Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS NOTES
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Definitions
1. Tort and Quasi-delict
a. Tort
Naguiat v NLRC
FACTS: Naguiat is the president and a stockholder of
Clark Field Taxi, Inc. (CFT). Due to the phase-out of the
US bases in the country, Clark Air Base was closed and
the taxi drivers of CFTI were separated from service.
The drivers filed a complaint for the payment of sep. pay
due to the termination/phase-out. NLRC held Naguiat
and the company solidarily liable for the payment of sep.
pay.
ISSUE: WON Naguait should be held solidarily liable
with CFTI. YES.
PAGE 1
HELD: Under the Corporation Code, Naguait is liable
bec: (1) he actively managed the business; (2) there
was evidence that CFTI obtained reasonably adequate
insurance; and (3) there was a corporate tort in this
case.
Our jurisprudence is wanting to the definite scope of
corporate tort. Essentially, tort consists in the
violation of a right given or the omission of a duty
imposed by law. Simply stated, it is a breach of legal
duty.
CLASS NOTES
-includes
assault,
batter,
false
imprisonment,
defamation, invasion of privacy and interference of
property
*Negligence: involves voluntary acts or omissions
which result in injury to others, without intending to
cause the same
-actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts
or omissions
*Strict Liability: where the person is made liable
independent of fault or negligence upon submission of
proof of certain facts
DE LEON (pp. 1-3)
Tort: common law expression
-used in French to mean wrong, derived from Latin
tortus meaning twisted, as if to say tortuous conduct is
twisted conduct or conduct that departs from the existing
norm
- a legal wrong that causes harm for which the violator is
subject to civil liability
-fundamental concept of tort: wrongful act or omission +
resulting in breach of a private legal duty (distinguished
from a mere breach of contractual duty) + damage from
said breach of duty (of such character as to afford a
right of redress at law in favor of the injured party
against the wrongdoer)
Note (explained definition in Naguiat vs. NLRC): the
term tort used by SC has same meaning as tort in
common law jurisdictions, as it was used in cases
involving QD and delicts
Tortious act: a wrongful act
-commission or omission of duty of an act by one,
without right, whereby another receives some injury,
directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation
(74 Am. Jur. 2d 620)
Essence of tort: defendants potential for civil liability to
the victim for harmful wrongdoing and correspondingly
Art. 2176, NCC
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.
the victims potential fro compensation or other relief
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
b. Quasi-delict
Barredo v Garcia
FACTS: A Head-on collision between a taxi and
carretela resulted in the death of a 16-yr old boy who
was a passenger of the carretela. The taxi driver was
convicted in a crim case but the right to file a sep civil
action was reserved. The parents of the boy sued
Barredo, the drivers employer for damages. Barredo
contends that under the RPC, his liability is only
subsidiary, hence he cannot be held liable as no civil
action has been filed against the driver.
ISSUE: WON the plaintiffs, may bring this separate civil
action against Barredo, making him primarily liable as
employer under the CC. YES.
HELD: The same negligent act causing damage may
produce civil liability arising from a crim under the
RPC or create an action for quasi-delict under the
CC. Thus, there were 2 liabilities of Barredo: a
subsidiary one arising from the drivers crim negligence
nd a primary one as employer under the CC. The
plaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, and
they preferred the second remedy. They were acting
within their rights in doing so.
CLASS NOTES
Elcano v Hill
CLASS NOTES
PAGE 2
CLASS NOTES
Cinco v Canonoy
FACTS: Cincos car and a eepney collided. Cinco filed a
civil action for damage to property against the eepneys
driver and operators. Thereafter, he also filed a crim
case against the eepney driver. CFI upheld the
CLASS NOTES
Baksh v CA
FACTS: Baksh was sued for damages for his breach of
promise to marry. CA affirmed TCs award of damages,
relying on Art. 21 CC.
ISSUE: WON damages may be recovered for a breach
of promise to marry based on Art. 21 of the CC. YES.
HELD: Art. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to
marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction.
Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or QD
in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for
the untold no. of moral wrongs which is impossible for
human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in
the statute books.
Art. 2176 which defined a QD is limited to negligent
acts or omissions and excludes the notion of
willingness or intent. Torts is much broader than
culpa aquiliana bec. it includes not only negligence,
but intentional criminal acts as well.
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS NOTES
2. Damages
AQUINO (pp. 842-843)
-Reason behind the NCC Title on Damages: to see to it
that whenever a right is transgressed, every manner of
loss or injury is compensated for in some way or
another.
-A2195, NCC: provisions on damages are applicable to
all obligations regardless of source (delict, QD, contract,
or quasi-contract).
-A2196: rules under title of damages are w/o prejudice
to special provisions on damages provided elsewhere in
the Code.
-A2198: principles of general law on damages are
adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the
NCC.
-Indemnity has to be proportionate to the fault and to the
loss caused thereby.
-In actions for damages, courts should award an amount
(money value) to the winning party and not its equivalent
in property.
PAGE 3
-dont apply to compensation of workmen and other
employees in cases of death, injury or illness
-in other special laws: same rules observed insofar as
not in conflict with Civil Code
Concept of damages:
Damages: the sum of money which the law awards or
imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, or
satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as a
consequence of a breach of a contractual obligation or a
tortious act
-pecuniary consequences which law imposes for breach
of some duty or violation of some right.
Custodio v CA
FACTS: Custodio et al built an adobe fence making the
passageway to Mabasas apartment narrower. Mabasa
filed a civil action for the grant of easement of right of
way against them. CA, aside from granting right of way,
awarded damages to Mabasa.
People v Ballesteros
SANCO, (pp. 940-941)
Basis of Law: introduced in NCC mostly from American
Law since they were either not expressly recognized or
rarely allowed under old code, particularly on subject of
moral damages
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 4
available are embodied in different provisions of the
code. E.g. Arts. 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36; A2199 on
contributory negligence and proximate cause (however,
a blending of American and Spanish-Philippine Law)
NCC
DE LEON (pp.4-8)
Tort law emerged out of criminal law; originally
concerned principally with violent breaches of the place.
(1) Common law tort judges usually define what
counts as torts and how compensation is to be
measured. Still, a statute or even Consti may
make certain conduct legally wrongful and may
permit recovery of damages for such conduct.
(2) No clear distinction between tort and crime
initially, this was the case sine the development
of anything like a clearly formulated conception
of a tort is comparatively recent.
(3) Notion of tort as a specific wrong there was
an attempt in 1720 to consider several specific
wrongs in a work consolidating them under the
general heading of torts. Torts of a specific
character have been increasing.
(4) Place of torts in the Philippine law even if RP
was a civil law country, some of the provisions
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 5
FACTS: A public utility car and a bus collided, resulting
in injuries to Garcia et al. The chief of police filed a
criminal case against the bus driver. Garcia et al filed a
civil action for damages against the owners and drivers
of both vehicles. Bus company and driver filed a motion
to dismiss. CFI dismissed the civil action holding that the
right to file a separate civil action was not reserved and
that the action was not based on QD.
ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the case was proper. NO
HELD: The action was based on QD and it may proceed
independently. The essential averments for a QD action
are present in this case, namely:
(1) act or omission of private respondents;
(2) presence of fault or negligence or lack of due care in
the operation of the passenger bus by its driver resulting
in the collision;
(3) physical injuries and other damages sustained by
petitioners as a result of the collision;
(4) existence of direct causal connection between the
damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of
private respondents; and
(5) the absence of preexisting contractual relations
between the parties.
The allegation that private respondents violated traffic
rules does not detract from the nature and the character
of the actions as one based on culpa aquiliana.
Excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear
indication of negligence.
A. Elements
Art. 2176, NCC
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.
Garcia v Florido
CLASS
NOT E
Andamo v CA
FACTS: The Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette
caused the construction of waterpaths and contrivances
CLASS
NOT E
Taylor v MERALCO
FACTS: 15-year old David Taylor with 2 others (Manuel
and Jessie) experimented with detonating caps were
taken from the premises of MERALCO. David and
Manuel ignited the contents of the cap, resulting in an
explosion which led to Davids loss of his right eye.
Davids father filed an action for damages.
ISSUE: WON the plaintiff can recover damages in this
case.
HELD: NO. In order to recover damages, the following
must be established:
(1) damages to the plaintiff;
(2) negligence by act or omission of which defendant
personally, or some person for whose acts it must
respond, was guilty; and
(3) the connection of cause and effect between the
negligence and the damage.
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 6
-
CLASS
NOT E
Tayag v Alcantara
FACTS: Tayag who was riding on a bicycle along
McArthur Highway was bumped by a bus and died. His
heirs sued the bus owner and driver for damages. A
crim case was also filed against the bus driver. The bus
driver was acquitted in the crim case on the ground of
reasonable doubt. CFI sustained private respondents
MTS the civil case on the ground of lack of COA due to
the acquittal of the bus driver in the crim case.
2. cause damage
I SANGCO (pp. 87-90)
QD liability presupposes 2 conditions: (1) a
connection of cause and effect between the person
liable and the fact from which damage results; (2) a
fault of this person, which implies at once an act of
intelligent volition that is illicit, or contrary to law
It must be shown that the damage to the plaintiff,
who must prove it, was the natural and probable, or
direct and immediate consequence of defendants
culpable act or omission
Proximate cause is determined on the facts of each
case upon mixed considerations of logic, common
sense, policy and precedent.
CLASS
NOT E
3. fault or negligence
I SANGCO (p5-7)
Negligence is the failure to observe, for the
protection of the interest of another person, that
degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
circumstances reasonably impose. When the
danger is great a high degree of care is necessary,
and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary
care.
Negligence is conduct, not a state of mind or the
use of sound judgment.
Negligence is a matter of risk that is to say, of
cognizable danger of injury. The actor does not
desire to bring about the consequences which
follow, nor does he know that they are substantially
to occur, or believe they will. There is merely a risk
of such consequences sufficiently great to lead a
reasonable man in his position to anticipate them,
and to guard against them.
The culpability of the actors conduct must be
judged in the light of the possibilities apparent to
him at the time and not by looking backward with
the wisdom born of the event. The standard must
be one of conduct, rather than consequences. At
B. Distinguished
A. Quasi-delict v Delict
Art 2177, NCC
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from
the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal
Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for
the same act or omission of the defendant.
Art 365, RPC. Imprudence and Negligence.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack
of precaution on the part of the person performing or
failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition and other circumstance regarding
persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of
precaution displayed in those cases in which the
damage impending to be caused is not immediate not
he danger clearly manifest.
CLASS
NOT ES
Delict
Public interest
Penal Code
Punished only by penal
law
Quasi-Delict
Private interest
Civil Code
Any kind of
negligence
fault
of
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Preponderance
evidence
PAGE 7
of
People v Ligon
FACTS: Based on the testimony of a taxi driver, Gabat
was convicted of Robbery with Homicide committed
against a 17-yo student working as a cigarette vendor.
Cruz v CA
HELD: NO. Gabats guilt has not been established
beyond reasonable doubt, but preponderance of
evidence establishes that by his ct or omission, with
fault and negligence, he caused damage to the victim
and should answer civilly for the damage done.
It does not follow that a person who is not criminally
liable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt of the
accused in a criminal case must be established BRD,
only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil
action for damages. The judgment of acquittal
extinguishes civil liability only when it includes a
declaration that the facts from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist.
CLASS
NOT ES
Padilla v CA
FACTS: Padilla, a municipal mayor, together with
policemen and a civilian, demolished a store and took
away its contents, pursuant to a municipal ordinance.
CA acquitted them of the charge of grave coercion
based on reasonable doubt but ordered them to pay
damages.
ISSUE: WON CA erred in requiring petitioners to pay
damages after acquitting them of the criminal charge.
HELD: NO. The civil liability is not extinguished by
acquittal where the acquittal is based on reasonable
count as only a preponderance of evidence is required
in civil cases.
CLASS
NOT E
CLASS
NOT E
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 8
1. liability of
defendant
employer
2.
defendant
employers
defense
3. vinculum juris
(legal tie)
4.
what
a
plaintiff needs
to prove
CLASS
Under QD
Presumptive
liability
Under BoC
Direct
and
immediate
Rebut
presumption
through proof of
the exercise of
due care in
selection
and
supervision
Created by the
wrongful
or
negligent
act/omission
itself
Defendants
fault
or
negligence
Prove
performance
contract
contributory
negligence
of
or
Independent the
breach of the
duty assumed by
the parties
The contract and
its
nonperformance.
The negligence
need not be
proven
Fores v Miranda
FACTS: Miranda was a passenger of a jeep which hit a
wall and fractured his right humerus. He sues under
contract of carriage. CA awarded him with moral
damages.
HELD: SC deleted moral damages. Moral damages are
not recoverable for actions based on BoC unless there
is bad faith. There was no bad faith because: [1] mere
carelessness of the driver does not justify the inference
of bad faith; and [2] under Art 1756, the presumption is
that common carriers acted negligently (and not
maliciously)
Doctrine:
case:
1.
moral
damages
NOT ES
2.
defendant
carriers
defense
3. what plaintiff
needs to prove
CLASS
Under QD
Anywhere there
are
physical
injuries
(Art
2219[2])
Proof of due
diligence
in
selection
and
supervision
Carriers fault or
negligence
Under BoC
Recoverable
only
if
passenger dies
or
there
is
malice or bad
faith
(proof of due
diligence
not
available)
Injury
to
passenger. No
need to prove it
was carriers
Fault
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Rakes v Atlantic
PAGE 9
He sues for damages. RTC awarded him moral and
exemplary damages.
CLASS
NOT ES
Far East v CA
FACTS: Plaintiff Luna got a Far East credit card which
was dishonored at a despedida party due to a hotlist
policy compelled by the loss of the complementary card.
CLASS
NOT E
CLASS
NOT ES
PSBA v CA
FACTS: A PSBA student was stabbed and killed by
non-students while in the school premises. His parents
sued PSBA and its officers under A2180 for ther
negligence, recklessness and lack of security measures.
Defendants argue that they are not covered by 2180 as
they are an academic institution. RTC and CA denied
motion to dismiss.
HELD: The school is not liable under QD because [1]
A2180 applies only if damage was caused by students
or pupils [2] a 2176 applies only if there isno contractual
relation. However, the SC ordered the remand of the
case because there was a contractual obligation to
provide both education and security. Trial must proceed
to determine if the breach was due to negligence.
Doctrine: Qualified Air France v Carrascos
pronouncement by saying the phrase, the act that
breaks the contract may also bea tort only applies if the
BoC was done in [1] bad faith and [2] in violation of Art
21 (willfully causing loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy)
CLASS
NOT E
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Syquia v CA
FACTS: The parents and siblings of the deceased
Syquia file suit for damages arising from BoC and/or QD
against Manila Memorial Park Cemetery because the
coffin was flooded due to a hole in the wall of the
concrete vault placed by defendants. CA determined
that there was no negligence.
HELD: Action is based on BoC. The Deed of Sale and
Certificate of Perpetual Care govern the relation of the
parties and defined their rights and obligations. There is
no stipulation that the vault would be waterproof. Plus,
Memorial exercise the diligence of a good father of a
family in preventing the accumulation of the water inside
the vault which would have resulted in the caving in of
earth around the grave filling the same with earth.
Doctrines:[1] If there is a pre-existing contractual
relation, then any negligence would be actionable under
BoC, not QD. [2] If there is no stipulation or legal
provision to the contrary, the diligence to be observed in
the performance of a contractual obligation is that which
is expected of a good father of a family.
CLASS
NOT ES
PAGE 10
Culpa Aquiliana (QD)
Independent contract
Defense is available
Employers
responsibility
presumptive
is
De Leon (pp.157-160)
1. Requisites of QD:
a. An act or omission by defendant
b. Fault or negligence by defendant
c. Damage or injury to plaintiff
d. Direct relation of cause and effect
between act or omission and the
damage
e. No
pre-existing
contractual
relationship
2.
3.
Burden of Proof
a. Falls on the person claiming damages
b. To be established with satisfactory
evidence
c. Negligence is not presumed. Only
under Arts. 2180, 2183, and 2191 is
presumed and burden of proof shifts
to defendant
QD arising from BoC
a. the existence of a contract does not
preclude the commission of a QD..
b. Contractual responsibility and extracontractual liability exclude each other
and cannot be cumulated.
Tort liability arises from BoC when the is
act or omission is in itself wrongful
independent of the contract, the breach of
which being merely incidental to the
commission of the tort.
4.
Jec
TORTS
AND
CLASS
DAMAGES
NOT ES
III. NEGLIGENCE
A. Concept of Negligence
1. Definition; Elements
Art. 1173 The fault or negligence of the obligor
consists in the omission of that diligence which
is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the
persons, of the time and of the place. When
negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of
articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 shall
apply.
If the law or contact does not state
the diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a good
father of a father of a family shall be required.
CLASS
NOT ES
PAGE 11
HELD: Smith is liable for damages because applying
the standard of a prudent man, he was negligent. A
prudent man would have recognized that the course
which he was pursuing was fraught with risk, and would
have foreseen harm to the horse and rider as a
reasonable consequence of that course. Smith should
have: 1. Stopped 2. Slowed down or 3. Veered to the
right.
Doctrines: 1. The Constitutive fact of negligence is the
reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of
the admonition born of this pre-vision.
2. Test of negligence would a prudent man foresee
harm to the person injured as a reasonable
consequence of the course about to be pursued?
3. Take note however, that a person can be expected to
take care only when there is something before them to
suggest or warn of danger. Omniscience of the future is
not a requirement.
Notes: The car was on the proper side of the bridge.
Sir thinks that the ruling is problematic because had the
car veered away, it would then be on the improper side
of the road.
CLASS
NOTES
Picart v Smith
FACTS: Picart improperly pulled his horse on the right
side (wrong side of the road) of the bridge. Smith drove
his car toward the horse, veering away only when the
car was only a few feet away from the horse. The horse
got spooked and got killed.
Wright v MERALCO
FACTS: An intoxicated Wright was thrown off his
calesa after it was pitched forward by Meralcos
protruding railtrack. CFI awarded him damages but
apportioned the same since he was negligent as well,
CLASS
NOTES
Corliss v Manila
FACTS: Plaintiff orliss husband died of some serious
burns because the jeep he was driving collided with
Manila Railroads train at the railroad crossing because
of his eagerness to beat the locomotive and reach the
other side.
HELD: Complaint is dismissed. Husband was negligent
because [1] one approaching a railroad crossing do so
cautiously and carefully. He should look and listen and
do everything that a reasonably prudent man would do
before he attempts to cross the track; [2] a prudent man
under similar circumstances would have heeded the
siren of the oncoming train, stopped and allowed the
train to pass; [3] the train driver had already applied its
brakes and was running at 23-30kph; and [4] he had the
duty to stop his jeep to avoid a collision because the
driver of the locomotive was not qualified to do so at the
time.
Doctrine: Negligence is defined as the want of care
required by the circumstances. It is not an absolute
term and its application depends upon the situation of
the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 12
Valenzuela v CA
Far Eastern v CA
Civil Aeronautics v CA
FACTS: The plaintiff broke his thigh bone because he
slipped over a
4-inch elevation at the end of the
viewing deck of the airport since he wanted a better
view of the incoming passengers including his future
son- in- law. He filled an action for damages based on
QD.
HELD: Defendant is liable for exemplary damages since
there was gross negligence in failing in its duty to insure
the safety of the viewers because the tendency of the
viewers on the deck would be to look to where the
planes and the incoming passengers are and not to look
down on the floor or pavement.
Doctrines: [1] An object can still be placed negligently
even if it has a legitimate purpose for being there. [2]
Definition of gross negligence as equivalent to
notorious negligence which consists in the failure to
exercise even slight care
Notes: SC, just like in Valenzuela v. CA, took into
consideration normal human circumstances (i.e. that
2. Standard of conduct
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a. Children
Article 8, RPC
A minor fifteen years of age is presumed to be capable
of committing a crime and is to be held criminally liable
therefore. (this was in Taylor. This also might mean Art
80 RPC)???
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 13
be determines in each case by the circumstances of the
case.
In the case of young children, and other persons not fully sui juris, an
implied license might sometimes arise when it not on behalf of others. Thus
leaving a tempting thing for children to play with exposed, where they would
be likely to gather for that purpose, may be equivalent to an invitation to them
to make use of it; and perhaps, if one were to throw upon his premises, near
the common way, things tempting to children, the same implication should
arise.
CLASS
NOTES
childs own act of climbing into the structure that was the
proximate cause of the fall of the counter.
HELD: (Citing Sangco) Since negligence may be a
felony and a quasi-delict and required discernment as a
condition of liability, either criminal or civil, a child under
9 years of age is, by analogy, conclusively presumed to
be incapable of negligence; and that the presumption of
lack of discernment or incapacity for negligence in the
case of a child over 9 but under 15 years of age is
rebuttable, under our law. The rule, therefore, is that the
child under 9 years of age must be conclusively
presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a
matter of law.
RULE: A child under 9 years of age must be
conclusively presumed incapable of contributory
negligence as a matter of law.
Casis: Does this mean that Sangco did not set a
standard of conduct for children but merely a formula?
No. The court did not cite him correctly. Sangco had the
standard of an ordinary prudent child.
Jarco Marketing v CA
FACTS: Zhieneth, 6, was pinned by the bulk of the
department stores gift-wrapping counter/structure and
died. The department store contended that it was the
CLASS
NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Magtibay v Tiangco
FACTS: Rowel Tiangco, under 18, was found guilty of
homicide through reckless imprudence. Being under 18,
his sentence was suspended until he reached majority.
Later, in view of his conduct, his lawyer recommended
the dismissal of his case. CFI dismissed but reversed
the right of the heirs to recover damages in a civil action.
HELD: The suspension of sentence did not wipe out his
guilt, but merely put off the imposition of the
corresponding penalty in order to give the delinquent
minor a chance to be reformed. When, therefore, after
he had observed good conduct, the criminal case was
dismissed, this does not mean that he was exonerated
from the crime charged, but simply that he would suffer
no penalty. Nor did such dismissal of the case obliterate
is civil liability for damages.
RULE: Liability of an infant in a civil action for his torts is
imposed as a mode, not of punishment but of
compensation. For every tortuous act of violence or
other pure tort, the infant tort-feasor is liable in a civil
action to the injured person in the same manner and in
the same extent as an adult.
PAGE 14
downwards, exclaiming Ay! Madre. The end of the wire
remained in contact with his body which fell near the
post. Upon being taken to the hospital, he was
pronounced dead.
HELD: It is doubtful whether contributory negligence
can be properly imputed to the deceased, owing to his
immature years and natural curiosity which a child would
feel to do something out of the ordinary, and the mere
fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a
companion of the age of 8 years does not alter the case.
But even supposing that the contributory negligence
could in some measure be properly imputed to the
deceased, yet such negligence would not be wholly fatal
to the right of action in this case,not having been the
determining cause of the accident.
RULE: It is doubtful whether contributory negligence
can be properly imputed to the deceased, owing to his
immature years and natural curiosity.
CLASS
NOTES
Ylarde v Aquino
CLASS
NOTES
CLASS
NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 15
3. Experts, professionals
CLASS
NOTES
Johnny Quest
when a person who holds himself out as being
competent to do things, he will be held liable
for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care &
skill of an expert
high degree of care
US v Pineda
FACTS: Pineda, a pharmacist, sold barium
chlorate(poisonous) instead of potassium chlorate
which killed 2 horses.
HELD: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding
care and skill. The responsibility to use care has
been variously qualified as ordinary care, care of
a specially high degree, the highest degree of
care known to practical men, which is the highest
practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness,
vigilance, and the most exact and reliable
safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct
of business, in order that human life may not
constantly be exposed to danger flowing from the
substitution of deadly poison for harmless medicine.
The care required must be commensurate with the
danger involved, and
the skill employed must
correspond with the superior knowledge of the
business which the law demands. The question of
negligence or ignorance is irrelevant. The druggist is
responsible as an absolute guarantor of what he
sells.
RULE: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding
care and skill. The responsibility to use care has
been variously qualified as ordinary care, care of
a specially high degree, the highest degree of
care known to practical men.
CLASS
NOTES
o pharmacist: knowledgeable
o buyer: cant check for himself
Consider nature of work and danger involved
Cruz v CA
FACTS: Lydia Umali underwent a surgery under Dr.
Ninevetch Cruz wherein the untidy clinic ran out of
medicine, blood and oxygen that the patient had to be
transferred to another hospital, where she died.
HELD: While it may be true that the circumstances
seemed beyond cavil to constitute reckless imprudence
on the part of the surgeon, this conclusion is best
arrived at not through the educated surmises nor
conjectures of laymen, including judges, but by the
unquestionable knowledge of expert witnesses. For
whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the
requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his
patient is, in the generality of cases, a matter of expert
opinion. The deference of courts to the expert opinion
of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the
latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in
most instances are capable of intelligently evaluating.
Expert testimony should have been offered to prove that
the circumstances cited are constitutive of conduct
falling below the standard of care employed by other
physicians in good standing when performing the same
operation.
RULE: The deference of courts to the expert opinion of
qualified physicians stems from its realization that the
latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in
most instances are capable of intelligently evaluating.
CLASS
NOT ES
BPI v CA
FACTS: BPIs money market people pre-terminated
Fernandos placement through a phone call and only
verified her identity by phone. The phony Fernando
deposited the two BPI checks to China Bank and
Relationship: danger
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOTES
CLASS
4. Intoxication
PAGE 16
NOTES
CLASS
NOTES
5. Insanity
Art. 2180, NCC
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable
not only for one's acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the
minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.
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.
US v Baggay
FACTS: In a song service, Baggay suddenly, without
provocation attacked a woman with a bolo on her head ,
from which she died. He likewise inflicted various
wounds on other women with the same bolo, including
his own mother. Since defendant was suffering from
mental aberration, trial court rendered him exempt from
criminal liability but was obligated to indemnify the heirs
of the murdered woman.
HELD: In the case of a lunatic or insane person who, in
spite of his irresponsibility on account of the deplorable
condition of his deranged mind, is still reasonably and
justly liable with his property for the consequences of his
acts, even though performed unwittingly, for the reason
that his fellows ought not to suffer from the disastrous
results of his harmful acts more than is necessary, in
spite of his unfortunate condition. According to law, the
person in the first place liable are those who have the
insane party under their care or guardianship, unless
they prove that there was no blame or negligence on
their part; but if the demented person or imbecile lack a
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOTES
PAGE 17
safety of his person, that he could not have been but
conscious of the probable consequences of his
carelessness and that he was indifferent, or worse, to
the danger of his injury. There is more reason to hold
that his death was caused by his notorious negligence.
If while he was working, his bill merely fell from his
pocket, and as he picked it up from the floor something
accidentally fell upon him and injured him, he would
surely be entitled to compensation, his act being
obviously innocent. Jumping into the sea, however, is
entirely different, the danger which it entails being clear,
potent and obvious.
RULE: Notorious negligence has been held to be
tantamount to gross negligence, which is want of
even slight care and diligence.
-
B. Degrees of Negligence
Art. 2231
In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if
the defendant acted with gross negligence.
CLASS
NOTES
degree of danger
cf. value
Amedo v Rio
NOTES
CLASS
NOTES
SANGCO (10-12)
The amount of care demanded by the standard of
reasonable conduct must be proportionate to the
apparent risk.
DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE:
SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE - an absence of that degree of
vigilance which persons of extraordinary prudence and
foresight are accustomed to use. (failure to exercise
care)
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 18
C. Proof of Negligence
1. Burden of Proof
RULE
131:
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
PRESUMPTIONS
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
AND
1. Presumption
Art. 2184
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle,
could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented
the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver
was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless
Art. 2185
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.
Art. 2188
There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the
part of the defendant if the death or injury results from
his possession of dangerous weapons or substances,
such as firearms and poison, except when the
possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business.
Art. 1734
Common carriers are responsible for the loss,
destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the
same is due to any of the following causes only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural
disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international
or civil;
(3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing
or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.
Art. 1735
In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost,
destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.
CLASS
NOTES
Art 2184 CC
disputable presumption:
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Art 2185 CC
disputable
presumption:
violate
traffic
regulation
o no conviction required
o however, Sangco says this also
requires conviction
common carriers
PAGE 19
he should have due regard for the rights of motor
vehicles and should exercise due care for his own
safety.
Where proof of violation makes:
1. a prima facie case of negligence
2. gives rise to a presumption of lack of
ordinary care
PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE
FOUR GENERAL GROUNDS OR EXCUSES FOR
VIOLATION OF A STATUTE:
1. anything that would make it impossible to
comply with the statute or ordinance
2. anything over which the defendant has no
control and which places him or an
instrumentality that he is operating in a
position contrary to that required by the
statute or ordinance
3. an emergency not of the actors own
making which causes him to fail to obey
the enactment
4. conduct which comes within an excuse or
exception provided in the statute
One who has in his possession or under his control an
instrumentality EXTREMELY DANGEROUS in character
is bound to take EXCEPTIONAL precautions to prevent
injury being done thereby.
The care required is a great or high
degree, or the HIGHEST degree of
precaution.
The presumption DOES NOT APPLY to
those whose occupation or business
REQUIRES the possession or use of a
firearm, such as peace officers or armed
forces, or in the case of poison, the drug
companies or stores.
WRT to COMMON CARRIERS
Common carriers from the nature of their business and
for reasons of public policy are bound to observe
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in the vigilance over the
goods and safety of passengers transported by them
according to all circumstances of each case.
The law on averages under the Code of
Commerece cannot be applied in
determining
negligence.
liability
where
there
is
CLASS
NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Ramos v CA
FACTS: Ramos, undergoing a gall bladder operation,
went comatose because she was incorrectly intubated.
HELD: Res ipsa (The thing or transaction speaks for
itself) the fact of the occurrence of the injury, taken
with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an
inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make
out a plaintiffs prima facie case, and present a question
of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation.
Requisites are:
1. the accident is of a kind that ordinarily
does not occur in the absence of
someones negligence
2. it is caused by an instrumentality within the
exclusive control of the defendant or
defendants
3. the possibility of contributing conduct
which would make plaintiff responsible is
eliminated.
The fundamental element is control of instrumentality
which caused the damage. Generally, expert testimony
is relied upon in malpractice suits to prove a physician
has done a negligent act or that he has deviated from
the standard medical procedure, when the doctrine is
availed of by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical
testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself
provides the proof of negligence. In cases where the
doctrine is applicable, the court is permitted to find a
physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to
patient, without aid of expert testimony, where the court
from its common knowledge can determine the proper
standard of care. The doctrine is generally restricted to
PAGE 20
situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able
to say, as a matter of common knowledge and
observation, that the consequences of professional care
were not as such as would ordinarily have followed if
due care had been exercised.
CLASS
NOTES
RIL applicable:
No expert testimony
Court adjudicated based on common
knowledge fund
The foundation of RIL is common knowledge
evidentiary rule: doesnt do away with
presenting evidence
must prove these elements:
accident doesnt occur w/o persons negligence
defendant has exclusive control over the
instrumentality
no contributory negligence on plaintiffs part
RIL & malpractice suits:
o Gen rule: expert testimony needed
(Cruz v CA)
o Exception: If case can be gleaned
from common knowledge (Ramos v
CA)
in Cruz, they didnt provide expert testimony
therefore they lost
in Ramos, can use common knowledge
medical malpractice
domain of medical science: expert needed
RIL
common knowledge: no need for expert
preparation for procedure
if theres failure / didnt get the results
expected, RIL n/a
*question: when is a medical malpractice case
common knowledge or in the domain of
medical science?*
RIL is NA in malpractice suits if the only
showing is that the desired result was not
Batiguin v CA
CLASS
NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 21
DM Consunji v CA
th
CLASS
NOTES
RIL applies
theoretical basis:
o proof is in exclusive control of
defendant
o bridge that connects plaintiff to the
proof
Prof. Casiss problem: theres evidence (police
report, testimony & affidavit). It is like saying
that even if there is evidence, one could still
argue RIL to win the case.
Prof. Casis thinks that it is the victims fault for
falling off the platform.
SANCO (27-32)
RES IPSA LOQUITOR the facts or circumstances
attending an injury may be such as to raise a
presumption, or permit an inference, of negligence on
F. DEFENSES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Plaintiffs negligence
Contributory negligence
Fortuitous event
Assumption of risk
Due diligence
Damnum absque injuria
Prescription
Double recovery
CLASS
NOTE
CLASS
NOTES
1. Plaintiffs Negligence
Art. 2179, NCC
When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover
damages. But if his negligence was only contributory,
the immediate and proximate cause being the
defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
Bernardo v Legaspi
FACTS: CFI dismissed the complaint filed in an action
to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiffs
automobile by reason of defendants negligence in
causing a collision. Court also dismissed a crosscomplaint filed by the defendant, praying for damages
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 22
excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the
installation of its underground conduit system.
HELD: The accident was due to the lack of diligence of
Antonio. His jeep was running along the inside lane of
the street but it swerved abruptly, causing the jeep to hit
the mound. Proximate cause was the unexplained and
abrupt swerving of the jeep. Court also found that the
jeep was running too fast. The negligence of Antonio
was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his
wife, but goes to the very cause of the occurrence of the
accident and thereby precludes their right to recover
damages.
NOTES: negligence imputed included knowledge of the
place. The Estebans passed that mound several times.
Bernal v House
2. Contributory Negligence
FACTS: Mother and child were walking along a street,
with the child a few steps ahead. She got startled by an
automobile and ran back to her mother. She fell into a
ditch with hot water and later died. CFI denied damages
to parents because they were negligent.
HELD: SC held they were not. Mother and child had a
right to be on that street. There was nothing abnormal
in letting a child run along a few paces ahead of the
mother. Contributory negligence of the child and her
mother, if any, does not operate as a bar to recovery but
could only result in reduction of damages.
CLASS
NOTES
CLASS
NOTE
Rakes v Atlantic
FACTS: The truck plaintiff was riding fell because the
track sagged. The rails that they were transporting slid
off the truck and caught his lag. Later, his leg was
amputated. Company said Rakes was negligent
because: (1) he continued his work despite having
noticed the depression in the track, and (2) he walked
on the ends of the ties at the side of the car instead of
along the boards.
HELD: As to the first, Court held that Rakes had been
working for less than 2 days. He could not have known
that one rail was lower than the other or that the
stringers and rails joined in the same place. As to the
second, Court found that there was a general prohibition
against walking by the side of the car. The disobedience
of the plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed in
some degree to the injury as a proximate, although not
its primary cause. The Court made a distinction between
the accident and the injury. If the plaintiffs negligence
contributed to the accident, he cannot recover. But if his
negligence only contributed to his injury, he may recover
the amount that the defendant responsible for the
accident should pay fpr the injury, less a sum deemed
an equitable equivalent for his own imprudence.
PLDT v CA
FACTS: Antonio and Gloria Estebans jeep ran over a
mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an
Genobiagon v CA
CLASS
NOTES
accident v. injury
o accident: cant recover
Defendants
contrib.
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 23
CLASS
NOTES
3. Fortuitous Event
Art. 1174, NCC
Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when
it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk,
no person shall be responsible for those events which
could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable.
CLASS
NOTES
Juntilla v Funtanar
FACTS: Plaintiff was seated in the front passenger seat
of a public utility jeepney when the right tire blew up. He
was thrown out of the jeep and suffered injuries. He
also lost his omega watch.
HELD:
SC said that there are specific acts of
negligence on the part of the respondents. Jeep was
running at a very fast speed and was overloaded. In
this case, the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence was not independent of human will. It was
caused either through the negligence of the driver or
because of the mechanical defects in the tire.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CASO FORTUITO:
1.
Cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with
his obligation must be independent of human will.
2. It must be impossible to foresee the event which
constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it is
impossible to avoid.
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner
4. Obligor must be free from participation in the
aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.
CLASS
NOT ES
Hernandez v COA
FACTS: Hernandez encashed 2 checks salaries of
employees and operating expenses of the project. He
chose to bring the money with him to his house in
Bulacan instead of returning to the office in Cavite. On
his way home, 2 robbers boarded the jeep and took the
money. He ran after them, but was only able to
apprehend one. He filed a request for relief from money
accountability. COA denied the request.
HELD: SC held in favor of Hernandez. The decision he
made seemed logical at that time and one that could be
expected of a reasonable and prudent person. And if,
as it happened, the 2 robbers attacked him in broad
daylight in the jeep, while it was on a busy highway, and
in the presence of other passengers, it cannot be said
that all this was a result of his imprudence and
negligence. It was a fortuitous event, something that
could not have reasonably be foreseen though it could
have happened, and it did.
NOTES: This case doesnt say that robberies are
fortuitous events. It just said that this particular robbery
was a fortuitous event.
CLASS
NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOTES
PAGE 24
attributable to the negligence of the appellant or its
employees.
NOTE:
event.
CLASS
NOTES
fire was FE
*it was taken for granted that a fire is a
fortuitous event (there was no explanation
given why fire was a fortuitous event)*
National Power v CA
FACTS: Respondents filed a complaint for damages
against NPC for loss of lives and property caused by the
flooding of Norzagaray, Bulacan. They claimed that
despite knowledge of the impending entry of the
typhoon Kading, NPC failed to exercise due diligence in
monitoring the water level so when the water level went
beyond the maximum allowable limit, NPC suddenly,
negligently and recklessly opened 3 of the dams
spillways.
HELD: SC did not accept defense of force majeure.
PRINCIPLE OF ACT OF GOD strictly requires that the
act must be one occasioned exclusively by the violence
of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded
from creating or entering inot the cause of the mischief.
When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered,
is found to be in part the result of the participation of
man, whether to be from active intervention or neglect,
or failure to act, the whole occurrence is thereby
humanized.
CLASS
NOTES
Southeastern College v CA
FACTS: During a typhoon, schools roof was partly
ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroying
portions of the roofing of respondents house. A team of
engineers conducted an ocular inspection and found
that the causes may have been the U-shaped formation
of the building and the improper anchorage of the
trusses to the roof beams.
HELD: Court found that other than the report submitted
by the engineers, no investigation was conducted to
determine the real cause of the incident. Respondents
did not even show that the plans, specs and design of
the school building were defective. On the other hand,
city building official testified that the school obtained
both building permit and certificate of occupancy; same
official gave go signal for repairs of damage of typhoon
th
and subsequently authorized the use of the entire 4
floor of the building; annual maintenance inspection and
repair of the school building was regularly undertaken;
and that no complaints have been lodged in the past.
Therefore, petitioner has not been shown negligent or at
fault regarding the construction and maintenance of the
school building. Typhoon was the proximate cause.
CASO FORTUITO event which takes place by
accident and could not have been reasonably foreseen,
it is an unexpected event or act of God which could
neither be foreseen nor resisted.
2 GENERAL CAUSES:
1. By nature- earthquakes, storms, floods, etc.
2. By the act of man- armed invasion, attack by bandits,
governmental prohibition, etc.
CLASS
NOTES
typhoon is FE
flying roof is FE
typhoon was proximate cause of damage to
neighboring house
*take this case for definition of force majeur*
*credibility of ocular inspection discredited so
this is strange because this runs counter to
Gotesco*
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 25
known danger, he must abide by the consequence, if an
emergency is found to exist, or if the life or property of
another is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property.
CLASS
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Afialda v Hisole
FACTS: Caretaker of carabaos was gored by a carabao
and he later died as a consequence of his injuries.
Action was predicated on Art 1905 CC.
HELD: Court said A1905 makes possessory user of
animal liable for any damages it may cause. In this
case, the animal was under the control of the caretaker.
It was his business to try to prevent the animal from
causing injury to anyone, including himself. Being
injured by the animal under these circumstances was
one of the risks of the occupation which he had
voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the
consequences.
CLASS
NOTES
NOTES
*SANGCO (pp.81-84)
NOTES:
VIOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA: applies to noncontractual relations;
3 requisites:
(1) plaintiff had actual knowledge of the
damage;
(2) he understood an appreciated the risk from
danger;
(3) he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk.
5. DUE DILIGENCE
Ilocos Norte v CA
Ramos v PEPSI
Metro Manila v CA
FACTS: A jeep and a bus collided. Their owners
refused to pay damages to the injured passenger.
HELD: SC held that testimonial evidence of due
diligence, in order to hold sway, must be corroborated
by documentary evidence. Mere formulation of various
company policies on safety (as testified by Christian
Bautista), without showing documentary proof that they
were being followed or complied with is not sufficient to
exempt petitioner from liability arising from negligence of
its employees.
NOTES: defense of due diligence is plausible when
defendant has presented enough evidence to overcome
the presumption of negligence. It is not enough that it is
alleged.
(Sir: MMTC said that it was not enough to issue manuals
etc, but implementation or actual enforcement is more
important.)
CLASS
NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 26
Kramer v CA
Allied Banking v CA
FACTS: Apr 1, 1976 Yujuico obtained loan fr
GenBank payable on or before Apr 1, 1977
- Mar 25, 1977 Monetary Board issued resolution
forbidding GenBank from doing business in Phils.
- Allied acquired all assets and assumed all liabilities of
GenBank
- Feb 7, 1979 Allied filed complaint against resp
Joselita for collection of a sum of money
- 1987 in the course of the proceedings, resp sought
rd
to implead Central Bank and Aurellano as 3 party
defendants. It was alleged that by reason of the tortous
interference by the CB with affairs of GenBank, resp
was prevented from performing his obligation under the
loan.
rd
- RTC denied admission of 3 party complainant.
- Petitioner claims that cause of action has already
prescribed.
Since it was founded on tortuous
interference, it prescribes in 4 yrs. Petitioner believes
that the cause of action accrued on Mar 25, 1977, the
date when Monetary Board ordered GenBank to desist
from doing business in the Philippines. Complainant
should have filed before Mar 25, 1981.
- Respondent relies on the Doctrine of Relations or
Relations Bank Doctrine to support his claim that the
rd
cause of action as against the proposed 3 party
defendant accrued only on Dec 12, 1986 when the
decision became final and executory.
Thus, it is
rd
contended that while the 3 party complaint was filed
only on Jun 17, 1987, it must be deemed to have been
CLASS
NOTES
8. DOUBLE RECOVERY
Art. 2177, NCC
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from
the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal
Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice
for the same act or omission of the defendant.
IV.
1. Definition
Bataclan v Medina
FACTS: A bus speeding on its way to Pasay City at
2am when one of its front tires burst, as a result of which
the vehicle zigzagged, fell into a canal or ditch, and
turned turtle. 4 passengers were unable to get out of
the bus. Calls and shouts for help were made in the
neighborhood. At 2:30am, 10 men came, one of them
carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a wick
fueled with petroleum. When they approached the bus,
a fierce fire started, burning the bus and the 4
passengers. It appears that as the bus overturned, the
gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline
tank, spreading over the bus and the ground under it,
and that the lighted torch set it on fire.
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident?
HELD: The overturning of the bus, and not the fire that
burned the bus, is the proximate cause. The coming of
the men with the torch was to be expected and was a
natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the
trapping of the passengers and the call for outside help.
CLASS
CAUSATION
A. Proximate cause
CLASS
NOTES
NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 27
Urbano v IAC
FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in
his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who
issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9
days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in
dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. On
November 14, he died of tetanus.
ISSUE: WON the hacking by Urbano of Javier was the
proximate cause of Javiers death. ---NO.
Fernando v CA
FACTS: Bertulano was invited to bid for the reemptying of a septic tank, which had not been cleaned
for 19 years. Before the award was made (he lost), he
and 4 companions surreptitiously entered the septic
tank, without clearance from the market master. They
died in the septic tank due to the intake of toxic gas
produced from the waste matter therein.
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the death of
the victims?
HELD: The proximate cause of the death of the victims
was their failure to take precautionary measures for their
safety. Considering the nature of the task of emptying a
septic tank, especially one which has not been cleaned
for years, an ordinarily prudent person would
undoubtedly be aware of the attendant risks. More so
with Bertulano, an old hand in this kind of service, who
is presumed to know the hazards of the job.
Note: The court adopted the Bataclan definition of
proximate cause.
CLASS
NOT ES
Pilipinas Banking v CA
FACTS: Florencio Reyes issued two post-dated checks.
To cover the face value of the checks, he requested
PCIB to effect a withdrawal from his savings account
there and have it deposited with his current account with
Pilipinas Bank. Santos, who made the deposit, wrote the
wrong account number on the deposit slip, but wrote the
name of Florencio Reyes as the depositors name. The
Current Account Bookkeeper of Pilipinas Bank, seeing
that the account number coincided with the name
Florencio, deposited the amount in the account of
Florencio Amador.
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the injury to
Reyes?
HELD: The proximate cause of the injury is the
negligence of Pilipinas Banks employee in erroneously
positing the cash deposit of Reyes in the name of
another depositor who had a similar first name. The
employee should have continuously gone beyond mere
assumption.
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOT ES
PAGE 28
CLASS
NOT ES
Urbano v IAC
FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in
his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who
issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9
days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in
dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. On
November 14, he died of tetanus.
ISSUE: WON the hacking was the proximate cause of
Javiers death. ---NO.
HELD: There is a likelihood that the wound was but the
remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to
take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have
been the proximate cause of Javiers death with which
Urbano had nothing to do.
Citing Manila Electric v. Remoquillo: A prior
and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an
action if such remote cause did nothing more than
furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by
which the injury was made possible, if there intervened
between such prior or remote cause and the injury a
distinct, successive, unrelated and efficient cause of the
injury, even though such injury would not have
happened except but for such condition or occasion.
CL ASS
NOTE
b. Concurrent
Far Eastern Shipping Company v CA
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CL ASS
PAGE 29
HELD: The carrier and its driver were negligent for
allowing Custodio to hang by the side of the bus. The
truck driver was also negligent for speeding through the
middle portion of the road.
Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is
independent, in its execution, of the negligence of the
truck driver and its owner, both acts of negligence are
the proximate cause of Custodios death.
Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
omission of two or more persons, although acting
independently of each other, are, in combination, the
direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third
person, and it is impossible to determine in what
proportion each contributed to the injury, either is
responsible for the whole injury, even though his act
alone might not have caused the entire injury, or the
same damage might have resulted from the acts of the
other tortfeasor.
CL ASS
NOTE
a. But for
Bataclan v Medina
Sabido v Custodio
FACTS: Custodio, a passenger of a bus, was hanging
onto its left side. While the bus was negotiating a sharp
curve of a bumpy and downward slope, a speeding truck
going in the opposite direction side-swiped Custodio,
who died as a result thereof.
ISSUE: Who was negligent and what is the extent of
liability? ---BOTH solidarily liable.
3. Tests
NOTE
CL ASS
NOTE
b. Substantial Factor
CL ASS
N O T E S ()
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 30
4. Foreseeability test
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 31
CL ASS
NOTE
CLASS NOTES
CLASS NOTES
CLASS
NOT ES
McKee v IAC
FACTS: A cargo truck and a Ford Escort were traveling
in opposite directions. When the car was 10 meters
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 32
by lightning, or if some highway men 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.
Bataclan v Medina
FACTS: A bus was speeding on its way to Pasay City at
2AM when one of its front tires burst, as a result of
which the vehicle zigzagged, fell into a canal or ditch,
and turned turtle. Four passengers were unable to get
out of the bus. Calls and shouts for help were made in
the neighborhood. At 2:30AM, 10 men came, one of
them carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a
wick fueled in petroleum. When they approached the
bus, a fierce fire started, burning the bus and the 4
passengers. It appears that as the bus overturned, the
gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline
tank, spreading over the bus and the ground under it,
and that the lighted torch set it on fire.
ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause
NO.
HELD: The coming of the men with the torch was to be
expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning
of the bus, the trapping of passengers and the call for
outside help.
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,
CLASS
NOT ES
CLASS
NOT ES
CLASS
NOT ES
Teague v Fernandez
Urbano v IAC
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 33
Smith
4.
CLASS
NOT E
CLASS
NOT ES
Picart v Smith
*Provides for the classic definition of Last Clear Chance:
the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the
impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without reference to the prior negligence
of the other party.
FACTS: Picart riding his pony was on the wrong side of
the road. Smith driving his car stayed on his right lane
and so both Picart and Smith were on the same lane.
Smith stayed on his lane and swerved to the other lane
quickly, thereby almost hitting the pony. Pony became
frightened and lost control and Picart was thrown out of
the pony and got injured. Picart then filed a case against
CLASS
NOT E
Bustamante v CA
- Practical importance of LCCD
CLASS
N O T E S ()
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
RATIO:
The Last Clear Chance doctrine of the
Common Law was imported into our jurisdiction by
Picart vs. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether,
or to what extent, it has found its way into the Civil Code
of the Philippines.
The doctrine was applied by
Common Law because they had a rule that contributory
negligence prevented any recovery at all by a negligent
plaintiff. BUT in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of
the Civil Code which rejects the Common Law doctrine
of contributory negligence. Thus, the court in this case
stated that it does not believe so that the general
concept of Last Clear Chance has been utilized in our
jurisdiction. Article 2179 on contributory negligence is
not an exercise in chronology or physics but what is
important is the negligent act or omission of each party
and the character and gravity of the risks created by
such act or omission for the rest of the community. To
say that Phoenix should be absolved from liability would
come close to wiping out the fundamental law that a
man must respond for the foreseeable consequences of
his own negligent act or omission.
-LCCD was not applied because the court thinks that
it is not applicable in our jurisdiction
CLASS
NOT ES
PAGE 34
Glan Peoples Lumber & Hardware v IAC
FACTS: RMC had an account in PBC and Secretary of
RMC was tasked to deposit its money. However, it turns
out that the Secretary would leave blank the duplicate
copy of the deposit slip where the banks teller would
validate it. Instead of writing the account number of the
company in the original copy retained by the bank,
Secretary would write the account number of husband.
Thus, RMCs funds were now in Secretarys husbands
account. RMC discovered this after 7 yers and then
filed a case against PBC to return its money
RATIO: PBC was negligent when its employee, teller,
validated a blank duplicate copy of the deposit slip.
PBC was also lackadaisical in its selection and
supervision on the teller since it never knew that blank
deposit slips were validated until this incident . Court
also applied Last Clear Chance Doctrine in saying that
PBC was really negligent.
LAST CLEAR CHANCE
CLASS
NOT ES
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 35
means at hand after the peril is or should have been
discovered
In this case, Pantranco bus was speeding and at
the speed of the approaching bus prevented
jeepney driver from swerving to avoid collision
Jeepney driver had NO opportunity to avoid it
- Sole and proximate cause of the accident:
Pantrancos driver in encroaching into the lane of the
incoming jeepney and in failing to return the bus to its
own lane immediately upon seeing the jeepney
coming from the opposite direction
CLASS
NOT E
Anuran v Buno
-Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied in this
case because there was no negligence on the part of
the Metropolitan Water District
FACTS
Kid drowned in one of the pools of Metropolitan Water
District
Reason why the kid drowned is unknown
Employees of the Metropolitan Water District acted as
soon as calls for help were heard and tried to revive
the kid but he still died
Case filed by parents of kid who drowned claiming
damages against Metropolitan Water District
Parents of kid claim that Metropolitan Water District
may still be held liable for the doctrine of Last Clear
Chance because it had the last opportunity to save
the kid
RATIO:
There is sufficient evidence to show that Metropolitan
Water District had taken all necessary precautions to
avoid danger to the lives of its patron or prevent
accidents which may cause their deaths
FACTS:
A passenger jeepney was parked at the side of the
road since one of the passengers alighted
A motor truck, speeding, then bumped into the
jeepney from behind with such violence that 3
passengers died
Thus, this case was filed by the heirs of the deceased
and of the injured to recover damages from the driver
and owner of the truck and the owner of the jeepney
CA: applied the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance and
held that only the truck was liable because although
the jeepney was guilty of antecedent negligence, the
truck was guilty of greater negligence which was the
efficient cause of the collision
RATIO:
Disagreed with the CA and held that both the truck
and jeepney were liable
The principle of Last Clear Chance would call for the
application in a suit between the owners and drivers
of the 2 colliding vehicles. It does NOT arise where a
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 36
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
In this case, ASB had the last clear chance to prevent
fraud, by simple expedient of faithfully complying with
the requirements of banks to ascertain the identity of
the persons transacting with them
For not observing the degree of diligence required of
banking institutions, ASB has to bear the loss sued
upon
-applied the LCCD
Canlas v CA
-Last Clear Chance Doctrine can apply in commercial
transactions
CLASS
NOT ES
FACTS:
2 parcels of land owned by Canlas were sold to
Manosca
Manosca issued 2 check that bounced
Manosca was then granted a loan by Asian Savings
Bank with the 2 parcels of land as security
2 impostors used who introduced themselves as the
spouses Canlas
mortgage was foreclosed
Canlas wrote to Asian Savings Bank regarding the
mortgage of Manosca of the 2 properties without their
consent
Canlas filed this case for annulment of the deed of
real estate mortgage against ASB
RATIO:
ASB was negligent in not exerting more effort to verify
the identity of the sps Canlas
The Bank should have required additional proof of the
true identity of the impostor aside from their residence
certificate
Applied the doctrine of Last Clear Chance which
states that:
Where both parties are negligent but the negligent
act of one is appreciable later in a point of time that
FACTS:
LC Diaz had a savings account with Solidbank.
After messenger of LC Diaz deposited amount, it took
so long so he had to leave the passbook
Turns out that the passbook was given to somebody
else (not the messenger or any employee of LC Diaz)
and was able to withdraw P300,000.00 from its
account.
Thus, LC Diaz filed this case for the recovery of sum
of money against Solidbank
CLASS
NOT E
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Engada v CA
PAGE 37
acts of his opponent, is considered in law solely
responsible for the consequences of the accident
- However, no convincing evidence was adduced to
support this defense
- Furthermore, the doctrine cannot be applied
because there was no time or opportunity to ponder
the situation at all. There was no clear chance to
speak of
Thus, driver of Isuzu guilty!
- did not apply LCCD because no clear chance
Facts required:
o That the plaintiff was in a position of danger
and by his own negligence became unable to
escape from such position by the use of
ordinary care, either because it became
physically impossible for him to do so or
because he was totally unaware of the danger.
o The defendant knew that the plaintiff was in a
position of danger and further knew, or in the
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 38
Pantranco
Baesa
Ong
v
Metropolitan
Anuran
Buno
Canlas v CA
Consolidated
Bank v CA
Engada v CA
the parties
who caused
the collision)
Heirs of the
passengers
of jeepney
(no contract)
was
negligent
No
Parents of
the
deceased
Heirs of the
passengers
of jeep (with
contract)
Canals (one
of
the
parties who
caused the
incident)
for
the
annulment
of the deed
No
LC Diaz
for
the
recovery of
the sum of
money
No
Inured party
(owner
of
the
Tamaraw)
CLASS
No
Yes
No
not
There was no
opportunity to
avoid
the
accident
and
driver was not
aware of the
peril
Defendant was
not negligent
There
was
contractual
relation
Defendant bank
had the last
clear chance to
prevent
the
fraud
Note: there was
no contractual
relation
between Canlas
and the bank
Liability of bank
arose
from
culpa
contractual and
so
doctrine
cannot
be
applied
There was no
clear chance in
avoiding
the
accident
because it was
an emergency
situation
NOT ES
V. STRICT LIABILITY
Blacks Law Dictionary definition:
Liability does not depend on actual negligence or intent
to harm, but that is based on the breach of an absolute
duty to make something safe. It most often applies
either to ultra hazardous activities or in product liability
cases. It is also known as absolute liability or liability
without fault.
CLASS
NOT E
A. Possessor of animals
Art. 2183, NCC
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 damage
should come from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage.
Vestil v IAC
FACTS: Theness Uy was bitten by Andoy, the dog of
Vestils father, when the victim was playing with Vestils
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOT ES
PAGE 39
CLASS
NOT ES
FACTS:
-The Dingcongs rented a house and established Central
Hotel. Kanaan, et.al. rented the ground floor of house
where they established the American Bazaar.
Echeverria rented room in the hotel.
-One night, Echevarria, carelessly left the faucet open
when retiring to bed, causing the water to run off and
spill to the ground, wetting the articles and merchandise
of the Kanaan's "American Bazaar" in the ground floor.
Kanaans filed complaint for damages against Echevarria
and Dingcongs.
HELD:
-Echevarria is liable for being the one who directly, by
his negligence in leaving open the faucet, caused the
water to spill to the ground and wet the articles and
merchandise of the plaintiffs.
-Dingcong, being a co-tenant and manager of the hotel,
with complete possession of the house, must also be
responsible for the damages caused. He failed to
exercise the diligence of a good father of the family to
prevent these damages, despite his power and authority
to cause the repair of the pipes.
CLASS
NOT E
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 40
CLASS
D. Product liability
Art. 2187 Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for
death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used, although no contractual relation exists
between them and the consumers.
CLASS
NOT ES
Consumer Act
Art. 97. Liability for the Defective Products. - Any
Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer, and any
importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of
fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects
resulting from design, manufacture, construction,
assembly and erection, formulas and handling and
making up, presentation or packing of their products, as
well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on
the use and hazards thereof.
A product is defective when it does not offer the safety
rightfully expected of it, taking relevant circumstances
into consideration, including but not limited to:
(a) presentation of product;
(b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
(c) the time it was put into circulation.
NOT E
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 41
is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) and results
in such article being adulterated or misbranded.
(h)
The use, on the labeling of any drug or in any
advertising relating to such drug, of any representation
or suggestion that an application with respect to such
drug is effective under Section twenty-one hereof, or
that such drug complies with the provisions of such
section.
(i)
The use, in labeling, advertising or other sales
promotion of any reference to any report or analysis
furnished in compliance with Section twenty-six hereof.
CLASS
NOT ES
Coca-Cola v CA
FACTS: Geronimo sold food and softdrinks in a school
canteen. A group of parents complained that fibrous
materials were found in the softdrink bottles bought by
their children. Upon inspection by the DOH, the bottles
were found to be adulterated. The sales of Geronimo
drastically dropped and she was forced to close shop.
She brought an action for damages against Coca-cola
and the trial court ruled that the complaint was based on
a contract, not quasi-delict and should have been filed
within 6 months from the delivery of the softdrinks.
Geronimo argues that her case is based on quasi-delict
and should prescribe in 4 years.
HELD: The Court sided with Geronimo. The vendees
remedies against a vendor with respect to the
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 42
7. Compensable Damages
Note:
The seller is not liable when he delivers the product in a
safe condition and subsequent mishandling or other
causes makes it harmful by the time it is consumed.
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 43
So Ping Bun v CA
Gilchrist v Cuddy
FACTS: Cuddy was the owner of the film Zigomar.
Gilchrist was the owner of a theatre in Iloilo. They
entered into a contract whereby Cuddy leased to
Gilchrist the Zigomar for exhibition in his theatre for a
week for P125.
-Days before the delivery date, Cuddy returned the
money already paid by Gilchrist so that he can lease the
film to Espejo and Zaldarriaga instead and receive P350
for the film for the same period.
-Gilchrist filed a case for specific performance against
Cuddy, Espejo and Zaldarriaga. He also prayed for
damages against Espejo and Zaldarriaga for interfering
with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy.
ISSUE: WON Espejo and Zaldarriaga are liable for
interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and
Cuddy, they not knowing at the time the identity of the
parties
HELD: YES, Appellants have the legal liability for
interfering with the contract and causing its breach. This
liability arises from unlawful acts and not from
contractual obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his
contract with Gilchrist.
-ART 1902 CC provides that a person who, by act or
omission causes damage to another when there is fault
or negligence, shall be obliged to pay for the damage
done. There is nothing in this article which requires as a
condition precedent to the liability of the tortfeasor that
he must know the identity of a person to whom he
causes damage. No such knowledge is required in order
that the injured party may recover for the damages
suffered.
CLASS
NOT ES
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 44
Competition in business also affords a privilege to
interfere provided that the defendants purpose is a
justifiable one and the defendant does not employ fraud
or deception which are regarded as unfair.
D. Extent of liability: The rule is that the defendant
found guilty of interference with contractual relations
cannot be held liable for more than the amount for which
the party who was induced to break the contract can be
held liable. This is consistent with Article 2202 if the
contracting party who was induced to break the contract
was in bad faith. However, when there is good faith, the
party who breached the contract is only liable for
consequence that can be foreseen. In fact, it is possible
for the contracting party to be not liable at all, as in the
case where the defendant prevented him from
performing his obligation through force or fraud.
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec