1

Human Relations and Torts & Damages –

Tort – Anglo-American / common law Legal basis of the principle of abuse of
concept which pertains to acts giving rights rights – Article 19 of the New Civil Code
to civil liability but are not necessarily or (correlate Article 21)
exclusively consequences of crimes or Every person must in the exercise of his
contractual obligations rights and the performance of his duty must
act with justice, give everyone his due and
Quasi-delict/culpa acquillana (Art 1157) observe honesty and good faith (A-G-O)
/extra contractual culpa (Art 2176)
Requisites (Ex-Bf-Injure)
Tort vs quasi-delict a. existence of a legal right
Tort b. such right or duty was exercised in bad
- common law concept faith
- includes intentional and malicious acts c. for the sole intent of prejudice or injuring
that are governed by the revised penal code another
and the new civil code under the chapter of
human relations bad faith – does not simply connote bad
judgment or simply negligence, it involves
Quasi-delict dishonest purpose and conscious doing of a
- civil law concept Art 2176 wrong
- acts arising from fault or negligence
malice – ill will or spite and speaks not in
Elements of quasi delict: (D-N-P-NO) response in duty??
a. damage suffered by the plaintiff
b. negligence or fault of the defendant Legal basis of the principle of unjust
c. proximate cause or connection of the enrichment (accion in rem verso) – Article
cause and effect between the negligence 22 of the New Civil Code (correlate Art 2142
and the damage and Art 2143)
d. no pre existing contractual obligations Every person who through an act or
between the parties performance by another or any other
means acquires or comes into possession of
People vs Alfeche – fault vs negligence something at the expense of the latter
Fault – voluntary act or omission which without just or legal ground shall return the
causes damage to the right of another same to him
giving rise to an obligation on the part of
another Requisites: (En-Lo-WIthoutG-Last)
a. defendant has been unjustly enriched
Negligence – failure or omission to observe b. plaintiff suffered a loss
for the protection of interest of another c. enrichment of the defendant is without
person the degree of care, precaution and just cause or legal ground
vigilance which the circumstances justly d. plaintiff has no other action based on a
demands contract, quasi-contract, crime, or any
provision of law
2
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
solution in debiti (Art 2142 and 2143) vs c. prosecutor acted without probable cause
accion in rem verso (Art 22) – payment by d. prosecutor was impelled by legal malice
mistake is not an essential element in an or improper motive
accion in rem verso; it suffices that payment
was made without just cause or legal
ground Classification of torts according to manner
of commission:
A person may be held liable even without a. intentional tort – intends to do what the
faut or negligence under Article 23 law declared wrong
b. negligent tort
Basis of a cause of action if the law declares c. strict liability tort – equivalent of doctrine
an act as illegal but does not provide for a of absolute criminal liability in criminal law
relief to the injured party: Article 20 – every (criminal intent is not required)
person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another shall classification of torts according to scope:
indemnify the latter for the same a. general – catch all provision
b. specific
Requisites: (Worn-Law-Dam)
a. act must be willful or negligent direct tortfeasor – one who is made liable
b. contrary to law for tort committed through its own act
c. damage must be suffered by the plaintiff under Art 2176

A person can incur liability even without Doctrine of corporate negligence or

specific violation of law under Art 21 – acts corporate responsibility
contrary to morals/acts contra bonos mores PSI vs Agana – for this occasion only
Any person who willfully causes losses or Circumstances:
injury to another in a manner which is a. admission on the part of the hospital that
contrary to law, morals, good conducts or it has the power to review what may have
public policy shall compensate the latter for irregularly transcribe within its walls
the damage b. laid down their standard of care or
responsibility
Requisites: (Le-Moral-Intent)
a. an act which is legal joint tortfeasors – command, promote,
b. contrary to law, morals, good conducts or encourage, advice or aid the commission of
public policy a tort; acts are independent to one another
c. with intent to injure causing an injury

Requites for action based on malicious liability: solidarily liable

prosecution: (Prosec-Dis-Pro-Mal)
a. prosecution did occur and the defendant basis of vicarious liability or imputed
was himself the prosecutor/instigated its negligence – principle of pater familias
commencement (good father of the family) Article 2180
b. legal proceeding finally ended with
acquittal or dismissal
3
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
Art 2180 does not provide for automatic Remedy of the registered owner – right to
liability – may be rebutted with evidence be indemnified by the real or actual owner
on the amount that he may be required to
Who may be held vicariously liable: Art pay as damage for the injury
2180
a. parents – basis: parental authority
b. guardians
c. teachers/heads of establishments/
schools – those under their supervision, Medical negligence
instruction or custody – special parental Elements: (D-B-I-P)
authority a. duty which requires the existence of
d. owners or manages of an physician-patient relationship
establishment/enterprise – for their b. breach of such duty
employees – primary, direct and solidary c. injury caused
e. state d. proximate cause between the breach and
f. hospitals injury

Art 2182 – if the minor or insane person Proximate cause – that which, in natural
who does not have parents or guardian may and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
be held liable for his/her tortious conducts efficient intervening cause, produces injury,
= guardian ad litem and without which the result would not
have occurred
Requisites for owners to become liable:
a. existence of employer-employee GR in determining proximate cause –
relationship determining the character or natural
b. tortious conduct was done while the connection between the original act and the
employee was acting within the scope of his injurious consequence
assigned tasks
c. employer failed to exercise the diligence GR: violation of statute or ordinance is not a
of a good father of the family in the sufficient basis that such violation is to be
selection and supervision of his employee considered as proximate cause
EX:
Universal Acquarius vs QC Human a. very injury has happened which was
Resources – employers are not vicariously intended to be prevented by the statute
liable for the injuries caused by their
employees during a strike cause in fact or actual cause – timeline
component of the defendant’s action that
Who may be held liable if the employer is led to the plaintiff’s injuries
not the registered owner of the vehicle
driven by the employee – registered owner proximate cause vs cause in fact or actual
with respect to the public and 3rd persons – cause
directly and primarily responsible for the a. legal cause, need not be the first or last
consequences of its operations event before the injury; straight forward,
involves the first event
4
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
b. legal and fairness components of
negligence; timeline element and physical Injury – illegal invasion of a right
connection of the cause and injury Damage – loss, hurt, harm that resulted
from the injury
The distinction between cause and Damages – remedy/compensation for the
condition have already been entirely damage
discredited in the Philippine legal system.
What is controlling is not their distinction Legal injury = right or cause of action (R-O-
but the nature of the risk and the character B)
of the intervening cause a. right in favor of plaintiff
b. obligation on the part of the defendant
Doctrine of last clear chance / Doctrine of to respect or not violate such right
discovered peril / Doctrine of supervening c. there is a breach of the obligation of the
negligence / Humanitarian doctrine defendant to the plaintiff
Intentional tort – wrong made by someone
Philippine National Railways Corporation vs who intends to do what the law declares as
Vizcara – when both parties are negligent, wrong
the one who had the last clear opportunity
to avoid the impeding harm but failed to do General classes:
so, is chargeable with the consequences a. abuse of right (Art 19)
arising therefrom b. acts contrary to law (Art 20)
c. acts contrabonos moris (Art 21)
Requisites: d. disrespect to person (Art 26)
a. plaintiff was placed in danger by his own e. dereliction of a duty of a public officer
negligent act and he is unable to get out of (Art 27)
that situation by any means f. violation of civil and constitutional rights/
b. defendant knows that the plaintiff was in torts based on constitutional rights (Art 32)
danger and the plaintiff cannot extricate g. unfair competition (Art 28)
himself therefrom h. tort interference (Art 1314)
c. defendant has the last clear chance to
avoid the danger through the exercise of An action for damages cannot be instituted
ordinary care but failed to do so by parents on behalf of an unborn child on
d. the supervening negligence of the account of the injuries received by the latter
defendant was the proximate cause of the because in contemplation of law, such child
plaintiff’s injury is not yet treated as a person

when applicable? Quasi delict cases or suits What makes competition unfair under
between the negligent parties Article 28 of the New Civil Code?
1. must involve an injury to a
Not applicable: competitor/trade rival
a. culpa contractual / breach of contract 2. must involve acts which are characterized
b. when a victim who is an outsider to the as contrary to good conscience
cause of the accident, demands liability
from the two negligent parties Tort interference (Art 1314)
5
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
Requisites:
1. existence of a valid contract
2. knowledge on the part of the 3rd person
of the existence of a contract
3. interference of the 3rd person is without
legal justification or excuse

Negligence – failure to behave with the

level of care that someone of ordinary
prudence would have exercised under the
same circumstances
6
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –

Culpa acquillana Culpa contractual Culpa criminal

Art 2176, 32, 33, 34 Art 1170-1174 Art 365 of the Revised Penal
Code
Wrong full act/omission There exists a preexisting Execution of a negligent act
which creates a juridical contractual relation if done intentionally may
relation and gives rise to an amount to a felony
obligation of two persons
not formally bound by any
preexisting contractual
relation
Good father of a family is a GFOAF is not a defense GFOAF is not a defense
defense
Negligence is not presumed Negligence is presumed if Negligence is not presumed
there is a breach of contract
Preponderance of evidence Preponderance of evidence Proof beyond reasonable
doubt
Liability of the employer is Liability of the employer Liability of the employer is
direct, primary and solidary depends on the contractual subsidiary
provision
7
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
Test in determining negligence in quasi- 1. actual or constructive knowledge of some
delict: Did the defendant in doing the conditions on the premises of the owner or
alleged negligent act used what a operator
reasonable prudent person who have done 2. condition post an unreasonable risk or
in the same situation? harm
3. owner/operator did not exercise
Default degree of diligence required: good reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the
father of the family – Art 1173 risk
4. owner/operator failure to exercise such
Standard of care/conduct – level of care is the proximate cause of the injuries
expected conduct that is required by the
nature of the obligation Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – the thing
speaks for itself
Common carrier – extraordinary diligence Requisites:
Operation of motor vehicles in relation to a. accident was a kind which does not
cyclists – higher standard of duty of care ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent
required to a motorist as compared to a b. instrumentality or agency which caused
cyclists the injury was under the exclusive control
Banks – extraordinary diligence of the person charged with negligence
Experts – degree of skill commonly c. injury suffered must not have been due to
possessed by others in the same any voluntary action or contribution on the
employment part of the person injured
Physicians – standard of care observed by
others in the profession of good standing defenses for quasi-delict:
under similar circumstances 1. prescription: quasi-delict = 4 years from
Owners of extremely dangerous the date of the quasi-delict was committed
instrumentalities – higher degree of care; 2. plaintiff’s own negligence as the
exceptional precautions to prevent any proximate cause
injury 3. contributory negligence as partial
Minor children – ordinary exercise by defense (Art 2179)
children of the same age, capacity, 4. due diligence (Art 2180)
maturity, ability under the same 5. concurrent negligence of parties
circumstances 6. damnum absque injuria – causes damage
or loss to another but does not injure them
There is no presumption of negligence on 7. fortuitous event/force majure (Art 1174)
the part of a cyclist (Art 2185) 8. emergency rule
9. doctrine of last clear chance
Children under 9 years of age are incapable 10. assumption of risk
of contributory negligence
What damages may be recovered for death
Requisites that must be established to caused by crime or quasi-delict:
recover damages in slip-and-fall case or trip- 1. actual
and-fall case: 2. moral
3. exemplary
8
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
4. nominal
5. temperate
6. liquidated

Formula in computing loss of earning

capacity:
1. 2/3 times 80 minus age of the deceased
times 1/2 of the annual gross income
2. 2/3 times 80 minus age of the deceased
times gross annual income minus necessary
expenses equivalent to 50% of the gross
annual income