Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Torts – (Fr) torquere; to twist
– common law: unlawful violation of private
right, not created by contract, and which
gives rise to an action for damages.
– An act or omission producing an injury to
another, without any previous legal relation
of which the said act or omission may be
said to be a natural outgrowth or incident.
– Private or civil wrong or injury, other than
breach of contract.
– Can be based on all 5 sources of obligation
as enumerated in Art. 1157, NCC
– genus; involves any violation of a right
Classes of torts:
• Intentional torts – conduct where the
actor desires to cause the consequences
of his acts or believes that consequences
are substantially certain to result from it.
◦ Battery, assault, false imprisonment,
defamation, invasion of privacy,
interference of property
• Negligence – voluntary acts or omissions
which result in injury to another without
intending to cause the same. The actor
fails to exercise due care in performing
such acts or omissions
• strict liability – the person is made liable
independent of fault or negligence upon
submission of proofs of certain facts.
Philippine Tort Law
• Obligations based on law & quasi-delict
• Sources
◦ New Civil Code
▪ Roman Law
▪ Spanish
▪ French
▪ Anglo-American Law
• Scope And Applicable Laws
◦ the Code Commission uses the word
“quasi-delict” instead of torts because
torts in Angle American law is much
broader than the Spanish-Philippine
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
concept of obligations arising from non-
contractual negligence.
◦ Intentional acts (considered torts in
Anglo American law) are intended to be
governed by the RPC in the Philippines
Art. 19, 20, & 21 of the NCC enlarge the concept of
tortious acts and embody in our law the Anglo-
American concept of tort. They are “catch-all”
provisions that serve as basis for any imaginable
tort action.
Art. 20 is the general sanction for all other
provisions of law which do not especially provide
their own sanctions and is broad enough to cover
all legal wrongs which do not constitute violation of
contract.
• Defamation
• fraud
• physical injuries
• violation of constitutional rights
• negligence
• interference with contractual relations
• violation of privacy
• malicious prosecution
• product liability
• strict liability for possession of animals
• abuse of right (Art. 19, NCC)
• acts which violate good morals and
customs (Art. 21, NCC)
Art. 1902 of the old Civil Code covers the broad
concept of torts prior to the NCC.
Art. 2176 of NCC covers quasi-delict, which as
observed by the SC in numerous cases includes
intentional acts.
Culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in
character or in violation of the penal law, whether
voluntary or negligent.
Purposes of Tort Law:
General purpose: Protect different interests in the
society, specifically to:
• provide a peaceful means for adjusting the
rights of parties who might otherwise take
the law in their hands
st
1 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
• deter wrongful conduct
• encourage socially responsible behavior
• restore the injured parties to their original
condition, insofar as that law can do this,
by compensating them for their injury.
• Reduce the risks and burden of living in the
society and to allocate them among the
members of the society
The study of law of torts is therefore a study of the
extent to which the law will shift from the person
affected to the shoulder of him who caused the
loss.(Wright, Cases on Law on Torts, p.1)
Although tort law is mainly concerned with
providing compensation for personal injury and
property damage caused by negligence, it also
protects other interests such as reputation,
personal freedom, enjoyment of property, and
commercial interests.
Fundamental principles:
These purposes of tort law are sought to be
achieved in the pursuit of fundamental principles
upheld under the NCC.
EQUITY & JUSTICE
• NCC upholds the “spirit that giveth life
rather than the letter that killeth”
• Art. 21 & 26 of NCC
• justice and equity demand that persons
who may have damaged by the wrongful or
negligent act of another are compensated.
• Acting with justice involves the duty to
indemnify for damages caused under Arts.
20,21,28,27; to indemnify by reason of
unjust enrichment under Arts. 22 & 23; and
to protect the weaker party under Art. 24
• “the precepts of law are these, to live
honestly, not to injure others, and to give
each one his due.”
• “Justice is a steady and unceasing
disposition to render every man his due.”
• 2 levels of justice
◦ social
▪ distributive – address the allocation
of social goods and bads
• concern of our democratic
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
institutions
▪ retributive – sanctions or penalties
that are applied to those who
engage in cetain kinds of antisocial
behavior
◦ individual
▪ compensatory – a person who
wrongfully inflicts harm on another
or that person's property must
repay or repair the damage
▪ commutative – fairness of a private
bargain or exchange
• equity is defined as justice according to
natural law and right.
◦ Justice outside legality
◦ invoked in justifying the rule regarding
mitigation of liability if the plaintiff was
guilty of contributory negligence
DEMOCRACY
• democracy being more than a mere form of
government, affecting as it does, the very
foundations of human life and happiness,
cannot be overlooked by an integral civil
code.
• Art. 32 provides for independent civil
actions for damages against any public
officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates, or in any
manner impedes or impairs the civil rights
and liberties of another person.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY
• Art. 26 and the provisions on moral
damages are included in order to remedy
defects in old CC in so far as it did not
properly exalt human personality.
• The touchstone of every system of laws, of
the culture and civilization of every country,
is how far it dignifies man.
Justification of Tort Liability: in cases of non-
contractual obligations, it is the wrongful or
negligent act or omission itself which creates the
vinculum juris whereas in contractual relations the
vinculum exists independently of the breach of the
voluntary duty assumed by the parties.
st
2 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
• Moral perspective
◦ tort liability may be justified because
the conduct is considered moral wrong.
◦ The law of torts abounds in moral
phraseology it has much to say of
wrongs, malice, fraud, intent and
negligence. Hence, it may naturally be
supposed that the risk of man's
conduct is thrown upon him as a result
of some moral shortcomings.
◦ Ubi jus ibi remedium (there is no wrong
without remedy)
◦ moral turpitude was considered the
outstanding though not exclusive
principle of tortious liability.
• social and economic perspective
◦ liability may be provided for certain
tortious conduct because of the good
that it will do to the society as a whole
and its function of encouraging socially
responsible behavior.
◦ Economic analysis of tort law focuses
on the allocation of the risks of loss due
to the destruction of property or injury
to persons created by those activities.
Plaintiff:
• Any person who had been injured by
reason of a tortious conduct can sue the
tortfeasor.
• Plaintiff can be a natural person or juridical
person.
• 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)
Defendant:
• may be held liable even if he does not
know the identity of the plaintiff at the time
of the accident.
• Can either be a natural or juridical being
The primary purpose of a tort action is to provide
compensation to a person who was injured by the
tortious conduct of the defendant.
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
Preventive remedy is available in some cases.
Alternative compensation schemes include
insurance & work employees compensation
CHAPTER 2
NEGLIGENCE
Kinds of Negligence:
• culpa contractual (contractual negligence)
• culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict)
• culpa criminal (criminal negligence)
Quasi-Delict
• used by the Code Commission to
designate negligence as a separate source
of obligation because it more nearly
corresponds to the Roman Law
classification and is in harmony with the
nature of this kind of liability.
• fault or negligence of a person who, by his
acts or omission, connected or
unconnected with, but independent from,
any contractual relation, causes damage to
another person. (Art. 2176 of the CC)
• covers not only those that are not punished
by law but also those acts which are
voluntary and negligent
• Requisites:
◦ act or omission constituting fault or
negligence
◦ damage caused by the said act or
omission
◦ causal relation between the damage
and the act or omission
◦ absence of contractual relation
between plaintiff and defendant. (no
longer cited because an action based
on quasi-delict can be maintained even
if there is an existing contractual
relation between the parties)
Delict
• criminal negligence; covered by Art. 365 of
RPC
• elements:
◦ offender does or fails to do an act
◦ that the doing or the failure to do the
act is voluntary
st
3 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

◦ that it be without malice Includes all acts which Punishes only those
◦ that material damages results from the any kind of fault or covered by penal laws
reckless imprudence negligence intervenes
◦ there is an inexcusable lack of Liability of employer is Liability of employer is
precaution on the part of the offender, direct and primary subsidiary
taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of
A single act or omission can give rise to 2 or more
intelligence, physical condition, and
other circumstances causes of action.

Contract Whenever a contractual obligation can be

• governed by CC provisions on Obligations breached by a tort, it is also possible that two
and Contracts particularly Arts. 1170-1174 persons are liable for such breach even of there is
• by express provision Arts. 2178, 1172 to only one act or omission that causes the injury.
1174 are applicable to quasi-delict cases Art. 2194 applies when there are two persons
Culpa aquiliana vs Culpa involved.
contractual Limitation imposed by law is the proscription
Separate source Foundation of against double recovery provided under Art. 2177
of oligation definition liability is contract of the NCC.
independent of
contract Although an act can give rise to 2 causes of action,
Substantive and characterist Incident of the the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act
independent ic performance of an or omission of the defendant.
obligation Negligence – omission of that degree of diligence
There may or may Party Pre-existing which is required by the nature of the obligation
not be a pre- relationship contractual and corresponding to the circumstances of time,
existing relation persons, and place. (Art. 1173)
contractual – omission to do something which a
relationship reasonable man, guided by those
Defendant's Source of Breach of contract considerations which ordinarily regulate the
obligation conduct of human affairs, world do.
negligent act or
(Black's Law Dictionary)
omission
– failure to observe for the protection of
Negligence of the What needs Existence of the interests of another person, that degree of
defendant to be contract and its
proven care, precaution, and vigilance which the
breach circumstances justly demands. (Judge
Prof of diligence is Availability Proof of diligence Cooley)
a valid defense of diligence is not a defense – want of care required by the circumstances
(Valenzuela vs CA)
– failure to observe that degree of care,
Culpa aquiliana Crimes precaution and vigilance which the
Affects private concerns Affects public interest circumstances justly demands whereby
CC merely repairs RPC punishes or such other person suffers injury.
damages by means of corrects criminal act (Valenzuela vs CA)
indemnification

st
jmvdg 4 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
test of negligence:
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent
act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinary prudent person would have used in the
same situation?
Test of what a reasonable ordinary man requires
tha application of the test of foreseeability
Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent
man in the position of the tortfeasor would have
foreseen that an effect harmful to another was
sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the
conduct or guarding against the consequences.
Negligence is conduct which creates an undue risk
of harm to others
State of mind of the actor is not so important; good
faith or use of sound judgment is immaterial.
Motive is not material in negligence cases.
Only juridical fault is subject to liability and not
moral fault.
Unreasonable risk means a danger which
apparent, or shouldbe apparent, to one in the
position of the actor
the determination of negligence is a question of
foresight on the part of the actor of a probable
harm to another person.
If there is a great probability and risk that damage
will result, a person is negligent if he did not
exercise due diligence in the face of such great
probability.
Risk-benefit analysis – balancing the risk, in the
light of the social value of the interests threatened,
and the probability and extent of harm against the
value of eh interest which the actor is seeking to
protect, and the expedience of the course pursued.
– common sense intuitive interpretation
(under rule in the Philippines)
– Considerations:
• gravity of the harm to be avoided
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
• social value it seeks to advance
• alternative course of action, dangers
and advantages to the person or
property of the actor himself and to the
others.
Degree of diligence required in ever situation:
• Art. 1173, NCC – depends upon the nature
of the obligation and corresponds to the
circumstances of person, time and place
• Art. 365, RPC – employment of the actor,
degree of diligence, physical condition and
other circumstances regarding persons,
time, and place.
Circumstances to consider in determining the
existence of negligence:
1. Time
2. Place
3. Emergency
• emergency rule - the law takes stock of
impulses of humanity when placed in a
threatening or dangerous situations
and does not require the same
standard of thoughtful and reflective
is care from persons confronted by
unusual and often time threatening
situations
4. Gravity of harm to be avoided
• even if the odds that an injury will result
is not high, harm may still be
considered foreseeable if the gravity of
the harm to be avoided is great.
5. Alternative cause of action
• if the alternative presented to the actor
is too costly, the harm that may result
may still be considered unforeseeable
to a reasonable man, more so if there
is no alternative thereto.
6. Social value or utility of activity
• the diligence which the law requires an
individual to observe and exercise
varies according to the nature of the
situation which he happens to be in,
and the importance of the act which he
has to perform.
• Any act which subjects an innocent
person to an unnecessary risk is a
st
5 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
negligent act if the risk outweighs the
advantage accruing to the actor and
even to the innocent person himself.
7. Person exposed to the risk
• a higher degree of diligence is required
if the person involved is a child.
Paterfamilias – diligence of a good father of a
family
• reasonable man; ordinary prudent man
• one objective standard:
Circumstances To Prove Negligence
➢ knowledge and experience of the actor
• the prudent man is expected to act
according to the circumstances that
appear to him at the time of the
incident and he is not judged based on
his knowledge or experience after the
event.
• A reasonable man is also deemed to
have knowledge of facts that a man
should be expected to know based on
ordinary human experience.
• A prudent man is expected to know
basic laws of nature and physics.
➢ children
◦ the action of the child will not necessarily
be judged according to the standard of
an ordinary adult.
◦ The care and caution required of a child
is according to his maturity and
capacity only and this is to be
determined in each case by the
circumstance of the case.
◦ 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
consequences of his acts, so as to
make it negligence on his part to
exercise due care and precaution in the
commission of such act
◦ question of negligence necessarily
depends on the ability of the minor to
understand the character of his own
acts and their consequences
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
◦ if the child is under 9 years, it is no
longer necessary to determine his
maturity and capacity because he is
conclusively presumed to be incapable
of negligence.
◦ If the child is above 9-15, he is
disputably presumed to be incapable of
negligence but the opposing party can
prove that the child is at such stage of
maturity and capacity that he can
already determine what a reasonable
man would do under the same
circumstances.
◦ liability of children
▪ absence of negligence does not
necessarily mean absence of
liability.
▪ A child who is 9 yrs. old can still be
subsidiarily liable with his
properties. (Art. 101, RPC)
▪ absence of negligence or intent on
the part of the child may not excuse
the parents from their vicarious
liability under Art. 2180 of CC or
Art. 221 of FC (because they are
liable for their own negligence in
the supervision of their child)
▪ child shall be answerable with his
own property in an action against
him if he has no parent or guardian.
▪ The effect of the circumstances
that the actor is a child would vary
if the child is the defendant-actor or
the plaintiff
➢ physical disability
◦ weakness of a person will not be an
excuse in negligent cases (common
law)
◦ the Constitution mandates the creation
of a special agency for disabled
persons for their rehabilitation, self-
development and self-reliance, and
their integration in the mainstream of
the society. (Sec. 13, Art. XIII)
◦ the standard of conduct to which a
disabled person must conform to avoid
being negligent is that of a reasonable
st
6 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
person under like disability.
experts & professionals
➢ from criminal liability.
◦
when a person holds himself out as
being competent to do things requiring
professional skills, he will be held liable
for negligence if he fails to exhibit the
care and skill of one ordinary skilled in
the particular work which he attempted
to do. (Culion Ice, Fish & Electric Co.,
vs Phil Motors Corp.)
◦ an act may be negligent if it is done
without the competence that a
reasonable person in the position of the
actor would recognize as necessary to
prevent it from creating an
unreasonable risk of harm to another.
(Far Eastern Shipping Co. vs CA)
◦ the care required must be
commensurate with the danger
involved and skill employed must
correspond with the superior
knowledge of the business which the
law demands.
➢ nature of activity
◦ persons impose upon themselves
certain obligations and non-compliance
therewith will be considered
negligence.
◦ There are activities which by nature
impose duties to exercise a higher
degree of diligence. (e.g. banks &
common carriers)
➢ intoxication
◦ mere intoxication is not negligence, nor
does the mere fact of intoxication
establish want of ordinary care.
◦ If one's conduct is characterized by a
proper degree of care and prudence, it
is immaterial whether he is drunk or
sober. (Wright vs. MERALCO)
◦ intoxication is of little consequence in
negligence cases if it was not shown
that such drunkenness contributed to
the accident or that the accident would
have been avoided had he been sober.
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
➢ Insanity
◦ RPC: insane persons are exempted
▪ In case of lunatic and demented
person, they may still be liable with
their property for the consequences
of their acts, even though they be
performed unwittingly
◦ Civil Code: The insanity of the person
does not excuse him or his guardian
from liability based on quasi-delict (Art.
2180 & 2182, NCC)
◦ bases for holding a permanently insane
person liable for his torts
▪ where 1 of 2 innocent persons must
suffer a loss it should be borne by
the 1 who occasioned it.
▪ To induce those interested in the
estate of the insane person who
restrain and control him.
▪ The fear that an insanity defense
would lead to false claim of insanity
to avoid liability.
➢ Women
◦ Dean Guido Calabrese: there should
be uniform standard of care for men &
women
➢ Others
◦ Violation of Rules & Statutes
▪ statutes & ordinance
• violation of these will be either
treated as:
◦ circumstance that establish
negligence
◦ negligence per se (+)
◦ circumstance that should
be taken as an evidence of
negligence.
• the statute or ordinance
becomes the standard of care
or conduct to which the
reasonably prudent person is
held.
• Since negligence is a breach of
legal duty, the violator of a
st
7 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
statute is the negligent as a
matter of law.
• When the legislature has
spoken, the standard of care
required is no longer what the
reasonable prudent man would
do under the circumstances but
what the Legislature has
commanded.
• Art. 2184 & 2185; presumption
of the negligence of a motor
driver;
▪ administrative rule
• violation of this is not
negligence per se but it may be
an evidence of negligence.
▪ private rules of conduct
• same rules applies to rules
imposed by private individuals
like an employer.
• The order or prohibition of an
employer couldn't be of greater
obligation than the rule of the
Commission or Board and
violation thereof is merely a
possible evidence of
negligence
▪ proximate cause
• the rule that no liability attaches
unless it appears that there was
a causal connection between the
negligent act or omission
charged and the injury is
applicable where the act or
omission complained of
constitutes a violation of some
statute or ordinance even
though such violation
constitutes negligence per se
or prima facie evidence of
negligence.
▪ negligence per se rule
• statutes may also provide
specific rules of conducts to be
observed in a given situation
and may even impose penal
sanctions in case the rule is not
observed.
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
“The weight of authority is the
violation of statute is negligence per
se. although it is argued that the
better rule is to consider these
statutes or ordinances as
circumstances that give rise to a
presumption of negligence unless the
law provides otherwise”
◦ Practice & Customs
▪ “What is usually done may be
evidence of what ought to be done,
but what ought to be done is fixed
by a standard of reasonable
prudence, whether it usually is
complied with or not.”- Justice
Holmes
▪ one who performs an act so
inherently dangerous cannot, when
an accident occurs, take refuge
behind the plea that other have
performed the same act safely
(Yamada vs Manila Raillroad Co.
[1915])
◦ Compliance With Rules & Statutes
▪ non-compliance to statute is not
sine qua non of negligence
▪ one cannot avoid a charge of
negligence by showing that the act
or omission complained of was of
itself lawful or not violative of any
statute or ordinance.
▪ Compliance to a statute or
ordinance is not conclusive that
there was no negligence
STANDARD vs. SPECIFIC RULES
rules – legal norms that are formal & mechanical
standards – flexible, context-sensitive legal norms
that require evaluative judgments in their
application; being followed in deciding negligence
cases.
The courts in each case must balance all
conflicting interests and consider all the
circumstances.
st
8 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
Degrees of Negligence
• ordinary negligence
• Gross negligence
◦ recognized in Art. 2231 of the Civil
Code
◦ where there is want of even slight care
and diligence. (Amadeo vs Olabarrieta)
◦ implying conscious indifference to
consequences; pursuing a course of
conduct which would naturally and
probably result to injury;
◦ utter disregard of consequences
◦ basis for the award of exemplary
damages
burden of proof – the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defenses by the amount of
evidence required by law [preponderance of
evidence]. (Sec. 1, Rule 131, Revised Rules of
Court)
Presumption of Negligence
• Art. 2184 & 2185; presumption of the
negligence of a motor driver;
• Art. 2188; possession of deadly weapon
• presumption of negligence may also
arise because of certain contractual
relationship between the parties
(example: contract of carriage)
Res Ipsa Loquitur
• the thing speaks for itself
• function: aid plaintiff in proving elements of
a negligence case by circumstantial
evidence
• merely a mode of proof or procedural
convenience, not a rule of substantive law
• requisites:
◦ the accident is of a kind which
ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someone's negligence
◦ it is caused by an instrumentality within
the exclusive control of the defendant
or defendants
◦ the possibility of contributing conduct
which would make the plaintiff
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
responsible is eliminated.
• Applied in conjunction with the doctrine of
common knowledge.
• Theoretically based on necessity (some
evidence may not be available)
CHAPTER 3
AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES
AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
1. DUTY TO RESCUE
• duty to the rescuer
◦ we have an innate repugnance at
seeing a fellow creature suffer
(Rousseau)
◦ courts make defendants liable for the
injuries to persons who rescue people
in distress because of the acts or
omission of said defendant.
◦ One who was hurt while trying to
rescue another who was injured
through negligence may recover
damages.
• duty to rescue
◦ 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.
◦ Except: Art. 275, RPC; Sec, 55, RA
◦ 4136
there are individuals who are required
by law to take care another person,
hence, they are legally compelled to
rescue the other person under their
care or custody
2. OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, & POSSESSORS
-damage to any person resulting from the
exercise of any of the rights of ownership is
damage without injury (damnum absque
injuria)
• trespassers
◦ trespassers comes on to the
premises at his own risk.
◦ The owner has no duty to maintain
his property in such a danger-free
state just to prevent trespassers
from being injured
st
9 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
▪ tolerated possession
• owner is liable if the plaintiff
is inside his property by
tolerance or by implied
permission
▪ visitors
owners of a building or premises
owe a duty of care to visitors
• common carriers
◦ common carriers may
be held liable for
negligence to persons
who stay in their
premises even if they
are not passengers.
◦ Theperson who
purchases a ticket from
the carrier must present
himself at the proper
place and in the proper
manner to be
transported.
▪ children and attractive nuisance
rule
• an owner is liable if he
maintains in his premises
dangerous instrumentalities
or appliances of a character
likely to lure children in play
if he fails to exercise
ordinary care to prevent
children of tender age from
playing therewith or
resorting thereto.
• Liability exists even if the
child is a trespasser so long
as he is not of sufficient age
or discretion
• nuisance vs attractive
nuisance
◦ nuisance – by its very
nature, harmful to the
community or to certain
persons
◦ attractive nuisance –
considered nuisance
only because it attracts
certain kind of persons -
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
children
▪ state of necessity
• owners and possessors of
real estate also owes duty
to allow trespassers, who
are in a state of necessity,
to enter their properties
• Art. 432, CC & Art. 11, RPC
• state of necessity – a
situation of present danger
to legally protected
interests, in which there is
no other remedy than the
injuring of another's also
legally protected interest.
• use of property that injures others
◦ Art. 431, CC, “an owner cannot use
his property in such a manner as to
injure the rights of others.
• liability of proprietors of buildings
◦ 3rd persons who suffered damages
may proceed only against the
engineer or architect or contractor if
the damage referred to in Art. 2190
& 2191 should be the result of any
defect in construction.
3. EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
• Employer
◦ failure of the employer to comply
with the mandatory provisions of
the Labor Code with regard the
proper maintenance of the
workplace or the provision on
adequate facilities to ensure the
safety of the employees may be
considered negligence per se.
◦ degree of care owed by employers to
their employees has been modified
by Art. 1711 & 1712, NCC.
• Employee
◦ employees are bound to exercise
due care in the performance of
their functions for the employers
◦ the existence of the contract
constitutes no bar to the
commission of torts by one against
the other and the consequent
st
10 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
recovery of damages
4. BANKS
• business of banks is one affected with
public interest
• a bank is under obligation to treat the
accounts of its depositors with
meticulous care, always having in mind
the fiduciary nature of their
relationships
5. COMMON CARRIERS
• Arts. 1733 & 1755, NCC: carriers, by
reason of public policy and the nature
of their business, are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods and for the safety of
passengers transported by them
according to all circumstances of each
case.
• Presumption: common carriers have
been at fault or have acted negligently
• the case against common carrier is for
the enforcement of an obligation from
breach of contract.
6. DOCTORS
they are required to exercise utmost diligence
in the performance of their work.
• standard of care
◦ medical malpractice – form of
negligence which consists in the
failure of a physician or surgeon to
apply to his practice of medicine
that degree of skill and care which
is ordinarily employed by the
profession generally under similar
conditions and in like surrounding
circumstances.
◦ General Practitioners vs Specialist
▪ standard of care demanded
from a general practitioner is
ordinary care and diligence in
the application of his
knowledge and skill in the
practice of a profession.
▪ A specialist's legal duty to the
patient is generally considered
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
to be that of an average
specialist, not that of an
average physician.
▪ Advances of the profession is
taken into account in either
case
• captain of the ship doctrine
◦ doctor as head of the surgical team
◦ he has the responsibility to it that
those under him perfrom the task in
the proper manner.
◦ The doctor is likened to a captain of
the ship who must not only be
responsible for the safety of the
crew but also of the passengers of
the vessel.
• Physicians are not warrantors
◦ difficulties and uncertainties in the
practice of the profession are such
that no practitioner can guarantee
results
• Proof
◦ there is a presumption that in
proper cases, the physician takes
the necessary precaution and
employs the best of his knowledge
and skills in attending to his clients.
◦ Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is
limited to cases where the court
from its fund of common knowledge
can determine the standard of care
required.
• liability of hospital and consultants
◦ in cases of consultants, the hospital
itself is not liable under Art. 2180,
CC in the absence of employer-
employee relationship
7. LAWYERS
• conduct of lawyers is governed by the
Code of Professional responsibility
• Canon 18
• a lawyer is not bound to exercise
extraordinary diligence, but a
reasonable degree of care and skill,
having reference to the character f the
business he undertakes to do.
11
st
1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
CHAPTER 4
DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
***either partial defenses or complete defenses
1. PLAINTIFF'S CONDUCT AND
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
the victim of negligence is likewise required to
exercise due care in avoiding injury to himself Art.
2179
• Plaintiff's own negligence as the proximate
cause bars him from recovering anything
• contributory negligence of the victim has
the effect of mitigating or reducing the
damages that the victim may recover (Art.
2179 & Art. 2174)
• contributory negligence – conduct on the
part of the injured party, contributing as
legal cause to the harm he has suffered,
which falls below the standard to which he
is required to conform for his own
protection.
• rule of comparative negligence – any
rule under which 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
◦ pure type of comparative negligence –
plaintiff's contributory negligence does
not operate to bar his recovery
altogether but does serve to reduce his
damage in proportion to his fault.
• Prevailing doctrine
◦ Time of Civil Code: contributory
negligence
◦ 1991: comparative negligence
• The court is free to determine the extent of
the mitigation of the defendant's liability
depending on the circumstances.
2. IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
• negligence is imputed if the actor is different
from the person who is being made liable.
• Effect: mitigated liability
• applicable where the negligence was on the
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
part of the person for whom the plaintiff is
responsible
3. FORTUITOUS EVENTS
• caso fortuito; an event which could not be
foreseen, or which though foreseen, was
inevitable. (Art. 2181)
• a person is not liable if the cause of the
damage was fortuitous (Art. 1174)
• characteristics of fortuitous event:
◦ 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
◦ must be impossible to foresee the event
or if it is foreseen, it must be impossible
to avoid
◦ occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner
◦ obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of the
injury resulting to the creditor
• the negligence of the defendant which
occurred with the fortuitous event or which
resulted in the aggravation of the injury of
the plaintiff will make him liable even if
there was a fortuitous event.
• Nevertheless, even if the defendant is still
liable, courts may equitably mitigate the
damages if the loss, even in part, would
have resulted in any event because of the
fortuitous event
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
• consistent with the maxim, volenti non fit
injuria
• requisites
◦ plaintiff must know that the risk is
present
◦ he must further understand its nature
◦ his choice to incur it is free and
voluntary
• plaintiff is excused from the force of the rule
if an emergency is found to exist or if the
life or property of another is in peril or when
st
12 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
he seeks to rescue his endangered
property.
• kinds
◦ express waiver of 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.
▪ A person cannot contract away his
right to recover damages resulting
from negligence; the same is
contrary to public policy
(Pleasantville Dev't Corp vs CA,
253 SCRA 10)
▪ waiver here is the waiver of the right
to recover BEFORE the negligent
act was committed.
▪ if the waiver was made after the
cause of action has accrued, the
waiver is valid and may be
construed as condonation of the
obligation.
◦ implied assumption
▪ 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.
▪ contractual relations
• by entering into a contractual
relationshipfreelyand
voluntarily where the
negligence of the defendant is
obvious, the plaintiff may be
found to accept and consent to
it, and to undertake to look out
for himself and yo relieve the
defendant of the duty.
• This is a defense of an
employer in a tort case filed by
his employee.
• There is assumption of risk
involved in transportation of
goodsandpassengers
jmvdg
13
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
(common carriage)
▪ dangerous activities
• personswho voluntarily
participate in dangerous
activities assume the risk which
are usually present in such
activities.
• Awareness of the risk is not to
be determined in a vacuum but
must be assessed against the
background of the skill and
experience of the particular
plaintiff.
▪ defendant's negligence
• plaintiff is aware of the risk
created by the defendant's
negligence, yet he voluntarily
decided to proceed to
encounter it.
5. DEATH
• death of the defendant will not extinguish
the obligation based on quasi-delict.
• The case will continue through the legal
representative who will substitute the
deceased.
6. PRESCRIPTION
• action based on quasi delicts prescribes in
4 years, counted from the date of the
accident (Art. 1146)
• relations back doctrine – an act done at one
time is considered by fiction of law to have
been done at some antecedent period.
• Acquisitive prescription vs. extinctive
prescription
7. INVOLUNTARINESS
• believed to be a complete defense in a
quasi-delict case
CHAPTER 5
CAUSATION
PROXIMATE CAUSE
• cause which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and
st
1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
without which the result would not have
occurred.
• not necessarily the last link in the chain of
events but that which is the procuring
efficient and predominant cause.
• Not necessarily the sole cause of the
accident
Remote cause – cause which some independent
force merely took advantage of to accomplish
something not the natural effect thereof.
Concurrent cause
• intervening cause which merely cooperated
with the primary cause and which did nit
break the chain of causation.
• The joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable
TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
• “cause-in-fact test”
◦ it is necessary that there be proof that
defendant's conduct is a factor in
causing plaintiff's damage
◦ “but for” test or sine qua non test
▪ defendant's conduct is the cause in
fact of the injury under this test if
the damage would not have
resulted had there been negligence
on the part of the defendant.
▪ This is the test commonly applied in
Philippine jurisdiction
◦ substantial factor test
▪ 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.
▪ Important in cases where there are
concurrent causes
◦ NESS test
▪ the act or omission is the cause in
fact if it is a necessary element of a
sufficient set
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
• policy tests of negligence
◦ if the damage or injury to the plaintiff is
beyond the limit of the liability fixed by
law, the defendant's conduct cannot be
considered the proximate cause of the
damage
◦ foresight perspective – the defendant is
not liable for the unforseeable
consequences of his act.
▪ foreseeablity test
▪ natural and probable
consequences test
▪ natural and ordinary or direct
consequences test
◦ directness perspective – makes the
defendant liable for damages which are
beyond the risk
▪ hindsight test
▪ orbit of risk test
▪ substantial factor test
the definition of proximate cause which includes
the element of foreseeability is not consistent with
the express provision of the New Civil Code (Art.
2202).
“natural and probable consequences of the act or
omission complained for” (Art. 2202)
• involves 2 things: (Reyes & Puno)
◦ causality
▪ damage would not have resulted
without the fault or negligence of
the defendant
◦ adequacy
▪ the fault of the defendant would
normally result in the damage
suffered by the obligee
moral damages & purely economic loss are
recoverable under the Philippine jurisdiction on
Torts cases. Moreover, the defendant can also be
made liable even to those who may be considered
unforeseeable plaintiffs.
CAUSE AND CONDITION
• it is no longer practicable to distinguish
between cause and condition (Phoenix
st
14 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
Construction vs IAC)
• if no danger existed in the condition except
because of the independent cause, such
condition was not the proximate cause
• if an independent negligent act or defective
condition sets in the operation the
circumstances which result in the injury
because the prior defective condition, such
subsequent act or condition is the
proximate cause.
• Even if the defendant had only created a
condition, he may be held liable for
damages if such condition resulted in harm
to either person or property.
• Types of dangerous conditions
◦ inherently dangerous
▪ they retain their potential energy in
full, even if they are stored or
handled with utmost care.
◦ in a dangerous position
▪ like the case of Phoenix
Construction vs. IAC
▪ includes cases where the object is
placed in an unstable position
where the application of small force
will permit the release of some
greater force.
◦ defective products
▪ the thing itself is not supposed to
be dangerous but it was negligently
or erroneously produced or
constructed
▪ i.e defective buildings
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
• one that destroys the causal connection
between the negligent act and injury and
thereby negatives liability
• novuc actus interviens
• there is no efficient intervening cause if the
force created by the negligent act or
omission have either:
◦ remained active itself
◦ created another force which remained
active until it directly caused the result
◦ created a new active risk of being acted
upon by the active force that caused
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
the result.
• Equivalent to the pre-emptive cause
referred to in the NESS test of Professor
Wright
• the test for efficient intervening cause is
found in the nature and manner in which it
affects the continuity of operation of the
primary cause or the connection between it
and the injury
• such intervening cause must be:
◦ new
◦ independent or one not under the
control of the official wrongdoer
◦ one which by the exercise of
reasonable foresight and diligence, he
should have anticipated and guarded
against it
◦ it must break the continuity of causal
connection between the original
negligent act or omission and the injury
so that the former cannot be said to
have been the efficient cause of the
latter
• a cause is not an intervening cause if it is
already in operation at the time the
negligent act is committed.
• Foreseeable intervening cause
◦ cannot be considered sufficient
intervening causes.
• A medical treatment is an intervening cause
• the intervention of an unforeseen and
unexpected cause, is not sufficient to
relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of
negligence, if such negligence directly and
proximately cooperates with the
independent cause in the resulting injury.
◦ An unforeseen and unexpected act of a
3rd person may not be considered
efficient intervening cause of it is
duplicative in nature or it merely
aggravated the injury that resulted
because of the prior cause.
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
st
15 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
standard to which he is required to conform
for his own protection
• the reduction of the liability of the
defendant cannot be more than 50%
because such reduction by more than 50%
is no longer consistent with a finding that
the defendant's negligence was the
proximate cause of the damage or injury
• if the defendant's negligence caused the
injury but the plaintiff's negligence may
have increased or aggravated the resulting
damage or injury, the liability of the
defendant should also be mitigated.
LAST CLEAR CHANCE
• Requisites:
◦ Plaintiff was in a position of danger by his
own negligence
◦ Defendant knew of such position of the
plaintiff
◦ Defendant had the least clear chance to
avoid the accident by exercise of ordinary
care but failed to exercise such last clear
chance and
◦ Accident occurred as proximate cause of
such failure
• Views:
◦ prevailing view
▪ the person who has the last fair
chance to avoid the impending
harm and fails to do so is
chargeable with the consequences,
without reference to the prior
negligence of the other party.
◦ minority view
▪ the doctrine is not applicable in the
jurisdiction where the common law
doctrine of contributory negligence
(which bars recovery) has been
rejected
◦ 3rd view
▪ the rule of comparative negligence
and last clear chance are not
considered inconsistent in any way
• cases where doctrine is applied
◦ the doctrine is being applied for the
purpose of determining the proximate
cause of the accident
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
◦ Picart vs. Smith; PBCom vs CA;
• cases where doctrine is inapplicable
◦ when only the defendant was negligent
◦ where the party charged is required to
act instantaneously; or if the injury
cannot be avoided by the application of
all means at hand
◦ if the defendant's negligence is a
concurrent cause and which was still in
operation up to the time the injury was
inflicted. (joint tortfeasors or between
defendants)
◦ when plaintiff, a passenger, filed an
action against a carrier based on
contract
◦ if the actor was not aware of the danger
or risk brought about by prior fraud or
negligent act
CHAPTER 6
HUMAN RELATIONS: INTENTIONAL TORTS
CATCH ALL PROVISIONS:
Art. 19, NCC
• believed to be a mere declaration of
principles which is being implemented by
other provisions
• abuse of rights, elements:
◦ there is a legal right or duty
◦ such right or duty was exercised in bad
faith
◦ for the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another
• sets certain standards which may be
observed not only in the exercise of one's
rights but also in the performance of one's
duties
◦ to act with justice
◦ to give everyone his due
◦ to observe honesty and good faith
Art. 20, NCC
• renders it impossible that a person who
suffers damage because another has
violated some legal provision, should find
himself without relief
st
16 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
Art. 21, NCC
• gives flesh to the provisions of Art. 19
• acts contra bonus mores, elements
◦ there is an act which is legal
◦ such act is contrary to morals, good
customs, public order or public policy
◦ one with intent to injure
• breach of promise to marry
◦ by itself is not actionable unless there
are other acts that make it fall under
Art. 19, 20, 21 of the Civil Code
▪ financial damage
▪ social humiliation caused to one of
the parties
▪ when there is a moral seduction
• seduction by itself is an act
which is contrary to morals,
good customs, and public
policy
• one is liable if he employed
deceit, enticement, superior
power or abuse of confidence
in successfully having sexual
intercourse with another.
• Desertion by a spouse
◦ if a spouse does not perform hir or her
duty to the other, he may be held liable
for damages for such omission
because the same is contrary to law,
morals and good customs
◦ (Tenchaves vs Escano, GR L-19671,
July 26, 1966)
• trespass and deprivation of property
◦ real property
◦ personal property
• abortion and wrongful death
◦ a doctor who performs an illegal
abortion is criminally liable under Art.
259 of the RPC
◦ Geluz vs CA, 2 SCRA 802 [1961]
• illegal dismissal
◦ employer has a right to dismiss an
employee in the manner and on the
grounds provided for
◦ if the dismissal is in non-compliance
with the principles provided in Art. 19
and 21, the employer may be held
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
liable for damages
◦ basis of liability: Arts. 1701 and Art. 21
of NCC
◦ Globe Mackay vs CA, GR 81262,
August 25, 1989
• malicious prosecution
◦ an action for damages brought by one
against another whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or other legal
proceedings has been instituted
maliciously and without probable
cause, after the termination of such
prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor
of the defendant therein
◦ the action terminated should be one
begun in malice without probable
cause to belive the charges thereon
can be sustained and is instituted with
the intention of injuring another and
which terminates in favor of the person
prosecuted.
◦ Elements;
▪ malice
• acting with inexusable ntent to
injure, oppress, vex, annoy or
humiliate
▪ absence of probable cause
• probable cause – existence of
such facts and circumstances
as would excite the belief of the
prosecutor, that the person
charged is guilty of the crime
for which he was prosecuted
▪ acquittal
• presupposes that a criminal
information is filed in court and
final judgment is rendered
dismissing the case against the
accused
• public humiliation
◦ plaintiff suffered humiliation through the
positive acts of the defendant directed
against the plaintiff
An action can only prosper when damage, material
or otherwise, was suffered by the plaintiff.
st
17 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
CHAPTER 7
HUMAN DIGNITY
Privacy
a)constitutional right to privacy
• rights included
◦ right against unreasonable search and
seizures (Sec. 2, Constitution)
◦ the right to privacy of one's
communication and correspondence
(Sec. 3 (1), Constitution)
◦ right against self incrimination (Sec. 17,
Constitution)
• the Court ruled that in passing laws and
rules, adequate safeguards should be
maintained regarding the people's
expectancy of privacy.
• 2 part-test
◦ whether by his conduct, the individual
has exhibited an expectation of privacy
◦ whether this expectation is one that
society recognizes as reasonable
• special laws
◦ Anti Wiretapping Law
◦ Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act
◦ Intellectual Property Code
• violation of the constitutional right to
privacy that causes damage to another
makes the actor liable under Art. 32, NCC
b) Violation of the Right to Privacy as
Independent Tort
• According to Prosser violations of privacy
create 4 different kinds of tort.
◦ intrusion upon plaintiff’s seclusion or
solitude
◦ publicdisclosure of private
embarrassing facts
◦ publicity that places one in a bad light
◦ appropriation, for the defendant’s
advantage of the plaintiff’s name or
likeness.
• The right to privacy can be invoked only by
natural persons because the basis of the
right to privacy is an injury to the feelings
and sensibilities of the party.
• Purely personal in nature and may be
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
invoked only by the person whose privacy
is claimed to have been violated.
◦ May be waived
◦ ceases upon the death of the person.
• The standard to be applied in determining if
there was violation of the right is that of a
person of ordinary sensibilities. It is relative
to customs of time and place and is
determined by the norm of an ordinary
person.
Violation of privacy recognized in our
jurisdiction:
• intrusion
◦ protect a person's sense of locational
and psychological privacy
◦ forms of intrusion:
▪ prying into the privacy of another's
residence (Art. 26 (a), NCC)
▪ criminal trespass (Art. 280, RPC)
◦ generally, there is no invasion of the
right to privacy when a journalist
records, photographs, or writes about
something that occurs in public places.
Except: when such constitutes
harassment or overzealous shadowing.
• publication of private facts
◦ 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
◦ elements: (American Jurisprudence)
▪ there must be a public disclosure
▪ the facts disclosed must be private
facts
▪ the matter must be one which
would be offensive and
objectionable to a reasonable
person of ordinary sensibilities
◦ elements: (Cordero vs. Buigasco)
▪ publicity is given to any private or
purely personal information about a
person
▪ such publication is without the
st
18 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
latter's consent
▪ regardless of WON such publicity
constitutes a criminal offense
▪ publication made for profit or with
intent to gain aggravates the
violation of the right.
◦ Newsworthiness
▪ the claim of newsworthiness can be
sustained if the facts to be
published are strange and unusual
◦ official proceedings
▪ the publication of facts derived form
the records of official proceedings,
which are not otherwise declared
by law as confidential, cannot be
considered tortious.
◦ official functions
▪ the right to privacy belongs to the
individual acting in his private
capacity and not to governmental
agency or officers tasked with, and
acting in, the discharge of public
duties
• false light
◦ 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 position
False light Defamation
Gravamen is the Gravamen is
embarrassment of a reputational harm
person being made into
something he is not.
The statement should Publication is satisfied if
be made actually public. a letter is sent to a 3rd
person
Affects the relationship What is published
of the plaintiff with his lowers the esteem in
environment which the plaintiff is
held
• commercial appropriation of likeness
◦ held to protect aspects of an
individual's identity from commercial
exploitation
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
◦ unwarranted publication of a person's
name or the unauthorized use of his
photograph or likeness for commercial
purposes
◦ right to publicity: protection of one's
economic interest; they treat their
names and likeness as property which
cannot be encroached by another.
◦ 3 policy consideration
▪ right to publicity vindicates the
economic interests of celebrities,
enabling those whose
achievements have imbued their
identities with pecuniary value to
profit from their fame.
▪ Right of publicity fosters thr
production of intellectual and
creative works by providing the
financial incentives for individuals
to expend the time and resources
necessary to produce them.
▪ Right of publicity serves both the
individual and societal interest by
preventing wrongful misconduct,
unjust enrichment and deceptive
trade practices.
Interference With Family Life And Other
Relations
• alienation of affection
◦ consists of depriving one spouse of the
affection, society, companionship and
comfort of the other
◦ the gist is an interference with one
spouse's mental attitude toward the
other and the conjugal kindness of
marital relations resulting in some
actual conduct which materially affects
it.
Vexation and Humiliation
• infliction of emotional distress
◦ elements:
▪ the conduct of the defendant was
intentional or in reckless disregard
of the plaintiff
▪ the conduct was extreme and
outrageous
19
st
1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
• conduct that is so outrageous in
character and so extreme in
degree, as to go beyond all
possible bounds of decency,
and to be regarded as
atrocious and utterly intolerable
in civilized society
▪ there was a causal connection
between the defendant's conduct
and the plaintiff's mental distress
▪ plaintiff's mental distress is extreme
and severe
◦ emotional distress
▪ highly unpleasant mental reaction
▪ parasitic damages on emotional
distress – depend on the existence
of another tort instead of an
independent tort for intentional
infliction of emotional distress
Emotional distress Defamation
Personal in nature
Belongs to the reactive Calls for the application
harm of the relational harm
principle
Publication not Publication is necessary
necessary
• Discrimination
◦ laws against discrimination
▪ Universal Declaration Of Human
Rights
▪ InternationalConvention On
Economic, Social, And Cultural
Rights
▪ International Convention On The
Ekements Of All Forms Of Racial
Discrimination
▪ Convention Agaisnt Discrimination
In Education
▪ ConventionConcerning
Discrimination In Respect Of
Employment And Occupation
▪ Art. 135, Labor Code
▪ RA 7277, Magna Carta For
Disabled Persons
▪ RA 8504 (discrimination Against
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
AIDS Victims)
▪ RA 8972 (Discrimination against
solo parent)
• sexual harassment
◦ RA 7877, Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
of 1995
◦ policy: value the digity of every
individual, enhance the development of
its human resources, guarantee full
respet for human rights, and uphold the
dignity of works, employees, applicants
for employment, students or those
undergoing training
◦ may be committed by one having
authority, influence or moral
ascendancy over another in a work,
education, or training setting
▪ quid pro quo cases
• defendantcondition
employment benefits, onors,
awards, or privileges on sexual
favors
▪ hostile environment case
• involve the allegation that
employees or students
work/study in an offensive or
abusive environment
• test: Won an ordinary prudent
person would engage in the
allegedly harassing conduct
• elements:
◦ plaintiff was subjected to
sexual advances, requests
for sexual favors, or other
verbal or physical conduct
of sexual nature
◦ thatthe defendant's conduct
was unwelcome
◦ that the conduct was
sufficiently sever or
pervasive to alter the
conditions of the victim's
employment and create an
abusing work environment
◦ punishment: imprisonment of 1mo. to
6mo. or a fine of 10k-20k
◦ 3 years prescriptive period
20 st
1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
CHAPTER 8
TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
• violation of civil rights
• violation of political rights
• defamation
• fraud
• physical injuries
• neglect of public officers
examples:
• Art. 32, NCC
• Art. 33, NCC
• Art. 34, NCC
• Art. 135 of the Labor Code
• Section 5 of the Anti-Sexual Harassment
Act
Concept:
“The underlying principle under consideration is to
allow the citizen to enforce his rights in a private
action brought by him regardless of the action of
the State Attorney. x x x while the State is the
complainant in the criminal case, the injured
individuals is the most concerned because it is he
who has suffered directly. He should be permitted
to demand reparation for the wrong which
particularly affects him.” - (Report, p. 46, Civil
Code Commission)
2 views:
• Tolentino
◦ the civil actions are ex-delicto (civil
liability arising from delict)
• Caguioa
◦ the tortious of the actions are more of
culpa aquiliana
ARTICLE 32
• provides for an independent civil action for
violation of civil and political rights.
• Rationale:
◦ because the Fiscal is burdened with too
many caseso bacause he belived the
evidence was insufficient, as as to
disinclination to prosecute a fellow
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
public official, especially when he is of
high rank, no criminal action was thus
filed by the prosecuting attorney
◦ the requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt often prevented the
appropriate punishment
◦ direct and open violation of the Penal
Code trampling upon the freedom
named are not so frequent as those
subtle,clever and indirect ways which
do not come within the pale of penal
laws
• normally involves intentional acts but can
also be committed through negligence,
thus good faith on the part of the defendant
does not necessarily excuse such violation
• liability for violation of any of these rights
are directed against public officers or
employees and private individuals
• a person may also be liable whether his
participation is direct or indirect.
• The doctrine of state immunity applies
only if the acts involved are act done by
officers in the performance of official duties
within the ambit of their powers.
• Examples of violations:
◦ due process
◦ search and seizure
ARTICLE 33: DEFAMATION, FRAUD, and
PHYSICAL INJURIES
• Defamation
◦ invasion of the interests in reputation
and good name, by communication to
others which tends to diminish the
esteem in which the plaintiff s held, or
to excite adverse feelings or opinions
against him. (Prosser)
◦ publication of statement which tends to
lower a person in the estomation of
right-thinking members of society
generally or which tends to make them
shun or avoid that person
◦ liability is brought about by the desire to
protect the reputation of every
individual
◦ requisites:
st
21 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
▪ it must defamatory
▪ it must be malicious
• prompted by ill-will or spite and
speaks not in response to a
duty but merely to injure the
reputation of the person who
claims to have been defamed
• malice in law or malice in fact
▪ it must be given publicity
• communication to a single
individual is sufficient
▪ the victim must be identifiable
• includes natural and juridical
persons
• groups libel – statements
directed against a fairly large
group
• in our jurisdiction, the relatives
of the deceased can file an
action for damage to the
reputation of the latter.
◦ a man's reputation is not the good
opinion he has of himself, but the
estimation in which others hold him.
◦ Kinds:
▪ slander or oral defamation
▪ libel or written defamation
◦ persons liable: (Art. 360, RPC)
▪ any person who shall publish,
exhibit, or cause the publication or
exhibition
▪ author or editor of the book or
pamphlet
▪ editor or business manager of a
daily newspaper, magazine, or
serial publication
◦ every defamatory imputation
presumed to be malicious even if it be
true (Art. 354, RPC)
◦ Defenses:
▪ absolutely privileged matters
• Section 11. A Senator or
Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all
offenses punishable by not
more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
from arrest while the Congress
is in session. No member shall
be questioned nor be held
liable in any other place for any
speech or debate in the
Congress or in any committee
thereof. (Constitution)
▪ qualified privilege
• a private communication made
by any person to another in the
performance of any legal,
moral, or social duty;
◦ complaints against public
officials
◦ report to a superior officer
◦ allegations in pleadings
◦ publication of pleadings
◦
• 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 confidential in 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
◦ fair comment – when the
discretable imputation is
directed against a public
person in his public
capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable
• Fraud
◦ elements of deceit (English Law)
is
▪ the defendant must have made
false representation to the plaintiff
▪ the representation must be one of
fact
▪ the defendant must know that the
representation is false or be
reckless about whether it is false
▪ the defendant must have acted on
the false representation
▪ the plaintiff must have suffered
st
22 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

damages as a result of acting on

the representation Exceptions:
◦ includes the crime of Estafa under the • contravention of ordinance
RPC • violation of game laws
◦ includes misrepresentation made by • infraction of the rules of traffic when
sellers and manufacturers nobody is hurt
• Physical Injuries • treason
◦ include the crime of battery (an • rebellion
intentional infliction of harmful or • espionage
offensive bodily contact) • contempt, etc.
◦ includes bodily injuries causing death
The presence of civil liability in offenses is not
ARTICLE 34: NEGLECT OF DUTY determined by the fact that the crime is public or
• intended to afford a remedy agaisnt police private.
officers who connive with bad elements,
are afraid of them or are simply indifferent Persons liable: (RPC & NCC)
to duty • principals
• the subsidiary liability of cities and • accomplices
municipalities, is imposed so that they will • accessories
exercise great care in selecting
conscientious and duly qualified policeman “Art. 109. Share of each person
and exercise supervision over them in the civilly liable. — If there are two or more
performance of their duties as peace persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts
officers shall determine the amount for which each
must respond.
CHAPTER 9 Art. 110. Several and
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT subsidiary liability of principals,
accomplices and accessories of a felony —
dual character of a crime: Preference in payment. — Notwithstanding
• offense against the State for the the provisions of the next preceding article,
the principals, accomplices, and
disturbance of the social order accessories, each within their respective
• offense against the person injured by the class, shall be liable severally (in solidum)
crime. among themselves for their quotas, and
subsidiaries for those of the other persons
Art. 100, RPC. Every person criminally liable.
liable is also civilly liable. The subsidiary liability shall be
enforced, first against the property of the
ARTICLE 1161. Civil obligations arising principals; next, against that of the
from criminal offenses shall be governed by accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the
the penal laws, subject to the provisions of accessories.
article 2177, and of the pertinent provisions Whenever the liability in solidum
of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on Human or the subsidiary liability has been
Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book, enforced, the person by whom payment
regulating damages. has been made shall have a right of action
against the others for the amount of their
What gives rise to the civil liability is really the respective shares.”
obligation of everyone to repair or to make whole Each of the persons liable shall be subsidiarily
the damage caused to another by reason of his act
liable for the other's share in case of the latter's
or omission, whether done intentionally or
insolvency.
negligently and whether or not punishable by law.

st
jmvdg 23 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
Civil liability includes restitution, reparation of the
damages caused, and indemnification for
consequential damages. (Art. 104, RPC; see Art.
105, 106, 107 and 111 of RPC)
Art. 2202 of the NCC provides that in crime and
quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all
the damages which are natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained
of.
Circumstances affecting civil liability:
• JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art, 11,
RPC)
◦ make the act of the accused legal
◦ exception: general rule will not apply to
persons who obtained benefit because
he performed an act in a state of
necessity. (Art. 101, RPC)
◦ civil liability when there is justifying
circumstances is present only in the
situation contemplated in paragraph 4
of Art. 11.
• EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 12,
RPC)
◦ exempt the person from punishment
◦ no civil liability if
▪ the crime was committed by any
person who while performing a
lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without
fault or intention of causing it.
▪ Crime was committed by any
person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when presented by
some lawful or insuperable cause.
• MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 13,
RPC)
◦ reduces the criminal liability
• AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art.
14, RPC)
◦ compels the court to impose the
penalty to the maximum provided by
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
law.
Modes to extinguish liability:
• payment
• loss of the thing due
• condonation or remission of the debt
• confusion or merger
• compensation
• novation
• prescription
Effect of Death:
• Death of the person liable after the final
judgment extinguishes the criminal liability
but will not extinguish the civil liability. The
obligation to make restoration and
reparation for damages ad indemnification
for consequential damages devolves upon
he heirs of the person liable.
• Death of the accused before the final
judgment relieves the accused of both
criminal and civil liability arising from the
criminal liability.
◦ Aggrieved party in a libel or physical
injuries case (including homicide or
murder) who initially opted to claim
damages in the criminal case can file
another case to enforce his claim under
Art. 33, NCC
Pardon does not erase civil liability because it is
not one of the grounds recognized by the civil code
that extinguishes civil liability.
Civil liability arising from crime is impliedly
instituted with the criminal action but a separate
case may be filed to enforce the same.
• Civil action filed ahead of the criminal
action
• filing of civil action has been reserved
(in both case the civil action is dependent on the
criminal action)
section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedures indicates that the action to
enforce civil liability based on Arts. 2176, 32, 33,
and 34 of NCC are not deemed instituted and what
is deemed instituted only is the action to enforce
st
24 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
civil liability arising from criminal liability.
The right to file an independent action is even
available to the accused in the criminal case.
Prejudicial question
• matter that may suspend the civil action
that is deemed instituted with the criminal
case
• elements:
◦ previously instituted civil action involves
an issue similar or intimately related to
the issue raised in the criminal action
◦ the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.
CHAPTER 10
THE DEFENDANTS
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
both natural and juridical persons may be held
liable for quasi-delict.
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
Joint tort-feasors
• their liability is solidary (Art. 2194, NCC)
◦ motor vehicle mishaps – owner is
solidarily liable with his driver if the
former who was in the vehicle, could
have, by the use of due diligence,
prevented the misfortune (Art. 2184)
◦ test of negligence: omission to do
which the evidence of his own senses
tell him he should do in order to avoid
the accident.
Vicarious liability
• a person is not only liable for torts
committed by himself, but also for torts
committed by others with whom he has a
certain relationship and for whom he is
responsible.
• Doctrine of imputed negligence
• the person is being made liable not only
because of the negligent or wrongful act of
the person for whom they are responsible
but also because for their own negligence
• legal bases:
◦ Civil Code: Art. 2180 to 2182 of NCC;
Art. 58, Child and Youth Welfare Code;
Arts. 219, 221, and 236 of the Family
Code
◦ Revised Penal Code: Arts. 101, 102
and 103
Parents and other person exercising Parental
Authority
• the basis of their liability is the parental
authority that they exercise over the minor
children.
• The parents exercise their authority jointly
and in the absence or death of either
parent, the parent present shall continue
exercising parental authority.
• The same parental authority is terminated
upon adoption of the child and shall be
vested in the adopters.
• In default of parents or a judicially
appointed guardian, the ffg. shall exercise
substitute parental authority
◦ surviving grandparents
st
25 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
◦ oldest brother or sister over 21 years of
age
◦ child's actual custodian over 21 years
of age
• with the enactment of the Family Code, the
alternative obligation of parents under Art.
2180 is now inoperative. Both parents are
primarily liable for the damages caused by
their child
• parents or guardian are liable only if the
minor is living in their company
• under Art. 101 of RPC, parents are
primarily liable for the civil liability arising
from criminal offense committed by their
minor children under their legal authority or
control who live in their company
• defense of due diligence of a good father of
a family is a valid defense
• due care that parents and guardians are
supposed to exercise is a question of
foreseeability
• in guardianship, even if the ward is already
of age, guardians have the same liability as
persons exercising parental authority.
• Procedure for appointment of guardians is
governed by Rule 92, Rules of Court
• special parental authority vs. substitute
parental authority.
• Parents are held vicariously liable because
they are the persons who are financially
capable of satisfying any judgment
obligation. (deep pocket principle)
Schools, Teachers and Administrators
• Art. 218, Family Code: schools, its
administrators, and teachers or the
individual, entity or institution engaged in
child care shall have special parental
authority and responsibility over the minor
child under their supervision, instruction, or
custody.
• They are principally and solidarily liable for
damages caused by the acts or omissions
of the unemancipated minor
• defense: due diligence of a good father of a
family
• if the persons enumerated herein are made
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
liable, the parents are subsidiarily liable
• responsibility and authority of the school
and other persons exercising special
parental authority shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or
outside the premises of the school, entity
or institution.
• Art. 2180 of the Civil Code applied if the
student is not a minor, apply Art. 218 of
Family Code if the involved is a minor.
• Basis of liability may be:
◦ negligence
◦ contract
Employers
• the responsibility of employers for the
negligence of their employees in the
performance of their duties is primary
• Civil Code
◦ Art. 2180 of the Civil Code provides
that the employer's liability is direct and
primary
▪ the employer can escape this
liability by proving that he exercised
due diligence in the selection and
supervision of the employee
• formulating SOP, monitoring
their implementation, and
imposing discipline for
breaches thereof.
▪ presence of employer-employee
relationship must be proven
• control test – person for whom
the services are to be
performed controls not just the
result but also the means and
manner to achieve such end or
result
▪ if only the employer is sued, he
may recover from the employee
what he has paid or delivered in
satisfaction of the claim. If only the
employee is sued, no right of
reimbursement accrues.
◦ it is not necessary that the employer is
engaged in some kind of industry or
work (Castillex vs. Vasquez)
st
26 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
◦ the vicarious liability of the employer
attaches only when the tortious
conduct of the employee relates to, or
is in the course of his employment
▪ test: whether, at the time of the
damage or injury, the employer is
engaged in he affairs or concerns
of the employer, or independently,
in that of his own
◦ presumption of negligence of the
employer is only juris tantum and not
juris et de jure
◦ for the presumption of negligence to
operate, the negligence of the
employee must first be established.
◦ Registered owner rule
▪ the person who is the registered
owner of a vehicle is liable for any
damages caused by the negligent
operation of the vehicle driver
although the same was already
sold or conveyed to another at the
time of the accident.
▪ This rule had been applied to cases
involving the enforcement of liability
against an employer under Art.
2180, NCC even if the employer is
not engaged in business.
▪ Exception: if the vehicle was
stolen from or taken without the
consent and knowledge of the
registered owner.
▪ This rule applies when ever the
persons involved are engaged in
what is known as the “kabit system”
• arrangement whereby a person
who has been granted a
certificate of public
convenience allows other
persons who own motor
vehicles to operate under his
license, sometimes for a fee or
percentage of the earnings.
• Revised Penal Code
◦ Art. 103, RPC, the liability imposed is
subsidiary
◦ requisites
jmvdg
27
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
▪ employer is engaged in any kind of
industry
• industry – any department or
branch of arts, occupation or
business especially one which
employs such labor and capital
and is a distinct branch of trade
▪ employee was convicted of the
offense in the discharge of his
duties
• conviction is condition sine qua
non. If no criminal action was
instituted, the employer's
liability will nit be predicated on
Art. 103, RPC
• the acquittal of the employee
wipes out not just the
employee's primary liability but
the subsidiary liability as well
▪ employee is insolvent
• insolvency - inability or the lack
of means to pay one's debt as
they fall due
◦ the controlling view is that the subsidiary
liability of the employer can be enforced
in the same criminal case where the
employee was convicted. All that is
necessary is the filing of a motion for a
subsidiary writ of execution
Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers
• their liability is based on Art. 102 of RPC
Partnership
• each partner is an agent of the other
partners and the partnership for acts done
within the apparent scope of business of
the latter.
• The partnership or every member of a
partnership is liable for torts committed by
one of the members acting within the
scope of the firm's business though they do
not participate in, ratify, or have knowledge
of such torts.
• Test: WON the wrong was committed in
behalf of the partnership and within the
reasonable scope of its business.
• Vicarious liability is similar to the common
st
1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
law rule on respondeat
superior Spouses
• Absolute Community of Property
◦ default marriage settlement
◦ all the properties of the marriage are
jointly owned by the spouses
◦ vicarious liability based on paragraph
(9), Art. 94, Family Code
• Conjugal Partnership of Gains
◦ default marriage settlement prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code
◦ pecuniary indemnities imposed upon
the husband or wife are not chargeable
against the conjugal partnership but
against the separate properties of the
wrongdoer.
• Regime of separation of property
◦ Art. 145, Family Code
◦ each spouse shall own, dispose of ,
possess, administer and enjoy his or
her own separate estate.
◦ Each spouse is responsible for his or
her own obligation.
State
• 5th paragraph of Art. 2180, NCC which is
limited to acts of special agents
◦ special agent – one who receives
definite and fixed order or commission,
foreign to the exercise of the duties of
his office if he is a special official.
Municipal Corporations
• liability of municipal corps for damages
arising from injuries suffered by
pedestrians from the defective conditions
of roads is expressed in Art. 2189, NCC
• the article only requires that either control
or supervision is exercised over the
defective road or street.
Public officers
• public officers who are guilty of tortious
acts are personally liable for their actions.
• Section 38, Administrative Code of 1987
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
CHAPTER 11
STRICT LIABILITY
strict liability
• if one is made liable independent of fault,
negligence or intent after establishing
certain facts specified by law.
• Can be committed even if reasonable care
was exercised and regardless of the state
of mind of the actor at that time.
• Liability without fault.
ANIMALS
• Art. 2183, NCC
“The possessor of an animal or whoever may
make use of the same is responsible for the
damage which it may cause, although it may
escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
cease only in case the damage should come
from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage. (1905)”
FALLING OBJECTS
• Art. 2193, NCC
“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. (1910)”
• the liability imposed is absolute; it does not
indicate a presumption or admit of proof of
care.
• The term “head of a family” is not limited to
the owner of the building and it may even
include the lessee thereof.
LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS
• Art. 1171, NCC
“Owners of enterprises and other employers are
obliged to pay compensation for the death of or
injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or
other employees, even though the event may
have been purely accidental or entirely due to a
fortuitous cause, if the death or personal injury
arose out of and in the course of the employment.
The employer is also liable for compensation if the
employee contracts any illness or disease caused
by such employment or as the result of the nature
of the employment. If the mishap was due to the
employee's own notorious negligence, or
voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall
not be liable for compensation. When the
employee's lack of due care contributed to his
death or injury, the compensation shall be
equitably reduced.”
st
28 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
NUISANCE
• ARTICLE 694. A nuisance is any act, omission,
establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or
safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency
or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street, or
any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
• Anything that injures health, endangers life,
offends the senses or produces discomfort
to the community (Section 84, Code of
Sanitation of the Phil.)
• protection against nuisance is a legal
easement
• kinds
◦ public
▪ affects a community or
neighborhood or any considerable
number of persons although the
extent of annoyance, danger or
damage upon individuals may be
unequal
▪ remedies
• prosecution under the RPC
• civil action for abatement
without judicial proceedings
▪ a private person may file an action
on account of a public nuisance, if
it is specially injurious to himself
with the following requisites:
• that demand be first made upon
the owner or possessor of the
property to abate the nuisance
• that such demand has been
rejected
• that the abatement must be
approved by the district health
officer and executed with the
assistance of the local police;
• that the value of the destruction
does not exceed P3k
◦ private
▪ anything that is not included in the
foregoing
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
▪ remedies
• civil action
• abatement without judicial
proceedings
• remove or destroy the thing
which constitutes the nuisance
(must be with the assistance of
the local police)
◦ nuisance per se
▪ nuisance under any and al
circumstances
◦ nuisance per accidens
▪ becomes nuisance under certain
conditions and circumstances
• 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.
• Private person or public official
extraordinarily abating a nuisance shall be
liable for damages in 2 cases:
◦ if he causes unnecessary injury
◦ if an alleged nuisance is later declared
by the courts to be not a real nuisance.
• The action to abate a nuisance is
imprescriptible
• it is believed that the only effect of estoppel
at most is that the private party who is so
estopped may be deemed to have waived
his or her rights to damages.
CHAPTER 12
PRODUCT AND SERICE LIABILITY
Product Liability
• law which governs the liability of
manufacturers and sellers for damages
resulting from defective products
• statutory basis: Consumer Act of the
Philippines
• alternative theories:
◦ fraud or misrepresentation
▪ may be based on Art. 33, NCC
usual exaggeration in trade are not
actionable misrepresentations
◦ breach of warranty
st
29 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
▪ warranty is any affirmation of fact or
any promise by the seller relating to
the thing which induces the buyer
to purchase the same and the
buyer purchases relying thereon
▪ warranty may be express or implied
▪ warranty shall be operative from
the moment of sale (Art. 68 [b],
Consumer Act)
▪ other implied warranty shall endure
not less that 60 days nor more than
1 year
▪ distributors and retailers are
required to keep a record of all
purchases covered by a warranty
or guarantee for such a period of
time
▪ warranty registration – report made
in accordance with Art. 68, par 1 of
Consumer Act.
▪ The retailer shall be subsidiarily liable
under the warranty in case of failure
of both the manufacturer and
distributor to honor the warranty
▪ Del Rosario vs CA: privity is not
necessary in successfully pursuing
an action for breach of warranty
▪ see the coverage of the Consumer
Act
• De Guzman vs Toyota(2006): a
car is impliedly a consumer
product
▪ hierarchy of liable individuals
• Manufacturer
• distributor
• retailer
▪ joint manufacturer are jointly liable
▪ remedies
• express: goods repaired; refund
purchase price
• implied: retain the goods+
damages;rejectthe
goods+rescind the
contract+recover what has
been paid
◦ negligence
▪ liability will result if due care of an
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
ordinary prudent man was not
exercised in manufacturing,
packaging, marketing or distributing
the product
▪ there is negligence per se if the
manufactures products do not
comply with the safety standards
promulgated by appropriate
government agencies specified
under the Consumer Act.
▪ Safety and quality standards for
consumer act
• requirements to performance,
composition, contents, design,
construction, finish, packaging
of a consumer product
• requirements as to kind, class,
grade, dimensions, weight,
material
• requirements as to method of
sampling, tests and codes used
to check the quality of the
products
• requirements as to precautions
in storage, transporting and
packaging
• requirements that a consumer
product be marked with or
accompanied by clear and
adequate safety.
◦ civil liability arising from criminal liability
◦ strict liability***
▪ Article 2187, NCC
▪ privity of contract is not required
under Art. 2187 because it
expressly allows recovery although
no contractual relation exists.
▪ The duty to warn is primarily
imposed on the manufacturer but
exceptionally, the wholesaler or
retailer may have such obligation if
they:
• are engaged in the packaging
or labeling of such products
• prescribe or specify by means
the manner in which such
products are packaged or
labelled
st
30 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law
• having knowledge, refuse to
disclose the source of the
mislabeled or mispackaged
products
▪ minimum labeling requirements
• WON it is flammable
• directions for use
• warning of toxicity
• wattage, voltage or amperes
• process of manufacture use if
necessary
▪ failure of the manufacturer to
comply with the affirmative duties
imposed by law not only exposes
him to civil liability for damages but
also to criminal liability
▪ available defenses
• that it did not place the product
on the market
• although it did place the
product on the market such
products has no defect
• the consumer or 3rd party is
solely at fault
• there is no defect in the
services rendered (supplier)
CHAPTER 13
BUSINESS TORTS
“ARTICLE 1314. Any third person who induces
another to violate his contract shall be liable for
damages to the other contracting party. (n)”
Interference With Contractual Relations
• general rule: only parties to a contract ae
bound by the terms of the contract and only
a party can file an action for breach of
contract or for rescission or annulment
thereof
• considered tortious because it violates the
rights of the contracting parties to fulfill the
contract and to have it fulfilled to reap the
benefits resulting therefrom and to compel
the performance by the other party
• elements
◦ existence of a valid contract
jmvdg
Atty. Saben C. Loyola
◦ knowledge on the part of th e3rd
person of the existence of the contract
◦ interference by a 3rd person without
legal cause
• Daywalt vs. La Corporacion De los Padres
Agustinos Recoletos et al.: malice in the
sense of ill will or spite is immaterial as
opposed with the case of So Ping Bun vs.
CA: lack of malice precludes damages but
a permanent injunction against the 3rd
person shall be the proper remedy.
• mere competition is not sufficient unless it
is considered unfair competition or the
dominant purpose is to inflict harm or injury
• privileges to interfere afforded in business
competition
◦ the defendant's purpose is a justifiable
one
◦ the actor employs no means of fraud or
deception which are regarded unfair
• the stranger cannot become more
extensively liable in damages for the non
performance of the contract than the party
in whose behalf he intermeddles.
• See Article 2202, NCC
Interference With Prospective Advantage
• there is no contract yet and the defendant
is only being sued for inducing another to
enter into a contract with the plaintiff
Unfair Competition
• Art. 28, NCC
• see Article 186, RPC; Section 2 of Art. XIV,
Constitution; Section 168 (Sec. 168.2 and
168.3 [a] and [b]), IPCode;
• includes the cases involving the tort of
interference with contractual relations and
interference with prospective advantage
• also present is the defendant committed
fraudulent appropriation against
competition
• also present in the case of predatory
pricing
◦ practice of selling below costs in the
short run in the hoe of obtaining
monopoly gains later, after driving the
st
31 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

competition from the market. psychologically incapacitated;

award of moral damages is
Securities Related Fraud improper
• implicit from any violation of the Securities ◦ WON a juridical entity is capable of
Regulations Code (RA 8799) is the liability being awarded an award for moral
for damages caused by such violation. damages: Generally NO.
• Sec. 26, RA 8799 enumerates the Exception: Besmirched reputation
fraudulent transactions. (Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Jan
• Sec. 58, RA 8799 17, 2005:libel and defamation with
• the essential objectives of securities moral damages)
legislation is to protect those who do not • exemplary
know market conditions from the ◦ corrective damages
overrechings of those who do. ◦ Art. 2229, NCC
◦ in addition to the other forms of
CHAPTER 14 damages
DAMAGES ◦ bad faith, gross negligence or malice
on the part of the defendant
Justice Regalado • nominal
injury – legal invasion of a right; ◦ “stand alone” award of damages
damage – lost, hurt or harm
◦ Cathay Pacific vs. Vasquez; passenger
damages – compensation of the lost, hurt or harm
moved from economy class to business
caused by the legal invasion of a right class
damages shall be awarded in legal tender ◦ Agabon vs NLRC: reverted to the
Wenphil doctrine(?) with regard to
damnum absque injuria – damages without award of backwages; there is valid
injury; one who exercise a right does no injury ground to dismiss the employee; right
except is the provisions on human relations apply to due process was violated; nominal
(Art. 19-21, NCC) damages was awarded
read the case of Custodio vs CA (property case) • temperate
◦ award of damage sustained cannot be
types of damages:(mental) determined with reasonable certainty
• moral ◦ Ramosvs CA; medical
◦ awarded to afford plaintiff the means of malpractice;captain of the ship
diversion or to alleviate moral doctrine; 1.5M award of temperate
sufferings damages
◦ malice on the part of the defendant
should be proven • actual/compensatory damages
▪ Bagumbayan Corp. vs IAC: juice ◦ the 2 are treated the same
was spilled to one patron of a ◦ doctrine of foreseeability of the injury
restaurant; no ground to award ◦ plaintiff has to prove his cause of action
moral damages ◦ types
▪ Sps. Herbosa vs PBE, January 25, ▪ danjo emergente – loss of what the
2002; videography of a wedding; plaintiff has
moral damages was awarded ▪ lucro cessante – loss of profit; loss
▪ Buenaventura vs Buenaventura, of earning capacity
March 21, 2005: moral damages ◦ legal interest
against a spouse who is ▪ Eastern Shipping vs CA (Vitug)
▪ distinguish obligation from a loan or
jmvdg 32
st
1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011
 Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

forbearance of money and from

those which are not.
• Loan: Legal interest is 12%
which commence on the day of Source:
delay TORTS AND DAMAGES by Timoteo B. Aquino, 2nd
• 6% if the amount claimed edition, 2005
cannot be determined with
reasonable certainty which
commence on the day the
Court rendered judgment on
the amount of claim
▪ General rule: the stipulated
interest in the contract shall be the
basis of computation
exception: in cases where the
source of an obligation is not a
contract
◦ ICTSI vs FGU insurance (March 2009)
▪ cargo owner; subrogation; 6%
interest applied (Resolution)
◦ P50k award in case of death

◦ formula for loss of earning capacity:

2/3 x 80 (life expectancy of Filipinos) – actual
age x gross annual income – living expenses
(50% of gross annual income)
◦ PP vs Claudio Teehankee, Jr.:
compensation for damages for loss of
capacity is awarded even to those who
are NOT gainfully employed
◦ Mercury Drug vs Huang: student who
was awarded damages for earning
capacity
◦ Attorney's fees
▪ belongs to the client not to counsel
▪ not automatically awarded to
winning litigant
▪ usually is 10%
▪ basis for the award must be
explained in the dispositive portion
of the decision
▪ avoidable consequences (Art.
2203, NCC)
• liquidated
◦ specific amount stipulated with regard
to damage
◦ General rule: respected by court
except: if the amount is unconscionable

st
jmvdg 33 1 Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011