A.

NEGLIGENCE, Defined
a. Corliss v. Manila Railroad Co
Negligence is want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or
comparative, not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the
situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the
circumstances reasonably require. Where the danger is great, a high degree of
care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under
the circumstances.
Article 2176, NCC
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.
Article 2178, NCC
The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict.
Article 1172, NCC
Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation
is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to
the circumstances.
Article 1173, NCC
The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence
which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.
Article 1174, NCC
Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable.
B. QUASI-DELICT
a. Capili v. Cardana
A negligent act is one from which an ordinary prudent person in the actors
position, in the same or similar circumstances, would foresee such an
appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to do
it in a more careful manner.
The probability that the branches of a dead and rotting tree could fall and
harm someone is clearly a danger that is foreseeable. As the school
principal, Capili was tasked to see to the maintenance of the school grounds
and safety of the children within the school and its premises. Being unaware
of the rotten state of a tree only shows that she failed to discharge the
responsibility of her position.

In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has to
prove by a preponderance of evidence:
1. Damages suffered by plaintiff
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose
act he must respond
3. Connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and
the damages incurred.

b. Elcano & Elcano v. Hill & Hill

The concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in character,
whether voluntary or negligent.
A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or
not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that
the victim do not recover damages on both scores.
The vicarious liability of the parents on account of a delict committed by
their minor child is not extinguished by the fact that said, child who is Hiring
with and dependent upon said parents is married.