Você está na página 1de 44

TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 1

HELD: Under the Corporation Code, Naguait is liable *Negligence: involves voluntary acts or omissions

 CLASS NOTES
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
which result in injury to others, without intending to
cause the same
-actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts
Torts: not defined in the NCC nor in any Philippine Law
BUT many scattered provisions on tortuous acts case. or omissions
-usually defines as: (1) what it is not; (2) remedies *Strict Liability: where the person is made liable
granted; (3) social/public policy protected Our jurisprudence is wanting to the definite scope of independent of fault or negligence upon submission of
“corporate tort.” Essentially, “tort” consists in the proof of certain facts
Damages: much longer treatment in the NCC; more violation of a right given or the omission of a duty
practical importance on damages imposed by law. Simply stated, it is a breach of legal DE LEON (pp. 1-3)
duty. Tort: common law expression
Practical Legal Relevance: vehicular accidents -used in French to mean “wrong”, derived from Latin

Intentional tort: not a delict (any act or omission  CLASS NOTES


“tortus” meaning twisted, as if to say tortuous conduct is
twisted conduct or conduct that departs from the existing
norm
punishable by law) CORPORATE TORT: in regards to liability of President
Why? Intentional act causing damage to another, not a of CFTI: no definition of corporate tort - a legal wrong that causes harm for which the violator is
crime 2 definitions: long and short (legal basis) subject to civil liability
Short definition: from a law dictionary -fundamental concept of tort: wrongful act or omission +
Act: intentional, voluntary What’s wrong with the definition in Naguiat? TOO resulting in breach of a private legal duty (distinguished
-damage BROAD. Any breach of legal duty becomes a tort (so it from a mere breach of contractual duty) + damage from
-may or may not violate a crime would include crimes, QD, breach of contract) said breach of duty (of such character as to afford a
…very sloppy definition but it’s the only case that right of redress at law in favor of the injured party
Negligence: any act or omission causing damage to defines Tort against the wrongdoer)
another but w/o intent (only difference w/intentional tort) Why SC gave definition of Tort? They had to determine Note (explained definition in Naguiat vs. NLRC): the
the liability of the officers (Naguiat) so is it part of the term “tort” used by SC has same meaning as tort in
Strict liability: it doesn’t matter if you’re negligent or if ratio of the case? NO. Obiter. They already found CFTI common law jurisdictions, as it was used in cases
you intended it as long as sets of circumstances make liable under the Labor Code so SC did not need to involving QD and delicts
you liable establish liability through tort Tortious act: a wrongful act
-commission or omission of duty of an act by one,
without right, whereby another receives some injury,
I. INTRODUCTION AQUINO (pp. 1-2)
directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation
A. Definitions Tort: taken directly from the French and is derivation of
the Latin word “torquere” meaning “to twist” (74 Am. Jur. 2d 620)
1. Tort and Quasi-delict Essence of tort: defendant’s potential for civil liability to
-common law: an unlawful violation of private right, not
a. Tort created by contract, and which gives rise to an action for the victim for harmful wrongdoing and correspondingly
damages the victim’s potential fro compensation or other relief
Naguiat v NLRC -an act or omission producing an injury to another,
without any previous existing lawful relation of which the
FACTS: Naguiat is the president and a stockholder of said act or omission may be said to be a natural Art. 2176, NCC
Clark Field Taxi, Inc. (CFT). Due to the phase-out of the outgrowth or incident (other definitions not discussed) Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
US bases in the country, Clark Air Base was closed and -no universal formula for torts liability another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to
the taxi drivers of CFTI were separated from service. -includes intentional tort, negligence, and strict liability pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,
The drivers filed a complaint for the payment of sep. pay *Intentional tort: includes conduct where the actor if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
due to the termination/phase-out. NLRC held Naguiat desires to cause the consequences of his act or between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
and the company solidarily liable for the payment of sep. believes the consequences are substantially certain to governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
pay. result from it.
-includes assault, batter, false imprisonment,
ISSUE: WON Naguait should be held solidarily liable defamation, invasion of privacy and interference of
with CFTI. YES. property
b. Quasi-delict
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 2
Elcano v Hill
 CLASS NOTES FACTS: In criminal case where Reginald Hill was
charged with the killing of Agapito Elcano, the former
Art. 2176 of the CC is so broad that it includes not
only injuries to persons but also damage to
property. It makes no distinction bet. Damage to
A 2176 explanation: First sentence refers to ALL CIVIL
LIABILITIES. Second sentence limits QD. was acquitted for “lack of intent to kill, coupled with persons and damage to property.
mistake.” The deceased’s parents thereafter sued
Barredo v Garcia Reginald and his father for dmages. CFI dismissed the
civil cases on the ground of res judicata.  CLASS NOTES
FACTS: A Head-on collision between a taxi and Relevance: clarified that QD includes damage to
carretela resulted in the death of a 16-yr old boy who ISSUE: WON the civil action for damages is barred by property (same highlight in reviewer)
was a passenger of the carretela. The taxi driver was Hill’s acquittal in the crim case. NO. Problem: A2191(2) gave example where QD and
convicted in a crim case but the right to file a sep civil damage to property [liability of proprietors of excessive
action was reserved. The parents of the boy sued HELD: Hill’s acquittal in the crim case has not smoke]; but this is a Tort on STRICT LIABILITY, not QD!
Barredo, the driver’s employer for damages. Barredo extinguished his liability for QD, hence the acquittal is
contends that under the RPC, his liability is only not a bar to the instant civil action. Baksh v CA
subsidiary, hence he cannot be held liable as no civil
action has been filed against the driver. Art. 2176 where it refers to “fault or negligence,” FACTS: Baksh was sued for damages for his breach of
ISSUE: WON the plaintiffs, may bring this separate civil covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but promise to marry. CA affirmed TC’s award of damages,
action against Barredo, making him primarily liable as also acts criminal in character, whether intentional relying on Art. 21 CC.
employer under the CC. YES. and voluntary or negligent.
ISSUE: WON damages may be recovered for a breach
HELD: The same negligent act causing damage may
produce civil liability arising from a crim under the  CLASS NOTES
of promise to marry based on Art. 21 of the CC. YES.

RPC or create an action for quasi-delict under the -why make intentional acts under QD? To make father HELD: Art. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to
CC. Thus, there were 2 liabilities of Barredo: a and son liable marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction.
subsidiary one arising from the driver’s crim negligence -A 2177, NCC expressly points out that there’s a Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or QD
nd a primary one as employer under the CC. The separate civil liability from criminal negligence BUT it in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for
plaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, and seems to apply to QD only so court dealt with this the untold no. of moral wrongs which is impossible for
they preferred the second remedy. They were acting limitation by upholding the construction that upholds human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in
within their rights in doing so. “the spirit that giveth life rather than that which is the statute books.
literal that killeth the intent of the lawmaker” (A2176

 CLASS NOTES
is not just QD, so A2177 really has no problem)

Cinco v Canonoy
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
-during that time, culpa aquiliana (QD) doesn’t cover
acts against law? A1903, old CC expressly exclude culpa aquiliana bec. it includes not only negligence,
acts not punishable by law FACTS: Cinco’s car and a eepney collided. Cinco filed a but intentional criminal acts as well.
-SC needed to have very strong reason not to follow civil action for damage to property against the eepney’s
what the old law says because if A1903 applied literally
there would be no culpa aquiliana, if read together with
driver and operators. Thereafter, he also filed a crim
case against the eepney driver. CFI upheld the
suspension of the civil case pending the determination
 CLASS NOTES
RPC (all acts would be under criminal negligence and so what’s correct? Include or not to include intentional
imprudence) of the crim case. acts? In Baksh, Davide showed role of A21, so he
-so in this case, emphasize scope of culpa aquiliana limited A2176 to negligent acts or omissions. A2176
and delict; why needed? Barredo was arguing that he ISSUE: WON there can be an independent civil action discussion is not necessary for the disposition of
was not solidarily liable and should only be subsidiarily for damage to property during the pendency of the the case (OBITER) THEREFORE, QD still includes
liable criminal action. YES. intentional acts!
-if applied today, would the result be the same? YES
through stare decisis + QD definition changed, removed HELD: Liability being predicated on a QD, the civil case ***Issue: WON QD covers intentional acts or not? If it
phrase “not punishable by law” may proceed as a separate and independent civil action covers intentional acts..
as specifically provided for in Art. 2177 of the CC. Fr litigation pt of view: it doesn’t matter
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 3
Fr academic pt of view: it matters! Kinds: compensatory, punitie, liquidated damages FACTS: Custodio et al built an adobe fence making the
(damages recoverable upon breach of a contract, as passageway to Mabasa’s apartment narrower. Mabasa
2. Damages stipulated by the parties), nominal damages (given in filed a civil action for the grant of easement of right of
AQUINO (pp. 842-843) vindication of a breach of duty which does not result in way against them. CA, aside from granting right of way,
-Reason behind the NCC Title on Damages: to see to it any actual or pecuniary damages) awarded damages to Mabasa.
that whenever a right is transgressed, every manner of
loss or injury is compensated for in some way or Damage, damages, injury: material distinctions ISSUE: WON award of damages was proper. NO
another. Injury: Illegal invasion of a legal right
-A2195, NCC: provisions on damages are applicable to Damage: loss, hurt, or harm which results from an HELD: In the case at bar, although there was damage,
all obligations regardless of source (delict, QD, contract, injury; in a popular sense, it is the depreciation in value, there was no legal injury. Custodio et al’s act of
or quasi-contract). regardless if caused by a wrongful or legal act; as constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of
-A2196: rules under title of damages are w/o prejudice defined by statutes providing for damages: actionable their right as owners.
to special provisions on damages provided elsewhere in loss, injury or harm which results from unlawful act,
the Code. omission or negligence of another Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right. Damage is
-A2198: principles of general law on damages are -not synonymous to example, fine, penalty, punishment, the loss, hurt or harm, which results from the injury.
adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the revenge, discipline, chastisement
NCC. Damages: recompense or compensation awarded for Damages are the recompense or compensation
-Indemnity has to be proportionate to the fault and to the damages suffered. awarded fro the damage suffered. Thus, there can be
loss caused thereby. Pecuniary loss: loss of money or something by which damage without injury in those instances in which the
-In actions for damages, courts should award an amount money or something of money value may be acquired loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal
(money value) to the winning party and not its equivalent duty. These situations are often called damnum
in property. People v Ballesteros absque injuria. In such cases, the consequences must
be borne by the injured person alone.
SANCO, (pp. 940-941) FACTS: Ballesteros et al were convicted of murder.
Basis of Law: introduced in NCC mostly from American They were ordered to pay actual, compensatory, and b. Damnum absque injuria
Law since they were either not expressly recognized or moral damages to the heirs of the deceased.
rarely allowed under old code, particularly on subject of AQUINO (pp. 843-845)
moral damages ISSUE: WON damages were correctly awarded. YES -“There is no liability even if there is damage because
there was no injury.” Mere damage without injury does
Scope of applicability of provisions on damages: HELD: Damages may be defined as the pecuniary not result in liability.
applicable to all obligations arising from sources compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury -A related maxim is qui jure suo utitir nullum damnum
enumerated in A1157, NCC, without prejudice to special sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary facit – one who exercises a right does no injury.
provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in said consequences which the law imposes for the breach of
code. some duty or the violation of some right. Custodio v CA, supra
-don’t apply to compensation of workmen and other
employees in cases of death, injury or illness Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded “Thus, there can be damage without injury in those
-in other special laws: same rules observed insofar as in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of
not in conflict with Civil Code sustained. The party claiming such must present the a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often
best evidence available such as receipts. called damnum absque injuria.”
Concept of damages:
Damages: the sum of money which the law awards or Moral damages may be invoked when the complainant B. History and Development
imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, or has experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety,
satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as a physical suffering, moral shock and so forth, and had AQUINO (pp.1-5)
consequence of a breach of a contractual obligation or a furthermore shown that these were the proximate result
“Tort” provisions in our NCC were derived from Spanish,
tortious act of the offender’s wrongful act or omission.
French and Anglo-American Law. Therefore, RP SC
-pecuniary consequences which law imposes for breach
borrows heavily from decisions of the Court in other
of some duty or violation of some right. Custodio v CA countries especially Spain and US and relies from
annotation of foreign author.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 4
Roman Law served as main inspiration of NCC, as quite damages using only preponderance of evidence. It gives
evident in the field of QD: it added 4 new category of 1889 Civil Code rise only to civil liability. Here, the employer’s liability for
obligations that arise quasi ex delicto (a. liability of a 1. Civil Liability Arising From Criminal Offenses his employee’s NONCRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is direct
judge who misconducts a case or gives a wrong A1089: Civil obligations arise only from law, contracts, and primary and not subsidiary, and he could be directly
decision; b. liability of an occupier of a building for quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law and imputed in an action for recovery of damages.
double the damage caused by anything thrown or forced quasi-delicts. -an act or omission will give rise to civil liability only if it
out of the building, no matter by whom, on to a public -civil obligations from crime or misdemeanor was causes damage or injury to another or others.
place[A2193]; c. liability of the occupier if he keeps any governed only by Penal Code (A1092) so when criminal
object suspended from the building which would do action was instituted, the civil action arising from the DE LEON (pp.4-8)
damage if it fell; and d. the liability of the shop keeper, crime is impliedly instituted with the criminal action Tort law emerged out of criminal law; originally
innkeeper, or keeper of a stable for any theft or damage unless the offended party expressly waives the civil concerned principally with violent breaches of the place.
caused by slaves or employees, or in case of the action or reserves his right to institute it separately (1) Common law tort – judges usually define what
innkeepers, of permanent residents [A2000].) (A122, Law of CrimPro) counts as torts and how compensation is to be
-Code Commission initially wanted to adopt the word -right to recover damages arising from crime is measured. Still, a statute or even Consti may
“tort” in our NCC but decided later against it because completely dependent on the result of the criminal case. make certain conduct legally wrongful and may
“tort” in Anglo-American law “is much broader If an earlier civil action is instituted, upon start of criminal permit recovery of damages for such conduct.
(includes negligence, intentional criminal acts, false case, the civil action is suspended and would be (2) No clear distinction between tort and crime –
imprisonment, deceit) than the Spanish-Philippine determined by the result of the criminal case. If criminal initially, this was the case sine the development
concept of obligations arising from non-contractual action is dismissed, civil action is also deemed of anything like a clearly formulated conception
negligence. Intentional acts would be governed by dismissed, regardless if instituted with the criminal of a tort is comparatively recent.
RPC. However, some provisions used “tort” and action or separately. Civil liability is treated as purely (3) Notion of tort as a specific wrong – there was
therefore recognize it as a source of liability [Sec22 incidental to the criminal liability of the offender. The an attempt in 1720 to consider several specific
& 100, Corporation Code; Art.68 Child and Youth cases of Springer vs. Odin, Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and wrongs in a work consolidating them under the
Welfare Code; Sec. 17(a)(6) of the Ship Mortgage Pacific Co., US vs. Guy Sayco, US vs. Bernardo, and general heading of torts. Torts of a specific
Decree]. Even SC used the term tort in deciding Wise & Co. vs. Larion were ruled using this principle. As character have been increasing.
cases involving negligent acts or omissions as well ruled in rakes, any civil action not predicated on offense (4) Place of torts in the Philippine law – even if RP
as involving intentional acts. They defined it in committed or charged (based on law, contract, quasi- was a civil law country, some of the provisions
Naguiat vs. NLRC. contract, or QD) cannot be instituted with the criminal in the 1889 CC dealth with cases of the nature
-There is an evident intent to adopt the common law action. of torts + with US occupation, a number of laws
concept of tort and to incorporate the different, -When Penal Code revised, RPC retained what is now patterned after Anglo-American models have
intentional and unintentional common law torts in the contained in A100; Rules on CRimPro retained what is been passed amplifying the field of torts in
NCC. Tortious conduct for which civil remedies are contained in Rule 107 (check if still correct) Philippine legal system.
available are embodied in different provisions of the
code. E.g. Arts. 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36; A2199 on 2. Civil Liability arising from QD Functions or goals of tort law
contributory negligence and proximate cause (however, A1902: Any person who by an act or omission causes Medieval England: discourage violence and revenge
a blending of American and Spanish-Philippine Law) damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be Today: compensation of injured persons and deterrence
NCC liable fro the damage done of undesirable behavior:
In re: A1903: punish wrongful acts or omissions not System of thoughts (sorry, no parallelism in the
SANGCO (pp. xxxi-xl) punishable by law enumeration of de leon):
Civil Code of the Philippines: based on Civil Code of -said articles are not applicable to acts of negligence (1) Morality or corrective justice – defendants should
1889 (Spanish and French in origin); but many which constitute either punishable offenses(delicts) or be liable fro harms they wrongfully caused and no
provisions from codes of other countries were adopted. breach of contract. others; liability imposed when and only when it is “right”
Rules from Anglo-American law were adopted because -thus, the liability of employers, et. al. under now A2180 to do so
of element of American culture that has been are only subsidiary (in accordance with penal laws) (2) Social utility or policy – a good-for-all-of-us view:
incorporated into Fil life during US occupation; because -QD or culpa aquiliana or extra-contractual culpa: provide a system of rules that works toward the good of
economic relations that continue between US and RP; causative act or omission not punished by law and is society
and because US and English Courts have developed done ONLY negligently, where civil liability could arise (3) Legal process – litigation process is a good to be
certain equitable rules that are not recognized in the as governed by the Civil Code (not by penal laws), and preserved rather than abstract ideal of justice or social
1889 Civil Code the party aggrieved could file an ordinary civil action for utility
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 5
(4) potential conflicts – between justice and policy (4) existence of direct causal connection between the  Important: Take note of 3 elements of QD: (1)
outlook and legal process outlook damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of damages suffered by plaintiff; (2) fault or
(5) distribution of loss – the cost of loss suffered by private respondents; and negligence of defendant; (3) fault of defendant
plaintiff is not simply transferred to the defendant but is (5) the absence of preexisting contractual relations caused damages suffered by plaintiff
distributed through the defendant to a large number of between the parties.
individuals Taylor v MERALCO
(6) redress of social grievances – tort law a popular The allegation that private respondents violated traffic
mechanism that permits ordinary people to put authority rules does not detract from the nature and the character FACTS: 15-year old David Taylor with 2 others (Manuel
on trial of the actions as one based on culpa aquiliana. and Jessie) experimented with detonating caps were
(7) a mixed system – tort law a “mixed” set of functions Excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear taken from the premises of MERALCO. David and
indication of negligence. Manuel ignited the contents of the cap, resulting in an
CLASSES OF TORTS: Property torts and Personal torts explosion which led to David’s loss of his right eye.

II. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT  CLASS NOT E


David’s father filed an action for damages.

ISSUE: WON the plaintiff can recover damages in this


 Important: Take note of 4 elements of QD: (1) case.
A. Elements acts or omission constituting negligence; (2)
Art. 2176, NCC damage; (3) direct causal connection between HELD: NO. In order to recover damages, the following
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, damage and act or omission; (4) no preexisting must be established:
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the contractual relation. (1) damages to the plaintiff;
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no  The case mentions 5 elements but Prof. Casis (2) negligence by act or omission of which defendant
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is mentioned 4. personally, or some person for whose acts it must
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions respond, was guilty; and
of this Chapter. (3) the connection of cause and effect between the
negligence and the damage.
Andamo v CA
Garcia v Florido

FACTS: A public utility car and a bus collided, resulting


FACTS: The Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette
caused the construction of waterpaths and contrivances
in its compound. This allegedly caused flooding and
 CLASS NOT E
in injuries to Garcia et al. The chief of police filed a damage to the adjacent lot, property of the Andamo  Important: Qualification of negligence – fault or
criminal case against the bus driver. Garcia et al filed a spouses. The Andamos filed a criminal case for negligence is a source of obligation when
civil action for damages against the owners and drivers destruction by means of inundation, and later also filed a between such negligence and the injury there
of both vehicles. Bus company and driver filed a motion civil action for damages against respondent corporation. exists the relation of cause and effect
to dismiss. CFI dismissed the civil action holding that the The civil case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as
right to file a separate civil action was not reserved and the crim case was field ahead of it. Tayag v Alcantara
that the action was not based on QD.
ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper. FACTS: Tayag who was riding on a bicycle along
ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the case was proper. NO McArthur Highway was bumped by a bus and died. His
HELD: NO. The civil action was based on QD and may heirs sued the bus owner and driver for damages. A
HELD: The action was based on QD and it may proceed proceed independently of the criminal case. All the crim case was also filed against the bus driver. The bus
independently. The essential averments for a QD action elements of QD are present in the complaint, to wit: driver was acquitted in the crim case on the ground of
are present in this case, namely: (1) damages suffered by the plaintiff; reasonable doubt. CFI sustained private respondents’
(1) act or omission of private respondents; (2) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other MTS the civil case on the ground of lack of COA due to
(2) presence of fault or negligence or lack of due care in person for whose acts he must respond; and the acquittal of the bus driver in the crim case.
the operation of the passenger bus by its driver resulting (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault
in the collision; or negligence of the defendant and the damages ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper.
(3) physical injuries and other damages sustained by incurred by the plaintiff.
petitioners as a result of the collision; HELD: No. The petitioner’s COA being based on a QD,

 CLASS NOT E
the acquittal of the driver in the crim case is not a bar to
the civil case for damages based on QD.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 6
All the essential averments for a QD action are - Negligence is the “failure to observe, for the physical condition and other circumstance regarding
present, namely: protection of the interest of another person, that persons, time and place.
1) Act or omission constituting fault or negligence degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the Simple imprudence consists in the lack of
on the part of private respondent; circumstances reasonably impose. When the precaution displayed in those cases in which the
2) Damage caused by the said act or omission; danger is great a high degree of care is necessary, damage impending to be caused is not immediate not
3) Direct causal relation between the damage and and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary he danger clearly manifest.
the act or omission; and care.”
4) No pre-existing contractual relation between - Negligence is conduct, not a state of mind or the Barredo v Garcia, supra
the parties. use of sound judgment.
- Negligence is a matter of risk – that is to say, of RULE: A QD or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal
 CLASS NOT E
cognizable danger of injury. The actor does not
desire to bring about the consequences which
follow, nor does he know that they are substantially
institution under the CC, with a substantially all its own,
and individuality that is entirely apart and independent
Important: There must exist a direct causal connection from crime.
to occur, or believe they will. There is merely a risk


1. act or omission of such consequences sufficiently great to lead a
reasonable man in his position to anticipate them, CLASS NOT ES
I SANGCO (pp. 1-4) and to guard against them.
- The culpability of the actor’s conduct must be Delict Quasi-Delict
- Conduct may be legally described in terms of action
judged in the light of the possibilities apparent to Public interest Private interest
and inaction or “misfeasance” or “nonfeasance.”
him at the time and not by looking backward “with Penal Code Civil Code
Misfeasance is active misconduct working positive
injury to others; while nonfeasance is passive the wisdom born of the event.” The standard must Punished only by penal Any kind of fault of
inaction or failure to take steps to protect them from be one of conduct, rather than consequences. At law negligence
harm the same time, the standard imposed must be an Guilt beyond reasonable Preponderance of
- Liability in tort may be predicated upon an injury external one, based upon what society demands of doubt evidence
resulting from an unlawful or illegal act or omission, the individual rather than upon his own notion of
whether injury is on property or person what is proper. People v Ligon
- Intentional omissions must not be treated as cases
2. cause damage of negligence. These are not cases of omissions; FACTS: Based on the testimony of a taxi driver, Gabat
they are cases of positive action.
was convicted of Robbery with Homicide committed
I SANGCO (pp. 87-90) against a 17-yo student working as a cigarette vendor.
- QD liability presupposes 2 conditions: (1) a B. Distinguished
connection of cause and effect between the person A. Quasi-delict v Delict ISSUE: WON Gabat’s guilt was proven BRD.
liable and the fact from which damage results; (2) a
fault of this person, which implies at once an act of Art 2177, NCC HELD: NO. Gabat’s guilt has not been established
intelligent volition that is illicit, or contrary to law Responsibility for fault or negligence under the beyond reasonable doubt, but preponderance of
- It must be shown that the damage to the plaintiff, preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from evidence establishes that by his ct or omission, with
who must prove it, was the natural and probable, or the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal fault and negligence, he caused damage to the victim
direct and immediate consequence of defendant’s Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for and should answer civilly for the damage done.
culpable act or omission the same act or omission of the defendant.
- Proximate cause is determined on the facts of each It does not follow that a person who is not criminally
case upon mixed considerations of logic, common Art 365, RPC. Imprudence and Negligence. liable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt of the
sense, policy and precedent. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but accused in a criminal case must be established BRD,
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack action for damages. The judgment of acquittal
of precaution on the part of the person performing or extinguishes civil liability only when it includes a
failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his declaration that the facts from which the civil liability
3. fault or negligence employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, might arise did not exist.

I SANGCO (p5-7)
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 7
34 & 2176 of the CC shall remain separate, distinct and

 CLASS NOT ES  CLASS NOT E


independent of any crim prosecution based on the same
act.
  Important: elements of reckless imprudence:
Need to indemnify heirs even if not criminally
liable. (1) the offender does or fails to do an act; (2)
doing or failure to do the act is voluntary; (3)  CLASS NOT E
without malice; (4) material damage results  Important: Clarified 2000 Rules of Court
Padilla v CA
from the reckless imprudence; (5) there is
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of
FACTS: Padilla, a municipal mayor, together with B. Quasi-Delict v. Breach of Contract
the offender, taking into consideration his
policemen and a civilian, demolished a store and took
employment or occupation, degree of
away its contents, pursuant to a municipal ordinance. Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their
intelligence, physical condition, and other
CA acquitted them of the charge of grave coercion obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay,
circumstances regarding persons, time and
based on reasonable doubt but ordered them to pay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor
place
damages. thereof, are liable for damages.

ISSUE: WON CA erred in requiring petitioners to pay Philippine Rabbit v People


Art. 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is
damages after acquitting them of the criminal charge.
FACTS: Philippine Rabbit’s employee was convicted of demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an action
reckless imprudence resulting in triple homicide, multiple for future fraud is void.
HELD: NO. The civil liability is not extinguished by
acquittal where the acquittal is based on reasonable physical injuries and damage to property, and was
count as only a preponderance of evidence is required sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to pay damages. Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in
in civil cases. The driver jumped bail. Phil Rabbit’s notice of appeal the performance of every kind of obligation is also
was dismissed. demandable, but such liability may be regulated by
There is nothing contrary to Art 29,CC in the the courts, according to the circumstances.
rendition of a judgment of acquittal and a judgment ISSUE: WON an employer who dutifully participated in
awarding damages in the same criminal action. The two the defense of its accused employee may appeal the
judgment of conviction independently of the accused. Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor
can stand side by side. A judgment of acquittal operates consists in the omission of that diligence which is
to extinguish the criminal liability. It does not, however, NO.
required by the nature of the obligation and
extinguish the civil liability unless there is a clear corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of
showing that the act from which civil liability might arise HELD: The subsidiary liability of Phil. Rabbit is
incidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civil the time and of the place. When negligence shows
did not exist. bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201,
liability of the accused-employee. Since the civil liability
of the latter has become final and executory by reason paragraph 2, shall apply.
Cruz v CA
of his flight, then the former’s subsidiary civil liability has
also become immediately enforceable. If the law or contract does not state the
FACTS: Ninevetch Cruz, a surgeon, was convicted of diligence which is to be observed in the performance,
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. that which is expected of a good father of a family
Under the 2000 Rules of Crim Proc., the civil
liability of the accused arising from the crime is deemed shall be required.
ISSUE: WON Cruz’s conviction is supported by the
impliedly instituted in a crim action unless the offended
evidence.
party waives the action, reserves the rt to institute it Art. 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are
separately, or institutes it prior to the crim action. Hence, also applicable to a quasi-delict.
HELD: Her guilt was not proved BRD. However, the
the subsidiary liability of the employer under Art 103,
Court finds her civilly liable for the death of Lydia Umali,
RPC, may be enforced by execution on the basis of the
for while a conviction requires proof BRD, only a Notes: Negligence for BoC and QD are defined in the
judgment of conviction meted out to the employee.
preponderance of evidence is required to establish civil same way as provided by Art 2178.Therefore, if you sue
liability. for negligence, you can base the action on quasi-delict,
The 2000 Rules of Crim Proc deleted the
delict, or contract.
requirement of reserving independent civil actions and
allowed these to proceed separately from criminal
actions. Thus, the civil actions referred to in Arts 32, 33,
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 8
need not be 1. moral Anywhere there Recoverable
proven damages are physical only if
injuries (Art passenger dies
Cangco v Manila Railroad

FACTS: Cangco’s arm was amputated because he was


 CLASS NOT ES
2219[2]) or there
malice or bad
faith
is

 What is the breach of contract committed?


drawn from under a railroad car. His foot alighted upon a Negligence, failure to exercise due care 2. defendant Proof of due (proof of due
melon at the moment he stepped upon the platform. He carrier’s diligence in diligence not
 Art. 1903 not applicable in cases where there is
sues for negligence in the performance of a contract. defense selection and available)
preexisting relationship
MR argues that [1] the breach was due to negligence of supervision
 Cangco did not pay for his fare so why is a
servant and [2] it exercised due diligence in selection 3. what plaintiff Carrier’s fault or Injury to
contract of carriage at issue? It should be a
and supervision. Held: MR is liable. The contract to needs to prove negligence passenger. No
contract of employment.
transport carries with it the duty to provide safe means need to prove it
of entering and leaving the train. It is unnecessary for  MERALCO was held liable for breach of was carrier’s
plaintiff for BoC to prove the breach was due to contract. What was the breach? Fault
negligence. When a contractual relation exists, the  Failure to exercise due diligence
obligor may break the contract by means of an act which
would have constituted a violation of an extra-
contractual obligation had no contract existed.
 This is a landmark case because there is a
glaring statement in Cangco that contradicts
the other cases
 CLASS NOT ES

 True of False-a breach of contract is not a


Doctrine: QD and BoC are concentric, and QDs are basis for QD: FALSE  Does not say that when there is a contract, you
broader. Plaintiff with a pre-existing contractual relation  Court in Sangco said that the circle is can’t sue for QD.
may still sue for QD so long as “had there been a no CONCENTRIC: QD is larger and that culpa  A2176 expressly excludes cases where there
contract, there is still a quasi-delict.” contractual is the yolk is a pre-existing contractual relationship. But
 So Cangco doesn’t say that the two are even if there is a pre-existing contractual
Notes: SC held there was a contract of carriage even if mutually exclusive and therefore Cangco is relationship, there is still a cause of action for
Cangco did not pay for a ticket. Also, Sir took note of the consistent with Air France quasi-delict since it is not expressly prohibited.
4 main differences of QD and BoC in this case:  Vinculum juris distinction doesn’t matter  The ruling on the interpretation of A2176 is not
because here the act & the breach coincided ratio, just obiter.
Under QD Under BoC  Case is not basis of mutual exclusivity
1. liability of Presumptive Direct and Fores v Miranda
defendant liability immediate Rakes v Atlantic
employer FACTS: Miranda was a passenger of a jeep which hit a
2. defendant Rebut Prove wall and fractured his right humerus. He sues under FACTS: Rakes’s leg was amputated because it was
employer’s presumption performance of contract of carriage. CA awarded him with moral crushed by an iron rail he was carrying on a hand car for
defense through proof of contract or damages. Atlantic, his employer. He sues for damages because of
the exercise of contributory Atlantic’s negligence in not repairing the weakened
due care in negligence HELD: SC deleted moral damages. Moral damages are track. Atlantic argues that remedey for injuries through
selection and not recoverable for actions based on BoC unless there negligence lies only in a criminal action
supervision is bad faith. There was no bad faith because: [1] mere
3. vinculum Created by the Independent the carelessness of the driver does not justify the inference HELD: Atlantic’s liability to Rakes ariss out of the
juris (legal tie) wrongful or breach of the of bad faith; and [2] under Art 1756, the presumption is contract of employment because failure to provide or
negligent duty assumed by that common carriers acted negligently (and not maintain safe appliances for its workmen
act/omission the parties maliciously)
itself Doctrine: Employer’s liability arising out of negligence
4. what a Defendant’s The contract and Doctrine: Differences between QD and BoC in in contract of employment may be enforced separate
from criminal action.
plaintiff needs fault or its this case:
to prove negligence nonperformance. Under QD Under BoC
The negligence
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 9
oppressive or breaks the contract may also bea tort” only applies if the

 CLASS NOT ES
malevolent (Art.
2232)
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)
 Statement that you can’t sue for QD when
there is a contract is mere obiter, not ratio.
 Court already decided that employee is liable


Art 1092 & 1903 come from pre existing
relationship
Rakes is not the basis of the doctrine that
Air France v Carrasco

FACTS: Carraso was told by the manager that he must


 CLASS NOT E
 QD not applicable when there is a contract
quasi-delict may arise from breach of contract. vacate his 1st class seats because a white man who had  According to Prof. Casis, the court said that
 If there is no contract, it does not mean that a better right to it. RTC and CA awarded moral A2176 only applies if no contract exists. But in
there is no existing relationship damages. Air France argues that there was no finding of the latter part, it ruled that A2176 can apply if a
bad faith to justify the award of moral damages contract exists.
Far East v CA  This statement (can’t have QD if there’s a
HELD: Although there was a pre-existing contract, the contract) contradicts Air France yet later on it
FACTS: Plaintiff Luna got a Far East credit card which stress of the action was put on the wrongful expulsion, cites Air France
was dishonored at a despedida party due to a hotlist which is a violation of a public duty, which is a QD.  Based on the cases, the second statement of
policy compelled by the loss of the complementary card. Passengers have a right to be treated by the carrier’s 2176 defines a QD but it is not laying down a
He sues for damages. RTC awarded him moral and employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due rule that when there is a pre-existing
exemplary damages. consideration. contractual relationship, there can be no QD.
Air France is safer, it said “tort” referring to first
HELD: Complaint is based on contract because without
the contract, the act or omission complained of cannot
by itself be an actionable tort. Moral damages were
 CLASS NOT ES
sentence of 2176 such that if there is pre-
existing contractual relationship there can still
Doctrine: The act that breaks the contract may also be be a tort.
deleted because negligence in failing to give personal a tort.  why discuss this? To determine damages
notice to Luna is not gross as to amount to malice or  contradicts A2176? No. This is tort not QD Syquia v CA
bad faith. Exemplary damages were deleted because
PSBA v CA FACTS: The parents and siblings of the deceased
DOCTRINE: The test to determine whether QD can be Syquia file suit for damages arising from BoC and/or QD
deemed to underlie the BoC s where, without a pre- FACTS: A PSBA student was stabbed and killed by against Manila Memorial Park Cemetery because the
existing contract between 2 parties, an act or omission non-students while in the school premises. His parents coffin was flooded due to a hole in the wall of the
can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself. sued PSBA and its officers under A2180 for ther concrete vault placed by defendants. CA determined
negligence, recklessness and lack of security measures. that there was no negligence.
 CLASS NOT E
Defendants argue that they are not covered by 2180 as
they are an academic institution. RTC and CA denied HELD: Action is based on BoC. The Deed of Sale and
Certificate of Perpetual Care govern the relation of the
 Qualifies Air France case: QD should be motion to dismiss.
independent of BoC parties and defined their rights and obligations. There is
HELD: The school is not liable under QD because [1] no stipulation that the vault would be waterproof. Plus,
A2180 applies only if damage was caused by students Memorial exercise the diligence of a good father of a
Notes: Differences between QD and BoC in this case: family in preventing the accumulation of the water inside
or pupils [2] a 2176 applies only if there isno contractual
Unde QD Under BoC relation. However, the SC ordered the remand of the the vault which would have resulted in the caving in of
1. award for Injury If there was bad case because there was a contractual obligation to earth around the grave filling the same with earth.
moral damages faith or gross provide both education and security. Trial must proceed
negligence to determine if the breach was due to negligence. Doctrines:[1] If there is a pre-existing contractual
2. award for Gross negligence Act that is relation, then any negligence would be actionable under
exemplary as to wanton, Doctrine: Qualified Air France v Carrasco’s BoC, not QD. [2] If there is no stipulation or legal
damages approximate fraudulent, pronouncement by saying the phrase, “the act that provision to the contrary, the diligence to be observed in
malice (Art 2231) reckless,
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 10
the performance of a contractual obligation is that which breach would have itself constituted the source No presumption that Mere proof of
is expected of a good father of a family. of a quasi-delictual liability has the contract not defendant was at fault existence of a contract
existed. or negligent and its breach raises
presumption of fault or
negligence
Governed by Art. Governed by Arts.

 CLASS NOT ES
De Leon (pp.157-160)
1. Requisites of QD:
a. An act or omission by defendant
2176;
governed
and
by
also
Art.
1172-1174 under Art.
1170- 1174

 The notes in this case are rather confusing.


Prof. Casis asks how putting a hole in the vault b. Fault or negligence by defendant 2178
would prevent water from entering it. c. Damage or injury to plaintiff Based on voluntary act or omission which has
d. Direct relation of cause and effect caused damage to another
between act or omission and the Requires only preponderance of evidence
damage
AQUINO (pp. 25-26) e. No pre-existing contractual
relationship
1. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Culpa
Contractual
Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Culpa Contractual (BoC)
2. Burden of Proof
a. Falls on the person claiming damages
 CLASS NOT ES
b. To be established with satisfactory  Note from discussion: (hindi ko alam kung
Independent contract Foundation of liability is
evidence saang case to related) if there is a pre-existing
the contract and its breach
c. Negligence is not presumed. Only contractual relation, base action on Art. 21.
Defense is available No defense of diligence of
under Arts. 2180, 2183, and 2191 is
a good father of a family in
presumed and burden of proof shifts
the selection and
to defendant
III. NEGLIGENCE
supervision of employees A. Concept of Negligence
3. QD arising from BoC
a. “the existence of a contract does not 1. Definition; Elements
Employer’s employer’s liability is preclude the commission of a QD..” Art. 1173 The fault or negligence of the obligor
responsibility is direct and immediate b. Contractual responsibility and extra- consists in the omission of that diligence which
presumptive contractual liability exclude each other is required by the nature of the obligation and
and cannot be cumulated. corresponds with the circumstances of the
2. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Crimes persons, of the time and of the place. When
Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Crimes Tort liability arises from BoC when the is negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of
Affect Private Public Interest act or omission is in itself wrongful articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 shall apply.
Concerns independent of the contract, the breach of If the law or contact does not state
Indemnification Penal Code Punishes which being merely incidental to the the diligence which is to be observed in the
Repairs Damage or Corrects commission of the tort. performance, that which is expected of a good
Broad- include all acts Narrow – punished father of a father of a family shall be required.
where any fault or only if there is a penal 4. Culpa Aquiliana and Culpa Contractual
negligence intervenes law punishing it Distinguished
Employer’s liability is Employer’s liability is
direct and primary subsidiary
Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Culpa
(BoC)
Contractual

Wrongful or negligent The act or omission is


 CLASS NOT ES

3. Concurrence of Causes of Action act or omission itself merely an incident in AQUINO on negligence (pp. 23-27)
- Far East Banc v. CA – a single act or the source of the the performance of an
omission may give rise to two or more causes obligation obligation Actionable negligence may either be culpa contractual,
of action (i.e. delict, QD, or BoC) Plaintiff has burden to Plaintiff need not culpa aquiliana and criminal negligence. Thus, an action
- liability for a tort may arise even under a prove the defendant plead or prove it was for damages for the negligent acts of the defendant may
contract, where tirt us that which breaks the was at fault or defendants fault or be based on contract, quasi-delict or delict. The bases
contract, where an act which constitutes a negligent negligence
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 11
of liability are separate and distinct from each other  Test: prudent man siren of the oncoming train, stopped and allowed the
even if only one act or omission is involved. o fictitious character: ordinary prudent train to pass; [3] the train driver had already applied its
man brakes and was running at 23-30kph; and [4] he had the
o can be reasonably foreseen duty to stop his jeep to avoid a collision because the
o knowledge of tortfeasor at that time driver of the locomotive was not qualified to do so at the
time.

Picart v Smith Wright v MERALCO Doctrine: Negligence is defined as the “want of care
required by the circumstances.” It is not an absolute
FACTS: Picart improperly pulled his horse on the right FACTS: An intoxicated Wright was thrown off his term and its application depends upon the situation of
side (wrong side of the road) of the bridge. Smith drove calesa after it was pitched forward by Meralco’s the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which
his car toward the horse, veering away only when the protruding railtrack. CFI awarded him damages but the circumstances reasonably require. Where the
car was only a few feet away from the horse. The horse apportioned the same since he was negligent as well, danger is great, a higher degree of care is necessary.
got spooked and got killed. although not as negligent as Meralco in failing to
maintain the tract. Both appealed. Notes: Sir says that based on jurisprudence, the
HELD: Smith is liable for damages because applying standard of care required for crossing railroads is “stop,
the standard of a prudent man, he was negligent. A HELD: Wright was not negligent because the sudden look and listen.” Nevertheless as provided by the SC in
prudent man “would have recognized that the course falling of the horse, would ordinarily be sufficient to this case, we cannot provide a standard for all specific
which he was pursuing was fraught with risk, and would throw a sober man from the vehicle. cases because it is difficult. There is no formula to
have foreseen harm to the horse and rider as a Doctrine: If a person’s conduct is characterized by s determine negligence. Every case must be dependent of
reasonable consequence of that course.” Smith should proper degree of care and prudence, it is immaterial its facts.
have: 1. Stopped 2. Slowed down or 3. Veered to the whether hi is drunk or sober.
right. Valenzuela v CA
Doctrines: 1. The Constitutive fact of negligence is the Notes: Sir asks the question following the doctrine: If
reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of this happened today, would an intoxicated driver be held FACTS: Plaintiff Valenzuela was hit by defendant’s car
the admonition born of this pre-vision. liable for hitting a man? while she was attending to a flat tire. She sued for
2. Test of negligence – “would a prudent man… foresee damages based on QD. He argues that he is not liable
harm to the person injured as a reasonable because of her contributory negligence in parking in a
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
 CLASS NOTES
no-park zone and he was driving at a safe speed of
55kph.

suggest or warn of danger. Omniscience of the future is HELD: The average motorist alert to road conditions
not a requirement. - mere intoxication is not in itself negligence
would have had no difficulty applying the brakes to a car
- inconclusive factor
traveling at the speed claimed by him. Therefore his
Notes: The car was on the proper side of the bridge. failure to be alert must be due either to his intoxication
Sir thinks that the ruling is problematic because had the Corliss v Manila or his speeding. Also there was no contributory
car veered away, it would then be on the improper side negligence because the Emergency Rule exempts
of the road. FACTS: Plaintiff orliss’ husband died of some serious plaintiff from negligence since the time for reflective
burns because the jeep he was driving collided with thought or opportunity to weight the situation was absent
Manila Railroad’s train at the railroad crossing because because she was confronted by danger.

 CLASS NOTES
of his eagerness to beat the locomotive and reach the
other side.
Doctrines: [1] adds to the definition in Corliss v. Manila
negligence is conduct which creates an undue risk of
harm to others it is the failure to observe that degree of
 definition: conduct is said to be negligent when
HELD: Complaint is dismissed. Husband was negligent care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstance
a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor
because [1] one approaching a railroad crossing do so justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury
would have foreseen that an effect harmful to
cautiously and carefully. He should look and listen and [2]the emergency rule can be considered a defense.
another was sufficiently probable to warrant his
do everything that a reasonably prudent man would do
foregoing conduct or guarding against its
before he attempts to cross the track; [2] a prudent man Notes: SC took into consideration “normal human
consequences.
under similar circumstances would have heeded the circumstances” in determining WON defendant was
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 12
negligent. (Examples: the light rainfall, visibility of the Doctrines: [1] An object can still be placed negligently
street 100 meters away, etc.) 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
 CLASS NOT ES
 The new law on negligence of children would
exercise even slight care” still not affect the laws on negligence outlined
by Sangco because it does not expressly
Notes: SC, just like in Valenzuela v. CA, took into repeal the provisions of the RPC.
Far Eastern v CA consideration “normal human circumstances” (i.e. that
 RA 9344 does not affect presumptions of
people would be looking up) in determining WON
negligence. However, it affects Art. 2180, CC.
FACTS: While on compulsory pilotage for docking, the defendant was negligent. But sir asks, “what if the
vessel rams into pier because anchor did not take hold planes had already landed?”
Taylor v Manila Railroad
HELD: Both the shipmaster and compulsory pilot are 2. Standard of conduct
FACTS: David Taylor, 15, and MANUEL, 12, were
liable. The shipmaster is liable because of his blind
experimenting with fulminating caps they found lying
reliance on the compulsory pilot and because he 1. the prudent men around the company’s premises. After applying a lighted
“supinely stood by” with no watchful vigilance on his 2. children match to an opened cap, it exploded causing injuries.
part. The compulsory pilot is liable because he failed to 3. experts. Professionals David’s father filed a complaint for damages.
react (or reacted too late) and because he miscalculated
the bulk and size of the vessel.
4. intoxication
5. insanity HELD: In the Turntable and Torpedo cases, the owner
of the premises was held liable because of the doctrine
Doctrines: [1] Unmindful disregard or neglectful
1. The Prudent Man of implied invitation1. This doctrine, however was
relinquishment of duty is tantamount to negligence [2]
overturned by Railroad Company vs. Stout which held
Extraordinary risk demands extraordinary diligence. [3]
that while it is the general rule in regard to an adult that
The presumption of fault against a moving vessel that Picart v Smith
to entitle him to recover damages for an injury resulting
strikes a stationary object is rebuttable by proof that the
from the fault or negligence of another he must have
driver was without fault, the collision was the fault of the Doctrines: [1] The standard of care is that of a “prudent
been free from fault, such is not the rule in regard to an
stationary object, or that it was the result of an inevitable man” [2] the conduct of a prudent man is determined “in
infant of tender years. The care and caution required of
accident. the light of human experience an in the particular case”
a child is according to his maturity and capacity only,
and this is to be determined in each case by the
Notes: The defense of liability of another person is not I Sangco (pp.7-8) –
circumstances of the case. The law fixes no arbitrary
available to join tortfeasors. 1) STANDARD OF CONDUCT
age at which a minor can be said to have the necessary
- it is impossible to fix in advance definite rules for all
capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and
Civil Aeronautics v CA conceivable human conduct because of the infinite
consequences of his own acts, so as to make it
variety of situations which may arise
negligence on his part to fail to exercise due care and
FACTS: The plaintiff broke his thigh bone because he - standard of conduct must be:
precaution in the commission of such acts. Plaintiff was
slipped over a 4-inch elevation at the end of the i. external and objective
sui juris in the sense that his age and his experience
viewing deck of the airport since he wanted a better ii. the same for all persons
qualified him to understand and appreciate the necessity
view of the incoming passengers including his future iii. must make allowance for the risk apparent to
for the exercise of that degree of caution which would
son- in- law. He filled an action for damages based on the act for his capacity to meet it and for the
have avoided the injury which resulted for his own
QD. circumstances under which he must act
deliberate act. Although the owner of the premises was

HELD: Defendant is liable for exemplary damages since a. Children 1


In the case of young children, and other persons not
there was gross negligence in failing in its duty to insure Article 8, RPC fully sui juris, an implied license might sometimes arise
the safety of the viewers because the tendency of the A minor fifteen years of age is presumed to be capable when it not on behalf of others. Thus leaving a
viewers on the deck would be to look to where the of committing a crime and is to be held criminally liable tempting thing for children to play with exposed, where
planes and the incoming passengers are and not to look therefore. (this was in Taylor. This also might mean Art they would be likely to gather for that purpose, may be
down on the floor or pavement. 80 RPC)??? 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.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 13
negligent leaving the caps exposed n its premises, presumption), if above 9 and below 15,
plaintiff’s own act was the principal and proximate cause Jarco Marketing v CA rebuttable presumption of incapacity of
of the accident. negligence, if above 15, that of a prudent child
FACTS: Zhieneth, 6, was pinned by the bulk of the or adult.
RULE: The care and caution required of a child is department store’s gift-wrapping counter/structure and  Prof. Casis asks what about a child who is
according to his maturity and capacity only and this is to died. The department store contended that it was the exactly 9 years old? Apply the rules on above
be determines in each case by the circumstances of the child’s own act of climbing into the structure that was the 9 below 15 because the law should be
case. proximate cause of the fall of the counter. construed in favor of the accused.
 Is there mutual exclusivity between negligence
HELD: (Citing Sangco) Since negligence may be a and accident? According to the Jarco case,
felony and a quasi-delict and required discernment as a none.
 CLASS NOTES
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 Magtibay v Tiangco
 when children trespass lack of discernment or incapacity for negligence in the
case of a child over 9 but under 15 years of age is FACTS: Rowel Tiangco, under 18, was found guilty of
 child & adult: not same appreciation with rebuttable, under our law. The rule, therefore, is that the homicide through reckless imprudence. Being under 18,
regard to contributory negligence child under 9 years of age must be conclusively his sentence was suspended until he reached majority.
 for children, you don’t stop at age, you look at presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a Later, in view of his conduct, his lawyer recommended
circumstances as well matter of law. the dismissal of his case. CFI dismissed but reversed
 2 cases: “Torpedo (flare gun cases)” and the right of the heirs to recover damages in a civil action.
“Turntable” (DJ stuff) cases: the question RULE: A child under 9 years of age must be
involved has been whether a railroad company conclusively presumed incapable of contributory HELD: The suspension of sentence did not wipe out his
is liable for an injury received by an infant of negligence as a matter of law. guilt, but merely put off the imposition of the
tender years, who from mere idle curiosity, or corresponding penalty in order to give the delinquent
for purposes of amusement, enters upon the Casis: Does this mean that Sangco did not set a minor a chance to be reformed. When, therefore, after
railroad company's premises, at a place where standard of conduct for children but merely a formula? he had observed good conduct, the criminal case was
the railroad company's premises, at a place No. The court did not cite him correctly. Sangco had the dismissed, this does not mean that he was exonerated
where the railroad company knew, or had a standard of an ordinary prudent child. from the crime charged, but simply that he would suffer
good reason to suppose, children who would no penalty. Nor did such dismissal of the case obliterate
likely to come, and there found explosive signal
torpedoes left exposed by the railroad
company's employees, one of which when
 CLASS NOTES
is civil liability for damages.

RULE: Liability of an infant in a civil action for his torts is


carried away by the visitor, exploded and imposed as a mode, not of punishment but of
 Make a distinction between children as a compensation. For every tortuous act of violence or
injured him; or where such infant found upon tortfeasor and children as a victim
the premises a dangerous machine, such as a other pure tort, the infant tort-feasor is liable in a civil
turntable left in such condition as to make it  If a child is 8 years old and makes a counter action to the injured person in the same manner and in
probable that children in playing with it would fall over another person who dies, QD can still the same extent as an adult.
be exposed to accident or injury therefrom and be filed because negligence is not equal to
where the infant did in fact suffer injury in liability
playing with such machine. In these, and in a
great variety of similar cases, the great weight
 Difference between accident and negligence:
an accident cannot be foreseen while
 CLASS NOTES
of authority holds the owner of the premises negligence can be foreseen. So in this case,
liable. negligence and accident cannot coincide.  Minority is not a factor to escape liability
 Examples: What if it’s a 25-year old with the  Company’s counterargument: “It never because even though minority is not a factor
mental capacity of a 9-year old? What if it’s a happened before.” for negligence, it is a factor for liability
9-year old with the mental capacity of a 25-year  In citing Sangco, there is an analogy between
old? Would the doctrine still apply? the RPC and the new Civil Code. If below 9,
presumed incapable of negligence (conclusive
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 14
Del Rosario v Manila Electric 1. type of activity involved is one that is usually
HELD: The child Ylarde cannot be charged with engaged in by children
FACTS: Alberto Del Rosario, 9, despite the warning of reckless imprudence. (citing Sangco) The degree of 2. one involving the use of “potentially
one of his companions, after saying that he had been in care required to be exercised must vary with the dangerous, adult-oriented” instrument, like a car.
the habit of touching wires, put out his index finger and capacity of the person engendered to care for himself. A
touched a fallen electrical wire. He immediately fell face minor should not be held to the same degree of care as WHERE CHILD IS HELD TO THE STANDARD OF
downwards, exclaiming “Ay! Madre”. The end of the wire an adult, but his conduct should be judged according to CARE OF AN ADULT, his violation of a statute or
remained in contact with his body which fell near the the average conduct of persons of his own age and other enactment entails the same consequences as
post. Upon being taken to the hospital, he was experience. The standard of conduct to which a child those of an adult.
pronounced dead. must conform for his own protection is that degree
of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same
HELD: It is doubtful whether contributory negligence age, capacity, discretion, knowledge and experience
can be properly imputed to the deceased, owing to his under the same or similar circumstances. (RULE)
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.
 CLASS NOTES
3. Experts, professionals

Culion v Phil. Motors


But even supposing that the contributory negligence
could in some measure be properly imputed to the  Kid was 10/11 yo: *disputable presumption
FACTS: When Culion wanted to get his motor
deceased, yet such negligence would not be wholly fatal under Sangco*
schooner repaired, he went to PMC where Quest,
to the right of action in this case,not having been the  *in a case between children and adults, the PMC”s manager decided to oversee the repairs.
determining cause of the accident. trend is that adults should know better* Apparently, the tube connecting the carburetor and
the fuel tank was not well-fitted, such that the fuel
RULE: It is doubtful whether contributory negligence mixture leaked and dripped down to the engine
can be properly imputed to the deceased, owing to his SANGCO (pp. 70-74) compartment. Quest attention was called on this but he
immature years and natural curiosity. took it lightly. When the engine was started, there
UNDER 9 YEARS  conclusively presumed to have was a backfire and burned the boat.
acted without discernment and is exempt from criminal

 CLASS NOTES
liability
OVER 9 BUT UNDER 15  may or may not be guilty
of contributory negligence, depending upon his mental
HELD: Ordinarily, a backfire from an engine would
not be followed by any disaster, but here the leak
along the pipeline and the flooding of the
development and other circumstances (rebuttable carburetor created a dangerous situation, which a
 Different from Taylor: presumption) prudent mechanic, versed in repairs of boat
o Taylor – contributory negligence, child OVER 15 YEARS  presumed to have sufficient engines, would have taken precaution to avoid.
as tortfeasor capacity and understanding to be sensible of danger When a person holds himself out as being
o Del Rosario – victim only with the power to avoid it competent to do things requiring professional skill,
 Immaturity and natural curiosity taken into (STANDARD is still that of a child his age and capacity, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to
account and not that of an adult.) exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in
STANDARD: ORDINARILY PRUDENT CHILD the particular work which he attempts to do. Quest
Ylarde v Aquino  The standard of conduct which a child must is experienced in fixing car and tractor engines, but
conform for his own protection is that of a not that of boats. A person skilled in dealing with
FACTS: Edgardo Aquino ordered his students to dig reasonable person of like age, intelligence and boats would have been sufficiently warned by the
beside a 1 ton concrete block in order to make a whole experience under like or similar circumstances circumstances to cause him to take precaution
to bury huge stones. He left four of them to level the or that degree of care ordinarily exercised by against the danger. Quest did not use the skill that
loose soil around the open hole but allegedly telling children of the same age, capacity, discretion, would have been exhibited by one ordinarily expert
them “not to touch the stone”. They, however, playfully knowledge and experience under the same or in repairing gasoline engine on boats.
jumped into the pit and caused the top of the concrete similar circumstances.
block to fall towards the opening. Ylarde wasn’t able to TEST as to whether an infant can be subjected to the RULE: When a person holds himself out as being
climb out and he died because of the injuries sustained. same standard of care as an adult: competent to do things requiring professional skill,
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 15
he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to FACTS: BPI’s money market people pre-terminated
exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in
the particular work which he attempts to do.  CLASS NOTES
Fernando’s placement through a phone call and only
verified her identity by phone. The phony Fernando
deposited the two BPI checks to China Bank and

 CLASS NOTES  Relationship: danger


o pharmacist: knowledgeable
thereafter withdrew it all. BPI claimed reimbursement
from China Bank under its clear warranty.

o buyer: can’t check for himself HELD: By the very nature of their work the degree of
 Johnny Quest
 Consider nature of work and danger involved responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their
 when a person who holds himself out as being
employees and officials is far greater than those of
competent to do things, he will be held liable
for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care & Cruz v CA ordinary clerks and employees. For obvious reasons,
the banks are expected to exercise the highest degree
skill of an expert
of diligence in the selection and supervision of
 high degree of care
FACTS: Lydia Umali underwent a surgery under Dr. employees. No matter how many justifications both
Ninevetch Cruz wherein the untidy clinic ran out of banks present to avoid responsibility, they cannot erase
medicine, blood and oxygen that the patient had to be the fact that they were both guilty in not exercising
US v Pineda transferred to another hospital, where she died. extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervisions
of employees.
FACTS: Pineda, a pharmacist, sold barium HELD: While it may be true that the circumstances RULE: The banks are expected to exercise the highest
chlorate(poisonous) instead of potassium chlorate seemed beyond cavil to constitute reckless imprudence degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of
which killed 2 horses. on the part of the surgeon, this conclusion is best employees (stems from the nature of their industry)
arrived at not through the educated surmises nor
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
conjectures of laymen, including judges, but by the
unquestionable knowledge of expert witnesses. For
whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the
 CLASS NOTES
a specially high degree”, “the highest degree of requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his
care known to practical men”, which is “the highest patient is, in the generality of cases, a matter of expert  Nature of banks: imbued with public interest so
practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness, opinion. The deference of courts to the expert opinion there is a higher degree of diligence required
vigilance, and the most exact and reliable of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the
safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in
of business, in order that human life may not most instances are capable of intelligently evaluating. 4. Intoxication
constantly be exposed to danger flowing from the Expert testimony should have been offered to prove that
substitution of deadly poison for harmless medicine”.
The care required must be commensurate with the
danger involved, and the skill employed must
the circumstances cited are constitutive of conduct
falling below the standard of care employed by other
physicians in good standing when performing the same
 CLASS NOTES

correspond with the superior knowledge of the operation.


business which the law demands. The question of  Not negligence in itself but it can be a factor
negligence or ignorance is irrelevant. The druggist is RULE: The deference of courts to the expert opinion of  *questions to ask: (1) how do you know if a
responsible as an absolute guarantor of what he qualified physicians stems from its realization that the person is intoxicated or not? (2) when is it a
sells. latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in factor enough that it impairs your judgment?*
most instances are capable of intelligently evaluating.
RULE: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding Wright v Manila Electric
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
 CLASS NOT ES FACTS: Plaintiff drove home in a calesa and in crossing
the tracks to enter his premises the horse stumbled,
care known to practical men”.  Plaintiff has burden of proof; present expert leaped forward, and fell, causing the vehicle to strike out
testimony of the rails with great force, throwing the plaintiff from
the vehicle and causing injuries. The tops of the rails
BPI v CA
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 16
appear to be 5 or 6 inches more above the level of the The owners and managers of an establishment or insane party under their care or guardianship, unless
street. Plaintiff was intoxicated at the time. enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused they prove that there was no blame or negligence on
by their employees in the service of the branches in their part; but if the demented person or imbecile lack a
HELD: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their guardian or some person charged with his care, or if the
mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary functions. latter be insolvent, then his own property must meet the
care. General rule: it is immaterial whether a man is Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by civil liability.
drunk or sober if no want of ordinary care or prudence their employees and household helpers acting within the
can be imputed to him, and no greater degree of care is scope of their assigned tasks. Even though the former RULE: Although he may not be held criminally liable, a
required to be exercised by an intoxicated man for his are nor engaged in any business or industry. lunatic or imbecile is still held civilly liable. The person
own protection than by a sober one. If one’s conduct is The state is responsible in like manner when it acts in the first place liable is those who have the insane
characterized by a proper degree of care and prudence, through a special agent; but not when the damage has party under their care or guardianship.
it is immaterial whether he is drunk or sober. It is been caused by the official to whom the task done
impossible to say that a sober man would not have
fallen from the vehicle under the conditions. A horse
crossing the tracks with not only the rails but a portion of
properly pertains, in which case what is provided in
Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts
 CLASS NOTES

the ties themselves aboveground, stumbling by reason and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
of unsure footing and falling, the vehicle crashing pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
 Exemption form criminal liability doesn’t mean
against the rails with such force as to break a wheel, this remain in their custody. exemption from civil liability
might be sufficient to throw a person from the vehicle no The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease
matter what his condition; and to conclude that a sober when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
man would not have fallen while a drunken man did, is observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
to draw a conclusion which enters the realm of prevent damage. (1903a)
speculation and guesswork.
Art. 2182
If the minor or insane person causing damage has no B. Degrees of Negligence
RULE: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the
mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be
care. answerable with his own property in an action against Art. 2231
him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if
the defendant acted with gross negligence.

 US v Baggay

CLASS NOTES
FACTS: In a song service, Baggay suddenly, without CLASS NOTES
 Mere intoxication is not in itself negligence provocation attacked a woman with a bolo on her head ,
from which she died. He likewise inflicted various Grossly negligent vs slightly negligent
 Inconclusive factor
wounds on other women with the same bolo, including  degree of danger
his own mother. Since defendant was suffering from  cf. value
5. Insanity mental aberration, trial court rendered him exempt from  RA 9044 Sec. 6: child 15 & below-incapable of
criminal liability but was obligated to indemnify the heirs negligence
Art. 2180, NCC of the murdered woman.
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable  question still to be resolved is the law’s effect
not only for one's acts or omissions, but also for those of on 2180 CC
HELD: In the case of a lunatic or insane person who, in
persons for whom one is responsible. spite of his irresponsibility on account of the deplorable
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the condition of his deranged mind, is still reasonably and
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the Amedo v Rio
justly liable with his property for the consequences of his
minor children who live in their company. acts, even though performed unwittingly, for the reason
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the that his fellows ought not to suffer from the disastrous FACTS: Filomeno Manguit, a seaman, jumped
minors or incapacitated persons who are under their results of his harmful acts more than is necessary, in overboard from his ship into the water to retrieve a 2-
authority and live in their company. spite of his unfortunate condition. According to law, the peso bill that was blown by the breeze to the sea. He
person in the first place liable are those who have the drowned.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 17
Marinduque Iron Mines v Workmen's foresight are accustomed to use. (failure to exercise
HELD: He failed to exercise “even the slightest care and Compensation care)
diligence”, that he displayed a “reckless disregard of the
safety of his person, that he could not have been but FACTS: Mamador hitched a ride together with other GROSS NEGLIGENCE – described as failure to
conscious of the probable consequences” of his laborers on a company-owned truck. When the truck exercise even that care which a careless person would
carelessness and that he was “indifferent, or worse, to tried to overtake another truck, it collided with a coconut use. There is no generally accepted meaning, but the
the danger of his injury”. There is more reason to hold tree, which resulted in his death. There was a company probability is that it signifies more than ordinary
that his death was caused by his notorious negligence. prohibition against laborers riding the haulage trucks. inadvertence or inattention, but less than conscious
If while he was working, his bill merely fell from his Petitioner claims that such violation was the laborer's indifference to consequences. (extreme departure from
pocket, and as he picked it up from the floor something “notorious negligence” which, under the law, precludes the ordinary standard of care)
accidentally fell upon him and injured him, he would recovery.
surely be entitled to compensation, his act being WILFUL, WANTON, AND RECKLESS – “quasi-intent”,
obviously innocent. Jumping into the sea, however, is HELD: Mere riding on a haulage truck or stealing a ride lying between intent to do harm and the mere
entirely different, the danger which it entails being clear, thereon is not negligence, ordinarily. Violation of a rule reasonable risk of harm to another. They apply to
potent and obvious. promulgated by a commission or board is not conduct which is still merely negligent but which is so far
negligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence. from a proper state of mind that it is treated in many
RULE: “Notorious negligence” has been held to be Under the circumstances, the laborer could not be respects as if it were intended (actor has intentionally
tantamount to “gross negligence”, which is want of declared to have acted with negligence since the done an act of unreasonable character in disregard of a
even slight care and diligence. prohibition had nothing to do with the personal safety of risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to
riders. Getting or accepting a free ride on the company's have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly
- what determines if an act if negligent is the haulage truck couldn't be gross negligence, because “no probably that harm would follow).
danger of an act danger or risk was apparent”.
- the nature of the act of jumping into the sea There is often NO CLEAR DISTINCTION between the
involves danger RULE: Violation of a rule promulgated by a above and “gross”, and the two have tended to merge
commission or board is not negligence per se; but it and take on the same meaning as an AGGRAVATED

 CLASS NOTES
may be evidence of negligence. form of negligence, differing in QUALITY rather than in
DEGREE from ordinary lack of care.

 What determines if an act if negligent is the


 CLASS NOTES C. Proof of Negligence
1. Burden of Proof
danger of an act.
RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF AND
 The nature of the act of jumping into the sea  There’s only an alleged prohibition on part of PRESUMPTIONS
involves danger per se. employer BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
 Why notorious negligence? Because  Even if there was indeed a prohibition, violation
compared with other cases, the danger is of policy is not necessarily negligence per se Sec. 1. Burden of proof in civil cases. - Each party must
apparent and imminent because the shore is but it may be an evidence of negligence prove his own affirmative allegations. Evidence need not
1½ miles away from the location of the ship. It be given in support of a negative allegation except when
was not a case of the money falling off such negative allegation is an essential part of the
someone’s pocket to the floor. He is not said SANGCO (10-12) statement of the right or title on which the cause of
to be a good swimmer but he jumped into the action or defense is founded, nor even in such case
water as opposed to Cuervo vs. Barretto The amount of care demanded by the standard of when the allegation is a denial of the existence of a
wherein the emoloyer ordered him to jump into reasonable conduct must be proportionate to the document the custody of which belongs to the opposite
the water to protect the property of the apparent risk. party. The burden of proof lies on the party who would
company. be defeated if no evidence were given on either side.
 What determines the grossness of negligence? DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE:
The degree of danger and other factors which Sec. 2. Burden of proof in criminal cases.
would justify the dangerous act. SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE - an absence of that degree of
vigilance which persons of extraordinary prudence and Sec. 3. Conclusive presumptions.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 18
Sec. 4. Quasi-conclusive presumptions of legitimacy. - driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within o 2x w/in the next preceeding 2 mos:
the next preceding two months. guilty of reckless driving / violation of
Sec. 5. Disputable presumptions. - The following traffic rules
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions  if the owner is not in the car, does the
be contradicted and overcome by other evidence; of Article 2180 are applicable. disputable presumption apply?
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong; Art. 2185
o n/a when the owner is not in the car /
Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that common carrier
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at  requires conviction
intent; the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation. Art 2185 CC
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of  disputable presumption: violate traffic
his voluntary act; Art. 2188 regulation
There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the o no conviction required
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns; part of the defendant if the death or injury results from o however, Sangco says this also
his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, requires conviction
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed; such as firearms and poison, except when the  ** but when is one “found guilty” of traffic
possession or use thereof is indispensable in his violation?
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such , whether in the occupation or business.
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful Art 2188
exercise of his jurisdiction; Art. 1734  prima facie presumption
Common carriers are responsible for the loss, o injury results from possession of
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular; destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the
dangerous weapons/ substances,
same is due to any of the following causes only:
except when the possession or use
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural
thereof is indispensable in his
followed; disaster or calamity;
occupation/business
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international
ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long or civil;
Arts 1734 & 1735
as is usual with things of that nature; (3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
 common carriers
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing
(ff) That the law has been obeyed; or in the containers;  loss, destroyed, deteriorate
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.  presume negligence common carrier
Sec. 6. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. - o UNLESS prove extraordinary
There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a Art. 1735 diligence
child born after three hundred days following the In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, SANGCO (18-27)
dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost,
spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are It is NEGLIGENCE PER SE when:
of such child must prove his allegation. presumed to have been at fault or to have acted 1. a professional driver permits any
negligently, unless they prove that they observed unlicensed person to drive the car placed
extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733. under his responsibility
1. Presumption
2. violation of an ordinance prohibiting


pedestrians from crossing a street in
Art. 2184 places other than regular cross-walks
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable CLASS NOTES
3. driving a motor vehicle without a license,
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, Art 2184 CC at a high rate of speed and under the
could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented influence of alcohol
the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver  disputable presumption: Where there is NO local regulation restricting the
was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless pedestrian’s rights in the use of a street, a pedestrian
HAS THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL upon roads and streets
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 19
WHETHER THERE BE SIDEWALKS OR NOT, although determining liability where there is  RIL made a special defense by Isidro to allege
he should have due regard for the rights of motor negligence. negligence of the truck driver and Layugan.
vehicles and should exercise due care for his own  IAC ruled RIL as the basis for holding Layugan
safety. IN ALL CASES, violation must be the PROXIMATE negligent.
CAUSE.
Where proof of violation makes:
 RIL N/A because there’s direct (clear &
1. a prima facie case of negligence convincing) evidence
3. Res Ipsa Loquitor
2. gives rise to a presumption of lack of  Why? Because the mode of proof only, so
ordinary care Layugan v IAC when there’s evidence, use evidence / facts so
PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE that judgment will be based on facts and not
FACTS: A truck bumped into the plaintiff while he and a presumptions
FOUR GENERAL GROUNDS OR EXCUSES FOR companion were repairing the tire of their parked truck
VIOLATION OF A STATUTE: along the right side of the highway. He sustained
1. anything that would make it impossible to injuries. Defendant contends that the proximate cause Ramos v CA
comply with the statute or ordinance was the failure of the driver of the parked truck to install
2. anything over which the defendant has no an early warning device. IAC concluded that under the FACTS: Ramos, undergoing a gall bladder operation,
control and which places him or an doctrine, the plaintiff was negligent. The question is went comatose because she was incorrectly intubated.
instrumentality that he is operating in a whether the doctrine was applicable.
position contrary to that required by the HELD: Res ipsa (The thing or transaction speaks for
statute or ordinance HELD: Res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) – itself) – the fact of the occurrence of the injury, taken
3. an emergency not of the actor’s own Where the thing which causes the injury is shown to be with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an
making which causes him to fail to obey under the management of the defendant, and the inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make
the enactment accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question
4. conduct which comes within an excuse or not happen if those who have he management use of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation.
exception provided in the statute proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the Requisites are:
absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the 1. the accident is of a kind that ordinarily
One who has in his possession or under his control an accident arose from want of care. It is not rule of does not occur in the absence of
instrumentality EXTREMELY DANGEROUS in character substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere someone’s negligence
is bound to take EXCEPTIONAL precautions to prevent procedural convenience. It can be involved when and 2. it is caused by an instrumentality within the
injury being done thereby. only when, under the circumstances involved, direct exclusive control of the defendant or
- The care required is a great or high evidence is absent and not readily available. It cannot defendants
degree, or the HIGHEST degree of be availed of when the plaintiff has knowledge and 3. the possibility of contributing conduct
precaution. testifies or presents evidence as to the specific act of which would make plaintiff responsible is
- The presumption DOES NOT APPLY to negligence which is the cause of injury complained of or eliminated.
those whose occupation or business where there is direct evidence as to the precise cause of
REQUIRES the possession or use of a the accident and all the facts and circumstances The fundamental element is “control of instrumentality”
firearm, such as peace officers or armed attendant to the occurrence appear. The absence of which caused the damage. Generally, expert testimony
forces, or in the case of poison, the drug want of care of the driver has been established by clear is relied upon in malpractice suits to prove a physician
companies or stores. and convincing evidence. The doctrine does not apply. has done a negligent act or that he has deviated from
the standard medical procedure, when the doctrine is
WRT to COMMON CARRIERS RULE: Res ipsa can be involed when and only when, availed of by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical
Common carriers from the nature of their business and under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself
for reasons of public policy are bound to observe absent and not readily available. provides the proof of negligence. In cases where the
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in the vigilance over doctrine is applicable, the court is permitted to find a
the goods and safety of passengers transported by them physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to
according to all circumstances of each case.
- The law on averages under the Code of
Commerece cannot be applied in
 CLASS NOTES
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
situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 20
to say, as a matter of common knowledge and accomplished if the problem is based on  Theoretical basis for RIL: The proof should
observation, that the consequences of professional care medical science (Cruz vs. CA). But if common come from the defendant (RIL is the “bridge”
were not as such as would ordinarily have followed if knowledge can be applied, RIL applies. which allows the plaintiff to reach the
due care had been exercised. defendant).
Batiguin v CA
RULE: In cases where the doctrine is applicable, the
court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon FACTS: Dr. Batiquin performed a caesarian operation DM Consunji v CA
proper proof of injury to the patient, without aid of expert on a patient. Afterwards, she was found to be feverish.
testimony, where the court from its fund of common When the patient submitted herself to another surgery, Facts: A construction worker fell from the 14th floor
knowledge can determine the proper standard of care. she was found to have an ovarian cyst on the left and when the platform assembly he was standing on fell
right side of the ovaries and a piece of rubber material down.

 CLASS NOTES
was embedded on the right side of the uterus.

HELD: Res ipsa – Where the thing which causes the


Held: The theoretical basis for the doctrine is its
necessity, i.e., that the necessary evidence is not
 RIL applicable: injury is shown to under the management of the available. The defendant in charge of the
 No expert testimony defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary instrumentality which causes the injury either knows the
course of things does not happen if those who have the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of
 Court adjudicated based on common
management used proper care, it affords reasonable ascertaining it and the plaintiff has no such knowledge.
knowledge fund
evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the It furnishes a bridge by which the plaintiff, without
 The foundation of RIL is common knowledge
defendant, that the accident arose from ordinary want of knowledge of the cause, reaches over to defendant who
 evidentiary rule: doesn’t do away with care. All the requisites are present in this case. (1) The knows or should know the cause, for any explanation of
presenting evidence entire proceedings of the caesarian were under the care exercised by the defendant in respect of the matter
 must prove these elements: exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin. of which the plaintiff complains. It is a rule of necessity.
 accident doesn’t occur w/o person’s negligence (2) The patient underwent no other operation which
 defendant has exclusive control over the could habe caused the offending piece of rubber to Rule: The theoretical basis for the doctrine is its
instrumentality appear in her uterus, it stands to reason that it could necessity.
 no contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part habe only been a by-product of the caesarian section.
 RIL & malpractice suits:
o Gen rule: expert testimony needed RULE: Res ipsa – Where the thing which causes injury
is shown to be under the management of the Defendant,
 CLASS NOTES
(Cruz v CA)  RIL applies
o Exception: If case can be gleaned and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of  theoretical basis:
from common knowledge (Ramos v things does not happen if those who have the o proof is in exclusive control of
CA) management use proper care, it affords reasonable defendant
 in Cruz, they didn’t provide expert testimony evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the o bridge that connects plaintiff to the
therefore they lost defendant, that the accident arose from want of ordinary proof
 in Ramos, can use common knowledge care.
 Prof. Casis’s problem: there’s evidence (police
 medical malpractice


domain of medical science: expert needed
RIL
 CLASS NOTES
report, testimony & affidavit). It is like saying
that even if there is evidence, one could still
argue RIL to win the case.
 common knowledge: no need for expert  Prof. Casis thinks that it is the victim’s fault for
 RIL applies; all elements present:
 preparation for procedure falling off the platform.
o entire C-section under control &
 if there’s failure / didn’t get the results management of doctor
expected, RIL n/a SANCO (27-32)
o no other operation after C-section
 *question: when is a medical malpractice case  although there is no proof directly linking Dr. RES IPSA LOQUITOR – the facts or circumstances
common knowledge or in the domain of Batiquin to the rubber, applying RIL, Dr. is attending an injury may be such as to raise a
medical science?* liable presumption, or permit an inference, of negligence on
 RIL is NA in malpractice suits if the only
showing is that the desired result was not
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 21
the part of the defendant, or some other person who is automobile, and those to the plaintiff’s car were caused
charged with negligence. by plaintiff’s own negligence.

It relates to the MODE rather than the BURDEN of


establishing negligence.  CLASS NOTE
HELD: Court found that both plaintiff and defendant
were negligent in handling their automobile so both
cannot recover. Where plaintiff in a negligence action
 Applies only when both parties are negligent.
It is NOT an exception to the rule of initial presumption by his own carelessness contributes to the principal
of negligence, but is DESCRIPTIVE of a class of cases occurrence as one of the determining causes thereof, he
Manila Electric v Remonquillo
wherein the initial presumption is overcome by evidence cannot recover.
inherently carrying with it implications of negligence
FACTS: Magno was repairing the “media agua” when
without the necessity of proof of specific facts or RULE: When the negligence of both the plaintiff and
he was electrocuted to death. The galvanized iron
conduct. the defendant is the proximate cause of the accident,
sheet he was holding came in contact with the electric
they cannot recover from each other.
wire.
WHEN DOES IT APPLY? Upon the satisfaction of 3
conditions:
HELD: Court said Meralco was not negligent. But
1. The accident was of a kind which ordinarily Bernal v House
assuming it was Magno’s heirs still can’t recover
does not occur unless someone is negligent
because the proximate cause of the electrocution was
2. The instrumentality or agency which caused FACTS: Mother and child were walking along a street,
not the electric wire but the reckless and negligent act of
the injury was under the exclusive control of with the child a few steps ahead. She got startled by an
Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized
the person charged with negligence automobile and ran back to her mother. She fell into a
iron sheet without precaution. It is assumed that due to
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to ditch with hot water and later died. CFI denied damages
his age and experience, he was qualified to do the job.
any voluntary action or contribution on the part to parents because they were negligent.
of the person injured
COURTS ADD A FURTHER CONDITION:
4. Plaintiff had no knowledge or means of
knowledge as to the cause of the accident
 CLASS NOTES
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
 proximate cause: negligence of repairman in mother. Contributory negligence of the child and her
F. DEFENSES turning with GI sheet mother, if any, does not operate as a bar to recovery but
1. Plaintiff’s negligence  difference between this & Astudillo v. Manila could only result in reduction of damages.
2. Contributory negligence Electric Co.:
3.
4.
5.
Fortuitous event
Assumption of risk
Due diligence
o Meralco would’ve had to have been
more careful if public place  CLASS NOTES

6. Damnum absque injuria  * The son could have sued stepbrother of his
7. Prescription father for building the house so close to the  No contributory negligence of mother & kid
wire*
8. Double recovery  Even if they did have contributory negligence, it
is not a bar to recovery; only mitigates

1. Plaintiff’s Negligence

Art. 2179, NCC


Bernardo v Legaspi
When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate PLDT v CA
FACTS: CFI dismissed the complaint filed in an action
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover
to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff’s
damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, FACTS: Antonio and Gloria Esteban’s jeep ran over a
automobile by reason of defendant’s negligence in
the immediate and proximate cause being the mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an
causing a collision. Court also dismissed a cross-
defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the
complaint filed by the defendant, praying for damages
damages, but the court shall mitigate the damages to be installation of its underground conduit system.
on the ground that the injuries sustained by his
awarded.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 22
HELD: The accident was due to the lack of diligence of HELD: Court said that the alleged contributory FACTS: For over a year, RMC’s secretary had been
Antonio. His jeep was running along the inside lane of negligence of the victim, if any, does not exonerate depositing the company’s money to her husband’s bank
the street but it swerved abruptly, causing the jeep to hit accused. The defense of contributory negligence does account, without the company noticing it. RMC sued
the mound. Proximate cause was the unexplained and not apply in criminal cases committed through reckless PBC to collect the money.
abrupt swerving of the jeep. Court also found that the imprudence since one cannot allege the negligence of
jeep was running too fast. The negligence of Antonio another to evade the effects of his own negligence. HELD: Court held that the proximate cause was the
was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his negligence of the bank. The bank teller was negligent in
wife, but goes to the very cause of the occurrence of the Rakes v Atlantic validating the duplicate copy of the deposit slip even if
accident and thereby precludes their right to recover ccount name was left blank, contrary to the bank’s self-
damages. FACTS: The truck plaintiff was riding fell because the imposed procedure; and PBC was negligent in the
track sagged. The rails that they were transporting slid selection and supervision of employees. However, Court
NOTES: negligence imputed included knowledge of the off the truck and caught his lag. Later, his leg was found that RMC was also negligent in not checking its
place. The Estebans passed that mound several times. amputated. Company said Rakes was negligent monthly statements of account for more than one year.
because: (1) he continued his work despite having This omission by RMC amounts to contributory
2. Contributory Negligence noticed the depression in the track, and (2) he walked negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may
on the ends of the ties at the side of the car instead of be awarded to it. Therefore: 60 - 40 ratio in damages.
Art. 2179, NCC along the boards.
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
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
 CLASS NOTES

the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may stringers and rails joined in the same place. As to the
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the second, Court found that there was a general prohibition
 Both negligent but proximate cause is the teller
allowing the practice of validating incomplete
damages to be awarded. (n) against walking by the side of the car. The disobedience
form
of the plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed in
Art. 2214, NCC some degree to the injury as a proximate, although not  Solution to proximate cause issue: 60-40
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the its primary cause. The Court made a distinction between
plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. the accident and the injury. If the plaintiff’s negligence  *Sir has doubts as to the use of the Doctrine of
contributed to the accident, he cannot recover. But if his Last Clear Chance in this case*
negligence only contributed to his injury, he may recover
 CLASS NOTE the amount that the defendant responsible for the
accident should pay fpr the injury, less a sum deemed 3. Fortuitous Event
 Contributory negligence is a mitigating factor in an equitable equivalent for his own imprudence.
awarding damages. Art. 1174, NCC
 CLASS NOTES
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,
 accident v. injury
o accident: can’t recover no person shall be responsible for those events which
 contrib. to primary event could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
o injury: may recover inevitable.
 Defendant’s contrib. –
Genobiagon v CA Plaintiff’s contrib. = Recovery
 2 kinds of contribution: (1) contribution to the
FACTS: Rig driven by appellant bumped an 81 y.o. lady principal event; (2) contribution to his own
who was crossing the street. His defense was that it was
the old lady who bumped his car. TC and CA found him
guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.
injury

Phil. Bank of Commerce v CA


 CLASS NOTES

 ** Is this really a defense? **


TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 23
 there’s only one case cited because in Transpo FACTS: Hernandez encashed 2 checks – salaries of without human intervention, such as could not have
course, Court was not always consistent employees and operating expenses of the project. He been prevented by any kind of oversight, pains and care
whether a tire blowout is a fortuitous event or chose to bring the money with him to his house in reasonably to have been expected.
not Bulacan instead of returning to the office in Cavite. On (3) Assuming that the cause was force majeure,
 *how different is a tire blowout from a fire?* his way home, 2 robbers boarded the jeep and took the Gotesco could still be held liable because it was guilty of
 *memorize elements of Fortuitous Event* money. He ran after them, but was only able to negligence.
apprehend one. He filed a request for relief from money
NOTES: Sir said force majeure is not the same as Acts accountability. COA denied the request. NOTE: Res ipsa loquitur applies in this case.
of God.

Juntilla v Funtanar
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,
 CLASS NOTES
 Ong’s incompetence is not equal to Act of God
FACTS: Plaintiff was seated in the front passenger seat as it happened, the 2 robbers attacked him in broad
 not necessarily Act of God just because there
of a public utility jeepney when the right tire blew up. He daylight in the jeep, while it was on a busy highway, and
are no / unknown explanations
was thrown out of the jeep and suffered injuries. He in the presence of other passengers, it cannot be said
 even assuming that there’s FE, Gotesco is still
also lost his omega watch. that all this was a result of his imprudence and
liable because there’s implied warranty in
negligence. It was a fortuitous event, something that
public places
HELD: SC said that there are specific acts of could not have reasonably be foreseen though it could
o still negligent
negligence on the part of the respondents. Jeep was have happened, and it did.
 Just because you cannot explain it, it does not
running at a very fast speed and was overloaded. In necessarily mean that it is fortuitous.
this case, the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected NOTES: This case doesn’t say that robberies are
occurrence was not independent of human will. It was fortuitous events. It just said that this particular robbery
was a fortuitous event. Servando v Philippine Steam
caused either through the negligence of the driver or
because of the mechanical defects in the tire.
FACTS: Plaintiffs loaded their cargo on board
CHARACTERISTICS OF CASO FORTUITO:
1. Cause of the unforeseen and unexpected  CLASS NOTES
appellant’s vessel. Cargoes were discharged unto the
warehouse of Bureau of Customs. A fire of unknown
origin razed the warehouse, destroying the remaining
occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with  robbery in this case was FE cargo.
his obligation must be independent of human will. o but not all robberies are FE’s
2. It must be impossible to foresee the event which  some human acts can be considered FE HELD: Court said that where the fortuitous event is the
constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it is  it may be an accident but not really FE immediate and proximate cause of the loss, obligor is
impossible to avoid.
exempt from liability for non-performance. Caso fortuito
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it
– an event that takes place by accident and could not
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a Gotesco Investment v Chato have been foreseen. In this case, there was not a shred
normal manner
of proof that the cause of the fire was in any way
4. Obligor must be free from participation in the FACTS: Chato and 15 yo daughter went to see a movie attributable to the negligence of the appellant or its
aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. at the theater owned by Gotesco. Balcony collapsed employees.
and they sustained injuries. Chato even went to Illinois
 CLASS NOT ES
for further treatment.
majeure.
Gotesco’s defense: force NOTE:
event.
This case established that fire is a fortuitous

 Many possibilities were pposed by the Court to


justify that the tire blowing up was not a HELD: (1) Having interposed force majeure as a
fortuitous event. defense, Gotesco had the burden to prove that the
 Important: memorize characteristics of caso
fortuito
collapse was indeed caused by force majeure. This
Gotesco did not do. Its own witness admitted that he
could not give any reason why the ceiling collapsed.
 CLASS NOTES

Hernandez v COA (2) Force majeure – inevitable accident or casualty;


 fire was FE
even which we could neither foresee nor resist; any
accident due to natural causes, directly, exclusively
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 24
 *it was taken for granted that a fire is a HELD: Court found that other than the report submitted Afialda v Hisole
fortuitous event (there was no explanation by the engineers, no investigation was conducted to
given why fire was a fortuitous event)* determine the real cause of the incident. Respondents FACTS: Caretaker of carabaos was gored by a carabao
did not even show that the plans, specs and design of and he later died as a consequence of his injuries.
the school building were defective. On the other hand, Action was predicated on Art 1905 CC.
National Power v CA city building official testified that the school obtained
both building permit and certificate of occupancy; same HELD: Court said A1905 makes possessory user of
FACTS: Respondents filed a complaint for damages
official gave go signal for repairs of damage of typhoon animal liable for any damages it may cause. In this
against NPC for loss of lives and property caused by the
and subsequently authorized the use of the entire 4th case, the animal was under the control of the caretaker.
flooding of Norzagaray, Bulacan. They claimed that
floor of the building; annual maintenance inspection and It was his business to try to prevent the animal from
despite knowledge of the impending entry of the
repair of the school building was regularly undertaken; causing injury to anyone, including himself. Being
typhoon Kading, NPC failed to exercise due diligence in
and that no complaints have been lodged in the past. injured by the animal under these circumstances was
monitoring the water level so when the water level went
Therefore, petitioner has not been shown negligent or at one of the risks of the occupation which he had
beyond the maximum allowable limit, NPC suddenly,
fault regarding the construction and maintenance of the voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the
negligently and recklessly opened 3 of the dam’s
school building. Typhoon was the proximate cause. consequences.
spillways.

HELD: SC did not accept defense of force majeure.


PRINCIPLE OF ACT OF GOD strictly requires that the
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
 CLASS NOTES
act must be one occasioned exclusively by the violence  inherent risks voluntarily & knowingly assumed
neither be foreseen nor resisted.
of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded by caretaker when he agreed to be caretaker
from creating or entering inot the cause of the mischief.
2 GENERAL CAUSES:
When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered,
1. By nature- earthquakes, storms, floods, etc. Ilocos Norte v CA
is found to be in part the result of the participation of
2. By the act of man- armed invasion, attack by bandits,
man, whether to be from active intervention or neglect, FACTS: After a 2-day typhoon, Isabel went out of her
governmental prohibition, etc.
or failure to act, the whole occurrence is thereby house to check on her grocer store. She waded in waist-
humanized. deep flood and got electrocuted. According to the NPC

 CLASS NOTES
Engr, there were no INELCO linemen who were going
around.

 CLASS NOTES 

typhoon is FE
flying roof is FE
HELD: Court said that contrary to petitioner’s claim, the
maxim “violenti non fit injuria” does not apply here.
 the flooding of the Angat River was not FE but  typhoon was proximate cause of damage to Isabel should not be punished for exercising her right to
due to the negligence of NPC neighboring house protect her property from the floods by imputing upon
 is typhoon a force majeure? No because in this  *take this case for definition of force majeur* her the unfavorable presumption that she assumed the
case there was negligence  *credibility of ocular inspection discredited so risk of personal in injury. A person is excused from the
this is strange because this runs counter to force of the rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a
 *so is force majeure really a defense then?*
Gotesco* known danger, he must abide by the consequence, if an
 *they could have used RIL* emergency is found to exist, or if the life or property of
Southeastern College v CA another is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property.
FACTS: During a typhoon, school’s roof was partly
ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroying
portions of the roofing of respondent’s house. A team of
engineers conducted an ocular inspection and found
 CLASS NOTES
that the causes may have been the U-shaped formation
of the building and the improper anchorage of the  Rule is the Emergency Rule: A person is
trusses to the roof beams. excused from the force of the assumption of
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK risk rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a
known danger he must abide by the
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 25
consequences, if an emergency is found to Allied Banking v CA
exist or if the life or property of another is in FACTS: A jeep and a bus collided. Their owners
peril, or when he seeks to rescue his refused to pay damages to the injured passenger. FACTS: Apr 1, 1976 – Yujuico obtained loan fr
endangered property. GenBank payable on or before Apr 1, 1977
HELD: SC held that testimonial evidence of due - Mar 25, 1977 – Monetary Board issued resolution
diligence, in order to hold sway, must be corroborated forbidding GenBank from doing business in Phils.
*SANGCO (pp.81-84) by documentary evidence. Mere formulation of various - Allied acquired all assets and assumed all liabilities of
company policies on safety (as testified by Christian GenBank
NOTES: Bautista), without showing documentary proof that they - Feb 7, 1979 – Allied filed complaint against resp
VIOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA: applies to non- were being followed or complied with is not sufficient to Joselita for collection of a sum of money
contractual relations; exempt petitioner from liability arising from negligence of - 1987 – in the course of the proceedings, resp sought
3 requisites: its employees. to implead Central Bank and Aurellano as 3rd party
(1) plaintiff had actual knowledge of the defendants. It was alleged that by reason of the tortous
damage; NOTES: defense of due diligence is plausible when interference by the CB with affairs of GenBank, resp
(2) he understood an appreciated the risk from defendant has presented enough evidence to overcome was prevented from performing his obligation under the
danger; the presumption of negligence. It is not enough that it is loan.
(3) he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk. alleged. - RTC denied admission of 3rd party complainant.
- Petitioner claims that cause of action has already
5. DUE DILIGENCE (Sir: MMTC said that it was not enough to issue prescribed. Since it was founded on tortuous
manuals etc, but implementation or actual enforcement interference, it prescribes in 4 yrs. Petitioner believes
Ramos v PEPSI is more important.) that the cause of action accrued on Mar 25, 1977, the
date when Monetary Board ordered GenBank to desist
FACTS: Ramos’ car collided with Pepsi truck driven by
Andres Bonifacio.  CLASS NOTES
from doing business in the Philippines. Complainant
should have filed before Mar 25, 1981.
- Respondent relies on the Doctrine of Relations or
HELD: SC found Bonifacio negligent, but absolved  it is not enough that the company provides Relations Bank Doctrine to support his claim that the
Pepsi for having sufficiently proven that it exercised due manuals cause of action as against the proposed 3rd party
diligence in the selection of its driver (background  there has to be proof of enforcement and defendant accrued only on Dec 12, 1986 when the
check, clearance, previous experience, physical exam, actual application decision became final and executory. Thus, it is
driver’s exam- theoretical and practical driving exams). contended that while the 3rd party complaint was filed
In order that defendant may be considered as having only on Jun 17, 1987, it must be deemed to have been
6. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
exercised all diligence of a good father of a family, he instituted on Feb 7, 1979, when the complain in the case
should not be satisfied with the mere possession of a was filed.
professional driver’s license; he should have carefully 7. PRESCRIPTION
examined the applicant for employment as to his HELD: Action for damages arising from QD should be
qualifications, his experience and record of service. The Kramer v CA filed within 4 yrs from the day cause of action accrued.
presumption of negligence on the part of the master or The cause of action in this case accrued on Mar 25,
employer, either in the selection of servant/ employee or FACTS: 1976: 2 vessels collided 1980 when the Monetary Board ordered the GenBank to
in their supervision, when an injury is caused by the - 1981: Phil Coast Guard concluded that the collision desist fr doing biz in the Phils, while 3 rd party complaint
negligence of a servant/employee may be rebutted if the was due to M/V Asia’s negligence was filed only on Jun 17, 1987 the action has
employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in -1982: Coast Guard suspended 2nd mate of M/V Asia. prescribed.
the selection and supervision, he has exercised the care -1985: Petitioners instituted complaint for damages
and diligence of a good father of a family. against respondent. Motion to dismiss was filed on the NOTE, MEMORIZE ME (in footnote so not doctrine)!
basis of prescription. “Relations Bank Doctrine” – principle of law by which
an act done at one time is considered by a fiction of law
HELD: SC dismissed the case, saying that according to to have been done at some antecedent period. It is a
Art. 1146, action based on quasi-delict must be doctrine which, although of equitable origin, has a well
instituted within 4 yrs. Prescriptive period begins from recognized application to proceedings at law; a legal
Metro Manila v CA the day the quasi-delict was committed. fiction invented to promote the ends of justice or to
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 26
prevent injustice and the occurrence of injuries where tank, spreading over the bus and the ground under it, ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the death of
otherwise there would be no remedy. and that the lighted torch set it on fire. the victims?

ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? HELD: The proximate cause of the death of the victims

 CLASS NOTES HELD: The overturning of the bus, and not the fire that
burned the bus, is the proximate cause. The coming of
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
 Take note of Relations Bank Doctrine
the men with the torch was to be expected and was a for years, an ordinarily prudent person would
 *Not sure if Relations Bank Doctrine is ratio in
natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the undoubtedly be aware of the attendant risks. More so
this case*
trapping of the passengers and the call for outside help. with Bertulano, an old hand in this kind of service, who
is presumed to know the hazards of the job.
8. DOUBLE RECOVERY

Art. 2177, NCC


 CLASS NOTES Note: The court adopted the Bataclan definition of
proximate cause.
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the  Definition #1 of proximate cause according to
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
Bataclan v. Medina:
Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
 CLASS NOT ES

efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,  Government negligence was not the proximate
for the same act or omission of the defendant.
and without which the result would not have cause because it was not continuing.
occurred.  The claimant must establish that he had no
IV. CAUSATION negligence.
 A higher degree of diligence is expected from
 Definition #2 of proximate cause according to an expert.
A. Proximate cause Bataclan vs. Medina:
 Prof. Casis included the case to show that it is
More comprehensively, the proximate legal
not necessary to attend school to be an expert.
 CLASS NOTES
cause is that acting first and producing the
injury either immediately or by setting other
events in motion, all constituting a natural and
 Quoted Taylor, but it should have been Rakes

Usually it’s the shorter definition that’s being cited in the Urbano v IAC
other cases. So for our purpose-shorter version continuous chain of events, each having a
The longer version can be shortened by removing close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in
“sufficient intervening cause” his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who
*memorize definition of proximate cause* immediately effecting the injury as a natural
and probable result of the cause which first issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9
acted, under such circumstances that the days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in
1. Definition person responsible for the first event should, as dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. On
an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, November 14, he died of tetanus.
Bataclan v Medina have reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act or default that an in jury to ISSUE: WON the hacking by Urbano of Javier was the
FACTS: A bus speeding on its way to Pasay City at some person might probably result therefrom. proximate cause of Javier’s death. ---NO.
2am when one of its front tires burst, as a result of which
the vehicle zigzagged, fell into a canal or ditch, and HELD: The tetanus, not the hacking, was the proximate
Fernando v CA
turned turtle. 4 passengers were unable to get out of cause of Javier’s death. The death of the victim must be
the bus. Calls and shouts for help were made in the the direct, natural and logical consequence of the
FACTS: Bertulano was invited to bid for the re-
neighborhood. At 2:30am, 10 men came, one of them wounds inflicted upon him by the accused (People v
emptying of a septic tank, which had not been cleaned
carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a wick Cardenas). Medical findings lead to a distinct possibility
for 19 years. Before the award was made (he lost), he
fueled with petroleum. When they approached the bus, that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an
and 4 companions surreptitiously entered the septic
a fierce fire started, burning the bus and the 4 efficient intervening cause later or between the time
tank, without clearance from the market master. They
passengers. It appears that as the bus overturned, the Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The
died in the septic tank due to the intake of toxic gas
gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline produced from the waste matter therein.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 27
infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the
crime.
Note: The court adopted the Bataclan definition of Pilipinas Banking v CA Quezon City v Dacara
proximate cause.
FACTS: Florencio Reyes issued two post-dated checks. FACTS: At about 1AM, Dacara, (son of petitioner), while
Phoenix Construction Inc. v IAC To cover the face value of the checks, he requested driving a Toyota Corolla, rammed into a pile of
PCIB to effect a withdrawal from his savings account earth/street diggings (accident mound) found at
FACTS: A dump truck, owned by Phoenix, was parked there and have it deposited with his current account with Matahimik St. The lower court found that no evidence
askew on the right hand side of the street in such a Pilipinas Bank. Santos, who made the deposit, wrote the was presented that sufficient and adequate
manner as to stick out onto General Lacuna St., partly wrong account number on the deposit slip, but wrote the precautionary signs were placed in the said street.
blocking the way of oncoming traffic. There were no name of Florencio Reyes as the depositor’s name. The
early warning devices placed near the truck. At 1:30AM, Current Account Bookkeeper of Pilipinas Bank, seeing ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident?
Dionisio was on his way home when his car headlights that the account number coincided with the name
allegedly suddenly failed. He switched his headlights on Florencio, deposited the amount in the account of HELD: The negligence of the Quezon City Government
“bright” and saw the truck looming 2 ½ meters away Florencio Amador. was the proximate cause of the accident.
from his car. His car smashed into the dump truck. Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the injury to injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? Reyes? by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result
would not have occurred otherwise.
HELD: The wrongful and negligent parking of the truck, HELD: The proximate cause of the injury is the Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each
and not the negligence of Dionisio, was the proximate negligence of Pilipinas Bank’s employee in erroneously case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common
cause of the accident. positing the cash deposit of Reyes in the name of sense, policy and precedent.
The truck driver’s negligence was far from being a another depositor who had a similar first name. The
passive and static condition and was rather an employee should have continuously gone beyond mere Note: Followed Bataclan’s definition.
indispensable and efficient cause. assumption.
The collision of Dionisio’s car with the dump truck was a Proximate cause is any cause which, in natural
natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck
driver’s negligence. The improper parking of the truck
created an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone driving
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the result complained of
and without which would not have occurred and from
 CLASS NOT ES
 An admission by the court that proximate
down General Lacuna St. and for having so created this which it ought to have been foreseen or reasonably cause is what they think is fair in each case.
risk, the truck driver must be held liable. anticipated by a person of ordinary care that the injury
What the petitioners describe as an “intervening cause” complained of or some similar injury, would result 2. Distinguished from other kinds
was no more than a foreseeable consequence of the therefrom as a natural and probable cause.
risk created by the negligent manner in which the truck a. Remote
driver had parked the dump truck. Note: Different definition of PC from Bataclan case. This
Quoting Posser and Keeton on “Foreseeable Gabeto v Araneta
case adds the element of foreseeability.
intervening causes”: If the intervening cause is one
which in ordinary human experience is reasonable to be FACTS: Gayetano (husband of plaintiff) and Ilano took a
Prof. Casis’s opinion: There’s no basis for this additional
anticipated, or one which the defendant has reason to carromata to go to a cockpit. When the carromata was
element. Under Art. 2202, foreseeability should not be a
anticipate under the particular circumstances, the about to move, Araneta held the reins of the horse,
factor.
defendant may be negligent xxx because of failure to saying he hailed the carromata first. Driver Pagnaya
guard against it; or the defendant may e negligent only pulled the reins to take it away from Araneta’s control,
as a result of which, the bit came off the horse’s mouth.
for that reason. Foreseeable intervening forces are
within the scope of the original risk, and hence of the
defendant’s negligence.
 CLASS NOT ES
Pagnaya fixed the bridle on the curb. The horse, free
form the control of the bit, moved away, causing the
carromata to hit a telephone booth and caused it to
*Sir said that there is a problem with foreseeability as an crash. This frightened the horse and caused it to run up
Note: Court mentioned foreseeability.
element. So as a solution, if there’s a case similar to the street with Gayetano still inside the carromata.
Pilipinas Bank, apply Pilipinas Bank definition*
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 28
Gayetano jumped or fell from the rig, causing injuries furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by
from which he soon died.

ISSUE: WON Araneta is liable for Gayetano’s death.


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
 CL ASS NOTE
If the concurrent act was the proximate cause, the
---NO. injury, even though such injury would not have degree of participation does not matter.
happened except but for such condition or occasion.  What is the rule on liability? –liability is
HELD: Araneta’s act of stopping the rig was too remote impossible to determine in what proportion
from the accident to be considered the legal or each contributed to the injury
proximate cause thereof. After Pagnaya alighted, the
horse was conducted to the curb and an appreciable
interval of time elapsed before the horse started to
 CL ASS NOTE
Sabido v Custodio
 The remote cause was noted to be the wound
career up to the street. Moreover, by getting out and of Urbano. FACTS: Custodio, a passenger of a bus, was hanging
taking his post at the head of the horse, the driver was
onto its left side. While the bus was negotiating a sharp
the person primarily responsible for the control of the
b. Concurrent curve of a bumpy and downward slope, a speeding truck
animal, and Araneta cannot be charged with liability for
going in the opposite direction side-swiped Custodio,
the accident resulting from the action of the horse
thereafter. Far Eastern Shipping Company v CA who died as a result thereof.

FACTS: A ship owned by FESC rammed into the apron ISSUE: Who was negligent and what is the extent of
liability? ---BOTH solidarily liable.
 CLASS NOT ES
of the pier. Kavankov was the master of the vessel.
Gavino was the compulsory pilot.
HELD: The carrier and its driver were negligent for
 Classical description of remote cause with ISSUE: Who was negligent --- Gavino or Kvankov? allowing Custodio to hang by the side of the bus. The
series of events. ---BOTH. truck driver was also negligent for speeding through the
 It is not the counting of the time but the middle portion of the road.
SERIES HELD: Both Gavino (compulsory pilot) and Kavankov Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is
(master of the vessel) were concurrently negligent. independent, in its execution, of the negligence of the
Gavino was negligent for failing to react on time; truck driver and its owner, both acts of negligence are
Urbano v IAC Kavankov was negligent in leaving the entire docking the proximate cause of Custodio’s death.
procedure up to Gavino instead of being vigilant. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in Negligence, in order to render a person liable need not omission of two or more persons, although acting
his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who be the sole cause of an injury. Where several causes independently of each other, are, in combination, the
issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9 combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third
days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in from liability because he is responsible for only one of person, and it is impossible to determine in what
dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. On them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the proportion each contributed to the injury, either is
November 14, he died of tetanus. person charged with injury is an efficient cause without responsible for the whole injury, even though his act
which the injury would not have resulted to as great an alone might not have caused the entire injury, or the
ISSUE: WON the hacking was the proximate cause of extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the
Javier’s death. ---NO. person injured. other tortfeasor.
Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and
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
is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the
injury. There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors
whose liability is solidary since both of them are liable
 CL ASS NOTE
 Prof. Casis thinks that this is a problematic
been the proximate cause of Javier’s death with which for the whole damage. case because the facts would indicate that the
Urbano had nothing to do. Reason: It is impossible to determine in what proportion victim was at fault because he was negligent.
each contributed to the injury and either of them is 3. Tests
Citing Manila Electric v. Remoquillo: A prior responsible for the whole injury.
a. “But for”
and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an
action if such remote cause did nothing more than Note: Liability of concurrent negligence = solidary.
Bataclan v Medina
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 29
 Prof. Casis thinks that this case should not be because an actor’s negligence is not a
Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and cited for the substantial factor test because substantial factor in bringing about harm to
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient the SC did not apply the test; only the CA another if the harm was sustained even if the
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without did. actor were negligent.
which the result would not have occurred.  Substantial factor = Main cause, not the only  The converse of the rule: a negligent act
Note: Italicized phrase=”but for” test cause cannot be said to be the proximate cause of an
accident unless the accident could have been
 Important : memorize the test
 CL ASS NOTE  *This is the only case that defines substantial
factor test*
avoided without such negligent act.

3. Substantial factor test under Restatement


 Refers to absolute cause  *Also see Pilipinas Bank*  Question to ask: Was the defendant’s conduct
 This is the strictest test
a substantial factor in producing the plaintiff’s
b. Substantial Factor 1 SANGCO (pp. 103-114) injuries?
 The actor’s negligent conduct is a legal cause
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v IAC Tests of proximate cause of harm to another if:
1. Cause in fact a) his conduct is a substantial factor in
FACTS: A jeep was carrying passengers to Pangasinan  Traditionally, courts have used the term bringing about the harm
when its right rear wheel became detached, causing it to proximate cause as descriptive of the actual b) there is no law relieving the actor of
be unbalanced. The driver stepped on the brake, which “cause in fact” relation which must exist liability because of the manner in
made the jeep turn around, encroaching on the opposite between a defendant’s conduct and a plaintiff’s which his negligence has resulted in
lane. A Philippine Rabbit Bus from the opposite lane injury before liability may arise. the harm
bumped the rear portion of the jeep. Three passengers  The first step is to determine whether the  It is preferable to use the ‘but for’ test in
of the jeep died as a result. defendant’s conduct was a factor in causing connection with the substantial factor test since
plaintiff’s damage. the former is the adverse of the restatement
The Court of Appeals ruled that the bus driver was  If the injury as to causes, in fact show that the formulation.
negligent. It applied the substantial factor test: It is a defendant’s conduct was not a factor in
rule under this test that if the actor’s conduct is a causing plaintiff’s damage, the matter ends  The Restatement adopts the rule that if the
substantial factor in bringing about the harm to there. But if it shows that his conduct was a actor’s conduct is a substantial factor in
another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor factor in causing such damage then the further bringing about the harm to another, the fact
should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the question is whether his conduct played such a that the actor neither foresaw nor should have
manner in which it occurred does not prevent him part in causing the damage as would make him foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner
from being liable. the author of such damage and be liable in the in which it occurred does not prevent him from
eyes of the law. being liable.
ISSUE: Who is liable?-Jeep.
2. Effectiveness of the cause; ‘but for’ rule 4. Foreseeability test
HELD: The Supreme Court was not convinced by the  Negligence involves a foreseeable risk, a
application of the substantial factor test. Even though
 Whether such conduct is a cause without which threatened danger or injury and conduct
the bus was driving at 80-90 kph, it was still within the the injury would not have taken place (referred unreasonable in proportion to danger.
speed limit allowed in highways. The bus driver had little to as the sine qua non rule) or is the efficient  Foreseeability becomes a test in an effort to
time to react and had no options available: it could not cause which set in motion the chain of limit liability to a consequence which has a
swerve to the right (western shoulder was narrow and circumstances leading to the injury reasonably close connection with the
had tall grasses; already near the canal) or to the left (it  A cause need not be the sole cause of the defendant’s conduct and the harm which it
would have it the jeep head-on). injury but it is enough that it should be the originally threatened.
concurrent proximate cause  When the result complained of is not
Note: The substantial factor test contains no element of  It is useful and generally adequate for reasonably foreseeable in the exercise of
foreseeability. determining whether specific conduct actually ordinary care under all the facts as they
caused the harmful result in question but it existed, an essential element of actionable

 CL ASS N O T E S ()
cannot be indiscriminately used as an
unqualified measure of the defendant’s liability
negligence is lacking.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 30
 The foreseeability test is applied in conjunction prudent and experienced party, fully result, it is quite impossible to distinguish between active
with the natural and probable consequences acquainted with all the circumstances which in forces and passive situations, particularly since the latter
test. fact exist, whether they could have been are the result of other active forces which have gone
ascertained by reasonable diligence, or not, before. Even the lapse of a considerable time during
5. Natural and probable consequence test would have thought at the time of the negligent which the “condition” remains static will not necessarily
 This test is designed to limit the liability of a act as reasonably possible to follow, if they had affect liability. It is not the distinction which is important,
negligent actor by holding him responsible only been suggested to his mind. but the nature of the risk and the character of the
for injuries which are the probable intervening cause.
consequences of his conduct as distinguished 8. Orbit of the risk test
from consequences that are merely possible.
For this purpose, the term “probable” is used in
the sense of “foreseeable.”
 This was intended to be a test of duty and not a
test of proximate cause.
 CLASS NOTES
 If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty  The cause is the active aspect whereas the
 An injury is deemed the natural and probable which the defendant breached, liability is condition is the passive action that may
result of a negligent act if after the event, and imposed for any resulting injury within the orbit produce the injury.
viewing the event in retrospect to the act, the or scope of such injury, it is not the unusual  It is difficult to distinguish between a cause
injury appears to be the reasonable rather than nature of the of the act resulting in injury to and a condition because of the time element.
the extraordinary consequence of the wrong, or plaintiff that is the test of foreseeability but A condition was a cause at some point in
such as, according to common experience and whether the result of the act is within the ambit time.
the usual course of events, might reasonably of the hazards covered by the duty imposed  It cannot be cited in saying that cause and
have been anticipated. upon the defendant. condition are no longer applicable in our
 The consequence of the negligent act must be jurisdiction because it only said that it is


within the range of probability as viewed by the
ordinary man.
The natural and probable consequences have
 CL ASS NOTE
discredited.

Manila Electric v Remonquillo


been said to be those which human foresight  Prof. Casis thinks that the 8 tests mentioned in
can anticipate because they happen so Sangco are not practical and relevant because
FACTS: Efren Magno repaired the media agua below
frequently they may be expected to recur. they are all similarly described and the courts
Peñaloza’s 3-storey house. In the course of the repair,
never use them.
the end of the iron sheet he was holding came into
6. Ordinary and natural or direct consequences contact with an uninsulated electric wire of Manila
 This test states that, as a matter of legal policy, c. Cause and Condition Electric, causing his death by electrocution. The
if negligence is a cause in fact of the injury distance from the electric wire to the media agua was
under the criteria previously discussed, the Phoenix v CA only 2 ½ feet, in violation of the regulation of the City of
liability of the wrongdoer extends to all the Manila requiring 3 feet.
injurious consequences. FACTS: A dump truck, owned by Phoenix, was parked
 This is based on the principle that in tort, the askew on the right hand side of the street, in such a ISSUE: What was the cause and condition of the
wrongdoer is liable for all the consequences manner as to stick out onto General Lacuna Street, accident?
which naturally flow from his wrongful act, partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic. There were
provided only that they are not too remote, and no early warning devices placed near the truck. At 1:30 HELD: The cause was Magno’s own negligence. The
that as far as proximate cause is concerned, am, Dionisio was on his way home when his car condition was the too close proximity of the media agua,
the question is not whether the damage was headlights allegedly suddenly failed. He switched his or rather, its edge, to the electrical wire of the company
foreseen or foreseeable, but rather, where it in headlights on “bright” and saw the truck looming 2 ½ by reason of the violation of the original permit given by
fact resulted as a direct consequence of the meters away from his car. His car smashed into the the city and the subsequent approval of said illegal
defendant’s act. dump truck. construction of media agua.

7. Hindsight test HELD: The distinctions between cause and condition Rodrigueza v Manila Railroad
 The hindsight test eliminates foreseeability as have already been almost entirely discredited.
an element. Posser and Keeton: So far as the fact of causation is
FACTS: The house of Rodrigueza and 3 others were
 A party guilty of negligence or omission of duty concerned, in the sense of necessary antecedents
burned when a passing train emitted a great quantity of
is responsible for all the consequences which a which have played an important part in producing the
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 31
sparks from its smokestack. Rodrigueza’s house was as 1) negligence per se or 2) prima facie tank, spreading over the bus and the ground under it,
partly within the property of the Manila Railroad. evidence of negligence. and that the lighted torch set it on fire.
 It is not an efficient intervening cause when it is
ISSUE: WON Manila Railroad’s negligence was the already in existence during the happening of ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause –
proximate cause of the fire the proximate cause. NO.

HELD: Yes. The fact that Rodrigueza’s house was HELD: The coming of the men with the torch was to be
partly on the defendant’s property is an antecedent expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning
condition that may have made the fire possible but of the bus, the trapping of passengers and the call for
cannot be imputed as contributory negligence because: outside help.
(1) that condition was not created by himself; (2) his McKee v IAC It may be that ordinarily, when a passenger bus
house remained on this ground by the tolerance, and overturns, and pins down a passenger, merely causing
thus consent of the train company; (3) even supposing FACTS: A cargo truck and a Ford Escort were traveling him physical injuries, if through some event, unexpected
the house to be improperly there, this fact would not in opposite directions. When the car was 10 meters and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire, say,
justify the defendant in negligently destroying it. away from the bridge, 2 boys suddenly darted into the by lightning, or if some highway men after looting the
Rodrigueza’s house was built on the same spot before car’s lane. The car driver blew the horn, swerved to the vehicle sets it on fire, and the passenger is burned to
the defendant laid its tracks over the land. left and entered the truck’s lane. He then switched on death, one might still contend that the proximate cause
the headlights, braked, and attempted to return to his of his death was the fire and not the overturning of the
Note: Condition = plaintiff’s house was partly within the lane. Before he could do so, his car collided with the vehicle.
defendant’s property. Cause = the sparks on the train truck.
which was the negligent act of the defendant.
ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause –
YES.  CLASS NOT ES

 CLASS NOTES HELD: Although it may be said that the act of the car
driver, if at all negligent, was the initial act in the chain of
 The Court did not agree with the theory of the
defense that it was the bringing of the torch
which was the proximate cause as it was an
 Rodrigueza was not guilty of contributory events, it cannot be said that the same caused the act of rescue and hence cannot be considered
negligence eventual injuries and deaths because of the occurrence as negligence
 Even if condition was created, the company is of a sufficient intervening event, the negligent act of the
not going to be justified in negligently truck driver, which was the actual cause of the tragedy.
destroying the house It was the truck driver’s subsequent negligence in failing Manila Electric v Remonquillo
to take the proper measure and degree of care
necessary to avoid the collision, which was the FACTS: Efren Magno repaired the media agua below
4. Efficient Intervening cause proximate cause of the tragedy. Penaloza’s 3-story house. In the course of the repair,
the end of the iron sheet he was holding came into

 CLASS NOT ES
Bataclan v Medina

FACTS: A bus was speeding on its way to Pasay City at


contact with an uninsulated electric wire of Manila
Electric, causing his death by electrocution. The
distance from the electric wire to the media agua was
 The efficient intervening cause destroys the 2AM when one of its front tires burst, as a result of only 2 ½ feet, in violation of the regulation of the City of
link between the negligent act and injury. It which the vehicle zigzagged, fell into a canal or ditch, Manila requiring 3 feet.
should occur after the purported proximate and turned turtle. Four passengers were unable to get
cause because it would then be a condition. out of the bus. Calls and shouts for help were made in ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause –
 Negligence of the defendant if pre-empted by the neighborhood. At 2:30AM, 10 men came, one of YES.
the negligence of the plaintiff. them carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a
 The efficient intervening cause is actually a wick fueled in petroleum. When they approached the HELD: Efficient intervening cause: the negligent and
proximate cause. bus, a fierce fire started, burning the bus and the 4 reckless act of MAgno in turning around and swinging
 Although there is still lack of a definite ruling by passengers. It appears that as the bus overturned, the the galvanized iron sheet without taking any precaution,
the Court, any violation of administrative gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline such as looking back toward the street and at the wire to
ordinances and the like would either be seen
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 32
avoid its contacting the said iron sheet, considering the  *Limited application because it’s municipal impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
latter’s length of 6 feet. ordinance. Can you apply this if what is consequences, without reference to the prior negligence
involved is a national statute?- You might be of the other party.

 CLASS NOT ES
able to use argument by analogy*
FACTS: Picart riding his pony was on the wrong side of
the road. Smith driving his car stayed on his right lane
 The IC here was the “turning” and so both Picart and Smith were on the same lane.
Smith stayed on his lane and swerved to the other lane
 What could have been the IC now becomes the
quickly, thereby almost hitting the pony. Pony became
remote cause
frightened and lost control and Picart was thrown out of
the pony and got injured. Picart then filed a case against
Smith
Teague v Fernandez Urbano v IAC
FACTS: A vocational school for hair and beauty culture RATIO: The negligent acts of both parties were NOT
FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in
had only one stairway, in violation of an ordinance contemporaneous. Negligence of Smith succeeded the
his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who
requiring 2 stairways. A fire broke out in a nearby store negligence of Picart by an appreciable interval. th saw
issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9
and the students panicked and caused a stampede. the pony when he was still far and he had control of the
days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in
Four students died. situation. was his duty to avoid the threatened harm by
dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. ON
bringing the car to a stop or taking the other lane to
November 14, he died of tetanus.
ISSUE: WON there was an independent intervening avoid the collision. t take into consideration the
cause – NO. NATURE OF HORSES and the ANIMAL NOT BEING
ISSUE: WON there was efficient intervening cause –
ACQUAINTED TO CARS. ligence of Smith: when it
YES.
HELD: the violation of a stature or ordinance is not exposed Picart and pony to danger. This negligence of
rendered remote as the cause of an injury by the Smith was the immediate and determining cause of the
HELD: The death must be the direct, natural, and logical
intervention of another agency if the occurrence of the accident and the antecedent negligence of Picart was a
consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the
accident, in the manner in which it happened, was the more remote factor
accused. The medical findings, in the case at bar, show
very thing which the stature or ordinance was intended -Applied the LCCD and made the defendant liable
that the infection of the wound by the tetanus was an
to prevent. In the present case, the violation was a effacing intervening cause later or between the time
continuing violation in that the ordinance was a measure
of safety designed to prevent the specific situation of
undue crowding in case of evacuation.
Javier was wounded to the time of death.
 CLASS NOT E
 Important: there should be a sequence of

Note: The PC of the deaths is the overcrowding brought


about by the violation. However, the court did not
 CLASS NOT E
events

Bustamante v CA
specifically identify the violation itself as the PC.  Was there expert testimony here or did they
use RIL?-no discussion in the case
- Practical importance of LCCD
 CLASS NOT ES 4. Last Clear Chance • The negligent defendant is held liable to a
negligent plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff who has
been grossly negligent in placing himself in
 Rule: if the injury was caused by an act which
the statute violated tended to prevent, the
violation of the statute can be considered
 CLASS NOT ES peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff’s peril, or
should have been aware of it in the reasonable
negligence per se and is the proximate cause.  Take note of the definition of last clear chance exercise of due care, had in fact had an
But this is only of limited application and is not in all the cases. opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to
yet settled. avoid an accident
 Effects of violation of statute is not settled. It Picart v Smith FACTS: Collision between a truck and a bus when the
bus tried to overtake a hand tractor. Bus saw that the
can be: a) negligence per se, b) prima facie
*Provides for the classic definition of Last Clear Chance: truck’s wheels were wiggling and that truck was heading
proof of negligence, c) rebuttable proof of
the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the towards his lane. Still, bus driver did not mind and
negligence, d) proof of negligence
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 33
instead applied more speed. Thus, many were killed FACTS: Dionisio was on his way home from a cocktails  Nature of negligent act should determine
and injured. Victims’ heirs filed this case to claim and dinner-meeting when he collided with the dumptruck liability, not sequence of events
damages from bus and truck of Phoenix which was parked askew at the side of the  Does the last clear chance doctrine still stand?
road. Thus, Dionisio filed an action for damages against Yes, because it was still used in later cases
RATIO: Last Clear Chance Doctrine: negligence of the Phoenix. Phoenix invoked the Last Clear Chance
plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence Doctrine: Dionisio had the Last Clear Chance of
 Phoenix-1987, PBC-1997: appreciably later in
of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by avoiding the accident and so Dionisio, having failed to time
exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have take the last clear chance, must bear his own injuries
avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff alone Philippine Bank of Commerce v CA
notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence. The practical - apply the last Clear Chance Doctrine when fault or
import (stated above) provides that negligent defendant RATIO: The Last Clear Chance doctrine of the negligence is difficult to attribute
shall be liable to negligent plaintiff. Thus, the LCCD Common Law was imported into our jurisdiction by
does not arise where the passenger demands Picart vs. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether, FACTS: RMC had an account in PBC and Secretary of
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual or to what extent, it has found its way into the Civil Code RMC was tasked to deposit its money. However, it
obligations. The doctrine also cannot be extended into of the Philippines. The doctrine was applied by turns out that the Secretary would leave blank the
the field of joint tortfeasors as a test whether one of Common Law because they had a rule that contributory duplicate copy of the deposit slip where the bank’s teller
them should be liable to the injured person. So, the negligence prevented any recovery at all by a negligent would validate it. Instead of writing the account number
doctrine cannot apply in this case because this is NOT a plaintiff. BUT in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of of the company in the original copy retained by the
suit between owners and drivers but a suit brought by the Civil Code which rejects the Common Law doctrine bank, Secretary would write the account number of
the heirs of the deceased passengers against both of contributory negligence. Thus, the court in this case husband. Thus, RMC’s funds were now in Secretary’s
owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles stated that it does not believe so that the general husband’s account. RMC discovered this after 7 yers
- did not apply LCCD concept of Last Clear Chance has been utilized in our and then filed a case against PBC to return its money
jurisdiction. Article 2179 on contributory negligence is

 CLASS N O T E S ()
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
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
 Last clear chance contemplates a series of supervision on the teller since it never knew that blank
negligent acts. such act or omission for the rest of the community. To
say that Phoenix should be absolved from liability would deposit slips were validated until this incident . Court
 The definition of last clear chance in the case come close to wiping out the fundamental law that a also applied Last Clear Chance Doctrine in saying that
of Bustamante is deemed to be the common man must respond for the foreseeable consequences of PBC was really negligent.
definition (from the point of view of recovery of his own negligent act or omission. LAST CLEAR CHANCE
plaintiff) and is defined as an exception to a -LCCD was not applied because the court thinks • Aka supervening negligence or discovered
rule. that it is not applicable in our jurisdiction peril
 The doctrine of last clear chance would apply • Where both parties are negligent, but the
even if the plaintiff is grossly negligent.
Exceptions, however, include joint tortfeasors
(according to Americn Jurisprudence).
 CLASS NOT ES
negligent act of one is appreciably later in time
than that of the other, or when it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence should be
 The issue on the element of foreseeability:
 Last clear chance cannot apply when there are: attributed to the incident, the one who had the
There is no general concept of last clear
1) contractual relations, 2) joint tortfeasors, 3) last clear opportunity to avoid the impending
chance. Rather, what is more important is the
concurrent negligence harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the
nature, not the order of events. In last clear
consequence thereof
chance, timing is of the essence.
Phoenix Construction v IAC The bank had the last clear opportunity to avert the
 In the case at hand, the truck driver’s parking injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully observing
- basis for saying that there is doubt in the application of askew led to an increased diligence for the their self-imposed validation procedure. Still, court said
the Last Clear Chance Doctrine because of Art. 2179. driver of the car.  court should allocate risks that RMC was also negligent in not checking its monthly
However, the statements made on the Last Clear (policy of consideration) statements of account. Applied 2179 of CC on
Chance Doctrine were merely obiter  Historical function of last clear chance: mitigate contributory negligence. 60-40 ratio! 40% of the
harshness of doctrine of contributory damages shall be borne by RMC; 60% by PBC
negligence
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 34
-applied LCCD in knowing whether PBC was - Thus, this ruling would clearly apply to exonerate existence of the peril or should, with exercise of due
negligent truck driver care, have been aware of it
- did not apply the doctrine of last clear chance • In this case, jeepney driver did not know of the

 CLASS NOT ES
because the other party was not negligent impending danger because he must have assumed
that the bus driver will return to its own lane upon
 Elements: 1) 2 parties negligent, 2) appreciable
time bet. 2 negligent acts and it is impossible to  CLASS NOT ES
seeing the jeepney approaching from the opposite
direction
- Court said that the doctrine can never apply where the
determine whose fault or negligence caused  How did the case of Glan People’s Lumber
injury party charged is required to act instantaneously and if
affect the case of Phoeix? In the case of Glan, the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all
 Problem: overlaps with doctrine of concurrent last clear chance was deemed to be a valid
negligence means at hand after the peril is or should have been
defense. discovered
Glan People’s Lumber & Hardware v IAC • In this case, Pantranco bus was speeding and at
the speed of the approaching bus prevented
jeepney driver from swerving to avoid collision
- may be used as basis against the ruling made on Last
Clear Chance Doctrine in the case of Phoenix • Jeepney driver had NO opportunity to avoid it
- Sole and proximate cause of the accident:
FACTS Pantranco’s driver in encroaching into the lane of the
• jeep and cargo truck collided incoming jeepney and in failing to return the bus to its
own lane immediately upon seeing the jeepney
• jeepney driver came from a beach party
coming from the opposite direction
• jeep was zigzagging Pantranco North express Inc v Baesa
• cargo truck was staying on his lane because the line - did not apply LCCD because there was no
in the road was wrongly painted - awareness and opportunity opportunity to avoid the accident and the jeepney
• case filed by heirs of the driver of the jeep who died driver was not aware of the peril.
as a result of the collision FACTS:

RATIO:
- The truck driver was not negligent and so cannot be
• Passenger jeepney and Pantranco bus collided when
Pantranco bus encroached on the jeepney’s lane
• Heirs of passengers in jeepney who died filed this
 CLASS NOT E

held liable. Furthermore, the doctrine of Last Clear case against Pantranco  Do not apply last clear chance under the
Chance also cannot apply because there is no emergency rule
• Pantranco wants the court to apply the doctrine of
negligence of the other party Last Clear Chance against the jeepney driver saying  Important: memorize emergency rule
- Even assuming that the truck driver was negligent, the that the jeepney driver had the last clear chance in
doctrine of Last Clear Chance would still absolve him avoiding the collision. Ong v Metropolitan Water District
from any actionable responsibility for the accident
because both drivers had full view of each other’s RATIO: -Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied in this
vehicle. - Generally, the last clear chance doctrine is invoked for case because there was no negligence on the part of
• The truck stopped 30 m away from the jeep and so by the purpose of making a defendant liable to a plaintiff the Metropolitan Water District
this time, the jeep should have stopped or swerved who was guilty of prior or antecedent negligence,
• Jeep driver had the last clear chance to avoid the although it may also be raised as a defense to defeat FACTS
accident claim for damages • Kid drowned in one of the pools of Metropolitan Water
• It was the jeep’s driver who had the duty to seize the - Thus, Pantranco raises the doctrine in order to District
opportunity of avoidance and not merely rely on a escape liability • Reason why the kid drowned is unknown
supposed right to expect that the truck would swerve - However, the court said that the doctrine of last clear • Employees of the Metropolitan Water District acted as
and leave him a clear path chance cannot be applied in this case! soon as calls for help were heard and tried to revive
- The doctrine of Last Clear Chance provides a valid - For the doctrine to be applicable, it is necessary to the kid but he still died
and complete defense to accident liability today as it show that the person who allegedlty had the last • Case filed by parents of kid who drowned claiming
did when invoked and applied in the 1918 case of opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the damages against Metropolitan Water District
Picart vs. Smith, which involved a similar state of facts
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 35
• Parents of kid claim that Metropolitan Water District truck was guilty of greater negligence which was the • ASB was negligent in not exerting more effort to verify
may still be held liable for the doctrine of Last Clear efficient cause of the collision the identity of the sps Canlas
Chance because it had the last opportunity to save • The Bank should have required additional proof of the
the kid RATIO: true identity of the impostor aside from their residence
• Disagreed with the CA and held that both the truck certificate
RATIO: and jeepney were liable • Applied the doctrine of Last Clear Chance which
• There is sufficient evidence to show that Metropolitan • The principle of Last Clear Chance would call for the states that:
Water District had taken all necessary precautions to application in a suit between the owners and drivers • Where both parties are negligent but the negligent
avoid danger to the lives of its patron or prevent of the 2 colliding vehicles. It does NOT arise where a act of one is appreciable later in a point of time that
accidents which may cause their deaths passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to that of the other, or where it is impossible to
• Doctrine of Last Clear Chance: negligence of a enforce its contractual obligations. determine whose fault or negligence brought about
claimant does not preclude recovery for the • For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the
negligence of the defendant where it appears that the driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm
latter, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence but failed to do so, is chargeable with the
might have avoided injurious consequences to - did not apply LCCD because there was a consequences arising therefrom
claimant notwithstanding his negligence contractual obligation on the part of the carrier to • In this case, ASB had the last clear chance to prevent
• The Last Clear Chance doctrine can never apply transport its passengers safely fraud, by simple expedient of faithfully complying with
where the party charged is required to act the requirements of banks to ascertain the identity of
instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided the persons transacting with them
by the application of all means at hand after the peril • For not observing the degree of diligence required of
is or should have been discovered. banking institutions, ASB has to bear the loss sued
• In this case, it was unknown how the kid got into the upon
pool and whether the kid violated one of the
regulations of Metropolitan Water District because he -applied the LCCD
went unaccompanied. It also appears that the
lifeguard responded to the call for held and
immediately made all efforts to resuscitate the kid Canlas v CA
• There is no room in this case for the application of the
doctrine! -Last Clear Chance Doctrine can apply in commercial
transactions
 CLASS NOT ES
 The Canlas sps. were negligent in giving their
LCCD not applied because no negligence on the title to the property to Mañosca.
part of Metropolitan Water District was proven FACTS:
 With regard to the special power of attorney:
• 2 parcels of land owned by Canlas were sold to
the SPA given to Mañosca was to mortgage so
Anuran v Buno Manosca
the presence of the Canlas sps. was actually
• Manosca issued 2 check that bounced
not a requirement.
FACTS: • Manosca was then granted a loan by Asian Savings
 Was there really negligence on the part of the
• A passenger jeepney was parked at the side of the Bank with the 2 parcels of land as security
bank even if Manosca had an SPA and the
road since one of the passengers alighted • 2 impostors used who introduced themselves as the land title?
• A motor truck, speeding, then bumped into the spouses Canlas
 In Canlas, the Court talked about 2 definitions-
jeepney from behind with such violence that 3 • mortgage was foreclosed short and long: take note of these
passengers died • Canlas wrote to Asian Savings Bank regarding the
• Thus, this case was filed by the heirs of the deceased mortgage of Manosca of the 2 properties without their Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation v CA
and of the injured to recover damages from the driver consent
and owner of the truck and the owner of the jeepney • Canlas filed this case for annulment of the deed of - Last Clear Chance Doctrine is NOT applicable in
• CA: applied the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance and real estate mortgage against ASB culpa contractual
held that only the truck was liable because although
the jeepney was guilty of antecedent negligence, the RATIO: FACTS:
• LC Diaz had a savings account with Solidbank.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 36
• After messenger of LC Diaz deposited amount, it took • Defense of Isuzu: invoked Last Clear Chance
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)
 CLASS NOT E
Doctrine
• SC: The doctrine of last clear chance states that a
person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of
 Implied that the last clear chance doctrine is
and was able to withdraw P300,000.00 from its not applicable to culpa contractual avoiding the accident, notwithstanding the negligent
account. acts of his opponent, is considered in law solely
• Thus, LC Diaz filed this case for the recovery of sum responsible for the consequences of the accident
of money against Solidbank Engada v CA - However, no convincing evidence was adduced to
• CA: found that Solidbank was negligent and it had the support this defense
last clear chance to avoid the injury if it had only - Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied; instead - Furthermore, the doctrine cannot be applied
called up LC Diaz to verify the withdrawal applied the emergency rule. because there was no time or opportunity to ponder
- Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied because the situation at all. There was no clear chance to
RATIO: there was no clear chance –emergency situation. speak of
• In this case, Solidbank is liable for breach of contract • Thus, driver of Isuzu guilty!
due to negligence or culpa contractual FACTS - did not apply LCCD because no clear chance
• The bank is under the obligation to treat the accounts • Iran driving a tamaraw jeepney
of its depositors with meticulous care, always having • In the other lane was an isuzu pick-up that was 1 Sangco, (pp. 74-81)
in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. speeding.
However, in this case, they failed to do this. • Right signal light was flashing but swerved to the left The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
• Solidbank was supposed to return the passbook only and encroached on the lane of tamaraw jeepney  Also known as the doctrine of discovered peril,
to the depositor or his authorized representative, but • Tamaraw jeepney tried to avoid the Isuzu pick-up but doctrine of supervening negligence, humanitarian
here, Solidbank through teller gave it to someone else Isuzu pick-ip swerved to where tamaraw jeepney was doctrine, doctrine of gross negligence
• Solidbank breached its contractual obligation to return going and so they collided  The negligence of the plaintiff does not
the passbook only to the authorized representative of • Information was then filed against the driver of the preclude a recovery for the negligence of the
LC Diaz Isuzu pick-up charging him with serious physical defendant where it appears that the defendant, by
• Thus, Solidbank was negligent in not returning the injuries and damage to property through reckless exercising reasonable care and prudence, might
imprudence have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff
passbook to messenger of LC Diaz  proximate
notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence.
cause
RATIO:  A negligent defendant is held liable to a
• CA wrongly applied the doctrine of last clear chance…
• It was the Isuzu pick-up truck’s negligence that was negligent plaintiff or even to a plaintiff who has been
• Last Clear Chance Doctrine is not applied in this case grossly negligent in placing himself in peril, if he,
because Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due the proximate cause of the collision
- Isuzu abandoned his lane and did not first see to it aware of the plaintiff’s peril, or according to some
to negligence in the performance of contractual authorities, should have been aware of it in the
obligation to LC Diaz that the opposite lane was free from on-coming
traffic and was available for safe passage. reasonable exercise of due care, had in fact an
• This case of culpa contractual, where neither the opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an
contributory negligence of plaintiff nor his last clear - After seeing the tamaraw, Isuzu did not slow down
• Iran, tamaraw driver, could not be faulted when he accident.
chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the 1. As a phase of proximate cause principle
defendant from liability swerved to the lane of Isuzu to the lane of Isuzu to
avoid collision  The doctrine of last clear chance negatives an
• Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by essential element of the defense of contributory
the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of • Isuzu driver’s acts had put tamaraw driver in an
emergency situation which forced him to act quickly negligence by rendering plaintiff’s negligence a
damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the mere condition or remote cause of the accident.
defendant from his breach of contract • EMERGENCY RULE: an individual who suddenly
finds himself in a situation of danger and is required to  The failure to avoid injuring a person occupying
act without much time to consider the best means that a position of peril may be a supervening cause.
 LC Diaz guilty of contributory negligence in allowing 2. Elements and conditions of doctrine
withdrawal slip signed by its authorized signatories to may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, it not
guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what  Facts required:
fall into the hands of an impostor and so liability of o That the plaintiff was in a position of
Solidbank should be reduced.—40-60 subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a
better solution, unless the emergency was brought by danger and by his own negligence became
his own negligence unable to escape from such position by the use
- LCCD not applied
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 37
of ordinary care, either because it became  Between the defendants, the doctrine cannot Philippine RMC (one of Yes Just to know
physically impossible for him to do so or be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a Bank of the parties if PBC was
because he was totally unaware of the danger. test of whether only one of them should be held Commerce v who caused negligent
o The defendant knew that the plaintiff liable to the injured person by reason of his CA the accident) but
was in a position of danger and further knew, discovery of the latter’s peril and it cannot be damages
or in the exercise of ordinary care should have invoked as between defendants concurrently were divided
known that the plaintiff was unable to escape negligent. 40-60
therefrom  LCC applies in a suit between the owners and Glan v IAC Heirs of the No Truck driver
o That thereafter the defendant had the drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where driver of the (other party
last clear chance to avoid the accident by the a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier jeep (one of in the
exercise of ordinary care but failed to exercise to enforce its contractual obligations. the parties collision)
such last clear chance and the accident who caused was not
occurred as a proximate result of such failure Summary on Last Clear Chance the collision) negligent
 To state a cause of action, the pleader must - The Last Clear Chance Doctrine Pantranco v Heirs of the No There was
disclose: renders plaintiff’s contributory negligence as a mere Baesa passengers no
o The exposed condition brought about condition of jeepney opportunity
by the negligence of plaintiff or the injured party - Invoked by the plaintiff (no contract) to avoid the
o The actual discovery by the defendant - Cannot be invoked by joint tortfeasors accident and
of the perilous situation of the person or Case Plaintiff WON Why? driver was
property injured in time to avert injury applied not aware of
o Defendant’s failure thereafter to the the peril
exercise ordinary care to avert the injury LCCD Ong v Parents of No Defendant
Picart vs. Picart (one YES Smith had a Metropolitan the was not
3. Parties who invoke doctrine Smith of the parties clear deceased negligent
who caused opportunity Anuran v Heirs of the No There was
 Many courts take the view that the doctrine of
the collision) to avoid the Buno passengers contractual
last clear chance is not available to defendant. of jeep (with relation
accident
LCC can only be invoked in favor of the person contract)
Bustamante Passengers NO No
injured, since it implies contributory negligence on Canlas v CA Canals (one Yes Defendant
his part, and is, generally speaking, only operative Picart v Picart (one Yes Smith had
Smith of the clear of the bank had
in those cases where, notwithstanding the injured parties who the last clear
person’s want of care, another person wantonly, or parties who opportunity
caused the to avoid the caused the chance to
with knowledge of the perilous situation of the incident) – prevent the
person injured carelessly or recklessly injured him. collision) accident
Bustamante v Passengers No No negligent for the fraud
 The doctrine embraces successive acts of annulment Note: there
CA of the bus plaintiff
negligence: primary negligence on the part of the of the deed was no
because the
defendant then contributory negligence on the part contractual
plaintiff in
of the plaintiff which creates a situation of relation
the case are
inextricable peril to him and then becomes passive between
the
or static followed by the subsequent negligence of Canlas and
passengers
the defendant in failing to avoid injury to the plaintiff. the bank
of the bus
 Although the defendant may not invoke the Consolidated LC Diaz – No Liability of
who are
doctrine, it does not preclude him from proving that Bank v CA for the bank arose
asking for
the plaintiff had the last clear opportunity to avert recovery of from culpa
damages
the injury complained of and thus establish that the the sum of contractual
Phoenix v Phoenix No Doctrine
plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which money and so
IAC (one of the was not
proximately caused the accident and consequently doctrine
parties who carried over
bars plaintiff’s recovery. cannot be
caused the to the CC
collision) applied
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 38
Engada v CA Inured party No There was A. Possessor of animals  Remote control argument does not lie. This is a
(owner of no clear strict liability case.
the chance in Art. 2183, NCC  Does it matter if the dog is tame? No. Law
Tamaraw) avoiding the The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use covers even tame animals as long as they
accident of the same is responsible for the damage which it may produce injury
because it cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
was an responsibility shall cease only in case the damage  Dog follows the house: accessory follows the
should come from force majeure or from the fault of the principal (so would a rat living in the house
emergency
person who has suffered damage. make the house owners liable if the rat bites a
situation
guest and causes the latter’s death?)

 CLASS NOT ES Vestil v IAC B. Things thrown or falling from a building


Art. 2193 The head of a family that lives in a building or
 According to Sangco, the last clear chance
FACTS: Theness Uy was bitten by Andoy, the dog of
doctrine is a phase of contributory negligence. a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by
Vestil’s father, when the victim was playing with Vestil’s
It is considered in determining proximate cause things thrown or falling from the same.
child in their compound. Theness, who was only 3 yrs
and should only apply when there is a time
old, was brought to the hospital and was later
sequence.
discharged, but after 9 days she was readmitted for
 Other names: doctrine of discovered peril,
doctrine of supervening negligence, doctrine of
gross negligence, humanitarian doctrine.
exhibiting signs of hydrophobia and vomiting of saliva.
The next day she died of broncho-pneumonia.
-Uys sued Vestil for being the possessor of Andoy.
 CLASS NOT ES
 This provision applies regardless of
 Last clear chance doctrine considered to Vestils claimed that they don’t own the dog, that it was a how things fell from the house.
determine the proximate cause. tame animal, and that Theness provoked the dog so it
 Last clear chance doctrine should not apply bit her.
Dingcong v Kanaan
when there is a time sequence.
 The elements of the doctrine of last clear HELD: The obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the
FACTS:
chance: Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the
-The Dingcongs rented a house and established Central
a) the plaintiff is in danger presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of
Hotel. Kanaan, et.al. rented the ground floor of house
b) the defendant knew of plaintiff’s state the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural
where they established the “American Bazaar”.
equity and on the principle of social interest that he who
c) the defendant had the last clear chance to possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service
Echeverria rented room in the hotel.
avoid the accident -One night, Echevarria, carelessly left the faucet open
must answer for the damage which such animal may
Who may invoke? Solely for plaintiff’s benefit when retiring to bed, causing the water to run off and
cause.
spill to the ground, wetting the articles and merchandise
- While it is true that she is not really the owner of the
V. STRICT LIABILITY of the Kanaan's "American Bazaar" in the ground floor.
house, which was still part of Vicente Miranda's estate,
Kanaans filed complaint for damages against Echevarria
there is no doubt that she and her husband were its
and Dingcongs.
Black’s Law Dictionary definition: possessors at the time of the incident in question.
Liability does not depend on actual negligence or intent - It does not matter that the dog was tame and was
HELD:
to harm, but that is based on the breach of an absolute merely provoked by the child into biting her. The law
-Echevarria is liable for being the one who directly, by
duty to make something safe. It most often applies does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even
his negligence in leaving open the faucet, caused the
either to ultra hazardous activities or in product liability tame ones as long as they cause injury. As for the
water to spill to the ground and wet the articles and
cases. It is also known as “absolute liability” or “liability alleged provocation, the petitioners forget that Theness
merchandise of the plaintiffs.
without fault.” was only three years old at the time she was attacked
-Dingcong, being a co-tenant and manager of the hotel,
and can hardly be faulted for whatever she might have
with complete possession of the house, must also be
 CLASS NOT E
done to the animal.
responsible for the damages caused. He failed to
exercise the diligence of a good father of the family to
 Test: when the conditions provided in the law
exist, you are already liable
 CLASS NOT ES prevent these damages, despite his power and authority
to cause the repair of the pipes.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 39
should be shown that the latter did not exercise due or require him to use one; and if he made collections on

 CLASS NOT E
diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff's
fellow worker.
Sunday, he did not do so in pursuance of his
employment, and his employer is not liable for any injury
sustained by him.
 Is A2193,CC applicable in this case? Prof.
Casis seems to believe otherwise since A2193
speaks of the liability of a head of family when
a structure or similar object falls off the balcony FACTS:
Afable v Singer Sewing Machine
 CLASS NOT E

or second storey of his building. Dingcong is  Defenses available to an employer: a)


-One Sunday afternoon, Leopoldo Madlangbayan, a notorious negligence, b) voluntary act of the
not the head of a family. collector for the Singer Sewing Machine Company, while
 Can water be considered as a thing thrown or employee and c) drunkenness.
riding his bicycle was run over and killed by a truck. At  Case distinguishes “arising out of” and “in the
falling? the time of his death he was returning home after course of.” The first refers to the origin or
making some collections. cause of the accident. The latter refers to the
C. Death/Injuries in the course of employment -The widow and children of Madlangbayan brought an time, place, and circumstances under which
action to recover from the defendant corporation under the accident takes place.
Art. 1711 Owners of enterprises and other employers Act No. 3428, as amended by Act. No. 3812. The
are obliged to pay compensation for the death of or complaint was subsequently amended, and they sought
D. Product liability
injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other to recover under sections 8 and 10 of Act No. 3428.
employees, even though the event may have been
purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if RATIO: Art. 2187 Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
the death or personal injury arose out of and in the -The phrase "due to and in the pursuance of" used in drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for
course of the employment. The employer is also liable section 2 of Act No. 3428 was changed in Act No. 3812 death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
for compensation if the employee contracts any illness to "arising out of and in the course of". substances used, although no contractual relation exists
or disease caused by such employment or as the result -The words "arising out of" refer to the origin or cause of between them and the consumers.
of the nature of the employment. If the mishap was due the accident, and are descriptive of its character, while
to the employee's own notorious negligence, or the words "in the course of" refer to the time, place, and
voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall not be
liable for compensation. When the employee's lack of
circumstances under which the accident takes place. By
the use of these words it was not the intention of the
 CLASS NOT ES
due care contributed to his death or injury, the legislature to make the employer an insurer against all  Who is liable? Manufacturers and processors
compensation shall be equitably reduced. accidental injuries which might happen to an employee of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles
while in the course of the employment, but only for such  Under what circumstances? Death or injuries
injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar caused by noxious or harmful substances
to the nature of the work in the scope of the workman's  Who are they liable to? Anyone who consumed
employment of incidental to such employment, and goods (even if goods were stolen)
accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to

 CLASS NOT ES
some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed
in a special degree by reason of such employment.
Risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally
Consumer Act
 Who is liable? Employers, owners of Art. 97. Liability for the Defective Products. - Any
establishment exposed and not traceable in some special degree to Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer, and any
 Who are they liable to? Laborers, employees the particular employment are excluded. importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of
 Under what conditions? Death or illness arising -As a general rule an employee is not entitled to recover fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects
out of the course of employment from personal injuries resulting from an accident that resulting from design, manufacture, construction,
befalls him while going to or returning from his place of assembly and erection, formulas and handling and
employment, because such an accident does no arise making up, presentation or packing of their products, as
Art. 1712 If the death or injury is due to the negligence
out of and in the course of his employment. well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on
of a fellow worker, the latter and the employer shall be
-If the deceased saw fit to change his residence from the use and hazards thereof.
solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow worker's
San Francisco del Monte to Manila and to make use a
intentional malicious act is the only cause of the death
bicycle in going back and forth, he did so at his own risk,
or injury, the employer shall not be answerable, unless it
as the defendant company did not furnish him a bicycle
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 40
A product is defective when it does not offer the safety established in the pertinent provisions of this Act. ( f ) The using by any person to his own advantage, or
rightfully expected of it, taking relevant circumstances However, if the damage is caused by a component or revealing, other than to the Secretary or officers or
into consideration, including but not limited to: part incorporated in the product or service, its employees of the Department or to the courts when
(a) presentation of product; manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who relevant in any judicial proceeding under this Act, any
(b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it; incorporated the component or part are jointly liable. information acquired under authority of Section nine, or
(c) the time it was put into circulation. concerning any method or process which as a trade
Art. 107. Penalties. secret is entitled to protection.
A product is not considered defective because another Any person who shall violate any provision of this (g) The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration,
better quality product has been placed in the market. Chapter or its implementing rules and regulations with or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or
respect to any consumer product which is not food, the doing of any other act with respect to, a food, drug,
The manufacturer, builder, producer or importer shall cosmetic, or hazardous substance shall upon conviction, device, or cosmetic, if such act is done while such article
not be held liable when it evidences: be subject to a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) and results
(P5,000.00) and by imprisonment of not more that one in such article being adulterated or misbranded.
(a) that it did not place the product on the market; (1) year or both upon the discretion of the court. (h) The use, on the labeling of any drug or in any
(b) that although it did place the product on the advertising relating to such drug, of any representation
market such product has no defect; In case of judicial persons, the penalty shall be imposed or suggestion that an application with respect to such
(c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at upon its president, manager or head. If the offender is drug is effective under Section twenty-one hereof, or
fault. an alien, he shall, after payment of fine and service of that such drug complies with the provisions of such
sentence, be deported without further deportation section.
Art. 99. Liability for Defective Services. - The service proceedings. (i) The use, in labeling, advertising or other sales
supplier is liable for redress, independently of fault, for promotion of any reference to any report or analysis
damages caused to consumers by defects relating to furnished in compliance with Section twenty-six hereof.
the rendering of the services, as well as for insufficient CHAPTER VI. Prohibited Acts and Penalties (RA3720
or inadequate information on the fruition and hazards – Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
thereof.

The service is defective when it does not provide the


Sec. 11. The following acts and the causing thereof are
hereby prohibited:
(a) The manufacture, sale, offering for sale or transfer of
 CLASS NOT ES
 Is a restaurant owner a seller or a processor?
safety the consumer may rightfully expect of it, taking any food, drug, device or cosmetic that is adulterated or
the relevant circumstances into consideration, including misbranded.  Could the company stipulate limited liability?
(b) The adulteration or misbranding of any food, drug, No. A106 of the Consumer Act. If basis is not
but not limited to:
device, or cosmetic. Consumer Act, you can use 2187 on strict
(a) the manner in which it is provided;
(c) The refusal to permit entry or inspection as liability which is a powerful provision except
(b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be
authorized by Section twenty-seven hereof or to allow against sellers (law on SALES will be the basis
expected of it;
samples to be collected. in this case)
(c) the time when it was provided.
(d) The giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to  Elements of 2187: 1) causal link 2)
A service is not considered defective because of the use in Section twelve (b) hereof which guaranty or manufacturers, processors
or introduction of new techniques. undertaking is false, except by a person who relied upon  What do you mean by similar goods?-Sangco-
The supplier of the services shall not be held liable a guaranty or undertaking to the same effect signed by, consumed by humans. Question: What about
when it is proven: and containing the name and address of, the person those consumed by animals?
(a) that there is no defect in the service rendered; residing in the Philippines from whom he received in  Do you apply strict liability even if defendant
(b) that the consumer or third party is solely at fault. good faith the food, drug, device, or cosmetic or the exercised due diligence? Yes. Precisely why it
giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in Section is called strict liability
Art. 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. twelve (b) which guaranty or undertaking is false.
The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing, (e) Forging, counterfeiting, simulating, or falsely Coca-Cola v CA
exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify for representing or without proper authority using any mark,
damages effected, as provided for in this and in the stamp, tag label, or other identification device authorized FACTS: Geronimo sold food and softdrinks in a school
preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there is more or required by regulations promulgated under the canteen. A group of parents complained that fibrous
than one person responsible for the cause of the provisions of this Act. materials were found in the softdrink bottles bought by
damage, they shall be jointly liable for the redress
their children. Upon inspection by the DOH, the bottles
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 41
were found to be adulterated. The sales of Geronimo article preclude an action for breach of contract and 5. Proof of causation
drastically dropped and she was forced to close shop. warranty. • One seeking recovery has the burden of proof
She brought an action for damages against Coca-cola that the resulting illness was caused by the
and the trial court ruled that the complaint was based on 2. Requisites of liability under Art. 2187, Civil Code deleterious food.
a contract, not quasi-delict and should have been filed (1) Defendant is a manufacturer or processor of • A manufacturer’s strict liability in tort should be
within 6 months from the delivery of the softdrinks. foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods; defined in terms of the safety of the product “in
Geronimo argues that her case is based on quasi-delict (2) He use noxious or harmful substances in the normal and proper use.” The plaintiff must allege
and should prescribe in 4 years. manufacture or processing of the foodstuff, drinks, and prove that he was using the product in the way
toilet articles consumed or used by the plaintiff; it was intended to be used.
HELD: The Court sided with Geronimo. The vendee’s (3) Plaintiff’s death or injury was caused by the product
remedies against a vendor with respect to the so consumed or used; and 6. Who may recover
warranties against hidden defects or encumbrances
upon the thing sold are not limited to those prescribed in
(4) The damages sustained and claimed by the plaintiff • A purchasing and non-purchasing consumer
and the amount thereof. or user of a defective food product or toilet article is
A1567. The vendee may also ask for the annulment of
the contract upon proof of error or fraud in which case entitled to recover damages for physical injuries
the ordinary rule on obligations shall be applicable. • The burden of proof that the product was in a caused thereby.
defective condition at the time it left the hands of
the manufacturer and particular seller is upon the 7. Compensable Damages

 CLASS NOT ES
injured plaintiff.

3. Persons who may be held liable, and for what


Expressly limited to “death or injuries caused
by any noxious or harmful substance used” by
“manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
 Requisites of 2187: 1) death or injury caused products drinks, toilet articles and similar goods.”
by noxious substance and 2) by manufacturer • Applicable only to personal injuries, which
or processor • Manufacturers and processors who used
includes death, and only damages arising
 What is “similar goods?” – Anything intended to noxious or harmful substances may be held liable.
therefrom. This precludes claims for purely
be consumed by humans. -sellers of the enumerated goods which turn out to be
pecuniary or commercial losses in absence of
 What if the person who consumed the goods injuriously defective CANNOT be held liable for the
personal injuries.
did not buy them but stole them? – The obvious reason that they have nothing to do either with
manufacturer/processor may still be held liable. the defect or with the manufacture of such product
8. Unavoidably unsafe product
• Products: limited to “foodstuffs, drinks, toilet
II SANGCO (p. 714-734) articles and similar goods”
• The seller of unavoidably unsafe products, with
qualification that they are properly prepared and
Product Liability 4. Proof that food product was defective or
marketed, and proper warning is given, where the
unwholesome
1. Governing law: Art. 2187, NCC • The one seeking to recover is under the duty of
situation calls for it, is not to be held to strict liability
• The elimination in this article of both fault or for unfortunate consequences attending their use,
proving with reasonable certainty that the food
negligence and contract as the basis of liability merely because he has undertaken to supply the
eaten was in fact deleterious.
thereunder are the essence of strict liability. The public with apparently reasonable risk.
consumer’s cause of action does not depend upon • Proof of a defect in the product may not be
the validity of his contract with the person from supplied by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, unless Liability for negligence in food products.
whom he acquires the product, and it is not affected the product is one whose character and content • To constitute negligence an act must be one
by any disclaimer or other agreement. must necessarily have remained unchanged since it from which a reasonably careful person would
• However, Art. 2187 does not preclude an left the manufacturer’s possession. foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to
action based on negligence for the same act of • Expert testimony is generally necessary to others as to cause him to forego the act or to
using noxious or harmful substance in the prove the defect in the product. do it in a more careful manner.
manufacture or processing of the foodstuff, drinks, • It must appear that the unwholesome or • Whether recovery is sought under strict liability
toilet articles, or similar goods which caused the unsound quality of the food product in question or on fault or negligence, it would seem
death or injury complained of, if the injured party existed at the time the defendant sold it, and did not contributory negligence would diminish
opts to recover on that theory. Neither does this come into existence thereafter. recovery.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 42
a. Duty of care of manufacturer or processor of The seller is not liable when he delivers the product in a he must know the identity of a person to whom he
food. safe condition and subsequent mishandling or other causes damage. No such knowledge is required in order
The duty owed to the consumer by the manufacturer of causes makes it harmful by the time it is consumed. that the injured party may recover for the damages
food products intended for human consumption is suffered.
commensurate with the danger and the possible and
probable result of a lack of care.  CLASS NOT ES
 CLASS NOT ES
 Important: Requisites of 2187 in Sangco
A high degree of care is required of the producer of  Had legal liability but not under A1314.
foods (in the production of such product, advertising,  If it falls under A2187, can you still sue for
inspecting the ingredients and warning the consumers of breach of contract? Sangco says, yes.  Is malice required to apply A1314?
possible injury from consumption of a food).  No damages were due from Espejo because
E. Interference with contractual relations no malice was proven (the motive was only to
b. Duty of care of restaurant operator make profit).
Art. 1314 Any third person who induces another to  Is malice an element of tortuous interference?
A restaurateur has no duty to serve “perfect” products. violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the Court does not say that it is.
But the law of negligence requires him to exercise a other contracting party.
care proportionate to the serious consequences that So Ping Bun v CA
may follow from a want of care.
Gilchrist v Cuddy FACTS: Tek Hua Trading originally entered into a lease
c. Duty of seller other than restaurant operator. agreement with DC Chuan covering stalls in Binondo.
FACTS: Cuddy was the owner of the film “Zigomar”. The contracts were initially for 1 year but were continued
A vendor of provisions selected, sold, and delivered to Gilchrist was the owner of a theatre in Iloilo. They on month to month basis upon expiration of the 1 yr. Tek
the purchaser for his immediate use is bound to know entered into a contract whereby Cuddy leased to Hua was dissolved, original members of Tek Hua
the peril that the provisions are sound and wholesome Gilchrist the “Zigomar” for exhibition in his theatre for a formed Tek Hua Enterprises (THE) with Manuel Tiong
and fit for immediate use, and if they turn out to be week for P125. as one of the incorporators. However, the stalls were
unsound and not wholesome, and the purchaser is -Days before the delivery date, Cuddy returned the occupied by the grandson (So Ping Bun) of one of the
injured thereby, the vendor is liable to him. money already paid by Gilchrist so that he can lease the original incorporators of Tek Hua under business name
film to Espejo and Zaldarriaga instead and receive P350 Trendsetter Marketing.
d. Duty of warning; inspecting; testing. for the film for the same period. -new lease contracts with increase in rent were sent to
-Gilchrist filed a case for specific performance against THE, although not signed.
A manufacturer or seller of a product which, to his actual Cuddy, Espejo and Zaldarriaga. He also prayed for -THE through Tiong asked So Ping Bun to vacate the
or constructive knowledge, involves danger to users has damages against Espejo and Zaldarriaga for interfering stalls so THE would be able to go back to business BUT
a duty to give warning of such danger. As a matter of with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy. instead, SO PING BUN SECURED A NEW LEASE
elementary logic, no duty to warn arises with respect to AGEEMENT WITH DC CHUAN.
a product which is not in fact dangerous. ISSUE: WON Espejo and Zaldarriaga are liable for
interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and ISSUE: WON So Ping Bun was guilty of tortuous
The vendor of food should indemnify his vendee against Cuddy, they not knowing at the time the identity of the interference of contract
latent defects contained in the product which the parties
vendee, by inspection or taste, could not have HELD: Yes. A duty which the law on torts is concerned
discovered himself. HELD: YES, Appellants have the legal liability for with is respect for the property of others, and a cause of
interfering with the contract and causing its breach. This action ex delicto may be predicated upon an unlawful
The test of commodities required is no more than that liability arises from unlawful acts and not from interference by one party of the enjoyment of the other
commonly or usually practised by careful dealers under contractual obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his of his private property. In the case at bar, petitioner,
the same conditions and circumstances, which is at contract with Gilchrist. Trendsetter asked DC Chuan to execute lease contracts
least as high a duty of care as the consumer expects or -ART 1902 CC provides that a person who, by act or in its favor, and as a result petitioner deprived
has the right to expect of his groceryman or food dealer. omission causes damage to another when there is fault respondent of the latter’s property right.
or negligence, shall be obliged to pay for the damage - Damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from
Note: done. There is nothing in this article which requires as a injury, and damages are the recompense or
condition precedent to the liability of the tortfeasor that compensation awarded for the damage suffered.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 43
- One becomes liable in an action for damages for a  Sir said that it seems this is the case right permits a privilege or justification to intentionally invade
nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the now: You can compete in Business the legally protected interests of others only if the
private use and enjoyment of asset if: a) the other has Contracts as long as intention is financial defendant acts to promote the interests of others or
property rights and privileges with respect to the use or interest and there is no malice. If this is the himself if the interest which he seeks to advance is
enjoyment interfered with; b) the invasion is substantial; case, then one cannot recover from 1314 superior to the interest invaded in social importance.
c) the defendant’s conduct is a legal cause of the as against the third party. Competition in business also affords a privilege to
invasion; d) the invasion is either intentional and interfere provided that the defendant’s purpose is a
unreasonable or unintentional and actionable under the AQUINO, (pp. 795-801) justifiable one and the defendant does not employ fraud
general negligence rules. Interference with contracts: or deception which are regarded as unfair.
- elements of tort interference: A. Statutory provision and rationale: Under Article
a) existence of a valid contract 1314 of the Civil Code, a third party may sue a third D. Extent of liability: The rule is that the defendant
b) knowledge on the part of the third party of its party not for breach of contract but for inducing another found guilty of interference with contractual relations
existence to commit such breach. This tort is known as cannot be held liable for more than the amount for which
c) interference of the third party is without legal interference with contractual relations. Such interference the party who was induced to break the contract can be
justification or excuse is considered tortious because it violates the rights of held liable. This is consistent with Article 2202 if the
- Since there were existing lease contracts between Tek the contacting parties to fulfill the contract and to have it contracting party who was induced to break the contract
Hua and DC Chuan, Tek Hua in fact had property rights fulfilled, to reap the profits resulting therefrom, and to was in bad faith. However, when there is good faith, the
over the leased stalls. The action of Trendsetter in compel the performance by the other party. The theory party who breached the contract is only liable for
asking DC Chuan to execute the contracts in their favor is that a right derived from a contract is a property right consequence that can be foreseen. In fact, it is possible
was unlawful interference. that entitles each party to protection against all the world for the contracting party to be not liable at all, as in the
- The SC handled the question of whether the and any damage to said property should be case where the defendant prevented him from
interference may be justified considering that So acted compensated. performing his obligation through force or fraud.
solely for the purpose of furthering his own
financial or economic interest. It stated that it is B. History: This particular tort started in the UK in F. Liability of local government units
sufficient that the impetus of his conduct lies in a proper Lumley vs, Gye in 1853 and was first adopted in the
business interest rather than in wrongful motives to Philippines in 1915 in Gilchrist vs Cuddy. Art. 2189 Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be
conclude that So was not a malicious interferer. Nothing
liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered
on the record imputes deliberate wrongful motives or C. Elements: by, any person by reason of the defective condition of
malice on the part of So. Hence the lack of malice 1. Existence of a valid contract: This existence is roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public
precludes the award of damages. necessary and the breach must occur because of the works under their control or supervision.
- The provision in the Civil Code with regard tortuous alleged act of interference. No tort is committed if the
interference is Article 1314. party had already broken the contract. Neither can
action be maintained if the contract is void. However, Guilatco v City of Dagupan
 CLASS NOT ES
there is authority for the view that an action for
interference can be maintained even if the contract is
unenforceable. The view is that inducement, if
FACTS: Guilatco, a court interpreter, fell into a manhole
 Did not include malice as one of the at Perez Blvd. which is owned by the national
elements under A1314. Then discussed reprehensible in an enforceable contracts, is equally Government. She fractured her right leg, thus was
Gilchrist in saying that to award damages, reprehensible in an unenforceable one. hospitalized, operated on, and confined. City Engineer
there should be malice but it was never 2. Knowledge on the part of the third party of the testified that he supervises the maintenance of said
mentioned in Gilchrist in the first place. existence of the contract: The elements do manholes and sees to it that they are properly covered.
Implied malice as an element. not include malice as a necessary act in interference.
 City Charter of Dagupan also says that the city
However, the Supreme Court in its various rulings have
 De Leon included malice as an element. supervises and manages National roads and national
held that the aggrieved party will only be entitled to
 Sir said as guidance: If we apply Gilchrist sidewalks.
damages if malice was present in the commission of the
and So Ping Bun, we need malice in 1314.
tortious act. It was held that mere competition is not
But if question is just on the elements, just HELD: City liable
sufficient unless it is considered unfair competition or
answer the three elements given by So - The liability of private corporations for damages
the dominant purpose is to inflict harm or injury.
Ping Bun. arising from injuries suffered by pedestrians from the
3. Interference of the third party without legal
 So Ping Bun was okay had it not cited defective condition of roads is expressed in the Civil
justification or excuse: In general, social policy
Gilchrist Code as follows:
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 44
Article 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.
- It is not even necessary for the defective road or
street to belong to the province, city or municipality for
liability to attach. The article only requires that either
control or supervision is exercised over the defective
road or street.
- In this case, control or supervision is provided for in
the charter of Dagupan and is exercised through the
City Engineer.
The charter only lays down general rules regulating that
liability of the city. On the other hand, article 2189
applies in particular to the liability arising from “defective
streets, public buildings and other public works.”

 CLASS NOT ES
 Can last clear chance apply? Wasn’t it
Guilatco’s fault that she was negligent in
alighting a tricycle? No because it is under
strict liability.
 Sir said it is wise to apply this to the case of
PLDT and the accident mound case (DACARA)

Você também pode gostar