TORTS AND DAMAGES 2.

Roman law: precepts of law

3 precepts:
JANUARY 17, 2018 a. Honeste vivere – “to live honestly”
b. Alterum non laedere- “to hurt no one by deed or word”
“Your last mistake will be your best teacher” c. Suum cuique- “to give everyone his due” (ART. 19, NCC:
CATCH ALL PROVISION)
TORT- “torquere”: twist or to turn.
- In the exercise of right shall not destroy the rights of others.
- Adapated tort which is a French term - In relation to ART.20 and 21.

** 2 SYSTEMS: PURPOSES OF TORT LAW

1. COMMON LAW 1. Provide peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might
- All wrongful acts. Whether with intent or not or with the absence of due otherwise take the law into their own hands.
diligence. 2. It will deter wrongful conduct: you will be more careful because every
2. CIVIL LAW wrongful act you do; there is a commensurate amount of damage.
- Article 2176: any act or omission which is done with negligence. 3. Encourage socially responsible behaviour: you think not about yourself but
also of others.
HISTORY 4. To restore injured parties to their original condition: only insofar as the law
can provide.
A. PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE 5. To reduce the risk or burden in the society.
- We are given the freedom to enact our own laws.
- We have the civil code commission who enacted our NCC.
- With the enactment of RPC, which punishes of intentional crimes: we had
TORTS LECTURE 2
amended of NCC.
JANUARY 19, 2018
KINDS OF TORT LIABILITIES:
INTEREST BEING PROTECTED BY TORT LAW
a. Intentional torts
- Acts or omission where the actor DESIRES to cause damage.
1. Physical Integrity
- Desire the consequences of the action.
- E.g alternative compensation scheme: workmen compensation act
- In the NCC there are specific acts that are covered which are not covered in
- If you incur any disability which are work related, insurance fund will
the RPC.
compensate to bring back your physical integrity.
Example: oral defamation; interfere with someone’s affair.
2. Dignity and Reputation
- Under moral damages.
b. Negligence
3. Personal freedom
- Voluntary acts or omissions.
- Reduce the risk and burden in living in the society.
- Not intent to cause damage but the failure to exercise due diligence required
4. Enjoyment of property
by law.
- Nuisance
c. Strict liability
5. Commercial interest
- Actions or omissions independent of intent or negligence BECAUSE THE
- By virtue of e-commerce
LAW SAYS SO.
- Billings in the internet
- RPC: “malum prohibitum”.
- Electronic contracts.
SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE TORT LAW
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW
1. NCC (2176; 1157 quasi delict)
 a. Equity and Justice - Requirements of locus standi: who stands to be injured because of a tortious
 2 LEVELS OF JUSTICE conduct.
1. Social level/ distributive justice: something to do with the society as - May be a natural or artificial person.
a deterrence to future. - NOTE: ARTICLE 40 AND 41 for an unborn child.{not entitled to damages,
e.g exemplary damages. birth determines personality}.

REMEDIES

1. Preventive remedy that threatens certain undesirable consequences.

2. Alternative compensation schemes
2. individual justice - E.g insurances: insurable interest.
- corrective or cumutative in favour f the victim. 3. Labor code: employees compensation
- Those work related.
“equity”- justice without legality. - GSIS, PhilHealth only.

- Makes laws for human.

- Decisions of the court regarding damages are based on natural law or right.
You cannot dictate nor speculate damages. TORTS
b. Democracy
- In the exercise of our rights there is an obligation to respect the rights of JANUARY 24, 2018
others.
QUASI-DELICT
c. Human personality is exalted
- Only law that pays for your feelings. - ART. 2176: DEFINITION V. TORTS(broader) v. intentional criminal act
(RPC)
JUSTIFICATIONS OF TORT LAW - ** 2 elements:
1. Act or omission constituting fault or nagligence
1. Alterum non laedere 2. Damage cause by the act or omission
- To hurt no one by deed or word. 3. Must be causal relation b/n the damage done and act or omission.
 3 PERSPECTIVE: o Most important element, otherwise no quasi-de
a. Moral (BAKSH CASE: breach to promise to marry is not an
- No wrong without a remedy. actionable wrong, unless intent is used to entice a woman to
- Problem there is solution; injury equivalent compensation. submit herself. In the case, the man use persuasiveness.
- To correct the moral shortcomings of people in a civilized society.
2. Economic MUTUAL LUST v. MORAL WRONG
- Property and physical integrity. IF NOT FOR THAT PROMISE TO
3. Social MARRY, SHE WOULD HAVE NOT
- Create socially responsible individual. SUBMITTED HERSELF. HENCE
HAVING A CONDITION. HAVING
- Individual become more selfless; think of others. MORAL DAMAGES. SHE IS
ENTITLED NOT FOR THE
PERSON WHO CAN SUE(PLAINTIFF) AND TO BE SUED (DEFENDANT) BREACH TO MARRY BUT TO
THE FRAUD AND DECEIT
“plaintiff” INCURRED. (ARTICLE 21, NCC)

- A person who is entitled to damages. ACTUAL DAMAGE; SHALL

SHOW RECEIPTS.
)
 QUASI-DELICT EX-DELICT CLAIMS. CIVIL
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE 100 EXCEP: (AIR ACTION
Employer: primary liable Employer: subsidiary liable FRANCE BEFORE
(independent civil liability). Hence CARASCOSO) THE FILING
the acquittal or conviction has no dati culpa OF THE
relation to ARTICLE 2176 contractual PROSECUTI
E.G LACK FOR THE SELECTION - passenger who ON OF
AND ENGAGEMENT OF EMPLOYEE. with a first class EVIDENCE
ticket was illegally - FILE CIVIL
ousted and was ACTION 1ST
- “ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE”- invites children in such dangerous place. forced to take a PRIOR TO
Excpetion: curiosity of children. No causal connection tourist seat, bcos THE FILING
the 1st class ticket OF
is to be given to a CRIMINAL
JANUARY 31, 2018 white man instead ACTION, but
to you a brown IF THE
(CASE: DULAY; INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS) man. CRIMINAL
- yes, there’s a ACTION
**DISTINCTIONS: breach of contact, ALREADY
but the question MOVED YOU
Culpa-aquilana QUASI DELICT CULPA
is damages. CAN
DELICT CONTRACTUAL
RULING: ALREADY
1. MERELY 1. AFFECTS THE (BEACH OF
Air france: cannot CONSOLIDA
PERSONAL PUBLIC INTEREST CONTACT)
award damages TED THE
CONCERNS 2. RPC AND SPECIAL 1. BASED ON
bcos its not CIVIL
2. NCC PENAL LAWS 1170-1174,
based on ACTION
3. BROAD- corrects the acts ncc
contract.
ALSO THOSE 3. NOT SO BROAD- 2. NEGLIGENC
- BUT HOW YOU 9. EMPLOYERS
FACTUAL ONLY THOSE E; MERELY
ACT IN :
PROVISIONS UNDER THE NCC INCIDENTAL-
BREAKING THE SUBSIDIARA
UNDER NCC IT IS HOW
CONTRACT. CAN LY LIABLE
4. INDEPENDEN (DULAY YOU BREAK
EXIST EVEN IT IS
T CIVIL CASE;LIABILITY) THE
THERE A
ACTION- CONTRACT.
CONTRACT
FILED A. CRIMINAL - ACTS
SEPERATELY B. CIVIL LEADING TO
7. NEGLIGENCE
;CAN - CULPA EX BREAK THE
: DIRECT
PROCEED DELICTO- CONTRACT(“
AND
INDEPENDEN ARISES quasi delict”)
PRIMARY
TLY FROM THE 3. VINCULUM
SOURCE
5. EMPLOYERS: CRIME JURIS EXIST
8. CREATES A
PRIMARY - MAY BE BECOS OF
“VINCULUM
LIABLE INTITUTED THE
JURIS ”-
6. GENRULE: WITH CONTRACT
BOND
2176 CRIMINAL
BTWEEN THE
THERE’S NO ACTION
PARTIES BY
PRE- **NOTE: RULE 111
OBSERVING
EXISTING RULES OF COURT
EO; BASED
CONTRACTU - WAIVED IT
ON
AL OBLI. OR
OBSERVATIO
OTHERWISE - FILE A N OF
IT BARS SEPARATE DILIGENCE
 AND NON **FACTORS IN DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE
COMMISSION
OF 1. EMPLOYMENT/OCCUPATION
NEGLIGENCE - Manifested with a non-professional(ordinary) or professional driver
. license(driving is part of your profession; hence EO is required)
2. BANKS
- EO diligence
NEGLIGENCE
- MUST CONDUCT A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION. Bcos you are
- Essential element of quasi-delict. using money of depositors
- Article 1173;definition 3. DOES NOT REFER TO FORMAL OR INFORMAL EDUCATION
- Here application of DILIGENCE will be based on the nature of - Adults (EO) v. child.
obligation to exercise you EO or pater familias, or circumstances of 4. PHYSICAL ABILITY
profession (e.g there is a certain kind of diligence to be perform unlike - Abled person v. POW/SENIORS
to an ordinary persons; adult v. child). Or time (driving) and place (not
familiar to the place) (CASE OF US v. BONIFACIO)
“CASTILLO is deaf-mute tumawid sa riles, yung train na dinadrive ni
**TEST OF NEGLIGENCE ID EMBODIED IN THE (CASE OF PICART VS binifacio already saw Castillo. Hence, binusinahan niya si Castillo. So
SMITH.) nagslow down siya. Pero tumawid pa rin si Castillo. ”
RULING:
*plaintiff horse and defendant, driving an automobile passing a. Bonifacio is not negligent:
the bridge. Wala sa lane yung plaintiff. : it is beyond in his control of not knowing that Castillo was
Ruling: there are both negligent. But who is the MOST deaf-mute
negligent? Defendant has reasonable care, you have foreseen : he did everything to exercise diligence.
that a risk is about to happen, but you did not stop the car. : Castillo is negligent, should have not been there. Bcos if you
Hence “right of way” is not applicable. “LAST CLEAR are a POW, YOU SHALL RECOGNIZED YOUR DISABILITY. DO
CHANCE” is applicable. NOT PRETEND YOU HAVE THAT DISABILITY. If you have
a. “did the defendant in doing the negligent act, used disability you are also required to exercise disability.
reasonable care and caution w/c an ordinarily prudent man 5. TIME AND PLACE SHALL BE CONSIDERED.
would have used” 6. PHYSICS AND LAWS OF NATURE.
b. Court must place itself in the place of the defendant. 7.

FEBRUARY 2, 2018

- ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENCE: “foreseeability” in which the **STANDARD OF CONDUCT:

risk is apparent. However, the absence of foreseeability can make you
not liable (e.g unusual incidents; you cannot foresee) - GENRULE: WE FOLLOW THE “PATER FAMILIAS” GOOD FATHER OF
THE FAMILY; A MAN OF ORDINARY INTELIGENCE. (ARTICLE
**DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE: 1173,NCC)
- EUROPIAN IN NATURE. “MAN OF THE CLOCKHAM OMNIBUS” (train
1. SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE that is being patrionized by the people.)
- What is required is EO. Bcos the situation calls for the EO.
2. ORDINARY EXCEPTIONS/LIMITATIONS:
- Ordinary diligence. “pater familias”
3. GROSS NEGLIGENCE 1. CHILDREN
- Absence of slightest care - WE CONSODER THE MATURITY OF CHILD IN DETERMING ITS
DILIGENCE.
 CASE OF TAYLOR V. CASE OF HILARDE CASE OF HARCO However still liable bcos the diligence is based on the SKILL not
MERALCO MARKETING always on profession. Hence, must exercise a dehree of diligence. ”
“after WWII. The
“even if the victim is 14 playground of “owners of certain (PHARMACIST CASE)
yrs of age, he has children were department stores.
“namatay yung horse.mali yung gamut na binigay.”
maturity to understand bomb, resulting to There;s this mother
the consequences of his holes. Aquino, a and child, 6 years
action. The negligence is teacher, assign old.the mother
not on meralco but on the he’s grade 3 pupils credit card to pay, 3. INTOXICATION
child. Hence, it is based in para kunin yung when she heard a - Not negligence.
the maturity to boalders, chunks loud thug. Nakita - Merely a circumstance, court has to take OTHER circumstances to
understand.” of cement and put niya natabunan
determine negligence. Bcos different persons have different
in the holes. yung child.
Basis: JUVENILE However the child manifestation on alcohol
JUSTICE ACT However, the died” - (RIPE v. MERALCO)
- Amended a child children eventually “RIPE was intoxicated. Pero in the case walang choice o ibang daan
criminally liable played on the RULING: para makauwe kundi sa riles. He was riding he’s calesa, at that time
does not follow holes. So yung isa Found out that the nagaayos yung meralco. Yung mga metal bars hindi in place. Lasing si
he is not civilly sa mga bata child was shaking Ripe, nung tumawid yung kayang horse, napatid. Which included the
liable.(would still tumalon mula sa the gift wrapping
kalesa. So umagat yung kalesa. Tumilapon si Ripe”
use the maturity boalders. May tatlo items.
of child). dun sa holes
natabunan sila” Harco is pleading RULING:
for reducing liability
RULING: based on tha A drunk man is also entitled to a safe street like a sober man. Roads
contributory are not only made to a sober man but also to an intoxicated man.
Children are placed negligence of the
in the situation mother
where they do not EXCEPT: “malum prohibitum”: drunk driving.
understand the Problematic: court
risks. And they are used the RPC. 9 4. INSANITY
playful hence years old below are - IN relation to 2180, insane person is not necessarily exempt from civil
easily bored. not civiily and liability
criminally liable. - May file action against the guardian or to the estate of the insane.
Amended a child
**3 REASONS: WHAY NOT EXEMPTED:
criminally liable
does not follow he A. One or 2 innocent persons suffer a loss, it shall be borne to the
is not civilly one who occasioned it.
liable.(would still - e.g you are an sane person. Naghihintay ka ng jeep. And suddeny a
use the maturity of insane person kicks you. YOU ARE BOTH INNOCENT under RPC.
child). However, the one who occasioned it must also bear the damage done
- to you.
2. EXPERST/PROFFESIONALS
- Kid of degree of diligence in accordance of a particular field. B. Estate will answer for any damages or torts committed by an
- Shall exercise the degree of skill. insane person, it will induce the heirs to restrain or control the
- (CASE OF KULLION) insane person. Para yung estae niya sayo na lang
“gen. manger misrepresented himself na kaya niyang iconvert yung
mga sasakyan gasoline to diesel (it takes an expert to do that). Now C. Prevent fear of insanity defense that would lead to “false
sumabog yung mga sasakyan. Defense niya hindi siya professional. insanity”.
 - Pretending to be insane, to escape liability. EXCEPTION: “Presumption of negligence” (however until contrary is proven)

1. ARTICLE 2184
- In motor vehicles mishap. Second sentence “it is disputably presumed
FEBRUARY 9, 2018 that a diver was negligent if he had been found guilty of reckless
driving or traffic violations, is TWICE for the preceding 2months ”
- Dalawang magkasunod the violation. Hence presumed negligent.

**OTHER FACTORS IN DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE: 2. ARTICLE 2185

- “unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person
1. VIOLATION OF STATUTES/ ORDINANCES
driving a motor vehicle has been negligent, if at the time of the mishap,
- May be treated in the following:
he was violating a traffic violation”.
a. Circumstances that establishes the presumption of negligence.
- He was driving under the influence of alchol.
(e.g there is an incident, and the actor violates a certain statute/
***NOTE: does not apply to NON- MOTORIZED VEHICLE (e.g calesa).
ordinaces, the actor is presumed nagligent)
Bcos they are more capable of inflicting greater injury.
b. You are negligent per se.
3. ARTICLE 2188
c. Like intoxication, it must be proved by other circumstances to
- “there is prima facie presumption of evidence on the part of defendant,
prove negligence.
if the death or injury results to his possession of dangerous weapons
- In the Philippines we follow, B bcos the statute itself is our “standard
or substances”
of conduct.”
*** EXEPT TO EXCEPT: if such possession of the thing is
- E.g speed limit, National Building Code(SHALL have a firewall).
“indispensible” or “necessary” to his profession or business.
(e.g gun police on duty)
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE: violations of the statute is not considered
negligence;
a. Strict observance of the rule will defeat the purpose or may lead to
an adverse result
“RES IPSA LOQUITOR”
- E.g using of sidewalk, there is signed malapit sa sidewalk na falling
debri. So napilitan kang dumaan sa gitna ng road.
- Gen rule: burden of proof of negligence
- No U turns, pero may emergency.
- Apply only the doctrine. If there is NO direct and factual evidence that
- Violation of administrative rules, possible proof of negligence only.
cause the injury. But the THING or INSTRUMENTALITY causing the
- Rules on private conduct (company policy)- same possible evidence of
injury is under the “exclusive control and use” of the defendant. And
negligence.
the accident which don’t ordinarily happen unless one is negligent.
- If applied, the plaintiff only to prove is that there is an accident
occured. Burden of proof will shift to the defendant.
BURDEN OF PROOF
(CASE OF AGANA)
- RULE 131, RULES OF COURT.
BURDEN OF PROOF to torts and damages, it is the person “claiming” “Victim will undergo operation. Surgeon (captain of the ship) counted the
damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proof. sponge, but one sponge is missing. The victim after operation, felt severe pain.
It was found that it was the sponges”
- “Preponderance of evidence”. Must establish evidence using factual
and direct evidences. Cannot speculate damages.
RULING:
GENRULE: burden of proof is to the plaintiff.
REQUISITES:
 a. Occurrence of the injury
b. Thing which caused the injury was under the control of the
management of the defendant.
c. Occurrence was such in the ordinary cause of things would not have
happen if such control used proper care.
d. Absence of explanation by the defendant.

(CASE OF LAYUGAN)

“changing of tire of the truck; early warning devise they put a kerosene lamp 4
meters away. A truck approaching saw already the lamp, but did not stop. So
the plaintiff’s leg was amputated.”

RULING:

Moving vehicle must be the one to exercise diligence.

(CASE OF RAMOS)

“DR. Osaka; anestheologist”

(CASE D.M CONSUJI)

“RENESSAINCE RESIDNECE; NAHULOG YUNG PLAINTIFF; PROXIMATE

CAUSE DI NAKALOCK YUNG PLATFORMS; THE WIFE FILED AN ACTION FOR
DAMAGES”

RULING:

Failure of the company.

(CASE OF MAKALINAW)

“two cars collided. One is negligent. ”