TORTS AND DAMAGES  Fault consists in the execution of a positive

act but the act was done contrary to the

1. WHAT IS TORT? normal way of doing it and ultimately
causing damage or injury to another
In common law, tort is an unlawful violation of
private right, not created by contract, and which gives  Negligence consists in the omission to do acts
rise to an action for damages. It is an act or omission required under the attendant circumstances
producing an injury to another, without any previous resulting to damage or injury to another
existing lawful relation of which the said act or omission
may be said to be a natural outgrowth or incident. Article 1173. The fault or negligence of
(Robles vs. Castillo, 61 O.G. 1220, 5 C.A.R.213). the obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes obligation and corresponds with the
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is circumstances of the persons, of the time and
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or of the place. When negligence shows bad faith,
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201,
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and paragraph 2, shall apply.
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.   
If the law or contract does not state the
2. KINDS OF TORT diligence which is to be observed in the
 A direct invasion of some legal right of the performance, that which is expected of a good
individual father of a family shall be required.

 Infraction of some public duty by which 7. CAN THE HOSPITAL BE HELD LIABLE FOR
special damage accrues to the individual THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF THE
PHYSICIAN IN THE TREATMENT OR
 The violation of some private obligation OPERATION OF PATIENTS?
which like damage accrues to the individual
For purposes of apportioning responsibility in
3. SOURCES OF OBLIGATION medical negligence cases, an employer-employee
 Law relationship in effect exists between hospitals and
 Contract their attending and visiting physicians.
 Quasi contract
 Delict Moreover, the hospital’s liability is also
 Quasi-delict anchored upon the agency principle of apparent
authority or agency by estoppels and the doctrine of
4. REQUISITES OF QUASI-DELICT (DNC) corporate negligence which have gained acceptance
a. Damage to plaintiff in the determination of a hospital’s liability for
negligent acts of health professionals.
b. Negligence, by act or omission, of which
defendant, or some person for whose act he
must respond, was guilty 8. LIABILITY OF EXPERTS AND
PROFESSIONALS
c. Connection of cause and effect between such
negligence and damage; fault
9. CAN THERE BE MALPRACTICE IN LAW?
COVERAGE OF NEGLIGENCE
 Yes. While lawyers are not required to exercise
covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but the extra-ordinarily diligence of a common
also acts criminal in character, whether intentional carrier, they must exercise diligence not lesser
and voluntary or negligent. than the diligence of a good father of a family in
the handling of cases which they accepted from
5. DAMAGE vs. DAMAGES clients.

 Damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results  Adrimisim v. Javier- Respondent lawyer, in
from injury failing to immediately secure a bail bond, clearly
neglected to exercise ordinary diligence or that
 Damages refers to the recompense or reasonable degree of care and skill required by
compensation awarded for the damage suffered the circumstances

6. FAULT vs. NEGLIGENCE  Negligence, to be “excusable,” must be one

which ordinary diligence and prudence could not
 Fault is that condition where a person acts in have guarded against
a way or manner contrary to what normally
should have been done  RPC, Art. 209: A lawyer commits the crime
called “betrayal of trust” if he would maliciously
breach
 may be instituted against the employer for an
10. ARTICLE 2177 employee’s act or omission—the liability for the
11. ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO VICTIMS OF negligent conduct of the subordinate is direct and
NEGLIGENCE primary, but is subject to the defense of due diligence in
the selection and supervision of the employee.—The case
12. DEFENSE OF EMPLOYER UNDER ART. 2180 filed by respondents against petitioner is an action
for culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict under Article 2176 of
“EMPLOYERS SHALL BE LIABLE FOR THE the Civil Code. In this regard, Article 2180 provides that
DAMAGES CAUSED BY THEIR EMPLOYEES AND the obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable
HOUSEHOLD HELPERS ACTING WITHIN THE for the acts or omissions of those persons for whom one
SCOPE OF THEIR ASSIGNED TASKS, EVEN is responsible. Consequently, an action based on quasi-
THOUGH THE FORMER ARE NOT ENGAGED IN delict may be instituted against the employer for an
ANY BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY.” employee’s act or omission. The liability for the
negligent conduct of the subordinate
CASE: Construction Development Corp. of the PH vs. is direct and primary, but is subject to the defense of due
Estrella, GR 147791 diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee. In the instant case, the trial court found that
Facts: petitioner failed to prove that it exercised the diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection and
Respondents Rebecca G. Estrella and her granddaughter, supervision of Payunan, Jr.
Rachel E. Fletcher, boarded in San Pablo City, a BLTB
bus bound for Pasay City. However, they never reached 13. CAN THE COURT ORDER THE PAYMENT OF
their destination because their bus was rammed from CIVIL DAMAGES IN THE SAME CASE EVEN
behind by a tractor-truck of CDCP in the South IF THE ACCUSED WAS ACQUITTED DUE TO
Expressway. The strong impact pushed forward their LACK OR ABSENCE OF REASONABLE
seats and pinned their knees to the seats in front of them. DOUBT?
They regained consciousness only when rescuers created
a hole in the bus and extricated their legs from under the CASE: Yadao vs. People, GR No. 150917
seats. They were brought to the Makati Medical Center
where the doctors diagnosed their injuries. Facts:

Thereafter, respondents filed a Complaint for damages Petitioner Yadao was charged with the crime
against CDCP, BLTB, Espiridion Payunan, Jr. and of homicide before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Wilfredo Datinguinoo before the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union, Branch 33, for allegedly mauling one
Manila, Branch 13. They alleged that Payunan, Jr. and Deogracias Gundran, in an Information. He was found
Datinguinoo, who were the drivers of CDCP and BLTB guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the RTC. CA
buses, respectively, were negligent and did not obey affirmed. In the case at bar, was the prosecution able to
traffic laws and that BLTB and CDCP did not exercise prove the two components of the corpus delicti?
the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection
and supervision of their employees. RTC ruled in favor The SC thinks not.
of the complainants. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
Though it was established that petitioner Yadao slapped
Issue: the victim, and as a result of which the latter fell down
and struck his head on the edge of a table, the
(1) Whether or not BLTB and its driver Wilfredo prosecution nonetheless failed to show the nexus
Datinguinoo are solely liable for the damges between the injury sustained by the victim and his death.
sustained by the respondents? NO. It failed to discharge the burden to show beyond a
(2) Whether or not Employers are liable for the reasonable doubt that the death of the victim resulted
action for the actions of their employees? YES. from the use of violent and criminal means by petitioner
Yadao. The fact that the victim herein was wounded is
(1) In a "joint" obligation, each obligor answers only for not conclusive that death resulted therefrom. To make an
a part of the whole liability; in a "solidary" or "joint and offender liable for the death of the victim, it must be
several" obligation, the relationship between the active proven that the death is the natural consequence of the
and the passive subjects is so close that each of them physical injuries inflicted. If the physical injury is not
must comply with or demand the fulfillment of the the proximate cause of death of the victim, then the
whole obligation. offender cannot be held liable for such death. Thus, SC
did not find Yadao guilty of the crime Homicide.
It was clearly stated in the lower court’s decision that
petitioner and its driver Payunan, Jr., are jointly and Issue: Whether or not the Court may order Yadao to pay
solidarily liable for moral damages in the amount of Civil damages despite him being acquitted of the
P50,000.00 to respondent Fletcher and P25,000.00 to Criminal Action? YES.
respondent Estrella.20 Moreover, there could be no
double recovery because the award in paragraph 2 is for
Same; Same; Damages; Settled in jurisprudence is the
moral damages while the award in paragraph 1 is for
principle that a court may acquit an accused on
actual damages and attorney's fees.
reasonable doubt and still order payment of civil
damages in the same case.—The heirs of the victim,
(2) Damages; Quasi-Delicts; Employer is liable for the
however, have not completely lost their case. Settled in
acts of its employees; An action based on quasi-delict
jurisprudence is the principle that a court may acquit an Under the law, "Whoever by act or omission causes
accused on reasonable doubt and still order payment of damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
civil damages in the same case. In this case, though obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
petitioner Yadao is acquitted, nonetheless, his liability negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
for damages is not considered extinguished since the relations between the parties, is called a quasi-delict.
judgment of acquittal is not based on a pronouncement Further, the "Employers shall be liable for the damages
that the facts from which civil claims might arise did not caused by their employees xxx acting within the scope of
exist. Accordingly, this Court awards P50,000.00 as their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
civil damages to the heirs of the victim. engaged in any business or industry."

14. EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED ON In this case, undisputable facts were established by both
HIS CIVIL LIABILITY the trial and appellate courts on the reckless and
imprudent acts by the driver of the bus.
CASE: Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company
(BLTN) vs. CA and Gregorio Hinagpis GR No. L- Though BLTB Co and his driver-co-appellants, Ilagan
33138-39 asserted that they had exercise extraordinary diligence of
a good father and the accident was fortuitous in
Facts: character, and that the accident was due to the
negligence of Ricardo de los Reyes were presumptive
This is a case based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana and unproven by the appellants.
filed against BLTB Co. and his driver for the vehicular
accident which resulted to death and damage to Further, appellants reliance on the case of Corpus vs
properties. Paje that "the criminal action against petitioner Ilagan
must first be resolved by respondent Court of Appeals
On the morning of February 18, 1963, Andres I. Ilagan and, until final resolution thereon, it is premature to
drove the passenger bus owned by BLTB Co. along proceed in the two civil cases” was came too late
Manila South Super Highway on its way to Lemery, because it was never raised in the lower and appellate
Batangas while Ricardo de los Reyes with his Chevrolet courts and the facts were dissimilar to the case, thus, not
car left Calamba, Laguna with Eduardo de los Reyes, controlling said the Supreme Court.
Jean Elizondo, Eufrocina Alcalde Cardema, and Ursula
Bayan, and bound for Manila. In the ensuing event, both In fact, the liability of appellants was not predicated on
vehicles collided with each other. The tragic accident criminal negligence but rather on being a quasi-delict or
occurred when the bus driven by Ilagan overtook a big culpa aquiliana is an independent source of obligation
cargo truck. The bus took the left or the lane on which between two persons not so formerly bound by any
the car driven by de los Reyes was traveling. The latter juridical tie, thus the awards for damages against
being in the best position to see the fast approaching bus appellants were proper and just. Accordingly, the lower
tried to swerve to the right to avoid the bus but was too court and court of appeals decision is affirmed by the
late and hit in the left front side up to the driver's door. Supreme Court.
Both de los Reyes and Elizondo were rushed to the Phil.
General Hospital but were pronounced dead upon arrival Same; Same; A separate civil action based on quasi
at the hospital while the rest of the fatalities were delict may be filed independently of and notwithstanding
brought to Manila Rail Road Hospital for treatment. the pendency of, the criminal action against the offender
Subsequently, a criminal case was filed against Ilagan because responsibility for fault or negligence based
for reckless imprudence and the injured parties sought on quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from
for payment of their hospital bills and other expenses civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal
from the petitioners but the latter refuse, thus, two civil Code.—Nor is this all. It is to misread the opinion of
cases were filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna Justice Capistrano in Paje if it is made to yield a
for recovery of damages. The lower court decided in significance that would under the circumstance of this
favor of the plaintiffs and award damages. The case reduce to a barren form of words the jural concept
respondents not contented, appeal the decision to the of a quasidelict as an independent source of obligation.
Court of Appeals but was denied, thus this appeal by The law is anything but that. The Civil Code speaks
certiorari in the Supreme Court. unequivocally to the contrary. Article 2176 provides:
“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
Issue: there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
(1) Whether or not BLTB Co. and Andres I. Ilagan pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
are liable for damages for the injury inflicted to called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
the plaintiffs. YES. this Chapter.” x x x What is more, there is this new
provision in Article 2177: “Responsibility for fault or
(2) Whether or not the doctrinal rule on Corpus vs negligence under the preceding article is entirely
Paje is applicable to the case. NO. separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff
Ruling: cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.” This Court in appropriate
Yes, BLTB Co. and Andres I. Ilagan are liable for cases has given force and effectivity to the mandates
damages and the case of Corpus vs Paje is not applicable thus so clearly expressed.
to the case.
CASE: Azucena vs. Potenciano, GR No. L-14028
 could arise. Article 33 contemplates a civil action for the
Facts: recovery of damages that is entirely unrelated to the
purely criminal aspect of the case. This is the reason why
An action for damages which was allegedly sustained, as only a preponderance of evidence and not proof beyond
a result of a collision between Azucena's scooter and a reasonable doubt is deemed sufficient.
bus of appellee Laguna Trans. Co, then driven by its co-
appellee Severino Potenciano. Negligence is imputed to Actions; Civil action for recovery of damages based on
the driver, and to the company itself with respect to the quasidelict; Acquittal in criminal action not a bar to
choice and supervision of its employees. The allegations civil action.—A civil action to recover damages on the
send to make out a case of quasi-delict, or culpa theory of quasi-delict may proceed although the
aquiliana, under Arts 2176 & 2180, CC. defendant therein was acquitted in the criminal case,
because, according to Articles 33 and 2177 of the Civil
Complaint was filed. Defendants answered, with a Code, the civil action is entirely independent of the
counterclaim also for damages. They filed a criminal case. To subordinate the civil action
supplemental pleading with a prayer for dismissal of the contemplated in said articles to the result of the criminal
complaint on the ground that in the criminal action prosecution would render meaningless the independent
against Severino Potenciano for serious physical injuries character of the civil action and the clear injunction in
with damage to property through reckless imprudence, Article 31 that such action "may proceed independently
involving the same accident which gave rise to the civil of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result
action, the accused was acquitted in CFI Laguna. Since of the latter."
the acquittal of the accused was based on a finding that
he did not act recklessly or negligently the judgment in Same; Same; Same; Civil action under Article 88, new
the criminal case is a bar to the civil action. Reliance is Civil Code, unrelated to criminal aspect of the case.—
placed squarely on Rule 107, which provides, inter alia, Article 33 of the Civil Code contemplates a civil action
that when a criminal action is instituted the civil action for the recovery of damages that is entirely unrelated to
for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense the purely criminal aspect of the case. This is the reason
charged is impliedly instituted with it, and that the why only a preponderance of evidence and not proof
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it beyond reasonable doubt is deemed sufficient.
extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds
from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact front 15. As a geneal rule, THE JUDGMENT OF
which the civil might arise did not exist. ACQUITTAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY
EXTINGUISH THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE
ACCUSED, EXCEPT:

Issue: Which law should govern: Rule 107, a general a) In the case of BERMUDEZ VS. JUDGE
rule, or specific provisions of Articles 31, 33 and 2177, MELENCIO-HERRERA;
of the New Civil Code? Art. 33, NCC. b) In the case of ALBORNOZ VS. ALBORNOZ;
c) SAPIERA VS. CA;
ART. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising d) When the judgment expressly declares that the
from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action liability is only civil in nature;
may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and e) Where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt;
regardless of the result of the latter. and
f) Where the civil action has prescribed.
ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil
action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall CASE: Bermudez, Sr. vs. Judge Melencio-Herrera, GR
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require No. L-32055
only a preponderance of evidence.
Facts:
ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the A cargo truck, driven by Domingo Pontino and
plaintiff can not recover damages twice for the same act or omission owned by Cordova Ng Sun Kwan, bumped a
of the defendant.
jeep on which Rogelio, a six-year old son of
Order appealed from set aside and the case is remanded to the Court
plaintiffs-appellants, was riding. The boy
of origin. Costs against defendants sustained injuries which caused his death. As a
result, Criminal Case No. 92944 for Homicide
Appellees contend that the civil action referred to in through Reckless Imprudence was filed against
Article 33 of the Civil Code is that which arises ex Domingo Pontino. Plaintiffs-appellants filed on
delicto, or from the commission of the offense involving July 27, 1969 in the said criminal case “A
defamation, fraud or physical injuries, and consequently, Reservation to File Separate Civil Action.”
pursuant to Rule 107, section 1 (a), the right to file it On July 28, 1969, the plaintiffs-appellants filed
must be expressly reserved in the criminal action if it is a civil case for damages against Domingo
to prosper at all.
Pontino y Tacorda and Cordova Ng Sun Kwan.
Finding that the plaintiffs instituted the action
The contention is erroneous. Bachrach Motor Co., Inc.
vs. Gamboa. It presupposes that there must first be a “on the assumption that defendant Pontino’s
conviction for the crime, for without conviction there negligence in the accident of May 10, 1969
can be no offense to speak of from which civil liability constituted aquasi-delict,” the trial court stated
that plaintiffs had already elected to treat the of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte). The court
accident as a “crime” by reserving in the acquitted the decedent of the charge.
criminal case their right to file a separate civil
action. That being so, the trial court decided to After the presentation of the plaintiff in the court below,
the Judge, upon motion of counsel for the defendant,
order the dismissal of the complaint against
dismissed the action.
defendant Cordova Ng Sun Kwan and to
suspend the hearing of the case against Claimant-appellant argues that the judgment of acquittal
Domingo Pontino until after the criminal case in the criminal action was based on reasonable doubt and
for Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence is therefore it cannot amount to a judicial declaration "that
finally terminated. the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist."

Issue: Whether or not the present action is Issue: Whether or not when a criminal action decides
based on quasi-delict under the Civil Code and that the claimant’s claim did not exist also bars civil
therefore could proceed independently of the action? YES.
criminal case for homicide thru reckless
ACTION; ClVIL LlABILITY WHEN BARRED BY
imprudence?
JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL ACTION.—Where the
judgment in a criminal action contains an express
Ruling: declaration that the basis of claimant’s action did not
exist, the latter’s action for civil liability is barred under
Quasi-Delict; Actions; Damages; Injured party or his section 1(d) Rule 107 of the Rules of Court.
heirs has the choice between an action to enforce civil
liability arising from crime under article 100 of the
The theory upon which the present claim of Elias Racela
Revised Penal Code and an action for quasidelict under
is based that the deceased sold the parcels of land to
Articles 2176-2194 of the Civil Code.—ln cases of
Elias Racela and the latter paid the deceased the price
negligence, the injured party or his heirs has the choice
therefor or P2,000. The above-quoted portions of the
between an action to enforce the civil liability arising
decision clearly indicate that no actual sale was made
from crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code
and that the deeds Exhibits "A" and "B" were executed
and an action for quasi-delict under Article 2176-2194 of
for another purpose and were, therefore, simulated sales.
the Civil Code. If a party chooses the latter, he may hold
The judgment in the criminal action, therefore, contains
the employer solidarily liable for the negligence act of
an express declaration that the basis of claimant's action
his employee, subject to the employer's defense of
for P2,000, or the sales of said parcels of land to the
exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family.
claimant and the receipt by the decedent therefor for
P2,000, did not exist. Claimant's action is barred under
Same; Same; Same; Same; Fact that appellants
section 1 (d), Rule 107, which provide:
reserved their right in the criminal case to file an
independent civil action did not preclude them from
choosing to file a civil action for quasi-delict.—In the (d) Extinction of the penal action does not carry
case at bar, the action filed by appellant was an action with it extinction of the civil, unless the
for damages based on quasi-delict. The fact that extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
appellants reserved their right in the criminal cases to judgment that the fact from which the civil
file an independent civil action did not preclude them might arise did not exist. . .
from choosing to file a civil action for quasi-delict.
In view of the above conclusion, it is unnecessary to
consider the claim of the claimant-appellant that he had
CASE: Albornoz vs. Albornoz, GR No. L-7081 submitted sufficient evidence to sustain defendant's
liability. The judgment appealed from is hereby
Facts: affirmed, with costs against the claimant.

The present appeal refers to two claims presented by

Elias Racela against the estate of the deceased Perpetua CASE: Sapiera vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 128927
Vda. de Soriano and which were dismissed by the trial
court. The first claim is based on a supposed sale of one Facts:
hectare of land for P1,000 executed by the decedent on
July 18, 1933 in favor of the claimant. The second is On several occasions, petitioner Sapiera, a sari-sari store
based on another supposed sale of another part of the owner, purchased from Monrico Mart certain grocery
defendant's land for P1,000 also, in favor of the items and paid for them with checks issued by one
claimant, made on September 23, 1933. The supposed Arturo de Guzman. These checks were signed at the
sales appear in two deeds marked Exhibits "A" and "B". back by Sapiera. When presented for payment the checks
After the supposed sales were made, the decedent sold were dishonored because the drawers account was
the same parcels of land in 1934 to one Soriano already closed. Private respondent Ramon Sua informed
Ballesteros, who succeeded in registering the deed of de Guzman and petitioner about the dishonor but both
sale in his favor. Claimant attempted to register the failed to pay the value of the checks. Consequently, four
deeds executed in his favor but the decedent opposed charges of estafa were filed against petitioner with the
registration. So claimant brought a criminal action RTC of Dagupan City. After trial, the court a quo
against the decedent for estafa (Criminal Case No. 6406 acquitted petitioner of all the charges of estafa but did
not rule on whether she could be held civilly liable for
the checks she indorsed to private respondent. In a 22. CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER IN
petition for mandamus filed by private respondent, the DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE
Court of Appeals rendered a decision holding petitioner  TIME
liable for the value of the checks.  PLACE
 GRAVITY OF HARM TO BE AVOIDED
Issue: Whether or not Sapiera could be held civilly liable  SOCIAL VALUE OF UTILITY OF ACTIVITY
when she was acquitted in the criminal charges against
her? YES.

Section 2, par. (b), of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, as

amended, specifically provides: Extinction of the penal
action does not carry with it extinction of the civil,
unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a
final judgment that the fact from which the civil might
arise did not exist. The judgment of acquittal
extinguishes the liability of the accused for damages
only when it includes a declaration that the fact from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Thus,
the civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where:
(a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt; (b) where
the court expressly declares that the liability of the
accused is not criminal but only civil in nature; and, (c)
where the civil liability is not derived from or based on
the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted.

The dismissal of the criminal cases against petitioner did

not erase her civil liability since the dismissal was due to
insufficiency of evidence and not from a declaration
from the court that the fact from which the civil action
might arise did not exist. An accused acquitted of estafa
may nevertheless be held civilly liable where the facts
established by the evidence so warrant. The accused
should be adjudged liable for the unpaid value of the
checks signed by her in favor of the complainant.

The rationale behind the award of civil indemnity

despite a judgment of acquittal when evidence is
sufficient to sustain the award was explained by the
Code Commission in connection with Art. 29 of the
Civil Code

Actions; Damages; Criminal Procedure; The civil

liability is not extinguished by acquittal where: (a) the
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt; (b) where the
court expressly declares that the liability of the accused
is not criminal but only civil in nature; and, (c) where
the civil liability is not derived from or based on the
criminal act of which the accused is acquitted.—The
judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the
accused for damages only when it includes a declaration
that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did
not exist. Thus, the civil liability is not extinguished by
acquittal where: (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt; (b) where the court expressly declares that the
liability of the accused is not criminal but only civil in
nature; and, (c) where the civil liability is not derived
from or based on the criminal act of which the accused is
acquitted.

16. ARTICLE 2177

17. CIVIL LIABILITY WHEN EXTINGUISHED BU
DEATH OF ACCUSED
18. ARTICLE 2178
19. STANDARD CONDUCT/REQUIRED DEGREE
OF DILIGENCE
20. ARTICLE 2179
21. WHAT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE