2010 Torts Case Doctrines Tesoro

Torts Case Doctrines
Atty. Tesoro
1. US v. Barias
Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. It is a relative
or comparative, not an absolute term and its application depends upon the
situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the
circumstances reasonably require. Where he danger is great, a high degree
of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care
under the circumstances.
2. Samson v. Dionisio
Usurpation of a private individual of a creek or branch of a river of public
ownership will make him liable to pay indemnity for loss or damage to injured
party.
3. Uy Piaco c. Osmena
A sheriff who deprives a person of the possession of his personal
property is bound to repair the injury caused, in accordance with the
provisions of Article 1902 of the CC, which treats obligations arising from
fault or negligence.
4. Elcano v. Hill
Fault or negligence is dual in character: criminal and civil. The concept of
culpa aquilana includes acts which are criminal in character or in violation of
the penal law. A separate civil action may be filed against the offender,
whether or not he is found guilty or acquitted. Article 2176 of the CC refers to
fault or negligence covers not only acts not punishable by law but also
criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.
5. Tenchavez v. Escano
Unsubstantiated claims which caused unrest and anxiety entitles another
to recover damages.
An action for alienation of affections against the parents of one consort
does not lie in the absence of proof of malice or unworthy motives on their
part.
of the civil law, homologous but not identical to tort of the common law which
gives rise to an obligation independently of any contract. It was the
corporations contract, its non-fulfillment, whether due to negligence or fault
to any other cause, made the corporation and not its agent liable.
8. Air France v. Carrascoso
Although the relation between a passenger and a carrier is contractual
both in origin and nature, the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.
9. Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corp v. Transport Venture Inc
A private carrier is under no duty to observe extraordinary diligence, but
it is still required to observe ordinary diligence to ensure the proper and
careful handling, care and discharge of the carried goods.
When an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself
constitutes the source of quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed
between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort,
thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
10. Singson v. BPI
The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the
recovery of a tort by one against the other ad the consequent recovery of
damages therefore.
11. Araneta v. de Joya
An unauthorized disbursement of corporate funds is tantamount to a
simple quasi-delict committed upon the corporation. Notwithstanding his
contractual position, e could still be liable for tort because the existence of a
contract between the parties constitutes no bar to the commission of a tort by
one against the other and the consequent recovery of damages.
6. Bacolod Murcia Milling v. First Farmers

The doing of an act which is in itself perfectly lawful will not render one
liable for a tort, simply because the unintended effect of such act is to enable
or assist another person to do or accomplish a wrong.
12. Far East Bank v. CA

Moral damages are awarded if it is shown that the person have acted in
bad faith. The banks negligence in failing to give personal notice to the
cardholder cannot be considered so gross as to amount to malice or bad
faith.
Nominal damages were awarded to the cardholder because of the
banks failure to notify the cardholder of his cards cancellation, thus entitle
him to recover a measure of damages under Article 2221.
7. Vazquez v. Borja
The fault and negligence referred to in articles 1101-1104 of the CC are
those incidental to the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation.
While the fault or negligence referred to in Article 1902 is the culpa aquilana
13. Cangco v. Manila Railroad

Failure to perform a contract cannot be excused upon the ground that
the breach was due to the negligence of a servant of the obligor, and that the
latter exercised due diligence in the selection and control of servant.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Ateneo Law School 2012

Atty. Tesoro
Extra-contractual obligations have their source in the breach or omission

of those mutual duties which civilized society imposes upon its members. Or
which arises from these relations, other than contractual, of certain members
of society to others, generally embraced in the concept of status. The breach
of these general duties, whether due to willful intent or to mere inattention, if
productive of injury, gives rise to an obligation to indemnify the injured party.
14. Rodrigueza v. Manila Railroad
Nobody is bound to anticipate and defend himself against the possible
negligence of another. He has a right to assume that the other will use the
care of the ordinarily prudent man.
15. Custodio v. CA
To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action
for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to the
plaintiff therefrom. Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does
not constitute a cause of action. since damages are merely part of the
remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.
The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that
an individual was injured in contemplation of law. Thus, there must first be
the breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach before
damages may be awarded; it is not sufficient to state that there should be tort
liability merely because the plaintiff suffered some pain and suffering. In
order that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, that act must
be not only hurtful, but wrongful.
16. Flores v. Pineda
Reasonable prudence would have shown that diabetes and its
complications were foreseeable harm that should have been taken into
consideration by the petitioner spouses. If a patient suffers from some
disability that increases the magnitude of risk to him, that disability must be
taken into account so long as it is or should have been known to the
physician. And when the patient is exposed to an increased risk, it is
incumbent upon the physician to take commensurate and adequate
precautions.
Medical professionals must comply with their duty to observe the
standard of care to be given to hyperglycemic/diabetic patients undergoing
surgery.
17. Culion Ice v. Phil. Motors
When a person holds himself out as being competent to do things
requiring professional skill, he will be liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit
Kim Raisa O. Uy
the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he
attempts to do.
18. Abaya v. Favis
Where the qualifications of a physician are admitted, there is an
inevitable presumption that in proper cases he takes necessary precaution
and employs the best of his knowledge and skill in attending to his clients,
unless the contrary is sufficiently established.
There must be proof of breach of duty on the part of the physician as well
as a causal connection of such breach and the resulting death of the patient.
Presumption of negligence cannot arise simply because the ministration
of a physician had been unsuccessful or failed to produce the expected
results.
19. Ransuman v. Manila Reyna Hospital
Where the proximate cause of death of a patient is the operation handled
negligently by the hospital and physician, because tetanus germs entered the
patient's body while still in the responsibility of the hospital and physician,
compensatory damages were awarded.
20. De Guia v. Manila Electric Co.
The liability is limited to such damages, as might, at the time of the
accident, have been reasonably foreseen as a probably consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted and which were in fact a necessary result of those
injuries.
Common carriers incurs liability incident to breach of contractual
obligations, hence there is no need for the company to prove that due care
was taken by them to fulfill the contract.
Where the delinquency is due to the negligence of its employee, the
carrier cannot avail of the defense that it had exercised due care in the
selection and instruction of such employee.
21. Carlos v. Manila Electric Co
The law implies a duty on electric companies to use a very high degree
of care in the construction, operation and maintenance of its appliances, and
that degree of care should be commensurate with the danger involve.
Article 1105 of the CC provides that no person shall be liable for events
which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable.
22. Picart v. Smith
Test for determining whether a person is negligent: would a prudent
man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee
harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about

Atty. Tesoro
to be pursued. If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that
course or to take a precaution against mischievous results, failure to so do,
attributes negligence.
Where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one
succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of time, the one who
has the last reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending harm and fails to
do so, is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior
negligence of the other party.
Mere intoxication is not negligence, nor does the mere fact of intoxication
establish a want of ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be considered
with the other evidence tending to prove negligence.
23. Corinthian Garden v. Tanjangco

Failure to prevent the encroachment of the Cuasos' perimeter wall into
Tanjangcos' property - despite the inspection conducted - constitutes
negligence and, at the very least, contributed to the injury suffered by the
Tanjangcos.
29. Us v. Tanedo
If life is taken by misfortune or accident while in the performance of a
lawful act executed with due care and without intention of doing harm, there
is no criminal liability. In the case at bar, there is absolutely no evidence of
negligence upon the part of the accused.
24. Jarco Marketing Corp v. CA

There is a conclusive presumption that children below 9 years of age are
incapable of contributory negligence.
Res Gestae are statements made by a person while startling occurrence
is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.
30. Us v. Tayongtong
The negligence of the deceased is no defense to the charge where it
appears that the accused himself is negligent and that negligence is the
proximate cause of the death of the victim.
25. Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad

It is the duty of common carriers to carry passengers safely using the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all
circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its
passengers so obligated it not only during the course of the trip but so long
as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in
pursuance to the contract of carriage.
The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or
injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or willful acts of its
employees or (b) on account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers
or of strangers if the common carriers employees through the exercise of
due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.
26. Lilius v. Manila Railroad
The diligence of a good father of a family is not confined to careful and
prudent selection of subordinates but includes inspection of their work and
supervision in the discharge of their duties.
27. Wright v. Manila Electric Co
Kim Raisa O. Uy
28. US v. Knight
A machine operated carefully, prudently and skillfully at the time of the
accident having regard to all surrounding circumstance will not make the
operator liable.
31. Barcelo v. Manila Electric Co.

The burden of proof always rests on one who seeks to recover damages
on the ground of the alleged negligence of another. Before judgment for
damages can be entered in such cases, the fact of negligence must be
affirmatively established by competent evidence.
32. Ong v. Metropolitan Water District
The principle to be observed, in an action for damages founded on
culpable negligence is that the person claiming damages has the burden of
proving that the damage is caused by the fault or negligence from whom the
damage is claimed, or of one of his employees.
33. BPI v. Lifetime Marketing Coproration
The degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a
reasonable man or good father of a family. In view of the fiduciary nature of
their relationship with their depositors, banks are duty bound to treat the
account of their clients with the highest degree of care.
34. Penullar v. PNB
Where one of two innocent parties must have to suffer due to the act of a
third person, he whose negligence had caused the damage should be made
to bear the loss.

Atty. Tesoro
35. Canlas v. CA
The degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good
father of a family; in keeping with their responsibility to exercise the
necessary care and prudence in dealing even on a registered or titled
property. The business of a bank is affected with public interest, holding in
trust the money of the depositors, which bank deposits the bank should
guard against loss due to negligence or bad faith, by reason of which the
bank would be denied the protective mantle of the land registration law,
accorded only to purchasers or mortgagees for value and in good faith.
The doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect that where both parties
are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time
than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had
the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is
chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently, the
rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude
recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter,
who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise
of due diligence.
36. Gan v. CA
Under the emergency rule, one who suddenly finds himself in a place of
danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that
may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if
he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have
been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is
brought about by his own negligence.
37. People v. Santos (CA)
The emergency rule cannot be applied to exempt one person from
liability if there is proof of negligence. An automobile driver cannot put
himself in a position where, in order to save himself, he must injure someone
else.
38. Phoenix Construction Co v. IAC
Foreseeable Intervening Causes - If the intervening cause is one which
in ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated or one which
the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances,
the defendant may be negligence among other reasons, because of failure to
guard against it; or the defendant may be negligent only for that reason.
39. McKee v. IAC
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening case, produces the injury,
without which the result would not have occurred (natural and continuous
chain of events).
The contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the claim
for damages if it is shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of
reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the
negligence of the injured party.
40. Sanitary Stem Laundry v. CA
Negligence must be shown to be the proximate or legal cause of the
injury or that it substantially contributed thereto.
41. Corpuz v. Lugue
A person cannot be deemed negligent for failing to prevent a collision,
even after applying all means available to him within the few instants when
he had discovered the impending peril.
Doctrine of last clear chance cannot apply where the part charged is
required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the
application of all means at hand, after the peril is or should have been
discovered.
42. Gabeto v. Araneta
Ones act should not be too remote from the accident to be considered
the legal or proximate cause.
43. Manila Electric Co. v. Remoquillo
A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause
did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by
which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or
remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient
cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but
for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except
because of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate
cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into
operation the circumstances which result in injury because of the prior
defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause.
44. Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina
Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,
and without which the result would not have occurred.

Atty. Tesoro
45. Delgado vda. De Gregorio v. Go Ching Bing

The relation of the cause of effect between the act or omission and
damage must be established. It is necessary that the damages resulted
immediately ad directly from an act performed culpably and wrongly.
46. Umali v. Bacani
Contributory negligence of the victims parents in not properly taking care
of the child, enabling him to leave the house alone to go to the place where
there is a fallen electric wire will just mitigate defendants liability. The
proximate cause of defendants death is the fallen wire which posed a threat
to life and property that morning due to a series of negligence by defendants
employees.
47. Vda de Imperial v. Heald Lumber Co.
Helicopter piloted by an unlicensed pilot off course and low in gasoline
show that the pilots were negligent. Planes engine ceased to function due to
exhaustion of fuel, then it crashed into defendants cables.
48. Bernal and Enverso v. House
The death of the child was the result of fault and negligence in permitting
hot water to flow through public streets, there to endanger the lives of
passers-by who were unfortunate enough to fall into it.
49. Bayasen v. CA
It is a physical fact that cars may skid on greasy or slippery roads without
fault on account of the manner of handling the car. Skidding means partial or
complete loss of control of the under circumstances not necessarily implying
negligence. It may occur without fault. Skidding is an unforeseen event.
50. Sabido v. Custodio
The concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two or
persons, although acting independently of each other are in combination, the
direct and proximate cause of a singly injury to a third person, and it is
impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury,
either is responsible for the whole injury. Even though his act alone might not
have cause the entire injury, or the same damage might have resulted from
the acts of the other tortfeasor.
51. Teague v. Fernandez
The violation of a statute or ordinance is not rendered remote as the cause of
an injury by the intervention of another agency if the occurrence of the
accident, in the manner in which it happened, was the very thing which the
statute or ordinance was intended to prevent.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
52. Cirpriano v. CA
The violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se. There is thus a
statutory duty imposed on petitioner and it is his failure to comply that he was
guilty of negligence. While the fire may be considered fortuitous, this
circumstance cannot exempt petitioner from liability for loss.
53. Calalas v. CA
The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasidelict, not in action involving breach of contract. Where there is a pre-existing
contractual relation, the function is merely to regulate the relation thus
created.
54. Mercury Drug v. Banking
Generally recognized that the drugstore business is imbued with public
interest. The health and safety of the people will be put into jeopardy if
drugstore employees will not exercise the highest degree of care and
diligence in selling medicines.
The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved, and
the skill employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of the
business which the law demands.
When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there
instantly arises a presumption of the law that there has been negligence on
the part of the employer, either in the selection of his employee or in the
supervision over him, after such selection. The presumption, however, may
be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he has
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection
and supervision of his employee.
Petitioner's failure to prove that it exercised the due diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee will make it
solidarily liable for damages caused by the latter.
55. Novo v, Ainsworth
Article 1902 is not applicable where the injury is the result of a fortuitous
circumstance or accident, and is no wise due to the fault or negligence of a
third party.
56. Cenzo v. Atlantic Gulf
The obligations of the master continue in force, not only during all the
time in which his servants are actually engaged in his service, but also during
the time reasonably occupied by them on his premises in going to and
returning from their work and in intervals of rest between. But he is under no
obligation to keep in safe condition for their use any part of the premises to

Atty. Tesoro
which their duties do not call them and to which he has not given them
permission to go.
57. Afialde v. Hisole
The owner of an animal is answerable only for damages caused to a
stranger, and that for damage caused to the caretaker of the animal the
owner would be liable only if he had been negligent or at fault under article
1902 of the same code.
It was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal from causing
injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the
animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation
which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the
consequences.
58. Derifar v. Escano
59. Ilocos Norte Electric Cooperative c. CA
When an act of God combines or concurs with the negligence of the
defendant to produce an injury, the defendant is liable if the injury would not
have resulted but for his own negligent conduct or omission.
60. Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes
The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (to which a person assents is not
esteemed in law as injury) refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to
injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly
and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing
so.
61. Tamayo v. Gsell
While the defenses of assumption of risks and contributory negligence
are available to masters in actions for personal injuries, these defenses have
their limitations when interposed in actions for personal injuries of minor or
infant employees. These limitations rest upon the principle that it is the duty
of masters or their superintendents to warn such employees as to the
dangers of the work and instruct them as to the manner of doing the work in
order to avoid accidents.
The master is bound to warn and instruct his servant as to all dangers
which he knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care ought to know, and
which he has reason to believe the servant does not know and would not by
the exercise of reasonable care discover.
The duty continues during the employment, and cannot be delegated by the
master.
62. Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific

Doctrine of comparative negligence is allowing recovery by a plaintiff
whose own act contributed to the injury, provided his negligence was slight.
Theory of proportional damages is reducing the award to a plaintiff in
proportion to his responsibility of the accident.
In determining which acts of the injured party shall be considered
immediate causes of the accident, test: distinction must be made between
the accident and the injury, between the event itself, without which there
could have been no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it,
dependent of it, but contributing to his own proper hurt.
63. Teh v. Philippine Aerial Taxi
Plaintiff walked towards the propeller, despite being told frantically not to.
Then he hits his dead and his arm was caught by the revolving blades. The
plaintiffs negligence alone was the direct cause of the accident.
64. Bernardo v. Legaspi
Where two automobiles, going in opposite directions collide on turning a
street corner, and it appears from the evidence and is found by the trial court
that the drivers thereof were equally negligent and contributed equally to the
principal occurrence as determining causes thereof, neither can recover of
the other for the damages suffered.
65. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. IAC
Doctrine of last clear chance applies only in a suit between the owners
and drivers of two colliding vehicles and not in a suit where passengers
demand responsibility from a carries to enforce its contractual obligation.
When the accident was caused by defects in the vehicle, it is not a
fortuitous event, as owner and driver of carrier should exercise extra-ordinary
diligence.
66. Bustamante v. CA
The doctrine of last clear chance cannot be extended into the field of
joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to
the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter's peril, and it
cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent. As against
third persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had
negligently failed to take action which could have avoided the injury.
This doctrine cannot be used when what is being invoked is
obligation from a contract. It can only be invoked between owners and
drivers of colliding vehicles when they are not concurrently negligent.
67. Taylor v. Manila Electric Co
Kim Raisa O. Uy

Atty. Tesoro
When the immediate cause of an accident resulting in injury is the

plaintiffs own act which contributed to the principal occurrence as one of its
determining factors, he cannot recover damages from the injury.
68. Del Prado v. Manila Electric Co
A person boarding a moving car must be taken to assume the risk of
injury from boarding the car under the conditions open to his view, but he
cannot fairly be held to assume the risk that the motorman, having the
situation in view, will increase his peril by accelerating the speed of the car
before he is planted safely on the platform.
69. Astudillo v. Manila Electric Co
The violation of a franchise or ordinance is per negligence but
compliance therewith is not conclusive proof that there was no negligence.
The franchise, ordinance, statute merely states the minimum conditions.
The fulfillment of these conditions does not render unnecessary other
precautions required by ordinary care.
70. Del Rosario v. Manila Electric Co
The delay in leaving the electric wire unguarded so long after information
of the trouble was received constituted negligence on its part. There was no
contributory negligence on the part of the child even though he touched the
wire after being warned not to do so because of his immature years and
because of the natural curiosity of children.
71. Ngo Sin Sing v. Li Seng Giap & Sons
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below
the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.
72. National Power Corp v. Heirs of Noble Casiman
The trail where Noble was electrocuted was regularly used by members
of the community with no warning to inform passerbys that accidentally
touching the wire will endanger their lives. Noble shouldnt be faulted for
doing his ordinary routine, hence he is not contributory negligent.
73. PNR v. Bruty
To hold a person as having contributed to his injury it must be shown that
he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings
or signs of an impending danger to health and body.
74. Africa v. Caltex
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Res ipsa loquitor: where the thing that caused the damage was under
the control of the defendants or his servants and the injury could not have
happened if they were not negligent, and they did show sufficient cause as to
how it happened, it affords reasonable evidence that they lacked care.
Gasoline is a highly combustible material but fire is not considered
fortuitous event as it arises from some act of man.
Force majeure not sufficient intervening event if the negligence was the
proximate cause of the injury.
75. Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, the damage would not have
happened under the ordinary course of events, if proper care has been used.
The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to
foresee the same.
76. F.F. Cruz v. CA
Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor states that Where the thing which caused
the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the
defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course
of things does not happen if those who have its management or control use
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by
the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.
The failure to comply with an ordinance providing for safety regulations
had been ruled by the Court as an act of negligence.
77. Layugan v. IAC
Rule of evidence whereby negligence of allegedly wrongdoer may be
inferred from the mere fact the accident happened, provided circumstances
attending it lead reasonably to belief that in absence of negligence it would
not have occurred and that thing which caused injury is shown to have been
under the management and control of alleged wrongdoer.
78. Macalinao v. Ong
Res ipsa loquitur recognizes that parties may establish prima facie
negligence without direct proof, thus, it allows the principle to substitute for
specific proof of negligence. It permits the plaintiff to present along with proof
of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the
doctrine, create an inference or presumption of negligence and thereby place
on the defendant the burden of proving that there was no negligence on his
part.
The doctrine can be invoked only when under the circumstances, direct
evidence is absent and not readily available. This is based in part upon the
theory that the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes the

Atty. Tesoro
injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of
ascertaining it while the plaintiff has no knowledge, and is therefore
compelled to allege negligence in general terms and rely upon the proof of
the happening of the accident in order to establish negligence
Requisites of application of res ipsa loquitur:
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someones negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
defendant or defendants; and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the
plaintiff responsible is eliminated
79. Ramos v. CA
Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor in conjunction with the doctrine of common
knowledge, that as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the very
nature of certain types of occurrences may justify inference of negligence on
the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury. But
mere invocation and application of the said doctrine does not dispense with
the requirement of proof of negligence.
80. Capili v. Cardena
The probability that the branches of a dead and rotting tree could fall ad
harm someone is clearly a danger that is foreseeable.
The school principal is tasked to see to the maintenance of the school
grounds and safety of the children within the school and its premises.
81. Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital
Doctors need not observe extraordinary diligence because the practice
of medicine is already conditioned upon the highest degree of diligence. The
standard for doctors is simply the reasonable average merit among ordinarily
good physicians.
82. Perla Compania de Seguros v. Sarangaya III
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor rests on inference and not on
presumption.
The doctrine is based on the theory that the defendant either knows the
cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it and the
plaintiff, having no knowledge thereof, is compelled to allege negligence in
general terms. In such instance, the plaintiff relies on proof of the happening
of the accident alone to establish negligence.
The doctrine provides a means by which a plaintiff can pin liability on a
defendant who, if innocent, should be able to explain the care he exercised
Kim Raisa O. Uy
to prevent the incident complained of. Thus, it is the defendants

responsibility to show that there was no negligence on his part.
83. NPC v. CA
Where the injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant
and the accident is such that it does not happen if the management was not
negligent, in the absence of the explanation by the defendant that the
accident arose from want of care, res ipsa loquitor applies.
The court may award temperate or moderate damages, which are more
than nominal but less than compensatory damages, if the court finds that a
party has suffered some pecuniary loss but its amount cannot be proved with
certainty from the nature of the case.
84. Ma-ao Sugar Central v. CA
At any rate, the absence of the fish plates whatever the cause or
reason is by itself alone proof of the negligence of the petitioner. Res ipsa
loquitur doctrine: Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under
the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence
of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of
care.
85. Ferrer v. Ericta
Failure to specifically plead prescription in the answer does not constitute
a waiver of the defense of prescription.
Actions arising from physical injuries because of a tort must be filed
within four years. The four years begins from the day the quasi-delict is
committed or the day of the accident.
86. Solid Homes v. Tan
The prescriptive period under Article 1144 of the CC for specific
performance must be brought within 10 years:
a. Upon a written contract
b. Upon an obligation created by law
c. Upon a judgment
87. Banco Filipino v. CA
Article 1150 states that all kinds of action when there is no specific
provision from the day they may be brought or from the date the cause of
action accrued. A cause of action arises when that which should have been
done is not done, or that which should not have been done is done.

Atty. Tesoro
88. Paez v. de la Torre

The civil liability imposed upon parents is a necessary consequence of
the parental authority they exercise over their children, such as supporting
them, keeping them in their company and educating them, with the right to
punish and correct them.
89. Fuellas v. Cadano
The civil liability under Art. 2180 of the CC is not respondeat superior but
the relationship of pater familias, based on the liability of the father on his
own negligence and not of his minor son, and that if an injury is caused by
the fault or negligence of his minor son, the law presumes that there was
negligence on the part of the father. The law impose upon the parents and
guardians the duty of exercising special vigilance over their children and
wards.
The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their children
imposed by Art. 2180 covers obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and
criminal offenses.
Article 101 of the RPC makes a father civilly liable for acts committed by
his son only if the latter is an imbecile, insane, under 9 years of age or over 9
but under 15 and acted without discernment. But a minor over 15 who acts
with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability, for which reason the
Code is silent as to the subsidiary liability of his parents should he be
convicted.
90. Paleyan v. Bangkili
When the son was 19 years old when killed another person, such fact is
not a legal defense and does not exempt the parents from their responsibility
as parents and guardian. The only exemption provided under Article 2180 of
the CC is if the parent had observed all the diligence of a good father of the
family to prevent the damage.
To hold that Article 2180 does not apply to a criminal case because it
only covers obligations which arise from criminal offenses, would result in the
absurdity that while for an act where mere negligence intervenes the father
or mother may stand subsidiarily liable for damage caused by his or her son,
no liability would attach if the damage caused is with criminal intent.
91. Cuadra v. Monfort
There is nothing from which it may be inferred that the parent could have
prevented the damage by the observance of due care, or that he was in any
way remiss in the exercise of his parental authority in failing to foresee such
damage, or the act which caused it. Because his child was at school, where it
was his duty to send her and where she was, as he had the right to expect
her to be, under the care and supervision of the teacher.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
92. Tamargo v. CA
The principle of parental liability under Article 2180 is a species of what
is designated as vicarious liability or the doctrine of imputed negligence,
where a person is not only liable for torts committed by himself but also for
torts committed y others with whom he has a certain relationship and for
whom he is responsible. The liability is but a natural or logical consequences
and responsibilities of parents
The civil liability imposed on parents with children who commit tortuous
act gives rise to the presumption that the parents were negligent in the
performance of their legal and natural duty to closely supervise their child
who is in their custody and control. Since the child is living with them, the law
presumes that the parents exercise supervision and control.
93. Libi v. CA
The civil liability of parents for quasi delicts of their minor children is
direct and primary, not subsidiary. It is also subject to the defense of lack of
fault or negligence on their part, that is, the exercise of the diligence of a
good father of a family. The minor-transgressor shall be answerable or shall
respond with his own property only in the absence or in the case of the
insolvency of the parents or guardian.
Parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising
from criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal
authority or control or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the
former acted with due diligence to prevent such damages.
94. Amadora v. CA
Art 2180 applies to all schools, academic as well as non-academic.
Teachers, in general, shall be liable for the acts of their students except
where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof
who shall be answerable.
There is no substantial distinction between academic and non-academic
schools insofar as torts committed by their students are concerned. The
same vigilance is expected from the teacher over his students, regardless of
the nature of the school where he is teaching. The injury subject of liability is
caused by the student and not by the school or any of its personnel and
equipment. It may be inflicted by any student regardless of the school where
he is registered.
The student is under the custody of school authorities as long as he is
under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether
the semester has already begun or has already ended. As long as it can be
shown that the student is in the school in the pursuit of a legitimate student
objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the

Atty. Tesoro
enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school

continues.
The teacher-in-charge is liable for his students torts as he is designated
to exercise supervision over them. Moreover, the teacher is liable regardless
of the students age.
95. Pasco v. CFI of Bulacan
Distinction between schools of arts and trades and other academic
institutions no longer applies. Heads of schools in academic institutions
cannot be held liable for damages done by students under Article 2180.
96. Ylarde v. Aquino
It is only the teachers and not the principal or head of academic schools
who would be answerable for torts committed by their students. In schools of
arts and trade, only head of school can be made liable.
A teacher in loco parentis should make sure that the children are
protected from all harm while in his company.
97. Salvosa v. IAC
The phrase so long as they remain in their custody in Article 2180
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, including recess time.
Mere fact of enrolling does not constitute attending school.
The school could only be liable if the one who inflicted the injury was
under their control at the time the incident took place.
98. PSBA v. CA
General Rule: teachers exercise loco parentis over students while within
school premises
Exception: school cannot guarantee safety of students against all risks
99. Soliman Jr. v. Tuason
Liability for illegal or harmful acts committed by the security guards
attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients or customers of such
agency. As a general rule, a client or customer of an agency has no hand in
selecting who among the pool of security guards or watchmen employed by
the agency shall be assigned to it; the duty to observe the diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection of guards cannot, in the ordinary course of
events, be demanded from the client whose premises or property are
protected by the security guards.
It is the agency which is the employer of the security guard who is
solidarily liable and not the school.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
100.
Saludaga v. FEU
A learning institution should not be allowed to completely relinquish or
abdicate security matters in its premises to the security agency it hired.
101.
St. Francis High School v. CA
The school cannot be held liable for an activity held without its
permission. Teachers cannot be held liable when they exercise diligence of a
good father of a family.
102.
Region v. Pangasinan College of Science & Technology
An academic institution may be held liable for tort even if it has an
existing contract with its students, since the act that violated the contract may
also be a tort.
103.
St. Marys Academy v. Carpitanos
Under Article 218 of the Family Code, the following shall have special
parental authority over a minor child while under their supervision, instruction
or custody: 1. the school, its administrators and teachers. 2. the individual,
entity or institution engaged in child care. This special parental authority and
responsibility applies to all authorized activities inside or outside the
premises of the school, entity or institution.
Under Article 219 of the Family Code, if the person under custody is a
minor, 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, instruction or custody.
Though incapable of pecuniary estimation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or
omission.
104.
Child Learning Center v. Tagorio
The school is clearly answerable for failure to see to it that the doors of
their school toilets are at all times in working condition. The fact that a
student had to go through the window, instead of the door, shows that
something was wrong with the door. The lock was defective under the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.
105.
Martin v. CA
Whether or not engaged in any business or industry, the employer under
Article 2180 is liable for torts committed by his employees within the scope of
their assigned task. But it is necessary first to establish the employment
relationship. Once this is done, the plaintiff must show, to hold the employer
liable, that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned take

Atty. Tesoro
when tort complained of was committed. It only then that the defendant, as
employer, may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in
the selection and supervision of the employee.
106.
Yamada v. Manila Railroad
A person must use ordinary care and prudence in passing over a railroad
crossing. While there is no absolute rule as to the precise precautions, it is
always incumbent on him to use ordinary care and diligence.
When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee,
there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the
part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or
employee or in the supervision over him after the selection, or both. The
presumption is juris tantum, thus may be rebutted
If the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and
supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a
family, the presumption is overcome and he is relived.
107.
Phil. Rabbit Lines Inc v. Phil. American Forwarders
The terms employers and owners and managers of an establishment in
Article 2180 does not include manager of a corporation.
The term manager used under Article 2180 is used in the sense of an
employer. A mere manager, who is not an owner is regarded as an employee
and thus cannot be held liable like an employer for tortuous acts of the
employees.
No tortuous or quasi-quasi-delictual liability can be fastened on the
manger of the corporation owning the truck in connection with the vehicular
accident because he himself may be regarded as employee.
108.
Filamer Christian Institute v. IAC
The clause "within the scope of their assigned tasks" for purposes of
raising the presumption of liability of an employer, includes any act done by
an employee, in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the
account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the damage. Even if
somehow the employee driving the vehicle derived some benefit from the
act, the existence of a presumptive liability of the employer is determined by
answering the question of whether or not the servant was at the time of the
accident performing any act in furtherance of his master's business.
An employer is expected to impose upon its employees the necessary
discipline called for in the performance of any act indispensable to the
business and beneficial to the employee.
The liability of the employer is, under Article 2180, primary and solidary.
However, the employer shall have recourse against the negligent employee
for whatever damages are paid to the heirs of the victims.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
109.
Siribian v. Cababa
Liability of an employer depends:
a. Employee was chosen by employer
b. Services are to be rendered in accordance with the order which the
employer has authority to give
c. Illicit act of employee was on occasion of functions entrusted to him
110.
Cuison v. Norton & Harrison
The basis of civil law liability is not respondeat superior but the
relationship paterfamilias. This theory bases the liability of the master
ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his servant. An employer
is only liable for the negligence of his employees in the discharge of their
respective duties. The employer would not be liable for the negligence of an
independent contractor.
111.
Go v. IAC
Employees shall be held liable for damages caused by their employees,
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. Bank is responsible for acts
of its employees unless there is proof that it exercised the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent the damage.
112.
Ortaliz v. Echarri
Art. 2180, paragraph 5 clearly provides that the Employers shall be
liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, EVEN though the former are
NOT engaged in any business or industry.
113.
MRR v. Cia Translantica & Atlantic Gulf
A contract exempting a party from liability for the damages consequent
upon accidents occurring in the course of certain operations will not be
construed to extend to damages resulting from the negligence of the
contracting party or its servants in conducting such operations, unless the
contract is so explicit.
114.
Allied Banking Corp v. Lim Bio Wan
In the instant case, the trial court correctly found Allied negligent in
issuing the manager's check and in transmitting it to Santos without even a
written authorization. In fact, Allied did not even ask for the certificate
evidencing the money market placement or call up Lim Sio Wan at her
residence or office to confirm her instructions. Both actions could have
prevented the whole fraudulent transaction from unfolding. Allied's
negligence must be considered as the proximate cause of the resulting loss.

Atty. Tesoro
The liability of Allied, however, is concurrent with that of Metrobank as

the last indorser of the check. When Metrobank indorsed the check in
compliance with the PCHC Rules and Regulations without verifying the
authenticity of Lim Sio Wan's indorsement and when it accepted the check
despite the fact that it was cross-checked payable to payee's account only,
its negligent and cavalier indorsement contributed to the easier release of
Lim Sio Wan's money and perpetuation of the fraud.
115.
Jayme v. Apostol
An employer-employee relationship still exists even if the employee was
loaned by the employer to another person or entity because control over the
employee subsists.
Mere giving of directions to the driver does not establish that the
passenger has control over the vehicle. Neither does it render one the
employer of the driver.
Significantly, no negligence may be imputed against a fellow
employee although the person may have the right to control the manner of
the vehicles operation. In the absence of an employer-employee relationship
establishing vicarious liability, the drivers negligence should not be attributed
to a fellow employee who only happens to be an occupant of the vehicle.
Whatever right of control the occupant may have over the driver is not
sufficient by itself to justify an application of the doctrine of vicarious liability.
The failure of a passenger to assist the driver, by providing him warnings
or by serving as lookout does not make the passenger liable for the latters
negligent acts. The drivers duty is not one that may be delegated to others.
116.
Castilex Industrial Corp v. Vasquez Jr.
An employer who loans his motor vehicle to an employee for the latter's
personal use outside of regular working hours is generally not liable for the
employee's negligent operation of the vehicle during the period of permissive
use, even where the employer contemplates that a regularly assigned motor
vehicle will be used by the employee for personal as well as business
purposes and there is some incidental benefit to the employer.
117.
Almirez v. Infinite Loop Technology Corp.
To ascertain existence of employer-employee relationship, we must
apply the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the manner of selection and engagement;
(2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the power of
dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control.
In the case at bar, there was no showing of a power of control (control
test) over petitioner. The services to be performed by her specified what she
needed to achieve but not on how she was to go about it. Payslip cannot
prove the existence of employer-employee relationship.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
118.
Acevedo v. Advanster Co Inc
In labor-only contracting, the following elements are present:
a. The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or
investment to actually perform the job, work or service under its own account
and responsibility
b. The employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or
subcontractor, are performing activities which are directly related to the main
business of the principal.
In such case, the law creates an employee-employer relationship so that
labor laws may not be circumvented. The principal employer becomes
solidarily liable with the labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of the
employees. The labor-only contractor is considered merely as an agent of
the employer, the employer having been made, by law, responsible to the
employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been
directly employed by it.
119.
Hernandez v. Dolor
An employer-employee relationship exists between jeepney owner and
driver under the boundary system. Indeed to exempt from liability the owner
of a public vehicle who operates it under the boundary system on the
ground that he is a mere lessor would be not only to abet flagrant violations
of the Public Service Law, but also to place the riding public at the mercy of
reckless and irresponsible drivers reckless because the measure of their
earnings depends largely upon the number of trips they make and, hence,
the speed at which they drive; and irresponsible because most if not all of
them are in no position to pay the damages they might cause.
120.
Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center
The hospital was held solidarily liable with the doctor by virtue of
apparent authority.
Requisites for apparent authority to exist:
a. Plaintiff was led to believe that the defendant is the agent of the
hospital
b. The defendant acted with apparent authority
c. Plaintiff acted in reliance with such apparent authority
121.
Professional Services Inc v. Agana
An employer-employee relationship exists between the hospital and the
doctor, hence they are held jointly and severally liable to the victim.
The hospital cannot claim that the doctor was an independent contractor
because he was under the control of the hospital. The hospital even

Atty. Tesoro
advertises him as one of its accredited doctors hence it led the public to
believe that he is an employee of the hospital.
122.
Bahia v. Litonjua & Leynes
A person engaging temporarily an automobile with driver and mechanic
from a reputable garage is not liable, it appearing that the accident was
caused by the defect in the steering gear, such defect was neither apparent
nor could have been foreseen.
123.
YHT Intl v. CA
If the injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee, the
law presumes that there was negligence on the part of the master or
employer either in the selection of the servant or employee or in supervision
over him after the selection or both. Such presumption is not a conclusive
presumption, but is rebuttable. If the master or employer shows that in
selection and supervision he exercised care and diligence of a good father,
the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.
124.
Brito Sy v. Malate Taxicab
By a contract of carriage, the carries assumes the express obligation to
transport passenger to his destination safely and observed extraordinary
diligence, and any injury that might be suffered is attributable to the fault or
negligence by carrier. This is an exception to the general rule that negligence
must be proved. It is therefore incumbent upon carrier to prove that it has
exercised extraordinary diligence.
Determination as to who caused the collision is irrelevant with regard to
its responsibility to its passengers.
125.
Belizar v. Brazas
Article 2180 provides for the liability of an employer for a tortuous act of
employees, this does not exempt the employees from personal liability,
especially if they are not persons having direct supervision over them, or if
there is proof of the existence of negligence on their part.
126.
Genson v. Adarle
A public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in
bad faith.
Master-servant doctrine in tort law does not apply when the defendant
was not working overtime as a government employee when the accident
occurred.
127.
Genato Commercial v. MRR
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Liability for breach of contractual obligation is not excused by the

unlawful acts of the officials and employees of the corporation.
Non-performance of a contractual obligation gives rise to the
presumption that the obligor was at fault and its duty is to prove that it
incurred no negligence or fault.
128.
Ramos v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co
From Article 2180, two things are apparent:
a. That when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or
employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was
negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the
selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after
the selection, or both; and
b. That the presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and
consequently may be rebutted
If the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and
supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a
family, the resumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.
129.
Phil. Commercial & Industrial Bank v. CA
The general rule is that if the master is injured by the negligence of a
third person and y concurring contributory negligence of his own servant or
agent, the latters negligence is imputed to his superior and will defeat the
superiors action against the third person, assuming of course, that the
contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the injury of which
complaint is made.
A bank will be held liable for the negligence of its officers or agents when
acting within the course and scope of their employment. A bank is liable for
the fraudulent acts or representations of an officer or agent acting within the
course and apparent scope of his employment or authority.
Section 5 of Central Bank Circular No. 580 (1977) states that any theft
affecting items in transit for clearing shall be for the account of the sending
bank.
130.
Maxion v. MRR
While the exercise of due care by the master in choosing competent
servant is admissible to prove the exercise of due diligence on the part of the
master to prevent the damage, such circumstance is not conclusive. The
master will be held liable for a wrongful act done by his servant, where it
appears that the master upon full information as to the character of the act
done took no affirmative steps to avert further damages and on the contrary
maintained the situation created by the servant, to the subsequent serious
damage of the parties concerned.

Atty. Tesoro
131.
Smith & Co v. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber
Evidence shows that the captains at the time of the plaintiffs wharf
collapse was a duly licensed captain, authorized to navigate and direct a
vessel of any tonnage, and that the captains services was contracted
because of his reputation as a captain. This being so, the presumption of
liability has been overcome by the exercise of the care and diligence of a
good father of a family in selecting the said captain.
132.
Marquez v. Castillo
The subsidiary civil liability of the master, according to the provisions of
article 103 of said Revised Penal Code, arises and takes place only when the
servant, subordinate or employee commits a punishable criminal act while in
the actual performance of his ordinary duties and service, and he is insolvent
thereby rendering him incapable of satisfying by himself his own civil liability.
133.
Duquillo v. Bayot
Owner of the truck cannot be held liable for the acts done by the
defendant. Defendant was neither an employee of the truck owner nor had
anything to do with the truck owners business, not had any authority to drive
the truck. The use of the truck was done without the consent and knowledge
of the truck owner.
134.
Universal Aquarius Inc v. QC Human Resources
Management Corp.
It is settled that an employer's liability for acts of its employees attaches
only when the tortuous conduct of the employee relates to, or is in the course
of, his employment.
An employer incurs no liability when an employees conduct, act or
omission is beyond the range of employment. Unquestionably, when
employees staged a strike, they were acting on their own, beyond the range
of their employment. Thus, the employer cannot be held liable for damages
caused by the strike staged by its employees.
135.
Campo v. Camarote & Genilege
The mere fact that the driver was a professional driver is not a sufficient
exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family which would exempt him
from responsibility.
He should have examined the applicant for employment as to his
qualifications, his experience and record of service. If he failed to observe
these, then he failed to exercise all the due diligence required of a good
father in the selection of a driver.
136.
Duavit v. CA
Kim Raisa O. Uy
The owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the
said vehicle if the same was driven without his consent or knowledge and by
a person not employed by him.
137.
De Leon Brokerage v. CA
In order that an owner of a motor vehicle may be relieved from liability for
injuries or damages resulting from the negligent operation of his automobile
while it is being used by his employee for the latters own personal business,
the said employee must have abandoned completely his maters business to
engage in some purpose wholly his own.
138.
Fabre v. CA
A corporation or group of persons did not have to be engaged in the
business of public transportation for the provisions of CC on common carriers
to apply to them.
Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers
through the negligence or willful acts of the former's employees although
such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in
violation of the orders of the common carriers.
This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they
exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of their employees.
139.
Saria v. Mangubat
While the State and its political subdivisions, such as provinces and
municipalities, is liable to private person who suffer injuries through
negligence of its officers in the performance of corporate or proprietary
function, is immune from liability if the injuries occurred in the performance of
official duties.
140.
Chapman v. Underwood
The owner of an automobile, present in the vehicle, is not liable for
negligent acts of a competent driver unless such acts are continued for such
length of time as to give the owner a reasonable opportunity to observe them
and direct the driver to desist therefrom, and failed to do so.
If a competent driver of an automobile in which the owner at the time was
present, by a sudden act of negligence, without the owner having reasonable
opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, violates the law the owner is
not responsible, civilly nor criminally. The act complained of must be in the
presence of the owner for such length of time that he, by acquiescence,
makes the drivers act his own.

Atty. Tesoro
141.
Caedo v. Yu Ke Thai
Basis of masters liability is paterfamilias, not respondeat superior.
Test of imputed negligence: the negligence of the servant, if KNOWN to
the master and SUCEPTIBLE if timely correction by him, reflects his own
negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage.
142.
Pleyto v. Lomboy
When an employee causes damage due to his own negligence while
performing his own duties, there arises a juris tantum presumption that the
employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence
of the good father of a family.
Employer must prove that he exercised due diligence in the selection
AND supervision of its employees in order to avoid liability.
143.
Mallari Sr. v. CA
The negligence and recklessness of the driver was binding on the owner
of the passenger jeepney engaged as a common carrier, considering the fact
that in an action based on contract of carriage, the court need not make an
express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold
it responsible for the payment of damages sought by the passenger.
By the contract of carriage, the owner of the carrier carrier jeepney
assumed the express obligation to transport the passengers to their
destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with due regard for
all the circumstances, and any injury or death that might be suffered by its
passengers is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier.
144.
Anonuevo v. CA
To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown
that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of
warnings or signs of an impending danger to health and body. To prove
contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link,
although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the
succeeding injury.
145.
Mendoza v. Soriano
If the employer fails to prove that he exercised the diligence of a good
father of a family in supervising his employee, makes him primarily and
solidarily liable for the damages caused by his employees under Article 2180
of the CC.
146.
Merritt v. Government of the Philippines Islands
The state not being liable to suit except by its express consent, an Act
abrogating that immunity will be strictly construed.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
An Act permitting a suit against the state gives rise to no liability not
previously existing unless it is clearly expressed in the Act. (It does not
concede its liability, or create any cause of action, or extend its liability to any
cause not previously recognized.)
By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It
merely gives a remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submits itself to
the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful
defenses.
The government is only liable for the negligent act of its officers, agents
and employees when they are acting as special agents.
147.
Rosete v. Auditor General
A special agent under Article 1903 of the CC is one who receives a
definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties to
his office if he is a special official. The State acts through the special agent
so that in representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent
thereof, he executes the trust confided in him.
Two situations under Article 1903:
a. When the state acts through a special agent (state is liable)
b. When an act is performed by an official upon whom previously
devolved the duty of doing the act performed (official is liable)
148.
Palafox v. Province of Ilocos Norte
If the negligent employee was engaged in the performance of
governmental duties, as distinguished from corporate or proprietary or
business function, the government is NOT liable.
149.
Republic v. Palacio
When there is no proof that the torts was caused by special agents,
specially commissioned to carry out the acts complained of outside of such
agents regular duties, neither the State nor its funds can be made liable.
150.
Mendoza v. de Leon
Municipal corporations have 2 functions:
a. Governmental (branch of the general administration of the State)
b. Quasi-private or corporate officers and agents of the
municipalities are liable
Immunity is enjoyed by the municipality if the performance of functions
and governmental duties are those for the peace, protection of morals and
health of the community and to administer the government. Like the State, a
municipality cannot be made liable unless expressly made so by statute, nor
are its officers as long as they perform duties honestly and in good faith.

Atty. Tesoro
A municipality is not exempt in performing corporate or proprietary

business function. They are subject to be sued upon contracts and tort.
The leasing of municipal ferries to the highest bidder is not a
governmental but a corporate function.
151.
Torio v. Fontanilla
Celebration of a town fiesta is an exercise of private or proprietary
function.
The powers of a municipality are twofold in character public,
governmental or political on the one hand, and corporate, private, or
proprietary on the other. Each case will have to be determined on the
attending circumstances.
This distinction of powers becomes important for purposes of
determining the liability of the municipality for the acts of its agents which
result in an injury to third persons. A municipality can be held liable to third
persons ex contractu or ex delicto.
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, municipality is to be held
liable for damages for the negligence of the municipalitys officers,
employees or agents.
152.
Santos v. Santos
The State may be sued even without its consent when it enters into a
contract. The sovereign state has descended to the level of the citizen and its
consent to be sued is implied from the very act of entering into such contract.
153.
City of Manila v. Teotico
Article 2189 of the CC states that provinces, cities and municipalities are
liable for damages for the death of, or injury suffered by any person by
reason of the defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings
and other public works under their control or supervision.
It is not necessary that the defective roads or streets belong to the
province, city or municipality. The article merely requires that the province,
city or municipality has either control or supervision over said street or road.
154.
Jimenez v. City of Manila
For liability under Article 2189 of CC to attach, the control and
supervision by the province, city or municipality over the public building is
enough.
155.
Dumlao v. CA
A public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in
Kim Raisa O. Uy
bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. To warrant such
liability the complaint must allege and the evidence must show such liability.
156.
Palma v. Graciano
Municipal corporations are responsible for the acts of its officers except if
and when, and only to the extent that, they have acted by authority of the
law, and in conformity with the requirements thereof.
When a public officer goes outside the scope of his duty, particularly
when acting tortuously, he is not entitled to protection on account of his
office, but is liable for his acts like any private individual.
157.
Araneta v. Arreglado
Damages only recoverable by the party who suffered.
158.
Daywalt v. Corporacion de Agustinos Recolectos
What constitutes legal justification for interference - If a party enters into
contract to go for another upon a journey to a remote and unhealthful
climate, and a third person, with a bona fide purpose of benefiting the one
who is under contract to go, dissuades him from the step, no action will lie.
But if the advice is not disinterested and the persuasion is used for "the
indirect purpose of benefiting the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff,"
the intermeddler is liable if his advice is taken and the contract broken.
If performance is prevented by unlawful means such as force,
intimidation, coercion, or threats, or by false or defamatory statements, or by
nuisance or riot, the person is, under all the authorities, liable for the damage
which ensues.
Whatever may be the character of the liability which a stranger to a
contract may incur by advising or assisting one of the parties to evade
performance, the stranger cannot become more extensively liable in
damages for the nonperformance of the contract than the party in whose
behalf he intermeddles.
159.
Gilchrist v. Cuddy
The interference with lawful contract by strangers gives rise to an action
for damages in favor of the injured person. The law does not require that the
responsible person shall have known the identity of the injured person. The
interference with lawful contracts by stranger does not itself give the injured a
remedy of injunction.
160.
So Ping Bien v. CA
Elements of tortuous interference with contractual relations:
a. Existence of a valid contract

Atty. Tesoro
b. Knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of the

contract
c. Interference of the third person without legal justification or excuse
Lack of malice precludes damages.
161.
Lagon v. CA
A person is not a malicious interferer if his conduct is impelled by a
proper business interest. In other words, a financial or profit motivation will
not necessarily make a person an officious interferer liable for damages as
long as there is no malice or bad faith involved.
To sustain a case for tortuous interference, the defendant must have
acted with malice or must have been driven by purely impious reasons to
injure the plaintiff.
The word induce refers to situations where a person causes another to
choose one course of conduct by persuasion or intimidation.
162.
Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Dahican Lumber
Creditors are protected in cases of contracts intended to defraud them;
and that any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be
liable for damages to the other contracting party.
163.
Dingcong v. Kanaan
Co-lessee and manager of the hotel has to answer for the damage
caused by things that thrown or falling from the hotel.
167.
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. CA
If upon the happening of a fortuitous event or an act of God, there
concurs a corresponding fraud, negligence, delay or violation or
contravention in any manner of the tenor of the obligation as provided for in
Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which results in loss or damage, the obligor
cannot escape liability.
When the negligence of a person concurs with an act of God in
producing a loss, such person is not exempt from liability by showing that the
immediate cause of the damage was the act of God. To be exempt from
liability for loss because of an act of God, he must be free from any previous
negligence or misconduct by which that loss or damage may have been
occasioned.
168.
La Farge Cement Phils Inc v. Continental Cement Corp
Obligations arising from a tort are always solidary. Each joint tortfeasor is
not only individually liable for the tort in which he participates but is also
jointly liable with his tortfeasor. The damages cannot be apportioned among
them, except among themselves. They are jointly and severally liable for the
whole amount.
Article 1211 of the CC states that solidarity may exist although the
creditors and debtors may not be bound in the same manner and by the
same periods and conditions.
169.
164.
Viluan v. CA
In case of injury to a passenger due to the negligence of the driver of the
bus on which he was riding and of the driver of another vehicle, the drivers
as well as the owners of the two vehicles are jointly and severally liable for
damages.
165.
Abadilla v. Colombres
Where the negligence of 2 drivers effectively concur to cause plaintiffs
injury, the obligation of the employers to pay damage is solidary, and the
circumstance that the liability of one is based on culpa contractual while that
of the other is based on culpa aquilana cannot alter the solidary nature of
their liability.
166.
Rivera v. Crespo
Where the liability of one party stems from breach of contract of carriage and
that of another from quasi-delict, but their respective negligence contributed
to the occurrence or accident, Article 2194 of the Civil Code, which speaks of
joint tortfeasors may be applied by analogy to hold both liable.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Iloilo Cold Storage v. Municipal Council

Two Classes of Nuisance
Nuisance Per Se
Nuisance Per Accidens
Nuisance under any and all Nuisance
because
of
special
circumstances
circumstances
and
conditions
surrounding them
May be summarily abated without Needs hearing and no summary
judicial hearing and judgment
abatement
A nuisance which affects the immediate safety of persons or property, or
which constitutes an obstruction to the streets and highways under
circumstances presenting an emergency, may be summarily abated under
the undefined law of necessity
The declaration of the municipal council that the thing or act is a
nuisance is not conclusive.
170.
De Ayala v. Barretto
One who settles in a district which has a natural watercourse especially
beneficial for transportation purposes, or who remains in a neighborhood
which was initially residential but becomes a trading center, must submit to

Atty. Tesoro
the ordinary annoyances and discomforts that are incidental to the

reasonable and general conduct of such business.
Whether a lawful business will be a nuisance is a question of fact to be
determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case.
171.
Sitchon v. Aquino
According to the CC, one of the listed nuisances is anything which
obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street,
or any body of water. The houses constructed without governmental
authority on public streets and waterways, obstruct at all times the free use
by the public of said streets and waterways, and accordingly constitute
nuisances per se aside from public nuisances. Summary removal thereof,
without judicial process or proceeding may be authorized by the statute or
municipal ordinance, despite the due process clause.
District health officer is empowered to determine whether or not
abatement without judicial proceedings is the best remedy against public
nuisance, but RA 409 placed this task to the city engineer.
172.
Velasco v. Manila Electric
As a general rule, everyone is bound to bear the habitual or customary
inconveniences that result from the proximity of others, and so long as this
level is not surpassed, he may not complain against them.
A noise may be an actionable nuisance if it affects injuriously the health
or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an unreasonable extent. Injury
to a particular person who is of specially sensitive characteristics will not
render the noise an actionable nuisance. Noise becomes actionable only
when it passes the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the
locality and of the needs of the listener. What those limits are cannot be
fixed by any definite measure of the particular case.
The test is whether rights of property, of health or of comfort are so
injuriously affected by the noise in question that the sufferer is subjected to a
loss which goes beyond the reasonable limit imposed upon him by the
condition of living, or of holding property, in a particular locality in fact
devoted to the uses which involve the emission of noise although ordinary
care is taken to confine it within reasonable bounds; or in the vicinity of
property of another owner who though creating a noise is acting with
reasonable regard for the rights of those affected by it.
The determining factor when noise alone is not intensity or volume. It is
that the noise is of such character as to produce actual physical discomfort
and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
173.
Cardona v. de Brozas
The construction of a window by the owner of a building, in violation of
the easement of light and view, by mere tolerance of the owner of an
adjoining residence or dwelling house, does not place the latter in estoppels
to ask for removal or abatement of said nuisance.
The acquisitive period for prescription of the easement of light and view,
which is a negative easement commences only after a notarial prohibition.
174.
Ramcar v. Millar
The question of whether a thing is a nuisance is a question of fact.
175.
Tan Chat v. Municipality of Iloilo
Revised Administrative Code conferred power to municipalities such as
the police power including the power to abate public nuisances and to divide
its territory into commercial and residential zones.
Power of municipalities, in the exercise of their police power, to regulate
and abate public nuisance is indisputable, when the measure taken to that
end is sound and reasonable, and redounds to the benefit of the locality.
Reasonable zoning regulations may be proper exercise of the municipal
police power. Zoning is not a taking of property like the power of eminent
domain inasmuch as it merely regulates the use of property within certain
areas.
176.
Umali v. Aquino
The owner and use by private individuals of sidewalks and other public
places devoted to public use constitute both public nuisances and nuisance
per se. this applies even to cases involving the use or lease of public places
under permits or licenses issued by competent authority.
177.
City of Manila v. Laguio Jr
To successfully invoke the exercise of police power as the rationale for
the enactment of the Ordinance, and to free it from the imputation of
constitutional infirmity, not only must it appear that the interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an
interference with private rights, but the means adopted must be reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals. It must be evident that no other alternative for the
accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. A
reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the police measure
and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of
protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private
property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.

Atty. Tesoro
Lacking a concurrence of these two requisites, the police measure shall

be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights and a violation of
the due process clause. It is undoubtedly one of the fundamental duties of
the City of Manila to make all reasonable regulations looking to the promotion
of the moral and social values of the community. However, the worthy aim of
fostering public morals and the eradication of the communitys social ills can
be achieved through means less restrictive of private rights; it can be
attained by reasonable restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition
178.
Homeowners Association of El Deposito v. Lood
Public nuisances per se may be abated without judicial proceedings
under the Civil Code.
179.
San Rafael Homeowners Association v. City of Manila
Action to avoid possible nuisance is premature when the bidding for
materials for the incinerator is still going on and where no incinerator has yet
actually existed.
180.
Farrales v. City Mayor of Manila
Art. 702 of the Civil Code says that it is the District Officer that shall
determine whether or not abatement without judicial proceedings is the best
remedy against a public nuisance, the failure to observe this provision is not
in itself a ground for the award of damages.
Art. 707 presents only 2 cases where a public official extrajudicially
abating a nuisance will be liable for damages:
o If he causes unnecessary injury; or
o If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be
not a real nuisance.
181.
Timoner v. People
Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, condition of
property or anything else which:
a. Injures or engenders the health or safety of others; or
b. Annoys or offends the senses; or
c. Shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality; or
d. Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public
highway or street, or any body of water; or
e. Hinders or impairs the use of property.
Art. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a
community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons,
although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals
may be unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not include in the foregoing
definition.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:

a. A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local
ordinance; or
b. A civil action; or
c. Abatement, without judicial proceedings
There is no semblance of any legality or right that exists in favor of the
defendants to build a stall and conduct their business in a sidewalk,
especially in a highway where it does not only constitute a menace to the
health of the general public passing through the street and also of the
unsanitary condition that is bred therein as well as the unsightly and ugly
structures in the place.
182.
Owner of 51 of the Jackpot Slot Machines v. Director of NBI
The mere possession of a slot machine or even its operation for
amusement and not for profit does not constitute a crime. A slot machine is
not a gambling devise per se because it can be operated legally as well as
illegally. The slot machines are not nuisance per se because it can be
operated legally.
183.
Kapisanan Lingkod Bayan Inc v. Lacson (CA)
The test of public nuisance in this case states that it is not the number of
persons annoyed, but the possibility of annoyance to the public by the
invasion of its rights.
184.
Canlas v. de Aquino
The operation of a hospital is a matter that, not only concerns its owners
or operators, but also, if not more particularly affects the health and welfare
of the community, and that the damage sustained by the latter, in
consequence, either of the obstruction to the proper operation of said
hospital or of its closing, cannot possibly compensated in full.
185.
Reyes v. Villegas
The indiscriminate discard of garbage and human excreta poses a
serious threat to public health. It constitutes a public nuisance per se which
can be summarily abated.
186.
Farrales v. Dacanay
Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
a. A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance; or
b. A civil action; or
c. Abatement, without judicial proceedings
187.
Magtibay v. Goco

Atty. Tesoro
A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance, if it

is specially injurious to himself, must be determined from the particular facts
and circumstances of each case.
Article 702 of the Civil Code does not empower the district health officer
to abate a public nuisance to the exclusion of all other authorities. His power
is simply to determine whether or not abatement, without judicial
proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance.
The mandatory duty to abate a public nuisance with the proper municipal
council, pursuant to Section 2242 of the Revised Administrative Code.
While the district health officer may also institute proceedings necessary
to abate a nuisance, this power can be properly exercised only when the
nuisance is one that affects public health and sanitation.
188.
Estate of Gregorio Francisco v. CA
While a local ordinance may provide for the abatement of a nuisance, it
cannot declare a particular thing as a nuisance per se and order its
condemnation. The nuisance can only be so adjudged by judicial
determination.
189.
Tamin v. CA
Under the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang Bayan has to first
pass an ordinance before the municipality may summarily abate a public
nuisance.
There is absolutely no question that the town plaza cannot be used for
the construction of market stalls, specially of residences, and that such
structures constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to law. Town
plazas are properties of public dominion, to be devoted to public use and to
be made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of
man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private
parties.
190.
Telmo v. Bustamante
191.
Tayabas v. People
192.
Farolan v. Solmac Marketing Corporation
Whatever damage they may have caused as a result of an erroneous
interpretation, is in the nature of damnum absque injuria. Mistakes
concededly committed by public officers are not actionable absent any clear
showing that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting
to bad faith. After all, even under the law of public officers, the acts of
petitioners are protected by the presumption of good faith.
193.
Saba v. CA
Moral damages may be awarded to compensate one for diverse injuries
such as mental anguish. It is not enough that such injuries have arisen. It is
Kim Raisa O. Uy
essential that they have sprung from a wrongful act or omission, fraud,
malice or bad faith which was the proximate cause. The adverse result of an
action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to
make payment of damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a
penalty on the right to litigate.
194.
Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc
195.
Choa Tek Hee v. Philippine Publishing Company
Plaintiffs claim for actual pecuniary damages based on loss of profits
that might have been gained had he not been prevented by the publication of
the libelous article claim is too uncertain award for damages not proper.
The malice implied by law in case of libel per se is not sufficient to
support award of exemplary or punitive damages. There must be showing of
aggravating circumstances.
196.
Mendoza c. PAL
PAL cannot be held liable for damages where it could not have foreseen
the damages that would be suffered by the plaintiff upon failure to deliver the
can of film during the town fiesta.
197.
Lasam v. Smith
198.
Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo
199.
Algarra v. Sandejas
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 probably consequences, or the direct and immediate
consequences of the act or omission.
200.
Raagas v. Traya
Actual damages must be proved on actual proof that damage had been
suffered and on evidence on actual amount.
201.
Angeles v. Lerma
202.
Lacson v. Quisumbing
In motor vehicle mishaps resulting in the injury of a passenger, actual
expenses incurred in shuttling back and forth between places or provinces
for the purpose of conferring with the lawyer, filing the case, and attending
trials, are the natural and probable consequences of the carriers breach of
obligation, compensable under Article 2201 of the Civil Code.
203.
Associated Realty Development Corporation v. CA

Atty. Tesoro
Indemnification for damages comprehends not only the value of the loss
suffered, but also the profits which the oblige failed to obtain, had he sold it at
that time.
204.
Cariaga v. Lagna Tayabas Bus Company
205.
Puentabella v. Negros Coal Co.
A person injured by a breach of contract cannot recover damages for any
loss which he might have avoided with ordinary care and at a reasonable
expense. Where the plaintiffs had entered into a contract with a corporation
which was subsequently dissolved and whose liabilities had been assumed
by any other person it was improper to grant him damages.
206.
Lemoine v. Alkan
The fact that the plaintiff in such an action could have obtained by use of
reasonable diligence like employment under similar conditions in the same
locality, or the employer who wrongfully discharged him offered him to return
to his employment under the same conditions, does not constitute action for
damages.
207.
De Castelvi v. Cia General de Tobacos
By reason of breach of contract, no liability can be enforced for breach if
plaintiff did nothing to minimize them, being in a position to do so.
208.
Borromeo v. Meralco
209.
De Caliston v. CA
210.
Shauf v. CA
The Court did not grant the award of actual or compensatory damages
for supposedly unearned income for being highly speculative.
211.
Alcantara et al. v. Surro & Meralco
There can be no uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and
the measure of damages will depend on particular facts and circumstances
of each case. The life expectancy of the deceased is an important factor.
Other factors considered:
a. Pecuniary loss to plaintiff or beneficiary
b. Loss of support
c. Loss of service
d. Loss of society
e. Mental suffering of beneficiaries
f. Medical and funeral expenses
212.
213.
Junio & Soloria v. Manila Railroad

Marchan v. Mendoza
Kim Raisa O. Uy
The age of the plaintiff, expected life span and earning capacity are
taken into consideration for award of damages.
214.
People v. Taan
215.
People v. Barlaan
Moral damages are awarded in a criminal offense resulting in physical
injuries including death. Article 2206 of the Civil Code entitles heirs to
indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Documentary evidence is necessary to
prove such claim, except when the victim was self-employed earning less
than the minimum wage and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in
the victims line of work, no documentary evidence is available.
216.
People v. Eling
Temperate damages were granted in lieu of actual damages because no
evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented.
217.
Villa Rey Transit v. CA
Determination of the amount of damages depends on:
a. Number of years on the basis of which damages shall be
computed
b. Rate at which the losses sustained by said respondents
(heirs) should be fixed
In short:
i. Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 age at time of death)
ii. Net income = gross income necessary living expenses
(50%of gross income)
Net earning capacity = Life expectancy x net income
218.
Davila v. PAL
The court finds it reasonable to make an allowance and reduction in the
life expectancy due to the medical history of petitioner which shows that he
had complained of and been treated for such ailments as backaches, chest
pains and occasional feelings of tiredness.
219.
People v. Baguio
The court increased the indemnity payable to the heirs from 12k to 50k in
conformity with current doctrine.
220.
Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos
Article 2204 of the Civil Code provides that in crimes, the damages to be
adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the

Atty. Tesoro
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The provision does not warrant a

complete deletion of the damages.
The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall
be at least 12k, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances.
In addition, the defendant shall be liable for the loss of earning capacity of
the deceased, unless deceased on account of permanent physical disability
not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his
death.
221.
Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad
General Rule: Documentary evidence should be presented to
substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity
Exception: may be awarded despite lack of evidence if:
a. Deceased is self-employed earning below minimum wage,
and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the
deceaseds line of work no documentary evidence is
available
b. Deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning
below minimum wage
Moral damages can be recovered from:
i. Breach of contract when defendant in bad faith, grossly negligent
amounting to bad faith or in wanton disregard of contractual
obligations
ii. By special rule in contract of carriage in relation to Article 2206 of
the Civil Code, death of passenger results from breach of
contract of carriage
Under the Civil Code, a common carrier that breached its contract of
carriage which results in death of passenger is liable to pay:
a. Indemnity for death
b. Indemnity for loss of earning capacity
c. Moral damages
222.
GA Machineries v. Yaptinchay
Best Evidence Test: a person claiming damages lucro cessante must
produce the best evidence of which his case is susceptible and if that
evidence warrants the inference that has been damaged by the loss of profits
which he might with reasonable certainty have anticipated but for defendants
wrongful act , he is entitled to recover.
223.
Vda. De Javellana v. CA
Damages awarded for improvident issue of writ of preliminary injunction.
224.
Bautista v. Maxino
Kim Raisa O. Uy
The failure of the vendee of a hacienda and fishponds to pay the alleged
additional purchase price which resulted in delay in the operations of a rural
bank will not justify award of damages where no evidence of proprietorship of
rural bank, its projected start of operations and volume of business.
225.
Benguet Electric Cooperative v. CA
Considering the quality and nature of life of a meat vendor, the court
reduced its life expectancy as it is hard to conceive that a meat vendor would
still be working for the full stretch of the remaining years of his life. Must
make allowances and reduce his life expectancy.
Necessary living expenses is fixed at 50% of gross income
226.
Legaspi Oil Co v. CA
In case of bad faith, fraud, malice or wanton attitude, the guilty party is
liable for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation.
227.
Globe Mackay Cable & Radio Corp v. Barrios
SAME
228.
Lambert v. Heirs of Rey Castillon
Due to respondents contributory negligence, the court found it equitable
to increase the ratio of apportionment of damages on account of victims
negligence. 50% of the damage shall be borne by the private respondents;
the remaining 50% shall be paid by the petitioner.
229.
Floreza v. de Evangelista
Liability for damages for retention of property, in the form of rentals.
230.
Perfecto v. Gonzales
Even if the complaint filed by one against the other is clearly unfounded,
this does not necessarily mean, in the absence of specific facts proving
damages that said defendant really suffered actual damage over and above,
attorneys fees and costs. The Court cannot rely on its speculations as to the
fact and the amount of damages. It must depend on actual proof of damages
alleged to have been suffered.
231.
Rodriguez Luna v. IAC
Go-kart racing cannot be categorized as a dangerous sport because it is
extremely low-slung, low powered vehicles, only slightly larger than footpedaled four wheeled conveyances. Hence, it was an error for the court to
reduce petitioners life expectancy.

Atty. Tesoro
232.
Herbosa v. CA
The award of damages cannot be lumped together. It is basic that the
claim for actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees
must each be independently identified and justified.
233.
NPC v. National Merchandising Corporation
It would be inequitable to collect interest on the damages especially
considering that the disposition of this case has been considerably delayed
due to no fault of the defendants.
No proof of pecuniary loss is required for the recovery of liquidated
damages. Te stipulation for liquidated damages is intended to obviate
controversy on the amount of damages.
234.
Polytrade Corporation v. Blanco
Attorneys fees are in the nature of liquidated damages and the
stipulation therefore is aptly called a penal clause. The reasonableness of the
attorneys fees in the light of such facts as the:
a. Amount and character of services rendered
b. Nature and importance of the litigations
c. Professional character and the social standing of the
attorney
235.
Sy v. CA
Equitable reduction of stipulated liquidated damages if iniquitous or
unconscionable.
236.
Albert v. University Publishing Company
In reciprocal obligations, where one of the obligors failed to comply with
what is incumbent upon him, the injured party could choose between
requiring specific performance of obligation with indemnity for losses and
payment of interest. In the case at bar, the stipulation in the contract may be
considered as liquidated damages to be paid in case of breach of contract.
237.
Joes Radio & Electrical Supply v. Alto Electronics
Corporation
6% interest should start from the date of supplemental complaint filed,
not the original complaint.
Equitable reduction if there was partial performance regardless if penalty
or liquidated damages.
238.
Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. CA
A provision which calls for the forfeiture of the remaining deposit still in
the possession of the lessor, without prejudice to any other obligation still
Kim Raisa O. Uy
owing, in the event of the termination or cancellation of the agreement by

reason of the lessees violation of any terms & conditions of the agreement is
a penal clause that may be validly entered into. As a general rule, in
obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the indemnity for
damages & payment of interests in case of non-compliance (Art. 1226,
NCC). In such case, proof of actual damages suffered by the creditor is not
necessary in order that the penalty may be demanded (Art. 1228, NCC).
However, there are exceptions to this general rule: 1) stipulation to the
contrary; 2) obligor is sued for refusal to pay the agreed penalty; and 3) when
the obligor is guilty of fraud. In these cases, the obligee can recover from the
obligor not only the penalty but also damages resulting from the nonfulfillment or defective performance of the principal obligation.
239.
Limjoco v. CTA
An agreement for payment of liquidated damages in the same amount as
the earnest money to be returned is not iniquitous or unconscionable.
240.
Lambert v. Fox
The only case recognized by the Civil Code in which the court is
authorized to intervene for the purpose of reducing a penalty stipulated in the
contract is when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly fulfilled
and the court can see that the person demanding the penalty has received
the benefit of such or irregular performance. In such case the court is
authorized to reduce the penalty to the extent of the benefits received by the
party enforcing the penalty.
241.
Lawyers Cooperative v. Tabora
A debtor should not be made to pay liquidated damages when his denial
to pay the balance of the account is not due to bad faith.
242.
New Sampaguita Builders & Construction, Inc v. PNB
243.
Ligutan v. CA
244.
Trade & Investment Development Corporation v. Roblett
Industrial Construction Corporation
The obligation in this case is one for the payment of a sum of money for
which the rate of interest has been stipulated by the parties at 18%. It was
error on the part of the appellate court to peg the interest rate at 6% per
annum when there had been a valid stipulation on interest in the contract on
question.
Interest on a monetary obligation that is due and demandable should
commence from the time demand is first made, whether judicial or
extrajudicial.

Atty. Tesoro
The award of attorneys fees is the exception rather than the rule and it
must have some factual, legal and equitable basis. The stipulation on
attorneys fees contained in the deed constitutes what is known as penal
clause. Attorneys fees may be reduced even if only 10% when the principal
plus interest was already thrice the original obligation.
Article 1308 which provides that the contract must bind both parties; its
validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them.
The mind of all parties must meet as to the proposed modification,
especially when it affects an important aspect of the agreement. The rate of
interest is always a vital component, for it can make or break a capital
venture.
245.
Gobonseng v. Unibancard Corporation
Where the contract stipulates the rate of interest and the amount of
penalty to be paid in case of failure to pay the obligation within a given
period, both the penalty and the interest can be collected by the creditor.
Unless the stipulated amounts are exorbirant, the court will sustain the
amounts agreed upon by the parties. The court has to enforce the
contractual stipulations in the manner that they have been agreed upon for
as long as they are not unconscionable or contrary to morals and public
policy.
251.
United Coconut Planters Bank v. Beluso
Default commences upon judicial or extrajudicial demand. The excess
amount in such a demand does not nullify the demand itself, which is valid
with respect to the proper amount. Filing a case in court is the judicial
demand referred to in Article 1169 of the Civil Code, which would put the
obligor in delay.
The compounding of interest is a a valid stipulation between parties.
246.
Viloria v. CA
Since the legal rate of interest before July 29, 1974 was only 6%, and it
was only on that date when the said rate was increased to 12% by Central
Bank Circular No. 416, there is merit in the petitioner's contention that his
obligation to repay the advances he had received from private respondent
should be subject only to 6% interest until July 29, 1974, because the
Circular should not be given retrospective operation.
252.
Bulos, Jr. v. Yasuma
While CB Circular 905 suspended the Usury Law, giving parties to a loan
agreement wide latitude to agree on any interest rate, such rates may still be
found illegal if they are unconscionable. The circular did not grant carte
blanche authority to raise interest rates to levels which will enslave their
borrowers.
12% legal interest per annum computed from the date of judicial demand
until the Courts decision. In addition, 12% interest per annum is imposed on
the monetary liability from the date of finality of decision until fully paid.
247.
Liam Law v. Olympic Sawmill Co. Inc.
Usury is now legally non-existent under CB Circular 905. Interest can be
charged now as the lender and borrower may agree upon.
248.
Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation v. Kamalig
Resources, Inc.
The general rule is that attorneys fees cannot be recovered as part of
damages because no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. In
short, the grant of attorneys fees as part of damages is the exception rather
than the rule, and counsels fees are not awarded every time a party prevails
in a suit.
249.
PNB v. CA
No interest is due unless stipulated in writing.
250.
Floirendo, Jr. v. Metropolitan Bank
The increases of interest rate unilaterally imposed by the bank without
petitioners assent are violative of the principle of mutuality of contracts in
Kim Raisa O. Uy
253.
Svendsen v. People
While CB Circular 905 lifted the ceiling on usurious rates, parties are not
given carte blanche liberty to stipulate whatever interest rate they may
please.
254.
Zobel v. City of Manila
Legal interest should be imposed, since the stipulation that it shall bear
no interest was given on the premise that it was to be paid on the date
stipulated. After default, defendant became liable for interest as damages
regardless of the absence of any stipulation for interest and regardless of the
statement that this installment shall draw no interest.
255.
Seton Donne v. Inouye
When the promissory note contains a stipulation to the effect that if the
obligation should become subject of judicial action a certain percentum of the
principal should be added too cover the expenses of collection, interest upon
this item will not be allowed prior to the date of the judgment in the lower
court.

Atty. Tesoro
256.
Soriano v. Cia General de Tabacos
Accrued interest draws legal interest from the time that the suit is filed for
its recovery. Where the plaintiff is entitled to the payment of interest on the
various amounts due from the defendant by way of damages, and said
interest did not arise from an obligation of the defendant to pay the same on
a contractual basis, because the event which gave rise to the plaintiffs right
to recover interest was not a conventional obligation, but the defendants
default in crediting the plaintiff with the proceeds of the sale, interest is not
collectible on the accrued interest.
262.
Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company v. P.L. Galang
Machinery Company
Creditors suing on a suretyship bond may recover from the surety as part
of their damages, interest at the legal rate if the surety would thereby
become liable to pay more than the total amount stipulated in the bond.
The surety is made to pay interest, not by reason of the contract, but by
reason of its failure to pay when demanded and for having compelled the
plaintiff to resort to the courts to obtain payment. Interest does not run from
the time the obligation became due, but from the filing of the complaint.
257.
BPI Family Savings Bank Inc v. First Metro Investment Corp.
When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum
of money (loan or forbearance of money), the interest due should be that
which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due
shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded.
263.
Tan v. CA
264.
Piczon v. Piczon
If the contract stipulates from what time interest will be counted, said
stipulated time controls, and, therefore interest is payable from such time,
and not from the date of the filing of the complaint.
258.
Bachrach Motors v. Espiritu
Article 1152 of the Civil Code permits the agreement upon a penalty
apart from the interest. Such as two different and distinct things and may be
demanded separately. BUT considering that the obligation was partly
performed, the Court with its power to reduce the penalty, may decrease the
penalty of the unpaid debt.
265.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Delgado
If theres default, follow the stipulation in the contract. If there is no
stipulation, 6% per annum interest.
259.
Eusebio Calderon v. People
When there is written proof of the payable interest except for the verbal
agreement, said interest is void. Under Article 1956 of the Civil Code, an
agreement as to payment of interest must be in writing, otherwise it cannot
be valid.
260.
Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc v. Santos
When the debtor knows the amount and period when he is to pay,
interest as damages is generally allowed as a matter of right.
The goal of compensation requires that the complainant be compensated
for the loss of use of those funds. This compensation is in the form of
interest. In the absence of agreement, the legal rate of interest shall prevail.
261.
Bareng v. CA
If the vendee is in default in the payment of the price of the thing sold,
under the provisions of Article 2209 of the Civil Code, he is liable to pay legal
interest from the date of the filing of complaint, unless he deposits in court
the amount due at the start of the action.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
266.
Reformina v. Tomol, Jr.
CB Circular No. 416 that gives 12% interest per annum are interests rate
for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or credits and the rate
allowed in judgments, in the absence of express contract. Any other kind of
monetary judgment not involving these do not fall within the coverage of the
law, not being within the ambit of the authority granted to the CB. Being an
action for damages for injury to persons and loss of property, Article 2209
applies.
267.
Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA
When an obligation, regardless of its source, is breached, the
contravenor can be held liable for damages. The provisions under the Title
on Damages of the Civil Code will govern in determining the measure of
recoverable damages.
On award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory dmages,
the rate of interest as well as accrual is imposed as follows:
-
When obligation is breached and it consist in a sum of money

a. If interest is stipulated
i. Interest due shall be that stipulated in writing
ii. Interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it
is judicially demanded
b. If no interest stipulated

Atty. Tesoro
i.
-
12% to be computed from default (judicial or extrajudicial

demand)
When an obligation not constituting a loan or forbearance of money

is breached, an interest in the amount of damages awarded may be
imposed at the discretion of the court at 6% per annum
a. if amount is established with reasonable certainty, interest
runs from the time it is judicially or extrajudicially demanded
b. if amount is not yet certain at the time demand is made,
interest runs from the date the judgment of the court is
made.
c. actual base for computation of legal interest shall be the
amount finally adjudged
When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes
final and executor, the rate of legal interest becomes 12% per annum
from such finality until satisfaction. The interim period being a
forbearance of credit
268.
Escano v. Ortigas, Jr
Petitioners are liable for interest at 12% per annum to be computed from
judicial or extrajudicial demand, because the undertaking consisted of a
payment in a sum of money.
269.
Country Bankers Insurance Corp v. Lianga Bay and
Community Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.
An insurance claim is not a forbearance of money, goods or credit, thus
the interest rate should be as it is hereby fixed at 6% computed from the date
of filing of the complaint.
Forbearance in the context of usury law is a contractual obligation of
lender or creditor to refrain, during a given period of time, from requiring the
borrower or debtor to pay a loan or debt when due and payable.
270.
Catungal v. Hao
Back rentals are equivalent to a loan or forbearance of money, hence the
interest due is 12% per annum from the time of extrajudicial demand.
271.
Manufacturers Building Inc v. CA
Petitioner cannot compound the interest because there was no
agreement that the interest will be compounded. Article 1959 of the Civil
Code states that interest due and unpaid shall not earn interest, unless the
contracting parties stipulate to capitalize the interest due and unpaid, which
is added to the principal, shall earn new interest.
272.
Radiowealth Finance Company v. Del Rosario
Kim Raisa O. Uy
273.
Central Azucarera de Bais v. CA
The rule is that interest is due from the moment there is delay on the part
of the obligor to perform his obligation, that is, from the time it was judicially
or extrajudicially demanded. In the absence of the law expressly declaring
that demand is not necessary, the interest must be computed from the time
of extrajudicial demand.
274.
FNCB Finance v. Estavillo
The rate of legal interest on loans and forbearances of any money,
goods or credits is 12% per annum. In the case at bar, the court awarded
nominal and exemplary damages.
275.
PVTA v. Tensuan
CB Circular No. 416 should not be applied in a contract of sale wherein
there was default in the payment of the price and interest as awarded
therefor.
276.
State Investment House v. CA
Interest continues to accrue until payment is effected because such
regular interest is the price for the use of money.
Under Article 1256 of the Civil Code, if the creditor refuses the tender of
payment, shall be released from responsibility if the debtor consigns the sum
or thing due. Tender of payment must be accompanied by consignation so
that the effects of payment may be produced.
277.
People v. Iglesia
When the judgment of the court becomes final and executor, the rate of
legal interest shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction.
The interest should be computed from the time of the finality of the decision,
and not from the filing of the complaint.
278.
Secuirty Bank & Trust Co v. RTC Makati Branch
The interest agreed upon by the parties should be respected by the
court. Only in the absence of stipulation can the court impose a 12% rate
based on CB Circular 905.
279.
Solangon v. Salazar
In sustaining the stipulated interest rate because the Usury Law had
been repealed by CB 905, there is no maximum rate of interest and the rate
will just depend on the mutual agreement of the parties. However, the court
may equitably reduce the interest for being iniquitous, unconscionable and
exorbitant.

Atty. Tesoro
280.
PNB v. CA
When an obligation rises from a contract of purchase and sale and not
from a contract of loan or mutuum, the applicable rate is 6% per annum. The
interest rate on judgment for damages is only 6% computed from the time of
the filing of the complaint but once the judgment becomes final and executor,
and until fully satisfied, the rate applicable is 12%.
281.
Eastern Assurance & Surety Corporation v. CA
The payment of 12% legal interest per annum should commence from
the date of the decision of trial court become final up to the agreed cut-off
date for the payment of legal interest.
282.
RCBC v. Alfa RTW Manufacturing Corporation
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE = Principal + Interest + Service Charge + Penalty +
Interest on Interest
INTEREST = Principal x Stipulated Interest x No. of Years from date of
execution until finality of judgment
SERVICE CHARGE = Principal x Stipulated Service Charge x No. of Years
from date of execution until finality of judgment
PENALTY = Principal x Stipulated Penalty x No. of Years from Demand until
finality of judgment
INTEREST ON INTEREST = Interest computed as of the filing of the
complaint x 12% x No. of Years until finality of judgment
ATTORNEYS FEES = stipulated percentage of the total amount computed
as of finality of judgment
Total amount due as of the finality of judgment will earn interest of 12% per
annum until fully paid
283.
Northwest Airlines, Inc v. Cuenca
Nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages.
284.
Medina et al v. Cresencio et al
Where the court has already awarded compensatory and exemplary
damages that are in themselves a judicial recognition that plaintiffs right was
violated, the award of nominal damages is unnecessary and improper.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
The purpose of nominal damage is to vindicate or recognize a right that

has been violated, in order to preclude further contest thereon, and not for
the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
285.
MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssanyong Corporation
Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in order to
compensate a party for an injury or loss he suffered. They arise out of a
sense of natural justice and are aimed at repairing the wrong done. Except
as provided by law or by stipulation, a party is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss as he has duly proven.
Nominal damages are recoverable where a legal right is technically
violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no
actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract
and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be
shown.
286.
Mindanao Academy v. Yap
The interests of the stockholders, if any, were already represented by the
corporation itself, which was the proper party; and no cause of action
accruing to them separately from the corporation is alleged in the complaint,
other than that for moral damages due to extreme mental anguish,, serious
anxiety and wounded feelings.
287.
Ingal v. People
When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be
awarded:
a. Civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim
b. Actual or compensatory damages
c. Moral damages
d. Exemplary damages
e. Temperate damages
288.
Armovit v. CA
The deletion of nominal damages was proper because actual or
compensatory damages were already awarded. Since there was certainty as
to the pecuniary loss and violation of right, nominal damages need not be
awarded.
289.
Bongal et al v. Ensoy et al
290.
Ventanilla v. Centeno
Plaintiff is not entitled to temperate damages considering that he is not
entitled to actual or compensatory damages but has been awarded nominal
damages by the lower court, such award precludes recovery of temperate or

Atty. Tesoro
moderate damages. Exemplary damages may not be recovered as a matter

of right but upon discretion of the court.
291.
Rafols v. Batangas Transporatation
The award for nominal daages must be discarded for the grant of actual
damages must necessarily exclude any nominal. This is the necessary
implication from Article 2221 of the Civil Code since nominal is given only if
there is no proof of actual.
292.
Araneta v. Bank of Amerca
The financial credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable asset, it
being a significant part of the foundation of his business. Any adverse
reflection constitutes some material loss to him. Injury to ones commercial
credit or to the goodwill of a business fir is often hard to show with certainty
in terms of money, and such injury may be recovered even in the absence of
definite proof of direct pecuniary loss; the wrongful acts of the respondent
which had adversely affected his credit being sufficient for the purpose.
Hence, claim for temperate damages is legally justified.
293.
SSS v. CA
SSS may be held liable for nominal damages when it refused to
acknowledge its mistake of foreclosing the mortgage of private respondent.
This type of damage is not for the purpose of indemnifying private
respondents for any loss suffered by him but to vindicate his rights which
have been violated or invaded by SSS.
Cathay Pacific Airways v. Spouses Vazquez
If the breach of contract of carriage is not attended by fraud or bad faith,
the award of moral damages has no leg to stand on.
It is a requisite in the grant of exemplary damages that the act of the
offender must be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or
malevolent manner.
The breach of contract of carriage is an award for nominal damages
under Article 2221 of the Civil Code.
294.
Robles Francisco Realty & Development Corporation v. CFI
of Rizal
Nominal damages are not intended for indemnification of loss suffered
but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. They are
recoverable where some injury has been done, the amount of which the
evidence fails to show, the assessment of damages being left to the
discretion of the court according to the circumstances of the case.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
295.
Consolidated Plywood Industries v. CA
Temperate damages are given when the court is satisfied that there has
been pecuniary loss but its amount is uncertain.
Sanitary Steam Laundry v. CA
Moral damages are awarded to allow the victims to obtain means,
diversion, or amusement to alleviate the moral suffering they had undergone
due to the defendants culpable action.
Calalas v. Sunga
As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for
damages predicated on a breach of contract for it is not one of the items
enumerated under Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
Exceptions:
a. Cases in which the mishap results in the death of a passenger
b. In cases which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith
Macalinao v. Ong
Moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible, of the
spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the
suffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain inflicted by the relatives of the
victims is proportionate to the intensity of affection for him and bears no
relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of the offender.
Saludaga v. FEU
As regards the award of moral damages, there is no hard and fast rule in
the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages since
each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances. Moral
damages 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.
296.
Lazatin v. Twano
To recover damages for the wrongful issuance and levy of an attachment
is identical or is analogous to the ordinary action for malicious prosecution.
Therefore, for moral damages are to be recovered in connection with the writ
of attachment under consideration, malice is an essential ingredient thereof.
It must be alleged and established that the writ was maliciously sued out.
297.
Enervida v. de la Torre
In moral damages, it is essential that claimant satisfactorily prove the
existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to
defendants acts. This is because moral damages, though incapable of

Atty. Tesoro
pecuniary estimation, are an award to compensate the claimant for actual

injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.
validly claim for libel or any other form of defamation and claim for moral
damages.
298.
Soberano v. Manila Railroad
Moral damages cannot be recovered against the employer in actions
based on a breach of contract of carriage in the absence of malice, fraud or
bad faith.
In case of physical injuries, moral damages are recoverable only by the
party injured and not by his next of kin, unless there is express statutory
provision to the contrary.
Moral damages in cases of breach of contract of carriage are
recoverable only where the defendant has acted fraudulently or in bad faith
and the terms fraud and bad faith have reference to wanton, reckless,
oppressive, malevolent conduct or, in the very least, to negligence so gross
as to amount to malice.
302.
Jardine Davies v. CA
The court awards moral damages to a corporation whose reputation has
been besmirched.
299.
San Miguel Brewery v. Magno
In order that moral damages may be awarded there must be pleading
and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. While no
proof of pecuniary loss is necessary, the amount of indemnity being left to
the discretion of the court, it is, nevertheless, essential that the claimant
should satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis of the damages
and its causal connection to defendants acts. This is so, because moral
damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an
award, designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered.
304.
Flight Attendants & Stewards Association of the Philippines
v. PAL
305.
Ventura v. Bernabe
Three elements in order for a cause of action based on malicious
prosecution to prosper:
a. Malice
b. Lack of probable cause
c. Defendant himself was the prosecutor or the instigator of
prosecution, which ends in acquittal
300.
Mambulao Lumber v. PNB
An artificial person cannot experience physical sufferings, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock or social
humiliation, which are basis of moral damages. A corporation may have a
good reputation that may be besmirched.
306.
RCPI v. Verchez
Elements of Moral Damages:
a. Evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or
psychological suffering sustained by the claimant
b. A culpable act or omission factually established
c. Proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is
the proximate cause of damages sustained by the claimant
d. The case is predicated on any of the instances expressed or
envisioned by Article 2219 and Article 2200 of the Civil Code
301.
Filipinas Broadcasting Network v. Agri-Medical &
Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine
A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because,
unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such
sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, metal anguish or moral
shock.
Paragraph 7 of Article 2219 of the Civil Code expressly authorizes the
recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, slander or any other form of
defamation. Article 2219(7) does not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural
or juridical person. Therefore a juridical person such as a corporation can
Kim Raisa O. Uy
303.
MERALCO v. Team Electronics Corporation
A corporation is not entitled to moral damages because, not being a
natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or sentiments like
wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish and moral shock. The
only exception to the rule is when the corporation has a reputation that is
debased, resulting in its humiliation in the business realm. But it is still
essential to prove the existence of the factual basis of the damage and its
causal relation to the defendants acts.
307.
Fores v. Miranda
Mere carelessness of the driver does not per se constitute or justify an
inference of malice or bad faith.
308.
Lopez v. Pan American

Atty. Tesoro
As a proximate result of PAN-AMs breach in bad faith of its contract with

the Lopez family, the latter suffered social humiliation, wounded feelings,
serious anxiety and mental anguish. Hence, moral damages is awarded.
309.
Zulueta v. Pan American
If gross negligence warrants the award of exemplary damages, with
more reason is its imposition justified when the act performed is deliberate,
malicious and tainted with bad faith.
310.
Ortigas v. Lufthansa
Lack of care and inattention by a common carrier resulting in its failure to
accommodate a passenger in the class contracted for amounts to fraud and
bad faith, this entitling the plaintiff to recover moral damages.
311.
PANAM v. IAC
Under Article 1107 of the Civil Code, a debtor in good faith may be held
liable only for damages that were foreseen or might have been foreseen at
the time the contract of transportation was entered into.
In the absence of showing that petitioners attention was called to the
special circumstances requiring prompt delivery of private respondents
luggage, petitioner cannot be held liable for moral damages as it could not
have foreseen such eventuality when it accepted the luggages for transit.
312.
Yutuk v. MERALCO
While moral damages are incapable of pecuniary estimation, they are
made recoverable, in the amount determined by the court, provided they are
the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission. As most of
these damages affect the aggrieved partys moral feeling and personal pride,
these should be weighed in the determination of the indemnity.
313.
Northwest Airlines v. CA
In cases of breach of contract, moral damages can be awarded only
where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Mere negligence,
even if thereby the plaintiff suffers mental anguish or serious fright is not
ground for awarding moral damages.
314.
PANAM v. IAC and Ongsiako
When airline passengers luggage was left at airlines fault in Manila and
passenger was not adequately or properly given assistance in Hawaii to
locate his luggage, an award of moral damages is proper.
Ace Haulers Corporation v. CA
Kim Raisa O. Uy
The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad
faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good
faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental
anguish, serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party.
Invariably such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith
or with ill motive.
St. Marys Academy v. Carpitanos
Although incapable of pecuniary estimation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or
omission.
Pleyto v. Lomboy
Under Article 2206, the spouse, legitimate children and illegitimate
ascendants and descendants may demand moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of death. However, moral damages, though capable of
pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to
compensate the claimant for actual injury and are not meant to enrich
complainant at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded to enable
the injured party to obtain means, diversions, and amusements that will serve
to alleviate the moral suffering he had undergone. Its award is aimed ay
restoration of the spiritual status quo ante; thus it must be proportionate to
the suffering inflicted.
Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo
Moral damages is not awarded if the injury was due to the defendants
negligence that could be partly attributed to human frailty which rules out its
characterization as gross.
315.
Heirs of Engracio de los Santos v. CA & Cia. Maritima
Moral damages is not recoverable based on the breach of contract of
transportation under Arts. 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code except:
a. Where the mishap resulted in the death of a passenger
b. Where it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad
faith, even if death does not result
316.
Guita v. CA
Moral damages may be awarded to compensate one for diverse injuries
such as mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social
humiliation. It is however not enough that such injuries have arisen; it is
essential that they have sprung from a wrongful act or omission of the
defendant which was the proximate cause thereof.

Atty. Tesoro
317.
Capco v. Macasaet
In the absence of malice and bad faith, moral damages cannot be
awarded. The grant of moral and exemplary damages has no basis if not
predicated upon any of the cases enumerated in the Civil Code.
318.
Maglutac v. NLRC
Moral damages would be recoverable where the dismissal of the
employee was not only effected without authorized cause and/or due process
but was attended by bad faith or fraud and was done in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy.
319.
American Express International v. CA
While petitioner was not in bad faith, negligence caused the private
respondent to suffer mental anguish, serious anxiety, embarrassment and
humiliation, for which he is entitled to recover reasonable moral damages.
320.
Pantaleon v. American Express International
321.
Valdez v. Tabisula
322.
Strebel v. Figueras
In law, mental anguish is restricted as a rule, to such mental pain or
suffering as arises from an injury or wrong to the person himself, as
distinguished from that form of mental suffering which is the accompaniment
of sympathy or sorrow for anothers suffering or which arises from a
contemplation of wrongs committed on the person of another.
Under Article 2219, moral damages may not be recovered in cases of
crime or tort, unless either results or causes physical injuries.
323.
Cachero v. Manila Yellow Taxicab
324.
Felisilda v. Villanueva
Mere vexation or mental anguish is not sufficient to warrant moral
damages. The case must fall under the terms of Article 2217 to 2220 of the
Civil Code.
325.
Mercado v. Lira
Heirs of the deceased can claim compensation for moral damages if they
are able to prove that they are entitled to such award. It is the duty of the
court to award moral damages to the claimant in an amount commensurate
with the mental anguish suffered by them.
The case of a passenger of a carrier who suffered physical injuries
because of the carriers negligence (culpa contractual), cannot be considered
in the descriptive expression analogous cases used in Article 2219. In cases
of breach of contract, proof of bad faith or fraud (wanton or deliberate
injurious conduct) is essential to justify an award of moral damages.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
326.
Tamayo v. University of Negros Occidental
There being neither fault, negligence or bad faith on the defendants part,
any moral damages suffered by the plaintiff as a consequence of defendants
acts are damnum absque injuria. Plaintiff cannot recover damages caused by
his own fault.
Moral damages are granted as recompense for physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, etc. These may be experienced by
a natural person only. An artificial person like a corporation, having existence
only in legal contemplation has not feelings, emotions and senses and
cannot experience suffering or anguish. Mental suffering may manifest itself
by shame, insult, fright, anxiety annoyance and can be only experienced by
one with a nervous system.
327.
PAL v. CA
328.
Buenaventura v. CA
In a declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity,
moral damages granted was without basis. Psychological incapacity means
one is truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants.
329.
Mercado v. CA
A husband or wife cannot recover for mental suffering caused by his or
her sympathy for the others suffering. Nor can a parent recover for mental
distress and anxiety on account of physical injury sustained by a child or for
anxiety for the safety of his child placed in peril by the negligence of another.
330.
People v. Bautista
A victim of rape, undeniably felt mental anguish and distress. And having
to face public trial that would expose the lurid details of her unhappy
experience, that too had the effect of besmirching her reputation to warrant
the award of moral damages, an inseparable liability to the punitive portion of
the sentence imposed on all convicted rapists.
331.
Prudencio v. Allied Transport System Inc.
Where the awards of moral and exemplary damages are too excessive
compared to the actual losses sustained, the SC has ruled that these
damages should be reduced to a more reasonable amount. It must be
proportionate to the suffering inflicted.
332.
Corona v. CA

Atty. Tesoro
The court lowered the amount of moral damages when as a result of the
accident, petitioner only suffered some fractures and did not became lame or
otherwise became disfigured.
333.
People v. Ruiz
Moral damages in the case at bar is reduced because there are no
aggravating circumstances, but there are three mitigating ones.
334.
Miranda Ribaya & Carbonell v. Bautista
Precise legal terms or sacramental phrases of mental anguish, fright
serious anxiety, wounded feelings or moral shock need not be pleaded in the
complaint. It is sufficient that simple terms of moral shock and suffering be
pleaded in the complaint to be entitled to moral damages.
335.
Domingding & Aranaz v. Ng
Moral damages are to be fixed in the discretion of the judge. The social
and financial standings of the offender and the offended party are additional
elements which should be taken into account in the determination of moral
damages.
336.
People v. Medrozo Jr.
Moral damages is recoverable when the offense results in physical
injuries, and as in this case, death. Exemplary damages are corrective in
nature and are imposed by way of example or correction for the public use.
337.
Tan Kapoc v. Mesa
Award of moral damages based on documentary evidence without
supporting oral testimonies is proper. Exemplary damages may be awarded
even if not expressly pleaded in the complaint or proved.
338.
Munsayac v. de Lara
The civil code provides that exemplary or corrective damages are
imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. In contracts,
the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in wanton,
fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. Article 2212 cannot cover acts
subsequent to the breach.
339.
Martinez v. Gonzales
A breach of contract cannot be considered included in the descriptive
term analogous cases used in Article 2219 of the CC, not only because
Article 2220 specifically provided for the damages that are caused by
contractual breach, but because the definition of quasi-delict on Article 2176
Kim Raisa O. Uy
of the code expressly excludes the cases where there is a pre-existing

contractual relation between the parties. Exceptions:
a. Where the mishap results in the death of a passenger
b. Where it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad
faith,, even if death does not result
For one to recover exemplary damages, he must first show that he is
entitled to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
340.
Octot v. Ybanez
Requisites for the award of moral damages:
a. By way of example or correction only in addition, among
others to compensatory damages and cannot be recovered
as a matter of right
b. The claimant must first establish his right to moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages
c. The wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, as
when the guilty party acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner
341.
Matura v. Laya
Exemplary damages in criminal cases awarded only in cases with
aggravating circumstances. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order
that moral damages may be adjudicated. Mitigating circumstances is a
ground for reduction of moral damages.
342.
Rotea v. Halili
The rule is that exemplary damages are imposed primarily upon the
wrongdoer as a deterrent in the commission of similar acts in the future.
Such punitive damages cannot be applied to his master or employer except
solely to the extent of his participation or ratification of the act because they
are penal in character.
343.
Geluz v. CA
The damages which the parents of an unborn child can recover are
limited to moral damages for the illegal arrest of the normal development of
the fetus. Immorality or illegality of the act does not justify damages without
factual basis.
344.
Inter Asia Investment Industries v. CA
345.
Mirasol v. de la Cruz
Attorneys fees recoverable only in the concept of actual damages, not
moral damages.

Atty. Tesoro
346.
Pirovano v. de la Rama S/S
When the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest,
attorneys fees may be awarded as damages.
347.
United General Industries Inc v. Paler
Liable to pay attorneys fees in case of willful non-payment of loan.
348.
Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. CA
If a party defendant, who was necessarily impleaded wins, he cannot, as
a rule, recover attorneys fees and litigation expenses, since it is not the fact
of winning alone that entitles him to recover such damages but rather the
attendance of any of the exceptional circumstances enumerated in Article
2208.
349.
Traders Royal Bank Employees Union Independent v. NLRC
Even though there was an existing retainer arrangement, it cannot
control the measure of remuneration for the lawyers services.
Under Article 101 of the RPC, a father is civilly liable for the acts
committed by his son only if the latter is an imbecile, an insane, under 9
years of age but under 15 years of age, who acts without discernment,
unless it appears that there is no fault or negligence on his part.
A minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal
liability, for which reason the RPC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of his
parents should he stand convicted. In that case, resort should be had to the
general law which is our civil code (Article 2180).
Libi v. IAC
The liability of parents for quasi-delicts and crimes of their minor children
is primary. The primary liability of the parents is further bolstered by the fact
that under the NCC and the RPC, the minor transgressor shall be
answerable with his own property ONLY in cases where his or her parents or
guardians are insolent.
De Leon Brokerage v. CA
The reservation made in the criminal action does not preclude a
subsequent action based on a quasi-delict.
350.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. of the Philippines v. Inez
Chavez & Co.
As a general rule, attorneys fees cannot be recovered as damages
because of the policy that no premium should be placed in the right to
litigate.
Exceptions: Article 2208
a. When exemplary damages are awarded
b. When defendants act or omission compelled the plaintiff to
litigate
354.
Martinez v. Barredo
The judgment of conviction, in the absence of any collusion between the
defendant and the offended party, should bind the person subsidiary liable.
The employer becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon hi drivers
conviction and upon proof of the latters insolvency, in the same way that
acquittal wipes out not only the employees primary civil liability but also his
employers subsidiary liability for such criminal negligence.
351.
Abrogar v. IAC
Award of attorneys fees are not proper where the claim for such fees
were neither pleaded nor proved. It needs factual, legal and equitable
justification.
355.
MD Transit v. CA
In criminal action, plaintiff had reserved the right to seek indemnity in a
separate action. The law authorizing the commencement of a civil action
arising from a crime even before the institution of the criminal action
necessarily implies that the rendition of a judgment of conviction need not be
alleged in the civil complaint.
352.
Antonio v. Santos
An award of moral damages is not warranted when there is no proof of
malice or bad faith in filing the action. Reason for the award must be stated in
the text of the decision.
353.
356.
Cerezo v. Tuazon
An employer is civilly liable in a subsidiary character for the criminal
negligence of the employee but is still civilly liable in a direct and primary
character as to his own civil negligence.
NPC Drivers & Mechanics Association v. NPC

357.
Paleyan v.Bangkili
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. People

Atty. Tesoro
Since civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action, the court need
not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer.
Before the employers subsidiary liability is exacted, evidence must be
presented establishing that:
a. They are indeed employers of the convicted
b. That they are engaged in some kind of industry
c. That the crime was committed by the employees in the
discharge of their duties
d. That the execution against the latter has not been satisfied
due to insolvency
358.
Arambulo v. Manila Electric
The exemption from civil liability established in Article 1903 of the CC for
all who have acted with the diligence of a good father of a family, is not
applicable to the subsidiary civil liability provided in Article 20 of the RPC.
Subsidiary civil liability in no case can exceed the principal civil liability.
359.
Pajarito v. Senerix
Pursuant to Article 103, in relation to Article 102, of the RPC, an
employer may be subsidiary liable for the employees civil liability in a
criminal action when:
a. The employer is engaged in any kind of industry
b. The employee committed the offense in the discharge of his
duties
c. He is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability
The decision convicting the employee is binding and conclusive upon the
employer not only with regard to civil liability but also with regard to its
amount because the liability of an employer cannot be separated but follows
that of his employee.
360.
Baza Marketing Corporation v. Bolinao Security
The law makes the employer subsidiarily liable for the civil liability arising
from a crime committed by an employee in the discharge of his duties. The
law does not say that the crime of the employee must be the one committed
while in the discharge of his duties. It could not be contemplated that an
employer will be held responsible for any misdeed that his employee could
have done while performing his assigned tasks.
361.
Clemente v. Foreign Mission Sisters
362.
Connel Bros v. Aduna
Where the action for damages was brought under the provisions of the
CC, the liability sought to be imposed upon the employer was not a civil
Kim Raisa O. Uy
obligation arising from a felony or misdemeanor, but an obligation imposed

by Article 1903 of the CC because of his negligence in the selection and
supervision of his servants or employees.
Where the action for damages was brought under the provisions of the
RPC and the action was based on the result of the criminal case against the
chauffeur, Article 1902 of the CC in relation with Article 102 and 103 of the
RPC should be applied.
363.
Jamelo v. Serfino
There can be no automatic subsidiary liability of employer under Article
103 of the RPC where his employee has not been previously criminally
convicted.
Actions based upon quasi-delicts prescribe after four years from the
commission of the fault or negligent deed.
364.
Joaquin v. Aniceto
In cases of negligence, the injured party or his heirs has the choice
between an action to enforce civil liability arising from crime under Article 100
of the RPC and an action for quasi-delict under Article 2176-2194 of the CC.
If the injured party chooses an action for quasi-delict, he may hold an
employer liable for the negligent act of the employee, subject to the
employers defense of exercise of diligence of a good father of the family.
Should the injured party choose to prosecute his action under Article 100
of the RPC, he can hold the employer subsidiarily liable only upon prior
conviction of the employee.
While a separate and independent civil action for damage may be
brought against the employee under Article 33 of the CC, no such action may
be filed against the employer on the latters subsidiary civil liability because
such liability is governed not by the civil code but by the RPC, under which
conviction of the employee is a condition sine qua non for the employers
subsidiary liability.
365.
De los Santos v. Tan Khey
366.
Steinmetz v. Valdez (Spanish Case)
367.
US v. Baggay
Every person criminally liable for a crime or misdemeanor is also liable
for reparation of damage and for indemnification of the harm done, but there
may be civil liability because of acts ordinarily punishable, although the law
has declared their perpetrators exempt from criminal liability.
In the case of a lunatic or insane person who, in spite of his
irresponsibility on account of the deplorable condition of his deranged mind,
is still reasonably and justly liable with his property for the consequences of
his acts, even though they be performed unwittingly, for the reason that his

Atty. Tesoro
fellows ought not to suffer for the disastrous results of his harmful acts more
than is necessary, in spite of his unfortunate condition.
368.
Teleria v. Garcia
369.
Generoso v. Universal Textile Mills Inc
The employers payment of workmens compensation in a subsidiary
capacity extinguishes the civil indemnity adjudged against him in the criminal
case. The remedies are alternative and could not be claimed simultaneously.
370.
Miranda v. Malate Garage & Taxicab Inc
The person subsidiarily liable (employer) is bound by the judgment if the
former has notice of the criminal case and could have defended it had he
seen fit to do so, and that otherwise such judgment is only prima facie
evidence
371.
Bantoto v. Bobis
The subsidiary character of the employers liability merely imports that
his property is not to be seized without first exhausting the property of the
servant. In a complaint against the employer to enforce his subsidiary civil
liability, it is not necessary to allege that the employee is insolvent.
372.
Ramirez v. Yatco
The order of the court for the restitution of the stolen thing to the
offended party when the criminal case have already been decided resulting
in the conviction of the accused is correct. Under Article 105 of the RPC,
restitution shall be made even if he be found in the hands of a buyer in good
faith without prejudice to the latters right to claim against the person liable to
him. The only exception is when the thing has been acquired by a third
person in a manner which bars action for recovery.
373.
Barredo v. Garcia and Almario
A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the
CC with a substantivity all its own, and individuality entirely apart from a
delict or crime.
374.
Chan v. Yatco
A civil action for damages could be based on quasi-delict or culpa
aquiliana, which is different and independent from civil liability arising from
criminal negligence. The responsibility arising from quasi-delict is an
independent judicial institution separate from civil liability arising from crime.
375.
Padua v. Robles
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Civil liability coexists with criminal responsibility. In cases of negligence,

the offended party has the option between an action for enforcement of civil
liability based on culpa criminal under Article 100 of the RPC and an action
for recovery of damages based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2177 of the
CC. The action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal is
deemed simultaneously instituted with the criminal action, unless expressly
waived or reserved for a separate application by the offended party. An
action for recovery of damages based on culpa aquiliana precludes recovery
of damages twice for the same negligent act or omission.
376.
Ace Haulers Corporation v. CA
The plaintiff has a choice which of the civil or criminal damages to take,
but he cannot recover twice for the same act.
377.
Safeguard Security Agency Inc v. Tangco
The civil liability recoverable in the criminal action (Art. 100) is solely
dependent upon conviction, because said liability arises from the offense
charged and no other; this is also the civil liability that is deemed
extinguished with the extinction of the penal liability with a pronouncement
that the fact from which the civil action might proceed does not exist.
Unlike civil liability arising from quasi-delict, the defense of diligence of a
good father of a family in the employment and supervision of employees is
inapplicable and irrelevant in civil liabilities based on crime or ex-delicto.
Article 103 of the RPC provides that the liability of an employer for the
civil liability of the employees is only subsidiary, not joint or solidary.
378.
Parker v. Panlilio and PAL
The criminal action against the driver and civil against the employer are
two distinct actions. Suspension of hearing of civil case until final
determination in criminal case occurs only when the facts of the two cases
are interwoven.
379.
Lanuza v. Ping
The separate civil action for quasi-delict may proceed independently and
regardless of the result of the criminal case, except that a plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act of omission of the defendant.
The civil action referred to in Section 3(a) and (b) of Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court, which should be suspended after the institution of the
criminal action, is that arising from delict, and not the civil action based on
quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.
380.
Virata v. Ochoa

Atty. Tesoro
In negligence cases, the aggrieved parties may choose between an

action under the RPC or of quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the CC. What is
prohibited by Art. 2177 is to recover twice for the same negligent act.
Civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as
a crime is not extinguished by a declaration in the criminal case that the
criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the
accused.
381.
Marcia v. CA
The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil action shall be
made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make
such reservation.
Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous
reservation in the criminal case, nevertheless since it was instituted before
the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action, and the judge
handling the criminal case was informed, then the actual filing of the civil
action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an
express reservation that should be made by the offended party before the
prosecution presents its evidence.
No civil action for damages may be filed where injuries resulted from
criminal negligence. Article 33 of the CC applies only to injuries intentionally
committed. Where a civil action was separately filed based on injuries arising
from reckless driving, but the driver was acquitted on the criminal case on the
ground that he was not negligent and that the case is pure accident the civil
action for damages should be dismissed.
382.
Manio v. Gaddi
Where the accused who was charged with homicide thru reckless
imprudence pleaded guilty to the information the heirs of the deceased victim
who did not have a chance to intervene in the criminal case may file a
separate civil action for damages against the parents of the accused (minor)
and the latters employer.
Even if the accused minor was sentenced to pay damages to the heirs of
the deceased who died as a result of the formers reckless imprudence, the
said accused parents and employer cannot thereby plea res judicata as a
defense in a subsequent civil action.
383.
Andami v. IAC
The failure to make, in a criminal action, the reservation required in Rule
111 of the Rules of Court will not be a bar to a separate civil action for quasidelict, provided that the injured party has not intervened actually or actively in
the prosecution of the criminal action.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
384.
Yakult Philippines v. CA
Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous
reservation in the criminal case, since it was instituted before the prosecution
presented evidence in the criminal action, and the judge handling the case
was informed, the actual filing of the civil action is better than compliance
with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the
offended party before prosecution presents its evidence, so that the offended
party will not recover twice.
385.
Mendoza v. Arrieta
Since the civil liability based on quasi-delict is distinct from that arising
from a crime, no reservation in the criminal case is needed in order to file a
separate civil action based on quasi-delict.
386.
Escueta v. Fandialan
The prescriptive period in an action to enforce civil liability based on tort
is 4 years from the infliction of the injuries. If there was no reservation to file
an independent civil action, the prescriptive period is 10 years based on
judgment.
An action for slight physical injuries can be pursued independently of any
criminal action based on Article 33 of the CC.
387.
Tactaquin v. Palileo
Once the offended paty reserved his right to institute a separate civil
action to recover indemnity, he loses his right to intervene in the prosecution
of the criminal case.
Appellant cannot recover twice from the same criminal or negligent act.
388.
Jocson v. Glorioso
The previous dismissal of the action based on culpa aquiliana could not
be a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability required by Article 103
or the RPC.
Once there is a conviction for a felony, final in character, the employer is
subsidiarily liable, if it be shown that the commission was in the discharge of
the duties of such employee.
389.
PNB v. Catipon
The acquittal of the accused of the charge of estafa predicated on the
conclusion that the guilt of the defendant has not been satisfactorily
established is equivalent to one on reasonable doubt to one on reasonable
doubt and does not preclude a suit to enforce the civil liability for the same
act or omission under Article 29 of the Civil Code.

Atty. Tesoro
390.
Albornoz v. Albornoz
Where the judgment in a criminal action contains an express declaration
that the basis of claimants action did not exist, the latters action for civil
liability is banned under Section 1(d) of Rule 107 of the Rules of Court.
391.
Tan v. Standard Oil Company
There is no need to make a reservation of the right to file a separate
action inasmuch as the civil action contemplated did not arise from a crime,
rather from culpa aquiliana.
392.
Salta v. de Veyra
Where the law allows a civil action that is related to a criminal action to
be filed separately, the patent reason is to make the courts decision in the
criminal case no effect on the civil case. The cases mentioned in Article 33
can be made subject of a separate civil action because of the distinct
separability of their respective juridical cause or basis of action.
393.
Manliclic v. Calaunan
The acquittal of the accused, even if based on a finding that he is not
guilty, does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability based on quasidelict. If an accused is acquitted on the basis that he was not the author of
the actor omission complained of, said acquittal closes the door to civil
liability based on the crime or ex delicto. As regards civil liability arising from
quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, it will not be extinguished by an acquittal,
whether it be on the ground of reasonable doubt or that accused was not the
author of the act or omission complained of.
394.
Abellana v. Marave
Reservation of civil action when criminal case is tried anew on appeal is
not barred.
395.
Santos v. Pizarro
In case of negligence, the offended party has the choice between an
action to enforce civil liability arising from crime under the RPC and an action
for quasi-delict under the Civil Code. An act or omission causing damage to
another may give rise to 2 separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender:
(1) civil liability ex delicto under RPC (2) independent civil liabilities.
Prescription of action ex quasi-delicto does not operate as a bar to an
action to enforce the civil liability arising from the crime.
396.
Velayo v. Shell Company
Kim Raisa O. Uy
The principle in Article 19 is implemented by Article 21. The Code

Commission in creating said articles contemplated that it cannot vouchsafe
adequate legal remedies for all moral wrongs which are impossible for
human foresight to provide.
397.
PNB v. CA
The provisions on human relations were intended to expand the concept
of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral
wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide in the
statutes.
A corporation is civilly liable in the same manner as natural persons for
torts, because generally speaking, the rules governing the liability of the
principal or master for a tort committed by an agent or servant are the same
whether the principal or master be a natural person or a corporation, and
whether the servant or agent be a natural or artificial person.
398.
Manila Gas Corporation v. CA
The petitioners act in disconnecting respondents gas service without
prior notice constitutes breach of contract amounting to an independent tort.
The prematurity of the action is indicative of intent to cause additional mental
and moral suffering to private respondent. This is a clear violation of Article
21 of the CC. (malicious prosecution case)
399.
Grand Union Supermarket v. Espino
The false accusation against respondent after detaining and interrogating
him caused him humiliation and thus renders petitioners liable for damages.
400.
Petrophil Corporation v. CA
There is abuse of right under Article 19 if the following elements are
present:
a. There is a legal right or duty
b. Which is exercised in bad faith
c. For the sole purpose of prejudicing or injuring another
401.
Cebu Country Club Inc. v. Elizagaque
The rules governing human relations are the basic principles to be
observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the
stability of the social order.
The exercise of a right, though legal by itself, must be in accordance with
the proper norm. When the right is exercised arbitrarily, unjustly or
excessively and results in damage to another, a legal wrong committed for
which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.

Atty. Tesoro
402.
Heirs of Purisima Nala v. Cabansag
403.
AEI Philippines Inc v. Coquia
404.
Pe v. Pe
A married man who seduced another and carried a love affair with her,
causing injury to his wife is liable for damages because the said act is
contrary to morals, good customs and public policy.
405.
Tanjanco v. CA
There is no damage under Article 21 of the CC when a woman of adult
age had intimate sexual relations with another. No seduction here as there
was mutual affection and desire for each other.
406.
Domingo v. Maliwat
407.
Quisaba v. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood Inc
The abusive exercise of the right of dismissal by the employer may be an
action for moral damages.
408.
Hermosisima v. CA
The breach of promise to marry is not sanctioned.
409.
Wassmer v. Velez
Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong but to
formally set a wedding and go through all the preparations and publicity and
subsequently walk out of it is different. It is contrary to good customs under
Article 21 of the CC.
410.
Castro v. Meralco
411.
Toledo v. Saulog Transit Corporation
412.
Equitable Bank v. Rural Insurance & Surety Company
413.
Heirs of Pedro Tayag Jr. v. Alcantara
Article 31 of the CC refers to civil actions based, not on the act or
omission charged as a felony in a criminal case, but one based on an
obligation rising from quasi-delict.
414.
Lim & Taha v. Ponce de Leon & Maddela
Pursuant to Article 32 and 2219 of the CC, a person whose constitutional
rights have been violated or impaired is entitled to actual and moral damages
from the public officer or employee responsible.
415.
Carandang v. Santiago
Civil action for damages should lie whether the offense committed is that
of physical injuries or frustrated homicide or attempted homicide or even
death.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
416.
Reyes v. Sempio Dy
Failure to make a reservation to file a separate civil action did not
foreclose her right to file a separate complaint for damages. Under Article 33
of the CC, there is no requirement that as a condition to the filing of a
separate civil action for damages a reservation to file said civil action is first
made in the criminal case and such reservation is not necessary, the
provision of Rule 111, Section 2, notwithstanding.
417.
Bernaldes v. Bohol Land Transportation
The duty of the offended party applies only to the defendant in the
criminal action and not to persons secondarily liable.
418.
Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation
A public officer who directly or indirectly violates the constitutional rights of
another may be validly sued for damages under Article 32 of the CC even if
his acts were not so tainted with malice or bad faith.

2010 Torts Case Doctrines Tesoro

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2010 Torts Case Doctrines Tesoro

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Torts Case Doctrines

6. Bacolod Murcia Milling v. First Farmers

12. Far East Bank v. CA

13. Cangco v. Manila Railroad

Torts Case Doctrines

Extra-contractual obligations have their source in the breach or omission

Torts Case Doctrines

23. Corinthian Garden v. Tanjangco

24. Jarco Marketing Corp v. CA

25. Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad

31. Barcelo v. Manila Electric Co.

Torts Case Doctrines

Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous

Torts Case Doctrines

45. Delgado vda. De Gregorio v. Go Ching Bing

Torts Case Doctrines

62. Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific

Torts Case Doctrines

When the immediate cause of an accident resulting in injury is the

Torts Case Doctrines

to prevent the incident complained of. Thus, it is the defendants

Torts Case Doctrines

88. Paez v. de la Torre

Torts Case Doctrines

enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school

Torts Case Doctrines

Torts Case Doctrines

The liability of Allied, however, is concurrent with that of Metrobank as

Torts Case Doctrines

Genato Commercial v. MRR

Liability for breach of contractual obligation is not excused by the

Torts Case Doctrines

Torts Case Doctrines

Torts Case Doctrines

A municipality is not exempt in performing corporate or proprietary

Torts Case Doctrines

b. Knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of the

Iloilo Cold Storage v. Municipal Council

Torts Case Doctrines

the ordinary annoyances and discomforts that are incidental to the

Torts Case Doctrines

Lacking a concurrence of these two requisites, the police measure shall

Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:

Torts Case Doctrines

A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance, if it

Associated Realty Development Corporation v. CA

Torts Case Doctrines

Junio & Soloria v. Manila Railroad

Torts Case Doctrines

aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The provision does not warrant a

Torts Case Doctrines

owing, in the event of the termination or cancellation of the agreement by

Torts Case Doctrines

Torts Case Doctrines

When obligation is breached and it consist in a sum of money

Torts Case Doctrines

12% to be computed from default (judicial or extrajudicial

When an obligation not constituting a loan or forbearance of money

Radiowealth Finance Company v. Del Rosario

Torts Case Doctrines

The purpose of nominal damage is to vindicate or recognize a right that

Torts Case Doctrines

moderate damages. Exemplary damages may not be recovered as a matter