LECTURE NOTES ON TORTS AND DAMAGES

ATTY. M. P. TURINGAN

A. TORTS

I. DEFINITION:

It is an act or omission producing an injury to another, there

being fault or negligence, without a pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties. (Art. 2176)

Tort is a civil wrong for which a remedy may be obtained, usually

in the form of damages. (Black’s Law Dictionary)

II. PRINCIPLES:
1. Abuse of rights – Art. 19

a. Principle of Abuse of Rights: Every person must, in the

exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith. (Art. 19)

b. Article 19 sets certain standards that must be observed not

only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the
performance of one’s duties. These standards are the
following:
(1) to act with justice;
(2) to give everyone his due; and
(3) to observe honesty and good faith.

c. When a right is exercised in a manner that does not

conform to the norms of human conduct set forth in Article
19, and results to damage to another, a legal wrong is
thereby committed. (Globe McKay v. CA)
 -2 –

d. Art. 19 does not provide sanctions for its violation. When

Art. 19 is violated, an action for damages under Art. 20 or
21 of the Civil Code is proper (Nikko Manila Garden v.
Reyes). Articles 19, 20 and 21 are related to one another
and under these Articles, an act which causes injury to
another may be made the basis for an award of damages.
(Albertson Enterprises Corp. v. CA, Jan. 11, 1993)

e. There is no hard and fast rule that can be applied to

determine whether or not the principle of abuse of rights
may be invoked. The question of whether or not the
principle of abuse of rights under Art. 19 has been violated,
resulting in damages under Articles 20 and 21
or other applicable provision of law, depends on the
circumstances of each case.

(Compare Nikko v. Reyes and Globe Mackay Cable and Radio

Corp. v. CA, 176 SCRA 778, 1989)

f. Elements of Abuse of Rights in order to claim damages:

(1) There is a legal right or duty;
(2) Which is exercised in bad faith; and
(3) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
(Albertson Enterprises Corp. v. CA)

2. Acts contrary to law – Art. 20

a. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently

causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the
same. (Art. 20)

b. Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other

provisions of law that do not provide for their own sanctions
such as Art. 19. Thus, any one who, in the exercise of their
legal right or duty, causes injury to another, whether willfully
or negligently, shall indemnify the latter for injuries suffered
thereby.
 - 3-

2. Acts contrary to morals – Art. 21

a. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a

manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. (Art. 21)
(acts contra bonus mores)

b. Elements:
(1) There is an act that is legal;
(2) But which is contrary to morals, good customs, public
order, or public policy; and
(3) It is done with intent to injure. (Nikko Hotel Manila
Garden v. Reyes, G.R. No. 154258, Feb. 28, 2005)

c. It presupposes loss or injury, material or otherwise, which

one may suffer as a result of the violation (Cogeo-Cubao
Operators and Drivers, Inc. v. CA, 207 SCRA 343)

NOTE: Articles 19, 20, and 21 refer to INTENTIONAL acts

while Article 20 pertains not only to WILLFUL but also
NEGLIGENT acts. In all three cases, the act must be contrary
to law.

3. Unjust enrichment – Art. 22

a. Every person who through an act or performance by another,

or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter without just or legal
ground, shall return the same to him. (Art. 22)

b. Elements:
(1) The defendant has been enriched;
(2) The plaintiff has suffered a loss;
(3) The enrichment of defendant is without just or legal
ground; and
 - 4–

(4) The plaintiff has no other action based on contract,

quasi-contract, crime or quasi-delict. (University of the
Philippines v. Philab Industries, Inc., 482 Phil. 693 [2004])

c. The action under Art. 22 is called accion in rem verso. It is

considered merely an auxiliary action, available only when
there is no other remedy on contract, quasi-delict. delict,
quasi-contract

If there is an obtainable action under any other institution of

positive law, that action must be resorted to, and the
principle of accion in rem verso will not lie.

Accion in rem verso is often compared with solutio indebiti

because in both cases, there is a duty to return what was
received, paid, or delivered, based on the principle that to
retain the same would amount to unjust enrichment of the
party unjustly benefited.

Accion in Rem Verso Solutio Indebiti

Requisites 1. Defendant has been There is solutio
enriched. indebiti where:
2. Plaintiff has suffered a loss.1. Something was
3. Enrichment of defendant is received when
without just or legal there was no
ground. right to demand
4. Plaintiff has no other legal it, and
remedy based on contract,, 2. The same was
quasi-contract, delict or unduly
quasi-delict. delivered by
mistake.
Reason for Defendant acquires or comes into The delivery or
delivery possession of something at the payment was by
expense of another without just mistake.
or legal ground.
Delivery was not by mistake.
 Duty to return what was received Duty to return what
without just or legal ground. was delivered by
mistake.
Source of Law (Art. 22) A form of quasi-
obligation contract (Art. 2154)

4. Liability without fault – Art. 23

a. Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s

property was not due to the fault or negligence of the
defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through
the act or event he was benefited. (Art. 23)

b. Such a civil action is based on the equitable principle that he

who benefits from an act or event at the expense of another
must indemnify the latter to the extent of the benefits
received. The resulting civil liability shall be borne by the
persons for whose benefit the harm was prevented in
proportion to the benefit received by them.

c. Compare with Art. 432 – doctrine of state necessity -

interference by another with owner’s property to avert an
imminent damage greater than damage to owner’s property
and owner is compensated by those benefited by the
interference.

NOTE: Articles 22 (accion in rem verso), Article 23, and Article

2154 (solutio indebiti) are all based on the equitable
consideration that no one shall be unjustly enriched. So, as
stated above, the recipient of something that was delivered
without just or legal ground has a duty under Art. 22 to return it;
the one who got paid by mistake has a duty to return the
payment (Art. 2154) and the one who benefited from the
destruction of another’s’ property to save his, must pay
proportionate compensation to the owner of the property that
was destroyed (Art. 23).
 -6-

III. CLASSIFICATION OF TORTS

1. According to manner of commission

a. Negligent –consists in the failure to act according to the

standard of diligence required under the attendant
circumstances, thus causing injury.

b. Intentional – perpetrated by one who acted intentionally in a

manner which predictably caused harm to another, or who
understands that his/its actions could result in damages.

c. Strict liability – based on the breach of an absolute duty to

make something safe. Acts that cause damage, regardless of
fault, intent, or the amount of care taken by the tortfeasor.

Strict liability is imposed under the following Articles of the

Civil Code: Art. 1314. 1711, 1712, 1723, 2183, 2187, 2189,
2190, 2191, 2192, 2193

1. Art. 1314 –Any third person who induces another to

violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other
contracting party.

2. Article 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers

are obliged to pay compensation for the death of or
injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other
employees, even though the event may have been purely
accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the death
or personal injury arose out of and in the course of the
employment. The employer is also liable for compensation
if the employee contracts any illness or disease caused by
such employment or as the result of the nature of the
employment. If the mishap was due to the employee's own
notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness,
the employer shall not be liable for compensation. When
 the employee's lack of care contributed to his death or
injury, the compensation shall be equitably reduced.

3. Article 1712. If the death or injury is due to the

negligence of a fellow worker, the latter and the employer
shall be solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow
worker's intentional or malicious act is the only cause of
the death or injury, the employer shall not be answerable,
unless it should be shown that the latter did not exercise
due diligence in the selection or supervision of the
plaintiff's fellow worker.

4. Article 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the

plans and specifications for a building is liable for damages
if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure,
the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those
plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the
ground. The contractor is likewise responsible for the
damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, on
account of defects in the construction or the use of
materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to
any violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer
or architect supervises the construction, he shall be
solidarily liable with the contractor.

Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not

imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of any
defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

The action must be brought within ten years following the

collapse of the building.

5. Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may

make use of the same is responsible for the damage that it
may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should
come from force majeure or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage.
 - 8-

6. Article 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,

drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for
death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used, although no contractual relation exists
between them and the consumers.

7. Article 2189. 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, public buildings, and other public works
under their control or supervision. (n)

8. Article 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is

responsible for the damages resulting from its total or
partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary
repairs. (1907)

9. Article 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for

damages caused:

(1) By the explosion of machinery that has not been taken

care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive
substances that have not been kept in a safe and adequate
place;

(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons

or property;

(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or

lanes, if not caused by force majeure;

(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits

of infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable
to the place. (1908)
 -9-

10.Article 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding

articles should be the result of any defect in the
construction mentioned in article 1723, the third person
suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer
or architect or contractor in accordance with said article,
within the period therein fixed. (1909)

11. Article 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building

or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by
things thrown or falling from the same. (1910)

2. According to scope

a. General – Art. 2176

b. Specific
(1) Constitutional tort – a violation of one’s
Constitutional right by a government officer, may be
redressed by a civil action against the officer, as
contemplated in Art. 32.
(2) Government tort – a tort committed by the
government through an agent, employee or
instrumentality under its control. It may not be
actionable because the State may not be sued
without its consent.
(3) Mass tort – a civil wrong that injures many people
like tort emissions from a factory.
(4) Intentional tort – a tort committed by someone
acting with general or specific intent
(5) Prenatal tort – a tort committed against a fetus, who
subsequently is born alive, and a suit can arise for
injuries resulting from tortuous conduct predating
the child’s birth. A prenatal tort can include a
personal injury action by a child born alive, wrongful
conception/pregnancy, wrongful life, and wrongful
birth.

- 10-
 Since the fetus in the womb is not a person
according to our Civil Code, there may be no such
thing in our jurisdiction.
(6) Product liability tort - tort in which manufacturers,
distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who
make products available to the public are held
responsible for the injuries those products cause. 
(7) Prima facie tort – an unjustified infliction of harm on
another person resulting in damages
(8) Personal tort – a tort involving injury to one’s person
or his reputation
(9) Property tort – a tort involving damage to property
(10) Quasi-tort – a tort for which a non-perpetrator is
held responsible

IV. THE TORTFEASOR

1. Direct tortfeasor

a. Definition: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to

another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done (Art. 2176)

b. Types:
(1). Natural persons – human beings
(2). Juridical persons – those created by law; a corporation
may e held civilly liable in the same manner as natural
persons (PNB v. CA, May 18, 1978)

2. Persons made responsible for others

Concept of vicarious liability: A person who has not

committed the act or omission, which caused damage or injury
to another, may nevertheless be held liable to the latter, either
directly or subsidiarily under certain circumstances. This is also
known as “doctrine of imputed negligence.” (Art. 2180, CC and
Art. 211, 221, 218, 219 of the Family Code)
- 11 -
a. Parents and other persons exercising parental
authority
 shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages
caused by the acts and omissions of their
unemancipated children living in their company
and under their parental authority subject to the
appropriate defenses provided by law. (Art. 221,
FC)
 Under Art. 2180, CC, fathers are principally liable
for damages caused by minor children living in
their company, and the mother’s liability is only
subsidiary. Under FC, the liability of the parents is
joint.

b. Guardians – liable for acts of the minors or incapacitated
under their authority and living in their company

c. Owners and managers of establishments and

enterprises –
 Article 1711. Owners of enterprises and other
employers are obliged to pay compensation for the
death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen,
mechanics or other employees, even though the
event may have been purely accidental or entirely
due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or personal
injury arose out of and in the course of the
employment. The employer is also liable for
compensation if the employee contracts any illness
or disease caused by such employment or as the
result of the nature of the employment. If the mishap
was due to the employee's own notorious
negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the
employer shall not be liable for compensation. When
the employee's lack of care contributed to his death
or injury, the compensation shall be equitably
reduced.

- 12 -
  Article 1712. If the death or injury is due to the
negligence of a fellow worker, the latter and the
employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation.
If a fellow worker's intentional or malicious act is the
only cause of the death or injury, the employer shall
not be answerable, unless it should be shown that the
latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection
or supervision of the plaintiff's fellow worker.

 Owners and managers are liable for the acts of their

employees in the service of branches in which they
are employed r on the occasion of their functions.

d. Employers- Art. 2180 (5)

 Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business
or industry.
 The defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of the employee is not available if the
employee is sued for a crime. The employer is
subsidiarily liable for the civil damages awarded
against the employee.
 One who hires an independent contractor but
controls the latter’s works is also responsible for
the latter’s negligence.

e. Teachers and heads of establishments of arts and

trades (Art. 2180, CC; Art. 218, 219, FC)

Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or

the individual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall
have special parental authority and responsibility over the
minor child while under their supervision, instruction or
custody.

- 13 -
 Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized
activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school,
entity or institution. (349a)

Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility

under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily
liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the
persons exercising substitute parental authority over said
minor shall be subsidiarily liable.

The respective liabilities of those referred to in the

preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they
exercised the proper diligence required under the particular
circumstances.

 Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades

are liable for acts of their pupils and students or apprentices
who remain in their custody (while on school property or in
school-approved activities outside the school.
 As a general rule, if the school is academic, tort
committed by student attaches to the teacher. In the
case of establishments of arts and trades, only the head
is liable. (Amadora v. CA, 180 SCRA 315)
 General rule: Schools are not liable as party defendants.
 Exceptions:
1. Schools are made expressly liable (Art. 218,
FC). If culprit is a student, apply Art. 2180, Art.
18 and 219, FC)
2. School’s liable as an employer. (St. Francis
case). If teacher is cuprit, sue the school as
employer.
3. School is liable under a contract (PSBA case). If
culprit is a stranger, sue school under the
contract.

- 14 –
 f. State
 Liable when acting through a special agent, and not
when the damage was caused by the official to
whom the task done properly pertains.
(Government v. Springer. April 1, 1927)
 Special agent is one who is commissioned to carry
out the acts complained of outside the agent’s
regular duties. (Meritt v. Insular Government, 34
SCRA 311)

3. Joint tortfeasors

a. All the persons who command, instigate, promote,

encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet
the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is
done, if done for their benefit. (Filipinas Broadcasting
Network v. AMEC-BCCM, January 17, 2005)

b. They are solidarily liable as principals. (Art. 2194)

V. PROXIMATE CAUSE

1. Concept:
It is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury
and without which the result would not have occurred. (Art.
2179, Urbano v. IAC, Jan. 7, 1988)

It is not enough that there be just some kind of connection

between the fault or negligence and the loss or injury, but that
the former must be proximate cause

2. Cause-in-fact – actual cause of the injury or damage

- 15 -
 3. Efficient intervening cause - An efficient intervening
cause is the new and independent act which itself is a
proximate cause of an injury and which breaks the causal
connection between the original wrong and the injury.

3. Cause as distinguished from condition

Cause is the active “cause” for the harm, while condition

refers to the passive static condition created by the defendant that
made the damage possible; thus in the latter case, the defendant is
not liable. In the case of Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. IAC, March
10, 1987, the Supreme Court stated that the distinction has been
discredited. It becomes relevant only if the forces set in operation
by the defendant have come to rest in a position of apparent safety
(condition), and some new force intervenes.

4. Last clear chance

The doctrine is to the effect that even if the injured party was
originally at fault, still if the person finally causing the accident had
a “last clear opportunity” to avoid the accident. He who could have
prevented the injury shall be liable if he did not take advantage of
such opportunity or chance.

Where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one
succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of time, the
one who has the reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending
harm and fails to do so, is chargeable with the consequences of the
accident, notwithstanding the prior negligence of the plaintiff.

In order that the doctrine may be applied, it must be shown

that the person who allegedly has the last opportunity to avert the
accident was aware of the existence of the peril or with exercise of
due care should have been aware of it. (Pantranco v. Baesa, Nov.
14, 1989)

- 16 –
It has no application where (1) a person is required to act
instantaneously, or (2) the negligence of the plaintiff is concurrent
 with the negligence of the defendant, or (3) the injury cannot be
avoided by using all means available after the peril is or should
have been discovered.
Does not arise in a case of collision between 2 vehicles where
a passenger of either vehicle demands responsibility from the
carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. It is inequitable to
exempt the negligent driver and its owner on the ground that the
other driver was likewise guilty of negligence.

VI. LEGAL INJURY

1. Concept

Injury - Illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss,

hurt, or harm; and damages are the recompense or compensation
awarded for the damage suffered. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd
Ed.)

There is a material distinction between damages and injury.

Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss,
hurt, or harm that results from the injury. Damages are the
recompense or compensation awarded for the injury suffered.

Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances

in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a
legal duty. (Spouses Custodio v. CA, February 9, 1996)

2. Principle of damnum absque injuria

A principle that involves damage but no liability therefor is

incurred because there is no legal injury.

If a person sustains actual damage without sustaining any

legal injury, the damage is regarded as damnum absque injuria.
(Spouses Custodio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116100, February 9,
1996)
- 17-
 Under this principle, the legitimate exercise of a person's
rights, even if it causes loss to another, does not automatically
result in an actionable injury. The law does not prescribe a
remedy for the loss. This principle does not, however, apply
when there is an abuse of a person's right, or when the exercise
of this right is suspended or extinguished pursuant to a court
order. Indeed, in the availment of one's rights, one must act with
justice, give their due, and observe honesty and good faith.
(Amonoy v. Gutierrez)

Example: loss due to fortuitous event before the debtor

incurs in delay

VII. INTENTIONAL TORTS

1. General

a. Concept: tort or wrong perpetrated by one who intends to

do that which the law has declared wrong as contrasted
with negligence in which the tortfeasor fails to exercise
that degree of care in doing what it otherwise permissible.

b. Elements:
(1) It is a state of mind
(2) About consequences of an act or omission and not
about the act itself.
(3) It extends not only to having in the mind the purpose
or desire to bring about given consequences but also
to having in mind a belief or knowledge that given
consequences are substantially certain to result from
the act.
(4) Includes a deliberate adoption of a course of action
or means, which is wrongful in relation to the
plaintiff, or adoption of a course action in order to
cause a harmful end

- 18 -
2. Classes:

a. Interference with persons and property

(1) Intentional physical harms
 Physical injury cases – battery, assault
 False imprisonment
 Trespass to/deprivation of real property - e.g.,
builder in bad faith
 Trespass/deprivation of personal property
(2) Intentional non-physical harms
 Infliction of emotional distress
 Violation of privacy
 Malicious prosecution – Art. 21, 2217, 2219 (8)
 Defamation, libel
 Fraud or misrepresentation
 Seduction
 Unjust or illegal dismissal – Art. 19, 21

b. Interference with relations

(1) Family relations – alienation of affection
(2) Spouse – interference with spouse’s mental attitude
toward the other resulting in conduct that materially
affects the relations of the spouses
(3) In-laws – malice must be established and it must
appear that the defendant’s acts were the controlling
cause of the loss of affection
(4) Non-relatives – malice is required and loss of
consortium results
(5) Social relations – meddling with or disturbing
relations or intriguing to cause another to be
alienated from his friends
(6) Economic relations – interference with contractual
relations; unfair competition
(7) Political relations – violation of right of suffrage (Art.
32); violation of other political rights (freedom of
assembly, speech, press)
- 19 -
 3. Defenses in intentional torts cases
(1) Absence of element
(2) Privilege
a. Self defense and defense of others – Revised Penal
Code
b. Defense of property - Art. 429
c. Consent – volenti non fit injuria
d. Necessity – Art. 23 and Art. 432
(3) Prescription
(4) Waiver
(5) Force majeure

VIII. NEGLIGENCE

1. Concept

The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission

of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the
persons, time and place. (Art. 1173, NCC)

2. Good father of the family or reasonably prudent person

A man of ordinary prudence or an ordinary reasonable
prudent man

3. Emergency rule or sudden peril doctrine

General rule: 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 adopted to avoid
the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if he fails to
undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear
to have been a better solution. (McKee v. IAC, July 16, 1992)

-20-
 Exception: When the emergency was brought by the
individual’s own negligence. (Valenzuela v. CA, Feb. 7, 1996)

4. Unreasonable risk of harm

Negligence involves an unreasonable risk of harm. To

determine whether a particular risk is unreasonable, the
following factors must be weighed:

a. The risk created by a particular conduct against the

social utility of such conduct - Negligence will be imposed
where the magnitude of the risk associated with defendant's
actions outweighs the social utility of this particular conduct
or activity.

b. Whether plaintiff has reasonable knowledge of the risk

of harm involved prior to the injury that equals or exceeds that
of the defendant. There is generally no negligence liability
where the plaintiff has relative risk knowledge that equals or
exceeds defendant's, or the hazardous condition was readily
observable by plaintiff through the reasonable use of his or her
senses. In light of known or readily perceivable danger, the
plaintiff has a legal duty to look out reasonably for his or her
own safety and avoid such hazards. Accordingly, known or
obvious dangers do not pose an unreasonable risk of harm
necessary to impose liability for negligence.

c. Whether the defendant had some degree of control over

the unreasonable risk of harm that caused plaintiff's injury. As
a result, there is generally no negligence liability for allegedly
dangerous conditions that the defendant does not own,
possess, or control. For example, there is no generally no
negligence liability for allegedly dangerous conditions on
adjacent property over which the landowner has exercised no
control.

- 21 -
5. Evidence
A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has
the burden of proving the existence of such fault or negligence
causative thereof. (PLST v. CA, 278 SCRA 94.

Quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence.

(Rules of Court)

6. Presumption of negligence
 Res ipsa loquitor
 Respondeat superior
 Violation of traffic rules
 Dangerous weapons and substances

7. Defenses in negligence cases

a. Absence of element
b. Exercise of due diligence – of good father of the family
c. Doctrine of last clear chance
d. Emergency rule or sudden peril rule – See above
e. Prescription (Art. 1144, 1146 and 1159)
f. Involuntariness
g. Authority of law
h. Accident or fortuitous event or act of God doctrine
 Negligence to be excusable must be one which
ordinary diligence and prudence could not have
guarded against. (Santos v. Rustico, October, 31, 1951)

General rule: An event that transpired is

fortuitous, i.e. it is unforeseen or inevitable. (Sicam v.
Jorge, G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007)
Exceptions:
(1) Specified by law;
(2) Declared by stipulation; and
(3) Nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk (Art. 1174)

- 22 –
  Act of God doctrine: The act must be one
occasioned exclusively by the violence of nature
and all human agencies are excluded from
creating or entering into the cause of the mischief.
To be exempt from liability for loss because of the
act of God, the defendant must be free from any
previous negligence or misconduct by which that
loss or damge may have been occasioned.
(Napocor v. CA, May 21, 1993).

i. Waiver
Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to
law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs,
or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by
law (Art. 6, CC).

The waiver of right to recover damages resulting from

negligence is void, for being contrary to public policy, but
if the waiver was made after the cause of action has
accrued, the waiver is valid and may be construed as
condonation of the obligation.

J. Acts of public officers

k. Contributory negligence
 Definition of negligence: The act or omission
amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the
person injured which concurring with the
defendant’s negligence that is the proximate cause of
the injury.
 Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was
the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was
only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

- 23 –
  Effect of contributory negligence:
i. If the proximate cause of the injury is the
defendant’s fault or negligence, but the plaintiff
was also negligent, the amount of damages to be
awarded to plaintiff shall be mitigated by his
contributory negligence.
ii. Contributory negligence is a partial defense and
does not result in complete recovery for the
plaintiff, but mitigates the liability of defendant,
(Doctrine of comparative negligence)
iii. The defense of contributory negligence does not
apply to crimes thru reckless imprudence.

b. Imputed contributory negligence

 Negligence is imputed if the actor is different from
the person who is being made liable.
 Applicable if the person made liable is responsible
for the actor who was negligent.

c. Double recovery (Art. 2177)

 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 plaintiff
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.(n)

d. Damnum Absque injuria –See above discussion

e. Assumption of risk
 Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by law,
or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or
when the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible
for those events which could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, are inevitable.

- 24 -
  A plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk arising
from the negligent or reckless conduct of the
defendant, cannot recover from such harm.
 “Volenti non fit injuria” – one is not legally injured
if he consented to the act complained of or was
willing that it should occur.
 The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (Latin: “to
which a person assents is not esteemed in law as
injury”) refers to self-inflicted injury or to the
consent to injury which precludes the recovery of
damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily
exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent
in doing so. (Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Roberto
Reyes, February 28, 2005)

IX. SPECIAL LIABILITY IN PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES

1. In general: concepts
 Negligence or intent is immaterial in awarding damages
against the defendant in strict liability cases.
 It exists when a defendant is held liable by virtue of
a wrongful act or dangerous activity without any
accompanying intent or mental state.
2. Products liability: manufacturers or processors - See
discussion above
 Art. 2187
 Consumer Act (R.A. 7394)
3. Nuisance – Art. 694-707, inclusive

Doctrine of attractive nuisance – one who maintains on his

premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a
character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to
exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing
therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years
who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a
trespasser of the premises.

- 25 -
4. Violation of constitutional rights: violation of civil
liberties – Art. 32
5. Violation of rights committed by public officers – Art. 32
6. Provinces, cities, and municipalities
 Article 2189. 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, public buildings, and other public works
under their control or supervision.
7. Owner of motor vehicle
 Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in
the vehicle, could have by the use of due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that
the driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least
twice within the next preceding two (2) months. If the
owner was not in the mirror vehicle, the provisions of Art.
2180 are not applicable.

 If the causative factor was the driver’s negligence, the

owner of the vehicle who was present is likewise held
liable if he could have prevented the mishap by exercise of
due diligence.

 Registered owner theory - the registered owner

of any vehicle is directly and primarily responsible to the
public and third persons while it is being operated.

 The registered owner, the defendant-appellant herein, is

primarily responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle
of the plaintiff-appellee, but he (defendant-appellant) has
a right to be indemnified by the real or actual owner of the
amount that he may be required to pay as damage for the
injury caused to the plaintiff-appellant.

- 26 -
  Regardless of who the actual owner of a motor vehicle
might be, the registered owner is the operator of the
same with respect to the public and third persons, and
as such, directly and primarily responsible for the
consequences of its operation. In contemplation of law,
the owner/operator of record is the employer of the
driver, the actual operator and employer being
considered merely as his agent (MYC-Agro-Industrial
Corporation vs. Vda. de Caldo, 132 SCRA 10,
citing Vargas vs. Langcay, 6 SCRA 174; Tamayo vs.
Aquino, 105 Phil. 949).

 The main purpose of vehicle registration is the easy

identification of the owner who can be held responsible
for any accident, damage or injury caused by the
vehicle. Easy identification prevents inconvenience and
prejudice to a third party injured by one who is
unknown or unidentified. To allow a registered owner
to escape liability by claiming that the driver was not
authorized by the new (actual) owner results in the
public detriment the law seeks to avoid. (Villanueva v.
Domingo, September 20, 2004)

8. Proprietor of building or structure or thing

 Article 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is

responsible for the damages resulting from its total or
partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary
repairs. (1907)

 Article 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for

damages caused:

(1) By the explosion of machinery that has not been taken

care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of
explosive substances that have not been kept in a safe
and adequate place;
 - 27 -

(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons

or property;

(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or

lanes, if not caused by force majeure;

(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of

infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable
to the place. (1908)

9. Head of the family

 The head of a family that lives in a building or a part
thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown
or falling from the same. (Art. 2193, CC)

10. Violations of data privacy – R.A. 10173 (Data Privacy Act

of 2012)
 Unauthorized Processing of Personal Information and
Sensitive Personal Information
 Accessing Personal Information and Sensitive Personal
Information Due to Negligence
 Improper Disposal of Personal Information and Sensitive
Personal Information
 Processing of Personal Information and Sensitive Personal
Information doe Unauthorized Purposes
 Unauthorized Access or Intentional Breach
 Concealment of Security breaches Involving Sensitive
Personal Information
 Malicious Disclosure
 Combination or Series of Acts
 - 28 -

X. STRICT LIABILITY

!. Definition/Concept:
 There is strict liability if one is made liable independent
of fault or negligence, or intent after establishing certain
facts specified by law. Strict liability tort can be
committed even if reasonable care was exercised and
regardless of the state of mind of the actor at that time
(Aquino, 2005)
 Negligence or intent is immaterial in awarding damages
against the defendant in strict liability cases.

2. Types of Strict Liabilities

1. Animals: possessor and user of animals

The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of

the same is responsible for the damage that it may cause,
although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
cease only in case the damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered
damage. (Art. 2183, CC)

2. Nuisance – Art. 694-707 – See discussion above

3. Products liability: Consumer Act (R.A. 7394)
 Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be
liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or
harmful substances used, although no contractual relation
exists between them and the consumers.

 R.A. 7394 (The Consumer Act of the

Philippines)
Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer,
and importer, independently of fault or fault shall be liable
for redress for damages caused to consumers by defects
resulting from:
 -29 -

a. Design
b. Manufacture
c. Construction
d. Assembly and erection
e. Formula and handling and making up
f. Presentation or packing of their products as
well as for insufficient or inadequate
information on the use and hazards thereof.

 Manufacturers and sellers liable for damages

resulting from defective products. (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.,
Inc. v.CA)

B. DAMAGES

1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Definition:
1. Classification
 Under 2197
 According to purpose
 Compensatory
 Corrective
 According to manner of determination
 Ordinary – damages that are inherent in a contract, e.g.,
a typical breach of contract
 Special- damages that exist because of special
circumstances and for which a debtor in good faith can be
held liable only if he had been previously informed of such
circumstances

2. Kinds of Damages (Art. 2197)

A. Actual or compensatory (Art. 2199)
B. Moral (Art. 2217)
C Nominal (Art. 2221)
D. Temperate or moderate (Art. 2224)
E. Liquidated (Art. 2226)
F. Exemplary or corrective (Art. 2229)
 - 30 -

A. Actual and compensatory (Art. 2199)

1. Purpose of the award: To repair the wrong that has been

done, to compensate for the injury inflicted, and not to impose
a penalty.

2. Requisites:
a. The loss is alleged and proved
b. The loss is not speculative.

3. Proof required:
 Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed but
must be proved with reasonable certainty.

 To justify an award for actual damages, there must be

competent proof of the actual amount or loss. Credence can
only be given to claims duly supported by receipts.
(ComSavings Bank, Aug. 28, 2013)

 In granting actual or compensatory damages, the party

making a claim for such, must present the best evidence
available, viz., receipts, vouchers, and the like, as
corroborated by his testimony. (People v. Ballesteros, supra)

 To recover damages, the amount of loss must not only be

capable of proof but must actually be proven with
reasonable degree of certainty. (Luxuria Homes, Inc. v. CA,
G.R. No. 125896, January 28, 1999)

4. Component elements of actual damages that may be

recovered:

(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in case of

temporary or permanent physical injury (Art. 2205)
(2) For injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or
commercial credit (Art. 2205)
 - 31 -

(3) For attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation (Art. 2208)

(4) Interests – part of the loss suffered (Art. 2211), at the
discretion of the court
(5) For value of loss suffered and unrealized profits:
 Comprehends not only the value of the loss
suffered (damnum emergens) but also that of the profits
that the obligee failed to obtain (lucrum cessans). (Art.
2299; RCPI v. CA, G.R. No. L-55914, February 26, 1981)
 The amount should be that which would put the
plaintiff in the same position as he would have been in
had he not sustained the wrong for which he is now
getting compensation or reparation. (Lim v. CA, G.R. No.
125817, January 16, 2002)

(6) Indemnity for death and loss of earning capacity of the

deceased (Art. 2206)

(7) Support for compulsory heirs

l. Cases when attorney’s fees and expenses of

litigation, other than judicial costs may be
recovered: (Art. 2208)

a. When the contract sued on stipulates the

payment of attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation other than judicial costs;
b. When exemplary damages are awarded;
c. When the defendant’s acts or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his
interests;
d. In criminal cases of malicious prosecution
against the plaintiff;
e. In case of clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding against the plaintiff;
 - 32 -

f. Where the defendant acted in gross and

evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
plaintiff’s valid, just and demandable claim;
g. In actions for illegal support;
h. In actions for the recovery of wages of
household helpers, laborers, and skilled
workers;
i. In actions to indemnify under the
workmen’s compensation and employer’s
liability laws;
j. In a separate civil action to recover civil
liability arising from crime;
k. When at least double judicial costs are
awarded; and
l. In any other case where the court deems it
just and equitable that attorney’s fees and
expenses for litigation should be recovered.

In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation

must be reasonable.

B. Moral damages (Art. 2217)

1. Purpose: Awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means,

diversions or amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral
suffering he has undergone by reason of the defendant’s culpable
action (Prudenciado vs. Alliance Transport System, Inc. 148 SCRA 440)

2. Moral damages include: physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,

serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. (Art. 2217)
 - 33 -

3. Proof required:

General rule: To recover moral damages, the plaintiff must allege and
prove:
a. Factual basis for the moral damages; and
b. Causal relation to the defendant’s act ((Mahinay v. Velasquez,
Jr., G.R. No. 152753, January 13, 2004)

Exception: In rape cases, moral damages may be awarded to the

victim in criminal proceedings without the need for pleading of
proof or the basis thereof since it is assumed that the private
complainant suffered moral injuries (Cruz v People. G.R. No.
166441, October 8, 2014)

c. An award of moral damages must be anchored on a clear

showing that the party claiming the same actually
experienced mental anguish, besmirched reputation, sleepless
nights, wounded feelings, or similar injury. Bereft any proof of
the fact of suffering, moral damages may not be awarded.
(International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Chua, G.R. No.
195031)

d. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages

are in the category of an award meant to compensate the
claimant for actual injury and is not meant to enrich him at the
expense of the defendant. There must be clear testimony on
the anguish and form of suffering (Francisco v. GSIS) and
additional facts pleaded and proved to warrant grant of moral
damages (Cocoland Development Corp. v. NLRC).

e. Moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate

cause of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. (Art. 2217)

f. Cases where moral damages are recoverable

(1) In a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) In quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
 - 34 -

(3) In cases of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious

acts;
(4) In cases of adultery or concubinage;
(5) In illegal or arbitrary detention of arrest;
(6) In illegal search;
(7) In libel, slander, or any other form of defamation;
(8) In malicious prosecution
(9) In acts mentioned in Art. 309 (disrespects the dead or
wrongfully interferes with funeral)
(10) In acts and actions referred to in Art. 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
32, 34, and 35
(11) In breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith (Art. 2219-2220)

C. Nominal damages (Art. 2221)

1. Recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be

vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present
loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and
no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or
can be shown (Francisco v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 142029, February 28,
2001).

2. Elements:
(1) Plaintiff has a right;
(2) Such right is violated;
(3) The resulting damage is not capable of pecuniary estimation,
and
(4) The purpose of awarding damages is to vindicate or recognize
the right violated. (Art. 2221)

3. When awarded: The court may award nominal damages in every

obligation arising from any source enumerated in Art. 1157 (Law
Contract Quasi-contract, Delict, Quasi-delict), or in every case where
property rights have been invaded.
 - 35 -

4. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest

upon the right involved and all accessory questions (Art. 2223)

5. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that nominal

damages may be awarded, and it is quite enough that proof of
damage or injury is adduced. (People v. Dianos, Oct. 7, 1998)

D. Temperate or moderate damages (Art. 2224)

1. Damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory,
and may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary
loss has been suffered, but its amount cannot be proved with
certainty. (Art. 2224)

2. Elements: (Art. 2224)

(1) There is some pecuniary loss;
(2) Loss is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
(3) The damages awarded are reasonable. (ibid.)

E. Liquidated damages (Art. 2226)

1. Definition: Those agreed upon by the parties in a contract, to be paid

in case of breach thereof. (Art. 2226)

2. Liquidated damages cannot co-exist with actual damages. (Art.

2226)

3. Liquidated damages, whether intended as indemnity or penalty,

shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.

4. Award of Interests in case of breach of contract: Left to the

discretion of the court. It is computed not from the date of filing of
the complaint but from the date the judgment of the trial court is
rendered.
 36 -

5. Ordinary damages: that which is inherent in a typical breach of

contract

6. Special damages: that which exists because of special circumstances

and for which a debtor in good faith can be held liable only if he had
been previously informed of such circumstances.

F. Exemplary or corrective damages (Art. 2229)

1. Imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in

addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
(Art. 2229, CC)

2. RATIONALE: Exemplary damages are designed to permit the courts

to mold behavior that has socially deleterious consequences, and its
imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts
of an offender. However, it cannot be recovered as a matter of right.
It is based entirely on the discretion of the court. (Kierulf v. CA, G.R.
No. 99301, March 13, 1997)

3. When recovered:
(1) In criminal offenses (Art. 2230)
(2) In quasi-delicts (Art. 2231)
(3) In contracts and quasi-contracts (Art. 2232)

4. The claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate,

liquidated or compensatory damages.

5. The wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and the award
would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. (Globe
Mackay v. CA, 176 SCRA 779. August 25, 1989)

6. The court shall decide whether or not they shall be adjudicated. (Art.
2233)
 - 37 -

7. They cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination

depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be
awarded to the claimant.

NOTE: A complaint for damages is personal in nature. (Auction in

Malinta, Inc. Luyaben, G.R. No. 173979, February 12, 2007)

G. DAMAGES IN CASE OF DEATH

Rules:

1. The plaintiff is entitled to the amount that he spent during the

wake and funeral of the deceased. Defendant is liable for the
loss of the earning capacity of the deceased.

2. If the deceased was obliged to give support, the recipient who

is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of
testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the
person causing the death, not exceeding five (5) years, the
exact duration to be fixed by the court.

3. The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and

ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for
mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased (Art.
2206)

H. GRADUATION OF DAMAGES

A. Duty of injured party

1. The injured party suffering loss or injury must exercise the

diligence of a good father of the family to minimize the
damages resulting from the act or omission in question (Art.
2203)
 - 38 -

2. The injured party is obligated to undertake measures that will

alleviate and not aggravate his condition after the infliction of
the injury or nuisance.

3. The person sued has the burden of proving that the victim
could have mitigated the damages (Lemoine v. Alkan, 33 Phil.
162)

4. Doctrine of avoidable consequences – a party cannot

recover damages flowing from consequences, which the party
could reasonably have avoided. It has reasonable corollary,
that is, the person who reasonably attempts to minimize his
damages can recover the expenses that he incurred.

5. One who is injured by the wrongful or negligent act of another

should exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the
resulting damage. Anyway, he can recover from the
wrongdoer money lost in reasonable efforts to preserve the
property injured and for injuries incurred in attempting to
prevent damage to it (Lim and Gunnaban v. CA, 2002)

B. Rules in graduation of damages:

1. In crimes - The damages awarded may be respectively

increased or lessened according to the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances. (Art. 2204)

2. In quasi-delicts - The contributory negligence of the plaintiff

shall reduce the damages that he may receive. (Art. 2214)

3. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts:

The court may equitably mitigate the damages under

circumstances other than the case referred to in the
preceding article, as in the following instances:
 - 39 -

a. That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the

contract;
b. That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the
contract;
c. In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that
the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
d. That the loss would have resulted in any event;
e. That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done
his best to lessen the plaintiff’s loss or injury. (Art. 2215)

C. Miscellaneous Rules

1. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a

penalty, shall be equitably reduced, if they are iniquitous or
unconscionable. (Art. 2227)

2. Nominal damages cannot co-exist with other kinds or types

of damages. (Art. 2223)

3. Liquidated damages cannot co-exist with actual damages.

4. The plaintiff must be entitled to moral, temperate or

compensatory damages, before the court may consider
awarding exemplary damages. (Art.2234)

5. If there is a stipulation for liquidated damages, the grant of

exemplary damages in addition to the liquidated damages
must be based on whether the plaintiff is also entitled to
moral, temperate, or compensatory damages. (Art. 2234)