TORTS AND DAMAGES

CHAPTER 2
QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(1902a)

Negligence
omission of that diligence which is required by the
circumstances of persons, place and time
failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury
See Corliss v. Manila Railroad, Valenzuela v. CA, Li v. CA
TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON IS
NEGLIGENT:
Would a prudent man (in his position) foresee harm to the
person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course
about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the
actor to refrain from that course, or take precaution against
its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes
negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the
admonition born of this provision, is the constitutive fact of
negligence. (Picart v. Smith)

Quasi-delict a civil wrong, not a crime, because is not

caused by an intentional or malicious act, but by mere fault
or negligence
REQUISITES OF QUASI-DELICT
1. there must be an act or omission
act or omission must be WITHOUT INTENT TO CAUSE
DAMAGE, otherwise it is a crime (governed by Art.
1611, RPC- civil obligations arising from criminal
offenses)
fault or culpa act or omission committed
unintentionally ; dolo with intent (crime)
2. such act or omission causes damage to another
3. such act or omission is caused by fault or negligence
4. there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties
independent of contract because if the said act or
omission is in violation of a contract mere breach of
contract
CULPA
CONTRACTUAL

CULPA
AQUILIANA

CULPA
CRIMINAL

pre-existing
obligation
(contract)

no pre-existing
obligation

no pre-existing
obligation

TEST DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES F PERSONS,

PLACE AND TIME
Emergency Rule an individual who suddenly [inds
himself in a situation of danger and is required to act
without much time to consider the best means that may
be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and
upon re[lection may appear to be a better solution, unless
the emergency was brought by his own negligence.
THE CONDUCT WHICH IS REQUIRED OF AN INDIVIDUAL
IS DICTATED NOT EXCLUSIVELY BY THE SUDDENNESS
OF THE EVENT WHICH ABSOLUTELY NEGATES
THOUGHTFUL CARE, BUT BY THE OVERALL NATURE OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one
succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of
time, the one who has the last reasonable opportunity to
avoid the impending harm and fails to do so, is
chargeable with the consequences, without reference to
the prior negligence of the other party. (Picart v. Smith)
Even if the injured party was originally at fault, still if the
person who [inally caused the accident had the last clear
chance to avoid the impending harm and could have
prevented the injury, but did not do so, he is still liable.
Doctrine of supervening negligence or Humanitarian
doctrine
This doctrine applies in a suit between the owners and
drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a
passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to
enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be
inequitable, to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney
and its owners on the ground that the other driver was
likewise guilty of negligence.

preponderance of preponderance of
proof beyond
evidence
evidence
reasonable doubt
defense: good
defense: good
employer is
father of a family father of a family
subsidiarily
in the selection
in the selection
liable with his
and supervision and supervision
employee if the
of employees is
of employees
latter is insolvent
not a proper and
or incapable to
complete defense
pay he civil
(only mitigates
aspect
liability for
damages)
existence of
contract must be
proven if
contract not
complied with,
debtor is
presumed to be
at fault

fault of
negligence of the
defendant must
be proven

negligence is only
incidental to the
performance of
an existing
obligation

negligence is
direct,
substantive and
independent

innocence is
presumed until
the contrary is
proven

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Defendant may claim that plaintiffs own negligence
contributed to his injury.
Effect: Only mitigation of award of damages

negligence is
direct,
substantive and
independent

PROXIMATE CAUSE
De[inition: that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any ef[icient intervening cause,
! of 8
1
!

TORTS AND DAMAGES

produces the injury, and without which the result would

not have been occurred
See Koh v. IAC

if proven that defendant

exercised due diligence in
the selection and
supervision of his
employees EXCUSED
from civil liability

DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA

damage without injury
although the victim suffered physical damage or injury,
the same is not considered a legal injury which entitles
him to recover damages
Ex. As car was driven carefully. However, a negligent bus
driver hit As car and dragged several meters away hitting
B, a pedestrian. B (ped) cannot enforce claims against A
and therefrom recover damages because A was not
negligent.

Unless, said owner was

also in his vehicle at the
time of the accident, he will
still be liable, by use of
diligence prevented the
misfortune, but he did not.
(Art. 2184, (1))
Plaintiff should prove that
the defendant was
negligent or at fault. If nor
proven plaintiff cannot
recover.

EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE OF COMMON CARRIERS

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.

APPLICATION OF 2177
Situation: Dennis, a cute 3 year-old baby, was run over by a
passenger jeepney resulting to his death. Arra is the owner
of the jeepney. Christian was the driver. The parents want to
sue. What are their options?
1. Sue Christian (driver) alone for homicide through
reckless imprudence.
Driver can be convicted of the crime and at the same
time be ordered to indemnify the parents. EVERY
PERSON CRIMINALLY LIABLE IS CIVILLY LIABLE.
Proof needed: GUILT OF DRIVER PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
If driver acquitted, can parents of cute Dennis still sue
Christian for culpa aquiliana? YES. ACQUITTAL IS NOT
A BAR TO A SUBSEQUENT CIVIL ACTION. The evidence
in the criminal case may not be suf[icient for a
conviction, but suf[icient for a civil liability, where mere
preponderance of evidence is enough.
Parents sue both Arra (owner) and Christian (driver)
for culpa aquiliana? YES.
Owners defense: exercise of due diligence in the S&S of
driver; if proven excused from liability
Owner proves exercise of diligence, can driver still be
held liable? YES, if it was proven that OWNER WAS
ALSO IN THE JEEPNEY A THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT,
AND HE COULD HAVE, BY USE OF DILIGENCE,
PREVENTED THE MISFORTUNE, BUT HE DID NOT.
If driver convicted of criminal case, but cannot pay civil
liability (insolvent), who shall pay the victims ?
O W N E R . T H E G U I L T O F E M P L O Y E E I S
AUTOMATICALLY THE GUILT OF THE EMPLOYER.
2. Sue Arra (owner) and Christian (driver) for culpa
aquiliana.
Mere preponderance of evidence
Prove fault or negligence (elements) of driver
Can owner be excused from liability? YES, PROVIDED
HE PROVES THAT HE EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE IN

CASO FORTUITO
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly speci[ied 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.
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
that to which one consent does not make an injury in law
or that the victim assumed the risk of personal injury

Art. 2177. 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. (n)
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING
FROM CRIME
(Liability arising from
negligence under the RPC)

proof: merely
preponderance of evidence

proof beyond reasonable

doubt

Prosecution has burden of

proof of the negligence of
the accused.

Similarities:
1. no pre-existing obligation
2. negligence is direct, substantive and independent of the
contract

KINDS OF DILIGENCE REQUIRED UNDER THE CIVIL CODE

1. That agreed upon by the parties
2. In the absence of (1), that required by law
3. In the absence of (2), that expected of a good father of a
family ((bonus pater familia)

CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING

FROM THE QUASI-DELICT
(Responsibility for fault or
negligence under Art.
2176)

Guilt of employee is
automatically the civil guilt
of the employer, if the
employee is insolvent

! of 8
2
!

TORTS AND DAMAGES

THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF HIS

EMPLOYEE-DRIVER.
Can owner still be held liable even if he proves due
diligence in the S&S of his employee? YES, WAS ALSO
IN THE JEEPNEY A THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, AND
HE COULD HAVE, BY USE OF DILIGENCE, PREVENTED
THE MISFORTUNE, BUT HE DID NOT.

If the criminal action is [iled after the said civil action has
already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in
whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the
merits. The suspension shall last until [inal judgment is
rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before
judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the
same may, upon motion of the offended party, be
consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the
criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence
already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed
automatically reproduced in the criminal action without
prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine
the witnesses presented by the offended party in the
criminal case and of the parties to present additional
evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall
be tried and decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of
the period of prescription of the civil action which cannot
be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been
suspended shall be tolled. (n)
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based
on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a [inding
in a [inal judgment in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist. (2a)

Section 3. When civil action may proceeded
independently. In the cases provided for in Articles 32,
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
independent civil action may be brought by the offended
party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action
and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no
case, however, may the offended party recover damages
twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal
action. (3a)

Section 4. Effect of death on civil actions. The
death of the accused after arraignment and during the
pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil
liability arising from the delict. However, the independent
civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which
thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from
other sources of obligation may be continued against the
estate or legal representative of the accused after proper
substitution or against said estate, as the case may be. The
heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased
without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad
litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
representatives to appear and be substituted within a
period of thirty (30) days from notice.
A [inal judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall
be enforced in the manner especially provided in these
rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the
deceased.
If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be
dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended
party may [ile against the estate of the deceased. (n)

PROCEDURAL ASPECT
RULE 111
Prosecution of Civil Action

Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action
for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action
unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves
the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil
action shall be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording
the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such
reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability
against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or
exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof
in the complaint or information, the [iling fees thereof shall
constitute a [irst lien on the judgment awarding such
damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is
speci[ied in the complaint or information, the
corresponding [iling fees shall be paid by the offended
party upon the [iling thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no [iling fees
shall be required for actual damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may
be [iled by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of
action which could have been the subject thereof may be
litigated in a separate civil action. (1a)
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil
action. No reservation to [ile such civil action separately
shall be allowed.
Upon [iling of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions,
the offended party shall pay in full the [iling fees based on
the amount of the check involved, which shall be
considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the
complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated,
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay additional [iling fees based on the
amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged
but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the
court, the [iling fees based on the amount awarded shall
constitute a [irst lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been [iled separately and trial
thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated
with the criminal action upon application with the court
trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial
of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2
of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and
criminal actions. (cir. 57-97)

Section 2. When separate civil action is suspended.
After the criminal action has been commenced, the
separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted
until [inal judgment has been entered in the criminal action.

Points to Remember:
1. Sec. 1(1), Rule 111 speci[ies that the civil action for
recovery of civil liability should arise from the offense
charged.
2. Independent civil actions (sec. 3) include those arising
from quasi-delicts provided in Art. 2176, CC, in addition
! of 8
3
!

TORTS AND DAMAGES

to the cases provided in Arts. 32-34, CC. It is necessary,

however, that the civil liability under all the said article
arise from the same act or omission of the accused.
Likewise, a reservation of the right to institute said
separate civil actions is required. Otherwise, said civil
actions are impliedly instituted with the criminal
action.
3. Violation of BP 22: It shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. No reservation to [ile such
civil action separately shall be allowed.

hitting a store. Aran was hurt and also two other guys who
were eating in the store.
Bus liable to Aran for damages? YES, as long as Aran
can prove that he was a passenger thereof at the time
the accident and that he failed to reach his destination
safely, the bus is liable. (Defense for the bus: driver
observed extraordinary diligence)
Is the bus presumed negligent? Yes. A common carrier
is presumed negligent in case of death or physical
injuries of passenger unless it proves the exercise of
extraordinary diligence.
Can the two other injured [ile a case of contra
contractual against the bus? No. Culpa aquiliana is
proper against both the driver and the bus. They must
prove that the driver was negligent and that the bus did
not exercise diligence in the selection and supervision
of its driver. If bus can prove, it is exempted from
liability.
Failure of the two to prove negligence of the driver, no
culpa aquiliana, no quasi delict.

IN NO CASE, HOEVER, MAY THE OFFENDED PARTY

RECOVER DAMAGES TWICE FOR THE SAME ACT OR
OMISSION CHARGED IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION
If the plaintiff succeeded to recover damages from the
defendant under the Civil Code, he can no longer recover
damages for the same negligent act under the RPC.
Conversely, if the offended party takes the option of merely
[iling a criminal case and submits his damage claim for
decision in the criminal action, and thereafter, the
succeeded to recover damages from the accused in a
criminal action based on a culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict.

STIPULATION REGARDING FUTURE NEGLIGENCE

Simple negligence may, in certain cases, be excused or
mitigated but gross negligence can never be excused in
advance because this is contrary to public policy.

ACQUITTAL FROM A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. EFFECT

Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the
same act or omission may be instituted. Such action
requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of
the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to [ile a
bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should
be found to be malicious.

Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's 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 of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded. (n)

Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also

applicable to a quasi-delict. (n)
Article 1172.
One incurs a responsibility for being negligent in the
performance of every obligation. This liability, however,
may be regulated by the courts according to circumstances.

SITUATIONS COVERED
First: Plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury. He cannot recover
damages.
Second: Plaintiffs own negligence is only contributory; and
the immediate and proximate cause of his injury is
defendants lack of due care. Plaintiff can recover
damages but the courts shall mitigate the damage to be
awarded.

Article 1173.
Two kinds of negligence
1. when an obligor does not observe diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons,
time and place, there is fault or negligence.
2. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude,
the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which
may be reasonably attributed to the performance of the
obligation.

PROXIMATE CAUSE
Cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any ef[icient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred.
See Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. IAC

Note: If the law or contract does not state the diligence

which is to be observed in the performance of the
obligation that which is expected of a good father of a
family shall be required. (art. 1173, last par.)
Article 1174.
One is exempt from responsibility in case of fortuitous
events except when it is otherwise provided by law or by
stipulation or when the obligation requires the assumption
of risk.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a
legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below
the standard which he is required to conform for his own
protection. It is an act or omission amounting to want of
ordinary care on the part of the person injured which,
concurring with the defendants negligence, is the
proximate cause of the injury he suffered.

Situation: Aran boarded a passenger bus. The bus suddenly

swerved to the right to avoid collision with another bus,
! of 8
4
!

TORTS AND DAMAGES

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is

demandable not only for one's own 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.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused
by their employees and household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
through a special agent; but not when the damage has been
caused by the of_icial to whom the task done properly
pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall
be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts
and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils
and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their
custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall
cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage. (1903a)

WHO ARE
LIABLE?

NATURE OF
LIABILITY

FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED BY

Father or mother

liable for
damages
Solidary liability

minor children
who live in their
company

Guaridan

liable for
damages

minors or
incapacitated
persons who are
under their
authority and live
in their company

Owners and
managers of
establishment or
enterprise

liable for
damages

employees

employers

liable for
damages

employees and
household
helpers acting
within the scope
of their assigned
tasks

state

liable for
damages

special agents
BUT NOT when
the damage has
been caused by
the of[icial to
whom the task
done properly
pertains, in
which case Art.
21776 applies

Teachers or
heads of
establishments of
arts and trades

liable for
damages

pupils and
students or
apprentices, so
long as they
remain in their
custody

AVAILABLE DEFENSE
Diligence of a good father of a family

LIABILITY OF THE FATHER

2180 APPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL OFFENSES
It is absurd that while for an act where mere negligence
intervenes the father or mother may stand subsidiarily
liable for the damage caused by their son, no liability would
attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent. The
idea is to attach certain liability to the person who has
control and authority over the delinquent minor.
The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by
their minor children under Article 2180 is applicable to
both obligations arising from quasi-delicts and criminal
offenses. For criminal acts of minor children who act with
discernment, the subsidiary liability of parents is
determined under Article 2180 of the NCC and under Art.
101 of the RPC.
NEGLIGENCE IS PRESUMED
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease
when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.
LIABILITY OF OWNERS AND MANAGERS; LIABILITY OF
EMPLOYERS
The responsibility of the owner and manager is only with
respect to damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches or on the occasion of their
functions, not with respect to acts of strangers who
committed unauthorized acts and in doing so, caused
damages to others. The same is true with respect to the
employer in relation to the unauthorized acts of strangers.
that the act was committed by employees and
household helpers
that the said act was committed while they were acting
within their assigned tasks
that damage was caused as a result of said act
Mere execution of a deed of absolute sale does not
necessarily mean that the vendee is already the registered
owner of the vehicle and the owner/holder of the said
certi[icate of public convenience. Unless and until the
! of 8
5
!

TORTS AND DAMAGES

vendee becomes the registered owner of the vehicle and

the owner/holder of the CPC, and until his transaction is
approved by the LTFRB, the vendor remains to be the
registered owner and franchisee. Approval of the Board of
Transportation (LTFRB) is necessary for the sale to be
binding against the public and the LTFRB. The grantee or
franchisee of record continues to be responsible under the
franchise in relation to LTFRB and to the public.
See Erez v. Jepte and Vargas v. Langca

Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has

no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be
answerable with his own property in an action against him
where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
REQUIREMENTS :
1. The one who caused the damage is either a minor or an
insane person.
2. The minor or insane person has no parents or guardian
3. An action against the minor or insane person should be
[iled.

LIABILITY OF THE SCHOOL AND TEACHERS

See St. Francis High School v. CA
STATE LIABILITY
Two kinds of liability
1. State liability for the acts of the special agents. The
State is engaged in public or government functions,
through its special agents.
2. State liability for the acts or omissions imputable to a
public of[icial charged with some administrative or
technical of[ice. The states agent is commissioned to
perform non-governmental functions, hence, the state
assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be
held liable as such for its agents torts.

Art. 2183. 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. (1905)
DEFENSES AVAILABLE:
1. Force majeure
2. fault of the injured person

SPECIAL AGENT
Specially commissioned to carry out the acts complained of
outside of such agents regular duties.

Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily

liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle,
could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the
misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or
violating traf_ic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of
Article 2180 are applicable. (n)

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the principal is

liable for the negligence of its agents acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks. the City of Tagaytay is liable
for all the necessary and natural consequences of the
negligent acts of its city of[icials. It is liable for the tortoise
acts committed by its agents who sold the subject lots to
the Melencios despite the clear mandate of RA 1418,
separating Barrio Birinayan from its jurisdiction and
transferring the same to the Province of Batangas. The
negligence of the of[icers of the City of Tagaytay in the
performance of their of[icial functions gives rise to an
action ex contractu and quasi ex-delcitu.
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
dependents or employees may recover from the latter what
he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
FGO-EST should be reimbursed for whatever they have paid
or delivered on account of damages caused by their
dependents or employees. One who actually committed the
fault or negligence is not FGO-EST by their dependents and
employees.
LIABILITY OF TEACHERS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
ARTS AND TRADES
For establishments of arts and trades, the students and
apprentices usually handle machineries, instruments or
substances which in the hands of untrained or ignorant
persons may cause damage to fellow students or third
persons if hey are not properly supervised. The law
therefore imposed upon said teachers the duty to exercise
supervision over them in order to prevent damage.

SITUATION

LIABILITY

Owner is inside the vehicle

at the time of the accident;
he could have, by the use of
diligence, prevented the
misfortunes but did not do
so

solidarily liable with the

driver

Driver was found guilty of

reckless driving or
violating traf[ic regulations
at least twice within the
next preceding two months
before the accident

driver is disputable
PRESUMED negligent

Owner was not in the

motor vehicle at the time of
the accident

Art. 2180 applies

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 traf_ic
regulation.
Presumption of negligence is rebuttable.

This, however, does not apply to teachers and heads of

academic educational institutions.
! of 8
6
!

TORTS AND DAMAGES

Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall _ile with the
proper government of_ice a bond executed by a government-
controlled corporation or of_ice, to answer for damages to
third persons. The amount of the bond and other terms shall
be _ixed by the competent public of_icial. (n)

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPRIETOR OF THE

BUILDING OR STRUCTURE
The proprietor of the building or structure is responsible
for the damages from its total or partial collapse, if it should
be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
The liability does not attach to the owner of the
building when damage thereof is caused by a fortuitous
event, i.e. earthquake.
Remedy of injured party: Sue the engineer, architect, or
contractor on the basis of Article 1723, NCC.
Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding
articles should be the result of any defect in the
construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third person
suffering damages may proceed only against the
engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with
said article, within the period therein _ixed.

Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the

plans and speci_ications for a building is liable for
damages if within _ifteen years from the completion of
the structure, the same should collapse by reason of a
defect in those plans and speci_ications, or due to the
defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise
responsible for the damages if the edi_ice falls, within the
same period, on account of defects in the construction or
the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him,
or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. If the
engineer or architect supervises the construction, he
shall be solidarily liable with the contractor.
Collapse, not roof blown away by strong winds due to
typhoon.

Submission of Compulsory Third Party Liability

Insurance is a pre-requisite to registration of all motor
vehicles. Apparently, the purpose of this requirement is to a
answer for damages to third persons.

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. (n)
Liability under this article does not depend on contract or
privity between the manufacturer and the person injured
but upon the duty imposed by law upon the manufacturer
not to put upon the market a commodity that was
unsuitable for use by the public, and which the public could
not use without injury.
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
_irearms and poison, except when the possession or use
thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (n)
As a rule, dangerous weapons or substances are not needed
in ones occupation or business. If death or injury results
therefore from such possession of dangerous weapons or
substances, there is a prima facie presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant who is in
possession of such.

Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages

caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken
care of with due diligence, and the in_lammation of explosive
substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate
place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or
property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or
lanes, if not caused by force majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of
infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable
to the place. (1908)

Defense: Proof that possession or use of the same is

indispensable in his occupation or business

Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable

for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any
person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their
control or supervision. (n)

OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROPRIETORS OF

BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES
Explosion of machinery
Excessive Smoke
Falling trees
Emanations from tubes, etc.

LIABILITY OF PROVINCES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES

Said political subdivisions are liable for the damages for the
death of, or injuries suffered by any person because of
defective roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other
public works under their control or supervision.

IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 20, NCC.

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.

It is not necessary for the defective road or street to belong

to the province, city, or municipality for liability to attach.
This article only requires that either CONTROL or
SUPERVISION is exercised on the defective road or street.

See Art. 2176.

Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is

responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial
collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
(1907)

Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles

should be the result of any defect in the construction
mentioned in Article 1723, the third person suffering
damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect
! of 8
7
!

TORTS AND DAMAGES

or contractor in accordance with said article, within the

period therein _ixed. (1909)
See Art. 2190.
Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a
part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things
thrown or falling from the same. (1910)
DEJECTUM EFFUSUMVE ALIQUID
The head of the family is the one responsible for damages
caused by things thrown or falling from the building or any
part thereof.
Liability attaches to a mere lessee. The article does not
speci[ically pertain to owner of the house.
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are
liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n)
SOLIDARY LIABILITY
1. when there are two or more persons who are joint
tortfeasors
2. when they are guilty of only one quasi-delict
ACTION BASED ON QUASI-DELICT PRESCRIBES IN FOUR
(4) YEARS
Actions arising from quasi-delict must be [iled within four
years. Said period is counted from the day the quasi-delict
was committed.

! of 8
8
!