Torts And Damages Case Digest 2738a

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines III. NEGLIGENCE

IV.

CAUSATION:

PROXIMATE

CAUSE

A. CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE

A. DEFINITION

B. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE C. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE

De Bataclan vs. Mariano Medina ......... 20

D. DEFENSES

Sofia Fernando vs. CA .......................... 22 Filomeno Urbano vs. CA....................... 22

1. PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE

Phoenix Construction vs. IAC ............... 23

Manila Electric vs. Sotero Rebioquillo .....6

Pilipinas Bank vs. CA............................ 23

Juan Bernardo vs. M. B. Legaspi...............6 Tomas Bernal vs. J. V. House ....................7 PLDT vs. CA ...............................................8 2. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Quezon City vs. Fulgencio Dacara ........ 24 B.

Gabeto vs. Agaton Araneta .................. 25 Filomeno Urbano vs. Appellate Court.. 25

Philippine Bank Of Commerce vs. CA.......9

2. CONCURRENT

3. FORTUITOUS EVENT

Far Eastern Shipping Co. vs CA............. 26

Roberto Juntilla vs. Clemente Fontanar 10

Prospero Sabido vs. CArlos Custodio ... 27 C. TESTS De Bataclan vs. Mariano Medina ......... 27

Servando vs. Philippine Steam .............. 13

Philippine Rabbit vs. IAC ...................... 28

NAPOCOR vs. CA ................................... 13

Phoenix Construction vs. IAC ............... 29

Southeastern College, Inc. vs. CA .......... 15

Manila Electric vs. Sotero Rebioquillo . 30

4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK Margarita Afialda vs. Basilio Hisole ....... 16 Ilocos Norte Electric Co. vs. CA ............. 16

Remigio Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad30 D. EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE George Mckee vs. IAC .......................... 31

5. DUE DILIGENCE

Manila Electric vs. Sotero Rebioquillo . 32

Placido C. Ramos vs. Pepsi-Cola ............ 17

Teague vs. Elena Fernandez ................. 33

Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. CA ....... 18 6. PRESCRIPTION Ernesto Kramer, Jr. vs. CA ..................... 19 Allied Banking Corp. vs. CA ................... 20

Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

OTHER

1. REMOTE

M. H. Rakes vs. Atlantic ............................9

Gotesco Investment vs. Chatto ............. 12

FROM

KINDS

Gregorio Genobiagon vs. CA ....................8

Teodoro M. Hernandez vs. COA ............ 11

DISTINGUISHED

|

Filomeno Urbano vs. Appellate Court.. 34 E.

LAST CLEAR CHANCE Amado Picart vs. Frank Smith, Jr.......... 35 Emma Adriano Bustamante vs. CA ...... 35

Submitted to: Atty. Jennifer N. Asuncion

Page 1

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Phoenix Construction vs. IAC ................ 36

Chapman vs. James M. Underwood ......50

Glan People’s Lumber vs. IAC................ 38

Marcial T. CAedo vs. Yu Khe Thai ...........51

Pantranco vs. Maricar Bascos Baesa ..... 38

Felina Rodriguez-Luna vs. IAC ................53

Philippine Bank vs. CA ........................... 39 Amador C. Ong vs. Metropolitan 40

B. VICARIOUS LIABILITY 1. PARENTS

Gregorio Anuran vs. Pepito Buno ......... 41

Sabina Exconde vs. Delfin Capuno .........53

Edna A. Raynera vs. Freddie Hiceta ...... 42

Severino Salen vs. Jose Balce .................54

Osmundo S. CAnlas vs. CA..................... 42

Agapito Fuellas vs. Elpidio Cadano.........55

Consolidated Bank vs. CA ...................... 43

Gutierrez vs. Bonifacio Gutierrez ...........56

Rogelio Engada vs. CA ........................... 43

Felina Rodriguez-Luna vs. IAC ................57

V. LIABILITY

Cresencio Libi vs. IAC .............................58 Macario Tamargo vs. CA .......................59

A. POSSESSOR OF ANIMALS

Maria Teresa Y. Cuadra vs. Monfort ......60

Purita Miranda Vestil vs IAC .................. 44 B. THINGS THROWN OR FALLING FROM

2. GUARDIANS

A BUILDING

3.

Jose Dingdong vs. Halim Kanaan ........... 44

TEACHERS

&

HEADS

OF

INSTITUTIONS

C. DEATH INJURIES IN THE COURSE OF

Ciriaco L. Mercado vs. CA .......................61

EMPLOYMENT

Moises P. Palisoc vs. Brillantes...............61 Jose S. Amadora vs. CA ..........................62

Justa Afable vs. Singer Sewing .............. 45 D.

STRICT

LIABILITY

/

Reynaldo Pasco vs. CFI ...........................63

PRODUCT

LIABILITY

Federico Ylarde vs. Edgardo Aquino ......64 Benjamin Salvosa vs. IAC........................65

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS vs. CA................ 46 E.

INTERFERANCE

St. Francis High School vs. CA.................66

WITH

PSBA vs. CA.............................................67

CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

F.

C. S. Gilchrist vs. E. A. Cuddy Et Al. ........ 47

Maximino Soliman, Jr. vs. Tuazon ..........68

So Ping Bun vs. CA ................................. 48

St. Mary's Academy vs. Carpitanos ........69

LIABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

UNITS Florentina A. Guilatco vs. Dagupan ....... 48

4.

OWNERS

AND

MANAGERS

OF

ESTABLISHMENTS Philippine Rabbit vs. Phil-American .......70 5. EMPLOYERS

VI. PERSONS LIABLE

Philtranco vs. CA ....................................71

A. THE TORTFEASOR

Castilex Industrial Vs. Vasquez ...............72

Dean C. Worcester vs. Martin Ocampo 50 Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 2

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Filamer vs. IAC ....................................... 72

Victoria G. Capuno vs. Pepsi-Cola .........90

Light Rail Transit vs. Marjorie Navidad 74

Laura Corpus vs. Felardo Paje ................91

George Mckee vs. IAC ........................... 74

Maria Benita A. Dulay vs. CA ..................92

Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela vs. CA ............. 75 6. STATE E. Merritt vs. Gov’t Of The Philippine ... 76 Inocencio Rosete vs. Auditor General ... 77 Marcos Mendoza vs. De Leon ............... 78 Jose Fontanilla vs. Maliaman ................ 79 City Of Manila vs. Genero M. Teotico ... 79 Republic vs. Perfecto R. Palacio ............ 80

VIII. INTENTIONAL TORTS A. ABUSE OF RIGHTS Alfredo M. Velayo vs. Shell ....................93 Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA..................93 Globe Mackay vs. CA ..............................93 Albenson Enterprises vs. CA .................94 Sergio Amonoy vs. Spouses Gutierrez ...95 UE vs. Romeo A. Jader ...........................95

7. OTHERS

Esteria F. Garciano vs. CA.......................96

Luis Ma. Araneta vs. Antonio R. De Joya 81 Felix Lanuzo vs. Mendoza ..................... 81 Francisca Viluan vs. CA .......................... 82

VII. TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION

Barons Marketing vs. CA ........................97 BPI vs. CA................................................97 B. ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES 1. ELEMENTS enrique J.L. Ruiz vs. Secretary ................98

A. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS Delfin Lim vs. De Leon ........................... 83 Rogelio Aberca vs. Fabian Ver ............... 84 MHP Garments, Inc. vs. CA ................... 85 B.

3. PHYSICAL INJURIES

NPC vs. CA ............................................. 73

DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHUSICAL

INJURIES

2. EXAMPLES a. BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY, SEDUCTION AND SEXUAL ASSAULT Beatriz P. Wassmer vs. Velez .................99 Apolonio Tanjanco vs. CA.......................99 Conrado Bunag, Jr. vs CA .....................100 Amelita Constantino vs. Ivan Mendez .101

Maximo Marcia vs. CA........................... 86 CArmen L. Madeja vs. Felix T. CAro ...... 86 Arafiles vs. Philippine Journalists, Inc. .. 87 1. DEFAMATION

CArmen Quimiguing vs. Felix Icao ........101 Cecilio Pe vs. Alfonso Pe ......................102 b. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION Andres Lao vs. CA .................................103

MVRS Publications vs. Islamic .............. 88 2. FRAUD

Magtanggol Que vs. Iac ........................103 Franklin M. Drilon vs. CA ......................104

Almario T. Salta vs. Jesus De Veyra ....... 89 Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 3

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines c. PUBLIC HUMILIATION

c. CERTAINTY

Rafael Patricio vs. Oscar Leviste .......... 105

Dbp vs. CA ............................................115

Grand Union vs. Jose J. Espino ............ 105

Alejandro Fuentes vs. CA .....................116

d. UNJUST DISMISSAL

d. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY

Singapore Airlines vs. Cruz Paño ........ 106 Medina vs. Astro-Bartolome .............. 107

IX. OTHER TORTS

PNOC Shipping vs. CA...........................116 e. PERSONAL INJURY AND DEATH Rogelio E. Ramos vs. CA .......................117 Reynalda Gatchalian vs. Delim .............118

A. DERELICTION OF DUTY Cornelio Amaro vs. Sumanguit............ 107

f. ATTORNEY’S FEES Jose C. Quirante vs. Iac ........................118

B. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE C. VIOLATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY AND

g. INTEREST Crismina Garments vs. CA ....................119

PRIVACY St. Louis Realty vs. CA ......................... 108 Rodrigo Concepcion vs. CA ................. 109

h. MITIGATION OF LIABILITY Vivencio Cerrano vs. Tan Chuco ...........119 2. MORAL

X. DAMAGES

a. CONCEPT

A. DEFINITION AND CONCEPTS People vs. Felipe Ballesteros ............... 110 Spouses Custodio vs. CA ..................... 111

Victor Kierulf vs. CA..............................120 b. PROOF OF PROXIMATE CAUSE

Heirs Of Borlado vs. CA ....................... 111

Miranda-Ribaya vs. Bautista ................121

Lazatin vs. Twaño ................................ 112

Virgilio M. Del Rosario vs. CA ...............122 Raagas vs. Octavio Traya ......................122

B. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA Board Of Liquidators vs. Kalaw ........... 112 Spouses Custodio vs. CA ..................... 113

People vs. Rodelio Bugayong ...............124 c. CASES WHERE ALLOWED

C. KINDS OF DAMAGES 1. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY Lucio Algarra vs. Sixto Sandejas .......... 113 a. KINDS Pnoc Shipping vs. CA ........................... 114 Integrated Packaging vs. CA ................ 115 b. EXTENT Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

Roque Enervida vs. De La Torre ...........123

Trinidad J. Francisco vs. GSIS ...............124 Expertravel vs. CA ................................124 d. UNFOUNDED SUITS Editha M. Mijares vs. CA ......................126 Pantaleon De La Peña vs. CA................127 “J” Marketing Corp. vs. Felicidad Sia....127 Reynaldo T. Cometa vs. CA ..................128

|


Page 4

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Triple Eight vs. NLRC ........................... 129 People vs. Pirame ................................ 129 CArlos Arcona vs. CA ........................... 129 e.

FACTORS

IN

DETERMINING

AMOUNT PNB vs. CA ........................................... 130 Gregorio Fule vs. CA ............................ 131 Philippine Airlines vs. CA ..................... 132 Arturo P. Valenzuela vs. CA ................. 132 Aurelio Sumalpong vs. CA ................... 133 Fernando Lopez vs. Pan American ...... 134 Producers Bank vs. CA......................... 135 f. WHO MAY RECOVER Emilio Strebel vs. Jose Figueras........... 135 Abs-Cbn vs. CA .................................... 136 Napocor vs. Philipp Brothers .............. 137 3. NOMINAL Robes-Francisco Realty vs. Cfi ............. 137 People vs. Agustin Gopio .................... 138 Herman Armovit vs. CA ....................... 139 4. TEMPERATE Maximo Pleno vs. CA........................... 139 People vs. Balwinder Singh ................. 140 People vs. Edison Plazo ....................... 140 5. LIQUIDATED 6. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE PNB vs. CA ........................................... 141 Virgilio M. Del Rosario vs. CA .............. 141


|


Page 5

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines III. NEGLIGENCE

injury, even though such injury would

A. CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE

not have happened but for such

B. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE

existed

C. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE

condition or occasion. If no danger in

the

condition

except

because’ of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate

D. DEFENSES

cause.

1. PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE

And

if

an

independent

negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the circumstances which result in injury because of the

GR NO. L-8328, May 18, 1956 MANILA ELECTRIC VS. SOTERO

prior

defective

condition,

such

subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause.

REBIOQUILLO The principal and proximate cause of the electrocution was not the electric wire, evidently a remote cause, but rather the reckless and negligent act

GR NO. 9308, December 23, 1914

of Magno in turning around and

JUAN BERNARDO VS. M. B. LEGASPI

swinging the galvanized iron sheet

The court found upon the evidence

without taking any precaution, such

that

as looking back toward the street and

defendant were negligent in handling

at the wire to avoid its ing said

their

iron sheet, considering the lattery

negligence was of such a character

length of 6 feet.

and extent on the part of both as to

A prior and remote’ cause cannot be

prevent either from recovering.

made the basis of an action if such

Upon the facts, as they appear of

remote cause did nothing more than

record,

furnish the condition or give rise to

affirmed,

the occasion by which the injury was

s the decision of the trial

made possible, if there intervened

court. The law applicable to the facts

between such prior or remote cause

also requires an affirmance of the

and the injury a distinct, successive,

judgment appealed from. Where the

unrelated, and efficient cause of the

plaintiff in a negligence action, by his


|

both

the

plaintiff

automobiles

the as

and

judgment the


and

the

that

said

must

evidence

be

clearly

Page 6

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines own carelessness contributes to the

strictest sense could only result in

principal occurrence, that is, to the

reduction of the damages.

accident, as one of the determining

Having reached the conclusion that

causes thereof, he cannot recover. This is equally true of the defendant; and

as

both

of

them,

by

their

negligent acts, contributed to the determining cause of the accident, neither can recover.

liability

exists,

we

next

turn

to

discover who can recover damages for the obligation, and against whom the action

will

lie.

The

plaintiffs

are

Tomas Bernal and Fortunata Enverso. The

latter

was

the

mother

of

Purification Bernal and the former was the natural father, who had never legally G. R No. 30741, January 30, 1930 TOMAS BERNAL VS. J. V. HOUSE The mother and her child had a perfect right to be on the principal street of Tacloban, Leyte, on the evening when the religions procession was

held.

There

was

nothing

abnormal in allowing the child to run along a few paces in advance of the mother. No one could foresee the

coincidence

of

an

automobile

appearing and of a frightened child running and falling into a ditch filled with

hot

water.

The

doctrines

announced in the much debated case of Bakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific

recognized

his

child.

The

daughter lived with the mother, and presumably was ed by her. Under these facts, recovery should be permitted the mother but not the father. As to the defendants, they are J. V. House and the Tacloban Electric & Ice Plant, Ltd. J. V. House was granted a franchise by Act No. 2700 of the Philippine Legislature approved on March 9, 1917. He only transferred this franchise formally to the Tacloban Electric & Ice Plant, Ltd. on March 30, 1926, that is, nearly a year after the death of the child Purificacion Bernal. Under these facts, J. V. House is solely responsible.

Co., still rule. Article 1902 of the Civil Code must again be enforced. The

contributory negligence of the child and her mother, if any, does not operate as a bar to recovery, but in its Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 7

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 57079, September 29, 1989

where their own failure to exercise

PLDT VS. CA The perils of the road were known to, hence appreciated and assumed by, private

respondents. By

reasonable

care

exercising

and

prudence,

respondent Antonio Esteban could have

avoided

consequences

the

of

his

assuming arguendo that

cannot charge PLDT for their injuries

injurious act,

even

there

was

some alleged negligence on the part of petitioner.

due and reasonable care was the cause thereof. It is both a societal norm and necessity that one should exercise

a

caution

reasonable for

degree

his

of own

protection. Furthermore, respondent Antonio Esteban had the last clear chance or opportunity to avoid the accident,

notwithstanding

the

negligence he imputes to petitioner PLDT. As a resident of Lacson Street,

The presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident; the only purpose of said signs was to inform and warn the public of the presence of excavations on the site. The private respondents already knew of the presence of said excavations. It was not the lack of

he

ed

on that street almost

everyday and had knowledge of the

presence

and

excavations

location

there. It

of

the

was

his

negligence that exposed him and his wife to danger, hence he is solely responsible for the consequences of his imprudence.

knowledge of these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into

the

excavation

but

the

unexplained sudden swerving of the

2.CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

jeep from the inside lane towards the accident mound. As opined in some quarters, the omission to perform a

GR NO. L-40452, October 12, 1989

duty, such as the placing of warning signs on the site of the excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act would have prevented the injury. It is

basic

that

private


respondents |

GREGORIO GENOBIAGON VS. CA The alleged contributory negligence

of

the

victim,

if

any,

does

not

exonerate the accused. “The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed


Page 8

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines through reckless imprudence, since

and, as I understand it, in every case

one cannot allege the negligence of

in which contributory negligence is a

another to evade the effects of his

defense it is made so because the

own negligence.”

negligence of the plaintiff is the cause of the accident, to this extent, that if the plaintiff had not been negligent the

accident

would

not

have

GR NO. 1719, January 23, 1907

happened, although the defendant

M. H. RAKES VS. ATLANTIC

the negligence of the defendant is not

Under the circumstances the plaintiff

alone sufficient to cause the accident.

was negligent in placing himself on

It requires also the negligence of the

the side of the car where he knew that

plaintiff.

was also negligent. In other words,

he would be injured by the falling of the rails from the car when they reached this point in the track where the two stringers were left without any at their ends. He either should have refused to work at all or he should have placed himself behind the car, on the other side of it, or in front of it, drawing it with a rope. He was guilty of contributory negligence

and is not entitled to recover. In order to impose liability upon the defendant, it must appear that its negligence caused the accident. The reason why contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is a defense in this class of cases is that the negligence of the defendant did not alone cause the accident. If nothing but that negligence had existed, the accident would not have happened Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

GR NO. 97626, March 14, 1997 PHILIPPINE BANK VS. CA While it is true that had private respondent

checked

the

monthly

statements of sent by the petitioner bank to RMC, the latter would have discovered the loss early on, such cannot be used by the petitioners to escape liability. This omission on the part of the private respondent does not change the fact that were it not for the wanton and reckless negligence of the petitioners’ employee in validating the incomplete duplicate deposit slips presented by Ms. Irene Yabut, the loss would not have occurred. Considering, however,


Page 9

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines that the fraud was committed in a

proximate cause of his injury, he

span of more than one (1) year

cannot recover damages. But if his

covering various deposits, common

negligence was only contributory,

human experience dictates that the

the immediate and proximate cause

same would not have been possible

of the injury being the defendant’s

without any form of collusion between

lack of due care, the plaintiff may

Ms. Yabut and bank teller Mabayad.

recover damages, but the courts

Ms. Mabayad was negligent in the

shall mitigate the damages to be

performance of her duties as bank

awarded.

teller

nonetheless.

petitioners

are

Thus,

entitled

to

the claim

reimbursement from her for whatever they shall be ordered to pay in this

3. FORTUITOUS EVENT

case. The

foregoing

notwithstanding,

it

cannot be denied that, indeed, private respondent was likewise negligent in not checking its monthly statements of . Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the series of frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary. The damage would definitely not have ballooned to such an amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised even a little vigilance in their financial affairs. This omission by

RMC

amounts

to

contributory

negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the private respondent under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code, to wit: negligence was the immediate and |

ROBERTO JUNTILLA VS. FONTANAR While it may be true that the tire that blew-up was still good because the grooves of the tire were still visible, this fact alone does not make the explosion of the tire a fortuitous

event. No evidence was presented to show that the accident was due to adverse

road

conditions

or

that

precautions were taken by the jeepney driver

to

conditions accidents.

compensate liable

to

for

any cause

The sudden blowing-up,

therefore, could have been caused by

too much air pressure injected into the tire coupled by the fact that the

“When the plaintiff’s own


GR NO. L-45637, May 31, 1985

jeepney was overloaded and speeding at the time of the accident.


Page 10

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines In Lasam v. Smith (45 Phil. 657), we

know the correct measures to take

laid down the following essential

when a tire blows up thus insuring the

characteristics of caso fortuito:

safety of engers at all times.

“

‘In

a

legal

sense

and,

consequently, also in relation to contracts, a caso fortuito presents the

following

essential

characteristics: (1) The cause of the unforeseen

and

GR NO. 71871, November 06, 1989 TEODORO M. HERNANDEZ VS. COA

unexpected

occurrence, or of the failure of the

Section

debtor

istrative Code reads as follows:

to

comply

with

his

obligation, must be independent of the human will.

(2) It must be

impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible

to

avoid.

(3)

The

occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner.

And

(4)

the

obligor

(debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.’”

638

of

the

Revised

SEC. 638. Credit for loss occurring

in transit or due to casualty — Notice to Auditor. — When a loss of government

funds

or

property

occurs while the same is in transit or is caused by fire, theft, or other casualty,

the

officer

able

therefor or having custody thereof shall immediately notify the Auditor General, or the provincial auditor, according as a matter is within the original jurisdiction of the one or the other, and within thirty days or

In the case at bar, the cause of the

such longer period as the Auditor,

unforeseen

unexpected

or provincial auditor, may in the

occurrence was not independent of

particular case allow, shall present

the human will.

his application for relief, with the

and

The accident was

caused either through the negligence

available

of the driver or because of mechanical

thereof. An officer who fails to

defects in the tire. Common carriers

comply with this requirement shall

should teach their drivers not to

not be relieved of liability or allowed

overload their vehicles, not to exceed

credit for any such loss m the

safe and legal speed limits, and to

settlement of his s.


|

evidence


m

Page 11

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines This provision has since then been reiterated,

with

some

slight

modification, in Section 73 of P.D. No. 1445,

otherwise

known

as

the

“Government Auditing Code of the Philippines,” which was promulgated on June 11, 1978. As for Hernandez’s choice between Marilao, Bulacan, and Ternate, CAvite, one could easily agree that the former was

the

It is settled that, “The owner or proprietor

of

a

place

of

public

amusement impliedly warrants that the

premises,

appliances

and

amusement devices are safe for the purpose for which they are designed, the doctrine being subject to no other exception or qualification than that he does not contract against unknown

nearer, and in view of the comparative

defects not discoverable by ordinary

hazards in the trips to the two places.

or reasonable means.”

It

petitioner

This implied warranty has given rise

miscalculated, but the Court feels he

to the rule that, “Where a patron of a

true

destination,

GOTESCO INVESTMENT VS. CHATTO

being

is

safer

GR NO. 87584, June 16, 1992

that

the

should not be blamed for that. The decision he made seemed logical at that time and was one that could be expected of a reasonable and prudent

theater

or

other

place

of

public

amusement is injured, and the thing that caused the injury is wholly and exclusively under the control and management of the defendant, and

person. And if, as it happened, the

the accident is such as in the ordinary

two robbers attacked him in broad

course of events would not have

daylight in the jeep while it was on a

happened if proper care had been

busy highway, and in the presence of other engers, it cannot be said that all this was the result of his imprudence and negligence. This was undoubtedly

a

covered

the

by

fortuitous said

event

provisions,

something that could not have been reasonably foreseen although it could have happened, and did. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

exercised, its occurrence raises a presumption

or

permits

of

an

inference of negligence on the part of the defendant.” That presumption or inference was not overcome by the petitioner.

Besides, even assuming for the sake of

argument

that,

as

petitioner

vigorously insists, the cause of the collapse was due to force majeure,

|


Page 12

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines petitioner would still be liable because

unforeseen

and

unexpected

it was guilty of negligence, which the

occurrence, or of the failure of the

trial court denominated as gross. As

debtor to comply with his obligation,

gleaned from Bouvier’s definition of

must be independent of the human

and Cockburn’s elucidation on force

will; (2) it must be impossible to

majeure, for one to be exempt from

foresee the event which constitutes

any liability because of it, he must

the ‘caso fortuito‘, or if it can be fore-

have exercised care, i.e., he should

seen, it must be impossible to avoid;

not have been guilty of negligence.

(3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill

his

obligation

in

a

normal

GR NOS. L-36481-2, October 23,

manner; and (4) the obligor must be

1982

free from any participation in the

SERVANDO VS. PHILIPPINE STEAM

the creditor.” In the case at bar, the

aggravation of the injury resulting to

or

burning of the customs warehouse

force majeure is the immediate and

was an extraordinary event which

proximate cause of the loss, the

happened independently of the will of

obligor is exempt from liability for

the appellant. The latter could not

non-performance. The Partidas,

have foreseen the event.

Where

fortuitous

event

the

antecedent of Article 1174 of the Civil Code, defines ‘caso fortuito‘ as ‘an event that takes place by accident and

could

not

have

foreseen. Examples

GR NOS. 103442-45, May 21, 1993

been

of

this

NAPOCOR VS. CA

are

destruction of houses, unexpected

To exempt the obligor from liability

fire, shipwreck, violence of robbers.’

under Article 1174 of the Civil Code,

In its dissertation of the phrase ‘caso fortuito‘ the Enciclopedia Juridicada Española says: “In a legal sense and, consequently,

also

in

relation

to

contracts, a ‘caso fortuito‘ presents the

following

essential

characteristics: (1) the cause of the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

for a breach of an obligation due to an ‘act of God,’ the following must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of

the will of the debtor; (b) the event must

be

either

unforeseeable

or

unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the


Page 13

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines debtor to fulfill his obligation in a

liability

normal manner; and (d) the debtor

immediate cause of the damage was

must be free from any participation

the act of God. To be exempt from

in, or aggravation of the injury to the

liability for loss because of an act of

creditor.

God, he must be free from any

Thus, if upon the happening of a

fortuitous event or an act of God, there concurs a corresponding fraud, negligence,

delay

or

violation

or

by

showing

that

the

previous negligence or misconduct by which that loss or damage may have been occasioned. Accordingly,

petitioners

cannot

be

contravention in any manner of the

heard to invoke the act of God

tenor of the obligation as provided for

or force majeure to escape liability for

in Article 1170 of the Civil Code,

the loss or damage sustained by the

which results in loss or damage, the

private respondents since they, the

obligor cannot escape liability.

petitioners, were guilty of negligence.

The principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that the act

must

be

one

occasioned

exclusively by the violence of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded from creating or entering into the cause of the mischief. When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found to be in part the result of the participation of man, whether it be from active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole

The event then was not occasioned exclusively by an act of God or force

majeure; a

human factor

—

negligence or imprudence — had intervened.

The

effect

then

of

the force majeure in question may be deemed to have, even if only partly, resulted from the participation of man. Thus, the whole occurrence was thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.

occurrence is thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God.

Thus it has been held that when the negligence of a person concurs with an act of God in producing a loss, such person is not exempt from Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 14

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 126389, July 10, 1998 SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE, INC. VS. CA In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability, it is necessary that he be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by

reason of which the loss may have been occasioned.

An act of God

cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall

its

consequences.

possible When

adverse

a

person’s

negligence concurs with an act of God

in producing damage or injury to another, such person is not exempt from liability by showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damage or injury was a fortuitous event. When the effect is found to be partly the result of the participation of man – whether it be from active

intervention, or neglect, or failure to act – the whole occurrence is hereby humanized, and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God. There is no question that a typhoon or storm is a fortuitous event, a natural occurrence which may be foreseen but is unavoidable despite any amount of foresight, diligence or care. In order to be exempt from liability arising from

any

adverse


consequence |

engendered

thereby,

there

should

have been no human participation amounting to a negligent act. In other words,

the

person

seeking

exoneration from liability must not be guilty of negligence. Negligence, as commonly

understood,

is

conduct

which naturally or reasonably creates undue risk or harm to others. It may be the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which

the

circumstances

demand, or

the

something

which

reasonable

omission a

to

prudent

man,

considerations

justly and

guided

which

do by

ordinarily

regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do. In the present case, other than the said

ocular

investigation

inspection, was

no

conducted

to

determine the real cause of the partial unroofing

of

petitioner’s

school

building. Private respondents did not even

show

specifications

that and

the design

plans, of

said

school building were deficient and defective. Neither did they prove any substantial

deviation

from

the

approved plans and specifications. Nor did they conclusively establish that the construction of such building was basically flawed.


Page 15

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines 4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK

GR NO. 53401, November 06, 1989 ILOCOS NORTE ELECTRIC CO. VS. CA

GR NO. L-2075, November 29, 1949 MARGARITA AFIALDA VS. BASILIO HISOLE

Under the circumstances of the case, petitioner was negligent in seeing to it that no harm is done to the general public “… considering that electricity

In a case where an animal caused

is an agency, subtle and deadly, the

injury to a stranger or third person. It

measure of care required of electric

is therefore no authority for a case

companies must be commensurate

like the present where the person

with or proportionate to the danger.

injured was the caretaker of the

The duty of exercising this high

animal. The distinction is important.

degree of diligence and care extends

For

to every place where persons have a

the

statute

names

the possessor or of the animal as

right

the person liable for “any damages it

petitioner having been shown, it may

may cause,” and this for the obvious

not now absolve itself from liability by

reason that the possessor or has

arguing that the victim’s death was

the custody and control of the animal

solely due to a fortuitous event.

and is therefore the one in a position

“When an act of God combines or

to prevent it from causing damage.

concurs with the negligence of the

In the present case, the animal was in

defendant to produce an injury, the

the custody and under the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his

to

be”

.The

negligence

of

defendant is liable if the injury would

not have resulted but for his own

work as such. Obviously, it was the

negligent conduct or omission”.

caretaker’s business to try to prevent

Likewise, the maxim “volenti non fit

the animal from causing injury or

injurid” relied upon by petitioner finds

damage to anyone, including himself.

no application in the case at bar. It is

And being injured by the animal

imperative to note the surrounding

under those circumstances, where one

circumstances

of the risks of the occupation which

deceased to leave the comforts of a

he had voluntarily assumed and for

roof and brave the subsiding typhoon.

which

As testified by Linda Alonzo Estavillo

he

must

take

consequences. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

the

and |

Aida

which

Bulong,


impelled

the

the

deceased, Page 16

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines accompanied by the former two, were on their way to the latter’s grocery store “to see to it that the goods were not flooded.” As such, shall We punish her for exercising her right to protect her property from the floods by imputing upon her the unfavorable presumption that she assumed the risk of personal injury? Definitely not. For it has been held that a person is excused from the force of the rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a known danger he must abide by the consequences, if an emergency is found to exist or if the life or property

of another is in peril, or when he seeks

to

rescue

his

endangered

property. Clearly, an emergency was at hand as the deceased’s property, a source of her livelihood, was faced with an impending loss. Furthermore, the deceased, at the time the fatal incident occurred, was at a place

where she had a right to be without

5. DUE DILIGENCE GR NO. L-22533, February 09, 1967 PLACIDO C. RAMOS VS. PEPSI-COLA As testified to by Añasco, PEPSI-COLA did in fact carefully examine the

driver-applicant Bonifacio as

to

his

qualifications, experiences and record of service, taking all steps mentioned by the CA in its decision already quoted. Such being the case, there can be no doubt that PEPSI-COLA exercised the required due diligence in the selection of its driver.

In order

that the defendant may be considered as having exercised all diligence of a good father of a family, he should not be satisfied with the mere possession of a professional driver’s license; he should have carefully examined the applicant for employment as to his qualifications,

his

experience

and

record of service.

regard to petitioner’s consent as she

It should perhaps be stated that in the

was

her

instant case no question is raised as

private

to due diligence in the supervision by

respondents, as heirs, may not be

PEPSI-COLA of its driver. Article 2180

barred from recovering damages as a

of the Civil Code provides:

on

her

way

merchandise.

result

of

the

to

protect

Hence,

death

caused

petitioner’s negligence.

by

“The

owners

and managers of

an

es-

tablishment or enterprise are


|

likewise

responsible

damages

caused


by

for their Page 17

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the

GR NO. 104408, June 21, 1993 METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORP. VS. CA

occasion of their functions. “The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease

when

the

persons

herein

mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.”

Due diligence in the supervision of employees,

on

the

other

hand,

includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations

When an injury is caused by the

through his or its employees and the

negligence of a servant or employee

imposition of necessary disciplinary

there instantly arises a presumption

measures upon employees in case of

of law that there was negligence on

breach or as may be warranted to

the part of the master or employer

ensure

either in the selection of the servant

indispensable to the business of and

or employee, or in supervision over

beneficial to their employer. To this,

him after the selection, or both. If the

we add that actual implementation

employer shows to the satisfaction of

and

the

in

compliance with said rules should be

has

the constant concern of the employer,

court

that

selection and supervision

he

the

monitoring

exercised the care and diligence of a

acting

good

supervisors

father

of

a

family,

the

performance

of

through who

of

acts

consistent

dependable should

regularly

presumption is overcome and he is

report on their supervisory functions.

relieved from liability.

In order that the defense of due diligence

in

the

selection

and

supervision of employees may be deemed sufficient and plausible, it is not enough to emptily invoke the existence of said company guidelines and

policies

on

hiring

and

supervision. As the negligence of the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 18

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines employee

gives

rise

to

the

In Español vs. Chairman, Philippine

presumption of negligence on the

Veterans

part of the employer, the latter has

held as follows –

the burden of proving that it has been diligent not only in the selection of employees but also in the actual supervision of their work. The mere allegation of the existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies, without anything more, is decidedly not

sufficient

to

overcome

such

presumption.

istration, this

Court

“The right of action accrues when there exists a cause of action,

which consists

3 elements,

namely:

of

a)

a

right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever

means

and

under whatever law it arises or

is

created;

obligation on the

b)

an

part

of

defendant to respect such right;

and

c)

an

act

or

omission on the part of such defendant violative of the

6. PRESCRIPTION

right of the plaintiff xxx. It is only when the last element GR NO. 83524, October 13, 1989

can be said in law that a

ERNESTO KRAMER, JR. VS. CA Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, an

action

based

upon

a quasi-

delict must be instituted within four (4) years. The prescriptive period begins

from

the

day

the quasi-

delict is committed. In an action for damages

arising

from

the

collision of two (2) trucks, the action being

based

on

occurs or takes place that it

a quasi-delict, the

cause of action has arisen xxx.”

From the foregoing ruling, it is clear that the prescriptive period must be counted when the last element occurs or takes place, that is, the time of the commission

of

an

act

or omission violative

of

the

right of the plaintiff, which is the time

four (4) year prescriptive period must

when the cause of action arises.

be counted from the day of the

It is therefore clear that in this action

collision.

for damages arising from the collision of two (2) vessels the four (4) year


|


Page 19

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines prescriptive period must be counted

conditions, hence, they are precluded

from the day of the collision. The

from asserting ignorance of the legal

aggrieved party need not wait for a

effects

determination by an istrative

assumed

body like a Board of Marine Inquiry,

presumed that private transactions

that the collision was caused by the

have been fair and regular and that he

fault

who alleges has the burden of proving

or

negligence

party before he

of

can

the

file

other

an action

for damages.

his

of

the

undertaking

thereunder.

allegation

with

It

the

they

is

also

requisite

quantum of evidence. But here the records of this case do not their claims. Last, we find the defense of laches unavailing. The question of laches is

GR NO. 125851, July 11, 2006

addressed to the sound discretion of

ALLIED BANKING CORP. VS. CA

the court and since laches is an

Under Section 3 (d), Rule 131 of the

equitable doctrine, its application is

Rules of Court, it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns.

Hence,

the

controlled

by

equitable

considerations.

natural

presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself

of

its

consequences.

contents

Said

and

presumption

acquires greater force in the case at bar where not only one document but several documents were executed at different times and at different places by the herein respondent guarantors

IV. CAUSATION: PROXIMATE CAUSE A. DEFINITION GR NO. L-10126, October 22, 1957 VDA. DE BATACLAN VS. MARIANO

and sureties.

MEDINA

In this case, having affixed their

Proximate

CAuse

is

consenting

signatures

which,

natural

and

documents

executed

in at

several different

in

“that

cause,

continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient

times, it is safe to presume that they

intervening

had full knowledge of its and

injury, and without which the result


|

cause,


produces

the

Page 20

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines would not have occurred.’ And more

vehicle. But in the present case and

comprehensively, ‘the proximate legal

under the circumstances obtaining’ in

cause

is

producing

that the

acting

first

injury,

and either

immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural

the same, we do not hesitate to hold that the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was the overturning of the

and continuous chain of events, each

bus, this for the reason that when the

having a close causal connection with

vehicle turned not only on its, side

its immediate predecessor, the final

but

event

leaking of the gasoline from the tank

in

the

chain

immediately

effecting- the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the

completely

on

its

back,

the

was not unnatural or unexpected; that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response to the call for

first event should, as an ordinarily

help,

prudent and intelligent person, have

engers, but most probably, by the

reasonable ground to expect at the

driver and the conductor themselves,

moment ofhis act or default that an

and that because it was very dark

injury to some person might probably result therefrom.” It may be that ordinarily, when a enger bus overturns, and pins

down a enger, merely causing him physical injuries, if through some event, unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire, say, by lightning, or if some highwaymen after looting the vehicle sets it on fire, and the enger is burned to death,

one might still contend that the

made

not

only

by

the

(about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to carry a light with them; and coming as they did from a rural

area

where

lanterns

and

flashlights were not available, they had to use a torch, the most handy and available; and what was more natural than that said rescuers should innocently approach the overturned vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from them.

proximate cause of his death was the fire and not the overturning of the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 21

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 92087, May 08, 1992

GR NO. 72964, January 07, 1998

SOFIA FERNANDO VS. CA

FILOMENO URBANO VS. APPELLATE

To be entitled to damages for an

COURT

injury resulting from the negligence of

There is a likelihood that the wound

another, a claimant must establish the

was but the remote cause and its

relation between the omission and the

subsequent infection, for failure to

damage. He must prove under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code that the defendant’s

negligence

was

the

immediate and proximate cause of his injury. Proximate

cause has been

defined

as that cause,

natural

and

necessary

precautions,

with

tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier’s death with which the petitioner had nothing to do. A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such

in


sequence


unbroken by any efficient intervening

the occasion by which the injury was

cause,

which,

take

continuous

produces

the

injury,

and

without which the result would not have occurred (Vda. De Bataclan, et al. v. Medina, 102 Phil 181, 186).

made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would

Proof of such relation of cause and

effect is not an arduous one if the claimant did not in any way contribute

not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed

in

the

condition

except

because of the independent cause,

to the negligence of the defendant.

such condition was not the proximate

However, where the resulting injury

cause.

was the product of the negligence of

negligent act or defective condition

both parties, there exists a difficulty to

discern

which

acts

shall

be

considered the proximate cause of the accident.


And

if

an

independent

sets into operation the circumstances, which result in injury because of the prior

defective

condition,

such


|


Page 22

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 65295, March 10, 1987

GR NO. 105410, July 25, 1994

PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION VS. IAC

PILIPINAS BANK VS. CA

Private

respondent

Dionisio’s

For Article 2179 of the Civil Code to

negligence was “only contributory”,

apply, it must be established that

that the “immediate and proximate

private respondent’s own negligence

cause” of the injury remained the

was the immediate and proximate

truck driver’s “lack of due care” and

cause of his injury. The concept of

that

respondent

proximate cause is well defined in our

Dionisio may recover damages though

corpus of jurisprudence as “any cause

such

which,

consequently damages

are

subject

to

The legal and proximate cause of the

accident and of Dionisio’s injuries was the wrongful or negligent manner in which the dump truck was parked — in other words, the negligence of petitioner CArbonel. That there was a relationship

between

petitioner CArbonel’s negligence on

the one hand and the accident and respondent’s injuries on the other hand, is quite clear. Put in a slightly different manner,

the

collision

of

Dionisio’s car with the dump truck was

a

natural

and

natural

and

continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient

mitigation by the courts.

reasonable

in

foreseeable

consequence of the truck driver’s

negligence.

intervening cause, produces the result complained of and without which would not have occurred and from which it ought to have been forseen or reasonably anticipated by a person of

ordinary

case

that

the

injury

complained of or some similar injury, would result therefrom as a natural and probable consequence.”[4] In the case at bench, the proximate cause of the

injury

is

of petitioner’s

the

negligence

employee

in

erroneously posting the cash deposit of private respondent in the name of another depositor who had a similar first name. Applying the test, the bank employee is, on that basis, deemed to have


|


Page 23

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines failed to exercise the degree of care required in the performance of his duties. As earlier stated, the bank employee posted the cash deposit in the of Florencio Amador from his

assumption

that

the

name

GR NO. 150304, June 15, 2005 QUEZON CITY VS. FULGENCIO DACARA Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken

Florencio appearing on the ledger

by any efficient intervening cause,

without, however, going through the

such that the result would not have

full name, is the same Florencio

occurred otherwise. Proximate cause

stated in the deposit slip. He should have continuously gone beyond mere assumption, which was proven to be erroneous, and proceeded with clear

certainty,

considering

the

amount

involved and the repercussions it

is determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy and precedent. What really caused the subject vehicle to turn turtle is a factual issue that this Court cannot upon, absent

would create on the totality of the

any whimsical or capricious exercise

person notable of which is the credit

of judgment by the lower courts or an

standing

ample showing that they lacked any

of

the

person

involved

should a mistake happen. The checks issued by the plaintiff in the course of

his business were dishonored by the bank because the ledger of Florencio

basis

for

their

conclusions.

The

unanimity of the CA and the trial court in their factual ascertainment that petitioners’ negligence was the proximate cause of the accident bars

Reyes indicated a balance insufficient

us from supplanting their findings

to cover the face value of checks.

and substituting these with our own. The function of this Court is limited to the review of the appellate court’s alleged errors of law. It is not required to weigh all over again the factual evidence already considered in the proceedings below. Petitioners have not shown that they are entitled to an


|


Page 24

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines exception to this rule. They have not

who testified for the defendant gave a

sufficiently demonstrated any special

more credible of the affair

circumstances

than the witnesses for the plaintiff.

to

justify

a

factual

review.

According to the witnesses for the defendant, it was Julio who jerked the rein, thereby causing the bit to come

B. DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER KINDS

out of the horse’s mouth; and they say that Julio, after alighting, led the horse over to the curb, and proceeded

1. REMOTE

to fix the bridle; and that in so doing

GR NO. 15674, October 17, 1921 GABETO VS. AGATON ARANETA The stopping of the rig by Agaton Araneta in the middle of the street

the bridle was slipped entirely off, when the horse, feeling himself free from control, started to go away as previously stated.

was too remote from the accident that presently ensued to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof. Moreover, by getting out and taking his post at the head of the horse, the driver

was

the

person

primarily

responsible for the control of the animal, and the defendant cannot be

charged with liability for the accident resulting from the action of the horse thereafter.

GR NO. 72964, January 07, 1998 URBANO VS. APPELLATE COURT There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to

take

necessary

precautions,

with

tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier’s death with which the

The evidence indicates that the bridle

petitioner had nothing to do.

was old, and the leather of which it

A prior and remote cause cannot be

was made was probably so weak as to be easily broken. Julio Pagnaya had a natural interest in refuting this fact, as well as in exculpating himself in other respects; and we are of the opinion that the several witnesses Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause


Page 25

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines and the injury a distinct, successive,

which the injury would not have


resulted to as great an extent, and


that such cause is not attributable to


the person injured. It is no defense to

condition or occasion. If no danger

one of the concurrent tortfeasors that

existed

except

the injury would not have resulted

because of the independent cause,

from his negligence alone, without the


negligence or wrongful acts of the

cause.

other

in

the

And

if

condition

an

independent

concurrent

tortfeasor. Where


several causes producing an injury are

sets into operation the circumstances,

concurrent and each is an efficient

which result in injury because of the

cause without which the injury would

prior

such

not have happened, the injury may be

subsequent act or condition is the

attributed to all or any of the causes

proximate cause.

and recovery may be had against any

defective

condition,

or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of

2. CONCURRENT

them was more culpable, and that the

GR NO. 130068, October 01, 1998

duty owed by them to the injured person was not the same. No actor’s

FAR EASTERN SHIPPING CO. VS CA Negligence

in

order

to

render

a

person liable need not be the sole cause of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring with one or more

efficient

causes

other

than

plaintiff’s, is the proximate cause of the injury. Accordingly, where several causes combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the person charged with injury is an efficient cause without Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not

exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury. There is no contribution between t tortfeasors whose liability is solidary since both of them are liable for the total damage. Where the concurrent or

successive

negligent

acts

or

omissions of two or more persons,


Page 26

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines although acting independently, are in

came from the opposite direction, so

combination the direct and proximate

that, in this sense, petitioners’ truck

cause of a single injury to a third

had the last clear chance.

person, it is impossible to determine

According to the great weight of

in what proportion each contributed to the injury and either of them is responsible Where

their

for

the

whole

concurring

injury.

negligence

resulted in injury or damage to a third party, they become t tortfeasors and

are

solidarity

liable

for

the

resulting damage under Article 2194 of the Civil Code.

authority, where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons, although acting independently of each other, are, in combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury, or the same

GR NO. L-21512, August 31, 1966

damage might have resulted from the acts of the other tortfeasor.

PROSPERO SABIDO VS. CARLOS CUSTODIO Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is independent, in its execution, of the negligence of the truck driver and its owner, both acts of negligence are the proximate cause of the death of Agripino Custodio. In fact, the negligence of the first two (2) would not have produced this result without the negligence of petitioners’ herein. What is more, petitioners’ negligence was the last, in point of time, for Custodio was on the running board

of

the

carrier’s

sometime before petitioners’ Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

bus truck

C. TESTS GR NO. L-10126, October 22, 1957 DE BATACLAN VS. MARIANO MEDINA Proximate

CAuse

is

which,

natural

and

in

“that

cause,

continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening

cause,

produces

the

injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.’ And more

comprehensively, ‘the proximate legal cause

is

producing

that

acting

the

first

injury,

and either

immediately or by setting other events


Page 27

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines in motion, all constituting a natural

bus, this for the reason that when the


vehicle turned not only on its, side

having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event

in

the

chain

immediately

effecting- the injury as a natural and

but

completely

on

its

back,

the

leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected; that

probable result of the cause which

the coming of the men with a lighted

first acted, under such circumstances

torch was in response to the call for

that the person responsible for the

help,

first event should, as an ordinarily

engers, but most probably, by the

prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.” It may be that ordinarily, when a enger bus overturns, and pins down a enger, merely causing him physical injuries, if through some event, unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire, say, by lightning, or if some highwaymen after looting the vehicle sets it on fire, and the enger is burned to death, one might still

made

not

only

by

the

driver and the conductor themselves, and that because it was very dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to carry a light with

them; and coming as they did from a rural

area

where

lanterns

and

flashlights were not available, they had to use a torch, the most handy and available; and what was more natural than that said rescuers should innocently approach the overturned

vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from them.

contend that the

proximate cause of his death was the fire and not the overturning of the vehicle. But in the present case and

GR NOS. 66102-04, August 30, 1990 PHILIPPINE RABBIT VS. IAC

under the circumstances obtaining’ in

It is the rule under the substantial

the same, we do not hesitate to hold

factor test that if the actor’s conduct

that the proximate cause of the death

is a substantial factor it bringing

of Bataclan was the overturning of the

about harm to another, the fact that


|


Page 28

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines the actor neither foresaw nor should

created only a ive static condition

have foreseen the extent of the harm

which made the damage possible, the

or the manner in which it occurred

defendant is said not to be liable. But

does not prevent him from being

so far as the fact of causation is

liable (Restatement, Torts, 2d). Here,

concerned, in the sense of necessary

We find defendant bus running at a

antecedents which have played an

fast speed when the accident occurred

important

part

and did not even make the slightest

result,

is

effort to avoid the accident,

distinguish between active forces and

x x x. The bus driver’s conduct is

ive situations, particularly since,

thus a substantial factor in bringing

as is invariably the case, the latter are

about harm to the engers of

the result of other active forces which

the jeepney, not only because he was

have gone before. The defendant who

driving fast and did not even attempt

spills gasoline about the premises

to avoid the mishap, but also because

creates a “condition;” but the act may

it was the bus which was the physical

be culpable because of the danger of

force which brought about the injury

fire.

and death to the engers of

gasoline, the condition has done quite

the jeepney.

as much to bring about the fire as the

it

When

in

producing

quite

a

impossible

spark

ignites

the to

the

spark; and since that is the very risk

which the defendant has created, the defendant

necessarily affect liability; one who

distinguish between the active “cause”

digs a trench in the highway may still

of

be liable to another who falls into it a

harm

and

sought

“condition” remains static will not to

the

have

escape

considerable time during which the

PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION VS. IAC courts

not

responsibility. Even the lapse of a

GR NO. 65295, March 10, 1987

Many

will

the

existing

“conditions” upon which that cause

month

operated.

“condition”

If

the

defendant


|

has

afterward. still


“CAuse” find

and

occasional Page 29

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines mention in the decisions; but the


distinction is now almost entirely


discredited.

So far as it has any

validity at all, it must refer to the type of case where the forces set in operation by the defendant have come

the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the

to rest in a position of apparent


safety,

force


intervenes. But even in such cases, it


and

some

new

is not the distinction between “cause” and “condition” which is important, but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause.”

existed

in

the

condition

except

because’ of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause.

And

if

an

independent


sets into operation the circumstances which result in injury because of the prior

defective

condition,

such

subsequent act or condition is the GR NO. L-8328, May 18, 1956

proximate cause.

MANILA ELECTRIC VS. REBIOQUILLO The principal and proximate cause of

the electrocution was not the electric wire, evidently a remote cause, but rather the reckless and negligent act of Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet without taking any precaution, such as looking back toward the street and at the wire to avoid its ing said

iron sheet, considering the lattery length of 6 feet.

GR NO. 15688, November 19, 1921 RODRIGUEZA VS. MANILA RAILROAD With respect to the case of Remigio Rodrigueza it is to be inferred that his house stood upon this ground before the Railroad Company laid its line over this course; and at any rate there is no proof that this plaintiff had unlawfully


railroad’s

intruded property

in

upon the

the

act

of

made the basis of an action if such Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 30

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines building

his

occurred

undoubtedly

company,

house. upon

What is

really

that

making

locomotives

was

an

antecedent

the

condition that may in fact have made

this

the

disaster

possible,

but

that

extension, had acquired the land only,

circumstance cannot be imputed to

leaving the owner of the house free to

him

remove

be

destructive of his right of action,

considered to have been a treser

because, first, that condition was not

in the beginning. Rather, he was there

created by himself; secondly, because

at the sufferance of the defendant

his house remained on this ground by

company, and so long as his house

the toleration, and therefore with the

remained in this exposed position, he

consent of the Railroad Company; and

undoubtedly assumed the risk of any

thirdly, because even supposing the

loss that might have resulted from

house to be improperly there, this fact

fires occasioned by the defendant’s

would not justify the defendant in

locomotives if operated and managed

negligently destroying it.

it.

Hence

he

cannot

as

contributory

negligence

with ordinary care. But he cannot be held to have assumed the risk of any damage that might result from the unlawful defendant.

negligent Nobody

acts is

of

the

bound

D. EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE

to

anticipate and defend himself against the possible negligence of another.

GR NO. 68102, July 16, 1992

Rather he has a right to assume that

the other will use the care of the ordinarily prudent man. In

the

situation

now

under

consideration the proximate and only cause of the damage that occurred was the negligent act of the defendant in causing this fire. The circumstance that Remigio Rodrigueza’s house was partly

on

the

property

of

the

defendant company and therefore in dangerous

proximity


to |

ing

GEORGE MCKEE VS. IAC Proximate cause has been defined as, “that

cause,

which, in natural

and

continuous sequence, unbroken by any

efficient

produces

the

intervening injury,

and

cause, without

which the result would not have occurred.’

And

more

comprehensively, the proximate legal cause

is

producing

that

acting

the

first

injury,

and either

immediately or by setting other events


Page 31

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines in motion, all constituting a natural

precautionary


given circumstances, the truck driver

having a close causal connection with

continued at full speed towards the

its immediate predecessor, the final

car. The truck driver’s negligence

event

immediately

becomes more apparent in view of the

effecting the injury as a natural and

fact that the road is 7.50 meters wide

probable result of the cause which

while the car measures 1.598 meters

first acted, under such circumstances

and the truck, 2.286 meters, in width.

that the person responsible for the

This would mean that both car and

first event should, as an ordinary

truck could side by side with a

prudent and intelligent person, have

clearance

reasonable ground to expect at the

spare. Furthermore, the bridge has a

moment of his act or default that an

level

injury to some person might probably

partially

result therefrom.”

Any reasonable man finding himself in

in

the

Applying

chain

the

above

definition,

although it may be said that the act of Jose Koh, if at all negligent, was the

of

sidewalk

measure

3.661 which

accommodated

under

the

meters

to

could

have

the

truck.

the given situation would have tried to avoid the car instead of meeting it head-on.

initial act in the chain of events, it cannot be said that the same caused the

eventual

because

of

sufficient

injuries the

and

deaths

occurrence

intervening

of

event,

a the

GR NO. L-8328, May 18, 1956

negligent act of the truck driver,

MANILA ELECTRIC VS. REBIOQUILLO

which was the actual cause of the

The principal and proximate cause of

tragedy. The entry of the car into the lane of the truck would not have resulted in the collision had the latter heeded the emergency signals given by the former to slow down and give the car an opportunity to go back into its proper lane. Instead of slowing down and swerving to the far right of the

road,

which

was


the |

proper

the electrocution was not the electric wire, evidently a remote cause, but rather the reckless and negligent act of Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet without taking any precaution, such as looking back toward the street and at the wire to avoid its ing said


Page 32

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines iron sheet, considering the lattery

an

length of 6 feet.

another agency if the occurrence of


the accident, in the manner in which it

made the basis of an action if such

happened, was the very thing which


the statute or ordinance was intended

furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened

injury

by

the

intervention

of

to prevent.” To consider the violation

of the ordinance as the proximate

between such prior or remote cause

cause of the injury does not portray

and the injury a distinct, successive,

the situation in its true perspective; it


would be more accurate to say that


the overcrowding at the stairway was

not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed

in

the

condition

except

because’ of the independent cause,

the proximate cause and that it was precisely what the ordinance intended

to prevent by requiring that there be


two stairways instead of only one.

cause.

independent

Under the doctrine of the cases cited


by the respondents, the principle of

sets into operation the circumstances

proximate

And

if

an

which result in injury because of the prior

defective

condition,

such

cause

applies

to

such

violation.

subsequent act or condition is the

As thus projected the violation of the

proximate cause.

ordinance, it is argued, was only a remote cause, if at all, and cannot be the

basis

of

liability

since

there

intervened a number of independent GR NO. L-29745, June 04, 1973 TEAGUE VS. ELENA FERNANDEZ

The general principle is that the violation of a statute or ordinance is not rendered remote as the cause of Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

causes which produced the injury complained of. A statement of the doctrine relied upon is found in Manila Electric Co. vs. Remoquillo, L8328, May 18, 1956, wherein this Court, citing Corpus Juris, said:


Page 33

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines “A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the

injury

was

made

possible, if there intervened between

such

prior

or

GR NO. 72964, January 07, 1998 URBANO VS. APPELLATE COURT There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to take

necessary

precautions,

with

tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier’s death with which the

remote cause and the injury

petitioner had nothing to do.

a

A prior and remote cause cannot be

distinct,

successive,

unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened

but

for

such


existed

in

the

condition except because of the independent cause, such condition

was

not

the

proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into

operation the circumstances which

result

in

injury

the

prior

because

of

defective

condition,

such


made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed

in

the

condition

except

because of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause.

And

if

an

independent

negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the circumstances, which result in injury because of the prior

defective

condition,

such



|


Page 34

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines E. LAST CLEAR CHANCE G.R. No. L-12219; March 15, 1918 PICART VS. FRANK SMITH, JR. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless,

his negligence at that point will prevent a recovery. When a traveler has reached a point where he cannot extricate himself and vigilance on his part will not avert the injury, his negligence in reaching that position becomes the condition and not the proximate cause of the injury and will not preclude a recovery.

blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that. It will be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not

GR NO. 89880, February 06, 1991 ADRIANO BUSTAMANTE VS. CA The doctrine of “last clear chance”, as

contemporaneous, since the

stated broadly, is that the negligence

negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with

the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.

of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care

and

prudence,

might

have

avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff

notwithstanding

the

plaintiff’s negligence. In other words, the doctrine of last clear chance means that even though a person’s

The "last clear chance" rule of the law

own acts may have placed him in a

of negligence as particularly applied

position of peril, and an injury results,

to automobile accidents. This rule

the injured person is entitled to

cannot be invoked where the

recovery. As the doctrine is usually

negligence of the plaintiff is

stated, a person who has the last clear

concurrent with that of the defendant.

chance or opportunity of avoiding an

Again, if a traveler when he reaches

accident,

the point of collision is in a situation

negligent acts of his opponent or that

to extricate himself and avoid injury,

of a third person imputed to the


|

notwithstanding


the

Page 35

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines opponent is considered in law solely

negligent. As against third persons, a

responsible for the consequences of

negligent actor cannot defend by

the accident.

pleading that another had negligently

The practical import of the doctrine is

failed to take action which could have

that a negligent defendant held liable

avoided the injury.”

to a negligent plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff

who

has

been

grossly

negligent in placing himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff’s peril, or according to some authorities, should have

been

aware

of

it

in

the

reasonable exercise of due case, had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident

GR NO. 65295, March 10, 1987 PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION VS. IAC The theory here of petitioners is that while the petitioner truck driver was negligent, private respondent Dionisio

The principle of “last clear chance”

had the “last clear chance” of avoiding

applies “in a suit between the owners

the accident and hence his injuries,

and drivers of colliding vehicles. It

and that Dionisio having failed to take

does not arise where a enger

that “last clear chance” must bear his

demands

own injuries alone.

responsibility

from

the

The last clear

its

contractual

chance doctrine of the common law

it

would

he

was imported into our jurisdiction

inequitable to exempt the negligent

by Picart vs. Smith but it is a matter

driver of the jeepney and its owners

for debate whether, or to what extent,

on the ground that the other driver

it has found its way into the Civil

was likewise guilty of negligence.”

Code

carrier

to

enforce

obligations.

For

Furthermore,

“as

between

defendants: The doctrine cannot be extended

into

the

field

of

t

tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to

the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter’s peril, and it cannot

be

invoked

defendants Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

as

between

concurrently |

of

the

Philippines.

The

historical function of that doctrine in the common law was to mitigate the harshness of another common law doctrine or rule — that of contributory negligence. The common law rule of contributory negligence prevented any recovery at all by a plaintiff who was also negligent, even if the plaintiff’s negligence was relatively minor as


Page 36

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines compared with the wrongful act or

time

omission

defendant’s

of

the

defendant.

The

of

the

plaintiff’s negligent

and

the

acts

or

common law notion of last clear

omissions, is only one of the relevant

chance

factors

permitted

courts

to

grant

that

may

into

.

been

the

importance are the nature of the

defendant had the last clear chance to

negligent act or omission of each

avoid the casualty and failed to do so.

party and the character and gravity of

Accordingly, it is difficult to see what

the risks created by such act or

role, if any, the common law last clear

omission

chance doctrine has to play in a

community. The petitioners urge that

jurisdiction where the common law

the truck driver (and therefore his

concept of contributory negligence as

employer) should be absolved from

an absolute bar to recovery by the

responsibility

plaintiff, has itself been rejected, as it

negligence because the unfortunate

has been in Article 2179 of the Civil

plaintiff

Code of the Philippines.

increased diligence which had become

Is there perhaps a general concept of

necessary to avoid the peril precisely

“last

clear

provided

chance”

that

that

may

be

extracted from its common law matrix and utilized as a general rule in negligence

cases

in

jurisdiction like ours?

a

civil

law

We do not

believe so. Under Article 2179, the task of a court, in technical , is to determine whose negligence — the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s — was the legal or proximate cause of the injury. That task is not simply or even primarily an exercise in chronology or physics, as the petitioners seem to imply by the use of like “last” or “intervening”

or

“immediate”.

more

taken

recovery to a plaintiff who had also negligent

Of

be

for

the

for

failed

fundamental

rest

his

to

act

of

own

with

the

prior

that

created by the truck driver’s own wrongful act or omission. To accept this proposition is to come too close to

wiping

out

the

fundamental

principle of law that a man must

respond

for

the

foreseeable

consequences of his own negligent act or omission. Our law on quasidelicts seeks to reduce the risks and burdens of living in society and to allocate them among the of society.

To accept the petitioners’

proposition must tend to weaken the

very bonds of society.

The

relative location in the continuum of Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 37

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines The doctrine of the last clear chance

GR NO. 70493, May 18, 1989

provides

GLAN PEOPLE’S LUMBER VS. IAC Both drivers, as the Appellate Court found, had had a full view of each other’s vehicle from a distance of one hundred fifty meters. Both vehicles

were travelling at

a

speed

as

valid

and

complete a

defense to accident liability today as it did when invoked and applied in the 1918 case of Picart vs. Smith, which involved a similar state of facts.

of

approximately thirty kilometers per hour. The private respondents have itted that the truck was already at

GR NOS. 79050-51, November 14,

a full stop when the jeep plowed into

1989

it. And they have not seen fit to deny or

impugn

petitioners’

imputation

PANTRANCO VS. MARICAR BASCOS

that they also itted the truck had

BAESA

been brought to a stop while the jeep

For the doctrine to be applicable, it is

was still thirty meters away.

necessary to show that the person

From

these facts the logical conclusion emerges that the driver of the jeep had

what

judicial

appropriately

doctrine

has

called the last

clear

who allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the existence of the peril or should, with

while

exercise of due care, have been aware

still at that distance of thirty meters

of it. One cannot be expected to

from the truck, by stopping in his turn

avoid an accident or injury if he does

or swerving his jeep away from the

not know or could not have known the

chance to avoid the

truck,

either

of

accident,

which

he

had

sufficient time to do while running at a speed of only thirty kilometers per hour. In

those

circumstances,

his

existence of the peril. In this case, there

is

nothing

to

show

that

the jeepney driver David Ico knew of

duty was to seize that opportunity of

the impending danger. When he saw

avoidance,

a

at a distance that the approaching bus

supposed right to expect, as the

was encroaching on his lane, he did

Appellate Court would have it, the

not immediately swerve the jeepney to

not

merely

rely

on

truck to swerve and leave him a clear path. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

the dirt shoulder on his right since he


Page 38

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines must have assumed that the bus

attributed to the incident, the one

driver will return the bus to its own

who had the last clear opportunity to

lane

avoid the impending harm and failed

upon

the jeepney approaching

seeing from

the

consequences

opposite direction. the last clear chance doctrine “can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered”

[Ong v.

to do so is chargeable with the

Metropolitan

Water District].

thereof.

Stated

differently, the rule would also mean

that an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of

damages

negligence

for

of,

the

or

supervening

bar

a

defense

against liability sought by another, if the latter, who had the last fair chance,

could

have

avoided

the

impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. Here, assuming that private respondent RMC was negligent in entrusting cash to a dishonest

GR NO. 97626, March 14, 1997

employee, thus providing the latter with the opportunity to defraud the

PHILIPPINE BANK VS. CA Under the doctrine of “last clear chance” (also referred to, at times as “supervening

negligence”

or

as

“discovered peril”), petitioner bank was indeed the culpable party. This doctrine, in essence, states that where both parties are negligent, but the

company,

as

advanced

by

the

petitioner, yet it cannot be denied that the petitioner bank, thru its teller, had the last clear opportunity to avert the injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation procedure.

negligent act of one is appreciably

Coming now to the doctrine of “last

later in time than that of the other, or

clear chance,” it is my considered view

when it is impossible to determine

that the doctrine assumes that the

whose fault or negligence should be Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

negligence

of

the


defendant

was

Page 39

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines subsequent to the negligence of the

taken ordinary care of its concerns, as

plaintiff and the same must be the

what

proximate cause of the injury. In

negligence,

short, there must be a last and a clear

contributory but the immediate and

chance, not a last possible chance, to

proximate cause of its injury.

the

law

presumes.

therefore,

is

Its not

avoid the accident or injury. It must have been a chance as would have enabled a reasonably prudent man in

GR NO. L-7664, August 29, 1958

like position to have acted effectively

ONG VS. METROPOLITAN WATER

to avoid the injury and the resulting damage to himself.

The doctrine of last clear chance

In the case at bar, the bank was not

simply means that the negligence of a

remiss in its duty of sending monthly

claimant does not preclude a recovery

bank

for the negligence of defendant where

statements

to

private

respondent RMC so that any error or

it

discrepancy in the entries therein

exercising

reasonable

prudence,

might

could

be

brought

to

the

bank’s

attention at the earliest opportunity. Private respondent failed to examine

appears

that

the

latter, care

have

by and

avoided

injurious consequences to claimant

these bank statements not because it

notwithstanding his negligence. Or,

was prevented by some cause in not

“As the doctrine usually is stated, a

doing

person who has the last clear chance

so,

but

because

it

was

purposely negligent as it itted that it does not normally check bank statements given by banks. It was private respondent who had the last and clear chance to prevent any further misappropriation by Yabut had it only reviewed the status of its current

s

on

the

bank

statements sent to it monthly or regularly. Since a sizable amount of cash was entrusted to Yabut, private respondent should, at least, have Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

or

opportunity

accident,

of

avoiding

notwithstanding

an the

negligent acts of his opponent or the negligence of a third person which is imputed

to

his

opponent,

is

considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident.”

Since it is not known how minor Ong came into the big swimming pool and it being apparent that he went there


Page 40

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines without any companion in violation of

ed that the obligation of the

one of the regulations of appellee as

carrier to transport its engers

regards the use of the pools, and it

safely is such that the New Civil Code

appearing

requires “utmost diligence” from the

that

lifeguard

Abaño

responded to the call for help as soon

carriers

as his attention was called to it and

“presumed to have been at fault or to

immediately after retrieving the body

have acted negligently, unless they

all efforts at the disposal of appellee

prove

had been put into play in order to

extraordinary diligence” (Art. 1756).

bring him back to life, it is clear that

In

there is no room for the application of

presumption

the

by

confirmed by the CA’ finding that the

to

driver of the jeepney in question was

doctrine

appellants

now

to

invoked

impute

liability

(Act.

that this

they

have

instance,

are

observed

this

legal

negligence

The last clear chance doctrine can

improperly. It must follow that the

driver—and

parking

the

the

is

at

is required to act instantaneously, and

in

of

who

appellee. never apply where the party charged

fault

1755)

vehicle

owners—of

the

jeepney must answer for injuries to its

if the injury cannot be avoided by the

engers.

application of all means at hand after

The principle about the “last clear

the peril is or should have been

chance” would call for application in a

discovered; at least in cases in which

suit between the owners and drivers

any previous negligence of the party

of the two colliding vehicles. It does

charged

not arise where a enger demands

cannot

be

said

to

have

contributed to the injury.

responsibility

from

the

carrier

to

enforce its contractual obligation. For it would be inequitable to exempt the Nos. L-21353-54, May 20, 1966 ANURAN VS. PEPITO BUNO Upon further

and more

negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver

extended

was

likewise

guilty

of

negligence.

consideration of the matter, we have become convinced that error of law. was

committed

in

releasing

the

jeepney from liability. It must be Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 41

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 120027, April 21, 1999

that where both parties are negligent but the

EDNA A. RAYNERA VS. FREDDIE

negligent

act

of

one

is

appreciably later in point of time than

HICETA

that of the other, or where it is

It has been said that drivers of

impossible to determine whose fault

vehicles

or

“who

bump

the

rear

of

negligence

brought

about

the

another vehicle” are presumed to be

occurrence of the incident, the one

“the cause of the accident, unless

who had the last clear opportunity to

contradicted by other evidence”. The

avoid the impending harm but failed

rationale behind the presumption is

to do so, is chargeable with the

that the driver of the rear vehicle has

consequences

full control of the situation as he is in

Stated differently, the rule is that the

a position to observe the vehicle in

antecedent negligence of a person

front of him.

does

The

responsibility

to

avoid

the

collision with the front vehicle lies with the driver of the rear vehicle. Consequently, no other person was to

not

arising

preclude

therefrom.

recovery

of

damages caused by the supervening

negligence of the latter, who had the last

fair

chance

to

prevent

the

impending harm by the exercise of

blame but the victim himself since he

due diligence.

was

his

Assuming that Osmundo CAnlas was

motorcycle into the rear of the Isuzu

negligent in giving Vicente Mañosca

truck. He had the last clear chance of

the opportunity to perpetrate the

avoiding the accident.

fraud, by entrusting to latter the

the

one

who

bumped

owner’s

copy

of

the

transfer

certificates of title of subject parcels of land, it cannot be denied that the GR NO. 112160, February 28, 2000

the

doctrine

of

last

clear

chance, which is applicable here, the respondent

bank

must

suffer

prevent the fraud, by the simple expedient of faithfully complying with

OSMUNDO S. CANLAS VS. CA Under

bank had the last clear chance to

the

the

requirements

for

banks

to

ascertain the identity of the persons transacting with them.

resulting loss. In essence, the doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 42


the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of

CONSOLIDATED BANK VS. CA The doctrine of last clear chance

contract.

states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one

GR NO. 140698, June 20, 2003

is appreciably later than that of the

other, or where it is impossible to

ROGELIO ENGADA VS. CA

determine whose fault or negligence

The doctrine of last clear chance

caused the loss, the one who had the

states that a person who has the last

last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the

loss.

Stated

differently,

the

antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does

not

preclude

him

from

clear

chance

or

opportunity

of

avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible

recovering damages caused by the

for

supervening

the

accident. But as already stated on this

defendant, who had the last fair

point, no convincing evidence was

negligence

of

chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. We do not apply the doctrine of last clear

chance

to

the

present

case. Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence in the

the

consequences

of

the

adduced by petitioner to his invocation of the abovecited doctrine. Instead, what has been shown is the presence of an emergency and the

proper application of the emergency

contractual

rule. Petitioner’s act of swerving to

obligation to L.C. Diaz. This is a case

the Tamaraw’s lane at a distance of

of culpa contractual, where neither

30 meters from it and driving the

the contributory negligence of the

Isuzu pick-up at a fast speed as it

performance

of

its

plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant

from

liability.

Such

contributory negligence or last clear

approached the Tamaraw, denied Iran time and opportunity to ponder the

situation at all. There was no clear

chance by the plaintiff merely serves

chance to speak of. Accordingly, the

to reduce the recovery of damages by

CA did not err in holding petitioner


|


Page 43

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines responsible for the vehicular collision

hardly be faulted for whatever she

and the resulting damages, including

might have done to the animal.

the injuries suffered by Mrs. Sheila Seyan and the total loss of

the

Tamaraw jeepney. It also did not err in

imposing

on

petitioner

the

sentence of four (4) months of arresto

B. THINGS THROWN OR FALLING FROM A BUILDING

mayor.

GR NO. 47033, April 25, 1941 JOSE DINGDONG VS. HALIM KANAAN As Jose Dingcong t tenant and manager

V. LIABILITY

of

the

hotel,

with

full

possession of the top of the house,

A. POSSESSOR OF ANIMALS

you must answer for damages caused

GR NO. 74431, November 06, 1989

by things that were thrown or fell from it (Article 1910 Civil Code).

PURITA MIRANDA VESTIL VS IAC Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal should “escape or be lost” and so be removed from his control. And it does not

matter

either

that,

as

the

petitioners also contend, the dog was tame and was merely provoked by the child into biting her. The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause

injury.

As

for

the

alleged

provocation, the petitioners forget that Theness was only three years old at the time she was attacked and can Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

Francisco Echevarria was a guest of the hotel was the one who directly by their neglect, leaving open the tap, let the water pipe pull back on the

ground and seep into the low, dipping the

articles

and

goods

of

the

plaintiffs. Dingcong Jose, on the other hand, do not practice the diligence of a good father to prevent this damage, however

they

knew

because

they

could cause then repair the pipes,

then, must presume that Echavarria could use the tap does not provided some

container


with

adequate Page 44

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines drainage, and if you just put a pan

pursuance of his employment. At the

under it that, when filled, the water

time that he was run over by the truck

was spread on the ground.

Leopoldo Madlangbayan was not in the pursuance of his employment with the defendant corporation, but was on his way home after he had finished his work for the day and had left the territory where he was authorized to

C. DEATH INJURIES IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT

make collections for the defendant. The

GR NO. 36858, March 06, 1933

the

deceased

Madlangbayan

was

Leopoldo killed

on

November 16, 1930, and Act No. 3812

was

not

approved

until

December 8, 1930, it is apparent that the law which is applicable is Act No. 3428, section 2 of which reads as follows: “When any employee receives a personal

injury

from

any

accident due to and in the pursuance of the employment, or contracts any illness directly caused by such employment or the result of the nature of such employment, his employer shall pay compensation in the sums and to the persons hereinafter

specified.” The accident which caused the death of the employee was not due to and in Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

is

not

an

insurer

“against all accidental injuries which

JUSTA AFABLE VS. SINGER SEWING As

employer

might happen to an employee while in the course of the employment”, and as a general rule an employee is not entitled

to recover

from personal

injuries resulting from an accident that befalls him while going to or returning

from

employment,

his

place

of

because

such

an

accident does not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The

phrase

“due

to

and

in

the

pursuance of” used in section 2 of Act No. 3428 was changed in Act No. 3812 to “arising out of and in the course of”. Discussing this phrase, the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of

Mueller

Construction

Co.

vs.

Industrial Board, said: “The words ‘arising out of’ refer

to the origin or cause of the accident, and are descriptive of its character, while the words ‘in the course of refer to the


Page 45

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines time, place, and circumstances under which the accident takes place. (Fitzgerald vs. Clarke & Sons, 1 B. W. C. C, 197; Dietzen

D. STRICT LIABILITY / PRODUCT LIABILITY GR NO. 110295, October 18, 1993

Co. vs. Industrial Board, 279 III.,

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS VS. CA

11; 116 N. E,, 684.) By the use

The vendor could likewise be liable

of these words it was not the

for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of

intention of the legislature to

the Civil Code, and an action based

make the employer an insurer

thereon

against all accidental injuries

vendee. While it may be true that the

which

pre-existing

might

happen

to

an

may

be

brought

contract

by

the

between

the

employee while in the course of

parties may, as a general rule, bar the

the employment, but only for

applicability of the law on quasi-

such injuries arising from or

delict,

growing

risks

deemed to arise from quasi-delict,

peculiar to the nature of the

i.e., the act which breaks the contract

work

may

out

in

workman’s

of

the

the

scope

of

the

employment

or

incidental to such employment, and accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed in a

special degree by reason of such which

employment. all

Risks

persons

to

similarly

situated are equally exposed and

not

traceable

in

some

special degree to the particular employment are excluded.”

the

liability

also

be

Thus, in Singson

may

a

vs.

itself

be

quasi-delict.

Bank

of

the

Philippine Islands, this Court stated: "We

have

repeatedly

held,

however, that the existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the other

and

the

recovery

consequent

of

damages

therefor. Indeed, this view has been, in effect, reiterated in a comparatively Thus,

in

Air

recent

CArrascoso, involving airplane

case.

enger

vs. an who,

despite his first-class ticket, had been illegally ousted from Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 46

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines E. INTERFERANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

his first-class accommodation and compelled to take a seat in the tourist compartment, was held

entitled

to

GR NO. 9356, February 18, 1915

recover

damages from the air-carrier,

GILCHRIST VS. CUDDY ET AL.

upon the ground of tort on the

Everyone has a right to enjoy the

latter’s part, for, although the

fruits and advantages of his own

relation between the enger and a carrier is ‘contractual both in origin and nature x x x

enterprise, industry, skill and credit. He has no right to be protected

the act that breaks the contract

against competition; but he has a

may also be a tort.’"

right to be free from malicious and

Otherwise put, liability for quasidelict may still exist despite the

presence of contractual relations. Under American law, the liabilities of

wanton interference, disturbance or annoyance.

If

disturbance

or

losscome as a result of competition, or the exercise of like rights by

the manufacturer or seller of injury-

others, it is damnum absque injuria,

causing products may be based on

unless

negligence, breach

contract or otherwise is interfered

of

warranty, tort, or other grounds such as

fraud,

deceit,

or

some

superior

right

by

with.

as

It is said that the ground on which the

defined in Article 2176 of the Civil

liability of a third party for interfering

Code, (which is known in Spanish

with a contract between others rests,

legal treatises as culpa aquiliana,

is

culpa

malicious.

misrepresentation. Quasi-delict,

extra-contractual

or

cuasi¬

that

the

interference

The

contrary

was view,

not

however, is taken by the Supreme

identical to tort under the common

Court of the United States in the case

law, which

includes

of Angle vs. Railway Co. (151 U. S.,

negligence,

but

delitos)

is

homologous

but not

also

only

intentional

1).

The only motive for interference

criminal acts, such as assault and

by the third party in that case was the

battery,

desire to make a profit to the injury of

false

imprisonment,

and

one

deceit.

of

the

parties

of

the

contract. There was no malice in the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 47

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines case beyond the desire to make an

GR NO. 120554, September 21, 1999

unlawful gain to the detriment of one of the contracting parties. In the case at bar the only motive for the interference with the GilchristCuddy contract on the

part of the

appellants was a desire to make a profit by exhibiting the film in their’ theater. There was no malice beyond this desire; but this fact does not relieve them of the legal liability for interfering

with

and causing therefore,

its

clear,

that

contract

breach. under

the

It is, above

authorities, that they were liable to Gilchrist for the damages caused by their acts, unless they are relieved from such liability by reason of the fact that they did not know at the time the

identity

of

the original

lessee (Gilchrist) of the film. The liability of the appellants arises

from unlawful acts and not from contractual obligations, as they were

SO PING BUN VS. CA The elements of tort interference are: (1) existence of a valid contract; (2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of contract;

and (3) interference of the third person is without legal justification or excuse. Section

1314

of

the

Civil

Code

categorically provides also that, “Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.” Petitioner argues that damage is

an

essential

element

of

tort

interference, and since the trial court and the appellate court ruled that private respondents were not entitled to

actual,

moral

or

exemplary

damages, it follows that he ought to be absolved of any liability, including attorney’s fees.

under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist.

F. LIABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS GR NO. 61516, March 21, 1989 GUILATCO VS. CITY OF DAGUPAN The liability of public corporations for damages


|

arising


from

injuries Page 48

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines suffered

by

defective

pedestrians

condition

from

of

the

roads

is

expressed in the Civil Code as follows: Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for

with the ordinance relating thereto;

condition of roads, streets,

shall inspect and regulate the use

bridges, public buildings, and

of all private systems for supplying

other public works under their

water

control or supervision.

defective road or street to belong to

the province, city, or municipality for liability to attach. The article only is

control

exercised

to

the

city

and

its

inhabitants, and all private sewers,

It is not even necessary for the

supervision

waterworks and sewers, and all

use of the same, in accordance

by reason of the defective

either

custody of the public system of

control, maintain and regulate the

injuries suffered by, any person

that

(j) He shall have the care and

sources of water supply, and shall

damages for the death of, or

requires

xxx

over

or the

defective road or street.

and

their

connection

with

the

public sewer system. The

same

provides

charter that

construction streets,

of Dagupan also

the

and

avenues

laying

out,

improvement and

alleys

of and

sidewalks, and regulation of the use

In the case at bar, this control or

thereof, may be legislated by the

supervision is provided for in the

Municipal Board. Thus the charter

charter of Dagupan and is exercised

clearly indicates that the city indeed

through the City Engineer who has the

has supervision and control over the

following duties:

sidewalk where the open drainage

Sec. 22. The City Engineer — His

hole is located.

powers, duties and compensation

The express provision in the charter

— There shall be a city engineer,

holding

who shall be in charge of the

damages or injuries sustained by

department

and

persons or property due to the failure

Public Works. He shall receive a

of any city officer to enforce the

salary

three

provisions of the charter, cannot be

thousand pesos per annum. He

used to exempt the city, as in the case

shall have the following duties:

at bar.

of

of not

Engineering exceeding


|

the

city


not

liable

for

Page 49

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines VI. PERSONS LIABLE

t tort feasors are not liable pro rata.

A. THE TORTFEASOR

not

among

them,

be

except

an

apportionment,

for

the

purpose of each paying an aliquot

OCAMPO

part. They are tly and severally

The t tort feasors are all the promote,

can

among themselves. They can no insist upon

DEAN C. WORCESTER VS. MARTIN

who

damages

apportioned

G.R. No. L-5932; February 27, 1912

persons

The

command,

liable for the full amount.

instigate,

encourage,

advise,

countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who

GR NO. 9010, March 28, 1914

approve of it after it is done, if done

CHAPMAN VS. UNDERWOOD

for their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to the same extent and

The

in the same manner as if they had

responsible for the negligence of his

performed

driver,

the

wrongful

act

defendant, under

however, the

is

facts

not and

themselves.

circumstances of this case. As we

t tort feasors are tly and

have

severally liable for the tort which they commit. The person injured may sue all of them, or any number less than all. Each is liable for the whole damage

caused

by

all,

and

all

said

in

the

case

of

Johnson vs. David (5 Phil. Rep., 663), the driver does not fall within the list of persons in article 1903 of the Civil Code for whose acts the defendant

would be responsible.

together are tly liable for the

Although in the David case the owner

whole damage. It is no defense for

of the vehicle was not present at the

one sued alone, that the others who

time the alleged negligent acts were

participated in the wrongful act are

committed by the driver, the same

not ed with him as defendants;

rule

nor is it any excuse for him that his

present, unless the negligent acts of

participation

was

the driver are continued for such a

insignificant as compared with that of

length of time as to give the owner a

the others.

reasonable opportunity to observe

in

the

tort

applies

where

the

owner

is

them and to direct his driver to desist Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 50

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines therefrom. An owner who sits in his

In the case before us it does not

automobile, or other vehicle, and

appear from the record that, from the

permits his driver to continue in a

time the automobile took the wrong

violation

the

side of the road to the commission of

performance of negligent acts, after

the injury, sufficient time intervened

he has had a reasonable opportunity

to give the defendant an opportunity

to observe them and to direct that the

to correct the act of his driver.

driver

becomes

Instead, it appears with fair clearness

himself responsible for such acts. The

that the interval between the turning

owner of an automobile who permits

out to meet and the street car

his chauffeur to drive up the Escolta,

and the happening of the accident

for example, at a speed of 60 miles an

was so small as not to be sufficient to

hour, without any effort to stop him,

charge defendant with the negligence

although he has had a reasonable

of the driver.

opportunity

Whether or not the owner of an

of

the

cease

law

by

therefrom,

to

do

so,

becomes

himself responsible, both criminally and civilly, for the’ results produced by the acts of his chauffeur. On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner

having

a

reasonable

opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance,

injures

a

person

or

violates the criminal law, the owner of the

automobile,

although

automobile driven by a competent driver, would be responsible, whether present or not, for the negligent acts of his driver when the automobile was a part of a business enterprise, and was being driven at the time of the accident in furtherance of the owner’s business, we do not now decide.

present

therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible, either civilly or criminally, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his

acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own.

GR NO. L-20392, December 18, 1968 MARCIAL T. CAEDO VS. YU KHE THAI Article 2184 provides that, “In motor vehicle

mishaps,

owner is solidarily

liable

the with

his

driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due


|


Page 51

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines diligence, pre¬vented the misfortune.

appreciate the relative dangers posed

It is disputably presumed that a driver

by the different situations that are

was negligent, if he has been found

continually

guilty of reckless driving or violating

road. What would be a negligent

traffic regulations at least twice within

omission under the aforesaid Article

the next preceding two months.”

on the part of a car owner who is in

Under the foregoing provision, if the

the prime of age and knows how to

causative

factor

was

the

driver’s

negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was present is likewise held liable

handle

a

encountered

motor

vehicle

old

and

infirm

person

similarly equipped.

by the exercise of due diligence.

The law

does not

The basis of the master’s liability in

a person

must

but rather the relationship of pater familias. The theory is that ultimately the negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage.

The test of imputed negligence under Article 2184 of the Civil Code is, to a great degree, necessarily subjective. CAr owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional drivers.

In many

cases they refrain from driving their own cars

and instead hire

other

persons to drive for them precisely because

they

are

not

trained

or

endowed with sufficient discernment to know the rules of traffic or to Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

is

the

not

necessarily so on the part, say, of an

if he could have prevented the mishap

civil law is not respondeat superior

on

who is not

require

possess

a

that certain

measure of skill or proficiency either in the mechanics of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before he may own a motor vehicle. The test of his negligence, within the meaning of Article 2184, is his omission to do that

which

the

evidence

of

his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident. And as far as perception

is

concerned,

absent a minimum level imposed by law, a maneuver that appears to be fraught with danger to one enger may appear to be entirely safe and commonplace to another. Were the law to require a uniform standard of perceptiveness,

employment

of

professional drivers by car owners who, by their very inadequacies, have real need of drivers’ services, would be effectively proscribed.


Page 52

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 62988, February 28, 1985 FELINA RODRIGUEZ-LUNA VS. IAC

the determination of the trial court which it had previously affirmed.

The deceased Roberto R. Luna had been engaged in car racing as a sport, having participated in tournaments

B. VICARIOUS LIABILITY

both here and abroad;” it said that

Luna’s

habit

and

manner

of

life

1. PARENTS

should be “one of the factors affecting

G. R. No. L-10134, June 29, 1957

the value of mortality table in actions for

damages;”

and,

consequently,

concluded that Luna could not have lived beyond 43 years. The result was that the 30-year life expectancy of Luna was reduced to 10 years only. The

CA,

in

reducing

Luna’s

life

expectancy from 30 to 10 years said that his habit and manner of life should be taken into , i.e. that he had been engaged in car racing as a sport both here and abroad – a dangerous and risky activity tending to shorten his life expectancy. That Luna had engaged in car racing is not based

on

record.

That Luna was engaged in

go-kart

any

racing

evidence is

the

on

correct

statement but then go-kart racing cannot be categorized as a dangerous sport for go-karts are extremely low slung, low powered vehicles, only slightly larger than foot-pedalled four wheeled conveyances. It was error on the part of the CA to have disturbed Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

SABINA EXCONDE VS. DELFIN CAPUNO Under the law above quoted, “teachers or directors of arts liable for

and trades are

any damages

caused

by

their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody”,

but this

provision only applies to an institution of arts

and trades and not to any

academic Here

educational

Dante

CApuno

institution. was then a

student of the Balintawak Elementary School

and as part of his extra-

curricular activity, he attended parade in honor of Dr.

the

Jose Rizal

upon instruction of the city school’s supervisor.

And it was in connection

with that. The

civil

liability which

the law

impose upon the father, and, in case of his death or

incapacity, the

mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children who live with them, is obvious.

This is

a

of

necessary

consequence


the

Page 53

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines parental authority they exercise over

under 15 years of age, who acts

them

without

which

imposes

upon

the

discernment,

unless

it

parents the “duty of ing them,

appears that there is no fault or

keeping

negligence

them

in

their

company,

on

his

part.

This

is

educating them and instructing them

because a son who commits the act

in proportion to their means”, while,

under any of those conditions is by

on the other hand, gives them the

law exempt from criminal liability

“right

punish

(Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3,

them in moderation” (Articles 154

Revised Penal Code). The idea is not

and 155, Spanish Civil Code). The

to leave the act entirely unpunished

only way by which they can relieve

but to attach certain civil liability to

themselves of this liability is if they

the person who has the delinquent

prove that.

minor under his legal authority or

to

correct

and

control. But a minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt from GR NO. L-14414, April 27, 1960 SEVERINO SALEN VS. JOSE BALCE

criminal liability, for which reason the Code is silent as to the subsidiary liability of his parents should he stand

In holding that the civil liability of the

convicted. In that case, resort should

son of appellee arises from his

be had to the general law which is our

criminal liability and, therefore, the

Civil Code.

subsidiary liability of appellee must be

The particular law that governs this

determined under the provisions of

case is Article 2180, the pertinent

the Revised Penal Code, and not

portion of which provides: “The father

under Article 2180 of the new Civil Code which only applies to obligations which arise from quasidelicts.

the

mother,

damages

are

caused

responsible by

the

for

minor

children who lived in their company.” To hold that this provision does not

Under Article 101 of the Revised Penal

Code, a father is made civilly liable for the acts committed by his son only if the latter is an imbecile, an insane, under 9 years of age, or over 9 but Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

and, in case of his death or incapacity,

|

apply to the instant case because it only covers obligations which arise from quasi-delicts and not obligations which arise from criminal offenses, would result in the absurdity that


Page 54

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines while

for

an

act

where

mere

discernment, Art. 101 of the same

negligence intervenes the father or

Code can not include him. And as par.

mother may stand subsidiarily liable for the damage caused by his or her son, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent.

2,

of

Art.

exemption

101, from

states

that

criminal

“the

liability

established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5

Verily, the void that apparently exists

and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision

in

is

4 of Art. 11 of this Code does not

subserved by this particular provision

include exemption from civil liability,

of our Civil Code, as may be gleaned

which shall be enforced subject to the

the

Revised

Penal

Code

from some recent decisions of this Court which cover equal or identical cases.

following rules: First, in cases of subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person and by a

person under nine years of age or by GR NO. L-14409, October 31, 1961

one over nine but under fifteen years of

age,

who

has

acted

without

AGAPITO FUELLAS VS. ELPIDIO

discernment, shall devolve upon those

CADANO

having such person under their legal

The only way by which a father can be

authority or control, unless it appears

made responsible for the criminal act

that there was no fault or negligence

of his son committed with deliberate

on

intent and with discernment, is an

concluded that this provision covers

action based on the provisions of the

only a situation where a minor under

Revised Penal Code on subsidiary

15 but over 9 years old commits a

liability

criminal act “without discernment.”

of

the

parents;

that

the

minor-Fuellas having been convicted of serious physical injuries at the age

of 13, the provisions of par. 3 of Art.

their

part”,

the

appellant

Under Art. 101 of the Revised Penal Code, a father is made civilly liable for the acts committed by his son only if

12, Revised Penal Code, could have

the latter is an imbecile, an insane,

been applied, but having acted with

under 9 years of age, or over 9 but


|


Page 55

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines under 15 years of age, who acts

while

without

it

negligence intervenes the father or

appears that there is no fault or

mother may stand subsidiarily liable

negligence

is

for the damage caused by his or her

because a son who commits the act

son, no liability would attach if the

under any of those conditions is by

damage is caused with criminal intent.

law exempt from criminal liability

Verily, the void apparently exists in

(Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3,

the Revised Penal Code is subserved

Revised Penal Code). The idea is not

by this particular provision of our Civil

to leave the act entirely unpunished’

Code, as may be gleaned from some

but to attach certain civil liability to

recent decisions of this Court which

the person who has the delinquent

cover equal or identical cases.

discernment, on

his

unless

part.

This

for

an

act

where

mere

minor under his legal authority or control. But a minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt from

criminal liability, for which reason the Code is silent as to the subsidiary

GR NO. 34840, September 23, 1931

liability of his parents should he stand

NARCISO GUTIERREZ VS. BONIFACIO

convicted. In that case, resort should

GUTIERREZ

be had to the general law which is our

In the United States, it is uniformly

Civil Code.

held that the head of a house, the

The particular law that governs this

owner

case is Article 2180, the pertinent

maintains it for the general use of his

portion of which provides: ‘The father

family

and, in case of his death or incapacity,

operation by one of his children,

the

whom he designates or permits

mother,

are

responsible

for

of is

an liable

automobile, for

its

who

negligent to

minor

run it, where the car is occupied and

children who lived in their company.’

being used at the time of the injury

To hold that this provision does not

for the pleasure of other of

apply to the instant case because it

the owner’s family than the child

only covers obligations which arise

driving it. The theory of the law is

from quasi-delicts and not obligations

that the running of the machine by a

which arise from criminal offenses,

child to carry other of the

would result in the absurdity that

family

damages

caused

by


the

|

is

within


the

scope Page 56

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines of the owner’s business, so that he is

liable

for

the

negligence

of

the child because of the relationship of master and servant. The liability of Saturnino Cortez, the owner

of

the

truck,

and

of

his

chauffeur Abelardo Velasco rests on a different

basis,

namely,

that

of contract which, we think, has been sufficiently allegations

demonstrated of

the

by

the

complaint,

not

controverted, and the evidence. The reason for this conclusion reaches to the

findings

of

the

trial

court

concerning the position of the truck on the bridge, the speed in operating the machine, and the lack of care employed by the chauffeur. these facts

are

While

not as clearly

evidenced as are those which convict the other defendant, we nevertheless hesitate

to

disregard

the

points

emphasized by the trial judge.

In its

broader aspects, the case is one of two drivers approaching a narrow bridge from opposite directions, with neither being willing to slow up and give the right of way to the other, with the inevitable result of a collision and an accident.

GR NO. 62988, February 28, 1985 FELINA RODRIGUEZ-LUNA VS. IAC The deceased Roberto R. Luna had been engaged in car racing as a sport, having participated in tournaments both here and abroad;” it said that

Luna’s

habit

and

manner

of

life

should be “one of the factors affecting the value of mortality table in actions for

damages;”

and,

consequently,

concluded that Luna could not have lived beyond 43 years. The result was that the 30-year life expectancy of Luna was reduced to 10 years only. The

CA,

in

reducing

Luna’s

life

expectancy from 30 to 10 years said that his habit and manner of life should be taken into , i.e. that he had been engaged in car racing as a sport both here and abroad – a dangerous and risky activity tending to shorten his life expectancy. That Luna had engaged in car racing is not based

on

record.

That Luna was engaged in

go-kart

any

racing

evidence is

the

on

correct

statement but then go-kart racing cannot be categorized as a dangerous sport for go-karts are extremely low slung, low powered vehicles, only slightly larger than foot-pedalled four wheeled conveyances. It was error on the part of the CA to have disturbed


|


Page 57

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines the determination of the trial court

mother. This was amplified by the

which it had previously affirmed.

Child and Youth Welfare Code which provides that the same shall devolve upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother


The parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability from

criminal

offenses

committed by their minor children under their legal authority or control, or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages. That primary liability is premised on the provisions

of

Article

101

upon the guardian, but the liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a

CRESENCIO LIBI VS. IAC

arising

or, in case of her death or incapacity,

of

the

relative

or

family

friend

of

the

youthful offender. However, under the Family Code, this civil liability is now, without such alternative qualification, the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender. For civil

liability

arising

from

quasi-delicts

committed by minors, the same rules shall apply in accordance with Articles 2180 and 2182 of the Civil Code.

Revised Penal Code with respect to

In the case at bar, whether the death

damages ex delicto caused

their

of the hapless Julie Ann Gotiong was

children 9 yrs of age or under, or over

caused by a felony or a quasi-delict

9 but under 15 years of age who

committed

by

acted without discernment; and, with

respondent

court

regard to their children over 9 but

holding petitioners liable for damages

under 15 yrs of age who acted with

arising

discernment, or 15 yrs or over but

preceding

under 21 years of age, such primary

premises relied upon by it therefor

liability shall be imposed pursuant to

and

Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

imperatives

herein

con

its

Under

said

Article

by

2180,

the

enforcement of such liability shall be effected against the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

on

Wendell

therefrom.

did

not

Subject

modifications the

in

bases

Libi,

of

err to of

the the

the

legal

explained,

findings

in

that

we said

petitioners failed to duly exercise the requisite diligentissimi patris familias to prevent such damages.


Page 58

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines upon such parents. The civil law

GR NO. 85044, June 03, 1992

assumes that when an unemancipated

MACARIO TAMARGO VS. CA The law imposes civil liability upon

child living with its parents commits a tortious

act,

the

parents

were

the father and, in case of his death or

negligent in the performance of their

incapacity,

any

legal and natural duty closely to

damages that may be caused by a

supervise the child who is in their

the

mother,

for

minor child who lives with them. Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

of

what

is

frequently

designated as vicarious liability, or the doctrine

of

“imputed

is, in other words, anchored upon parental

This principle of parental liability is a species

custody and control. Parental liability

negligence”

authority

coupled

with

presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such

authority.

dereliction

is,

The of

parental

course,

only

presumed and the presumption can

under Anglo-American tort law, where

be overturned under Article 2180 of

a person is not only liable for torts

the Civil Code by proof that the

committed by himself, but also for

parents had exercised all the diligence

torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom

he

is

responsible.

Thus,

parental liability is made a natural or

logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of

parents

–

their

of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. In the instant case, the shooting of Jennifer by Adelberto with an air rifle occured when parental authority was still lodged in respondent Bundoc spouses, the natural parents of the

parental authority – which includes

minor Adelberto. It would thus follow

the

that the natural parents who had then

instructing,

controlling

and

actual custody of the minor Adelberto,

disciplining of the child. The

civil

liability

are the indispensable parties to the

imposed

upon

suit for damages.

parents for the torts of their minor children living with them, may be seen to

be

based

upon

the

parental

authority vested by the Civil Code Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 59

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. L-24101, September 30, 1970

observed all the diligence of a good

CUADRA VS. ALFONSO MONFORT The liability of a parent for an act of his minor child which causes damage to another under the specific facts related

above

provisions

and

of

the

the

applicable

Civil

Code,

particularly Articles 2176 and 2180 thereof, which read: “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 preexisting

contractual

relation

between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.” “ART.

2180.

imposed

by

The

2176

is

demandable not only for one’s own acts 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,

father of a family to prevent damage.” The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Article 2176 is the fault or negligence accompanying the act or

the

omission,

are

responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their

company.

there

being no

willfulness or intent to cause damage thereby. When the act or omission is that of one person for whom another is

responsible,

the

latter

then

becomes himself liable under Article 2180,

in

the

different

cases

enumerated therein, such as that of the father or the mother under the circumstances basis

of

above

this

quoted.

vicarious,

The

although

primary, liability is, as in Article 2176, fault

or

presumed

obligation

Article

herein mentioned prove that they

negligence, from

which

that

is

which

accompanied the causative act or omission.

The

presumption

is

merely prima facie and may therefore be rebutted. This is the clear and logical inference that may be drawn from the last paragraph of Article 2180,

which

states

“that

the

responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.”

The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the persons Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 60

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines supersedes those of the parents. In

2. GUARDIANS 3. TEACHERS AND HEADS OF INSTITUTIONS

these circumstances the control or influence

over

the

conduct

and

actions of the pupil would from the father and mother to the teacher;

GR NO. L-14342, May 30, 1960

and so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil. Such a situation

CIRIACO L. MERCADO VS. CA

does not appear in the case at bar;

Teachers, or directors of arts and

the pupils appear to go to school

trades are liable for any damage caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody’,

during school hours and go back to their homes with their parents after school

but this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic educational

is

over.

The

situation

contemplated in the last paragraph of Article 2180 does not apply, nor does paragraph 2 of said article, which

institution.

makes father or mother responsible

The last paragraph of Article 2180 of

for the damages caused by their

the Civil Code, upon which petitioner

minor

rests his claim that the school where

petitioner that responsibility should

his son was studying should be made

to the school must, therefore, be

liable, is as follows:

held to be without merit.

children.

The

claim

of

“Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages pupils

caused and

by

students

their or

apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.” It would seem that the clause “so long as they remain in their custody,”

contemplates a situation where the pupil

lives

teacher,

and

such

boards that

|

The rationale of the liability of school heads

and

teachers

for

the tortious acts of their pupils and students, so long as they remain in their custody, is that they stand, to a

control,

certain extent, as to their pupils and

direction and influence on the pupil Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

PALISOC VS. ANTONIO C. BRILLANTES

the

with

the

GR NO. L-29025, October 04, 1971

students, in

loco parentis and


are

Page 61

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines called upon to “exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child.” This is expressly provided for

G.R. No. L-47745; April 15, 1988 JOSE S. AMADORA VS. CA

in Articles 349, 350 and 352 of the

The high school principal and the

Civil Code. In the law of torts, the

dean of boys cannot be held liable

governing

principle

because

protective

custody

heads

is

of

that

the

and

the

school teachers

is mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, and hence, it becomes

none

of

teacher-in-charge

them

was

as

the

previously

defined. Each of them was exercising only a general authority over the student body and not the direct control and influence exerted by the

their obligation as well as that of the

teacher placed in charge of particular

school

classes

itself

to

provide

proper

supervision of the students’ activities

during the whole time that they are at attendance in the school, including recess time, as well as to take the necessary precautions to protect the students

in

dangers

and

their

custody

hazards

that

willfully

or

and

thus

immediately involved in its discipline.

The evidence of the parties does not disclose who the teacher-in-charge of the offending student was. The mere fact that Alfredo Amadora had gone to school that day in connection with his physics report did not necessarily

would

make the physics teacher, respondent

injuries that some student themselves inflict

sections

from

reasonably be anticipated, including may

or

through

negligence on their fellow students.

Celestino

Dicon,

the

teacher-in-

charge of Alfredo's killer. At any rate, assuming that he was the teacher-in-charge,

there

is

no

showing that Dicon was negligent in enforcing discipline upon Daffon or that he had waived observance of the rules and regulations of the school or condoned their non-observance. His absence when the tragedy happened cannot be considered against him because he was not supposed or Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 62

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines required to report to school on that

Finally, as previously observed, the

day. And while it is true that the

Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot

offending student was still in the

be held directly liable under the article

custody

teacher-in-charge

because only the teacher or the head

even if the latter was physically absent

of the school of arts and trades is

when the tort was committed, it has

made responsible for the damage

not been established that it was

caused by the student or apprentice.

caused by his laxness in enforcing

Neither can it be held to answer for

discipline upon the student. On the

the tort committed by any of the other

contrary,

respondents

private respondents for none of them

have proved that they had exercised

has been found to have been charged

due

the

with the custody of the offending

school

student or has been remiss in the

that

discharge of his duties in connection

of

the

the

private

diligence,

enforcement regulations,

through

of in

the maintaining

discipline. In

the

with such custody.

absence

of

a

teacher-in-

charge, it is probably the dean of boys

G.R. No. L-54357; April 25, 1988

who should be held liable especially in view of the unrefuted evidence that he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from one of the students and returned

the

same

later

to

him

REYNALDO PASCO VS. CFI Article 2180 of the Civil Code which states:

without taking disciplinary action or

Lastly,

reporting

establishments of arts and trades

the

matter

to

higher

teachers

negligence on his part, for which he

caused

deserves sanctions from the school, it

students or apprentices, so long

does not necessarily link him to the

as they remain in their custody.

shown

that

he

confiscated

and

returned pistol was the gun that killed the petitioners' son.

equally

by

their

applicable

for

of

shall

is

liable

heads

authorities. While this was clearly

shooting of Amador as it has not been

be

or

damages

pupils

to

and

academic

institutions. The Court no necessity of discussing the applicability of the Article to educational institutions (which are not


|


Page 63

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines schools of arts and trades) for the

The

issue

should apply to all schools,

in

this

petition

is

actually

provision

question

whether or not, under the article, the

academic

school or the university itself (as

academic. Where the school is

distinguished

academic rather than technical

from

as

in well

as

non-

the teachers or heads) is liable. The

or

Court answers in the negative, for

responsibility

surely the provision concerned speaks

committed by the student will

only of "teachers or heads."

attach to the teacher in charge

vocational

in

nature,

for

the

tort

of such student, following the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the case G.R. No. L-33722; July 29, 1988

of establishments of arts and

FEDERICO YLARDE VS. EDGARDO

and only he, who shall be held

AQUINO

liable as an exception to the

The

principal

cannot

be

made

responsible for the death of the child Ylarde, he being the head of an academic school and not a school of arts and trades. This is in line with the ruling in Amadora vs. CA, wherein this Court

thoroughly

discussed

the

doctrine that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, it is only the teacher and not the head of an academic school who should be answerable for torts committed by their students. This Court went on to say that in a school of arts and trades, it is only the head of the school who can be held

trades, it is the head thereof,

general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students

except

where

the

school is technical in nature, in which

case

thereof

it

the

head

shall

be

Following

the

who

answerable. canon

is

of

sinquilis

reddendo 'teachers'

singula should

apply to the words "pupils and students'

and

establishments trades

to

'heads

of

arts

and

of the

word

"apprentices."

liable. In the same case, the Court

Hence, applying the said doctrine to

explained:

this case, the Court rule that private respondent


|

Soriano,


as

principal, Page 64

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines cannot be held liable for the reason

long as they are at attendance in the

that

school, including recess time."

the

school

he

heads

is

an

academic school and not a school of arts and trades. Besides, as clearly itted

by

private

respondent

Aquino, private respondent Soriano did not give any instruction regarding the digging.

In the case at bar, in holding that Jimmy

B.

Abon

was

stin

in

the

protective and supervisory custody of the Baguio Colleges Foundation when

he

shot

Napoleon

CAstro,

the

respondent Court ruled that: it is true that Abon was not

attending any class or school function at the time of the shooting incident, which was at

G.R. No. 70458; October 5, 1988 BENJAMIN SALVOSA VS. IAC

about 8 o'clock in the evening;

Under the penultimate paragraph of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades are hable for "damages caused by

their

pupils

and

students

or

apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody." The rationale of such liability is that so long as the student

remains in the custody of a teacher, the latter "stands, to a certain extent, in loco parentis [as to the student] and

[is]

reasonable

called

upon

to

supervision

exercise

over

the

conduct of the [student]." Likewise, "the phrase used in [Art. 2180 — 'so long as (the students) remain in their

custody means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

but considering that Abon was employed as an armorer and property custodian of the BCF ROTC unit, he must have been

attending night classes and therefore that hour in the evening was just about dismissal time for him or soon thereafter. The time interval is safely within the "recess time" that the trial court spoke of and envisioned by the Palisoc case, supra. In line with the case of Palisoc, a student not "at

attendance

in

the

school" cannot be in "recess" thereat. A "recess," as the concept is embraced in the phrase "at attendance in the school," contemplates a situation of temporary

adjournment


of

school Page 65

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines activities

where

the

student

also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

still

remains within call of his mentor and is not permitted to leave the school

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.”

premises, or the area within which the school activity is conducted. Recess by

its

nature

does

not

include

dismissal. Likewise, the mere fact of being

enrolled

or

being

in

the

premises of a school without more does not constitute "attending school" and

Under this par., it is clear that before

supervisory custody' of the school, as

an employer may be held liable for the

contemplated in the law.

negligence of his employee, the act or

or

being

in

the

"protective

omission which caused damage or Upon the foregoing considerations,

prejudice must have occurred while an

we hold that Jimmy B. Abon cannot be

employee was in the performance of

considered

his assigned tasks.

to

have

been

"at

attendance in the school," or in the custody

of

BCF,

when

he

shot

Napoleon CAstro. Logically, therefore, petitioners cannot under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code be held solidarity liable with Jimmy B. Abon for damages

resulting from his acts.

In

the

case

at

bar,

the

teachers/petitioners were not in the actual performance of their assigned tasks.

The incident happened not

within the school premises, not on a school

day

and

most

importantly

while the teachers and students were holding a purely private affair, a picnic. It is clear from the beginning

GR NO. 82465, February 25, 1991 ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL VS. CA Article 2180, par. 4 states that:

“The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but


|

that

the

incident

happened

while

some of the I-C class of St. Francis High School were having a picnic at Talaan Beach.

This picnic

had no permit from the school head or

its

principal,

Benjamin

Illumin

because this picnic is not a school sanctioned

activity


neither

is

it

Page 66

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines considered

as

an

extra-curricular

presumably suffice to equip him with

activity.

the necessary tools and skills to

As earlier pointed out by the trial

pursue

court,

mere

knowledge

petitioner/principal

Illumin

by

of

the

planning of the picnic by the students

higher

education

or

a

profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school’s academic requirements and

and their teachers does not in any way

observe its rules and regulations.

or in any manner show acquiescence

A school, like a common carrier,

or consent to the holding of the

cannot be an insurer of its students

same.

The application therefore of

against all risks. This is specially true

Article 2180 has no basis in law and

in the populous student communities

neither

of the so-called “university belt” in

is

it

ed

by

any

jurisprudence. If we were to affirm

Manila

the findings of respondent Court on

reported

this score, employers will forever be

from gang wars to other forms of

exposed to the risk and danger of

hooliganism. It would not be equitable

being hailed to Court to answer for

to expect of schools to anticipate all

the misdeeds or omissions of the

types of violent tres upon their

employees

premises,

even

if

such

act

or

where

there

several

for

have

incidents

been

ranging

notwithstanding

the

omission he committed while they are

security measures installed, the same

not in the performance of their duties.

may still fail against an individual or group determined to carry out a nefarious deed inside school premises and environs. Should this be the case,

GR NO. 84698, February 04, 1992

the school may still avoid liability by proving

PSBA VS. CA When an academic institution accepts students

for

enrollment,

there

is

established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which

both parties are bound to comply with. For

its

part,

the

school

undertakes to provide the student with

an

education


that |

would

that

the

breach

of

its

contractual obligation to the students was not due to its negligence, here statutorily defined to be the omission of that degree of diligence which is required

by

the

nature

of

the

obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time and place.


Page 67

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Soliman, Jr. Private respondent school

GR NO. 66207, May 18, 1992

was

SOLIMAN, JR. VS. JUDGE RAMON

not

the

employer

of

Jimmy

Solomon. The employer of Jimmy

TUAZON

Solomon was the R.L. Security Agency

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code,

Inc., while the school was the client or

the obligation to respond for damage

customer of the R.L. Security Agency

inflicted by one against another by

Inc. It is settled that where the

fault

not

security agency, as here, recruits,

only for one’s own act or omission,

hires and assigns the work of its

but also for acts or omissions of a

watchmen or security guards, the

person for whom one is by law

agency is the employer of such guards

responsible. Among the persons held

or watchmen. Liability for illegal or

vicariously responsible for acts or

harmful

acts

omissions of another person are the

security

guards

following:

employer agency, and not to the

or

negligence

exists

Employers shall be liable for the damages

caused

employees

by

and

their

household

helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

Lastly,

teachers

or

by

the

to

the

attaches

customers

of

such

agency. As a general rule, a client or customer of a security agency has no hand in selecting who among the pool of

security

guards

or

watchmen

employed by the agency shall be assigned to it, the duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family

of

in the selection of the guards cannot,

establishments of arts and trades

in the ordinary course of events, be

shall

demanded

be

caused

liable

by

or

clients

committed

heads

for

their

damages

pupils,

from

the

client

whose

their

premises or property are protected by

students or apprentices, so long

the security guards. The fact that a

as they remain in their custody.”

client company may give instructions

The first paragraph quoted above offers

no

Colleges

basis liable

for for

holding the

the

alleged

wrongful acts of security guard Jimmy B. Solomon inflicted upon petitioner Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

or directions to the security guards assigned to it, does not, by itself,

render the client responsible as an employer concerned

of

the

and

security liable

for

guards their

wrongful acts or omissions. Those


Page 68

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines instructions

or

ordinarily

more

no

directions than

are

only a remote cause of the accident.

requests

Between the remote cause and the

commonly envisaged in the contract

injury,

for services entered into with the

negligence of the minor’s parents or

security

the detachment of the steering wheel

agency.

There

being

no

there

intervened

the

employer-employee

relationship

guide of the jeep.

between

and

"The proximate cause of an injury is

the

Colleges

Jimmy

Solomon, petitioner student cannot impose vicarious liability upon the Colleges for the acts of security guard Solomon.

that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any

efficient

produces

the

intervening injury,

and

cause, without

Since there is no question that Jimmy

which the result would not have

Solomon was not a pupil or student or

occurred."

an apprentice of the Colleges, he

Considering that the negligence of the

being in fact an employee of the R.L. Security Agency Inc., the other abovequoted paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code is similarly not available for

imposing

liability

upon

the

Republic Central Colleges for the acts or omissions of Jimmy Solomon.

minor driver or the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep owned by respondent Villanueva was an event over which petitioner St. Mary’s Academy had no control, and which was the proximate cause of the accident, petitioner may not be held liable for the death resulting from

G.R. No. 143363; February 6, 2002

such accident.

ST. MARY'S ACADEMY VS. CARPITANOS The liability for the accident, whether caused by the negligence of the minor driver or mechanical detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep, must

be

pinned

on

the

minor’s

parents primarily. The negligence of petitioner St. Mary’s Academy was Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 69

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines 4. OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF

industry. “The responsibility treated of in this

AMERICAN

article shall cease when the persons

The Civil Code provides: Whoever by act or

causes there

damage

being

fault

to or

negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage

done.

Such

fault

or

negligence, if there is no preexisting

contractual

relation

between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. “ART.

2180.

imposed

by

The

obligation

article

2176

is

demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. establishment

or

enterprise

are

likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the are

herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father

of

a

family

to

prevent

damage.” The novel and unprecedented legal issue in this appeal is whether the “employers” and “owners and

managers of an

establishment or

enterprise” (dueños o directores de un

establicimiento o empresa) used in article

2180

of

the

Civil

Code,

formerly article 1903 of the old Code, embrace the manager of a corporation owning a truck, the reckless operation of which allegedly resulted in the

vehicular accident from which the damage arose.

“The owners and managers of an

latter

acting

not engaged in any business or

PHILIPPINE RABBIT VS. PHIL-

another,

helpers

tasks, even though the former are

GR NO. L-25142, March 25, 1975

omission

household

within the scope of their assigned

ESTABLISHMENTS

“ART. 2176.

and

employed

or

on

the

occasion of their functions. damages caused by their employees |

do not include the manager of a corporation. It may be gathered from the context of article 2180 that the term

“manager”

(“director”

in

the

Spanish version) is used in the sense of “employer”.

“Employers shall be liable for the


We are of the opinion that those

Hence, under the allegations of the complaint,

no

tortious


or

quasiPage 70

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines delictual liability can be fastened on

…

Balingit as manager of Phil-American

The owners and managers of an

Forwarders, Inc., in connection with

establishment or enterprise are

the

likewise

vehicular

accident

already

responsible

mentioned because he himself may be

damages

regarded

as

employees in the service of the

his

branches in which the latter are

employer, Phil-American Forwarders,

employed or on the occasion of

Inc.

their functions.

an employee or dependiente of

caused

for

by

their


5. EMPLOYERS

caused

employees

and

by

their

household

helpers acting within the scope

GR NO. 120553, June 17, 1997

of their assigned tasks even though

PHILTRANCO VS. CA Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code provide:

the

former

are

not

engaged in any business or industry.

ART. 2176. Whoever by act or

…

omission

to

The responsibility treated of in

another, there being fault or

this article shall cease when the

negligence, is obliged to pay for

persons

the damage done. Such fault or

prove that they observed all the

negligence, if there is no pre-

diligence of a good father of a

existing

family to prevent damage.

causes

damage

contractual

relation

between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. ART.

2180.

imposed

The

obligation

by Article

2176 is

demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

herein

mentioned

We have consistently held that the liability of the ed owner of a public service vehicle, like petitioner Philtranco,[16] for

damages

arising

from the tortious acts of the driver is primary, direct, and t and several or solidary with the driver.[17] As to solidarity,

Article

2194

expressly

provides: |


Page 71

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines ART. 2194. The responsibility of

assigned

two or more persons who are

complained of was committed. It is

liable for a quasi-delict is

only then that the employer may find

solidary.

it necessary to interpose the defense

Since

the

employer’s

liability

is

primary, direct and solidary, its only

recourse if the judgment for damages is satisfied by it is to recover what it has paid from its employee who committed the fault or negligence which gave rise to the action based on quasi-delict. Article 2181 of the Civil Code provides:

task

when

the

tort

of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee. It is undisputed that ABAD was a Production

Manager

of

petitioner

CASTILEX at the time of the tort occurrence. As to whether he was acting

within

the

scope

of

his

assigned task is a question of fact, which the court a quo and the CA resolved in the affirmative.

ART. 2181. Whoever pays for

the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in

GR NO. 75112, August 17, 1992

satisfaction of the claim. GR NO. 132266, December 21, 1999

Under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180, whether or not engaged in any business or industry, an employer is liable for the torts committed by employees within the scope of his assigned tasks. But it is necessary to the

employer-employee

relationship; once this is done, the plaintiff

must show,

to hold

the

employer liable, that the employee was acting within the scope of his Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

Supervision includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulation for

CASTILEX VS. VICENTE VASQUEZ

establish

FILAMER VS. IAC

the guidance of its employees and the issuance

of

proper

instructions

intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations through his employees. An employer is expected to impose upon its employees the necessary discipline called for in the

performance of any act indispensable to the business and beneficial to their employer.


Page 72

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines In the present case, the petitioner

With respect to the liability of NPC as

has not shown that it has set forth

the direct employer, Article 2180 of

such rules and guidelines as would

the Civil Code explicitly provides:

prohibit any one of its employees from taking control over its vehicles if one is not the official driver or prohibiting the driver and son of the Filamer president from authorizing another employee to drive the school vehicle. Furthermore, the petitioner has

failed

imposed

to

prove

sanctions

that

or

it

had

warned

its

“Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.”

employees against the use of its

In this regard, NPC’s liability is direct,

vehicles by persons other than the

primary and solidary with PHESCO and

driver.

the driver. Of course, NPC, if the

judgment for damages is satisfied by it, shall have recourse against PHESCO and the driver who committed the

GR NO. 119121, August 14, 1998

negligence which gave rise to the

NPC VS. CA

action.

Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the Labor Code will determine the liability of NPC in a civil suit for

damages instituted

by an injured

person for any negligent act of the employees

of

the

“labor

only”

contractor. This is consistent with the ruling that a finding that a contractor was

a

“labor-only”

equivalent

to

a

contractor

finding

employer-employee

that

is an

relationship

existed between the owner (principal contractor)

and

the

contractor,

including

“labor-only” the

workers. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

latter’s

Finally, NPC, even if it truly believed that it was not the employer of the driver, could still have disclaimed any liability had it raised the defense of due diligence in the selection or supervision

of

PHESCO

and

Ilumba. However, for some reason or another, NPC did not invoke said defense. Hence, by opting not to present any evidence that it exercised due diligence in the supervision of the activities of PHESCO and Ilumba, NPC has foreclosed its right to interpose the same on appeal in conformity with


Page 73

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines injury,

issues of facts and arguments not below

contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil

cannot be ventilated for the first time

Code can well apply. In fine, a liability

on appeal. Consequently, its liability

for tort may arise even under a

stands.

contract, where tort is that which

raised

in

the

proceedings

one

in culpa

the rule that points of law, theories,

breaches differently,

resulting

the

contract.

when

an

Stated

act

which

constitutes a breach of contract would GR NO. 145804, February 06, 2003

have itself constituted the source of a

LRT VS. MARJORIE NAVIDAD

contract existed between the parties,

quasi-delictual

liability

had

no

is

the contract can be said to have been

negligence or fault on the part of the

breached by tort, thereby allowing the

employee.

rules on tort to apply.

For

the

employer’s Once

liability

such

fault

is

established, the employer can then be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris

tantum that

employer

failed

to

exercise diligentissimi

families in

the

the

patris

selection

and

supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be

negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the

Regrettably

for

LRT,

as

well

as

perhaps the surviving spouse and heirs of the late Nicanor Navidad, this Court is concluded by the factual finding of the CA that “there is nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason that the negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly proven.”

employee, a factual matter that has not

been

shown.

Absent

such

a

showing, one might ask further, how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other

hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

GR NO. 68102, July 16, 1992 GEORGE MCKEE VS. IAC

It was the truck driver’s negligence in failing to exert ordinary care to avoid the collision which was, in law, the proximate cause of the collision. As


Page 74

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines employers of the truck driver, the

The

private respondents are, under Article

referred to means the diligence in the

2180 of the Civil Code, directly and

selection

primarily

resulting

employees. The answers of the private

damages. The presumption that they

respondents in Civil CAses Nos. 4477

are

the

and 4478 did not interpose this

negligence of their employee. That

defense. Neither did they attempt to

presumption, however, is only juris

prove it.

liable

negligent

for

the

flows

from

diligence

of

and

a

good

father

supervision

of

tantum, not juris et de jure. Their only possible

defense

is

that

they

exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.

Article

2180

reads

as

follows:

GR NO. 115024, February 07, 1996 MA. LOURDES VALENZUELA VS. CA

“The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

caused

based on the principle of respondeat superior, which

holds

the

master

liable for acts of the servant, but that of pater familias, in which the liability


The relationship in question is not

by

their

employees and household helpers

acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any

ultimately falls upon the employer, for his failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection

and

supervision

of

his

employees. It is up to this point, however, that our agreement with the

business or industry.

respondent

The responsibility treated of in this

expressed in Article 2180 of the Civil

article

the

Code, we are of the opinion that Li’s

persons herein mentioned prove

employer, Alexander Commercial, Inc.

that they observed all the diligence

is tly and solidarily liable for the

of a good father of a family to

damage caused by the accident of

prevent damage.”

June 24, 1990.

shall

cease


the bonus when

|

court pater


ends.

Utilizing

familias standard

Page 75

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines First, the case of St. Francis High School vs. CA upon which respondent court has placed undue reliance, dealt

6. STATE GR NO. 11154, March 21, 1916

with the subject of a school and its teacher’s during These

supervision

an

of

extracurricular

cases

now

fall

E. MERRITT VS. GOV’T OF THE

students activity.

under

the

provision on special parental authority

PHILIPPINE Paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the

Civil Code reads:

found in Art. 218 of the Family Code

“The state is liable in this sense

which

when it acts through a special

generally

encomes

all

authorized school activities, whether

agent,

inside or outside school premises.

damage

Second,

caused by the official to whom

the

employer’s

primary

tortious

showing

that

he

exercised

the

diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees. Once evidence is introduced showing that the employer exercised the required amount of care in selecting its employees, half of the employer’s burden is overcome. The question however,

of

diligent depends

supervision, on

circumstances of employment.

the

been

article shall be applicable.”

in

character. His liability is relieved on a

have

the

the provisions of the preceding

relation to Art. 2176) of the Civil Code or

should

when

act performed, in which case

familias embodied by Art. 2180 (in quasi-delictual

not

properly it pertained to do the

liability under the concept of pater

is

but

The

supreme

court

of

Spain

in

defining the scope of this paragraph said: “That the obligation to indemnify for damages which a third person

causes to another by his fault or negligence

is

based,

as

is

evidenced by the same Law 3, Title 15, Partida 7, on that the person obligated, by his own fault or negligence, takes part in the act or omission of the third party who caused the damage. It

follows therefrom that the state, by virtue of such provisions of law, is not responsible for the damages Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

suffered


by

private Page 76

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines individuals

in

consequence

of

acts performed by its employees in the discharge of the functions

ambulance of the General Hospital was not such an agent.

pertaining to their office, because neither fault nor even negligence can be presumed on the part of the state in the organization of branches of the public service and in the appointment of its agents; on the contrary, we must presuppose all foresight humanly possible on its part in order that each branch of service serves the general weal and that of private persons

interested

operation. and

its

Between these latter

the

relations

in

state, of

a

therefore, private

no

nature

governed by the civil law can arise except in a case where the state acts as a judicial person capable of acquiring rights and contracting obligations.”

GR NO. L-1120, August 31, 1948 INOCENCIO ROSETE VS. AUDITOR GENERAL The responsibility of the state is limited by article 1903 to the case wherein

acts through

it

a

special

agent (and a special agent, in the sense

in

which

these

words

are

employed, is one who receives a

definite

and

fixed

order

or

commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special

official)

so

that

in

representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof, he executes the trust confided to him. This concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an employee

It is, therefore, evident that the State

of the active istration and who

(the Government of the Philippine

on his own responsibility performs

Islands) is only liable, according to the above

quoted

decisions

of

the

Supreme Court of Spain, for the acts of its agents, officers and employees when they act as special agents within the meaning of paragraph 5 of article 1903, and that the chauffeur of the


|

the functions which are inherent in and naturally pertain to his office and which

are

regulated

by

law

and

regulations. ‘That according to paragraph 5 of

article 1903 of the Civil Code and the principle laid down

in

a

decision,

among others,

of the 18th of May,

1904,

damage

in

a


case,

the

Page 77

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines responsibility of the state is limited to

and with the express purpose of

that which it contracts through a

inflicting injury upon the plaintiff. If

special agent, duly empowered by

they exercise their honest judgment

a definite order or commission to

in the performance of their duties,

perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim, and not where the

their errors cannot be charged against

claim is based on acts or omissions

concerned, a municipality is not liable

imputable to a public official charged

at all, unless expressly made so by

with some istrative or technical

statute; nor are its officers, so long as

office who can be held to the proper

they perform their duties honestly and

responsibility in the manner laid down

in good faith. The most common

by the law of civil responsibility.

illustration of both phases of this rule

Consequently, the trial court in not so

is the action for false imprisonment

deciding and in sentencing the said entity to the payment

of

damages,

caused by an official of the second class referred to, has by erroneous interpretation infringed the provisions of article 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code.

them. So it may be said that in so far as its governmental functions are

so often brought either against a

municipality or s municipal police officer.

So, in Field vs. City of Des

Moines,

it

was

held

that

a

municipality, acting under authority given it by the central government to destroy houses in the path of a conflagration,

was

not

liable

in

damages in the absence of a statute

expressly making it so. From what has already been said, it

GR NO. 9596, February 15, 1916

should be clear that 4 municipality is

MENDOZA VS. FRANCISCO DE LEON Officers or agents of the Government charged

with

the

performance

of

governmental duties which are in their

nature legislative, or quasi judicial, are not liable for the consequences of their official acts, unless it be shown that they act willfully and maliciously, Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

not exempt from liability for the negligent

performance

of

its

corporate or proprietary or business functions. In the istration of its patrimonial

property,

it

is

to

be

regarded as a private corporation or individual so far as its liability to third persons on contract or in tort is


Page 78

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines concerned.

Its

contracts,

validly

entered into, may be enforced and damages may be collected from it for the torts of its officers or agents within the scope of their employment in precisely the same manner and to

and

pump

Certainly,

irrigation the

state

projects.” and

the

community as a whole are largely benefited by the services the agency renders, but these functions are only

the same extent as those of private

incidental to the principal aim of the

corporations or individuals.

agency, which is the irrigation of

such

matters

the

As to

principles

of

respondeat superior applies. It is for

lands.

these purposes that the municipality

The National Irrigation istration

is made liable to suits in the courts.

is

a

government

juridical

agency

personality

with

a

separate

and

distinct from the government.

It is

not a mere agency of the government but

GR NO. 55963, February 27, 1991

a

corporate

body

proprietary functions.

FONTANILLA VS. MALIAMAN The National Irrigation istration was not created for purposes of local government. While it may be true that

performing

Therefore, it

may be held liable for the damages caused by the negligent act of its driver who was now its special agent.

the NIA was essentially a service agency of the government aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare, such fact does not make the NIA

essentially

and

purely

a

GR NO. L-23052, January 29, 1968 MANILA VS. GENERO M. TEOTICO Under Article 2189 of the Civil Code,

“government-function”

it is not necessary for the liability

corporation. NIA was created for the

therein established to attach that the

purpose of “constructing, improving,

defective roads or streets belong to

rehabilitating, and istering all

the province, city or municipality from

national

which responsibility is exacted. What

irrigation

systems in the

Philippines, including all communal Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

said

article

requires


is

that

the

Page 79

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines province, city or municipality have

is relaxed, the power of the

either “control or supervision” over

courts

said street or road. Even if P. Burgos avenue were, therefore, a national highway, this circumstance would not necessarily detract from its “control or

ends

judgment

when

is

the

rendered.

Although the liability of the state

has

been

Judicially

ascertained, the state is at liberty to determine for itself

supervision” by the City of Manila,

whether to pay the judgment

under Republic Act 409.

or not, and execution cannot issue on a judgment against the state.

not authorize a seizure of

GR NO. L-20322, May 29, 1968

state

REPUBLIC VS. PERFECTO R. PALACIO Acknowledging

the

nature

of

Such statutes do

the

Pump Irrigation Trust Fund as a public fund, the CA nevertheless sustained the garnishment order, on the ground

property

judgments

to

satisfy

recovered,

and

only convey an implication

that

the

legislature

will

recognize such judgment as final and make provision for

that the ISU, by engaging in the

the satisfaction thereof.”

private business of purchasing and

“Judgments against a state,

selling

irrigation

installment

basis,

governmental

pumps has

on

waived

its

and,

by

immunity

implication, consented to the suit.

in

cases

consented

where to

it

be

has sued,

generally operate merely to liquidate

and

establish

It is apparent that this decision of the

plaintiffs

claim

in

CA

absence

of

suffers

from

the

erroneous

the

express

assumption that because the State has

provision;

waived its immunity, its property and

cannot

funds become liable to seizure under

processes of law; and it is for

legal process. This emphatically is

the legislature to provide for

not

their

the

law

(Merritt

vs.

Insular

be

otherwise

they

enforced

payment

in

by

such

manner as it sees fit.”

Government, 34 Phil. 311). “Even though the rule as to immunity of a state from suit Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 80

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines 7. OTHERS

of a tort by one against the other and the consequent recovery of damages.

GR NO. L-25172, May 24, 1974 ARANETA VS. ANTONIO R. DE JOYA The petitioner’s assertion that he signed the questioned payroll checks

in

good

faith

has

not

been

GR NO. L-53064, September 25, 1980

substantiated, he in particular not

FELIX LANUZO VS SY BON PING

having testified or offered testimony

For his own negligence in recklessly

to

driving the truck owned and operated

prove

such

claim.

Upon

the

contrary, in spite of his being a vicepresident and director of the Ace Advertising, the petitioner remained

ive, throughout the period of

by his employer, the driver, Salvador Mendoza, is primarily liable under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. On the other

hand,

the

liability

of

his

employer, Sy Bon Ping, is also primary

Taylor’s stay abroad, concerning the

and direct under Article 2180 of the

unauthorized

same Code, which explicitly provides:

disbursements

of

corporate funds for the latter. This

“Employers shall be liable for

plus the fact that he even approved

the damages caused by their

thrice payroll checks for the payment

employees

of Taylor’s salary, demonstrate quite

distinctly that the petitioner neglected to perform his duties properly, to the damage of the firm of which he was an officer.

The fact that he was

occupying a contractual position at the

Ace

Advertising

is

of

no

and

household

helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though

the

former

are

not

engaged in any business or industry.” For failure of the appellant Sy Bon Ping to rebut the legal presumption of his negligence in the selection and

moment. The existence of a contract

supervision of his employee, he is

between the parties, as has been

likewise responsible for the damages

repeatedly

caused by the negligent act of his

held

by

this

Court,

constitutes no bar to the commission Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

employee (driver) Salvador Mendoza,


Page 81

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines and

his

liability

is

primary

and

solidary.

imprudence

of

the

third

party

defendant Gregorio Hufana” and, in

“What needs only to be alleged under

the

aforequoted

provision (Article 2180, Civil Code)

is

that the

employee

(driver) has, by his negligence (quasi-delict) caused damage to make the employer, likewise,

petitioner’s motion for leave to file a third party complaint, it was stated that “Patricio Hufana and Gregorio Hufana were not made parties to this action, although the defendants are entitled

to

indemnity

and/or

subrogation against them in respect

responsible for the tortious act

of plaintiff’s claim.”

of

It should make no difference therefore

the

employee,

and

his

liability is, as earlier observed,

whether

primary and solidary”

brought in as principal defendants or

But although the employer is solidarily

liable with the employee for damages, the

employer

may

demand

reimbursement from his employee (driver)

for

employer

whatever

will

have

amount to

pay

the the

offended party to satisfy the latter’s claim.

the

respondents

were

as third-party defendants. As Moran points out, since the liability of the third-party

defendant

is

already

asserted in the third-party complaint, the amendment of the complaint to assert wuch liability is merely a matter of form, to insist on which would not be in keeping with the liberal spirit of the Rules of Court.

Nor should it make any difference that the liability of petitioner springs from contract while that of respondents GR NOS. L-21477-81, April 29, 1966

1931,

FRANCISCA VILUAN VS. CA The third party complaints filed by petitioner and her driver charged respondents with direct liability to the plaintiffs. It was contended that the accident

was

negligence,

due

“to

the

carelessness


|

arises from quasi-delict. As early as

fault, and

we

already

ruled

in

Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, 56 Phil. 177, that in case of injury to a enger due to the negligence of the driver of

the bus on which he was riding and of o£ the driver of another vehicle, the drivers as well as the owners of the two vehicles are tly and severally


Page 82

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines liable for damages. Some of

A person whose constitutional rights

the Court, though, are of the view that

have been violated or impaired is

under the circumstances they are liable on quasi-delict.

entitled to actual and moral damages from the public officer or employee responsible therefor. But

VII. TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION A. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS GR NO. L-22554, August 29, 1975

defendant-appellee

Orlando

Maddela cannot be held able because he impounded the motor launch upon the order of his superior officer.

While a subordinate officer

may be held liable for executing unlawful orders of his superior officer,

DELFIN LIM VS. DE LEON

there are certain circumstances which

The mere fact that a man is an officer,

would warrant Maddela’s exculpation

whether of high or low degree, gives

from liability. The records show that

him no more right than is possessed

after Fiscal Ponce de Leon made his

by the ordinary private citizen to

first

break in upon the privacy of a home

Commander

and

the

Maddela was reluctant to impound the

indignity of a search for the evidence

motor launch despite repeated orders

of crime, without a legal warrant

from his superior officer. It was only

purpose. No

after he was furnished a copy of the

amount of incriminating evidence,

reply of Fiscal Ponce de Leon, dated

whatever its source, will supply the

June 26, 1962, to the letter of the

place of such warrant. At the closed

Provincial Commander, justifying the

door of the home be it palace or

necessity of the seizure of the motor

hovel, even bloodhounds must wait

launch

till the law, by authoritative process,

subsequent sale of the launch to

bids it open.

Delfin Lim could not prevent the court

subject

procured

for

its

occupant

that

to

request

on

to on

the

the June

ground

Provincial 15,

1962

that

the

from taking custody of the same, that Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 83

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines he impounded the motor launch on

provided their acts or omissions do

July 6, 1962. With said letter coming

not constitute a violation of the Penal

from the legal officer of the province,

Code or other penal statute.

Maddela was led to believe that there was a legal basis and authority to impound the launch. Then came the

order of his superior officer to explain for the delay in the seizure of the

The law speaks of an officer or employee

or

"indirectly"

person

'directly'

responsible

for

or the

violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. Thus, it is not

motor launch. Faced with a possible

the actor alone (i.e. the one directly

disciplinary

his

responsible) who must answer for

commander, Maddela was left with no

damages under Article 32; the person

action

from

alternative but to seize the vessel. In the light of the above circumstances,

the Court is not disposed to hold

indirectly responsible

has also to

answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. By this provision, the principle of

Maddela answerable for damages.

ability of public officials under the

Constitution acquires

meaning

and

asgilrnes

added a

larger

dimension. No longer may a superior G.R. No. L-69866; April 15, 1988

official relax his vigilance or abdicate

ROGELIO ABERCA VS. FABIAN VER

subordinates, secure in the thought

Article 32 of the Civil Code renders

that he does not have to answer for

any public officer or employee or any

the transgressions committed by the

his

private individual liable in damages for violating the Constitutional rights and

liberties

of

another,

as

enumerated therein, does not exempt

duty

latter

to

against

supervise

the

his

constitutionally

protected rights and liberties of the citizen.

Part

of

the

factors

that

propelled people power in February 1986 was the widely held perception

the respondents from responsibility.

that the government was callous or

Only

indifferent

judges

liability

under

are

excluded

the


said |

from article,

responsible

to,

if

for,

not the

actually rampant

violations of human rights. While it


Page 84

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines would certainly be go naive to expect

The acts committed by the PC soldiers

that violators of human rights would

of

easily be deterred by the prospect of

merchandise and of filing the criminal

facing

complaint

damage

suits,

it

should

unlawfully for

seizing

appellees’

unfair

appellees

competition

nonetheless be made clear in no ones

against

were

for

the

that Article 32 of the Civil Code

protection and benefit of appellant

makes the persons who are directly,

corporation. Such being the case, it is,

as well as indirectly, responsible for

thus, reasonably fair to infer from

the transgression t tort-feasors.

those acts that it was upon appellant corporation’s instance that the PC soldiers


The very nature of Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal. It is not necessary therefore that there should be malice or bad faith. To make such a requisite would defeat the main purpose of Article 32 which the

effective

protection

the

raid

and

effected the illegal seizure. These circumstances should answer the trial court’s query — posed in its decision

MHP GARMENTS, INC. VS. CA

is

conducted

of

now under consideration — as to why

the PC soldiers immediately turned over the seized merchandise appellant corporation. The raid was conducted with the active participation of their employee. Larry de Guzman did not lift a finger to stop the seizure of the boy and girl

individual rights. Public officials in the

scouts

past have abused their powers on the

and apparently assenting thereto, he

pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the

performance

of

their

duties. Precisely, the object of the Article is to put an end to official

items.

By

standing

by

was liable to the same extent as the officers petitioner

themselves. So corporation

with which

the even

received for safekeeping the goods unreasonably seized by the PC raiding

abuse by plea of the good faith. In the

team and de Guzman, and refused to

United States this remedy is in the

surrender

nature of a tort.

despite the dismissal of its complaint


them for

quite

a

time

for unfair competition.

|


Page 85

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines B. DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHUSICAL INJURIES

extinction

proceeds

from

a

declaration in a final judgment that

GR NO. L-34529, January 27, 1983

the fact from which the civil might

MAXIMO MARCIA VS. CA

unless the act from which the civil

arise did not exist.” Otherwise stated,

criminal

liability arises is declared to be non-

negligence is not one of the three

existent in the final judgment, the

crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the

extinction of the criminal liability will

Civil Code, which provides:

not carry with it the extinction of the

Reckless

imprudence

or

civil liability. Thus, if a person is

“ART. 33. In cases of

charged

defamation, fraud, and

with

homicide

and

successfully pleaded self-defense, his

physical injuries, a civil

acquittal

action for damages, entirely

by

reason

thereof

will

extinguish his civil liability. He has

separate and distinct from

not incurred any criminal liability. On

the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and

the other hand, if his acquittal is, for instance, due to the fact that he was not sufficiently identified to be the assailant, a civil action for damages may be maintained. His acquittal is

shall require only a preponderance of evidence.”

not due to non-existence of the crime from which civil liability might arise,

The above article speaks only of

but because he was not, in the eyes of

defamation,

the court, sufficiently identified as the

injuries.

fraud

The

and

injuries

physical

suffered

by

perpetrator of the crime.

herein petitioners were alleged to be the result of criminal negligence; they were not inflicted with malice. Hence, no

independent

damages

may

civil be

action

instituted

for in

GR NO. 51183, December 21, 1983

connection therewith. Further, Section

CARMEN L. MADEJA VS. FELIX T. CARO

3(c), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court

The term “physical injuries” is used in

states that “(c) Extinction of the penal

a generic sense. It is not the crime of

action

physical

does

not

carry

with

it

extinction of the civil, unless the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

injuries

defined

in

the

Revised Penal Code. It includes not


Page 86

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines only

physical

consummated,

injuries

but

recommendation

frustrated

and

accepted by the Legislature when it

have

approved

The Article in question uses the words

recommended. If the intent has been

‘fraud’

and

‘physical

injuries.’ Defamation and fraud are used in their ordinary sense because there are no specific provisions in the Revised Penal Code using these as means of offenses defined therein, so that these two defamation and fraud must have been used not to impart to them any technical meaning

article

been

attempted homicide. ‘defamation’,

the

must

intact

as

to establish a civil action for the bodily

harm

received

by

the

complainant similar to the civil action for assault and battery, as the Code Commission states, the civil action should

lie

whether

the

offense

committed is that of physical injuries, or frustrated homicide, or attempted homicide, or even death.

in the laws of the Philippines, but in their

generic

sense. With

this

apparent circumstance in mind, it is evident

that

the

physical

injuries’ could not have been used in

GR NO. 150256, March 25, 2004

its specific sense as a crime defined in

ARAFILES VS. PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS

the Revised Penal Code, for it is

Article 33 contemplates a civil action

difficult to believe that the Code

for the recovery of damages that is

Commission would have used in the same article – some in their general and another in its technical sense. In ‘physical

other

words,

injuries’

the

term

should

be

entirely

unrelated

to

the

purely

criminal aspect of the case. A civil action for libel under this article shall be instituted and prosecuted to final

understood to mean bodily injury, not

judgment

the crime of physical injuries, because

preponderance of evidence separately

the used with the latter are

from and entirely independent of the

general . In any case the Code Commission recommended that the civil action for physical injuries be

and

proved

by

institution, pendency or result of the

criminal action because it is governed

similar to the civil action for assault

by the provisions of the New Civil

and battery in American Law, and this

Code and not by the Revised Penal


|


Page 87

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Code governing the criminal offense

be

read

in

connection

charged and the civil liability arising

language which follows.

with

the

therefrom. In actions for damages for libel, it is axiomatic that the published work

1. DEFAMATION

alleged to contain libelous material must be examined and viewed as a

GR NO. 135306, January 28, 2003

whole. The article must be construed as an

MVRS PUBLICATIONS VS. ISLAMIC

entirety including the headlines, as

Defamation, which includes libel and

they may enlarge, explain, or restrict

slander, means the offense of injuring

or

a

be

enlarged,

explained

or

person’s

character,

reputation

context. Whether or not it is libelous,

malicious statements. It is that which

depends upon the scope, spirit and

tends

motive of the publication taken in its

diminish the esteem, respect, good

entirety.

will or confidence in the plaintiff or to

publication

defamatory

claimed

must

be

to read

be and

construed in the sense in which the readers to whom it is addressed

would ordinarily understand it.

So,

the whole item, including display lines, should be read and construed together,

and

its

meaning

and

signification thus determined. In order to ascertain the meaning of a published article, the whole of the article

must

be

considered,

each

phrase must be construed in the light of

the

entire

publication.

The

headlines of a newspaper must also Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

to

injure

false

or

strengthened or restricted by the

A

through

fame

reputation

and or

to

excite derogatory feelings or opinions about

the

publication injurious

plaintiff. It of

to

is

anything the

good

the

which

is

name

or

reputation of another or tends to bring him into disrepute. Defamation is

an

invasion

of

a relational

interest since it involves the opinion which others in the community may have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff. It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable

as libel or slander per se, and mere words

of

general

abuse

however

opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not


Page 88

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines constitute a basis for an action for

Although the gist of an action for

defamation in the absence of an

defamation is an injury to reputation,

allegation for special damages. The

the focus of a defamation action is

fact that the language is offensive to

upon

the

statement itself and its predictable

plaintiff

does

not

make

it

the

actionable by itself.

effect

Defamation is made up of the twin torts of libel and slander – the one being, in general, written, while the other in general is oral. In either form, defamation is an invasion of the interest in reputation and good name. This is a “relational interest” since it involves the opinion others in the community may have, or tend to have of the plaintiff.

statement

The law of defamation protects the interest in reputation – the interest in acquiring,

retaining

and

allegedly

upon is

third

defamatory persons.

ordinarily

A

considered

defamatory if it “tend[s] to expose one to public hatred, shame, obloquy, contumely, odium, contempt, ridicule, aversion, ostracism, degradation or disgrace…” The Restatement of Torts defines a defamatory statement as one that “tends to so harm the reputation of another as to lower him

in the estimation of the community or to

deter

third

persons

from

associating or dealing with him.”

enjoying

one’s reputation as good as one’s character and conduct warrant. The

2. FRAUD

mere fact that the plaintiff’s feelings

and sensibilities have been offended is not enough to create a cause of action for defamation. Defamation requires

that

something

may affect the opinion others may have of the plaintiff. The unprivileged communication must be shown of a

statement that would tend to hurt reputation,

to

ALMARIO T. SALTA VS. JESUS DE

be

communicated to a third person that

plaintiff’s

GR NO. L-37733, September 30, 1982

impair

plaintiff’s standing in the community.

VEYRA It is significant to note that under Article 31 of the New Civil Code, it is made

clear

permitted

that therein

the to

civil be

action filed

separately from the criminal action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings “regardless of the result of the latter.” It seems


|


Page 89

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines perfectly reasonable to conclude that the civil actions mentioned in Article 33, permitted in the same manner to be filed separately from the criminal case,

may

proceed

similarly

regardless of the result of the criminal case. Indeed, when the law has allowed a civil case related to a criminal case, to be filed separately and to proceed independently pendency of

even the

during

latter

case,

the the

intention is patent to make the court’s disposition of the criminal case of no effect whatsoever on the separate civil case. This must be so because the offenses specified in Article 33 are of such a nature, unlike other offenses not mentioned, that they may be

3. PHYSICAL INJURIES GR NO. L-19331, April 30, 1965 VICTORIA G. CAPUNO VS. PEPSI-COLA In filing the civil action as they did appellants correctly considered it as

entirely independent of the criminal action, pursuant to Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Code, which read: “Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising

from

proceed independently of the criminal

proceedings

the latter.” defamation,

separability

of

their

distinct respective

and

regardless of the result of

action

the

or

felony, such civil action may

“Art.

of

act

omission complained of as a

made the subject of a separate civil because

the

33.

physical

In

cases fraud,

injuries,

of and

a

civil

juridical cause or basis of action. This

action of damages, entirely

is clearly illustrated in the case of

separate and distinct from

swindling, a specie of an offense

the criminal action may be

committed by means of fraud, where

brought by the injured party.

the civil case may be filed separately

Such

and proceed independently of the

proceed independently of the

criminal case, regardless of the result

criminal

of the latter.

shall

civil

action

shall

prosecution, require

and

only

a

preponderance of evidence.” The term “physical injuries” in Article 33 includes bodily injuries causing death. In other words the civil action Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 90

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines for

damages

commenced

could

have

by

been

vs. Yatco, et al., GR NO. L-9623,

appellants

January 22, 1957, this Court held that

immediately upon the death of their decedent, Cipriano CApuno, on January 3, 1953 or thereabouts, and the same would not have been

the term “physical injuries” used in article 33 of the Civil Code includes homicide, it is to be borne in mind

stayed by the filing of the criminal

that

action for homicide through reckless

against Felardo Paje was for reckless

imprudence. But the complaint here

imprudence

was

and not for homicide and physical

filed

only

on September

26,

1958, or after the lapse of more than five years.

the

charge

resulting

in

homicide,

injuries. The offense of criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or

GR NO. L-26737, July 31, 1969 LAURA CORPUS VS. FELARDO PAJE Criminal negligence, that is, reckless imprudence, is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil

Code

which

authorizes

the

institution of an independent civil action, that is, of an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, which shall proceed independently of

negligent act that,

intentionally punishable

done, as

a

thus

the

careless

act,

not

consequence

negligent the

gravity is

be

felony. The

penalizes

thereof. The

would

only

if law or

result

of

the

taken

into

to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the offense.

the criminal prosecution and shall be

It is, therefore, clear that the charge

proved only by a preponderance of

against Felardo Paje was

evidence. Said article mentions only

homicide but for reckless imprudence,

the

that is, criminal negligence resulting

crimes

(estafa)

of

and

defamation, physical

fraud

injuries.

Although in the case of Dyogi, et al. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

in

homicide

(death

not

of

for

Clemente

Marcia) and double physical injuries


Page 91

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines suffered by two other persons. As

consummated,

reckless

attempted homicide. Thus, petitioners

imprudence

or

criminal

frustrated

negligence is not one of the three

maintain

crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the

conviction is unnecessary since the

Civil Code, there is no independent

civil action can proceed independently

civil action for damages that may be

of the criminal action. On the other

instituted in connection with said

hand, it is the private respondents’

offense. Hence,

through

argument that since the act was not

criminal

committed

reckless

homicide

imprudence

or

that

and

Torzuela’s

with

prior

negligence,

the

negligence comes under the general

petitioners have no cause of action

rule

under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the

that

the

acquittal

of

the

defendant in the criminal action is a

New

Civil

Code.

bar to his civil liability based upon the

contemplated in Article 2177 is not

same criminal act notwithstanding

applicable to acts committed with

that the injured party reserve his right

deliberate intent, but only applies to

to institute a separate civil action. In

quasi-offenses under Article 365 of

the language of the Rules of Court

the Revised Penal Code. Torzuela’s act

(Rule 111, Sec. 3), the extinction of

of shooting Atty. Dulay to death, aside

the criminal action by acquittal of the

from being purely personal, was done

defendant on the ground that the

with deliberate intent and could not

criminal act charged against him did

have been part of his duties as

not exist, necessarily extinguished

security guard. And since Article 2180

also the civil action for damages

of the New Civil Code covers only acts

based upon the same act.

done

within

employee’s

the

The

civil

scope

assigned

action

of

the

tasks,

the

private respondents cannot be held GR NO. 108017, April 03, 1995

liable for damages.

MARIA BENITA A. DULAY VS. CA The term "physical injuries" under Article 33 has been held to include Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 92

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines VIII. INTENTIONAL TORTS

GR NO. 122191, October 08, 1998

A. ABUSE OF RIGHTS

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES VS. CA Respondent

GR NO. L-7817, October 31, 1956

A moral wrong or injury, even if it does not constitute a violation of a statute law, should be compensated

be recovered

damages.

to

plead and prove the law of the

and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Considering that it was the petitioner who was invoking the applicability

of

the

law

of

Saudi

may

Arabia, thus the burden was on it to

In Article

plead and to establish what the law of

2217)

(Art. 2219).

obligation

cause of action is based on Articles 19

COMPANY

Moral damages (Art.

no

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since her

ALFREDO M. VELAYO VS. SHELL

by

has

20, the liability for damages arises from a willful or negligent act contrary

Saudi Arabia is.

to law. In this article, the act is

contrary to morals, good customs or public policy” Article 23 of the Civil Code goes as far

GR NO. 81262, August 25, 1989

as to provides that, “Even if an act or event causing damage to another’s

GLOBE MACKAY VS. CA

property was not due to the fault or

In determining whether or not the

negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.”

principle of abuse of rights may be

With mere much more reason the

not hesitated to apply Article 19

Defendant

whether

should

be

liable

for

indemnity for acts it committed in bad faith and with betrayal of confidence.

invoked, there is no rigid test which can be applied. While the Court has the

circumstances

legal called

and

factual for

its

application the question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has

been

violated

resulting

in

damages under Article 20 or Article Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 93

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines 21 or other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. And in the instant case, the Court, after examining the record and considering

certain

significant

GR NO. 88694, January 11, 1993 ALBENSON ENTERPRISES VS. CA The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2)

circumstances, finds that petitioners

which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for

have indeed abused the right that

the

they

injuring another. Article 20 speaks of

invoke,

causing

damage

to

private respondent and for which the latter must now be indemnified. The Court has ruled that the right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If

sole intent of

prejudicing

or

the general sanction for all other provisions

of

law

especially

provide

sanction.

Thus,

which for

do

their

anyone

not own who,

whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty,

causes

damage

indemnify

his

to

another,

victim

for

shall

injuries

suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with

the dismissal is done abusively, then

acts contra bonus mores, and has the

the employer is liable for damages to

following elements: 1) There is an act

the

which is legal; 2) but which is contrary

employee.

Under

the

circumstances of the instant case, the petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the latter the right

to

recover

damages

under

Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of

to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; 3) and it is done

with intent to injure. Thus, under any of these three (3) provisions of law, an act which causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages.

the Civil Code.


|


Page 94

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 140420, February 15, 2001

In the ultimate analysis, petitioner’s liability is premised on the obligation

SERGIO AMONOY VS. SPOUSES

to repair or to make whole the

GUTIERREZ Well-settled

that

of one’s act or omission, whether

damage resulting from the legitimate

done intentionally or negligently and

exercise of a person’s rights is a loss

whether or not punishable by law.

without

is

injury

the

damage caused to another by reason maxim

— damnum

absque

injuria — for which the law gives no remedy. In other

words, one who

merely exercises one’s rights does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable for damages.

In

this

case,

the

GR NO. 132344, February 17, 2000 UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST VS. ROMEO A. JADER

demolition

of

The institution of learning involved

respondents’

house

by

petitioner,

herein

despite

receipt

of

the

engaged in legal education, it should

his

TRO,

was not only an abuse but also an

unlawful exercise of such right. In insisting on his alleged right, he wantonly violated this Court’s Order

is

a

university

which

is

have practiced what it inculcates in its students,

more

specifically

the

principle of good dealings enshrined

and wittingly caused the destruction

in Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil

of respondents’ house.

Code.

Obviously,

petitioner

invoke damnum principle

cannot

absque

premised

injuria,

on

the

a

valid

exercise of a right. Anything less or beyond such exercise will not give rise

In belatedly informing respondent of the result of the removal examination, particularly at a time when he had already commenced preparing for the

the

bar exams, cannot be said to have

principle accords. And when damage

acted in good faith. Absence of good

or prejudice to another is occasioned

faith must be sufficiently established

thereby, liability cannot be obscured,

for a successful prosecution by the

to

the

legal

protection

that

much less abated. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of |


Page 95

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines right under Article 19 of the Civil

control over the instrumentality which

Code. Good faith connotes an honest

caused the damage or injury.

intention

to

abstain

from

taking

undue advantage of another, even though the forms and technicalities of the law, together with the absence of

GR NO. 96126, August 10, 1992

all information or belief of facts, would

render

the

ESTERIA F. GARCIANO VS. CA

transaction

unconscientious. It is the school that

Liability for damages under Articles

has access to those information and it

19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code arises

is only the school that can compel its

only

professors to act and comply with its

negligent acts that are contrary to

rules, regulations and policies with

law, or morals, good customs or

respect to the computation and the

public policy.

prompt

submission

of

grades.

Students do not exercise control, much less influence, over the way an educational institution should run its affairs, particularly in disciplining its professors and teachers and ensuring

their compliance with the school’s rules and orders. Being the party that hired them, it is the school that exercises

general

supervision

and

exclusive control over the professors with respect to the submission of reports

standing.

involving

Exclusive

the

students’

control

means

that no other person or entity had any

from

unlawful,

willful

or

The right to recover damages under Article 21 is based on equity, and he who

comes

to

court

to

demand

equity, must come with clean hands. Article 21 should be construed as granting the right to recover damages to

injured

persons

who

are

not

themselves at fault. Moral damages are recoverable only if the case falls under Article 2219 in relation to Article

21.

In

the

case

at

bar,

petitioner is not without fault. Firstly, she went on an indefinite leave of absence and failed to report back in time

for

the

regular

opening

of

classes. Secondly, for reasons known Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 96

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines to herself alone, she refused to sign a

right is unjust, or when there has

written

been an abuse of right.

Lastly,

contract she

of

ignored

employment. the Board

of

Directors’ order for her to report for duty on July 5, 1982.

It is an elementary rule in this jurisdiction

that

good

faith

is

presumed and that the burden of proving bad faith rests upon the party alleging the same. In the case at bar, petitioner has failed to prove bad faith

GR NO. 126486, February 09, 1998

on the part of private respondent. Petitioner’s

BARONS MARKETING VS. CA The law, as set forth in Article 19 of the

Civil

Code,

prescribes

a

“primordial limitation on all rights” by setting certain standards that must be observed

in

the

exercise

thereof.

There is undoubtedly an abuse of

allegation

that

private

respondent was motivated by a desire to terminate its agency relationship with

petitioner

so

that

private

respondent itself may deal directly with Meralco is simply not ed by the evidence.

right when it is exercised for the only purpose of prejudicing or injuring another. The exercise of a right must

be in accordance with the purpose for

GR NO. 120639, September 25, 1998

which it was established, and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to injure another. Ultimately, however, and in

BPI VS. CA To find the existence of an abuse of right under Article 19 the following elements must be present: (1) There

practice, courts, in the sound exercise

is a legal right or duty; (2) which is

of

exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole

their

determine

discretion,

all

will

the

have

facts

to

and

circumstances when the exercise of a

intent

of

prejudicing

or

injuring

another. The Court has held that good faith is presumed and the burden of proving


|


Page 97

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines bad faith is on the party alleging

no remedy for damages resulting

it. This private respondent failed to

from an act which does not amount to

do. In fact, the action of the petitioner belies the existence of bad faith. As early as 28 October 1989, petitioner could

have

suspended

private

a

legal

injury

or

wrong.

These

situations are often called damnum

absque injuria.

respondent’s card outright. Instead, petitioner allowed private respondent to use his card for several weeks. Petitioner had even notified private respondent

of

the

impending

suspension of his credit card and made him

special for

accommodations

settling

his

B. ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES

for

outstanding

1. ELEMENTS

. As such, petitioner cannot be

said

to

have

arbitrarily

capriciously

canceled

the

and

private

respondent’s credit card. There

is

a

material

distinction

between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right;

GR NO. L-15526, December 28, 1963 ENRIQUE J.L. RUIZ VS. SECRETARY Appellants invoke Article 21 of the Civil Code, which states, “Any person who wilfully cause loss or injury to

damage is the loss, hurt, or harm

another in a manner that is contrary

which results from the injury; and

to morals, good customs or public

damages

policy shall compensate the latter for

are

the

compensation

recompense

awarded

for

or the

damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage

without

injury

in

those

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

legal

duty.

In

such

Contending that the word “injury” in the said article, refers not only to any indeterminate right or property, but also to honor or credit. It may be added, however, that this article also

the

envisions a. situation where a person

consequences must be borne by the

has a legal right, and such right is

injured person alone, the law affords

violated by another in a manner


cases,

the damages.”

|


Page 98

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines contrary to morals, good customs or

walk out of it when the matrimony is

public policy; it presupposes losses or

about to be solemnized, is quite

injuries, material or otherwise, which

different.

one may suffer as a result of said

unjustifiably

violation. The pleadings do not show

customs, for which defendant must be

that damages were ever asked or

held

alleged in connection with this case,

accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.

predicted upon the article aforecited.

Per express provision of Article 2219

And

under

the

facts

and

circumstances obtaining in this case, one

cannot

plausibly

sustain

the

contention that the failure or refusal to extend the recognition, was an act contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

This

is

palpably

contrary

answerable

in

to

and good

damages

in

(10) of the new Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of said Code. As to exemplary damages, defendant contends that the same could not be adjudged against respondent because under Article 2232 of the new Civil Code the condition precedent is that “the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner”.

2. EXAMPLES a. MARRY,

BREACH

OF

SEDUCTION

PROMISE AND

TO

SEXUAL GR NO. L-18630, December 17, 1966

ASSAULT

APOLONIO TANJANCO VS. CA GR NO. L-20089, December 26, 1964

The Court ruled that to constitute

BEATRIZ P. WASSMER VS. FRANCISCO

some

Mere breach of promise to marry is an

actionable

formally

set

a

through

all

the

wrong.

wedding

But and

to go

above-described

preparation, and publicity, only to Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

sufficient

promise

or

Inducement and

X. VELEZ not

seduction there must in all cases be

|

the woman must yield because of the promise or other inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse is from

mutual

desire,

there

is

no

seduction. She must be induced to


Page 99

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines depart from the path of virtue by the

apart from the right to recover money

use

or property advanced by the plaintiff

of

some

persuasions

and

species

of

wiles,

which

arts, are

upon

the

faith

of

such

calculated to have and do have that

promise.[8] Generally,

effect,

breach of promise to marry per se is

and

which

result

in

her

actionable,

therefore,

ultimately submitting her person to

not

the sexual embraces of her seducer

plaintiff

And in American Jurisprudence the

expenses for the wedding and the

has

except

where

a

actually

the

incurred

Court find: “On the other hand, in an

necessary incidents thereof.

action by the woman, the enticement,

However, the award of moral damages

persuasion

the

is allowed in cases specified in or

essence of the injury; and a mere

analogous to those provided in Article

proof of intercourse is insufficient to

2219 of the Civil Code. Correlatively,

warrant a recovery. Accordingly it is

under Article 21 of said Code, in

not seduction where the willingness

relation to paragraph 10 of said

arises out of sexual desire or curiosity

Article 2219, any person who wilfully

of the female, and the defendant

causes loss or injury to another in a

merely

needed

manner that is contrary to morals,

opportunity for the commission of the

good customs or public policy shall

act. It has been emphasized that to

compensate

allow a recovery in all such cases

damages. Article 21 was adopted to

would tend to the demoralization of

remedy the countless gaps in the

the female sex, and would be a

statutes which leave so many victims

reward for unchastity by which a class

of moral wrongs helpless even though

of adventuresses would be swift to

they have actually suffered material

profit.”

and moral injury, and is intended to

or

affords

deception

her

the

is

the

latter

for

moral

vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which GR NO. 101749, July 10, 1992

is

impossible

for

human

foresight to specifically provide for in the statutes.

CONRADO BUNAG, JR. VS CA

Under the circumstances obtaining in

An action for breach of promise to

the case at bar, the acts of petitioner

marry has no standing in the civil law,

in


|

forcibly

abducting


private Page 100

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines respondent

and

having

carnal

desire. At the time she met Ivan at

knowledge with her against her will,

Tony’s

and thereafter promising to marry her

already 28 years old and she itted

in order to escape criminal liability,

that she was attracted to Ivan. Her

only to thereafter renege on such

attraction to Ivan is the reason why

promise after cohabiting with her for

she surrendered her womanhood. Had

twenty-one

irremissibly

she been induced or deceived because

constitute acts contrary to morals and

of a promise of marriage, she could

good

grossly

have immediately severed her relation

reprehensible

with Ivan when she was informed after

indisputably

their first sexual sometime in

warrant and abundantly justify the

August, 1974, that he was a married

award

man.

days,

customs.

insensate

and

transgressions of

These

are

which

moral

and

exemplary

Restaurant,

Her

Amelita

declaration

was

that in the

damages, pursuant to Article 21 in

months of September, October and

relation to paragraphs 3 and 10,

November, 1974, they repeated their

Article 2219, and Articles 2229 and

sexual intercourse only indicates that

2234 of the Civil Code.

ion and not the alleged promise of marriage was the moving force that made her submit herself to Ivan.

GR NO. 57227, May 14, 1992 AMELITA CONSTANTINO VS. IVAN MENDEZ

GR NO. L-26795, July 31, 1970

Claim for damages which is based on

CARMEN QUIMIGUING VS. FELIX ICAO

Articles19 & 21 of the Civil Code on the

theory

that

through

Ivan’s

promise of marriage, she surrendered her virginity, we cannot but agree with the CA

that

mere

sexual

intercourse is not by itself a basis for recovery. Damages could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of voluntariness and mutual Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

For a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to his lust constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that entitles her to claim compensation for the damage caused. Says Article 21 of the Civil Code

of

the

21. Any person

Philippines:

“ART.

who wilfully causes

loss or injury to another in a manner


Page 101

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines that is contrary to morals, good

eventually fell in love with each other

customs

and conducted clandestine love affairs

or

public

compensate

the

policy

latter

shall

for

the

damage.”

not only in Gasan but in Boac where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school.

The rule of Article 21 is ed by Article 2219 of the same Code that moral damages may be recovered in Seduction,

abduction, rape or

other

lascivious acts.

When the rumors about their ilicit affair reached the knowledge of her

parents,

defendant

was

forbidden

from going to their house and even from seeing Lolita. Plaintiffs even filed deportation

proceedings

against

defendant who is a Chinese national. GR NO. L-17396, May 30, 1962 CECILIO PE VS. ALFONSO PE The

circumstances

love

affairs

with

Lolita

until

she

disappeared from the parental home.

which

Indeed, no other conclusion can be

Lolita’s

drawn from this chain of events than

affection cannot lead to any other

that defendant not only deliberately,

conclusion than that it was he who,

but

thru an ingenious scheme or trickery,

succeeded in winning the affection

seduced the latter to the extent of

and love of Lolita to the extent of

making her fall in love with him. This

having illicit relations with her.

defendant

tried

under

Nevertheless, defendant continued his

to

win

is shown by the fact that defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. Because of the frequency of his visits to the latter’s family who was allowed free

access because he was a collateral relative and was considered as a member

of

her

family,


the |

two

through

a

clever

strategy,

The wrong he has caused her and her family

is

indeed

immeasurable

considering the fact that he is a married

man.

Verily,

he

has

committed an injury to Lolita’s family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs

and

public

policy

as

contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code.


Page 102

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines malice, i.e., by improper and sinister

b. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

motives. GR NO. 47013, February 17, 2000 ANDRES LAO VS. CA Malicious

prosecution

has

been

defined as an action for damages

GR NO. 66865, January 13, 1989 MAGTANGGOL QUE VS. IAC

brought by one against whom a criminal other

prosecution,

legal

instituted

civil

proceeding

maliciously

suit

has

and

or

been

without

probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit or other

proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. As thus defined, the fact of termination

of

the

prosecution,

civil

suit

proceeding without

maliciously

probable

criminal or

legal

filed

and

cause,

should

precede the complaint for malicious

prosecution. Such a complaint states a cause of action if it alleges: (a) that the

defendant

was

himself

the

prosecutor or at least instigated the prosecution; (b) that the prosecution finally terminated in the acquittal of the plaintiff; (c) that in bringing the

action the prosecutor acted without probable cause, and (d) that the prosecutor

was

actuated


|

by

One cannot be held liable in damages for

maliciously

prosecution

instituting

where

he

acted

a with

probable cause. Probable cause is the existence of such would

facts

and

excite

circumstances the

belief,

in

as a

reasonable mind, acting on the facts within

the

knowledge

of

the

prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. The general rule is

well settled that one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with probable cause. In other words, a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried

on

without

probable

cause. And the reason for the rule as stated by Blackstone, is ‘that it would be a very great discouragement to


Page 103

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines public justice if prosecotors, who had

regularly, for the mere purpose of

a tolerable ground of suspicion, were

vexation or injury.

liable to be sued at law when their

The statutory basis for a civil action

indictments miscarried.’

for

damages

prosecution

for

are

malicious

found

in

the

provisions of the New Civil Code on Human Relations and on damages particularly Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, GR NO. 107019, March 20, 1997

29, 32, 33, 35, 2217 and 2219 (8). To

FRANKLIN M. DRILON VS. CA

however, there must be proof that the

constitute

malicious

The term malicious prosecution has

prosecution

been defined in various ways. In

sinister design to vex and humiliate a

American jurisdiction, it is defined as:

person, and that it was initiated

“One

deliberately by the defendant knowing

begun

in

malice

without

prompted

can

with

groundless. Concededly, the mere act

intention of injuring defendant and

of submitting a case to the authorities

without probable cause, and which

for prosecution does not make one

terminates in favor of the person

liable for malicious prosecution. Thus,

prosecuted. For this injury an action

in order for a malicious prosecution

on the case lies, called the action of

suit to prosper, the plaintiff must

malicious prosecution.”

prove three (3) elements: (1) the fact

Instituted

In Philippine jurisdiction, it has been defined as: “An action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other

legal

instituted

proceeding

maliciously

has

and

been

without

probable cause, after the termination

of such prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in favor of the defendant

were

false

a

that

sustained.

charges

by

probable cause to believe the charges be

his

was

prosecution,

and

of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor and that the action finally terminated with an acquittal; (2) that in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (3) that the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive.

therein. The gist of the action is the putting of legal process in force, Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 104

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines c. PUBLIC HUMILIATION

Pursuant to Art. 21 of the Civil Code in relation to par. (10) of Art. 2219 of the

GR NO. 51832, April 26, 1989

Moral damages may be recovered in

cases where a defendant’s wrongful or

omission

complainant mental anxiety,

has

caused

physical

anguish,

the

suffering,

fright,

besmirched

Code,

“any

person

who wilfully causes loss or injury to

RAFAEL PATRICIO VS. OSCAR LEVISTE

act

same

serious

reputation,

wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury. An

award of moral damages is allowed in cases specified or analogous to those

another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.” The

fact

that

no

actual

or

compensatory damage was proven before

the

trial

court,

does

not

adversely affect petitioner’s right to recover

moral

damages

may

damages. Moral be

awarded

in

appropriate cases referred to in the chapter on human relations of the Civil Code (Articles 19 to 36), without

provided in Article 2219 of the Civil

need of proof that the wrongful act

Code.

complained

The act of private respondent in hitting

petitioner

on

the

face

is

contrary to morals and good customs

and caused the petitioner mental anguish,

moral

feelings

shock

wounded

and

social

humiliation. Private respondent has to

take

full

responsibility

for his

physical

of

had

injury

complainant. It

is

caused upon

clear

any the

from

the

report of the Code Commission that the reason underlying an award of damages under Art. 21 of the Civil Code is to compensate the injured party

for

the moral

injury caused

upon his person

act and his claim that he was unaware of what he had done to petitioner because of drunkenness is definitely

no excuse and does not relieve him of his liability to the latter.

G.R.No. L-48250, December 28, 1979 GRAND UNION VS. JOSE J. ESPINO Upon the facts and under the law, plaintiff has clearly made the cause of


|


Page 105

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines action

for

damages

defendants.

against

Defendants

the

wilfully

dignity of a person. Everyone must respect

the

dignity,

personality,

caused loss or injury to plaintiff in a

privacy and peace of mind of his

manner that was contrary to morals,

neighbors and other persons (Article

good

policy,

26, Civil Code). And one must act with

making them amenable to damages

justice, give everyone his due and

under Articles 19 and 21 in relation to

observe

Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

(Article 19, Civil Code).

customs

or

Public

honesty

and

good

faith

The false accusation charged against the private respondent after detaining and

interrogating

him

by

the

uniformed guards and the mode and

d. UNJUST DISMISSAL

manner in which he was subjected. shouting at him, impoon him a fine, threatening to call the police and in the presence and hearing of many people

at

the

GR NO. L-47739, June 22, 1983 SINGAPORE AIRLINES VS. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO

Supermarket which

brought and caused him humiliation

While seemingly petitioner’s claim for

and

damages

embarrassment,

sufficiently

rendered the petitioners liable for damages under Articles 19 and 21 in relation to Article 2219 of the Civil

arises

from

employer-

employee relations, and the latest

amendment to Article 217 of the Labor Code under PD No. 1691 and BP Blg. 130 provides that all other claims

Code. We rule that under the facts of

arising

the case at bar, petitioners wilfully

relationship are cognizable by Labor

caused

Arbiters, in essence, petitioner’s claim

loss

or

injury

to

private

respondent in a manner that was contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. It is against morals, good customs and public policy to humiliate, embarrass and degrade the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

from

employer-employee

for damages is grounded on the “wanton failure and refusal” without

just cause of private respondent Cruz to report for duty despite repeated notices

served

disapproval

of

upon

him

of

the

his

application for


Page 106

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines leave of absence without pay. This,

governing statute is the Civil Code

coupled with the further averment

and not the Labor Code.

that Cruz “maliciously and with bad faith”

violated

the

and

conditions of the conversion training course agreement to the damage of petitioner

removes

the

present

IX. OTHER TORTS

controversy from the coverage of the Labor Code and brings it within the purview of Civil Law.

A. DERELICTION OF DUTY

Clearly, the complaint was anchored not on the abandonment per se by

GR NO. L-14986, July 31, 1962

private respondent Cruz of his job—as the latter was not required in the

CORNELIO AMARO VS. AMBROCIO

Complaint to report back to work— but

on

the manner and consequent

effects of such abandonment of work translated in of the damages which petitioner had to suffer.

SUMANGUIT the

facts

set

out

constitute

an

actionable dereliction on appellee’s part in the light of Article 27 of the Civil

Code.

That

appellants

were

“harassed and terrorized” may be a conclusion R NO. 59825, September 11, 1982 ERNESTO MEDINA VS. ASTRO-

of

law

and

hence

improperly pleaded. Their claim for relief, however, is not based on the fact of harassment and terrorization

BARTOLOME

but on appellee’s refusal to give them

It is obvious from the complaint that

assistance, which it was his duty to do

the plaintiffs have not alleged any

as

unfair labor practice.

requirement

Theirs is a

an

officer

of

under

the the

law.

The

aforesaid

simple action for damages for tortious

provision that such refusal must be

acts

“without just cause” is implicit in the

allegedly

committed

by

the

defendants. Such being the case, the


|

context

of

the


allegation.

The

Page 107

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines statement of appellee’s dereliction is

produce

a

repeated in a subsequent paragraph

damages,

cause

of

action

prevention

and

for other

of the complaint, where it is alleged

relief.”

that “he is about to order the arrest of

The damages fixed by Judge Leuterio

the plaintiffs” to make them sign

are sanctioned by Articles 2200, 2208

affidavits of exculpation in favor of

the policeman.

and 2219 of the Civil Code. Article 2219 allows moral damages for acts mid actions mentioned in Article 26. As

lengthily

explained

by

Justice

Gafmailan, the acts and omissions of

B. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE

the firm fall under Article 26. St.

Louis

Realty’s

employee

was

grossly negligent in mixing up the

C. VIOLATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY AND PRIVACY

Aramil and Arcadio residences in a

widely GR NO. L-46061, November 14, 1984

circulated

publication

like

the Sunday Times. To suit its purpose, it never made any written apology and explanation of the mix up. It just

ST. LOUIS REALTY VS. CA St. Louis Realty contends that the decision is contrary to law and that the case was decided in a way not in conformity with the rulings of this Court. It argues that the case is not covered by Article 26 which provides that “every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons”. “Prying into the privacy of another’s residence” and “meddling

contented

itself

with

a

cavalier

“rectification.” Persons, who know the residence of Doctor Aramil, were confused by the

distorted, lingering impression that he was renting his residence from Arcadio or that Arcadio had leased it from him. Either way, his private life was

mistakenly

and

unnecessarily

exposed. He suffered diminution of income and mental anguish.

with or disturbing the private life or family

relations

of

another”

and

“similar acts,” “though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 108

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 120706, January 31, 2000

himself by claiming that he made an appointment to see Nestor through a

RODRIGO CONCEPCION VS. CA It is petitioner’s position that the act imputed to him does not constitute any of those enumerated in Arts 26 and 2219. In this respect, the law is

clear. The violations mentioned in the codal provisions are not exclusive but are merely examples and do not preclude other

similar

analogous acts.

or

Damages

therefore

are allowable for actions against a person’s dignity, such as profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous or

abusive language. Under Art. 2217 of the Civil Code, moral damages which include

physical

anguish,

fright,

besmirched

suffering,

mental

serious

anxiety,

reputation,

feelings,

moral

humiliation, although

and

wounded

shock,

social

similar

injury,

incapable

of

pecuniary

computation, may be recovered if they are

the

proximate

result

of

nephew, Roncali, the son of Florence, so he could talk with Nestor to find out the truth about his rumored illicit relationship with Florence. He said that he wanted to protect his nephews and nieces and the name of his late brother (Florence’s husband). How he could be convinced by some way other than a denial by Nestor, and how he would protect his nephews and nieces and his family’s name if the rumor were true, he did not say. Petitioner

itted

that

he

had

already talked with Florence herself over the telephone about the issue, with the latter vehemently denying the alleged immoral relationship. Yet, he could not let the matter rest on the strength of the denial of his sister-inlaw. He had to go and confront Nestor, even in public, to the latter’s

humiliation.

the

defendant’s wrongful act or omission. There is no question that private respondent Nestor Nicolas suffered mental

anguish,

reputation,

besmirched

wounded

feelings

and

social humiliation as a proximate result

of

petitioner’s

abusive,

scandalous and insulting language. Petitioner

attempted

to


exculpate |


Page 109

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines X. DAMAGES

In this case, the claim for actual

A. DEFINITION AND CONCEPTS

damages by the heirs of the victims is not controverted, the same having

GR NO. 120921, January 29, 1998

been fully substantiated by receipts

PEOPLE VS. FELIPE BALLESTEROS

accumulated by them and presented

Damages may be defined as the

to the court. Therefore, the award of

pecuniary compensation, recompense,

actual damages is proper. However,

or satisfaction for an injury sustained,

the

or

the

damages to the heirs of Jerry Agliam

pecuniary consequences which the

and Eduardo Tolentino Sr. must be

law imposes for the breach of some

amended. Consistent with the policy

duty

some

of this Court, the amount of fifty

compensatory

thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) is given

as

otherwise

or

the

expressed,

violation

right. Actual

or

damages

those

are

of

awarded

in

order

granting

to the heirs of the victims by way

satisfaction of, or in recompense for,

of indemnity, and

loss

compensatory

or

injury

sustained, whereas

compensatory

not

as

damages. As

regards

moral damages may be invoked when

moral

the

psychological pain, damage and injury

complainant

mental

has

anguish,

experienced

serious

anxiety,

damages,

the

amount

of

caused to the heirs of the victims,

physical suffering, moral shock and

although

so forth, and had furthermore shown

determined by the trial court in its

that these were the proximate result

discretion. Hence, we see no reason

of the offender’s wrongful act or

to disturb its findings as to this

omission. In

matter.

compensatory

granting

actual

damages,

the

or

inestimable, may

be

party

making a claim for such must present the

best

evidence

available,

viz.,

receipts, vouchers, and the like, as corroborated by his testimony.


|


Page 110

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 116100, February 09, 1996

damages

SPOUSES CUSTODIO VS. CA To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to

the

plaintiff

therefrom.

Wrong

without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a cause of action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong. There

is

a

material

distinction

between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and damages

are

compensation

the

recompense

awarded

for

or the


without

injury

in

underlying basis for the award of tort

those

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

is

the

individual

premise

was

that

an

injured

contemplation of law.

in

Thus, there

must first be the breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach

before

damages

may

be

awarded; it is not sufficient to state that there should be tort liability merely because the plaintiff suffered some pain and suffering). Many

accidents

injuries

are

occur

inflicted

and by

many

acts

or

omissions which cause damage or loss to another but which violate no legal duty to such other person, and consequently

create

no

cause

of

action in his favor. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone. The law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong.

legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. In order that a plaintiff may maintain

GR NO. 114118, August 28, 2001

an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that

HEIRS OF BORLADO VS. CA

such injuries resulted from a breach

As a matter of law, the trial court and

of duty which the defendant owed to

the CA erred in holding petitioners

the plaintiff — a concurrence of injury

liable

to the plaintiff and legal responsibility

hundred (100) cavans of palay every

by

the

person

causing


|

it.

to

pay

respondents

one

The


Page 111

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines year from 1972 until they vacate the

profits of the business, during the

premises of the land in question.

time of its stoppage.

The one hundred cavans of palay was awarded as a form of damages. We cannot sustain the award. “Palay” is not

legal

tender

currency

in

the

Philippines.

B. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA GR NO. L-18805, August 14, 1967 BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS VS. HEIRS OF

GR NO. L-12736, July 31, 1961

KALAW

LAZATIN VS. ANGEL C. TWAÑO

A high regard for normal judicial

The law on damages is found on Title

issions made in court pleadings

XVII of the Civil Code (Arts. 2195 to 2235). The rules governing damages laid down in other laws, and the principles

of

the

general

law

on

damages are adopted in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Code

would

suffice

permitting

to

deter

plaintiff

us to

from stray

away therefrom, to charge now that the damage suffered was because of Kalaw’s negligence,

or

for

that

matter, by reason of the board’s

(Arts. 2196 and 2198). Article 2197

ratification of the contracts.

mentions

damages

Indeed, were it not for the typhoons,

recoverable, among which are (1)

NACOCO could have, with ease, met

actual or compensatory and (2) moral.

its

Article

accessibility

the

2219

damages

kind

of

provides

may

be

that

moral

recovered

in

contractual

obligations. Stock

was

no

problem.

NACOCO had 90 buying agencies

the following and analogous cases * *

spread

* (8) malicious prosecution.

could purchase 2,000 tons of copra a

Where there is no issue of malice,

day. The various contracts involved

damages

must

be

compensatory

merely, and confined to the actual loss from deprivation of the property attached or injury to it, or in case of closing business, to the probable Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

throughout

the

islands. It

delivery of but 16,500 tons over a five-month

period. Despite

the

typhoons, NACOCO was still able to deliver a little short of 50% of the tonnage required under the contracts.


Page 112

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines As the trial court correctly observed,

legal duty. These situations are often

this is a case of damnum absque

called damnum absque injuria.

injuria.

In order that a plaintiff may maintain

Conjunction of damage and

wrong is here absent.

There cannot

be an actionable wrong if either one or the other is wanting.

an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff — a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility

GR NO. 116100, February 09, 1996

by

the

person

causing

it.

The

underlying basis for the award of tort

SPOUSES CUSTODIO VS. CA

damages

is

the

premise

that

an

To warrant the recovery of damages,

individual

there must be both a right of action

contemplation of law.

for a legal wrong inflicted by the

must first be the breach of some duty

defendant, and damage resulting to

and the imposition of liability for that

the

breach

plaintiff

therefrom.

Wrong

was

before

injured

in

Thus, there

damages

may

be

without damage, or damage without

awarded; it is not sufficient to state

wrong, does not constitute a cause of

that there should be tort liability

action, since damages are merely part

merely because the plaintiff suffered

of the remedy allowed for the injury

some pain and suffering).

caused by a breach or wrong. There

is

a

material

distinction

between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and damages

are

compensation

the

recompense

awarded

for

or the


without

injury

in

C. KINDS OF DAMAGES 1. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY G.R. No. L-8385; March 24, 1914 LUCIO ALGARRA VS. SIXTO SANDEJAS

those

The requirements of article 1902, that

instances in which the loss or harm

the defendant repair the damage done

was not the result of a violation of a


|

can only mean what is set forth in the


Page 113

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines above definitions, Anything short of

repair that of which one has been

that would not repair the damages

deprived by the wrong of another.

and anything beyond that would be excessive. damages

Actual are

compensatory

those

allowed

for

tortious wrongs under the Civil Code;

nothing more, nothing less.

Compensatory damages are such as awarded to compensate the injured party for caused by the wrong, and must be only such as make just and fair compensation, and are due when

The purpose of the law in awarding

the wrong is established, whether it

actual damages is to repair the wrong

was committed maliciously — that is,

that has been done, to compensate

with evil intention — or not.

for the injury inflicted, and not to impose a penalty. Actual damages are a. KINDS

not dependent on nor graded by the intent with which the wrongful act is done. The words "actual damages"

GR NO. 107518, October 08, 1998

shall be construed to include all

PNOC SHIPPING VS. CA

damages that the plaintiff may he has


suffered in respect to his property,

actual or compensatory damages are

business,

those awarded in satisfaction of, or in

trade,

profession,

or

occupation, and no other damages

recompense

whatever.

sustained. They proceed from a sense

Actual only.

damages are

compensatory

`Compensatory

damages'

as

indicated by the word employed to characterize them, simply make good or replace the loss caused by the

wrong. They proceed from a sense of natural justice, and are designed to


|

for,

loss

or

injury

of natural justice and are designed to repair the wrong that has been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted and

not

to

impose

a

penalty. In

actions based on torts or quasidelicts, actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of.


Page 114

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines There are two kinds of actual or

the

compensatory damages: one is the

P1,850,750.55 and by deducting the

loss

already

production cost of P1,060,426.20,

possesses (daño emergente), and the

petitioner could have earned profit of

other is the failure to receive as a

P790,324.30.

benefit

evidence relied upon by the trial court

of

what

that

a

person

which

would

have

pertained to him (lucro cesante).

quoted

selling

price

ittedly,

of

the

in arriving at the amount are mere estimates prepared by petitioner. Said evidence is highly speculative and manifestly hypothetical. It could not provide sufficient legal and factual

GR NO. 115117, June 08, 2000

basis for the award of P790,324.30 as

INTEGRATED PACKAGING VS. CA

Indemnification comprehends suffered,

that

for not is

damages

only to

compensatory damages representing

the say

loss

petitioner’s

self-serving

claim

of

unrealized profit.

actual

damages (damnum emergens), but also profits which the obligee failed to obtain, referred to as compensatory

b. EXTENT

damages (lucrum cessans). However,

to

justify

a

compensatory

grant

of

actual

damages,

it

or is

c. CERTAINTY

necessary to prove with a reasonable

GR NO. 118342, January 05, 1998

degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best

DBP VS. CA

evidence obtainable by the injured

Article 2199 provides: “Except as

party, the actual amount of loss.

provided by law or by stipulation, one

In the case at bar, the trial court

compensation only for such pecuniary

erroneously concluded that petitioner

loss suffered by him as he has duly

could have sold books to Philacor at

proved.


|

is

entitled

Such

to

an

adequate

compensation


is

Page 115

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines referred to as actual or compensatory

evidence

damages.”

simply rely on speculation, conjecture

Actual

or

compensatory

damages

cannot be presumed, but must be

available.

Courts

cannot

or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages.

proved with reasonable degree of certainty.

A court cannot rely on

speculations,

conjectures,

d. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY

or

guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon

GR NO. 107518, October 08, 1998

competent proof that they have been

PNOC SHIPPING VS. CA

suffered by the injured party and on


the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. It must point out specific facts which could afford a basis

for

measuring

whatever

actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense

for,

loss

or

injury

compensatory or actual damages are

sustained. They proceed from a sense

borne.

of natural justice and are designed to repair the wrong that has been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted and

not

to

impose

a

penalty. In

actions based on torts or quasiGR NO. 111692, February 09, 1996

delicts, actual damages include all the

ALEJANDRO FUENTES VS. CA

natural and probable consequences of

In

crimes

and

quasi-delicts,

the

defendant is liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. To seek recovery for

the act or omission complained of. There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is the loss

of

what

a

person

already

actual damages it is essential that the

possesses (daño emergente), and the

injured

party

other is the failure to receive as a

amount

of

proves

loss

with

the

actual

reasonable

degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

benefit

that

which

would

have

pertained to him (lucro cesante).


Page 116

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines In addition, nominal damages are

case, where the resulting injury might

awarded in every obligation arising

be continuing and possible future

from law, contracts, quasi-contracts,

complications directly arising from

acts or omissions punished by law,

the injury, while certain to occur, are

and quasi-delicts, or in every case

difficult to predict.

where

property

right

has

been

invaded. Under Article 2223 of the Civil

Code,

nominal further

“(t)he

adjudication

damages contest

shall

of

preclude

upon

the

right

involved and all accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.”

Established medical procedures and practices, though in constant flux are devised for the purpose of preventing complications.

A

physician’s

experience with his patients would sometimes tempt him to deviate from established community practices, and he may end a distinguished career using unorthodox methods without incident. However, when failure to follow established procedure results

e.

PERSONAL

INJURY

AND

DEATH

in the evil precisely sought to be averted procedure

GR NO. 124354, December 29, 1999 ROGELIO E. RAMOS VS. CA Actual

or

compensatory

by

observance

and

a

nexus

of is

the made

between the deviation and the injury or

damage,

the

physician

would

necessarily be called to for it.

damages

In the case at bar, the failure to

generally assume that at the time of

observe

litigation, the injury suffered as a

protocol which would have influenced

consequence of an act of negligence

the intubation in a salutary way was

has been completed and that the cost

fatal to private respondents’ case.

pre-operative

assessment

can be liquidated. However, these provisions

neglect

to

take

into

those situations, as in this Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 117

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines G.R. No. L-56487, October 21, 1991

litigation has been decided and the subject

GATCHALIAN VS. ARSENIO DELIM A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his or her body; if that integrity is violated or diminished, actual injury is suffered for which

of

recovery

is

disposition of the court.

at

the

The issue

over attorney’s fee only arises when something has been recovered from which the fee is to be paid.

actual or compensatory damages are

Well settled is the rule that counsel’s

due

Petitioner

“claim for attorney’s fees may be

Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as

asserted either in the very action in

nearly as possible in the condition

which the services in question have

that she was before the mishap. A

been

scar, especially one on the face of the

action.

woman, resulting from the infliction

chosen, the Court may upon said

of injury upon her, is a violation of

claim, even if its amount were less

bodily integrity, giving raise to a

than the minimum prescribed by law

legitimate claim for restoration to

for the jurisdiction of said court, upon

her conditio

is

the theory that the right to recover

not

attorney’s fees is but an incident of

grievously disfigure the victim, the

the case in which the services of

cost of surgery may be expected to be

counsel have been rendered”. It also

correspondingly modest.

rests on the assumption that the court

and

relatively

assessable.

ante. If small

the

and

scar

does

rendered, If

the

or in first

a

separate

alternative

is

trying the case is to a certain degree already familiar with the nature and f. ATTORNEY’S FEES

extent of the lawyer’s services. The rule against multiplicity of suits will in effect be subserved.

GR NO. 73886, January 31, 1989 JOSE C. QUIRANTE VS. IAC An

attorney’s

determined

until

fee

cannot

after


the |

be main


Page 118

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines g. INTEREST

a given period of time, from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due and payable.” Using

GR NO. 128721, March 09, 1999

this standard, the obligation in this case was obviously not a forbearance

CRISMINA GARMENTS VS. CA A monetary award shall earn interest

of money, goods or credit.

at twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of the finality of the judgment

until

its

h. MITIGATION OF LIABILITY

satisfaction,

regardless of whether or not the case involves a loan or forbearance of money. The interim period is deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of

G.R. No. L-12907; August 1, 1918 VIVENCIO CERRANO VS. TAN CHUCO

credit.

It is a well-recognized principle of law

Because the amount due in this case

that

arose from a contract for a piece of

avoidable consequences of the breach

work, not from a loan or forbearance

of a contract or other legal duty are

of money, the legal interest of six

not recoverable. It is the duty of one

percent (6%) per annum should be applied.

Furthermore,

since

the

amount of the demand could be

damages

resulting

from

injured by the unlawful act of another to take such measures as prudent

established with certainty when the

men

Complaint was filed, the six percent

circumstances to reduce the damages

(6%) interest should be computed

as much as possible.

from the filing of the said Complaint.

usually

take

under

such

But after the judgment becomes final

When the existence of a loss is

and executory until the obligation is

established, absolute certainty as to

satisfied,

its

the

interest

should

be

reckoned at twelve percent (12%) per year. usury law is a “contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain, during |

is

not

required.

The

benefit to be derived from a contract which

A “forbearance” in the context of the


amount one

of

the

parties

has

absolutely failed to perform is of necessity to some extent, a matter of speculation, but the injured party is


Page 119

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines not to be denied all remedy for that

category of an award designed to

reason alone. He must produce the

compensate the claimant for actual

best evidence of which his case is susceptible

and

if

that

evidence

warrants the inference that he has been damaged by the loss of profits

which

he

might

with

injury suffered and not to impose a penalty

on

the

wrongdoer. In

Francisco vs. GSIS, the Court held that there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental

reasonable

suffering. Thus, if the plaintiff fails to

certainty have anticipated but for the

take the witness stand and testify as

defendant's

to

wrongful

act,

he

is

entitled to recover.

his/her

humiliation,

wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages

cannot

Cocoland

Development Corporation

vs.

2. MORAL

social be

National

Commission,

awarded.

Labor

the

In

Relations

Court

held

that

“additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral

a. CONCEPT

damages under the Civil Code, these being,

x

x

x

social

humiliation,

wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc.,

GR NO. 99301, March 13, 1997

that resulted therefrom.”

VICTOR KIERULF VS. THE CA

Moral damages are awarded to enable

While no proof of pecuniary loss is

the injured party to obtain means,

necessary

in

order

that

moral

diversions or amusements that will

damages

may

be

awarded,

the

serve to alleviate the moral suffering

amount of indemnity being left to the

he/she has undergone, by reason of

discretion

is

the defendant’s culpable action.[44] Its

the

award is aimed at restoration, as

claimant should satisfactorily show

much as possible, of the spiritual

the existence of the factual basis of

status quo ante; thus, it must be

damages and its causal connection to

proportionate

defendant’s acts. This is so because

inflicted. Since each case must be

moral damages, though incapable of

governed

pecuniary

circumstances, there is no hard and

of

nevertheless

the

court, it

essential

that

estimation,


are |

in

the

by

to its


the own

suffering peculiar

Page 120

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines fast rule in determining the proper

malevolence

through

amount. The yardstick should be that

respondents

the amount awarded should not be so

deceitfully incurring and then evading

palpably and scandalously excessive

settlement

as to indicate that it was the result of

certainly

ion, prejudice or corruption on

exemplary

the part of the trial judge. Neither

example and correction for the public

should it be so little or so paltry that

good and also to serve as a deterrent

it rubs salt to the injury already

to

inflicted on plaintiffs.

misdeeds

defrauded of

their

justifies

the

liability

award

of

way

of

by

commission by

petitioners, just

damages

the

which

of

others, even

similar if

the

transaction were viewed as a breach of civil contract. The Court do not share respondent b. PROOF OF PROXIMATE CAUSE

court’s narrow view that petitioner Niceta’s

failure

to

use

in

her

testimony the precise legal or GR NO. L-49390, January 28, 1980

“sacramental anguish,

phrases”

fright,

of

serious

“mental anxiety,

MIRANDA-RIBAYA VS. MARINO

wounded feelings or moral shock” and

BAUTISTA

the like justifies the denial of the

Petitioners’ testimonial evidence to

claim for damages. It is sufficient that

the

effect

suffered

that

petitioner

“extremely”

and

Niceta

that

for

three months she could not sleep was a clear demonstration of her physical suffering, mental anguish and serious anxiety and similar injury, resulting from respondents’ malevolent acts that show her to be clearly entitled to moral damages.

Petitioners moral

having

damages,

addition damages.

thereto, The

established are

entitled

to

in the complaint and evidence has been adduced, as cited above, amply ing

the

averments

of

the

complaint. Indeed, petitioner Niceta vividly portrayed in simple the moral

shock

and

suffering

she

underwent as a result of respondents’ wanton abuse of her good faith and confidence.

in

exemplary

wantonness


the

these exact have been pleaded

|

and


Page 121

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 118325, January 29, 1997

GR NO. L-20081, February 27, 1968

VIRGILIO M. DEL ROSARIO VS. CA

MELQUIADES RAAGAS VS. OCTAVIO

The

law

explicitly

authorizes

the

TRAYA

award of moral damages “in breaches

Even if the allegations regarding the

of contract where the defendant acted

amount of damages in the complaint

fraudulently or in bad faith.” There

are not specifically denied in the

being, moreover, satisfactory evidence

answer,

of

deemed itted.

the

psychological

and

mental

such

damages

are

not

The Court held

trauma actually suffered by the Del

that in no uncertain that actual

Rosarios, the grant to them of moral

damages must be proved, and that a

damages is warranted. Over a period

court cannot rely on “speculation,

of about a month, they experienced

conjecture or guesswork” as to the

“feelings of shock, helplessness, fear,

fact and amount of damages, but

embarrassment and anger.”

must depend on actual proof that

There is, to be sure, no hard and fast rule for determining what would be a fair amount of moral (or exemplary) damages, each case having to be governed by its attendant particulars.

Generally,

the

amount

of

moral

damages should be commensurate with

the

actual

loss

or

suffered.


injury

damages had been suffered and on evidence of the actual amount.

The

rule that although an allegation is not necessary

in

order

that

moral

damages may be awarded, “it is, nevertheless, claimant

essential

satisfactorily

that

the

prove

the

existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to defendant’s acts.”

|


Page 122

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. L-38037, January 28, 1974 ROQUE ENERVIDA VS. LAURO DE LA TORRE Unlike

which

while

no proof

of

pecuniary loss is necessary in order that

moral

damages

may

be

awarded, the amount of indemnity

compensatory

damages

Furthermore,

or

are

actual

being left to the discretion of the

generally

court (Art. 2216), it is, nevertheless,

recoverable in tort cases as long as

essential

there is satisfactory proof thereof

satisfactorily prove the existence of

(Art. 2202), the Code has chosen to

the factual basis of the damage (Art.

enumerate the cases in which moral

2217) and its causal relation to

damages may be recovered (Art.

defendant’s

2219). A like enumeration is made

because moral damages, though

in

regard

attorney’s

to

the

fees

as

damage (Art. 2208).

that

the

acts.

claimant

This

is

so

recovery

of

incapable of pecuniary estimation,

an

of

are in the category of an award

item

But the two

designed

to

compensate

the

enumerations differ in the case of a

claimant for actual injury suffered

clearly unfounded suit, which is

and not to impose a penalty on the

expressly mentioned in Art. 2208

wrongdoer (Algara vs. Sandejas, 27

(par.4), as justifying an award of

Phil., 284). The trial court and the

attorney’s fees, but is not included

CA both seem to be of the opinion

in the enumeration of Art. 2219 in

that the mere fact that respondent

respect to moral damages. It is true

were

that Art. 2219 also provides that

foundation

moral damages may be awarded in

award of moral damages, hence

“analogous

those

they made no definite finding as to

enumerated, but we do not think

what the supposed moral damages

the

suffered

Code

unfounded

cases” intended civil

to ‘a

clearly

without entitled

consist

any them

of.

legal to

Such

an

a

or

conclusion would make of moral

proceedings’ to be one of these

damages a penalty, which they are

analogous

moral

not, rather than a compensation for

damages may be recovered, or it

actual injury suffered, which they

would have expressly mentioned it

are intended to be. Moral damages,

in Art. 2219, as it did in Art. 2208;

in other words, are not corrective or

or else incorporated Art. 2208 by

exemplary damages.

cases

action

sued

wherein

reference in Art. 2219. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 123

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 126518, December 02, 1998 PEOPLE VS. RODELIO BUGAYONG Appellant

sexually

assaulted

complainant in 1993 when she was 10 years

old.

Thus,

the

trial

court

correctly convicted him of statutory

rape under Article 335 (3) of the Revised

Penal

Code.

years of age and the offender is the common-law spouse of her mother. The amendatory law, however, cannot be applied in this case, because there is no showing that the crime was committed after the effectivity of the said law.

Moreover,

appellant is also guilty of acts of

c. CASES WHERE ALLOWED

lasciviousness committed on October

GR NO. L-18287, March 30, 1963

15, 1995. The

trial

court

correctly

awarded

P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, an amount

which

is

automatically

granted to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of rape. Consistent with recent jurisprudence,

TRINIDAD J. FRANCISCO VS. GSIS Not only on of the plaintiff’s

failure to take the witness stand and testify

to

her

social

humiliation,

wounded feelings, anxiety, etc., as the decision holds, but primarily because

appellant should also be ordered to

a breach of contract like that of

pay the victim the additional amount

defendant, not being malicious or

of

fraudulent,

P50,000

as

moral

damages.

In People v. Prades, the Court resolved that “moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in the

does

not

warrant

the

award of moral damages under Article 2220 of the Civil Code.

criminal proceeding, in such amount as the Court deems just, without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof as has heretofore been the practice.”

GR NO. 130030, June 25, 1999

Republic Act 7659, which amended

EXPERTRAVEL VS. CA

the Revised Penal Code, prescribes,

Moral damages are not punitive in

among

nature

others,

the

death

penalty

where the rape victim is under 18 Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

but

are


designed

to

Page 124

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines compensate[3] and alleviate in some

the provisions of this law, in culpa

way the physical suffering, mental

contractual or

anguish,

anxiety,

moral damages may be recovered

wounded

when the defendant acted in bad faith

shock,

social

or was guilty of gross negligence

similar

injury

(amounting to bad faith) or in wanton

unjustly caused to a person. Although

disregard of his contractual obligation

incapable of pecuniary computation,

and, exceptionally, when the act of

moral damages, nevertheless, must

breach of contract itself is constitutive

somehow be proportional to and in

of tort resulting in physical injuries.

fright,

besmirched

serious

reputation,

feelings,

moral

humiliation,

and

approximation

of

inflicted.[4] Such

the

suffering

damages,

to

be

recoverable, must be the proximate

result of a wrongful act or omission the

factual

satisfactorily

basis

for

which

established

by

is the

aggrieved party.[5] An award of moral damages

would

require

certain

conditions to be met; to wit: (1) First, there must be an injury, whether

physical,

mental

or

psychological,

clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) second, there must be a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of

the

injury

sustained

by

the

claimant; and (4) fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219. Under Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

breach

of

contract,

By special rule in Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206, of the Civil Code, moral damages may also be awarded in case the death of a enger results from a breach of carriage. In culpa aquiliana, or quasidelict, (a) when an act or omission causes physical injuries, or (b) where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered. This rule also applies, as aforestated,

to

contracts

when

breached by tort. In culpa criminal, moral damages could be lawfully due when the accused is found guilty of physical

injuries,

lascivious

acts,

adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary illegal

detention, search,

or

illegal

arrest,

defamation.

Malicious prosecution can also give


Page 125

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines rise to a claim for moral damages.

inquiry as to the truth and had

The term “analogous cases,” referred

available means for ascertaining it, at

to

following

least where actual fraud has not been

generis rule, must be

practised on the party claiming the

in

Article

the ejusdem held

similar

to

2219, those

expressly

enumerated by the law.

estoppel. It is evident in this case that private respondent was barking up the wrong tree

d. UNFOUNDED SUITS

when

it

sought

to

hold

petitioners liable for the value of the pharmaceutical products delivered at

GR NO. 113558, April 18, 1997

the

drugstore

evidence

EDITHA M. MIJARES VS. CA One who claims the benefit of an

estoppel on the ground that he has been misled by the representations of another must not have been misled

in

question.

The

shows

that

clearly

petitioners were not the owners of said drugstore when the deliveries were made. Hence, no meeting of the minds

between

them

and

private

respondent could have taken place;

through his own want of reasonable

no

care and circumspection. A lack of

arisen. The absence of any privity of

diligence by a party claiming an

relations between the parties at the

estoppel is generally fatal. If the party

conducts

himself

with

careless

indifference to means of information

contract

of

sale

could

have

time of the deliveries precludes any cause of action in favor of private respondent against petitioners. The Regional Trial Court therefore did not

reasonably at hand, or ignores highly

err

suspicious circumstances, he may not

respondent’s

invoke the doctrine of estoppel. Good

petitioners.

faith

as

The trial court however erred when it

requiring the exercise of reasonable

awarded moral damages in favor of

diligence to learn the truth, and

petitioners. Petitioners have failed to

is

generally

regarded

accordingly estoppel is denied where the party claiming it was put on Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

when

it

dismissed complaint

private against

show that private respondent was motivated

by

bad


faith

when

it

Page 126

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines instituted the action for collection

replevin

case

against

private

below.

respondent based on the latter’s own challenge to the former that if they really had a right on the motorcycle, then

necessary

GR NO. 81827, March 28, 1994

moral damages on the sole basis of

When

against the person from whom private respondent claims to have brought the motorcycle, it cannot be said that

a

tainted with gross and evident bad

deliberate intent to cause prejudice to

faith or was done maliciously to

the

to

court.

the institution of the replevin suit was

in

declared

in

the

be

unfounded

later

case

institute

and filed a third party complaint

An award for attorney’s fees and action

should

petitioner did sue private respondent

PANTALEON DE LA PEÑA VS. CA

an

they

absence

of

the other party is improper. The right to litigate is so precious that a penalty should not be charged on those who may exercise it erroneously.

harass, embarrass, annoy or ridicule

private respondent. Moreover, the adverse result of an action

–

dismissal

of

petitioner’s

complaint – does not per se make an act unlawful and subject the actor to the payment of moral damages. It is not a sound public policy to place a

GR NO. 127823, January 29, 1998 “J” MARKETING CORP. VS. FELICIDAD SIA A person’s right to litigate should not be penalized by holding him liable for damages. This is especially true when the filing of the case is to enforce

what he believes to be his rightful claim against another although found to

be

erroneous.

petitioner

precisely

In

this

instituted


|

case, the

on the right to litigate. No damages can be charged on those who may exercise such precious right in

good

faith,

even

if

done

erroneously. The award of exemplary damages has likewise no factual basis. It is a requisite

that

the

act

must

be

accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton,

fraudulent

manner – absent

in

or

malevolent

circumstances which are this

case.


In

addition, Page 127

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines exemplary

damages

cannot

be

GR NO. 124062, December 29, 1999

awarded as the requisite element of compensatory

damages

was

not

present. With respect to the attorney’s fees, an adverse decision does not ipso facto justify

the

award

thereof

to

the

winning party. All indications point to the

fact

that

petitioner

honestly

thought that they had a good cause of action,

so

notwithstanding

the

dismissal of their case, no attorney’s fees

can

be

granted

to

respondent. Considering

private

that

the

latter claims to be the owner of the motorcycle, petitioner was compelled to

sue

him.

“necessarily”

When

the

former

a

party

became

defendant no attorney’s fees and litigation expenses can automatically be recovered even if he should win, a it is not the fact of winning alone that entitles recovery of such items but rather

the

attendance

circumstances –

the

of

special

enumerated

exceptions in Article 2208 of the New

REYNALDO T. COMETA VS. CA Lack of probable cause is an element separate and distinct from that of malice. It follows, therefore, that one cannot be held liable in damages for

maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with probable cause. Obviously, a determination that there was no probable cause cannot be made to rest solely on the fact that the trial court, acting on private respondent Guevarra’s demurrer to evidence,

dismissed

the

criminal

prosecution, just as it cannot be made to

turn

on

the

fact

that

the

Department of Justice reversed the fiscal’s

findings

criminal

case

and

ordered

against

the

private

respondent Guevarra to be filed in court. The first would transform all acquittals into veritable countersuits for malicious prosecution. On the other hand, the second would result in the dismissal of all complaints for

Civil Code. There being no bad faith

malicious prosecutions.

reflected in petitioner’s persistence in

Accordingly, the inquiry should be

pursuing its case, other than an erroneous

conviction

of

the

righteousness of its cause, attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as cost.

whether sufficient facts are alleged showing that in bringing the criminal action, the defendant in the civil action for malicious prosecution acted without probable cause. This Court has


|

ruled

that

for


purposes

of

Page 128

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines malicious cause”

prosecution,

means

“such

“probable facts

GR NO. 121998, March 09, 2000

and

circumstances as would excite the

PEOPLE VS. PIRAME

belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on

The Court concur with the trial court’s

the facts within the knowledge of the

award

prosecutor, that the person charged

appellant Florencio Pirame and co-

was guilty of the crime for which he

accused Teodorico Cleopas as death

was prosecuted.” In this case, even if we consider the allegations in the complaint as true, as well as the order

of

P50,000.00

each

from

indemnity to the victim’s heirs, which is in line with current jurisprudence.

of the trial court annexed thereto, we

The Court also find the amount of

do not find the same sufficient to

P23,214.00 awarded by the trial court

establish the absence of probable

as “burial and incidental expenses”

cause.

ed by the records. The award of P50,000.00 from each accused as moral

and

exemplary

damages,

however, is uned. The widow GR NO. 129584, December 03, 1998

mental anguish or emotional distress,

TRIPLE EIGHT VS. NLRC The rule is that moral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of the

employee was attended by bad faith or

fraud

or

constituted

an

of the victim did not testify on any

act

oppressive to labor, or was done in a

which she suffered as a result of her husband’s death. The absence of any generic

aggravating

circumstance

attending the crime likewise precludes the award of exemplary damages.

manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. Likewise, exemplary damages may be awarded if the dismissal was effected in a

wanton,

oppressive

or

malevolent

manner.

GR NO. 134784, December 09, 2002 CARLOS ARCONA VS. CA On the other hand, the award of moral damages in the sum of P 10,000.00


|


Page 129

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines must be increased to P50,000.00. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and

necessarily

brings

e. FACTORS IN DETERMINING AMOUNT

about

emotional pain and anguish on the

GR NO. 116181, January 06, 1997

part of the victim’s family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection

and

,

but

often

leaves them with the gnawing feeling

that an injustice has been done to them. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs’ emotional suffering. Finally, the award of actual damages in the amount of P10,000.00 does not appear to have been substantiated. Only those expenses which are duly proven, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim, will be recognized in court. Hence, the same must be deleted.

PNB VS. CA

The doctrine on the grant of moral and exemplary damages, as follows: “To begin with, there is no hard and fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages, since each case must

be

governed

by

its

own

peculiar circumstances. “Article 2217 of the Civil Code recognizes

that

moral

damages

which include physical suffering, mental

anguish,

fright,

anxiety,

besmirched

wounded

feelings,

serious

reputation,

moral

shock,

social humiliation and similar injury, are

incapable

of

pecuniary

estimation. “As to exemplary damages, Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that such damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public

good.

While

exemplary

damages cannot be recovered as a

matter of right, they need not be proved,

although

plaintiff

must

show that he is entitled to moral, temperate Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

or


compensatory Page 130

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines damages

before

the

court

may

claim for moral damages could be

consider the question of whether or

based, such indemnity could not be

not exemplary damages should be

outrightly awarded. The same holds

awarded.”

true with respect to the award of exemplary damages where it must be shown that the party acted in a wanton,

oppressive

or

malevolent

manner.

GR NO. 112212, March 02, 1998

As a rule, moral damages cannot be

GREGORIO FULE VS. CA

recovered from a person who has filed

Moral and exemplary damages may be

a complaint against another in good

awarded without proof of pecuniary

faith because it is not sound policy to

loss. In awarding such damages, the court shall take into the

circumstances obtaining in the case and assess damages according to its

place a penalty on the right to litigate, the same, however, cannot apply in the case at bar. The factual findings of

discretion. To warrant the award of

the courts a quo to the effect that

damages, it must be shown that the

petitioner filed this case because he

person to whom these are awarded

was the victim of fraud; that he could

has sustained injury. He must likewise

not have been such a victim because

establish sufficient data upon which the

court

estimate

can

properly

of

the

base

amount

its of

he should have examined the jewelry in question before accepting delivery

damages. Statements of facts should

thereof, considering his exposure to

establish such data rather than mere

the banking and jewelry businesses;

conclusions or opinions of witnesses.

and that he filed the action for the

Thus,

be

nullification of the contract of sale

the

with unclean hands, all deserve full

for

moral

awarded,

it

is

claimant

must

damages

essential have

to

that

satisfactorily

proved during the trial the existence

of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection with the adverse party’s acts. If the court has

faith

and

credit

conclusion

that

to

petitioner

the was

motivated more by ill will than a sincere attempt to protect his rights

no proof or evidence upon which the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 131

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines in

commencing

suit

against

rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however,

respondents.

shall

unliquidated

be

adjudged

claims

or

on

damages

except when or until the demand can GR NO. 120262, July 17, 1997

be

certainty.

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES VS. CA Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded only to allow the former to obtain

means,

amusements

that

diversion,

or

will

to

serve

alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone due to the defendant’s culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional

to

the

inflicted. However, damages excessive

do

not

suffering substantial

translate

damages. Except

established

into for

attorney’s fees and costs of suit, it will be noted that the CA affirmed point by point the factual findings of

with

Accordingly,

demand

is

reasonable where

established

the

with

reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is

made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed

to

have

been

reasonably

ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in

any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.

the lower court upon which the award of damages had been based. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is

GR NO. 83122, October 19, 1990

breached, an interest on the amount

ARTURO P. VALENZUELA VS. CA

of damages awarded may be imposed

For

at the discretion of the court at the

Philamgen


|

the

pivotal and

factor the


rendering

other

private Page 132

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines respondents liable in damages is that the

termination

General

by

Agency

them

of

Agreement

GR NO. 123404, February 26, 1997

the was

tainted with bad faith.

AURELIO SUMALPONG VS. CA To

justify

a

grant

compensatory

of

actual

damages,

it

or is

Hence, if a principal acts in bad faith

necessary to prove with a reasonable

and with abuse of right in terminating

degree of certainty, premised upon

the agency,

in

competent proof and on the best

damages. This is in accordance with

evidence obtainable by the injured

the

party, the actual amount of loss.

then

precepts

in

he is

liable

Human

Relations

enshrined in our Civil Code that “every person must in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his

Although

the

authority

to

assess

damages or indemnity in criminal cases is vested in trial courts, it is

duties act with justice, give every one

only in the first instance. On appeal,

his due, and observe honesty and

such authority es to the appellate

good faith” (Art. 19, Civil Code), and

court. Thus, this Court has, in many

every

person

law, wilfully or

who,

contrary

negligently

to

causes

damages to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same (Art. 20,

cases,

increased

the

damages

awarded by the trial court, although the offended party had not appealed from said award, and the only party who sought a review of the decision

id). “Any person who wilfully causes

of said court was the accused.

loss or injury to another in a manner

The Court finds the award of nominal

contrary to morals, good customs and

and

public policy shall compensate the

amount of P10,000.00 justified under

latter for the damages” (Art. 21, id.).

the circumstances. Nominal damages

moral

damages

both

in

the

are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be

vindicated or recognized, and not for the

purpose

of

indemnifying

the

plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. In other words, whenever there has Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 133

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines been a violation of an ascertained

defendant

legal

fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or

right,

although

no

actual

damages resulted or none are shown, the award of nominal damages is proper. There is no room to doubt that

some

species

of

injury

was

acted

in

a

wanton,

malevolent manner (Articles 2229, 2232, New Civil Code). And, third, a written contract for an attorney’s

caused to the complainant because of

services shall control the amount to

the medical expenses he incurred in

be paid therefor unless found by the

having his wounds treated, and the

court

loss of income due to his failure to

unreasonable

work

during

his

hospitalization.

However, in the absence of competent proof

of

the

amount

of

to

be

unconscionable (Sec.

24,

Rule

or 138,

Rules of Court).

actual

The amount of damages awarded in

damages, the complainant is entitled

this case has been determined by

only to nominal damages.

adequately considering the official, political, social, and financial standing of the offended parties on one hand, and

the

business

and

financial

GR NO. L-22415, March 30, 1966

position of the offender on the other

FERNANDO LOPEZ VS. PAN AMERICAN

(Domingding vs. Ng, 55 Off. Gaz. 10).

The rules and principles in awarding

moral damages are the following: First, moral damages are recoverable in breach of contracts where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith (Art. 2220, New Civil Code). Second, in addition to moral damages,

And further considering the present rate of exchange and the at which

the

amount

of

damages

awarded would approximately be in U.S. dollars, this Court is all the more of the view that said award is proper and reasonable.

exemplary or corrective damages may

be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in breach

of

contract


where |

the


Page 134


person already possesses, and the

PRODUCERS BANK VS. CA In this case, the damage to private respondents’ reputation and social standing

entitles

them

to

moral

damages. Article 2217, in relation to Article

2220,

explicitly

of

the

provides

Civil that

Code “moral

damages include physical suffering, mental anxiety,

anguish,

fright,

besmirched

serious

reputation,

wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation,

and

damages: one is the loss of what a

similar

injury.” Obviously, petitioner bank’s wrongful act caused serious anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation to

other is the failure to receive as a benefit pertained

that

which

to

him.

would In

the

have latter

instance, the familiar rule is that

damages

consisting

profits,

of

unrealized

frequently

as “ganacias

referred

frustradas” or “lucrum

cessans,” are not to be granted on the basis of mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise, but rather by reference to some reasonably definite standard

such as market value, established experienced, or direct inference from known circumstances.

private respondents for which they are entitled to recover moral damages in the amount of P300,000.00 which the f. WHO MAY RECOVER

Court deem to be reasonable. Under Articles 2199 and 2200 of the Civil Code, actual or compensatory damages

are

those

awarded

in

satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss

or

injury

sustained.

They

proceed from a sense of natural

justice and are designed to repair the wrong that has been done. There are two kinds of actual or compensatory Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

GR NO. L-4722, December 29, 1954 EMILIO STREBEL VS. JOSE FIGUERAS As a general rule, the right of recovery for mental suffering resulting from “bodily injuries is restricted to the person who has suffered the bodily hurt, and there can be no recovery for distress

caused

by


sympathy

for

Page 135

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines another’s suffering, or for fright due

by the plaintiff, of moral damages for

to a wrong against a third person. So

the

the anguish of mind arising as to the

Hernandez. If the mental anguish

safety of others who may be in

allegedly

personal peril from the same cause

consequence thereof ware sufficient

cannot be taken into consideration.

to give him a cause of action therefor,

As

stated

in

the

American

Jurisprudence, “Injury or Wrong to

temporary

transfer

suffered

by

of

Dr.

plaintiff

in

there would be no valid legal reason to deny the same relief to any other

Another.—In law mental. anguish is

person who might have thus been

restricted as a rule, to such mental

inconvenienced, such as the friends of

pain or suffering as arises from an

Dr. Hernandez, and public officials

injury or wrong to the person himself,

similarly situated, as veil as those who

as distinguished from that form of mental

suffering

accompaniment sorrow

for

which

of

is

sympathy

another’s

suffering

the or or

may have been adversely affected by

the deterioration, if any, in the service of the office or bureau which had

which arises from a contemplation of

been

wrongs committed on the person

services of said physician.

of another.

Pursuant

to

the

temporarily

deprived

of

the

rule

stated, a husband or wife cannot recover for mental suffering caused by his or her sympathy for the other’s suffering.”

GR NO. 128690, January 21, 1999

In this case, plaintiff is not even

related to Dr. Hernandez. The latter’s wife is a daughter of Mrs. Strebel by a previous

marriage.

Hernandez affinity,

is

not

merely to

Hence, related

Strebel,

but

Dr. by to

a relative by affinity of said plaintiff. It would be extremely dangerous, apart from unjust, to sanction a recovery, Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

ABS-CBN VS. CA The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because, being an

artificial person

and having existence only in legal

contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, therefore,

no

senses.

experience


It

cannot, physical Page 136

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines suffering and mental anguish, which

mental

can be experienced only by one

anxiety,

having

wounded feelings, moral shock, social

a

nervous

system.

The

in People

statement

v.

anguish,

fright,

besmirched

humiliation,

and

similar

serious

reputation, injury.

A

Manero and Mambulao Lumber Co. v.

corporation, being an artificial person

PNB that a corporation may recover

and having existence only in legal

moral damages if it “has a good

contemplation, has no feelings, no

reputation that is debased, resulting

emotions, no senses; therefore, it

an obiter

cannot experience physical suffering

On this score alone the

and mental anguish. Mental suffering

award for damages must be set aside,

can be experienced only by one

since RBS is a corporation.

having a nervous system and it flows

in

social

dictum.

humiliation”

is

from real ills, sorrows, and griefs of

life – all of which cannot be suffered GR NO. 126204, November 20, 2001

by respondent bank as an artificial person.”

NAPOCOR VS. PHILIPP BROTHERS Moral damages are not, as a general rule, granted to a corporation. While it is true that besmirched reputation is included in moral damages, it cannot cause

mental

anguish

to

3. NOMINAL

a

corporation, unlike in the case of a natural person, for a corporation has

GR NO. L- 41093, October 30, 1978

no reputation in the sense that an

ROBES-FRANCISCO REALTY VS. CFI

individual has, and besides, it is

The pertinent provisions of our Civil

inherently

Code follow:

impossible

for

a

corporation to suffer mental anguish. Moral

damages

are

granted

in

recompense for physical suffering, Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

“Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the

plaintiff,

violated

or

which invaded


has by

been the

Page 137

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, purpose

and

of

not

for

the

indemnifying

the

GR NO. 133925, November 29, 2000 PEOPLE VS. AGUSTIN GOPIO

plaintiff for any loss suffered by


him.”

nominal damages are adjudicated in order that the right of the plaintiff,

“Art. 2222. The Court may award

which has been violated or invaded by

every

the defendant, may be vindicated or

obligation arising from any source

recognized, and not for the purpose

enumerated in article 1157, or in

of indemnifying the plaintiff for any

every case where any property

loss suffered by him. As has been

nominal

damages

in

right has been invaded.” Under

the

foregoing

held,

“whenever there has been a

provisions

violation of an ascertained legal right,

nominal damages are not intended for

although no actual damages resulted

indemnification of loss suffered but

or none are shown, the award of

for the vindication or recognition of a

nominal damages is proper.” In this

right violated or invaded. They are

case,

recoverable where some injury has

incurred medical expenses due to the

been done the amount of which the

rape

evidence

the

appellant. The victim suffered from

assessment of damages being left to

pains in her navel which required her

the discretion of the court according

physical examination.

to the circumstances of the case.

P2,000.00 as nominal damages is

fails

to

show,

The facts in this case show that the right of the vendee to acquire title to

thus

the

victim’s

committed

appropriate

family by

clearly

accused-

An award of under

the

circumstances.

the lot bought by her was violated by petitioner and this entitles her at the

very least to nominal damages.


|


Page 138

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 88561, April 20, 1990 HERMAN ARMOVIT VS. CA The purpose of nominal damages is to vindicate or recognize a right that has

course, subject to the condition that the

award

for

damages

is

not

excessive under the attendant facts and circumstance of the case.

been violated, in order to preclude

Temperate damages are included

further contest thereon; “and not for

within the context of compensatory

the

damages. In arriving at a reasonable

purpose

of

indemnifying

the Plaintiff for any loss suffered by him” (Articles 2221, 2223, new Civil Code.) Hence, the deletion of the nominal damages by the appellate court in this

case is well-taken since there is an award of actual damages.

level of temperate damages to be awarded, trial courts are guided by the Supreme Court’s ruling that: ... There are cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of

pecuniary

offered,

loss

although

cannot the

court

be is

Nominal

convinced that there has been such

damages cannot co-exist with actual

loss. For instance, injury to one's

or compensatory damages.

commercial

credit

or

to

the

goodwill of a business firm is often hard to show certainty in of money. Should damages be denied

4. TEMPERATE

for that reason? The judge should

G.R. No. L-56505; May 9, 1988

be

empowered

to

calculate

moderate damages in such cases,

MAXIMO PLENO VS. CA

rather than that the plaintiff should

The employer's liability in quasi-delict

suffer, without redress from the

is primary and solidary. The award of

defendant's wrongful act.

temperate,

moral,

and

exemplary

damages as well as attorney's fees lies

upon the discretion of the court based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court's discretion is, of Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 139

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines GR NO. 129782, June 29, 2001

GR NO. 120547, January 29, 2001

PEOPLE VS. BALWINDER SINGH

PEOPLE VS. EDISON PLAZO

The testimony of Balwinder Singh Gill,

The award of actual damages in the

first cousin of the deceased, on the

amount of P15,712.00 was based

alleged income of the deceased while

solely on the bare assertions of the

in the Philippines, is not enough. The

mother of the victim. The Court can

best evidence to substantiate income

only grant such amount for expenses

earned by foreigners while in the

if they are ed by receipts. In

Philippines is the payment of taxes

the

with

damages can be awarded. However, in

the

Revenue.

Bureau

of

Internal

Absent such proof, bare

allegation

is

Nevertheless,

insufficient.

actual

damages,

no

actual

temperate

damages under Art. 2224 of the Civil Code may be recovered where it has

loss

been shown that the victim’s family

cannot be offered, and the fact of loss

suffered some pecuniary loss but the

has been established, appellants shall

amount thereof cannot be proved with

pay

Singh

certainty. The Court found the award

temperate damages in the amount of

of P15,000.00 as temperate damages

P200,000.00.

reasonable. Moral damages cannot be

the

proof

heirs

of

of

that

lieu of

thereof,

the

definite

considering

absence

pecuniary

Surinder

In People vs. dela Tongga, G.R. No. 133246, July 31, 2000, the Court held

awarded

in

the

absence

of

any

evidence to its award.

that in lieu of actual damages which was

not

proven

or

documented,

temperate damages may be awarded

5. LIQUIDATED

in a murder case.


|


Page 140

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines 6. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE

no

GR NO. 108630, April 02, 1996 PNB VS. CA Under Art. 2232 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded

if

a

party

acted

in

a

to pay private respondents, there is

wanton,

fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. However, they cannot be recovered as a matter of

evidence

that

it

acted

in

a

fraudulent,

wanton,

reckless

or

oppressive

manner.

Furthermore,

there is no award to compensatory damages

which

is

a

prerequisite

before exemplary damages may be awarded. Therefore, the award by the trial court of P5,000.00 as exemplary damages is baseless.

right; the court has yet to decide whether

or

not

they

should

be

down

the

adjudicated. Jurisprudence

has

set

requirements for exemplary damages to be awarded: 1. they may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages,

and

only

after

the

claimant’s right to them has been established;

GR NO. 118325, January 29, 1997 VIRGILIO M. DEL ROSARIO VS. CA Article

2229

of

the

Civil

Code

provides that such damages may be imposed

by

way

of

example

or

correction for the public good. While exemplary

damages

cannot

be

recovered as a matter of right, they

2. they cannot be recovered as a

need not be proved, although plaintiff

matter of right, their determination

must show that he is entitled to

depending

moral, temperate or compensatory

upon

the

amount

of

compensatory damages that may be

damages

awarded to the claimant;

consider the question of whether or

3. the act must be accompanied by

not exemplary damages should be

bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent

manner. In the case at bench, while there is a clear breach of petitioner’s obligation Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

before

awarded. Exemplary

the

court

damages

may

are

imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions.”


Page 141

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines However,

the

jurisprudential

same

statutory

standards

and

dictate

reduction of the amounts of moral and exemplary damages fixed by the Trial Court. There is, to be sure, no hard and fast rule for determining what would be a fair amount of moral (or exemplary) damages, each case having

to

be

governed

by

its

attendant particulars. Generally, the amount of moral damages should be commensurate with the actual loss or injury suffered.


|


Page 142

Torts And Damages Case Digest 2738a

Overview 26281t

More details 6y5l6z

Related Documents 3h463d

Torts And Damages Case Digest 2738a

Torts And Damages Case Digest 2738a

Torts And Damages Reviewer 4p6u5y

Mcq Torts And Damages 4rt66

Torts And Damages-reviewer 345t14

Case Digest Torts 3rd x4s1i

More Documents from "Armstrong Bosantog" 6iq58

Wplocker.com.txt 2c5q4a

What Is A Practical Application Of Boyle 6a6x1u

Shepherd And Sheep Relationship 25561v

Cir-vs-pldt 3j4z52

China National Machinery Vs. Santamaria 165sr

Republic Vs. Meralco 1cd4u