Lecture Notes In Torts And Damages (1) 6p1638

/aamn2015 LECTURE NOTES IN TORTS AND DAMAGES Under Dean Ed Vincent Albano  Kinds of Torts 1) Intentional Tort – an act intended to cause damage to another 2) Negligent Tort 3) Strict Liability Tort  Article 19, NCC (Rule on Abuse of Right); Article 1314, NCC  E.g. In a contract to sell executed by B in favor of A, where A pays an amount to B for five years, and on the last day of instalment, B sells the lot to C, then A can file an action against B for damages.  Article 1314, NCC – the inducer is liable for damages; interfering with the contractual relationship of other parties (liability is based on tort)  Case: Hospicio de San Jose  Article 21, NCC (acts contra bonus mores) – added to the Civil Code in order to arrest a void in the law  E.g. Breach of promise to marry – basically not an actionable wrong; but can be a reason for an action for damages based on the peculiar circumstances of the case such as when the plaintiff has incurred big expenses in preparation for the wedding  Possible void in the law: where there can be no criminal liability but the act was contrary to morals, good customs or public policy and thereby caused damage to another  Article 2183, NCC – defense against liability is CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE  Relate to Article 2187; 2193, NCC  Case: Dayrit vs. CA; Co vs. CA; Air vs. Carrascoso (there is tort even if there is a contractual relation; similar with Art. 1314 in inducing another to violate his contract)  Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor  Art. 2176, NCC – covers not only negligent acts but also intentional or voluntary acts  Prohibition against recovery of damages TWICE  Elements: (1) There must be an act or omission that causes DAMAGE – relate to “damnun absque injuria”; relate to Art. 430, NCC and the owner’s fencing of his/her property; (2) No pre-existing contractual relationship - case: PSBA vs. CA; (3) The act or omission is the cause of the damage done  DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA – violation of a legal right; applicable in criminal cases involving Art.11, RPC (Justifying Circumstances)  RES IPSA LOQUITOR – “The thing speaks for itself”; a rule of evidence rather than of civil law; case: Africa vs. Caltex; Batiquin vs. CA

/aamn2015  DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE - case: Picart vs. Smith; relate to Art.2185, NCC; applies to negligence of banks  Read the following cases: Pilapil vs. CA (force majeure); De Guzman vs. CA  Fortuitous event must be the proximate and only cause; fortuitous event in a non-concurrence of the Senate to a treaty  Prohibition against recovery of damages twice (can recover the higher of the two damages/ awards but never both)  Article 2183, NCC; animal causes damage to another)  STRICT LIABILITY TORT - defense: contributory negligence (not a complete defense, merely reduces liability of defendant)  Case: Bataclan vs. Medina  Article 2180, NCC – no longer controlling; no longer an alternative liability; under the Family Code, parents are now tly liable for torts caused by their minor children in their custody  See RA 6809 amending the Family Code – parents are liable for torts committed by their children 18-21 years old but still living under their company/ custody; liability under the Deep Pocket Rule  Case: Delgado vs. CA; Tamargo vs. CA  PRIOR RULE: A teacher is liable for damages if the school is a school of arts and trades; NOW ABANDONED; case: Palisco vs. Brillantes; Amadora vs. CA  CURRENT RULE: regardless of the nature of school, the school is liable for school-istered activities in case of tortuous acts, e.g. during field trips  State is liable if it acts through a SPECIAL AGENT, because the State gives its consent to be sued; case: Palafox vs. Ilocos Norte; Municipality of San Fernando La Union vs. PNB  Employer-Employee Relationship; defense of the employer: diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the employer; case: Mercury Drug vs. Huang  Case: Castilex Industrial Corp. vs. Vasquez; Filamer Christian Institute  “ed Owner Rule”; recourse of ed owner against the buyer is to file a third-party complaint  Case: R. Transport Co.; Domingo vs. Villanueva

RA 6809 amending Article 236, FC; RA 4136 Article 2189, NCC – LGU exercising control and supervision State gives consent to be sued either by general law or special law “Manhole cases”; case: Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan Strict Liability Tort – possession of animal; the animal must cause damage; case: Afialda vs. Hisole – present possessor of animal is liable even if the animal gores the owner to death; POSSIBLE DEFENSE: Contributory negligence of plaintiff; serves only to mitigate the liability of owner  Case: Dayrit vs. CA; Koh vs. CA  Concept of Consequential Damages (possible loss of income/closure); manufacturer is liable for defect in goods, not the wholesaler or retailer     

/aamn2015  Art. 2190 in relation to Art. 1723, NCC liability of contractor for building defects; case: Hospicio de San Jose vs. Findlay Miller Timber Co.; defense of diligence of a good father of a family (otherwise, may be considered a t tortfeasor)  Defense of parents, teachers, employers, State: PATER FAMILIAS  Case: Filamer Christian Institute; note that the school was held liable even in the absence of employer-employee relationship  Assumption of Risk, e.g. Boxing Match, baseball game; athlete  Prescriptive Period of four (4) years for filing an action for tort/quasi delict  Volenti Non Fit Injuria – self-inflicted injury  Defenses: (1) Diligence of a good father of family; (2) Fortuitous events (negligent cases) only if it is the proximate and only cause; different if it concurs with actor’s negligence; actor is still liable  HUMAN RELATIONS – read in reference to discussions under Persons and Family Relations  Art. 19 – “the catch-all provision of the law”; e.g. an action for damages basedo on Art. 19 for one who fails to honor a perfected option contract when he sells the property before the end of the period for exercising the option  Case: Padilla vs. CA; Velayo vs. Shell Co (Phil) GR No. L-7817 Oct. 31, 1956  Art. 21 – purpose is to arrest a void in the law; case: Batara vs. Marcos (7 Phil 156/ No. 2929, Dec. 7, 1906)  Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong in itself but if there is an act independent of the breach which causes damage, an action for damages under Art. 21 of the NCC shall prosper.  Rule 111 (Rules of Court) – if acquittal is beyond reasonable doubt, accused can still be held civilly liable; if acquittal is based on the fact that there is no basis of the charge, accused cannot be held civilly liable  Case: Mendoza vs. Arieta; Chin vs. Nicdao  Article 22, NCC – solution indebiti; unjust unrichment  Case: GSIS vs. CA

         

Finders-Keepers Law (Art. 719 -720, NCC) Read Articles 23, 26, NCC Case: Kim vs. People (cash advance in the nature of a loan) Art. 32, NCC – constitutional rights enumerated; violations cannot be criminal acts, but can be subject to independent civil action Art. 32, 33, 34, 2175 NCC – no need for reservation of civil action; only needs preponderance of evidence On searches and seizures - case: Villavicencio vs. Lukban Art. 33, NCC – defamation, fraud, physical injuries Note: BP 22 does not allow reservation for civil action or independent civil action Art. 315 RPC allows independent civil action Damages in defamation (libel/slander); physical injuries (used in its generic sense to include death; case: People vs. Teehankee)

/aamn2015

 Physical injuries include death (Civil Code)  In order to get exemplary damages (in murder/homicide), at least one aggravating circumstance must be proved.  No reservation, no independent civil action in violations of BP 22; independent civil action is available under Art. 315, RPC  Prejudicial question; case: Mercado vs. Tan (civil case of declaration of nullity of marriage is a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy); the civil case must be file ahead of the criminal action  Principle of Res Judicata - a criminal case may be dismissed based on res judicata (previous decision in a civil case) e.g. forgery case and probate of will; case: Cruz vs. Sandiganbayan  SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER (in criminal prosecution against employer) – if employee has insufficient funds to satisfy judgment; insolvent  In a rent-a-car company, lessee is not employee  Civil liabilities of the accused involve (1) reparation and (2) restoration

 Damages under the Civil Code – MENTAL: Moral, Exemplary, Nominal, Temperate, Actual and Compensatory  Actual/Compensatory Damages – need to be proven; proof needed; i.e. receipts (documentary evidence); testimonial evidence is not sufficient cannot be based on speculation  Temperate Damages – awarded when a right was violated but there is no means to determine actual damages; case: Victory Liner vs. Palparan; People vs. Teehankee  Damages in case of death – General rule: Php 50,000; in cases of murder and crimes where the penalty is reclusion perpetua- Php 75,000; in cases of homicide: Php 50,000  LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY: 2/3 x 80 – (age of person at the time of death) = Life Expectancy; multiply life expectancy with the salary/wages of deceased  case: People vs. Julian; presumption – 50% presumed savings; 50% presumed expenses  case: Mercury Drug vs. Huang; PLTB vs. Carriaga  Moral damages awarded in case of quasi-delict resulting in physical injuries (includes death), according to discretion of court; see Art. 2219, NCC  Award of damages to corporations

 Actual or compensatory damages must be proved  If compensatory damages cannot be proved, temperate damages may still be recovered  Exception to the rule that actual/compensatory damages must be proved by Documentary evidence: if the decedent was not employed or self-employed and earning amount below minimum wage, compensatory damages may be proven by TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

/aamn2015  More than one (1) aggravating circumstance is required to recover exemplary damages  Art. 32 e.g. violation of freedom of religion – moral damages may be awarded, e.g. INC /employees discarded because of closed-shop agreement  Art. 34 – moral damages may be recovered from a police officer who refuses to extend aid in cases of danger to life and property  Consider the economic and social standing of parties when awarding moral damages  GENERAL RULE: A juridical person cannot be awarded moral damages; they have no nervous system to experience wounded feelings; Exception: In cases where the corporation’s name and reputation are besmirched  : In case of quasi-delict, in order to recover exemplary damages, gross negligence must be proven; in criminal cases, prove the presence of more than one (1) aggravating circumstance; in obligations and contracts, in case of excessive penalties, the court may reduce the amount but may not declare the liquidated amount of damages void.  With regard to the topic of nuisance, refer to the discussions under Property. ** nothing follows** God bless for the Finals!