product liability (is the law which

Torts and -
governs the liability of manufactures
and sellers for damages resulting from
defective products).
Strict liability is imposed by articles
1314, 1711, 1712, 1723, 2183, 2184,

Damages -
2187, 2189, 2190,2191, 2192, 2193.
The concept of DAMNUM ASBQUE
INJURIA- a person who only exercises his
legal rights does no injury. If damages
result from such exercise of legal rights,
TORTS the consequences must be borne by the
injured person alone. The law affords no
remedy for damages resulting from an
Definition of torts
at which des not amount to a legal injury
According to manner of commission or wrong.
4. Constitutional torts – the violation of a
1. Negligent tort – consists in the failure to act person’s rights under Article III of the 1987
according to the standard of diligence constitution as contemplated in article 32
required under the attendant constitutes constitutional tort.
circumstances. It is a voluntary act or
omission which results in injury to others,
without intending to cause the same.
According to scope
*Note: while the term “tort” has been used
interchangeably with the term “quasi- 1. General – tort liability is based on
delict”, the latter merely represents an area any of the three categories:
of tort law concerned with damages
intentional, negligent, strict liability.
resulting from fault (by doing a positive act
2. Specific – includes trespass, assault,
constituting negligence) or negligence (by
battery, negligence, products liability,
omitting to o an act due to negligence) of the
and intentional infliction of emotional
defendant.
distress.
2. Intentional Tort – perpetrated by one who
intends to do that which the law has Notes:
declared to be wrong. It is conduct where
- The concept of quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana)
the actor desires to cause the consequences
does not cover intentional acts. The liability
of the act, or that he believes that the
arising from extra-contractual culpa is
consequences are substantially certain to
always based upon a voluntary act or
result therefrom.
omission, which, without willful intent, but
3. Strict Liability – one is liable independent to
by mere negligence or inattention, has
fault or negligence. It only requires proof of
caused damage to another.
a certain set of facts. Liability here is based
- The act or omission must be without intent
on the breach of an absolute duty to make
to cause damage because if there is intent to
something safe. It most often applies to
cause damage, the act or omission becomes
ultra-hazardous activities or in product
a crime.
liability cases. It is also known as “absolute
- In the absence of fault or negligence, there
liability” or “liability without fault.”
can be NO award for damages. Mere
- Is liability without fault different with
suspicion or speculation without proof
Damnum Absque injuria? – Yes. Liability
cannot be the basis of such an award
without fault includes strict liability and
 - The concept of quasi-delict is so broad that it
includes not only injuries to persons but also
damage to property.
- It is the pecuniary matter of the plaintiff
(private interest)
- The principle of abuse of right- every person
must, In the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith.(this principle is based upon
the famous maxim suum jus summa injuria
(the abuse of a right is the greatest possible
wrong)).
- The Scope or Coverage of quasi-delict-
includes acts, whether punishable by law or
not punishable by law, whether criminal or
not criminal in character, whether
intentional or voluntary or negligent, which
result in damage to another.
- EVEN if there exists a contractual
relationship between the parties, an action
for quasi-delict may nonetheless prosper.
The SC has consistently ruled that the act
that breaks the contract may also be a tort.
Definition of quasi delict
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged
to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,
if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is
governed by the provision of this Chapter.
- Tortfeasor refers to all persons who
command, instigate, promote, encourage,
advice, countenance, cooperate in, aid or
abet the commission of a tort, or who
approve of it after it is done, if done for their
benefit. May be a natural or juridical person.
- Negligence must be PROVED in a suit on a
quasi-delict, so that the plaintiff may
recover. However, since negligence may in
some cases be hard to prove, we may apply
the doctrine of RES IPSA LOQUITOR (the
thing that speaks for itself). This means that
in certain instances, the presence of facts or
circumstances surrounding the injury clearly
indicate negligence on the part of the
defendant – as when the defendants was on
the Wrong side of the street. The
presumption is however rebuttable.
Who are the persons liable for a quasi-delict? –
defendants in tort cases can either be natural or
artificial. Obligations arising from quasi-delicts are
demandable not only from the person directly
responsible for the damages incurred, but also those
that are enumerated in article 2180, NCC.
A corporation is civilly liable in the same manner as
natural person.
What is the test to determine whether a person is
negligent? – would a prudent man foresee harm to
the person injured as a reasonable consequence of
the course about to be pursued.
Doctrine of last clear chance- where both parties are
negligent but the negligent act of one succeeds that
of the other by an appreciable interval of time, the
one who has the last reasonable opportunity to avoid
the impending hard and fails to do so, is chargeable
with the consequences, without reference to the
prior negligence of the other party. Also called
doctrine of supervening negligence or humanitarian
doctrine.
Contributory negligence- the defendant may claim
that plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to his
injury. This defense, however, will merely mitigate
the award of damages.
Caso Fortuituo – article 1174. In cases expressly
specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared
by stipulation or when the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could no be
foreseen, or which though foreseen, were inevitable.
Volenti non fit injuria – that which one consent does
not make an injury in law.
When is art 2176 inapplicable?
1. When there was a pre-existing contractual
relation. Otherwise, what results is a breach
of contract.
Note: however, if the act that breaches the
contract is tortuous, the pre-existing
 contractual relation will not bar the recovery
of damages
2. When the fault or negligence is punished by
law as a crime. Art 100 of RPC shall be
applicable
3. If the action for quasi-delict is instituted after
four (4) years, it is deemed prescribed
4. When the injury suffered by a person is the
result of a fortuitous event without human
intervention.
5. If there is no damage or injury caused to
another.
Damnum Absque Injuria
- Means that “although there was physical
damage, there was no legal injury.”
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under
the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct
from the civil liability arising from negligence under
the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the
defendant.
- Acquittal from an accusation of criminal
negligence whether on reasonable doubt or
not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil
action
- You can file both quasi-delict and Breach of
contract, However the recovery must not
happen twice. No for double recovery
Art. 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are
also applicable to a quasi-delict.
- Article 1172 – responsibility arising from
negligence in the performance of every kind
of obligation is also demandable, but such
liability may be regulated by the courts,
according to the circumstances.
- Article 1173 – the fault or negligence of the
obligor consist in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of
the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time
and of the place, when negligence shows bad
faith, the provisions of Article 1171 and
2201, paragraph 2 (in case of fraud the
obligor shall be responsible for all damages)
shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the
diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a
good father of a family shall be required.
- Article 1174 – except in cases expressly
specified by the law, or when it is otherwise
declared by stipulation, or when the nature
of the obligation requires the assumption of
risk, no person shall be responsible for those
events which could not be foreseen, or
which though foreseen were inevitable.
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was
the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was
only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
- If the sole cause is the plaintiff’s own fault,
there can be no recovery.
- Proximate cause – it is that adequate and
efficient cause which in the natural order f
events, and under the particular
circumstances surrounding the case would
naturally produce the event.
Persons made Responsible for others.
Article 2180. the obligation imposed by article 2176 is
demandable not only for one’s own act or omissions,
but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
The father, and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by
the minor children who live in their company.
Guardian are liable for damages caused by the minors
or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprises are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
their assigned task, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
through a special agent; but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task done
properly pertains, in which case what s provided in
Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease
when the person herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of the
family to prevent damage.
- CODE- F G O E S T
- This negligence is PRESUMED but may be
rebutted by proof of diligence.
- Reason for liability – negligence in
supervision
- The term manager in Art. 2180 (4th
paragraph) is used in the sense of employer,
not employee.
- In 5th paragraph, note that the employers
can be liable even if “not engaged in any
business or industry.” If a complaint,
therefore, makes no reference to such
business or industry, there is still a cause of
action, and the complaint should NOT be
dismissed.
- It should be noted, too, that 5th paragraph
refers to “employees and household
helpers,” not to strangers. So, if a stranger
should drive another’s car without consent,
the owner is not liable.
- On e who hires an INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR but CONTROLS the latter’s
work, is responsible also for the latter’s
negligence.
- Under what is also known as THE
EMERGENCY RULE, one who suddenly finds
himself in a place of danger, and is required
to act without time to consider the best
means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may
appear to have been a better method, unless
Special agent
the emergency in which he finds himself is
brought about by his own negligence.
- The person responsible for the act (like a
minor), and the person exercising
supervision (lie a parents) are solidary liable.
- The only way the parents can be relieved
from responsibility for damages is for them
to prove that they exercised all the diligence
of a good father of the family to prevent
damage.
- The subsidiary liability of parents for
damages caused by their minor children
under Article 2180 is applicable to both
obligations arising from quasi-delicts and
criminal offenses. For criminal acts of minor
children who act with discernment, the
subsidiary liability of parents is determined
under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code and
Under Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code.
Liability of TEACHERS and HEADS of
establishment
- The clause used in said article” so long as
they rea in their custody” does not
necessarily refer to the custody over
students boarding in dormitories of the
school but to the protective and supervisory
custody that the school and its heads or
teachers exercise over the pupils and
students for as long as they are at
attendance in school and includes recess-
time. TO AVOID LIABILITY, the school officials
concerned should have proved “that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of
a family to prevent damage.” Said school
officials and teachers incidentally are liable
even if the students or pupils are No LONGER
MINORS.
Liability of the STATE
- A state liability has two aspects:
1. Its public or government aspect (here it
is liable for the tortuous acts of special
agents only)
2. Its private or business aspects (as when
it engages in private enterprises – here
it is liable as on ORDINARY EMPLOYER)
 - This is a government employee who commits agents, teachers/heads of establishment of arts
a tort while performing a job or act foreign and trade for their pupils/students/apprentices.
to hi usual duties.
Minor child vs incapacitated child. - minors
- The SC held that the State is liable only for
here refers to those who are below twenty-one
torts caused by its special agents specially
years old and not those below 18 years. While
commissioned to carry out the acts of which
incapacitated persons refer to persons beyond
the torts arise, and which acts are OUTSIDE
twenty-one years of age but are incapacitated
of the REGULAR DUTIES of said special
such as those who are insane or imbecile.
agents.
Principle of VICARIOUS LIABILITY
DEFENCE(MEMORIZE)
- A person who has not committed the act or
- If an employee (or ward or minor child, etc.)
omission which caused damage or injury to
is found negligent, it is presumed that the
another may nevertheless be held civilly
employer (or person in charge) was
liable to the latter either directly or
negligent in selecting and/or supervising him
subsidiarily under certain circumstances.
for it is hard for the victim to prove the
Also known as the doctrine of imputed
negligence of such employer. It is impossible
negligence.
for the victim to have observed the conduct
- Requisites of vicarious liability of parents-
of all the employers, etc. who are potential
the child is below twenty-one years of age,
tortfeasors. He had the duty to examine
the child committed a tortuous act to the
thoroughly the qualifications, experience
damage and prejudice of another person,
and record of the driver/employee/child
the child lives in the company of the parent
(campo v camarote and gemilga, L-9147, nov
concerned whether single or married.
29, 1956)
Are de facto guardian vicariously liable? – yes. It is but
Failure of Doctor to follow medical procedure is a
just that if the children commit tortuous acts while
clear INDICIA OF NEGLIGENCE.
living with them and are below 21 years of age, the
When is the actual tortfeasor not exempted from law should be applied by analogy.
liability?
What are the remedies of an injured party for the
- The minor, ward, employee, special agent, tortuous act of an employee?
pupil, students and apprentices who actually
1. Filing a civil action for damages based on
committed the delictual acts are not
quasi-delict under Art. 2180 – liability of the
exempted by the law from personal liability.
employer is primary, direct and solidary.
They may be sued and made liable alone as
2. Filing a criminal case: (offender found guilty)
when the person responsible for them or
the civilly liability of the employer is
vicarious obligor proves that he EXERCISED
subsidiary.
the DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER of a
family or when a minor or insane person has What is the defense for the persons liable under Art.
no parents or guardian. In the latter 2180?
instance, they are answerable with their own
property. - Pater Familias. The reason for the master’s
liability if they can prove that they have
The persons made responsible for others? – exercised all the diligence of a good father of
father/mother for their minor children, guardian a family to prevent damage.
is liable for minors and incapacitated persons - Note: the “master”, however, in pater
under their authority, owners/managers of familias under Art. 2180 will be freed from
establishment or enterprise for their employees liability if he can prove that he had observed
and household helpers, state for their special al the diligence of a good father of the family.
 Is the application of Art. 2180 limited to school of
arts and trades?
- No. it applies all, including academic
institutions.
What are the elements of a quasi-delict?
- Negligent or wrongful act or omission
- Damages or injury cause to another
- Causal relation between such negligence or
fault and damage
- No pre-existing contractual relationship
between the parties (some authorities
believe this element not essential).
Note liability for tort may rise even under a
contract where tort is that which breaches the
contract.
There may be cases of contractual relations
where quasi-delict may arise when the contract
was grossly violated. The tort liability is not based
on the contract of carriage but on some other
bases like deliberate and malicious violation of
the contract.
When is a person liable for a quasi-delict?
- He is liable for such when, by his act or
omission, he causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, and there is
no pre-existing contractual relationship
between them.
- Note a single act or omission may give rise to
two or more causes of action. Thus, an act or
omission may give rise to an action based on
delict, quasi-delict or contract.
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damages caused by
his dependents or employees may recover from the
latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of
the claim.
Right of a person (who pays) to get reimbursement
- Reason for the Article: after all, the person
who actually caused the injury should be
made to answer for his fault.
- If as a result of an accident a tour operator
and the owner of the boat used for the tour
are sued, the tour operator has a right of
action against the boat owner for
reimbursement. The principle embodied in
the art. 2182 of the civil code may be applied
in favor of the tour operator.
Art. 2182. If them minor or insane person causing
damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or
insane person shall be answerable with his own
property in an action against him where the guardian
ad litem shall be appointed.
- The article explains itself!!!!! Bagaw pa ni sir
SELF EXPLAINATORY!!!!!!!!!!
Art. 2183. 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 have suffered damage.
- Force majeure (act of GOD)
Damages cause by animal (Defenses)
a. Force majeure – as when the
tooting of a car horn frightens a
horse, who thereby injures and kills
a person.
b. Fault of the person injured.
(note: the law does not mention
diligence of the possessor of the
animal as a defense)
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidary liable with his driver, if the former, who was
in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed
that a driver was negligent, if he had been found
guilty of reckless driving or violation traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding
two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle,
the provisions of article 2180 are applicable.
Liability of owner of a motor vehicle
- Note the difference in the OWNER’S
responsibility when HE WAS in the vehicle or
WAS NOT. In a sense, the owner is compelled
to be an intelligent “back-seat driver.”
 - In motor vehicle mishaps, the 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. It is disputably presumed that a
driver was negligent, if he had been found
guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the
preceding two months
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation
- Presumption arises if at the time of the
mishap, he was VIOLATING any traffic
regulation.
- Under art. 2185. Of the Civil Code, a person
driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at
the time of the mishap, he was violating any
traffic regulation
Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file
with the proper government office a bond executed
by a government-controlled corporation or office, to
answer for damages to third persons. The amount of
the bond and other terms shall be fixed by the
competent public official.
- 3rd party liability insurance against 3rd party
loss or injury in connection to your vehicle is
mandatory.
- Self-explanatory
Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any
noxious or harmful substances used, although no
contractual relation exists between them and the
consumers.
- Bisan sa sari-sari store palita coke la gihap an
sala (manufactures)
- Note: that liability exists even in the absence
of contractual relations.
Art. 2188. There is PRIMA FACIE presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant if the death
or injury results form his possession of dangerous
weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison,
except when the possession or use thereof is
indispensable in his occupation or business.
- This is rebuttable.
- This will not exempt a police officer or any
official
They are liable civilly, administrative,
criminally. Reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide.
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be
liable for damages for the death of, or injuries
suffered by any person by reason of the defective
condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings
and other public works, under their control or
supervision.
Liability of municipal subdivisions because of
defective roads, bridges, etc.
a. The liability is for the DEATH or INJURIES
suffered by a PERSON (it would seem that
damages to property would not come under
this Article).
b. If a pedestrian fall into a manhole in a city
street (Manila), the Supreme Court has ruled
that the City Government would be liable
under this Article despite the fact that under
the Revised Charter of Manila is a special law
insofar as territory is involved, still this
article is a special provision insofar as
defective condition of street, etc. is
concerned.
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is
responsible for the damages resulting from its total or
partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of
necessary repairs.
- Self-explanatory
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for
damages caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not
been taken care of with due diligence, and
the inflammation of explosive substances
which have not been kept in a safe and
adequate place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful
to persons or property;
 (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near
highways, or lanes if not caused by FORCE
MAJEURE
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
deposits of infectious matter, constructed
without precautions suitable to the place.
- Other liabilities of proprietors of buildings or
structures
- Injunction (judicial order retraining a person
from continuing an action threatening legal
right) is an available remedy here because
the damage may be irreparable.
DAMAGES
- The power to license carries with it the
power to revoke it, either for cause or upon
a change of policy and legislation. Moreover,
the permit violated the existing ordinances.
Art. 2192. If damages referred to in the two preceding
articles should be the result of any defect in the
construction mentioned in article 1723, the third
person suffering damages may proceed only against
the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance
with said article, within the period therein fixed.
- Rule if the cause is a construction defect
- Self-explanatory
Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building
or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused
by things thrown or falling form the same.
- Head of the family is usually the father. The
one that is supporting his family. Bread
winner.
- The article can apply to the lessee of a house
who converts same into a hotel.
- Note the liability of the head of the family.?
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons
who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
Solidary liability of tortfeasors
- Although all those responsible for quasi-
delict are called JOINT TORTFEASORS, their
liability is SOLIDARY.
- Solidary – one of the debtors that is liable for
the whole liability/amount
- Pro rata (???) is not applicable since it is
against public policy
- Where the injury is due to the concurrent
negligence of the drivers of the colliding
vehicles, the drivers and owners of said
vehicles shall be primary, directly and
solidary liable for damages and it is
immaterial that one action is based on quasi-
delict and the other on culpa contractual.
Art. 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be
respectively applicable to all obligations
mentioned in Article 1157.
Applicability of all kinds of legal obligations
Art. 1157. Obligations arise from:
(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punishable by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts.
Art. 2196. The rules under this Title are without
prejudice to special prejudice to special
provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in
this Code. Compensation for workmen and other
employees in case of death, injury or illness is
regulated by special laws. Rules governing
damages laid down on other laws shall be
observed insofar as they are not in conflict with
this Code.
Special provisions and laws
- it is to be observed that in case of conflict
between the civil code and the special laws,
it is the civil code that prevails insofar as
damages are concerned – except in the case
of compensation for workmen and other
employees.
Dismissal of action
- If the action for damages is sought to be
dismissed by plaintiff-appellant or his heirs
 when the case is already on appeal, may the
dismissal be granted despite the appeal?
Yes, since the parties involved are no longer
interested in prosecuting the appeal.
Art. 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory
(2) Moral
(3) Nominal
(4) Temperate or moderate
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective
Damages distinguished from injury
- Damages – refers to the harm done and what
may be recovered. INJURY – refers to the
wrongful or unlawful or tortious act.
- There can be damage without injury
(damnus absque injuria) (or Physical hurt or
injury without legal wrong
- A fiscal who orders the seizure of property
alleged to be involved in the crime of
robbery without a search warrant is liable for
actual damages, moral damages, and
exemplary damages. There is nothing in the
law which gives to provincial fiscals the
power to issue warrants, much less to order
the seizure without warrant, of personal
property alleged to be the corpus delicti of a
crime.
- Damages in voildable contracts – a person
not obliged principally or subsidiarily in a
contract may nevertheless ask for its
annulment if he is prejudiced in his rights
regarding one of the contracting parties.
Art. 2198. The principles of the general law on
damages are hereby adopted insofar as they are not
inconsistent.
- It is clear that in case of conflict, it is the civil
code that prevails
- Adoption of the principles of the general law
on damages
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation,
one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages.
- Actual or compensatory damages are those
recoverable because of pecuniary loss. They
include:
o The value of the loss suffered
o Profits which were not obtained or
realized.
- Note: recovery cannot be had for the death
of an unborn child. This is NOT to say that the
parents are not entitled to collect any
damages at all. But all such damages must be
those inflicted directly upon them, as
distinguished from the injury or violation of
the rights of the deceased, his right to life,
and the physical integrity. The parent would
normally be limited to moral damages for
the illegal arrest of the normal development
of the spos hominis that was the foetus.
- To be recoverable, actual damages must be
pleaded or prayed for.
- Actual damages must be proved as a general
rule. It is enough to know that LOSS is proved
and not how much is the loss
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall
comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered,
but also that of the profits which the oblige failed to
obtain.
Two kinds of actual damage
1. Losses suffered (damno bitandi or dano
emergente)
1. Unrealized profits (lucro captando or lucro
cesante or lucrum cessans) – should have
realized profit
Note: that “lucrum cessan” is also a basis for
indemnification. Hence, if there exists a basis for
a reasonable expectation that profits would have
continued had there been no breach of contract,
indemnification for damages based on such
expected profits is proper.
- The court cannot sustain the award of
unrealized profit if the same have not been
 prove or justified before the trial court, and
the basis of the alleged unearned profits is
too speculative and conjectural to show
actual damages for a future period.
- Damages by way of unrealized profits (lucro
cesante) may not be awarded in the absence
of supporting evidence or merely on the
basis of pure assumption, speculation or
conjecture. Speculative damages cannot be
recovered.
- Where the actual damages suffered by
plaintiff exceeded the amount awarded her
by the lower court, but plaintiff did not
appeal, the appellate court cannot award
her more than the amount awarded by the
lower court.
Examples of Daño emergente
(a) Destruction of things
(b) Fines or penalties that had to be paid
(c) Medical and hospitalization expenses
Note if the injured party claims actual damages
because a jaw injury prevented him from going to
school for one year, will not be given said damages
because damages due to a lost school year and the
resulting reduction in the victim’s earning capacity
are manifestly speculative, and may not exist at all. In
one case however, according to a psychiatrist, he
could no longer finish his studies as a medical student;
had become a misfit for any kind of work; and unable
to walk around without someone helping him,
compensatory damages amounting to P25,000 were
awarded by the Court.
(d) Rents and agricultural products not received
in an agricultural lease.
Examples of Lucro Cesante
(a) Profits that could have been earned had
there been no interruption in the plaintiff’s
business as evidence by the reduced receipts
of the enterprise
(b) Profits because of a proposed future re-sale
of the property being purchased – if the
existence of a contract there was known to
the delinquent seller.
(c) Interest on rentals that were not paid. (here,
the interest undeniably forms profits which
could have been realized had the rents been
given.)
Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the
damages for which the obligor who acted in good
faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and
probable consequences of the breach of the
obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or
could have reasonably foreseen at the time the
obligation was constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice, or wanton attitude,
the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which
may be responsible for all damages which may be
reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the
obligation
Liability of debtor in contract and quasi-contracts
(a) If in good faith
It is essential that the damages be:
1. The NATURAL and PROBABLE
consequences of the breach of the
obligation;
2. Those which the parties FORESAW or
COULD HAVE REASONABLE FORESEEN
at the time the obligation was
constituted.
(b) If in bad faith
It is ENOUGH that the damages MAY be
REASONABLE ATTRIBUTED to the non-
performance of the obligation
Note: there is no necessity of the damage
being a natural or probable consequence,
and there is no necessity of foreseeing or
foreseeability.
Note: the fundamental difference between
the 1st paragraph and the 2nd paragraph in
Art 2201 is this: on the FIRST, there was mere
CARELESSNESS; in the second, there was
DELIBERATE or WANTON WRONGDOING.
Mere carelessness or negligence of a bus
driver in a collision with a train would make
his liability fall under the 1st paragraph.
Examples of reasonable foreseen or foreseeable
damages in contracts
(a) Ordinary damages (generally inherent in a
breach of typical contract)
a. Value of the use of the land if same
is withheld, computed for the
duration of the withholding.
b. Difference in the value of goods at
the time of stipulated delivery and
the time of actual delivery.
c. Cost of completing or repairing a
defective building
d. The income which an injured bus
passenger could have earned (had
he finished his medical course and
passed the corresponding board
examinations) must be deemed
within the category of natural and
probable consequences which
parties should have foreseen by the
parties at the moment said
passenger boarded the bus.
e. Salary for the entire period agreed
upon in an employment contract in
case the employer breaks it without
just cause MINUS income actually
earned or could have been earned
during the unexpired period.
Note: The breach is generally indivisible, and
therefore action may be brought AT ONCE
for the stipulated end of the contract. Failure
to sue for all damages by suing only for the
damages already accrued will BAR future
suits on the same point.
Note: the employer has the duty to prove the
earnings made or which could have been
earned during the unexpired period.
(b) Special damages (those which exist because
of special circumstances and for which a
debtor in GOOD FAITH can be held liable only
if he had been previously informed of such
circumstance)
Example – if a carrier fails to deliver
a movie film intended for showing
at a fiesta, it cannot be held liable
for the extraordinary profits
realizable at a fiesta showing, if it
had not been told that the film had
to be delivered in time for said
fiesta.
Note: if a debtor is in BAD FAITH,
special damages can be assessed
against him even if he had NO
knowledge of the special
circumstances. It is enough that the
damage be reasonably attributed to
the non-performance of obligation.
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant
shall be liable for all damages which are the natural
and probable consequences of the act or omission
complained of. It is not necessary that such damages
have been foreseen or could have reasonably been
foreseen by the defendant.
Damages in crimes and quasi-delicts
(a) Note here that as distinguished from the rule
in the preceding article, it “is NOT necessary
that such damages have been foreseen or
could have reasonably been foreseen by the
defendant.”
(b) The article applies to CRIMES and QUASI-
DELICTS.
What victim must prove in a tort or quasi-delict suit
In a tort action, the alleged victim must
prove:
(a) A causal connection between the tor and the
injury;
(b) The amount and extent of the injury.
Unfair competition – if unfair competition deprives
the victims of certain profits, the person liable must
respond if the two things stated above are proved.
Liability may, however, be reduced if loss was
suffered by the plaintiff not only because of the unfair
competition but also because of his fault, inferior
quality or service.
Concealment of an existing marriage
Concealment of an existing marriage from a
girl whom a man intends to seduce ca make a man
liable for damages. Thus, if on account of his
concealment, the woman lives with him and bears a
child, and relinquishes her employment to attend to
a litigation filed to obtain support for her child – he
must be held liable for all the consequent damages.
This concealment is NOT mere negligence, but actual
fraud practice upon the girl

Even if there is no specific allegation of damages in

the complaint or information, civil liability may still be
claimed in the criminal case.

Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must

exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to
minimized the damages resulting from the act or
omission in question

Victim must minimize the damage

- Prudent man must minimize the damage

done to them by others. Thus, one
prevented from entering a particular
hacienda must complain to the proper
official in time.

Burden of proof

- The person sued has the burden of proving

that the victim could have mitigated the
damage.

A victim cannot recover the cost of plastic surgery in

the United States if it is proved that the operation
could have been completely performed in the
Philippines by local practitioners.