Case List/Jurisprudence in Torts and Damages

TORTS
I.

Article 2176 in relation to Arts. 1157 to 1162

Barredo vs Garcia G.R No. 48006

Specifically they show that there is a distinction between civil liability arising
from criminal negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and responsibility for
fault or negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the
same negligent act may produce either a civil liability arising from a crime
under the Penal Code, or a separate responsibility for fault or negligence under
articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Still more concretely, the authorities
above cited render it inescapable to conclude that the employer in this case
the defendant-petitioner is primarily and directly liable under article 1903 of
the Civil Code.
Firstly, the Revised Penal Code in article 365 punishes not only reckless but
also simple negligence. If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the
Civil Code refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law, according to
the literal import of article 1093 of the Civil Code, the legal institution of culpa
aquiliana would have very little scope and application in actual life. Death or
injury to persons and damage to property through any degree of negligence
even the slightest would have to be indemnified only through the principle
of civil liability arising from a crime.
Secondly, to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence
is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. There are numerous
cases of criminal negligence which can not be shown beyond reasonable
doubt, but can be proved by a preponderance of evidence. In such cases, the
defendant can and should be made responsible in a civil action under articles
1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Otherwise, there would be many instances of
unvindicated civil wrongs. Ubi jus ibi remedium.
Thirdly, to hold that there is only one way to make defendant's liability effective,
and that is, to sue the driver and exhaust his (the latter's) property first, would
be tantamount to compelling the plaintiff to follow a devious and cumbersome
method of obtaining relief. True, there is such a remedy under our laws, but
there is also a more expeditious way, which is based on the primary and direct
responsibility of the defendant under article 1903 of the Civil Code. Our view
of the law is more likely to facilitate remedy for civil wrongs, because the
procedure indicated by the defendant is wasteful and productive of delay, it
being a matter of common knowledge that professional drivers of taxis and
similar public conveyance usually do not have sufficient means with which to
pay damages.

Elcano vs Hill G.R No. L-24803

Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from accusation of
criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to
a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence,
but for damages due to a quasi-delict or culpa-acquiliana. But said article
forestalls a double recovery
The marriage of a minor child does not relieve the parents of the duty to see
to it that the child, while still a minor does not give answerable for the
borrowings of money and alienation or encumbering of real property which
cannot be done by the minor child without their consent (cite: Art. 399,
Manresa)

|BernadethYabon

People vs Amistad G.R No. L-34666

On the issue as to whether an appeal by the complainant for estafa, may be
allowed from a decision acquitting the accused of the crime charged, only
insofar as the latter's civil liability is concerned?
The provision of Article 29 of the Civil Code relied upon by the petitioner clearly
requires the institution of a separate action by the filing of the proper complaint.
To such complaint, the accused as the defendant therein, may file the
appropriate responsive pleading, which may be an answer or a motion to
dismiss. In a criminal action, notwithstanding that the action for the recovery
of civil liability is impliedly instituted therewith, if not reserved or waived, the
accused is not afforded the same remedy. Neither is the mandatory pre-trial
held as is required of all civil actions. The obvious reason is that the civil liability
recoverable in the criminal action is one solely dependent upon conviction,
because said liability arises from the offense, with respect to which pre-trial is
never held to obtain admission as to the commission thereof, except on the
occasion of arraignment. This is the kind of civil liability involved in the civil
action deemed filed simultaneously with the filing of criminal action, unless it
is reserved or waived, as so expressly provided in Section 1, Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court.
If the civil liability arises from other sources than the commission of the
offense, such as from law or contract or quasi-delict, its enforcement has to be
by an ordinary civil action, which, as expressly provided in Article 29 of the
Civil Code may be disposed of as a mere preponderance of evidence would
warrant.

Co vs Munoz G.R No. 181986

On the issue as to whether a private party may appeal the judgment of
acquittal insofar as he seeks to enforce the accuseds civil liability?
the extinction of the penal action does not necessarily carry with it the
extinction of the civil action, whether the latter is instituted with or separately
from the criminal action. The offended party may still claim civil liability ex
delicto if there is a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the
act or omission from which the liability may arise exists. Jurisprudence has
enumerated three instances when, notwithstanding the accuseds acquittal,
the offended party may still claim civil liability
ex delicto:
(a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
evidence is required;
(b) if the court declared that the liability of the accused is only civil; and
(c) if the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon
the crime of which the accused is acquitted.
On the issue as to whether the respondent is liable for damages arising from
the libelous remarks despite his acquittal?His acquittal was based on the ruling
of the CA that his statement is a privileged communication. In light of the
privilege e nature of Munoz statements and the failure of the prosecution to
prove malice in fact, there was no libel that was committed by Munoz. Without
the crime, no civil liability ex delicto may be claimed by Co That can be pursued
in the present petition. There is no act from which civil liability may arise that
exists.

Heirs of Simon vs Chan G.R No. 157547

On the issue as to whether or not Chans civil action to recover the amount of
the unfunded check aside from the criminal case of BP 22 (Civil Case No. 91500) was an independent civil action?
There is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check
issued in contravention of BP 22. As provided in Rule 111:
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such
civil action separately shall be allowed.
Generally, no filing fees are required for criminal cases, but because of the
inclusion of the civil action in complaints for violation of B.P. 22, the Rules
require the payment of docket fees upon the filing of the complaint. This rule
was enacted to help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. 22 cases
as creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Because ordinarily no filing
fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages, the payee uses the
intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis and
sometimes, upon being paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof. The
inclusion of the civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower
the number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on dishonored
checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of these cases. Instead
of instituting two separate cases, one for criminal and another for civil, only a
single suit shall be filed and tried. We have previously observed that a
separate civil action for the purpose of recovering the amount of the
dishonored checks would only prove to be costly, burdensome and timeconsuming for both parties and would further delay the final disposition of the
case. This multiplicity of suits must be avoided. Where petitioners rights may
be fully adjudicated in the proceedings before the trial court, resort to a
separate action to recover civil liability is clearly unwarranted.

II.

Obligations/Liabilities from Quasi-Delict

schools inform prospective enrollees the amount of fees and the terms of
payment.In practice, students are normally required to make a down payment
upon enrollment, with the balance to be paid before every preliminary, midterm
and final examination. Their failure to pay their financial obligation is regarded
as a valid ground for the school to deny them the opportunity to take these
examinations.
In the present case, PCST imposed the assailed revenue-raising measure
belatedly, in the middle of the semester. It exacted the dance party fee as a
condition for the students taking the final examinations, and ultimately for its
recognition of their ability to finish a course. The fee, however, was not part
of the school-student contract entered into at the start of the school year.
Hence, it could not be unilaterally imposed to the prejudice of the enrollees.

LRTA vs Navidad G.R. No. 145804

The premise, however, for the employers liability is negligence or fault on the
part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then
be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer
failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision
of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing
due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter
that has not been shown. Absent such a showing, one might ask further, how
then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an
independent contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary.
A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or
omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in
culpa aquiliana, Article 2194of the Civil Code can well apply.In fine, a liability
for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the
contract.Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of contract
would have itself constituted the source of a 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.

PAL vs Savillo G.R No. 149547

Air France vs Carroscoso G.R No. L-21438

The jurisprudence in the Philippines and the United States also recognizes
that the Warsaw Convention does not "exclusively regulate" the relationship
between passenger and carrier on an international flight.

A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from

any other contractual relation. 43 And this, because of the relation which an
air-carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with the travelling
public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The
contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public
duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees, naturally, could give
ground for an action for damages.

Had the present case merely consisted of claims incidental to the airlines
delay in transporting their passengers, the private respondents Complaint
would have been time-barred under Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention.
However, the present case involves a special species of injury resulting from
the failure of PAL and/or Singapore Airlines to transport private respondent
from Singapore to Jakarta the profound distress, fear, anxiety and
humiliation that private respondent. Under Article 1146, an action based upon
a quasi-delict must be instituted within 4 years.

Although the relation of passenger and carrier is "contractual both in origin and
nature" nevertheless "the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort".

Regino vs Pangasinan Colleges G.R No. 156109

The school-student relationship is also reciprocal. Thus, it has consequences
appurtenant to and inherent in all contracts of such kind -- it gives rise to
bilateral or reciprocal rights and obligations. The school undertakes to provide
students with education sufficient to enable them to pursue higher education
or a profession. On the other hand, the students agree to abide by the
academic requirements of the school and to observe its rules and regulations
The terms of the school-student contract are defined at the moment of its
inception -- upon enrolment of the student. Standards of academic
performance and the code of behavior and discipline are usually set forth in
manuals distributed to new students at the start of every school year. Further,

|BernadethYabon

III.

Requirements for finding liability under Quasi-Delict: (a)

Damages suffered by the plaintiff (b) Fault or
negligence of the defendant or some other person for
whose act he must respond (c) the connection of cause
and effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff

Indophil Textile vs Adviento G.R No. 171212

The pertinent provision of Article 2176 of the Civil Code which governs quasidelictprovides that: Whoever by act or omissioncauses damageto another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damagedone. Such
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called quasi-delict.

Thus, to sustain a claim liability under quasi-delict, the following requisites

must concur: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of
the defendant, or someother person for whose acts he must respond; and (c)
the connection of causeand effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.
In the case at bar, respondent alleges that due to the continued and prolonged
exposure to textile dust seriously inimical to his health, he suffered workcontracted disease which is now irreversible and incurable, and deprived him
of job opportunities. Clearly, injury and damages were allegedly suffered by
respondent, an element of quasi-delict. Secondly, the previous contract of
employment between petitioner and respondent cannot be used to counter the
element of "no pre-existing contractual relation" since petitioners alleged
gross negligence in maintaining a hazardous work environment cannot be
considered a mere breach of such contract of employment, but falls squarely
within the elements of quasi-delictunder Article 2176 of the Civil Code since
the negligence is direct, substantive and independent.
Respondent is not praying for any relief under the Labor Code of the
Philippines. He neither claims for reinstatement nor backwages or separation
pay resulting from an illegal termination. The cause of action herein pertains
to the consequence of petitioners omission which led to a work-related
disease suffered by respondent, causing harm or damage to his person. Such
cause of action is within the realm of Civil Law, and jurisdiction over the
controversy belongs to the regular courtsIV

IV.

Negligence (Art. 1172 to 1173)

Picart vs Smith G.R No. 12219

Test of Negligence: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use
that person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be
supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman
Law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by
reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The
law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy or negligent in the man of
ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.
Could a prudent man foresee harm as a result of course actually pursued? If
so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against that harm.
Conduct, is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was
sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its
consequences.

BJDC Construction vs Lanuzo

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by
law.10 It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it because a
mere allegation is not evidence. Generally, the party who denies has no burden to
prove.12 In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if
no evidence is given on either side.13 The burden of proof is on the plaintiff if the
defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the manner required
by the Rules of Court, but it may rest on the defendant if he admits expressly or
impliedly the essential allegations but raises affirmative defense or defenses, which
if proved, will exculpate him from liability.

Guillang vs Bedania G.R No. 162987

Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, unless there is proof to the contrary, a
person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap, he
was violating any traffic regulation.
In this case, the report showed that the truck, while making the U-turn, failed
to signal, a violation of traffic rules. The police records also stated that, after
the collision, Bedania escaped and abandoned the petitioners and his truck.
This is another violation of a traffic regulation. Therefore, the presumption
arises that Bedania was negligent at the time of the mishap.

PNR vs CA
Negligence has been defined as "the failure to observe for the protection of the
interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury." Using the
aforementioned philosophy, it may be reliably concluded that there is no hard and
fast rule whereby such degree of care and vigilance is calibrated; it is dependent
upon the circumstances in which a person finds himself. All that the law requires is
that it is perpetually compelling upon a person to use that care and diligence
expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances.
We hold that the petitioners were negligent when the collision took place. The
transcript of stenographic notes reveals that the train was running at a fast speed
because notwithstanding the application of the ordinary and emergency brakes,
the train still dragged the car some distance away from the point of impact.
Evidence likewise unveils the inadequate precautions taken by petitioner PNR to
forewarn the public of the impending danger. Aside from not having any crossing
bar, no flagman or guard to man the intersection at all times was posted on the day
of the incident. A reliable signaling device in good condition, not just a dilapidated
"Stop, Look and Listen" signage because of many years of neglect, is needed to
give notice to the public. It is the responsibility of the railroad company to use
reasonable care to keep the signal devices in working order. Failure to do so would
be an indication of negligence.

Mindex Resources Development vs Morillo G.r No. 138123

Petitioner failed to employ reasonable foresight, diligence and care that would
have exempted it from liability resulting from the burning of the truck.
Negligence, as commonly understood, is that conduct that naturally or
reasonably creates undue risk or harm to others. It may be a failure to observe
that degree of care, precaution or vigilance that the circumstances justly
demand;or to do any other act that would be done by a prudent and reasonable
person, who is guided by considerations that ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs.

V.

Burden of plaintiff in prosecuting actions based on

quasi-delicts

Ong vs Metropolitan Water District G.R No. L-7664

The doctrine of last clear chance simply means that the negligence of a claimant
does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of defendant where it appears that
the latter, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided
injurious consequences to claimant notwithstanding his negligence. Or, "As the
doctrine usually is stated, a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of
avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or the
negligence of a third person which is imputed to his opponent, is considered in law
solely responsible for the consequences of the accident."
The last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party 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; at least in cases

|BernadethYabon

in which any previous negligence of the party charged cannot be said to have
contributed to the injury.

Huang vs Philippine Hoteliers

In that regard, this Court finds it significant to take note of the following differences
between quasi-delict (culpa aquilina) and breach of contract (culpa contractual). In
quasi-delict, negligence is direct, substantive and independent, while in breach of
contract, negligence is merely incidental to the performance of the contractual
obligation; there is a pre-existing contract or obligation. In quasi-delict, the defense
of "good father of a family" is a complete and proper defense insofar as parents,
guardians and employers are concerned, while in breach of contract, such is not a
complete and proper defense in the selection and supervision of employees. In
quasi- delict , there is no presumption of negligence and it is incumbent upon the
injured party to prove the negligence of the defendant, otherwise, the formers
complaint will be dismissed, while in breach of contract, negligence is presumed
so long as it can be proved that there was breach of the contract and the burden is
on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence in the carrying out of the
terms of the contract; the rule of respondeat superior is followed.
Since petitioners case is for quasi-delict , the negligence or fault should be clearly
established as it is the basis of her action. The burden of proof is upon petitioner.
Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that "burden of proof is the duty
of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim
or defense by the amount of evidence required by law." It is then up for the plaintiff
to establish his cause of action or the defendant to establish his defense.
Therefore, if the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was damaged because of
the negligent acts of the defendant, he has the burden of proving such negligence.
It is even presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. The quantum
of proof required is preponderance of evidence
i.

EXCEPTION: Arts. 2184 and 2188

Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corporation vs De Los Santos G.R No.

152033
Under the New Civil Code, unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed
that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the
mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. Apparently, in the present case,
Mejia's violation of the traffic rules does not erase the presumption that he was
the one negligent at the time of the collision. Even apart from statutory
regulations as to speed, a motorist is nevertheless expected to exercise
ordinary care and drive at a reasonable rate of speed commensurate with all
the conditions encountered which will enable him to keep the vehicle under
control and, whenever necessary, to put the vehicle to a full stop to avoid injury
to others using the highway.
Significantly, the claimed speed of Mejia is still unlawful, considering that
Section 35 of RA 4136 states that the maximum allowable speed for trucks
and buses must not exceed 50 kilometers per hour. We are, therefore,
unpersuaded by the defendants-appellants claim that it was the driver of [the]
Galant Sigma who was negligent by not observing Sections 42(d) and 43(c) of
RA 4136-A. Second sentence of Section 42 provides that the driver of any
vehicle traveling at any unlawful speed shall forfeit any right of way which he
might otherwise have. A person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at
the time of the mishap, he was violating a traffic regulation. The excessive
speed employed by Mejia was the proximate cause of the collision that led to
the sudden death of Teresa Elena and Armando.

ii.

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor

Malayan Insurance Co. vs Alberto G.R No. 194320

Malayan Insurance contends that since Reyes, the driver of the Fuzo Cargo
truck, bumped the rear of the Mitsubishi Galant, he is presumed to be negligent
unless proved otherwise. It further contends that respondents failed to present
any evidence to overturn the presumption of negligence. Contrarily,
respondents claim that since Malayan Insurance did not present any witness
who shall affirm any negligent act of Reyes in driving the Fuzo Cargo truck
before and after the incident, there is no evidence which would show
negligence on the part of respondents.
We agree with Malayan Insurance. Even if We consider the inadmissibility of
the police report in evidence, still, respondents cannot evade liability by virtue
of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
The concept of res ipsa loquitur has been explained in this wise:
While negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed, and while the mere
happening of an accident or injury will not generally give rise to an inference
or presumption that it was due to negligence on defendants part, under the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means, literally, the thing or transaction
speaks for itself, or in one jurisdiction, that the thing or instrumentality speaks
for itself, the facts or circumstances accompanying an injury may be such as
to raise a presumption, or at least permit an inference of negligence on the
part of the defendant, or some other person who is charged with negligence.
x x x where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality which caused the injury
complained of was under the control or management of the defendant, and
that the occurrence resulting in the injury was such as in the ordinary course
of things would not happen if those who had its control or management used
proper care, there is sufficient evidence, or, as sometimes stated, reasonable
evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the injury arose
from or was caused by the defendants want of care.
The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is based in part upon the theory that the
defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes the injury either knows
the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it and that
the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and therefore is compelled to allege
negligence in general terms and to rely upon the proof of the happening of the
accident in order to establish negligence. The inference which the doctrine
permits is grounded upon the fact that the chief evidence of the true cause,
whether culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to the defendant but
inaccessible to the injured person.
It has been said that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur furnishes a bridge by
which a plaintiff, without knowledge of the cause, reaches over to defendant
who knows or should know the cause, for any explanation of care exercised
by the defendant in respect of the matter of which the plaintiff complains. The
res ipsa loquitur doctrine, another court has said, is a rule of necessity, in that
it proceeds on the theory that under the peculiar circumstances in which the
doctrine is applicable, it is within the power of the defendant to show that there
was no negligence on his part, and direct proof of defendants negligence is
beyond plaintiffs power. Accordingly, some courts add to the three
prerequisites for the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine the further
requirement that for the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to apply, it must appear that
the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of
the accident, or that the party to be charged with negligence has superior
knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the accident.
To reiterate, res ipsa loquitur is a rule of necessity which applies where
evidence is absent or not readily available. As explained in D.M. Consunji,

|BernadethYabon

Inc., it is partly based upon the theory that the defendant in charge of the
instrumentality which causes the injury either knows the cause of the accident
or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it and that the plaintiff has no such
knowledge, and, therefore, is compelled to allege negligence in general terms
and to rely upon the proof of the happening of the accident in order to establish
negligence.
As mentioned above, the requisites for the application of the res ipsa loquitur
rule are the following: (1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily
occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency which
caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with
negligence; and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.

in this Article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage."
Since the fact thus required to be proven is a matter of defense, the burden of
proof necessarily rests on the defendant. But what is the exact degree of
diligence contemplated, and how does a parent prove it in connection with a
particular act or omission of a minor child, especially when it takes place in his
absence or outside his immediate company? Obviously there can be no
meticulously calibrated measure applicable; and when the law simply refers to
"all the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent damage," it implies
a consideration of the attendant circumstances in every individual case, to
determine whether or not by the exercise of such diligence the damage could
have been prevented.

VI.

Who may be defendants to an action on Tort

Del Carmen vs Bacoy G.R No. 173870

i.

Joint Tortfeasor

On the issue as to whether the provision on vicarious liability of the employer

under Article 2180 requires the existence of the employer-employee
relationship and that the employee was acting within the scope of his
employment when the tort occurred, the court ruled:

PAL vs Lao Lim G.R. No. 168987

x x x Where there are several causes for the resulting damages, a party is not
relieved from liability, even partially. It is sufficient that the negligence of a party
is an efficient cause without which the damage would not have resulted. It is
no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the damage would not
have resulted from his negligence alone, without the negligence or wrongful
acts of the other concurrent tortfeasor. As stated in the case of Far Eastern
Shipping v. Court of Appeals,
x x x. Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is
an efficient cause without which the injury would not have happened, the injury
may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against
any or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the
case, it may appear that one of them was more culpable, and that the duty
owed by them to the injured person was not the same. No actor's negligence
ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the
negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result
and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury.
There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors whose liability is solidary
since both of them are liable for the total damage. Where the concurrent or
successive negligent acts or omissions of two or more persons, although
acting independently, are in combination the direct and proximate cause of a
single injury to a third person, it is impossible to determine in what proportion
each contributed to the injury and either of them is responsible for the whole
injury. Where their concurring negligence resulted in injury or damage to a
third party, they become joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable for the
resulting damage under Article 2194 of the Civil Code.

VII.

Vicarious Liability

Cuadra vs Monfort G.R No. L-24101

The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Article 2176 is the fault or
negligence accompanying the act or the omission, there being no willfulness
or intent to cause damage thereby. When the act or omission is that of one
person for whom another is responsible, the latter then becomes himself liable
under Article 2180, in the different cases enumerated therein, such as that of
the father or the mother under the circumstances above quoted. The basis of
this vicarious, although primary, liability is, as in Article 2176, fault or
negligence, which is presumed from that which accompanied the causative
act or omission. The presumption is merely prima facie and may therefore be
rebutted. This is the clear and logical inference that may be drawn from the
last paragraph of Article 2180, which states "that the responsibility treated of

|BernadethYabon

The contention is no longer novel. In Aguilar Sr. v. Commercial Savings

Bank,45 the car of therein respondent bank caused the death of Conrado
Aguilar, Jr. while being driven by its assistant vice president. Despite Article
2180, we still held the bank liable for damages for the accident as said
provision should defer to the settled doctrine concerning accidents involving
registered motor vehicles, i.e., that the registered owner of any vehicle, even
if not used for public service, would primarily be responsible to the public or to
third persons for injuries caused the latter while the vehicle was being driven
on the highways or streets.46 We have already ratiocinated that:
The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any
accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on
the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite
individual, the registered owner. Instances are numerous where vehicles
running on public highways caused accidents or injuries to pedestrians or
other vehicles without positive identification of the owner or drivers, or with
very scant means of identification. It is to forestall these circumstances, so
inconvenient or prejudicial to the public, that the motor vehicle registration is
primarily ordained, in the interest of the determination of persons responsible
for damages or injuries caused on public highways.
Absent the circumstance of unauthorized use48 or that the subject vehicle was
stolen which are valid defenses available to a registered owner, Oscar Jr.
cannot escape liability for quasi-delict resulting from his jeeps use.

YHT vs Court of Appeals G.R No. 126780

Under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code, those who, in the performance of
their obligations, are guilty of negligence, are liable for damages. As to who
shall bear the burden of paying damages, Article 2180, paragraph (4) of the
same Code provides that the owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in
the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion
of their functions. Also, this Court has ruled that if an employee is found
negligent, it is presumed that the employer was negligent in selecting and/or
supervising him for it is hard for the victim to prove the negligence of such
employer. Thus, given the fact that the loss of McLoughlin's money was
consummated through the negligence of Tropicana's employees in allowing
Tan to open the safety deposit box without the guest's consent, both the

assisting employees and YHT Realty Corporation itself, as owner and operator
of Tropicana, should be held solidarily liable pursuant to Article 2193.

Mercury Drug vs Huang G.R No. 172122

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,
is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for
ones own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
xxx
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
xxx
The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is direct or
immediate. It is not conditioned on a prior recourse against the negligent
employee, or a prior showing of insolvency of such employee. It is also joint
and solidary with the employee.
To be relieved of liability, petitioner Mercury Drug should show that it exercised
the diligence of a good father of a family, both in the selection of the employee
and in the supervision of the performance of his duties. Thus, in the selection
of its prospective employees, the employer is required to examine them as to
their qualifications, experience, and service records. With respect to the
supervision of its employees, the employer should formulate standard
operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary
measures for their breach. To establish compliance with these requirements,
employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence.
In the instant case, petitioner Mercury Drug presented testimonial evidence on
its hiring procedure. According to Mrs. Merlie Caamic, the Recruitment and
Training Manager of petitioner Mercury Drug, applicants are required to take
theoretical and actual driving tests, and psychological examination. In the case
of petitioner Del Rosario, however, Mrs. Caamic admitted that he took the
driving tests and psychological examination when he applied for the position
of Delivery Man, but not when he applied for the position of Truck Man. Mrs.
Caamic also admitted that petitioner Del Rosario used a Galant which is a light
vehicle, instead of a truck during the driving tests. Further, no tests were
conducted on the motor skills development, perceptual speed, visual attention,
depth visualization, eye and hand coordination and steadiness of petitioner
Del Rosario. No NBI and police clearances were also presented. Lastly,
petitioner Del Rosario attended only three driving seminars on June 30,
2001, February 5, 2000 and July 7, 1984. In effect, the only seminar he
attended before the accident which occurred in 1996 was held twelve years
ago in 1984.

Amadora vs Court of Appeals G.R No. L-47745

On the issue as to the duration of the responsibility of the teacher or the head
of the school of arts and trades over the students. Is such responsibility coextensive with the period when the student is actually undergoing studies
during the school term, as contended by the respondents and impliedly
admitted by the petitioners themselves?

|BernadethYabon

This does not necessarily mean that such, custody be co-terminous with the
semester, beginning with the start of classes and ending upon the close
thereof, and excluding the time before or after such period, such as the period
of registration, and in the case of graduating students, the period before the
commencement exercises. In the view of the Court, the student is in the
custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and
influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not
yet begun or has already ended.
As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in
pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate
student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right, and even
in the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the
school authorities over the student continues. Indeed, even if the student
should be doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the company of
his classmates and friends and enjoying the ambience and atmosphere of the
school, he is still within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school
authorities under the provisions of Article 2180.
In any event, it should be noted that the liability imposed by this article is
supposed to fall directly on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and
trades and not on the school itself. If at all, the school, whatever its nature,
may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers or even of the head thereof
under the general principle ofrespondeat superior, but then it may exculpate
itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of abonus
paterfamilias.
Such defense is, of course, also available to the teacher or the head of the
school of arts and trades directly held to answer for the tort committed by the
student. As long as the defendant can show that he had taken the necessary
precautions to prevent the injury complained of, he can exonerate himself from
the liability imposed by Article 2180, which also states that:
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the Persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent damages.
In this connection, it should be observed that the teacher will be held liable not
only when he is acting in loco parentis for the law does not require that the
offending student be of minority age. Unlike the parent, who wig be liable only
if his child is still a minor, the teacher is held answerable by the law for the act
of the student under him regardless of the student's age.

PSBA vs CA G.R No. 84698

In Article 2180 establishes the rule of in loco parentis. In all such cases, it had
been stressed that the law plainly provides that the damages should have
been caused or inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution
sought to be liable for the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody.
However, this material situation does not exist in the present case for the
assailants of Carlitos were not students of the PSBA for whose acts the school
could be made liable.
However, when an academic institution accepts students for enrolment, there
is a established contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which
both parties are bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to
provide the student with an education that would presumably suffice to equip
him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or
profession. A perusal of Article 2176 shoes that the obligations arising from
quasi-delict or tort arise only between parties not otherwise bound by contract,
whether express or implied For the act that breaks the contract may also be
a tort.

Salvosa vs Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 70458

Meritt vs Government G.R No. L-11154

A student not "at attendance in the school" cannot be in "recess" thereat. A

"recess," as the concept is embraced in the phrase "at attendance in the
school," contemplates a situation of temporary adjournment of school activities
where the student still remains within call of his mentor and is not permitted to
leave the school premises, or the area within which the school activity is
conducted. Recess by its nature does not include dismissal. Likewise, the
mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a school without more
does not constitute "attending school" or being in the "protective and
supervisory custody' of the school, as contemplated in the law.

That the state, by virtue of such provisions of law, is not responsible for the
damages suffered by private individuals in consequence of acts performed by
its employees in the discharge of the functions pertaining to their office,
because neither fault nor even negligence can be presumed on the part of the
state in the organization of branches of public service and in the appointment
of its agents; on the contrary, we must presuppose all foresight humanly
possible on its part in order that each branch of service serves the general
weal an that of private persons interested in its operation. Between these latter
and the state, therefore, no relations of a private nature governed by the civil
law can arise except in a case where the state acts as a judicial person
capable of acquiring rights and contracting obligations.

Upon the foregoing considerations, we hold that Jimmy B. Abon cannot be

considered to have been "at attendance in the school," or in the custody of
BCF, when he shot Napoleon Castro. Logically, therefore, petitioners cannot
under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code be held solidarity liable with Jimmy B. Abon
for damages resulting from his act.

Saludaga vs Far Eastern University G.R. No. 179337

Where the security agency recruits, hires and assigns the works of its
watchmen or security guards to a client, the employer of such guards or
watchmen is such agency, and not the client, since the latter has no hand in
selecting the security guards. Thus, the duty to observe the diligence of a good
father of a family cannot be demanded from the said client:
[I]t is settled in our jurisdiction that where the security agency, as here,
recruits, hires and assigns the work of its watchmen or security guards, the
agency is the employer of such guards or watchmen. 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 a security 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 the guards cannot, in the ordinary course of events, be
demanded from the client whose premises or property are protected by the
security guards.

St. Joseph;s College vs Miranda G.R No. 182353

The defense of due diligence of a good father of a family raised by [petitioner]
St. Joseph College will not exculpate it from liability because it has been shown
that it was guilty of inexcusable laxity in the supervision of its teachers (despite
an apparent rigid screening process for hiring) and in the maintenance of what
should have been a safe and secured environment for conducting dangerous
experiments. [Petitioner] school is still liable for the wrongful acts of the
teachers and employees because it had full information on the nature of
dangerous science experiments but did not take affirmative steps to avert
damage and injury to students. The fact that there has never been any
accident in the past during the conduct of science experiments is not a
justification to be complacent in just preserving the status quo and do away
with creative foresight to install safety measures to protect the students.
Schools should not simply install safety reminders and distribute safety
instructional manuals. More importantly, schools should provide protective
gears and devices to shield students from expected risks and anticipated
dangers.
"Ordinarily, the liability of teachers does not extend to the school or university
itself, although an educational institution may be held liable under the principle
of RESPONDENT SUPERIOR. It has also been held that the liability of the
employer for the [tortuous] acts or negligence of its employees is primary and
solidary, direct and immediate and not conditioned upon the insolvency of or
prior recourse against the negligent employee.

|BernadethYabon

That although in some cases the state might by virtue of the general principle
set forth in article 1902 respond for all the damage that is occasioned to private
parties by orders or resolutions which by fault or negligence are made by
branches of the central administration acting in the name and representation
of the state itself and as an external expression of its sovereignty in the
exercise of its executive powers, yet said article is not applicable in the case
of damages said to have been occasioned to the petitioners by an executive
official, acting in the exercise of his powers, in proceedings to enforce the
collections of certain property taxes owing by the owner of the property which
they hold in sublease.
That the responsibility of the state is limited by article 1903 to the case wherein
it acts through a special agent (and a special agent, in the sense in which
these words are employed, is one who receives a definite and fixed order or
commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special
official) so that in representation of the state and being bound to act as an
agent thereof, he executes the trust confided to him. This concept does not
apply to any executive agent who is an employee of the acting administration
and who on his own responsibility performs the functions which are inherent
in and naturally pertain to his office and which are regulated by law and the
regulations.
That according to paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code and the
principle laid down in a decision, among others, of the 18th of May, 1904, in a
damage case, the responsibility of the state is limited to that which it contracts
through a special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or commission to
perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to
the claim, and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to
a public official charged with some administrative or technical office who can
be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid down by the law of civil
responsibility. Consequently, the trial court in not so deciding and in
sentencing the said entity to the payment of damages, caused by an official of
the second class referred to, has by erroneous interpretation infringed the
provisions of articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code.

Quezon City Government vs Dacana G.R. No. 150304

The provisions of Article 2189 of the New Civil Code capsulizes the
responsibility of the city government relative to the maintenance of roads and
bridges since it exercises the control and supervision over the same. Failure
of the defendant to comply with the statutory provision found in the subjectarticle is tantamount to negligence per se which renders the City government
liable. Harsh application of the law ensues as a result thereof but the state
assumed the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the roads and
bridges and neither exception nor exculpation from liability would deem just
and equitable.

VIII.

Persons who maintain an attractive nuisance

Hidalgo Enterprises Inc. vs Balandan G.R No. L-3422

The doctrine may be stated, in short, as follows: One who maintains on his
premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to
attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent
children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender
years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the
premises.
The principle reason for the doctrine is that the condition or appliance in
question although its danger is apparent to those of age, is so enticing or
alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to approach, get on or
use it, and this attractiveness is an implied invitation to such children
Now, is a swimming pool or water tank an instrumentality or appliance likely to
attract the little children in play? In other words is the body of water an
attractive nuisance?
The great majority of American decisions say no.
The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water,
artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or
artificial feature other than the mere water and its location.
The reason why a swimming pool or pond or reservoir of water is not
considered an attractive nuisance was lucidly explained by the Indiana
Appellate Court as follows:
Nature has created streams, lakes and pools which attract children. Lurking in
their waters is always the danger of drowning. Against this danger children are
early instructed so that they are sufficiently presumed to know the danger; and
if the owner of private property creates an artificial pool on his own property,
merely duplicating the work of nature without adding any new danger, . . . (he)
is not liable because of having created an "attractive nuisance.

IX.

Proximate Cause

Vda. De Bataclan vs Medina G.R. No. L-40570

On the issue as to whether the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was
not the overturning of the bus, but rather, the fire that burned the bus, including
himself and his co-passengers who were unable to leave it; that at the time
the fire started. The court ruled:
'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.' And more comprehensively, 'the proximate legal
cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by
setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain
of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a
natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such
circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an
ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at
the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably
result therefrom.

|BernadethYabon

It may be that ordinarily, when a passenger bus overturns, and pins down a
passenger, merely causing him physical injuries, if through some event,
unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire, say, by
lightning, or if some highwaymen after looting the vehicle sets it on fire, and
the passenger is burned to death, one might still contend that the proximate
cause of his death was the fire and not the overturning of the vehicle. But in
the present case under the circumstances obtaining in the same, we do not
hesitate to hold that the proximate cause was the overturning of the bus, this
for the reason that when the vehicle turned not only on its side but completely
on its back, the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or
unexpected; that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response
to the call for help, made not only by the passengers, but most probably, by
the driver and the conductor themselves, and that because it was dark (about
2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to carry a light with them, and coming
as they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not available;
and what was more natural than that said rescuers should innocently approach
the vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from them. In
other words, the coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was
a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the trapping of some of its
passengers and the call for outside help.
Sps. Mamaril vs Boy Scout of the Philippines G.R No. 179382
In this case, it is undisputed that the proximate cause of the loss of Sps.
Mamaril's vehicle was the negligent act of security guards Pea and Gaddi in
allowing an unidentified person to drive out the subject vehicle. Proximate
cause has been defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury or
loss, and without which the result would not have occurred.
It bears to reiterate that the subject loss was caused by the negligence of the
security guards in allowing a stranger to drive out plaintiffs-appellants' vehicle
despite the latter's instructions that only their authorized drivers may do so.
Moreover, the agreement with respect to the ingress and egress of Sps.
Mamaril's vehicles were coordinated only with AIB and its security guards,
without the knowledge and consent of BSP. Accordingly, the mishandling of
the parked vehicles that resulted in herein complained loss should be
recovered only from the tort feasors (Pea and Gaddi) and their employer,
AIB; and not against the lessor, BSP.
Umali vs Bacani G.R No. L-40570
Art. 2179 of the Civil Code provides that if the negligence of the plaintiff
(parents of the victim in this case) was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendants' lack of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded. This law may be availed of by the petitioner but does not exempt him
from liability.
Rakes vs Atlantic Gulf G.R No. 1719
Difficulty seems to be apprehended in deciding which acts of the injured party
shall be considered immediate causes of the accident. The test is simple.
Distinction must be 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, independent of it, but contributing under review was
the displacement of the crosspiece or the failure to replace it. this produced
the event giving occasion for damages that is, the shinking of the track and
the sliding of the iron rails. To this event, the act of the plaintiff in walking by
the side of the car did not contribute, although it was an element of the damage
which came to himself. Had the crosspiece been out of place wholly or partly
thorough his act of omission of duty, the last would have been one of the
determining causes of the event or accident, for which he would have been
responsible. Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its

determining factors, he can not recover. Where, in conjunction with the

occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may recover the amount
that the defendant responsible for the event should pay for such injury, less a
sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.

This implied warranty has given rise to the rule that:

Vestil vs IAC G.R. no. 74431

Where a patron of a theater or other place of public amusement is injured, and

the thing that caused the injury is wholly and exclusively under the control and
management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary
course of events would not have happened if proper care had been exercised,
its occurrence raises a presumption or permits of an inference of negligence
on the part of the defendant. 15

Article 2183 reads as follows:

That presumption or inference was not overcome by the petitioner.

The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is

responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be
lost. 'This responsibility shall cease only in case the damages should come
from force majeure from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.

Candano Shipping Lines vs Sugata-on G.R No. 163212

X.

Strict Liability Torts

According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code
is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the
possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural
equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals
for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such
animal may cause.
Serra vs Mumary G.R no. 193861
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for the damages
caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to another,
there instantly arises a presumption that the employer failed to exercise the
due diligence of a good father of the family in the selection or supervision of
its employees. The liability of the employer is direct or immediate. It is not
conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior
showing of insolvency of such employee..
Moreover, under Article 2184 of the Civil Code, if the causative factor was the
drivers negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was present is likewise held
liable if he could have prevented the mishap by the exercise of due diligence.
Petitioner failed to show that she exercised the level of diligence required in
supervising her driver in order to prevent the accident. She admitted that de
Castro had only been her driver for one year and she had no knowledge of his
driving experience or record of previous accidents. She also admitted that it
was de Castro who maintained the vehicle and would even remind her "to pay
the installment of the car."
Petitioner also admitted that, at the time of the accident, she did not know what
was happening and only knew they bumped into another vehicle when the
driver shouted. She then closed her eyes and a moment later felt something
heavy fall on the roof of the car. When the vehicle stopped, petitioner left the
scene purportedly to ask help from her brother, leaving the other passengers
to come to the aid of her injured driver.
Gotesco Investment Corp. vs Chatto G.R. No. 87584
It is settled that:
The owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement impliedly warrants that
the premises, appliances and amusement devices are safe for the purpose for
which they are designed, the doctrine being subject to no other exception or
qualification than that he does not contract against unknown defects not
discoverable by ordinary or reasonable means. 14

|BernadethYabon

The pertinent provision of the New Civil Code reads:

Article 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay
compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen,
mechanics or other employees, even though the event may have been purely
accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or personal injury
arose out of and in the course of employment. The employer is also liable for
compensation if the employee contracts any illness or diseases caused by
such employment or as the result of the nature of employment. If the mishap
was due to the employees own notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or
drunkenness, the employer shall not be liable for compensation. When the
employees lack of due care contributed to his death or injury, the
compensation shall be equitably reduced.
Given that the right of the claimant arose from the contract of employment and
the corresponding obligation imposed by the New Civil Code upon the
employer to indemnify the former for death and injury of the employee
circumstanced by his employment, necessarily, the provisions of the same
code on damages shall govern the extent of the employers liability.
In the same breadth, the employer shall be liable for the death or personal
injury of its employees in the course of employment as sanctioned by Article
1711 of the New Civil Code. The liability of the employer for death or personal
injury of his employees arose from the contract of employment entered into
between the employer and his employee which is likewise imbued with public
interest.28 Accordingly, when the employee died or was injured in the
occasion of employment, the obligation of the employer for indemnity,
automatically attaches. The indemnity may partake of the form of actual,
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, as the case may
be depending on the factual milieu of the case and considering the criterion
for the award of these damages as outlined by our jurisprudence.
Sps. Villoria vs Continental Airlines G.R No. 188288
An examination of this Courts pronouncements in China Air Lines will reveal
that an airline company is not completely exonerated from any liability for the
tort committed by its agents employees. A prior determination of the nature of
the passengers cause of action is necessary. If the passengers cause of
action against the airline company is premised on culpa aquiliana or quasidelict for a tort committed by the employee of the airline companys agent,
there must be an independent showing that the airline company was at fault
or negligent or has contributed to the negligence or tortuous conduct
committed by the employee of its agent. The mere fact that the employee of
the airline companys agent has committed a tort is not sufficient to hold the
airline company liable. There is novinculum juris between the airline company
and its agents employees and the contractual relationship between the airline
company and its agent does not operate to create a juridical tie between the
airline company and its agents employees. Article 2180 of the Civil Code does
not make the principal vicariously liable for the tort committed by its agents
employees and the principal-agency relationshipper se does not make the

principal a party to such tort; hence, the need to prove the principals own fault
or negligence.
On the other hand, if the passengers cause of action for damages against the
airline company is based on contractual breach or culpa contractual, it is not
necessary that there be evidence of the airline companys fault or negligence.
As this Court previously stated in China Air Lines and reiterated in Air France
vs. Gillego, "in an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the
aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault
or was negligent. All that he has to prove is the existence of the contract and
the fact of its non-performance by the carrier."
However, a persons vicarious liability is anchored on his possession of
control, whether absolute or limited, on the tortfeasor. Without such control,
there is nothing which could justify extending the liability to a person other than
the one who committed the tort
XI.
i.

Intentional Torts
ABUSE OF RIGHTS

Concurring opinion of Justice Leonen in Alano vs Magud-Lomao G.R No.

175540
Article 2176 is not an allencompassing enumeration of all actionable wrongs
which can give rise to the liability for damages. Under the Civil Code, acts done
in violation of Articles 19, 20, and 21 will also give rise to damages. The
provisions state as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty
and
good
faith.
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage.
This provision of law sets standards which must be observed in the exercise
of ones rights as well as in the performance of its duties, to wit: to act with
justice; give everyone his due; and observe honesty and good faith.
In Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. Court of Appeals, it was
elucidated that while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the
government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order,
it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for
damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.
The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their
exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed.
A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such,
may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is
exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in
Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby
committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while Article
19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for
the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation.
Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would
be proper.
Corollarily, Article 20 provides that every person who, contrary to law, willfully
or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the
same. It speaks of the general sanctions of all other provisions of law which
do not especially provide for its own sanction. When a right is exercised in a
manner which does not conform to the standards set forth in the said provision

|BernadethYabon

and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which
the wrongdoer must be responsible. Thus, if the provision does not provide a
remedy for its violation, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article
21 of the Civil Code would be proper.56 (Emphasis supplied)
Article 19 is the general rule which governs the conduct of human relations.
By itself, it is not the basis of an actionable tort. Article 19 describes the degree
of care required so that an actionable tort may arise when it is alleged together
with Article 20 or Article 21.
Article 20 concerns violations of existing law as basis for an injury. It allows
recovery should the act have been willful or negligent. Willful may refer to the
intention to do the act and the desire to achieve the outcome which is
considered by the plaintiff in tort action as injurious. Negligence may refer to a
situation where the act was consciously done but without intending the result
which the plaintiff considers as injurious.
Article 21, on the other hand, concerns injuries that may be caused by acts
which are not necessarily proscribed by law. This article requires that the act
be willful, that is, that there was an intention to do the act and a desire to
achieve the outcome. In cases under Article 21, the legal issues revolve
around whether such outcome should be considered a legal injury on the part
of the plaintiff or whether the commission of the act was done in violation of
the standards of care required in Article 19.
Article 2176 covers situations where an injury happens through an act or
omission of the defendant. When it involves a positive act, the intention to
commit the outcome is irrelevant. The act itself must not be a breach of an
existing law or a preexisting contractual obligation. What will be considered
is whether there is fault or negligence attending the commission of the act
which necessarily leads to the outcome considered as injurious by the plaintiff.
The required degree of diligence will then be assessed in relation to the
circumstances of each and every case.
Article 2176 should not have been the basis for the cause of action in this
case. Rather, it should have been Article 20, which is applicable when there
is a violation of law.
The law that is applicable is the third paragraph of Section 2 of Republic Act
No. 349 as amended by Republic Act No. 1056,58 which provides for a way to
determine substituted informed consent for deceased patients for purposes of
organ donation.
Ardiente vs Sps. Pastorfirde
It is true that it is within petitioner's right to ask and even require the Spouses
Pastorfide to cause the transfer of the former's account with COWD to the
latter's name pursuant to their Memorandum of Agreement. However, the
remedy to enforce such right is not to cause the disconnection of the
respondent spouses' water supply. The exercise of a right must be in
accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be
excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm another.15
Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party will attach.16 In the present
case, intention to harm was evident on the part of petitioner when she
requested for the disconnection of respondent spouses water supply without
warning or informing the latter of such request. Petitioner claims that her
request for disconnection was based on the advise of COWD personnel and
that her intention was just to compel the Spouses Pastorfide to comply with
their agreement that petitioner's account with COWD be transferred in
respondent spouses' name. If such was petitioner's only intention, then she
should have advised respondent spouses before or immediately after

submitting her request for disconnection, telling them that her request was
simply to force them to comply with their obligation under their Memorandum
of Agreement. But she did not. What made matters worse is the fact that
COWD undertook the disconnection also without prior notice and even failed
to reconnect the Spouses Pastorfides water supply despite payment of their
arrears. There was clearly an abuse of right on the part of petitioner, COWD
and Gonzalez. They are guilty of bad faith.

inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse is
from mutual desire, there is no seduction (43 Cent Dig. tit. Seduction, par. 56).
She must be induced to depart from the path of virtue by the use of some
species of arts, persuasions and wiles, which are calculated to have and do
have that effect, and which result in her ultimately submitting her person to the
sexual embraces of her seducer"
Sps. Hing vs Choachuy G.R No. 179736

The principle of abuse of rights as enshrined in Article 19 of the Civil Code

provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.
This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of
abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the
exercise of one's rights, but also in the performance of one's duties. These
standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and
to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial
limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set
forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because
recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source
of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not
conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to
another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be
held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the
government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does
not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under
either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.
Corollarilly, Article 20 provides that every person who, contrary to law, willfully
or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the
same. It speaks of the general sanctions of all other provisions of law which
do not especially provide for its own sanction. When a right is exercised in a
manner which does not conform to the standards set forth in the said provision
and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which
the wrongdoer must be responsible. Thus, if the provision does not provide a
remedy for its violation, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article
21 of the Civil Code would be proper.
Tanjanco vs Court of Appeals G.R No. L-18630
ART. 23. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for damage.
"An example will illustrate the purview of the foregoing norm: A seduces the
nineteen-year old daughter of X. A promise of marriage either has not been
made, or can not be proved. The girl becomes pregnant. Under the present
laws, there is no crime, as the girl is above eighteen years of age. Neither can
any civil action for breach of promise of marriage be filed. Therefore, though
the grievous moral wrong has been committed, and though the girl and her
family have suffered incalculable moral damage, she and her parents cannot
bring any action for damages. But under the proposed article, she and her
parents would have such a right of action."cralaw virtua1aw library
The Court of Appeals seems to have overlooked that the example set forth in
the Code Commissions memorandum refers to a tort upon a minor who has
been seduced. The essential feature is seduction, that in law is more than
mere sexual intercourse, or a breach of a promise of marriage; it connotes
essentially the idea of deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence on the part or the seducer to which the woman has yielded.
"To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or
inducement and the woman must yield because of the promise or other

|BernadethYabon

Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, on the other hand, protects an individuals right
to privacy and provides a legal remedy against abuses that may be committed
against him by other individuals. It states:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace
of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts,
though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of
action for damages, prevention and other relief:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
(1) Prying into the privacy of anothers residence;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
xxxx
This provision recognizes that a mans house is his castle, where his right to
privacy cannot be denied or even restricted by others. It includes any act of
intrusion into, peeping or peering inquisitively into the residence of another
without the consent of the latter. The phrase prying into the privacy of
anothers residence, however, does not mean that only the residence is
entitled to privacy. As elucidated by Civil law expert Arturo M.
Tolentino:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
Our Code specifically mentions prying into the privacy of anothers
residence. This does not mean, however, that only the residence is entitled
to privacy, because the law covers also similar acts. A business office is
entitled to the same privacy when the public is excluded therefrom and
only such individuals as are allowed to enter may come in. x x x
(Emphasis supplied)

Thus, an individuals right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code
should not be confined to his house or residence as it may extend to places
where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them access. The phrase
prying into the privacy of anothers residence, therefore, covers places,
locations, or even situations which an individual considers as private. And as
long as his right is recognized by society, other individuals may not infringe on
his right to privacy.
Go vs Cordero G.R No. 164703
While it is true that a third person cannot possibly be sued for breach of
contract because only parties can breach contractual provisions, a contracting
party may sue a third person not for breach but for inducing another to commit
such breach.
Article 1314 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall
be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
The elements of tort interference are: (1) existence of a valid contract; (2)
knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of a contract; and
(3) interference of the third person is without legal
justification.52crlwvirtualibrry

The presence of the first and second elements is not disputed. Through the
letters issued by Robinson attesting that Cordero is the exclusive distributor of
AFFA in the Philippines, respondents were clearly aware of the contract
between Cordero and AFFA represented by Robinson. In fact, evidence on
record showed that respondents initially dealt with and recognized Cordero as
such exclusive dealer of AFFA high-speed catamaran vessels in the
Philippines. In that capacity as exclusive distributor, petitioner Go entered into
the Memorandum of Agreement and Shipbuilding Contract No. 7825 with
Cordero in behalf of AFFA.

adverse consequence of such loss. Ones negligence may have concurred

with an act of God in producing damage and injury to another, nonetheless,
showing that the immediate or proximate cause of damage or injury was a
fortuitous event would not exempt one from any liability. When the effect is
found to be partly the result of a persons participation whether by active
intervention, neglect or failure to act the whole concurrence is humanized
and removed from rules applicable to acts of God.

The failure of Robinson, Go, Tecson and Landico to act with fairness, honesty
and good faith in securing better terms for the purchase of high-speed
catamarans from AFFA, to the prejudice of Cordero as the duly appointed
exclusive distributor, is further proscribed by Article 19 of the Civil Code:

PNR vs CA G.R No. L-55347

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

ii.

PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT

The petitioner has the obligation to transport its passengers to their

destinations and to observe extraordinary diligence in doing so. Death or any
injury suffered by any of its passengers gives rise to the presumption that it
was negligent in the performance of its obligation under the contract of
carriage. Thus, as correctly ruled by the respondent court, the petitioner failed
to overthrow such presumption of negligence with clear and convincing
evidence.

As we have expounded in another case:

Elsewhere, we explained that when "a right is exercised in a manner which
does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage
to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must
be responsible." The object of this article, therefore, is to set certain standards
which must be observed not only in the exercise of ones rights but also in the
performance of ones duties. These standards are the following: act with
justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. Its
antithesis, necessarily, is any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Its
elements are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is
exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
When Article 19 is violated, an action for damages is proper under Articles 20
or 21 of the Civil Code. Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a violation
of law x x x. Article 21, on the other hand, states:
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage.
Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements:
(1) There is an act which is legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good
custom, public order, or public policy; and (3) it is done with intent to injure.
A common theme runs through Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act
complained of must be intentional.

XII.
i.

Defenses Available to the defendants

FORTUITOUS EVENT

Saludaga vs Far Eastern University G.R No. 179337

In order to avoid liability, respondents aver that the shooting was a fortuitous
event because they could not have reasonably foreseen nor avoided the
accident caused by Rosete as he was not their employees and that they
complied with their obligation to ensure a safe learning environment for the
student by having exercised due diligence in selecting security services for
Galaxy.
Respondents defense of force majeure must fail. In order for force majeure to
be considered, respondents must show that no negligence or misconduct was
committed that may have occasioned the loss. An act of God cannot be
invoked to protect a person who has failed to take steps to forestall possible

|BernadethYabon

But while petitioner failed to exercise extraordinary diligence as required by

law, it appears that the deceased was chargeable with contributory
negligence. Since he opted to sit on the open platform between the coaches
of the train, he should have held tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal
bar found at the side of said platform to avoid falling off from the speeding
train.
Achevara vs Ramos G.R No. 175172
The acts of negligence of Arnulfo Ramos and Benigno Valdez were
contemporaneous when Ramos continued to drive a wiggling vehicle on the
highway despite knowledge of its mechanical defect, while Valdez did not
immediately veer to the rightmost side of the road upon seeing the wiggling
vehicle of Ramos perhaps because it still kept to its lane and Valdez did
not know the extent of its mechanical defect. However, when the owner-type
jeep encroached on the lane of the passenger jeep, Valdez realized the peril
at hand and steered the passenger jeep toward the western shoulder of the
road to avoid a collision. It was at this point that it was perceivable that Ramos
must have lost control of his vehicle, and that it was Valdez who had the last
opportunity to avoid the collision by swerving the passenger jeep towards the
right shoulder of the road.
The doctrine of last clear chance applies to a situation where the plaintiff was
guilty of prior or antecedent negligence, but the defendant who had the last
fair chance to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is made liable
for all the consequences of the accident, notwithstanding the prior negligence
of the plaintiff. However, the doctrine does not apply where the party charged
is required to act instantaneously, and the injury cannot be avoided by the
application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been
discovered.
The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply to this case, because even if
it can be said that it was Benigno Valdez who had the last chance to avoid the
mishap when the owner-type jeep encroached on the western lane of the
passenger jeep, Valdez no longer had the opportunity to avoid the collision.

iii.

PRINCIPLE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE

LADECO vs ANGALA G.R. No. 153076

Since both parties are at fault in this case, the doctrine of last clear chance
applies.

The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent
but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where
it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the
one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is
chargeable with the loss. In this case, Deocampo had the last clear chance to
avoid the collision. Since Deocampo was driving the rear vehicle, he had full
control of the situation since he was in a position to observe the vehicle in front
of him. Deocampo had the responsibility of avoiding bumping the vehicle in
front of him. A U-turn is done at a much slower speed to avoid skidding and
overturning, compared to running straight ahead. Deocampo could have
avoided the vehicle if he was not driving very fast while following the pick-up.
Deocampo was not only driving fast, he also admitted that he did not step on
the brakes even upon seeing the pick-up. He only stepped on the brakes after
the collision.
Canlas vs CA G.R No. 112160
Under the doctrine of last clear chance, which is applicable here, the
respondent bank must suffer the resulting loss. In essence, 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. 17
Assuming that Osmundo Canlas was negligent in giving Vicente Maosca the
opportunity to perpetrate the fraud, by entrusting to latter the owners copy of
the transfer certificates of title of subject parcels of land, it cannot be denied
that the bank had the last clear chance to prevent the fraud, by the simple
expedient of faithfully complying with the requirements for banks to ascertain
the identity of the persons transacting with them.

iv.

Exercise of Diligence

Ylarde vs Aquino G.R No. L-33722

The contention that private respondent Aquino exercised the utmost diligence
of a very cautious person is certainly without cogent basis. A reasonably
prudent person would have foreseen that bringing children to an excavation
site, and more so, leaving them there all by themselves, may result in an
accident. An ordinarily careful human being would not assume that a simple
warning "not to touch the stone" is sufficient to cast away all the serious danger
that a huge concrete block adjacent to an excavation would present to the
children. Moreover, a teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would
have made sure that the children are protected from all harm in his company.
Philam Insurance Co. vs CA G.R No. 165413
The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a
given situation must of course be always determined in the light of human
experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case. Abstract
speculations cannot here be of much value but this much can be profitably
said: Reasonable men govern their conduct by the circumstances which are
before them or known to them. They are not, and are not supposed to be,
omniscient of the future. Hence they can be expected to take care only when
there is something before them to suggest or warn of danger.

|BernadethYabon

v.

DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA

Arra Realty Corporation vs Guarantee Development Corp. G.R No. 142310

Likewise barren of factual and legal basis is the petitioners' claim for damages
against the respondent based on Article 19 of the New Civil Code, which
reads:
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance
of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.
In this case, respondent Pealoza suspended the payment of the balance of
the purchase price of the property because she had the right to do so. While
she failed to pay the purchase price on time, the petitioner ARC nevertheless
accepted such delayed payments. The respondent even proposed to assume
the loan account of the petitioner ARC with the China Banking Corporation in
an amount equivalent to the balance of the purchase price of the subject
property, which the petitioner ARC rejected. In fine, respondent Pealoza
acted in accord with law and in utmost good faith. Hence, she is not liable for
damages to the petitioners under Article 19 of the New Civil Code.
The law is that men, singly or in combination, may use any lawful means to
accomplish a lawful purpose, although the means adopted may cause injury
to another. When a person is doing a lawful thing in a lawful way, his conduct
is not actionable though it may result in damages to another; for, though the
damage caused is undoubted, no legal right of another is invaded; hence, it is
said to be damnum absque injuria.

DAMAGES
I.

Actual Damages

BF Metal Corporation vs Sps. Lamotan G.R No. 178013

Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory
damages. Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury
that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been before he
was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained
and susceptible of measurement. To justify an award of actual damages, there
must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can be given
only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.
In the instant case, no evidence was submitted to show the amount actually
spent for the repair or replacement of the wrecked jeep. Spouses Lomotan
presented two different cost estimates to prove the alleged actual damage of
the wrecked jeep. Exhibit "B," is a job estimate by Pagawaan Motors, Inc.,
which pegged the repair cost of the jeep at P96,000.00, while Exhibit "M,"
estimated the cost of repair at P130,655.00. Following Viron, neither
estimate is competent to prove actual damages. Courts cannot simply rely on
speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of
damages.15
As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the best evidence to prove the value of
the wrecked jeep is reflected in Exhibit "I," the Deed of Sale showing the
jeeps acquisition cost at P72,000.00. However, the depreciation value of
equivalent to 10% of the acquisition cost cannot be deducted from it in the
absence of proof in support thereof.

In the case of moral damages, recovery is more an exception rather than the
rule. Moral damages are not punitive in nature but are designed to compensate
and alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
similar harm unjustly caused to a person. In order that an award of moral
damages can be aptly justified, the claimant must be able to satisfactorily
prove that he has suffered such damages and that the injury causing it has
sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles 221916 and 222017 of the Civil
Code. Then, too, the damages must be shown to be the proximate result of a
wrongful act or omission. The claimant must establish the factual basis of the
damages and its causal tie with the acts of the defendant. In fine, an award of
moral damages would require, firstly, evidence of besmirched reputation or
physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the claimant;
secondly, a culpable act or omission factually established; thirdly, proof that
the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the
damages sustained by the claimant; and fourthly, that the case is predicated
on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Article 2219 and Article
2220 of the Civil Code.
Undoubtedly, petitioner is liable for the moral damages suffered by respondent
Umuyon. Its liability is based on aquasi-delict or on its negligence in the
supervision and selection of its driver, causing the vehicular accident and
physical injuries to respondent Umuyon. Rivera is also liable for moral
damages to respondent Umuyon based on either culpa criminal or quasidelict. Since the decision in the criminal case, which found Rivera guilty of
criminal negligence, did not award moral damages, the same may be awarded
in the instant civil action for damages.
Jurisprudence show that in criminal offenses resulting to the death of the
victim, an award within the range ofP50,000.00 to P100,000.00 as moral
damages has become the trend. Under the circumstances, because
respondent Umuyon did not die but had become permanently incapacitated to
drive as a result of the accident, the award of P30,000.00 for moral damages
in his favor is justified.
However, there is no legal basis in awarding moral damages to Spouses
Lomotan whether arising from the criminal negligence committed by Rivera or
based on the negligence of petitioner under Article 2180. Article
221923speaks of recovery of moral damages in case of a criminal offense
resulting in physical injuries or quasi-delictscausing physical injuries, the two
instances where Rivera and petitioner are liable for moral damages to
respondent Umuyon. Article 222024 does speak of awarding moral damages
where there is injury to property, but the injury must be willful and the
circumstances show that such damages are justly due. There being no proof
that the accident was willful, Article 2220 does not apply.
Casino Jr. vs Court of Appeals G.R. No. 133803
There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is the loss of
what a person already possesses, and the other is the failure to receive as a
benefit that which would have pertained to him x x x. In the latter instance, the
familiar rule is that damages consisting of unrealized profits, frequently
referred as ganacias frustradas orlucrum cessans, are not to be granted on
the basis of mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise, but rather by reference
to some reasonably definite standard such as market value, established
experience, or direct inference from known circumstances.
Absolute certainty, however, is not necessary to establish the amount
of "ganacias frustradas" or "lucrum cessans". As we have said in Producers
Bank of the Philippines, supra:
When the existence of a loss is established, absolute certainty as to its amount
is not required. The benefit to be derived from a contract which one of the
parties has absolutely failed to perform is of necessity to some extent, a matter

|BernadethYabon

of speculation, but the injured party is not to be denied for this reason alone.
He must produce the best evidence of which his case is susceptible and if that
evidence warrants the inference that he has been damaged by the loss of
profits which he might with reasonable certainty have anticipated but for the
defendants wrongful act, he is entitled to recover.
Pestano vs Sumayang
Petitioners aver that the CA erred in increasing the award for life indemnity
from P30,000 to P50,000, without specifying any aggravating circumstance to
justify the increment as provided in the Civil Code.9
This contention is untenable. The indemnity for death caused by a quasi-delict
used to be pegged at P3,000, based on Article 2206 of the Civil Code.
However, the amount has been gradually increased through the years
because of the declining value of our currency. At present, prevailing
jurisprudence fixes the amount at P50,000.
The award for loss of earning capacity is based on two factors: (1) the number
of years on which the computation of damages is based and (2) the rate at
which the loss sustained by the heirs is fixed.14 The first factor refers to the
life expectancy, which takes into consideration the nature of the victim's work,
lifestyle, age and state of health prior to the accident. The second refers to the
victim's earning capacity minus the necessary living expenses. Stated
otherwise, the amount recoverable is that portion of the earnings of the
deceased which the beneficiary would have received the net earnings of
the deceased

II.

Nominal Damages

Fontana Resort and Country Club vs Sps. Tan G.R No. 154670
[N]ominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or
recognizing that right, and not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered
by him. Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss but
for the recognition and vindication of a right. Indeed, nominal damages are
damages in name only and not in fact. When granted by the courts, they are
not treated as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply a recognition of the
existence of a technical injury. A violation of the plaintiff's right, even if only
technical, is sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. Conversely,
so long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of the plaintiff, an award
of nominal damages is proper.
It is also settled that "the amount of such damages is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances."
In this case, we deem that the respondents are entitled to an award
of P5,000.00 as nominal damages in recognition of their confirmed reservation
for the free use of an FLP villa on April 1, 1999 which was inexcusably
cancelled by petitioner on March 3, 1999.

III.

Temperate Damages

Seven Brothers Shipping vs DMC Construction Resources G.R No 193914

Under the Civil Code, when an injury has been sustained, actual damages
may be awarded under the following condition:
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he

has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory

damages.
As we have stated in Dee Hua Liong Electrical Equipment Corp., v.
Reyes,31 "[a]ctual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must
be duly proved, and proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. A court
cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and amount
of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered
and on evidence of the actual amount thereof. If the proof is flimsy and
unsubstantial,
no
damages
will
be
awarded."
Jurisprudence has consistently held that "[t]o justify an award of actual
damages x x x credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported
by receipts."32 We take this to mean by credible evidence. Otherwise, the law
mandates that other forms of damages must be awarded, to wit:
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal,
temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The
assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion
of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.
Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages may be awarded in
order that the plaintiffs right, which has been violated or invaded by the
defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. We have laid down the concept
of nominal damages in the following wise:
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.'

IV.

Liquidated Damages

claim for damages nor respondents liability under the Performance Bond.
Mabunay was clearly in default considering the dismal percentage of his
accomplishment (32.38%) of the work he contracted on account of delays in
executing the scheduled work activities and repeated failure to provide
sufficient manpower to expedite construction works.
Titan Construction vs Uni-Field Enterprises Inc. G.R No. 153874
The law also allows parties to a contract to stipulate on liquidated damages to
be paid in case of breach.20 A stipulation on liquidated damages is a penalty
clause where the obligor assumes a greater liability in case of breach of an
obligation.21 The obligor is bound to pay the stipulated amount without need
for proof on the existence and on the measure of damages caused by the
breach.22
Articles 122923 and 222724 of the Civil Code empower the courts to reduce
the penalty if it is iniquitous or unconscionable. The determination of whether
the penalty is iniquitous or unconscionable is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court and depends on several factors such as the type, extent,
and purpose of the penalty, the nature of the obligation, the mode of breach
and its consequences.25
The Court notes that respondent had more than adequately protected itself
from a possible breach of contract because of the stipulations on the payment
of interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys fees. The Court finds the award
of attorneys fees "equivalent to 25% of whatever amount is due and payable"
to be exorbitant because it includes (1) the principal of P1,404,114.00; (2) the
interest charges of P504,114.00 plus accrued interest charges at 24% per
annum compounded yearly reckoned from July 1995 up to the time of full
payment; and (3) liquidated damages of P324,147.94. Moreover, the
liquidated damages and the attorneys fees serve the same purpose, that is,
as penalty for breach of the contract. Therefore, we reduce the award of
attorneys fees to 25% of the principal obligation, or P351,028.50.

V.

Exemplary Damages

J Plus Asia Development vs Utility Assurance Corp. G.R No 199650

People vs Fontanilla G.R No. 177743

Liability for liquidated damages is governed by Articles 2226 to 2228 of the

Civil Code, which provide:

The Court also modifies the limiting of civil damages by the CA and the RTC
to only the death indemnity ofP50,000.00. When death occurs due to a crime,
the damages to be awarded may include: (a) civil indemnity ex delicto for the
death of the victim; (b) actual or compensatory damages; (c) moral damages;
(d) exemplary damages; and (e) temperate damages.

ART. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a
contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
ART. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a
penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
ART. 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is
not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated
damages, the law shall determine the measure of damages, and not the
stipulation.
A stipulation for liquidated damages is attached to an obligation in order to
ensure performance and has a double function: (1) to provide for liquidated
damages, and (2) to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the
threat of greater responsibility in the event of breach.37 The amount agreed
upon answers for damages suffered by the owner due to delays in the
completion of the project.38 As a precondition to such award, however, there
must be proof of the fact of delay in the performance of the obligation.39
Concededly, Article 12.01 of the Construction Agreement mentioned only the
failure of the contractor to complete the project within the stipulated period or
the extension granted by the owner. However, this will not defeat petitioners

|BernadethYabon

Accordingly, the CA and the RTC should also have granted moral damages in
addition to the death indemnity, which were of different kinds. The death
indemnity compensated the loss of life due to crime, but appropriate and
reasonable moral damages would justly assuage the mental anguish and
emotional sufferings of the surviving family of Olais. Although mental anguish
and emotional sufferings of the surviving family were not quantifiable with
mathematical precision, the Court must nonetheless strive to set an amount
that would restore the heirs of the deceased to their moral status quo ante.
Given the circumstances, P50,000.00 should be reasonable as moral
damages, which, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, we are bound to award
despite the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs mental anguish
and emotional suffering. The rationale for doing so rested on human nature
and experience having shown that:
xxx a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and
anguish on the part of the victims family. It is inherently human to suffer
sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a
violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from
the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love,

affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an
injustice has been done to them.
The Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed in criminal
cases as part of the civil liability "when the crime was committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances." The Civil Code permits such damages to
be awarded "by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition
to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages." In light of such
legal provisions, the CA and the RTC should have recognized the entitlement
of the heirs of the victim to exemplary damages on account of the attendance
of treachery. It was of no moment that treachery was an attendant
circumstance in murder, and, as such, inseparable and absorbed in murder.
As well explained in People v. Catubig:
The term "aggravating circumstances" used by the Civil Code, the law not
having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense.
The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as
it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes
personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the
prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of
additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a
graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance
of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its
commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the
award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the
offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of
exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the
aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying.
Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a
distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to
the civil, liability of the offender.

VI.

Attorneys fees

NPC vs Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay

In assessing attorneys fees against NPC and in favor of the respondents, the
RTC casually disregarded the fundamental distinction between the two
concepts of attorneys fees the ordinary and the extraordinary. These
concepts were aptly distinguished in Traders Royal Bank Employees UnionIndependent v. NLRC,46 thuswise:
There are two commonly accepted concepts of attorneys fees, the so-called
ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary concept, an attorneys fee is the
reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services
he has rendered to the latter. The basis of this compensation is the fact of his
employment by and his agreement with the client.
In its extraordinary concept, an attorneys fee is an indemnity for damages
ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party in a litigation. The basis of
this is any of the cases provided by law where such award can be made, such
as those authorized in Article 2208, Civil Code, and is payable not to the lawyer
but to the client, unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the
lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof.
By referring to the award as contingency fees, and reducing the award from
20% to 15%, the RTC was really referring to a supposed agreement on
attorneys fees between the Heirs of Macabangkit and their counsel. As such,
the concept of attorneys fees involved was the ordinary. Yet, the inclusion of
the attorneys fees in the judgment among the liabilities of NPC converted the
fees to extraordinary. We have to disagree with the RTC thereon, and we
express our discomfort that the CA did not do anything to excise the clearly
erroneous and unfounded grant.

|BernadethYabon

An award of attorneys fees has always been the exception rather than the
rule. To start with, attorneys fees are not awarded every time a party prevails
in a suit. Nor should an adverse decision ipso facto justify an award of
attorneys fees to the winning party. The policy of the Court is that no premium
should be placed on the right to litigate. Too, such fees, as part of damages,
are assessed only in the instances specified in Art. 2208, Civil Code. Indeed,
attorneys fees are in the nature of actual damages. But even when a claimant
is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his
rights, attorneys fees may still be withheld where no sufficient showing of bad
faith could be reflected in a partys persistence in a suit other than an
erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause. And, lastly, the trial
court must make express findings of fact and law that bring the suit within the
exception. What this demands is that the factual, legal or equitable
justifications for the award must be set forth