TORTS

Elements of Quasi-Delict
a. Damages suffered by the plaintiff
b. Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he
must respond
c. The connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant
d. The connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff

Art 2176

Covers not only acts not punishable by law but also acts criminal in character
whether intentional and voluntary or negligent
Separate civil action lies but no double recovery
Responsibility for fault or negligence under quasi-delict separate and distinct

Culpa aquiliana distinguished from culpa criminal

a. Crimes affect public interest while cuasi-delitos are only private concern
b. Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by
means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage
c. Delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts because the former are punished
only if there is a penal law clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasidelitos, include all acts in which any kind of fault or negligence intervenes
Art 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the CC not deemed instituted

Offended party may file a separate civil action to recover civil liability ex
delicto by reserving such right in the criminal action before the prosecution
presents its evidence

Pre-existing contract generally bars quasi-delict

Exc: If the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort
o Whether a quasi-delict can be deemed to underlie the breach of a
contract

Culpa aquiliana distinguished from culpa contractual

Culpa aquiliana is substantive and independent, which is of itself constitutes

the source of an obligation bet persons not formerly connected by any legal
tiie

Culpa contractual is considered as an accident in the performance of an

obligation already existing
Negligence in culpa contractual is only incidental to the performance of the
obligation
Negligence in culpa aquiliana is direct and primary.

ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT
Test to determine existence of negligence

Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care
and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
Foreseeability of the harm is therefore an indispensable requirement

Degrees of Negligence

Slight
o Failure to exercise great or extraordinary care
Ordinary
o Want of ordinary care and diligence, that is, such care and diligence as
an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same or similar
circumstances
Gross
o Materially greater than ordinary negligence, and consists of an entire
absence of care or an absence of even slight care or diligence; it
implies thoughtless disregard for consequences or an indifference to
the rights or welfare of others

Factors to be considered
1.
2.
3.
4.

His employment or occupation

His degree of intelligence
His physical condition
Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place

Proximate cause

That cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any

efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred

Concurrence of efficient causes

In order to render a person liable, negligence need not be the sole cause of
an injury
Sufficient that his negligence, concurring with one or more efficient causes
other than the plaintiffs, is the proximate cause of the injury

Burden of Proof

The person alleging the negligence must prove it

Presumptions of negligence

Art 2184. A driver was negligent if he had been found guilty of reckless
driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding
two months
Art 2185. It is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation
Art 2188. If the death or injury results from defendants possession of
dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when
the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business
Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management
of the defendant and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things
does not happen if those who have management use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that
the accident arose from want of care

Res ipsa loquitur

Rebuttable presumption or inference that defendant was negligent, which

arises upon proof that instrumentality causing injury was in defendants
exclusive control, and that the accident was one which ordinarily does not
happen in absence of negligence
Merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience
Resort allowed only when
o Event is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of
negligence
o Other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and
third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence;
o The indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendants duty to
the plaintiff

NATURE OF LIABILITY
LIABILITY OF TORTFEASORS

Responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is

solidary and the sharing is pro-rata
Both liable for the total damage
Release of one tortfeasor does not operate to release the others

Doctrine of Vicarious Liability

Obligation in Art 2176 demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions
but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible
Over persons who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control
over them
Non-performance of certain duties of precaution and prudence imposed upon
the persons who become responsible by civil bond uniting the actor to them,
which forms the foundation of such responsibility
Primary and direct

Vicarious liability of parents

Father resp.
In case of death or incapacity of father, mother responsible
For children living in their company
Based upon the parental authority
Adoption
o Who has actually custody?

Vicarious liability of guardians

3 kinds
o Legal guardian
o Guardian ad litem
o Judicial guardian

Vicarious liability of employers

Responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the

branches in which the latter are employed in the service of branches in which
the latter are employed or on the occasion of their fxns
Damages caused by employees and household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks, even though not engaged in any business or
industry
Solidary liability

Employers vicarious liability under At. 2180 and employers subsidiary

liability under Art 100

Art 2180 -> primary. Independent of employees own liability. Proceed

independently of criminal action. Founded on Art 2176 in relation to Art 2180.
Preponderance of evidence.
Art 103 RPC-> subsidiary. When employee convicted of a crime done in the
performance of his work and is found to be insolvent.
o Reqt
Employer etc is engaged in any kind of industry
Employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties

Employee is insolvent

Vicarious liability of owner of vehicle

Solidary liable with his driver if he was in the vehicle and could have, by use
of due diligence, prevented the misfortune
Every motor vehicle owner shall file with proper govt office a bond executed
by a GOCC or office to answer for damages to third persons

Vicarious liability of State

Not liable for negligent acts of its regular officers or employees in the
performance of their ordinary functions
Responsible if acts through a special agent
2 aspects
o Public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts of
special agents only
o Private or business aspects where it becomes liable as an ordinary
employer
Special agent
o Specially commissioned to do a particular task
o Such task must be foreign to said officials usual governmental
functions

Provinces, cities and municipalities

Art 2189. Liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any
person by reason of the defective condition of roads, bridges, streets, public
buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision
Ownership not required
Only supervision or control
Sec 24, LGC local govt units and their officials not exempt from liability for
death or injury to persons or damage to property

Vicarious liability of teachers and heads of establishments of arts and

trade

Art 2180. Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be

liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so
long as they remain in their custody
Art 2180 applies to all schools, academic as well as non-academic
As long then as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in
pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate
student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege,
the responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues

Proprietor of building or structure

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

Responsible for damages caused

o By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken cared of with
due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which
have not been kept in a safe and adequate place
o Excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property
o By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not
caused by force majeure
o By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious
matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place
If damages due to defect in the construction mentioned in Art 1723, the third
person suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect
or contractor

DEFENSES IN AN CTION FOR QUASI-DELICT

Plaintiffs own negligence

Art 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.

Theory of implied invitation to visit the premises of another

In a case of young children, and other persons not fully sui juris, an implied
license might sometimes arise when it would not on behalf of others

Doctrine of attractive nuisance

One who maintains on his remises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances

of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise
ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto,
is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is
technically a trespasser

Assumption of risk

Volenti non fit injuria

o To which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury
o Self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the
recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily
exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing do
Exc:
o When he voluntary assents to a known danger he must abide by the
consequences, if an emergency is found to exist or if the life or
property of another is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property

Doctrine of last clear chance (Doctrine of discovered peril, Humanitarian

doctrine, doctrine of intervening negligence, Known Danger Rule, Rule of
Davies vs. Mann)

A person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an

accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or the
negligence of a third person which is imputed to his opponent, is considered
in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident
Recovery permitted notwithstanding the negligence of plaintiff in exposing
himself to injury bc such negligence does not in a legal sense contribute to
the injury since it is a remote cause
Which agent is immediately and directly responsible
Person who has the last clear chance to avoid the impending harm and fails
to do so I chargeable with the consequences without reference to the prior
negligence of the other party
No application to a case where a person is to act instantaneously, and if the
injury cannot be avoided by using all means available after the peril is or
should have been discovered

Emergency rule

One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger and is required to act
without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method,
unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own
negligence.

Prescription

4 years

Diligence of good father of family

For vicarious liability

Not available in culpa contractual

Partial defense:
Doctrine of contributory negligence

When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause
of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if contributory only, damages
mitigated

Contributory negligence distinguished from the doctrine of last clear

chance

Strict liability tort

Liability without fault

Unnecessary to prove defendants negligence

Possessor of animals

Art 2183
The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be
lost
No responsibility of force majeure or persons fault
Based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who
possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the
damage which such animal may cause

Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs etc

Art 2178
Aka enterprise liability
Relates only to defective and unreasonably dangerous products and does not
make a manufacturer or seller an insurer

Head of the family

Art 2193

SPECIAL TORTS
ART 309 (PAR. 9, ART 2219) AND IN ARTS. 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34 AND 35
(PAR 10, ART 2219)

Abuse of Right Principle

Art 19
bad faith essential
reqts
o There is a legal right or duty
o Which is exercised in bad faith
o For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another

Art 20

general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially
provide for their own sanction

Art 21

expand the concept of torts

contra bonus mores
reqts
o there is an act which is legal
o but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public
policy
o it is done with intent to injure

Emotional distress tort action

a civil action filed by an individual to assuage the injuries to his emotional

tranquility due to personal attacks on his character
-reqts
o The conduct of the defendant was intentional or in reckless disregard
of the plaintiff
o The conduct was extreme and outrageous
o There was a causal connection between the defendants conduct and
the plaintiffs mental distress
o Plaintiffs mental distress was extreme and severe

Art. 26

Interference with contractual relations

Art 1314
Elements
o Existence of a valid contract
o Knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of the
contract
o Interference of the third person without legal justification or excuse

KINDRED TORTS
Medical Malpractice

Failure of a physician or surgeon to apply his practice of medicine that degree

of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally,
under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances
Elements
o Duty
o Breach
o Injury
o Proximate causation

Error in judgment rule

Physician not liable for error in his judgment when he applies ordinary and
reasonable skill and care, or his best judgment, or keeps within recognized
and approved methods or common practice, or if he forms hi judgment after
a careful or proper examination or investigation

Evidential rules

Expert testimony necessary

Liability of hospitals
Special or limited practitioners
Legal malpractice
Liability of directors and trustees of corporation
Nuisance