ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO

NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
CUPLA- CULPA-CRIMINAL CULPA-AQUILANA
CONTRACTUAL
PURPOSE Punishment/ Indemnification :
Correction of merely repairs
criminal act damages
Source of an
obligation
NEGLIGENCE Incidental to Independent Independent
obligation
OBLIGATION Pre-existing Nope General Rule:
NOPE
PROOF NEEDED Preponderance of Proof Beyond Preponderance of
evidence Reasonable Doubt evidence
DEFENSE Diligence of a Good NOPE Diligence of a good
Father of a family/ father of a family
Utmost Diligence
SUBJECT Contract not carried Person accused of Negligence of
out/Non-fulfillment crime defendant
of duty (Innocent until
contrary is proven)
NATURE OF Primary and Direct Some may be held Merely incidental to
NEGLIGENCE subsidiarily liable the performance of
LIKE: Employer in obligation
case employee is
criminally liable
PRESUMPTION OF YES ---- NO
NEGLIGENCE

TORTS (COMMON LAW) TORTS IN PHILIPPINES

Cover all wrongful acts Leans towards civil law
equivalent
Culpa-aquiliana
Damage through fault or
negligence (No pre-existing
contractual relation)
INTENTIONAL AND Committed through negligence
MALICIOUS and without intent

Quasi-delicts : Art 2176 Civ Code

ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
-Limited to negligent acts/omissions : excludes notion of willfulness/intent
Revised Penal Code
-Intentional & Malicious acts
ART 2176
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another there being fault or
negligence is obliged to pay the damage done, such fault or negligence
there being no pre-existing contractual relation between parties is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter

Requisites for quasi delict

1.) Act or Omission
2.) Fault or Negligence
3.) Damage to another
4.) Causal connection between fault/negligence to damage

Rule 111
Offended party: still given option to file a separate civil action to recover
civil liability ex-delicto.
What is deemed instituted with criminal action IS ONLY the action to
recover civil liability arising from crime
Other Civil liabilities are not deemed instituted
o May be filed separately even without reservation for criminal
action.
o Failure to make reservation in criminal action
: IS NOT A WAIVER to file Sep & Indep civil action

Basta ganito: Yung crime according to Art 100, whoever is criminally liable is also civilly
liable. Pwede mong ifile separately yung civil liability ng crime provided (IF RESERVED)
could not be filed until after final judgment of criminal action
PERO yung separate and independent civil actions yung 31, 32,33,34,2176 go lang ifile
mo girl regardless of filing of criminal action. (Requires only preponderance of evidence)
KUNWARI NAGETS MO WTF.

Art 2177:
ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
Responsibility for fault or negligence under preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from liability arising from negligence under the penal
code but plaintiff cannot recover twice for same act or omission
No double jeopardy or unjust enrichment

HOW?
By reserving such right in Criminal Action before prosecution
presents its evidence
(Filling separate civil action before filing criminal action)

INDEPENDENT CIVIL LIABILITIES FROM SAME ACT/OMISSIONS

Arising under 31,32,33,34 and 2176
Could proceed independently regardless of filing of criminal action
and requires only preponderance of evidence
All subject to 2177(No double jeopardy)

Liabilities of employer
1.) RPC 103, 102 Subsidiarily liable
2.) ART2176 & ART 2180
= Primary and Direct
SUMMARY
Quasi-delict = primary and direct liability
Delict-merely subsidiary

Pre-existing contract --> Usually bars quasi delict

Exceptions:
Mere existence of contract does not automatically negate existence of
quasi-delict
Although relation of a c.carrier and passenger is contractual, act which
breaks contract is tort
ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P

CHAPTER 2: ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT

Action for quasi-delict IS FOUNDED UPON EXISTENCE OF
NEGLIGENT ACT
Negligence
-Failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance
circumstances justly demand whereby that other person suffers injury.

TEST TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF NEGLIGENCE

-Did the defendant, in doing alleged negligent act , use reasonable care &
caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same
situation
If NO--- GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE

Necessary for negligence to exist

-reasonable foresight of harm
-ignorance
Foreseability of harm is AN INDISPENSIBLE REQUIREMENT

DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
Slight -great or ordinary care

Ordinary Such care and diligence as an

ordinary person would under same
circumstances

Gross -entire absence of even slight

care/diligence

Nature of concept of negligence

-relative & comparative (depends upon person, place and time)
-not absolute
ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
Kunwari bulag si pepe, kailangan mo iconsider yung diligence exercised ng bulag din.
Kunwari masyadong bata pa si kakai, icocompare mo diligence niya sa ka-age niya.
Example sa book yung sa farmers na never pang nakakita ng mas mabilis pa sa idk all their life
(bull cart) check mo na lang. So hindi natin masasabi na negligent siya for not knowing the
speed of a motorized vehicle

MOST COMMON STANDARD OF CONDUCT

-Good father of a family/reasonable prudent person

(Factors taken into consideration)

1.) employment
2.) degree of intelligence
3.) Physical condition
4.) other circumstances

To constitute quasi-delict:
-->NOT ENOUGH to establish negligence.
(NECESSARY) fault/neg IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY
# Hindi sapat na sinaktan ka niya, baka naman mamaya may iba pang dahilan bida-bida ka lang
edi nganga ka sa pageemote mong negligent siya.

(kailangan kung di siya shunga di ka madadamage.) (Wag ka mag-assume, isipin mo muna)

PROXIMATE CAUSE
-in natural and continues sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause produces injury
-without which injury or result would not occur
-dominant/immediate cause/efficient cause that sets other in motion
"Unless had it not happened, would have not occurred"

TEST:BUT-FOR TEST
omission to place warning signs on excavation site proximate cause
ONLY if place would have prevented injury

Persons negligence need not to be the sole cause of injury

ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
IT IS SUFFICIENT that negligence concurring with one/more causes
other than plaintiff is the proximate cause of injury
NO actors negligence ceases to be the proximate cause because it
does not exceed negligence of the other actors
Each wrongdoer: Responsible for entire result as though his acts
were the sole cause of injury
(Sinaktan ka ng bestfriend mo na binoyfriend yung jowa mo) Hindi na material kung sino ang
may sala. Pareho silang haliparot. Responsible sa injury sustained ng heart mo.

BURDEN OF PROOF
-one alleging the same
(IKAW NAGSABI NA NEGLIGENT YANG MGA AHAS NA YAN, PATUNAYAN MO GIRL)

HOWEVER (WHOOPS)
(Exception to general rule, cases negligence is presumed by law)
Madami example sa book pero ito yung ilan as provided by Civ Code.

ART 2185
Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a
motor vehicle has been negligent if at time of mishap, he was violating any
traffic regulation

Prima Facie Presumption of Negligence

-Defendant in possession of dangerous weapon or substance and injury
resulted therefrom
EXCEPT--> possession/use is indispensable in his occupation or business

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

=Thing speaks for itself

-Rule of evidence
:Whereby negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from mere fact that
accident happened. Provided character of accident & circumstances attending it
LEAD REASONABLY TO BELIEF THAT
ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
--->" in absence of negligence, it would have not occurred"
Whereby thing caused injury was under the management and control of
wrongdoer
-it would not happen if reasonable care: used

REQUISITES OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR (I.T.O.A)

1.) Injury
2.) Thing that caused injury: under control of defendant
3.) Occurrence: in the ordinary course of things would not have happened
(IF) person who had control exercised proper care
4.) Absence of explanation by defendant

Maxim places on defendant

-burden of going forward with proof

Resort to doctrine:ONLY ALLOWED WHEN

A.) Event of kind that does not ordinarily occur in absence of negligence
B.) other responsible causes
-conduct of plaintiff & third person sufficiently eliminated by evidence
C.) Negligence
-within scope of defendants duty to plaintiff

Doctrine can only be invoked when direct evidence is absent or

not readily available
ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P

Chapter III: Nature of liability

Liability of tortfeasors
-2/ more persons (quasi-delict) = liability is SOLIDARY (solid-di natitibag)
-sharing as between solidary debtors pro-rata

OBLIGATION ARISING FROM TORT, BY NATURE IS ALWAYS

SOLIDARY
o Each are liable as principals to the same extent and manner
---- as if they performed the wrongful act themselves

Person injured MAY SUE

All
Or Any number less than all
--- Each liable for the whole damage

Pag sinabi niyang di naman sobra ginawa niya compared sa tropa niya, pag sinabi niyang di
nila pinagplanuhan yung nangyari kaya dapat mas maliit lang liability niya.
---- SABIHIN MO NEKNEK NIYA

American Jurisprudence adopted 3rd rule

: Effect of relase upon co-conspirators is determined according to intent.

DOCTRINE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY (ART 2180)

Obligation imposed by Art 2176: demandable not only for ones own
acts
ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
BUT ALSO for the persons whom one is responsible

Legislature
Limit extra-contractual liabilities with certain well defined exceptions
Cases where moral culpability can be directly imputed to
persons charged

Moral culpability includes:

FAILURE exercise due care in the selection and control of agents
and servants
FAILURE- control of persnsons who by reason of status occupy a
position of dependency with person made liable with conduct/
GENERL RULE
- Negligence is imputed by law
- UNLESS they prove the contrary

VICARIOUS LIABILITY - PRIMARY AND DIRECT LIABILITY

Vicarious liability of parents

1.) Father
2.) In case tegi or incapacitated si pa-pa. edi si ma-ma. Mother
Caused by minor children who live in their company
BASED UPON: Parental authority vested by the civil code.
P.S HANGGANG 21 to ha.

EH PAANO PAG AMPON? SINO ANG MANANAGOT?

-whoever has actual custody at time act complained is committed.

Vicarious liability of guardians

-Liable for damages caused by minors/incapacitated who are under
their authority and live in their company.

#PAANOPAGWALANGGUARDIANOMAGULANG?
Minor or incacitated shall be answerable with own property
Action against him where guardian ad litem shall be appointed

Vicarious liability of employers

-owners and managers (PAR 4)
ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
> damages caused by employees acting within scope of their
assigned task
- employers (PAR 5)
> liable even if not engaged in business or industry

REQUISITES OF AN E-E RELATIONSHIP

1. Selection and engagement
2. Payment of wage
3. Power to dismiss
4. Control the means and methods of conducting work.

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY DISTINGUISHED

ART 2180
Employer primarily liable for
negligence in selection &
supervision of employees
Liability s independent
RPC
Employers subsidiarily liable for
felonies committed in the
performace of their work
Employee found to be
insolvent and unable to satisfy
civil liabilities
Liability is subsidiary

RULE: ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN CASES OF CULPA-CONTRACTUAL

. Doctrine of Respondent Superior
. Principle that common carrier has implied duty to transport passengers
safely

When is an employee liable?

-Acting within scope of assigned task
-special benefit to employer

#TakeNoteRulingOfFilamer(Working student)

Quasi-delict: Registered owner of motor vehicle

ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
Solidarily liable for injuries and damages caused by negligence of
drivers in spite of fact that vehicle may have already been subject to
an unregistered deed of sale. (including only between parties)
Parang yung pagiging kayo ng crush mo, legit lang sa kwentuhan niyo ng bestfriend
mo.
UNLESS!!!! Registered with LTO.

Vicarious liability of owner of vehicle

Mishaps owner is solidarily liable with driver
(IF) former who was in the vehicle could ave used due diligence to
prevent misfortune

Owner of automobile is present in vehicle :

NOT liable for negligent act of COMPETENT driver
UNLESS such acts are so continued for such length of time to give
owner reasonable opportunity to observe or direct driver to desist.

Owner of vehicle CANNOT be HELD LIABLE

: accident involving vehicle is driven without consent/knowledge

Vicarious liability of State

GOVT OF PHIL
Not liable: Negligent acts of regular officers/employees in
performace of oridinary function
LIABLE WHEN
1.) Public/Govt aspect Special agents only
2.) Private or business aspect liable as employer
3.) Allows itself to be sued.

Vicarious liability of provinces, cities and municipalities

Liable for damages for death and injuries suffered by any person by
reason of defective condition of
Roads
Streets
Bridges
Public buildings
& OTHER PUBLIC WORKS
ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
---UNDER THEIR CONTROL AND SUPERVISION

Municipal Corps
-suable because their charters grant competence to sue and be
sued.

Vicarious liability of teachers and Heads of establishment of arts and

trade
-liabe for damages caused by pupils, students/apprentices
SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN THEIR CUSTODY
loco parentis
Fav example ni sir yung sa ust na nakuryente nung umuulan/yung nabugbog nagpaalam
lang mag-cr

Kahit ano pang edad basta estudyante

Vicarous liability of proprietor of building/structure

-responsible for damages resulting from total/partial collapse of est.
(IF) due to lack of necessary repairs

Vicarous liability of proprietors

Engineers/Architects and Contractors
(LAM MO NA YAN TEH)
ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P

CHAPTER 4: DEFENSES IN ACTION FOR QUASI-DELICT

Plaintiffs own negligence

-immediate and proximate cause of injury
Cannot recover damages
Case: Illusorio vs CA
Petitioners failure to examine his bank statement appears as proximate cause of his
own negligence and bank was not should t be in remiss in its duty of sending monthly
bank statement
Petitioner had SUFFICIENT opportuntyTO PREVENT/DETECT any misappropriation by
his secretary.

PROVISION: ART 2179

When plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of injuryNO
RECOVERY COULD BE HAD FOR DAMAGES.
Kaya pag alam mong kasalanan mo kung bakit ka nasaktan sa iba, wag mo nang ipilit pa na
sinaktan ka niya. Mukha ka lang tanga. YOU DESERVET.

Theory of Implied Invitation to Visit premises of another

#REMEMBER CASE OF TAYLOR VS. MANILA ELECTRIC RAIL ROAD AND
LIGHT COMPANY
Cases of young children/other persons not fully sui juris
Implied license might sometimes arise when it would not in behalf of others
THUS leaving a tempting thing for children to play with when exposed.
: Where they would be likely to gather for that purpose.
= MAY BE EQUIVALENT TO AN INVITATION TO THEM TO MAKE USE OF IT.
Hahaha. Parang yang jowa mo, wala kang oras. Masisisi mo ba yung isip-bata niyang kabit pag naagaw na siya sayo? Char.

#LEGIT EXAMPLE:
Construction sites. When they dont keep their area guarded by the kids from the
neighborhood and an accident happens like naglaro ng machine si kiddo tas nategi.
THEY CANNOT RAISE THE DEFENSE THAT THE KIDDO WAS A TRESPASSER.

Owners of premises therefore whereon things are attractive tto

children are exposed/upon which public are expressly/impliedly
permitted to enter/upon which owner know/ought to knw that children
are likely to roam about past time & play
MUST calculate upon this and take precaution accordingly.

Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance

ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
- One who maintains his premises dangerous/ instrumentalities/
apppliances of a character likely to attract children in play & who fails
to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing
therewith/resorting thereto.
=LIABLE TO A CHILD OF TENDER YEARS WHO IS INJURED
THEREBY
-EVEN IF child is technically a trespasser
-Generally not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as
natural.

Assumption of Risk
Principle of Volenti Non Fit Injuria Neqes Dolus
to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury
-one who voluntarily assumes risk may not later on ask for damages.

REFERS TO:
Self-inflicted injury or to consent to injuries which precludes from
recovery of damages BY ONE WHO HAS KNOWINGLY &
VOLUNTARILY EXPOSED HIMSELF TO DANGER
Even if he was not negligent in doing so
Parang yung , ginagawa mo lahat para sa taong una pa lang sabi sayo ng nanay
mo di worth it, pero ipinilit mo pa rin.Edi pag nahurts you, wag ka dada ng dada girl,
you assumed the risk of falling for a person that cannot find the one in you
CHAROT!
Legit example: Septic tank

When person holds himself out as being competent to do things

requiring professional skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he
fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in a particular
work which he attempts to do.
HOWEVER (WHOOPS)
A person is EXCUSED IF an emergency is found to exist/if
life/property of another is in peril.

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

-person who has the last opportunity of avoiding accident,
notwithstanding the negligent act of his opponent of negligence of
third person which is imputed to his opponent.
ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P
- IS CONSIDERED IN LAW SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
CONSEQUENCES OF ACCIDENT.
Plaintiff was not himself free from fault he is guilty of antecedent
negligence
Person who has last clear chance to avoid the impending harm and
fails to do so is chargable with the consequences without reference to
the prior negligence of the other party.

Emergency Rule

One who suddenly finds himself in place of danger is required to act

without time to consider the best means ttto avoid the impending
danger
:NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE
(IF)
he fails to adobt what subsequently and upon reflection may
appear to have better method.

UNLESS emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his

own negligence.

PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD: 4 years!

Diligence of Good father of a family

-proper defense

PARTIAL DEFENSE
Doctrine of Contributory Negligence
When plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of injury HE CANNOT RECOVER.
BUT
If his negligence was only contributory, plaintiff may recover but
courts shall MITIGATE damages.
Contributory Negligence Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
Act or omission amounting to want Both parties are guilty of negligence
of ordinary care on part of person BUT
injured which defendants Negligent act of one succeeds that
negligence of the other
:PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY
ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
NOTES: TORTS
Read at your own risk, every student needs to be diligent in validating information that he/she finds
doubtful about. Edit pag mali, deservet. :P

One has last reasonable opportunity

to avoid impending harm and fails to
do so.

Conclusive Presumption
-basta yan yung sa kids
Juvenile Justice & welfare act of 2006
#Take note of the age