Torts and Damages PDF

U.P.
LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES

Civil Law
Page 444 of 497

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW
XIII. TORTS/QUASI- cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.
DELICTS Art. 100, RPC. Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.
Preliminary Considerations
An act or omission causing damage to another may
give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of
1. Definition of Tort the offender—for civil liability ex delicto, and
independent civil liabilities. The choice is with the
Tort plaintiff who makes known his cause of action in his
A private or civil wrong violating a right for which the initiatory pleading or complaint [LG Foods v.
law provides a remedy in the form of damages Philadelfa, G.R. No. 158995 (2006)]
Elements DELICT QUASI-DELICT

a. Duty
b. Breach Affects public interest Only of private concern
c. Injury; and The law merely repairs
d. Proximate Causation [Garcia v. Salvador, G.R. No. The law punishes or
the damages through
168512 (2007)] corrects the criminal act
indemnification
Covers only acts punished Any kind of fault or
2. D efinition of Quasi-Delict by the law negligence
Art. 2176, CC. Whoever by act or omission causes

damage to another, there being fault or 4. C ulpa Aquiliana
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Distinguished from Culpa
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a Contractual
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
this Chapter. a. As to Source
Quasi-delict In culpa aquiliana, it is the wrongful or negligent act or
Also known as culpa aquiliana omission itself which creates the vinculum juris,
whereas in contractual relations, the vinculum exists
Elements independently of the breach of voluntary duty
a. Act/omission committed through assumed by the parties when entering into the
fault/negligence contractual relation [Cangco v. Manila Railroad, G.R.
b. Damage/injury is caused by such act/omission No. L-12191 (1918).
c. Does not arise under a pre-existing contractual
obligation
b. As to Applicability of the
Note: Most jurisprudence does not include the third Doctrine of Proximate
element. Cause
3. Quasi-Delict The doctrine of proximate cause [to establish the fault
or negligence of the defendant] is applicable only in
Distinguished from Crime actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach
of contract [Calalas v. CA, G.R. No. 122039 (2000)].
A quasi-delict is a separate source of obligation under
Art. 1157, CC.
Art. 2177, CC. Responsibility for fault or negligence

under the preceding article is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff
Page 445 of 497

c. As to the Defense of an connected by a

legal tie
Employer for the
Presence of It is the vinculum
Negligence of an Employee negligence juris
Merely incidental
As it is not necessary for the plaintiff in an action for Existence of

What must be A lack of the
breach of contract to show that the breach was due to contract and
proven diligence required
the negligent conduct of the defendant or his servants, breach thereof
proof on the part of the defendant that the negligence Diligence in
or omission of his servants or agents caused the selection and Rebuttal of the
breach of contract would not constitute a defense to Defense
supervision of breach
the action [Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra] employee
Direct and
EX DELICTU QUASI-DELICT Direct liability of
Liability immediate, as
(Under Art. 100, (Under Art. the employer
contracting party
RPC) 2176, CC)
[Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra]
Cause of
Delict Quasi-delict
action Presence of Contractual Relations
Deemed instituted The Supreme Court held there may instances where
Separate legal there can be a quasi-delict even when there is a
with criminal case;
Need for institution; no contract between the parties. The test (whether a
must be reserved
reservation need to be quasi-delict can be deemed to underlie the breach of
to proceed
reserved a contract) can be stated thusly: Where, without a pre-
separately
existing contract between two parties, an act or
Preponderance of evidence (only
Quantum of omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable
criminal action needs
evidence tort by itself, the fact that the parties are contractually
proof beyond reasonable doubt)
During pendency of Proceeds The fact that the parties are contractually bound is no
Suspension prosecution of independent of bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the
criminal case criminal case case. [Far East v. CA, G.R. No. 108164 (1995)].
No effect, unless
acquittal is
Effect of because the act
No effect
acquittal does not exist or
accused is not the
author of the act
Before
arraignment: May be
May still be recovered from
Effect of recovered from the estate of the
death of estate of the accused,
accused* accused regardless of the
stage the case is
After arraignment: in
Extinguished
*Sec. 4, Rule 111, Rules of Court
CULPA CULPA
AQUILIANA CONTRACTUAL
Negligence
A breach in the
becomes source
performance of
Vinculum juris of obligation
an obligation
between persons
already existing
not formerly
Page 446 of 497

Negligence situation? If not, then he is negligent. Negligence in a

given case is not determined by reference to the
personal judgment of the actor in the situation before
1. Negligence him, but is determined in the light of human
experience and the facts involved in the particular
case. Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent
Art. 1173, CC. The fault or negligence of the obligor
man in the position of the tortfeasor would have
consists in the omission of that diligence which is
foreseen that an effect harmful to another was
required by the nature of the obligation and
sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons,
conduct or guarding against its consequences [Picart
of the time and of the place. When negligence
v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219 (1918)].
shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and
2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
b. Standard of Care Needed in
If the law or contract does not state the diligence Specific Circumstances
which is to be observed in the performance, that
which is expected of a good father of a family shall 1. Operators of Motor Vehicles
be required. In Relation to Cyclists
Because of inherent differences between
Negligence motorists and cyclists, the former being capable
It is the omission to do something which a reasonable of greater speed and destruction, operators of
man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily motor vehicles have a higher standard in his duty
regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or of care [Anonuevo v. CA, G.R. No. 130003 (2004)].
the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do [Layugan v. IAC, G.R. 2. Banks
No. 73998 (1988)]. The law imposes on banks high standards in view
of the fiduciary nature of banking. Section 2 of
The diligence with which the law requires the Republic Act No. 8791 (RA 8791), which took effect
individual to at all times govern his conduct varies with on 13 June 2000, declares that the State
the nature of the situation in which he is placed and recognizes the ‘fiduciary nature of banking that
the importance of the act which he is to perform [Jorge requires high standards of integrity and
v. Sicam, G.R. No. 159617 (2007)]. performance.’ This fiduciary relationship means
that the bank’s obligation to observe high
To determine whether there has been negligence by standards of integrity and performance is deemed
the defendant, this 2-step analysis may be used: written into every deposit agreement between a
a. Determine the diligence required of the actor bank and its depositor. The fiduciary nature of
under the circumstances, and banking requires banks to assume a degree of
b. Determine whether the actor has performed the diligence higher than that of a good father of a
diligence required. Failing the second step would family [Consolidated Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 138569
lead to the conclusion that the defendant has (2003)].
been negligent.
3. Experts (In General)
By jumping into the sea, the employee failed to Those who undertake any work calling for special
exercise even slight care and diligence and displayed skills are required not only to exercise reasonable
a reckless disregard of the safety of his person. His care in what they do but also possess a standard
death was caused by his notorious negligence. minimum of special knowledge and ability. In all
Notorious negligence has been held to be tantamount employments where peculiar skill is requisite, one
to gross negligence which is want of even slight care who offers his services is understood as holding
and diligence [Ameda v. Rio, G.R. No. L-6870 (1954)]. himself out to the public as possessing the degree
of skill commonly possessed by others in the same
a. Default Standard of Care: employment [Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, G.R. No.
130068 (1998)].
Good Father of a Family When a person holds himself out as being
competent to do things requiring professional
Test: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails
act use that reasonable care and caution which an to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily
ordinarily prudent man would have used in the same skilled in the particular work which he attempts to
Page 447 of 497

do [Culion v. Philippine Motors, G.R. No 32611 only, and this is to be determined in each case by
(1930)]. the circumstances of the case [Taylor v. Manila
Railroad, G.R. No. 4977 (1910)].
4. Doctors
Whether or not a physician has committed an No contributory negligence can be imputed to
‘inexcusable lack of precaution’ in the treatment children below 9 years old [Jarco Marketing v. CA,
of his patient is to be determined according to the G.R. No. 129792 (1999)].
standard of care observed by other members of
the profession in good standing under similar The degree of care required to be exercised must
circumstances bearing in mind the advanced vary with the capacity of the person endangered
state of the profession at the time of treatment of to care for himself. …The standard of conduct to
present state of medical science. It is in this aspect which a child must conform for his own protection
of medical malpractice that expert testimony is is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by
essential to establish not only the standard of care children of the same age, capacity, discretion,
of the profession but also that the physician’s knowledge and experience under the same or
conduct in the treatment and care falls below similar circumstances [Ylarde v. Aquino, G.R. No.
such standard [Cruz v. CA, GR. No. 122445 (1997)] L-33722 (1988)].
5. Pharmacists c. Presumptions of
The profession of pharmacy, it has been said
again and again, is one demanding care and skill. Negligence
Even under the first conservative expression,
"ordinary care" with reference to the business of a IN MOTOR VEHICLE MISHAPS
druggist…must be held to signify "the highest
practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness, Liability of the owner
and vigilance, and most exact and reliable
safeguards consistent with the reasonable Art. 2184, CC. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner
conduct of the business in order that human life is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who
may not constantly be exposed to the danger was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due
flowing from the substitution of deadly poisons diligence, prevented the misfortune. xxx
for harmless medicine [US v. Pineda, G.R. No. L- If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
12858 (1918)].” provisions of article 2180 are applicable.
Mistake is negligence and care is no defense Art. 2186, CC. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall
[Mercury Drug v. de Leon, G.R. No. 165622 file with the proper government office a bond
(2008)]. executed by a government-controlled corporation
or office, to answer for damages to third persons.
6. Possessor of Extremely Dangerous The amount of the bond and other terms shall be
Instrumentalities fixed by the competent public official.
[A] higher degree of care is required of someone
who has in his possession or under his control an The owner is solidarily liable with the driver for motor
instrumentality extremely dangerous in vehicle mishaps when:
character, such as dangerous weapons or 1. The owner was IN the vehicle at the time, AND
substances. Such person in possession or control 2. The owner could have, by the use of due diligence,
of dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to prevented the misfortune.
take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury
being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of Note: If the owner was NOT inside the vehicle, Art.
life or business which involve little or no risk, a 2180 applies.
business dealing with dangerous weapons
requires the exercise of a higher degree of care The presumption is against the owner of the motor
[Pacis v. Morales, G.R. No. 169467 (2010)]. vehicle. He has the burden of proving due diligence.
Thus, once a driver is proven negligent in causing
7. Children damage, the law presumes the vehicle owner equally
The conduct of an infant of tender years is not to negligent and imposes upon the latter the burden of
be judged by the same rule, which governs that of proving proper selection and supervision of employee
an adult. …The care and caution required of a as a defense.
child is according to his maturity and capacity
Page 448 of 497

As held in Vargas v. Langcay [G.R. No. 17459 (1962)],

“the registered owner/operator of a passenger vehicle Art. 2185, CC. Unless there is proof to the contrary,
is jointly and severally liable with the driver for it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle
damages incurred by passengers or third persons as a has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he
consequence of injuries or death sustained in the was violating any traffic regulation.
operation of said vehicles. Regardless of who the
actual owner of a vehicle is, the operator of record Article 2184 establishes a presumption of negligence
continues to be the operator of the vehicle as regards on the part of the driver based on previous violations
the public and third persons and as such is directly and of traffic regulations. Article 2185 establishes a
primarily responsible for the consequences incident to presumption of negligence on the basis of
its operation, so that in contemplation of law, such simultaneous violations.
owner/operator of record is the employer of the driver,
the actual operator and employer being considered Despite the presumption of negligence arising from
merely as his agent.” the traffic regulation violation, the claimant must still
prove that such negligence was the proximate cause
The registered owner of a motor vehicle is primarily in order to successfully claim for damages [Sanitary
liable for the damage or injury caused to another, but Steam v CA, G.R. No. 119092 (1998)].
he has a right to be indemnified by the real owner of
the amount he was required to pay. This rule applies Article 2185 was not formulated to compel or ensure
both to private and to common carriers with respect to obeisance by all to traffic rules and regulations. It does
their passengers [Tamayo v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-12634 not apply to non-motorized vehicles, in recognition of
(1959)]. the unequal footing of standards applicable to motor
vehicles as opposed to other types of vehicles
The law does not require that a person must possess a [Añonuevo v. CA, supra].
certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the
mechanics of driving or in the observance of traffic POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR
rules before he may own a motor vehicle. The test of SUBSTANCES
his negligence, within the meaning of Article 2184, is
his omission to do that which the evidence of his own Art. 2188, CC. There is prima facie presumption of
senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the negligence if the death or injury results from his
accident. And as far as perception is concerned, possession of dangerous weapons or substances,
absent a minimum level imposed by law, a maneuver such as firearms and poison, except when the use
that appears to be fraught with danger to one or possession thereof is indispensable in his
passenger may appear to be entirely safe and occupation or business.
commonplace to another. Were the law to require a
uniform standard of perceptiveness, employment of
COMMON CARRIERS
professional drivers by car owners who, by their very
inadequacies, have real need of drivers' services,
would be effectively proscribed [Caedo v. Yu Khe Tai, Art. 1735, CC. In all cases other than those
G.R. No. L-20392 (1968)]. mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding
article (calamity, act of public enemy in war, act of
The owner of the motor vehicle is not liable for the owner of the goods, character of the goods, order
misfortune unless the negligent acts of the driver are of competent public authority), if the goods are lost
continued for such a length of time as to give the destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are
owner a reasonable opportunity to observe them and presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
to direct his driver to desist therefrom. The act negligently, unless they prove that they observed
complained of must be continued in the presence of extraordinary diligence as required under Art. 1733.
the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by
his acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own Art. 1752, CC. Even when there is an agreement
[Chapman v. Underwood, G.R. No. L-9010 (1914)]. limiting the liability of the common carrier in the
vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is
Liability of the driver disputably presumed to have been negligent in
case of their loss, destruction or deterioration.
Art. 2184, CC. xxx It is disputably presumed that a
driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at
least twice within the next preceding two months.
Page 449 of 497

RES IPSA LOQUITUR d. Persons Liable

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing or the 1. The direct tortfeasor, for his own acts
transaction speaks for itself”) is a rule of evidence (not
of substantive law) peculiar to the law of negligence.
Art. 2176, CC. Whoever by act or omission causes
The doctrine treats the injury itself as proof of
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence.
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
xxx
Elements: [Ramos v. CA, G.R. No. 124354 (1999)]
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not
occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; The tortfeasor may be a natural or juridical person. For
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the natural persons, apply requisites of Art. 2176 and for
exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; juridical persons, apply vicarious liability provisions.
and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct, which 2. Persons vicariously liable
would make the plaintiff responsible, is
eliminated. Art. 2180, CC. The obligation imposed by Article
2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or
Basis omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is based in part upon the one is responsible.
theory that the defendant in charge of the
instrumentality which causes the injury either knows xxx
the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity
of ascertaining it and that the plaintiff has no such The responsibility treated of in this article shall
knowledge, and therefore is compelled to allege cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
negligence in general terms and to rely upon the proof that they observed all the diligence of a good
of the happening of the accident in order to establish father of a family to prevent the damage.
negligence [DM Consunji v. CA, G.R. No. 137873
(2001)]. The rationale is to extend liability by legal fiction to
those in a position to exercise absolute or limited
Effect control over the direct tortfeasor. The doctrine does
The fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the not apply where moral culpability can be imputed
surrounding circumstances, raise a presumption of directly, as when there is actual intent to cause harm
negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, to others.
and present a question of fact for defendant to meet
with an explanation [Ramos v CA, supra]. The liability of the vicarious obligor is primary and
direct (solidarily liable with the tortfesor), not
In medical malpractice cases, when the doctrine of res subsidiary. His responsibility is not conditioned upon
ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for the insolvency of or prior recourse against the
expert medical testimony is dispensed with because negligent tortfeasor.
the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. The
reason is that the general rule on the necessity of PERSONS
expert testimony applies only to such matters clearly VICARIOUSLY ACTORS
within the domain of medical science, and not to LIABLE
matters that are within the common knowledge of
mankind which may be testified to by anyone familiar Father and, in case of
with the facts. his death or Minor children who live in
incapacity, the their company
Note: For the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to apply, it must mother
appear that the injured party had no knowledge as to Minors or incapacitated
the cause of the accident, or that the party to be persons who are under their
Guardians
charged with negligence has superior knowledge or authority and live in their
opportunity for explanation of the accident. company
Owners and Employees in the service of
managers of an the branches in which the
Page 450 of 497

establishment or latter are employed or on the parental authority is exercised by both the father and
enterprise occasion of their functions the mother. Thus, the distinction in Art. 2180 where
the father is liable before the mother no longer
Employees and household applies.
helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks, Who are liable for minors?
Employers
even though the former are 1. Parents/Adoptive parents
not engaged in any business 2. Court-appointed guardians
or industry 3. Substitute Parental Authorities
State Special agent a. Grandparents
b. Oldest qualified sibling over 21 years old
Teachers or heads of Pupils and students or
c. Child’s actual custodian, provided he is
establishments of apprentices, so long as they
qualified and over 21 years old.
arts and trades remain in their custody
4. Special Parental Authorities
a. School
a. Persons exercising parental authority b. Administrators
c. Teachers
Art. 2180 (2), CC. The father and, in case of his d. Individual, entity, or institution engaged in
death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for child care
the damages caused by the minor children who live
in their company. Illegitimate children
Responsibility is with the mother whom the law vests
Art. 221, FC. Parents and other persons exercising with parental authority.
parental authority shall be civilly liable for the
Basis of liability of parents and adopters
injuries and damages caused by the acts or
Parental liability is anchored upon parental authority
omissions of their unemancipated children living in
coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the
their company and under their parental authority
discharge of the duties accompanying such authority.
subject to the appropriate defenses provided by
The parental dereliction is, of course, only presumed
law.
and the presumption can be overturned under Article
2180 of the CC by proof that the parents had exercised
Art. 216, FC. In default of parents or a judicially all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
appointed guardian, the following person shall the damage [Tamargo v. CA, G.R. No. 85044 (1992)].
exercise substitute parental authority over the child
in the order indicated: Meaning of “Minority”
(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. Par. 2 and 3 of Art. 2180 speak of minors. Minors here
214; refer to those who are below 21 years of age, not below
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one 18 years. The law reducing the majority age from 21 to
years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and 18 years old did not amend these paragraphs. Basis is
(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one FC, Art. 236 (3), as amended by RA 6809, provides,
years of age, unless unfit or disqualified. “Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate
from the duty or responsibility of parents and
Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian guardians for children and wards below 21 years of age
over the property of the child becomes necessary, mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of 2180
the same order of preference shall be observed. of the CC.”
Art. 217, FC. In case of foundlings, abandoned Art. 2180 (3), CC. Guardians are liable for damages
neglected or abused children and other children caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who
similarly situated, parental authority shall be are under their authority and live in their company.
entrusted in summary judicial proceedings to
heads of children's homes, orphanages and The liability of guardians with respect to their wards is
similar institutions duly accredited by the proper governed by the same rule as in the liability of parents
government agency. with respect to their children below 21 years and who
live with them
Art. 221 FC provides that persons exercising parental
authority shall be civilly liable for the torts of the
children in their care. Art. 211 FC then states that “Incompetent” includes (Rule 92, ROC):
Page 451 of 497

1. Those suffering the penalty of civil interdiction, Teacher in

2. Prodigals, Persons Head of
charge; not
3. Deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write liable establishment itself
administrator
4. Unsound mind, even though they have lucid
intervals Custody Required
5. Being of sound mind, but by reason of age, Heads of Heads of
disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, academic establishments of
cannot take care of themselves or manage their institutions arts and trades
property exercise only have apprentices,
administrative who they are in
Liability of minor or insane tortfeasor without a Rationale
authority over close proximity to.
parent or guardian the students, Therefore they can
He shall be answerable with his own property in an and are not in be liable for the tort
action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be close proximity by the
appointed. [Art. 2182] to them. apprentice/student.
Diligence of a good father of a family
b. Teachers and schools Defense
to prevent damage
Art. 2180 (7), CC. Lastly, teachers or heads of
establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for RESPONSIBILITY FOR MINOR CHILDREN IN
damages caused by their pupils and students or SCHOOL (FC REGIME)
apprentices, so long as they remain in their SCHOOL, PARENTS,
custody. ADMINISTRATORS, GUARDIANS,
TEACHERS, ETC. ETC.
Art. 218, FC. The school, its administrators and Provided by Art. 218 Art. 219
teachers, or the individual, entity or institution
engaged in child are shall have special parental Parental
authority and responsibility over the minor child Kind of authority or
Special parental
while under their supervision, instruction or authority substitute
authority
custody. required parental
authority
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all Liability if
authorized activities whether inside or outside the tort is Principal and
premises of the school, entity or institution. Subsidiary
committed solidary
in school
Art. 219, FC. Those given the authority and
responsibility under the preceding Article shall be Under Article 2180, the teacher is liable for the acts or
principally and solidarily liable for damages caused omissions of the pupils and students, and so is the
by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated head of establishment of arts and trades for the
minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the apprentices, so long as they remain in custody,
persons exercising substitute parental authority regardless of age. Under the Family Code, liability
over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. attaches to the school, its administrators and
teachers, or the individual or entity engaged in child
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the care, so long as the child is under their supervision,
preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved instruction, or custody, and the child is below 18 years
that they exercised the proper diligence required old.
under the particular circumstances.
Basis of liability of teachers and heads of
All other cases not covered by this and the establishments of arts and trades
preceding articles shall be governed by the They stand, to a certain extent, in loco parentis and are
provisions of the CC on quasi-delicts. called upon to exercise reasonable supervision over
the conduct of the child.
“TEACHERS” “HEADS”
“Custody” means the protective and supervisory
Academic Arts and trades, custody that the school, its head and teachers exercise
Institution
institutions establishments over the pupils, for as long as they are in attendance in
Page 452 of 497

school, which includes recess time [Palisoc v. 2. Tortious act had been committed while the
Brillantes, G.R. No. L-29025 (1971)]. tortfeasor was acting in the normal course of
employment
As long as it is shown that the student is in the school
premises pursuant to a legitimate student objective, in BASIS OF LIABILITY: NOT RESPONDEAT
the exercise of a legitimate right, or the enjoyment of SUPERIOR, BUT PATER FAMILIAS
a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the
school authorities over the student continues RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR PATER FAMILIAS
[Amadora v CA, G.R. No. L-47745 (1988)]. There is only a
Master is absolutely liable
presumption of
to servant’s act or
STUDENTS COVERED negligence on the part
omission
of the employer
ARTS. 218-219 ART. 2180
Defense of negligence
All students, even those no No defense of negligence
available
longer minors, as long as they
Minor students only Embodied in the
remain in the custody of the Embodied in primary
persons responsible subsidiary liability under
liability under Art. 2180,
RPC – no defense of
where the defense of
diligence; only lack of
c. Owners/managers of diligence is available
criminal liability
establishments/employers
Art. 2180 (4), FC. The owners and managers of an “Owners and managers of an establishment or
establishment or enterprise are likewise enterprise” does not include a manager of a
responsible for damages caused by their corporation. (Spanish term “directores” connotes
employees in the service of the branches in which “employer.” But manager of a corporation is not an
the latter are employed or on the occasion of their employer, but rather merely an employee of the
functions. owner.) [Philippine Rabbit v. Philam Forwarders, G.R.
No. L-25142 (1975)].
Art. 2180 (5), FC. Employers shall be liable for the The liability imposed upon employers with respect to
damages caused by their employees and damages occasioned by the negligence of their
household helpers acting within the scope of their employees to whom they are not bound by contract is
assigned tasks, even though the former are not based on the employer’s own negligence, such as
engaged in any business or industry. when he places a powerful automobile in the hands of
a servant whom he knows to be ignorant of the
NATURE OF EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY method of managing such vehicle [Cangco v. Manila
The basis of his liability is not his Railroad, supra].
employee’s negligence, but his own
Direct This Court still employs the "control test" to determine
negligence in hiring and supervising
the employee. the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between hospital and doctor. Under the "control test",
The amount for which he is liable an employment relationship exists between a
may be pursued without having to physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both
Primary exhaust the employee’s assets, as the means and the details of the process by which the
opposed to subsidiary liability under physician is to accomplish his task. The Court earlier
the RPC. ruled that there was employer-employee relationship
He may recover the full amount of between the doctor and employee but reversed itself
the liability from his employee, as upon motion for reconsideration. They still held the
Solidary per Art. 2181, and not merely a hospital liable on the basis of agency and corporate
prorated amount, unlike in Art. responsibility [Professional Services v. CA and Agana,
2184, CC. G.R. No. 126297 (2010)].
“Within the scope of their assigned task” in Art. 2180

What must be established for vicarious liability
includes any act done by an employee in furtherance
1. Existence of an employer-employee relationship
of the interests, or for the account of the employer at
between company and tortfeasor
the time of the infliction of the injury or damage
[Filamer v. CA, G.R. No. 75112 (1990)].
Page 453 of 497

Basis of liability of and beneficial to their employee [Metro Manila

Employer’s negligence in Transit v. CA, G.R. No. 104408 (1993)].
1. The selection of their employees (culpa in
eligiendo) Due diligence in the selection of employees require
2. The supervision over their employees (culpa in that the employer carefully examined the applicant for
vigilando) employment as to his qualifications, his experience
and record of service.
Presumption of Negligence
The presentation of proof of the negligence of its Criminal Negligence
employee gives rise to the presumption that the The vicarious liability of the employer for criminal
defendant employer did not exercise the diligence of a negligence of his employee is governed by RPC 103.
good father of a family in the selection and supervision Conviction of the employee conclusively binds the
of its employees [Lampesa v. De Vera, G.R. No. 155111 employer. Defense of due diligence in the selection
(2008)]. and supervision of the employee is not available. The
employer cannot appeal the conviction [Fernando v.
th th
Distinction between the 4 and 5 paragraphs of Franco (1971)].
Article 2180
A distinction must be made between the two Note: The liability of the employer under Art. 103 RPC
provisions to determine what is applicable. is subsidiary.
1. Both provisions apply to employers:
a. the fourth paragraph, to owners and managers Registered Owner Rule
of an establishment or enterprise; and The registered owner of the vehicle is primarily
b. the fifth paragraph, to employers in general, responsible to the public for whatever damage or
whether or not engaged in any business or injury the vehicle may have caused, even if he had
industry. already sold the same to someone else. The policy is
2. The fourth paragraph covers negligent acts of the easy identification of the owner who can be held
employees committed either in the service of the responsible so as not to inconvenience or prejudice the
branches or on the occasion of their functions, third party injured [Cadiente v. Macas (2008)]. The
while the fifth paragraph encompasses negligent registered owner, however, has the right to be
acts of employees acting within the scope of their indemnified by the real or actual owner of the amount
assigned task. that he may be required to pay as damages for the
a. The latter is an expansion of the former in both injury caused to the plaintiff [Orix Metro Leasing v.
employer coverage and acts included. Mangalinan (2012)]. This rule applies even if the
b. Negligent acts of employees, whether or not vehicle is leased to third persons. The liability of the
the employer is engaged in a business or registered owner is subject to his right of recourse
industry, are covered so long as they were against the transferee or buyer.
acting within the scope of their assigned task,
even though committed neither in the service of “Owner” shall mean the actual legal owner of the
the branches nor on the occasion of their motor vehicle, in whose name such vehicle is duly
functions. registered with the LTO. Registration of motor vehicles
c. For, admittedly, employees oftentimes wear is required not because it is the operative act which
different hats. They perform functions which transfers ownership in vehicles, but because it is the
are beyond their office, title or designation but means by which the owner can be identified so that if
which, nevertheless, are still within the call of any accident occurs, or damage or injury is caused in
duty [Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Vasquez, G.R. the operation of the vehicle, responsibility can be
No. (1999)]. fixed.
Defense of diligence in selection and supervision d. The State

Due diligence in the supervision of employees includes
the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for Sec. 3, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution. The State may
the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper not be sued without its consent.
instructions intended for the protection of the public
and persons with whom the employer has relations
Art. 2180 (3), CC. The State is responsible in like
through his or her employees and the imposition of
manner when it acts through a special agent; but
necessary disciplinary measures upon employees in
not when the damage has been caused by the
case of breach or as may be warranted to ensure
official to whom the task done properly pertains, in
performance of acts as indispensable to the business
Page 454 of 497

which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be Art. 2194, FC. The responsibility of two or more
applicable. persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
Who may be sued under the State Definition of “Joint Tortfeasors”

1. A special agent under Art. 2180 They are all persons who command, instigate,
2. Instrumentalities discharging proprietary promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate
functions in, aid or abet in the commission of a tort, or who
• The power to enter into contracts implies the approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit
consent to be sued [Filipinas Broadcasting Network v. AMEC-BCCM, G.R.
• The charter of the instrumentality may No. 141994 (2005)].
expressly provide that it may be sued
3. Those that consent to be sued Applicability of the provision
Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
Instances where the State gives its consent to be omissions of two or more persons, although acting
sued independently, are in combination the direct and
1. Art. 2180 (6) is an example of an express proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, it
legislative consent. Here, the State assumes a is impossible to determine in what proportion each
limited liability for the acts of its special agents. contributed to the injury and either of them is
2. Art. 2189 provides for state liability for damages responsible for the whole injury. Where their
caused by defective condition of public works. concurring negligence resulted in injury or damage to
3. Local Government Code provides for the liability a third party, they become joint tortfeasors and are
of local government units for wrongful exercise of solidarily liable for the resulting damage [Far Eastern
its proprietary (as opposed to its governmental) Shipping v. CA, supra].
functions. The latter is the same as that of a
private corporation or individual. [Mendoza v. de
Leon, G.R. No. L-9596 (1916)]
2. C ause
Special Agent a. Concept of Proximate
One who receives a definite and fixed order or Cause
commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his
office if he is a special official. This concept does not In order that civil liability for negligence may arise,
apply to any executive agent who is an employee of the there must be a direct causal connection between the
active administration and who on his own damage suffered by the plaintiff and the act or
responsibility performs the functions which are omission of the defendant.
inherent in and naturally pertain to his office [Merritt v.
Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 11154 Where the particular harm sustained was reasonably
(1960)]. foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s misconduct,
his act or omission is the legal cause thereof.
A corporate body performing non-governmental Foreseeability is the fundamental basis of the law of
functions becomes liable for the damage caused by negligence. To be negligent, the defendant must have
the accident resulting from the tortious act of its acted or failed to act in such a way that an ordinary
driver-employee. Such corporate body assumes the reasonable man would have realized that certain
responsibility of an ordinary employer and as such, interests of certain persons were reasonably subjected
becomes answerable for damages [Fontanilla v. to a general but definite class of risks. [Jarencio]
Maliaman, G.R. No. 55963 (1991)].
Two definitions of proximate cause:
Why the State cannot be sued 1. Proximate cause immediately resulting in
1. Neither fault nor negligence can be presumed on injury: defined as “that cause, which, in natural
the part of the State in the organization of and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
branches of public service and in the appointment efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,
of its agents. and without which the result would not have
2. Suing the State will divert its focus from the occurred” [Bataclan v. Medina, G.R. No. 10126
delivery of necessary public services. (1957)].
2. Proximate cause not immediately resulting in
e. Joint tortfeasors injury but sets in motion a chain of events, also
known as Proximate Legal Cause: that acting first
Page 455 of 497

and producing the injury, either immediately or by cause and the injury a distinct, successive,
setting other events in motion, all constituting a unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even
natural and continuous chain of events, each though such injury would not have happened but
having a close causal connection with its for such condition or occasion [Manila Electric v.
immediate predecessor, the final event in the Remonquillo, G.R. No. L-8328 (1956)].
chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural
and probable result of the cause which first acted, 3. Intervening Cause
under such circumstances that the person The test of determining whether or not the
responsible for the first event should, as an intervening cause is sufficient to absolve a prior
ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have cause of the injury is as follows: whether the
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his intervention of a later cause is a significant part of
act or default that an injury to some person might the risk involved in the defendant’s conduct, or is
probably result therefrom [Bataclan v. Medina, so reasonable connected with it that the
supra]. responsibility should not be terminated. In the
affirmative, such foreseeable intervening forces
Respondent was mistakenly given Dormicum, a are within the scope of the original risk, and hence
potent sleeping tablet, instead of medication for his of the defendant’s negligence. In the negative,
blood sugar. He took a pill for 3 consecutive days and there exists an efficient intervening cause that
on the third day, he fell asleep on the wheel and relieves the defendant of liability.
figured in a vehicular accident. The Court found that
the proximate cause of the accident was the Mercury If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary
Drug employee’s mistake in reading the prescription human experience is reasonably to be anticipated,
[Mercury Drug v. Baking, G.R. No. 156037 (2007)]. or one which the defendant has reason to
anticipate under the particular circumstances, the
Note: Here, 3 days have elapsed from the time of the defendant may be negligent, among other
negligent act determined by the Court as the reasons, because of failure to guard against it.
proximate cause; thus, the Court did not consider the There is an intervening cause combining with the
time element in determining proximate cause but the defendant’s conduct to produce the result, and
nature and gravity of the injury. the defendant’s negligence consists in failure to
protect the plaintiff against that very risk [Phoenix
Differentiated from: Construction v. IAC, G.R. No. L-65295 (1987)].
1. Concurrent Cause – Several causes producing the
injury, and each is an efficient cause without b. Tests to Determine
which the injury would not have happened. The
injury is attributed to any or all the causes, and Proximate Cause
recovery may be had against any or all of those
responsible. 1. But for / Sine qua non rule
Whether such negligent conduct is a cause
Note: They’re the same thing from the point of without which the injury would not have occurred
view of solidarity. or is the efficient cause which set in motion the
chain of circumstances leading to the injury.
As a general rule, that negligence in order to [Bataclan v. Medina, supra]
render a person liable need not be the sole cause
of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence, 2. Sufficient link
concurring with one or more efficient causes other Plaintiff, however, must establish a sufficient link
than the plaintiff’s, is the proximate cause of the between the act or omission and the damage or
injury. injury. That link must not be remote or far-
fetched; otherwise, no liability will attach. The
2. Remote Cause – a cause which would have been damage or injury must be a natural and probable
a proximate cause, had there been no efficient result of the act or omission. [Dy Teban Trading,
intervening cause after it and prior to the injury. Inc. v. Ching, G.R. No. 161803 (2008)]
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 3. Substantial factor
occasion by which the injury was made possible, if If the harmful result would not have come about
there intervened between such prior or remote had the defendant not been negligent, his
Page 456 of 497

conduct is a substantial factor and there would be merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages
legal causation. Thus, when this test is utilized, it by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the
is also being applied as a test of actual causation defendant from his breach of contract
or “cause in fact’’ test. [de Leon] [Consolidated Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 138569
(2003)].
4. Mixed considerations
There is no exact formula to determine probable Last clear chance applies only if the person who
cause. It is based upon mixed considerations of allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the
logic, common sense, policy and precedent [Dy accident was aware of the existence of peril or
Teban v. Jose Ching, supra]. should, with exercise of due care, have been
aware of it. The doctrine can never apply where
5. Cause v. condition the party charged is required to act
The distinction between cause and condition has instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be
already been almost entirely discredited. So far as avoided by application of all means at hand after
it has any validity at all, it must refer to the type of the peril is or should have been discovered
case where the forces set in operation by the [Pantranco v. Baesa, G.R. No. 79051-51(1989)].
defendant have come to rest in a position of
apparent safety, and some new force intervenes. The doctrine of last clear chance, as enunciated in
But even in such cases, it is not the distinction Anuran v. Buno, applies in a suit between the
between “cause” and “condition” which is owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. It does
important, but the nature of the risk and the not arise where a passenger demands
character of the intervening cause [Phoenix responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
Construction v. IAC, supra]. contractual obligations. It will be inequitable to
exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its
6. Last clear chance owners on the ground that the other driver was
likewise guilty of negligence [Bustamante v. CA,
The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance G.R. No. 89880 (1991)].
Also known as: "doctrine of discovered peril” or
“doctrine of supervening negligence” or Note:
“humanitarian doctrine”. • If plaintiff is the proximate cause: no recovery can
be made.
The antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does • If plaintiff is not the proximate cause: Recovery
not preclude him from recovering damages can be made but such will be mitigated.
caused by the supervening negligence of the • If negligence of parties is equal in degree, then
defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent each bears his own loss.
the impending harm by the exercise of due
diligence [PNR v. Brunty, supra].
3. Defenses
If both parties are found to be negligent; but, their
negligence are not contemporaneous, the person a. Due Diligence to Prevent
who has the last fair chance to avoid the
impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable the Damage under Art.
with the consequences, without reference to the 2180, CC
prior negligence of the other party [Picart v. Smith,
supra]. Art. 2180, CC. The obligation imposed by Article
2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or
The doctrine of last clear chance finds no omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
application in a case where the proximate cause one is responsible.
of the injury has been established [PNR v Brunty,
supra]. xxx
The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply in (8) The responsibility treated of in this article shall
a case of culpa contractual, where neither the cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
contributory negligence of the plaintiff nor his last that they observed all the diligence of a good father
clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate of a family to prevent damage.
the defendant from liability. Such contributory
negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff
Page 457 of 497

The presumption of negligence on the part of the part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a
master or employer, either in the selection of breach or wrong [Custodio v. CA, G.R. No. 116100
servant/employee or in the supervision, when an injury (1996)].
is caused by the negligence of a servant/employee
may be rebutted if the employer shows to the INJURY DAMAGE DAMAGES
satisfaction of the court that in the selection and
supervision, he has exercised the care and diligence of Loss, hurt, harm Recompense or
Illegal invasion
a good father of a family [Ramos v. PEPSI, G.R. No. L- resulting from compensation
of a legal right
22533 (1967)]. the injury awarded
b. Acts of Public Officers One who made use of his own legal right does no
injury, thus, whatever damages are caused to another
should be borne solely by him under the principle of
A public officer is not liable for damages which a
damnum absque injuria. This principle, however, does
person may suffer arising from the just performance of
not apply when there is an abuse in the exercise of a
his official duties and within the scope of his assigned
person’s right. [Amonoy v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 140420
tasks. An officer who acts within his authority to
(2001)]
administer the affairs of the office which he/she heads
is not liable for damages that may have been caused
to another, as it would virtually be a charge against the e. Plaintiff’s Negligence is
Republic, which is not amenable to judgment for the Proximate Cause
monetary claims without its consent. However, a
public officer is by law not immune from damages in Art. 2179, CC. When the plaintiff’s own negligence
his/her personal capacity for acts done in bad faith was the proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
which, being outside the scope of his authority, are no recover damages. xxx
longer protected by the mantle of immunity for official
actions. [Vinzons-Chato v Fortun, G.R. No. 141309
(2008)]. This defense of plaintiff’s negligence as proximate
cause is absolute, for it bars recovery on the part of the
plaintiff. In Manila Electric v. Remoquillo, supra, the
c. Authority of :aw Court did not allow recovery by Magno, ruling that his
death was primarily caused by his own negligence and
Art. 5, CC. Acts executed against the provisions of in some measure by the too close proximity of the
mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, “media agua” to the electric wire.
except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
If the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his own
Art. 11, CC. The following do not incur any criminal carelessness contributed to the principal occurrence,
liability: xxx that is, to the accident, as one of the determining
(5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a causes thereof, he cannot recover [Bernardo v. Legaspi,
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office G.R. No. 9308 (1914)].
xxx
(8) Any person who acts in obedience to an order f. Contributory Negligence of
issued by a superior for some lawful purpose
the Plaintiff
d. Damnum Absque Injuria Art. 2179, CC. xxx But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause
There can be damage without injury in those instances of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care,
in which the loss or harm was not the result of a the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
violation of a legal duty. shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
Right to recover damages does not arise from the Art. 2214, CC. In quasi-delicts, the contributory
mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses. To warrant negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the
the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of damages that he may recover.
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 Contributory negligence is defined as conduct on the
constitute a cause of action, since damages are merely part of the injured party, which contributed as a legal
cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below
Page 458 of 497

the standard to which he is required to conform for his precludes the recovery of damages by one who has
own protection [Valenzuela v. CA, GR. No. 115024 knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger,
(1996)]. even if he is not negligent in doing so. This is so
because, in theory, the plaintiff’s acceptance of the risk
Contributory negligence does not defeat an action if it has wiped out the defendant’s duty, and as to the
can be shown that the defendant might, by the plaintiff the defendant’s negligence is not a legal
exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have wrong.
avoided the consequences of the injured party's
negligence. Where the plaintiff contributes to the Requisites:
principal occurrence as one of its determining factors, 1. That the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the
he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with the danger;
occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he 2. That he understood and appreciated the risk from
may recover the amount that the defendant the danger; and
responsible for the event should pay for such injury, 3. That he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk
less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own
imprudence [MH Rakes v. Atlantic, G.R. No. L-1719 The defense is not applicable in the following cases:
(1907)]. A person is excused from the force of the rule (volenti
non fit injuria), that when he voluntarily assents to a
The defense of contributory negligence does not apply known danger he must abide by the consequences, if
in criminal cases committed through reckless an emergency is found to exist or if the life or property
imprudence, since one cannot allege the negligence of of another is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his
another to evade the effects of his own negligence endangered property [Ilocos Norte v. CA, G.R. No.
[Genobiagon v. CA, G.R. No. 40452 (1989)]. 53401 (1989)].
g. Fortuitous Event The doctrine does not find application to the case
because even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of
being asked to leave the pary, petitioners, under
Art. 1174, CC. Except in cases expressly specified
Articles 19 and 21 of the CC, were still under the
by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him
stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation
to unnecessary ridicule and shame [Nikko Hotel v.
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
Roberto Reyes, G.R. No. 154259 (2005)].
responsible for those events which, could not be
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable. i. Prescription
Elements of caso fortuito [Juntilla v. Fontanar, G.R. Art. 1146, CC. The following actions must be
No. L-45637 (1985)]: instituted within four years:
1. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to (2) Upon a quasi-delict;
comply with his obligation, must be independent
of the human will; However, when the action arises from or out of any
2. It must be impossible to foresee the event or if it act, activity, or conduct of any public officer
can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; involving the exercise of powers or authority
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it arising from Martial Law including the arrest,
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same
in a normal manner; and must be brought within one (1) year.
4. The obligor must be free from any participation
in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the Art. 1150, CC. The time for prescription for all
creditor. kinds of actions, when there is no special provision
which ordains otherwise, shall be counted from
h. Plaintiff’s assumption of the day they may be brought.
risk /Volenti Non Fit Injuria Prescription periods:
The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (that to which a • 4 years for QD
person assents is not presumed in law as injury) refers • 1 year for defamation
to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which
Page 459 of 497

It is clear that the prescriptive period must be counted

when the last element occurs or takes place, the time Intentional Torts
of the commission of an act or omission violative of the
right of the plaintiff, which is the time when the cause Liability for personal acts or omission is founded on
of action arises. Thus, the prescription period begins that indisputable principle of justice recognized by all
from the day the quasi-delict is committed [Kramer v. legislators that when a person by his act or omission
CA, G.R. No. 83524 (1989)]. causes damage or prejudice to another, a juridical
relation is created by virtue of which the injured person
acquires a right to be indemnified and the person
j. Waiver causing the damage is charged with the
corresponding duty of repairing the damage. The
Art. 6, CC. Rights may be waived, unless the reason for this is found in the obvious truth that man
waiver is contrary to law, public order, public should subordinate his acts to the precepts of
policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to prudence and if he fails to observe them and cause
a third person with a right recognized by law. damage to another, he must repair the damage
[Manresa].
Art. 1171, CC. Responsibility arising from fraud is
demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an INTENTIONAL TORTS NEGLIGENT TORTS
action for future fraud is void.
The act or omission
Harmful consequences are merely creates a
k. Emergency Rule or Sudden substantially certain to foreseeable risk or
Peril Doctrine occur or are intended harm, which may or may
not actually be realized
An individual, who suddenly finds himself in a
situation of danger and is required to act without
much time to consider the best means that may be
1. Human Relations Torts
adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty
of negligence if he fails to undertake what a. Abuse of Right
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a
better solution, unless the emergency was brought by Art. 19, CC. Every person must, in the exercise of
his own negligence [Gan v. CA, G.R. No. L-44264 his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
(1988)]. with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.
Generally, the exercise of any right must be in

accordance with the purpose for which it was
established. It must not be excessive or unduly harsh;
there must be no intention to injure another.
There is abuse of right when:

1. The right is exercised for the only purpose of
prejudicing or injuring another
2. The objective of the act is illegitimate
3. There is an absence of good faith
Elements [Albenson v. CA, G.R. No. 88694 (1993)]:

1. There is a legal right or duty;
2. Which is exercised in bad faith;
3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another.
Page 460 of 497

the principle of when it is abused,

LEGAL RIGHT AND damnum absque especially to the
CASE DOCTRINE
INJURY injuria. prejudice of
Right to transfer others.
credit. Right to forbid Article 19, known
The transfer of credit uninvited guests to contain what is
from Shell from entering the commonly
Philippines to Shell The standards in party. referred to as the
Velayo v. principle of abuse
USA was deemed a NCC 19 are
Shell
violation of NCC 21 as implemented by Ruby Lim’s throwing of rights, is not a
(1959) panacea for all
it allowed Shell to NCC 21. Nikko out of complainant
attach properties of Reyes, as a human hurts and
Hotel
their creditor CALI to gatecrasher in a social grievances.
Manila
the prejudice of its private party, was The object of this
Garden v.
other creditors. Reyes merely in exercise of article is to set
her duties as certain standards
Right to dismiss an When a right is (2005)
Executive Secretary which must be
employee. exercised in a of the hotel where observed not only
manner which the party was held, in the exercise of
does not conform and did not one’s rights but
The dismissal itself with the norms in
was not illegal but it constitute a violation also in the
NCC 19, and of Article 19. performance of
was the manner of results in damage one’s duties.
Globe v. dismissal which was to another, a legal
CA (1989) deemed in violation
wrong is thereby
of Article 19, as such committed. The b. Acts Contrary to Law
was based on law, therefore,
unfounded recognizes a Art. 20, CC. Every person who, contrary to law,
accusations of primordial willfully or negligently causes damage to another,
dishonesty. limitation on all shall indemnify the latter for the same.
rights.
The conscious The provision is intended to provide a remedy in cases
The conscious indifference of a where the law declares an act illegal but fails to
indifference of the person to the provide for a relief to the party injured. [Jarencio]
University
school in not rights or welfare
of the Art. 20 does not distinguish, and the act may be done
informing its student of the others who
East v. willfully or negligently.
that he could not may be affected
Jader
graduate formed the by his act or
(2000) Requisites
basis for the award of omission can
damages. support a claim 1. The act must be willful or negligent;
for damages. 2. It must be contrary to law; and
3. Damages must be suffered by the injured party.
Right to demolish The principle of
another’s house on damnum absque Salvador was misdiagnosed with Hepatitis, as a result
his own property. injuria does not of which she lost her job. During trial, it was proven
Amonoy obtained a apply when the that the clinic was operating under substandard
judgment in his favor exercise of the conditions, in violation of the Clinical Laboratory Law,
legal right is DOH Administrative Order No. 49-B, and the
Amonoy v. for Gutierrez to
suspended or Philippine Medical Technology Act of 1969. The Court
Gutierrez vacate. A demolition
order was issued but extinguished held that violation of a statutory duty is negligence,
(2001)
the court suspended pursuant to a and that Article 20 provides the legal basis for award
it with a TRO. court order. The of damages to a party who suffers damage whenever
Amonoy proceeded exercise of a right one commits an act in violation of some legal provision
with the demolition. ends when the [Garcia v. Salvador, G.R. No. 168512 (2007)].
In a complaint for right disappears,
damages, he claims and it disappears
Page 461 of 497

under Article 21 is made [Tanjanco v. CA, G.R. No.

c. Acts Contrary to Morals L-18630 (1966)].
2. Malicious Prosecution
Art. 21, CC. Any person who willfully causes loss or
Malicious prosecution is the institution of any
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
action or proceeding, either civil or criminal,
morals, good customs or public policy shall
maliciously and without probable cause.
compensate the latter for the damage.
Elements: [Magbanua v. Junsay, G.R. No.132659
This article is designed “to expand the concept of torts (2007)]
and quasi-delict in this jurisdiction by granting a. The fact of the prosecution or that the
adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral prosecution did occur and that the defendant
wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to was himself the prosecutor or that he
specifically enumerate and punish in statute books” instigated its commencement;
[Baksh v. CA, supra]. b. That the action finally terminated with an
acquittal;
Elements: [Albenson v. CA, supra]. c. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor
1. There is an act which is legal; acted without probable cause
2. But which is contrary to morals, good customs, d. That the prosecutor was actuated or impelled
and public policy; and by legal malice, that is, by improper or sinister
3. It is done with intent to injure. motive.
Examples of acts contrary to morals: The mere dismissal of the criminal complaint by
1. Breach of Promise to Marry and Moral the fiscal’s office did not create a cause of action
Seduction for malicious prosecution, because the
Mere breach of promise to marry is not an proceedings therein did not involve an exhaustive
actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding examination of the elements of malicious
and go through all the above-described prosecution. To constitute such, there must be
preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it proof that the prosecution was prompted by a
when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is sinister design to vex and humiliate a person and
quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant
contrary to good customs xxx [Wassmer v. Velez, knowing that his charges were false and
G.R. No. L-20089 (1964)]. groundless [Que v. IAC, G.R. No. 66865 (1989)].
Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the Malicious prosecution involves not only criminal
proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a but civil and administrative suits as well
woman and his representation to fulfill that [Magbanua v. Junsay, supra].
promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause
of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual 3. Public Humiliation
congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention Lolita’s family filed a case against Alfonse Pe, a
of marrying her and that the promise was only a married man, for allegedly seducing Lolita and
subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or causing great damage to the name of her parents,
inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her brothers, and sisters. The Court sustained the
consent to the sexual act, could justify the award claim, finding an injury to Lolita’s family in a
of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of manner contrary to morals, good customs and
such promise to marry but because of the fraud public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the
and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her new CC [Pe v. Pe, G.R. No. L-17396 (1962)].
honor and reputation. It is essential, however, that
such injury should have been committed in a It is against morals, good customs and public
manner contrary to morals, good customs or policy to humiliate, embarrass and degrade the
public policy [Baksh v. CA, supra]. dignity of a person. Everyone must respect the
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of
However, when for one whole year, the plaintiff, a his neighbors and other persons (Article 26, CC)
woman of legal age, maintained sexual relations [Grand Union v. Espino, G.R. No. L-48250 (1979)].
with the defendant, with repeated acts of
intercourse, there is here voluntariness. No case 4. Oppressive Dismissal
The right of an employer to dismiss an employee
Page 462 of 497

is not to be confused with the manner in which this The restitution must cover the loss suffered by the
right is to be exercised and the effects flowing plaintiff but it can never exceed the amount of unjust
therefrom. If the dismissal was done antisocially enrichment of the defendant if it is less than the loss
or oppressively, then there is a violation of Article of the plaintiff.
1701, which prohibits acts of oppression by either
capital or labor against the other, and Article 21, Requisites:
which makes a person liable for damages if he 1. That the defendant has been enriched;
willfully causes loss or injury to another in a 2. That the plaintiff has suffered a loss;
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, 3. That the enrichment of the defendant is without
or public policy. When the manner in which the just or legal ground; and
company exercised its right to dismiss was 4. That the plaintiff has no other action based on
abusive, oppressive and malicious, it is liable for contract, crime or quasi-delict.
damages [Quisaba v. Sta. Ines, G.R. No. L-38000
(1974)]. e. Violation of Human Dignity
d. Unjust Enrichment Art. 26, CC. Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
Art. 22, CC. Every person who through an act of neighbors and other persons. The following and
performance by another, or any other means, similar acts, though they may not constitute a
acquires or comes into possession of something at criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action
the expense of the latter without just or legal for damages, prevention and other relief:
ground, shall return the same to him. (1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
Art. 23, CC. Even when an act or event causing family relations of another;
damage to another’s property was not due to the (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated
fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter from his friends;
shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of
event he was benefited. his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place
of birth, physical defect, or other personal
Art. 2142, CC. Certain lawful, voluntary and condition.
unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of
quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be Article 26 specifically applies to intentional acts which
unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of fall short of being criminal offenses. It itself expressly
another. refers to tortious conduct which "may not constitute
criminal offenses." The purpose is precisely to fill a gap
Art. 2143, CC. The provisions for quasi contracts in or lacuna in the law where a person who suffers injury
this Chapter do not exclude other quasi-contracts because of a wrongful act not constituting a crime is
which may come within the purview of the left without any redress. Under Article 26, the person
preceding article. responsible for such act becomes liable for "damages,
prevention and other relief." In short, to preserve
peace and harmony in the family and in the
One person should not be permitted to unjustly enrich
community, Article 26 seeks to eliminate cases of
himself at the expense of another, but should be
damnum absque injuria in human relations [MVRS
required to make restitution of, or for property or
Publications v. Islamic Da'wah Council, G.R. No.
benefits received, retained, or appropriated where it is
135306 (2003)].
just and equitable that such restitution be made, and
where such action involves no violation or frustration
The principal rights protected under this provision are
of law or opposition to public policy, either directly or
the following:
indirectly.
1. The right to personal dignity
2. The right to personal security
Enrichment at the expense of another is not per se
3. The right to family relations
forbidden. It is such enrichment without just or legal
4. The right to social intercourse
cause that is contemplated here. Just and legal cause
5. The right to privacy
is always presumed, and the plaintiff has the burden
6. The right to peace of mind
of proving its absence.
Page 463 of 497

Note: Coverage of Art. 26 is not limited to those 3. Family Relations

enumerated therein, the enumeration being merely Alienation of affection
examples of acts violative of a person’s rights to This is a cause of action in favor of a husband
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind. Other against one who wrongfully alienates the
“similar acts” are also covered within the scope of the affection of his wife, depriving him of his conjugal
article. rights to her consortium, that is, her society,
VIOLATION OF PERSONAL DIGNITY affection, and assistance.
In order to be actionable it is not necessary that the act Note: This cause of action was mentioned in the
constitutes a criminal offense. The remedy afforded by case of Tenchavez v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671
the law is not only the recovery of damages. (1965).
“Prevention and other relief” is also available. In other
words, injunction and other appropriate reliefs may Elements:
also be obtained by the aggrieved party. a. Wrongful conduct of the defendant:
intentional and malicious enticing of a
VIOLATION OF PRIVACY spouse away from the other spouse
Privacy is the right to be let alone, or to be free from b. Loss of affection or consortium
unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted Note: Complete absence of affection between
interference by the public in matters in which the the spouses is not a defense.
public is not necessarily concerned. This right is purely c. Causal connection between such conduct and
personal in nature, such that it can be invoked only by loss
the person actually injured, it is subject to a proper
waiver, and it ceases upon death. However, the There is no evidence that the parents of Vicenta,
privilege may be given to heirs of a deceased to protect out of improper motives, aided and abetted her
his memory, to protect the feelings of the living heirs. original suit for annulment, or her subsequent
divorce; she appears to have acted independently,
Reasonableness of Expectation of Privacy Test: and being of age, she was entitled to judge what
[Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 (1998)] was best for her and ask that her decisions be
1. Whether by one’s conduct, the individual has respected. Her parents, in so doing, certainly
exhibited an expectation of privacy cannot be charged with alienation of affections in
2. Whether this expectation is one that society the absence of malice or unworthy motives, which
recognizes and accepts as reasonable have not been shown, good faith being always
presumed until the contrary is proved [Tenchavez
The general rule is that the right to privacy may only v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671 (1965)].
be invoked by natural persons. Juridical persons
cannot invoke this because the basis to this right is an Liability of Parents, Guardians or Kin
injury to the feelings and sensibilities of the injured The law distinguishes between the right of a
party, and a corporation has none of those. The parent to interest himself in the marital affairs of
exception is where the right to privacy is invoked along his child and the absence of rights in a stranger to
with the right against unreasonable searches and intermeddle in such affairs.
seizures. “An individual’s right to privacy under Article a. Such distinction between the liability of
26(1) of the CC should not be confined to his house or parents and that of strangers is only in regard
residence as it may extend to places where he has the to what will justify interference.
right to exclude the public or deny them access” [Sps. b. A parent is liable for alienation of affections
Hing v. Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736 (2013)]. resulting from his own malicious conduct, as
where he wrongfully entices his son or
INTERFERENCE WITH RELATIONS daughter to leave his or her spouse, but he is
An interference with the continuance of unimpaired not liable unless he acts maliciously, without
interests founded upon the relation in which the justification and from unworthy motives.
plaintiff stands toward one or more third persons c. He is not liable where he acts and advises
[Prosser and Keeton]. his child in good faith with respect to his
child's marital relations in the interest of his
Kinds child as he sees it…
1. Family relations d. He may in good faith take his child into his home
2. Social relations and afford him or her protection and support, so
3. Economic relations long as he has not maliciously enticed his child
4. Political relations away, or does not maliciously entice or cause him
or her to stay away, from his or her spouse. This
Page 464 of 497

rule has more frequently been applied in the case Art. 28, CC. Unfair competition in agricultural,
of advice given to a married daughter, but it is commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor
equally applicable in the case of advice given to a through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,
son. [Tenchavez v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671 machination or any other unjust, oppressive or
(1965)]. highhanded method shall give rise to a right of
4. Social Relations action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
Meddling with or disturbing family relations
Art. 26, CC. Every person shall respect the dignity,
f. Dereliction of Duty
neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a Art. 27, CC. Any person suffering material or moral
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action loss because a public servant or employee refuses
for damages, prevention and other relief; or neglects, without just cause, to perform his
xxx official duty may file an action for damages and
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or other relief against the latter, without prejudice to
family relations of another; any disciplinary administrative action that may be
taken.
3. Economic Relations
This applies only to acts of nonfeasance or the
a. Interference with contractual relations nonperformance of some acts which a person is
obliged or has responsibility to perform. The duty of
Art. 1314, CC. Any person who induces another to
the public servant must be ministerial in character. If
violate his contract with another person shall be
the duty is discretionary, he is not liable unless he
liable for damages to the other contracting party.
acted in a notoriously arbitrary manner.
Elements of tort interference: [So Ping Bun v. CA, The defense of good faith is not available because an
G.R. No. 120554 (1999)] officer is under constant obligation to discharge the
i. Existence of a valid contract duties of his office, and it is not necessary to show that
ii. Knowledge on the part of the third person his failure to act was due to malice or willfulness.
of the existence of contract; and
iii. Interference of the third person is without Requisites: [Amaro v. Sumanguit, G.R. No. L-14986
legal justification or excuse. (1962)]
1. Defendant is a public officer charged with a
Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and performance of a duty in favor of the plaintiff;
advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill 2. He refused or neglected without just cause to
and credit. He has no right to be protected against perform the duty;
competition; but he has a right to be free from 3. Plaintiff sustained material or moral loss as a
malicious and wanton interference, disturbance consequence of such non-performance;
or annoyance. If disturbance or loss comes as a 4. The amount of such damages, if material.
result of competition, or the exercise of like rights
by others, it is damnum absque injuria, unless
some superior right by contract or otherwise is 2. I ndependent Civil Actions
interfered with. Thus, a plaintiff loses his cause of
action if the defendant provides a sufficient Sec. 3, Rule 111, ROC. In the cases provided for in
justification for such interference, which must be Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the CC of the
an equal or superior right in themselves. The Philippines, the independent civil action may be
defendant may not legally excuse himself on the brought by the offended party. It shall proceed
ground that he acted on a wrong understanding independently of the criminal action and shall
of his own rights, or without malice, or bona fide, require only a preponderance of evidence. In no
or in the best interests of himself [Gilchrist v. case, however, may the offended party recover
Cuddy, G.R. No. 9356 (1915)]. damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action.
Bad faith/Malice is required to make the
defendant liable for damages in cases of tortuous
interference [So Ping Bun v. CA, supra]. a. Violation of Civil and
Political Rights
b. Unfair Competition
Page 465 of 497

Art. 32, CC. Any public officer or employee, or any independently of any criminal prosecution (if the
private individual, who directly or indirectly latter be instituted) and may be proved by a
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner preponderance of evidence.
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable to the The indemnity shall include moral damages.
latter for damages: Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
(1) Freedom of religion
(2) Freedom of speech The responsibility herein set forth is not
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain demandable from a judge unless his act or
a periodical publication omission constitutes a violation of the Penal code
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention or any other penal statute.
(5) Freedom of suffrage
(6) The right against deprivation of property Art.32, CC
without due process of law 1. Speaks of a particular specie of an “act” that may
(7) The right to just compensation when property give rise to an action for damages against a public
is taken for public use officer, and that is, a tort for impairment of rights
(8) The right to equal protection of the laws and liberties. [Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, supra]
(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house, 2. Not only public officers but also private
papers and effects against unreasonable individuals can incur civil liability for violation of
searches and seizures rights enumerated therein. Because the provision
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same speaks of an officer, employee or person “directly
(11) The right to privacy of communication and or indirectly” responsible for the violation of the
correspondence constitutional rights and liberties of another, it is
(12) The right to become a member of associations not the actor alone who must answer for damages
and societies for purposes not contrary to law under Article 32. It is not even necessary that the
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly defendant should have acted with malice or bad
and petition the government for redress of faith, otherwise, it would defeat its main purpose,
grievances which is the effective protection of individual
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude rights. [Silahis v. Soluta, G.R. No. 163087 (2006)]
in any form 3. It is obvious that the purpose of Art. 32 is to
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail provide a sanction to the deeply cherished rights
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
the cause of the accusation against him, to Its message is clear; no man may seek to violate
have a speedy and public trial, to meet the those sacred rights with impunity. In times of great
witnesses face to face, to have compulsory upheaval or of social and political stress, when the
process to secure the attendance of witnesses temptation is strongest to yield. [Aberca, et al. v.
on is behalf; Ver, et al., G.R. No. 69866(1988)].
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a
witness against one’s self, or from being
forced to confess his guilt, or from being
b. Defamation, Fraud,
induced by a promise of immunity or reward to Physical Injuries
make such confession, except when the
person confessing becomes a State witness. Art. 33, CC. In cases of defamation, fraud, and
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and physical injuries, a civil action for damages,
unusual punishment, unless the same is entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a action, may be brought by the injured party. Such
statute which has not been judicially declared civil action shall proceed independently of the
unconstitutional; criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
(19) Freedom of access to the courts preponderance of evidence.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, The civil action for damages that Article 33 allows to
whether or not the defendant’s act or omission be instituted is ex-delicto. This is manifest from the
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party provision which uses the expressions “criminal action”
has a right to commence an entirely separate and and “criminal prosecution”. Quoting Tolentino, the
distinct civil action for damages, and for other Court ruled that this provision is an exception to the
relief. Such civil action shall proceed general rule that the civil action for recovery of civil
Page 466 of 497

liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly but in their generic sense. With these apparent
instituted with the criminal action. Where the offense circumstances in mind, it is evident that the
is defamation, fraud, or physical injuries, a civil action term “physical injuries” could not have been
may be filed independently of the criminal action, even used in its specific sense as a crime defined in
though no reservation is made [Madeja v. Caro, G.R. the Revised Penal Code, for it is difficult to
No. 51183 (1983)]. believe that the Code Commission would have
used terms in same article—some in this general
1. Defamation – the offense of injuring a person’s and others in its technical sense. In other words,
character, fame or reputation through false or the term “physical injuries” should be understood
malicious statements. Defamation is an invasion to mean bodily injury, not the crime of physical
of a relational interest since it involves the opinion injuries, because the terms used with the latter
which others in the community may have, or tend are general terms [Carandang v. Santiago and
to have, of the plaintiff. Valenton, G.R. No. L-8238 (1955)].
Elements of libel pursuant to Art. 353, RPC: Paje was acquitted of the charge of homicide and
a. An allegation or imputation of a discreditable double serious physical injuries through reckless
act or condition concerning another imprudence on the ground that the collision was
b. Publication of the imputation a pure accident and the negligence charged
c. Identity of the person defamed against him did not exist. In a separate civil action
d. Existence of malice to enforce civil liability filed by the heirs of the
deceased, the Court ruled that criminal
Where the defamation is alleged to have been negligence is not one of the three crimes
directed at a group or class, it is essential that the mentioned in Article 33, which authorizes the
statement must be so sweeping or all-embracing institution of an independent civil action.
as to apply to every individual in that group or Although in the case of Dyogi v. Yatco, the Court
class, or sufficiently specific so that each held that the term “physical injuries” includes
individual in the class or group can prove that the homicide, it is borne in mind that the charge
defamatory statement was specifically pointed to against Paje was for reckless imprudence
him [MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic, supra]. resulting in homicide, and the law penalizes the
negligent or careless act, not the result thereof
In determining whether certain utterances are [Corpus v. Paje, G.R. No. L-26737 (1969)].
defamatory, the words used are to be construed in
their entirety and taken in their plain, natural and c. Neglect of Duty
ordinary meaning, as they would naturally be
understood by persons hearing or reading them,
Art. 34, CC. When a member of a city or municipal
unless it appears that they were used and
police force refuses or fails to render aid or
understood in another sense. When malice in fact
protection to any person in case of danger to life or
is proven, assertions and proofs that the libelous
property, such peace officer shall be primarily
articles are qualifiedly privileged communications
liable for damages, and the city or municipality
are futile, since being qualifiedly privileged
shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil
communications merely prevents the
action herein recognized shall be independent of
presumption of malice from attaching in a
any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
defamatory imputation [Yuchengco v. Manila
evidence shall suffice to support such action.
Chronicle, G.R. No. 184315 (2009)].
2. Fraud – Estafa under Art. 315, RPC; violations of Art. 34 covers a situation where:
B.P. 22 are not covered 1. There is danger to the life or property of a person;
2. A member of a city or municipal police force who
3. Physical Injuries (Assault and Battery) is present in the scene refused or failed to render
aid or protection to the person; and
Defamation and fraud (in Art. 33) are used in their 3. Damages are caused whether to the person
ordinary sense because there are no specific and/or property of the victim.
provisions in the Revised Penal Code using these
terms as names of offenses defined therein, so Nature of liability
that these two terms defamation and fraud must 1. Of the police officer – Primary
have been used not to impart to them any 2. City or municipality – Subsidiary
technical meaning in the laws of the Philippines,
Page 467 of 497

The defense of having observed the diligence of a good

father of a family to prevent the damage is not Liability Attached to
available to the city/municipality.
Specific Persons
1. Strict Liability
d. Catch-All Independent Civil a. Possessor or User of
Action Animals
Art. 35, CC. When a person, claiming to be injured Art. 2183, CC. The possessor of an animal or
by a criminal offense, charges another with the whoever may make use of the same is responsible
same, for which no independent civil action is for the damage which it may cause, although it
granted in this Code or any special law, but the may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to cease only in case the damage should come from
believe that a crime has been committed, or the force majeure or from the fault of the person who
prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute has suffered damage.
criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a
civil action for damages against the alleged The law makes no distinction as to what kind of animal
offender. Such civil action may be supported by a is used or possessed. Hence, it may be construed as
preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's applicable generally to all animals, whether domestic,
motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a domesticated, or wild. It would seem that birds are
bond to indemnify the defendant in case the covered since they can also cause damage. [de Leon]
complaint should be found to be malicious.
Possession of the animal, not ownership, is
If during the pendency of the civil action, an determinative of liability under Art. 2183. The
information should be presented by the obligation imposed by said article is not based on the
prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the
suspended until the termination of the criminal possessor or user of the animal causing damage. It is
proceedings. based on natural equity and on the principle of social
interest that he who possesses animals for his utility,
pleasure, or service, must answer for any damage
which such animal may cause. The contention that the
defendant could not be expected to exercise remote
control of the animal is not acceptable. In fact, Art.
2183 holds the possessor liable even if the animal
should “escape or be lost” and so be removed from his
control. It is likewise immaterial that the animal was
tame and was merely provoked by the victim. The law
does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even
tame ones as long as they cause injury [Vestil v. IAC,
G.R. No. 74431 (1989)].
Possible defenses against this liability

1. Force Majeure
2. Fault of person suffering damage
3. Act of third persons
b. Provinces, Cities, and

Municipalities
Art. 2189, CC. Provinces, cities and municipalities
shall be liable for damages for the death of, or
injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the
defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
Page 468 of 497

public buildings, and other public works under Liability does not attach to the proprietor if the
their control or supervision. damage was caused by any defect in the construction
mentioned in Article 1723, in which case the action
It is not even necessary that the defective roads or should be against the engineer or architect.
streets belong to the province, city or municipality for
liability to attach. The article only requires that either Under Article 2190, the plaintiff is required to prove:
control or supervision be exercised over said street or 1. The total or partial collapse of a building or
road [Guilatco v. Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516 (1989)]. structure
2. That the defendant is the proprietor
3. That the collapse was due to the lack of necessary
c. Proprietor of Building or repairs
Structure
Note: There is no requirement to prove negligence.
Art. 2190, CC. The proprietor of a building or
structure is responsible for the damages resulting Under Article 2191, with the exception of No. 1,
from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due negligence is also not an issue.
to the lack of necessary repairs.
The owner or proprietor of a place of public
amusement impliedly warrants that the premises,
Art. 2191, CC. Proprietors shall also be responsible
appliances and amusement devices are safe for the
for damages caused:
purpose for which they are designed, the doctrine
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not being subject to no other exception or qualification
been taken care of with due diligence, and the
than that he does not contract against unknown
inflammation of explosive substances which
defects not discoverable by ordinary or reasonable
have not been kept in a safe and adequate
means [Gotesco Investment Corp. v. Chatto, G.R. No.
place;
87584 (1992)].
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to
persons or property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near d. Engineer or Architect of
highways or lanes, if not caused by force Collapsed Building
majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or Art. 1723, CC. The engineer or architect who drew
deposits of infectious matter, constructed up the plans and specifications for a building is
without precautions suitable to the place. liable for damages if within fifteen years from the
completion of the structure, the same should
Art. 2192, CC. If damage referred to in the two collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and
preceding articles should be the result of any specifications, or due to the defects in the ground.
defect in the construction mentioned in article The contractor is likewise responsible for the
1723, the third person suffering damages may damages if the edifice falls, within the same
proceed only against the engineer or architect or period, on account of defects in the construction or
contractor in accordance with said article, within the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by
the period therein fixed. him, or due to any violation of the terms of the
contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the
Ownership of a building imposes on the proprietor construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the
thereof the duty to maintain it in good condition at all contractor.
times to the end that it may not collapse either totally
or partially as to cause damage or injury to another’s Acceptance of the building, after completion, does
person or property. This duty obtains whether the not imply waiver of any of the cause of action by
building is leased or held in usufruct. Considering, reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding
however, that the lessee or usufructuary has direct and paragraph.
immediate control of the building, the law imposes on
him the duty to notify the proprietor of such urgent or The action must be brought within ten years
extraordinary repairs. And where the proprietor’s following the collapse of the building.
failure to make the necessary repairs was due to the
failure of the lessee or usufructuary to notify him, the Engineer or architect who drew up the plans and
proprietor is entitled to indemnification for damages specifications is liable if the building collapses within
he may have been required to pay to the parties. 15 years due to:
Page 469 of 497

1. A defect in those plans and specifications; or employers” [Alarcon v. Alarcon, G.R. No. L-15692
2. Due to the defects in the ground. (1961)].
Contractor is liable if the edifice falls within 15 years Situations covered:

due to: 1. Death or injury arising out of or in the course of
1. Defects in the construction; employment – here, the employer is liable even if
2. The use of materials of inferior quality furnished the event which caused the death or injury was
by the contractor; or purely accidental or due to a fortuitous event
3. Due to any violation of the terms of the contract. 2. Illness or disease caused by their employment
or as the result of the nature of the employment
Here, the plaintiff need only prove that such conditions
(defects) exist, and need not prove that negligence of Defenses available to the employer:
the defendant be the cause of the conditions. 1. When death or injury is not caused by a fellow
worker
e. Owners of Enterprises or The mishap due to the employee’s own notorious
negligence or voluntary act, or drunkenness
Other Employers 2. When death or injury is caused by a fellow worker
General rule: The employer is solidarily liable with
Art. 1711, CC. Owners of enterprises and other the fellow worker causing the death or injury
employers are obliged to pay compensation for the
death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen, Exception: If the only cause of the death or injury
mechanics or other employees, even though the was the fellow worker’s intentional or malicious
event may have been purely accidental or entirely act
due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or personal
injury arose out of and in the course of the Exception to the exception: If it is shown that the
employment. The employer is also liable for employer did not exercise due diligence in the
compensation if the employee contracts any selection and supervision of the fellow worker
illness or disease caused by such employment or causing the death or injury
as the result of the nature of the employment. If
the mishap was due to the employee's own f. Head of a Family for Things
notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or
drunkenness, the employer shall not be liable for Thrown or Falling
compensation. When the employee's lack of due
care contributed to his death or injury, the Art 2193, CC. The head of a family that lives in a
compensation shall be equitably reduced. building or a part thereof, is responsible for
damages caused by things thrown or falling from
Art. 1712, CC. If the death or injury is due to the the same.
negligence of a fellow worker, the latter and the
employer shall be solidarily liable for The purpose of the law is to relieve the injured party of
compensation. If a fellow worker's intentional the difficulty of determining and proving who threw
malicious act is the only cause of the death or the thing or what caused it to fall, or that either was
injury, the employer shall not be answerable, due to the fault or negligence of any particular
unless it should be shown that the latter did not individual.
exercise due diligence in the selection or
supervision of the plaintiff's fellow worker. Lessee is considered as the head of the family. It is
enough that he lives in and has control over it
Alarcon, a teacher, hired Urzino and Azaña to dig a [Dingcong v. Kanaan, G.R. No. L-47033 (1941)].
well on his land; in the course of which Urzino died of
asphyxia. The Court found that under the principle of g. Products Liability
ejusdem generis, said “other employers” mentioned in
Article 1711 must be construed to refer to persons who MANUFACTURERS/PROCESSORS OF
belong to a class analogous to “owners of FOODSTUFFS
enterprises”, such as those operating a business or
engaged in a particular industry or trade, requiring its Art. 2187, CC. Manufacturers and processors of
managers to contract the services of laborers, workers foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
and/or employees. Alarcon, not owning any shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any
enterprise, did not fall under the category of “other
Page 470 of 497

noxious or harmful substances used, although no manufacturer. In case of imported products, the
contractual relation exists between them and the manufacturer's representatives or, in his absence,
consumers. the importer, shall be deemed the manufacturer.
Under the foregoing provision, liability is not made to Article 92. Exemptions. – If the concerned
depend upon fault or negligence of the manufacturer department finds that for good or sufficient
or processor. The provision likewise dispensed with reasons, full compliance with the labeling
any contractual relation between the manufacturer requirements otherwise applicable under this Act is
and the consumer, thereby clearly implying that impracticable or is not necessary for the adequate
liability is imposed by law as a matter of public policy. protection of public health and safety, it shall
promulgate regulations exempting such
Proof of negligence under this provision is not substances from these requirements to the extent
necessary; as such, traditional contract and warranty it deems consistent with the objective of
defenses as (1) lack of privity; (2) lack of reliance on a adequately safeguarding public health and safety,
warranty; (3) lack of notice to the defendant of the and any hazardous substance which does not bear
breach of warranty; and (4) disclaimer of implied a label in accordance with such regulations shall be
warranties are inapplicable. deemed mislabeled hazardous substance.
Requisites of liability Article 97. Liability for the Defective Products. – Any
1. Defendant is a manufacturer or possessor of Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer, and
foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods; any importer, shall be liable for redress,
2. He used noxious or harmful substances in the independently of fault, for damages caused to
manufacture or processing of the foodstuff, drinks consumers by defects resulting from design,
or toilet articles consumed or used by the plaintiff; manufacture, construction, assembly and erection,
3. Plaintiff’s death or injury was caused by the formulas and handling and making up,
product so consumed or used; and presentation or packing of their products, as well as
4. The damages sustained and claimed by the for the insufficient or inadequate information on the
plaintiff and the amount thereof. use and hazards thereof.
Burden of proof A product is defective when it does not offer the

The burden of proof that the product was in a defective safety rightfully expected of it, taking relevant
condition at the time it left the hands of the circumstances into consideration, including but not
manufacturer and particular seller is upon the injured limited to:
plaintiff. (a) presentation of product
(b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
Who may recover (c) the time it was put into circulation.
Although the article used the term “consumer”, such
term includes a “user” and “purchaser” of the A product is not considered defective because
injuriously defective food product or toilet article. The another better quality product has been placed in
person who may recover need not be the purchaser of the market. The manufacturer, builder, producer or
the foodstuff or toilet article. importer shall not be held liable when it evidences:
(a) that it did not place the product on the
CONSUMER ACT market;
RA 7394, Secs. 92-107 (Ch. 1) (b) that although it did place the product on the
market such product has no defect;
Article 4. Definition of Terms. (c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at
(n) "Consumer" means a natural person who is a fault.
purchaser, lessee, recipient or prospective
purchaser, lessor or recipient of consumer Article 98. Liability of Tradesman or Seller. – The
products, services or credit. tradesman/seller is likewise liable, pursuant to
the preceding article when:
(as) "Manufacturer" means any person who (a) it is not possible to identify the manufacturer,
manufactures, assembles or processes consumer builder, producer or importer;
products, except that if the goods are (b) the product is supplied, without clear
manufactured, assembled or processed for another identification of the manufacturer, producer,
person who attaches his own brand name to the builder or importer;
consumer products, the latter shall be deemed the
Page 471 of 497

(c) he does not adequately preserve perishable paragraph; but such shall not be less than seven (7)
goods. The party making payment to the nor more than one hundred and eighty (180) days.
damaged party may exercise the right to
recover a part of the whole of the payment The consumer may make immediate use of the
made against the other responsible parties, in alternatives under the second paragraph of this
accordance with their part or responsibility in Article when by virtue of the extent of the
the cause of the damage effected. imperfection, the replacement of the imperfect
parts may jeopardize the product quality or
Article 99. Liability for Defective Services. – The characteristics, thus decreasing its value.
service supplier is liable for redress, independently
of fault, for damages caused to consumers by If the consumer opts for the alternative under sub-
defects relating to the rendering of the services, paragraph (a) of the second paragraph of this
as well as for insufficient or inadequate information Article, and replacement of the product is not
on the fruition and hazards thereof. possible, it may be replaced by another of a
different kind, mark or model: Provided, That any
The service is defective when it does not provide difference in price may result thereof shall be
the safety the consumer may rightfully expect of it, supplemented or reimbursed by the party which
taking the relevant circumstances into caused the damage, without prejudice to the
consideration, including but not limited to: provisions of the second, third and fourth
4. the manner in which it is provided; paragraphs of this Article.
5. the result of hazards which may reasonably be
expected of it; Article 101. Liability for Product Quantity
6. the time when it was provided. Imperfection. – Suppliers are jointly liable for
imperfections in the quantity of the product when,
A service is not considered defective because of the in due regard for variations inherent thereto, their
use or introduction of new techniques. net content is less than that indicated on the
container, packaging, labeling or advertisement,
The supplier of the services shall not be held liable the consumer having powers to demand,
when it is proven: alternatively, at his own option:
(a) that there is no defect in the service rendered; (a) the proportionate price
that the consumer or third party is solely at fault. (b) the supplementing of weight or measure
differential;
Article 100. Liability for Product and Service (c) the replacement of the product by another of
Imperfection. – The suppliers of durable or the same kind, mark or model, without said
nondurable consumer products are jointly liable imperfections;
for imperfections in quality that render the products (d) the immediate reimbursement of the amount
unfit or inadequate for consumption for which they paid, with monetary updating without
are designed or decrease their value, and for those prejudice to losses and damages if any.
resulting from inconsistency with the information
provided on the container, packaging, labels or The provisions of the fifth paragraph of Article 99
publicity messages/advertisement, with due regard shall apply to this Article.
to the variations resulting from their nature, the
consumer being able to demand replacement to The immediate supplier shall be liable if the
the imperfect parts. instrument used for weighing or measuring is not
gauged in accordance with official standards.
If the imperfection is not corrected within thirty
(30) days, the consumer may alternatively demand Article 102. Liability for Service Quality
at his option: Imperfection. – The service supplier is liable for
(a) the replacement of the product by another of any quality imperfections that render the services
the same kind, in a perfect state of use; improper for consumption or decrease their value,
(b) the immediate reimbursement of the amount and for those resulting from inconsistency with the
paid, with monetary updating, without information contained in the offer or advertisement,
prejudice to any losses and damages; the consumer being entitled to demand
(c) a proportionate price reduction. alternatively at his option:
(a) the performance of the services, without any
The parties may agree to reduce or increase the additional cost and when applicable;
term specified in the immediately preceding
Page 472 of 497

(b) the immediate reimbursement of the amount (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or
paid, with monetary updating without morality; or
prejudice to losses and damages, if any; (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of
(c) a proportionate price reduction. any public highway or street, or any body of
water; or
Reperformance of services may be entrusted to (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
duly qualified third parties, at the supplier's risk and
cost. Art. 696, CC. Every successive owner or possessor
of property who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance
Improper services are those which prove to be in that property started by a former owner or
inadequate for purposes reasonably expected of possessor is liable therefor in the same manner as
them and those that fail to meet the provisions of the one who created it.
this Act regulating service rendering.
Art. 697, CC. The abatement of a nuisance does not
Article 103. Repair Service Obligation. – When
preclude the right of any person injured to recover
services are provided for the repair of any product,
damages for its past existence.
the supplier shall be considered implicitly bound to
use adequate, new, original replacement parts, or
those that maintain the manufacturer's technical Art. 698, CC. Lapse of time cannot legalize any
specifications unless, otherwise authorized, as nuisance, whether public or private.
regards to the latter by the consumer.
Nuisance is a condition and not an act or failure to act,
Article 104. Ignorance of Quality Imperfection. – The so that if a wrongful condition exists, the person
supplier's ignorance of the quality imperfections responsible for its existence is responsible for the
due to inadequacy of the products and services resulting damages to others.
does not exempt him from any liability.
A person who creates or maintains a nuisance is liable
Article 105. Legal Guarantee of Adequacy. – The for the resulting injury to others regardless of the
legal guarantee of product or service adequacy degree of care or skill exercised to avoid the injury. The
does not require an express instrument or creation or maintenance of a nuisance is a violation of
contractual exoneration of the supplier being an absolute duty. [Sangco]
forbidden.
Liability for Negligence v. Liability for Nuisance
Article 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. – NEGLIGENCE NUISANCE
The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing, Liability is based Liability attaches
exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify on lack of proper regardless of the
for damages effected, as provided for in this and in Basis
care and skill exercised to
the preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there diligence avoid the injury
is more than one person responsible for the cause
of the damage, they shall be jointly liable for the There is continuing
redress established in the pertinent provisions of harm being suffered
Act complained
this Act. However, if the damage is caused by a by the aggrieved
of is already done
component or part incorporated in the product or Condition party because of the
which caused
service, its manufacturer, builder or importer and of the act maintenance of the
injury to the
the person who incorporated the component or part act or thing which
plaintiff
are jointly liable. constitutes the
nuisance
h. Nuisance Remedy
Action for
Abatement
damages
Art. 694, CC. A nuisance is any act, omission,
establishment, business, condition of property, or Easement against Nuisance
anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of Art. 682, CC. Every building or piece of land is
others; or subject to the easement which prohibits the
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance
Page 473 of 497

through noise, jarring, offensive odor, smoke, heat, A nuisance is, according to Blackstone, "Any thing
dust, water, glare and other causes. that works hurt, inconvenience, or damages."
They arise from pursuing particular trades or
Art. 683, CC. Subject to zoning, health, police and industries in populous neighborhoods; from acts
other laws and regulations, factories and shops of public indecency, keeping disorderly houses,
may be maintained provided the least possible and houses of ill fame, gambling houses, etc.
annoyance is caused to the neighborhood. Nuisances have been divided into two classes:
Nuisances per se, and nuisances per accidens. To
the first belong those which are unquestionably
The provisions impose a prohibition upon owners of
and under all circumstances nuisances, such as
buildings of land from committing therein a nuisance
gambling houses, houses of ill fame, etc. The
or using such buildings or lands in a manner as will
number of such nuisances is necessarily limited,
constitute a nuisance. It is based on the maxim sic
and by far the greater number of nuisances are
utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (so use your own as not
such because of particular facts and
to injure another’s property).
circumstances surrounding the otherwise
harmless cause of the nuisance. For this reason, it
The general rule is that everyone is bound to bear the
will readily be seen that whether a particular thing
habitual or customary inconveniences that result from
is a nuisance is generally a question of fact, to be
the proximity of others, and so long as this level is not
determined in the first instance before the term
surpassed, he may not complain against them. But if
nuisance can be applied to it [Iloilo Ice and Cold
the prejudice exceeds the inconveniences that such
Storage Co. v. Municipal Council, G.R. No. L-7012
proximity habitually brings, the neighbor who causes
(1913)].
such disturbances is held responsible for the resulting
damage, being guilty of causing nuisance. There can be
3. Public nuisance
no doubt that commercial and industrial activities
which are lawful in themselves may become nuisances
if they are so offensive to the senses that they render Art. 695, CC. Nuisance is either public or private.
the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable. It is A public nuisance affects a community or
no defense that skill and care have been exercised and neighborhood or any considerable number of
the most improved methods and appliances employed persons, although the extent of the annoyance,
to prevent such result. In this case, the Court ruled that danger or damage upon individuals may be
causing or maintaining disturbing noises or sounds unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not
may constitute an actionable nuisance [Velasco v. included in the foregoing definition.
Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. 18390 (1971)].
A public nuisance is the doing of or the failure to do
Types of Nuisance: something that injuriously affects safety, health, or
1. Nuisance per se morals of the public, or works some substantial
It is recognized as a nuisance under any and all annoyance, inconvenience or injury to the public. It
circumstances because it constitutes a direct causes hurt, inconvenience, or damage to the public
menace to public health and safety and, for that generally, or such part of the public as necessarily
reason, may be abated summarily under the comes in contact with it in the exercise of a public or
undefined law of necessity. common right.
To become a nuisance per se, the thing must, of Art. 699, CC. The remedies against a public
itself, because of its inherent qualities, without nuisance are:
complement, be productive of injury, or, by reason (1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any
of the matter of its use or exposure, threaten or be local ordinance: or
dangerous to life or property. (2) A civil action; or
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
2. Nuisance per accidens
It becomes a nuisance depending upon certain Art. 700, CC. The district health officer shall take
conditions and circumstances, and its existence care that one or all of the remedies against a
being a question of fact, it cannot be abated public nuisance are availed of.
without due hearing thereon in a tribunal
authorized to decide whether such a thing does in
law constitute a nuisance. Art. 701, CC. If a civil action is brought by reason
of the maintenance of a public nuisance, such
Page 474 of 497

action shall be commenced by the city or 5. Attractive Nuisance

municipal mayor. General Rule: When people come to the lands or
premises of others for their own purposes, without
Art. 702, CC. The district health officer shall right or invitation, they must take the lands as
determine whether or not abatement, without they see them.
judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a
public nuisance. Exception: Attractive Nuisance doctrine.
One who maintains on his premises dangerous

Art. 703, CC. A private person may file an action on instrumentalities or appliances of a character
account of a public nuisance, if it is specially likely to attract children at play, and who fails to
injurious to himself. exercise ordinary care to prevent children from
playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to
Art. 704, CC. Any private person may abate a a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even
public nuisance which is specially injurious to him if the child is technically a trespasser in the
by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the premises. The principle reason for the doctrine is
thing which constitutes the same, without that the condition or appliance in question
committing a breach of the peace, or doing although its danger is apparent to those of age, is
unnecessary injury. But it is necessary: so enticing or alluring to children of tender years
(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or as to induce them to approach, get on or use it,
possessor of the property to abate the and this attractiveness is an implied invitation to
nuisance; such children [Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan,
(2) That such demand has been rejected; G.R. No. L-3422 (1952)].
(3) That the abatement be approved by the
district health officer and executed with the It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can
assistance of the local police; and properly be imputed to the deceased, owing to his
(4) That the value of the destruction does not immature years and the natural curiosity which a child
exceed three thousand pesos. would feel to do something out of the ordinary, and
the mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of
4. Private nuisance a companion of the age of 8 years does not, in our
It is one which violates only private rights and opinion, alter the case. Contributory negligence of a
produces damage to but one or a few persons, and minor does not bar recovery, where his immaturity and
cannot be said to be public. natural curiosity impelled him to act to his injury; but
discretion shown by the child is the decisive factor [Del
Art. 705, CC. The remedies against a private Rosario v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-35283 (1932)].
nuisance are:
(1) A civil action; or When Applicable/Not Applicable: [de Leon]
(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings. • The danger to the child must be caused by the
attraction itself, or by something with which the
Art. 706, CC. Any person injured by a private attraction brings the child in contact.
nuisance may abate it by removing, or if necessary, • Protects a meddling child, but not a danger which
by destroying the thing which constitutes the was created by the child himself.
nuisance, without committing a breach of the • Limited to latent dangers, and is no basis for
peace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is recovery where peril is obvious or patent.
indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial • Does not apply to natural dangers.
abatement of a public nuisance by a private person • The age and maturity of the injured child and the
be followed. reason for the child’s presence are important
considerations in the application of the doctrine.
Art. 707, CC. A private person or a public official
extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable
for damages:
(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or
(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the
courts to be not a real nuisance.
Page 475 of 497

SUMMARY OF STRICT LIABILITY
PERSON STRICTLY LIABLE FOR WHAT DEFENSES OR EXCEPTIONS

Possessor of an animal or • Force majeure
whoever makes use of them even For the damage the animal may cause • Fault of the person who suffered
if the animal is lost or escaped damage
• Solidary liability only if the owner
was in the vehicle and if he could
have prevented it thru due
Owner of Motor Vehicle Motor vehicle mishaps
diligence
• If not in vehicle, apply Art. 2180 for
his liability as employer
Manufacturers and processors of
Death and injuries caused by any noxious or Absence of contractual relation not a
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles
harmful substances used defense
and similar goods
Defendant in possession of
Possession or use thereof is
dangerous weapons/ Death or injury results from such
indispensable in his occupation or
substances such as firearms and possession
business
poison
The death or injuries suffered by any person
Provinces, Cities and by reason of the defective condition of The defective public work is not under
Municipalities roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, the LGU’s control or supervision
and other public works
a. Total or partial collapse of building or
structure if due to lack of necessary
repairs
b. Explosion of machinery which has not
been taken cared of with due diligence,
and the inflammation of explosive
substances which have not been kept
in a safe and adequate place
Responsibility for collapse should be
Proprietor of building/ structure c. By excessive smoke, which may be
due to the lack of necessary repairs
harmful to persons or property
d. By falling of trees situated at or near
highways or lanes, if not caused by
force majeure
e. By emanations from tubes, canals,
sewers or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions
suitable to the place
If within 15 years from completion of the
structure, the same should collapse by
reason of:
a. Defects in the plans or specifications;
or
b. Defects in the ground. Action not brought within 10 years
Engineer or Architect
from collapse
If within the same period, the edifice falls
on account of:
a. Defects in the construction;
b. Used of materials of inferior quality
furnished by him; or
Page 476 of 497

c. Violation of the terms of the contract

and he supervised the construction.
If within 15 years from the completion of the
structure, the edifice falls on account of:
a. Defects in the construction; Action not brought within 10 years
Contractor
b. Used of materials of inferior quality from collapse
furnished by him; or
c. Violation of the terms of the contract
Head of the Family that lives in a Liable for damages caused by things
building or any part thereof thrown or falling from the same
Page 477 of 497

XIV. DAMAGES (6) Exemplary or corrective.
a. According to Purpose
Definition
1. For adequate reparation of the injury
Damages may be defined as the pecuniary a. Compensatory damages
compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an (reparation of pecuniary losses)
injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the b. Moral (reparation for non-pecuniary losses:
pecuniary consequences, which the law imposes for injury to feelings; physical suffering, etc.)
the breach of some duty or the violation of some right 2. For vindication of the right violated:
[People v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. 120921 (1998)]. a. Nominal damages
3. For less than adequate reparation:
The recompense or compensation awarded for the a. Moderate
damage suffered [Custodio v. CA, G.R. No. 116100 4. For deterring future violations:
(1996)]. a. Exemplary or corrective
1. When Allowed b. According to Manner of

Determination
The obligation to repair the damages exists whether
done intentionally or negligently and whether or not 1. Conventional (or liquidated)
punishable by law [Occena v. Icamina, G.R. No. 82146 2. Non-conventional, which may either be:
(1990)] a. Statutory (fixed by law, as in moratory
interest)
The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses does b. Judicial (determined by the courts)
not give rise to a right to recover damages. To warrant
the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of General Damages
action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, Those which are the natural and necessary result of
and damage resulting to the plaintiff the wrongful act or omission asserted as the
therefrom. Wrong without damage, or damage foundation of liability, and include those which follow
without wrong, does not constitute a cause of action, as a conclusion of law from the statement of the facts
since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed of the injury.
for the injury caused by a breach or wrong [Custodio v.
CA, supra]. Special Damages
Damages that arise from the special circumstance of
Injury vs. Damage vs. Damages the case, which, if properly pleaded, may be added to
INJURY DAMAGE DAMAGES the general damages which the law presumes or
implies from the mere invasion of the plaintiff’s rights.
The loss, hurt, or The recompense or Special damages are the natural, but NOT the
The illegal
harm, which compensation necessary result of an injury. These are not implied by
invasion of a
results from the awarded for the law.
legal right
injury damage suffered
Elements for recovery of damages

a. Right of action
b. For a wrong inflicted by the defendant
c. Damage resulting to the plaintiff
2. T ypes of Damages
Art. 2197, CC. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
Page 478 of 497

Actual and Actual or compensatory damages cannot be

presumed, but must be proven with a reasonable
Compensatory Damages degree of certainty [MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v
Ssangyong Corp., G.R. No. 170633 (2007)].
Compensatory damages Damages must be proved with reasonable accuracy,
Damages in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss even when not denied [Valencia vs. Tantoco, G.R. No.
or injury sustained. The phrase “actual damages” is L-7267 (1956)].
sometimes used as synonymous with compensatory
damages. Degree of certainty required as to fact, cause and
amount of damages
Requisites Damages are not rendered uncertain just because
To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to they cannot be calculated with absolute exactness or
prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable because the consequences of the wrong are not
degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof precisely definite in pecuniary amount.
and on the best evidence obtainable [Asilo, Jr. v. People
and Sps. Bombasi, G.R. No. 159017-18 (2011)]. The principle, which will disallow recovery of damages
when their existence rests solely on speculation,
When is a person entitled? applies both to the fact and cause of damages.
1. When there is a pecuniary loss suffered by him; 1. The requirement of certainty does not prevent the
2. When he has alleged and prayed for such relief drawing of reasonable inferences from the fact
[Manchester Dev’t Corp v. CA, G.R. No. L-75919 and circumstance in evidence.
(1987)]; 2. Events which occur after the wrong complained of
3. When he has duly proved it; may serve to render the damage sufficiently
4. When provided by law or by stipulation. certain.
3. The damages must be susceptible of
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary for: moral, ascertainment in some manner other than by
nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages. mere speculation, conjecture or surmise and by
The assessment of such damages is discretionary reference to some fairly definite standard, such as
upon the court, except liquidated ones. (Art. 2216, CC) market value, established experience or direct
inference from known circumstances.
Alleged and proved with certainty
Art. 2199, CC. Except as provided by law or by Where, however, it is reasonably certain that injury
stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate consisting of failure to realize otherwise reasonably
compensation only for such pecuniary loss expected profits had been incurred, uncertainty as to
suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such the precise amount of such unrealized profits will not
compensation is referred to as actual or prevent recovery or the award of damages [Talisay-
compensatory damages. Silay v. Associacion, G.R. No. 91852 (1995)].
The damages must be proven by competent COMPONENTS

evidence (admissible or probative) Actual damage covers the following:
There must be pleading and proof of actual damages 1. Value of loss; unrealized profit
suffered for the same to be recovered. In addition to 2. Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation
the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of 3. Interest
proof, it must also be actually proven with a
reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon LOSS COVERED
competent proof or the best evidence obtainable. The In General
burden of proof of the damage suffered is, Art. 2200, CC. Indemnification for damages shall
consequently, imposed on the party claiming the comprehend not only the value of the loss
same, who should adduce the best evidence available suffered, but also that of the profits which the
in support thereof… In the absence of corroborative obligee failed to obtain.
evidence, it has been held that self-serving statements
of account are not sufficient basis for an award of Indemnification for damages is not limited to damnum
actual damages [Oceaneering Contractors v Baretto, emergens (actual loss) but extends to lucrum cessans
G.R. No. 184215 (2011)]. (a cession of gain or amount of profit lost).
Page 479 of 497

The award of damages for loss of earning capacity is In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton
concerned with the determination of losses or attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all
damages sustained by the [plaintiffs], as dependents damages which may be reasonably attributed to
and intestate heirs of the deceased, and that said the non-performance of the obligation.
damages consist, not of the full amount of his
earnings, but of the support they received or would Art. 2214, CC. In quasi-delicts, the contributory
have received from him had he not died in negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the
consequence of negligence of [defendant’s] agent… damages that he may recover.
Only net earnings, and not gross earnings are to be
considered. That is, the total of the earnings less
expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or Art. 2215, CC. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and
income and less living and other incidental expenses quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the
[Candano Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Sugata-on, G.R. No. damages under circumstances other than the case
163212 (2007)]. referred to in the preceding article, as in the
following instances:
Extent or scope of actual damages (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the
SOURCE EXTENT OF LIABILITY terms of the contract;
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as
• If the obligor acted in
a result of the contract;
GOOD FAITH, he shall be
(3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be
liable for natural and
awarded, that the defendant acted upon the
probable consequences of
advice of counsel;
the breach, which the
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any
parties have foreseen or
event;
could have reasonably
(5) That since the filing of the action, the
foreseen at the time the
defendant has done his best to lessen the
Contracts obligation was
Art. plaintiff's loss or injury.
and Quasi- constituted.
2201
contracts
The damages recoverable upon breach of contract are,
• If the obligor acted with
primarily, the ordinary, natural and in a sense the
FRAUD, BAD FAITH,
necessary damages resulting from the breach. Other
MALICE or WANTON
damages, known as special damages, are recoverable
ATTITUDE, he shall be
where it appears that the particular conditions which
responsible for all
made such damages a probable consequence of the
damages which may be
breach were known to the delinquent party at the time
reasonably attributed to
the contract was made [Daywalt vs. Recoletos et al.,
the breach.
G.R. No. L-13505 (1919)].
Liability extends to all
damages which are the
Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
natural and probable
negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some
consequence of the act or
Crimes and moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it
Art. omission complained of
Quasi- partakes of the nature of fraud…BPI-FB acted out of
2202
delicts the impetus of self-protection and not out of
WON the damage was
malevolence or ill will. BPI-FB was not in the corrupt
foreseen or could have been
state of mind contemplated in Article 2201 and should
reasonably foreseen by the
not be held liable for all damages now being imputed
defendant is irrelevant
to it for its breach of obligation [BPI Family Bank v.
Franco, G.R. No. 123498 (2007)].
In contracts and quasi-contracts
Art. 2201, CC. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the That there was fraud or bad faith on the part of
damages for which the obligor who acted in good respondent airline when it did not allow petitioners to
faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and board their flight in spite of confirmed tickets cannot
probable consequences of the breach of the be disputed. Overbooking amounts to bad faith,
obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or entitling the passengers concerned to an award of
could have reasonably foreseen at the time the moral damages [Spouses Zalamea v. CA, G.R. No.
obligation was constituted. 104235 (1993)].
Page 480 of 497

In crimes and quasi-delicts amount of damages to be awarded, the Supreme

Art. 2202, CC. In crimes and quasi delicts, the Court considered the plaintiff’s age, probable life
defendant shall be liable for all damages which are expectancy, the state of his health, and his mental and
the natural and probable consequences of the act physical condition before the accident… Taking into
or omission complained of. It is not necessary that account [the plaintiff’s] outstanding abilities, he
such damages have been foreseen or could have would have enjoyed a successful professional career in
reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. banking [Mercury Drug v Huang, G.R. No. 172122
(2007)].
In case of crimes, damages are to be increased or
decreased according to aggravating or mitigating Injury to business standing or commercial credit
circumstances present. Loss of goodwill should be proven with the same
standard of proof as other compensatory damages
Interest, as part of damages, may be adjudicated in a [Tanay Recreation Center v. Fausto, G.R. No. 140182
proper case, in the Court’s discretion. (2005)].
Contributory negligence of the plaintiff, in case of Formula for the net earning capacity
quasi-delicts, shall reduce the damages to which he Net earning capacity = Life Expectancy × (Gross
may be entitled. However, in case of crimes, there is no annual income –Reasonable living expenses)
mitigation for contributory negligence of the plaintiff. [People vs. Aringue, G.R. No. 116487 (1997)].
The indemnity authorized by our criminal law as civil Where:

liability ex delicto for the offended party, in the Life expectancy = 2 3 × (80 – age of victim at the time
amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy of death)
and aside from other proven actual damages, is itself
equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented
law. The principal consideration for the award of to substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity
damages is the penalty provided by law or imposable [Tan, et al. vs. OMC Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 190521
for the offense because of its heinousness, not the (2011)].
public penalty actually imposed on the offender…
Hence, notwithstanding the fact that the imposable By way of exception, damages for loss of earning
public penalty against the offender should be lowered capacity may be awarded despite the absence of
due to his minority, there is no justifiable ground to documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-
depart from the jurisprudential trend in the award of employed and earning less than the minimum wage
damages in the case of qualified rape, considering the under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice
compensatory nature of the award of civil indemnity may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of
and moral damages [People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641 work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the
(2009)]. deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning
less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.
EARNING CAPACITY, BUSINESS STANDING
Art. 2205, CC. Damages may be recovered: Death by Crime or Quasi-Delict
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in Art. 2206, CC. The amount of damages for death
cases of temporary or permanent personal caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least
injury; three thousand pesos, even though there may have
(2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing been mitigating circumstances.
or commercial credit.
In addition:
Loss or impairment of earning capacity (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the
The Court did not award actual damages because it earning capacity of the deceased, and the
was found that plaintiff’s employment was lost even indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the
before the injury upon which she was suing. The Court latter; such indemnity shall in every case be
equated loss of employment with loss of earning assessed and awarded by the court, unless the
capacity [Gatchalian v. Delim, G.R. No. 56487 (1991)]. deceased on account of permanent physical
disability not caused by the defendant, had no
The plaintiff need not be actually engaged in gainful earning capacity at the time of his death;
employment to recover damages due to loss or (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support
impairment of earning capacity. In determining the according to the provisions of article 291, the
recipient who is not an heir called to the
Page 481 of 497

decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or to be imposed, and maintained the same at Php.
intestate succession, may demand support 75,000 [People v. Bartolini, G.R. No. 179498 (2010)].
from the person causing the death, for a period
not exceeding five years, the exact duration to In cases of rape with homicide, civil indemnity in the
be fixed by the court; amount of Php. 100,000 should be awarded to the
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate heirs of the victim [People vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 172326
descendants and ascendants of the deceased (2009)].
may demand moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation
deceased. Art. 2208, CC. In the absence of stipulation,
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other
Civil/death indemnity than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
Mere commission of the crime shall entitle the heirs of (1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
the deceased to such damages. (2) When the defendant's act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
But there has been inconsistency as to whether persons or to incur expenses to protect his
indemnity is 50,000 or 75,000 [Casis. interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution
As to the loss of earning capacity against the plaintiff;
General Rule: Shall be awarded in every case, and that (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
claimant shall present documentary evidence to proceeding against the plaintiff;
substantiate claim for damages. (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
Exceptions: plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable
1. If the deceased was self-employed and earning claim;
less than the minimum wage; or (6) In actions for legal support;
2. The deceased was a daily wage worker earning (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of
less than the minimum wage. household helpers, laborers and skilled
workers;
Additional Exception: Testimonial evidence suffices to (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's
establish a basis for which the court can make a fair compensation and employer's liability laws;
and reasonable estimate of the loss of earning (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability
capacity [Pleyto v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 148737 (2004)] arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are
Note: Such an exception to documentary proof awarded;
requirement only exists as to the loss of earning (11) In any other case where the court deems it just
capacity. and equitable that attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation should be recovered.
In Rape Cases
No statutory basis but in several cases the court In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of
awards compensatory damages to victims of rape. litigation must be reasonable.
Civil indemnity, in the nature of actual and General Rule: Attorney’s fees and costs of litigation are
compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the recoverable IF stipulated.
finding of the fact of rape. Awarded Php. 50,000 for
simple rape [People v. Astrologo, G.R. No. 169873 Exceptions:
(2007)]. If there is no stipulation, they are recoverable only in
the following cases:
When imposable penalty is death, then the civil 1. By reason of malice or bad faith
indemnity must be Php. 75,000 [People vs. Apattad, a. When exemplary damages are awarded
G.R. No. 193188 (2011)]. b. In case of a clearly unfounded civil action
c. Where defendant acted in gross and evident
The SC held that it could not be proven that the age of bad faith
the victim was such that it would support a penalty of d. When at least double judicial costs are
death. Thus, it imposed reclusion perpetua instead. awarded
But SC said that this should not affect the civil liability 2. By reason of plaintiff’s indigence in
a. Actions for legal support
Page 482 of 497

b. Actions for recovery of wages of laborers, Art. 2210, CC. Interest may, in the discretion of the
etc. court, be allowed upon damages awarded for
c. Actions for workmen’s compensation breach of contract.
3. By reason of crimes in
a. Criminal cases of malicious prosecution Art. 2211, CC. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest
b. Separate actions to recover civil liability as a part of the damages may, in a proper case, be
arising from crime adjudicated in the discretion of the court.
4. By reason of equity
a. Where the defendant’s act compelled
plaintiff to litigate with third persons Art. 2212, CC. Interest due shall earn legal interest
b. Where the Court deems it just and equitable from the time it is judicially demanded, although
the obligation may be silent upon this point.
Note: In all cases, attorney’s fees and costs of litigation
must be reasonable. Art. 2213, CC. Interest cannot be recovered upon
unliquidated claims or damages, except when the
Even if expressly stipulated, attorney’s fees are demand can be established with reasonable
subject to control by the Courts. certainty.
Attorney’s fees in CC 2208 is an award made in favor
of the litigant, not of his counsel, and the litigant, not Interest accrues when:
his counsel, is the judgment creditor who may enforce 1. The obligation consists in the payment of a sum of
the judgment for attorney's fees by execution money
[Quirante v. IAC, G.R. No. 73886 (1989)]. 2. Debtor incurs in delay
3. There being no stipulation to the contrary
Attorney's fees cannot be recovered except in cases
provided for in CC 2208 [MERALCO v. Ramoy, G.R. No. No interest may be recovered on unliquidated (not
158911 (2008)]. fixed in amount) claims or damages, except when the
demand can be established with reasonable certainty
Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation are at the Court’s discretion.
recoverable only in the concept of actual damages, not
as moral damages nor judicial costs. Hence, such must Compounding of interest
be specifically prayed for…and may not be deemed Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is
incorporated within a general prayer for "such other judicially demanded, although the obligation may be
relief and remedy as this court may deem just and silent on the point.
equitable [Briones v Macabagdal, G.R. No. 150666 Note that interest due can earn only at 6%, whether
(2010)]. the rate of interest of the principal is greater than 6%.
For Art. 2208 (2), CC, an adverse decision does Determination of legal interest
not ipso facto justify an award of attorney’s fees to the 1. When an obligation, regardless of its source (i.e.,
winning party. Even when a claimant is compelled to law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi-
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to delicts) is breached, the contravenor can be held
protect his rights, still attorney’s fees may not be liable for damages.
awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith 2. With regard particularly to an AWARD OF
could be reflected in a party’s persistence in a case INTEREST in the concept of actual and
other than an erroneous conviction of the compensatory damages, the RATE of interest, as
righteousness of his cause [Bank of America v. well as the ACCRUAL thereof, is imposed, as
Philippine Racing Club, G.R. No. 150228 (2009)]. follows [Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA, G.R. No.
97412 (1994) as modified by Nacar v. Gallery
Interest Frames, G.R. No. 189871 (2013)]:
Art. 2209, CC. If the obligation consists in the BASE RATE ACCRUAL
payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs When the a. That which
To be computed
in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being obligation is may have
from default, i.e.,
no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the breached, been
from JUDICIAL or
payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the and it stipulated
EXTRAJUDICIAL
absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is consists in in writing.
demand under
six per cent per annum. the b. In the
and subject to
PAYMENT absence of
the provisions of
OF A SUM stipulation,
Page 483 of 497

OF MONEY, the rate of Article 1169 of Note: The new rate of legal interest (6%) in Nacar does
i.e., a loan or interest the CC. not apply to judgments that have become final and
forbearance shall be executory prior to July 1, 2013.
of money, the 6% per
interest due annum Start of Delay
should be- (legal 1. Extrajudicial: Demand letter
interest) 2. Judicial: Filing of complaint
Furthermore, 3. Award
the From the time it
INTEREST Legal interest is JUDICIALLY Duty to Minimize
DUE shall demanded. Art. 2203, CC. The party suffering loss or injury
itself earn must exercise the diligence of a good father of a
When an family to minimize the damages resulting from the
If claim or
obligation, act or omission in question.
damages are
NOT
LIQUIDATED,
constituting a Article 2203 of the CC exhorts parties suffering from
from default, i.e.,
loan or loss or injury to exercise the diligence of a good father
from judicial or
forbearance of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the
extrajudicial
of money, is act or omission in question. One who is injured then by
demand. (Art.
breached, an the wrongful or negligent act of another should
1169, CC)
interest on exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize
the AMOUNT the resulting damage. Anyway, he can recover from
If
OF the wrongdoer money lost in reasonable efforts to
UNLIQUIDATED,
DAMAGES preserve the property injured and for injuries incurred
from the time the
awarded may in attempting to prevent damage to it [Lim and
demand can be
be imposed Gunnaban vs. CA, G.R. No. 125817 (2002)].
6% per established with
at the
annum. reasonable
discretion of Burden of Proof
certainty. Hence,
the court. The DEFENDANT has the burden of proof to establish
the interest shall
begin to run only that the victim, by the exercise of the diligence of a
The actual good father of a family, could have mitigated the
FROM THE DATE
base for the damages. In the absence of such proof, the amount of
THE JUDGMENT
computation damages cannot be reduced.
OF THE COURT
of legal
IS MADE (at
interest Note:
which time the
shall be on The victim is required only to take such steps as an
quantification of
the amount ordinary prudent man would reasonably adopt for his
damages may be
finally own interest.
deemed to have
adjudged.
been reasonably
ascertained).
When the
JUDGMENT
of the court
awarding a
From FINALITY
sum of
UNTIL ITS
money
SATISFACTION,
becomes
6% per this period being
final and
annum deemed to be an
executory,
equivalent to a
whether or
forbearance of
not the case
credit.
consists in
the payment
of a sum of
money
Page 484 of 497

Moral Damages 4. The award of damages is predicated on any of the

cases stated in Article 2219 of the CC.
Art. 2217, CC. Moral damages include physical General Principles of Recovery:
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, 1. Moral damages must somehow be proportional to
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral the suffering inflicted.
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. 2. In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral
Though incapable of pecuniary computation, damages may be recovered when the defendant
moral damages may be recovered if they are the acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross
proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton
omission. disregard of his contractual obligation and,
exceptionally, when the act of breach of contract
Art. 2218, CC. In the adjudication of moral itself is constitutive of tort resulting in physical
damages, the sentimental value of property, real injuries.
or personal, may be considered. 3. By special rule in Article 1764, in relation to Article
2206, moral damages may also be awarded in
Moral damages are emphatically not intended to case the death of a passenger results from a
enrich a complainant at the expense of the defendant. breach of carriage.
Its award is aimed at the restoration, within the limits 4. In culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict,
of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante, and it a. when an act or omission causes physical
must be proportional to the suffering inflicted [Visayan injuries, or
Sawmill v. CA, G.R. No. 83851 (1993)]. b. where the defendant is guilty of intentional
tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered.
Mental suffering means distress or serious pain as This rule also applies to contracts when
distinguished from annoyance, regret or vexation breached by tort.
[Bagumbayan Corp. v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66274 (1984)]. 5. In culpa criminal, moral damages could be
lawfully due when the accused is found guilty of
Mental anguish is intense mental suffering. Generally, physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or
damages for mental anguish are limited to cases in concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention, illegal
which there has been a personal physical injury or arrest, illegal search, or defamation.
where the defendant willfully, wantonly, recklessly, or 6. Malicious prosecution can also give rise to a claim
intentionally caused the mental anguish. for moral damages. The term "analogous cases,"
referred to in Article 2219, following the ejusdem
When awarded generis rule, must be held similar to those
Awarded when injury consists of: expressly enumerated by the law.
1. Physical suffering 7. Although the institution of a clearly unfounded
2. Besmirched reputation civil suit can at times be a legal justification for an
3. Mental anguish award of attorney's fees, such filing, however, has
4. Fright almost invariably been held not to be a ground for
5. Moral shock an award of moral damages. [Expertravel & Tours
6. Wounded feelings vs. CA., G.R. No. 130030 (1999)].
7. Social humiliation 8. The burden rests on the person claiming moral
8. Serious anxiety damages to show convincing evidence for good
9. Similar injury faith is presumed. In a case involving simple
negligence, moral damages cannot be recovered.
Requisites for awarding moral damages [Villanueva v. Salvador, G.R. No. 139436 (2006)].
The conditions for awarding moral damages are 9. Failure to use the precise legal terms or
[Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, G.R. No. 157009 (2010)]: "sacramental phrases" of "mental anguish, fright,
1. There must be an injury, whether physical, serious anxiety, wounded feelings or moral shock"
mental, or psychological, clearly substantiated by does not justify the denial of the claim for
the claimant; damages. It is sufficient that these exact terms
2. There must be a culpable act or omission factually have been pleaded in the complaint and evidence
established; has been adduced [Miranda-Ribaya v. Bautista,
3. The wrongful act or omission of the defendant G.R. No. L-49390 (1980)].
must be the proximate cause of the injury 10. Even if the allegations regarding the amount of
sustained by the claimant; and damages in the complaint are not specifically
denied in the answer, such damages are not
Page 485 of 497

deemed admitted. [Raagas, et al. v. Traya et al, The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and
G.R. No. L-20081 (1968)]. brothers and sisters may bring the action
11. An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order
for review and this 'includes the review of the named.
penalty, indemnity and damages’. Even if the
offended party had not appealed from said award, In Criminal Offense Resulting in Physical Injuries
and the only party who sought a review of the Under paragraph (1), Article 2219 of the CC, moral
decision of said court was the accused, the court damages may be recovered in a criminal offense
can increase damages awarded. [Sumalpong v. resulting in physical injuries. In its generic sense,
CA, G.R. No. 123404 (1997)]. "physical injuries" includes death [People v. Villaver,
12. It can only be awarded to natural persons. The G.R. No. 133381 (2001)].
award of moral damages cannot be granted in
favor of a corporation because, being an artificial In a case where the father of a family was stabbed to
person and having existence only in legal death, the SC said that “a violent death invariably and
contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish
senses, It cannot, therefore, experience physical on the part of the victim’s family… For this reason,
suffering and mental anguish, which can be moral damages must be awarded even in the absence
experienced only by one having a nervous system. of any allegation and proof of the heirs’ emotional
The statement in People vs. Manero and suffering [Arcona v CA, G.R. No. 134784 (2002)].”
Mambulao Lumber Co. vs. PNB that a corporation
may recover moral damages if it "has a good In Quasi-Delicts Causing Physical Injuries
reputation that is debased, resulting in social In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, moral damages may
humiliation" is an obiter dictum [ABS-CBN v. CA, be recovered (a) when an act or omission causes
G.R. No. 128690 (1999)]. physical injuries, or (b) where the defendant is guilty of
intentional tort. The SC held that an employer that is
While it is true that besmirched reputation is included vicariously liable with its employee-driver may also be
in moral damages, it cannot cause mental anguish to held liable for moral damages to the injured plaintiff
a corporation, unlike in the case of a natural person, [B.F. Metal v. Lomotan, G.R. No. 170813 (2008)].
for a corporation has no reputation in the sense that
an individual has, and besides, it is inherently In seduction, abduction, rape and other lascivious
impossible for a corporation to suffer mental anguish acts
[NAPOCOR v. Philipp Brothers, G.R. Ni, 126204 Anent the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto
(2001)]. is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape while
moral damages is awarded upon such finding without
When Recoverable need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape
Art. 2219, CC. Moral damages may be recovered in victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the
the following and analogous cases: victim to such award. If without factual and legal
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical bases, no award of exemplary damages should be
injuries; allowed [People v. Calongui, G.R. No. 170566(2006)].
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other In a case where the offender-father was convicted of
lascivious acts; simple rape instead of qualified rape due to the
(4) Adultery or concubinage; prosecution’s failure to specifically allege the age and
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; minority of the victim-daughter, but such was
(6) Illegal search; nonetheless established during the trial, the award of
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of civil indemnity and moral damages in a conviction for
defamation; simple rape should equal the award of civil indemnity
(8) Malicious prosecution; and moral damages in convictions for qualified rape.
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309; Truly, [the victim’s] moral suffering is just as great as
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, when her father who raped her is convicted for
27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. qualified rape as when he is convicted only for simple
rape due to a technicality [People v. Bartolini, supra].
The parents of the female seduced, abducted,
raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, Where there are multiple counts of rape and other
may also recover moral damages. lascivious acts, the SC awarded moral damages for
each count of lascivious acts and each count of rape
[People v. Abadies, G.R. Nos. 13946-50 (2002)].
Page 486 of 497

Note: Recovery may be had by the offended party and (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated
also by her parents. from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of
In Illegal or Arbitrary Detention or Arrest his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place
Since the crime committed in this case is kidnapping of birth, physical defect, or other personal
and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the condition.
Revised Penal Code, the same is clearly analogous to
illegal and arbitrary detention or arrest, thereby Violation of Human Dignity
justifying the award of moral damages [People v. The law seeks to protect a person from being unjustly
Bernardo, G.R. No. 144316 (2002)]. humiliated. Using this provision, the SC awarded
moral damages to the plaintiff, a married man,
In Case of Malicious Prosecution against the defendant, who confronted the plaintiff
As a rule, no moral damages is imposed for litigation, face-to-face, invading the latter’s privacy, to hurl
because the law could not have meant to impose a defamatory words at him in the presence of his wife
penalty on the right to litigate. A person's right to and children, neighbors and friends, accusing him of
litigate, as a rule, should not be penalized. This right, having an adulterous relationship with another
however, must be exercised in good faith. Absence of woman [Concepcion v. CA, G.R. No. 120706 (2000)].
good faith in the present case is shown by the fact that
petitioner clearly has no cause of action against Art. 27, CC. Any person suffering material or moral
respondents but it recklessly filed suit anyway and loss because a public servant or employee refuses
wantonly pursued pointless appeals, thereby causing or neglects, without just cause, to perform his
the latter to spend valuable time, money and effort in official duty may file an action for damages and
unnecessarily defending themselves, incurring other relief against the latter, without prejudice to
damages in the process [Industrial Insurance v. any disciplinary administrative action that may be
Bondad, G.R. No. 136722 (2000)]. taken.
Moral damages cannot be recovered from a person
Refusal or Neglect of Duty
who has filed a complaint against another in good
Under Art. 27, in relation to Arts. 2219 and 2217, a
faith, or without malice or bad faith. If damage results
public officer may be liable for moral damages for as
from the filing of the complaint, it is damnum absque
long as the moral damages suffered by [the plaintiff]
injuria [Mijares v. CA, G.R. No. 113558(1997)].
were the proximate result of [defendant’s] refusal to
perform an official duty or neglect in the performance
The adverse result of an action does not per se make
thereof. In fact, under Articles 19 and 27 of the CC, a
the act wrongful and subject the actor to the payment
public official may be made to pay damages for
of moral damages. The law could not have meant to
performing a perfectly legal act, albeit with bad faith
impose a penalty on the right to litigate; such right is
or in violation of the "abuse of right" doctrine
so precious that moral damages may not be charged
[Concepcion v. CA, supra].
on those who may exercise it erroneously [Barreto v.
Arevalo, G.R. No. L-7748 (1956)].
Art. 28, CC. Unfair competition in agricultural,
In acts referred to in Arts. 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34 commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor
and 35, CC through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or
Art. 21, CC. Any person who wilfully causes loss or
highhanded method shall give rise to a right of
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
Art. 29, CC. When the accused in a criminal
prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his
Art. 26, CC. Every person shall respect the dignity,
guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act
neighbors and other persons. The following and
or omission may be instituted. Such action
similar acts, though they may not constitute a
requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action
motion of the defendant, the court may require the
for damages, prevention and other relief:
plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:
case the complaint should be found to be
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
malicious.
family relations of another;
Page 487 of 497

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is statute which has not been judicially declared
based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so unconstitutional; and
declare. In the absence of any declaration to that (19) Freedom of access to the courts.
effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that In any of the cases referred to in this article,
ground. whether or not the defendant's act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party
Art. 32, CC. Any public officer or employee, or any has a right to commence an entirely separate and
private individual, who directly or indirectly distinct civil action for damages, and for other
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner relief. Such civil action shall proceed
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and independently of any criminal prosecution (if the
liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a
latter for damages: preponderance of evidence.
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech; The indemnity shall include moral damages.
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention; The responsibility herein set forth is not
(5) Freedom of suffrage; demandable from a judge unless his act or
(6) The right against deprivation of property omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
without due process of law; or other penal statute.
(7) The right to a just compensation when
private property is taken for public use; Violation of Civil and Political Rights
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws; The purpose of [CC 32] is to provide a sanction to the
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, deeply cherished rights and freedoms enshrined in the
papers, and effects against unreasonable Constitution. Under [CC 32], it is not necessary that the
searches and seizures; public officer acted with malice or bad faith. To be
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the liable, it is enough that there was a violation of the
same; constitutional rights of petitioner, even on the pretext
(11) The privacy of communication and of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance
correspondence; of one's duties [Cojuangco v. CA, G.R. No. 119398
(12) The right to become a member of associations (1999)].
or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly Article 32 of the CC provides that moral damages are
to petition the government for redress of proper when the rights of individuals, including the
grievances; right against deprivation of property without due
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude process of law, are violated [Meralco v Spouses Chua,
in any form; G.R. No. 160422 (2010)].
(15) The right of the accused against excessive
bail; Art. 34, CC. When a member of a city or municipal
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself police force refuses or fails to render aid or
and counsel, to be informed of the nature and protection to any person in case of danger to life or
cause of the accusation against him, to have a property, such peace officer shall be primarily
speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses liable for damages, and the city or municipality
face to face, and to have compulsory process shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil
to secure the attendance of witness in his action herein recognized shall be independent of
behalf; any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a evidence shall suffice to support such action.
witness against one's self, or from being
forced to confess guilt, or from being induced Art. 35, CC. When a person, claiming to be injured
by a promise of immunity or reward to make by a criminal offense, charges another with the
such confession, except when the person same, for which no independent civil action is
confessing becomes a State witness; granted in this Code or any special law, but the
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to
unusual punishment, unless the same is believe that a crime has been committed, or the
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute
Page 488 of 497

criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other
civil action for damages against the alleged lascivious acts;
offender. Such civil action may be supported by a (4) Adultery or concubinage;
preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a (6) Illegal search;
bond to indemnify the defendant in case the (7) Libel, slander or any other form of
complaint should be found to be malicious. defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
If during the pendency of the civil action, an (9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
information should be presented by the (10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26,
prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
suspended until the termination of the criminal
proceedings. The parents of the female seduced, abducted,
raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article,
Art. 2220, CC. Willful injury to property may be a may also recover moral damages.
legal ground for awarding moral damages if the
court should find that, under the circumstances, The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and
such damages are justly due. The same rule brothers and sisters may bring the action
applies to breaches of contract where the mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order
defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. named.
In Willful Injury to Property Relatives of Injured Persons

To sustain an award of damages, the damage inflicted Article 2219 circumscribes the instances in which
upon [plaintiff’s] property must be malicious or willful, moral damages may be awarded. The provision does
an element crucial to merit an award of not include succession in the collateral line as a source
moral damages under Article 2220 of the CC [Regala of the right to recover moral damages. The usage of
v. Carin, G.R. No. 188715 (2011)]. the phrase analogous cases in the provision means
simply that the situation must be held similar to those
In Breach of Contract in Bad Faith expressly enumerated in the law in question [Sulpicio
Moral damages may be recovered in culpa Lines v Curso, supra].
contractual where the defendant acted in bad faith or
with malice in the breach of the contract. However, a Juridical Persons
conscious or intentional design need not always be The award of moral damages cannot be granted in
present since negligence may occasionally be so gross favor of a corporation because, being an artificial
as to amount to malice or bad faith. Bad faith, in the person and having existence only in legal
context of Art. 2220 of the CC, contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no
includes gross negligence. Thus, we have held in a senses, It cannot, therefore, experience physical
number of cases that moral damages may be awarded suffering and mental anguish, which can be
in culpa contractual or breach of contract when the experienced only by one having a nervous system. The
defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is statement in People vs. Manero and Mambulao Lumber
guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or Co. vs. PNB that a corporation may recover moral
in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations damages if it "has a good reputation that is debased,
[Bankard, Inc. v. Feliciano, G.R. No 141761 (2006)]. resulting in social humiliation" is an obiter dictum
[ABS-CBN v. CA, supra].
As an exception [to the requirement of bad faith],
moral damages may be awarded in case of breach of Factors Considered in Determining Amount
contract of carriage that results in the death of a The amount of damages awarded in this appeal has
passenger [Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, supra]. been determined by adequately considering the
official, political, social, and financial standing of the
Who may Recover Moral Damages offended parties on one hand, and the business and
Art. 2219, CC. Moral damages may be recovered in financial position of the offender on the other. The SC
the following and analogous cases: further considered the present rate of exchange and
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical the terms at which the amount of damages awarded
injuries; would approximately be in U.S. dollars, the defendant
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; being an international airline [Lopez v. Pan American,
G.R. No. L-22415 (1966)].
Page 489 of 497

Nominal Damages Nominal damages "are recoverable where a legal

right is technically violated and must be vindicated
against an invasion that has produced no actual
Nominal damages consist in damages awarded, not present loss of any kind.” Its award is thus not for the
for purposes of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss purpose of indemnification for a loss but for the
suffered, but for the vindication or recognition of a recognition and vindication of a right. When granted
right violated by the defendant. by the courts, they are not treated as an equivalent of
a wrong inflicted but simply a recognition of the
Requisites and characteristics existence of a technical injury. A violation of the
1. Invasion or violation of any legal or property right. plaintiff’s right, even if only technical, is sufficient to
2. No proof of loss is required. support an award of nominal damages. Conversely, so
3. The award is to vindicate the right violated. long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of
the plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper
When awarded [Gonzales v. PCIB, G.R. No. 180257 (2011)].
Art. 2221, CC. Nominal damages are adjudicated
in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been The plaintiffs sought to recover damages from the
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be hotel due to its breach of contract as regards food
vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose service for the plaintiff’s guests. The SC did not award
of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered actual and moral damages because it found that the
by him. plaintiff’s failure to inform the hotel regarding the
increase of guests (from 350 expected guests, at
Art. 2222, CC. The court may award nominal maximum capacity of 380, the number of guests
damages in every obligation arising from any reached 470) was the proximate cause of the
source enumerated in article 1157, or in every case plaintiff’s injury. Nevertheless, the SC awarded
where any property right has been invaded. nominal damages under considerations of equity, for
the discomfiture that the plaintiffs were subjected to
during the event, averring that the hotel could have
Art. 2223, CC. The adjudication of nominal
managed the "situation" better, it being held in high
damages shall preclude further contest upon the
esteem in the hotel and service industry. Given
right involved and all accessory questions, as
respondent’s vast experience, it is safe to presume
between the parties to the suit, or their respective
that this is not its first encounter with booked events
heirs and assigns.
exceeding the guaranteed cover [Spouses Guanio v.
Makati Shangri-la, G.R. No. 190601 (2011)].
One does not ask for nominal damages, and it is in lieu
of the actual, moral, temperate, or liquidated Nature and determination of amount
damages. The assessment of nominal damages is left to the
discretion of the trial court according to the
Nominal damages are incompatible with actual, circumstances of the case. Generally, nominal
temperate and exemplary damages. damages by their nature are small sums fixed by the
court without regard to the extent of the harm done to
Nominal damages cannot co-exist with actual or the injured party. However, it is generally held that a
compensatory damages [Armovit v. CA, G.R. No. nominal damage is a substantial claim, if based upon
88561 (1990)]. the violation of a legal right; in such a case, the law
presumes damage although actual or compensatory
No moral or exemplary damages was awarded. damages are not proven [Gonzales v. People, G.R. No.
Nevertheless, when confronted with their failure to 159950 (2007)].
deliver on the wedding day the wedding cake ordered
and paid for, petitioners gave the lame excuse that
delivery was probably delayed because of the traffic,
when in truth, no cake could be delivered because the
order slip got lost. For such prevarication, petitioners
must be held liable for nominal damages for
insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their
customer's anxiety and need of the hour [Francisco v.
Ferrer, supra].
Page 490 of 497

Temperate Damages equity, the principle affording relief to those definitely

injured who are unable to prove how definite the injury
[Republic v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 148246 (2007)].
Art. 2224, CC. Temperate or moderate damages,
which are more than nominal but less than There are cases where from the nature of the case,
compensatory damages, may be recovered when definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered,
the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been although the court is convinced that there has been such
suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of loss. For instance, injury to one's commercial credit or
the case, be provided with certainty. to the goodwill of a business firm is often hard to show
certainty in terms of money. Note: In this case actual
Art. 2225, CC. Temperate damages must be and temperate damages were awarded. It is
reasonable under the circumstances. postulated that the actual damages is for the car while
the temperate damages is for the lost actual income
These damages are awarded for pecuniary loss, in an not sufficiently proved.)
amount that, from the nature of the case, cannot be
proved with certainty. Factors in determining amount
The SC awarded temperate damages where from the
Requisites nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss
1. Actual existence of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced
2. The nature and circumstances of the loss prevents that the plaintiff suffered some pecuniary loss. The SC
proof of the exact amount also increased the award of temperate damages from
3. They are more than nominal and less than P100,000 to P150,000, taking into account the cost of
compensatory. rebuilding the damaged portions of the perimeter
4. Causal connection between the loss and the fence [De Guzman v. Tumolva, G.R. No. 188072 (2011)].
defendant’s act or omission.
5. Amount must be reasonable. Where there are receipts provided amounting to less
than P25,000
In cases where the resulting injury might be continuing Anent the actual damages, we note that the CA
and possible future complications directly arising from awarded P3,000.00 representing the amount spent
the injury, while certain to occur are difficult to predict, for the embalming as shown by the receipt. However,
temperate damages can and should be awarded on the prosecution also presented a list of expenses such
top of actual or compensatory damages; in such cases as those spent for the coffin, etc., which were not duly
there is no incompatibility between actual and covered by receipt. If the actual damages, proven by
temperate damages as they cover two distinct phases receipts during the trial, amount to less
[Ramos v. CA, supra]. than P25,000.00, the victim shall be entitled to
temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, in
Temperate damages are incompatible with nominal lieu of actual damages. In this case, the victim is
damages hence, cannot be granted concurrently entitled to the award ofP25,000.00 as temperate
[Citytrust Bank v. IAC , G.R. No. 84281(1994)]. damages considering that the amount of actual
damages is only P3,858.50. The amount of actual
Temperate damages are included within the context damages shall be deleted [People v. Lucero, G.R. No.
of compensatory damages. [Tan v. OMC Carriers, 179044 (2010)].
supra].
Where no receipts were provided
The SC awarded temperate damages in lieu of actual The award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in
damages for loss of earning capacity where earning homicide or murder cases is proper when no evidence
capacity is plainly established but no evidence was of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial
presented to support the allegation of the injured court [People v. Gidoc, G.R. No. 185162 (2009)].
party’s actual income [Pleno v. CA, G.R. No. 56505
(1988)]. Where the amount of actual damages cannot be
determined because no receipts were presented to
Courts are authorized to award temperate damages prove the same but it is shown that the heirs are
even in cases where the amount of pecuniary loss entitled thereto, temperate damages may be
could have been proven with certainty, if no such awarded, fixed at P25,000. Considering that funeral
adequate proof was presented. The allowance of expenses were obviously incurred by the victim’s heirs,
temperate damages when actual damages were not an award of P25,000 as temperate damages is proper
adequately proven is ultimately a rule drawn from [People v. Surongon, G.R. No. 173478 (2007)].
Page 491 of 497

Liquidated Damages Exceptions

1. When there is a stipulation to the contrary.
2. When the obligor is sued for refusal to pay the
Art. 2226, CC. Liquidated damages are those agreed penalty.
agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid 3. When the obligor is guilty of fraud.
in case of breach thereof.
The amount can be reduced if:
Art. 2227, CC. Liquidated damages, whether 1. it is unconscionable as determined by the court
intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be 2. there is partial or irregular performance.
equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or
unconscionable.
Liquidated damages are those damages agreed upon

by the parties to a contract to be paid in case of breach
thereof.
It differs from a penal clause in that in the latter case

the amount agreed to be paid may bear no relation to
the probable damages resulting from the breach.
Basically, a penalty is “ad terrorem,” while liquidated
damages are “ad reparationem.”
Requisites and characteristics

1. Liquidated damages must be validly stipulated.
2. There is no need to prove the amount of actual
damages.
3. Breach of the principal contract must be proved.
Rules Governing Breach of Contract
Art. 2228, CC. When the breach of the contract

committed by the defendant is not the one
contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the
liquidated damages, the law shall determine the
measure of damages, and not the stipulation.
Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the

parties to a contract to be paid in case of breach
thereof. The stipulation on attorney’s fees contained in
the said Promissory Note constitutes what is known as
a penal clause. A penalty clause, expressly recognized
by law, is an accessory undertaking to assume greater
liability on the part of the obligor in case of breach of
an obligation. It functions to strengthen the coercive
force of obligation and to provide, in effect, for what
could be the liquidated damages resulting from such
a breach. The obligor would then be bound to pay the
stipulated indemnity without the necessity of proof on
the existence and on the measure of damages caused
by the breach [Suatengco v. Reyes, G.R. No. 162729
(2008)].
General Rule: The penalty shall substitute the

indemnity for damages and the payment of the
interests in case of breach.
Page 492 of 497

Exemplary or Corrective Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages,

therefore, can be awarded, not only in the presence of
Damages an aggravating circumstance, but also where the
circumstances of the case show the highly
reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the
Art. 2229, CC. Exemplary or corrective damages offender. As in this case, where the offender sexually
are imposed, by way of example or correction for assaulted a pregnant married woman, the offender
the public good, in addition to the moral, has shown moral corruption, perversity, and
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. wickedness. He has grievously wronged the institution
of marriage. The imposition then of exemplary
In common law, these damages were termed damages by way of example to deter others from
“punitive.” committing similar acts or for correction for the public
good is warranted in quasi-delicts [People v. Alfredo,
The grant of temperate damages paves the way for the G.R. No. 188560 (2010)].
award of exemplary damages. Under Article 2234 of
the CC, a showing that the plaintiff is entitled to Art. 2231, CC. In quasi-delicts, exemplary
temperate damages allows the award of exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted
damages [Canada v All Commodities Marketing with gross negligence.
(2008)].
In this case, the defendant, the previous employer of
However, the award of P1,000,000 exemplary the plaintiff, wrote a letter to the company where the
damages is also far too excessive and should likewise plaintiff subsequently applied for employment,
be reduced to an equitable level. Exemplary damages stating that the plaintiff was dismissed by the
are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish defendant from work due to dishonesty, accusing
another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a plaintiff of malversation of defendant’s funds.
negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions Previous police investigations revealed that the
[PNB v. CA, G.R. No. 116181 (1996)]. defendant’s accusations against the plaintiff were
unfounded, and cleared the plaintiff of such
WHEN RECOVERABLE ‘anomalies’. Here, the lower court awarded exemplary
damages to the plaintiff, which the defendant
In criminal offenses questioned, averring that CC 2231 may be awarded
Art. 2230, CC. In criminal offenses, exemplary only for grossly negligent acts, not for willful or
damages as a part of the civil liability may be intentional acts. The SC upheld the grant of exemplary
imposed when the crime was committed with one damages, stating that while CC 2231 provides that for
or more aggravating circumstances. Such quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if
damages are separate and distinct from fines and the defendant acted with gross negligence, with more
shall be paid to the offended party. reason is its imposition justified when the act
performed is deliberate, malicious and tainted with
Award of exemplary damages is part of the civil bad faith [Globe Mackay v. CA, G.R. No. 81262 (1989)].
liability, not of the penalty.
In contracts and quasi-contracts
Damages are paid to the offended party separately Art. 2232, CC. In contracts and quasi-contracts,
from the fines. the court may award exemplary damages if the
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
Although an aggravating circumstance not oppressive, or malevolent manner.
specifically alleged in the information, albeit
established at trial, cannot be appreciated to increase REQUISITES
the criminal liability of the accused, the established
Art. 2233, CC. Exemplary damages cannot be
presence of one or two aggravating circumstances of
recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide
any kind or nature entitles the offended party to
whether or not they should be adjudicated.
exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the CC
because the requirement of specificity in the
information affected only the criminal liability of the Art. 2234, CC. While the amount of the exemplary
accused, not his civil liability [People v. Dadulla, G.R. damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must
No. 172321 (2011)]. show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages before the court may
consider the question of whether or not exemplary
Page 493 of 497

damages should be awarded. In case liquidated DAMAGES IN CASE OF DEATH

damages have been agreed upon, although no Re. Crimes and quasi-delicts
proof of loss is necessary in order that such Art. 2206, CC. The amount of damages for death
liquidated damages may be recovered, caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least
nevertheless, before the court may consider the three thousand pesos, even though there may
question of granting exemplary in addition to the have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:
liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of
he would be entitled to moral, temperate or the earning capacity of the deceased, and the
compensatory damages were it not for the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the
stipulation for liquidated damages. latter; such indemnity shall in every case be
assessed and awarded by the court, unless
Art. 2235, CC. A stipulation whereby exemplary the deceased on account of permanent
damages are renounced in advance shall be null physical disability not caused by the
and void. defendant, had no earning capacity at the
time of his death;
Requisites to recover exemplary damages and (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support
liquidated damages agreed upon according to the provisions of article 291, the
The plaintiff must show that he/she is entitled to recipient who is not an heir called to the
moral, temperate or compensatory damages: decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support
from the person causing the death, for a
WHEN EXEMPLARY
IF ARISING period not exceeding five years, the exact
DAMAGES ARE
FROM duration to be fixed by the court;
GRANTED
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
The crime was committed
Art. descendants and ascendants of the deceased
Crimes with an aggravating
2230 may demand moral damages for mental
circumstance/s
anguish by reason of the death of the
Art. Defendant acted with
Quasi-delicts deceased.
2231 gross negligence
Defendant acted in a
Contracts In death caused by breach of conduct by a common
Art. wanton, fraudulent,
and Quasi- crime
2232 reckless, oppressive, or
contracts When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of
malevolent manner
the deceased are entitled to the following items of
damages:
General Principles
1. As indemnity for the death of the victim of the
1. Exemplary damages cannot be awarded alone:
offense — P12,000.00, without the need of any
they must be awarded IN ADDITION to moral,
evidence or proof of damages, and even though
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
there may have been mitigating circumstances
2. The purpose of the award is to deter the
attending the commission of the offense.
defendant (and others in a similar condition) from
2. As indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the
a repetition of the acts for which exemplary
deceased — an amount to be fixed by the Court
damages were awarded; hence, they are not
according to the circumstances of the deceased
recoverable as a matter of right.
related to his actual income at the time of death
3. The defendant must be guilty of other malice or
and his probable life expectancy, the said
else negligence above the ordinary.
indemnity to be assessed and awarded by the
4. Plaintiff is not required to prove the amount of
court as a matter of duty, unless the deceased had
exemplary damages.
no earning capacity at said time on account of
a. But plaintiff must show that he is entitled to
permanent disability not caused by the accused. If
moral, temperate, or compensatory damage;
the deceased was obliged to give support, under
that is, substantial damages, not purely
Art. 291, CC, the recipient who is not an heir, may
nominal ones. This requirement applies even
demand support from the accused for not more
if the contract stipulates liquidated damages.
than five years, the exact duration to be fixed by
b. The amount of exemplary damage need not
the court.
be pleaded in the complaint because the
3. As moral damages for mental anguish, — an
same cannot be proved. It is merely incidental
amount to be fixed by the court. This may be
or dependent upon what the court may award
recovered even by the illegitimate descendants
as compensatory damages.
and ascendants of the deceased.
Page 494 of 497

4. As exemplary damages, when the crime is

attended by one or more aggravating Graduation of Damages
circumstances, — an amount to be fixed in the
discretion of the court, the same to be considered In crimes
separate from fines. Art. 2204, CC. In crimes, the damages to be
5. As attorney's fees and expresses of litigation, — adjudicated may be respectively increased or
the actual amount thereof, (but only when a lessened according to the aggravating or
separate civil action to recover civil liability has mitigating circumstances.
been filed or when exemplary damages are
awarded). In quasi-delicts
6. Interests in the proper cases. Art. 2214, CC. In quasi-delicts, the contributory
7. It must be emphasized that the indemnities for negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the
loss of earning capacity of the deceased and for damages that he may recover.
moral damages are recoverable separately from
and in addition to the fixed sum of P12,000.00 Contributory negligence
corresponding to the indemnity for the sole fact of The alleged contributory negligence of the victim, if
death, and that these damages may, however, be any, does not exonerate the accused in criminal cases
respectively increased or lessened according to committed through reckless imprudence, since one
the mitigating or aggravating circumstances, cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the
except items 1 and 4 above, for obvious reasons effects of his own negligence [Genobiagon v. CA,
[Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos, G.R. No. L- supra].
25913 (1969)].
If so, the disobedience of the plaintiff in placing
At present, the SC allows civil indemnity of P50,000 himself in danger contributed in some degree to the
in cases of homicide [De Villa v. People, G.R. No. 151258 injury as a proximate, although not as its primary
(2012)] and P75,000 in cases of murder [People v. cause [Rakes v. Atlantic, G.R. No. L-1719 (1907)].
Camat, G.R. No. 188612 (2012)].
(Supreme Court in this case cited numerous foreign
The omission from Article 2206 (3) of the brothers and precedents, mostly leaning towards the doctrine that
sisters of the deceased passenger reveals the contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff did
legislative intent to exclude them from the recovery of not exonerate defendant from liability, but it led to the
moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the reduction of damages awarded to the plaintiff.)
death of the deceased. Inclusio unius est exclusio
alterius [Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, supra]. In determining the question of contributory
negligence in performing such act — that is to say,
whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly —
the age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger
are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of
the passenger, and should be considered [Cangco vs.
Manila Railroad Co., supra].
Plaintiff’s negligence
Even if Manila Electric is negligent, in order that it may
be held liable, its negligence must be the proximate
and direct cause of the accident [Manila Electric v.
Remonquillo, supra].
Both of the parties contributed to the proximate cause;

hence, they cannot recover from one another
[Bernardo v. Legaspi, supra].
In contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts

Art. 2215, CC. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and
quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the
damages under circumstances other than the case
Page 495 of 497

referred to in the preceding article, as in the illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its
following instances: specific performance, or to recover the property
1. That the plaintiff himself has contravened the agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to
terms of the contract; be paid, or damages for its violation; and where the
2. That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of any
a result of the contract; kind will be given to one against the other."
3. In cases where exemplary damages are to be
awarded, that the defendant acted upon the This rule, however, is subject to exceptions that permit
advice of counsel; the return of that which may have been given under a
4. That the loss would have resulted in any void contract to:
event; 1. the innocent party (Arts. 1411-1412, CC);
5. That since the filing of the action, the 2. the debtor who pays usurious interest (Art. 1413,
defendant has done his best to lessen the CC);
plaintiff's loss or injury. 3. the party repudiating the void contract before the
illegal purpose is accomplished or before damage
GROUNDS FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES is caused to a third person and if public interest is
subserved by allowing recovery (Art. 1414, CC);
For contracts: 4. the incapacitated party if the interest of justice so
1. Violation of terms of the contract by the plaintiff demands (Art. 1415, CC);
himself; 5. the party for whose protection the prohibition by
2. Obtention or enjoyment of benefit under the law is intended if the agreement is not illegal per
contract by the plaintiff himself; se but merely prohibited and if public policy would
3. Defendant acted upon advice of counsel in cases be enhanced by permitting recovery (Art. 1416,
where exemplary damages are to be awarded CC); and
such as under Articles 2230, 2231, and 2232; 6. the party for whose benefit the law has been
4. Defendant has done his best to lessen the intended such as in price ceiling laws (Art. 1417,
plaintiff’s injury or loss. CC) and labor laws (Arts. 1418-1419, CC).
For quasi-contracts: Liquidated damages

1. In cases where exemplary damages are to be Art. 2227, CC. Liquidated damages, whether
awarded such as in Art. 2232; intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be
2. Defendant has done his best to lessen the equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or
plaintiff’s injury or loss. unconscionable.
For quasi-delicts: Compromise

1. That the loss would have resulted in any event Art. 2031, CC. The courts may mitigate the
because of the negligence or omission of another, damages to be paid by the losing party who has
and where such negligence or omission is the shown a sincere desire for a compromise.
immediate and proximate cause of the damage or
injury;
2. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s injury or loss.
The SC deemed CC 2215(2) inapplicable where the

harm done to private respondents outweighs any
benefits the plaintiffs may have derived from being
transported to Tacloban instead of being taken to
Catbalogan, their destination and the vessel's first
port of call, pursuant to its normal schedule [Sweet
Lines v. CA, G.R. No. L-46340(1983)].
Rule when contracting parties are in pari delicto

Generally, parties to a void agreement cannot expect
the aid of the law; the courts leave them as they are,
because they are deemed in pari delicto or "in equal
fault." In pari delicto is "a universal doctrine which
holds that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an
Page 496 of 497

Miscellaneous Rules DAMAGES THAT MUST STAND ALONE: Nominal

damages
Art. 2223, CC. The adjudication of nominal
DAMAGES THAT CANNOT CO-EXIST damages shall preclude further contest upon the
1. Nominal with other damages right involved and all accessory questions, as
Art. 2223, CC. The adjudication of nominal between the parties to the suit, or their respective
damages shall preclude further contest upon the heirs and assigns.
right involved and all accessory questions, as
between the parties to the suit, or their respective
heirs and assigns.
The propriety of the damages awarded has not been

questioned, Nevertheless, it is patent upon the record
that the award of P10,000 by way of nominal damages
is untenable as a matter of law, since nominal
damages cannot co-exist with compensatory
damages [Vda. De Medina v. Cresencia, G.R. No. L-
8194 (1956)].
The purpose of nominal damages is to vindicate or

recognize a right that has been violated, in order to
preclude further contest thereon; “and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the Plaintiff for any loss
suffered by him” (Arts 2221 and 2223, CC)
Since the court below has already awarded

compensatory and exemplary damages that are in
themselves a judicial recognition that Plaintiff’s right
was violated, the award of nominal damages is
unnecessary and improper. Anyway, ten thousand
pesos cannot, in common sense, be deemed
“nominal”.
2. Actual and liquidated

Art. 2226, CC. Liquidated damages are those
agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid
in case of breach thereof.
DAMAGES THAT MUST CO-EXIST: Exemplary with

moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
There is no basis for awarding exemplary damages
either, because this species of damages is only
allowed in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or
compensatory damages, none of which have been
allowed in this case, for reasons herein before
discussed [Francisco v. GSIS, G.R. Nos. L-18287 and
18155 (1963)].
There was, therefore, no legal basis for the award of

exemplary damages since the private respondent was
not entitled to moral, temperate, or compensatory
damages and there was no agreement on stipulated
damages [Scott Consultants & Resource Development
Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 112916 (1995)].
Page 497 of 497

Torts and Damages PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts and Damages PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts and Damages PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.P.

LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

TORTS AND DAMAGES

Page 444 of 497

Elements DELICT QUASI-DELICT

Art. 2176, CC. Whoever by act or omission causes

Art. 2177, CC. Responsibility for fault or negligence

Page 445 of 497

c. As to the Defense of an connected by a

As it is not necessary for the plaintiff in an action for Existence of

Page 446 of 497

Negligence situation? If not, then he is negligent. Negligence in a

Page 447 of 497

Page 448 of 497

As held in Vargas v. Langcay [G.R. No. 17459 (1962)],

Page 449 of 497

RES IPSA LOQUITUR d. Persons Liable

Page 450 of 497

Page 451 of 497

1. Those suffering the penalty of civil interdiction, Teacher in

Page 452 of 497

“Within the scope of their assigned task” in Art. 2180

Page 453 of 497

Basis of liability of and beneficial to their employee [Metro Manila

Defense of diligence in selection and supervision d. The State

Page 454 of 497

Who may be sued under the State Definition of “Joint Tortfeasors”

Page 455 of 497

A prior and remote cause cannot be made the

Page 456 of 497

Page 457 of 497

Page 458 of 497

Page 459 of 497

It is clear that the prescriptive period must be counted

Generally, the exercise of any right must be in

There is abuse of right when:

Elements [Albenson v. CA, G.R. No. 88694 (1993)]:

Page 460 of 497

the principle of when it is abused,

Page 461 of 497

under Article 21 is made [Tanjanco v. CA, G.R. No.

Page 462 of 497

Page 463 of 497

Note: Coverage of Art. 26 is not limited to those 3. Family Relations

Page 464 of 497

Page 465 of 497

Page 466 of 497

Page 467 of 497

The defense of having observed the diligence of a good

Possible defenses against this liability

b. Provinces, Cities, and

Page 468 of 497

Page 469 of 497

Contractor is liable if the edifice falls within 15 years Situations covered:

Page 470 of 497

Burden of proof A product is defective when it does not offer the

Page 471 of 497

Page 472 of 497