TORTS AND DAMAGES – ATTY.
TECSON (MIDTERM REVIEWER by JMCRUZ)
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay owes no duty to the patient, and cannot therefore incur
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is
no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
this Chapter. (1902a)
A. ELEMENTS OF QUASI DELICT/TORTS
The requisites of quasi-delict are the following:
(a) there must be an act or omission;
(b) such act or omission causes damage to another;
(c) such act or commission is caused by fault or
negligence; and
(d) there is no pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties.
B. DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER SOURCES OF
OBLIGATION:
The Elements of a Medical Malpractice Suit
The elements of medical negligence are: (1) duty; (2)
breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation.
Duty refers to the standard of behavior that imposes
restrictions on one's conduct.35 It requires proof of
professional relationship between the physician and the
patient. Without the professional relationship, a physician
any liability.
A physician-patient relationship is created when a patient
engages the services of a physician,36 and the latter
accepts or agrees to provide care to the patient.37 The
establishment of this relationship is consensual,38 and the
acceptance by the physician essential. The mere fact that
an individual approaches a physician and seeks diagnosis,
advice or treatment does not create the duty of care unless
the physician agrees.39
The consent needed to create the relationship does not
always need to be express.40 In the absence of an express
agreement, a physician-patient relationship may be
implied from the physician's affirmative action to
diagnose and/or treat a patient, or in his participation in
such diagnosis and/or treatment.41 The usual illustration
would be the case of a patient who goes to a hospital or a
clinic, and is examined and treated by the doctor. In this
case, we can infer, based on the established and customary
practice in the medical community that a patient-
physician relationship exists.
Once a physician-patient relationship is established, the
legal duty of care follows. The doctor accordingly
becomes duty-bound to use at least the same standard of
care that a reasonably competent doctor would use to treat
a medical condition under similar circumstances.
Breach of duty occurs when the doctor fails to comply
with, or improperly performs his duties under
professional standards. This determination is both factual
and legal, and is specific to each individual case.42
If the patient, as a result of the breach of duty, is injured
in body or in health, actionable malpractice is committed,
entitling the patient to damages.43
To successfully claim damages, the patient must lastly
prove the causal relation between the negligence and the
injury. This connection must be direct, natural, and should
be unbroken by any intervening efficient causes. In other
words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the
injury.44 The injury or damage is proximately caused by
the physician's negligence when it appears, based on the
evidence and the expert testimony, that the negligence
played an integral part in causing the injury or damage,
and that the injury or damage was either a direct result, or
TORTS AND DAMAGES – ATTY. TECSON (MIDTERM REVIEWER by JMCRUZ)
a reasonably probable consequence of the physician's
negligence. 45
TORTFEASOR - Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being no fault or negligence is
obliged to pay for the damage done.
PROSCRIPTION AGAINST DOUBLE RECOVERY -
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under
the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from COMMON CARRIER
the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their
Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for
the same act or omission of the defendant.
JOINT TORTFEASOR
As a general rule, joint tortfeasors are all the persons who
command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise,
countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of
a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their
benefit.
Article 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons
who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
NEGLIGENCE
Negligence has been defined by Judge Cooley in his work
on Torts 3d ed sec. 13243 as "the failure to observe for the
protection of the interests of another person that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury."
TESTS OF NEGLIGENCE
• Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use
the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent
person would have used in the same situation?
• If not, then he is guilty of negligence
• Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration,
foresee harm as a result of the course pursued?
• If so, it as the duty of the actor to take precautions to
guard against harm
CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER
• Time
• Place
• Personal circumstances of the Actors
NEGLIGENCE RE: RAILROAD CROSSINGS
Jurisprudence recognizes that if warning devices are
installed in railroad crossings, the travelling public has the
right to rely on such warning devices to put them on their
guard and take the necessary precautions before crossing
the tracks. A need, therefore, exists for the railroad
company to use reasonable care to keep such devices in
good condition and in working order, or to give notice that
they are not operating, since if such a signal is
misunderstood it is a menace. 4 Thus, it has been held that
if a railroad company maintains a signalling device at a
crossing to give warning of the approach of a train, the
failure of the device to operate is generally held to be
evidence of negligence, which maybe considered with all
the circumstances of the case in determining whether the
railroad company was negligent as a matter of fact.
business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to
observe extra ordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
them according to all the circumstances of each case.
Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and
1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence
for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in
articles 1755 and 1756.
ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the
passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers,
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to
have acted negligently, unless they prove that they
observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles
1733 and 1755.
NEGLIGENCE AS 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.
The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in
actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach of
contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to
a person where there is no relation between him and
another party. In such a case, the obligation is created by
law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, it is the parties themselves
who create the obligation, and the function of the law is
merely to regulate the relation thus created.
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
General Rule: In action for Quasi Delict, plaintiff must
prove the negligence of defendant
Except: In cases involving common carriers where
negligence is presumed, the defendant must prove that he
exercise extraordinary diligence
TORTS AND DAMAGES – ATTY. TECSON (MIDTERM REVIEWER by JMCRUZ)
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
1. RES IPSA LOQUITUR
The concept of res ipsa loquitur has been explained in
this wise:
While negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed,
and while the mere happening of an accident or injury will
not generally give rise to an inference or presumption that
it was due to negligence on defendant’s part, under the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means, literally, the
thing or transaction speaks for itself, or in one jurisdiction, Revised Penal Code; or 2) solidarily, if the complainant
that the thing or instrumentality speaks for itself, the facts seeks relief based on a quasi-delict under Articles 2176
or circumstances accompanying an injury may be such as
to raise a presumption, or at least permit an inference of
negligence on the part of the defendant, or some other
person who is charged with negligence.
ELEMENTS:
( 1) the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily
occur unless someone is negligent;
(2) the instrumentality or agency that caused the injury
was under the exclusive control of the person charged;
and
(3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution of the person injured.
The defendant’s negligence is presumed or
inferred25 when the plaintiff establishes the requisites for
the application of res ipsa loquitur. Once the plaintiff
makes out a prima facie case of all the elements, the
burden then shifts to defendant to explain.26 The
presumption or inference may be rebutted or overcome by
other evidence and, under appropriate circumstances
disputable presumption, such as that of due care or
innocence, may outweigh the inference.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR AS AN EXCEPTION
Although generally, expert medical testimony is relied
upon in malpractice suits to prove that a physician has
done a negligent act or that he has deviated from the
standard medical procedure, when the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert
medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury
itself provides the proof of negligence.
2. VIOLATION OF RULES AND STATUTES
Under Art. 2185 of the Civil Code, unless there is proof
to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a
motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the
mishap he was violating a traffic regulation.
The principle of holding the registered owner of a vehicle
liable for quasi-delicts resulting from its use is well-
established in jurisprudence. The main aim of motor
vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any
accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused
by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility
therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the
registered owner.
For damage or injuries arising out of negligence in the
operation of a motor vehicle, the registered owner may be
held civilly liable with the negligent driver either
1) subsidiarily, if the aggrieved party seeks relief based
on a delict or crime under Articles 100 and 103 of the
and 2180 of the Civil Code.
The mere fact of violation of a statute is not sufficient
basis for an inference that such violation was the
proximate cause of the injury complained. However, if
the very injury has happened which was intended to be
prevented by the statute, it has been held that violation of
the statute will be deemed to be proximate cause of the
injury.
3. DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND SUBSTANCE
Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or
injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons
or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when
the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business.
DEFENSES:
1. PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE
Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was
the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the
injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff
may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded.
2. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that
a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury
should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must
bear the consequences of his own negligence. The
defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages
actually caused by his negligence.[15] The determination
of the mitigation of the defendants liability varies
depending on the circumstances of each case.
TORTS AND DAMAGES – ATTY. TECSON (MIDTERM REVIEWER by JMCRUZ)
3. DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK – Volenti liability of a common carrier for injuries sustained by
non fit injuria passengers in respect of whose safety a common carrier
must exercise extraordinary diligence, it must be
One who voluntarily assumed the risk of an injury (by construed most strictly against the common carrier.
law, contract or nature of obligation) must take its
consequences. Thus, he cannot recover in an action for 7. FORTUITOUS EVENT - no person shall be
negligence or an injury is incurred responsible for those events which cannot be forseen, or
which though forseen were inevitable.
4. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE –
(1) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both occurrence, or of the failure of the defendant to comply
parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is with his obligation, must be independent of the human
appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or will;
where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, (2) it must be impossible to foresee the event which
the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the constitutes the 'caso fortuito', or if it can be foreseen, it
impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the must be impossible to avoid;
consequences arising therefrom.
(3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible
Exception: for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner;
and
a. doctrine of last clear chance can never apply where the
party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the (4) the defendant must be free from any participation in
injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means the aggravation of the injury resulting to the plaintiff.
at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered.
8. EMERGENCY RULE – one who suddenly finds
b. cannot apply to breach of contract cases - it only applies himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without
in a suit between the owners and drivers of two colliding time to consider the best means that may be adopted to
vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence,
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection
obligations, for it would be inequitable to exempt the may appear to have been a better method, unless the
negligent driver and its owner on the ground that the other emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by
driver was likewise guilty of negligence. his own negligence.

5. PRESCRIPTION 9. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA – there can be

Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted damage without injury in those instances in which the loss
within four years: or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured
(2) Upon a quasi-delict; person alone, the law affords no remedy for damages
resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal
The prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi- injury or wrong.
delict is committed.
ELEMENTS:
a. good faith in the performance of duty
6. WAIVER b. no legal wrong or no breach of duty
Article 6. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is
contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or
good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law.
A waiver, to be valid and effective, must in the first place
be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no
doubt as to the intention of a person to give up a right or
benefit which legally pertains to him.
TORTS AND DAMAGES – ATTY. TECSON (MIDTERM REVIEWER by JMCRUZ)
PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE d) EMPLOYERS - Employers shall be liable for
damages caused by their employees & household helpers
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is i. acting w/in the scope of their assigned task
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but ii. even though the former are not engaged in any business
also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. or industry
Defense: The responsibility treated of in this article shall
cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.
a) PARENTS - The father, and in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother are responsible for damage caused
by:
i. minor children
ii. who live in their company
Parents are solidarily liable with minor child. This is
necessary consequence of the parental authority they
exercise over them which imposes upon the parents the
"duty of supporting them, keeping them in their company,
educating them and instructing them in proportion to their
means", while, on the other hand, gives them the "right to
correct and punish them in moderation" (Articles 154 and
155, Spanish Civil Code). The only way by which they
can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove that
they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage(Article 1903, last
paragraph, Spanish Civil Code).
The parents are and should be held primarily liable for
the civil liability arising from criminal offenses
committed by their minor children under their legal
authority or control, or who live in their company, unless
it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent such damages.
Note: Father and Mother shall jointly exercise parental
authority over common children. In case of disagreement,
father's decision shall prevail (art 211).
b) GUARDIANS - Guardians are liable for damages
caused by the minor or incapacitated persons who are
i. under their authority
ii. live in their company
c) OWNERS & MANAGERS OF
ESTABLISHMENT/ENTERPRISE - Owners &
managers of establishment or enterprise are responsible
for damages caused by their employees:
i. in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed OR
ii. in occasion of their function
But it is necessary to establish the employer-employee
relationship; once this is done, the plaintiff must show, to
hold the employer liable, that the employee was acting
within the scope of his assigned task when the tort
complained of was committed. It is only then that the
employer may find it necessary to interpose the defense
of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee.
In DELICT CASES:
ART. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. —
The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding
article shall also apply to employees, teachers, persons,
and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for
felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
The insolvency of the servant or employee is nowhere
mentioned in said article as a condition precedent. In
truth, such insolvency is required only when the liability
of the master is being made effective by execution levy,
but not for the rendition of judgment against the master.
The subsidiary character of the employer's responsibility
merely imports that the latter's property is not be seized
without first exhausting that of the servant.
The subsidiary liability of the employer, however, arises
only after conviction of the employee in the criminal
action.
In sum, the employer becomes ipso facto subsidiarily
liable upon the employee's conviction and upon proof of
the latter's insolvency.
Defenses available to employers:
When the employee causes damage due to his own
negligence while performing his own duties, there arises
the juris tantum presumption that the employer is
negligent, 48 rebuttable only by proof of observance of the
diligence of a good father of a family. For failure to rebut
such legal presumption of negligence in the selection and
supervision of employees, the employer is likewise
responsible for damages, 49 the basis of the liability being
the relationship of pater familias or on the employer's
own negligence.
TORTS AND DAMAGES – ATTY. TECSON (MIDTERM REVIEWER by JMCRUZ)
In establishing EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE If the State's agent is not a public official, and is
RELATIONSHIP: commissioned to perform non-governmental functions,
then the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer
Labor Code: and will be held liable as such for its agent's tort.
a. selection and engagement of employees
b. payment of wages Where the government commissions a private individual
c. power to dismiss for a special governmental task, it is acting through a
d. power of control special agent within the meaning of the provision.

Exception to Control-test: Certain functions and activities, which can be performed

In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an
independent contractor-physician. There is, however, an
exception to this principle. The hospital may be liable if
the physician is the "ostensible" agent of the hospital. This
exception is also known as the "doctrine of apparent
authority."
1. hospital’s manifestation - hospital acted in a manner
which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the
individual who was alleged to be negligent was an
employee or agent of the hospital
2. patient’s reliance - plaintiff relies upon the hospital to
provide complete emergency room care, rather than upon
a specific physician.
only by the government, are more or less generally agreed
to be "governmental" in character, and so the State is
immune from tort liability. On the other hand, a service
which might as well be provided by a private corporation,
and particularly when it collects revenues from it, the
function is considered a "proprietary" one, as to which
there may be liability for the torts of agents within the
scope of their employment.
f) SCHOOLS, ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER -
Teachers or heads of establishments of arts & trades shall
be liable for damages caused by their
i. pupils, students & apprentices
ii. as long as they remain in their custody

Doctrine of corporate negligence or corporate
responsibility – Corporate entities are capable of acting
only through other agents/ individuals. A corporation is
bound by the knowledge acquired by or notice given to its
agents or officers within the scope of their authority and
in reference to a matter to which their authority extends.
Thus, hospital has the duty to make a reasonable effort to
monitor and oversee the treatment prescribed and
administered by the physicians practicing in its premises.
e) STATE - The liability of the State has two aspects.
namely:
1. Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for
the tortious acts of special agents only.
2. Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in
private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary
employer.
This applies to all schools, academic as well as non-
academic. Where the school is academic rather than
technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort
committed by the student will attach to the teacher in
charge of such student, following the first part of the
provision. This is the general rule. In the case of
establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof,
and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to
the general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall
be liable for the acts of their students except where the
school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head
thereof who shall be answerable.
The governing principle is that the protective custody of
the school heads and teachers is mandatorily substituted
for that of the parents, and hence, it becomes their
obligation as well as that of the school itself to provide
proper supervision of the students' activities

In this jurisdiction, the State assumes a limited liability
for the damage caused by the tortious acts or conduct of
its special agent.
The State has voluntarily assumed liability for acts done
through special agents. The State's agent, if a public
official, must not only be specially commissioned to do a
particular task but that such task must be foreign to said
official's usual governmental functions.
Breach of contract case:
When an academic institution accepts students for
enrollment, there is established a contract between them,
resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are
bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes
to provide the student with an education that would
presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools
and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. At
the same time, it is obliged to ensure and take adequate
steps to maintain peace and order within the campus. On
the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the
TORTS AND DAMAGES – ATTY. TECSON (MIDTERM REVIEWER by JMCRUZ)
school's academic requirements and observe its rules and
regulations.
Right of reimbursement
Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
dependents or employees may recover from the latter
what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. determining the liability of the registered owner who the
Subsidiary liability under RPC
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. —
The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding
article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons,
and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for
felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their
duties.chanrobles
PERSONS PRIMARILY LIABLE
a. POSSESSOR OF AN ANIMAL OR WHOEVER
MAKES USE OF THEM EVEN IF THE ANIMAL IS
LOST OR ESCAPED
Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may
make use of the same is responsible for the damage which
it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should
come from force majeure or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage.
*Ownership is immaterial
b. OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLE
Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in
the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a
driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least
twice within the next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions
of article 2180 are applicable.
* With the enactment of the motor vehicle registration
law, the defenses available under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code - that the employee acts beyond the scope of his
assigned task or that it exercised the due diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage – are no longer
available to the registered owner of the motor vehicle,
because the motor vehicle registration law, to a certain
extent, modified Article 2180.
*In so far as third persons are concerned, the registered
owner of the motor vehicle is the employer of the
negligent driver, and the actual employer is considered
merely as an agent of such owner. Thus, whether there is
an employer-employee relationship between the
registered owner and the driver is irrelevant in
law holds primarily and directly responsible for any
accident, injury or death caused by the operation of the
vehicle in the streets and highways.
c. MANUFACTURERS & PROCESSORS OF
FOODSTUFFS, DRINKS, TOILET ARTICLES &
SIMILAR GOODS
Article 2187. Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall
be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or
harmful substances used, although no contractual relation
exists between them and the consumers.
d. DEFENDANT IN POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR SUBSTANCES,
SUCH AS FIREARMS AND POISON
Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or
injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons
or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when
the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business.
The existence of a contract between the parties does
not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the
other and the consequent recovery of damages
therefor. It was held that) although the relation
between a passenger and a carrier is "contractual both
in origin and in nature the act that breaks the contract
may also be a tort.
e. PROVINCES, CITIES & MUNICIPALITIES
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.
Article 2189 governs liability due to "defective streets,"
in particular.
f. PROPRIETOR OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURE
Article 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is
responsible for the damages resulting from its total or
TORTS AND DAMAGES – ATTY. TECSON (MIDTERM REVIEWER by JMCRUZ)
partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary Article 21 Any person who willfully causes loss or injury
repairs.
g. ENGINEER, ARCHITECT OR CONTRACTOR
Article 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the
plans and specifications for a building is liable for
damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the
structure, the same should collapse by reason of a defect
in those plans and specifications, or due to the defects in
the ground. The contractor is likewise responsible for the
damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, on
account of defects in the construction or the use of
materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to
any violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer
or architect supervises the construction, he shall be
solidarily liable with the contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not
imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of
any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The action must be brought within ten years following the
collapse of the building.
SPECIAL TORTS
1. ABUSE OF RIGHTS (Articles 19-21)
When a right is exercised in a manner which discards
these norms resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong
is committed for which the actor can be held accountable.
While Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the
government of human relations and for the maintenance
of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its
violation. Generally, an action for damages under either
Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.
Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
ELEMENTS:
i. There is a legal right or duty
ii. Which is exercised in bad faith
iii. For the sole intent of prejudicing another
Article 20 Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.
This article pertains to damages arising from a violation
of law.
to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damage.
ELEMENTS:
i. There is an act which is legal
ii. But which is contrary to morals, good custom, public
order or public policy
iii. it is done with intent to injure
Articles 19 & 21: bad faith must exist; the act must be
intentional
2. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
No person may unjustly enrich oneself at the expense of
another
Article 22. Every person who through an act of
performance by another, or any other means, acquires or
comes into possession of something at the expense of the
latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to
him.
Article 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to
another's property was not due to the fault or negligence
of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if
through the act or event he was benefited.
ELEMENTS:
a. that a person is benefited without a valid basis or
justification, and
b. that such benefit is derived at another’s expense or
damage.
There is no unjust enrichment when the person who
will benefit has a valid claim to such benefit.
*One condition for invoking this principle is that the
aggrieved party has no other action based on a contract,
quasi-contract, crime, quasi-delict, or any other provision
of law.
3. JUDICIAL VIGILANCE
Article 24. In all contractual, property or other relations,
when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of
his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental
weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must
be vigilant for his protection.
*Contract of Adhesion - Greater vigilance, however, is
required of the courts when dealing with contracts of
adhesion in that the said contracts must be carefully
TORTS AND DAMAGES – ATTY. TECSON (MIDTERM REVIEWER by JMCRUZ)
scrutinized in order to shield the unwary (or weaker party) attributable to malice or inexcusable negligence.
from deceptive schemes contained in ready-made
covenants.
4. OSTENTATIOUS DISPLAY OF WEALTH
Article 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for
pleasure or display during a period of acute public want
or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the
instance of any government or private charitable
institution.
5. DISRESPECT OF PERSONS
Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors
and other persons. The following and similar acts, though
they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce
a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief: the
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family prosecution of his cause; and third, when the injured party
relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his
friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth,
physical defect, or other personal condition.
"prying into the privacy of another’s residence." This does
not mean, however, that only the residence is entitled to
privacy, because the law covers also "similar acts." It
should not be confined to his house or residence as it may
extend to places where he has the right to exclude the
public or deny them access.
The reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy
depends on a two-part test: (1) whether, by his conduct,
the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy;
and (2) this expectation is one that society recognizes as
reasonable.
6. DERELICTION OF DUTY
Article 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss
because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects,
without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an
action for damages and other relief against the latter,
without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative
action that may be taken.
*The provision presupposes that the refusal or omission
of a public official to perform his official duty is
(defense: good faith)
* This particular article covers a case of nonfeasance or
non-performance by a public officer of his official duty;
it does not apply to a case of negligence or misfeasance in
carrying out an official duty.
LIABILITY UNDER RPC
Revised Penal Code provides that every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.[13] Such civil
liability may consist of restitution, reparation of the
damage caused and indemnification of consequential
damages.[14] When a criminal action is instituted, the civil
liability arising from the offense is impliedly instituted
with the criminal action, subject to three notable
exceptions: first, when the injured party expressly waives
right to recover damages from the
accused; second, when the offended party reserves his
right to have the civil damages determined in a separate
action in order to take full control and direction of the
actually exercises the right to maintain a private suit
against the offender by instituting a civil action prior to
the filing of the criminal case.
In cases of negligence, the offended party has the choice
between an action to enforce civil liability arising from
crime under the Revised Penal Code and an action
for quasi delict under the Civil Code.
An act or omission causing damage to another may give
rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the
offender, i.e., (1) civil liability ex delicto, under Article
100 of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) independent civil
liabilities, such as those not arising from an act or
omission complained of as a felony, e.g., culpa
contractual or obligations arising from law or culpa
aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; Either of
these liabilities may be enforced against the offender
subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code
that the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the defendant and the similar
proscription against double recovery.
At the time of the filing of the complaint for damages in
this case, the cause of action ex quasi delicto had already
prescribed. Nonetheless, petitioners can pursue the
remaining avenue opened for them by their
reservation, i.e., the surviving cause of action ex
delicto. This is so because the prescription of the action ex
quasi delicto does not operate as a bar to an action to
enforce the civil liability arising from crime especially as
the latter action had been expressly reserved.