficient that these exact terms were
pleaded in the complaint and evidence was adduced
amply supporting the same.
50
RULE: FAILURE TO MENTION IN TESTIMONY THE

SACRAMENTAL PHRASES IS NOT ENOUGH TO DENY CLAIM
FOR DAMAGES .
Del Rosario v. CA
January 29, 1997
FACTS: Impressed by the defendants advertising, the
spouses Del Rosario purchased a quantity of the
defendant Metal Forming Corporations Banawe roofing
shingles for use in their house.
However, during a storm, portions of the roof were
blown away by strong winds which also led to the
interior of the house being damaged as well.
ISSUE: WON the Del Rosario spouses are entitled to
moral damages.
HELD: Yes. It was found that MFC DID IN TRUTH ACT
WITH BAD FAITH, IN FLAGRANT BREACH OF ITS EXPRESS
WARRANTIES MADE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND IN
WANTON DISREGARD OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEL
ROSARIOS WHO RELIED ON THOSE WARRANTIES, is
adequately demonstrated by the recorded proofs.

The law explicitly authorizes the award of moral
damages "in breaches of contract where the defendant
acted fraudulently or in bad faith." There being,
moreover, satisfactory evidence of the psychological
and mental trauma actually suffered by the Del
Rosarios, the grant to them of moral damages is
warranted. Over a period of about a month, they
experienced "feelings of shock, helplessness, fear,
embarrassment and anger."
*IT IS ESSENTIAL IN THE AWARD OF DAMAGES THAT THE
CLAIMANT MUST HAVE SATISFACTORILY PROVEN DURING
THE TRIAL THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE
DAMAGES AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO DEFENDANT'S
ACTS. THIS IS SO BECAUSE MORAL DAMAGES THOUGH
INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION, ARE IN THE
CATEGORY OF AN AWARD DESIGNED TO COMPENSATE THE
CLAIMANT FOR ACTUAL INJURY SUFFERED AND NOT TO
IMPOSE A PENALTY ON THE WRONGDOER
AND ARE
ALLOWABLE ONLY WHEN SPECIFICALLY PRAYED FOR IN THE
COMPLAINT.

2008
51
Raagas v. Traya
February 27, 1968
he was the only son of Ciriaco Enervida and that the

sale did not take place within the prohibited period.
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, and 34, 35 on the chapter on
human relations (par. 10, Art. 2219).
FACTS: Defendant Bienvenido Carciller, while

recklessly driving a truck owned by his co-defendant
Octavio Traya, ran over the three year old son of
plaintiff spouses Melquiades and Adela Raagas,
causing the childs instantaneous death.
Ruling in favor of the defendant, the Court found the

plaintiffs civil action to be entirely unfounded.
Furthermore, while no proof of pecuniary loss is

necessary IN ORDER THAT MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE
AWARDED, THE AMOUNT OF INDEMNITY BEING LEFT TO THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT (Art. 2216), it is,
nevertheless,
essential
that
the
CLAIMANT
The lower court rendered a judgment on the pleadings

condemning the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs,
among others, the sum of P2, 000 for moral damages.
ISSUE: WON moral damages were properly awarded
despite there being a judgment on the pleadings.
HELD: The court reaffirmed the rule that although an
allegation is not necessary in order that moral
damages may be awarded, it is, nevertheless,
ESSENTIAL THAT THE CLAIMANT SATISFACTORILY PROVE
THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGE
AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO DEFENDANT S ACTS .
CLASS NOTES
Whats wrong with Judgment on the pleadings
in the granting of MD? the rule on AC as
regards proving cannot be done with a
judgment on the pleadings
Judgment on the pleadings-primary
submission only (nothing to support)
Enervida v. De La Torre
January 28, 1974
FACTS: Petitioner Roque Enervida filed a complaint
against the defendant-spouses Lauro and Rosa de la
Torre, praying that the deed of sale executed by his
deceased father Ciriaco Enervida over a parcel of land
covered by a homestead patent be declared null and
void for having been executed within the prohibited
period of five years. He further prayed that he be
allowed to repurchase the said parcel for being the
legitimate son and sole heir of his deceased father.
Defendants filed their answer stating, among other
things, that the plaintiff had no cause of action against
them as his father was still alive and it was not true that
ISSUE: WON the defendant spouses are entitled to

moral damages by reason of the unfounded civil action
filed against them.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that:
with respect to moral damages, we are inclined to
agree with petitioner that these damages are not
recoverable herein, notwithstanding the finding of the
trial court and the Court of Appeals that his complaint
against respondents were clearly unfounded or
unreasonable.
It will be observed that unlike compensatory or actual
damages which are generally recoverable in tort cases
as long as there is satisfactory proof thereof (Art. 2202),
the Code has chosen to enumerate the cases in which
moral damages, may be recovered (Art. 2219).
A like enumeration is made in regard to the recovery of
attorney's fees as an item of damage (Art. 2208). But
the two enumerations differ in the case of a clearly
unfounded suit, which is expressly mentioned in Art.
2208 (par. 4), as justifying an award of attorney's fees,
but is not included in the enumeration of Art. 2219 in
respect to moral damages.
It is true that Art. 2219 also provides that moral
damages may be awarded in "analogous cases" to
those enumerated, but we do not think the Code
intended" a clearly unfounded civil action or
proceedings" to be one of these analogous cases
wherein moral damages may be recovered, or it would
have expressly mentioned it in Art. 2219, as it did in Art.
2208; or else incorporated Art. 2208 by reference in Art.
2219.
Besides, Art. 2219 Specifically mentions "quasi-delicts
causing physical injuries", as an instance when moral
damages may be allowed, thereby implying that all
other quasi-delicts not resulting in physical injuries are
excluded, excepting, of course, the special torts
referred to in Art. 309, par. 9, Art. 2219 and in Arts. 21,
SATISFACTORILY PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL

BASIS OF THE DAMAGE (ART. 2217) AND ITS CAUSAL
RELATION TO DEFENDANT'S ACTS .
This is so because moral damages, though incapable

of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award
designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury
suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals both seem to
be of the opinion that the mere fact that respondent
were sued without any legal foundation entitled them to
an award of moral damages, hence they made no
definite finding as to what the supposed moral damages
suffered consist of.
Such a conclusion would make of moral damages a
penalty, which they are not, rather than a compensation
for actual injury suffered, which they are intended to be.
Moral damages, in other words, are not corrective or
exemplary damages.
RULE: Unfounded suit-not a basis of MD for it is not
part of 2219
CLASS NOTES
Motion for summary judgment (theres no more
controversy if its summary judgment)
Here MD was not awarded not because of
proof but because unfounded suits do not
warrant MD
People v. Bugayong
December 2, 1998
FACTS: Rodelio Bugayong alias Boy was convicted of
raping and committing acts of lasciviousness against
Arlene Cauan, his eleven year old stepdaughter.

2008
ISSUE: WON the victim is entitled to moral damages.
HELD: Yes. The Court held that Bugayong should also
be ordered to pay the victim the additional amount of
P50, 000 as moral damages. In People v. Prades, the
Court ruled that moral damages may additionally be
awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding, in
such amount as the Courts deems just, without the
need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof as had
heretofore been the practice.
CLASS NOTES
For Rape, Seduction, Abduction, Acts of
Lasciviousness and Physical injuries: NO
NEED to prove MD. Damage automatically
comes from being a victim of such crimes and
it is assumed that the victim suffered mentally,
emotionally...
P50k awarded as indemnity ex delicto + P50k
as MD
3. Cases where allowed (MEMORIZE!)

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the
following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious
acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or
abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also
recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers
and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of
this article, in the order named.
52
Art. 2220, CC - Willful injury to property may be a legal

ground for awarding moral damages if the court should
find that, under the circumstances, such damages are
justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of
contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in
bad faith.
plaintiffs FAILURE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND and

TESTIFY TO HER SOCIAL HUMILIATION, WOUNDED FEELINGS,
ETC., as the decision holds, but primarily because a
BREACH OF CONTRACT LIKE THAT PF THE DEFENDANTS,
NOT BEING MALICIOUS OR FRAUDULENT, DOES NOT
WARRANT THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES.
Francisco v. GSIS
March 30, 1963
Expertravel and Tours, Inc. v. CA

June 25, 1999
FACTS: Plaintiff Trinidad Francisco in consideration of

a loan, mortgaged in favor of the defendant GSIS a
parcel of land known as the Vic-Mari Compound in
Quezon City, payable within 10 years in monthly
installments.
FACTS: Expertravel issued to respondent Ricardo Lo

(Ricky Lo! Showbiz!) four round-trip plane tickets to
Hong Kong, together with hotel accommodations and
transfers for a total cost of P39, 677.20.
Some time later, the GSIS extrajudicially foreclosed the

mortgage on the ground that up to that date the plaintiff
was in arrears on her monthly installments. The GSIS
was itself the buyer of the property in the foreclosure
sale.
The plaintiffs father, Atty. Vicente Francisco, sent a
letter to the general manager of the defendant
corporation, Rodolfo Andal, proposing to partially pay
off his daughters indebtedness, and to cover the
balance, to allow the GSIS to manage the property and
collect the installments due on the unpaid houses and
lots thereon until the debt was fully paid.
In exchange, the foreclosure on the property would be
set aside. GSIS appeared amenable to the proposal
and the various sums therein were paid by the plaintiff
and her father to the defendant.
This continued until the GSIS sent the plaintiff and her
father three letters asking for a proposal for the
payment of her indebtedness, since according to the
GSIS, the one-year period of redemption had expired.
This led to litigation as to the nature of the agreement in
which the plaintiff eventually prevailed.
ISSUE: WON plaintiff is entitled to moral damages by
reason of defendants breach of contract.
HELD: No.There was no error in the appealed decision
in denying moral damages, not only on account of
Alleging that Lo had failed to pay the amount due,

Expertravel caused several demands to be made.
Since the demands were ignored by Lo, Expertravel
filed a complaint for recovery of the amount.
Respondent Lo answered that his account with
Expertravel had already been fully paid. The account
had been remitted to Expertravel through its then
Chairperson Ma. Rocio de Vega who was theretofore
authorized to deal with the respondents clients.
The trial court found for the respondent and held that
the amount claimed by Expertravel had already been
paid.
ISSUE: WON damages can be recovered by reason of
a clearly unfounded suit.
HELD: Although the institution of a clearly unfounded
civil suit can at times be a legal justification for an
award of attorney's fees (Enervida vs. Dela Torre), such
filing, however, has almost invariably been held not to
be a ground for an award of moral damages.
*Rationale for the rule: THE LAW COULD NOT HAVE
MEANT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY ON THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE.
THE ANGUISH SUFFERED BY A PERSON FOR HAVING BEEN
MADE A DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL SUIT WOULD BE NO
DIFFERENT FROM THE USUAL WORRY AND ANXIETY
SUFFERED BY ANYONE WHO IS HALED TO COURT, A
SITUATION THAT CANNOT BY ITSELF BE A COGENT REASON
FOR THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES.

2008
If the rule were otherwise, then moral damages must
every time be awarded in favor of the prevailing
defendant against an unsuccessful plaintiff.
Nature of MD: not punitive, but are designed to
compensate and alleviate in some way the physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused to
a person.
b.
3.
Amount of MD: though incapable of pecuniary

estimation, must be PROPORTIONAL TO AND IN
APPROXIMATION OF THE SUFFERING INFLICTED.
*REQUISITES OF MD:
1. THERE MUST BE AN INJURY, WHETHER PHYSICAL,
2.
3.
4.
MENTAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL
THERE MUST BE A CULPABLE ACT OR OMISSION
FACTUALLY ESTABLISHED
THE WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION IS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY
THE AWARD OF DAMAGES IS PREDICATED ON ANY
OF THE CASES STATED IN ART. 2219 (CASIS:
PENDING ISSUE)
When MD allowed: must be the proximate result of a

wrongful act or omission, the factual basis for which is
satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party.
1.
Under Culpa contractual or breach of
contract: when the defendant acted in:
a. BF; or
b. was guilty of gross negligence
(amounting to BF); or
c. in wanton disregard of his contractual
obligation; &
exceptionally:
d. when the act of breach of contract
itself is constitutive of torts resulting in
physical injuries (PI).
special rule:
e. in Art. 1746 in relation to Art. 2206:
when death results from a breach of
carriage
2.
in Culpa Aquiliana or QD:

a. when an act or omission causes P
4.
5.
where the defendant is guilty of an

intentional tort (casis: Arts. 19, 20, 21,
26-huma relations torts)
-also applies to contracts when
breached by tort
In Culpa Criminal: when accused is found
guilty of
a. PI
b. Lascivious acts
c. Adultery or concubinage
d. Illegal detention
e. Illegal arrest
f. Illegal search; or
g. Defamation
Malicious Prosecution
The term analogous causes in Art. 2219,
following the ejusdem generis rule must be
held similar to those expressly enumerated by
the law.
a. Unfounded Suits
Unfounded
suits
Malicious
prosecution
53
ISSUE: WON Moral damages should be awarded to the

Mijares spouses.
HELD: No. Mijares spouses FAILED TO SHOW THAT
MMD WAS MOTIVATED BY BAD FAITH WHEN IT INSTITUTED
THE ACTION FOR COLLECTION. It is merely an unfounded
suit not Malicious Prosecution.
*ELEMENTS OF MP:
(1) MALICE;
(2) ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
DOCTRINE: Moral Damages cannot be recovered from
a person who has filed a complaint against another in
good faith, or without malice or bad faith.
CLASS NOTES
Court applied same elements for MP and
unfounded suits
Sir: this should not have been the case
because it lumps together the two (2) kinds of
action
The enumeration of the elements was
probably a mistake because malicious
prosecution is not equivalent to unfounded
suits.
J. Marketing Corp. v. Sia, Jr.

Mijares v. CA
FACTS: Metro Manila Drug supplied pharmaceutical
products to the Mijares spouses drugstore and to the
Ospital ng Maynila Consumers Cooperative Drugstore,
which is also operated by Editha Mijares, as an officer
of the Co-op. The Co-op was dissolved and ceased
operations in 1986, and its space was leased out to
Solomon Silverio who also put up a drugstore. MMD
made deliveries to Silverios store for almost a year,
amounting to 32K. Silverio issued a check, for partial
payment under the account name of his store, which
was dishonored. MMD filed a complaint to collect from
Editha, despite having been informed that they no
longer did business in Ospital. Court found suit to be
unfounded.
FACTS: J Marketing discovered that a motorcycle was

missing from its bodega. Motorcycle was traced to Sia.
Js representative examined the chassis and motor
numbers of the motorcycle and found them tampered.
Upon confrontation, Sia refused to return the
motorcycle and dared the representative to file a case
in court. J filed a complaint for replevin against Sia.
RTC and CA dismissed the complaint and awarded
moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees in
favor of Sia.
ISSUE: WON the award of Moral Damages is proper.
HELD: No. A PERSONS RIGHT TO LITIGATE SHOULD NOT
BE PENALIZED BY HOLDING HIM LIABLE FOR DAMAGES,
ESPECIALLY WHEN HE BELIEVES HE HAS A RIGHTFUL CLAIM
AGAINST ANOTHER, ALTHOUGH FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS.
J filed the complaint based on Sias own challenge for

2008
them to sue him, so J could not be deemed to have
done so with bad faith.
54
Triple Eight Integrated Services v. NLRC
FACTS: A 3-automobile collision involving a bus, a

jeep, and a car. The bus bumped the jeep that was
parked at the shoulder to fix a tire and the bus went on
to hit the car. The owner of the car (Morales) and the
insurance company filed a complaint for damages
against the bus company, its driver, and the jeeps
driver and owner (Ligorio and Pablo Bondad). The
Bondads denied any responsibility or liability to IIC and
Morales.
TC and CA: exculpated the Bondads.
Ordered IIC to pay them moral damages for recklessly
and baselessly impleading them in spite of the clear
language in the Traffic Investigation report that they
were not responsible in any way for the accident.
FACTS: Erlinda Osdana was recruited by Triple 8 as a

food server in Saudi Arabia. Bad working conditions
made her ill and she had to be confined in a hospital.
She was transferred several times, but she again
became ill and required 2 surgeries. After this, she was
no longer given any assignments even if she was
willing and able to do light work. She was dismissed
from work and not given any separation pay. Triple 8
refused to help her, so she filed an illegal dismissal
case. LA and NLRC both ruled in her favor and
awarded her damages.
ISSUE: WON the award of Moral and exemplary

damages and attorneys fees was proper.
ISSUE: WON the award of moral and exemplary

damages was justified.
HELD: Yes. The award of Moral Damages is justified.

IIC was RECKLESS WHEN IT IMPLEADED THE BONDADS IN
HELD: Yes. The award of damages was proper.
ISSUE: WON the case for malicious prosecution states

a cause of action and warrants a full blown trial on the
merits.
SPITE OF CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE NOT LIABLE

FOR THE DAMAGE TO MORALES CAR. IIC ACTED IN BAD
FAITH WHEN IT COMPELLED THE BONDADS TO TRAVEL
FROM LAGUNA TO MAKATI TO LITIGATE AN UNFOUNDED
CLAIM. The effects of this was that Ligorio could not
HELD: Yes. All the requirements for a valid cause of

action were present.
work, and Pablo became sick and even suffered a mild

stroke.
DOCTRINE: Moral damages are recoverable where

the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad
faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor,
or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policy.
DOCTRINE: What must be alleged in a complaint for

malicious prosecution so that there is a valid cause of
action: (1) defendant himself instigated the prosecution;
(2) prosecution terminated in the plaintiffs
acquittal;
(3) prosecutor acted without probable cause;
(4) the prosecutor was actuated by malice.
DOCTRINE: Requirements to sustain an award of

moral damages: (1) Claimant suffered injury; (2) Injury
sprung from any of the cases listed in Art. 2219 or 2220
(CC); (3) Necessary that such acts be shown to have
been tainted with bad faith or ill-will. It is not enough
that the claimant alleges mental anguish, serious
anxiety, wounded feelings, social humiliation, etc. as a
result of the other partys acts.
NOTE: SC did not equate mp with an unfounded suit
DOCTRINE: The adverse result of an action does not

make a complainant subject to pay moral damages. No
damages can be charged on those who may exercise
their right to litigate in good faith, even if done
erroneously.
Cometa v. CA
FACTS: SITI (Cometa: president) extended loans to
GIDC (Guevara: president), which the latter failed to
pay. SITI foreclosed the mortgages and was the
highest bidder in the foreclosure sale. Cometa filed a
falsification case against Guevara which was dismissed
by the prosecutor for lack of probable cause. DOJ
Secretary reversed prosecutors finding but the RTC
eventually dismissed the case.
Guevara filed a
complaint for malicious prosecution against Cometa.
CLASS NOTES
Lesson here as opposed to earlier discussion
to sue as many as you can: dont implead
people without any reason or a suit will also be
filed against you
MP was filed against SITI and Cometa, not
unfounded suit
Industrial Insurance Company v. Bondad
CLASS NOTES
Moral damages are not just awarded
because of violations of the Labor Code.
The case focused more on how Osdana
was treated when she worked in Saudi
Arabia.
ii. Criminal Taking Of Life

People v. Pirame
CLASS NOTES
Purpose of requirements: to temper the filing
of suits in order to get damages.
Sue someone who could readily be impleaded
(based on legal basis)
FACTS: Pirame, et al were found guilty of murdering

Pedro Torrenueva.
ISSUE: WON the award of moral and exemplary
damages were justified.
HELD: No.
i. Labor Cases
Torrenuevas widow DID NOT TESTIFY ON

HAVING SUFFERED ANY MENTAL ANGUISH OR EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS FROM THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND .
The

2008
absence of any generic aggravating circumstance
precludes the award of exemplary damages.
DOCTRINE: Proof of suffering must be attested to
justify the award of moral damages.
NOTE: cf Arcona v. CA
Carlos Arcona y Moban v. CA

FACTS: Carlos Arcona was convicted of homicide and
was ordered to pay 10K as moral damages. He
appealed claiming self-defense.
ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages was correct.
HELD: Yes. Moral damages should be increased to
50K. AS BORNE OUT BY HUMAN EXPERIENCE A VIOLENT
DEATH INVARIABLY AND NECESSARILY BRINGS ABOUT
EMOTIONAL PAIN AND ANGUISH ON THE PART OF THE
VICTIMS FAMILY. IT IS INHERENTLY HUMAN TO SUFFER
SORROW, TORMENT, PAIN AND ANGER WHEN A LOVED ONE
BECOMES THE VICTIM OF A VIOLENT OR BRUTAL KILLING.
SUCH BRUTAL DEATH NOT ONLY STEALS FROM THE FAMILY
OF THE DECEASED HIS LIFE, LOVE, SUPPORT AND
AFFECTION BUT ALSO LEAVES THEM WITH A GNAWING
FEELING THAT AN INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE TO THEM. For
this reason, moral damage must be awarded even

in the absence of any allegation and proof of the
heirs emotional sufferings.
CLASS NOTES
This seems to be in conflict with the Pirame
case.
Cruz presents a possible distinction
between Arcona and Pirame: the manner of
death was taken into account (violent
nature of the death) which Prof. Casis does
not seem to agree with.
b. Factors in Determining Amount

PNB v. CA
FACTS: Carmelo Flores, a prominent businessman in
Baguio engaged in the real estate business of buying
and selling house and lots, bought from PNB 2

managers checks worth 500k each. However, PNB
later refused to honor the checks because of
alleged shortage in his payment. It was found during
the trial that the bank was negligent of its duties. The
Supreme Court reduced the award of 1M to 100k as
moral damages. Flores filed this MFR contending that
the award was too small.
55
complaint and ordered him to pay Cruz 300K, and

Belarmino 250K as moral damages.
ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper.
ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages should be

increased.
HELD: Yes. The case is analogous to malicious

prosecution under Art. 2219 (8), as shown by Fules
wanton bad faith and his filing of a malicious and
unfounded case against Cruz & Belarmino.
Preponderance of evidence suggests that the cause of
action in this case was contrived by Fule himself.
HELD: Yes. SC increased the award to 200K. SC took

into account the following: that despite the fact that Mr.
Flores character and personality are irrelevant to the
issues in the case, PNB, without proofs, attacked his
character by alleging that he was a known gambler and
big time casino player. The bank also alleged that the
proceeds of the checks were used by Flores in
gambling. From this it is obvious that PNB besmirched
Flores reputation causing him undue humiliation. Flores
also testified in court regarding his woes when PNB
refused to honor his checks; that this had caused him
his integrity and dependability as a businessman in
Baguio. That because of the incident whenever he tries
to make a deal people doubt his capacity to pay.
DOCTRINE: Factors considered in determining

amount: (1) Cruz & Belarmino are well-known,
respected, and held in high esteem in San Pablo, a
small city;
(2) Both are near the twilight of their lives
after maintaining and nurturing their good reputation in
the community, only to be stunned with a court case;
(3) Since the filing of the case, they were
living under a pall of doubt which surely affected
not only their earning capacity, but also besmirched
their reputations;
(4) The length of time the case has
dragged on during which their reputations were
tarnished and their names maligned.
Casis Commentary: SC reduced the award,

considered 1M in Moral Damages to be excessive
because (1) Flores did not prove that he lost the Baguio
House; (2) 1M in Moral Damages is grossly
disproportionate to the 100K in actual damages.
RULE: MD does not need actual proof. Enough

that displays wanton bad faith.
CLASS NOTES
Seems to consider MD similar to AD
Fule v. CA
FACTS: Fule, a banker/jeweler bartered his 10 ha.
Property for a pair of diamond earrings from Dr. Cruz
under a Deed of Absolute Sale with Atty. Belarmino.
Fule was able to examine the jewelry and accepted
them (he had already examined them before and even
made a sketch). 2 hours later, he complained that the
earrings were fake. He filed a case against Cruz and
Belarmino seeking the nullification of the Deed on the
ground of fraud and deceit. TC & CA dismissed the
NOTES:
Q: why ANALOGOUS TO MP only and not MP?
A: cant be MP coz no prior case that ended or was
qualified as MP
CLASS NOTES
This is the sales case on BARTER!
PAL v. CA
FACTS: Pantejo, the City Fiscal of Surigao took a PAL
flight from Manila to Surigao. Due to a typhoon, the
flight to Surigao was cancelled while on a stopover in
Cebu. PAL gave out cash assistance to its stranded
passengers. Pantejo requested that he be billeted at a
hotel at PALs expense because he wasnt carrying
cash, but PAL refused. He had to share a room with

2008
another passenger whom he promised to repay in
Surigao. On the flight, he learned that the hotel
expenses of some passengers were reimbursed.
Pantejo sued PAL for damages for discriminating
against him. TC awarded him actual (300K), moral
(150K), and exemplary (100K) damages.
HELD: Yes. PAL acted in bad faith in disregarding its
duties as a common carrier to its passengers and in
discriminating against Pantejo. It was PALs standard
policy to extend cash assistance or hotel
accommodations to stranded passengers. The refund
of hotel expenses was discriminatorily made since it
was not made known to all its passengers.
DOCTRINE: Factors: Pantejo was exposed to
humiliation and embarrassment especially because of
his GOVERNMENT POSITION and SOCIAL PROMINENCE,
which altogether necessarily subjected him to ridicule,
shame and anguish. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES DO NOT
TRANSLATE INTO EXCESSIVE DAMAGES
Valenzuela v. CA
FACTS: Lourdes Valenzuela was fixing a flat tire on the
roadside when she was hit by Alexander Li who was
driving a company car. Her left leg was severed & she
had to get a prosthetic leg. Valenzuela filed a case
claiming damages: 1M (moral), 100K (exemplary),
180K (medical expenses + loss of earnings). Li and his
employer were found jointly and severally liable. TC
awarded, but CA reduced moral damages to 500K.
ISSUE: WON the reduction of the award of moral
damages was justified.
HELD: No. Valenzuelas left leg was amputated. The
damage done was permanent and lasting, the artificial
leg would have to be adjusted to the physiologic
changes her body would normally undergo through the
years. The amount of damage which goes with the
SUDDEN SEVERING OF A VITAL PORTION OF THE HUMAN
BODY AND THE RESULTANT ANXIETY, SLEEPLESSNESS,
PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY AND MENTAL AND PHYSICAL PAIN IS
INESTIMABLE. P1M in moral damages is proper.
DOCTRINE: The award should be COMMENSURATE TO

THE SUFFERING INFLICTED.
CLASS NOTES
Casis Commentary: Valenzuela must have
been really beautiful.
Permanent nature of damage
Sumalpong v. CA
FACTS: Sumalpong shot twice at Ramos, but missed.
They grappled for the gun, and in doing so, he bit
Ramos arm and left ear, mutilating the latter. He was
convicted of attempted homicide and was made to
serve sentence and ordered to indemnify Ramos for
loss of crops, hospitalization expenses and Moral
Damages (5K). CA modified the award of damages,
increasing Moral Damages to 10K.
ISSUE: WON the increase in the amount of Moral
Damages was proper.
HELD: Yes. The CA has in many cases, increased the
damages awarded by the TC, although the offended
party had not appealed from said award. The SC finds
the 10K award of Moral Damages justified under the
circumstances. The nature of the injuries and the
degree of physical suffering endured by Ramos
warrants it. The incident caused the mutilation of
Ramos ear and a permanent scar on his arm. These
injuries have left indelible marks on his body and will
serve as a constant reminder of his traumatic
experience.
DOCTRINE: The amount of moral damages awarded
DEPENDS ON THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PHYSICAL
INJURIES.
Lopez v. Pan American

FACTS: Senate President Pro Tempore Fernando
Lopez reserved first class tickets with Pan-Am for him,
his wife, his daughter and her husband. The tickets
were issued and paid for, but on the day of the flight,
they were informed that they could not be
accommodated as first class passengers, because first
class was already fully booked. They were constrained
to take the flight as tourist passengers, under protest.
56
Lopez filed a suit for damages, alleging breach of

contracts in bad faith, and asked for 500K as actual and
moral damages. CFI awarded 150K in moral damages.
ISSUE: WON the amount of damages was proper.
HELD: SC raised the amount to 200K, to be divided
among Senator Lopez (100K), his wife (50K), his
daughter (25K) and his son-in-law (25K). The Lopezes
suffered social humiliation, wounded feelings, serious
anxiety and mental anguish as a result of Pan-Ams
breach in bad faith of their contracts. Although it is not
humiliating to travel as tourist passengers, IT IS
HUMILIATING TO BE COMPELLED TO DO SO.
Senator
Lopez was the Senate President Pro Tempore and a for
Vice-President of the Philippines. Considering the
prestige of his rank and position, the amount awarded
is appropriate. As to the members of his family, they
share his prestige and therefore, his humiliation. The
damages awarded to each of them are reasonable.
NOTES: his stature demanded that he be given MD.
His family too coz they shared in his prestige and
humiliation.
Producers Bank v. CA
FACTS: The Chuas had substantial savings and current
deposits with the Bacolod Branch of Producers Bank.
They obtained a P2M loan, secured by a real estate
mortgage. The Chuas deposited 960K, but the amount
was not credited to their account because the Branch
Manager absconded with the money of the banks
depositors. The bank dishonored checks drawn out by
the Chuas on the ground of insufficient funds, despite
their having over 1M in savings. The Chuas requested
to see the ledgers of their account, but the bank
refused. They filed an action for damages against the
bank, who in turn filed a petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure of the mortgage.
The Chuas filed a
complaint for injunction and damages.
The TC
awarded them 2M in moral damages. CA reduced it to
500K.
ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages is proper.
HELD: SC reduced moral damages to 300K. The
dishonor of the Chuas checks and the foreclosure
initiated by the bank AFFECTED THE CREDIT STANDING

2008
57
CHUAS, as their
suppliers discontinued credit lines resulting in the
collapse of their businesses. The damage to their
REPUTATION AND SOCIAL STANDING entitles them to moral
damages. The bank caused them serious anxiety,
embarrassment, and humiliation.
sympathy or sorrow for anothers suffering or which

arises from a contemplation of wrongs committed on
the person of another.
-One is entitled to compensation for AD only for such

pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved
(except as provided by law or by stipulation)
NOTES: one cannot be awarded MD for the suffering

one did not endure (sympathy) cf Art. 2219, last
paragraph.
DOCTRINE: The financial credit of a businessman is a

prized and valuable asset, it being a significant part of
the foundation of his business. Any adverse reflection
thereon constitutes some financial loss to him.
-Indemnification shall comprehend:

1. value of he loss suffered
2. value of the profits that the oblige failed to
obtain
AND THE BUSINESS DEALINGS OF THE
CLASS NOTES
Rule on Damages is jurisprudential: amounts
do not change but basis for fixing damages are
changed!
c. Who May Recover

Strebel v. Figueras, et al
FACTS: Strebel, a Mobilgas station owner sued Acting
Labor Secretary Figueras, Director of Labor Jose and
Assistant City Fiscal Ruperto. In one of his causes
action, he cited the incident of the transfer of his son-inlaw (Hernandez) from the BOI to the Bureau of Prisons.
He claims that Figueras influenced the DOJ Secretary
to effect such transfer and is seeking moral and actual
damages.
ISSUE: Can Strebel recover damages
inconvenient transfer of Hernandez?
for
the
HELD: No. The transfer was within the power of the

DOJ Secretary. Assuming that such act amounted to
any wrong, the right of action would accrue in favor of
Hernandez.
DOCTRINES: (1) The RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR MENTAL
SUFFERING
RESULTING
FROM
BODILY INJURIES
is
restricted to the person who has suffered the bodily
hurt, and there can be no recovery for distress caused
by sympathy for anothers suffering, or for fright due to
a wrong against a third person.
(2) MENTAL ANGUISH is restricted to such mental pain
or suffering as arises from an injury or wrong to the
person himself, as distinguished from that form of
MENTAL SUFFERING which is the accompaniment of
CLASS NOTES
Cf: Lopez wife shared in prestige of hubby
(goes into the amount of MD)
What about
Strebel and son-in-law?
Sufferering suffered by vicarious relations?
ABS-CBN v. CA
FACTS: ABS and Viva executed a Film Exhibition
Agreement whereby Viva gave ABS an exclusive right
to exhibit some Viva films. ABS was given a right of
first refusal to 24 films. Vivas agent gave ABS (through
Charo Santos) a list of 36 films to choose 24 from.
Santos only liked 10 (including Maging Sino Ka Man)
and did not accept it. According to Lopez of ABS, there
was a napkin agreement for Viva to sell 14 films for
P36M. Vivas agent denied such agreement. Deals with
ABS failed, so then Viva made a deal with RBS granting
the latter the exclusive right to 104 film, including the 14
films in the napkin agreement. RBS made print ads of
the anticipated airing of Maging Sino Ka Man. ABS
filed a complaint for specific performance w/ a prayer
for injunction. Complaint was dismissed and moral
damages were awarded to RBS for having its
reputation debased by the filing of the complaint.
ISSUE: WON the award of damages to RBS was
proper.
HELD: No. The award of moral damages cannot be
granted in favor of a corporation being an artificial
person and having existence only in legal
contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no
senses.
It therefore cannot experience physical
suffering and mental anguish, which can be
experienced only by one having a nervous system.
On Actual Damages:
In Contract and Quasi-Contracts: the damages

which may be awarded are dependent on whether the
obligor acted in GF or otherwise
In case of GF: damages recoverable are
those which are the NATURAL AND PROBABLE
CONSEQUENCES of the breach of the obligation which
the parties have FORESEEN or COULD HAVE
REASONABLY FORESEEN at the time of the
constitution of the obligation
In case of Fraud, BF, malice or wanton
attitude: actor shall be responsible for all damages
which may be reasonable attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation. (CF: PEOPLE VS. MANERO)
In Crimes and QDs: defendant shall be liable for all
damages which are the NATURAL AND PROBABLE
CONSEQUENCES of the act or omission complained
of, whether or not such damages could have been
reasonably foreseen by the defendant.
-AD may also be recovered for loss or
impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or
permanent personal injury, or for injury to the plaintiffs
business standing or commercial credit.
On Attys fees:
-in the absence of stipulation, attys fees may be
recovered as AD or CD under any of the circumstances
in Art. 2208
General Rule: attys fees cannot be recovered as
part of damages because of the policy that no premium
should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not
awarded everytime a party wins a suit.
-The power of the court to award attys fees under
Art. 2208 demands factual, legal & equitable
justification.
On Moral Damages:
Art. 2217- defines what are included in MD

2008
Art. 2219- enumerates the cases where MD may be
recovered
Art. 2220- provides that MD may be recovered in
breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in BF
MD aimed at restoration, within the limits of the
possible, of the spiritual status quo ante, and should be
proportionate to the suffering inflicted.
No MD for corporations: The award of MD cannot
be granted in favor of a corporation because being an
artificial person and having existence only in legal
contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no
senses. It cannot therefore, experience physical
suffering and mental anguish, which can be
experienced only by having a nervous system.
On Exemplary Damages:
-imposed by way of example or correction for the
public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated
or compensatory damages.
In criminal cases: recoverable as part of the civil
liability when the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstance
HELD: No. NAPOCOR did not act in bad faith in

disapproving PHIBROs application for prequalification
to bid. It merely exercised its reserved right to reject bid
applicants who previously failed to perform properly.
Moral Damages not proper:
(1) there was no bad faith, and
(2) as a general rule, moral damages are not
awarded to corporations.
DOCTRINE: Besmirched reputation cannot cause
mental anguish to a corporation, unlike in the case of a
natural person, for A CORPORATION HAS NO REPUTATION
IN THE SENSE AN INDIVIDUAL DOES.
It is inherently
impossible for a corporation to suffer mental anguish.
* A CORPORATION BEING AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON AND
HAVING EXISTENCE ONLY IN LEGAL CONTEMPLATION, HAS
NO FEELINGS, NO EMOTIONS, NO SENSES; THEREFORE, IT
NAPOCOR v. PHIBROS
58
recover damages against Centeno. TC: awarded him

P200 as nominal damages.
ISSUE: WON the TC erred in awarding only P200
instead of P2000 as nominal and other damages.
HELD: No. The damages awarded are proper.
Assessment of Nominal Damages is left to the
discretion of the court, according to the circumstances
of the case. Considering that nominal damages are not
for the indemnification of loss suffered, but for the
vindication or recognition of a right violated or
invaded, and that the perfection of the appeal was no
assurance that Ventanilla would succeed in his first
action for recovery, the amount that he seeks to recover
here as nominal damages is excessive.
CANNOT EXPERIENCE PHYSICAL SUFFERING AND MENTAL

ANGUISH.
DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are not indemnification

of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of
a right violated or invaded.
CLASS NOTES
Code lists all kinds of suffering but MENTAL
ANGUISH should be involved open question
In QD: when defendant acted with gross negligence

In contracts and quasi-contracts: if the defendant
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner.
C. Nominal
Art. 2221. 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.
FACTS: NAPOCOR issued invitations to bid for the

supply and delivery of imported coal. PHIBROs bid
was accepted. PHIBRO was not able to deliver, so
NAPOCOR advertised again for bidding of the same
products. PHIBRO participated in the bidding again,
but NAPOCOR disapproved their application. PHIBRO
filed an action for damages on the ground that
NAPOCORs act of disqualifying them was tainted with
malice and bad faith. Lower courts ruled in favor of
PHIBRO and awarded actual, moral and exemplary
damages.
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in

every obligation arising from any source enumerated in
Article 1157, or in every case where any property right
has been invaded.
ISSUE: WON PHIBRO is entitled to damages.
FACTS: Ventanilla hired Atty. Centeno to represent him

in an action for recovery with damages. Centeno
screwed up the filing of appeal. Ventanilla now seeks to
Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall

preclude further contest upon the right involved and all
accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit,
or their respective heirs and assigns.
Ventanilla v. Centeno
CLASS NOTES
ND small but ok according to SC because it is
not supposed to account for anything
ND only symbollic
Robes-Francisco Realty Corp. v. CFI

FACTS: Lolita Millan bought a lot from the petitioner in
May, 1962 and was able to fully pay her installments on
Dec. 22, 1971. The deed of absolute sale however,
was only executed in her favor in 1973. Nearly 3 years
after her last payment, petitioner still has not given her
the TCT of the lot. Millan filed a complaint for specific
performance.
TC awarded her P20K in nominal
damages.
ISSUE: WON the award of nominal damages was
proper.
HELD: Yes. The right of the vendee to acquire title to
the lot she bought was violated by the petitioner and
this entitles her, at the very least, to nominal damages.
The amount, however, should be reduced since there
was no showing of bad faith on the part of the
petitioner.

2008
DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are recoverable where
some injury has been done, the amount of which the
evidence fails to show, the assessment of damages is
left to the discretion of the court according to the
circumstances of the case.
CLASS NOTES
20K award of ND by TC excessive
Penal clause issue: no penal clause because
even if without it Millan still entitled to legal
interest more than 4% p.a. (could be wrong
because SC seemed to equate penal clause
with liquidated damages)
People v. Gopio
FACTS: Gopio raped and molested Princess Millano, a
minor. He was convicted of statutory rape and ordered
to indemnify the victim through damages (actual=
P3727, moral= P30K)
HELD: Actual damages should be deleted as no proof
was presented to show the actual amount of pecuniary
loss. However, Nominal Damages (P2K) should be
awarded in order that the right of the victim, violated by
the accused may be vindicated or recognized. This is
not for the purpose of indemnifying any loss suffered.
*DOCTRINE: WHENEVER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION
OF AN ASCERTAINED LEGAL RIGHT, ALTHOUGH NO ACTUAL
DAMAGES RESULTED OR NONE ARE SHOWN, THE AWARD OF
NOMINAL DAMAGES IS PROPER.
Armovit v. CA
FACTS: Dr. Armovit and his family decided to spend
Christmas in the Philippines and bought 3 round-trip
US-Manila tickets from Northwest Airlines. On the
return trip (Manila-US), they were rudely informed that
they cannot be accommodated because their supposed
flight was already taking off and the time on their tickets
was wrong. Dr. Armovit was unable to keep his

appointments with his US patients, he and his family
suffered anguish, wounded feelings and serious anxiety
until they were finally able to fly back to the US. They
filed an action for damages in the Manila RTC after
NWA refused to give them compensatory damages for
breach of contract of air-transport carriage. RTC
awarded damages (Dr.: actual: P1300, moral: 500K,
exemplary: 500K, nominal: 100K; Mrs.: moral: 300K,
exemplary: 300K, nominal: 50K; daughter: moral: 300K,
exemplary: 300K, nominal: 50K). CA modified:
sustained award of actual damages, deleted moral and
nominal damages.
ISSUE: WON the deletion of nominal damages was
proper.
HELD: Yes. Nominal damages should not be awarded
when actual damages were. Assessment of ND is left
to the discretion of the court, according to the
circumstances of the case.
59
of contract w/ damages. TC and CA awarded moral

and exemplary damages.
ISSUE: WON moral and exemplary damages should
have been awarded.
HELD: No. However, NOMINAL DAMAGES ARE PROPER.
Petitioners gave lame excuses for the delay in the
delivery of the cake. Their prevarication made them
liable for nominal damages for insensitivity,
inadvertence or inattention to their customers anxiety
and need of the hour.
DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are recoverable where
(1) a legal right is technically violated and must be
vindicated against an invasion that has produced no
actual present loss of any kind, or (2) where there has
been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or
actual damages have been or can be shown.
*DOCTRINE: NOMINAL DAMAGES CANNOT COEXIST WITH

ACTUAL DAMAGES.
D. Temperate
CLASS NOTES
Why ND cant coexist with AD? Sir says that
award of AD already presupposes invasion of
right so awarding ND would lead to double
recovery
Francisco v. Ferrer
FACTS: Rebecca Lo and her daughter Anette Ferrer
ordered a 3-layer wedding cake from Fountainhead
Bakeshop. On the wedding day, at around 6pm, the
cake was not there. They made a follow-up call and
were assured that it was on its way, but was delayed by
traffic. They were later informed that there would be no
cake because the order slip got lost. Ferrer was
compelled to buy a sans rival cake instead. The
wedding cake arrived at 10pm, but they refused to
accept it because it only had 2 layers. Francisco
(owner of Fountainhead) sent a letter of apology and
5K, which was denied for being deemed inadequate.
Ferrer and Lo filed a case against Francisco for breach
Sir: awarded when there is no basis for AD

Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are
more than nominal but less than compensatory
damages, may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount
can not, from the nature of the case, be provided
with certainty.
Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable
under the circumstances.
CLASS NOTES
Remember Ramos vs. CA where temperate damages

were awarded for continuing injury
Pleno v. CA
FACTS: A red Ford cargo truck hit a blue Volkswagen
kombi driven by Pleno, causing it to hit a cargo truck
parked along the shoulder, hitting its driver who was

2008
urinating in front of it. Pleno was seriously injured and
was confined for 5 months in Makati Med and had to
undergo 5 surgeries. Pleno filed a complaint for
damages against the owner of the red truck and its
driver. CFI ruled in favor of Pleno. CA reduced the
amount of damages for being excessive (Temperate:
200K 100K, moral: 200K 100K).
ISSUE: WON the reduction of damages was proper.
HELD: No. The lower courts award of damages are
more in consonance with the factual circumstances of
the case.
Each item of damages is adequately
supported by evidence. Temperate damages were
based on the impairment of income of actual capacity
(since the actual income of Pleno as president of
Mayon Ceramics company was not proven).
DOCTRINE: Temperate damages may be `awarded in
cases where definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be
offered, but the court is convinced that there was an
injury or loss.
CLASS NOTES
Can AD and TD be warded at the same time? YES in

Ramos vs. CA but sir says its an aberration since TD
is awarded when there is no basis for AD
People v. Singh
FACTS: Dalvir, et al ganged up on Surinder, killing him.
Dilbag, who was cleaning his motorbike nearby, tried to
stop the attack, but he too was stabbed. The accused
were convicted of murder and frustrated murder. Lower
courts awarded hospitalization and medical expenses,
actual damages, civil indemnity, moral damages,
attorneys fees and compensation for loss of earning
capacity.
ISSUE: WON damages should be awarded.
HELD: Yes, although award for loss of earning capacity
should be deleted. Such AWARDS PARTAKE OF DAMAGES
WHICH MUST BE PROVEN NOT ONLY BY CREDIBLE AND
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE, BUT ALSO BY UNBIASED PROOF
(Such as income tax reports). Bare allegation is

insufficient. Nevertheless, considering that the DEFINITE
PROOF OF PECUNIARY LOSS CANNOT BE OFFERED AND THE
FACT THAT LOSS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, appellants
should pay the heirs of the victim temperate damages.
CLASS NOTES
Fact of loss established but AD cannot be proved
60
-LD is perceived loss if other party does not

comply with his obligation because AD would
be difficult to determine
But in A2227: indemnity or penalty
Art. 2228. When the breach of the contract committed

by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the
parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the
law shall determine the measure of damages, and not
the stipulation.
People v. Plazo
FACTS: Edison Plazo boxed and stabbed Romeo
Fabula. Plazo was convicted of murder.
ISSUE: WON temperate damages should be awarded.
HELD: Yes. Temperate damages under Art. 2224 may
be recovered where it has been shown that the victims
family suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount
thereof cannot be proved with certainty. 15K as
temperate damages was awarded.
E. Liquidated
F. Exemplary or Corrective
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are
imposed, by way of example or correction for the public
good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages.
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as
a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the
crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. Such damages are separate and
distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended
party.
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be
granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.
Casis: 3rd parties are not bound by the stipulation of LD

in the contract.
-For LD: prove breach
-For MD on top of LD: prove breach + BF
Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court

may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon

by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach
thereof.
Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as

a matter of right; the court will decide whether or not
they should be adjudicated.
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as

an INDEMNITY OR A PENALTY, shall be equitably reduced
if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages

need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is
entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages
before the court may consider the question of whether
or not exemplary damages should be awarded. In case
liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although
no proof of loss is necessary in order that such
liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless,
before the court may consider the question of granting
exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages, the
plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral,
temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the
stipulation for liquidated damages.
CLASS NOTES
LD intended as indemnity or penalty
Juris: LD vs. Penal clause
-intent behind LD penalty is deterrent
-LD is measure of damage which does not
matter in penalty

2008
Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages
are renounced in advance shall be null and void.
CLASS NOTES
ED and ND:
ND vindicates right ~ declaratory relief
ED is penalty-like
PNB v. CA
April 2, 1996
FACTS: Tan owned a parcel of land which was
expropriated by the government. He filed a motion w/
the TC requesting that it issue an order for the payment
of P32K as expropriation price. PNB was ordered to
pay Tan the amount. PNB issued and delivered a
managers check to Sonia Gonzaga who had a Special
Power of Attorny supposedly executed by Tan in her
favor. Gonzaga took the money for herself. Tan
demanded payment which was refused by PNB, having
already paid the amount to Tans agent. Tan file a
motion with the court requiring PNB to pay. TC: ruled in
favor of Tan and ordered PNB to pay the amount and
exemplary damages. CA: affirmed, but deleted the
award of exemplary damages.
ISSUE: WON exemplary damages should be awarded
to Tan.
HELD: No. Exemplary damages may be awarded if a
party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent manner.
It cannot be
recovered as a matter of right, but left to the discretion
of the court. Although there was a breach of PNBs
obligation to Tan, there is no basis for the award of
exemplary damages.
*(MEMORIZE) DOCTRINE: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
AWARD OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES: (1) THEY MAY BE
IMPOSED BY WAY OF EXAMPLE IN ADDITION TO
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, AND 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 TO THE
CLAIMANT. (3) THE ACT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY BAD
FAITH OR DONE IN A WANTON, FRAUDULENT, OPPRESSIVE
OR MALEVOLENT MANNER.
Del Rosario v. CA
Janunary 29, 1997
FACTS: The sps. Del Rosario bought roofing materials
from MFC, which advertised the materials as durable
and sturdy. Less than 2 months after installation,
portions of the roof were blown off by a typhoon. MFC
replaced and repaired them free of charge because of a
warranty. The Del Rosarios hired an adjuster to
determine the cause of the destruction. The adjusters
found that MFC did not attach the tiles properly and the
project was hastily done. The Del Rosarios filed a
complaint with the DTI and another with the RTC to
recover damages.
ISSUE: WON the award of damages is justified.
HELD: Yes. The awards of moral and exemplary
damages are justified. MFC acted in bad faith when it
flagrantly breached its express warranties made to the
general public.
DOCTRINE: Exemplary damages may be imposed by
way of example or correction for the public good.
CASIS: implies that ED is attached to MD
CLASS NOTES
How did court arrive at final amount?
Compare with other cases
61

Torts Magic Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Torts Magic Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010

VI. PERSONS LIABLE

of injuring Worcester, both as a private person and as a

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-

same extent and in the same manner as if they had