P. 1
32972910 Torts Magic Notes

32972910 Torts Magic Notes

|Views: 209|Likes:
Publicado porrodeltalladarivera

More info:

Published by: rodeltalladarivera on Sep 08, 2010
Direitos Autorais:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/31/2011

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • A. The Tortfeasor
  • Worcester v. Ocampo
  • Chapman v. Underwood
  • Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai
  • Presidential Decree No. 603
  • Revised Penal Code
  • RA 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
  • 1. Parents (see table after cases)
  • Exconde v. Capuno
  • Salen and Salbanera v. Balce
  • Fuellas v. Cadano
  • Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
  • Rodriguez-Luna v. IAC
  • Tamargo v. CA
  • 2. Guardians Family Code
  • Mercado v. CA, et al
  • Palisoc v. Brillantes
  • Amadora v. CA
  • Ylarde vs. Aquino
  • Salvos v. IAC
  • St. Francis High School vs. CA
  • PSBA vs. CA
  • Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon
  • St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos
  • 4. Owners and Managers of
  • Establishments
  • 5. Employers
  • Philtranco v. CA
  • Castilex v. Vasquez
  • Filamer v. IAC
  • NPC v. CA
  • LRT v. Navidad
  • McKee v. IAC
  • Valenzuela v. CA
  • 6. State
  • Merritt v. Government
  • Rosete v. Auditor General
  • Mendoza v. De Leon
  • Fontanilla v. Maliaman
  • City of Manila v. Teotico
  • C. Others
  • 1. Proprietor of Buildings
  • 2. Employees
  • Araneta v. Joya
  • 3. Engineer/Architect
  • A. Violation of Civil and Political Rights
  • Lim v. Ponce de Leon
  • Aberca v. Ver
  • MHP Garments v. CA
  • 1 Sangco 228-255 (1993)
  • B. Defamation, Fraud and Physical Injuries
  • Marcia v CA
  • Madeja v Caro
  • Arafiles v. Phil. Journalists
  • 1. Defamation
  • MVRS v. Islamic
  • 2. Fraud
  • Salta v. Veyra
  • Prudential Bank v. IAC
  • 3. Physical Injuries
  • Capuno v. Pepsi
  • Corpus v. Paje
  • Dulay v. CA
  • Madeja v. Caro
  • 1 Sangco 255-282 (1993)
  • C. Neglect of Duty
  • 1 Sangco 334-335 (1993)
  • D. Action for Damages where no independent civil action is provided
  • 1 Sangco 335-338 (1993)
  • A. Abuse Of Rights
  • Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA
  • Globe Mackay v. CA
  • Albenson v. CA
  • Amonoy v. Gutierrez
  • UE v. Jader
  • Garciano v. CA
  • Barons Marketing Corp. v. CA
  • BPI v. CA
  • B. Acts Contra Mores
  • 1.Elements
  • Ruiz v. Secretary of National Defense
  • 2. Examples
  • Wassmer v. Velez
  • Tanjanco v. CA
  • Baksh v. CA
  • Bunag, Jr. v. CA
  • Constantino v. Mendez
  • Quimiguing v. Icao
  • Pe v. Pe
  • Que v. IAC
  • Drilon v. CA
  • Manila Gas v. CA
  • Patricio v. Leviste
  • Grand Union v. Espino
  • Carpio vs. Valmonte
  • Medina v. Castro-Bartolome
  • A. Dereliction of Duty
  • Amaro v. Sumaguit
  • B. Unfair Competition
  • C. Violation of Human Dignity
  • St. Louis v. CA
  • Concepcion v. CA
  • People v. Ballesteros
  • Custodio v. CA
  • II. Kinds of Damages A. Actual or compensatory
  • Algarra v. Sandejas
  • 1. Kinds
  • PNOC v. CA
  • Integrated Packing v. CA
  • 2. Extent
  • 3. Certainty
  • DBP v. CA
  • Talisay-Silay v. Assosiacion
  • 4. Damage to property
  • 5. Personal Injury and Death
  • Ramos v. CA
  • Gatchalian v. Delim
  • 5.Attorney’s Fees
  • Quirante v. Intermediate Appellate Court
  • 7. Interest
  • 8. Mitigation of Liability
  • Cerrano v. Tan Chuco
  • B. Moral
  • 1. Concept
  • Kierulf v. CA
  • Visayan Sawmill Co. Inc. v. CA
  • 2. Proof and Proximate Cause
  • Miranda-Ribaya v. Bautista
  • Del Rosario v. CA
  • Raagas v. Traya
  • Enervida v. De La Torre
  • People v. Bugayong
  • 3. Cases where allowed (MEMORIZE!)
  • Francisco v. GSIS
  • Mijares v. CA
  • J. Marketing Corp. v. Sia, Jr
  • Cometa v. CA
  • Triple Eight Integrated Services v. NLRC
  • People v. Pirame
  • Carlos Arcona y Moban v. CA
  • Fule v. CA
  • PAL v. CA
  • Sumalpong v. CA
  • Lopez v. Pan American
  • Producer’s Bank v. CA
  • ABS-CBN v. CA
  • NAPOCOR v. PHIBROS
  • C. Nominal
  • Ventanilla v. Centeno
  • Robes-Francisco Realty Corp. v. CFI
  • People v. Gopio
  • Armovit v. CA
  • Francisco v. Ferrer
  • D. Temperate
  • Pleno v. CA
  • People v. Singh
  • People v. Plazo
  • E. Liquidated
  • F. Exemplary or Corrective
  • PNB v. CA

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008

PRELIMINARY MATTERS: *Those in SMALL CAPS (and underlined) were highlighted by Sir Casis during the class. If none are found, just refer to those in bold letters and those in the Notes. Good luck classmates! –torts magic notes team

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-

1

of injuring Worcester, both as a private person and as a government official as the editorial obviously referred to him. Worcester alleged that he was likened to “birds of prey” in the following manner: “Such are the characteristics of the man who is at the same time an eagle who surprises and devours, a vulture who gorges himself on the dead and putrid meats, an owl who affects a petulant omniscience and a vampire who silently sucks the blood of the victim until he leaves it bloodless.” TC: In favor of Worcester; Defendants jointly and severally liable for the P60k total damages. ISSUE: WON the defendants’ individual properties can be made jointly and severally liable for the damages under the civil and commercial codes, HELD: Yes. TC modified. Damages reduced, Santos absolved. The present action is a tort. Universal doctrine: each joint tortfeasor is not only individually liable for the tort in which he participates, but is also jointly liable with his tortfeasors. If several persons commit a tort, the plaintiff or person injured, has his election to sue all or some of the parties jointly, or one of them separately, because the TORT IS IN ITS NATURE A SEPARATE ACT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL. It is not necessary that cooperation should be a direct, corporal act- e.g. assault and battery committed by various persons, under the common law, they are all principals. Under common law, he who aided or counseled, in any way, the commission of a crime, was as much a principal as he who inflicted or committed the actual tort. General Rule: Joint tortfeasors are 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. They are each liable as principals, to the

same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort which they commit. Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. The damages can not be apportioned among them, except among themselves. They cannot insist upon an apportionment, for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part. They are jointly and severally liable for the full amount. A payment in full of the damage done by one tortfeasor satisfies any claim which might exist against the others. The release of one of the joint tortfeasors by agreement generally operates to discharge all. The court however may make findings as to which of the alleged joint tortfeasors are liable and which are not, even if they are charged jointly and severally. Art. 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 the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. *this was drafted with Chapman v. Underwood in mind.

VI. PERSONS LIABLE A. The Tortfeasor
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a) Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904) Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n)


  

CLASS NOTES There can be more than one tortfeasor and they are called JOINT TORTFEASORS Are you suppose to sue all of them? NO because you can get relief from one of them. Do they have to act in concert? NO


CLASS NOTES Sir highlighted that “Tort is in its nature a separate act of each individual” – so no need to sue all of the tortfeasors!

Worcester v. Ocampo February 27, 1912
FACTS: Dean Worcester filed an action to recover damages resulting from an alleged libelous publication against Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, Lope K. Santos, Fidel A. Reyes, Faustino Aguilar, et al, as the owners, directors, writers, editors and administrators of the daily newspaper “El Renacimiento” (Spanish version) and “Muling Pagsilang” (tagalong version). Worcester alleged that the defendants have been maliciously persecuting and attacking him in the newspapers for a long time and they published an editorial entitled “Birds of Prey” with the malicious intent

Chapman v. Underwood March 28, 1914
FACTS: J.H. Chapman was trying to board a “San Marcelino” car trough the rear platform when he was struck by Mr. James Underwoord’s automobile, which was at that time driven by his chauffer. Underwood’s driver was guilty of negligence because he was passing an oncoming car upon the wrong side when he ran over Chapman. Chapman, was not obliged for his own protection to observe whether a car was coming upon him from where he was because according to the law, no automobile or other vehicle

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
coming from his left should pass upon his side of the car. TC: In favor of Underwood ISSUE: WON Underwood is responsible for the negligence of his driver. HELD: No. TC affirmed. The interval between unlawful act and the accident was so small as not to be sufficient to charge Underwood with the negligence of the driver. The driver does not fall within the list of persons in Art. 1903 (now 2180) for whose acts Underwood would be responsible. This rule applies even if the owner of the vehicle was present at the time of the accident, unless
THE NEGLIGENT ACTS OF THE DRIVER ARE CONTINUED FOR SUCH A LENGTH OF TIME AS TO GIVE THE OWNER A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE AND TO DIRECT HIS DRIVER TO DESIST THEREFROM.

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-

2

Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai December 18, 1968
FACTS: Marcial Caedo, with his family, was driving his Mercury car on EDSA. On the opposite direction was the Cadillac of Yu Khe Thai, driven by Rafael Bernardo. They were both traveling at moderate speeds and the headlights were mutually noticeable from a distance. Ahead of the Cadillac was a carretela. Bernardo testified that he saw the carretela only when it was already only 8 meters away from him (This is the 1st sign of negligence because the carretela was lightedhence should’ve given him sufficient warning). But Bernardo, instead of slowing down or stopping, tried to overtake the carretela by veering to the left. The car’s right rear bumper caught the wheel of the carretela and collided with the Mercury. Caedo in the meantime, slowed down, and thought that the Cadillac would wait behind the carretela. He tried to avoid the collision at the last moment by going farther to the right but was unsuccessful. TC: Bernardo and Thai jointly and severally liable for damages ISSUE: WON Yu Khe Thai, as the owner of the Cadillac, is solidarily liable with his driver. HELD: No. TC modified. Thai not solidarily liable with Bernardo. Art. 2184 applies: 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 the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. Under Art. 2184, 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 the exercise of due diligence. –This rule is not new, although formulated as a law for the first time in the new Civil Code. It was expressed in Chapman v. Underwood.

Basis of master’s liability in civil law: NOT respondeat superior but paterfamilias. The theory is that ultimately, the negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage. Bernardo was a pretty good driver and had no record. No negligence for having employed him may be imputed to Thai. The only negligence that can be imputed to Bernardo was when he tried to overtake the carretela instead of stopping or waiting-and this cannot be imputed to Thai because there were no signs for him to be in any special state of alert. He could not have anticipated his driver’s sudden decision to pass the carretela. The time element was such that there was no reasonable opportunity for Thai to assess the risks involved and warn the driver accordingly. Test of imputed negligence under 2184: -to a great degree, necessarily subjective. Car owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional drivers. The law does not require that a person must possess a certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the mechanic of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before they can own a motor vehicle. Test of negligence within the meaning of 2184: -his omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident. RULE: negligence must be sought in the immediate setting and circumstance of the accident, i.e. in his failure to detain the driver form pursuing a course which not only gave him clear notice of the danger but also sufficient time to act upon it. NOTES: Art. 2184 is based on Chapman. Unless the owner could’ve prevented the negligence, or he was negligent in selection and supervision, he cannot be held liable. Art. 2184: owner can be held solidarily liable with the driver only if the owner is IN the car. Court’s test: 1. senses of owner 2. circumstances

When will the owner be liable?- An owner who sits in his vehicle, and permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of his negligent acts, after he had A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THEM AND TO DIRECT THAT THE DRIVER CEASE THEREFROM, BECOMES HIMSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH ACTS. When will the owner be NOT liable?-if the driver by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the vehicle, present therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible, etiher civilly or criminally, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own. RULE: Underwood is not liable for his driver’s act even if he was inside the car at the time of the accident (unless he let the negligence continue for a long time without correcting it) because the driver is not listed in 1903 (now 2180) as one of the persons whose acts Underwood would be responsible for.

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-

3

CLASS NOTES


CLASS NOTE In this section, a person is held liable for acts not his own but because of the existence of a relationship.

The standard set in this case is still REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. Difference between respondeat superior vs. paterfamilias Respondeat superior: acts under orders (1 negligent – the one who gave the orders) Paterfamilias: acts under guidance (2 negligent – both the owner and the driver) TEST of imputed negligence: SUBJECTIVE *not all owners are learned/professional drivers – that’s why they hire drivers for them! VICARIOUS LIABILITY: found in Article 2180 (but use the term “tortfeasors” instead of “one” -a tortfeasor would be liable not only for his own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom he is responsible Take note of difference between NCC and FC: under the NCC: the father, and in cases of his death or incapacity, the mother, will be responsible for the damages caused by their minor children who live in their company under the FC: parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.  Portions of 2180—modified by FC  Does RA9344 affect the liability of parents and guardians? NO  Basis of liability of parents and minor children: PARENTAL AUTHORITY  How does the FC affect 2180? Is the person below 21 still liable?  For those above 15 but below 18 who acted with discernment—basis to use is 2180

Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life. (412a)

Revised Penal Code
Title Five-Civil Liability Chapter One-Person Civilly Liable for Felonies Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the consent of the

Presidential Decree No. 603
December 10, 1974 THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE Chapter 4-Liabilities Of Parents Art. 58. Torts. - Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under their parental authority in accordance with the Civil Code. Family Code 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. 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. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n) Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. (2180(2)a and (4)a )

B. Vicarious Liability aka Imputed Negligence

indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. 15 years old. and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants. in which case such child will be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. persons. tavernkeepers. (1903a) Art. in case of his death or incapacity. 20 of this Act. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. (n)  CLASS NOTE  Basis: parental authority  Are the parents still liable for if above 18 but below 21? Yes. the students boarded a jeep. Dante took hold of the wheel. the father. the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Sec. Delfin Capuno. or. Art. A child above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program. 2182. in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees. Minimum Age of Criminal responsibility. which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. unless he/she has acted with discernment. 2181. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian. the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. CA: affirmed RA 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 April 23. so long as they remain in their custody. provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself. 2007- 4 Lastly. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. was instructed by the city school’s supervisor to attend a parade in honor of Rizal in San Pablo City. The Exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability. 102. saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. Legal basis: PD 603 1. Third. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees. criminal liability. 103. Art. 2180. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers. those doing the act shall be liable.A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from . However. — In default of the persons criminally liable. was not with Dante at the time of the accident. or the person representing him. workmen. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. or employees in the discharge of their duties. if there be no such persons. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers. and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments. apprentices. tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. a student of the Balintawak Elementary School. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. of the deposit of such goods within the inn. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. 6.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 authorities or their agents. teachers. Civil Code Art. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.Y. nor did he know that Dante was going to attend a parade. Casis _S. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. 1957 FACTS: Dante Capuno. Prof. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein. Capuno June 29. The father and. Criminal case: TC: Dante was convicted for Double homicide through reckless imprudence. or for the payment of the value thereof. The jeep turned turtle and 2 passengers died. From the school. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. the mother. Parents (see table after cases) Exconde v. pupils. innkeepers. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. while the driver sat on his left side (remember that the steering wheel is at the LEFT side). 2006 Sec. and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily. (1904) Art. He only found out after the accident when Dante told him about it. and when it started to run.

teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody. master. 1903 interpretation too limited. Even if Dante was on the jeep pursuant to the city school’ supervisor’s instruction. and not under Art. 2180 applies only to QDs will result in an absurdity that while for an act where mere negligence intervenes. 2180 is the law that applies. Teacher. neither the head of the school nor the city school’s supervisor could be held liable because Dante was not a student of an institution of arts and trades. Once the parent entrusts custody to the school authorities. CA: certified to SC ISSUE: WON Delfin Capuno can be held civilly liable. etc. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority. hence. 1 Prof. The phrase “teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades” does not qualify “teachers” but only “heads of establishments. TC reversed. The father. 2007- 5 2. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. HELD: Yes. the parents (and heirs) of Carlos. He rebutted the presumption of negligence under 1903 when he proved that he entrusted custody of Dante to the school authorities. The father and. when the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher. He failed to prove that he exercised all the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the damage. ISSUE: WON Jose Balce can be held SUBSIDIARILY liable to pay the indemnity his son was sentenced to pay in the criminal case against him (the son). mother of one of the deceased): TC: Convicted ONLY Dante to pay the damages. 1. the mother. single and living with Jose Balce. The civil liability which the law impose upon the father. DISSENT: Reyes He wants TC affirmed (relieving Delfin of liability): There is no sound reason for limiting Art. TC Modified. Salen and Salbanera v. School is NOT liable Art. Xxx Finally. Delfin and Dante are jointly and severally liable for the damages.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Civil case: against Delfin and Dante Capuno (reserved by Sabina Exconde. 1903 applies: “The obligation imposed by the next preceding articles is enforceable not only for personal acts and omissions. As a rule. FACTS: Carlos Salen (single) died due to wounds caused by Gumersindo Balce. Art. and. in case of his death or incapacity. And Art. presumption is rebutted and burden of proof is shifted to claimant to show actual negligence on the part of the parent in order to render him liable. This parental authority imposes upon the parents the duty to support and instruct them in proportion to their means and gives them the right to correct and punish them in moderation. the father or mother may be 12180 now: The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions.Y. Sustained Jose’s theory that the civil liability of Gumersindo arises from his criminal liability and therefore must be determined under the RPC. who acts with discernment. Balce April 27. Casis _S. NOTES: This case is cited as basis of liability arising from parental authority. the mother. Delfin should not be made liable for a tort that he was in no way able to prevent. there can be no responsibility.” If the basis of presumption of negligence in Art. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Gumersindo was convicted of homicide and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay Carlos’ heirs indemnity. If there is no authority. 1903 to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic institutions. Why? for the very reason that the parent is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher while the child is under instruction. Hence. hence neither the teacher nor the head can be held liable. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. . Jose Balce is ordered to pay the indemnity. in case of his death or incapacity. Delfin. HELD: Yes. hence Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera (Salens). Dissent: 1. 1960. But Gumersindo was insolvent. teachers. or the mother as the case may be is a necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them. as the father IS liable. There is no law which holds the father either primarily or subsidiarily liable for the civil liability incurred by the son who is a minor of 18 years. 1903 (now 2180) about teachers applies only to institutions of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution. Art. but also for those persons for whom another is responsible. resort should be made to the general law which is the Civil Code. TC: dismissed. the teacher. RULES: Majority: Liability of teachers or directors are limited to institutions of arts and trades. demanded from Jose to pay but he refused. and not the parent should be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his custody. his father. 1903 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents. How to avoid liability: prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. which only applies to obligations arising form QDs. jointly and severally with his son for damages. so long as they remain in their custody. To hold that Art. school authorities should be liable for the negligence. the civil liability arising form a crime shall be governed by the RPC. But since the RPC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of parents for a minor over 15. 2180 of the Civil Code. are liable for any damages caused by the minor children who live with them. 18. or in the absence of. Hence the suit. and which he had every right to assume the school authorities would. Balintawak Elementary School is an academic institution. 2. Xxx Lastly.

Agapito claims that he could only be liable if the action was based on the subsidiary liability of the parents under the RPC. If they fail to comply with this duty. Capuno-(the father was held solidarily liable with his son for damages) The civil liability of the father is a necessary consequence of the parental authority he exercises. put him off-balance which caused Pepito to land on his right side. Araneta v. Rico just got up and ran away. Balce. The court convicted Arreglado but suspended his sentence because he was only 14. were classmates at St. 3. resort should be made to the general law which is the Civil Code. mother and son were held liable for damages) civil law liability under 2180 is not respondeat superior but pater familias.(where father was made to pay the indemnity his 18 year old son was sentenced to pay because his son was insolvent) Since the RPC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of a minor over 9 but under 15 who acted with discernment.Y. Responsibility for fault or negligence under 2176 (upon which this action is instituted) is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from fault or negligence under the RPC. 2 separate actions were instituted: 1. Civil liability to be determined in the civil case Civil case: TC: Agapito liable under 2180 for medicine. the owner and the driver of the truck are jointly and severally liable for damages. and that if an injury is caused by the fault or negligence of his minor son. hence.   CLASS NOTES In this case. Gutierrez v. CA: Reduced MD ISSUE: WON Agapito Fuellas. Fuellas v. Anent Manuel Gutierrez’s liability: . WON Manuel Gutierrez. Pepito has just gone down from the school house when he was met by a still angry Rico.   CLASS NOTE In this case. no liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent. Capuno-where the father was held solidarily liable for the crime his son committed. Agapito contends that he cannot be liable under 2180 in connection with 2176 there being no “fault or negligence” but deliberate intent to cause injury. breaking his arm.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 held subsidiarily liable.) The court held the father. independently of the criminal case. And since Rico acted with discernment. and Mrs. Cadano October 31. 2. they should suffer the consequences of their abandonment or negligence by repairing the damage caused. MD. ISSUES: 1. 1. parental liability was primary. any discussion of Rico’s criminal intent is of no moment. Rico took a classmate’s pencil and put it in Pepito’s pocket. the father is liable for damages (yes) 2. Rico’s father. ED and atty’s fees. FACTS: The car. As a result. Manresa: Children and wards do not have the capacity to govern themselves so parents and guardians have the duty to exercise special vigilance. A teacher broke up the fight and sent them home. 1931 Note: The injured and the accused have the same surname. Gutierrez and driven by Bonifacio Gutierrez. owned by Mr. This angered Rico. Civil case for damages against Agapito Fuellas. with his mother and 7 other members of the family. (yes) HELD: Manuel Gutierrez. While Pepito was studying. EXCLUDING Mr. Arreglado-(where Arreglado fired at Araneta because he resented the remarks Araneta made about his leaving Ateneo and enrolling in La Salle. the mother and the son to pay the Aranetas damages. A classmate asked them to shake hands but instead of shaking Pepito’s extended hand. Only defense is proof of diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the damage. a passenger. the provisions do not cover the case. Pepito’s forearm was seen to be shorter than his left and cannot be fully used. Up to the last day of the hearing of the case. Gutierrez. thus he held Pepito by the neck and pushed him to the floor. both 13. 1961 FACTS: Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas. 18 years old. 2007- 6 Salen and Salbarena v. HELD: Yes. CA decided the case based on the evidence submitted by both parties. the father. Casis _S. the liability of father was deemed to be subsidiary. the law presumes that there was negligence on the part of his father. Rico’s father is liable for damages. Criminal case: TC: Rico guilty. Prof. SC: Case law is against him again. Gutierrez September 23. When the classmate asked Rico for the pencil. which bases the liability of the father ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his minor son. Rico held him by the neck. collided with a passenger truck while attempting to pass each other. Exconde v. Arreglado-(the Arreglados-father. it was Pepito who returned it. suffered a fractured leg. Agapito is liable for damages. Araneta v. specifically 2180. SC: Jurisprudence proves him wrong. CA affirmed 1. The void that apparently exists in the RPC is subserved by 2180 of the Civil Code as may be gleaned from some recent SC decisions: Exconde v. WON the truck owner and driver are liable for damages. Mary’s High School. Criminal case against Rico for Serious Physical Injuries 2. Narciso Gutierrez.

If the liability of the parents for crimes or QDs of their minor children is subsidiary. TC: dismissed for insufficiency of evidence IAC: Set aside TC and found the Libis subsidiarily liable. living with uncle in Madrid.Y. Jose. 2180. Dela Rosas invoke Elcano v. HELD: Primary liability. Other issues: 1. Plus. CA’s reduction of net annual income of Roberto due to increasing annual personal expenses: SC said if personal expenses increase. 2180 applied to Atty. the son should pay because he is of age already Prof. the father of Wendell. Hill’s liability had become merely subsidiary to that of his son. 1992 7 FACTS: Julie and Wendell were sweethearts for 2 years when Julie broke it off due to Wendell’s sadistic and irresponsible nature. earnings hardly enough to support his family. NOTES: technically. In Elcano. 2nd CA set aside. so that he is liable for the negligence of the child because of the relationship of master and servant. has no assets of his own. ISSUE: Whether the father. There were 2 versions of the story: Libis: another man shot the 2 Gotiong: Wendell shot Julie and then committed suicide. Luis was only 13 and had no driver’s license. driving a Toyota collided in the go-kart practice area in Greenhills.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 The guaranty given by the father at the time the son was granted a license to operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for the acts of his son. In the US. 3. but since his son attained age. only if the father is dead. Rodriguez-Luna v. The heirs of Roberto (will be referred to as the Lunas) sued for damages. At that time. The theory of this law is that running of the machine by the child to carry the other members of the family is within the scope of the owner’s business. was speeding and lost his head when he approached the bridge and the truck. where the car is occupied and being used at the time of the injury for the pleasure of other members of the owner’s family than the child driving it. and pursuant to 1903 (now 2180) the father alone. Casis _S. 2007September 18. liability is not subsidiary. Libis are primarily liable CA affirmed. 1985 FACTS: Roberto Luna. then they can neither invoke nor be absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. Anent the owner’s and driver’s liability: Basis: contract. who maintains it for general use of his family is liable for its negligent operation by one of his children. BUT. he does not have nay property and his earnings are insufficient to support his family. the owner of an automobile. and not the minor or the mother. Bonifacio was an incompetent driver. Hill despite the emancipation by marriage of his son. Luis is abroad and beyond the reach of Philippine courts. Jose is liable for his son’s liability. Libi v. driving a go-kart and Luis dela Rosa. it is PRIMARY Rule on parent’s liability is correct but characterization of their nature must be given a second look (coz SC held in some cases that the liability of parents is subsidiary). IAC . Diligence required is that of instruction and supervision of the kid. IAC February 28. with the FC. 1st CA reinstated with the modification that the atty’s fees will earn interest. HELD: Yes. The Libis were grossly negligent from preventing Wendell from having access to the key to the safety deposit box where the gun was stored. SC: Unwilling to apply equity instead of strict law in this case because it will not serve the ends of justice. incapacitated or absent will the mother be held liable. 2180 was correctly applied to hold the Libis liable. Julie and Wendell died each from a single gunshot wound traced to the gun licensed in the name of Cresencio Libi. the diligence would constitute a valid and substantial defense. Based on these facts. what would be the effect? 1st CA: affirmed in toto 2nd CA: reduced unearned earnings award The dela Rosas failed to pay because they had no cash. If this case were decided now. The writ of execution yielded only a nominal amount. would be held liable for the damages caused by the minor. Atty. the speed and lack of care employed by the driver make them both liable. it was held that Art. Present status of Luis: married with 2 kids. 2. whom he designates or permits to run it. Hill to support their calim for subsidiary liability only. CA’s reduction of life expectancy: SC said go-kart not dangerous. should be made primarily or subsidiarily liable for the liability of his son Luis. as a matter of equity. Question: Under 1903. The position of the truck. But if the liability is direct and primary. The Gotiongs (julie’s parents) fiuled for damages against the Livis under Art. 2. SC granted award of atty’s fees plus interest from date of TC’s decision. it would not be unreasonable to suppose that his gross income would also increase. TC: Jose dela Rosa (father) and Luis dela Rosa are jointly and severally liable. it is uniformly held that the head of a house. A month after their break-up. Roberto died. ISSUE: WON Art.

The Tamargos filed: 1. parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents—their parental authority—which includes the instructing. 2. The Bundocs claimed that the Rapisuras should be held liable instead. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. the reliance on Fuellas v. Arts. ISSUE: Who are the indispensable parties? The Bundocs or the Rapisuras? HELD: The natural parents. under the Family Code. 101. BUT. NOTES: This case cleared up the issue on whether the parent’s liability is primary or subsidiary. RPC with respect to damages ex delicto by kids 9 or under. 2007- 8 liability on the ground that he had acted without discernment. For civil liability from crimes committed by minors under the legal authority or control or who live in the company of the parents: PRIMARY -Premised on Art. without such alternative qualification.” where a person is not only liable for the torts committed by himself. his natural parents. or if such person be insolvent. TC: dismissed the complaint. CC and 1013. imbecile. in accordance with the civil law. Prof. Casis _S. 2. . complaint reinstated and case remanded. they who had actual custody of Adelberto. civil complaint against the Bundocs. 3. the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender. the parents primarily respond for such damages is buttressed by the corresponding provisions in both the RPC and CC that the minor transgressor shall be answerable or shall respond with his own property only in the absence or in case of the insolvency of the parents. CA: dismissed petition. For civil liability arising from QDs committed by minors: same rules in accordance with 2180 and 2182. CA reversed and set aside. the mother. the natural parents of Adelberto. or 9-15 but without discernment -Premised on Art. for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. this civil liability is now. Tamargos lost their right to appeal. are the indispensable parties. Adelberto was living with his natural parents at the time of the accident but a petition for his adoption has already been filed by the Rapisura spouses. Under 2180. law provides a defense. property of minor only liable when parents are insolvent   Tamargo v. under 2176 against him. controlling and disciplining of the child. 21822. In fact. Art. This petition was granted after the shooting of Jennifer. 2182. CC for kids 9-15 with discernment. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian. excepting property exempt from execution. RPC says so.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Hence. the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. 101.    CLASS NOTES What is the basis of the doctrine that liability of parents is primary and not solidary? Why? o 2 legal bases: 101 RPC and 2182 CC Why?-provisions provide for such defense— liability of parents is primary According to the Court. criminal complaint for homicide through reckless imprudence but Adelberto was acquitted and exempted from criminal 2 Art. and in case of his death or incapacity the mother-which rule was amplified by the Youth and Welfare Code. that they are indispensable parties because parental authority had already shifter to them the moment the successful petition for adoption was filed. xxx Should there be no person having such insane. The Bundocs are not indispensable parties to the action. Liability effected against father or mother? BOTH PARENTS AND THOSE WHO EXERCISE PARENTAL AUTHORITY OVER THE MINOR. said insane. RPC support this. or the doctrine of “imputed negligence. applying 2194 (solidary liability of join tortfeasors) the parent is also solidarily liable with the child. or minor shall respond with their own property. The liability of parents for felonies is likewise PRIMARY & not subsidiary. causing injuries which resulted in her death. 101. For both QDs and crimes. When Adelberto shot Jennifer. Adelberto’s natural parents for damages. or 15-21 (now 18) 2. Hence. imbecile or minor under his authority. 1992 FACTS: Adelberto Bundoc. The principle of parental liability is a species of what is frequently designated as vicarious liability. CA June 3. in case of his death or incapacity. Cadano was NOT correct because the liability in fuellas was PRIMARY (syllabus can be wrong kasi) Why primary liability? 1. parental authority was still lodged in the Bundocs. the law imposes civil liability upon the father and. shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle. but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible. 10 years old.Y. RULES: 1. (n) 3 Art. legal guardianship or control. On the other hand. Thus. Ratio: The act of Adelberto gave rise to a cause of action on QD. 2180. are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages. the Bundocs. as so modified. the liability of parents for QDs of their minor kids as contemplated in 2180 is PRIMARY and not subsidiary. the liability shall be effected against the father.

NOTES: Only benefits retroact to the time of filing of the petition for adoption. bus driver and owner jointly and severally liable as mentioned under Libi vs. the legislature has elected to limit such liability to cases in which the person upon whom such an obligation is imposed is morally culpable. Art 101. no parental liability. 221. master and servant (not paterfamilias) – ma not liable even if present during time of incident A2180. for reasons of public policy. 2. without regard to the lack of moral culpability. to extend that liability. whether of act or omission. strict law -don’t apply Elcano v. FC. If liability of the parents for crimes or QDs of their minor children is subsidiary. Basis of civil liability imposed on parents for torts of their minor kids living with them: PARENTAL AUTHORITY vested by the civil code. The liability of parents for felonies is likewise Primary and not subsidiary under A101 of RPC: minor only liable if parents are insolvent (A101 Civil action vs. Toyota) Prof. no presumption of parental dereliction on the Rapisuras could have arisen since Adelberto was not in fact subject to their control at the time the tort was committed. or in having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one’s own agents or servants. In other words. the parents exercise supervision and control. NCC. common law. or on the contrary. Parental dereliction is only a PRESUMPTION which can be overturned under 2180 by proof of all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. pa and son Libi vs. FC: child (tortfeasor) must be in the actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable Anent the retroactivity of parental authority to the time of filing of the petition for adoption: Retroactive effect may perhaps be given where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the child. Cadano (stole pencil and had the nerve to be mad by breaking classmate’s arm!) Criminal case with civil liability arising from it Criminal action vs. Exclucio Ulterus) – MINOR son LIVING in their company A2176 an A2180 (not based on RPC) -even if son caused injuries with deliberate intent (and not merely negligence) -note: not subsidiary liable Guitierrez vs. the law presumes. family except pa in the car driven by minor) RodriguezLuna vs. by legal fiction. so as to include responsibility for the negligence of those persons whose acts or omissions are imputable. This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to exercise due care in one’s own acts. parents SC: Pa made primarily liable for the injury caused by son (son already of age. Art 58 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code: responsibility for child under parental authority Art. IAC (go-cart vs.Y. IAC (Suicide or homicide?) Civil action vs. Manuel Guitierrez (the father) only (+ bus driver and owner) SC: The father. Rico for Serious Physical Injuries Civil action vs Agapito (the father) only SC: Pa liable . Guitierrez (bus collision. then they can neither invoke nor be absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. or in the control of persons who. Manila Raildroad: With respect to extra contractual obligations arising from negligence. by reasons of their status. no PA. parental liability is anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person liable for their conduct. below 18 Basis for liability A1903 (now 2180): FATHER liable for acts of MINOR SON -civil liability is a necessary consequence of parental authority they exercise over their MINOR children A101 RPC incomplete so resort to A2180 of NCC (apply Exclusio Unus. Casis _S. RULE: Parents must have actual or physical custody over the minor to be held liable. IAC A2180. Balce (son above 15 but below 18 killed 18 yr old) Fuellas vs. Here. to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them. not parental authority Parental Authority: Control and supervision over children. said to be insolvent but in Madrid!) SC: Libis are primarily and directly liable Salen and Salbanera vs. RPC Why primarily liable: 1. Capuno (BSP asked by school head to go to the parade) Action for… Civil action for damages (father and son impleaded) Who held liable TC: only son liable SC: Pa and son jointly and severally liable -not the school because not a school of arts and trades SC: Father liable subsidiarily -child above 15. Case Exconde vs. Hence. The basis of parental liability for the torts of a minor child is the relationship existing between the parents and the minor child living with them and over whom. Art 2180. The legislature which adopted our civil code elected to limit extra contractual liability—with certain well-defined exceptions—to cases in which moral culpabilityu can be directly imputed to the persons to be charged. Hill where court allowed only subsidiary liability because it will not serve ends of justice Art 221. 2007- 9 Civil action vs.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 The basis for the doctrine of vicarious liability was explained in Cangco v.

entity or institution. shall exercise the authority. In case several survive. Teachers and Heads of Institutions Family Code Art. or the individual. (314a) observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. instruction or custody. substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent. 2007- 10 Art. CA (adopted child still with parents at time of incident) Criminal complaint Civil complaint vs. 2144. entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision. orphanages and similar institutions duly accredited by the proper government agency. 354a) 4 Art. the mother. judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions.g. 2180. abandoned neglected or abused children and other children similarly situated.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Tamargo vs. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. as provided in Art. over twenty-one years of age. 217. 219. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. so long as they remain in their custody. The father and. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school. Natural parents of child SC: Bundocs (natural parents) are indispensable parties -the adopting parents had no actual custody yet par3) Art. its administrators and teachers. 214. absence or unsuitability of the parents. (e. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions. unless unfit or disqualified. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. the one designated by the court. 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. (1903a) Art. taking into account the same consideration mentioned in the preceding article. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. 2176. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian. In case of death. 2180. MANILA RAILROAD *IMPORTANT: PARENTS MUST HAVE ACTUAL OR PHYSICAL CUSTODY OVER THE MINOR TO BE HELD LIABLE Prof. In case of foundlings. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. 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. The school. 351a. the mother. the following person shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated: (1)The surviving grandparent. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. (n) Art. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. Guardians Family Code Art. (1904)  CLASS NOTE What is a foundling? A baby deserted by unknown parents. parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of duties accompanying such authority. 2. 218. 2181.Y. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they 3. Lastly. Casis _S. (2) The oldest brother or sister. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. (349a. The father and. in case of his death or incapacity. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. in case of his death or incapacity. over twenty-one years of age. those left at the doorstep) Art. parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial proceedings to heads of children's homes. and (3) The child's actual custodian. Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes necessary. unless unfit or disqualified. (349a) Art. (355a) . The parents. 216. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. the same order of preference shall be observed. doctrine of vicarious liability as explained in CANGCO VS.

must be held to be without merit. the facts show that Augusto’s act was occasioned by the fact that Manuel Jr. no MD coz the cases in Art.CONTEMPLATES A SITUATION WHERE THE PUPIL LIVES AND BOARDS WITH THE TEACHER. even if this is a QD within the meaning of Art. Art. and his father CA: Ordered Ciriaco Mercado (the father) to pay for the medical expenses and MD. 2219 were not shown to exist. and so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil. Such a situation does not appear in the case at bar. It is true that under the law. 5. 2219 were not shown to exist. were classmates at the Manila Technical Institute. In retaliation. But this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution. capuno doctrine7: academic institutions not included in Art. Hence. The situated contemplated in the last par. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. Augusto was only 9 and was not shown to act with discernment 7. tired to intervene or interfere with Augusto’s attempt to recover his pitogo. 2-probably because Manuel Jr. 1960 FACTS: Augusto. This was answered in Exconde v. Anent the MD: Only possible circumstance in which MD may be granted is if a felony or QD has been committed. Capuno through Justice Bautista: “we find merit in this claim. no criminal action for physical injuries has been presented 2. The doctor who testified did not declare the amount he collected as fees and Manuel Jr. Hence. 2180 means by “custody” 1. CA Reversed as to MD but affirmed the award of medical expenses. Daffon gave 6Art. thinking it was Benedicto’s. 5 The father and. The pupils were not in the “custody” of the school. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. the claim of Mercado that responsibility should pass to the school. 2180 par. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. 6. Palisoc bitch-slapped Daffon. Even if there was a QD on Augusto’s part. Hence. capuno doctrine: responsibility passes from parents to teachers or heads of ONLY institutions of arts and trades 3. nor does par 25 which makes the father or mother responsible for the damages caused by their minor children. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. SUCH THAT THE CONTROL DIRECTION AND INFLUENCE ON THE PUPIL SUPERSEDES THOSE OF THE PARENTS . Daffon made a remark that Palisoc was like a foreman because he was merely watching them. lent his pitogo to Benedicto who lent it to Renato. 2180 2. in case of his death or incapacity. 9 years old. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. 2219. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. of art. but no MD for the parents. teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damage caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody. Palisoc v. the proximate cause of the injury was Manuel Jr’s own act of interference. No moral damages because cases in Art. the proximate cause of Manuel Jr’s injury is his own fault or negligence for having interfered. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. TC: dismissed the complaint filed by Manuel Jr. During recess. par 26. the mother. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. interfered and told Augusto not to get it from Renato as Renato was better at putting the chain into the holes of the pitogo. 2180 (I think he meant 2nd to the last par) does not apply. HELD: No. RULE: exconde v. Irked. 7 Although later cases say this is a mere obiter because the issue was won the father had civil liability . exconde v. 2219. The pupils go to school during school hours and go back home to their parents after. et al May 30. Casis _S. Augusto resented this remark and aggressively poushed him. Lourdes is not liable because they don’t retain custody (custody=living with the teachers or heads) of their pupils. Prof. Mercado v. 16 years old and Virgilio Daffon. A fight ensued and Augusto wounded Manuel Jr. Lastly. DOCTRINE: what Art. Manuel Jr.” Custody (memorize!): “SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN THEIR CUSTODY”. did not die nor was he incapacitated. CA.Y. Ciriaco Mercado is not responsible even under Art. so long as they remain in their custody. (1903a) ISSUE: WON the teacher or head of the school should be held responsible (instead of the father) since the fight happened during recess time in school (Lourdes Catholic School). When Augusto tried to retrieve his pitogo. Brillantes October 4. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. In these circumstances the control or the influence over the conduct and actions of the pupil would pass from the father and mother to the teacher. 1971 FACTS: Dominador Palisoc. while working on a machine. was not hospitalized. of age. 2007- 11 1. 4.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. on the right cheek with a piece of razor.

CA. IN THE LAW REQUIRES THAT FOR SUCH LIABILITY TO ATTACH. TC: defendants are liable for damages . The authority and custodial supervision (of the teachers and heads) over the pupil exists regardless of the pupil’s age. Valenton and Quibulue are solidarily liable for damages. but Daffon followed him. instructor of the class. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority. 3 days before his high school graduation. and not the parent should be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his custody. Prof. Absolved the following because 2180 is not applicable: It applied Mercado v. custody= live in company (like for parents and guardians) and 2. 1988 FACTS: Alfredo Amadora. Brillantes is not liable because he is a mere member of the board (he could have been liable if not for the incorporation of the school. including recess time. Capuno. The case here was instituted directly against the defendants (as against the cited cases where the father was the defendant). since the responsibility stems from loco parentis. there can be no responsibility. while he was at the auditorium of the Colegio de San Jose-Recolectos either to finish a Physics experiment or to submit a Physics report. MTI is unquestionably a non-academic school.” The phrase “so long as (the students) remain in their custody” means THE PROTECTIVE AND SUPERVISORY CUSTODY THAT THE SCHOOL AND ITS HEADS AND TEACHERS EXERCISE OVER THE PUPILS AND STUDENTS FOR AS LONG AS THEY ARE AT ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL. Governing Principle in law of torts In the law of torts. ISSUE: WON the other defendants (board member. The TC based its decision on Mercado v. 4. It’s unfair to hold teachers and/or administrative heads responsible for tortuous acts of their students considering the high number of enrollment. responsibility limited to minors only (like for parents and guardians) Concurring: Reyes Concurs with majority but dissents with the dissent. 1. etc. when the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher. Brillantes-member of the board of directors of MTI 2. He fainted and never regained consciousness. CA’s definition of “custody” 1. INCLUDING RECESS TIME. the physics teacher and Daffon. teachers. Hence. If there is no authority. as to their pupils and students. was shot by his classmate Pablito Daffon. They exchanged fist blows until Palsioc stumbled on an engine block which caused him to fall face downward. including injuries that some students themselves may inflict willfully or through negligence on their fellow students. Daffon. Makalintal’s interpretation not in accord with the law. making a corporation the owner of the school and not him anymore). Why? for the very reason that the parent is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher while the child is under instruction. followed by fist blows on the stomach. the governing principle is that the protective custody of the school heads and teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the parents. Palisoc tried to retreat. Dissent: Makalintal Wants Mercado sustained.” TC: Daffon liable for QD under 2176. Wants to overturn Exconde (to include academic institutions in the scope of 2180) but has no chance because MTI is anon-academic institution. 17 yrs old. “custody” The TC erred in absolving the defendants on the ground that they can only be held liable if they “lived and boarded with his teacher or the other defendantsschool officials. then it follows that 1. THE PUPIL-TORTFEASOR MUST LIVE AND BOARD IN THE 2. in loco parentis. TC Modified. Only the guardians and parents are exempt once the child reaches majority 2. Rationale of the liability The rationale of the liability of school heads and teachers is that they stand to a certain extent. Definition of “custody”= the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school. CA April 15. the president and instructor must be held solidarily liable unless they prove that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage-which they failed to do. 3. (MEMORIZE) Amadora v. as well as to take the necessary precautions to protect the students in their custody from dangers and hazards that would reasonably be anticipated. the dean of boys and. the president and instructor are liable solidarily for damages. Mercado overturned. Valenton. Under 2180. The Amadoras sued for damages against the School (Colegio). which in turn was based on a dictum in Exconde v. Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. The parents here are not involved since Daffon was already of age at the time of the incident. Quibulue.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Palisoc a strong flat blow on the face.Y. 1. hence.” 3. Moreover. RULE: 1. Reyes’ dissent rules! Adheres to Reyes’ dissent in Exconde: If the basis of presumption of negligence in Art. president of MTI 3. 1903 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents. president and instructor) should be held solidarily liable with Daffon HELD: Yes. The school cannot be held liable as it was not impleaded as a party defendant. and are called upon to “exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. including recess time. The autopsy report said he died of broken ribs and hemorrhage on the brain caused “probably by strong fist blows. Casis _S. It would demand responsibility without the commensurate authority. 2007- 12 (MEMORIZE) NOTHING SCHOOL. the teacher. Mercado doctrine abandoned/overturned 2. and hence it becomes their obligation as well as that of the school itself to provide proper supervision of the students’ activities during the whole time that they are at attendance in the school.

2180 HELD: Petition denied. regardless of whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended (Duration of Responsibility) (MEMORIZE STANDARD): “CUSTODY” IS NOT CO-TERMINOUS WITH THE SEMESTER. His absence cannot be taken against him as he was not required to report to school that day. Amadora is the case! 1. “Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence. School not liable because it is not an establishment of arts and trades -Defined “custody” as living and boarding with the teacher Palisoc. Prof. 3. the words should be taken distributively . AS LONG AS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE STUDENT IS IN THE SCHOOL PREMISES IN PURSUANCE OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT OBJECTIVE. Alfredo Amadora was still in the school’s “custody” when the incident happened 2. Even if the student should be doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the company of his classmates and friends and enjoying the ambience and atmosphere in the school. the school. Physics teacher not liable because there was no showing that he was negligent in his duties.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 CA: All the defendants were absolved. rector. Mercado-reiterated Exconde. IN THE EXERCISE OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT RIGHT. ISSUE: Interpretation of Art. application of 2180 to both academic and non-academic schools 3. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the students under his control and supervision. the teacher is answerable for torts of his students regardless of the student’s age. teachers is to pupils and students as heads is to apprentices 4. it may 9 This disparity no longer exist in view of the increase in enrollment.e. -Defined “custody” to mean that the protective and supervisory custody of the school and its heads and teachers over the students are in force so long as they remain in school including recess time. 8 Referring each to each. 4. If at all. whatever its nature may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers and heads under the general principle of respondeat superior. The SC summarized 3 cases which have been decided in connection with 2180: Exconde-school not liable because it is not a school of arts and trades -Reyes’ dissent-rule was imposed on teachers in general and heads OF establishments of arts and trades. None are liable. 2180. AND EVEN IN THE ENJOYMENT OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT PRIVILEGE. 2180 applies so long as the student is under the control and custody and within the school premises.Y. he is still within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of Art.teacher is liable for the pupils and students (General Rule) b.9 There is no substantial distinction between an academic and a non-academic school insofar as torts committed by their students are concerned. But that’s a task for the legislature. Colegio not liable because 2180 does not apply to school but only to its teachers and heads. Art. Casis _S. high school principal and dean of boys NOT liable because none of them were the teacher-in charge (they only exercised a general authority and not the direct control and influence exerted by the teacher-incharge) Dean of boys not liable although he earlier confiscated a gun because it was not shown that the gun he confiscated and the gun that was used in the shooting were the same. if non-academic. 2180 applies to both academic and nonacademic schools Reddendo Singula Singulis8 a. Art. school not directly liable under 2180 par 7. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES OVER THE STUDENT CONTINUES. Liability imposed not on the school itself It should be noted that the liability imposed is supposed to fall directly on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself. i. referring each phrase or expression to its appropriate object or let each be put in its proper place. 2. CONCURRING & DISSENTING: Melencio-Herrera -“teacher” in 2180 should not be limited to the “teacherin-charge” -the school may be held responsible under 2180 as the employer of the teachers and heads CONCURRING: Gutierrez. 3. whatever the nature of the school he is teaching. Jr. Custody definition 2.—defense which is also available to the teacher or the head. 2007- 13 exculpate itself by proof of exercise of diligence of bonus paterfamilias.head is liable for the apprentices (Exception) *But same vigilance is required! Reason for disparity: historically the heads of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage over his pupils than the head of an academic school. -in a footnote. Hence: 1. 4.Set aside/abandoned the doctrines in Exconde and Mercado. Colegio is not a school of arts and trades and Daffon was not in custody since the semester already ended. if academic. Pupil not required to be a minor to hold teacher liable Unlike the parent who will be liable only for his minor child. -reiterates the need for an amendment due to the nonexistent disparity between teachers of academic schools and heads of arts and trades RULE: 1. Tehankee (the ponente) said that he agreed with Reyes in his Exconde dissent to include academic schools but had no chance because the school involed is a non-academic one.

School may exculpate itself by proving diligence of a good father of a family. he required the kids to remain inside the pit. BUT. Soriano cannot be held liable a. digging was part of work education 2. Aquino is liable for damages under 2176 (Q: WON the act or omission of Aquino amounting to fault or negligence has a direct causal connection to Ylarde’s death) a. There is no need to discuss the applicability of 2180 to educational institutions for the issue is actually whether or not. Answer to that issue: NO! the provision speaks only of TEACHERS or HEADS. as a head of an academic school. the principal for damages. The school. The petition is based on) and may be held liable under 2180. He is a Head of an academic school and not of a school of arts and trades (in line with Amadora) b. One of the kids jumped on the concrete block causing it to fall in the pit and pinning Ylarde who was not able to get 10 Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. Melencio-Herrera Joins Sarmiento in his dissent. 1. CA: Affirmed TC ISSUE: WON both Aquino and Soriano may be held liable. 5 negligent acts of Aquino i. Branch V April 25. TC: dismissed case against Araneta ISSUE: WON Art. CA reversed and set aside. 2180 is applicable to academic institutions. Wrong issue. against ACADEMIC school A2180 doesn’t include Academic schools (this is the case where the court researcher was not aware of the ruling in Amadora vs. QUESTION: Would the school be held liable after the Family Code? ANSWER: Yes! School can be held liable under 218. HELD: petition dismissed. (349a) . 1988 FACTS: Edgardo Aquino. entity or institution. or the individual. He did not order the digging 2. The Ylardes (mom and dad) sued Aquino and Soriano. he should’ve used adult laborers and not 10 year olds ii. 11 Art. under 2180. Soriano. Aquino July 29. FC11 out of the in time. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school. Pasco had just finished his classes and the Muslim group were also students of Araneta. 218. ED and MD under 2176 (art. TC: dismissed the complaint. Ylarde may be held liable under 2180 as the teacher-in-charge He was negligent in his supervision and he failed to take the necessary precautions. the stone was obviously at the brink of falling. He left while the work was unfinished and the kids. the Ylardes based their petition on 2176. the school or the university ITSELF (as distinguished form teachers or heads) is liable. 1. instruction or custody. NO ONE was held liable in Amadora! DISSENT: Sarmiento Par 510 of 2180 may be construed as the basis of liability of the school as the employer for the failure of its teachers or heads to perform their mandatory legal duties as substitute parents. CFI of Bulacan. he left the kids near an attractive nuisance        CLASS NOTE facts: by students. jumped in the pit. yet he require the kids to level the soil around the excavation iv. after sem ends A2180 applies to both ACADEMIC and NONACADEMIC schools Academic: teacher-in-charge:: Institute of Arts and Trades: Heads Custody does not connote INFLUENCE exerted on the child and the DISCIPLINE instilled in him as a result of such influence pupil is not required to be a minor for the teacher to be liable! (A2180 doesn’t require minority) Applicability to academic institutions WAS an issue prior to this case—see Exconde Despite the broadness of the definition of custody. a teacher in Gabaldon Primary School gathered his male students aged 10-11 to clean-up the remnants of WWII. its administrators and teachers. by student of the school. entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision. 2007- 14     CLASS NOTE facts: in Academic school. Casis _S. knowing that a huge block was just nearby iii. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. 3. Pasco. Ylarde vs. Aquino exercised utmost diligence 3. HELD: Aquino is liable for indemnity. w/n school premises.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 NOTES: dangerous definition of “custody” because it is so broad (even if just walking around school enjoying its ambience and atmosphere) Prof. he left the kids v.Y. 1988 FACTS: Reynaldo Pasco was mauled by a group of Muslim students and stabbed by Abdul while walking inside the Araneta University (Araneta). They had to dig a hole to bury the concrete blocks. cannot be held liable. Ylarde’s death was due to his own reckless imprudence. CA) Don’t sue school based on 2180 (7)  Pasco v. Ylarde sustained injuries which caused his death 3 days later. assisted by his father sued Abdul and Araneta for damages.

drowned during a school picnic while trying to save a female teacher. Salvosa-president and chairman of BCF board. definition of custody…Victim is student of another school Ponente forgot Amadora—decided 6 months earlier. RULE: Defines “recess” Qualified Custody NOTE: Salvosa mitigates the effects of Amadora-but this was not cited in Salvosa. 1991 FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo.” IT IS A SITUATION WHERE THE STUDENT STILL REMAINS WITHIN THE CALL OF HIS MENTOR AND IS NOT PERMITTED TO LEAVE THE SCHOOL PREMISES OR THE AREA WITHIN WHICH THE SCHOOL ACTIVITY IS CONDUCTED. Plus. the dean and BCF. 1. against who: student of University of Baguio Memorize: recess and custody Amadora: legitimate student objective…Victim is own student Salvosa: applied Palisoc. 13. ACT OR OMISSION MUST HAVE OCCURRED WHILE AN EMPLOYEE WAS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ASSIGNED TASKS. 1. and are called upon to “exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. TC: Solidary liability of Abon. IAC October 5. It was but natural for kids to play around c. HELD: No. INCLUDING RECESS TIME. So to reconcile both cases: If victim is a student of school—Amadora. No MD coz case does not fall under any of the grounds for MD and they are not guilty of negligence. The picnic was not a . as contemplated in the law. the principal and 4 teachers solidarily liable for AD. Salvosa and BCF Absolved other defendants RECESS BY ITS NATURE DOES NOT INCLUDE DISMISSAL. No one is guilty under 2180. IAC Reversed in so far as it holds Salvosa and BCF solidarily liable with Abon.  Salvos v. at the BCF parking lot at around 8pm. a truly careful and cautious person would’ve acted in all contrast to the way Aquino did. Abon shot Napoleon Castro. Francis High School. B. Ylarde cannot be charged with reckless imprudence The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the person to care for himself. Salvosa-the EVP of BCF. Abon cannot be considered to have been in “attendance in the school.Y. 2007- 15       CLASS NOTE School: ACAD + Institute of Arts and Trade time: dismissal. HELD: No. A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an adult.THE PROTECTIVE AND St.” or in the custody of BCF when he shot Napoleon.” 2. CA set aside. Francis High School vs. Plus. None of them are guilty of either their own negligence or of the negligence of those under them 2. J. discretion. He was convicted of Homicide. The Castillos sued the school. TC: Held the 6 teachers solidarily liable for AD & MD Absolved the school and the principal Both appealed CA: Modified TC. IAC: Affirmed but modified award ISSUE: WON Salvosa and BCF can be held solidarily liable with Abon for damages under 2180. Abon was not in the custody of BCF at the time of the incident. Casis _S. where: in parking lot of school. the principal and the 6 teachers who were at the picnic for damages. the negligent act of Aquino in leaving the kids in such a dangerous site has a direct causal connection to the death of Ylarde. Napoleon’s heirs (Castros) sued for damages impleading Abon. ISSUE: WON 2180 is applicable. was a student of the BCF and an employee of AFP (as an armorer for the BCF-ROTC unit) with work premises inside the BCF. a commerce student of BCF with an unlicensed gun from the ROTC armory. teachers and principal impleaded Applied Amadora doctrine: (teacher:ACAD::heads:Establishments of arts and trade) Qualifying “custody” In line with Palisoc. 1988 FACTS: Jimmy Abon. Rationale for liability Reiterated Palisoc: The rationale of the liability of school heads and teachers is that they stand to a certain extent. The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age. 4. MD and ED. in loco parentis. The ROTC Commandant. the mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a school without more does not constitute “attending school” or being in the “protective and supervisory custody” of the school. Abon was not in the “custody” of BCF when he shot Napoleon DEFINITION OF Prof. knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 b. B. he was supposed to be working when the incident happened. as to their pupils and students. but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his age and experience. THE HIS SUPERVISORY CUSTODY THAT THE SCHOOL AND ITS HEADS AND TEACHERS EXERCISE OVER THE PUPILS AND STUDENTS FOR AS LONG AS THEY ARE AT ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL. Held the school. and a freshman at St. RECESS IS A TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT EMBRACED IN THE CONCEPT OF “AT ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL. School not liable under 2180 TO BE HELD LIABLE UNDER 2180. digging was not part of work education/ d. CA February 25. capacity. If victim is NOT a student of school-Salvosa  “CUSTODY” (MEMORIZE!)-.   CLASS NOTE facts: students.

Jr. teachers were negligent. they did all that is humanly possible to save Ferdinand DISSENT: Padilla 1. Casis _S. 21. 1992 FACTS: Carlos Bautista was stabbed to death by outsiders within PSBA’s premises. and the activity was organized by the teachers for the students. 2180 doe not apply because offender was not a student of PSBA Under 2180. Soliman sued Solomon. Teachers are not negligent hence not liable a. Art. 1. as per jurisprudence. Art.Y. 2180 n/a because Solomon was not a student of RCC TC: granted MTD ISSUE: WON the RCC may be held liable under 2180 HELD: No. a student of the Republic Central Colleges. does not include academic institutions. Many of the teachers were present. In this case though. TC: MTD denied CA: Affirmed TC coz 2180 applies to all kinds of educational institutions. 2180. it was established that the offenders were not PSBA students. School is liable under 2180 par. par 512 does not apply RCC was not the employer of Solomon. RCC and the RL for damages. this is not based on a QD which arises when parties are not bound by any contract. But case is remanded to determine if PSBA failed to discharge its obligations under its contract with Bautista CA correct in denying MTD but on the wrong grounds. 2. RCC was only a client of RL-the employer of Solomon. 5 The negligence of an employee in causing injury or damage gives rise to a presumption of negligence on the part of the owner and/or manager of the establishment. RCC may be held liable under the a contract. 3. Art. 1. unless the negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in Art. Activity was stamped with school authority. a security guard assigned to the school. 2007 16 A2180 applies to schools only if student liable but if student a victim. Case remanded to determine if there was a breach of contract. Tuazon May 18. They failed to observe the proper diligence BEFORE THE INCIDENT (water was deep. the offender should be a pupil of the school. Although a QD may still arise even when there is a contract. was shot by Jimmy Solomon. RULE: Liability only for failure to perform assigned tasks NOTES: Authority in saying that diligence should be BEFORE and not after the FACT and its officers filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that 2180. v. PSBA vs. 21. RULE: Art. 3. 1992 FACTS: Maximo Soliman Jr. Because Solomon was not an employee of RCC and neither was he a student. In this case.life savers were brought c. . The supposed life guards were not there! They were having a drinking spree 2. PSBA’s negligence cannot exist independently of the contract. only oral instructions were given) b. The Principal is not liable under 2180 Mere knowledge of the picnic is not enough He did not consent to the picnic 4. The Bautistas sued PSBA and its corporate officers for damages. RCC filed a MTD on the following grounds: 1. a. Solomon was employed by RL Security Agency. resulting in a bilateral obligation---therefore. BOC Soliman. if the act which breaches the contract is done in BF & be violative of Art. PSBA’s negligence would only be relevant in the existence of a contract. RCC not the employer of Solomon 2.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 sanctioned school activity nor an extra-curricular activity. ISSUE: WON PSBA can be held liable under 2180 HELD: No. under the case of PSBA. instructors and scout masters who had knowledge in 1st aid and swimming were invited b. hence RCC had no hand in the selection and supervision process. Principal was negligent He knew of the activity and he did not take the appropriate measures to ensure the safety of his students. PSBA may be held liable based on breach of contract When a student enrolls. But. there is an established contract between him and the school. 2180 applies only if the offender was a student of the school Prof. CA February 4. PSBA  CLASS NOTE 12 The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

350. with regard to apprentices. those exercising special parental authority are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor under their supervision. Mary’s Academy conducted an enrollment drive for the incoming school year. 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. and other affairs of the pupils and students outside the school premises whenever authorized by the school or its teachers. Villanueva was likewise absolved.Y. The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is Art. This involved visitation of schools. It was the grandson of Villanueva. caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. Under this contract. b. entity or institution. (n) proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. 349. as the registered owner of the jeep is liable for damages Overwhelming evidence that the accident was due to the detachment of the steering wheel guide. James was absolved due to his minority. CA: Affirmed but reduced AD. CA reversed and set aside. a. Hence. the parents must be held primarily liable. Mary’s insolvency. 352. entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision. FC. who was part of the campaigning group rode the jeep. Casis _S. The steering wheel guide was detached while the jeep was running. The relations between teacher and pupil. Mary’s. 13 Lastly. Arts. its administrators and teachers. or the individual. judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute    CLASS NOTE school liable if Proximate Cause of the injury is their negligence special parental authority applies as long as the activity was approved by an office of the school FC A218: school. 2007- 17 Under 219. 3. its administrators and teachers 2. instruction or custody. instruction or custody. FC applies to: 1. St. The teacher or professor shall cultivate the best potentialities of the heart and mind of the pupil or student. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the 14 Art. The persons named in the preceding article shall exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. The parents. & 35214 does not apply Solomon was not a student of RCC. premises of the school. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. 2002 FACTS: St. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages Art. 218. for St. parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. The proximate cause of the accident was not the negligence nor the reckless driving of James. par7: Art. 219. The jeep was owned by Villanueva and was driven by James Daniel II. Sherwin sustained injuries which caused his death. St. In no case shall corporal punishment be countenanced. The Carpitanos sued St. But. 15 Prof. Case remanded for determination of liability of defendants excluding St. The Daniels were held subsidiarily liable in the event of St. professor and student. Villanueva. There’s no evidence that St. the Daniels (parents of James) and Villanueva. so long as they remain in their custody. but the mechanical defect of the jeep. Parents are Primarily liable Whether the accident was due to James negligence or the mechanical failure. St. 3. its NCC A2180. entity or institution engaged in child care This special parental authority and responsibility applies to all authorized activities. 1. Mary’s is liable for damages under 218 & 21915. (349a) Art. xxx (4) Directors of trade establishments. are fixed by government regulations and those of each school or institution. James. 350. there must be a finding that the act or omission considered a s negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence. Mary’s Academy v. The school. ISSUE: WON St Mary’s is liable HELD: No. along with other HS students. whether inside or outside the premises of the school. must have a causal connection to the accident. who had control and possession of the jeep who allowed James to drive. the individual. school had no substitute parental authority over him. PSBA applies RCC may be held liable under the implied contract between RCC and Soliman. Sherwin Carpitanos. 3. Mary’s negligence was only a remote cause. 7. NOTES: applied FC-this seems to imply strict liability but SC here allowed defense of diligence. 2. Mary’s. Mary’s is not liable The special parental authority under 218. entity or institution. 2180 par. and either the Daniels’ negligence or the mechanical failure was the intervening cause. Who liable .    CLASS NOTES A2180 not applicable to nonstudents. 4.13 349. if the person under custody is a minor. They were on their way to an elementary school when the jeep turned turtle due to James’ reckless driving. Such authority and responsibility applies to field trips. TC: 1. the school. excursions. St. Mary’s allowed the minor James to drive the jeep. Carpitanos February 6. to nonemployees This case should have used the provisions from the Family Code. FC 2. the school has an implicit obligation to provide students with an atmosphere conducive to learning.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 2. Mary’s to be held liable. a 15 year old student. The following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority: (2) Teachers and professors.

activity should be inside school premises 4. St. Francis Case. 13. Libi: Primary liability of parent-CLEARED UP ISSUE ON PRIMARY OR SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY 6. entity or institution engaged in child …have special parental authority and responsibility …to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school. St. (WON employers/owners/managers of an establishment/enterprise includes managers of corporations) HELD: No.Y. Salen: subsidiary liability of parent 3. 10.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 administrators and teachers. PAF is a corporation with a personality separate and distinct from that of Balingit (this was not alleged in the complaint). Important to note that:  Under the FC. Inc. Mary’s. no distinction is made WON School is ACADEMIC or NONACADEMIC Incident happened WITHIN OR OUTSIDE school premises. Owners Establishments and Managers of *Rationale of employers being liable: policy consideration—allocating risks 2. Ylarde: head of an academic school not liable. Inc March 25. vs. (Balingit’s defense was that he was not the employer of Pineda) TC: Dismissed complaint against Balingit as he is not the “manger” contemplated under 2180. The argument that PAF is a mere business conduit of the Balingit spouses implies the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction. Fuellas: primary liability of parent (did not categorically state that parent is subsidiarily liable) (DEPENDIENTE) OF THE 4. Amadora: 2180 applies to all schools. ISSUE: WON Balingit is liable under 2180. Overturned Exconde -Academic school-teacher-pupil -Arts & trades-head-apprentice Broad definition of custody 9. PSBA: offender must be a student of the school. Exconde: Primary liability of parent 2180 applies only to arts and trades 2. judicial guardians. it cannot be countenanced in this appeal. Their pupils and students or apprentices. Francis: 2180 applies to school sanctioned activities and in the failure to perform assigned tasks. The terms “employers” and “owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise” DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MANAGER OF A CORPORATION. so long as they remain in their custody Primarily and directly 8. or the individual. Since this was not raised in the lower court. 1. driver of a Philippine American Forwarders freight truck hit a Philippine Rabbit Bus along a national highway.  2180 not limited to minors and liability of teacher is only when academic and not arts and trades Summary of cases: 1. Casis _S. Salvosa: defines “recess”. Does not have to live or board with teacher or head Overturned Mercado. as the manager of PAF and Pineda were sued based on a QD. Pasco: 2180 applies to teachers or heads not to school itself. Mercado: Custody=living and boarding with teacher or head 7. For damages caused by Liability 12. Balingit is not the “manager” contemplated in 2180 The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Who may be liable under special parental authority. Palisoc: custody-protective and supervisory custody. . Soliman: No substitute parental authority over security guard who was neither an employee nor a student 15. 2007- 18 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines. not an outsider for 2180 to apply. No chance to Overturn Exconde. entity or institution Minor child while under their supervision. 11. persons exercising substitute parental authority teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades *In St. The bus driver suffered injuries and the bus was unusable for 79 days resulting in loss of income. Balingit. 1975 FACTS: Fernando Pineda. qualifies (mitigates amadora’s effects) custody Prof. Rodriguez-Luna: primary liability of parent 5. But may invoke contractual obligation 14. PhilAmerican Forwarders. instruction or custody A219: unemancipated minor Principally and solidarily liable – schools Subsidiarily liable – parents. THE TERM MANAGER (DIRECTOR IN SPANISH VERSION) IS USED IN THE SENSE OF EMPLOYER WHICH IS NOT EQUAL TO A MANAGER OF A CORPORATION WHO IS ALSO AN EMPLOYEE CORPORATION.

Philtranco argues it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. The Court made distinctions between the 2 paragraphs.Y. but he died anyway. He hit Vasquez. NOTES: IMPLICATION: 4th par covered by 5th par. who had a student’s permit. The driver didn’t stop. Note: This seems to contradict with Valenzuela v CA. ISSUE 2: WON Castilex has the burden of proving that Abad was not working within the scope of his assigned tasks HELD: NO. He who alleges must prove. SC ruled that the 5th par merely says being engaged in a business is not necessary for the paragraph to apply. WON engaged in a business or industry Encompasses negligent acts of employees as long as they were acting within the scope of their assigned tasks Prof. Abad came from a different place. The action is an action for damages for QD under Art 2176 and 2180. 2007- 19 Jurisprudence even if the relationship is Respondeat superior18 not Pater familias. (n) 17 Art.. making Castilex liable   CLASS NOTE Employers liable because of paterfamilias Castilex v. Operation of Employer’s Vehicle in Going to and From Work The employer is liable if he derives some special benefit such as more time for the performance of duties or that such duties require the employee to circulate in a general area for work. Abad brought him to the hospital. The Court cited principles in American 18 The act of the agent is the act of the principal. The fact that Abad was a manager and driving a company-issued vehicle is not sufficient to charge Castilex with liability. a biker. . 2181. Use of Employer’s Vehicle Outside Regular Working Hours The employer is liable if he derives some incidental benefit. The plaintiffs have the burden. hence employer should prove diligences as a defense WHY OWNER?-deeper prockets FACTS: Abad. Acuesta’s heirs sued Manhilig and Philtranco for QD. Employers NOTES: JURIS TANTUM (REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION) WHY?coz hard for victim to prove that employer was not negligent (similar to res ipsa). The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 5. Operation of Employer’s Motor Vehicle in Going to and From Meals The employer is liable if the vehicle is used to reduce his time-off and devote more time to the performance of is duties. NOTE: Sir says this case has the implication that par 4 is superfluous because par 5 encompasses everything. 2194. (1904) HELD: NO. saying Manhilig had an excellent record and exercised the diligence of a very cautious person. and on a motorcycle. ISSUE 1: WON CA erred in applying par 5 and not par 4 of Art 2180 HELD: NO. Vasquez December 1999   CLASS NOTES Castilex sold furniture (relevance: on “engaged in a business or industry” under A2180. The criminal case did not prosper for failure to prosecute. par5) RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR: CONCLUSIVE FAULT/NEGLIGENCE OF EMPLOYEE PATERFAMILIAS: PRESUMPTION JURIS TANTUM (REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION)   16 Art. The Court has considered the liability of a registered owner of a public service vehicle for damages arising from tortuous acts of the driver as primary. The place where the employee is coming from is material. The latter is called the “special errand” or “roving commission” rule. but was forced to by a cop who saw the accident and boarded the bus. CA June 1997 FACTS: A Philtranco bus. The employer’s only recourse is to recover what it has paid from the employee who committed the fault or negligence (Art 2181)17. He was working beyond office hours and was coming from a place where he had snacks. driven by Manhilig was being pushed and jumpstarted along a perpendicular street. Casis _S. The civil case for damages was filed by Vasquez’s parents. in Philtranco v. The employer is not liable when the vehicle is used for a personal benefit and returned to where it is normally kept.CA held the liability of Cadtilex was “vicarious not solidary contrary to TC’s ruling. hence 4th paragraph is useless 5th par-an expansion of the 4th par in both employer coverage and acts included cf Valenzuela-why different results? –coz Valenzuela. It started suddenly and ran over Acuesta. Sir says there is no contradiction. a production manager of Castilex. TC and Ca ruled for Vasquezs. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. ISSUE: WON Philtranco may be held liable for the act of Manhilig HELD: YES. was driving his company-issued vehicle after office hours. in general. 4th par Owners and managers Covers negligent acts or employees committed either in the service of the branches or on occasion of their functions 5th par Employers. ISSUE 3: WON Abad was working within the scope of his assigned tasks. direct and joint and several or solidary with the driver (Art 2194)16.

the employer may be held liable if it is in furtherance of the latter’s interests.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008  What’s the rule if we combine 2180 (4) and (5) as regards the liability of employer for the acts or omissions of employees? Requisites to hold the employer liable for torts under 2180: 1. The Civil Code and NOT the Labor Code applies to determine NPC’s liability because the action here is based on the recovery of damages as a result of QD. Common carriers. Filamer v. Nicanor’s widow and children sued Escartin. The Court tries to utilize doctrine to support their cause. PHESCO supplied Ilumba as a driver to NPC. In this case. Having a driver’s license. ISSUE: Who is the employer of Ilumba. Metro Transit and Prudent (security agency). each claiming Ilumba is the employee of the other. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYER OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME OF THE INFLICTION OF THE INJURY. Exception: Benefit to the ER GOING TO AND FROM WORK General rule: ER not liable OUTSIDE REGULAR WORKING HOURS Supervision includes: 1. by the nature of its business and reasons of public policy. The train hit him and he died instantly. is burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence. Labor Code provisions do not apply even n the determination of an employer-employee relationship. etc. Requisites to hold the employer liable for torts under 2180: 1. he requested Masa.Y. Roman (the train driver). Casis _S. it may hire its own employees or avail of . It appears that Agustin Masa. PROVISIONS OF LAW RENDER A COMMON CARRIER LIABLE FOR DEATH AND INJURY OF PASSENGERS: CLASS NOTE Labor Code provision that there is an ER-EE relationship is not applicable NPC v. the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations through his employees. and 2. liable with him HELD: NPC. NOTE: Sir thinks this is a dangerous doctrine because even if the activity is far removed from the business/institution. This duty is not only during the course of the trip but for as long as the passengers are within the premises and where they ought to be in pursuance of the contract of carriage. Q: is there an ER-EE relationship between the school and the student working part-time in the school? Prof. Sir says there is a policy considerations. Employee must be acting within the scope of his assigned task American Jurisprudence: 3 situations (General Rule: Employer NOT liable. because Funtecha swerved right to avoid a fast-moving truck. and therefore. The Labor Code applies only to liability caused by non-compliance with substantive labor standards on working conditions. NCC applies! LC not strictly applied. a security guard and he fell unto the tracks. to let him drive them home where Funtecha also lives. He got into a fistfight with Escartin. 2007- 20 2. The fact that he was not the school driver is insignificant. • Through negligence or willful acts of its employees • On account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented the act or omission In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers. Presumptive liability of employer (when employee is driving a company vehicle) is determined by answering this Q: WON the servant was at the time of the accident performing any act in furtherance of his master’s business. IAC August 1992 FACTS: Funtecha is a part-time janitor and scholar of Filamer. resulting in the death of 3 persons in the Tamaraw and injuries to 17 passengers. Funtecha drove the jeep not for his enjoyment but for the service of Filamer. Filamer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family. The presumption of liability was overcome. averring it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. PHESCO is a labor-only contractor because it does not carry on an independent business and does not have substantial capital. 2. ISSUE: WON Filamer is liable HELD: YES. 3. ER-EE relationship 2. employee must be acting within the scope of his assigned task NOTE: In Filamer. LRTA. there must exist an ER-EE relationship THAT IS APPLICABLE EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEE DERIVES SOME BENEFIT FROM THE ACT. LRTA and Roman filed counterclaims and Prudent denied liability.   LRT v. Besides. Navidad February 2003 FACTS: Nicanor was drunk when he entered the LRT station after buying a token.    CLASS NOTES par4 and 5 of 2180. Exception: Employer LIABLE when he derives special business benefit) GOING TO AND FROM MEALS General rule: ER is not liable. The clause “within the scope of their by assigned tasks” for the purpose of raising the presumption of liability of an employer includes ANY ACT DONE BY THE EMPLOYEE. NPC and PHESCO are pointing fingers. Masa yielded and on the way they hit a pedestrian. just used to determine the existence of EER 1. CA August 1998 FACTS: A dump truck driven by Ilumba and owned by NPC collided with a Toyota Tamaraw. Kapunan. ISSUE: WON LRTA is liable HELD: YES. It is merely an agent of NPC. school president. knew of the license. formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of its employers. driver and son of school president.

watching someone changed her tire. he came from a coemployee’s place in BF Homes Pque. While standing on the left rear side of the car. the driver is not a special agent within the contemplation of the law. In either case. They did not interpose nor prove this defense. Though the State waived its immunity from suit. Image of success 2. she was bumped by Li 6. uses the car to facilitate meetings with clients. Li. Casis _S.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 the services of a contractor. At the time of the accident. it did not concede liability to Merritt.     CLASS NOTES not liable simply because of company car but because of bonus pater familias standard in A2180 – did not prove diligence and under 2nd instance discussed in Castilex juris tantum presumption (rebuttable) vs. establish 1st employee’s fault or negligence 2. an Asst. all passengers of the Ford. take note of discussion on practice of companies in issuing company cars    CLASS NOTES presumption that they are negligent flows from the negligence of their employee liability: primary. resulting in the death of 3 and injuries to 3 others. Note: Why is there a presumption? Sir says it is because it is difficult to prove the employer did not exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.Y. in which the ultimate liability falls upon the employer. Prof. ISSUE: WON Alexander was liable HELD: YES. In this case. the use of the car principally serves the business the private purposes and the goodwill of the company and only incidentally the private purposes of the employee who uses the car. There is a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. In this case. 2007- 21 juridical person capable of acquiring rights and contracting obligations)   CLASS NOTE Very useful provision in our day and age Merritt v. the Court averred the privilege of using a company car serves 2 purposes: 1. The State is not liable for torts. The car of the latter was registered to Alexander Commercial. to swerve into the truck’s lane. CA February 1996 FACTS: Valenzuela had a flat tire and had to park her midnight blue Mitsubishi lancer on the side of the road. The presumption is they came from a company function or discussed work-related matters. the carrier is not relieved of its responsibility under the contract of carriage. ISSUE: WON the employer of Galang is liable HELD: YES. She had lost her left leg (only some skin and muscle connected to the rest of her body) and had to be fitted with a prosthetic leg. presumption juris tantum that employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in selection and supervision 3. The only defense is due diligence of a good father of a family. The relationship between Li and Alexander is Pater familias not Respondeat superior. and except when state acts as a . Mngr of the company. The State is not responsible for the damages suffered by private individuals in consequence of the acts performed by its employees pertaining to their office because neither fault nor negligence can be presumed on the part of the State in the organization of branches of public service and appointment of its agents. foreign to the exercise of duties of his office if he is a special officer So in this case the chauffeur still was acting within his duty as a driver when he hit Merritt Merritt was one of the best constructors of wooden buildings at that time! Valenzuela v. The accident was caused by 2 boys who darted into the street causing Kho. juris et jure (conclusive) cf with Castilex: compare the place where Abad and Li came from along with the nature of Li’s job which required him to have a car. PRIMARY LIABILITY-but can be negated by due diligence in selection and supervision (allegedly drunk). which is subversive to public interest. ISSUE: WON the State is liable for damages HELD: NO. IAC July 1992 FACTS: A head-on collision between a cargo truck driven by Galang and a Ford Escort driven by Jose Kho. agents and employees (unless special agent. Government March 1916 FACTS: Plaintiff Merritt suffered severe injuries as his motorcycle collided with a PGH ambulance due to the negligence of the latter’s vehicle’s driver. direct and solidary        CLASS NOTES This case defined actually defined special agent (although sir didn’t seem to remember): receives a definite and fixed order or commission. except when it acts through a special agent. This case is more of a roving commision Valenzuela case says that A2180 was modified by FC. The Government passed an Act authorizing Merritt to sue the Government.. Practical and utilitarian reasons (to reach clients conveniently) Thus. the State did not undertake to guarantee to third persons the acts of all its employees for that would subject the State to countless suits. Employer’s liability under 2180: 1. McKee v. Although the accident was caused by a government employee. State -not liable for acts of its officers. driver of the Ford.

The award of the lease was a proprietary function. any person by reason of the defective condition of roads. There is no showing that whatever negligence may be imputed to the ECA or its officers was not done by any special agent. He hit his head on the rim. Court always makes someone liable. Maliaman February 1991 FACTS: National Irrigation Administration was created for the purpose of constructing. streets. NIA’s driver caused the death of Fontanilla due to the fault and/or negligence. mayor. rehabilitating and administering all national irrigation systems of the Philippines. Provinces. Auditor General August 1948 FACTS: Employees of the Emergency Control Administration had gasoline stored in their warehouse. IN GENERAL. bridges. which was awarded to Mendoza and gave it to someone else. the tortfeasors may be sued in capacities such as those in private corporations. broke his glasses and the pieces of which pierced his eyelid. ART 2189 GOVERNS LIABILITY DUE TO “DEFECTIVE STREETS”. Mendoza v.Pangasinan. whether individual or juridical bodies. saying ECA special agent. In a case for damages. RA 3601 and PD 552 provide that NIA is a body corporate invested with a corporate personality and distinct from the government.   CLASS NOTES added special agent: aside from special commission. Where a private individual is commissioned to do a special task. Casis _S. It’s all about allocating risks. improving. Teotico January 1968 FACTS: Teotico was waiting a jeepney. 2189. Prof. it may be sued. The municipality has 2 functions: governmental and proprietary/corporate. It applies because it is ore specific. 2007- 22 FACTS: This is an action for damages against the individual members of the municipal council of Villasis. NIA’s functions are basically proprietary and incidentally governmental. city health officer. public buildings. ISSUE: WON the Government should pay damages HELD: NO. As he was about to board one. as opposed to ordinary government officials who were also agents    CLASS NOTES comment ni sir: charter is supposed to be more specific since it only applies to city of manila but civil code is more specific in determining liability for defective streets… You can argue either way. So. Such storage was contrary to a Manila ordinance. they can be sued…individual members of municipal council can be sued Does A2180 apply to municipalities? Yes delegation of powers  RULE: OFFICIALS: comprises all officials and employees of the government who exercise duties of their respective public officers SPECIAL AGENTS: all others who are acting by commission of the government. Whereas SEC 4 RA 409 REFERS TO LIABILITY ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE. Rosete’s building were damaged. Manila’s assertion that it did not own the street is of no moment. (n)   City of Manila v. In such a case. Fontanilla v. CLASS NOTES when state acts in their proprietary function. Respondeat superior applies. His parets fled a suit for damages. city treasurer and chief of police. He also got contusions and abrasions on other parts of his body. and other public works under their control or supervision. ISSUE: Which applies: Sec 4 of RA 409 (Charter of the City of Manila) or the Civil Code HELD: CIVIL CODE. He filed a suit for damages against the City of Manila. city engineer.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Rosete v. At the time. Frayno negligently lit a cigarette 5 meters from a gas drum. COMMISSION HAS TO BE FOREIGN FROM ITS FUNCTIONS (but this was already in the definition given in Merritt so ewan ko kay sir kung ano bago dito!) Art. ISSUE: WON the individual members of the council are liable HELD: YES. he may be considered a special agent within the contemplation of the provision. or injuries suffered by. the responsibility of the State is limited to that which it contracts through A SPECIAL AGENT DULY EMPOWERED BY DEFINITE ORDER OR COMMISSION TO PERFORM AN ACT OR CHARGED WITH A DEFINITE PURPOSE WHICH GIVES RISE TO THE CLAIM NOT WHERE THE CLAIM IS BASED ON ACTS OR OMISSIONS IMPUTABLE TO A PUBLIC OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR TECHNICAL OFFICE WHO CAN BE HELD TO THE PROPER RESPONSIBILITY IN A MANNER LAID DOWN BY THE LAW ON CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY. The council revoked a lease for an exclusive ferry privilege.Y. IN PARTICULAR. because the officers of the said institution did not act as special agents within the contemplation of Art 1903 in storing gasoline in the warehouse. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. There is no justifiable reason for revoking the lease awarded to Mendoza. De Leon February 1916 . he fell into an uncovered and unlighted manhole/catchbasin.     CLASS NOTE Differentiated special agent from officials The case used Merritt’s definition of special agent Perfecto dissented. ISSUE: WON NIA is liable HELD: YES. the driver was an agent. The fact that it is under their control or supervision is enough to make them liable.

on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him. (1908) Taylor from company funds (signed by Vicente and Luis Araneta). the edifice falls within the same period b.Gen. Liability of engineer or architect.Y. All three’s acts made them liable for the unauthorized disbursement of company funds. (n)     CLASS NOTES *under Lease Contract: the lessor is responsible for necessary repairs! 2. it took place by reason of a defect in the plans and specifications. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others. De Joya sent Taylor despite the Board’s disapproval. the action for damages is brought within 10 years following the collapse 3. or due to defects in the ground. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states. proposed to Ace Management to send Taylor to the US for further studies. The existence of a contract between parties is not a bar to the commission of a tort by one against the other and consequent recovery of damages. constructed without precautions suitable to the place. The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand. Joya May 1974 FACTS: De Joya. hence. within the same period. and c. or when the law or the nature of the   CLASS NOTES Relevance: A2176 in this case was used to show a liability of a fellow employee 3. 120719. Engineer/Architect Art. and c. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. 2190. Casis _S. sewers or deposits of infectious matter. against the engineer or architect or contractor. he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor. which may be harmful to persons or property. 2007- 23 1. Rule in a contract for a piece of work is that acceptance of 19 Art. or that each one of the latter is bound to render. after completion. the collapse took place on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him. 121620) with the contractor. general manager. or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. if: a. and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place. The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. so long as the debt has not been fully collected. if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. Others 1. The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls.-if a.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 C. ISSUE: WON De Joya is liable HELD: YES. the action for damages is brought within 10 years following the collapse 2. or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. Prof. (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes.-The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications shall be liable for damages. canals. 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. They were joint tortfeasors and have solidary liability under Art 2194. 1723 speaks of a building that should collapse or edifice that falls. Acceptance of the building. Solidary liability-In case the engineer or the architect supervised or directed the construction. (4) By emanations from tubes. Effect of acceptance of work. Vicente and Luis were informed about Taylor’s trip and gave their approval. 4. or due to the defects in the ground. (1144a) . Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused: (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence. 1723. He remained passive and even approved the payroll thrice. The collapse took place within 15 years from the completion of the structure b. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse. 2191. it does not apply to minor defects. does not imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph. (1907) Art. 1216. if not caused by force majeure. (2) By excessive smoke. Travel expenses and salaries were paid to De Leon 455-456 Liability of engineer or architect/contractor for collapse of building constructed: obligation requires solidarity. Araneta discovered the arrangement and sued De Joya. Employees CLASS NOTES A2176 to make fellow employee liable Sir: take note of 1723 (interesting provision) Araneta v. Liability of contractor. Art. A 3rd person suffering damage as a result of any defect in the construction may proceed. the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications. If the engineer or architect supervises the construction. Araneta’s defense of good faith falls on its face when he didn’t testify to prove it. he shall be solidarily liable (see Arts. Proprietor of Buildings Art. (1137a) 20 Art. entire compliance with the prestation. 1207.

The violations of the plaintiffs’ rights were geared towards obtaining evidence to incriminate them. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is protected by the Constitution. (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law. or (2) The employer expressly reserves his rights against the contractor by reason of the defect. There is no law which authorizes the fiscal to seize the corpus delicti of the crime. expected to recognize the same. to have a speedy and public trial. 32 is the basis for a civil action for violation of civil liberties. After discovering where the launch was. 21 Art. whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense. (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence. (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted). Ponce de Leon claimed there was no time to get a warrant. ISSUE: WON Ponce de Leon may seize the launch without warrant HELD: NO. but this does not matter because ART 32 DOES NOT REQUIRE A SHOWING OF GOOD FAITH/BAD FAITH.21 But mere acceptance of the building after completion. After initial hesitation. (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication. (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form. unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. house. conducted pre-emptive strikes against “known communist-terrorist underground houses”. intelligence units of the AFP. but records show there was ample time. 32. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. or cruel and unusual punishment. Ponce ordered Provincial Commander of Palawan Maddela to impound the vehicle even though it had already been sold to a third party. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Subordinate officer not liable  illogical because Court already said that good faith is not a defense. VII. Casis _S. unless: (1) The defect is hidden and the employer is not. The indemnity shall include moral damages. In any of the cases referred to in this article. does not imply waiver of any of the causes of action arising from any defect in the construction. IT IS ENOUGH THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. (ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION)    CLASS NOTES Who can contest? Only the parties whose rights have been impaired Why is good faith not a defense? It will be contrary to purpose of the law. (2) Freedom of speech. except when the person confessing becomes a State witness.Y. (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. 2007- 24 (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail. or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession. Take note: Art. people were arrested without warrant and interrogated without proper procedures. Taha forcibly took the launch back so Timbangcaya filed a complaint. to meet the witnesses face to face. (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 the work by the employer relieves the contractor of liability for any defect in the work. or from being forced to confess guilt. the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. It conducted raids with defective search warrants where personal items were confiscated. The Lim v. He next claims good faith. papers. or any private individual. defeats. by his special knowledge. Provincial commander NOT LIABLE because of chain of command – Subordinate. (5) Freedom of suffrage. who directly or indirectly obstructs. violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) Freedom of religion. Any public officer or employee. (18) Freedom from excessive fines. (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention. Only judges may issue warrants for seizure not fiscals. Fiscal Ponce de Leon filed an info against Taha. and (19) Freedom of access to the courts. 32 says DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY Private persons may be sued under this! Aberca v. 1719. (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same. TORTS W/ INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION A. Special rule: Judges are not covered unless done in excess of jurisdiction. Ponce de Leon August 1975 . Maddela seized the launch so Lim filed this case. (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self. just follow orders – but GF not needed        CLASS NOTES Art. and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. Violation of Civil and Political Rights Art. Ver April 1988 FACTS: Task Force Makabansa. Acceptance of the work by the employer relieves the contractor of liability for any defect in the work. (9) The right to be secure in one's person. (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law. Lim. FACTS: Jikil Taha sold Timbangcaya a motor launch. and for other relief. (n) Prof.

moral or social duty. The invocation of state immunity is misplaced because there is no blanket license to transgress upon rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. all without warrant. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime. Defamation. 33.Y. or any similar means. The suspension does not destroy the right or cause of action for illegal arrest and other violations of constitutional rights. The proper method would have been to report the matter and secure a warrant. Casis _S. hence not negligence. legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature. In cases of defamation. Constabulary men and De Guzman. even if it be true.If act constitutes a criminal offense. HELD: NO. 1 of Rule 107 of the 1940 Rules of Court ( Sec.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the writ of habeas corpus was suspended and that they were only performing their official duties. engraving. the victim may opt between a civil action under Art. Requirement for publicity. . condition. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. 2007- 25   CLASS NOTE Take note: even private persons who participate can be held liable under Article 32 distinct from the criminal action. representative of MHP. ISSUE: WON MHP and De Guzman may be held liable HELD: YES. discredit. Revised Penal Code Title Thirteen-CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Chapter One-LIBEL Section 1— Definitions. {{{   CLASS NOTE May superiors be liable? Yes. clever and indirect ways which do not come within the pale of penal law. shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6. 33.If act is not a criminal offense. Art. MHP was indirectly involved. What is merely suspended is the right to seek release through the writ as a speedy means of obtaining liberty. lithography. report or speech delivered in said proceedings.A violation of any of the individual rights and liberties enumerated in Art. (3) Direct and open violations of the Penal code trampling upon the freedoms named are not so frequent as those subtle. cinematographic exhibition. 1162 thereof. without any comments or remarks.for these reasons: (1) In most case. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. . if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. and the Rules on Civil Procedure. omission. The Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. and punishment of this crime. or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor. or of a vice or defect. They were informed that Cruz. or contempt of a natural or juridical person. They instigated the raid which was conducted with the active participation of De Guzman. theatrical exhibition. ART 32 RENDERS THE DEFENDANTS LIABLE. or any act. and physical injuries a civil action for damages.000 pesos. forms.These independent actions should not be deemed instituted with the criminal action and the right to institute them should not be made subject to their prior reservation. radio. 100 of the RPC and an independent civil action under Art. Lugatiman and Gonzales were selling BSP uniforms without authority. the threat to freedom originates from abuse of power by government officials and peace officers. status.Code Commission: The creation of an absolutely separate and independent civil action for the violation of civil liverties is essential to the effective maintenance of democracy. or of any statement. 353. 32 may or may not constitute a criminal offense. made in good faith. 32. the civil action to enforce liability for damages is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code according to Art. 32. 1 Rule 111 of the 1964 Revised rules of Court) . of any judicial. seized the goods and caused a commotion. entirely separate and . except in the following cases: (1) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is a substantive right intended as an exception to and held as an amendment of the general rule in Sec. Libel means by writings or similar means. INCLUDING THEIR SUPERIORS. 1 Sangco 228-255 (1993) . printing. Fraud and Physical Injuries Art. Art. 33 allows to be instituted is ex delicto. 355. They sought the aid of the Philippine Constabulary. or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. because they are indirectly responsible Writ’s effect: suspension immaterial Respondeat superior: liable INDIRECTLY responsible (A32) because Art. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious.   MHP Garments v.The right to institute an independent civil action under Arts. or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. went to the stalls. The evidence presented did not justify the treatment of the respondents. or both. . phonograph. CA September 1994 FACTS: MHP was awarded the exclusive franchise to sell and distribute official uniforms and supplies of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines. and (2) A fair and true report. –criminal in nature. real or imaginary. 354. . painting. fraud. B. ISSUE: WON the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus bars the civil action for damages. -the nature of civil action for damages which Art. — A libel committed by means of writing. Definition of libel. may be brought by the injured party. Prof. AS THE PROVISION INCLUDES NOT ONLY THOSE DIRECTLY BUT ALSO INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE. (2) The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt often prevented the appropriate punishment. in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

his editor and the president of the publisher. meaning bodily injury not the crime in the RPC. — Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature. In actions for libel. saying reckess imprudence is not included in Art 33. Under the Rules of Court and Art 33. CA acquitted Paje stating that the case was a pure Arafiles v. otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. editor or manager or a newspaper. is not authoritative. It must be read in the sense readers to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand it. ISSUE: Won the acquittal of the accused serves as a bar to the civil action for damages HELD: The charge against Paje was not for homicide and physical injuries but for reckless imprudence or criminal negligence resulting in homicide and physical injuries They are not one of the three crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code and. shall be imposed upon any reporter. daily or magazine. If said act is not of a serious nature. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines and individual Muslims filed a complaint for damages. She executed a sworn statement to that effect witnessed by Morales. Japzon for the death of Madeja after an appendectomy. Heirs of Marcia instituted this separate civil action for damages. his widow filed a civil action for damages. The libel suit will not prosper because NOT IDENTIFY SPECIFICALLY NOR REFER TO ANY INDIVIDUALS TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THE PUBLICATION. 1983 FACTS: Victory Liner bus driven by Paje collided with a jeep driven by Marcia.000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title. *Crim case and civil case (for the same act) may proceed independently of each other    CLASS NOTE Reckless Imprudence is not included in Art. saying his reputation was ruined by the story. Heirs of Marcia reserved the right to file a civil action separately and later did. the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. 358. 359. therefore. but this was dismissed. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a compensation. accident. Journalists March 2004 PARTICULAR They cannot . This case also says Corpus v Paje. a separate civil action may be instituted. even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned. which shall cast dishonor. IT DID Marcia v CA January 27. An info for homicide and double serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed against Paje. virtue and reputation of said person. alleging the story was a product of sheer ignorance but with the intent to hurt the feelings. Note: Madeja v Caro is a division case. Note: According to Sir. It cannot overturn an en banc decision. Defamation MVRS v.000 pesos. Casis _S. spouse. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents. Islamic January 2003 FACTS: An issue of Bulgar wrote an article stating that Muslims don’t eat pigs because they treat them as Gods.000 pesos. Morales could have used better words. the point of this case is that one may file a criminal complaint and a civil one in one court and both could proceed independently of each other. or other members of the family of the latter or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or money consideration. 2007- 26 FACTS: Despuig filed a complaint against Arafiles for forcible abduction with rape and forcible abduction with attempted rape. ISSUE: WON MVRS may be held liable HELD: NO. Slander. the damage should arise from a crime. spirit and motive of the piece.Y. ISSUE: WON Judge Caro erred in dismissing the civil action HELD: YES. Trial court dismissed. the published work must be examined and viewed as a whole. The latter interviewed the former and wrote an article about the incident. The civil action is ex-delicto and aimed to allow the offended party to enforce his rights in a private action. Phil. Physical injuries is used in the generic sense. 357. Marcia died and 2 other were seriously injured. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1. but he did state that his story was based on the account of Despuig at the station. 356. Art. cast insult and disparage Muslims of the world. or both. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2. Prof. ISSUE: WON the accused were liable for damages HELD: NO. 1. discredit or contempt upon another person.   CLASS NOTE Art 33 does not affect in any way the criminal action. Pending the criminal case. child. It depends on the scope. Slander by deed.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Art. Art. alleging gross negligence. or both. no civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. To be liable under Art 33. 33  no independent civil action Article 33 construed strictly Madeja v Caro December 1983 FACTS: A criminal action was filed against Dr. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2. who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor. Art. Arafiles filed a complaint for damages against Morales.

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. According to Puno. which is defamatory 3. Heirs of Maria reserved the right to file a civil action separately and later did. Fraud Salta v.    CLASS NOTES violation of a trust receipt is a violation under Article 33 Since there is FRAUD. The letter of credit and trust receipt remained unpaid. but Judge Purisima granted the other. died. Acquittal was based on insufficiency of evidence. Later. THE CASE FOR RECOVERY UNDER QD MUST BE INSTITUTED WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE ACCRUAL OF THE RIGHT OF ACTION. he must prove that the article particularly pertains to him. Rayon applied for a commercial letter of credit with Prudential in favor of Nissho. Paje July 1969 FACTS: Victory Liner bus driven by Paje collided with a jeep driven by Marcia. Elordi was charged with triple homicide through reckless imprudence. 33. Sec 13 of the same law considers the violation as Estafa. he indiscriminately granted some loans in a manner characterized by negligence fraud. FACTS: A Pepsi delivery truck driven by Elordi collided with a private car driven by Capuno. A trust receipt was signed in favor of Prudential. The acquittal was based on the ground that the reckless imprudence or criminal negligence charged did not exist and the collision was pure accident. there being an allegation of fraud and negligence. The machinery was sold and the proceeds kept. ISSUE: WON the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations HELD: YES. what is the relation to libel and slander (big circle): Definition of defamation broader than slander/libel you have to prove specific damage to you and that there was an intent to damage or hurt you. 33 MAY BE BROUGHT. An info for homicide and double serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed against Paje. There is no obstacle for the filing of a separate complaint for damages even if there is already a criminal complaint for violation of Sec 3 of the Trust Receipts Law. Contrary to the Capuno’s assertion. While the case was pending. ESTAFA COMES UNDER FRAUD AND SO AN ACTION UNDER ART. 2. ISSUE: WON the MTD should be granted HELD: NO. the prescription period was not interrupted by the filing of the criminal action inasmuch as they never waived nor reserved to file the civil action separately. Art 33 applies. Veyra September 1982 FACTS: Salta was an employee of PNB. 2007- 27   CLASS NOTES fraud here is not simply estafa. 3. There is a fiduciary relationship between Rayon and Prudential.  CLASS NOTE  This case demonstrates a literal reading of A33  The action filed was based on A31 and A33  ON A33: civil action for damages could have been commenced by Capunos immediately upon death of Cipriano Capuno Corpus v. Swindling is just a specie of an offense committed by means of fraud. the estate and heirs of the Buan spouses filed a separate complaint for damages against Pepsi and Elordi.Y. IAC December 1992 FACTS: Philippine Rayon enetered into a contract with Nissho for the importation of textile machineries under a 5-year deferred-payment plan. Salta filed motions to dismiss based on the acquittal. Marcia died and 2 other were seriously injured.    CLASS NOTES important: definition of defamation. Prudential Bank v. ISSUE: WON Rayon is liable HELD: YES. ISSUE: WON the acquittal of Paje in the criminal case bars the civil action HELD: YES. Prudential filed an action for damages against Rayon and its president. The criminal case was dismissed. Buan spouses. THE ACQUITTAL IN THE CRIMINAL CASE WILL NOT BE AN OBSTACLE FOR THE CIVIL CASE TO PROSPER UNLESS THERE IS A FINDING IN THE CRIMINAL CASE THAT EVEN CIVILLY THE ACCUSED IS NOT LIABLE. Judge de Veyra denied one MTD. Casis _S. Capuno and his passengers. published statement 2. Physical Injuries Capuno v. Rayon sold the machinery without turning over the proceeds to Prudential as agreed upon so it violated the agreement. of and concerning the plaintiff If the article refers to a group. Pepsi April 1965 . NOTE: cf Worcester Prof.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 be held liable just because the words were insulting or offensive. As a manager. manifest partiality and upon securities not commensurate to the loan. but 2 civil cases were filed. THAT IS RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE. can file independent and distinct civil action based on Article 33 There is no such finding in this case. for a member to have a cause of action. Anent Art. there are prerequisites to recovery: 1. Rayon wilfully and fraudulently misapplied or converted the money for their own use. The parties in the latter case compromised so the case was dismissed. Capuno heirs filed a similar complaint. The Court said that it included bodily injury resulting in death.

attempted and frustrated homicide. TO BE LIABLE UNDER ART 33. Neglect of Duty CLASS NOTES Art. and assault and battery under American law.  CLASS NOTES  Law punishes the negligent act. Since policemen are usually insolvent. Note: Madeja v Caro is a division case. It is simply a way of committing it and merely determines a lower degree of criminal liability. alleging gross negligence. (2) a civil action for physical injuries arising from a quasi-delict under Art. here.Meaning and scope of physical injuries: Like that provided in Art. 100 will apply with respect to civil liability  In Criminal negligence. 33: ex-delicto acts acts should constitute a crime. a division case cannot overturn an en banc decision. said that the civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party (Civil action deemed instituted): 1.Y. The civil action is ex-delicto and aimed to allow the offended party to enforce his rights in a private action. Dulay while he was on duty at the “Big Bang sa Alabang” due to some altercation. Caro December 1983 . The act of the Dulays of instituting a separate civil action under Art 33 is allowed. 34. MEANING BODILY INJURY NOT THE CRIME IN THE RPC. Japzon for the death of Madeja after an appendectomy. This separate civil action is similar to the action in Tort for libel or slander.” Madeja v. is not authoritative because no sufficient number of votes). shot Atty. saying reckess imprudence is not included in Art 33. CA April 1995 FACTS: Torzuela. Caro) to include consummated. Civil action is ex-delicto 1 Sangco 334-335 (1993) The basic function of government is the protection of life and property and it is also the main justification for the existence and maintenance of its police force. Physical injury refers to bodily injury and is not the same as physical injury as defined in the RPC. based on the Constitution. 4 of which merely concurred with the result. 365 of the RPC. a security guard.  According to Sangco. It cannot overturn an en banc decision. in that. .According to the Code Commission. namely: (1) a civil action for damages resulting from reckless imprudence under Art.   C. (3) a civil action for physical injuries under Art.  Rule: RI not included in Art. (reasoned that Instant civil action may be instituted ONLY AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT in criminal action) ISSUE: WON Judge Caro erred in dismissing the civil action HELD: YES. This case also says Corpus v Paje. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings. and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. or physical injuries. such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages. Under the Rules of Court and Art 33.  2 things to remember about A33. looking at Art 111 of the ROC. PHYSICAL INJURIES IS USED IN THE GENERIC SENSE. Casis _S. SC. CC: 1. this article “creates an independent civil action in case of defamation. Art. the crime is homicide not reckless imprudence so a separate civil action may be filed. Superguard and Safeguard (both companies believed to be Torzuela’s employers). and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.Where the physical injuries results from a negligent act or omission. 2. For this. act punished negligent/careless act. This is clearly an exception to its non-suability as a political subdivision of the State. waives the civil action 2. 33 hence the effect: NO independent civil action—Art. the independent civil action contemplated in Art. a separate civil action may be instituted.” (People v Feller) . the injured party will have three causes of action to choose from and bring a civil action for. “Reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property. also of the Civil Code. Dulay v. fraud. 100 in relation to Art. his widow filed a civil action for damages.On Corpus and Marcia: This is an apparent misconception of the independent civil action contemplated in Art. 32. fraud or physical injuries which may or may not constitute criminal offenses. the law secures payment by holding the City or municipality subsidiarily liable. The term physical injuries has been held (in Madeja vs. 33 and of reckless imprudence being the crime itself and not its results. 33. deceit. 2007- 28 3 CRIMES MENTIONED IN ART 33 WHICH AUTHORIZES THE INSTITUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION. THE DAMAGE SHOULD ARISE FROM A CRIME. members of the force are directly and personally liable for damages caused by their refusal or failure to render this basic service.  Action has also already prescribed. . Pending the criminal case. not the result FACTS: A criminal action was filed against Dr.  Sir does not think that “physical injuries” should be limited to the crime with the same name. reckless imprudence is included in A365.  In Corpus v Paje. but this was dismissed. 2176 of the Civil Code. institutes it prior to the criminal action This case differs from Marcia v CA. ISSUE: WON an independent civil action may proceed HELD: YES. Dulay’s widow filed an action for damages against Torzuela. reserves the right to institute it separately 3. However.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 IS NOT ONE OF THE Prof. only 9 justices took part. This is analogous but not identical to that provided in Art 102 1 Sangco 255-282 (1993) . 33 is for damages caused by defamation.

32. When a person. Aggrieved party believes that the act or omission which cause the injury constitutes a criminal offense 3. v.general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not essentially provide for their own sanction Art. Velayo. for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law. So long as the act or omission complained of. Abuse Of Rights Art. but the latter refused or failed to render the same. If during the pendency of the civil action. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. Casis _S. civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. 30. 33. or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings. an employee of Shell. If the criminal action is filed during its pendency. Upon the defendant's motion. he is entitled to bring a civil action therefor and obtain a judgment on the basis thereof. 19 . the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Under Art. The plaintiff either sought police assistance or protection against danger to his life or property. give everyone his due. . 20 . the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. The creditors agreed to form a committee that would take charge of the distribution of assets. VIII.Implicit are the ff propositions of fact and law: 1. is rendered. 3. the A. covers everything D. and observe honest and good faith. The civil action for damages may be instituted independently of the institution or pendency of any criminal proceedings arising from the same dereliction and regardless of the result thereof.    catch all provision what’s punished in 365. The defendant is a member of the city or municipality police force. there is no need to file an indemnity bond where a crime has indubitably been committed or such a criminal action is subsequently instituted. It may also be consolidated with the criminal action. 2. 100 of the RPC. Civil Code or any special law does not grant him the right to institute a civil action for damages independently of the criminal action 4. American Shell Oil filed a complaint against . was appointed a member of the committee. charges another with the same.Y. Art 34 specifically applies only to members of the police force of the city or municipality. Where a criminal action is subsequently instituted. Key elements of a civil action for damages under Art 34: 1. 35. 21 . INTENTIONAL TORTS Art.but the judge or the prosecuting attorney finds no reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and the latter refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings. act with justice. but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. 4. Shell made a transfer of credit against CALI to American Shell Oil Company. and may be proved by preponderance of evidence. .deals with acts contra bonus mores Casis: real catch-all. presumably no indemnity bond may be sought or required since there is no apparent justification for it. 35. As a consequence of such refusal or failure to render assistance or protection. 30: Under Art. But this must be further qualified. an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney. of the Phils. prosecute it to final judgment. After the committee met. but also to institute such civil action ahead of and separately from the criminal action to enforce defendant’s criminal liability 2. and prove the same by a preponderance of evidence. 2007- 29 1 Sangco 335-338 (1993) .Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 and 103 of the RPC because the conviction of the defendant policemen is absolutely immaterial and irrelevant to the city’s or municipality’s liability. the plaintiff suffered damages. etc. WON it is punishable. claiming to be injured by a criminal offense. plaintiff may file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. is alleged and shown to be the proximate cause of the damage or injury he sustained. RPC is the negligence and the resulting damage Take note of this—not a very often used provision Prof. if no criminal action is filed during its pendency.An aggrieved party need not be the victim of a criminal or punishable act or omission to be entitled to damages. He is granted the right to institute such civil action for damages WON the criminal action upon which it is based is filed. 35. 5. October 31. et al.  because it is based on civil liability arising from a criminal offense 6. 1956 FACTS: CALI informed its principal creditors that it was in a state of insolvency and had to stop operations. any person who believes that he is the victim of a criminal offense. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code or by a special law. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. The direct and personal liability for nonfeasance contained in Art 27 is general and does not constitute a criminal act nor provide for subsidiary liability of the locality. 19. Fitzgerald. Where no criminal action is instituted because a prima facie case cannot be established.principle of abuse of rights Art. Shell Co. Every person must. Action for Damages where no independent civil action is provided Art. . Aggrieved part has opted not only to recover his damages in a civil action therefore under Art.Distinguished from Art.  there is a bond because of the high probability that the suit may be malicious 7. which may or may not affect it. or defendant was aware of plaintiff’s need for such assistance or protection. such civil action shall be suspended until final judgment in the criminal case. plaintiff is not required to file an indemnity bond because there is no possibility that it was maliciously instituted.In all cases not covered by Arts.may bring a civil action for damages under Art.

NCC to rule upon the issue Albenson v. and 23 only came into effect after the incident. depends on the circumstances of each case. He employer refused to help her.to act with justice employer that it was routinary. 2. she was pressured to drop the case while her employer’s Chief Legal Officer stood by. In this case. YES HELD: Article 19 merely declares a principle of law and Article 21 gives flesh to its provisions. It filed a complaint for violation of BP 22 against Eugenio S.to give everyone his due O -to observe honesty and GF CLASS NOTES   CLASS NOTES In the context of international law. Although an employer who suspects an employee to be dishonest may dismiss the latter. She filed a case against them.Y. Tobias was charged with estafa. A19’s “lofty” ideal is to “VOUCHSAFE ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY FOR THAT UNTOLD NUMBERS OF MORAL WRONGS WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HUMAN FORESIGHT TO PROVIDE FOR SPECIALLY IN THE STATUTES”   CATCH ALL    What constitutes the abuse of right? Not the transfer of credit per se but Mr. they are still applicable. in violation of Islamic laws. G. Albenson found out that the check belonged to Eugenio Baltao. 21 are not conflicts of law provisions but were applied in a conflicts of law case. The elder Baltao then filed a suit for damages against Albenson. Her two co-workers tried to rape her. most of the violation of rights were committed in SAUDI! BUT COURT HELD THAT RP LAWS SHOULD BE APPLIED: no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience shown by either parties if RP + Saudi already submitted to the jurisdiction of QC RTC This case demonstrates the broad application of A19 and A21. 1998 FACTS: Morada was employed by Saudi Arabian Airlines as a flight attendant. Standards: 1. Shell’s act of taking advantage of his knowledge of the plane showed bad faith and betrayed the confidence and trust of the other creditors. The cases against him were dismissed. Hendry then sent a letter to Tobias’ potential employer alleging his dishonesty.    CLASS NOTES Right to dismiss should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised: there was name-calling. NO HELD: When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms of Article 19 and results in damage to another. She was shocked when she was sentenced to be imprisoned for adultery. Tobias was fired. 19. The working committee was formed specifically for the creditors to not sue CALI  The court used A2253 and A2254. his son Eugenio Baltao III. 3. a LEGAL WRONG is committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. Despite this. accused him of being a crook and a swindler. 20. her employer failed to protect her.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 CALI and a writ of attachment was issued on CALI’s C54 plane. He uncovered certain fraudulent transactions. Fitzgerald was already appointed as 1 of the members in the working committee tasked to determine the division of assets. Tobias filed an action for damages against Hendry and Globe. the place where most of the crimes was committed would determine what law should be applied. an EVP. CA October 8. and socializing with male crew. CA January 11. she honestly believed that her employer would act with justice and give her what is due. YES HELD: Even though Arts. Prof. Instead. it is clear that the petitioners abused the right that they invoke – right to dismiss an employee. Baltao. it appears that the respondent had a namesake. Philippine Law applied because it is where Saudi Arabian deceived Morada. “You Filipinos cannot be trusted!” A19: Principle of abuse of rights. She then attended a hearing. However. A 19.  A21 implements A19 by providing for a consequence which is not found in A19. set certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in performance of one’s duties… …to act with justice …to give everyone his due …to observe honesty and good faith    A19 is a mere declaration of principle which provides for the standard of conduct. this is to be determined upon the unique circumstances of each case. Casis _S. going to disco. CA August 25. Upon the facts of the present case. Shell had no vested right to betray the confidence of the insolvent CALI or of its creditors. 19 has been violated. ISSUE: WON Tobias was entitled to damages. after being assured by her . Hendry. the employer may not do so in an abusive manner. The check bounced. RULE: Q of WON the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under Art. However. However. 1989 FACTS: Tobias was employed by Globe Mackay as a purchasing agent. A. threats. According to her. 21. 20 or 21 or other applicable provisions. ISSUE: WON Shell can be held for damages. YES Saudi Arabian Airlines v. and was sentenced to be lashed. ISSUE: WON Albenson was liable for damages. ISSUE: Morada had cause of action. Globe Mackay v. this case is actually wrong: If the concept of Lex Loci delicti commisi would be followed. 2007- 30 HELD: There is no rigid test to determine when Art. 1993 FACTS: Guaranteed issued Albenson a check as payment for the mild steel plates it ordered.

The SC then made the TRO permanent. 2001 FACTS: The lot on which the Gutierrez spouses built their house was bought by Amonoy in an auction sale. together with the absence of all information or belief of facts. It also showed bad faith in belatedly informing Jader of the result of his removals. He failed to take the regular exam for Practice Court I so he was given an incomplete grade. Gutierrez February 15. The Gutierrez spouses then filed a suit for damages. Jader sued UE for damages. Garciano failed to report back in time. The Board of Directors reinstated her. Amonoy was granted an order for the demolition of the house. Art 20intentional or negligent acts (does not distinguish) Albenson claims that MP should have been filed. 19:-intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law.intentional acts. ISSUE: WON Amonoy was liable for damages. UE v. Albenson’s complaint was a sincere attempt to find the best possible means to collect the money due to them. He took the removals but he was given a grade of five. Which is exercised in bad faith For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. What Amonoy did was contempt of court Problem: relied upon Testimony solely of Guitierrez (when it is self-serving)     CLASS NOTE Question: Why did this case enumerate the elements of an abuse of right under Art. (Volenti non fit injuria). However. would render the transaction unconscientious. He later learned of his deficiency. decided to terminate her services (BUT ONLY Board of Directors has the power to terminate her services). A19 presupposes an existing right. NO HELD: Whatever loss Garciano may have incurred in the form of lost earnings was self-inflicted. Good faith connotes an to abstain from taking undue . particularly when he was already preparing for the bar. However. a teacher at the Immaculate Concepcion Institute was granted an indefinite leave of absence to go to Austria. On Art. Amonoy’s acts constituted not only an abuse of a right. but an invalid exercise of a right that was suspended. CA August 10. the house was already destroyed. Garciano then filed a complaint for damages. The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears. the former are useless. Casis _S. Wiertz’s. 2000 FACTS: Jader was a law student at the University of the East. In this case. 19 can be committed via negligence . 19-21-expand the scope of our law on civil wrongs Common element under 19 and 21: act must be intentional     CLASS NOTES Rule: Action which was originally legal can become illegal if exercised abusively. their continuation even after the TRO was issued amounted to an abuse of his right. Amonoy v. What we have here is an illegal act. a temporary restraining order was granted enjoining the demolition. 3. Jader attended the graduation and prepared for the bar. Jader February 17. -the ultimate thing in the theory of liability is justifiable reliance under conditions of civilized society -A person should be protected only when he acts with providence and in GF. She was later sent a letter informing that Fr. Arts. even though the forms and technicalities of the law. by the time the decision was rendered. but not when he acts with negligence or abuse NOTES: -does not adhere strictly to the 3 elements -seems to say that Art. There was no more right for him to abuse! This is not a case of abuse of right. the school’s founder. Should be the school. The law does not impose a penalty on the right to litigate. for without the latter. and it disappears when it is abused. The ICI faculty has reacted “acidly” her reinstatement. Prof. YES HELD: UE had the contractual obligation to inform its students as to whether or not all the requirements for the conferment of a degree have been met. 19 when there is supposedly no “hard and fast rule?” Art 19 and 21.abuse of duty is not a right 2. UE’s defense was that Jader should have verified grade! ISSUE: WON UE was liable for damages. especially to the prejudice of others. 1992 FACTS: Garciano.” Petitioner (university) cannot just give out its students grades at any time… Can you sue professor for not giving grades on time? No.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are: 1. ABSENCE OF GOOD FAITH MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED FOR A SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION BY THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IN A SUIT FOR ABUSE OF RIGHT UNDER    Garciano v. The legal principle applied in this case is damnum absque injuria.Y. YES honest intention ARTICLE 19. ISSUE: WON respondents were liable for damages. There is a legal right or duty HELD: Even though Amonoy’s actions were legally justified at the start. not a civil case based on A19 Baltao did not clarify that there were 3 of them     CLASS NOTES “Schools and professors cannot just take students for granted and be indifferent to them. 2007- 31 advantage of another.

Elements of Art. Settled doctrine: check is not a substitute for money. There is no need for BPI to notify Marasigan of the suspension or cancellation. there is a legal right or duty 2. refused to sign written employment contact. Their contract provides for automatic suspension or cancellation. In this case. Test of Abuse of Right: modern jurisprudence does not permit an act although lawful is anti-social. She did not comply with the order to return to work. 19: 1.  CLASS NOTE . and not an abuse thereof. =automatic cancellation after 60 days 2. right to dissent from board’s decision Board ordered her to report to work! Barons Marketing Corp. BPI did not capriciously and arbitrarily canceled the use of the card. He sued BPI for damages claiming that he had an agreement with BPI and that he sent a check to BPI to cover the balance and future bills in exchange for non-suspension of his credit card. In this case. considering relationship of the parties) ISSUE: WON Barons was entitled to damages.    CLASS NOTE There was no arbitrariness on the part of BPI. CA: Affirmed ISSUE: WON BPI abused its right to suspend the card. which it sold to MERALCO. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another BF (on BPI’s part) was not proven. An abuse of right exists when it is exercised for the ONLY PURPOSE of prejudicing or injuring another Acts which without legitimate purpose cause damage to another violate the concept of social solidarity which considers law as rational and just. CA FACTS: Atty. Marasigan was not able to comply with their agreement. there must be NO INTENTION TO INJURE ANOTHER. Barons purchased items on credit. TC: in favor of Marasigan.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 indefinite LOA. and must not be excessive or unduly harsh. 1998 FACTS: Phelps Dodge appointed Barons as one of its dealers of electrical wires and cables. contrary to its socio-economic purpose is an abuse which will give rise to liability. It also stated that it suffered injury to its reputation. A person who. CA) B. Every abnormal exercise of a right. HELD: No. Barons admitted purchasing the items but denied the amount. did not report for work. does not act in an abusive manner is not deemed to have acted in a manner contrary to morals. One of his guests had to pay the bill.Y. CA February 9. it is plain to see that it’s a mere exercise of rights. Acts Contra Mores Art. The provision. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it has established. 2007- 32 1. Art. It gave Marasigan a chance to settle his account. Marasigan’s credit card was denied at Café Adriatico after he failed to pay his outstanding balance. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals.     CLASS NOTE Respondents did not physically prevent her from working Teachers were simply exercising Right to speech. it may only be invoked by someone who comes to court with clean hands. In its answer. Citing Tolentino:    CLASS NOTE Violate concept of social solidarity BF not proven (that Phelps just wanted to directly deal with Meralco). HOW ABUSE? Rejection. being based on equity. in exercising his rights. v. 21. Prof. (damages as result of “creditor’s abuse”. 19 prescribes a primordial limitation on all rights by setting certain standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof. The terms and conditions of the contract were clear=automatic suspension for failure to pay outstanding balance after 30 days from original bill. BPI abused its right to suspend or cancel the card because it did not mention to Marasigan that his card will be suspended despite several communciations. Barons asked if it can pay its outstanding account in monthly installments but Phelps declined. Casis _S. Phelps filed a complaint to recover the amount. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Rejection of offer of payment is not an abuse of right BPI v. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of the law. GF presumed. Damnum absque injuria. there was damage but no injury (Custodio vs. Her claim for moral damages under Art 21 also fails. 3. or public policy as to violate Article 21. NO HELD: Phelps had legitimate reasons for rejecting Barons’ offer and instituting the action for collection. which is exercised in bad faith 3. Garciano was also at fault. He issued a postdated check. good customs.

Secretary of National Defense December 28. courted Gonzales. he wired Wassmer a note saying that he would return soon. Such conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction. However. This is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As a result.actionable under A 21. Also. But which is contrary to morals. Rule in Buenaventura: For seduction to be actionable. Ruiz and Herrera citing Article 21. yield because of that Sir: as if seduction can be ratified if court takes into consideration time and frequency and subsequent sexual acts    Tanjanco v. In consideration of Tanjanco's promise of marriage. Baksh then forced her to live with him. When Baksh visited her home. courted the Santos. 1964 FACTS: Wassmer and Velez were about to get married. Velez wrote a note stating that they would have to postpone the wedding because his mother was opposed to it. A judicial declaration of professional prestige is unnecessary because a brilliant professional is respected even without a court declaration. Seduction: 1. ISSUE: WON Velez can be held liable for damages. moral wrong No seduction if promise came after Agoncilla became pregnant Wassmer v. MERE BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY IS NOT AN ACTIONABLE WRONG. sued to be recognized as the architects of the hospital. ISSUE: WON there was a violation of Article 21. there must be deception and the woman must have yielded because of the inducement. She accepted his love on the condition that they would get married. HELD: YES. There is no seduction when there is mutual desire and the opportunity was merely afforded to the woman. Santos then sued Tanjanco for damages. NO HELD: Article 21 contemplates a situation where a person has a legal right and such right is violated by another in a manner contrary to morals. 21-“injury” refers not only to any indeterminate right or property.) Critique of Tanjanco: “Seduction” in this case only covers the initial sexual contact. It presupposes losses or injury. ISSUE: WON Tanjanco was liable for damages. is quite different. [as cited in Tolentino] 2. or public policy 3. Art. Santos consented to sexual intercourse. she maintained sexual relations with each other for one year. two days before the wedding. an Iranian. Seduction.   Albenson v. 1959. Gonzales later . CA February 19. Breach of Promise to Marry. The construction of the hospital was terminated. The question of whether or not there was abuse of rights. Prof. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse is from mutual desire. inducement by deceit. 1966 FACTS: Tanjanco. Santos was of age. resulting in damages under Article 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law depends on the circumstances of each case. FACTS: Baltao case. ISSUE: WON Article 21 was applicable. Casis _S. The elements of Article 21 are: 1. public order. supra. material or otherwise. NO HELD: To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement and the woman must yield because of the promise or other inducement. crime if under 18 years old. There is an act which is legal 2. Wassmer sued for damages.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008  Art. and Sexual Assault pregnant. CA December 17. CA. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity. To avoid embarrassment. together with Panlillo. which one may suffer as a result of said violation. Examples a. 21 is the actual catch-all provision according to Sangco.     CLASS NOTES Who is Agonciila? Unmarried woman of chaste character Seduction of Agoncilla. 1993 FACTS: Baksh. 2. Tanjanco succeeded in having carnal access with Santos until Dec. He beat her. only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized. good customs. Elements Ruiz v. In this case. were the architects of the building but only Panlillo was recognized. This is PALPABLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY CONTRARY TO GOOD CUSTOMS for which Velez must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21. Santos got Baksh v. there is no seduction. 2007- 33 1. A day before the wedding. And it is done with intent to injure Code commission  damages for seduction CA misapplied the example.    CLASS NOTES Issue of deceit: Deceit can come in many forms and can result in attraction (so there is no moral seduction. good custom. He never showed up again. or public policy. Gonzales’ parents allowed them to sleep together. Velez December 26.Y. Ruiz and Herrera. Santos resigned from her job. but also to honor or credit. both being of adult age. 1963 FACTS: A contract was executed between Allied Technologies and the Republic of the Philippines to build the Veterans Memorial Hospital. HELD: No.

Their repeated sexual intercourse indicates that passion. v. Bunag and Cirilo then filed for a marriage license. under Article 21. Constantino was already 28 years old.    CLASS NOTE Compare this case with Tanjanco In this case. YES HELD: If a man's promise to marry is the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress. In this case. He then brought her to his grandmother’s house where they lived together as husband and wife for 21 days.    CLASS NOTE This case is similar to say Tanjanco. Constantino got pregnant. it would be equivalent to inducement and he would be liable under A21 Constantino v. YES    CLASS NOTE Sexual assault = rape There was a criminal action for rape in this case Pe v. Cirilo filed for a complaint for damages for breach of promise to marry. ISSUE: WON Bunag was liable for damages. he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Constantino. Quimiguing v. a married man and a collateral relative. 1962 FACTS: Alfonso Pe. Mendez then confessed that he was married. good customs or public policy. CA July 10. the award of moral damages is allowed in cases specified in or analogous to those provided in Article 2219. Bunag just wanted to marry Cirilo to ESCAPE LIABILITY (so promise to marry BUT NO INTENT TO MARRY so actionable)    CLASS NOTES Judicial notice that the cherished possession of every single Filipina is her virginity If the man never intended to marry the woman BUT STILL promised to marry her. Casis _S. NO HELD: Mere sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis for recovery. Mendez professed his love during their first date. Through a promise of marriage. Mendez May 14. Even if there is deceit but the deceit resulted in attraction of the woman to the man. any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. 1970 FACTS: Quimiguing and Icao. good customs. Damages should only be awarded if sexual intercourse is NOT A PRODUCT OF VOLUNTARINESS AND MUTUAL DESIRE. they had repeated sexual contact. a breach of promise to marry is NOT PER SE actionable EXCEPT WHERE PLAINTIFF HAS ACTUALLY INCURRED EXPENSES FOR THE WEDDING AND THE NECESSARY INCIDENTS THEREOF Prof. Despite this. and not the alleged promise of marriage. in reality. A victim of rape may recover moral damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code. Jr. Correlatively. then there will be no more seduction. In this case. where she was a waitress. ISSUE: WON Quimiguing had cause of action. This is not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation that followed. except where the plaintiff has actually incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary incidents thereof. 1992 FACTS: Constantino and Mendez met at Tony’s Restaurant. She became pregnant. 2007ATTRACTED TO 34 MENDEZ. On Art. were neighbors. frequented Lolita’s house on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. proof that he had. was the moving force that made her submit herself to Mendez. Quimiguing sued for damages and support. Alfonso and Lolita then fell in love. However. YES HELD: Independently of the right to support the child she was carrying. Pe May 30. ISSUE: WON Baksh was liable for damages. Icao July 31. could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21. It is also supported by Article 2219. RULE: Generally. Bunag’s actions constitute acts contrary to morals and good customs. Bunag then withdrew his application. More importantly. Quimiguing herself had a cause of action for damages.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 found out that Baksh was already married. Gonzales was a victim of moral seduction. or public policy shall compensate the latter for moral damages. 1992 FACTS: Bunag brought Zenaida Cirilo to a motel where he raped her. Gonzales sued for damages. no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a ploy to obtain her consent to the sexual act. a married man. ISSUE: WON Mendez was liable for damages. It is essential that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals. In this case. 21: designed to expand the concept of torts or QD in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statue of torts. HELD: A breach of promise to marry per se is not actionable. Icao succeeded in having carnal intercourse with Quimiguing several times through force and intimidation. “trysts” in different barrios) so they refused to let them see each .Y. Lolita's parents heard about the affair (exchange of notes. she admitted that SHE WAS Bunag. She then sued for recognition of her unborn child and damages for breach of promise to marry.

THE FACT OF THE PROSECUTION AND THE FURTHER FACT THAT b. The preliminary investigation stated that there was probable cause to hold respondents for the crime of rebellion with murder and frustrated murder. THERE MUST BE PROOF THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS PROMPTED BY A SINISTER DESIGN TO VEX AND HUMILIATE A PERSON. . 2001 FACTS: A letter complaint sent to Drilon resulted in an order to investigate several individuals. FOR    CLASS NOTE The lower court presented a more romantic version of the love story Both Alfonso and Lolita were of age CONCEDEDLY. there must be proof that the prosecution was: 1. a married man. Lolita left the house and disappeared. CA April 20. AND THAT IT WAS INITIATED DELIBERATELY BY THE DEFENDANT KNOWING THAT HIS CHARGES WERE FALSE AND GROUNDLESS. HELD: Neither of them is GUILTY OF MALICE. Concededly. 3. Lolita’s relatives filed an action for damages. Alfonso committed an INJURY TO LOLITA'S FAMILY IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO MORALS. Drilon acted with probable cause as found in PI. NO. no sinister motive could be imputed). THAT IN BRINGING THE ACTION. ’89 coup. seduced Lolita through trickery to the extent that she fell in love with him.Y. The charge was dismissed in the fiscal level. were liable to be sued at law when their indictment miscarried. IAC January 13. 2007*MEMORIZE! MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: AN CAUSE. Prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person 2. THE PROSECUTOR ACTED WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE PROSECUTOR WAS ACTUATED OR IMPELLED BY A LEGAL MALICE THAT IS BY IMPROPER OR SINISTER MOTIVE Drilon v. FOR THE MERE TO CONSTITUTE MP. Malicious Prosecution Que v. 3. GOOD CUSTOMS AND PUBLIC POLICY AS CONTEMPLATED IN ARTICLE 21 of the new Civil Code. If the charge. OR OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN INSTITUTED MALICIOUSLY AND WITHOUT PROBABLE AFTER THE TERMINATION OF SUCH PROSECUTION. 3 ELEMENTS OF MP: 1. who had tolerable ground of suspicion. and there were reasonable grounds on which such a belief could be founded. WHY? coz it would be a very great discouragement to public justice. if prosecutors. THE DEFENDANT WAS HIMSELF THE PROSECUTOR AND THAT THE ACTION FINALLY TERMINATED WITH AN ACQUITTAL. Nicolas allegedly did not continue payment because of the defective canvass strollers which he never returned to Que. Nicolas filed a complaint for malicious prosecution. Once cannot be held liable for maliciously instituting a prosecution where one has acted with probable cause. General Rule: one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with Probable Cause. Casis _S. the accusation could not be held to have been false in the legal sense. although false.    CLASS NOTES Reminder: memorize the definition of malicious prosecution. CIVIL SUIT. 35 FOR ACTION DAMAGES BROUGHT BY ONE AGAINST WHOM A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. ISSUE: WON Alfonso was liable for damages. There is no malicious prosecution because none of the three elements were present (not terminated with an acquittal. SUIT OR OTHER PROCEEDING IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT THEREIN. there is no malice 2. including Adaza. the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for MP. PURPOSE OF VEXATION OR INJURY. In other words. ONE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR MALICIOUSLY INSTITUTING A PROSECUTION WHERE HE ACTED WITH PROBABLE CAUSE. a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause. YES HELD: Alfonso. HELD: There is no malicious prosecution in this case because the presence of probable cause signifies the absence of malice. for their participation in the failed Dec. To constitute malicious prosecution. REGULARLY.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 other. was made with an honest belief in its truth and justice. THE MERE ACT OF SUBMITTING A CASE TO THE AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE MP. NO. 1989 FACTS: Que filed a complaint for estafa against Nicolas because of the checks the latter issued as payment for canvass strollers were dishonored. A suit for MP will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause. Adaza filed a complaint for damages against Drilon for malicious prosecution. Prof.    CLASS NOTE Dismissal of the case does not automatically give rise to a cause of action for malicious prosecution If there is probable cause. The presence of probable cause signifies as a legal consequence the absence of malice. To constitute MP. ISSUE: WON Drilon et al was guilty of malicious prosecution. Initiated deliberately by the defendant Knowing that his charges were false and groundless. there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. THE GIST OF THE ACTION OF THE PULLING OF LEGAL PROCESS IN FORCE. ISSUE: WON Que was guilty of malicious prosecution.

the circumstances of the case showed that there was malicious intent in the filing of the complaint for qualified theft. in this case. HELD: Article 2219 applies.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008   If there is probable cause. Hernandez case ruling: . All the complaints were dismissed in the fiscal level. He was illegally dismissed and Hendry filed 6 criminal complaints against him although the findings of the Police Chief Document Examiner absolved him from guilt. Coronal returned in the afternoon and took pictures. When Ongsip asked about it. Manila Gas issued instructions to change the gas meter. Coronal then went to the compound and changed the meter without informing Ongsip. If the case only reached fiscal level… GEN RULE: no MP EXCEPTION: if BF. The fact that the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor. a Catholic priest. he was told to just go to the office. He then approached Patricio. YES HELD: To constitute malicious prosecution. Cited Manila Gas definition of malicious prosecution and Que for probable cause c. there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. Patricio filed a complaint for slander by deed which was dismissed. Since no gas consumption was registered in the meter. CA October 30. moral shock. 1980 FACTS: Manila Gas installed additional appliances and gas service connections in Ongsip’s compound. It was an innocent mistake. The complaints were filed during the pendency of the illegal dismissal case (2 of which were refilled with Judge Advocate General’s office of the AFP to subject Tobias to military courts). Globe Mackay v. The filing of the cases despite the police reports exculpating Tobias 4. and slapped him. The elements of malicious prosecution are: 1. No gross negligence in this case.  Albenson v. Bad faith = gross negligence.If doubtful or difficult question of law is applied – the law always accords to public officials the presumption of good faith . He then filed for damages. Take note of the statutory basis of malicious prosecution. In the office. The act of slapping was contrary to morals and good customs and caused Patricio mental anguish. The eventual dismissal of the cases However. 2. there was a malicious intent as shown by the facts: 1. YES HELD: The mere dismissal by the fiscal of the criminal complaint is not a ground for an award of damages for malicious prosecution if there is no competent evidence to show that the complainant acted in bad faith. YES. the prosecutor acted without probable cause 3. .This is not applicable if the doctrine is clear enough. Ongsip then filed a complaint for damages ISSUE: WON there was malicious prosecution. CA. CA.Y. A   CLASS NOTE Competent proof of bad faith in filing the suit is essential. (Even if still in the fiscal level. ISSUE: WON Leviste was liable for damages. 2007- 36 complaint for qualified theft was filed against Ongsip but it was later dismissed. 1989 FACTS: Leviste smashed a beer bottle on the table causing his hand to bleed. That in bringing the action. THE MERE ACT OF SUBMITTING A CASE TO THE AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.    CLASS NOTE Dismissal of qualified theft case in fiscal level only  still possible to file MP. in this case. ISSUE: WON there was malicious prosecution. Manila Gas v. NO HELD: The MERE ACT SUBMITTING a case to the authorities for prosecution (only fiscal level) DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. Public Humiliation Patricio v.  Cited Manila Gas definition of Malicious prosecution Prof. Leviste April 26. The threat of further suits by Hendry (that they’ll be willing to file hundreds of suits against him just to find him liable) 3. and that the action was finally terminated with an acquittal 2. supra FACTS: Tobias was alleged to be the #1 suspect for the fraudulent transactions he allegedly uncovered. he was told of the existence of a jumper and was threatened with deportation. Casis _S. with Malicious intent     CLASS NOTE Gross negligence can prove bad faith. wounded feelings and social humiliation. supra FACTS: the 3 Baltao case where funds for check was demanded by the company from the father Baltao… ISSUE: WON there was malicious prosecution. if acted with BF then liable for damages) However. there is no malice. The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice.

Grand Union v. Sta. Espino offered to pay for the file but instead. (from report of the code) SERVE TO ALLEVIATE THE MORAL SUFFERING HE HAS UNDERGONE. YES HELD: Carpio willfully caused Valmonte injury in a manner contrary to morals and good customs. And one must act with justice. MD may be awarded in appropriate cases referred to in the chapter on human relations of the CC (Arts. but to enable the latter to obtain means. She was searched and questioned by the guard and the police. or damage without wrong. DIVERSION OR AMUSEMENTS THAT WILL  CLASS NOTE . PURPOSE OF ED OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES: IMPOSED BY WAY OF EXAMPLE OR CORRECTION FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. Casis _S. ISSUE: WON Valmonte should be awarded damages. THE REASON UNDERLYING THE AWARD OF DAMAGES UNDER ART. 20 & 21 provide the legal bedrock for the award of damages. Sta. In any case.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 On Moral Damages: The fact that no AD or CD was proven before the TC. (Art. an internal auditor of Sta. which makes a person liable for damages if he willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. HELD: Espino was falsely accused of shoplifting. good customs. or public policy. 21. LIQUIDATED OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES   (ART. award of MD must be proportionate to the sufferings inflicted. does not constitute a cause of action. IF THE DISMISSAL WAS DONE ANTI-SOCIALLY OR OPPRESSIVELY. 2007- 37 Wrong without damage. or public policy making them amenable to damages under Arts. and Article 21. THEN THE RESPONDENTS VIOLATED ARTICLE 1701. serious anxiety. without need of proof that the wrongful act complained of has caused any physical injury upon the complainant. IS TO COMPENSATE THE INJURED PARTY FOR THE MORAL INJURY CAUSED UPON HIS PERSON. 1979 FACTS: Jose Espino forgot to pay for a cylindrical rat tail file when he left Grand Union Supermarket. 1974 FACTS: Quisaba.Y. IN ADDITION TO THE MORAL. 2004 FACTS: Valmonte. wounded feelings. and attorney’s fees. Everyone must respect the dignity. to purchase logs for the company’s plant. IN OTHER RESTORATION WORDS: THE AWARD OF MD IS AIMED AT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE POSSIBLE. Unjustified Dismissal Quisaba v. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. Carpio refused to apologize so Valmonte filed a suit for damages. mental anguish. To warrant recovery of damages. Ines. Quisaba refused because it wasn’t part of his job. besmirched reputation. YES. termination pay. Arts. which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the other. diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone. ISSUE: WON Espino can claim damages. 2219 of the Civil Code. Moral damages are awarded whenever the defendant’s wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s physical suffering. YES HELD: Quisaba’s complaint was grounded not on his dismissal but rather ON THE MANNER OF HIS DISMISSAL AND ITS CONSEQUENT EFFECTS. she should not have openly accused Valmonte without further proof. social humiliation. give everyone his due and observe honesty and GF (Art. He was approached by the guard and made to file an incident report. As a result. moral shock. AND IT MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE SUFFERING INFLICTED. GC. was publicly accused by the bride’s aunt. Espino December 28. CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE AWARDED FOR WANTON ACTS. THEY ARE AWARDED ONLY TO ENABLE THE INJURED PARTY TO OBTAIN MEANS. BY REASON OF THE DEFENDANT’S CULPABLE ACTION. of stealing her jewelry. and public policy to humiliate. embarrass and degrade the dignity of a person. fright. CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. THE COURT WILL DECIDE WON THEY COULD BE ADJUDICATED. a wedding coordinator. does not adversely affect the petitioner’s right to recover MD. Valmonte September 9. he was demoted. the VP. personality. 19-36). ISSUE: WON the regular courts had jurisdiction. It is against morals.contrary to morals and good customs. by reason of defendant’s culpable action. Ines said that the NLRC had jurisdiction. 2229). BOTH PUNISHMENT OR CORRECTION NOT INTENDED TO ENRICH A COMPLAINANT AT THE EXPENSE OF A DEFENDANT. Quisaba filed a complaint for damages. MD: ESSENTIALLY INDEMNITY OR REPARATION. Defendants willfully caused loss or injury to the plaintiff in a manner contrary to morals. for a wrong inflicted by the defendant and the damage resulting therefrom to the plaintiff. 19). Inez August 30. TEMPERATE. Carpio. was ordered by Robert Hyde. there must be both a right of action. CLASS NOTE Art 21 applies to even a slap in the face   CLASS NOTE Manner of attacking without any amount of proof. his money was taken as an incentive to the guards for apprehending pilferers. 19 and 21 in relation to Art. 26). A lot of people witnessed the incident. d. good customs. MD not awarded to penalize defendant or to enrich complainant. and similar injury specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. OF THE SPIRITUAL STATUS QUO ANTE. Prof. THAT THEY ARE PENAL IN CHARACTER GRANTED NOT BY WAY OF COMPENSATION BUT AS A PUNISHMENT TO THE OFFENDER AND AS A WARNING TO OTHERS AS A SORT OF DETERRENT. Although Carpio had the right to know the identity of the thief. PURPOSE OF Carpio vs.

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends. CA November 14. It was an action for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by the defendants. Plaintiff stopped publication. Louis v. physical defect. Aramil were confused by the distorted lingering impression that he was renting his residence. Unfair Competition Art. oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to aright of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. 26.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008  Standard of dismissal laid down in this case: dismissal was done “anti-socially or oppressively. shouted and cursed at the plaintiffs in front of their subordinate employees. NO HELD: The plaintiffs did not allege any unfair labor practice. This is when St Louis Realty published a new ad showing the Arcadios in their real home. Aramil extra judicially demanded damages. lowly station in life. without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. The following and similar acts. 2200. The Amaros then filed a suit for damages. 2208 and 2219 of the Civil Code. coercing them to sign an affidavit absolving the police officers of any liability. TC awarded actual and moral damages. Every person shall respect the dignity.    CLASS NOTE Unfair competition: designed to place your products in a better light. B. which was his duty to do as an officer of the law. St. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects. prevention. It never made any written apology and explanation of the mix-up. Aramil’s residence. Dereliction of Duty Art. His private life was mistakenly and unnecessarily exposed. making it appear that the house was owned by the Arcadios. Sumaguit July 31. He suffered diminution of income and mental anguish. without just cause. machination or any other unjust. ISSUE: WON the Amaros’ action under Article 21 and/or 27 would prosper. and other relief: (1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbor and other persons. (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another. The city attorney was about to file an information for illegal discharge of firearms against the assailant. 2219 allows moral damages for acts and actions mentioned in Art. St. Aramil protested. (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs. he along with his father and witnesses. 1962 FACTS: Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot near the city government building. Aramil filed complaint for damages claiming mental anguish and reduction in income. Should be in the context of giving advantage to one party (eg. Persons who know Dr. ISSUE: WON the Labor Code applies. Unfair competition in agricultural or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force. Louis Realty was grossly negligent in mixing up the residences. OTHER TORTS A. or other personal condition. intimidation. 27. Art. though they may not constitute a criminal offense. Louis Realty caused to be published an ad depicting the Arcadio Family in front of Dr.  CLASS NOTE . Violation of Human Dignity Art. 26. personality. What is required under Art. place of birth.Y. Such being the case. However. 1982 FACTS: Cosme de Aboitiz. 2007- 38 Medina v. IX. The following day. derogatory commercials) C. It was dismissed since the jurisdiction of claims was transferred from the CFI to the Labor Arbiters. Castro-Bartolome September 11. 27 is that the refusal must be without just cause. YES HELD: The Amaros’ claim for relief was based on the Chief of Police’s refusal to give assistance.” Elements: (1) material or moral loss (2) public servant’s refusal or neglect to perform duty (3) without just cause Prof. the Chief of Police started to harass the Amaros. to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter. went to the Chief of Police to seek assistance but were not rendered assistance. Damages fixed by TC are sanctioned by Arts. 1984 FACTS: St. shall produce a cause of action for damages. President and CEO of Pepsi. CA affirmed. the governing statute is the Civil Code and not the Labor Code.   CLASS NOTE This is an action for damages for wrongful advertisement  shows that Art 26 is very broad. Casis _S. 26 HELD: Yes. but did not rectify. deceit. The petitioners filed a case of oral defamation against de Aboitiz. Amaro v. ISSUE: WON acts and omissions of the firm fall under Art. 28.

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Concepcion v. CA January 31, 2000
FACTS: Florence Concepcion, lessor of the Nicolas spouses, joined Nestor Nicolas’ business venture by contributing capital. Rodrigo, Florence’s brother-in-law, angrily accosted Nestor at the latter’s apartment and accused him of conducting an adulterous relationship with Florence. As a result, Nestor felt extreme embarrassment. He could not face his neighbors anymore. Florence also backed out of the venture, so that the business declined. Nestor’s wife started to doubt his fidelity and even threatened to leave him. The spouses filed a civil suit against Rodrigo for damages. ISSUE: WON spouses can recover damages HELD: Yes. Examples mentioned in Art. 2219 and 26 are not exclusive but are merely examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages therefore are allowable for actions against a person’s dignity. Under Art. 2217, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. *Philosophy behind Art. 26: THE TOUCHSTONE OF EVERY SYSTEM OF LAW, OF THE CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION OF EVERY COUNTRY IS HOW FAR IT DIGNIFIES MAN. THUS, UNDER THIS ARTICLE,
THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS ARE AMPLY PERFECTED AND DAMAGES ARE PROVIDED FOR VIOLATIONS OF A PERSON’S DIGNITY, PERSONALITY, PRIVACY AND PEACE OF MIND.

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-

39

Art. 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article 1157. Art. 2197. Damages may be: (1) Actual or compensatory; (2) Moral; (3) Nominal; (4) Temperate or moderate; (5) Liquidated; or (6) Exemplary or corrective.


  

CLASS NOTES Important for the distinction between damage, injury and damages Mere fact that plaintiffs suffer damage doesn’t mean that there’s right of action To warrant recovery of damages: -Legal right on the part of plaintiff -Injury caused to plaintiff

People v. Ballesteros
FACTS: Murder, through gunshot wounds, question amt of damages awarded *DAMAGES may be defined as COMPENSATION, RECOMPENSE, OR SATISFACTION SUSTAINED, OR AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSED,
DUTY OR THE VIOLATION OF SOME RIGHT. THE THE PECUNIARY PECUNIARY

II. Kinds of Damages A. Actual or compensatory
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case. Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered: (1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury; (2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.

FOR AN INJURY

CONSEQUENCES WHICH THE LAW IMPOSES FOR THE BREACH OF SOME

Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained, whereas moral damages may be invoked when the complainant has experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety, physical suffering, moral shock, and so forth, and had furthermore shown that these were the proximate result of the offender’s wrongful act or omission.

Human personality must be exalted. Sacredness of human personality is the concomitant consideration of every plan for Human Amelioration.


 

CLASS NOTES Important for the definition of damages For actual damages, the party making claim must present best evidence.

X. DAMAGES


Custodio v. CA
CLASS NOTE Damages is not limited to quasi-delicts (also includes contracts, quasi-contracts and delicts). FACTS: built Adobe fence on the right of way There is a material distinction between damages and injury. INJURY is the ILLEGAL INVASION OF A LEGAL RIGHT; DAMAGE is the LOSS, HURT, OR HARM WHICH RESULTS FROM THE INJURY; and DAMAGES are the RECOMPENSE OR COMPENSATION AWARDED FOR THE DAMAGES SUFFERED.


 

CLASS NOTES It is expressly provided for in Art. 2199 that there should be proof of pecuniary damages for AD or CD Take note of what indemnity is included in Art. 2200

I. Definition and Concept

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
 Art. 2205 provides for the kinds of AD which the plaintiff may recover Loss of profits of an established business which was yielding fairly steady returns at the time of its interruption by defendant’s wrongful act is not so speculative or contingent that a court of justice may refuse to allow the plaintiff any damages at all.

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-

40

QDs, or in every case where property right has been invaded. ND are damages in NAME only and NOT IN FACT. Where these are allowed, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply in recognition of the existence of a technical injury. The amount to be awarded as ND shall be equal or at least commensurate to the injury sustained considering the concept and purpose of such damages.

Algarra v. Sandejas
FACTS: Plaintiff Algarra received personal injuries from a collision with the defendant Saldejas’ automobile due to the negligence of the defendant, who was driving the car. Plaintiff sold the products of a distillery as a commission agent and had about twenty regular customers, who purchased his wares in small quantities, necessitating regular and frequent deliveries. Being unable to attend to their wants during their wants during the two months he was incapacitated due to the accident, his regular customers turned their trade to other competing agents. HELD: Under both the Spanish Civil Code and American law of damages, actual damages for a negligent act or omission are confined to those which “were foreseen or might have been foreseen” or those which were “the natural and probable consequences” or “the direct and immediate consequences” of the act or omission. In this jurisdiction, the author of a negligent act or omission which causes damage to another is obliged to repair the damage done. No distinction is made between damage caused maliciously and intentionally and damages caused through mere negligence in so far as civil liability is concerned. Nor is the defendant required to do more than repair the damage done or to put the plaintiff in the same position that he would have been in had the damage not been inflicted. This is practically equivalent to compensatory or actual damages as those terms are used in American law. *THE
PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN AWARDING ACTUAL DAMAGES IS TO REPAIR THE WRONG THAT HAS BEEN DONE, TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INJURY INFLICTED, AND NOT TO IMPOSE PENALTY.

1. Kinds PNOC v. CA
FACTS: The M/V Ma. Efigenia XV, owned by respondent Ma. Efigenia Fishing Corp. collided with the vessel Petroparcel which at the time was owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Co. The Board of Marine Inquiry rendered a decision finding the Petroparcel at fault and thus the respondent filed an action for damages against Luzon Stevedoring and the Petroparcel’s captain. During the pendency of the case, petitioner PNOC acquired the Petroparcel and was substituted in place of Luzon Stevedoring in the complaint. HELD: ACTUAL
INJURY SUSTAINED. OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE THOSE AWARDED IN SATISFACTION OF, OR IN RECOMPENSE FOR LOSS OR


  

CLASS NOTES The basic rule in recovering AD: it is sufficient that damages are capable of proof in order to recover (AD) There should be a record to serve as proof presented before the Court There are cases which say that providing a list of expenses is not enough—there has to be receipts, etc.—PROOF SHOULD BE VERY FACTUAL Proof required: reasonable certainty upon competent proof Two (2) kinds of AD or CD: Dano emergente-actual Lucro cesante-loss of profit

THEY

PROCEED FROM A SENSE OF NATURAL

  1. 2.

JUSTICE AND ARE DESIGNED TO REPAIR THE WRONG THAT HAS BEEN DONE, TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INJURY INFLICTED AND NOT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY.

In actions based on QD-AD include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. 2 kinds of AD or CD: 1. The loss of what a person already possesses (daño emergente) 2. the failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante) On Nominal Damages: When awarded: in the absence of competent proof on the AD suffered-entitled to ND, which the law says is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated and recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. -awarded in every obligation arising from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law and

Integrated Packing v. CA
Petitioner Integrated Packing Corporation (IPC) and respondent Fil-Anchor Paper entered into an agreement whereby Fil-Anchor bound itself to deliver 3,450 reams of printing paper to IPC, to be paid within 30 to 90 days from delivery. Later, IPC entered into a contract with the Philippine Appliance Corporation (Philacor) to print three volumes of “Philacor Cultural Books.” However, IPC encountered problems paying Fil-Anchor and became heavily indebted to the latter. This led to Fil-Anchor suspending deliveries of paper to IPC. Thus, out of the agreed upon 3,450 reams, only 1097 were delivered., despite demand by IPC for Fil-Anchor to deliver the balance.

Pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, are not elements of actual or compensatory damages in this jurisdiction. Aside from this exception, the measure of damages in this country and in the US is arrived at by the same evidence.

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Meanwhile, IPC entered into an additional printing contract with Philacor. Unfortunately, IPC failed to fully comply with its contract for the printing of Philacor’s books and thus Philacor demanded compensation for delay and damage suffered. Because IPC also not able to fully settle it’s indebtedness to Fil-Anchor, the latter filed a collection suit against it. In its counterclaim, IPC alleged that because Fil-Anchor was only able to deliver 1097 reams of paper it was unable to fulfill its contract with Philacor and thus failed to realize expected profits. Indemnification for damages comprehends not only the loss suffered, that is to say actual damages (damnum emergens), but also profits which the obligee failed to obtain (lucrum cessans). damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. 

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-

41

CLASS

 

 

NOTES Art. 2201 lays down the distinction between good faith and bad faith (in bad faith— whatever damage happens) Last sentence of Art. 2202 problematic—some cases use forseeability as an element of QD Forseeability: In elements: may be required In damages: not required Reasonable certainty required: allege specific facts, Present best evidence Quantum of evidence required: preponderance of evidence

being equal, the person who has more pieces of evidence wins What should be the basis: admissibility issue aside: number and quality of evidence presented and this is what makes it preponderant you should also prove your allegations though not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt

DBP v. CA
Lydia Cuba was the grantee of a fishpond lease agreement with the government, the rights to which she assigned to DBP as security for loans the latter extended to her. After Cuba failed to meet the terms of payment on the loans, the DBP, without foreclosure proceedings of any kind, appropriated Cuba’s leasehold rights over the fishpond. Subsequently, DBP executed a deed of conditional sale in favor of Cuba over the same fishpond. However, Cuba once again was unable to meet the amortizations stipulated which led to DBP rescinding the deed of conditional sale and taking possession of not only the fishpond but also a house Cuba had built next to it as well, along with all the personal belongings, machineries, equipment, and tools therein, which subsequently, it was claimed, went missing. DBP allegedly also prevented Cuba and her representatives from feeding the fish already in the fishpond which led to their loss. As to the losses Cuba allegedly suffered when DBP took possession of the fishpond, the court said: Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. It must point to specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne.


  

CLASS NOTES The Court here gave the two kinds CD—dano emergente and lucro cesante Problem with the evidence presented—mere estimates Court disallowed mere estimates because they are highly speculative and manifestly hypothetical CD here was strictly construed

3. Certainty
-possible that the exact value (peso) is not known.

PNOC v. CA
FACTS: Collision of 2 vessels Certainty: to enable an injured party to recover AD or CD, he is required to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available. Burden of Proof: on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would be presented on either side. Evidence Required: He must establish his evidence by PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, which means that the evidence, as a whole, adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. Damages are not presumed: damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award must point out specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever CD or AD are borne.

2. Extent
Art. 2201, CC - In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. Art. 2202, CC - In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such


CLASS NOTES Problem here with preponderance of evidence is that it became COMPARATIVE—all things

are not granted on the basis of mere speculation. preclude recovery of this species of damages. plaintiff’s computations as to the amount of unrealized profit were based on fairly definite standards utilized by the governmental agency having relevant administrative jurisdiction over the subject matter and accounting standards widely employed in the world of business and commerce. Jr. the TalisaySilay Milling Co. the Supreme Court ruled that the transfer of their export sugar quota by AATSI and certain individual planters from TSMC to FFMCI was illegal and invalid and found the defendants liable to the plaintiffs for damages. Inc. PNOC case provides for guidelines on how to determine value of property (at what point do you count) Court here said: value AT TIME OF LOSS. HELD: Yes.   o o  CLASS NOTES Financias Postradas? Lost profits Standard required by the Court for this: accounting standards.   CLASS NOTES This case demonstrates how important the quality of your evidence is (i. Where. “An Act to Provide for the Allocation. of course. established experience or direct inference from known circumstances. Uncertainty as to whether or not a claimant suffered unrealized profits at all.4 M Fuentes. Fuentes was convicted of murder. 2007CA: reduced it to 1M 42     CLASS NOTES DBP’s acquisition of the leasehold rights wasn’t valid Problem with AD here: Court said AD was speculative because actual ocular inspection was done after the filing of the complaint and that they should have made an inventory Sir: Just because certain damages were found out after the filing of the compliant doesn’t make the damages speculative. First Farmers Milling Co. Inc. CA Julieto Malaspina was at a benefit dance when Alejandro Fuentes. what happened was that instead of having the sugar forming their export quota milled by TSMC as they had always done in the past. (FFMCI). During the trail. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation. TC: 15. The problem then would be ascertainment. Inc. it is reasonably certain that injury consisting of the failure to realize otherwise reasonably expected profits had been incurred.” which provides certain requirements that need to be met before a sugar planter’s sugar quota allotment can be transferred from one mill to another. Casis _S. without any tangible document to support such claim. In crimes and quasi-delicts. v. however. Combined with credible testimony. testimony for damages by someone who is an interested party is weak)  Talisay-Silay v. In the instant case. ISSUE: WON the extent of the unrealized profits suffered by the plaintiffs were proven with the certainty required by law.300 in connection with his death and the trial court awarded this amount as actual damages. uncertainty as to the precise amount of such unrealized profits will not prevent recovery or the award of damages. pricing of Sugar Quota Administration When a property is damaged and you claim AD. In short. Re-allocation and administration of Absolute Quota on Sugar. (TSMC) and the Talisay-Silay Industrial Cooperative Association. Besides who in the provinces makes an inventory of bangus. Dominador Agravante and other individual sugar planters. I saw you with long hair but now you have a short hair. conjecture or surmise but rather by reference to some reasonably definite standard such as market value. (AATSI). the Court can only give credence to those supported by receipts and which appear to have been genuinely expended in connection with the death of the victim. i. The rule is that damages consisting of unrealized profits.300 as actual damages on the basis of mere testimony of the victim’s sister. the defendant is liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. 1966. etc. If this takes into account profits=FMV  . the Supreme Court held that the trial court was in error to have awarded the P8. To seek recovery for actual damages it is essential that the injured party proves the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Prof. Assosiacion August 15. frequently referred to as ganancias frustradas or lucrum cessans. put his arm on the former’s shoulder saying “Before. However. conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages. in violation of Section 4 of RA 1825.Y. In the end.. 1995 FACTS: On the 15th of February. alleging an illegal transfer of sugar quota allotment or production allowance from TSMC to FFMCI. these provide sufficient basis for a reasonable estimate of the unrealized net income or profit sustained by plaintiffs.” whereupon Fuentes stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting knife and fled.e. will. Subsequently. And Ramon Nolan in his personal and official capacity as administrator of the Sugar Quota administration. uncertainty as to the very fact of injury.e. the defendants had their sugar milled at FFMCI instead. Malaspina’s sister testified that she incurred expensed of P8. This started nearly thirty years of litigation between the parties. (TSICA) instituted an action for damages against defendants Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay. This case shows that you should be ready with documents Of the expenses alleged to have been incurred. Jr.

CA December 29. Damage to property PNOC v. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. if they are to adequately correspond to the injury caused should be one which compensates for the pecuniary loss incurred and proved. that regard must be had to existing and pending engagements. (3) The spouse. normally. inflation was taken into account. not what the price is at the time of the ruling 2. the exact duration to be fixed by the court.   CLASS NOTES Art. not the cost of the care the family is usually compelled to undertake at home to avoid bankruptcy (but the CC presents us with difficulties) Well-settled rule: that AD which may be claimed by the plaintiff are those suffered by him as he has duly proved. the standard is the correct minimum cost of proper care and not what they actually spent in order not to prejudice those who are poor SC is limited to 8k/month because of the NATURE OF AD: must be proven Ramos v. for a period not exceeding five years.Y. Prof. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in instances where the injury is chronic and continuing (There is no incompatibility when both AD and TD are provided for). Ramos pay for hospital bills 4. NOTES: Rule: amount at the time of the loss. In other words. what has to be assessed is the value of the chattel to its owner as a going concern at the time and place of the loss. Amount of AD recoverable in suits arising from negligence: should at least reflect THE CORRECT MINIMUM COST OF PROPER CARE (SA CASE OPTIMAL CARE FOR THEIR LOVED ONE IN A FACILITY WHICH GENERALLY SPECIALIZES IN SUCH CARE) . the pieces of documentary evidence proffered by private respondent with respect to the items and equipment lost show similar items and equipment with corresponding prices approximately ten years after the collision. Casis _S. In the instant case. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. (problem – NATURE of AD: only award for AD proven up to the time of trial) Continuing injury: if the amount of damages has not yet been completely liquidated because the resulting injury is “continuing. from the nature of the case be made with certainty. that is. In PNOC.” then the amount of damages which should be awarded. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased.  o CLASS NOTES PNOC gives guidance as to how actual damages are computed: 1. If fair market value already includes the possible contracts. 2007- 43 FACTS: under a coma because of wrongful intubation TC: 8k per month from time when moved from hospital to the time of trial (the 8k was an estimate of the expenses incurred and proven before time of trial) CA: reversed. cf Gatchalian v. 2206. CA Where goods are destroyed by the wrongful act of the defendant the plaintiff is entitled to their value at the time of destruction. Price (fair market value) at the time of loss. may demand support from the person causing the death. and this means. the sum of money which he would have to pay in the market for identical or essentially similar goods. Delim (where the girl was given 15k for plastic surgery) HELD: 5. 2206 provides for earning capacity which is NOT equal to actual income  • CLASS NOTES According to the Court. in the case of profit-earning chattel s. then that is the value to be used. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. up to the time of the trial. 1999 • .Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008    Bottom line if FMV-but this can be construed in a # of ways Why FMV: Assessed value is lower (that’s why this is being used as basis for tax) The company in PNOC did different—it took into account inflation 3. Personal Injury and Death Art. In other words. at least in the case of ships. plus in a proper case damages for the loss of use during the period before replacement. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. and one which would meet pecuniary loss certain to be suffered but which could not. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession.

2007- 44 over the sale of a handgun. allegedly . Inc. a snapping sound was suddenly heard and shortly thereafter. 950 was also awarded for funeral and burial expenses as well as P28. Mangahas was found guilty sentenced to reclusion perpetua. it was easier to remove the scar.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 • • • Ramos case is important because AC is not just those up to the time of trial but also those certain to be suffered Lesson here: dramatize plight of your client If opposition: minimize plight of victim INTEGRITY. while the bus was running along the highway. Sir: technology makes things cheaper but SC here gave a presumption Most intriguing is the language of the Court— the longer the scar has been. In Reynalda’s case. Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the condition that she was in before the mishap. the Court cannot take account of receipts showing expenses incurred before the date of the slaying of the victim. an aunt of the victim was presented and testified mainly on the expenses their family incurred as a result of the death of the victim. IF THAT INTEGRITY IS VIOLATED OR DIMINISHED. 9th day. Heirs of Andres Malecdan December 27. she was older so SC ASSUMED that removing scar would be harder Skewed in favor of the beautiful Relevance nung “snapping sound” accdg to sir: baka naman may turtle kaya nag-turn turtle ung bus! Gatchalian v. 890 for food during the vigil. P14. a 75 year-old farmer. including Gatchalian. Prof. A SCAR. generating mental suffering and feeling of inferiority on her part. Of the expenses allegedly incurred. RESULTING FROM THE INFLICTION OF INJURY UPON HER. the Court can only give credence to those supported by receipt and which appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death. Thus. She also alleged that the scar diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of opportunities for employment. A ACTUAL INJURY PERSON IS ENTITLED TO THE PHYSICAL INTEGRITY IS SUFFERED FOR WHICH ACTUAL AND OF HIS OR HER BODY. wake. She alleged in her complaint that her injuries had left her with a conspicuous white scar on her forehead. ISSUE: WON the Delims are liable for the cost of plastic surgery to remove the scar on Gatchalian’s forehead. 2002 FACTS: While Andres Malecdan. Later. vs. Delim October 21. a minibus owned by the Delim spouses. the vehicle bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the road. burial. ensued and ending with Gestala’s death from three gunshot wounds.  • • • • • • CLASS NOTES This case is always cited to support that plastic surgery can be the subject of AD. went off the road. ESPECIALLY ONE ON THE FACE OF A WOMAN. IS A VIOLATION OF BODILY People v. or burial of the victim. as Malecdan was crossing the highway. or those incurred for purely aesthetic or social purposes. Areglado where a young boy sued for costs of surgery for removal of his scar on his face which caused a degenerative process and inferiority complex to the boy. ISSUE: WON the award of damages for funeral. • • • • •  CLASS NOTES SC-removed from AC what it thought was extravagant • • Victory Liner. Casis _S. eventually killing both of them. Therefore since in this case it was just a boy. Several passengers. 1999 FACTS: The accused Rufino Mangahas and the late Rufino Gestala were drinking at a store near the latter’s house when an altercation between the two. a Dalin Liner bus stopped to allow him and his carabao to pass. the more difficult it is to remove Gatchalian ruling is OK but the reasoning is funny This is still law so women can take advantage of this The case also cited Araneta vs. 1991 FACTS: Reynalda Gatchalian boarded.Y. Mangahas July 28. GIVING RISE TO A LEGITIMATE CLAIM FOR RESTORATION TO HER CONDITION ANTE. During the trial. and food expenses was proper. wake or burial of the victim. a bus of petitioner Victory Liner bypassed the Dalin bus and in doing so hit the old man and his carabao. The aforementioned events led Gatchalian to file an action extra contractu to recover compensatory and moral damages. She was allegedly on her way to confer with the district supervisor of public schools for a substitute teacher’s job. and 1st year anniversaries of the death of the victim. HELD: Not entirely. were injured and were promptly taken to a hospital for medical treatment. 40th day. was crossing the National Highway on his way home from the form. as a paying passenger. HELD: Yes. After trial. However. turned turtle and fell into a ditch. such as the lining of the tomb. Nature of action here: breach of contract of common carrier Sir: is there a health risk if you have a scar? So purely aesthetic? What was the proof offered for the scar? Expert testimony: alleged cost of 5-10k Yet SC granted 15k based on a presumption that plastic surgery would cost more after several years (SO AD became speculative AND NOT PROVEN). COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE DUE AND ASSESSABLE. those incurred after a CONSIDERABLE LAPSE OF TIME FROM THE BURIAL and which do not have any relation to the death. respondents in this case.

these included the amount of P5. (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded.   CLASS NOTES The Court cherry-picked! Specifically deleted an item which was too extravagant. the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. This item cannot be allowed. To justify an award for actual damages. the person must have done something really bad AND be liable for a greater degree Why ED only? Why not for other damages as well? What is the rationale for the enumeration? “A person is free to litigate. (6) In actions for legal support. (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. 40th day and 1st year death anniversaries. In the absence of stipulation. Prof. therefore the injured party may recover from the employers DIRECTLY. In view of Guerrero’s failure to perform his part of the contract within the period specified. 2208. Inc. (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. Attorney’s Fees Art. The trial court granted the motion despite opposition thereto hence the instant petition before the Supreme Court. ordered PHILAMGEN to pay the plaintiff the amount of the surety bond equivalent to P120. other than judicial costs. wake or burial of the victim. In all cases. it is not. sued both Guerrero and PHILAMGEN. PRIMARY Responsibility of employers: for the negligence of their employees in the performance of their duties. In the meantime. Casasola. (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime. . except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded. there should be proof of the actual amount of loss incurred in connection with the death. among others. PHILAMGEN filed a notice of appeal but the same was not given due course because it was supposedly filed out of time. A petition was filed before the IAC to compel the trial court to give due course to the appeal. HELD: No. 000. which had been butchered for the 9th day death anniversary. 339. (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid. Indalecio Casasola had a contract with a building contractor named Norman Guerrero. However. Dr. and exemplary damages. (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers. The trial court thereafter issued a writ of execution. Atty. 90. such as expenses relating to the 9th day. 339 in actual damages is proper. After Casasola’s death. Casasola with regard to the said fees and allegedly confirmed by his widow in writing. (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff. John Quirante.  • • • • • • CLASS NOTES Attorney’s fees are in the form of damages (nasa title on damages) Also in the form of AD MEMORIZE THIS ARTICLE! You can’t recover outside the listing of 2008 unless there is a stipulation AS regards the gen rule and exception. 2007- 45 • • interest and for “at least double judicial costs”. In the instant case. Inc. Casasola and aside from awards of actual.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 The trial court found both the driver and Victory Liner. Casasola died leaving his widow and several children. the petition was dismissed and so the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. the cost of one pig. 1989 FACTS: Dr. The Philippine American General Assurance Co. through his counsel.” (Except 2208) Quirante v. cannot be recovered. regardless of the solvency of their employees. The Court cannot take into account receipts showing expenses incurred some time after the burial of the victim. Casis _S.Y. sir said it can be BOTH Why may one recover attorney’s fees under those listed? –person is forced to protect his 5. The trial court found for Dr. 339 as actual damages. (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff. Dr. On Exemplary Damages: imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions. Intermediate Appellate Court January 31. the trial court awarded P88. (PHILAMGEN) acted as bondsman for Guerrero. guilty of gross negligence and awarded. While these are duly supported by receipts. just and demandable claim. moral. laborers and skilled workers. Quirante filed a motion in the trial court for the confirmation of his attorney’s fees alleging that there was an oral agreement between him and the late Dr. actual damages amounting to P88. ISSUE: WON the award of P88.

v. 3. Interest may. This is not something that goes to the attorney but to the litigant Forbearance of money: contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain during a given period of time. regardless of whether or not the case involves a loan or forbearance of money.  • • • • • CLASS NOTES 12% from CB Circular 416-for loan and forbearance of money. 7.. the petitioner’s claims are based on an alleged contract for professional services. 3. Art. and in the absence of stipulation. the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. Furthermore. Casis _S. the Court gave the following guidelines for the application of the proper interest rates: With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages. Rules on Interest In Eastern Shipping Lines. In crimes and quasi-delicts. The interim period is deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit. stipulation. be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. Mitigation of Liability Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences: -if the plaintiff does not try to reduce damages. the indemnity for damages. 2213. 2007March 9. Interest Art. be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. the rate of interest. Inc. shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon. except when the demand can be established with reasonably certainty. 2. above. v. Art. whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2. is the judgment creditor who may enforce the judgment for attorney’s fees by execution. although the obligation may be silent upon this point. i.. the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default.e. 2. not constituting a loan or forbearance of money. as follows: When the obligation is breached. What is being claimed here as attorney’s fees is different from attorney’s fees as an item of damages provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.Y. Accordingly. 2210. this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. in the discretion of the court. not his counsel.. as opposed to 6% which was imposed by A2209 Forbearance of money: basically a loan. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money. be xxx the amount finally adjudged. is imposed. and the litigant. The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall. When an obligation. and the debtor incurs in delay. 2209. in any case. however. shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. and it consists in the payment of a sum of money. Art. the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. 1999 46 1. he might not be able to recover -plaintiff must try to avoid further damage Crismina Garments v.e. HELD: No. 2211. In Keng Hua Paper Products Co. with them as the creditors and the private respondents as the debtors. there being no stipulation to the contrary. we also ruled that the monetary award shall earn interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of the finality of the judgment until its satisfaction. i. Inc. shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction. v. Art. In the absence of stipulation. Rule: 1. CA. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages. No interest. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory. from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. if none: loan or forbearance-12% not loan or forbearance-6%  • • CLASS NOTES Attorney’s fees referred to by Quirante not the same as attorney’s fees in 2208 What the difference?—Atty’s fees in 2208 are a form of AD and hence need to be proven. in a proper case. a credit but loan has a specific legal definition under the Civil Code Memorize rules laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. the legal interest. Here. where the demand is established with reasonable certainty. is breached. not of his counsel. 2212. as well as the accrual thereof. Prof. from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due or payable. the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made. which is six per cent per annum. a loan or forbearance of money. CA Take note of complications like compounding of interest When would interest accrue? From time of judicial demand 8.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 ISSUE: WON the attorney’s fees being claimed are the same attorney’s fees contemplated in article 2208 of the Civil Code. CA . the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). Court of Appeals. Inc. interest as a part of the damages may. the rate of legal interest. wherein the award is made in favor of the litigant.

2203. 2215. the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Art. Plaintiff then informed defendant that he would like to rent the casco again after the repairs had been completed. In the absence of evidence it will not be presumed that plaintiff could have secured another casco at the same price had he looked for one. mental anguish. 1918 FACTS: The defendant Tan Chuco. In the instant case the defendant made no effort whatsoever to show that any other similar cascos were in fact available to the plaintiff. the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article. you can’t claim moral damages because there was an intervening cause—your inability to answer the questions • ANOTHER TO TAKE SUCH MEASURES AS PRUDENT MEN USUALLY TAKE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES TO REDUCE THE DAMAGE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Art. Art. Though incapable of pecuniary computation. 2204. the rent being payable at the end of each month. and similar injury. the damages to be paid would be diminished if you contributed to the damage incurred! There is an obligation on the part of the party suffering to mitigate the loss. rented it to the plaintiff Vivencio Cerrano at a monthly rental of P70. and quasidelicts.Y. or the price he would have been able to obtain the use of one. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. *DOCTRINE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES: IT RECOVERABLE. About one week before the end of the repair period the defendant sold the casco to Siy Cong Bieng and Co.  • • • • • • CLASS NOTES What’s the connection of this case with the Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences? Defendant says that liability is mitigated because plaintiff could have found another casco at the same price SC-no mitigation of liability Damage = profit which he would have made had the contract been performed CASCO: a barge PATRON: the captain of the barge B. 1033. Kierulf v. 2007- 47 Cerrano v. CA March 13. In crimes. besmirched reputation. Upon the arrival of the casco in Manila. moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission. the lower court found defendant liable to the plaintiff for damages resulting from breach of contract. •  CLASS NOTES IS A RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT DAMAGES RESULTING FROM AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE BREACH OF A CONTRACT ARE NOT IT IS THE DUTY OF ONE INJURED BY THE ACT OF If the professor allowed you to stand for three (3) hours. fright. the man who had been employed by the plaintiff as the patron of the casco went to the office of Siy Cong Bieng and was hired by the latter in the same capacity. the defendant notified the plaintiff that the following month it would be necessary to send the casco off for repairs.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Art. Some time during the month of May.  • CLASS NOTES 2203 is known as the Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences which is different from the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence DOCTRINE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES. social humiliation. ISSUE: WON the plaintiff’s right is limited to the recovery of the difference between the contract price at which the casco was hired by him and such higher rate as he might have been compelled to pay for the hire of a similar casco in the open market. the party has to minimize the damages. 1997 . WELL- Burden of Proof: rests on the defendant that the PLAINTIFF MIGHT HAVE (COULD HAVE) REDUCED THE DAMAGE. In quasi-delicts. Concept Art. (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded. the plaintiff claiming that he was entitled to the possession of the casco under his contract with the defendant induced Santos to refuse to take orders from the new owners. Moral damages include physical suffering. wounded feelings. There was no express agreement as regards the duration of the contract. in CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. Casis _S. Moral 1. In contracts. Santos. After trial. moral shock. quasi-contracts. 2217. Prof. (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract. 1916. as in the following instances: (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract. 2214. (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event. Tan Chuco August 1. the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. (5) That since the filing of the action. however. who was then the owner of casco No. serious anxiety. HELD: No. that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel. to which the defendant indicated that he was willing but that the rent would be increased to P80. the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.

affection. serious anxiety and wounded feelings. Thus. but also for her husband. SINCE EACH CASE MUST BE GOVERNED BY ITS OWN PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES. Lucila suffered injuries which required major surgery and prolonged treatment by specialists. Casis _S. that spouse has suffered a direct and real personal loss. although argued before Respondent Court. In Francisco vs. it is nevertheless essential that THE CLAIMANT SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR DAMAGES AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO THE DEFENDANT’S ACTS. her chin was still numb and thick. limbs and ribs. While no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded. On Exemplary Damages: -designed to permit the courts to mould behavior that has socially deleterious consequences. and then to fly over the center island.Y. the Court held that there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. In order that moral damages may be awarded. etc." no "abusive language and highly scornful reference" was given her. As a consequence of the incident. Lucila) had failed to make out a case for loss of consortium. causing it to swerve to the left. Victor (and for that matter. His wife might have been badly disfigured. They also averred that the social and financial standing of Lucila should also be considered in fixing the award of moral damages. however. and its imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of an offender. The yardstick should be that the amount awarded should not be so palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion. mental anguish. it is still proper to award moral damages to Petitioner Lucila for her physical sufferings. BY OBTAIN MEANS. but he had not testified that. if the plaintiff fails to take the witness stand and testify as to his/her social humiliation. The loss is immediate and consequential rather than remote and unforeseeable. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found for Legaspi and the Kierulfs. it is personal to the spouse and separate and distinct from that of the injured person. there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering. a California case. causing damage to both vehicles and injuries to both Legaspi and his passenger Lucila Kierulf. Despite treatment and surgery. mental anguish. Prof. She lost all her teeth. moral damages cannot be awarded. HELD: The Court increased the moral damages awarded but ruled against awarding moral damages based on loss of consortium or considerations of social and financial standing. was not supported by the evidence on record. In the instant petition. the Court held that "additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code. wounded feelings. Be that as it may. that resulted therefrom. not only for Lucila. IT MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE SUFFERING INFLICTED. it cannot be ITS AWARD IS AIMED AT RESTORATION. The social and financial standing of Lucila cannot be considered in awarding moral damages. that a wife could not recover for the loss of her husband's services by the act of a third party. fright and the like. GSIS. She had to undergo several corrective operations and treatments. Neither should it be so little or so paltry that it rubs salt to the injury already inflicted on plaintiffs. fright. National Labor Relations Commission. Rodriguez ruled that when a person is injured to the extent that he/she is no longer capable of giving love. unlike the Rodriguez spouse. The Court noted that the Rodriguez case clearly reversed the original common law view first enunciated in the case of Deshotel vs. She sustained multiple injuries on the scalp. THUS. Clearly. x x x social humiliation. averred that the disfigurement of Lucila’s physical appearance due to the accident could not but affect their marital right of consortium and asked that the moral damages awarded be increased from P100. his right to marital consortium was affected. wife of Victor Kierulf. 000 to one million pesos. OF THE SPIRITUAL STATUS QUO ANTE. RULES: When social & financial standing may be considered in awarding MD: only if he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the offender’s knowledge of his or her social and financial standing. . AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Bethlehem was cited as authority for the claim of damages based on loss of marital consortium. THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST RULE IN DETERMINING THE PROPER AMOUNT. The factual circumstances prior to the accident show that no "rude and rough" reception. However. She felt that she has not fully recovered from her injuries. Atchison. The spouses Kierulf. Rodriguez v. She suffered sleepless nights and shock as a consequence of the vehicular accident. 2007- 48 wounded feelings and anxiety. DIVERSIONS OR AMUSEMENTS THAT WILL SERVE TO ALLEVIATE REASON OF THE DEFENDANT'S CULPABLE ACTION." no "supercilious manner. However. ending up on the wrong side of the road. comfort and sexual relations to his or her spouse. no "menacing attitude. owner of the pickup and employer of Legaspi." *MORAL DAMAGES ARE AWARDED TO ENABLE THE INJURED PARTY TO THE MORAL SUFFERING HE/SHE HAS UNDERGONE. in consequence thereof. these being. In Cocoland Development Corporation vs. She even had to undergo a second operation on her gums for her dentures to fit. Victor's claim for deprivation of his right to consortium. grave anxiety. ISSUE: WON an increase in the amount awarded as moral damages is warranted given the circumstances. The front of the bus bumped the front portion of an Isuzu pickup driven Porfirio Legaspi.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 FACTS: One of Pantranco’s buses was traveling along EDSA when the driver lost control of the bus. prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial judge. The social and financial standing of a claimant of moral damages may be considered in awarding moral damages only if he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the offender's knowledge of his or her social and financial standing..

& 3. It was stipulated that the management could revoke the contract before the expiration of the term if the union failed to render proper service. 1977 FACTS: The Compania Maritima and the Allied Free Workers Union entered into a written contract whereby the Union agreed to perform arrastre and stevedoring work for the company’s vessels at Iligan City. though incapable of pecuniary estimation. Allied Free Workers Union May 24. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means. However. plaintiff informed defendant that a letter of credit had been opened with BPI but that the transmittal of the same was delayed. 1983. HELD: No. Defendant alleged that it sent a telegram to plaintiff canceling the sale because of the failure of the latter to obtain a letter of credit in its favor. 000 in favor of defendant on or before May 15. Casis _S. by reason of the defendant’s culpable action. 2007MANNER. entered into a sale involving scrap iron located at the stockyard of defendant corporation subject to the condition of plaintiff opening a letter of credit in the amount of P250. Causal connection between factual basis and defendant’s wrongful act or omission 2. and defendant Visayan Sawmill Co. the wrongful act must be accompanied by BF. IF Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of the defendant. claimant must 1st establish his right to moral. thus it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. MORAL DAMAGES DEFENDANTS ACTED FRAUDULENTLY MAY IN BE BAD RECOVERED FAITH. The contract itself could be renewed by agreement of the parties. Inc. On May 26. The Union found out later that the contract was to be oppressive and unduly favorable to the company. • • • AND while EXEMPLARY DAMAGES MAY ONLY BE AWARDED IF DEFENDANTS ACTED . There is no hard and fast rule in determining the proper amount since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances.  CLASS NOTES What to prove in breach of contract: • Defendants acted fraudulently and in bad faith • Purpose of MD reiterated in this case *SC held that Visayan Sawmill DID NOT HAVE ANY OBLIGATION to sell because RJH breached agreement on 3 counts (did not comply with suspensive conditions)  • • • • CLASS NOTES Rodriguez case-different from what happened to Lucila (there was nothing wrong with possible performance. etc. The plaintiff filed a petition for preliminary attachment but it was returned unserved because the scrap iron as well as other pieces of machinery could no longer be found on the defendant’s premises. plaintiff’s employees started to gather scrap iron at the defendant’s premises until May 30 when defendant allegedly directed plaintiff’s employees to desist from pursuing the work. by reason of the defendant’s culpable action. The Court noted the palpably excessive and unconscionable moral and exemplary damages awarded by the trial court to the private respondent despite a clear absence of any legal and factual basis therefore. oppressive or malevolent manner. of the spiritual status quo ante. and the award would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton. 1993 FACTS: Plaintiff RJH Trading. CA March 3. Prof. Proof and Proximate Cause Compania Maritima v. of the spiritual status quo ante. diversion or amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone. Requirements before ED may be awarded: 1. On Moral Damages: -MD. fraudulent. RECKLESS. the defendant informed them that they were unwilling to continue with the sale due to failure by the plaintiffs to comply with the essential preconditions of the contract. 1983. Its award is aimed at the restoration. On May 24. liquidated or compensatory damages. by way of example or correction in addition to CD 2. On July 19. FRAUDULENT.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 recovered as a matter of right—it is based entirely on the discretion of the court. -awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means. temperate.Y.”) Sir: what kind of evidence will you present without embarrassing yourself to prove loss of consortium? This case can be used in the future—even if reason is only lack of visual stimulation Another factor to determine amount of moral damages: social and financial standing (but wouldn’t it be discriminating since you only award damages to those who are rich?) Epilogue by ponente: there should be: Factual basis of mental anguish. diversity or amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone. On may 17. v. Its award is aimed at restoration. defendants received a letter of advice from BPI informing them that a letter of credit had been opened in their favor. 49 IN A WANTON. In contracts. as much as possible. the plaintiff sent a series of telegrams to the defendant demanding that the latter comply with the deed of sale. “Equipment was not damaged. ISSUE: WON the moral damages awarded in favor of RJH trading were proper. are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant at the expense of the defendant. within the limits of the possible. OPPRESSIVE OR MALEVOLENT Visayan Sawmill Co. and it must be proportional to the suffering inflicted.

In the instant case. one must plead and prove Prof. THE “INDEPENDENT AUDITOR” HIRED WAS ACTUALLY A FRIEND OF THE BRANCH MANAGER…) . It was found that MFC DID IN TRUTH ACT WITH BAD FAITH. Over a period of about a month. it follows that the company. She subsequently sold him several pieces of jewelry paid for with postdated checks issued by Bautista. handling of cargo on the wharf or between the establishment of the consignee or shipper and the ship’s tackle STEVEDORING: handling of cargo in the holds of the vessel or between the ship’s tackle and the holds of the vessel The law explicitly authorizes the award of moral damages "in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. GSIS because in Francisco. It MERELY CLAIMED MORAL DAMAGES in the prayer of its complaint. HELD: Yes. the company claimed actual and moral damages resulting from the strike. ARE IN THE CATEGORY OF AN AWARD DESIGNED TO COMPENSATE THE CLAIMANT FOR ACTUAL INJURY SUFFERED AND NOT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY ON . to redeem the same from the pawnshops where they had been pledged. 1980 FACTS: Mrs. WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE GROUNDLESS (NO SALES INVOICES PRESENTED. RULE: FAILURE TO MENTION IN TESTIMONY THE SACRAMENTAL PHRASES IS NOT ENOUGH TO DENY CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Considering that the company’s claim for moral damages was BASED ON THE SAME FACTS ON WHICH IT PREDICATED ITS CLAIM FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES. Much to chagrin. Thus the Union was only compensated for arrastre work performed and not for stevedoring. they experienced "feelings of shock. The Court differentiated the instant case from Francisco v. is not entitled to moral damages." There being. portions of the roof were blown away by strong winds which also led to the interior of the house being damaged as well. CA January 29. she was informed by one of her agents that a wealthy logger by the name of Marino Bautista was interested in buying some of her jewelry. able to confront Bautista and obtain. wounded feelings. The court. the petitioner took the witness stand and established by uncontradicted testimony that due to defendant’s deceitful and malevolent acts of defraudation she had suffered extreme anguish and could not sleep for three months. embarrassment and anger. she visited Bautista in his Greenhills home and was impressed by the size of his residence. serious anxiety. the COMPANY DID NOT PLEAD AND PROVE moral damages. or moral shock” and the like justified the denial of the claim for damages. Niceta Miranda-Ribaya was in the pawnshop business and in the business of buying and selling jewelry. Bautista January 28. 1997 FACTS: Impressed by the defendant’s advertising. RULE: In order to recover MD. 2007- 50 Miranda-Ribaya v. OF THE  • • CLASS NOTES Nature of contract was for arrastre and stevedoring services ARRASTRE: hauling of cargo. fear. The Court did not share the appellate court’s narrow view that petitioner’s failure to use in her testimony the precise legal terms or “sacramental phrases” of “mental anguish. helplessness. a juridical person. found that their claim for actual damages was baseless. ISSUE: WON the Del Rosario spouses are entitled to moral damages. Miranda-Ribaya later discovered that most of the jewelry she had sold to Bautista had been pledged to various pawnshops. It was held to be sufficient that these exact terms were pleaded in the complaint and evidence was adduced amply supporting the same. claiming that the company was the one obligated to pay for the stevedoring services.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 This was because while he shippers and consignees paid the Union only for the arrastre work. however. the grant to them of moral damages is warranted. This led to a labor dispute and a strike by the workers of the Union. is adequately demonstrated by the recorded proofs. HELD: No. moreover. Casis _S. at her own expense. When the maturity of the checks given in payment arrived. ISSUE: WON Miranda-Ribaya is entitled to an award of moral damages. therein Plaintiff failed to take the witness stand and defendant’s breach of contract was held to be not malicious and fraudulent. HELD: Yes. However. the company itself also refused to pay for the stevedoring services because the contract explicitly provided that the compensation for both arrastre and stevedoring would be paid by the shippers and consignees. the pawnshop tickets for the jewelry she had sold him which she used." *IT IS ESSENTIAL IN THE AWARD OF DAMAGES THAT THE CLAIMANT HAVE SATISFACTORILY PROVEN DURING THE TRIAL THE MUST EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGES AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO DEFENDANT'S ACTS. JUST SELFSERVING TESTIMONIES. however. Accompanied by her agent. Del Rosario v. the spouses Del Rosario purchased a quantity of the defendant Metal Forming Corporation’s Banawe roofing shingles for use in their house. ISSUE: WON the company is entitled to moral damages. During the litigation. This was not held to be sufficient. Also. IN FLAGRANT BREACH OF ITS EXPRESS WARRANTIES MADE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND IN WANTON DISREGARD OF THE RIGHTS DEL ROSARIOS WHO RELIED ON THOSE WARRANTIES . all of them were dishonored for the reason that the accounts of Bautista were closed.Y. THIS IS SO BECAUSE MORAL DAMAGES THOUGH INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION. with great difficulty. during a storm. satisfactory evidence of the psychological and mental trauma actually suffered by the Del Rosarios. She was. fright. Sometime in 1968.

Traya February 27. and 34. Casis _S. while “recklessly” driving a truck owned by his co-defendant Octavio Traya. Prof. of course. 32. THE AMOUNT OF INDEMNITY BEING LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT (Art. De La Torre January 28. 2219. that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them as his father was still alive and it was not true that he was the only son of Ciriaco Enervida and that the sale did not take place within the prohibited period.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 THE WRONGDOER AND ARE ALLOWABLE ONLY WHEN SPECIFICALLY PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT. 2219).  • • CLASS NOTES Motion for summary judgment (there’s no more controversy if it’s summary judgment) Here MD was not awarded not because of proof but because unfounded suits do not warrant MD People v. may be recovered (Art. 2219 and in Arts. which they are intended to be. 1998 . excepting. Bugayong December 2. 1968 FACTS: Defendant Bienvenido Carciller. ran over the three year old son of plaintiff spouses Melquiades and Adela Raagas. are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. 2202). praying that the deed of sale executed by his deceased father Ciriaco Enervida over a parcel of land covered by a homestead patent be declared null and void for having been executed within the prohibited period of five years. 21. Moral damages. 2208 by reference in Art. the Code has chosen to enumerate the cases in which moral damages. The trial court and the Court of Appeals both seem to be of the opinion that the mere fact that respondent were sued without any legal foundation entitled them to an award of moral damages. 10. 27. Art. 2208 (par. 35 on the chapter on human relations (par. This is so because moral damages. hence they made no definite finding as to what the supposed moral damages suffered consist of. or it would have expressly mentioned it in Art. or else incorporated Art. essential that the (ART. notwithstanding the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that his complaint against respondents were clearly unfounded or unreasonable. 2219. nevertheless. 2007- 51 Raagas v. the special torts referred to in Art. which they are not. ISSUE: WON moral damages were properly awarded despite there being a judgment on the pleadings. among other things. He further prayed that he be allowed to repurchase the said parcel for being the legitimate son and sole heir of his deceased father. 30. the sum of P2. The lower court rendered a judgment on the pleadings condemning the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs.” RULE: Unfounded suit-not a basis of MD for it is not part of 2219  • • CLASS NOTES What’s wrong with Judgment on the pleadings in the granting of MD? the rule on AC as regards proving cannot be done with a judgment on the pleadings Judgment on the pleadings-primary submission only (nothing to support) Enervida v. Defendants filed their answer stating. the Court found the plaintiff’s civil action to be entirely unfounded. HELD: The court reaffirmed the rule that although an allegation is not necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded. are not corrective or exemplary damages. ISSUE: WON the defendant spouses are entitled to moral damages by reason of the unfounded civil action filed against them. ESSENTIAL THAT THE CLAIMANT SATISFACTORILY PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGE AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO DEFENDANT’S ACTS. It is true that Art. which is expressly mentioned in Art. 2208. Art. par. 4). causing the child’s instantaneous death. Furthermore. thereby implying that all other quasi-delicts not resulting in physical injuries are excluded. 2217) AND ITS CAUSAL RELATION TO CLAIMANT SATISFACTORILY PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGE DEFENDANT'S ACTS. 2216). The Supreme Court ruled that: “with respect to moral damages. though incapable of pecuniary estimation. It will be observed that unlike compensatory or actual damages which are generally recoverable in tort cases as long as there is satisfactory proof thereof (Art. it is. But the two enumerations differ in the case of a clearly unfounded suit. 1974 FACTS: Petitioner Roque Enervida filed a complaint against the defendant-spouses Lauro and Rosa de la Torre. rather than a compensation for actual injury suffered. 28. as justifying an award of attorney's fees. 26. it is. A like enumeration is made in regard to the recovery of attorney's fees as an item of damage (Art. Besides. 2219 in respect to moral damages. 2219). as it did in Art. 29. we are inclined to agree with petitioner that these damages are not recoverable herein. while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary IN ORDER THAT MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED. 309. but we do not think the Code intended" a clearly unfounded civil action or proceedings" to be one of these analogous cases wherein moral damages may be recovered. as an instance when moral damages may be allowed. nevertheless. Art. HELD: No.Y. 000 for moral damages. in other words. 2208). but is not included in the enumeration of Art. 9. 2219 Specifically mentions "quasi-delicts causing physical injuries". 2219 also provides that moral damages may be awarded in "analogous cases" to those enumerated. Ruling in favor of the defendant. Such a conclusion would make of moral damages a penalty. among others.

such damages are justly due. Since the demands were ignored by Lo. abduction. The account had been remitted to Expertravel through its then Chairperson Ma. 29. Prades. 26. the GSIS extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage on the ground that up to that date the plaintiff was in arrears on her monthly installments. 34. WOUNDED FEELINGS. Art. in the order named. Rodolfo Andal. since according to the GSIS. raped. the Court ruled that moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding. in such amount as the Courts deems just. In People v. proposing to partially pay off his daughter’s indebtedness. v. P50k awarded as indemnity ex delicto + P50k as MD 3. 1999 FACTS: Expertravel issued to respondent Ricardo Lo (Ricky Lo! Showbiz!) four round-trip plane tickets to Hong Kong. GSIS appeared amenable to the proposal and the various sums therein were paid by the plaintiff and her father to the defendant.. The trial court found for the respondent and held that the amount claimed by Expertravel had already been paid. .20.There was no error in the appealed decision in denying moral damages. ISSUE: WON the victim is entitled to moral damages. The GSIS was itself the buyer of the property in the foreclosure sale. NOT BEING MALICIOUS OR FRAUDULENT. HELD: Yes. The spouse. has almost invariably been held not to be a ground for an award of moral damages. sent a letter to the general manager of the defendant corporation. mortgaged in favor of the defendant GSIS a parcel of land known as the Vic-Mari Compound in Quezon City. under the circumstances. Casis _S. (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest. however. 3 of this article. without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof as had heretofore been the practice. abducted. Abduction. The Court held that Bugayong should also be ordered to pay the victim the additional amount of P50. GSIS March 30. 2220. CA June 25. as the decision holds. 2007- 52 HELD: No. Some time later. (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21. not only on account of plaintiff’s FAILURE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND and TESTIFY TO HER SOCIAL HUMILIATION. 000 as moral damages. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. the one-year period of redemption had expired. CC . 1963 FACTS: Plaintiff Trinidad Francisco in consideration of a loan. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. payable within 10 years in monthly installments. ISSUE: WON plaintiff is entitled to moral damages by reason of defendant’s breach of contract. 28. descendants. slander or any other form of defamation. his eleven year old stepdaughter. Alleging that Lo had failed to pay the amount due.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 FACTS: Rodelio Bugayong alias “Boy” was convicted of raping and committing acts of lasciviousness against Arlene Cauan. and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 2219. 677. *Rationale for the rule: THE LAW COULD NOT HAVE MEANT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY ON THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE.. Dela Torre). ETC. (7) Libel. Expertravel and Tours. Rocio de Vega who was theretofore authorized to deal with the respondent’s clients. A SITUATION THAT CANNOT BY ITSELF BE A COGENT REASON FOR THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES. or abused. (3) Seduction. emotionally. THE ANGUISH SUFFERED BY A PERSON FOR HAVING BEEN MADE A DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL SUIT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE USUAL WORRY AND ANXIETY SUFFERED BY ANYONE WHO IS HALED TO COURT. (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309.    CLASS NOTES For Rape. (4) Adultery or concubinage. Expertravel caused several demands to be made. The plaintiff’s father. rape.Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that. 32. and 35. Seduction. 27. Inc. Respondent Lo answered that his account with Expertravel had already been fully paid. Vicente Francisco. The parents of the female seduced. Damage automatically comes from being a victim of such crimes and it is assumed that the victim suffered mentally. ISSUE: WON damages can be recovered by reason of a clearly unfounded suit. together with hotel accommodations and transfers for a total cost of P39. (6) Illegal search.Y. Expertravel filed a complaint for recovery of the amount. but primarily because a BREACH OF CONTRACT LIKE THAT PF THE DEFENDANT’S. This continued until the GSIS sent the plaintiff and her father three letters asking for a proposal for the payment of her indebtedness. may also recover moral damages. and to cover the balance. Acts of Lasciviousness and Physical injuries: NO NEED to prove MD. referred to in No. (8) Malicious prosecution. Atty. Cases where allowed (MEMORIZE!) Art. such filing. HELD: Although the institution of a clearly unfounded civil suit can at times be a legal justification for an award of attorney's fees (Enervida vs.. ascendants. the foreclosure on the property would be set aside. to allow the GSIS to manage the property and collect the installments due on the unpaid houses and lots thereon until the debt was fully paid. or other lascivious acts. In exchange. This led to litigation as to the nature of the agreement in which the plaintiff eventually prevailed. DOES NOT WARRANT THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES. Francisco v. Prof. 9 of this article. 30. (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.

1. v. MENTAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL THERE MUST BE A CULPABLE ACT OR OMISSION FACTUALLY ESTABLISHED THE WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY THE AWARD OF DAMAGES IS PREDICATED ON ANY OF THE CASES STATED IN 5. Jr. which was dishonored. 2219 (CASIS: PENDING ISSUE) When MD allowed: must be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. 2. Defamation Malicious Prosecution The term “analogous causes” in Art. HELD: No.Y. special rule: e. wounded feelings. FACTS: J Marketing discovered that a motorcycle was missing from its bodega. “J’s” representative examined the chassis and motor numbers of the motorcycle and found them tampered. despite having been informed that they no longer did business in Ospital. A PERSON’S RIGHT TO LITIGATE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED BY HOLDING HIM LIABLE FOR DAMAGES. Adultery or concubinage d. 20. ISSUE: WON the award of Moral Damages is proper. BF. must be PROPORTIONAL TO AND IN APPROXIMATION OF THE SUFFERING INFLICTED. WHETHER PHYSICAL. 2. besmirched reputation. fright. Illegal arrest f. Illegal search. which is also operated by Editha Mijares. *ELEMENTS OF MP: (1) MALICE. Motorcycle was traced to Sia. Sia refused to return the motorcycle and dared the representative to file a case in court. a. Sia. 3. the factual basis for which is satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party. or b. 2206: when death results from a breach of carriage J. 21. & exceptionally: d. Under Culpa contractual or breach of contract: when the defendant acted in: a. Unfounded Suits Unfounded suits Malicious prosecution ART. mental anguish. PI b. or c. but are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering. or g. 4. 19. 2219. 26-huma relations torts) -also applies to contracts when breached by tort In Culpa Criminal: when accused is found guilty of a. RTC and CA dismissed the complaint and awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in favor of Sia. 1746 in relation to Art. Illegal detention e. for partial payment under the account name of his store. Lascivious acts c. 1. Mijares v.  • • • CLASS NOTES Court applied same elements for MP and unfounded suits Sir: this should not have been the case because it lumps together the two (2) kinds of action The enumeration of the elements was probably a mistake because malicious prosecution is not equivalent to unfounded suits. THERE MUST BE AN INJURY. Mijares spouses COLLECTION. MMD filed a complaint to collect from Editha. “J” filed a complaint for replevin against Sia. MMD made deliveries to Silverio’s store for almost a year. FAILED TO SHOW THAT MMD 3. Amount of MD: though incapable of pecuniary estimation. The Co-op was dissolved and ceased operations in 1986. DOCTRINE: Moral Damages cannot be recovered from a person who has filed a complaint against another in good faith.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 If the rule were otherwise. and similar injury unjustly caused to a person. Upon confrontation. following the ejusdem generis rule must be held similar to those expressly enumerated by the law. in Art. where the defendant is guilty of an intentional tort (casis: Arts. social humiliation. then moral damages must every time be awarded in favor of the prevailing defendant against an unsuccessful plaintiff. in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation. WAS MOTIVATED BY BAD FAITH WHEN IT INSTITUTED THE ACTION FOR It is merely an unfounded suit not Malicious Prosecution. serious anxiety. Casis _S. CA FACTS: Metro Manila Drug supplied pharmaceutical products to the Mijares spouses’ drugstore and to the Ospital ng Maynila Consumers Cooperative Drugstore. was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to BF). (2) ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE. Silverio issued a check. when an act or omission causes P “J” filed the complaint based on . as an officer of the Co-op. HELD: No. b. in Culpa Aquiliana or QD: a. Court found suit to be unfounded. *REQUISITES OF MD: 4. amounting to 32K. or without malice or bad faith. Marketing Corp. Prof. Nature of MD: not punitive. and its space was leased out to Solomon Silverio who also put up a drugstore. when the act of breach of contract itself is constitutive of torts resulting in physical injuries (PI). ESPECIALLY WHEN HE BELIEVES HE HAS A RIGHTFUL CLAIM AGAINST ANOTHER. moral shock. 2007- 53 ISSUE: WON Moral damages should be awarded to the Mijares spouses. ALTHOUGH FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS.

she was no longer given any assignments even if she was willing and able to do light work. ii. Labor Cases DEATH OF HER HUSBAND. 2219 or 2220 (CC). The case focused more on how Osdana was treated when she worked in Saudi Arabia. ISSUE: WON the award of moral and exemplary damages were justified. Guevara filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Cometa. wounded feelings.Y. HELD: No. which the latter failed to pay. and a car. as a result of the other party’s acts. not unfounded suit SUFFERED ANY MENTAL ANGUISH OR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FROM THE i. Sue someone who could readily be impleaded (based on legal basis) FACTS: Pirame. Criminal Taking Of Life People v. so “J” could not be deemed to have done so with bad faith. (2) prosecution terminated in the plaintiff’s acquittal. ISSUE: WON the case for malicious prosecution states a cause of action and warrants a full blown trial on the merits. (4) the prosecutor was actuated by malice. serious anxiety. Cometa v. Pirame  • •    CLASS NOTES Purpose of requirements: to temper the filing of suits in order to get damages. or public policy. It is not enough that the claimant alleges mental anguish. HELD: Yes. et al were found guilty of murdering Pedro Torrenueva. and the jeep’s driver and owner (Ligorio and Pablo Bondad). CA FACTS: SITI (Cometa: president) extended loans to GIDC (Guevara: president). its driver. so she filed an illegal dismissal case. (3) Necessary that such acts be shown to have been tainted with bad faith or ill-will.    CLASS NOTES Moral damages are not just awarded because of violations of the Labor Code. FACTS: A 3-automobile collision involving a bus. good customs. No damages can be charged on those who may exercise their right to litigate in good faith. Bondad The absence of any generic aggravating circumstance precludes the award of exemplary damages. The bus bumped the jeep that was parked at the shoulder to fix a tire and the bus went on to hit the car. social humiliation. After this. She was dismissed from work and not given any separation pay. or was done in a manner contrary to morals. even if done erroneously. 2007- 54 Triple Eight Integrated Services v. Industrial Insurance Company v.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Sia’s own challenge for them to sue him. Ordered IIC to pay them moral damages for recklessly and baselessly impleading them in spite of the clear language in the Traffic Investigation report that they were not responsible in any way for the accident. DOCTRINE: The adverse result of an action does not make a complainant subject to pay moral damages. IIC ACTED IN BAD FAITH WHEN IT COMPELLED THE BONDADS TO TRAVEL FROM LAGUNA TO MAKATI TO LITIGATE AN UNFOUNDED CLAIM. NLRC FACTS: Erlinda Osdana was recruited by Triple 8 as a food server in Saudi Arabia. Torrenueva’s widow DID NOT TESTIFY ON HAVING CLASS NOTES Lesson here as opposed to earlier discussion to sue as many as you can: don’t implead people without any reason or a suit will also be filed against you MP was filed against SITI and Cometa. . Casis _S. Cometa filed a falsification case against Guevara which was dismissed by the prosecutor for lack of probable cause. IIC was RECKLESS WHEN IT IMPLEADED THE BONDADS IN SPITE OF CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE NOT LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO Prof. The effects of this was that Ligorio could not work. The Bondads denied any responsibility or liability to IIC and Morales. ISSUE: WON the award of Moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees was proper. All the requirements for a valid cause of action were present. HELD: Yes. NOTE: SC did not equate mp with an unfounded suit MORALES’ CAR. and Pablo became sick and even suffered a mild stroke. DOCTRINE: Requirements to sustain an award of moral damages: (1) Claimant suffered injury. a jeep. ISSUE: WON the award of moral and exemplary damages was justified. The award of Moral Damages is justified. The owner of the car (Morales) and the insurance company filed a complaint for damages against the bus company. HELD: Yes. DOCTRINE: Moral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor. (2) Injury sprung from any of the cases listed in Art. DOJ Secretary reversed prosecutor’s finding but the RTC eventually dismissed the case. etc. but she again became ill and required 2 surgeries. TC and CA: exculpated the Bondads. LA and NLRC both ruled in her favor and awarded her damages. The award of damages was proper. Triple 8 refused to help her. DOCTRINE: What must be alleged in a complaint for malicious prosecution so that there is a valid cause of action: (1) defendant himself instigated the prosecution. (3) prosecutor acted without probable cause. SITI foreclosed the mortgages and was the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale. Bad working conditions made her ill and she had to be confined in a hospital. She was transferred several times.

attacked his character by alleging that he was a known gambler and big time casino player. The case is analogous to malicious prosecution under Art. PAIN AND ANGER WHEN A LOVED ONE BECOMES THE VICTIM OF A VIOLENT OR BRUTAL KILLING. HELD: Yes. the City Fiscal of Surigao took a PAL flight from Manila to Surigao. Preponderance of evidence suggests that the cause of action in this case was contrived by Fule himself. only to be stunned with a court case. 2219 (8). as shown by Fule’s wanton bad faith and his filing of a malicious and unfounded case against Cruz & Belarmino. However. Casis _S. SC increased the award to 200K. HELD: Yes. He filed a case against Cruz and Belarmino seeking the nullification of the Deed on the ground of fraud and deceit. that this had caused him his integrity and dependability as a businessman in Baguio. Due to a typhoon.  • NOTES: Q: why ANALOGOUS TO MP only and not MP? A: can’t be MP coz no prior case that ended or was qualified as MP CLASS NOTES Seems to consider MD similar to AD  CLASS NOTES Fule v. without proofs. (4) The length of time the case has dragged on during which their reputations were tarnished and their names maligned. Fule was able to examine the jewelry and accepted them (he had already examined them before and even made a sketch). respected. He appealed claiming self-defense. On the flight. that displays wanton bad faith. he learned that the hotel expenses of some passengers were reimbursed. the flight to Surigao was cancelled while on a stopover in Cebu. PAL gave out cash assistance to its stranded passengers. PNB. 2 hours later. ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. Property for a pair of diamond earrings from Dr. SUPPORT AND AFFECTION BUT ALSO LEAVES THEM WITH A GNAWING FEELING THAT AN INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE TO THEM. From this it is obvious that PNB besmirched Flores’ reputation causing him undue humiliation. CA FACTS: Carmelo Flores. Casis Commentary: SC reduced the award. Flores filed this MFR contending that the award was too small. CA FACTS: Fule. DOCTRINE: Factors considered in determining amount: (1) Cruz & Belarmino are well-known. For this reason. bought from PNB 2 manager’s checks worth 500k each. a prominent businessman in Baguio engaged in the real estate business of buying and selling house and lots. Belarmino. PNB later refused to honor the checks because of alleged shortage in his payment. LOVE. SC took into account the following: that despite the fact that Mr. CA FACTS: Pantejo. HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court reduced the award of 1M to 100k as moral damages. TORMENT. and Belarmino 250K as moral damages. TC & CA dismissed the complaint and ordered him to pay Cruz 300K. Cruz under a Deed of Absolute Sale with Atty. and held in high esteem in San Pablo. Prof. Pantejo requested that he be billeted at a hotel at PAL’s expense because he wasn’t carrying cash. Cruz presents a possible distinction between Arcona and Pirame: the manner of death was taken into account (violent nature of the death) which Prof. (2) Both are near the twilight of their lives after maintaining and nurturing their good reputation in the community. 2007- 55 Carlos Arcona y Moban v. AS BORNE OUT BY HUMAN EXPERIENCE A VIOLENT DEATH INVARIABLY AND NECESSARILY BRINGS ABOUT EMOTIONAL PAIN AND ANGUISH ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM’S FAMILY. NOTE: cf Arcona v. Enough IT IS INHERENTLY HUMAN TO SUFFER SORROW. Flores also testified in court regarding his woes when PNB refused to honor his checks. but also besmirched their reputations. considered 1M in Moral Damages to be excessive because (1) Flores did not prove that he lost the Baguio House. CA the trial that the bank was negligent of its duties. He had to share a room with another passenger whom he promised to repay in Surigao. moral damage must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs’ emotional sufferings. Flores’ character and personality are irrelevant to the issues in the case. That because of the incident whenever he tries to make a deal people doubt his capacity to pay. CA FACTS: Carlos Arcona was convicted of homicide and was ordered to pay 10K as moral damages. Factors in Determining Amount PNB v.    CLASS NOTES This seems to be in conflict with the Pirame case. It was found during . he complained that the earrings were fake. ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages was correct. This is the sales case on BARTER! PAL v. a banker/jeweler bartered his 10 ha. RULE: MD does not need actual proof. (3) Since the filing of the case. a small city. Casis does not seem to agree with. SUCH BRUTAL DEATH NOT ONLY STEALS FROM THE FAMILY OF THE DECEASED HIS LIFE. Pantejo sued PAL for damages for discriminating b.Y. they were living under a pall of doubt which surely affected not only their earning capacity. The bank also alleged that the proceeds of the checks were used by Flores in gambling.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 DOCTRINE: Proof of suffering must be attested to justify the award of moral damages. ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages should be increased. but PAL refused. (2) 1M in Moral Damages is grossly disproportionate to the 100K in actual damages. Moral damages should be increased to 50K.

The SC finds the 10K award of Moral Damages justified under the circumstances. The dishonor of the Chuas’ checks and the foreclosure initiated by the bank AFFECTED THE CREDIT STANDING AND THE BUSINESS DEALINGS OF THE CHUAS. CFI awarded 150K in moral damages. Li and his employer were found jointly and severally liable. The nature of the injuries and the degree of physical suffering endured by Ramos warrants it. increasing Moral Damages to 10K. Considering the prestige of his rank and position. the amount awarded is appropriate. Valenzuela filed a case claiming damages: 1M (moral). SLEEPLESSNESS. CA FACTS: The Chuas had substantial savings and current deposits with the Bacolod Branch of Producers Bank. the artificial leg would have to be adjusted to the physiologic changes her body would normally undergo through the years. but on the day of the flight. CA FACTS: Lourdes Valenzuela was fixing a flat tire on the roadside when she was hit by Alexander Li who was driving a company car. The incident caused the mutilation of Ramos’ ear and a permanent scar on his arm. Valenzuela’s left leg was amputated. COMMENSURATE TO THE . his wife. The CA has in many cases. and exemplary (100K) damages. HELD: SC reduced moral damages to 300K. shame and anguish. his daughter and her husband.” Lopez filed a suit for damages. PAL acted in bad faith in disregarding its duties as a common carrier to its passengers and in discriminating against Pantejo. and asked for 500K as actual and moral damages. DOCTRINE: The amount of moral damages awarded DEPENDS ON THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PHYSICAL INJURIES. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO EXCESSIVE DAMAGES Prof. as their suppliers discontinued credit lines resulting in the collapse of their businesses. but the amount was not credited to their account because the Branch Manager absconded with the money of the bank’s depositors. The damage to their REPUTATION AND SOCIAL Lopez v. The damages awarded to each of them are reasonable. alleging breach of contracts in bad faith. The refund of hotel expenses was discriminatorily made since it was not made known to all its passengers. DOCTRINE: The award should be SUFFERING INFLICTED. he bit Ramos’ arm and left ear.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 against him. They obtained a P2M loan. The Chuas deposited 960K. and in doing so. mutilating the latter. The damage done was permanent and lasting. P1M in moral damages is proper. despite their having over 1M in savings. The bank dishonored checks drawn out by the Chuas on the ground of insufficient funds. wounded feelings. HELD: Yes. The Lopezes suffered social humiliation. his humiliation. Sumalpong v. ISSUE: WON the increase in the amount of Moral Damages was proper. his daughter (25K) and his son-in-law (25K). They were constrained to take the flight as tourist passengers. Producer’s Bank v. He was convicted of attempted homicide and was made to serve sentence and ordered to indemnify Ramos for loss of crops. As to the members of his family. 2007- 56  • • ISSUE: WON the amount of damages was proper. CA reduced it to 500K.Y. Permanent nature of damage HELD: SC raised the amount to 200K. but the bank refused. which altogether necessarily subjected him to ridicule. The Chuas requested to see the ledgers of their account. increased the damages awarded by the TC. serious anxiety and mental anguish as a result of Pan-Am’s breach in bad faith of their contracts. ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages is proper. They grappled for the gun. CA FACTS: Sumalpong shot twice at Ramos. CLASS NOTES Casis Commentary: Valenzuela must have been really beautiful. they share his prestige and therefore. 180K (medical expenses + loss of earnings). Casis _S. The tickets were issued and paid for. Senator Lopez was the Senate President Pro Tempore and a for VicePresident of the Philippines. but missed. Pan American FACTS: Senate President Pro Tempore Fernando Lopez reserved first class tickets with Pan-Am for him. although the offended party had not appealed from said award. hospitalization expenses and Moral Damages (5K). It was PAL’s standard policy to extend cash assistance or hotel accommodations to stranded passengers. ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. secured by a real estate mortgage. Valenzuela v. DOCTRINE: Factors: Pantejo was exposed to humiliation and embarrassment especially because of his GOVERNMENT POSITION and SOCIAL PROMINENCE. These injuries have left indelible marks on his body and will serve as a constant reminder of his traumatic experience. because first class was already fully booked. ISSUE: WON the reduction of the award of moral damages was justified. his wife (50K). They filed an action for damages against the bank. Her left leg was severed & she had to get a prosthetic leg. 100K (exemplary). moral (150K). His family too coz they shared in his prestige and humiliation. they were informed that they could not be accommodated as first class passengers. The Chuas filed a complaint for injunction and damages. to be divided among Senator Lopez (100K). HELD: Yes. PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY AND MENTAL AND PHYSICAL PAIN IS INESTIMABLE. but CA reduced moral damages to 500K. The amount of damage which goes with the SUDDEN SEVERING OF A VITAL PORTION OF THE HUMAN BODY AND THE RESULTANT ANXIETY. CA modified the award of damages. TC awarded him actual (300K). Although it is not humiliating to travel as tourist passengers. HELD: No. TC awarded. NOTES: his stature demanded that he be given MD. IT IS HUMILIATING TO BE COMPELLED TO DO SO . who in turn filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. “under protest. The TC awarded them 2M in moral damages.

ISSUE: Can Strebel recover damages inconvenient transfer of Hernandez? for the HELD: No. DOCTRINES: (1) The RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR MENTAL SUFFERING RESULTING FROM BODILY INJURIES is restricted to the person who has suffered the bodily hurt. legal & equitable justification. Deals with ABS failed. no senses. . They are not awarded everytime a party wins a suit.” ABS filed a complaint for specific performance w/ a prayer for injunction.” RBS made print ads of the anticipated airing of “Maging Sino Ka Man. or for injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or commercial credit. 2220. last paragraph. 2217. On Moral Damages: Art. a Mobilgas station owner sued Acting Labor Secretary Figueras. value of he loss suffered 2.enumerates the cases where MD may be recovered Art. In one of his causes action. Assuming that such act amounted to any wrong. According to Lopez of ABS. embarrassment.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 entitles them to moral damages. On Atty’s fees: -in the absence of stipulation. 2219. (2) MENTAL ANGUISH is restricted to such mental pain or suffering as arises from an injury or wrong to the person himself.defines what are included in MD Art. ISSUE: WON the award of damages to RBS was proper. The bank caused them serious anxiety. Figueras. no emotions. -The power of the court to award atty’s fees under Art.  • • CLASS NOTES Cf: Lopez – wife shared in “prestige” of hubby (goes into the amount of MD) What about Strebel and son-in-law? Sufferering suffered by vicarious relations?  • CLASS NOTES Rule on Damages is jurisprudential: amounts do not change but basis for fixing damages are changed! ABS-CBN v. Who May Recover Strebel v. Santos only liked 10 (including “Maging Sino Ka Man”) and did not accept it. or for fright due to a wrong against a third person. Viva’s agent gave ABS (through Charo Santos) a list of 36 films to choose 24 from. 2007- 57 NOTES: one cannot be awarded MD for the suffering one did not endure (sympathy) cf Art. Director of Labor Jose and Assistant City Fiscal Ruperto. including the 14 films in the “napkin agreement. HELD: No. Viva’s agent denied such agreement. it being a significant part of the foundation of his business. Casis _S. MANERO) In Crimes and QDs: defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES of the act or omission complained of. CA FACTS: ABS and Viva executed a Film Exhibition Agreement whereby Viva gave ABS an exclusive right to exhibit some Viva films. -AD may also be recovered for loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. so then Viva made a deal with RBS granting the latter the exclusive right to 104 film. atty’s fees may be recovered as AD or CD under any of the circumstances in Art. He claims that Figueras influenced the DOJ Secretary to effect such transfer and is seeking moral and actual damages. it has no feelings. value of the profits that the oblige failed to obtain In Contract and Quasi-Contracts: the damages which may be awarded are dependent on whether the obligor acted in GF or otherwise In case of GF: damages recoverable are those which are the NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES of the breach of the obligation which the parties have FORESEEN or COULD HAVE REASONABLY FORESEEN at the time of the constitution of the obligation In case of Fraud. as distinguished from that form of MENTAL SUFFERING which is the accompaniment of sympathy or sorrow for another’s suffering or which arises from a contemplation of wrongs committed on the person of another. ABS was given a right of first refusal to 24 films. Complaint was dismissed and moral damages were awarded to RBS for having its reputation debased by the filing of the complaint. BF. malice or wanton attitude: actor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonable attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation. The transfer was within the power of the DOJ Secretary. On Actual Damages: -One is entitled to compensation for AD only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved (except as provided by law or by stipulation) c. the right of action would accrue in favor of Hernandez. and there can be no recovery for distress caused by sympathy for another’s suffering. which can be experienced only by one having a nervous system. et al FACTS: Strebel. there was a “napkin agreement” for Viva to sell 14 films for P36M. STANDING Prof. and humiliation. The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation.Y. 2208 General Rule: atty’s fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. It therefore cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some financial loss to him. 2219. 2208 demands factual.provides that MD may be recovered in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in BF DOCTRINE: The financial credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable asset. he cited the incident of the transfer of his son-inlaw (Hernandez) from the BOI to the Bureau of Prisons. -Indemnification shall comprehend: 1. whether or not such damages could have been reasonably foreseen by the defendant. (CF: PEOPLE VS.

The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157. Centeno screwed up the filing of appeal. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff. the amount that he seeks to recover here as nominal damages is excessive. HELD: No. In criminal cases: recoverable as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstance In QD: when defendant acted with gross negligence In contracts and quasi-contracts: if the defendant acted in a wanton. and that the perfection of the appeal was no assurance that Ventanilla would succeed in his first action for recovery. HELD: Yes. Considering that nominal damages are not for the indemnification of loss suffered. No MD for corporations: The award of MD cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation. Nominal Art. 1971. 2221. for A CORPORATION HAS NO REPUTATION IN THE SENSE AN INDIVIDUAL DOES. which can be experienced only by having a nervous system. NAPOCOR did not act in bad faith in disapproving PHIBRO’s application for prequalification to bid. It is inherently impossible for a corporation to suffer mental anguish. and (2) as a general rule. but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. reckless. or their respective heirs and assigns. TC awarded her P20K in nominal damages. PHIBROS FACTS: NAPOCOR issued invitations to bid for the supply and delivery of imported coal. 1962 and was able to fully pay her installments on Dec. no emotions. ISSUE: WON PHIBRO is entitled to damages. PHIBRO’s bid was accepted. DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are not indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. (1) there was no bad faith. Centeno FACTS: Ventanilla hired Atty. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all accessory questions. no senses. or in every case where any property right has been invaded. it has no feelings. 22. within the limits of the possible. fraudulent. so NAPOCOR advertised again for bidding of the same products. 2223. The damages awarded are proper. and should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. petitioner still has not given her the TCT of the lot. liquidated or compensatory damages. Nearly 3 years after her last payment. DOCTRINE: Besmirched reputation cannot cause mental anguish to a corporation. Ventanilla now seeks to recover damages against Centeno. * A CORPORATION BEING AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON AND HAVING EXISTENCE ONLY IN LEGAL CONTEMPLATION. PHIBRO filed an action for damages on the ground that NAPOCOR’s act of disqualifying them was tainted with malice and bad faith. Art. NAPOCOR v. and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. It cannot therefore. according to the circumstances of the case.Y. Assessment of Nominal Damages is left to the discretion of the court. IT CANNOT EXPERIENCE PHYSICAL SUFFERING AND MENTAL ANGUISH. as between the parties to the suit. but NAPOCOR disapproved their application. Art. the amount of which the evidence fails to show. Casis _S. 2007- 58 HELD: No. NO SENSES. at the very least. however. The right of the vendee to acquire title to the lot she bought was violated by the petitioner and this entitles her. should be reduced since there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the petitioner. v. Centeno to represent him in an action for recovery with damages. It merely exercised its reserved right to reject bid applicants who previously failed to perform properly. DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are recoverable where some injury has been done. PHIBRO was not able to deliver. PHIBRO participated in the bidding again. HAS NO FEELINGS. 2222. NO EMOTIONS. which has been violated or invaded by the defendant. unlike in the case of a natural person. temperate. the assessment of damages is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of the case. On Exemplary Damages: -imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. THEREFORE. . in addition to moral.  • CLASS NOTES Code lists all kinds of suffering but MENTAL ANGUISH should be involved – open question  • • CLASS NOTES ND small but ok according to SC because it is not supposed to account for anything ND only symbollic C. ISSUE: WON the award of nominal damages was proper. of the spiritual status quo ante. to nominal damages. The amount. may be vindicated or recognized. CFI FACTS: Lolita Millan bought a lot from the petitioner in May. Robes-Francisco Realty Corp.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 MD aimed at restoration. moral damages are not awarded to corporations. moral and exemplary damages. Prof. was only executed in her favor in 1973. experience physical suffering and mental anguish. ISSUE: WON the TC erred in awarding only P200 instead of P2000 as nominal and other damages. oppressive or malevolent manner. Lower courts ruled in favor of PHIBRO and awarded actual. Moral Damages not proper: Ventanilla v. The deed of absolute sale however. Millan filed a complaint for specific performance. TC: awarded him P200 as nominal damages.

THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF AN ALTHOUGH NO ACTUAL DAMAGES D. On the wedding day. Nominal Damages (P2K) should be awarded in order that the right of the victim. according to the circumstances of the case. NOMINAL DAMAGES ARE PROPER. exemplary: 500K. at around 6pm. Temperate or moderate damages. nominal: 50K. Casis _S. which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages. They made a follow-up call and were assured that it was on its way. CA where temperate damages were awarded for continuing injury Pleno v.Y. Pleno filed a complaint for damages against the owner of the red truck and its driver. Nominal damages should not be awarded when actual damages were. Gopio FACTS: Gopio raped and molested Princess Millano. or (2) where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages have been or can be shown. RESULTED OR NONE ARE SHOWN. HELD: Yes. (could be wrong because SC seemed to equate penal clause with liquidated damages) NWA refused to give them compensatory damages for breach of contract of air-transport carriage. They were later informed that there would be no cake because the order slip got lost. Pleno was seriously injured and was confined for 5 months in Makati Med and had to undergo 5 surgeries. HELD: Actual damages should be deleted as no proof was presented to show the actual amount of pecuniary loss. Mrs. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances. He was convicted of statutory rape and ordered to indemnify the victim through damages (actual= P3727. causing it to hit a cargo truck parked along the shoulder. inadvertence or inattention to their customer’s anxiety and need of the hour. moral: 500K. moral= P30K) ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. Armovit was unable to keep his appointments with his US patients. CA FACTS: Dr. be provided with certainty. On the return trip (Manila-US). *DOCTRINE: NOMINAL DAMAGES. Ferrer FACTS: Rebecca Lo and her daughter Anette Ferrer ordered a 3-layer wedding cake from Fountainhead Bakeshop. nominal: 50K). which was denied for being deemed inadequate. However. People v. CFI ruled in favor of Pleno. Armovit and his family decided to spend Christmas in the Philippines and bought 3 round-trip US-Manila tickets from Northwest Airlines. LEGAL RIGHT. he and his family suffered anguish. Assessment of ND is left to the discretion of the court. The wedding cake arrived at 10pm. CA FACTS: A red Ford cargo truck hit a blue Volkswagen kombi driven by Pleno. wounded feelings and serious anxiety until they were finally able to fly back to the US. ISSUE: WON the deletion of nominal damages was proper. This is not for the purpose of indemnifying any loss suffered. Their prevarication made them liable for nominal damages for insensitivity. RTC awarded damages (Dr. THE AWARD OF NOMINAL DAMAGES  CLASS NOTES Armovit v. 2007- 59  • • CLASS NOTES 20K award of ND by TC excessive Penal clause issue: no penal clause because even if without it Millan still entitled to legal interest more than 4% p. Temperate Sir: awarded when there is no basis for AD Art. 2225. but was delayed by traffic. exemplary: 300K. TC and CA awarded moral and exemplary damages. but they refused to accept it because it only had 2 layers. deleted moral and nominal damages. may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not. daughter: moral: 300K.a.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Prof. DAMAGES CANNOT COEXIST WITH ACTUAL HELD: No. the cake was not there.: actual: P1300. CA modified: sustained award of actual damages. *DOCTRINE: WHENEVER ASCERTAINED IS PROPER. Francisco (owner of Fountainhead) sent a letter of apology and 5K.  • CLASS NOTES Why ND can’t coexist with AD? Sir says that award of AD already presupposes invasion of right so awarding ND would lead to double recovery Francisco v. DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are recoverable where (1) a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind. Ferrer was compelled to buy a sans rival cake instead. Petitioners gave lame excuses for the delay in the delivery of the cake. exemplary: 300K. However. they were rudely informed that they cannot be accommodated because their supposed flight was already taking off and the time on their tickets was wrong. CA reduced the . violated by the accused may be vindicated or recognized. ISSUE: WON moral and exemplary damages should have been awarded. nominal: 100K.: moral: 300K. Ferrer and Lo filed a case against Francisco for breach of contract w/ damages. hitting its driver who was urinating in front of it. Dr. Art. 2224. from the nature of the case. a minor. They filed an action for damages in the Manila RTC after Remember Ramos vs.

Art.  CLASS NOTES E. exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. 2228. liquidated or compensatory damages. Lower courts awarded hospitalization and medical expenses. fraudulent. moral damages. 2233. oppressive. tried to stop the attack. DOCTRINE: Temperate damages may be `awarded in cases where definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered. HELD: No. -For LD: prove breach -For MD on top of LD: prove breach + BF Art. In criminal offenses. attorney’s fees and compensation for loss of earning capacity. Art. HELD: Yes. in addition to the moral. In quasi-delicts. 2227. the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. reckless. or malevolent manner. Casis _S. and not the stipulation. temperate. the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages. et al ganged up on Surinder. considering that the DEFINITE PROOF OF PECUNIARY LOSS CANNOT BE OFFERED AND THE FACT THAT LOSS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 2231. 2234. Can AD and TD be warded at the same time? YES in Ramos vs. temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. 2007- 60  CLASS NOTES Fact of loss established but AD cannot be proved Art. killing him. shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. although award for loss of earning capacity should be deleted. ISSUE: WON damages should be awarded.Y. before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages. temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages. 2229. Bare allegation is insufficient. exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party. to be paid in case of breach thereof. Nevertheless. although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered. In contracts and quasi-contracts. 2230. Penal clause -intent behind LD penalty is deterrent -LD is measure of damage which does not matter in penalty -LD is perceived loss if other party does not comply with his obligation because AD would be difficult to determine But in A2227: “indemnity or penalty” (Such as income tax reports). Art. Temperate damages under Art. actual damages. Liquidated Casis: 3rd parties are not bound by the stipulation of LD in the contract. . 2235. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract. but he too was stabbed. • appellants should pay the heirs of the victim temperate damages. HELD: Yes. 2224 may be recovered where it has been shown that the victim’s family suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof cannot be proved with certainty. 2232. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon. but the court is convinced that there was an injury or loss. Liquidated damages. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed. whether intended as an INDEMNITY OR A PENALTY. ISSUE: WON the reduction of damages was proper. The lower court’s award of damages are more in consonance with the factual circumstances of the case. People v. Singh FACTS: Dalvir. ISSUE: WON temperate damages should be awarded. Temperate damages were based on the impairment of income of actual capacity (since the actual income of Pleno as president of Mayon Ceramics company was not proven). by way of example or correction for the public good. who was cleaning his motorbike nearby. the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral. Art. the law shall determine the measure of damages. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved. Such AWARDS PARTAKE OF DAMAGES WHICH MUST BE PROVEN NOT ONLY BY CREDIBLE AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE. Art. F. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right. Art. Prof. Exemplary or Corrective Art. Plazo was convicted of murder. moral: 200K – 100K). A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance shall be null and void. 15K as temperate damages was awarded. The accused were convicted of murder and frustrated murder. the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral. 2226. civil indemnity. Each item of damages is adequately supported by evidence. Art.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 amount of damages for being excessive (Temperate: 200K – 100K. Dilbag. CA – but sir says it’s an aberration since TD is awarded when there is no basis for AD People v. nevertheless. BUT ALSO BY UNBIASED PROOF  • • CLASS NOTES LD intended as indemnity or penalty Juris: LD vs. Plazo FACTS: Edison Plazo boxed and stabbed Romeo Fabula.

MFC replaced and repaired them free of charge because of a warranty. MFC acted in bad faith when it flagrantly breached its express warranties made to the general public. Del Rosario v.Y. oppressive. Casis _S. CA Janunary 29. but left to the discretion of the court. FACTS: The sps. Less than 2 months after installation. Tan demanded payment which was refused by PNB. *(MEMORIZE) DOCTRINE: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES: (1) THEY MAY BE IMPOSED BY WAY OF EXAMPLE IN ADDITION TO COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. or malevolent manner. CA April 2. AND ONLY AFTER THE CLAIMANT’S RIGHT TO THEM HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. CA: affirmed. 2007- 61  CLASS NOTES ED and ND: • ND vindicates right ~ declaratory relief • ED is penalty-like PNB v. The adjusters found that MFC did not attach the tiles properly and the project was hastily done. The Del Rosarios hired an adjuster to determine the cause of the destruction. OPPRESSIVE OR MALEVOLENT MANNER. PNB was ordered to pay Tan the amount. TC: ruled in favor of Tan and ordered PNB to pay the amount and exemplary damages. 1997 . Exemplary damages may be awarded if a party acted in a wanton. FRAUDULENT. 1996 FACTS: Tan owned a parcel of land which was expropriated by the government. DOCTRINE: Exemplary damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. Del Rosario bought roofing materials from MFC. Although there was a breach of PNB’s obligation to Tan. reckless. He filed a motion w/ the TC requesting that it issue an order for the payment of P32K as expropriation price. which advertised the materials as durable and sturdy. Gonzaga took the money for herself. there is no basis for the award of exemplary damages. portions of the roof were blown off by a typhoon.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Prof. ISSUE: WON the award of damages is justified. but deleted the award of exemplary damages. It cannot be recovered as a matter of right. fraudulent. ISSUE: WON exemplary damages should be awarded to Tan. THEIR DETERMINATION DEPENDING UPON THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES THAT MAY BE AWARDED TO THE CLAIMANT. CASIS: implies that ED is attached to MD  • • CLASS NOTES How did court arrive at final amount? Compare with other cases (3) THE ACT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY BAD FAITH OR DONE IN A WANTON. HELD: No. PNB issued and delivered a manager’s check to Sonia Gonzaga who had a Special Power of Attorny supposedly executed by Tan in her favor. (2) THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. Tan file a motion with the court requiring PNB to pay. The awards of moral and exemplary damages are justified. The Del Rosarios filed a complaint with the DTI and another with the RTC to recover damages. HELD: Yes. having already paid the amount to Tan’s “agent”.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarregar
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->