TORTS AND DAMAGES

I. TORTS
TORT
An unlawful violation of private
right, not created by contract, and which
gives rise to an action for damages.
It is an act or omission producing an
injury to another, without any previous
existing lawful relation of which the said
act or omission may be said to be a
natural outgrowth or incident.
NOTES:
An unborn child is NOT entitled to
damages. But the bereaved parents may
be entitled to damages, on damages
inflicted directly upon them. (Geluz vs.
CA, 2 SCRA 802)
Defendants in tort cases can either
be natural or artificial being.
Corporations are civilly liable in the
same manner as natural persons.
Any person who has been injured by
reason of a tortious conduct can sue the
tortfeasor.
The primary purpose of a tort action
is to provide compensation to a person
who was injured by the tortious conduct
of the defendant.
Preventive remedy is available in
some cases.
NEGLIGENCE
The omission of that degree of
diligence which is required by the nature
of the obligation and corresponding to
the circumstances of persons, time and
place. (Article 1173 Civil Code)
Kinds of Negligence:
1. Culpa Contractual (contractual
negligence)
Governed by CC provisions on
Obligations and Contracts, particularly
Arts. 1170 to 1174 of the Civil Code.
2. Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)
Governed mainly by Art. 2176 of the
Civil Code
3. Culpa Criminal (criminal negligence)
Governed by Art. 365 of the Revised
Penal Code.
NOTES:
The 3 kinds of negligence furnish
separate, distinct, and independent
bases of liability or causes of action.
A single act or omission may give rise
to two or more causes of action.

Classes of Torts: Culpa Contractual Culpa Aquiliana

The foundation of
A. Negligent Torts the liability of the It is a separate
B. Intentional Torts defendant source of obligation
independent of
C. Strict Liability is the contract contract
In quasi-delict the
In breach of contract presumptive
committed through responsibility for the
the negligence of negligence of his
A. NEGLIGENT TORTS employee, the servants can be
employer cannot rebutted by proof of
erase his primary and the exercise of due
Involve voluntary acts or omissions care in their selection
which result in injury to others without direct liability by
invoking exercise of and supervision.
intending to cause the same or because diligence of a good
the actor fails to exercise due care in father of a family in
performing such acts or omissions. the selection and
supervision of the
employee.
 Negligence is a conduct - the
determination of the existence of
Culpa Aquiliana Crime negligence is concerned with what the
defendant did or did not do
Only involves private Affect the public The state of mind of the actor is
concern interest not important; good faith or use of
sound judgment is immaterial. The
The Civil Code by The Revised Penal existence of negligence in a given
means of indem- Code punishes or case is not determined by reference
nification merely corrects criminal act to the personal judgment but by the
repairs the damage behavior of the actor in the situation
before him. (Picart vs. Smith)
Includes all acts in Punished only if there Negligence is a conduct that creates
which any kind of is a penal law clearly an undue risk of harm to others.
fault or negligence covering them The determination of negligence is a
intervenes
question of foresight on the part of the
actor FORESEABILITY.
Liability of the
Liability is direct and employer of the
primary in quasi- actor-employee is Even if a particular injury was not
delict subsidiary in crimes foreseeable, the risk is still foreseeable
if possibility of injury is foreseeable.
QUASI-DELICT
Forseeability involves the question of
Whoever by act or omission causes PROBABILITY, that is, the existence of
damage to another, there being fault or some real likelihood of some damage and
negligence is obliged to pay for the the likelihood is of such appreciable
damage done. (Article 2176 Civil Code) weight reasonably to induce, action to
avoid it.

Essential Requisites for a quasi-

delictual action:
1. Act or omission constituting fault or
negligence;
2. Damage caused by the said act or
omission; and
3. Causal relation between the damage
and the act or omission.
Tests of Negligence
1. Did the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act use the
reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent person would
have used in the same situation?
If not then he is guilty of
negligence.
2. Could a prudent man, in the case
under consideration, foresee harm as
a result of the course pursued?
If so, it was the duty of the actor to
take precautions to guard against harm.
NOTES:
Calculation of Risk
Interests are to be balanced only in
the sense that the purposes of the actor,
the nature of his act and the harm that
may result from action or inaction are
elements to be considered.
Circumstances to consider in
determining negligence: (PEST-GAP)
1. Time
2. Place
3. Emergency
Emergency rule
GENERAL RULE: An individual who
suddenly finds himself in a situation
of danger and is required to act
without much time to consider the
best means that may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger is not
guilty of negligence if he fails to
undertake what subsequently and
upon reflection may appear to be a
better solution.
EXCEPTION: When the emergency
was brought by the individuals own
 negligence. (Valenzuela vs. CA 253
SCRA 303).
4. Gravity of Harm to be avoided
5. Alternative Course of Action
If the alternative presented to
the actor is too costly, the harm
that may result may be still be
considered unforeseeable to a
reasonable man.
6. Social value or utility of activity
7. Person exposed to the risk
GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY (pater
familias):
- this is the standard of conduct used in
the Philippines
- a man of ordinary intelligence and
prudence or an ordinary reasonable
prudent man
a reasonable man deemed to have
knowledge of the facts that a man should
be expected to know based on ordinary
human experience. (PNR vs IAC, 217
SCRA 409)
- a prudent man who is expected to know
the basic laws of nature and physics, e.g.
gravity.
SPECIAL RULES
1. Children
The action of the child will not
necessarily be judged according to the
standard of an adult. But if the minor is
mature enough to understand and
appreciate the nature and consequence
of his actions, he will be considered
negligent if he fails to exercise due care
and precaution in the commission of such
acts.
NOTES:
The law fixes no arbitrary age at
which a minor can be said to have the
necessary capacity to understand and
appreciate the nature and consequence
of his acts. (Taylor vs. Meralco, 16 Phil
8)
Applying the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, Judge Sangco takes
the view that a child who is 9 or below is
conclusively presumed to be incapable of
negligence. In the other hand, if the
child is above 9 years but below 15,
there is a disputable presumption of
absence of negligence.
Absence of negligence does not
necessarily mean absence of liability.
Liability without fault: a child under
9 years can still be subsidiarily liable
with his property (Art. 100, RPC)
Absence of negligence of the child
may not excuse the parents from their
vicarious liability under Art. 2180 NCC or
Art. 221 FC.
2. Physical Disability
Mere weakness of a person will not
be an excuse in negligence cases.
However if defect amounts to a real
disability the standard of conduct is that
of a reasonable person under like
disability.
3. Experts and professionals
They should exhibit the care and skill
of one who is ordinarily skilled in the
particular field that he is in.
When a person holds himself out as
being competent to do things requiring
professional skill, he will be held liable
for negligence if he fails to exhibit the
care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in
the particular work which he attempts to
do.
An expert will not be judged based
on what a non-expert can foresee.
The rule regarding experts is
applicable not only to professionals who
have undergone formal education.
4. Nature of activity
There are activities which by nature
impose duties to exercise a higher
degree of diligence.
Examples:
a. Banks, by the very nature of their
work, are expected to exercise the
highest degree of diligence in the
selection and supervision of their
employees.
b. Common carriers are required to
exercise extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over their passengers and
transported goods. (Article 1733 Civil
Code).
5. Intoxication
GENERAL RULE: Mere intoxication is
not negligence, nor does the mere fact
of intoxication establish want of ordinary
care. But it may be one of the
circumstances to be considered to prove
negligence.
EXCEPTION: Under Art. 2185 of the
Civil Code, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap,
he was violating any traffic regulation.
6. Insanity
The insanity of a person does not
excuse him or his guardian from liability
based on quasi-delict.
Bases for holding an insane person
liable for his tort:
a. Where one of two innocent persons
must suffer a loss, it should be borne by
the one who occasioned it.
b. To induce those interested in the
estate of the insane person to restrain
and control him.
c. The fear that an insanity would
lead to false claims of insanity and avoid
liability.
7. Women
In determining the question of
contributory negligence in performing
such act, the age, sex, and condition of
the passengers are circumstances
necessarily affecting the safety of the
passenger, and should be considered.
(Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. GR
No.12191, October 14, 1918)
Although there is no unequivocal
statement of the rule, Valenzuela vs. CA
253SCRA303 appears to require a
different standard of care for women
under the circumstances indicated
therein.
However, Dean Guido Calabresi
believes that there should be a uniform
standard between a men and a women.
Other Factors to Consider in
Determining Negligence:
A. VIOLATION OF RULES AND
STATUTES
1. Statutes
GENERAL RULE: Violation of a
statutory duty is NEGLIGENCE PER SE
(Cipriano vs. CA, 263SCRA711). When the
Legislature has spoken, the standard of
care required is no longer what a
reasonably prudent man would do under
the circumstances but what the
Legislature has commanded.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. When unusual conditions occur and
strict observance may defeat the
purpose of the rule and may even
lead to adverse results.
b. When the statute expressly
provides that violation of a
statutory duty merely establishes a
presumption of negligence.
NOTE: Rule as to proof of proximate
cause
GENERAL RULE: Plaintiff must show
that the violation of the statute is the
proximate or legal cause of the injury
or that it substantially contributed
thereto. (Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc.
vs. CA 300SCRA20)
EXCEPTION: In cases where the
damage to the plaintiff is the damage
sought to be prevented by the statute.
In such cases, proof of violation of
statute and damage to the plaintiff
may itself establish proximate cause.
(Teague vs. Fernandez 51SCRA181).
2. Administrative Rule
Violation of a rule promulgated by
administrative agencies is not negligence
per se but may be EVIDENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE.
3. Private Rules of Conduct.
Violation of rules imposed by
private individuals (e.g. employers) is
merely a POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE.
B. PRACTICE AND CUSTOM
Compliance with the practice and
custom in a community will not
automatically result in a finding that the
actor is not guilty of negligence. Non-
compliance with the practice or custom
in the community does not necessarily
mean that the actor was negligent.
In Yamada vs. Manila Railroad Co.,
the owner of an automobile struck by a
train while crossing the tracks sought to
establish absence of negligence of its
driver by evidence of a custom of
automobile drivers of Manila by which
they habitually drove their cars over the
railroad crossings without slackening
speed. The SC rejected the argument by
ruling that: a practice which is dangerous
to human life cannot ripen into custom
which will protect anyone who follows it.
C. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES
Compliance with a statute is not
conclusive that there was no negligence.
Example: A defendant can still be
held liable for negligence even if he can
establish that he was driving below the
speed limit. Compliance with the speed
limit is not conclusive that he was not
negligently driving his car.
Gross Negligence - Negligence where
there is want of even slight care and
diligence.
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
GENERAL RULE:
If the plaintiff alleged in his
complaint that he was damaged because
of the negligent acts of the defendant,
the plaintiff has the burden of proving
such negligence. (Taylor vs. MERALCO
16Phil8)
The quantum of proof required is
preponderance of evidence. (Rule 133
Revised Rules of Court)
EXCEPTIONS: Exceptional cases when
the rules or the law provides for cases
when negligence is presumed.
A. Presumptions of Negligence
B. Res Ipsa Loquitur
A. Presumptions of Negligence
1. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner
is presumed negligent if he was in the
vehicle and he could have used due
diligence to prevent the misfortune.
(Article 2184 Civil Code)
2. It is disputably presumed that a
driver was negligent if he had been
found guilty of reckless driving or
violating traffic regulations at least
twice for the next preceding two
months. (Article 2184 Civil Code)
3. The driver of a motor vehicle is
presumed negligent if at the time of the
mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation. (Article 2185 Civil Code)
4. GENERAL RULE: Prima facie
presumption of negligence of the
defendant arises if death or injury
results from his possession of dangerous
weapons or substance.
EXCEPTION: When such possession or
use is indispensable to his occupation or
business. (Article 2188 Civil Code)
5. GENERAL RULE: Presumption of
negligence of the common carrier arises
in case of loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods, or in case of
death or injury of passengers.
EXCEPTION: Upon proof of exercise of
extraordinary diligence.
B. Res Ipsa Loquitur
The thing or transaction speaks for
itself.
It is a rule of evidence peculiar to
the law of negligence which recognizes
that prima facie negligence may be
established in the absence of direct
proof, and furnishes a substitute for
specific proof of negligence.
Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitor:
1. The accident was of a kind which
ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someones negligence;
2. The instrumentality which caused
the injury was under the exclusive
control and management of the
person charged with negligence; and
3. The injury suffered must not have
been due to any voluntary action or
contribution on the part of the
person injured; absence of
explanation by the defendant.
In Africa vs. Caltex (Phil.) Inc. Mar
31, 1966, defendant Caltex was liable for
damage done to the property of its
neighbors when fire broke out in a Caltex
service station. The gasoline station,
with all its appliances, equipment and
employees, was under the control of the
defendant. The persons who knew how
the fire started were the defendant and
its employees, but they gave no
explanation whatsoever.
The doctrine is not applicable if
there is direct proof of absence or
presence of negligence. (S.D. Martinez,
et al vs. William Van Buskirk)
AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES AND
MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES:
1. Duty to Rescue
A. Duty to the rescuer
The defendants are liable for the
injuries to persons who rescue people in
distress because of the acts or omissions
of the said defendants.
There is liability to the rescuer
and the law does not discriminate
between the rescuer oblivious to the
peril and the one who counts the costs.
The risk of rescue, if only not
wanton, is born of the occasion.
One who was hurt trying to
rescue another who was injured through
negligence may recover damages.
(Santiago vs. De leon CA-GR No.16180-R
March 21, 1960)
Danger of personal injury or
death.
B. Duty to rescue
GENERAL RULE: There is no general
duty to rescue; a person is not liable for
quasi-delict even if he did not help a
person in distress.
EXCEPTIONS: A limited duty to rescue
is imposed in certain cases:
Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of ones own victim is
considered, under certain circumstances
as a crime against security (Article 275
RPC); and
No driver of a motor vehicle concerned
in a vehicular accident shall leave the
scene of the accident without aiding the
victim unless he is excused from doing
so. (Section 55 RA 4136 [Land
Transportation and traffic Code])
2. Owners, Proprietors and Possessors
of Property
GENERAL RULE: The owner has no duty
to take reasonable care towards a
trespasser for his protection or even to
protect him from concealed danger.
NOTE: Damage to any person resulting
from the exercise of any rights of
ownership is damage without injury
(Damnum absque injuria)
EXCEPTIONS:
a. Visitors and tolerated possession
The owner is still liable if the
plaintiff is inside his property by
tolerance or by implied permission.
Owners of buildings or
premises owe duty of care to
visitors.
b. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his
premises dangerous instrumentalities
or appliances of a character likely to
attract children in play, and who
fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing
therewith or resorting thereto, is
liable to a child of tender years who
is injured thereby, even if the child
is technically a trespasser in the
premises.
NOTE: A swimming pool or pond or
reservoir of water is NOT considered
attractive nuisance. (Hidalgo
Enterprises vs. Baladan 91 Phil 488)
c. State of Necessity
The owner of a thing has no right
to prohibit the interference of
another with the same if the
interference is necessary to avert
imminent danger and the threatened
damage, compared to the damage
arising to the owner from the
interference, is much greater.
(Article 432 Civil Code)
It is also a recognized justifying
circumstance under the RPC.
In both the Civil Code and the
RPC, the owner may demand from
the person benefited, indemnity for
the damages.
Use of properties that injures another
An owner cannot use his property in
such a manner as to injure the rights of
others. (Article 431 Civil Code).
Hence the exercise of the right of
the owner may give rise to an action
based on quasi-delict if the owner
negligently exercises such right to the
prejudice of another.
Liability of Proprietors of buildings
New Civil Code include provisions
that apply to proprietors of a building or
structure which involve affirmative duty
of due care in maintaining the same:
Articles 2190 and 2191.
Third persons who suffered damages
may proceed only against the engineer or
architect or contractor if the damage
referred to in Articles 2190 and
2191should be a result of any defect in
construction.
Nevertheless, actions for damages
can still be maintained under Article
2176 for damages resulting from
proprietors failure to exercise due care
in the maintenance of his building and
that he used his property in such a way
that he injured the property of another.
3. Employers and Employees
A. Employers
Actions for quasi-delict can still be
maintained even if employees
compensation is provided for under
the Labor Code.
In quasi-delictual actions against the
employer, the employee may use the
provisions of the Labor Code which
imposes upon the employer certain
duties with respect to the proper
maintenance of the work place or
the provisions of adequate facilities
to ensure the safety of the
employees.
Articles 1711 and 1712 of the Civil
Code impose liability without fault
on the part of the employers.
B. Employees
Employees are bound to exercise due
care in the performance of their
functions for the employers; absence
such due care, the employee may be
held liable.
4. Banks
The business of banks is one affected
by public interest. Because of the
nature of its functions, a bank is under
obligation to treat the accounts of its
depositors with meticulous care, always
having in mind the fiduciary nature of
their relationship. (PBC vs. CA [1997])
5. Common carriers
From the nature of their business
and for reasons of public policy, they are
bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods
and the safety of the passengers.
The case against the common carrier
is for the enforcement of an obligation
arising from breach of contract.
The same act which breached the
contract may give rise to an action based
on quasi delict. (Air France vs
Carrascoso, L21438, Sept. 28, 1996)
6. Doctors
A. STANDARD OF CARE
The proper standard is whether,
the physician if a general practitioner,
has exercised the degree of care and
skill of the average qualified
practitioner, taking into account the
advances in the profession.
A physician who holds himself out
as a specialist should be held to the
standard of care and skill of the average
member of the profession practicing the
specialty, taking into account the
advances in the profession.
B. THE CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP DOCTRINE
The head surgeon is made liable
for everything that goes wrong within
the four corners of the operating room.
It enunciates the liability of the
surgeon not only for the wrongful acts of
those under his physical control but also
those wherein he has extension of
control.
C. NOT WARRANTORS
Physicians are not warrantors of
cures or insurers against personal injuries
or death of the patient.
D. PROOF
Expert testimony should be offered
to prove that the circumstances are
constitutive of conduct falling below the
standard of care employed by other
physicians in good standing when
performing the same operation.
Medical malpractice can also be
established by relying on the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitor; in which case the need
of expert testimony is dispensed with
because the injury itself provides the
proof of negligence. (Ramos vs. CA, GR
No.124354, December 29, 1999)
 Example: The doctrine was applied
in a case of removal of the wrong part of
the body when another part was
intended.
Two pronged evidence:
a. Evidence as to the recognized
standards of the medical community
in the particular kind of case; and
b. A showing that the physician
departed from this standard in his
treatment.
Four elements in medical
negligence cases: duty, breach, injury
and proximate causation
E. LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS AND
CONSULTANTS
There is no employer-employee
relationship between the hospital and a
physician admitted in the said hospitals
medical staff as an active or visiting
consultant which would hold the
hospital liable solidarily liable for the
injury suffered by a patient under Article
2180 of the Civil Code. (Ramos vs. CA GR
No 124354, April 11, 2002)
The contract between the
consultant and the patient is separate
and distinct the contract between the
hospital and the patient. The first has
for its object the rendition of medical
services by the consultant to the patient,
while the second concerns the provision
by the hospital of facilities and services
by its staff such as nurses and laboratory
personnel necessary for the proper
treatment of the patient. (Ramos vs. CA
GR No 124354, April 11, 2002)
7. Lawyers
An attorney is not bound to exercise
extraordinary diligence but only a
reasonable degree of care and skill,
having reference to the business he
undertakes to do.
2. IMPUTED
DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
Kinds of defenses:
A. Complete completely bars
recovery
B. Partial mitigates liability
1. PLAINTIFFS CONDUCT AND
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
a. Plaintiffs own negligence as the
proximate cause
When the plaintiffs own negligence
was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. (Article 2179
Civil Code)
b. Contributory negligence
Conduct on the part of the injured
party contributing as a legal cause
to the harm he has suffered which
falls below the standard to which
he is required to conform for his
own protection. (Valenzuela vs. CA
253SCRA303)
If the plaintiffs negligence was
only contributory, the immediate
and proximate cause of the injury
being the defendants lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover
damages but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be
awarded (Article 2179 Civil Code).
Doctrine of Comparative
Negligence
The
relative degree of negligence of
the parties is considered in
determining whether and to what
degree, either should be
responsible for his negligence
(apportionment of damages).
This is
the doctrine being applied in our
jurisdiction wherein the
contributory negligence of the
plaintiff does not completely bar
recovery but merely results in
mitigation of liability; it is a partial
defense.
The
court is free to determine the
extent of the mitigation of the
defendants liability depending
upon the circumstances.
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is imputed if the actor is
different from the person who is
being made liable.
The defendant will be subject to
mitigated liability even if the
plaintiff was not himself personally
negligent but because the negligence
 of another is imputed to the
plaintiff.
It is applicable if the negligence was
on the part of the person for whom
the plaintiff is responsible, and
especially, by negligence of an
associate in the transaction where he
was injured.
3. FORTUITOUS EVENTS
Essential requisites:
a. The cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or of the
failure of the debtor to comply
with his obligation, must be
independent of the human will;
b. It must be impossible to foresee
the event which constitutes the
caso fortuito, or if it can be
foreseen, it must be impossible to
avoid;
c. The occurrence must be such as to
render it impossible for the debtor
to fulfill his obligation in a normal
manner; and
d. The obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of
the injury resulting to the creditor.
NOTE: When an act of God concurs
with the negligence of defendant to
produce an injury, the defendant is
liable if the injury would not have
resulted but for his own negligent
conduct or omission. The whole
occurrence is humanized and removed
from the rules applicable to acts of
God. (NAPOCOR vs. CA [1993])
GENERAL RULE: It is a complete
defense and a person is not liable if
the cause of the damage is a fortuitous
event.
EXCEPTION: It is merely a partial
defense and the courts may mitigate
the damages if the loss would have
resulted in any event (Art. 2215(4)
Civil Code).
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Volenti non fit injuria: One is not
legally injured if he has consented to the
act complained of or was willing that it
should occur.
It is a complete defense.
Elements:
a. The plaintiff must know that the
risk is present;
b. He must further understand its
nature; and that
c. His choice to incur it is free and
voluntary.
KINDS:
a. Express waiver of the right to
recover
There is assumption of risk if the
plaintiff, in advance has expressly
waived his right to recover damages for
the negligent act of the defendant.
NOTE: A person cannot contract away his
right to recover damages resulting from
negligence. Such waiver is contrary to
public policy and cannot be allowed.
However, the waiver contemplated by
this prohibition is the waiver of the right
to recover before the negligent act was
committed.
If waiver was made after the cause
of action accrued, the waiver is valid and
may be construed as a condonation of
the obligation.
b. Implied Assumptions
i. Dangerous Conditions
A person who, knowing that he
is exposed to a dangerous condition
voluntarily assumes the risk of such
dangerous condition may not recover
from the defendant who maintained
such dangerous conditions.
Example: A person who main-
tained his house near a railroad track
assumes the usual dangers attendant
to the opera-tion of a locomotive.
(Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad Co.,
GR No. 15688, Nov. 19, 1921).
ii. Contractual Relations
There may be implied
assumption of risk if the plaintiff
 entered into a contractual relation
with the defendant. By entering into
a relationship freely and voluntarily
where the negligence of the
defendant is obvious, the plaintiff
may be found to accept and consent
to it.
EXAMPLES:
a) The employees assume the
ordinary risks inherent in the
industry in which he is employed.
- As to abnormal risks, there
must be cogent and convincing
evidence of consent.
b) When a passenger boards a
common carrier, he takes the risks
incidental to the mode of travel he
has taken.
iii. Dangerous Activities
Persons who voluntarily
participate in dangerous activities
assume the risks which are usually
present in such activities.
EXAMPLE: A professional
athlete is deemed to assume the
risks of injury to their trade.
iv. Defendants negligence
When the plaintiff is aware of
the risk created by the defendants
negligence, yet he voluntarily
decided to proceed to encounter it,
there is an implied admission.
EXAMPLE: If the plaintiff has
been supplied with a product which
he knows to be unsafe, he is deemed
to have assumed the risk of using
such unsafe product.
5. DEATH OF THE DEFENDANT
Death of the defendant does not
extinguish the obligation based on quasi-
delict.
An action survives even if the
defendant dies during the pendency of
the case if the case is an action to
recover for an injury to persons or
property by reason of tort committed by
the deceased. It is no defense at all.
6. PRESCRIPTION
An action based on quasi-delict
prescribes in four years from the date of
the accident. (Article 1146 Civil Code)
Relations Back Doctrine
An act done at one time is
considered by fiction of law to have
been done at some antecedent
period. (Allied Banking Corp vs. CA,
1989)
EXAMPLE: A doctor negligently
transfused blood to a patient that
was contaminated with HIV. If the
effect became apparent only after
five (5) years, the four (4) year
prescriptive period should commence
only when it was discovered.
7. INVOLUNTARINESS
It is a complete defense in quasi-
delict cases and the defendant is
therefore not liable if force was exerted
on him. (Aquino, Torts and Damages)
EXAMPLE: When the defendant was
forced to drive his vehicle by armed
men. He was, at pain of death, forced to
drive at a very fast clip because the
armed men were escaping from the
policemen. The defendant cannot be
held liable, if a bystander is hit as a
consequence.
CAUSATION
Proximate Cause
That cause which in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, without which the result would
not have occurred.
Remote Cause
That cause which some independent
force merely took advantage of to
accomplish something not the natural
effect thereof.
Nearest Cause
That cause which is the last link in
the chain of events; the nearest in point
of time or relation.
Proximate cause is not necessarily
the nearest cause but that which is the
procuring efficient and predominant
cause.
Concurrent Causes
The actor is liable even if the active
and substantially simultaneous operation
of the effects of a third persons
innocent, tortious or criminal act is also
a substantial factor in bringing about the
harm so long as the actors negligent
conduct actively and continuously
operate to bring about harm to another.
(Africa vs. Caltex)
Where several causes producing the
injury are concurrent and each is an
efficient cause without which the injury
would not have happened, the injury
may be attributed to all or any of the
causes and recovery may be had against
any or all of the responsible persons.
Where the concurrent or successive
negligent acts or omissions of two or
more persons, although acting
independently, are in combination the
direct and proximate cause of a single
injury to a third person, and it is
impossible to determine what proportion
each contributed to the injury, either of
them is responsible for the whole injury,
even though his act alone might not have
caused the entire injury; they become
joint tort-feasors and are solidarily liable
for the resulting damage under Article
2194 of the Civil Code.
NOTE: Primary cause remains the
proximate cause even if there is an
intervening cause which merely
cooperated with the primary cause and
which did not break the chain of
causation.
Tests of Proximate Cause
Two-part test
1. Cause-in-fact Test
2. Policy Test
NOTE: In determining the proximate
cause of the injury, it is first necessary
to determine if the defendants
negligence was the cause-in-fact of the
damage to the plaintiff. (Cause-in-fact
test)
If the
defendants negligence was not
the cause-in-fact, the inquiry
stops.
If it is, the
inquiry shifts to the question of limit
of the defendants liability. (Policy
test)
CAUSE-IN-FACT TESTS:
1. But-For Test
The defendants conduct is the
cause-in-fact if damage would not have
resulted had there been no negligence
on the part of the defendant.
Conversely, defendants negligent
conduct is not the cause in fact of the
plaintiffs damage if the accident could
not have been avoided in the absence
thereof.
2. Substantial Factor test
The conduct is the cause-in-fact of
the damage if it was a substantial factor
in producing the injuries.
In order to be a substantial factor in
producing the harm, the causes set in
motion by the defendant must continue
until the moment of the damage or at
least down the setting in motion of the
final active injurious force which
immediately produced or preceded the
damage.
NOTE: If the defendants conduct was
already determined to be the cause in
fact of the plaintiffs damage under the
but for test, it is necessarily the cause in
fact of the damage under the substantial
factor test.
3. NESS Test
The candidate condition may still be
termed as a cause where it is shown to
be a necessary element in just one of
several co-present causal set each
independently sufficient for the effect.

Two ways by which co-presence may
manifest itself:
a. Duplicative causation
When two or more sets operate
simultaneously to produce the
effect; the effect is over-
determined.
b. Pre-emptive causation
When, though coming about first
in time, one causal set trumps
another potential set lurking in the
background; the causal potency of
the latter is frustrated.
Multiple causation
If there are a number of candidate
conditions, which, taken one at a time,
would not in fact have been sufficient to
cause the accident and the accident was
a cumulative effect of all the candidate
conditions.
Policy Tests:
1. Foreseeability Test
2. Natural and Probable Consequence
Test
3. Natural and Ordinary or Direct
Consequence Test
4. Hindsight Test
5. Orbit of Risk Test
6. Substantial Factor Test
Policy Tests may be divided into Two
Groups:
1. FORESIGHT PERSPECTIVE/
FORESEEABILITY TESTS
The defendant is not liable for the
unforeseeable consequences of his acts
Liability is limited within the risk
created by defendants negligent acts.
2. DIRECT PERSEPECTIVE/ DIRECT
COSEQUENCES TESTS
The defendant is liable for damages
which are beyond the risk.
Direct consequences are those which
follow in sequence from the effect of
defendants act upon conditions existing
and forces already in operation at the
time without intervention of any
external forces, which come into active
operation later.
Tests applied in the Philippines:
New Civil Code has a chapter on
Damages which specifies the kind of
damage for which the defendant may be
held liable and the extent of damage to
be awarded to the plaintiff.
Cause-in-fact Tests:
1. But-for test
2. Substantial Factor test
3. NESS test
Policy test: The directness approach
is being applied in this jurisdiction.
NOTE: The definition of proximate cause
which includes the element of foresight
is not consistent with the express
provision of the Article 2202 of the New
Civil Code; a person may be held liable
whether the damage to the plaintiff may
be unforeseen.
Cause and Conditions
It is no longer practicable to
distinguish between cause and
condition.
The defendant may be liable even if
only created conditions, if the conditions
resulted in harm to either person or
property.
EXAMPLES of Dangerous Conditions:
1. Those that are inherently
dangerous
2. Those where a person places a
thing which is not dangerous in itself in a
dangerous position.
3. Those involving products and
other things which are dangerous
because they are defective.
Efficient Intervening Cause
One which destroys the causal
connection between the negligent act
and the injury and thereby negatives
liability.
There is NO efficient intervening
cause if the force created by the
negligent act or omission have either:
1. Remained active itself, or
2. Created another force which
remained active until it directly
caused the result, or
3. Created a new active risk of
being acted upon by the active force
that caused the result.
EXAMPLE: The medical findings, show
that the infection of the wound by
tetanus was an efficient intervening
cause later or between the time Javier
was wounded to the time of his death.
(People vs. Rellin 77 Phil 1038)
NOTES:
A cause is not an intervening cause if
it was already in operation at the time
the negligent act is committed.
Foreseeable intervening causes
cannot be considered sufficient
intervening causes.
The intervention of unforeseen and
unexpected cause is not sufficient to
relieve the wrongdoer from
consequences of negligence if such
negligence directly and proximately
cooperates with the independent cause
in the resulting injury.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
A. Plaintiffs negligence is the cause
Plaintiffs negligence is not
contributory if it is necessary and
sufficient to produce the result.
EXAMPLES:
1. Only the plaintiff was negligent.
2. Defendants negligence is not a
part of the causal set which is a part of
the causal chain.
3. Plaintiffs negligence was pre-
emptive in nature.
B. Compound Causes
Plaintiffs negligence may have
duplicative effect, that it, it is sufficient
to bring about the effect but his
negligence occurs simultaneously with
the defendant; the latters negligence is
equally sufficient but not necessary to
bring about the effect because damage
would still have resulted due to the
negligence of the plaintiff.
Plaintiffs negligence is not merely
contributory because it is a concurring
proximate cause.
No recovery can be had. (Aquino,
Torts and Damages)
C. Part of the same causal set
Neither plaintiffs negligence nor
defendants negligence alone is
sufficient to cause the injury; the effect
would result only if both are present
together with normal background
conditions.
Negligence of the plaintiff
cooperated with the negligence of the
defendant in order to bring about the
injury; determination of proximate cause
is only a matter of degree of
participation.
D. Defendants Negligence is the Only
cause
Defendants negligence was
sufficient AND necessary to bring about
the injury.
However, if plaintiffs negligence
increased or aggravated the resulting
damage or injury liability of the
defendant should also be mitigated
under contributory negligence rule or
under the doctrine of avoidable
consequences.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance or
Discovered Peril
The negligence of the plaintiff does
not preclude a recovery for the
negligence of the defendant where it
appears that the defendant, by
exercising reasonable care and
prudence, might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff
notwithstanding the plaintiffs
negligence.
Alternative Views:
1. Prevailing view
Doctrine is applicable in this
jurisdiction.
Even if plaintiff was guilty of
antecedent negligence, the defendant is
still liable because he had the last clear
chance of avoiding the injury.
2. Minority View
The historical function of the
doctrine was to mitigate the harshness of
the common law rule of contributory
negligence which prevented any recovery
at all by the plaintiff who was also
negligent even if his negligence was
relatively minor as compared with the
wrongful act or omission of the
defendant.
The doctrine has no role in this
jurisdiction where common law concept
of contributory negligence has itself
been rejected in Article 2179 of the Civil
Code.

3. Third View
There can be no conflict between
the doctrine of last clear chance and
doctrine of comparative negligence if
the former is viewed as a rule or phrase
of proximate cause;
However, the doctrine of last clear
chance is no longer applicable if the
force created by the plaintiffs
negligence continues until the happening
of the injurious event.
Cases when the doctrine was held
inapplicable (PICCA)
1. If the plaintiff was not negligent.
2. The party charged is required to act
instantaneously, and if the injury cannot
be avoided by the application of all the
means at hand after the peril is or should
have been discovered.
3. If defendants negligence is a
concurrent cause and which was still in
operation up to the time the injury was
inflicted.
4. Where the plaintiff, a passenger,
filed an action against a carrier based on
contract.
5. If the actor, though negligent, was
not aware of the danger or risk brought
about by the prior fraud or negligent act.
B. INTENTIONAL TORTS
Include conduct where the actor
desires to cause the consequences of his
act or believes that the consequences
are substantially certain to result from
it.
They are found in Chapter 2 of the
Preliminary Title of the NCC entitled
Human Relations. Although this
chapter covers negligent acts, the torts
mentioned herein are mostly intentional
in nature or torts involving malice or bad
faith.
HUMAN RELATIONS
1. Principle of Abuse of Rights
(ART.19)
Elements:
a. Legal right or duty;
b. The right or duty is exercised in
bad faith; and
c. For the sole intent of prejudicing
or injuring another.
EXAMPLE: If the principal
unreasonably terminated an agency
agreement for selfish reasons.
(Valenzuela vs. CA, 190 SCRA 1)
NOTE: This rule is a departure from the
traditional view that a person is not
liable for damages resulting from the
exercise of ones right.
2. Article 20 of the Civil Code
Speaks of the general sanction for all
other provisions of law which do not
especially provide for their own
sanction.
NOTE: Article 20 does not distinguish;
the act may be done willfully or
negligently.
3. Acts contra bonus mores (Article 21
Civil Code)
Elements:
a. Act which is legal;
b. The act is contrary to morals, good
customs, public order or public policy;
and
c. The act is done with intent to injure.
NOTE: Damages are recoverable even if
no positive law was violated.
Kinds:
a. Breach of promise to marry
GENERAL RULE: Breach of promise to
marry by itself is not actionable.
EXCEPTION: In cases where there is
another act independent of the breach
of promise to marry which gives rise to
liability:
1. Cases where there was financial
damage.
2. Social humiliation caused to one of
the parties.
3. Where there was moral seduction.
NOTES:
Moral seduction, although not
punishable, connotes the idea of deceit,
enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence on the part of the seducer to
which the woman has yielded. (Gashem
Shokat Baksh vs. CA)
Sexual intercourse is not by itself a
basis for recovery; damages could only
be awarded if the sexual intercourse is
not a product of voluntariness or mutual
desire.
b. Seduction without breach of
promise to marry
Seduction, by itself, is also an act
contrary to morals, good customs and
public policy.
The defendant is liable if he
employed deceit, enticement, superior
power or abuse of confidence in
successfully having sexual intercourse
with another even if he satisfied his lust
without promising to marry the offended
party.
It may not even matter that the
plaintiff and the defendant are of the
same gender.
c. Sexual assault
Defendant is liable for all forms of
sexual assault including crimes defined
under the RPC as rape, acts of
lasciviousness and seduction.
d. Desertion by a spouse
A spouse has a legal obligation to live
with his/her spouse.
If a spouse does not perform his/her
duty to the other, he may be liable for
damages for such omission because the
same is contrary to law, morals, good
customs and public policy.
e. Trespass and Deprivation of
Property
2 KINDS:
1) Trespass to and/or
deprivation of real property
Liability for damages under
the RPC and Article 451 of the Civil
Code requires intent or bad faith.
Article 448 of the Civil Code
in relation to Article 456 does not
permit action for damages where the
builder, planter, or sower acted in
good faith. The landowner is limited
to the options given to him under
article 448, that is to appropriate
whatever is built or planted or to
compel the builder or planter to
purchase the portion encroached
upon. (Aquino, Torts and Damages)
A builder in good faith who
acted negligently may be held liable
under Art. 2176 NCC.
2) Trespass to or deprivation of
personal property
In the field of tort, trespass
extends to all cases where a person
is deprived of his personal property
 even in the absence of criminal
liability.
NOTE: It may cover cases where the
defendant was deprived of personal
property for the purpose of obtaining
possession of real property
EXAMPLE: The defendant
who was landlord, was held liable
because he deprived the plaintiffs,
his tenants, of water in order to
force them to vacate the lot they
were cultivating. (Magbanua vs. IAC
137 SCRA 352)
3) Disconnection of electricity
or gas service
The right to
disconnect and deprive the
customer, who unreasonably fails to
pay his bills, of electricity should be
exercised in accordance with the law
and rules.
Example: If a abusively.
company disconnects the electricity
service without prior notice as
required by the rules, the company
commits a tort under Article 21 NCC.
f. Abortion and Wrongful Death
Damages may be recovered by both
spouses if:
1) the abortion was caused
through the physicians negligence, or
2) was done intentionally
without their consent
Husband of a woman who voluntarily
procured her abortion may recover
damages from the physician who caused
the same on account of distress and
mental anguish attendant to the loss of
the unborn child and the disappointment
of his parental expectation. (Geluz vs.
CA 2SCRA802)
g. Illegal Dismissal
The right of the employer to dismiss
an employee should not be confused with
the manner in which the right is
exercised and the effects flowing
therefrom;
If the dismissal was done anti-
socially and oppressively, the employer
should be deemed to have violated
Article 1701 of the Civil Code (which
prohibits acts of oppression by either
capital or labor against the other) and
Article 21 NCC.
An employer may be held liable for
damages if the manner of dismissing is
contrary to morals good customs and
public policy.
EXAMPLE: False imputation of
misdeed to justify dismissal or any
similar manner of dismissal which is done
h. Malicious Prosecution
An action for damages brought by
one against another whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or other legal
proceeding has been instituted
maliciously and without probable cause,
after the termination of such
prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor
of the defendant therein.
The gist of the action is putting legal
process in force regularly, for mere
purpose of vexation or injury. (Drilon vs.
CA [1997])
Elements:
1. The fact of the prosecution and
the further fact that the defendant was
himself the prosecutor; and that the
action was finally terminated with an
acquittal;
2. That in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable
cause;
3. The prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice.
NOTES:
Malice is the inexcusable intent to
injure, oppress, vex, annoy or humiliate.
Presence of probable cause signifies
absence of malice.
Absence of malice signifies good
faith on the part of the defendant; good
faith may even be based on mistake of
law.
Acquittal presupposes that a criminal
information is filed in court and final
judgment rendered dismissing the case;
nevertheless, prior acquittal may include
dismissal by the prosecutor after
preliminary investigation. (Globe Mackay
and Radio Corp. vs. CA; Manila Gas Corp
vs. CA)
i. Public Humiliation
Damages may be awarded in cases
where the plaintiff suffered humiliation
through the positive acts of the
defendant directed against the plaintiff.
Example: The defendant was held
liable for damages under Art. 21 for
slapping the plaintiff in public. (Patricio
vs. Hon. Oscar Leviste, [1989])
NOTES:
Under Article 21, damages are
recoverable even though no positive law
was violated.
An action can only prosper when
damage, material or otherwise, was
suffered by the plaintiff. An action
based on Articles 19-21 will be dismissed
if the plaintiff merely seeks
recognition.
Under Articles 19 and 21, the
defendant may likewise be guilty of a
tort even if he acted in good faith.
(Grand Union Supermarket vs. Espino)
TORTS AGAINST HUMAN DIGNITY
TYPES:
1. Violation of the right of privacy
Reasonableness of a persons
expectation of privacy depends on a
two-part test:
a) Whether by his conduct, the
individual has exhibited an
expectation of privacy.
b) Whether this expectation is one
that the society recognizes as
reasonable.
NOTES:
GENERAL RULE: Right to privacy can
be invoked only by natural persons;
Juridical persons cannot invoke such
right because the entire basis of right to
privacy is an injury to the feelings and
sensibilities of a party, a corporation
would have no such ground.
EXCEPTION: Right against unreasonable
searches and seizure can be invoked by a
juridical entity.
GENERAL RULE: Right to privacy is
purely personal in nature, hence:
1) It can be invoked only by the
person whose privacy is claimed to have
been violated.
2) It can be subject to waiver of the
person whose privacy is sought to be
intruded into.
3) The right ceases upon the death of
the person.
EXCEPTION: A privilege may be given
to the surviving relatives of a deceased
person to protect his memory but the
privilege exist for the benefit of the
living, to protect their feelings and to
prevent the violation of their own rights
in the character and memory of the
deceased.
Standard to be
applied in determining if there was a
violation of the right is that of a person
with ordinary sensibilities. It is relative
to the customs of time and place and is
determined by the norm of an ordinary
person.
Four Types of Invasion of Privacy
a. Intrusio
n upon plaintiffs seclusion or solitude
or into his private affairs
It is not limited to cases where
the defendant physically trespassed into
anothers property. It includes cases
when the defendant invades ones
privacy by looking from outside
(Example: peeping-tom).
GENERAL RULE: There is no invasion of
right to privacy when a journalist records
photographs or writes about something
that occurs in public places.
EXCEPTION: When the acts of the
journalist should be to such extent that
it constitutes harassment or overzealous
shadowing.
The freedom of the press has never
been construed to accord newsmen
immunity from tort or crimes committed
during the course of the newsgathering.
There is no intrusion when an
employer investigates an employee or
when the school investigates its student.
RA 4200 makes it illegal for any
person not authorized by all the parties
to any private communication to secretly
record such communication by means of
a tape recorder (Ramirez vs CA, Sept.
28, 1995)
Use of a telephone extension for
purposes of overhearing a private
conversation without authorization does
not violate RA 4200.
NOTE: There are instances where the
school might be called upon to exercise
its power over its student for acts
committed outside the school premises
and beyond school hours in the
following:
1. In cases of violation of school
policies or regulations occurring in
connection with school sponsored
activity off-campus; or
2. In cases where the misconduct of
the student involves his status as a
student or affects the good name
and reputation of the school.
b. Publicat
ion of Embarrassing Private Facts
Requisites:
1. Publicity is given to any private
or purely personal information about
a person;
2. Without the latters consent; and
3. Regardless of whether or not
such publicity constitutes a criminal
offense, like libel or defamation, the
circumstance that the publication
was made with intent of gain or for
commercial and business purposes
invariably serves to aggravate the
violation of the right.
PUBLIC FIGURE - A
person, who by his accomplishments,
fame or mode of living or by adopting a
profession or calling which gives the
public a legitimate interest in his doings,
his affairs and his character.
NOTE: Public figures, most especially
those holding responsible positions in
government enjoy a more limited right
to privacy compared to ordinary
individuals.
The interest sought to be
protected is the right to be free from
unwarranted publicity, from the
wrongful publicizing of the private
affairs and activities of an individual
which are outside the realm of
legitimate public concern.
The publication of facts
derived from the records of official
proceedings which are not otherwise
declared by law as confidential,
cannot be considered a tortious
conduct.
c. Publicit
y which places a person in a false
light in the public eye
The interest to be protected in
this tort is the interest of the
individual in not being made to
appear before the public in an
objectionable false light or false
position.
 EXAMPLE: Defendant was held liable
for damages when he published an
unauthorized biography of a famous
baseball player exaggerating his
feats on the baseball field,
portraying him as a war hero. (Spahn
vs. Messner)
If the publicity given to the
plaintiff is defamatory, hence an
action for libel is also warranted; the
action for invasion of privacy will
afford an alternative remedy.
May be committed by the media
by distorting a news report.
Tort of Putting Defamation
Another in False
Light
1. As to gravamen of claim
The gravamen of The gravamen of
claim is not the claim is the reputa-
reputational harm tional harm
but rather the
embarrassment of a
person being made
into some-thing he is
not
2. As to publication
The statement should Publication is
be actually made in satisfied if a letter is
public sent to a third person
3. As to the defamatory character of the
statements
Defendant may still What is published
be held liable even if lowers the esteem in
the statements tells which the plaintiff is
something good held
about the plaintiff
d. Commer
cial appropriation of likeness
The unwarranted publication of a
persons name or the unauthorized
use of his photograph or likeness for
commercial purposes is an invasion
of privacy.
With respect to celebrities,
however, the right of publicity is
often treated as a separate right
that overlaps but is distinct from the
right of privacy. They treat their
names and likeness as property and
they want to control and profit
therefrom.
2. Interference with Family and other
relations
The gist of the tort is an interference
with one spouses mental attitude
toward the other and the conjugal
kindness of marital relations
resulting in some actual conduct
which materially affects it.
It extends to all cases of wrongful
interference in the family affairs of
others whereby one spouse is
induced to leave the other spouse or
conduct himself or herself that the
comfort of married life is destroyed.
If the interference is by the parents
of the spouse, malice must be
proven.
3. Intriguing to Cause Alienation
4. Vexation and Humiliation
Discrimination against a person on
account of his physical defect, which
causes emotional distress, may result
in liability on the part of the
offending party.
Sexual Harassment falls under this
category.
- a civil action separate and distinct from
the criminal action may be
commenced under RA 7877.
- 2 types of Sexual harassment:
a) quid pro quo cases
b) hostile environment cases
TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL
ACTIONS
1. Violation of civil and political rights
(Article 32)
Although the same normally involves
intentional acts, it can also be
committed through negligence.
Public officer who is a defendant
cannot escape liability under the
doctrine of state immunity; the said
doctrine applies only if acts involved
are done by officers in the
performance of their official duty
within the ambit of their powers;
officers do not act within the ambit
of their powers if they violate the
constitutional rights of persons.
2. Defamation, Fraud, and Physical
injuries (Article 33)
A. Defamation
Defamation is an invasion of the
interest in reputation and good
 name, by communication to others
which tends to diminish the esteem
in which the plaintiff is held, or to
excite adverse feelings or opinion
against him.
Includes the crime of libel and
slander.
RPC considers the statement
defamatory if it is an imputation of
circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit or contempt of
natural or juridical person or to
blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
Requisites for one to be liable
for defamatory imputations:
a. It must be defamatory
b. It must be malicious
c. It must be given publicity
d. The victim must be
identifiable
NOTES:
Test in determining the
defamatory character of the
imputation: A charge is sufficient if
the words are calculated to induce the
hearers to suppose and understand
that the person/s against whom they
were uttered were guilty of a certain
offense, or are sufficient to impeach
their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or
to hold the person/s up to public
ridicule.
Dissemination to a number of
persons is not required,
communication to a single individual
is sufficient publication.
GENERAL RULE: Every defamatory
imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be true, if no
good intention or justifiable motive
for making it is shown.
EXCEPTIONS:
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.
It is not sufficient that the
offended party recognized himself as
the person attacked or defamed, it
must be shown that at least a third
person could identify him as the
object of the libelous publication.
In order to escape liability, the
defendant may claim that the
statements made are privileged.
Two kinds of privileged
communication:
1) Absolutely privilege Those
which are not actionable even if
the author acted in bad faith.
2) Qualifiedly privilege not
actionable unless found to have
been made without good
intention or justifiable motive.
B. Fraud
Elements of deceit
1)The defendant must have made
false representation to the
plaintiff
2)The representation must be one
of fact
3)The defendant must know that
the representation is false or be
reckless about whether it is false
4)The defendant must have acted
on the false representation
5)The defendant must have
intended that the false
representation should be acted
on
6)The plaintiff must have suffered
damage as a result of acting on
the false representation
Half-truths are
likewise included; it is actionable if
the withholding of that which is not
stated makes that which is stated
absolutely false.
Misrepresentati
on upon a mere matter of opinion is
not an actionable deceit.
C. Physical injuries
Battery an intentional infliction
of a harmful or offensive bodily
 contact; bodily contact is offensive if
it offends a reasonable persons
sense of dignity.
Assault intentional conduct by
one person directed at another
which places the latter in
apprehension of immediate bodily
harm or offensive act.
Includes bodily injuries causing
death.
Physical injuries which resulted
because of negligence or imprudence
is not included in Article 33; they are
already covered by Article 2176 of
the Civil Code.
3. Neglect of duty by police officers
(Article 34)
Subsidiary liability of cities and
municipalities, is imposed so that
they will exercise great care in
selecting conscientious and duly
qualified policemen and exercise
supervision over them in the
performance of their duties.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT
Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable. (Article
100 RPC)
The reason is because a crime has a
dual character: as an offense against
the State and against the private
person injured by it.
Dual character of crimes applies to
cases governed by special laws.
Example: violation of the BP 22
results in criminal and civil liability.
There is civil liability even if the
offense is a public offense, like in
bigamy.
Persons liable are the principal,
accomplice and accessories.
It includes restitution, reparation of
damages and indemnification of
consequential damages.
The rule on proximate cause in
quasi-delict cases is applicable to
cases involving civil liability arising
from delict. Art. 2202, NCC
Circumstances affecting Civil Liability
1. Justifying circumstances
Defendant is free from civil
liability if justifying circumstances
are properly establishes.
2. Exempting Circumstances
They do not erase the civil
liability.
3. Mitigating and Aggravating
Circumstances
Damages to be adjudicated
may either be decreased or
increased depending on the presence
of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.
Effect of Death
A. DEATH AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT:
extinguishes criminal liability of the
person liable but will not extinguish
the civil liability.
B. DEATH BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT:
GENERAL RULE: The defendant is
relieved from both criminal and civil
liability arising from criminal
liability.
EXCEPTION: In case of libel and
physical injuries wherein the
plaintiff initially opted to claim
damages in the criminal proceeding
can file another case under Article
33 of the Civil Code.
Effect of Pardon
Pardon does not erase civil liability.
While pardon removes the existence
of guilt so that in the eyes of the law the
offender is deemed innocent and treated
as though he never committed the
offence, it does not operate to remove
all the effects of the previous conviction.
DEFENDANTS IN TORT CASES
Concurrent Negligence or Acts
1. Joint Tort-feasors
All the persons who
command, instigate, promote,
encourage, advice, 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 a
principal, to the same extent and in the
same manner as if they have performed
the wrongful act themselves.
The responsibility of two or more
persons liable for quasi-delict is solidary
(Article 2194 Civil Code); they are not
liable pro rata, they are jointly and
severally liable for the whole amount.
2. Motor vehicle mishaps
The owner is solidarily liable with
the driver, if the former, who was in the
vehicle, could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the misfortune.
(Article 2184 Civil Code)
Solidary liability is imposed on the
owner not because of his imputed
liability but because his own omission is
a concurring proximate cause of the
injury.
Vicarious Liability or Doctrine of
Imputed Negligence
A person is not only liable for
torts committed by himself, but also for
torts committed by others with whom he
has a certain relation or for whom he is
responsible. (Article 2180 Civil Code)
Exercise of diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage is a
defense.
Doctrine of Respondeat Superior
the liability is strictly imputed, the
employer is liable not because of his act
or omission but because of the act or
omission of the employee; employer
cannot escape liability by claiming that
he exercised due diligence in the
selection or supervision of the employee.
GENERAL RULE: Vicarious liability in
the Philippines is not governed by the
doctrine of respondeat superior;
employers or parents are made liable not
only because of the negligent or
wrongful act of the person for whom
they are responsible but also because of
their own negligence:
1) Liability is imposed on the
employer because he failed to
exercise due diligence in the
selection or supervision of the
employee
2) Parents are made liable because
they failed to exercise due
diligence
EXCEPTION: Doctrine of
respondeat superior is applicable in:
1) liability of employers under
Article 103 of the RPC
2) liability of a partnership for the
tort committed by a partner
Persons Vicariously Liable: (Article
2180 of the Civil Code)
1. The Father, or in case of death or
incapacity, mother
For damage caused by:
a) minor children
b) living in their company
This has already been modified by
Art. 221 of the Family Code to the extent
that the alternative qualification of the
liability of the father and the mother has
been removed.
NOTES:
The basis of liability for the acts
or omissions of their minor
children is the parental authority
that they exercise over them,
except for children 18 to 21.
The same foreseability test of
negligence should apply to
parents when they are sought to
be held liable under Art. 2180,
NCC
The liability is not limited to
parents, the same is also
imposed on those exercising
substitute and special parental
authority, i.e., guardian.
The liability is present only both
under Art 2180 of the NCC and
Art 221 of the Family Code if the
child is living in his parents
company.
Parental authority is not the sole
basis of liability. A teacher in
charge is still liable for the acts
of their students even if the
minor student reaches the age of
majority.
The parents or guardians can still
be held liable even if the minor
 is already emancipated provided
that he is below 21 years of age.
Parents and other persons
exercising parental authority can
escape liability by proving that
they observed all the diligence
of a good father of a family to
prevent damages. (Art. 2180)
The burden of proof rests on the
parents and persons exercising
parental authority.
2. Guardians
For damage caused by
a. minors or incapacitated persons
b. under their authority
c. living in their company
3. Owners and managers of
establishments
For damage caused by:
a) their employees
b) in the service of the branches in
which they are employed, or
c) on the occasion of their
functions
4. Employers
For damages cause by:
a) employees and household
helpers
b) acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks
c) even if the employer is not
engaged in any business or
industry
NOTES:
Liability of the employer can be
established by proving the existence of
an employer-employee relationship with
the actor and the latter caused the
injury while performing his assigned task
or functions.
The vicarious liability attaches only
when the tortuous conduct of the
employees relates to or is in the course
of his employment.
While the employer incurs no
liability when an employees conduct,
act or omission is beyond the range of
employment, a minor deviation from the
assigned task of an employee, however
does not affect the liability of an
employer. (Valenzuela vs. CA, 253 SCRA
303)
It is a defense that the employer
exercised proper diligence in the
selection and supervision of negligent
employee.
5. State
For damage caused by:
a) a special agent
b) not when the damage has been
caused by the official to whom the
task done properly pertains
Public officers who are guilty of
tortuous conduct are personally liable
for their actions.
6. Schools, Teachers and
Administrators
For damage caused by:
a) pupils and students or
apprentices
b) in their custody
statutory basis:
if student is minor Art. 219, FC
if student is no longer a minor
Art. 2180, Civil Code
NOTES:
Applies also to teachers of
academic institutions.
Liability attaches to the teacher-
in-charge.
The school itself is now solidarily
liable with the teacher-in-
charge.
 The liability extends to acts
committed even outside the
school so long as it is an official
activity of the school.
Whenever the school or teacher
is being made liable, the parents
and those exercising substitute
parental authority are not free
from liability because Art. 219 of
the Family Code expressly
provides that they are
subsidiarily liable.
Art. 2180 makes teachers and
heads liable for acts of students
and apprentices whether the
latter are minors or not.
GENERAL RULE: The teacher-in-charge
is liable for the acts of his students. The
school and administrators are not liable.
EXCEPTION: It is only the head of the
school, not the teacher who is held liable
where the injury is caused in a school of
arts and trade.
The liability of the teacher
subsists whether the school is
academic or non- academic.
Liability is imposed only if the
pupil is already in the custody of
the teacher or head. The student
is in the custody of the school
authorities as longs as he is
under the control and influence
of the school and within its
premises whether the semester
had not yet begun or has already
ended.
The
victim of negligence is likewise
required to exercise due care in
avoiding injury to himself.
Other Persons Vicariously Liable:
1. Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers
They are civilly liable for crimes
committed in their establishments in
cases of violations of statutes by them,
in default of persons criminally liable.
(Article 102 Revised Penal Code)
They are subsidiarily liable for the
restitution of goods taken by robbery or
theft within their houses from guests
lodging therein, or for payment of the
value thereof, provided that:
a. The innkeeper was notified in
advance of the deposit of such goods
within the inn; and
b. The guest shall have followed the
directions which such innkeeper or his
representative may have given with
respect to the care and vigilance over
the goods.
2. Partnership
Partnership or every partner is liable
for torts committed by one of the
partners acting within the scope of the
firm business, though they do not
participate in, ratify, or have knowledge
of such torts.
Partners are liable as joint tort-
feasors.
Vicarious liability is similar to the
common law rule on respondeat
superior.
Liability is entirely imputed and the
partnership cannot obviously invoke
diligence in the selection and supervision
of the partner.
3. Spouses
a. absolute community of property
The absolute community
property shall be for liabilities incurred
by either spouses by reason of crime or
quasi-delict in case of absence or
insufficiency of the exclusive property of
the debtor-spouse. (Article 94 Family
Code)
Payments shall be considered
advances to be deducted from the share
of the debtor spouse upon liquidation of
the community.
b. conjugal partnership of gains
GENERAL RULE: Pecuniary indemni-ties
imposed upon the husband or wife are
not chargeable against the conjugal
partnership but against the separate
properties of the wrongdoer.
EXCEPTION: Conjugal partnership
should be made liable:
1) When the profits have inured to the
benefit of the partnership, or
2) If one of the spouses committed the
tort while performing a business or if the
act was supposed to benefit the
partnership.
c. regime of separation of property
Each spouse is responsible for
his/her separate obligation.
C. STRICT LIABILITY
When the person is made liable
independent of fault or negligence upon
submission of proof of certain facts
specified by law.
NOTE: Strict liability tort can be
committed even if reasonable care was
exercised and regardless of the state of
mind of the actor at that time.
TYPES:
1. Animals
GENERAL RULE: The possessor of an
animal or whoever may make use of the
same is responsible for the damages
which it may cause although it may
escape or be lost.
EXCEPTION: When the damage was
caused by force majeure or by the
person who suffered the damage.
(Article 2183 Civil Code)
NOTES:
If the acts of a third person cannot
be foreseen or prevented, then the
situation is similar to that of force
majeure and the possessor is not liable.
(Francisco, Torts and Damages)
Art. 2183 is applicable whether the
animal is domestic, domesticated, or
wild.
2. Falling objects
The head of a family that lives in a
building or a part thereof is responsible
for damages caused by things thrown or
falling from the same. (Article 2193 Civil
Code)
The term head of the family is not
limited to the owner of the building, and
it may even include the lessee thereof.
(Dingcong vs. Kanaan, 72 Phil 14)
3. Liability of employers
Article 1711 of the NCC imposes an
obligation on owners of enterprises and
other employers to pay for the death or
injuries to their employees.
Liability is strict because it exists
even if the cause is purely accidental.
If the mishap was due to the
employees own notorious negligence, or
voluntary act or drunkenness, the
employer shall not be liable for
compensation.
When the employees lack of due
care contributed to his death or injury,
the compensation shall be equitably
reduced.
If the death or injury is due to the
negligence of a fellow-workman the
latter and the employer shall be
solidarily liable for compensation.
If a fellow-workers intentional or
malicious act is the only cause of the
death or injury, the employer shall not
be answerable unless it should be shown
that the latter did not exercise due
diligence in the selection or supervision
of the plaintiffs fellow-worker.
4. Nuisance
Any act, omission, establishment,
business, condition of property, or
anything else which:
a. Injures or endangers the health or
safety of others;
b. Annoys or offends the senses;
c. Shocks, defies or disregards decency
or morality;
d. Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street,
or any body of water; or
e. Hinders or impairs the user of
property. (Article 694 Civil Code)
There is strict liability on the part of
the owner or possessor of the property
where a nuisance is found because he is
obliged to abate the same irrespective of
the presence or absence of fault or
negligence.
Every successive owner or possessor
of property who fails or refuses to abate
a nuisance in that property started by a
former owner or possessor is liable
therefore in the same manner as the one
who created it. (Article 686 Civil Code)
5. Product liability by manufacturers
Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and
similar goods shall be liable for death or
injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used, although no contractual
relation exists. (Article 2187 Civil Code)
Other cases of liability without fault:
1. Proprietor of a building or structure,
for damages resulting from its total or
partial collapse, if it should be due to
lack of necessary repairs. .
2. Breach of implied warranties.
3. Consumer Act (R.A. 7394) any
Filipino or foreign manufacturer,
producer and importer, independently of
fault shall be liable for redress for
damages caused to consumers by defects
resulting from:
a. design;
b. manufacture;
c. construction;
d. assembly and erection;
e. formulas and handling and
making up; or
f. presentation or packing of their
products as well as for the
insufficient or inadequate
information on the use and hazards
thereof.
4. Even when an act or event causing
damage to anothers property was not
due to the fault or negligence of the
defendant, the latter shall be liable for
indemnity if through the act or event he
was benefited. (Art. 23 Civil Code)
PRODUCT AND SERVICE LIABILITY
Alternative theories on basis of liability
1. Fraud or misrepresentation
Not all expression of opinion are
actionable misrepresentations if they are
established to be inaccurate.
2. Warranties
The Consumer Act recognizes that
the provisions of the Civil Code on
conditions and warranties shall govern all
contracts of sale with conditions and
warranties.
Retailer shall be subsidiarily liable
under the warranty in case of failure of
both the manufacturer and distributor to
honor the warranty.
Privity of contract is not necessary.
3. Negligence
In product liability law, certain
standards are already imposed by special
laws, rules and regulations of proper
government agencies; certain acts or
omissions are expressly prohibited by the
statutes thereby making violation
thereof negligence per se.
It is negligence per se if
manufacturer manufactured products
which do not comply with the safety
standards promulgated by appropriate
government agencies.
4. Delict
The liability may be based on
criminal negli-gence under the RPC or
violation of any special law.
5. Strict liability
Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles, and
similar goods, shall be liable for death or
injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used although no contractual
relation exists. (Article 2187 Civil Code)
Privity of contract is not required.
It does not preclude an action based
on negligence (quasi-delict) for the same
act of using noxious or harmful
substances.
 Article 97 and 99 of the Consumer
Act imposes liability on defective
products and services upon
manufacturers independent of fault.
Knowledge of the manufacturer is
not important; the focus is on the
condition of the product and not on the
conduct of the manufacturer or seller.
DEFENSES:
A. The manufacturer, builder,
producer, or importer shall not be liable
when it evidences:
1) That it did not place the
product on the market
2) That although it did
place the product on the market
such product had no defect
3) That the consumer of
third party is solely at fault. (Article
97 Consumer Act)
B. The supplier of the services shall not
be held liable when it is proven:
1) That there is no defect in the
service rendered
2) That the consumer of third party
is solely at fault. (Article 99 Consumer
Act)
Requisites: The plaintiff should
allege and prove that:
1) The product was defective;
2) The product was manufactured
by the defendant;
3) The defective product was the
cause of his injury.
4 KINDS OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS
1. manufacturing defect
2. design defect
3. presentation defect
4. absence of appropriate warning
BUSINESS TORTS
1. Interference of contracts
Elements:
a. existence of a valid contract
b. knowledge on the part of the third
person of the existence of the contract
c. interference of the third person
without legal justification.
The existence of a contract is
necessary and the breach must occur
because of the alleged act of
interference; No action can be
maintained if the contract is void.
Malice is not essential.
Elements of privilege to interfere
1)The defendants purpose is a
justifiable one, and
2)The actors employ no means of
fraud or deception which are
regarded as unfair.
Extent of Liability:
A. Rule in Daywalt vs. La Corporation
39PHIL587
Defendant
cannot be held liable for more than
the amount for which the
contracting party who was induced
to break the contract can be held
liable.
B. Rule under Article 2201 and 2202
Civil Code
1) If
in bad faith: defendant is liable for
all natural and probable
consequences of his act or omission,
whether the same is forseen or
unforeseen.
2) If
in good faith: defandant is liable
only for consequences that can be
foreseen.
2. Interference with prospective
advantage
It is a tort committed when there is
no contract yet and the defendant is
only being sued for inducing another not
to enter into a contract.
3. Unfair competition.
Unfair Competition in agricultural,
commercial, or industrial enterprises, or
in labor, through the use of force,
intimidation , deceit, machination or any
unjust or oppressive or highhanded
method shall give rise to a right of action
by a person who thereby suffers damage.
(Article 27 Civil Code)
CASES INCLUDED:
a. passing off and disparagement of
products
b. interference
c. misappropriation
d. monopolies and predatory pricing
4. Securities Related Torts
Kinds
a. Fraudulent Transactions
 b. Misstatements or Omission of Injury Damage Damages
statement of a material fact Legal Loss, hurt The recom-
required to be stated invasion of or harm pense or
Defendants are free from liability if a legal which compensation
right results awarded for
they can prove that at the time of the
from the the damage
acquisition the plaintiff knew of the injury suffered
untrue statement or if he was aware of
the falsity.
Extent of Damages: Not exceeding NOTES:
triple the amount of the transaction. A complaint for damages is a
Prescriptive Period: Action must be personal action. (Baritua vs. CA, 267
brought within 2 years after discovery of SCRA 331)
facts constituting the cause of action and Proof of pecuniary loss is necessary
within 5 yrs after such cause of action to successfully recover actual
accrued. damages from the defendant. No
proof of pecuniary loss is necessary
II. DAMAGES in case of moral, nominal,
temperate, liquidated or exemplary
DAMAGE damages.
The detriment, injury or loss which The assessment of such damages,
are occasioned by reason of fault of except liquidated ones, is left to the
another in the property or person. discretion of the court according to
the circumstances of each case.
DAMAGES
The pecuniary compensation, Kinds of damages (MANTLE)
recompense or satisfaction for an injury 1. Actual or Compensatory
sustained or as otherwise expressed, the 2. Moral
pecuniary consequences which the law 3. Nominal
imposes for the breach of some duty or 4. Temperate or moderate
violation of some rights. 5. Liquidated
6. Exemplary or corrective
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA (Damage
Without Injury) A. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES
A person may have suffered physical Comprehends not only the value of
the loss suffered but also that of the
hurt or injury, but for as long as no legal
profits which the obligee failed to
injury or wrong has been done, there is
obtain.
no liability.
Classification:
1. Dano emergente loss of what a
person already possesses
2. Lucro cessante failure to
There is no liability even if there is receive as a benefit that would
damage because there was no injury. have pertained to him
NOTE: The latter type includes:
1. Loss or impairment of
There can be damage without injury. earning capacity in cases of
temporary or permanent
In order that a plaintiff may maintain personal injury.
an action for the injuries of which he 2. Injury to the plaintiffs
complains, he must establish that such business standing or commercial
injuries resulted from a breach of duty credit.
which the defendant owed to the
plaintiff. In crimes and quasi-delict, the
defendant shall be liable for all
 damages which are the natural and
probable consequences of the act
and omission complained of. It is not
necessary that such damages have
been foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen by the
defendant. (Article 2202 Civil Code)
The amount should be that which
would put plaintiff in the same
position as he would have been if he
had not sustained the wrong for
which he is now getting his
compensation or reparation.
To recover damages, the amount of
loss must not only be capable of
proof but must actually be proven.
Uncertainty as to the precise amount
is not necessarily fatal.
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY:
Variables considered are:
1. life expectancy
2. net income/earnings
Formula:
{2/3 x (80age of death)} x mo. Earnings x 12
2 2. When
NOTE:
Life expectancy is computed as
follows:
{ 2/3 x (80-age at death) }
Net earnings is the total of the
earnings less expenses necessary for
the creation of such earnings and
less living or other incidental
expenses.
Loss of profits
May be determined by considering
the average profit for the preceding
years multiplied by the number of
years during which the business was
affected by the wrongful act or
breach.
Attorneys fees
They are actual damages. It is due to
the plaintiff and not to the counsel.
Plaintiff must allege the basis of his
claim for attorneys fees in the
complaint; the basis should be one of
the 11 cases specified in Article 2208
of the Civil Code.
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences
Interests
Award of interest in the concept of
actual and compensatory damages
actual damages.
The rate of interest, as well as the
accrual thereof is imposed as
follows:
1. When the obligation is breached
and it consist of payment of sum
of money, i.e., a loan or
forbearance of money:
a. 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.
b. In the absence of stipulation,
the rate of interest shall be
12% per annum to be
computed from default, i.e.,
from judicial or extra-
judicial demand under and
subject to the provisions of
Article 1169 of the Civil
Code.
the obligation, not
constituting a loan or
forbearance or money, is
breached:
An interest on the amount of
damages to be awarded may
be imposed at the discretion
of the court at the rate of 6%
per annum.
No interest shall be adjudged
on unliquidated claims or
damages, except when or
until demand can be
established with reasonable
certainty.
Where the demand is
established with reasonable
certainty, the interest shall
begin to run from the time
the claim is made judicially
or extrajudicially.
3. When the judgment of the court
awarding the sum of money
becomes final and executory, the
rate of legal interest shall be 12%
per annum from such finality
until its satisfaction.
 A party cannot recover damages experience physical suffering and mental
flowing from consequences which anguish which can be experienced only
the party could reasonably have by one having a nervous system.
avoided.
It has a reasonable corollary: a
person who reasonably attempts to
minimize his damages can recover
the expenses that he incurred.

Doctrine of C. NOMINAL DAMAGES

Contributory Nominal damages are adjudicated in
Avoidable
Negligence order that a right of the plaintiff,
Consequences
Acts of the Plaintiffs act or which has been violated or invaded
plaintiff occur omission occurs by the defendant, may be vindicated
after the act or before or at the or recognized, and not for the
omission of the time of the act or purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff
defendant omission of the for any loss suffered by him.
defendant (Article2221 Civil Code)
Small sums fixed by the court
without regard to the extent of the
B. MORAL DAMAGES harm done to the injured party.
Includes physical suffering, mental Law presumes damage although
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, actual or compensatory damages are
besmirched reputation, wounded not proven.
feelings, moral shock, social They are damages in name only and
humiliation, and similar injury. are allowed simply in recognition of
No proof of pecuniary loss is a technical injury based on a
necessary. violation of a legal right.
GENERAL RULE: The plaintiff must Nominal damages cannot co-exist
allege and prove: with actual or compensatory
1. The factual basis for moral damages.
damages; and
2. Its causal relation to the D. TEMPERATE OR
defendants act MODERATE DAMAGES
EXCEPTION: Moral damages may be These are damages, which are more
awarded to the victim in criminal than nominal but less than
proceedings without the need for compensatory, and may be
pleading of proof of the basis thereof. recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been
Requisites for award of moral damages: suffered but its amount cannot be
1. There must be an injury whether proved with certainty. (Article 2224
physical, mental or psychological, Civil Code)
clearly sustained by the claimant; In cases where the resulting injury
2. There must be a culpable act or might be continuing and possible
omission.; future complications directly arising
3. Such act or omission is the proximate from the injury, while certain to
cause of the injury; occur are difficult to predict,
4. The damages is predicated on the temperate damages can and should
cases cited in Art.2219. be awarded on top of actual or
compensatory damages; in such
NOTE: The award of moral damages cases there is no incompatibility
cannot be granted in favor of a between actual and temperate
corporation because, being an artificial damages.
person, it has no feelings, no emotions,
no senses. It cannot therefore E. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
 Those agreed upon by the parties in
a contract, to be paid in case of
breach thereof.

F. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE
DAMAGES

Imposed by way of example or

correction for the public good, in
addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages.

Requisites for the award of

exemplary damages:
1. They are imposed by way of example
in addition to compensatory damages
and Imposed only after the claimants
right to them has been established;
2. They cannot be recovered as a
matter of right, their determination
depending upon the amount of
compensatory damages that may be
awarded;
3. The act must be accompanied by bad
faith or done in wanton, fraudulent,
oppressive or malevolent manner.