• No results found

A2010 TORTS MAGIC NOTES FOR MIDTERMS

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "A2010 TORTS MAGIC NOTES FOR MIDTERMS"

Copied!
44
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

C L C L A S S A S S N O N O T E ST E S Torts:

Torts: not defined in the NCC nor in any Philippine Lawnot defined in the NCC nor in any Philippine Law BUT many scattered provisions on tortuous

BUT many scattered provisions on tortuous actsacts -usua

-usually defines as: (1) lly defines as: (1) what it what it is not; is not; (2) remedie(2) remediess granted; (3) social/public policy protected

granted; (3) social/public policy protected Damages:

Damages: much longemuch longer r treattreatment in ment in the NCC; morethe NCC; more practical importance on damages

practical importance on damages

Practical Legal Relevance: vehicular accidents Practical Legal Relevance: vehicular accidents Intentional tort:

Intentional tort: not a not a deldelict (any ict (any act or act or omomississionion punishable by law)

punishable by law)

Why? Intentional act causing damage to another, not a Why? Intentional act causing damage to another, not a crime

crime Act:

Act: intentional, voluntaryintentional, voluntary -damage

-damage

-may or may not violate a crime -may or may not violate a crime Negligence:

Negligence: any act or omission causing damage toany act or omission causing damage to another but w/o intent (only difference w/intentional tort) another but w/o intent (only difference w/intentional tort) Strict liability:

Strict liability: it doesn’t matter if you’re negligent or if it doesn’t matter if you’re negligent or if  you intended it as long as sets of circumstances make you intended it as long as sets of circumstances make you liable you liable

I. INTRODUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Definitions A. Definitions

1. Tort and Quasi-delict 1. Tort and Quasi-delict

a. Tort a. Tort

Naguiat v NLRC Naguiat v NLRC

FACTS:

FACTS: Naguiat is the president and a stockholder of Naguiat is the president and a stockholder of  Clark Field Taxi, Inc. (CFT). Due to the phase-out of the Clark Field Taxi, Inc. (CFT). Due to the phase-out of the US bases in the country, Clark Air Base was closed and US bases in the country, Clark Air Base was closed and the taxi drivers of CFTI were separated from service. the taxi drivers of CFTI were separated from service. The drivers filed a complaint for the payment of sep. pay The drivers filed a complaint for the payment of sep. pay due to the termination/phase-out. NLRC held Naguiat due to the termination/phase-out. NLRC held Naguiat and the company solidarily liable for the payment of and the company solidarily liable for the payment of sep.sep. pay.

pay. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON Naguait should be held WON Naguait should be held solidarily liablesolidarily liable with CFTI. YES.

with CFTI. YES.

HELD:

HELD: Under the Corporation Code, Naguait is liableUnder the Corporation Code, Naguait is liable bec: (1) he actively managed the business; (2) there bec: (1) he actively managed the business; (2) there was evidence that CFTI obtained reasonably adequate was evidence that CFTI obtained reasonably adequate insu

insurancrance; e; and (3) and (3) there was a there was a corpcorporate tort in orate tort in thisthis case.

case.

Our jurisprudence is wanting to the definite scope of  Our jurisprudence is wanting to the definite scope of  “corp

“corporate orate tort.”tort.” EsseEssentiallntially, y, “tort“tort” ” consconsists ists in in thethe violation of a right given or the omission of a duty violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law. Simply stated, it is a breach of legal imposed by law. Simply stated, it is a breach of legal duty.

duty.

C L A C L A S S S S N O N O T E ST E S CORPORATE TORT:

CORPORATE TORT: in regards to liability of Presidentin regards to liability of President of CFTI: no definition of corporate tort

of CFTI: no definition of corporate tort 2 definitions: long and short (legal basis) 2 definitions: long and short (legal basis) Short definition:

Short definition: from a law dictionaryfrom a law dictionary What

What’s ’s wronwrong g with the with the defindefinition in ition in NaguNaguiat?iat? TOOTOO BROAD

BROAD. Any breach of legal duty becomes a tort (so it. Any breach of legal duty becomes a tort (so it would include crimes, QD, breach of

would include crimes, QD, breach of contract)contract) …ve

…very ry slosloppy ppy defdefiniinitiotion n but but it’it’s s the the onlonly y cascase e thathatt defines Tort

defines Tort

Why SC gave definition of Tort? They had to determine Why SC gave definition of Tort? They had to determine the liability of the officers (Naguiat) so is it part of the the liability of the officers (Naguiat) so is it part of the ratio of the case? NO. Obiter. They already found CFTI ratio of the case? NO. Obiter. They already found CFTI liable under the Labor Code so SC did not need to liable under the Labor Code so SC did not need to establish liability through tort

establish liability through tort AQUINO (pp. 1-2)

AQUINO (pp. 1-2) Tort:

Tort: taken directly from the French and is derivation of taken directly from the French and is derivation of  the Latin word “torquere” meaning “to twist”

the Latin word “torquere” meaning “to twist”

-common law: an unlawful violation of private right, not -common law: an unlawful violation of private right, not created by contract, and which gives rise to an action for  created by contract, and which gives rise to an action for  damages

damages -an act

-an act or or omiomissiossion n produproducing an cing an injuinjury to ry to anotanother,her, without any previous existing lawful relation of which the without any previous existing lawful relation of which the sai

said d act or act or omomississioion n mamay y be said to be said to be a be a natnaturaurall outgrowth or incident (other definitions not

outgrowth or incident (other definitions not discussed)discussed) -no universal formula for torts

-no universal formula for torts liabilityliability

-includes intentional tort, negligence, and strict liability -includes intentional tort, negligence, and strict liability *Intentional tort:

*Intentional tort: inclincludes conduct where udes conduct where the the actor actor  des

desireires s to to caucause se the consethe consequequencences s of of hihis s act or act or  believes the consequences are substantially certain to believes the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.

result from it. -i

-incncluludedes s asassasaulult, t, babattetter, r, fafalslse e imimprprisisononmementnt,, defa

defamatimation, on, invainvasion of sion of privaprivacy cy and and interinterferenference ce of of  property

property

*Negligence:

*Negligence: invoinvolves lves voluvoluntary ntary acts acts or or omisomissionsionss whic

which h resulresult t in injury to in injury to otherothers, s, withwithout intendiout intending tong to cause the same

cause the same

-actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts -actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions

or omissions *Stric

*Strict t LiabLiability:ility: whewhere re the persothe person n is is mamade de lialiableble independent of fault or negligence upon submission of  independent of fault or negligence upon submission of  proof of certain facts

proof of certain facts DE LEON (pp. 1-3) DE LEON (pp. 1-3) Tort:

Tort: common law expressioncommon law expression -used in

-used in FrenFrench to ch to mean “wronmean “wrong”, derived from g”, derived from LatiLatinn “tortus” meaning twisted, as if to say tortuous conduct is “tortus” meaning twisted, as if to say tortuous conduct is twisted conduct or conduct that departs

twisted conduct or conduct that departs from the existingfrom the existing norm

norm

- a legal wrong that causes harm for which the violator is - a legal wrong that causes harm for which the violator is subject to civil liability

subject to civil liability

-fundamental concept of tort: wrongful act or omission + -fundamental concept of tort: wrongful act or omission + resulting in breach of a private legal duty (distinguished resulting in breach of a private legal duty (distinguished from a mere breach of contractual duty) + damage from from a mere breach of contractual duty) + damage from said breach of duty (of such character as to afford a said breach of duty (of such character as to afford a rig

right ht of of redredresress s at law at law in favor of in favor of the injuthe injured partred partyy against the wrongdoer)

against the wrongdoer) Note (explai

Note (explained definitined definition on in Naguiat vs. in Naguiat vs. NLRCNLRC): ): thethe term “tort” used by SC has same meaning as tort in term “tort” used by SC has same meaning as tort in com

commomon n law jurislaw jurisdicdictiotions, ns, as as it it wawas s useused d in in cascaseses involving QD and delicts

involving QD and delicts Tortious act:

Tortious act: a wrongful acta wrongful act -co

-commmmississioion n or or omomissission of ion of dutduty y of of an an act by act by oneone,, witho

without ut righright, t, wherwhereby eby anothanother er recereceives ives some injury,some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation (74 Am. Jur. 2d 620)

(74 Am. Jur. 2d 620) Essence of tort:

Essence of tort: defendant’s potential for civil liability todefendant’s potential for civil liability to the victim for harmful wrongdoing and correspondingly the victim for harmful wrongdoing and correspondingly the victim’s potential fro

the victim’s potential fro compensatiocompensation or n or other relief other relief 

b. Quasi-delict b. Quasi-delict

Art. 2176, NCC Art. 2176, NCC Whoe

Whoever by ver by act or act or omisomission causesion causes s damdamage toage to another, there being fault or

another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged tonegligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if

if thethere re is is no no prepre-ex-exististing ing concontratractuctual al relrelatiationon between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

(2)

C L A C L A S S S S N O T N O T E SE S A 2176 explanation:

A 2176 explanation: First sentence refers to ALL CIVILFirst sentence refers to ALL CIVIL LIABILITIES. Second sentence limits QD.

LIABILITIES. Second sentence limits QD.

Barredo v Garcia Barredo v Garcia

FACTS:

FACTS: A A HeaHead-od-on n colcollislision ion betbetweeween n a a taxtaxi i andand carretela resulted in the death of a 16-yr old boy who carretela resulted in the death of a 16-yr old boy who was a passenger of the carretela. The taxi driver was was a passenger of the carretela. The taxi driver was convicted in a crim case but the right to file a sep civil convicted in a crim case but the right to file a sep civil act

action was ion was resreserverved. The ed. The parparentents s of of the boy the boy suesuedd Barre

Barredo, do, the the drivdriver’s employeer’s employer r for for damadamages. ges. BarreBarredodo con

contentends ds thathat t undunder er the the RPRPC, C, his liabihis liabilitlity y is is onlonlyy subsidiary, hence he cannot be held liable as no civil subsidiary, hence he cannot be held liable as no civil action has been filed against the driver.

action has been filed against the driver.

ISSUE: WON the plaintiffs, may bring this separate civil ISSUE: WON the plaintiffs, may bring this separate civil action against Barredo, making him primarily liable as action against Barredo, making him primarily liable as employer under the CC. YES.

employer under the CC. YES.

HELD: The same negligent act causing damage HELD: The same negligent act causing damage maymay produce civil liability arising from a crim under the produce civil liability arising from a crim under the RPC or create an action for quasi-delict under the RPC or create an action for quasi-delict under the CC.

CC. ThuThus, s, thethere re werwere e 2 2 lialiabilbilitiities es of of BarBarredredo: o: aa subsidiary one arising from the driver’s crim negligence subsidiary one arising from the driver’s crim negligence nd a

nd a priprimamary ry one as one as ememploployer undeyer under r the CC. the CC. ThThee plaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, and plaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, and they preferre

they preferred d the second remedy. They the second remedy. They were actingwere acting within their rights in doing so.

within their rights in doing so.

C L A C L A S S S S N O T N O T E SE S -duri

-during ng that time, that time, culpculpa a aquiaquilianliana a (QD) doesn’t cover (QD) doesn’t cover  acts against law?

acts against law? A1903, old CC expressly excludeA1903, old CC expressly exclude acts not punishable by law

acts not punishable by law

-SC needed to have very strong reason not to follow -SC needed to have very strong reason not to follow what the old law says because if A1903 applied literally what the old law says because if A1903 applied literally there would be no culpa aquiliana, if read together with there would be no culpa aquiliana, if read together with RPC (all acts would be under criminal negligence and RPC (all acts would be under criminal negligence and imprudence)

imprudence) -so in this case,

-so in this case, emphasize scope of culpa aquilianaemphasize scope of culpa aquiliana and delict

and delict; why needed? Barredo was arguing that he; why needed? Barredo was arguing that he was not solidarily liable and should only be subsidiarily was not solidarily liable and should only be subsidiarily liable

liable

-if applied today, would the result be the same? YES -if applied today, would the result be the same? YES through stare decisis + QD definition changed, removed through stare decisis + QD definition changed, removed phrase “not punishable by law”

phrase “not punishable by law”

Elcano v Hill Elcano v Hill

FACTS:

FACTS: In In cricrimiminal nal cascase e whewhere re RegReginainald ld HiHill ll wawass charged with the killing of Agapito Elcano, the former  charged with the killing of Agapito Elcano, the former  was acqui

was acquitted for tted for “lack of intent to “lack of intent to killkill, , coupcoupled withled with mis

mistake.” The take.” The decedeceasedased’s ’s pareparents nts therethereafter after suedsued Reginald and his father for dmages. CFI dismissed the Reginald and his father for dmages. CFI dismissed the civil cases on the ground of res

civil cases on the ground of res judicata.judicata. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON the civil action for damages is barred byWON the civil action for damages is barred by Hill’s acquittal in the crim case.

Hill’s acquittal in the crim case. NO.NO. HELD:

HELD: HiHillll’s ’s acacququitittatal l in in ththe e crcrim im cacase se hahas s nonott extinguished his liability for QD, hence the acquittal is extinguished his liability for QD, hence the acquittal is not a bar to

not a bar to the instant civil action.the instant civil action.

Art. 2176 where it refers to “fault or negligence,” Art. 2176 where it refers to “fault or negligence,” covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.

and voluntary or negligent.

C L A C L A S S S S N O N O T E ST E S

-why make intentional acts under QD? To make father  -why make intentional acts under QD? To make father  and son liable

and son liable

--A A 2172177, 7, NCNCCC expexpresressly sly poipoints nts out out thathat t thethere’re’s s aa separate civil liability from criminal negligence BUT it separate civil liability from criminal negligence BUT it see

seems to ms to appapply to ly to QD only so QD only so coucourt rt deadealt with thislt with this lim

limitatiitation on by by uphoupholdinlding g the the consconstructitruction on that that uphoupholdslds “the spirit that giveth life rather than that which is “the spirit that giveth life rather than that which is literal that killeth the intent of the lawmaker” literal that killeth the intent of the lawmaker” (A2176(A2176 is not just QD, so

is not just QD, so A2177 really has no problem)A2177 really has no problem)

Cinco v Canonoy Cinco v Canonoy

FACTS:

FACTS: Cinco’s car and a eepney collided. Cinco filed aCinco’s car and a eepney collided. Cinco filed a civil action for damage to property against the eepney’s civil action for damage to property against the eepney’s driver and operators. Thereafter, he also filed a crim driver and operators. Thereafter, he also filed a crim ca

case se agagaiainsnst t ththe e eeeepnpney ey drdriviverer. . CFCFI I upupheheld ld ththee suspension of the civil case pending the determination suspension of the civil case pending the determination of the crim case.

of the crim case. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON there can be an independent civil actionWON there can be an independent civil action for damage to

for damage to propeproperty during the rty during the pendpendency of ency of thethe criminal action. YES.

criminal action. YES. HELD:

HELD: Liability being predicated on a QD, the civil caseLiability being predicated on a QD, the civil case may

may proceed as a separate and independeproceed as a separate and independent civil actionnt civil action as specifically provided for in Art. 2177 of t

as specifically provided for in Art. 2177 of t he CC.he CC.

Art. 2176 of the CC is so broad that it includes not Art. 2176 of the CC is so broad that it includes not on

only ly ininjujuriries es to to pepersrsonons s bubut t alalso so dadamamage ge toto prop

property. It erty. It makemakes s no distinctiono distinction n bet. Damage tobet. Damage to persons and damage to property.

persons and damage to property.

C L A C L A S S S S N O N O T E ST E S Rel

Relevaevancence: : claclarifrified ied thathat t QD QD incincludludes es damdamage age toto property (same highlight in reviewer)

property (same highlight in reviewer) Problem:

Problem: A2A2191191(2) (2) gavgave e exaexamplmple e whwhere ere QD QD andand damage to property

damage to property [liability of proprietors of excessive[liability of proprietors of excessive smoke]; but this is a

smoke]; but this is a Tort on STRICT LIABILITY, not QD!Tort on STRICT LIABILITY, not QD!

Baksh v CA Baksh v CA

FACTS:

FACTS: Baksh was sued for damages for his breach of Baksh was sued for damages for his breach of  promise to marry. CA affirmed TC’s award of damages, promise to marry. CA affirmed TC’s award of damages, relying on Art. 21 CC.

relying on Art. 21 CC. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON damages may be recovered for a breachWON damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry based on Art.

of promise to marry based on Art. 21 of the CC. YES.21 of the CC. YES. HELD:

HELD: Art. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise toArt. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction. marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction. Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or QD Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or QD in this jurisdiction by

in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for granting adequate legal remedy for  the untold no. of moral wrongs which is impossible for  the untold no. of moral wrongs which is impossible for  human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books.

the statute books.

Art. 2176 which defined a QD is limited to negligent Art. 2176 which defined a QD is limited to negligent act

acts s or or omiomississions and ons and excexcludludes es the the nonotiotion n of of  willin

willingnesgness s or intent. Torts or intent. Torts is is much broadmuch broader er thanthan culpa aquiliana bec. it includes not only negligence, culpa aquiliana bec. it includes not only negligence, but intentional criminal acts as well.

but intentional criminal acts as well.

C L A C L A S S S S N O N O T E ST E S

so what’s correct? Include or not to include intentional so what’s correct? Include or not to include intentional act

acts? In s? In BaBakshksh, , DaDavidvide e shoshowed role of wed role of A2A21, 1, so so hehe limi

limited A2176 ted A2176 to to neglnegligenigent t acts or acts or omisomissionsions.s. A2176A2176 discussion is not necessary for the disposition of  discussion is not necessary for the disposition of  the case (OBITER) THEREFORE, QD still includes the case (OBITER) THEREFORE, QD still includes intentional acts!

intentional acts!

***Issue: WON QD covers intentional acts or not? If it ***Issue: WON QD covers intentional acts or not? If it covers intentional acts..

covers intentional acts.. Fr litigation pt of view: it

(3)

Fr academic pt of view: it Fr academic pt of view: it matters!matters!

2. Damages 2. Damages

AQUINO (pp. 842-843) AQUINO (pp. 842-843)

-Reason behind the NCC Title on Damages: to see to it -Reason behind the NCC Title on Damages: to see to it that whenever a right is transgressed, every manner of  that whenever a right is transgressed, every manner of  los

loss s or injuror injury y is compis compensensateated d for in for in somsome e way or way or  another.

another.

-A2195, NCC: provisions on damages are applicable to -A2195, NCC: provisions on damages are applicable to all obligations regardless of source (delict, QD,

all obligations regardless of source (delict, QD, contract,contract, or quasi-contract).

or quasi-contract).

-A2196: rules under title of damages are w/o prejudice -A2196: rules under title of damages are w/o prejudice to special provisions on damages provided elsewhere in to special provisions on damages provided elsewhere in the Code.

the Code. -A2

-A2198198: : priprincincipleples s of of gengeneraeral l law law on on damdamageages s areare adop

adopted insofar as ted insofar as they are they are not inconsinot inconsistenstent t with thewith the NCC.

NCC.

-Indemnity has to be proportionate to the fault and to the -Indemnity has to be proportionate to the fault and to the loss caused thereby.

loss caused thereby. -In actions for

-In actions for damages, courts should award an amountdamages, courts should award an amount (money value) to the winning party and not

(money value) to the winning party and not its equivalentits equivalent in property.

in property.

SANCO, (pp. 940-941) SANCO, (pp. 940-941) Basis of Law:

Basis of Law: introduced in NCC mostly from introduced in NCC mostly from AmericanAmerican Law since they were either not expressly recognized or  Law since they were either not expressly recognized or  rarely allowed under old code, particularly on subject of  rarely allowed under old code, particularly on subject of  moral damages

moral damages Scop

Scope e of of applapplicabiicability lity of of provprovisionisions s on on damadamages:ges: app

applilicabcable le to to all all oblobligaigatiotions ns ariarisinsing g frofrom m sousourcercess enumerated in A1157, NCC, without

enumerated in A1157, NCC, without prejudice to specialprejudice to special provi

provisionsions s on on damadamages ges formuformulated elsewhelated elsewhere re in in saidsaid code.

code. -don’

-don’t t applapply y to to compcompensaensation of tion of workworkmen and men and other other  employees in cases of death, injury or illness

employees in cases of death, injury or illness

-in other special laws: same rules observed insofar as -in other special laws: same rules observed insofar as not in conflict with Civil Code

not in conflict with Civil Code Concept of damages: Concept of damages: Damages:

Damages: the sum of money which the law awards or the sum of money which the law awards or  imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, or  imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, or  satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as a satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as a consequence of a breach of a contractual obligation or a consequence of a breach of a contractual obligation or a tortious act

tortious act

-pecuniary consequences which law imposes for breach -pecuniary consequences which law imposes for breach of some duty or violation of some right.

of some duty or violation of some right.

Kinds:

Kinds: comcompensapensatory, tory, punipunitie, tie, liquliquidateidated d damadamagesges (dam

(damages recoveraages recoverable upon ble upon breacbreach h of of a a contcontract, asract, as stipulated by the parties), nominal damages (given in stipulated by the parties), nominal damages (given in vindication of a breach of duty which does not result in vindication of a breach of duty which does not result in any actual or

any actual or pecuniary damages)pecuniary damages)

Damage, damages, injury: material distinctions Damage, damages, injury: material distinctions Injury:

Injury: Illegal invasion of a legal Illegal invasion of a legal rightright Damage:

Damage: loloss, ss, hurhurt, t, or or harharm m whiwhich ch resresultults s frofrom m anan injury; in a popular sense, it is the depreciation in value, injury; in a popular sense, it is the depreciation in value, reg

regardardlesless s if if caucaused by sed by a a wrowrongfngful ul or or leglegal al actact; ; asas defined by statutes providing for

defined by statutes providing for damages: actionabledamages: actionable loss

loss, , injuinjury ry or harm or harm whicwhich h resuresults from lts from unlaunlawful act,wful act, omission or negligence of another 

omission or negligence of another  -not synonymous to example, fine,

-not synonymous to example, fine, penalty, punishment,penalty, punishment, revenge, discipline, chastisement

revenge, discipline, chastisement Damages:

Damages: recompense or compensation awarded for recompense or compensation awarded for  damages suffered.

damages suffered. Pecuniary loss:

Pecuniary loss: loss of money or something by whichloss of money or something by which money or something of money value

money or something of money value may be acquiredmay be acquired

People v Ballesteros People v Ballesteros

FACTS:

FACTS: BallBallesteresteros os et et al were al were conviconvicted of cted of murdmurder.er. They were ordered to pay actual, compensatory, and They were ordered to pay actual, compensatory, and moral damages to the heirs of the

moral damages to the heirs of the deceased.deceased. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON damages were correctly awarded. YESWON damages were correctly awarded. YES HELD:

HELD: DamagesDamages may be may be defindefined as ed as the pecunithe pecuniaryary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury susta

sustainedined, , or or as as otherotherwise expresswise expressed, ed, the the pecupecuniaryniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of  consequences which the law imposes for the breach of  some duty or the violation of some right.

some duty or the violation of some right. Actual

Actual or or compensatorycompensatory damagesdamages are those awardedare those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury susta

sustainedined. . The party The party claiclaiminming g such must such must presepresent nt thethe best evidence available such as receipts.

best evidence available such as receipts. Moral

Moral damagesdamages may be invoked when the complainantmay be invoked when the complainant has

has expeexperiencrienced ed mentmental al anguanguish, ish, seriserious ous anxianxiety,ety, physical suffering, moral shock and so forth, and had physical suffering, moral shock and so forth, and had furthermore shown that these were the proximate result furthermore shown that these were the proximate result of the offender’s wrongful act or omission.

of the offender’s wrongful act or omission.

Custodio v CA Custodio v CA

FACTS:

FACTS: Custodio et al built an adobe fence making theCustodio et al built an adobe fence making the passageway to Mabasa’s apartment narrower. Mabasa passageway to Mabasa’s apartment narrower. Mabasa filed a civil action for the grant of easement of right of  filed a civil action for the grant of easement of right of  way against them. CA, aside from granting right of way, way against them. CA, aside from granting right of way, awarded damages to Mabasa.

awarded damages to Mabasa. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON award of damages was proper. NOWON award of damages was proper. NO HELD:

HELD: In the case at bar, although there was damage,In the case at bar, although there was damage, the

there re was no was no leglegal al ininjurjury. y. CusCustodtodio io et et al’al’s s act of act of  constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of  constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of  their right as owners.

their right as owners. Injury

Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right.is the illegal invasion of a legal right. DamageDamage isis the loss, hurt or

the loss, hurt or harm, which results from the injury.harm, which results from the injury. Damages

Damages are are the the recrecompompensense e or or comcompenpensatsationion awarded fro the damage suffered. Thus, there can be awarded fro the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal dut

duty. y. TheThese se sitsituatuationions s are are oftoften en calcalledled damnumdamnum absque injuria

absque injuria. In such cases, the consequences must. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone.

be borne by the injured person alone.

b. Damnum absque injuria b. Damnum absque injuria

AQUINO (pp. 843-845) AQUINO (pp. 843-845)

-“There is no liability even if there is damage because -“There is no liability even if there is damage because there was no injury.” Mere damage without injury does there was no injury.” Mere damage without injury does not result in liability.

not result in liability. -A related maxim is

-A related maxim is qui jure suo utitir nullum damnumqui jure suo utitir nullum damnum facit –

facit – one who exercises a right does no injury.one who exercises a right does no injury.

Custodio v CA, Custodio v CA, suprasupra

“Thus

“Thus, , there can there can be damage withoube damage without t injuinjury in ry in thosethose instances in which the loss or harm was not

instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of the result of  a violation of

a violation of a legal duty. Tha legal duty. These situations are ese situations are oftenoften called

called damnum absque injuriadamnum absque injuria.”.”

B. History and Development B. History and Development

AQUINO (pp.1-5) AQUINO (pp.1-5)

“Tort” provisions in our

“Tort” provisions in our NCC were derived from Spanish,NCC were derived from Spanish, Frenc

French h and Anglo-Amand Anglo-Americaerican n Law. ThereforLaw. Therefore, e, RP RP SCSC borro

borrows heavily from decisiows heavily from decisions of ns of the Court in the Court in other other  count

countries especiaries especially Spain lly Spain and US and US and relies fromand relies from annotation of foreign author.

(4)

Roman Law served as main inspiration of NCC, as quite Roman Law served as main inspiration of NCC, as quite evident in the field of QD: it added 4 new category of  evident in the field of QD: it added 4 new category of  obligations that arise quasi ex delicto (a. liability of a obligations that arise quasi ex delicto (a. liability of a   ju

  judge who dge who mimiscoscondunducts a cts a cascase e or or givgives es a a wrowrongng deci

decisionsion; ; b. b. liabliabilitility y of an of an occupoccupier of ier of a a builbuilding for ding for  double the damage caused by anything thrown or double the damage caused by anything thrown or forcedforced out of the building, no matter by whom, on to a public out of the building, no matter by whom, on to a public place[A2193]; c. liability of the occupier if he keeps any place[A2193]; c. liability of the occupier if he keeps any obje

object ct suspesuspended from nded from the buildinthe building g whicwhich h woulwould d dodo damage if it fell; and d. the liability of the shop keeper, damage if it fell; and d. the liability of the shop keeper, innkeeper, or keeper of a stable for any theft or damage innkeeper, or keeper of a stable for any theft or damage cau

caused by sed by slaslaves or ves or ememploployeeyees, s, or or in in cascase e of of thethe innkeepers, of permanent residents [A2000].)

innkeepers, of permanent residents [A2000].) -Cod

-Code e ComCommissmission initiallion initially y wantwanted ed to to adopadopt t the wordthe word “tort” in our NCC but decided later against it because “tort” in our NCC but decided later against it because “tort

“tort” ” in in AnglAnglo-Amo-Americaerican n law “is law “is much broademuch broader r  (includes negligence, intentional criminal acts, false (includes negligence, intentional criminal acts, false imprisonment, deceit) than the

imprisonment, deceit) than the Spanish-PhSpanish-Philippineilippine concept of obligations arising from non-contractual concept of obligations arising from non-contractual negligence.

negligence. IntenIntentiontional al acts would acts would be be govegoverned byrned by RP

RPC. C. HoHowevwever, er, somsome e proprovisvisionions s useused d “to“tort”rt” andand therefore recognize it as a source of liability therefore recognize it as a source of liability [[Sec22Sec22 &

& 100, Corpor100, Corporation Code; Art.68 Child and ation Code; Art.68 Child and YouYouthth Welfa

Welfare re CodCode; e; Sec. 17(a)(6Sec. 17(a)(6) ) of of the Ship the Ship MortgMortgageage Decr

Decree]. Even SC ee]. Even SC used the term tort used the term tort in decidingin deciding cases involving negligent acts or omissions as well cases involving negligent acts or omissions as well as

as invinvolvolving ing intintententionional al actacts. s. ThThey ey defdefineined d it it inin Naguiat vs. NLRC.

Naguiat vs. NLRC.

-There is an evident intent to adopt the common law -There is an evident intent to adopt the common law co

concncepept t of of totort rt anand d to to inincocorprpororatate e ththe e didiffffererenent,t, inten

intentionational l and unintentand unintentionaional l commcommon on law torts law torts in in thethe NCC

NCC. . TortiTortious ous condconduct for uct for whicwhich h civicivil l remeremedies aredies are avai

availabllable e are are embembodieodied d in in diffedifferent provisiorent provisions ns of of thethe cod

code. E.g. e. E.g. ArtArts. 32, s. 32, 33, 34, 35, 33, 34, 35, and 36; A2199 onand 36; A2199 on contributory negligence and proximate cause (however, contributory negligence and proximate cause (however, a

a blenblending of ding of AmeAmerican and rican and SpanSpanish-Pish-Philihilippinppine e Law)Law) NCC

NCC

SANGCO (pp. xxxi-xl) SANGCO (pp. xxxi-xl)

Civil Code of the Philippines: based on Civil Code of  Civil Code of the Philippines: based on Civil Code of  18

1889 89 (S(Spapaninish sh anand d FrFrenench ch in in ororigiginin); ); bubut t mamanyny provisions from codes of other countries were adopted. provisions from codes of other countries were adopted. Rules from Anglo-American law were adopted because Rules from Anglo-American law were adopted because of

of elelememenent t of of AmAmerericican an cucultlturure e ththat at hahas s bebeenen incorporated into Fil life during US occupation; because incorporated into Fil life during US occupation; because economic relations that continue between US and RP; economic relations that continue between US and RP; and because US and English Courts have developed and because US and English Courts have developed certain equitable rules that are not recognized in the certain equitable rules that are not recognized in the 1889 Civil Code

1889 Civil Code

1889 Civil Code 1889 Civil Code 1. Civil Liability Arising

1. Civil Liability Arising From Criminal OffensesFrom Criminal Offenses

A1089: Civil obligations arise only from law, contracts, A1089: Civil obligations arise only from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law and quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law and quasi-delicts.

quasi-delicts. -ci

-civil vil oblobligaigatiotions ns frofrom m cricrime me or or mimisdesdememeanoanor r wawass governed only by Penal Code

governed only by Penal Code (A1092) so when criminal(A1092) so when criminal acti

action on was institutwas instituted, the ed, the civicivil l actioaction n arisarising from ing from thethe crim

crime e is is impimpliedliedly ly instiinstituted with tuted with the criminathe criminal l actioactionn unle

unless ss the offended party expresslthe offended party expressly y waivwaives es the civilthe civil acti

action on or or reserreserves his ves his right to right to instiinstitute it tute it sepaseparatelratelyy (A122, Law of

(A122, Law of CrimPro)CrimPro) -r

-rigight ht to to rerecocovever r dadamamageges s ararisisining g frfrom om crcrimime e isis completely dependen

completely dependent on t on the result of the result of the criminal case.the criminal case. If an earlier civil action is

If an earlier civil action is instituted, upon start of instituted, upon start of criminalcriminal cas

case, e, the the civcivil il actaction is ion is sussuspenpended and ded and wowould beuld be determined by the result of the criminal case. If criminal determined by the result of the criminal case. If criminal act

action ion is is disdismismissedsed, , civcivil il actaction ion is is alsalso o deedeememedd dism

dismisseissed, d, regarregardlesdless s if if instiinstituted with tuted with the the crimcriminalinal action or separately. Civil liability is treated as purely action or separately. Civil liability is treated as purely inci

incidentdental al to to the criminathe criminal l liabliability of ility of the offender. Thethe offender. The cases of Springer vs. Odin, Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and cases of Springer vs. Odin, Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., US vs. Guy Sayco, US vs. Bernardo, and Pacific Co., US vs. Guy Sayco, US vs. Bernardo, and Wise & Co. vs.

Wise & Co. vs. Larion were ruled using this principle. AsLarion were ruled using this principle. As ruled in rakes, any civil action not predicated on offense ruled in rakes, any civil action not predicated on offense committed or charged (based on law, contract, committed or charged (based on law, contract, quasi-contract, or QD) cannot be instituted with the criminal contract, or QD) cannot be instituted with the criminal action.

action.

-When Penal Code revised, RPC retained what is now -When Penal Code revised, RPC retained what is now contained in A100; Rules on CRimPro retained what is contained in A100; Rules on CRimPro retained what is contained in Rule 107 (check if still correct)

contained in Rule 107 (check if still correct) 2. Civil Liability arising from QD

2. Civil Liability arising from QD

A1902: Any person who by an act or omission causes A1902: Any person who by an act or omission causes damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be liable fro the damage done

liable fro the damage done In re:

In re: A190A1903: punish wrongfu3: punish wrongful l acts or acts or omiomissionssions s notnot punishable by law

punishable by law

-said articles are not applicable to acts of negligence -said articles are not applicable to acts of negligence which constitute either punishable offenses(delicts) or  which constitute either punishable offenses(delicts) or  breach of contract.

breach of contract.

-thus, the liability of employe

-thus, the liability of employers, et. al. rs, et. al. under now A2180under now A2180 are only subsidiary (in accordance with

are only subsidiary (in accordance with penal laws)penal laws) --QD QD or or culculpa pa aquaquiliiliana ana or or extextra-ra-concontratractuctual al culculpa:pa: caus

causative act or ative act or omisomission not punished by law sion not punished by law and isand is done ONLY negligently, where civil liability could arise done ONLY negligently, where civil liability could arise as governed by the Civil Code (not by penal laws), and as governed by the Civil Code (not by penal laws), and the party aggrieved could file an ordinary civil action for  the party aggrieved could file an ordinary civil action for 

damages using only preponderance of evidence. It gives damages using only preponderance of evidence. It gives rise only to civil liability. Here, the employer’s liability for  rise only to civil liability. Here, the employer’s liability for  his employee’s NONCRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is direct his employee’s NONCRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is direct and primary and not subsidiary, and he

and primary and not subsidiary, and he could be directlycould be directly imputed in an action for recovery of

imputed in an action for recovery of damages.damages.

-an act or omission will give rise to civil liability only if it -an act or omission will give rise to civil liability only if it causes damage or injury to another or others.

causes damage or injury to another or others.

DE LEON (pp.4-8) DE LEON (pp.4-8)

Tor

Tort t law emerglaw emerged ed out out of of cricrimiminal nal lalaw; w; orioriginginallallyy concerned principally with violent breaches of the concerned principally with violent breaches of the place.place.

(1)

(1) CommCommon law tort – judgon law tort – judges usuales usually definly define whate what counts as torts and how compensation is to be counts as torts and how compensation is to be measured. Still, a statute or even Consti may measured. Still, a statute or even Consti may make certain conduct legally wrongful and make certain conduct legally wrongful and maymay permit recovery of damages for such conduct. permit recovery of damages for such conduct. (2)

(2) No cleaNo clear distinr distinction bection betweetween tort and crimn tort and crime –e – initially, this was the case sine the

initially, this was the case sine the developmedevelopmentnt of anything like a clearly formulated conception of anything like a clearly formulated conception of

of a tort is coma tort is comparatively recenparatively recent.t. (3)

(3) NotioNotion of tort as a sn of tort as a specipecific wrofic wrong – theng – there wasre was an attempt in 1720 to consider several specific an attempt in 1720 to consider several specific wrongs in a work consolidating them under the wrongs in a work consolidating them under the gene

general headinral heading g of torts. Torts of torts. Torts of a of a specspecificific character have been increasing.

character have been increasing. (4)

(4) PlacPlace of torts in the Pe of torts in the Philihilippinppine law – even ie law – even if RPf RP was a civil law country, some of the provisions was a civil law country, some of the provisions in the 1889 CC dealth with cases of the nature in the 1889 CC dealth with cases of the nature of torts + with US occupation, a number of laws of torts + with US occupation, a number of laws patterned after

patterned after Anglo-AmeAnglo-American models haverican models have been passed ampl

been passed amplifyinifying g the field of the field of torts intorts in Philippine legal system.

Philippine legal system. Functions or goals of tort law Functions or goals of tort law

Medieval England: discourage violence and revenge Medieval England: discourage violence and revenge Today: compensation of injured persons and

Today: compensation of injured persons and deterrencedeterrence of undesirable behavior:

of undesirable behavior: Syste

System m of thoughts (sorrof thoughts (sorry, y, no parallelno parallelism in ism in thethe enumeration of de leon):

enumeration of de leon): (1) Morality or corrective justice

(1) Morality or corrective justice – defendants should– defendants should be

be lialiable ble fro fro harharms ms thethey y wrowrongfngfullully y caucaused and sed and nono others; liability imposed when and only when it is “right” others; liability imposed when and only when it is “right” to do so

to do so

(2) Social utility or policy

(2) Social utility or policy – a good-for-all-of-us view: – a good-for-all-of-us view: provide a system of rules that works toward the good of  provide a system of rules that works toward the good of  society

society

(3) Legal process

(3) Legal process  – litigation process is a good to be – litigation process is a good to be preserved rather than abstract ideal of justice or social preserved rather than abstract ideal of justice or social utility

(5)

(4)

(4) potenpotential tial confconflictslicts – – betwbetween justice and een justice and polipolicycy outlook and legal process outlook

outlook and legal process outlook (5) distribution of loss

(5) distribution of loss – the cost of loss suffered by– the cost of loss suffered by plaintiff is not simply transferred to the defendant but is plaintiff is not simply transferred to the defendant but is distributed through the defendant to a large number of  distributed through the defendant to a large number of  individuals

individuals

(6) redress of social grievances

(6) redress of social grievances  – tort law a popular  – tort law a popular  mechanism that permits ordinary people to put authority mechanism that permits ordinary people to put authority on trial

on trial

(7) a mixed system

(7) a mixed system – tort law a  – tort law a “mixed” set of functions“mixed” set of functions CLASSES OF TORTS: Property torts and Personal torts CLASSES OF TORTS: Property torts and Personal torts

II. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT

II. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT

A. Elements A. Elements

Art. 2176, NCC Art. 2176, NCC

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

of this Chapter.

Garcia v Florido Garcia v Florido

FACTS

FACTS: A public utility car and a bus collided, resulting: A public utility car and a bus collided, resulting in injuries to Garcia et al. The chief of police filed a in injuries to Garcia et al. The chief of police filed a criminal case against the bus driver. Garcia et al filed a criminal case against the bus driver. Garcia et al filed a civil action for damages against the owners and drivers civil action for damages against the owners and drivers of both vehicles. Bus company and driver filed a motion of both vehicles. Bus company and driver filed a motion to dismiss. CFI dismissed the civil action holding that the to dismiss. CFI dismissed the civil action holding that the right to file a separate civil action was not reserved and right to file a separate civil action was not reserved and that the action was not

that the action was not based on QD.based on QD. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the case was proper. NOWON the dismissal of the case was proper. NO HELD:

HELD: The action was based on QD and it The action was based on QD and it may proceedmay proceed independently. The essential averments for a QD action independently. The essential averments for a QD action are present in this case, namely:

are present in this case, namely: (1) act or

(1) act or omission of private respondents;omission of private respondents;

(2) presence of fault or negligence or lack of due care in (2) presence of fault or negligence or lack of due care in the operation of the passenger bus by its

the operation of the passenger bus by its driver resultingdriver resulting in the collision;

in the collision;

(3) physical injuries and other damages sustained by (3) physical injuries and other damages sustained by petitioners as a result of the

petitioners as a result of the collision;collision;

(4) existence of direct causal connection between the (4) existence of direct causal connection between the dam

damage or age or prejprejudicudice e and the and the faulfault t or or neglnegligenigence of ce of  private respondents; and

private respondents; and (5)

(5) the the abseabsence nce of of preepreexistixisting ng contrcontractuaactual l relarelationstions between the parties.

between the parties.

The allegation that private respondents violated traffic The allegation that private respondents violated traffic rules does not detract from the nature and the character  rules does not detract from the nature and the character  of

of the the actactioions ns as as one baseone based d on on culculpa pa aquaquiliilianaana.. Excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear  Excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear  indication of

indication of negligence.negligence.

C C L L A A S S S S N N O O T T EE

 Important: Take note of 4 elements of QD: (1)Important: Take note of 4 elements of QD: (1) acts or

acts or omiomissiossion n consconstitutitituting ng neglnegligenigence; ce; (2)(2) damage; (3) direct causal connection between damage; (3) direct causal connection between damage and act or omission; (4) no

damage and act or omission; (4) no preexistingpreexisting contractual relation.

contractual relation.

 The case mentions 5 elements but Prof. CasisThe case mentions 5 elements but Prof. Casis mentioned 4.

mentioned 4.

Andamo v CA Andamo v CA

FACTS:

FACTS: The Missionaries of Our Lady of La SaletteThe Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette caused the construction of waterpaths and contrivances caused the construction of waterpaths and contrivances in

in its compounits compound. d. This allegeThis allegedly caused flooding anddly caused flooding and dam

damage to age to the adjacethe adjacent nt lot, property of lot, property of the Andamothe Andamo spo

spouseuses. s. The The AndAndamamos os filfiled ed a a cricrimiminal nal cascase e for for  destruction by means of inundation, and later also filed a destruction by means of inundation, and later also filed a civil action for

civil action for damages against respondent corporation.damages against respondent corporation. The civil case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as The civil case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the crim case was field ahead of it.

the crim case was field ahead of it. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper.WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper. HELD:

HELD: NO. The civil action was based on QD and mayNO. The civil action was based on QD and may proc

proceed indepeneed independentldently y of of the the crimcriminal case. All inal case. All thethe elements of QD are present in the complaint, to wit: elements of QD are present in the complaint, to wit: (1) damages suffered by the plaintiff;

(1) damages suffered by the plaintiff;

(2) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other  (2) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other  person for whose acts he must respond; and

person for whose acts he must respond; and

(3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or

or negnegligligencence e of of the the defdefendendant ant and and the the damdamageagess incurred by the plaintiff.

incurred by the plaintiff.

C C L L A A S S S S N N O O T T EE

 Important: Take note of 3 elements of QD: (1)Important: Take note of 3 elements of QD: (1) dam

damageages s sufsufferfered ed by by plaplaintintiffiff; ; (2) (2) faufault lt or or  negligence of defendant; (3) fault of defendant negligence of defendant; (3) fault of defendant caused damages suffered by plaintiff 

caused damages suffered by plaintiff 

Taylor v MERALCO Taylor v MERALCO

FACTS:

FACTS: 15-year old David Taylor with 2 others (Manuel15-year old David Taylor with 2 others (Manuel and

and JessiJessie) e) experexperimeimented with nted with detodetonatinnating g caps werecaps were tak

taken en frofrom m the the prepremimises ses of of MERMERALALCOCO. . DaDavid vid andand Manuel ignited the contents of the cap, resulting in an Manuel ignited the contents of the cap, resulting in an expl

explosioosion n whicwhich led h led to David’s loss of to David’s loss of his right eye.his right eye. David’s father filed an action for damages.

David’s father filed an action for damages. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON the plaintiff can recover damages in thisWON the plaintiff can recover damages in this case.

case. HELD:

HELD: NO. In order to recover damages, the followingNO. In order to recover damages, the following must be established:

must be established: (1) damages to the plaintiff; (1) damages to the plaintiff;

(2) negligence by act or omission of which defendant (2) negligence by act or omission of which defendant per

personsonallally, y, or or somsome e perperson son for for whowhose se actacts s it it mumustst respond, was guilty; and

respond, was guilty; and (3) the

(3) the connconnectioection of n of cause and effect betweecause and effect between then the negligence and the

negligence and the damage.damage.

C C L L A A S S S S N N O O T T EE

 Important: Qualification of negligence – fault or Important: Qualification of negligence – fault or  neg

negligligencence e is is a a sousource rce of of oblobligaigatiotion n whwhenen between such negligence and the injury there between such negligence and the injury there exists the relation of cause and effect

exists the relation of cause and effect

Tayag v Alcantara Tayag v Alcantara

FACTS:

FACTS: TayTayag ag who was who was ridriding on ing on a a bicbicyclycle e aloalongng McArthur Highway was bumped by a bus and died. His McArthur Highway was bumped by a bus and died. His heirs sued the bus owner and driver for damages. A heirs sued the bus owner and driver for damages. A crim case was also filed against the bus driver. The bus crim case was also filed against the bus driver. The bus driver was acquitted in the crim case on the ground of  driver was acquitted in the crim case on the ground of  reasonable doubt. CFI sustained private

reasonable doubt. CFI sustained private respondents’respondents’ MTS the civil case on the ground of lack of COA due to MTS the civil case on the ground of lack of COA due to the acquittal of the bus

the acquittal of the bus driver in the crim case.driver in the crim case. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper.WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper. HELD:

HELD: No. The petitioner’s COA being based on a QD,No. The petitioner’s COA being based on a QD, the acquittal of the driver in the crim case is not a bar to the acquittal of the driver in the crim case is not a bar to the civil case for damages based on QD.

(6)

All the essentia

All the essential l avermaverments for ents for a QD a QD actiaction areon are present, namely:

present, namely: 1)

1) Act or oAct or omissmission coion constitnstituting uting fault ofault or neglr negligenigencece on the part of

on the part of private respondent;private respondent; 2)

2) DamDamage caage caused used by the by the said said act or oact or omismissionsion;; 3)

3) DireDirect cauct causal resal relatilation beton between ween the dathe damage mage andand the act or

the act or omission; andomission; and 4)

4) No pre-eNo pre-exisxistinting g concontratractuctual relatal relation betwion betweeneen the parties.

the parties.

C C L L A A S S S S N N O O T T EE Important:

Important: There must exisThere must exist a direct causal connect a direct causal connectiontion 1. act or

1. act or omissionomission I SANGCO (pp. 1-4) I SANGCO (pp. 1-4)

-- Conduct may be legally described in terms of Conduct may be legally described in terms of actionaction and

and inacinaction tion or or “mis“misfeasafeasance” nce” or or “nonf“nonfeasaeasance.”nce.” Misfeasance is active misconduct working positive Misfeasance is active misconduct working positive in

injurjury y to to othothersers; ; whiwhile le nonnonfeafeasansance ce is is paspassivsivee inaction or failure to take steps to protect them from inaction or failure to take steps to protect them from harm

harm

-- Liability in tort may be predicated upon an injuryLiability in tort may be predicated upon an injury resulting from an unlawful or illegal act or omission, resulting from an unlawful or illegal act or omission, whether injury is on property or person

whether injury is on property or person 2. cause damage

2. cause damage I SANGCO (pp. 87-90) I SANGCO (pp. 87-90)

-- QD QD lialiabilbility ity prepresupsupposposes es 2 2 conconditditionions: s: (1) (1) aa connection of cause and effect between the person connection of cause and effect between the person liable and the fact from which damage results; (2) a liable and the fact from which damage results; (2) a fault of this person, which implies at once an act of  fault of this person, which implies at once an act of  intelligent volition that is illicit, or contrary to law intelligent volition that is illicit, or contrary to law

-- It must be shown that the damage to the plaintiff,It must be shown that the damage to the plaintiff, who must prove it, was the natural and probable, or  who must prove it, was the natural and probable, or  direct and immediate consequence of defendant’s direct and immediate consequence of defendant’s culpable act or omission

culpable act or omission

-- Proximate cause is determined on the facts of eachProximate cause is determined on the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of logic, common case upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent.

sense, policy and precedent.

3. fault or

3. fault or negligencenegligence I SANGCO (p5-7) I SANGCO (p5-7)

-- NegNegligligencence e is is the the “fa“faililure ure to to obsobserverve, e, for for thethe prote

protection of ction of the interest of the interest of anotanother person, thather person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the cir

circumcumstastancences s reareasonsonablably y imimpospose. e. WheWhen n thethe danger is great a high degree of care is necessary, danger is great a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care.”

care.”

-- Negligence is conduct, not a state of mind or theNegligence is conduct, not a state of mind or the use of

use of sound judgment.sound judgment.

-- Negligence is a matter of risk – that is to say, of Negligence is a matter of risk – that is to say, of  cogn

cognizabizable le dangdanger er of of injuinjury. The ry. The actor does actor does notnot des

desire ire to to bribring ng aboabout ut the the conconseqsequenuences ces whiwhichch follow, nor does he know that they are substantially follow, nor does he know that they are substantially to occur, or believe they will. There is merely a risk to occur, or believe they will. There is merely a risk of such consequences sufficiently great to lead a of such consequences sufficiently great to lead a reasonable man in his position to anticipate them, reasonable man in his position to anticipate them, and to guard against them.

and to guard against them.

-- The The culculpabpabiliility ty of of the the actactor’or’s s conconducduct t mumust st bebe  judged in the light of the possibilities apparent to  judged in the light of the possibilities apparent to him at the time and not by looking backward “with him at the time and not by looking backward “with the wisdom born of the event.” The standard must the wisdom born of the event.” The standard must be one of conduct, rather than consequences. At be one of conduct, rather than consequences. At the same time, the standard imposed must be an the same time, the standard imposed must be an external one, based upon what society demands of  external one, based upon what society demands of  the individual rather than upon his own notion of  the individual rather than upon his own notion of  what is proper.

what is proper.

-- Intentional omissions must not be treated as casesIntentional omissions must not be treated as cases of negligence. These are not cases of omissions; of negligence. These are not cases of omissions; they are cases of positive action.

they are cases of positive action.

B. Distinguished B. Distinguished A. Quasi-delict v Delict A. Quasi-delict v Delict Art 2177, NCC Art 2177, NCC Resp

Responsionsibilibility ty for for fault or fault or neglnegligenigence ce undeunder r thethe preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for  Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for  the same act or omission of the

the same act or omission of the defendant.defendant. Art 365, RPC.

Art 365, RPC. Imprudence and Negligence.Imprudence and Negligence. Reck

Reckless less imprimprudenudence ce consiconsists sts in in voluvoluntarintarily, ly, butbut without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or  of precaution on the part of the person performing or  failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his emp

employmloyment ent or or occupoccupationation, , degredegree e of of intelintelligeligence,nce,

physi

physical cal condcondition ition and and other other circucircumstamstance nce regaregardingrding persons, time and place.

persons, time and place. Si

Simpmple le imimprprududenence ce coconsnsisists ts in in ththe e lalack ck of of  pre

precaucautiotion n disdisplaplayed yed in in thothose se cascases es in in whiwhich ch thethe damage impending to be caused is not immediate not damage impending to be caused is not immediate not he danger clearly manifest.

he danger clearly manifest.

Barredo v Garcia, supra Barredo v Garcia, supra

RULE:

RULE: A QD A QD or culpa aquilior culpa aquiliana is ana is a separate legala separate legal institution under the CC, with a substantially all its own, institution under the CC, with a substantially all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from crime.

from crime.

C L C L A S A S S S N N O O T T E SE S D

Deelliicctt QQuuaassii--DDeelliicctt P

Puubblliic c iinntteerreesstt PPrriivvaatte e iinntteerreesstt P

Peennaal l CCooddee CCiivviil l CCooddee Pun

Punishished ed onlonly y by by penpenalal law

law

A

Anny y kkiinnd d oof f ffaauullt t oof  f   negligence

negligence Guil

Guilt t beyobeyond nd reasoreasonablnablee doubt doubt P Prreeppoonnddeerraanncce e oof  f   evidence evidence People v Ligon People v Ligon FACTS:

FACTS: Based on the testimony of a taxi driver, GabatBased on the testimony of a taxi driver, Gabat was

was convconvicted of icted of RobbRobbery ery with Homiciwith Homicide de commcommitteditted against a 17-yo student working as a cigarette vendor. against a 17-yo student working as a cigarette vendor. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON Gabat’s guilt was proven BRD.WON Gabat’s guilt was proven BRD. HELD:

HELD: NO. Gabat’s guilt NO. Gabat’s guilt has not has not been establibeen establishedshed bey

beyond ond reareasonsonabable le doudoubt, bt, but but prepreponponderderancance e of of  evid

evidence establience establishes that shes that by his by his ct ct or or omiomissiossion, n, withwith fault and negligence, he caused damage to the victim fault and negligence, he caused damage to the victim and should answer civilly for

and should answer civilly for the damage done.the damage done. It does not f

It does not f ollow that a person who is not ollow that a person who is not criminallcriminallyy liable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt of the liable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt of the accused in a criminal case must be established BRD, accused in a criminal case must be established BRD, only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil ac

actition on fofor r dadamamageges. s. ThThe e jujudgdgmement nt of of acacququitittatall ext

extinginguisuishes hes civcivil il lialiabilbility ity onlonly y whewhen n it it incincludludes es aa decl

declaratiaration on that the that the facts from facts from whiwhich ch the the civicivil l liabliabilityility might arise did not exist.

References

Related documents

The target audience for the Master Black Belt MBB certification are candidates who are or have been employed as MBBs within their organization, or well qualified certified Six

✓ Usage errors are essentially errors that occur during typical usage of the software and can happen randomly from time to time when another service or routine has caused

In the breakdown of main- tenance costs for end-user desktops, maintaining the OS (or base image), is generally the lesser amount when compared to managing the “workspace”, or all

Soft infrastructure therefore plays an important role in increasing economic growth and productivity, reducing poverty and narrowing the development gap among

Bless the Lord, all waters above the heaven sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever... (Prayer of Azariah and his Companions,

If manually installing the driver does not resolve the issue or if the network adapter is not present in Device Manager try clean installing the.. Ethernet port is an existing

The project development objectives (PDOs) were " to improve the capacity of the main navigation channel in Meizhou Bay and enhance the management capacity of Meizhou Bay