Torts and Damages damage produces civil liability arising from a crime under the Revised Penal Code

damage produces civil liability arising from a crime under the Revised Penal Code or create
I . Concept/ Definition an action for quasi delict or culpa contractual under the Civil Code.

The term Tort is of Anglo-American law-common law which is broader in scope than the
Spanish-Phil concept which is limited to negligence while the former includes international or
criminal acts. Torts in Philippine law is the blending of common-law and civil law system.
Quasi Delict refers to acts or omissions which cause damage to another, there being fault or
negligence on the part of the defendant, who is obliged by law to pay for the damages done.
Elements of Quasi Delict:
Damages suffered by the plaintiff
Fault or negligence of the defendant
Casual connection between the fault or negligence of the defendants act and the damages
incurred by the plaintiff (Andamo vs IAC, 191 SCRA 426, 96)
Article 2176 of the Civil Code applies when theres no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties. However, the supreme court held that even if there is contractual
relation, there will still be quasi-delict since the act that break the contract may be also be
tort, in cases of Air France vs Carrascaso, 18 SCRA 155; Singson vs BPI, 23 SCRA 1117,
63; and Fabre Jr vs CA, 259 SCRA 426
II. Distinctions
1. a. Fault signifies voluntary act or omission causing damages to the right of another giving
rise to an obligation of the actor to repair such damage.
Illustrative Case: GSIS vs CA, 308 SCRA 559, 99
Facts: NFA National Food Authority owner of Chevrolet truck insured by GSIS- CMVLI.
Victor Uy owner of Toyota Tamaraw used as PU insured by Mabuhay Ins and Guarrantee
CMVLI. On May 9, 1979 at Tabon-Tabon, Butuan City, the two vehicles collided resulting to
death and injuries to passengers of the Tamaraw and total wreck of the Tamaraw. 3 cases
were filed.
(1) Civil Case No. 2196 for quasi-delict filed by UY vs NFA & GSIS recover damage to
property. Won
(2) Civil Case No. 2225 for culpa contractual filed by injured passenger Taer vs Victor Uy and
Mabuhay. Won.
(3) Civil Case No. 2256 for quasi-delict NFA and driver Corbeta, GSIS vs Victor Uy for culpa
contractual and Mabuhay.
(Note: no criminal action was filed although it may be done had any of the injured parties
minded to. The action against the Insurers GSIS and Mabuhay are based on the insurance
contract of CMVLI whereby passengers injured have the right to sue directly the insurers)
3. Distinctions between Crimes and Culpa Aquiliana:
Crimes:
1. Crimes affected the public interest.

Fault is of two (2) kinds: 2. Penal law punishes/ corrects the criminal act.

i. Substantive and independent fault in that there is no pre-existing relation. This is the one 3. Only acts covered by Penal Law are punished (Barredo vs Garcia, 73 Phil 607; J. Bocobo,
referred to Art. 2176 NCC and source of an obligation. It is also known as culpa extra 1940 : Taxi c lied with Carretela)
contractual or culpa aquiliana covered by Art. 2176 NCC.
4. Guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.
ii. Fault as an incident in the performance of an obligation existing is known as contractual
fault or culpa contractual governed by Art. 1170-73 of NCC. 5. Reservation to file separate civil action. No reservation, civil action is impliedly instituted
in the criminal action.
b. Negligence consist in the omission to do certain acts which result to the damage to
another. 6. Employers liability is subsidiary.

2. As to Intennt to cause damage to another thru an act or omission: Culpa Aquiliana:

a. It is culpa absence such intent, the actors liability is civil governed by the Civil Code. 1. Only private concern.

b. It is dolo presence of such intent and the act or omission becomes crime and the actors 2. Repairs the damage by indemnification.
civil liability is governed by the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
3. Covers all acts that are faulty or negligent.
Distinctions Importance of knowing these distinctions lies in filing the proper cause of
action against the tortfessor. The same act or omission which is faulty or negligent causing 4. Preponderance of evidence.

5. No reservation its independent from crime.
6. Employers liability is solidary (Fabre Jr. vs CA, 259 SCRA 426)
Culpa Contractual
(i) Pre-existing obligation between the parties
(ii) Fault or negligence is incidental to the performance of the obligation
(iii) Defense of having exercised diligence of a good father of a family is not available, just
like in criminal action. Applied doctrine of Respondent Superior, or Master and Servant Rule.
The result in the criminal case, whether acquittal, or conviction is irrelevant in the
independent civil action under the Civil Code (JBL Reyes: Dionisio vs Alyendia, 102 Phil 443,
57, cited in Mckee vs IAC, 211 SCRA 536) unless acquittal is based on the courts
declaration that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist, hence the dismissal
of criminal action carries with the extinction of the civil liability. (Andamo vs IAC, 191 SCRA
204, 90 J. Fernan)
III. Doctrines/ Principles applied in Quasi-Delict or Tort cases availed of as defenses:
1. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing
of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
The failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such person
suffers injury. (Mckee vs IAC, 211 SCRA 517, 92, citing Black Law Dictionary and Judge
Cooley: J. Davide Jr)
2. Emergency Rule one who suddenly finds himself in a place danger, and is required to act
without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails not to adopt what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to be the better method, unless the emergency in which he finds
himself is brought about by his own negligence. (Gan vs CA, 165 SCRA 378, 88, cited in
McKee case)
McKee vs IAC:
Facts: Two boys suddenly darted before McKees car forcing McKee to swerve the car to
avoid hitting the boys and in the process entered into the opposite lane and collided with the
oncoming cargo truck in the opposite lane.
Cases: to illustrate the exception expressed in unless the emergency in which he finds
himself is brought about by his own negligence.
Raynera vs Hicetas, 306 SCRA 102
Facts: At 2:00 A.M., Reynera was driving his motorcycle fast and bump a cargo truck he is
tailing. Raynera died.
Held: The proximate cause of the accident was his negligence of Raynera who was traveling
behind the cargo truck. He had the responsibility of avoiding bumping the vehicle in front of
him and who has control of the situation. The cargo truck rear was fully lighted.
Proximate cause is that cause which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produce the injury and without which the result would have
not occurred.
Austria vs CA, 327 SCRA 688
Facts: Austria driving her car very fast bumped a cargo truck improperly parked along the
road.
Held: Proximate cause of collision is Austrias driving recklessly such that he had no chance
to avoid the collision which was of her own making. She had the last clear chance but failed
to take steps to avoid hitting the cargo truck because she had no opportunity to do so.
Persons Liable for Quasi Delict: Culpa Aquiliana: Tort
Every person must, in the exercise with his rights and in the performance of his duty, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith (Art 19 NCC)Every
person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damages to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same (Art 20 NCC) and any person who willfully causes loss or
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage (Art 21 NCC)
Wassmer vs Velez, 12 SCRA 648 Contrary to Good Customs
Facts: W and V set their wedding for Sept 4, 1954. Invitations were distributed to relatives
and friends. Wedding dresses purchased, reception contracted etc. 2 days before the
wedding V left for home in Mindanao and never heard again.
Held: the mere breach of promise of marry is not an accionable wrong, but to formally set a
wedding and go thru rites in preparing and publishing incurring expenses is palpably and
unjustly contrary to good customs for which the defendant is answerable in damages under
Art. 21 NCC.
Tortfeasor or Wrongdoer = Person acting with fault or negligence causing damage to another
is obliged to pay for the damages done (Art 2176 NCC)
Liability for ones act of fault or negligence
Case: Dr Carillo va People, 229 SCRA 386 94
Anesthesiologist was convicted for negligence for the death of a child who died a day after
operation for appendicitis. The physician did not make an intensive preparation such as
administration of antibiotics, gave and overdose of anesthesia and arbritary administration of
Nubian (pain killer) without examination of patients weight which caused a heart attact.
Case: Batiquin vs CA, July 5, 96 a surgeon left a piece of rubber in the womans uterus in
caesarian operation
Person Vicariously Liable for Acts of Others (Art 2180)
The basis of vicarious liability is responsibility of a person over other persons under their
legal authority, control or influence. Violation or remission of duty arising from such
relationship makes them liable for damages caused by other person under their care or
charge.
1. Parent father, if dead or incapacitated, mother are responsible for damages caused by
minor children living in their company (Art 2180 NCC)
2. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated person who are
under their authority and live in their company. (ibid)
Art 221. Family Code provides that parents and other persons exercising parental authority
shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the act or omission or their
unemancipated children living in their company and under parental authority subject to the
appropriate defenses provided by law.
The Basis of the civil liability which is primary-direct and solidary imposed by law is the
necessary consequence of parental authority exercise over their children. This authority
imposed a duty upon parents to support them, keep them company, educate and instruct
them, and grand the right to correcting punish with moderation. The parents are relieved of
this liability only upon proof that they have exercise the diligence of a good father of a family
(Exconde vs Capuno, 101 Phil 843) to prevent damage.
Case: Tamagro vs CA, 209 SCRA 519
Facts: a 10 year old boy shot and air gun a girl resulting to her death. The boy was acquitted
in the criminal suit for having acted without discernment. However a civil suit was filed
against the boys parent.
Held: The Anglo-American Tort Principle of parental liability is a specie of Vicarious Liability,
also known as Imputed Liability.
This liability is made natural as logical consequences of the duties and responsibilities of
parents exercising parental authority which includes controlling, disciplining and instructing
their children. In this jurisdiction the parents liability is vested by law (NCC and FC) which
assumes that when a minor or unemancipated child living with their parent, commits a
tortuous act, the parents are presumed negligent in the performance of their duty to
supervice the children under their custody. A presumption which muris tantum, not juris es
de jure, rebuttable-overcome by proof having exercised and observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family (diligentissimi patris familias).
Note in this case the boy was adopted but it was the natural parent who were held liable as
they the actual physical custody of the boy at the time of the shooting. The adoption was
approved only after the shooting although the adoption proceeding was filed before the
shooting and in between the time the adaptor was abroad.
Case: Cuadra vs Monfort, 35 SCRA 160
Facts: Grade 6 pupil Maria C and Maria M were assigned by teacher to weed the grass in the
school premises. M found a plastic headband which she aloud she found an earthworm and
tossed it to C hitting the latter right eyes resulting to loss of said eye.
Held: The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Art 2176 is the fault or negligence
accompanying the act or omission there being no willfulness or intent to cause damage
thereby and in Art 2180 providing vicarious liability of parent although primarily.
It was not shown that the parent could have prevented the damage as their child was in
school and they have the right to expect their child to be under the care and supervision of
the teacher. Beside the act was an innocent prank and unusual among children at play and
which no parent could have any special reason to anticipate much less guard against. Parent
not held liable.
Where the minor or insane person causing damage to others has no parent or guardian/ the
minor or insane persons property shall answer the damage caused. (Art 2182)
3. Teachers or Heads of school of arts and trade (non-academic) are liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices remaining under custody (Art 2180 NCC)
Exconde vs Capuno, 201 Phil 843
Facts: 15 year old elementary student after attending Rizal Day Parade boarded a jeep on
the way home. He took over the wheel and driving recklessly caused the vehicle to turn over
resulting to death of two passengers.
Held: Upon being found guilty of double homicide with reckless imprudence filed against him,
a separate civil action was filed whereby the father was hold solidarily liable for damages
under Art 1903 nor Art 2180 NCC. The school head was held no liable being academic school.
Mercando vs CA, 108 Phil 414, 1960
Facts: A student of Lourdes Catholic School in QC during recess cut a classmate with razor
blade. Parent of the injured student sued the culprit for damages.
Held: Reiterated Exconda case school not liable as it was not an establishment of arts and
trade (aside from the fact that it was not sued). Parent was held to be liable.
Palisoc vs Brillantes. 41 SCRA 548, 1971
Facts: A 16 year old student of Manila Technical Institute was killed in a fist fight by a person
who was not boarding in the school and of majority age.
Held: The school is being non-academic (arts and trade), the head of the school and teacher
in charge were solidarily liable with the assailant.
Amadora vs CA 160 SCRA 315, 1988 J. Cruz
Facts: It was summer of 1972 Alfredo Amadora about to graduate at the Colegio de San
Jose-Recoletes was shot to death by his classmate Pablito Daffon. Alfredo went to the school
to submit his Report in Physic.
Held: Art 2180 NCC applies to all schools, academic or non-academic. Teachers are liable for
acts of their student except where the school is technical in nature (arts and trade
establishment) in which case the head thereof shall be answerable.
There is really no substantial difference distinction between the academic and non-academic
schools in so far as torts committed by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is
expected from the teacher over the student under their control and supervision, whatever
the nature of the school where he is teaching. x x x x The distinction no longer obtains at
present. x x x
The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and
influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not ended, or has
ended or has not yet begun. The term custody signifies that the student is within the
control and influence of the school authorities. The teacher in charge is the one designated
by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the
pupils or students in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. It is not
necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher is physically present and in a position to
prevent it.
Thus, for injuries caused by the student, the teacher and not the parent shall be held
responsible if the tort was committed within the premises of the school at any time when its
authority could be validly exercised over him.
In any event, the school may be held to answer for the acts of its teacher or the head
thereof under the general principle of respondent superior, but it may exculpate itself from
liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. Such defense
they had taken necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of and thus be
exonerated from liability imposed by Art 2180.
Basis of teachers vicarious liability is, as such, they acting in Loco Parentis (in place of
parents). However teachers are not expected to have the same measure of responsibility as
that imposed on parent for their influence over the child is not equal in degree. x x x The
parent can instill more lasting discipline more lasting disciple on the child than the teacher
and so should be held to a greater accountability than the teacher or the head for the tort
committed by the child.
As the teacher was not shown to have been negligent nor the school remised in the
discharged of their duties, they were exonerated of liability.
(Note the court view on increasing students activism likely causing violence resulting to
injuries, in or out of the school premises J. Guttierez, Jr concurringly said many student x x
x view some teachers as part of the bourgeois and or reactionary group whose advice on
behavior deportment and other non-academic matters is not only resented but actively
rejected. It seems most unfair to hold teacher liable on a presumption juris tantum of
negligence for acts of students even under circumstances where strictly speaking there could
be no in loco parentis relationship.
The provision of Art 2180 NCC involved in this case has outlived its purpose. The court
cannot make law, it can only apply the law with its imperfections. However the court can
suggest that such a law should be amended or repealed.
4. The state is responsible when it acts thru a special agent but not when the damage has
been caused by the official to whom the task is done properly pertains (i.e. function or duty)
in which case Art 2176 is applied.
As a general rule, the state cannot be sued without its consent. (principle of immunity from
suit) This consent is manifested in legislative acts enactment of laws making the state
suable as in this specific provision of the Civil Code, in RA 7160 LGC of 1991 providing that
LGU and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury to person or damage
to property (Sec 24).
The state the state may not be sued without its consent. (Sec 3 Art XVI 87 Constitution)
This is the doctrine of immunity from suit or principle of non liability (enuciated in the 1910
case of Forbes vs Chuco Tiaco & Crossfield, 16 Phil 534) was originally founded upon an old
maxim that The King can do no wrong prevailing during the medieval England when the
King was generally accepted as the State himself. With the development of democratic
thoughts and institution, the concept eventually lost is moral force, the natural person-king is
no longer the state but merely its representative who may be removed by the people. i.e.
thru impeachment. The modern basis of the principle is that immunity from suit is inherent
in all sovereign states. The reason is based on the logical and practical ground that there can
be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
(Kawananakoa vs Plyblank, 206 US 349 cited by Hector S. Deleon, 2002 Ed Textbook on the
Phil Const)
The state (Govt) may be sued only with its consent which may be given
i. expressly thru duly enacted statutes such as the ff:
a. CA NO. 327 amended by PD 14445 providing conditions under which the state may be
sued
b. Administrative Code of 1987
c. Civil Code Art 2180 state acting thru special agent
d. Charters of public corp vesting them with power to sue and be sued, eg. RA 7610 LGC
ii. Impliedly as in the ff cases:
a. When the Govt sues to recover money from individual who has claim against it, the latter
may set a counterclaim.
b. When the Govt engages in commercial business or enters into a contract, it can be sued
upon the theory that it has descended to the level of private individual from which it can be
implied that its has given its consent to be sued under the contract and thereby divested
itself of its sovereign character and its immunity from suits. (National Airport Corp vs
Teodoro, 91 Phil 203, Manila Hotel Employees Assn. Vs Manila Hotel, 73 Phil 347)
The term State used in Art 2180 NCC refers to the Govt of the Republic of the Philippines
defined in Sec 2, 1987 Revised Administrative Code as the Corporate Governmental entity
thru which the functions of the govts are exercised throughout the Phils, which included the
various arms thru which political authority is made effective in the Phils such as the
autonomous regions and the local govt units (province, city, municipality and barangay). The
term does not include agency or instrumentality or other entity which their enabling laws
have invested with juridical personality separate and distinct from that of the Republic of the
Philippines (Fontanilla vs Maliaman, 194 SCRA 495 J. Paras)
The functions of govt is classified into (a) governmental or constituent involving exercise of
sovereignty and is compulsory, (b) proprietary or ministrant which is optional (Fontanilla vs
Maliaman)
The state for the governmental function the state can not be sued without its consent.
For the proprietary function of the govt may be sued without its consent which is presumed
have been given in advance.
The state may be sued only thru its Special Agent but not when the damage had been
caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act performed (Merritt
Fontanilla case, 194 SCRA 503)
Special Agents are of two kinds
a. Public officials with a particular assigned tasks but is specially commissioned to do such
task foreign to his usual assigned governmental function.
b. Private person not a public official, commissioned to perform non-governmental
function. A govt commissioning a private person for a special task is acting thru special agent
within the meaning of Art 2180 NCC
The state assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable for the special
agents torts (Fontanilla vs Malianan, 89)
Facts: Hugo Garcia is a regular employee of National Irrigation Administration (NIA) a govt
agency created by its charter RA 3601 amended by PD 552 for the purpose of undertaking
integrated irrigation project. Garcia driving the agency official pick-up bumped a bicycle
ridden by Fontanilla resulting to his death. The victims parent filed a civil action against NIA
and its driver Garcia who was found guilty of driving recklessly. NIA was ordered to pay, NIA
appealed raising the issue that as govt agency performing govt function is not liable as being
a part of the state, cannot be sued.
Held: the state or govt agency performing governmental function may be held liable for tort
committed by its employees when it acts thru a special agent.
While NIA is a govt agency performing governmental function, however it is suable because
its charter provides that it may be sue or be sued, thus consent of the state for NIA to be
sued has already given, so that the rule on immunity from suit normally extended to govt
agencies performing governmental functions is no longer available to NIA. By waiving that
immunity from suit in its charter, NIA open itself to suits.
Thus NIA was held responsible for the negligent act of its employee Garcia who is not a
special agent. (J. Padilla separate opinion in Fontanilla vs Maliaman Resolution in 1991, 194
SCRA 499)
Palafox vs Ilocos Norte Prov, 102 Phil 1186
Facts: Provinces truck on its was to the river for gravel and sands to be used in the
construction and repair of its road (a governmental function) runs over a pedestrian resulting
to the latters death.
Held: The province was not liable because its employee driver at the time of the accident was
performing his regular duties and is not a special agent.
Rosete vs The Auditor General, 81 Phil 453
Facts: A fire broke out in the Emergency Control Administration (a govt office) due to the
negligence of its employee in igniting recklessly his cigarette lighter near a drum of gasoline
in the offices warehouse resulting to destruction of buildings adjoining the warehouse.
Victims sued the officers of the Emergency Control Admin.
Held: As ECA or its officers were shown to have acted not as special agent of the govt in
storing gasoline in the warehouse, the Govt is not responsible for the damages caused thru
such negligence.
Republic vs Palacio, 23 SCRA 899
Facts: The Irrigation Service Unit, an office/agency under the Dept of Public Works and
Communication was sued for tort and the Sheriff of Manila garnished the deposit of the ISU
in the PNB, Manila.
Held: The ISU being an office in the govt and its fund is a public fund. It is being shown that
the ISU was guilty of tort, however the sate not its fund is not liable because the ISU was not
a special agent. Under Art 2180 the state is liable only for tort caused by its special agent.
GAA vs CA, 167 SCRA 28, 88
Facts: GAA charges fees for the use of the Airports terrace or viewing deck where one gets a
better view of arriving and departing passengers at the airport. The deck had an elevated
portion (4 inches) which caused a viewer to fall breaking his thigh bone. He sued CAA for
hospital expenses. CAA raised the defense of being a govt agency subject of immunity from
suit.
Held: While CAA is a govt agency however it is performing a proprietary functions business
and under its charter it is empowered to sue and be sued. Thus it cannot avail the immunity
from suit accorded to govt agencies performing strictly governmental function. (Malong vs
PNR, 138 SCRA 63 which ruled that PNR is not immune from suit as it does not exercise
sovereignty but purely proprietary business function)
NIA vs IAC, 214 SCRA 35, 92
Held: Damages caused by the officials of NIA for its negligence in the construction of the
canal which caused damages to nearby land, NIA is liable under Art 2176 NCC as NIAs
official are not special agent in performing their official assigned duties and functions.
LGU are liable for damages for the death or injuries suffered by any person by reason of
defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public building and other public works under
their control or supervision. (Art 2189)
LGUs and their official are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or damage
to property. (Sec 24, RA 7160 LGC of 1991)
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vas Firme, 195 SCRA 692, 91
Facts: Municipals dump truck on way to the Naguilian River to get gravel and sands for the
repair of roads (a governmental function) collided with a passenger jeep resulting the death
of passenger of the latter vehicle. Civil action was filed against the Municipality.
Held: Municipalities being agencies of the State, when performing governmental functions
enjoy sovereignty and thus immune from suit unless it is shown that they are performing
proprietary function.
However, they may be held liable if it can be shown acting thru a special agent. The
Municipalitys driver is not a special agent and so the Municipal is not liable, only the driver.
Palma vs Graciano, 99 Phil 92
Facts: A governor and a Mayor filed a criminal charge which was dismissed for being
groundless. They were sued.
Held: The prosecution of a crime is a governmental function, not a corporation action. In the
discharged thereof, the Province or City or Municipality is not liable for tortuous acts of its
officers. Only the public officers acting tortuously (beyond the scope of their authority) are
personally liable because the mantle of immunity from suit accorded to their office is not
available for their tortuous acts.
Republic vs Sandoval, 20 SCRA 124, 1993
Facts: Jan 22, 1987 known as Black Saturday the Mendiola Massacre of Rallyist who were
shot as they march toward Malacaang. Heirs of the dead rallyist sued the Republic and
Military Officers and soldiers. Judge Sandoval dismiss their suit invoking States immunity
from suit.
Held: Instances when the suit against the state
a. when the Republic is sued by name
b. when the suit is against an unincorporated govt agency
c. when the suit is against a govt officer but the ultimate liability will fall on the state and not
on the officer
d. when the govt perpetrated injustice on the citizen (De los Santos vs IAC, 223 SCRA 11)
In this case, the state is not liable for the civil liability arising from criminal acts of the
military for violating BP Blg 880 which prohibits unnecessary firing in dispensing public
assembly. The doctrine of immunity from suit will not be applied to the military officers who
have acted beyond the scope of their authority because in so doing they are deemed to
ceased to be a public officers but a private person liable like any other private persons for
doing wrongful acts.
De los Santos vs IAC, 223 SCRA 11, 93
Facts: Min of Public works while carrying on its project of constructing roads and creeks took
over the portion of privately owned land without or against the consent of the owner who
sued. Immunity from suit was invoked.
Held: when a govt thru its agency takes away private property without going to legal process
of expropriation and paying just compensation, a suit may be properly maintained against
the govt. The civil action may be based under Art 32 NCC and the constitutional provisions
on rights against privation of property without due process of law and without just
compensation.
The doctrine of immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for the perpetration of
injustice on its citizens. (J. Romero)
Resume on States liability for tort
The state is liable fro the tortuous acts only of its special agent but not of its public officials
in the performance of their assigned usual duties and functions who are liable under Art 2176
NCC and not Art 2180 NCC
Rationale: there can be no legal rights as against the authority that grants such rights. This
is known as doctrine of immunity from suit which is very essence of sovereignty. It is
expressed in the constitution that the state cannot be sued without its consent (Sec 3, Art
XVI). The states consent is manifested expressly in the form its legislative enactments of
statues (Art 2180 NCC, Sec 24 LGC of 1991, Act No 3083 relating money claims arising from
contract) and impliedly when the state enters into contract in its proprietary or private
capacity, or when the sate itself sues, opens itself to counterclaim, or perpetrate injustice to
its citizen.
5. Employers: Master
a. Owner and Manager of establishment or enterprises are liable for damage caused by their
employees in the service of employment or on the occasion of their functions.
b. Employer of household helper though not engaged in any business or industry are liable
for damages caused by helper acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
Basis of Liability is not Respondent Superior (Anglo-American doctrine where the negligence
of the employee is conclusively presumed to be the negligence of the employer) but on the
relationship of Pater-Familias, (master-servant) a theory basing the liability of the master
ultimately on his own negligence and not that of the servant as manifested in his negligence
in the selection of their employee-servant (culpa eligiendo) or in the supervision over their
employee-servants (culpa in vigilando). This negligence is prima facie presumption juris
tantum- overcome or rebutted by proof that they have observed and exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family (diligantissimi bonus fater familias). The theory is
deduced from the last par of Art 2180 NCC providing the responsibility shall cease upon proof
of exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.
The term Manager in Art 2180 is used in the sense of employer, not employee.
Case: Phil Rabbit Bus Lines Inc vs Phil Am Forwarder, Mar 25, 1975
Facts: An action for damages was brought against Phil Am Forwarded and its Manager
Balingit for negligent act of their driver. Balingit moved to dismiss the action against him for
though he was manager, however, he was just an employee of the company.
Held: Balingit is not liable because he was just a mere employee though designated as
Manager.
The relationship of employer-employee or master-servant must first be established to exist
before the employer/master will be held liable.
Case: Phil Shell Petroleum Co vs CA, 221 SCRA 389
Facts: Gas station proprietor was sued for selling adulterated gas with water. He settled
amicably the suit and then Phil Shell for the negligence of Feliciano who was hired in
undertaking hydro pressure test in the underground storage tank which was cracked causing
water to seep into the tank.
Held: Phil Shell is not liable because Feliciano was not its employee. It was shown that Phil
Shell has no control over Feliciano who do business of his own, used his own tools and
worked on his own time charging a fixed lump sum for every piece of work. Feliciano was an
independent contractor and not an employee and thus he alone is liable.
Case: Cuison vs Norton & Harisson Co, 55 Phil 18
Facts: Ora was employed by defendant company charged in directing and controlling
transport business of the Co. On the day of the accident, one of the companys truck was
leaded with logs which were not properly tied. The ties were loosened during the trip. They
stopped to rearrange the ties but before they could do so a child passing beside the truck
was hit by a log falling from the truck.
Held: Ora beingan employee of the company, the latter is responsible for the negligence in
the loading of logs which caused the death of the boy.
Distinction of employers liability under Art 2180 NCC and Revised Penal Code.
Civil Code
1. Direct and primary solidary, employer is sue even without suing the employee
2. Defense of exercise of diligence of a good father of the family to be relieve of liability
3. Employer is liable even if not engaged in business
4. Proof of negligence is by mere preponderance of evidence
Revised Penal Code
1. Subsidiary arising after the employees guilt
2. Diligence of a good father is not a defense
3. Must prove employer is engaged in business
4. Proof beyond reasonable doubt of evidence
5. Owners of Motor vehicle (Art 2184)
a. Owner is in the motor vehicle is solidary liable with his driver
b. Owner is not in the motor vehicle with the driver is subsidiary liable
Case: Chapman vs Underwood, 27 Phil 374
Facts: Underwood riding in his car and his driver suddenly turned to the wrong side of the
street and hit the plaintiff. Driver was negligent. Was the owner liable too?
Held: Where the owner had reasonable opportunity to observe his driver and to direct the
latter to cease there from, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On the other hand, if
the driver, by sudden act of negligence and without opportunity to prevent the acts or its
continuance, the owner is not responsible.
Caedo vs Tu Khe Thai, 26 SCRA 419
Facts: Yu was riding in his Cadillac driven by Bernardo saw a carratela about 8 meters away.
Instead of slowing down veered to the left to overtake and in so doing the car hit the
carratellas left wheel and skidded obliquely hitting the on coming car of Caedo who despite
slackened speed to avoid the collision was hit resulting to the injuries of Caedo and his
passengers. Yus driver was negligent. Was Yu liable?
Held: The basis of the master/employers liability in civil law is not respondent superior but
rather the relationship of Pater Familias. The theory is that ultimately the negligence of the
servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction, reflects the masters
negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent the injury or damage (J. Makalintal)
The owner of the car Yu was not liable because he did not see the carretela at a distance,
however, he could not anticipated his drivers sudden decision to pass the carretela. The time
element was such that there was not reasonable opportunity for Yu to assess the danger
involved and warn the driver accordingly.
Former owner of Motor Vehicle are liable for the tortuous acts of the new owner.
Case: Equitable Leasing Corp vs Suyom, Sept 5, 2002
Facts: Equitable sold to Lim a Fuso tractor. After the sales price was fully paid, a deed of
sale executed by Equitable in favor of Lim who had not registered the sale with the LTO.
While the tractor was driven by Lims employee, it rammed into a house causing death and
injuries and damages.
Held: This court (SC) has consistently held that regardless of the sales made of motor
vehicle, the registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as the public and third persons
are concerned. Consequently it is directly and primary liable for the consequences of its
operation in contemplation of the law. The owner of record is the employer of the driver
while the actual owner is considered as merely its agent.
Since Equitable remained the registered owner, it could not escape primary liability.
-
DAMAGES
The law governing damages is found in Art 2195 to 2235, NCC, which reincorporated some of
the Spanish Civil Code and adopted some principles of the American law (Civil code
commission report)
Damages (Latin Damnum or Demo = to take away) refers to the harm done and what may
be recovered.
Injury refers to the wrongful or unlawful or tortuous act. Damages is the measure of
recovery while injury is the legal wrong to be redressed.
There may be damage without injury (damnum absque injuria) and an injury without
damages. (15 Am Jur 388)
De la Rama Steamship vs Tan, 99 Phil 1034 Govt agency terminated contract of agency
under its right stipulated in the contract, although the agent suffered damages.
Janda vs Lepanto, 99 Phil 197, 1956 in compliance with the law (RA 529) purchaser of
shares of stock pain in pesos despite agreement to pay in dollar because at the time the law
declared stipulation as void to pay in currency other than pesos.
Saba vs CA, 189 SCRA 50 restated the doctrine of Qui Jure Suo Utitur Nullum Damnum =
one who exercise his right does no injury and if damage result, it is damnum absque injuria.
The case made the distinction between damage and injury.
Injury of loss arises from the violation if legal right while damages refer to money or
pecuniary compensation which the law impose or awarded for the injury done.
The Civil codes provisions on damages are applicable to all obligations arising from (1) Law,
(2) Contracts, (3) Quasi Contracts, (4) Delicts crimes, and (5) Quasi-delicts = tort. (Art
2195 NCC)
Compensation for workmen and other employees are governed by special law and rules
governing damages laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as are not in conflict
with the Civil Code. (Art 2196 NCC) This makes the Civil Codes provisions on damages as
the general law.
Ysmael Maritime Corp vs Avelino, 151 SCRA 333
Held: The heirs of the deceased seaman have the choice of availing remedy to recover
damages, workmens compensation law-labor code for work connected injury, or for tort
under the Civil Code for negligence of the employer. However, once they pursue one, they
are no longer free to avail the other. (Cited Florensca vs Phil Ex, 136 SCRA 141 case of
miners who died in a cave-in.
B. Kinds of Damages
There are 6 kinds of damages, namely
Actual or compensatory
Moral
Nominal
Temperate or moderate
Liquidated
Exemplary or corrective
General Classification of damages
Damages capable of pecuniary computation estimable which must be duly established or
proven as in actual or compensatory damages and loss of property lost of earning capacity.
Damages incapable of pecuniary estimation for which no proof is needed and the assessment
is left to discretion of the court. (Art 2216)
Damages:
For the same faulty or negligent act or omission causing damages it may produce multiple
liabilities, namely (1) criminal liability and (2) civil liability which in turn may be (a) a Civil
Liability arising from a crime under the Revised Penal Code, or (b) Civil liability arising from
culpa extra-contractual or quasi delict or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code and (c) civil
liability arising from culpa contractual or breach of contract.
The liability arising from culpa aquiliana is entirely separate and distinct the civil liability
arising from a crime. However the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission. (Art 2177 NCC)
The acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless
the acquittal is declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist which
extinguished the criminal liability and the civil liability. (Andamo vs IAC, 191 SCRA 204) The
aggrieved party has the option to choose which of the actions that may be filed because
double recovery or damages is prohibited. (Virata vs Ochoa, 81 SCRA 472).
Exemplary or corrective damages
These are damages imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition
to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages (Art 2229 NCC).
This damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right. This court will decide whether or not
they should be adjudicated, (Art 2233) and any stipulation renouncing in advance such
damages shall be null and void. (Art 2234 NCC).
Condition for the award (Art 2234 NCC)
Plaintiff must prove that he is entitled to the following:
A. Compensatory Damages
B. Moral Damages
C. Temperate Damages
D. Defendant acted with fraudulent, malevolent, oppressive, reckless or wanton manner in
contracts or quasi contract case. (Art 2232 NCC)
E. Presence of aggravating circumstance in the commission of criminal offense as a part of
civil liability. (Art. 2230 NCC).
F. Defendant acted with gross negligence in quasi-delicts.
German Marine Agencies Inc. Vs NLRC, 350 SCRA 641
Facts: The ship radio officer was taken ill while the ship was in New Zealand, Despite notice
thereof by the ships captain, the ship proceeded with the voyage and reached the Phil in 10
days and yet the sick radio officer was not immediately taken to hospital for medical
treatment.
Held: Ship owner is liable for moral damages for the physical suffering and mental anguish
caused to Radio Officer. P50,000 in moral damages is proper.
As the fact of negligence of the ships captain was not only shown to have existed but it was
deliberately perpetrated by the arbitrary refusal to commit the ailing radio officer to a
hospital in New Zealand or at the nearest port resulting to his permanent partial disability,
the award of exemplary damages for P50,000 is adequate and reasonable.
In this case the awarding of the exemplary damages is to serve a correction as well as an
example for ship owners to look after the welfare of their employees first to that of their
customers-cargo-owner.
The rationale behind the exemplary damages is to provide an example or correction for
public good and not to enrich the victim. (People vs Agustin, 350 SCRA 216, 01)
Attys fees may be recovered when exemplary damages are awarded. (Coca cola bottlers Phil
vs Roque, 305 SCRA 215)
PCIB vs CA, 350 SCRA 446, 01
Held: Banks are liable for tortuous act of its officers an employee within the course or scope
of thei employment.
In this case, both the drawee and collection banks were negligent in failing to select and
supervise their employees resulting to the encashment of the check to the syndicate instead
of the rightful person.
Nominal Damages (Art 2221 NCC)
These are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff which has been violated or invaded
by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying
the plaintiffs for any loss suffered by him.
Nominal Damages are merely for the vindication of a right that has been violated, not for
indemnification of the losses suffered. (ventanilla vs Centeno, Jan 28, 61). Case of a lawyer
who was negligent in filing appeal time tho he was not liable for actual damages.
Almeda vs Carino, Jan 13, 2003
Facts: C sold a lot on installments to A. A last sold the same to another, and despite of
demands, A refused to pay the unpaid balance of the purchase price owing to C.
Held: The vendor C has the right to the unpaid balance to the lot sold to A who violated such
right when he refused to pay. For this, C is entitled, aside from the payment of the unpaid
balance, to a nominal damages.
Nominal Damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by
the defendant for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right and not for
indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss suffered. Its award is thus not for the purpose of
indemnification for a loss but for the recognition and vindication of a right. When granted by
the courts, they are treated not as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply a recognition
of the existence of a technical injury. A violation of the plaintiffs right, even if only technical,
is sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. So long as there s a showing of a
violation of a right of the plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper.
Temperate or Moderate Damages (Art. 2224 NCC)
These are damages which are more than nominal but less compensatory damage which may
be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the
amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
Phil Telegraph and Telephone Corp vs CA, Sept. 3 2002.
Facts: PT&T breached its contract in failing to remit money order sent by plaintiff on time.
However the latter failed to prove actual damages and that PT&T was in bad faith.
Held: Either Temperate or nominal damages could be awarded.
Araneta vs Bank of America, 40 SCRA 144
Facts: A issued checks in payment of jewels purchased. The checks were dishonored despite
of the sufficiency of fund to cover the checks. The bank apologized for the errors of its
employee. Again, similar incidents subsequently occurred. Thus a sued the bank.
Held: While A may not be able to prove the profit he would have net had the jewelry
transaction been pushed thru, his claim for temperate damages is justified.
B. Kinds of Damages: General classification
2. Damages incapable of pecuniary estimation. While proofs is not needed, however, it is
essential that the complainant must satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of
the damage (Art 2217) and its casual connection to the defendants wrongful acts. (Malonzo
vs Galang, 100 Phil 16; Raagas vs Traja, 22 SCRA 836) These damages, nominal damages,
temperate damages and exemplary or corrective damages.
The principles of the general law on damages are adopted insofar as they are not
inconsistent with the Civil Code (Art 2198).
The fundamental principle of law of damages
is that one injured by a breach of contract or by the negligent act or omission shall have fair
and just compensation commensurate with the loss sustained in the consequence of the
defendants act which give to the action. Thus actual pecuniary compensation is the
indemnity for his loss and to be placed as near as may be in condition which he would have
occupied had he not suffered the injury complained of. On the other hand, the defendant
shall not be liable for damages more than the actual loss which he has inflicted by his wrong.
Only proximate, not remote, damages are recoverable.
While the same faulty or negligent act or omission may give rise to multiplicity of suits,
however under Art 2177, NCC, the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act
or omission, If the plaintiff recovers from the defendant under the civil code, he cannot
recover damage from the same defendant under Revised Penal Code on the premise that
person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co vs CA, 64 SCRA 427
Facts: Bus collided with a car driven by Reyes resulting to death of Reyes and injuries to his
passengers Cardena. Cardena and heirs of Elizondo sued the Bus operator whose driver was
found negligent.
The defendant bus operator contended that it was premature to proceed with the civil case
pending final resolution of the criminal case against their driver.
Held: Employers liability is made clear under Art 2180 and under Art 2177 is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under Revised Penal
Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission.
Culpa aquiliana is an independent source of obligation between two persons not formerly
bound by any juridical tie. (Manressa)
It is not required that the injured party should not seek out a third person crimirnally liable
whose prosecution must be a condition precedent to the enforcement of the civil right.
(Rakes vs AGP Co, 7 Phil 359) The civil liability under quasi delict is contracted without
agreement or consent, thus culpa extra contractual, on the principle that where harm, loss or
damage has been caused to a person thru fault or negligent act the aggrieve party is entitled
to be indemnified. (Cangco vs MRR, 38 Phil 768)
MORAL DAMAGES
4. Cases where Moral Damages may be recovered or Awarded
a. Acts mentioned in Art 309 disrespect to the dead or wrongful interference with funeral
b. Arts and actions referred in Articles on human relation 21, 26, to 30, 32 to 35
c. Willful injury to property committed maliciously or fraudulently (Art 2220, Francisco vs
GSIS, Mar 30, 63)
d. Breaches of contracts where the defendant acted with fraudulently or in bad faith. (Art
2220)
Breaches of contract of carriage resulting to death or injury of passengers (Art 1764 in
relation to Art 2206 (3) Phil Rabbit bus lines inc vs Easguerra, 117 SCRA 741)
Calalas vs CA, 332 SCRA 356, 2000
Facts: Calalas jeep was improperly parked with its rear portion protruding from the board
shoulder of the road (violation of LTTC). Passenger Sunga who was sited on wooden stool as
extended seat alighted to give way to another passenger alighting from the inside and in the
process he was bumped by an overtaking truck owned by Salinas. Sunga sued Calalas
breach of carriage. Calalas sued Salvas Tort
Held: While moral damages are not recoverable in actions for breach of contract for it is not
one of the items enumerated in Art 2219, NCC, however, the exception is in the cases of
mishap resulting to the death or injury of passenger unddder Art 1764 in relation to Art 2206
(3) NCC and in cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or in bad faith.
In this case the ruling in Calamas vs Salvas is not binding in the case of Sunga vs Calalas.
Res Judicata does not apply because Sunga is not a party to the tort case where Salva was
found at fault and liable to Calalas. Thought both cases has the same issue of negligence,
however, each is distinct and separate from the other. (Breach of contract and tort)
Defense of proximate cause is not available in breach of contract of carriage: only in tort
cases. Neither is the defense of caso fortuitous where it is attended to by negligence which in
Calalas case were overloading and parking improrely which are vioation of tle LTTC.
Moral damages cannot be award in the absence of any injury or factual basis. There must be
pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright, wounded feelings ad similar
injury. (Brent Hospital Inc vs NLRC, 292 SCRA 304, 98; People vs Aguilar, 349 SCRA 292,
98)
MORAL DAMAGES, Arts 2217 to 2220, NCC
1. Moral damages are not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of the defendant.
They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or
amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of
the defendants culpable action. (J. Paraz, Prudencio vs Alliance Transport, Mar 16 87)
2. Concept Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, freight, serious
anxiety, dismirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
similar injury.
Thought incapable of pecuniary computation, it may recover if they are the proximate result
of the defendants wrongful act or omission. (2217)
Moral damages are not punitive in nature, but are designed to compensate and alleviate in
some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, etc. This is so
because moral damages are in the category of an award designed to compensate the
claimant for actual injury suffered, not to impose a penalty in the wrongdoer. (Equitable
Leasing Corp vs Suyom et al, Sept 5, 02)
Corporation are not entitled to moral damages because an artificial person existing only in
legal contemplation-legal fiction, have no feelings no emotions, no senses and therefore, it
cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish, sorrows and grief of life- all of
which can not be suffered by artificial person. (National Power Corp vs Phil Brothers Oceanio,
Inc, Nov 21, 2001)
3. Conditions to recover moral damages while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in
order to recover and the assessment is left to the discretion of the court (Art 2216 NCC).
However, the complainant must satisfactory show the ff:
factual basis for the award which is the injury or wrong doing of the defendant
the injury, i.e. physical suffering etc are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act
or omission (2217)
casual connection or relation between the actual injury and the wrongful act or omission of
the defendant. (Equitable Leasing Corp vs Suyom)
4. Cases where moral damages may be recovered or awarded (2219)
Criminal offenses resulting to physical injuries (Art 33 NCC and Madeja Caro, 126 SCRA 293)
Quasi-delict causing physical injuries
Adultery and concubinage
Abduction, Rape, Seduction and other malicious act, victim and parent are entitled
Illegal search
Illegal arbitrary detention or arrest
Libel, slander or other form of defamation (Art 33)
Malicious prosecution
Obligations and liabilities arising from human relation
The civil codes provisions dealing on human relation (Chap 2 Preliminary Title) are now, not
based in the Spanish Civil Code, formulated some basic principles that are to be observed for
the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of social order. It was
designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good and conscience.
(Report, Code Commission, p. 39)
These provisions provide for specie of Special Torts
The catch all provisions
1. Abuse of rights every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance
of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
(Art 19) The elements are the ff:
i. There must be a legal right or duty
ii. Exercise of such right or duty in bad faith
iii. Prejudices or causes damage to another
2. Sanction Penalty every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damages to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same (Art 20)
This reiterated in Art 2176 and 2194 dealing on quasi delicts holding that person are liable
for damages caused by their fault or negligence. (Prof. Jarencio opined that this provision
refers to willful or negligent acts contrary to law not constituting quasi delict or delict)
3. Contra Bonus Mores- any person who willfully causes losses or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter
for damage (Art 21)
Quisimbing vs Icao, 34 SCRA 132
Held: under Art 21, for a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to his lust
constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that entitles her to claim for
compensation for the damage caused. Mans act is contrary to moral, good customs or public
policy.
Pe et al vs Pe, 5 SCRA 200
Defendant is married separated and correlative of the plaintiff unmarried woman, 24 years
of age. Defendant frequently visited the girls house on the pretext of teaching her how to
pray the rosary. They fell in love and had clandestine trust until they disappeared.
Held: No conclusion can be drawn from the fact that defendant, not only deliberately, but
thru a clever strategy, succeeded in winning the affection and love to the woman to the
extent of having illicit relations with her. The wrong caused to her and her family is contrary
to morals etc as contemplated in Art 21.
Wassmer vs Velez, 12 Scra 648
Facts: W & V applied for a license to contract of marriage. The wedding was set, invitations
were printed and distributed to relatives, friends. Wedding dresses purchased (bridal, flower
girls maid of honor, etc), reception and other amenities reserved. But before the wedding,
the boy left for Mindanao and never returned.
Held: The mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a
wedding and go thru all those preparation and expenses and publicity only to walk out is
contrary to good custom for which defendant is held answerable for damages under Art 21.
B. Unjust enrichment
1. Every Person thru an act or performance by another or any other means, acquires or
comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground
shall return the same to him (Art 22).
A community was raised by lawless elements and took personal belongings of the helpless
residents. When the Govt forces came driving the lawless elements and restoring peace and
order, the owner of the house occupied by the lawless element found several personal
belongings of other left by the fleeing outlaws. The person owning those personal belonging
taken by the outlaws have the right to recover them from the finder under Art 22.
2. Even when an act or event causing damage to anothers property was not due to the fault
or negligent of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if thru the act or event
he was benefited (Art 23)
Illustration given by the Code Commission
Without As knowledge, a flood drive his cattle to the cultivated highland of B. As cattle were
saved but Bs crop were destroyed because they were eaten by the cattle. While A was not at
fault however he was benefited when his cattle were saved from the flood aside from being
well fed. It is butt right and equitable that A should indemnify B for the loss of his crop.
Otherwise the injured party B would be unjustly enriched at the expense of the party who
received the benefit.
See Arts 2142 and 2143
C. Violation of dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of neighbors and other persons
(Art 26)
Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute
a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of anothers residence:
The rationale for this is provided in Art 2177 NCC which states the responsibility for fault or
negligence is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence
under the Revised Penal Code but the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or
omission.

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; However, if the acquittal is based on proof that the accused did not commit a crime, or that
no crime was committed, or because he is justified or exempt from criminal liability, no civil
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; action may be instituted because the acquittal on those ground constitutes res adjudicate.

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life,
place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
D. Dereliction of official duty by public official (Art 27)
Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and
other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that
may be taken.
PNB vs Capiton, 98 Phil 286
Held: Acquittal of an accused in Estafa case on the ground that his guilt has not been
satisfactorily established is equivalent to one on reasonable doubt and does not preclude
filing of civil action for the same act or omission under Art 29 NCC.
However to protect the person from harassment, the law authorizes defendant to file a
motion in court requiring the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case complaint
should be found malicious.

This provision was designed to redress complaints of the people that in dealing with public
officials and employees that they are not properly attended to while those who are rich
influential and powerful are given prompt and even servile attention. Worst is some public
officials/ employee took advantage of their position, expectly or demand bribe for the
performance of their duty which lowered the morals of public service and seriously
undermined public confidence of the govt.

Zulueta vs Nicolas, 102 Phil 844

Facts: Z filed a complaint against the Governor of Rizal for libel. After investigation the Fiscal
absolved the Governor on the ground that there was no prima facie evidence for filing the
libel complaint. Z then filed a civil action against under Art 27 NCC.

Held: The fiscal of absolving the Governor upon finding no sufficient evidence to establish a
prima facie case is not refusal without just cause to perform his official duty to file the
complaint for libel. The fiscal is vested with authority and discretion to determine whether or
not there is sufficient evidence to justify the filing of an action, and having control of the
prosecution of a criminal case, the fiscal cannot be subjected to direction from the offended
party. Action dismissed.

E. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through

the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or
highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers
damage. (Art 28)

F. Acquittal in criminal case on the ground that guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. A civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted and such
action requires only preponderance of evidence. (Art 29)