TORTS AND DAMAGES

I. QUASI-DELICTS
Case Issue Policy Ruling
DELA LLANA W/N Driver Joels 3 elements of Quasi-Delict Based on the elements:
vs. BIONG reckless driving is should be established: 1. (+) DAMAGES: Dela Llana
the proximate suffered whiplash injury.
cause of Dra. Dela 1. Damages to the plaintiff; 2. (+) NEGLIGENCE: Driver
Llanas whiplash Joels reckless imprudence.
injury. 2. Negligence, by act or 3. (X) CAUSAL RELATION:
omission, of the defendant Dra. Dela Llana did not
NO. There or by some person for present any testimonial or
is no causal whose acts the defendant documentary evidence that
relation. must respond, was guilty; directly shows the causal
and relation between the
vehicular accident and the
3. The connection of cause whiplash injury.
and effect between such AEB:
negligence and damage a. The pictures merely
demonstrated the impact of
the collision, but not the
whiplash injury.
b. The medical certificate is
NOT admitted in evidence,
and assuming it is, the
same is hearsay for failure
to present Dr. Mila, who
issued the same.
c. Dr. Dela Llanas opinion on
whiplash injury has no
probative value because
she merely testified as an
ordinary witness.

SMITH BELL W/N Petitioner Negligence is conduct that Petitioners vessel was carrying
vs. BORJA Smith Bell is creates undue risk of harm to chemical cargo alkyl benzene and
negligent with another. It is the failure to observe methyl methacrylate monomer.
respect to the that degree of care, precaution, While knowing that their vessel was
explosion in its and vigilance that the carrying dangerous inflammable
M/T King family circumstances justly demand, chemicals, its officers and crew
which resulted to whereby that other person suffers failed to take all the necessary
Respondent injury. precautions to prevent an accident.
Borjas permanent Petitioner was, therefore, negligent.
disability.
As a result of the fire and the
YES. Smith explosion during the unloading of
Bell is the chemicals from petitioners
negligent. vessel, Respondent Borja suffered
damage and injuries:
a. Chemical burns of the face
and arms
b. Inhalation of fumes from
burning chemicals
c. Exposure to the elements
floating in sea water for
about 3 hours
d. Homonymous hemianopsia,
or blurring of the right eye,
toxic origin
e. Cerebral infract with neo-
vascularization

Hence, the owner or the person in

possession and control of a vessel
is liable for all natural and proximate
damages caused to persons and
property by reason of negligence in
its management and navigation.

SOLIDUM vs. W/N Negligence is the failure to Here, the prosecution failed to

Per Topic Syllabus Quasi-Delict and Defenses

Page 1 of 9
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
I. QUASI-DELICTS
PEOPLE Anesthesiologist observe for the protection of the establish Dr. Solidums negligence,
Dr. Solidum is interests of another person that AEB:
criminally degree of care, precaution, and
negligent in vigilance that the circumstances 1. Prosecution presented no
administering justly demand, whereby such witnesses with special
100% halogen other person suffers injury. medical qualifications in
causing hypoxic anesthesia to provide
encephalopathy of Medical negligence, whether guidance to the TC on what
3 year-old Gerald criminal, civil, or administrative, standard of care was
during the pull- requires the ff. 4 elements: applicable.
through operation
for imperforated 1. Duty owed by the 2. Although the Prosecution
anus. physician to the patient, presented Dr. Sulit, and
as created by the anesthesiologist, who
NO. He is physician-patient served as the Chairman of
not relationship, to act in the Ethics and Malpractice
criminally accordance with the Committee, his testimony
negligent. specific norms or mainly focused on how the
standards prescribed by investigation was
the profession; conducted, which report is
favorable to Dr. Solidum.
2. Breach of duty by the (The records show it was
physicians failing to act in 100% Oxygen and not
accordance with the 100% Halogen, as alleged,
applicable standard of but 1% Halogen only)
care;
3. The existence of the
3. Causation, i.e. there must probability about other
be a reasonably close and factors causing the hypoxia
causal connection has engendered in the mind
between the negligent act/ of the Court reasonable
omission and the resulting doubt as to Dr. Solidums
injury; and guilt.

4. Damages suffered by the

patient.

AIR FRANCE W/N Air Carrier Air The contract of air carriage Petitioner Air Frances contract with
vs. France is liable generates a relation attended with Carrascoso is one attended with
CARRASCOSO against public duty. Neglect or public duty. The stress of
Carrascoso for malfeasance of the carriers Carrascosos action is placed upon
being displaced employees, naturally could give his wrongful expulsion.
from 1st class to ground for an action for damages.
give way, albeit This is a violation of public duty by
reluctantly, in favor Passengers do not contract the petitioner air carrier a case of
of a white male. merely for transportation. They quasi-delict. Damages are proper.
have a right to be treated by the
YES. There carriers employees with
is breach of kindness, respect, courtesy, and
contract of due consideration. They are
carriage. entitled to be protected against
personal misconduct, injurious
language, indignities, and abuses
from such employees. So, it is,
that any rude or discourteous
conduct on the part of employees
towards a passenger gives the
latter an action for damages
against the carrier.

Although the relation of

passenger and carrier is
contractual both in origin and
nature nevertheless the act
that breaks the contract may be
also a tort.
HEIRS OF W/N Taxi Driver It is a rule in negligence suits that It was proven by a preponderance
COMPLETO vs. Completo liable for the plaintiff has the burden of of evidence that Taxi Driver
ALBAYDA negligence for proving by a preponderance of Completo failed to exercise

Per Topic Syllabus Quasi-Delict and Defenses

Page 2 of 9
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
I. QUASI-DELICTS
sideswiping Biker evidence the motorists breach
Albayda. in his duty of care owed to the
plaintiff, that the motorist was
YES. He is negligent in failing to exercise the
negligent. diligence required to avoid injury
to the plaintiff, and that such
negligence was the proximate
cause of the injury suffered.
The bicycle occupies a legal
position that is at least equal to
that of other vehicles lawfully
on the highway, and it is fortified
by the fact that usually more will
be required of a motorist than a
bicyclist in discharging his duty
of care to the other because of
the physical advantages the
automobile has over the bicycle.
ILOCOS W/N INELCO is Considering that electricity is an
NORTE liable for failing to agency, subtle and deadly, the
ELECTRIC CO. exercise measure of care required of
vs. CA extraordinary electric companies must be
diligence required commensurate with or
of an electric proportionate to the danger. The
company causing duty of exercising this high
the electrocution degree of diligence and care
of Nana Belen. extends to every place where
persons have a right to be.
YES. The
electric When an act of God combines or
company is concurs with the negligence of the
liable for defendant to produce an injury,
failure to the defendant is liable if the injury
exercise would not have resulted but for
EXOD. his own negligent conduct or
omission.
When a storm occurs that is liable
to prostrate the wires, due care
requires prompt efforts to discover
and repair broken lines.
SAMSUNG vs. W/N FEBTC is Banks are engaged in a business
FAR EAST liable for failure to impressed with public interest,
BANK exercise and it is their duty to protect in
Per Topic Syllabus Quasi-Delict and Defenses
reasonable diligence in driving the
taxicab because he was over-
speeding at the time he hit the
bicycle ridden by Albayda.
Such negligence was the sole and
proximate cause of serious physical
injuries sustained by Albayda/
Completo did not slow down even
when he approached the
intersection of 8th and 11th Streets of
VAB.
It was also proven that Albayda
had the right of way, considering
that he reached the intersection
ahead of Completo.
The fact is that when Engr. Juan of
NAPOCOR set out in the early
morning at June 29. 1967, on an
inspection tour, he saw grounded
and disconnected lines hanging
from the posts to the ground but did
not see any INELCO linemen either
in the streets or at the INELCO
office.
The foregoing shows that INELCOs
duty to exercise extraordinary
diligence under the circumstances
was not observed, confirming the
negligence of INELCO.
a. The fact that the check was
made out in the amount of
Page 3 of 9
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
I. QUASI-DELICTS
extraordinary return their many clients and
diligence causing depositors who transact business
the encashment of with them. They have the
a forged check obligation to treat their clients
(P995K) without account meticulously and with the
SAMSUNGs highest degree of care,
consent. considering the fiduciary nature of
their relationship.
YES. The
bank is The diligence required of banks
liable for therefore is more than that of a
failure to good father of a family.
exercise
EXOD. Still, even if the bank performed
with utmost diligence, the drawer
whose signature was forged may
still recover from the bank as long
as he or she is not precluded from
setting up the defense of forgery.
Consequently, if a bank pays a
forged check, it must be
considered as paying out of its
funds and cannot charge the
amount so paid to the account of
the depositor. A bank is liable,
irrespective of its good faith, in
paying a forged check.
nearly one million pesos is
unusual enough to require a
higher degree of caution on
the part of the bank.
b. Not only did the amount in the
check nearly total one million
pesos, it was also payable to
cash. That latter
circumstance should have
aroused the suspicion of the
bank, as it is not ordinary
business practice for a check
for such large amount to be
made payable to cash or to
bearer, instead of to the order
of a specified person.
c. Moreover, the check was
presented for payment by
one Roberto Gonzaga, who
was not designated as the
payee of the check, and who
did not carry with him any
written proof that he was
authorized by Samsung
Construction to encash the
check. Gonzaga, a stranger
to FEBTC, was not even an
employee of Samsung
Construction.

These circumstances are already

suspicious if taken independently,
much more so if they are evaluated in
concurrence. Given the shadiness
attending Gonzagas presentment of
the check, it was not sufficient for
FEBTC to have merely complied with
its internal procedures, but mandatory
that all earnest efforts be undertaken
to ensure the validity of the check,
and of the authority of Gonzaga to
collect payment therefor.

d. According to FEBTC Senior

Assistant Cashier Gemma
Velez, the bank tried, but
failed, to contact Jong over
the phone to verify the
check. She added that calling
the issuer or drawer of the
check to verify the same was
not part of the standard
procedure of the bank, but an
"extra effort."

Per Topic Syllabus Quasi-Delict and Defenses

Page 4 of 9
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
I. QUASI-DELICTS

Even assuming that such personal

verification is tantamount to
extraordinary diligence, it cannot be
denied that FEBTC still paid out the
check despite the absence of any
proof of verification from the drawer.

REYES vs. W/N FEBTC is The degree of diligence required of The facts as found by the courts a
COURT OF liable for failure to banks, is more than that of a good quo show that respondent bank did
APPEALS exercise EXOD in father of a family where the not cause an erroneous transmittal of
the sale and fiduciary nature of their relationship its SWIFT cable message to
issuance of the with their depositors is concerned. Westpac-Sydney. It was the
Foreign Exchange In other words banks are duty erroneous decoding of the cable
Demand Draft bound to treat the deposit accounts message on the part of Westpac-
(FXDD) to the of their depositors with the highest Sydney that caused the dishonor
prejudice of Reyes degree of care. But the said ruling of the subject foreign exchange
spouses. applies only to cases where banks demand draft.
act under their fiduciary capacity,
NO. Bank is that is, as depositary of the deposits The evidence also shows that the
not liable. of their depositors. FEBTC exercised that degree of
EXOD is not diligence expected of an ordinary
required in But the same higher degree of prudent person under the
FXDD diligence is not expected to be circumstances obtaining.
transaction, exerted by banks in commercial
where there transactions that do not involve a. Prior to the first dishonor of the
is no their fiduciary relationship with subject foreign exchange
fiduciary their depositors. demand draft, the FEBTC
capacity advised Westpac-New York to
involved. honor the reimbursement claim
of Westpac-Sydney and to debit
the dollar account of respondent
bank with the former.
b. As soon as the demand draft
was dishonored, the FEBTC,
thinking that the problem was
with the reimbursement and
without any idea that it was due
to miscommunication, re-
confirmed the authority of
Westpac-New York to debit its
dollar account for the purpose
of reimbursing Westpac-
Sydney.
c. Respondent bank also sent two
(2) more cable messages to
Westpac-New York inquiring
why the demand draft was not
honored.

FEBTC was not required to exert

more than the diligence of a good
father of a family in regard to the
sale and issuance of the subject
foreign exchange demand draft.

The case at bar does not involve the

handling of the Reyes spouses'
deposit, if any, with FEBTC. Instead,
the relationship involved was that of a
buyer and seller, that is, between:

Per Topic Syllabus Quasi-Delict and Defenses

Page 5 of 9
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
I. QUASI-DELICTS
a. The FEBTC as the seller of
the subject foreign exchange
demand draft, and
b. PRCI as the buyer of the
same, with the 20th Asian
Racing conference
Secretariat in Sydney,
Australia as the payee
thereof.

As earlier mentioned, the said foreign

exchange demand draft was intended
for the payment of the registration
fees of the petitioners as delegates of
the PRCI to the 20th Asian Racing
Conference in Sydney.
GARCIA vs. W/N Garcia, as Public policy dictates that A decrease of 5,000 votes as
COURT OF member of the extraordinary diligence should be reflected in the Statement of Votes
APPEALS Board of exercised by the members of the and Certificate of Canvass is
Canvassers, guilty board of canvassers in substantial, it cannot be allowed to
for violating SEC. canvassing the results of the remain on record unchallenged,
27(b), RA 6646, for elections. especially when the error results from
failure to exercise the mere transfer of totals from one
EXOD causing a Any error on their part would result document to another.
substantial in the disenfranchisement of the
discrepancy of voters. The Certificate of Canvass
5,000 in the for senatorial candidates and its
Statement of Votes supporting statements of votes
for Pimentel. prepared by the municipal board of
canvassers are sensitive election
YES. He is documents whose entries must be
guilty. There thoroughly scrutinized.
was failure
to exercise
EXOD
required of
members of
the BOC.

BURGOS vs. Extraordinary diligence is
ESPERON required in cases involving the
Writ of Amparo (with respect to
enforced disappearances).
To fully fulfill the objective of the Rule
on the Writ of Amparo, further
investigation using the standard of
extraordinary diligence should be
undertaken by the CHR to pursue the
lead provided by Eustaquio.

DULAY vs. CA W/N Security Culpa acquiliana includes Contrary to the theory of private
Guard Torzuelas voluntary and negligent acts respondents, there is no justification
shooting of Atty. which may be punishable by for limiting the scope of ART. 2176,
Dulay, which is law. NCC to acts or omissions resulting
voluntary and from negligence.
intentional, be Under ART. 2180, NCC, when an
considered a injury is caused by the negligence Also, under ART. 2180, to rebut the
quasi-delict under of the employee, there instantly presumption of negligence of the
ART. 2176, NCC, arises a presumption of law that employer, it is incumbent upon the
such that ART. there was negligence on the part of private respondents to prove that they
2180 on vicarious the master or employer either in the exercised the diligence of a good
liability renders selection of the servant or father of a family in the selection and
Employer employee, or in supervision over supervision of their employee.
Superguard him after selection or both. The
principally liable liability of the employer under Case is REMANDED for further trial
thereto. ART. 2180 is direct and on the merits to establish negligence,
immediate; it is not conditioned diligence, and liability of the parties.
YES. upon prior recourse against the
negligent employee and a prior
showing of the insolvency of such
employee.

Per Topic Syllabus Quasi-Delict and Defenses

Page 6 of 9
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
I. QUASI-DELICTS
REPUBLIC vs. W/N Luzon Considering that the Nagtahan bridge
LUZON Stevedoring is was an immovable and stationary
STEVEDORING negligent when its object and uncontrovertedly provided
CORP. (LSC) barge rammed with adequate openings for the
against the bridge. passage of water craft, including
barges like of LSCs, it is undeniable
YES. It is that the unusual event that the barge,
presumed exclusively controlled by LSC,
negligent. rammed the bridge supports raises
RES IPSA a presumption of negligence on the
LOQUITOR part of LSC or its employees manning
the barge or the tugs that towed it.
For in the ordinary course of events,
such a thing does not happen if
proper care is used.

AFRICA vs. W/N CALTEX & Gasoline is a highly combustible
CALTEX Boquiren liable in material, in the storage and sale
failure to exercise of which extreme care must be
due diligence after taken.
fire broke out at
the gasoline Thus, where the thing which
station. caused the injury complained of is
shown to be under the
YES. They management of defendant or his
are liable. servants, and the accident is such
RES IPSA as in the ordinary course of things
LOQUITOR does not happen if those who
have its management or control
use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in absence
of explanation by defendant, that
the accident arose from want of
care.
Fire is not considered a
fortuitous event, as it arises
invariably from some act of man.
Thus, the intention of an
unforeseen and unexpected
cause is not sufficient to relieve a
wrongdoer from consequences of
negligence, if such negligence
directly and proximately
cooperates with the independent
cause in the resulting injury.
The gasoline station, with all its
appliances, equipment and
employees, was under the control of
appellees. A fire occurred therein and
spread to and burned the neighboring
houses. The persons who knew or
could have known how the fire started
were appellees and their employees,
but they gave no explanation thereof
whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable
inference that the incident happened
because of want of care.
These facts, descriptive of the
location and objective circumstances
surrounding the operation of the
gasoline station in question,
strengthen the presumption of
negligence under the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur, since on their face they
called for more stringent measures of
caution than those which would
satisfy the standard of due diligence
under ordinary circumstances.
Even then the fire possibly would not
have spread to the neighboring
houses were it not for another
negligent omission on the part of
defendants, namely, their failure to
provide a concrete wall high enough
to prevent the flames from leaping
over it. As it was the concrete wall
was only 2-1/2 meters high, and
beyond that height it consisted merely
of galvanized iron sheets, which
would predictably crumple and melt
when subjected to intense heat.
Defendants' negligence, therefore,
was not only with respect to the cause
of the fire but also with respect to the
spread thereof to the neighboring
houses.

MALAYAN vs. W/N Fuzo Truck RES IPSA LOQUITOR is a rule

ALBERTO Owner Alberto and of necessity and it applies where In the instant case:
Driver Reyes evidence is absent or not readily
liable when it available, provided the ff.
bumped the requisites are present:
Mitsubishi Gallant
in front, which 1. The accident was of a 1. The Fuzo Cargo Truck would
consequently kind which does not not have had hit the rear end
bumped an Isuzu ordinarily occur unless of the Mitsubishi Galant

Per Topic Syllabus Quasi-Delict and Defenses

Page 7 of 9
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
I. QUASI-DELICTS
Tanker, which someone is negligent;
gave rise to unless someone is negligent.
Mitsubishis third 2. The instrumentality or
party liability, to agency which caused the
which Malayan injury was under the
Insurance exclusive control of the
subrogated upon. person charged with 2. Also, the Fuzo Cargo Truck
negligence; and was under the exclusive
YES. Fuzo control of its driver, Reyes.
Truck 3. The injury suffered must
owner & not have been due to any
driver is voluntary action or
liable. contribution on the part of 3. Finally, no contributory
RES IPSA the person injured. negligence was attributed to
LOQUITOR the driver of the Mitsubishi
Galant.

Hence, presumption of negligence by

res ipsa loquitor exists.

The presumption of negligence may

be rebutted or overcome by other
evidence to the contrary. However,
none was presented here. Thus, the
presumption of negligence remains.

CALANG vs.
PEOPLE
JARCIA vs. W/N Dr. Jarcia & The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as Here, the doctrine of res ipsa
PEOPLE Dra. Bastan are a rule of evidence is unusual to the loquitor does not apply.
negligent for lack law of negligence which recognizes
of thorough that prima facie negligence may be The circumstances that caused
medical established without direct proof and patient Roy Jr.s injury and the series
examination of furnishes a substitute for specific of tests that were supposed to be
Roy Jr. (by proof of negligence. The doctrine, undergone by him to determine the
refusing to x-ray however, is not a rule of substantive extent of the injury suffered were not
the entire leg) law, but merely a mode of proof or a under the exclusive control of Drs.
which worsened mere procedural convenience. The Jarcia and Bastan.
the latters injury. rule, when applicable to the facts
and circumstances of a given case, It was established that they are mere
YES. They is not meant to and does not residents of the Manila Doctors
are civilly dispense with the requirement of Hospital at that time who attended to
negligent, proof of culpable negligence on the the victim at the emergency room.
but not party charged. It merely determines
criminally and regulates what shall
negligent. be prima facie evidence thereof and
helps the plaintiff in proving a
breach of the duty. The doctrine can
be invoked when and only when,
under the circumstances involved,
direct evidence is absent and not
readily available.

Among the requisites, the

fundamental element is the
"control of the instrumentality"
which caused the damage (2nd
requisite)

Negligence is defined as the failure Here, the Court is not convinced with
to observe for the protection of the moral certainty that the petitioner
interests of another person that doctors are guilty of reckless
degree of care, precaution, and imprudence or simple negligence.
vigilance which the circumstances The elements were not proven
Per Topic Syllabus Quasi-Delict and Defenses
Page 8 of 9
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
I. QUASI-DELICTS
justly demand, whereby such other
person suffers injury.
Reckless imprudence consists of
voluntarily doing or failing to do,
without malice, an act from which
material damage results by reason
of an inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the person performing
or failing to perform such act.
The elements of simple
negligence are:
(1) That there is lack of precaution
on the part of the offender, and
(2) That the damage impending to
be caused is not immediate or the
danger is not clearly manifest.
beyond reasonable doubt.
It can be gleaned from the testimony
of Dr. Tacata that a thorough
examination was not performed on
Roy Jr. As residents on duty at the
emergency room, Dr. Jarcia and Dr.
Bastan were expected to know the
medical protocol in treating leg
fractures and in attending to victims of
car accidents.
The opinion that had patient Roy Jr.
been treated properly and given the
extensive X-ray examination, the
extent and severity of the injury could
have been detected early on and the
prolonged pain and suffering of Roy
Jr. could have been prevented is not
enough basis to hold one
criminally liable.

Nevertheless, petitioners are held

civilly liable for their failure to
sufficiently attend to Roy Jr.s medical
needs, for while a criminal conviction
requires proof beyond reasonable
doubt, only a preponderance of
evidence is required to establish civil
liability.
COCA-COLA
vs. COURT OF
APPEALS
REGINO vs.
PANGASINAN
COLLEGES
LOADMASTERS
vs. GLODEL
BROKERAGE
BARREDO vs.
GARCIA
BLTB CO. vs.
COURT OF
APPEALS
VIRATA vs.
OCHOA

Per Topic Syllabus Quasi-Delict and Defenses

Page 9 of 9