Você está na página 1de 24

TORTS Illustration: A bus company has instructions

to its employees to drive safely and as such


FUNCTIONS OF TORT LAW: pegs the maximum speed to be driven by
 COMPENSATION its drivers at 60 kph. A driver openly
 CIVIL REDRESS disobeyed the instructions resulting in the
 TO SHAPE SOCIETAL CONDUCT death of several passengers. Even with the
presence of such specific instructions to
Case: PHILIPP MORRIS USA vs. WILLIAMS observe a certain maximum speed, the
This is a case of a widow filing a case common carrier is still responsible. That is a
against Philipp Morris to indemnify the measure of risk/loss distribution. As
family for the death of her husband who between the people who did not have a
died of lung cancer. They were able to hand in the hiring of the reckless driver and
establish proximate causation that lung the one who had a hand on the hiring of
cancer was in fact caused by the such driver, the risk/loss should be
husband’s heavy smoking. The argument distributed heavily against the employer.
of Philipp Morris is that they cannot be
2. AS A MEASURE OF OPTIMAL
faulted since it was the husband’s decision
DETERRENCE
to smoke. He could have quit anytime.
Since he continued, he bears the
consequence.

The widow argued that even if her COMMON LAW SYSTEM vs. CIVIL LAW
husband wanted to quit smoking, Philipp SYSTEM
Morris made their cigarettes addictive that
he cannot anymore stop smoking and In a Civil Law system, the basis is the
there was no more voluntariness on his provisions of law.
part. Thus, Philipp Morris should be liable. On the other hand, in a Common Law
system, the basis is not only the law but
The Federal Court held that Philipp Morris
principles of justice, equity, customs, and
was indeed liable and slapped it with a
the like. The judge can make decisions
hefty amount of damages.
based on the arguments of the parties,
even when not supported by law.
Case: McDONALDS
A girl placed the coffee she bought in the PHILIPPINE SETTING
drive thru service of McDonalds between It is not enough that there is damage,
her thighs. The coffee however spilled and there must be a legal basis for the claim on
the customer suffered burns. The argument compensation for that damage. For there
of Mcdo was it was the girl’s fault for to be damage, as contemplated by the
having placed the coffee there. law, there must be injury, which is damage
McDonalds was held liable. Because of this plus a provision of the law creating a
case, they have now regulated the legally demandable right. Hypothetical
temperature of their drive thru coffee in questions are not allowed. In the absence
such a way that even it spills, the customer of legislation, there is no recourse. In our
will not suffer burns. jurisdiction, however, there are snippets of
equity jurisprudence. Judges sometimes
1. RISK OR LOSS DISTRIBUTION
rely on customs, traditions, and the like.
1|P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
FAULT vs. NEGLIGENCE
Illustration: Non-legally demandable right –
Beauty pageant contestant who is Case: CHILD LEARNING CENTER VS
aggrieved cannot enforce her claim that TAGARIO
she should have won in the courts. There is FACTS: One normal school day, a fourth
no enforceable action. grade student decided to use the boys’
comfort room on the third floor to answer
QUASI-DELICT
the call of nature. Unfortunately, he got
locked inside the bathroom due to a
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission
defective doorknob and could not get
causes damage to another, there being
out. Panicking, the scared boy yelled
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
several times for help and even banged
the damage done. Such fault or
and kicked the door, all to no avail.
negligence, if there is no pre-existing
Consequently, he decided to open the
contractual relation between the parties, is
window to call for help but in the process
called a quasi-delict and is governed by
of opening the window, he “went right
the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
through and fell down three stories.” The
boy was rushed to the hospital where he
ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT
was confined and given medical
1) DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE
treatment for serious multiple physical
PLAINTIFF;
injuries.
2) FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF THE
DEFENDANT, OR SOME OTHER RULING: The Supreme Court made the
PERSON FOR WHOSE ACT HE MUST following pronouncement: In every tort
RESPOND; AND case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil
3) THE CONNECTION OF CAUSE AND Code, plaintiff has to prove by a
EFFECT BETWEEN THE FAULT OR preponderance of evidence: (1) the
NEGLIGENCE AND THE DAMAGES damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the
INCURRED. fault or negligence of the defendant or
some other person for whose act he must
The defining element that makes it quasi- respond; and (3) the connection of cause
delict is the presence of fault or and effect between the fault or negligence
negligence. and the damages incurred.
UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF REVISED PENAL CODE In this tort case, respondents contend that
There are two ways of committing a crime. CLC failed to provide precautionary
It can either be through dolo (intentional) measures to avoid harm and injury to its
or culpa (fault). When we say intent, it students in two instances: (1) failure to fix a
automatically excludes fault or defective door knob despite having been
negligence. Under the said article, fault notified of the problem; and (2) failure to
includes negligence. install safety grills on the window where
Timothy fell from.
Q: Is there a difference between Fault or
Negligence? The Court held that fault requires omission
of a positive act, while negligence requires
failure to take needed precaution. In fault,

2|P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
there was a positive act that was not FACTS: Ruth Garratt (plaintiff) alleged that
performed but in negligence, there was an she came out into the backyard to talk
omission of care. In this case, there was with her sister. When she was about to sit
fault on the part of CLC in failing to repair down in a wood and canvas lawn chair,
the defective door and failing to put grills five year-old Brian Dailey (defendant)
on the window of the comfort room. deliberately pulled the chair out from
Hence, CLC was held liable for damages. under her. The trial court accepted
defendant’s version of the events that he
was attempting to move the chair toward
FAULT NEGLIGENCE plaintiff to help her in sitting down on the
 A voluntary act  Failure to chair. He maintained that, due to his small
or omission observe for the size and lack of dexterity, he could not get
which causes protection of the the chair under Plaintiff in time to keep her
damage to the interest of from falling. Ruth Garratt's fall resulted in a
right of another another person fractured hip and other painful and serious
giving rise to an that degree of injuries, she filed a case against the boy
obligation on care, precaution
and the parents.
the part of the and vigilance
actor to repair which the
such damage. circumstances ISSUE: Whether the act of moving the chair
justly demand. constituted battery.
 Requires  Omission to do RULING: It is urged that Brian's action in
execution of a acts which result
moving the chair constituted a battery.
positive act in damage to
Battery is the intentional infliction of a
which causes another.
harmful bodily contact upon another.
damage to
another. Dean: It is battery when there is actual
TORTS VS. QUASI - DELICT inflicting of injury, but when there is no
actual infliction of injury it can be classified
While Quasi-delict, pertains only to fault or as an assault.
negligence, such limiting concept cannot
be applied when it comes to torts. In torts, 3. FALSE IMPRISONMENT
being a common law principle, it can
cover any wrong that you can convince Case: LOPEZ VS WINSHELL’S DONUT HOUSE
the judge to believe to be so. It can cover FACTS: The Donut House suspected Lopez,
all wrongful acts - intentional or an employee, of pocketing sales money.
negligence. Lopez voluntarily came to the Donut House
at the request of her employer, and
INTENTIONAL ACTS COVERED BY TORTS remained in a room of the shop until she
accounted the proceeds and cleared her
1. BATTERY – intentional inflicting of name. No force or threats were used to
injury detain Lopez, and she left the room when
2. ASSAULT – no actual infliction of she began to feel ill. The lady employee
injury sued the employers for false imprisonment.

Case: GARRATT VS DAILEY


3|P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
ISSUE: Whether or not false imprisonment Seduction or for refund for Actual
occurs if one is compelled to remain in a Damages.
place to protect one’s reputation
Here we have the SC saying that this case
RULING: Remaining in a place to clear is either founded on Article 20 or 21 of the
one’s name does not constitute false Civil Code. The action is based on Article
imprisonment. For a false imprisonment to 20 when there is a law and on Article 21
occur, the plaintiff must have yielded to when there is none but moral customs
force, a threat of force (implied or express), would have to come in.
economic duress or the assertion of
Dean: If you look at torts in relation to
authority. If there is no actual restraint, then
quasi-delict, torts would be broader,
there is no false imprisonment.
because quasi-delict is limited to negligent
Dean: There is false imprisonment when acts. However, if you look at Torts in
there is actual restraint of one’s liberty. relation to our entire system of redress for
Moral restraint will not account for false all sorts of civil wrong, ours is more
imprisonment; it is not sufficient. adaptable than the Anglo-American
concept of Torts.
4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS To SUMMARIZE, the differences between
5. INTENTIONAL ACTS WHICH CANNOT Torts and Quasi-delict are as follows:
BE CLASSIFIED IN THIS JURISDICTION
TORTS QUASI-DELICT
AS QUASI-DELICT BECAUSE THEY ARE
Common law Civil law concept
NOT BORN OUT OF FAULT OR
concept
NEGLIGENCE Decisions are Decisions are
based on Law, based on Law only
Q: If quasi-delict is negligence plus no co- Equity or
existing contractual obligation, and tort, Customs/Tradition
being common law, can cover intentional Covers both Covers only
and unintentional acts, is Tort broader than intentional and unintentional acts
Quasi-delict? unintentional acts (since under
Article 2176, it
Is tort broader than civil remedies? No involves merely
Does it have more remedies than our own fault or
legal system? negligence)

Case: GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH VS. CA


FACTS: An Iranian exchange courted a COVERAGE OF QUASI-DELICT
pretty, barrio lass. After courtship, the girl  Quasi-delict covers unintentional and
would only accept if a promise to marry voluntary acts. It does not cover
was made. However, after they started involuntary acts because these acts
living together the Iranian became irritable can be used as exempting
and started to abuse her. He ended up circumstances.
reneging on his promise to marry her.  Quasi-delict also covers criminal acts.
RULING: Breach of promise to marry is not The crime committed by a person
actionable unless it amounts to Moral through fault or negligence can be

4|P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
found in Title XIV or the RPC entitled law clearly fault or negligence
“Quasi-Offenses”. covering them intervenes”
Proof Beyond Preponderance of
Illustration: A car hit a pedestrian. As a Reasonable Doubt evidence
consequence thereof, the pedestrian died.
The crime involved is “Reckless TN: Since the two are different from each
Imprudence resulting to Homicide”. other, they can be separately filed or filed
Thus, the same act can create two kinds of simultaneously.
liability on the part of the offender, that is: CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM A CRIME
(a) civil liability ex delicto / delict / culpa
criminal (under Article 100 of the Revised Article 100. Every person criminally liable is
Penal Code); and (b) civil liability ex-quasi civilly liable.
delicto / quasi-delict / culpa aquiliana The judge hearing the criminal case should
(under Article 2176 of the Civil Code). either convict or acquit the accused. If it
CULPA AQUILIANA vs. CULPA CRIMINAL decides to convict, it can also make a
pronouncement as to the civil liability
Case: BARREDO V. GARCIA depending on whether such is impliedly
FACTS: A head-on collision between a instituted on the action or not. On the
taxicab owned by Barredo and a carretela other hand, if the judge decides to acquit
occurred. The carretela was overturned the accused, then the award of civil
and one of its passengers, a son of Garcia liability will depend on whether the
and Almario, died as a result of the injuries acquittal is due to reasonable doubt or on
which he received. The driver of the the fact that no crime had been
taxicab, an employee of Barredo, was committed.
prosecuted for the crime and was Q: If the judgment of the judge in the
convicted. When the criminal case was criminal case is conviction with civil liability,
instituted, Garcia and Almario reserved can the judge handling the culpa
their right to institute a separate civil action aquiliana case dismiss the case?
for damages. Subsequently, Garcia and
Almario instituted a civil action for A: Yes, the judge can dismiss the case
damages against Barredo. because the judgment of conviction was
already with civil liability.
RULING: The Supreme Court distinguished Q: What if it was a judgment of acquittal in
Culpa Criminal from Culpa Aquiliana in this the culpa criminal case? If it is based on
manner: reasonable doubt, there may be a
possibility that it is with civil liability
CULPA CRIMINAL CULPA AQUILIANA nonetheless, can the judge dismiss the
affects the public
only of private case?
interest concern
punishes ormerely repairs the A: This was answered in the case of
corrects thedamage by Lumantas vs. Calapiz.
criminal act means of
indemnification Case: LUMANTAS VS. CALAPIZ
punished only if includes all acts in FACTS: The 8-year old son (Hanz) of
there is a penal which “any kind of respondent spouses Hilario and Herlita
5|P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
Calapiz was brought to the Misamis prosecution, civil liability is still present as
Occidental Provincial Hospital for an there is only acquittal based on
emergency appendectomy. Petitioner reasonable doubt.
Lumantas who was the one attending their
The failure of the prosecution to prove his
son suggested he also should undergo
criminal negligence with moral certainty
circumcision with no added cost.
did not forbid a finding against him that
After the operation, Hanz complained of
there was preponderant evidence of his
pain of his penis and the parents noticed
negligence to hold him civilly liable. The
that the kid is urinating abnormally.
injury or trauma of Hanz was sustained in
However, he was still discharged over his
the hands of petitioner.
parent’s protestations against the hospital.
The kid came back to the hospital Thus, petitioner was compelled to pay the
because of the abscess formation in his moral damages plus interests (6%).
penis. The diagnosis was the kid was
THE EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL TO THE CULPA
suffering from a damaged urethra. Hanz
AQUILIANA CASE.
underwent cycstostomy and other three
operation to repair his damaged urethra. If the acquittal is based on the fact that no
crime has been committed or there was
A criminal charge was filed against
no negligence, the culpa aquiliana case
Lumantas for reckless imprudence resulting
separately filed should not be affected just
to serious physical injuries. However, he was
because the judge handling the culpa
acquitted due to the insufficiency of
criminal case said that no crime has been
evidence from the prosecution. Still, he
committed.
was compelled to pay moral damages
worth 50K. The reason behind this is because the civil
liability we are talking about in the culpa
Petitioner contends that he cannot be
criminal case is civil liability ex delicto. On
liable for moral damages because he was
the other hand, in the culpa aquiliana
acquitted from the crime.
case, we are looking at civil liability ex
ISSUE: Whether Lumantas is still liable from quasi delicto. Quasi-delictual damage is
moral damages considering that he was entirely distinct and separate from the civil
acquitted from the crime. liability arising from negligence under the
Revised Penal Code.
RULING:
If the accused is acquitted based on the
THE EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL TO THE CIVIL
fact that no crime has been committed, it
LIABILITY IN THE CRIMINAL CASE
is only the civil liability ex delicto that is out
Petitioner is still liable. Every person of the picture. There is another way that
criminally liable is also civilly liable. The the accused may be held civilly liable and
acquittal of an accused does not that is to hold him responsible through
automatically mean the acquittal from civil culpa aquiliana.
liability. If the court finds that the accused
Since the law allows two cases to proceed
did not do the crime, then he is not civilly
based on the same negligent act, there is
liable as he is completely innocent.
a possibility of varying pronouncements. If
However, if he is acquitted because there
the judge rendered a judgment of
is insufficiency of evidence from the
6|P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
acquittal based on reasonable doubt, it
must have a finding of the civil liability. But
if the acquittal is based on the fact that civilly liable

the crime did not exist, there cannot be culpa aquiliana

any finding of any civil liability. However, not civilly liable

we are only referring to civil liability ex


delicto and should not affect the civil case
for culpa aquiliana. It may have
persuasive effect but not a binding effect. CULPA CONTRACTUAL vs. CULPA
AQUILIANA
In addition, if the judge makes a
pronouncement of acquittal based on Case: CALALAS VS. COURT OF APPEALS
reasonable doubt and there is no finding FACTS: A passenger of a jeepney was
as to the civil liability, an appeal is allowed made to sit on a stool (extension) inside the
as to the civil aspect because it is wrong jeepney. In order to allow a co-passenger
for the judge not to make any finding on to pass, she alighted from the jeepney.
the civil liability. However, the moment she got out of the
However, there could be no double jeepney, another vehicle bumped into the
recovery. said jeepney. This caused physical injuries
to the aggrieved passenger. The
RESERVATION TO FILE AN AQUILIANA CASE passenger filed two separate cases. One
Q: Is there a need to reserve the right to file involves a culpa contractual case against
an aquiliana case in a culpa criminal the driver of the jeepney for breach of the
action which was filed first? contract of carriage and a culpa
aquiliana case against the owner of the
A: No. There are limitations to the Supreme vehicle that bumped into the jeepney.
Court’s rule-making power. While it can
promulgate rules, it cannot promulgate In the case of Manila Railroad Co. vs. La
ones that will modify, diminish or impair Compania Transatlantica, the Supreme
substantive rights. An independent civil Court delineated the differences between
action is considered a substantive right. the culpa in culpa contractual and in
Thus, the moment the reservation to file a culpa aquiliana as follows:
separate independent action is required, it Culpa Culpa
is akin to impairment of substantive rights. Contractual Aquiliana
Cause of Breach of Negligence
The rules may be summarized as follows:
Action Contract
based on
with civil
liability
How the Negligence -
acquittal reasonable
doubt
contract
no civil
liability was
culpa
criminal
case
breached
No crime has no civil
liability
Source Culpa is Culpa is
been committed
incidental to substantive
the and an
conviction with civil liability performance independent
of the source of
obligation obligation.
7|P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
exception, it can still have a finding of a
tortuous conduct even if there is an existing
Dean: You cannot have the scenario of
contract if standing on its own, the act is in
one and the same culpa breeding two
itself a tort.
different cases of aquiliana and
contractual. The most that you can do is GENERAL RULE: Culpa Aquiliana and Culpa
allege them as alternative causes of Contractual cannot co-exist.
action. EXCEPTION: When an act or omission can
nonetheless amount to an actionable tort
This is further supported under the case of
by itself.
Construction Development Corporation vs.
Estrella, where the SC acknowledged that
NEGLIGENCE
the two actions cannot co-exist because it
did not suggest for joinder of causes of
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the
action.
obligor consists in the omission of that
However, in the case of Regino vs. diligence which is required by the nature of
Pangasinan Colleges, the SC provided for the obligation and corresponds with the
an exception. circumstances of persons, of the time, and
of the place. When negligence shows bad
Case: REGINO VS. PANGASINAN COLLEGES
faith, the provisions of Article 1171 and
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
FACTS: A teacher from the Pangasinan
Colleges required students from the school
If the law or contract does not state the
to purchase tickets to a rave party in order
diligence which is to be observed in the
to raise funds. One student cannot pay for
performance, that which is expected of a
the said ticket. Due to this, the student was
good father of a family shall be required.
not allowed to take the final examinations.
REQUIRED STANDARD OF CARE
RULING: In the case, the SC emphasized
Q: Is there is a particular standard of care
that there exists a contract between the
to say something is negligent? If
school and the students. The school has
negligence is the omission of diligence, is
the obligation to provide the students with
there a particular standard of diligence to
a safe learning environment. In return, the
say that an act is negligent or not?
students have the obligation to pay the
stipulated fees. In this case however, the A: It depends on the nature of the
tortuous conduct was independent of the obligation. The requirement of diligence
contract between the school and the may also be affected by the
student. circumstances of person, time and place.
Thus, the SC held that although in Art. 2176, (Art. 1173, par. 1)
no culpa contractual and aquiliana can
Negligence then is relative.
co-exist because the existence of a
contract will take the case out of the Illustration/s:
ambit of culpa aquiliana. Rights and
obligations of the parties should be 1) DRIVING ON A HIGHWAY
governed by the contract since it is the law
between the parties. However, as an
8|P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
On a clear day, would there be a reasonable person must act. Thus, the
difference to the diligence to be observed standard of conduct for a blind person
if driving at night? – Yes becomes that of a reasonable person who
On a rainy night? – Yes is blind.
On a clear night? – Yes
DILIGENCE REQUIRED
In default of a stipulation or a law fixing the
2) MINORS diligence required, the diligence of good
The diligence required of that of a minor father of a family is required. (Art. 1173,
would vary in comparison to the kind of par. 2)
diligence expected of an adult as was
shown in the case of Ylarde et al., vs. STIPULATION AS TO THE DEGREE OF
Aquino, et al. The SC said that it was DILIGENCE
perfectly okay for children, 9 years of age, Q: Can parties stipulate that the diligence
to be playing while the teacher was away. required is only slight degree of care?
It is expected of children to play when the A: Yes, they can. This is because the
teacher leaves the classroom. The SC diligence is dependent upon the nature of
the obligation and the circumstances of
would not give the same forgiving stance if
person, time and place. (Transcriber’s note:
what was involved was a law student.
There was no definite answer given by
3) GUN STORE OWNER dean.)
A gun owner is also required to exercise a
higher degree of precaution. However, there are instances wherein the
parties cannot stipulate the diligence
required such as when the law provides for
4) BLIND PERSON
the diligence to be exercised.
The degree of care required of a blind
e.g. Common Carrier – Extraordinary
person is the degree of care that one
diligence
would reasonably expect from a blind
Banks – Highest degree of diligence
person.
TEST OF NEGLIGENCE
Case: FRANCISCO vs CHEMICAL BULK
CARRIERS Case: PICART vs SMITH
FACTS: Francisco, a blind person, bought FACTS: A person, while riding a pony,
fuels from Bacsa, who misrepresented that encountered a car for the first time. This
he was a confidential secretary of the was in 1908. Looking at it as if it were an
CBCI. However, the proceeds from such apparition, not knowing he was already on
was never turned over to CBCI, the latter
the wrong lane, the driver of the car had
alleging that they never authorized the
to honk his horn to get his attention.
sale of these fuels to Bacsa.
This, in turn, startled the pony, causing the
RULING: One who is physical disabled is rider to fall off and sustain injuries. He filed a
required to use the same degree of care case for damages against the driver of the
that a reasonably careful person who has car.
the same physical disability would use. RULING: The SC grappled with contributory
Physical handicaps and infirmities, such as negligence, but more importantly this is
blindness or deafness, are treated as part where the concept of negligence was first
of the circumstances under which a established.
9|P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
The tests of negligence are as follows:
Case: ANONUEVO vs. CA
1. THE HARM IS FORESEEABLE; AND
FACTS: Villagracia was traveling along Boni
2. THERE WAS FAILURE TO EXERCISE
Avenue on his bicycle, while Anonuevo
THE NECESSARY PRECAUTION.
traversing the opposite lane was driving his
BURDEN OF PROOF car which was owned by Procter and
As a rule, one who alleges has the burden Gamble Inc. Anonuevo was in the course
of proof. Whoever alleges negligence has of making a left turn towards Libertad
the burden of proving negligence. Street when the collision occurred. When a
However, there are instances where we suit for damages was filed against
are relieved of proving negligence. These Anonuevo, he claimed that Villagracia
are: violated traffic regulations when he failed
to register his bicycle or install safety
1.) PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE gadgets thereon. He posits that Article
2.) RES IPSA LOQUITOR 2185 of the New Civil Code which
presumes the driver of a motor vehicle
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE negligent if he was violating a traffic
regulation at the time of the mishap,
When a party can prove the situation applies by analogy to bicycles.
where negligence must have existed, the
Dean: Before the presumption in Art. 2185
presumption of negligence attaches to the
applies, what must be involved is a motor
other party. It now becomes incumbent on
vehicle. In this case, what was involved
the other party to disprove such rebuttable
was a car and a bicycle. It was the bicycle
presumption.
rider who was negligent because at the
time of the incident, it does not have
PRESUMPTIONS: reflectorized bicycle as required by
municipal ordinance. The SC said Art. 2185
1. When one had been violating traffic
does not apply because what should have
regulation at least twice within the
been involved is motor vehicles. In this
preceding two months, and gets into
case, what was involved was a bicycle
an accident then there is a
rider. Even by analogy, it cannot be
presumption of negligence against
applied because as can be read on the
that individual. (Art. 2184, NCC)
deliberations of the framers of the civil
All one needs to establish that at the time code and they are already aware of the
of the incident, this person has committed existence of the bicycle and motor
traffic violation at least two months vehicles, yet, they sought to regulate only
preceding the incident. motor vehicles.

2. When a person was driving a motor RES IPSA LOQUITOR


vehicle and was violating a traffic
regulation when an accident DEFINITION
occurred, the presumption of It is a rebuttable inference that defendant
negligence attaches upon him. (Art. was negligent, which arises upon proof
2185, NCC) that instrumentality causing injury was in
the defendant’s exclusive control, and that
10 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
the accident was one which ordinarily This does not rest on presumption but
does not happen in absence of rather on inference.
negligence.
Case: LAYUGAN VS. IAC
The SC emphasized that the doctrine can
REQUISITES
be invoked ONLY when direct evidence is
1. THE OCCURRENCE OF AN INJURY;
absent and not readily available.
2. THE THING WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY
WAS UNDER THE CONTROL AND Case: CARMEN VS. BACOY
MANAGEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT; FACTS: The Bacoy Family were on their way
3. THE OCCURRENCE WAS SUCH THAT IN home from a Christmas party when they
THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THINGS, were run over by a passenger jeep.
WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF THOSE
WHO HAD CONTROL OR RULING: The SC applied here the doctrine
MANAGEMENT USED PROPER CARE; of res ipsa Loquitor saying that no person
AND just walking along the road would suddenly
4. THE ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION BY THE be sideswiped and run over by an on-
DEFENDANT. rushing vehicle unless the one in charge of
the said vehicle had been negligent.
Dean: We did not lump this one with (TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: Dean does not
presumption because this is NOTa agree with the ruling in this case because
presumption of negligence. This is a direct evidence is available here but
procedural inference on negligence. anyway the SC said it is res ipsa Loquitor.
Just follow the pronouncement of the SC.)
Case: AFRICA VS. CALTEX
FACTS: Caltex as well as the whole block DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
was razed and gutted down by fire. Africa
filed a case against Caltex. Caltex claimed Article 2179. When the plaintiff’s
that Africa had the burden of proving negligence was the immediate and
negligence. proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. But if his negligence
RULING: The SC said that this is an instance
was only contributory, the immediate and
where the incident would not happen
proximate cause of the injury being the
unless one of the parties was negligent. The
defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff
instrument that caused the incident is
may recover damages, but the court’s
within the control of the Caltex. This being
shall mitigate the damages to be
the case, Africa is relieved of proving
awarded.
negligence because negligence was
imputed on Caltex.
DEFINITION
The SC used this occasion to say that res Proximate cause is that cause which, in a
ipsa loquitor is not applicable when one natural and continuous sequence,
cannot prove negligence. It applies when unbroken by any efficient intervening
the event, by its very nature, is one where cause, produces the injury, and without
negligence must have been present, and which the injury would not have occurred.
the exclusive control was with the plaintiff.

11 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE negligent bus driver because the act of
PROXIMATE CAUSE the villagers in carrying the torch, even if it
To be liable under quasi-delict, the was the immediate cause, was not an
negligence of the defendant must be the efficient intervening cause.
proximate cause of the incident.
DEFENSES
Case: SANITARY STEAM LAUNDRY
FACTS: This is a case involving two vehicles The following are the defenses available to
colliding, a truck and a Cimmaron. the defendant in order to relieve himself
Petitioner alleged that the Cimmaron was liability:
violating a traffic regulation as it does not
1) ALTHOUGH THERE IS NEGLIGENCE,
have headlight and was overloading.
SUCH IS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE;
RULING: Even if there was negligence on
2) NEGLIGENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF IS THE
the part of the owner of the Cimarron, that
PROXIMATE CAUSE;
negligence was not the proximate cause
because the collision would still have
Case: FE CAYAO-LASAM VS. RAMOLETE
happened even if it had the two
FACTS: Lasam underwent a Dilatation and
headlights required by law and even if it
Curettage Procedure. She was told to
was not overloaded. The court held that a
come back for a follow-up check-up.
causal connection must exist between the
However, she failed to do so.
injury received and the violation of the
Complications arose resulting in her
traffic regulation for such violation to be
inability to conceive a child.
the proximate cause.
RULING: The Supreme Court held that the
Case: TISON VS. POMASIN plaintiff’s negligence in refusing to have
The SC held that in order for the plaintiff to her follow-up check-ups was the proximate
recover, there has to be negligence that it cause of the injury.
is the proximate cause of the incident. A
causal connection must have been EXCEPTION: DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED
established. Negligence per se will not INVITATION TO VISIT THE PREMISES OF
bring forth liability because if such ANOTHER
negligence is not the proximate cause,  GR: If one is a trespasser, he is
then there can be no liability for quasi- presumed negligent.
delicts.  Exception: If the trespasser is a child
of tender years, then the
THE TEST IS NOT IMMEDIACY, BUT
presumption of negligence may not
PROXIMATE CAUSATION.
apply.
Case: BATACLAN VS. MEDINA
Rationale: A child of tender years may be
FACTS: A vehicle fell off a cliff and as a
enticed of such attractive nuisance.
result thereof, gasoline leaked from the
vehicle. Villagers were trying to rescue the
victims. However, because the accident Case: TAYLOR VS. MANILA ELECTRIC
happened at dawn, the villagers carried a FACTS: Manila Electric Railroad Light and
torch. Due to this, the vehicle caught fire. Co. was engaged in the operation of a
RULING: The Supreme Court nevertheless street railway and electric light system in
held that the one responsible is the City of Manila. When David Taylor and a
12 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
companion visited the premises, they responding to an emergency or the life or
found an empty lot where fulminating caps property of another is in peril or if he seems
from the Manila Electric were thrown at. to rescue endangered property.
They brought the caps home and played
with it. They opened thae cap and lighted Case: NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN
the contents with a match. An explosion FACTS: Roberto was having coffee at the
happened causing them injuries with David hotel lobby when he alleged that he was
sustaining injuries in his right eye. invited by his friend, a doctor, to join him at
a birthday celebration, as well as to aid
RULING: In this case, the Supreme Court
him in delivering a basket of fruits to the
held that the doctrine of implied invitation
event at the penthouse. Roberto asked if
to visit the premises of another cannot be
she could vouch for him and the doctor
applied, as the child, although a minor,
said “Of course.” At that party, he was told
cannot be considered a child of tender
to leave by the executive secretary. This
years.
was allegedly done by the secretary in a
3) ASSUMPTION OF RISK; loud voice. Roberto retorted that he had
been allowed to come by his friend, who
Case: AFIALDA VS. HISOLE AND HISOLE
subsequently denied doing so.
FACTS: A caretaker of a carabao was
Makati Policemen approached him and
gored to death by the very carabao he
escorted him out of the hotel.
was taking care of. The heirs of the
caretaker filed a case against the owner of Deeply embarrassed by the incident,
the carabao. Roberto sued the hotel for damages under
RULING: The Court said that the animal was Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. The
in the custody of the caretaker who was defense of the hotel was that, as a
paid for such work. So it was the business of gatecrasher, Roberto was under the
the caretaker to prevent the carabaos assumption of risk that he may be told to
from causing injury to anyone and to leave.
himself. Because he took the job, he is
ISSUE: Whether Roberto, as a gatecrasher,
deemed to have so assumed the risk.
recover damages?
Case: ILOCOS NORTE CO. VS. CA RULING: The court said that, although it
FACTS: A woman, immediately after the may be true that as a gatecrasher, the
typhoon, had to rush to her sari-sari store in party organizer has the right to ask the
order to rescue her merchandise. But while former to leave, this right must not be
wading her way to the store in waist-deep abused. The gatecrasher must not be
water, she was electrocuted. The family subjected to humiliation and shame. The
sued the electric company for its gatecrasher assumes the risk of being
negligence when it left its electric wire asked to leave but does not assume the
dangling from a post dangerously. The risk of being humiliated and subjected to
company raised the assumption of risk as a unnecessary ridicule and shame.
defense.
However, Roberto’s testimony that they
RULING: The Supreme Court said that the
were standing so close to each other that
defense of assumption of risk does not
they were almost kissing rebuts his own
apply if it is shown that the victim is
allegation that the hotel manager shouted
13 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
at him. So the court did not award him immediate and proximate cause of the
damages. injury being the defendant's lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover damages,
4) DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE;
but the courts shall mitigate the damages
Also known as doctrine of discovered peril, to be awarded.
humanitarian doctrine, doctrine of
DEFINITION
intervening negligence, the “known
The act or omission amounting to want of
danger rule”.
ordinary care on the part of the person
DEFINITION injured which, concurring with the
A person who has the last clear chance or defendant’s negligence, is the proximate
opportunity of avoiding an accident, cause of the injury.
notwithstanding the negligent acts of his
opponent or the negligence of a third It has been held that, “to hold” a person as
person which is imputed to his opponent, is having contributed to his injuries, it must be
considered in law solely responsible for the shown that he performed an act that
consequences of the accident. brought about his injuries in disregard of
warning and signs of an impending danger
In essence, when both parties are to health and body.
negligent, but the negligent act of one is
appreciably later in time than that the EFFECT OF THE APPLICATION OF THE
other, or when it is impossible to determine DOCTRINE
whose fault or negligence should be This is merely an incomplete defense. Such
attributed to the accident, the one who that when this doctrine is applied, the
had the clear opportunity to avoid the defendant will not be completely absolved
impending harm and failed to do so is from liability. His liability will only be
chargeable with the consequences. mitigated due to the contributory
negligence of the plaintiff.
EFFECT OF THE APPLICATION OF THE
DOCTRINE
The doctrine of last clear chance absolves Case: JARCO MARKETING VS CA
the plaintiff from negligence because such
FACTS: A mother and daughter went to the
negligence was prior or antecedent. The
mall to shop. Upon paying, the mother had
court will only take into account the
to let go the hand of the child to sign the
negligence of the defendant which, if not
credit card slip. The child went near one of
present, would have prevented the
the counters in the store and it collapsed
damage from happening.
on her. This resulted in her sustaining injuries
and her subsequent death. The mother
5) DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY filed a case against Jarco Marketing.
NEGLIGENCE
Among the defenses had been raised by
Article 2179. ARTICLE 2179. When the Jarco were: 1) The mother was guilty of
plaintiff's own negligence was the negligence by letting go of the child’s
immediate and proximate cause of his hand so she was able to climbed this
injury, he cannot recover damages. But if counter top and then collapse on her; and
his negligence was only contributory, the 2) the accident was caused by the child’s
14 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
negligence when she brought herself on However, the
the counter. negligence of the
defendant is still the
ISSUE: Whether the negligence is solely proximate cause of
attributable to Jarco Marketing. the injury. Thus, there
RULING: Yes. The mother should be is no bar to
recovery.
absolved from any contributory
The liability of the The defendant is
negligence. There is no harm foreseeable
defendant is solely liable; hence,
in letting go of the child’s hand to sign the
mitigated. there is full recovery.
credit card slip. Thus, there is no
contributory negligence on the part of the
mother’s part. 6) EMERGENCY RULE

Anent the negligence of the child, the An individual who suddenly finds himself in
Supreme Court applied the conclusive a situation of danger and is required to act
presumption that favors children. If the without much time to consider the best
child is below 9 years old, in criminal law, means that may be adopted to avoid the
he is conclusively presumed incapable of impending danger, is not guilty of
acting with discernment. Since he is negligence if he fails to undertake what
conclusively presumed to have acted subsequently and upon reflection may
without discernment, then he is also appear to be a better solution, unless the
conclusively presumed to be incapable of emergency was brought by his own
contributory negligence. In this case, the negligence.
child was under 9 at the time of the Case: VALENZUELA VS CA
incident, so she is conclusively presumed to FACTS: Valenzuela was experiencing flat
be incapable of contributory negligence. tire. This prompted her to park on the side
Jarco Marketing was held solely liable for of the road. While standing at the rear
the death of the child. portion of her vehicle to fix the tire, she was
TN: If there is allegation of negligence, it bumped by a vehicle driven by
should be tested using the two lenses of Respondent Li resulting to amputation of
foreseeability and failure to exercise the her leg.
necessary precaution in order to avoid the The male driver argued that Valenzuela
injury. was negligent for having parked at the
side of the highway when there was a
DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE barangay road a few meters ahead where
vs. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE she could have parked properly.
CONTRIBUTORY LAST CLEAR CHANCE ISSUE: Whether Valenzuela is negligent in
NEGLIGENCE
parking the car
Both the plaintiff Both the plaintiff
and the defendant and the defendant RULING: An individual who suddenly finds
were negligent. were negligent. himself in a situation of danger and is
The negligence of The negligence of required to act whiteout much time to
the plaintiff is the plaintiff is far consider the best means that may be
concurrent with that removed from the adopted to avoid the impending danger,
of the defendant. time of the incident. is not guilty of negligence if he fails to
15 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
undertake what subsequently and upon A: They are jointly and severally liable
reflection may appear to be a better TN: A tortfeasor is not only liable for one’s
solution, unless the emergency was own act or omission but also for those
brought by his own negligence. persons for whom one is responsible.

The SC said, a woman driving a vehicle


VICARIOUS LIABILITY
suddenly crippled by a flat tire on a rainy
night will not be faulted for stopping at a
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article
point which is both convenient for her to
2176 is demandable not only for one's own
do so and which is not a hazard to other
acts or omissions, but also for those of
motorist.
persons for whom one is responsible.
7) PRESCRIPTION
The father and, in case of his death or
Art 1146. The following actions must be incapacity, the mother, are responsible for
instituted within four years: the damages caused by the minor
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the children who live in their company.
plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict; Guardians are liable for damages caused
by the minors or incapacitated persons
Case: KRAMER VS CA who are under their authority and live in
RULING: The prescriptive period begins their company.
from the day the quasi-delict is committed. The owners and managers of an
In an action for damages arising from establishment or enterprise are likewise
collision of 2 vessels the four year responsible for damages caused by their
prescriptive period must be counted from employees in the service of the branches
the day of the collision. The aggrieved in which the latter are employed or on the
party need not wait for a determination by occasion of their functions.
an administrative body like the Board of
Marine Inquiry that the collision was Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by the fault or negligence of the caused by their employees and household
other party before he can file damages. helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former are
LIABILITY FOR ACT OR OMISSION
not engaged in any business or industry.
TORTFEASOR
The State is responsible in like manner when
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission
it acts through a special agent; but not
causes damage to another, there being
when the damage has been caused by
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the official to whom the task done properly
the damage done. Such fault or
pertains, in which case what is provided in
negligence, if there is no pre-existing
Article 2176 shall be applicable.
contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments
the provisions of this Chapter.
of arts and trades shall be liable for
damages caused by their pupils and
Q: What if there are several tortfeasors?

16 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
students or apprentices, so long as they why the employer is held responsible is not
remain in their custody. because of the act or omission of the
The responsibility treated of in this article employee but the failure of the employer
shall cease when the persons herein to supervise or exercise the diligence of
mentioned prove that they observed all the person who is responsible for another.
the diligence of a good father of a family The basis of the liability is his own
to prevent damage. negligence although that negligence
arose by way of imputation of the act or
Dean: Why are we holding the employer omission of another that has caused
liable? Is it because of the act of his damage to another person. If this is the line
employee? What does it mean when it of reasoning, then there is no violation of
says “for those of persons for whom one is the fundamental principle that one can be
responsible”? held responsible for his own act or omission.
The case can proceed even without
There are two views on the matter.
impleading the person for whom one is
FIRST: THE BASIS OF THE LIABILITY OF THE vicariously liable for as the latter is not an
EMPLOYER IS THE ACT OR OMISSION OF THE indispensable party.
EMPLOYEE
If the liability of the employer is premised
Q: Is this an exception to our system of on the act or omission of the employee,
redress which is founded on holding one and not his own negligence, then the
responsible for his own act? employee becomes an indispensable
party. In remedial law, while it is true that a
If yes, then the basis of the employer’s
case is not dismissed by reason of failure to
liability is the omission of the employee or
implead, the judge will require an
the act of the employee that caused
indispensable party to be impleaded since
damage to the third person.
without him, the complete resolution of the
If the basis of the liability is the act or case cannot be done.
omission of the employee, then the
Case: CEREZO VS. TUAZON
employee should be impleaded or
FACTS: The driver employed by Cerezo
included. It cannot be the case that the
caused an accident. In this case, the driver
employee is not in the picture because he
absconded so the aggrieved party is just
is in fact the basis of the responsibility.
left with the option to sue Cerezo. Cerezo
SECOND: THE BASIS OF THE LIABILITY OF THE said that it might be his responsibility but
EMPLOYER IS HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE the erring driver should also be impleaded
because the cause of the injury was the
A person has committed an act that
driver’s act or omission.
causes damage to another. This person is
RULING: Whenever we mention of vicarious
under the care and supervision of another.
liability, it is the DIRECT and PRIMARY
Had there been an exercise of the
liability of the parents, guardians, teachers,
necessary diligence in supervising the
employers, and state, the persons held
person under his care, the latter may have
vicariously liable. Thus, he can be
not committed the act causing damage
proceeded against singly or together with
to another. If that is the line of reasoning,
the person for whose acts or omissions he is
then it would be very clear that the reason
made responsible for.
17 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
Thus, the liability of the persons to be applied, the trigger is you are an
enumerated under Article 2180 of the Civil unemancipated child living in the
Code arises from the failure of these company of your parents.
persons to supervise. Failure to supervise is
Minority
imputed from the fact that the person
RA 6809
under his care has committed an act or
Nothing in this code shall be construed to
omission causing damage to another.
derogate from the duty or responsibility of
The law attaches the presumption of
parents for children onwards below 21 as
negligence on his part for failing to
mentioned in the second and third
supervise.
paragraph of 2180. For purposes of
vicarious liability, minor should be read to
PARENTS
mean below 21.
Art. 2180 (civil code) xxx
There is a twist here about the meaning of
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
minor, if you read the law reducing the
demandable not only for one's own acts or
age of majority from 21 to 18, there is a
omissions, but also for those of persons for
specific provision there that says: “Majority
whom one is responsible.
commences at the age of 18 but nothing
The father and, in case of his death or
in this code shall be construed to derogate
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for
from the duty and responsibility of parents
the damages caused by the minor
and guardians for children and wards
children who live in their company.
below 21 years of age mentioned in the
xxx
2nd and 3rd paragraphs of 2180.”
Article 221 (Family code)
Parents and other persons exercising Thus, the vicarious liability of parents to
parental authority shall be civilly liable for below 21 still subsists because of the
the injuries and damages caused by the reservation made in the new law, even
acts or omissions of their unemancipated when the age of majority is now 18. So,
children living in their company and under there is no more parental authority after 18
their parental authority subject to the
but there is still parental liability until 21.
appropriate defenses provided by law.
BAR QUESTION:
In both laws, the common denominator is
that they involve children living with their On May 5, 1989, a 16-year-old was driving
parents. Civil Code says minor children. a car, which was a gift from his parents. He
Family Code says unemancipated was told to accommodate 4 of his
children. classmates because the van to be used for
the field trip was inadequate to
Dean: One of the effects of reaching the accommodate the whole class. On the
age of majority is that a person is way to the museum, he made a wrong
emancipated from parental authority. Let’s maneuver and collided with a jeepney.
just say the one that is involved is a child One of his classmates died while he and
living in the company of parents. the others were badly injured. Who is liable
The parents cannot supervise if the child is for the death and the injuries suffered?
not living in your company. For family code
18 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
Dean: One would most probably make the Case: TAMARGO et al. vs CA
parents liable. Don’t forget the school The principle of parental liability is a
administrator and the teacher, because species of what frequently designated as
this is presumed to be an authorized school vicarious liability, or the doctrine of
activity. “imputed negligence” under Anglo-
American tort law, where the person not
Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code.
only liable for torts committed by himself,
Rules regarding civil liability in certain
but also for torts committed by others
cases. - The exemption from criminal
whom he has a certain relationship and for
liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5
whom he is responsible. Thus, parental
and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of
liability is made a natural or logical
Article 11 of this Code does not include
consequence of the duties and
exemption from civil liability, which shall be
responsibilities of parents- their parental
enforced subject to the following rules:
authority—which includes instructing,
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of
controlling, and disciplining of the child.
Article 12, the civil liability for acts
committed by an imbecile or insane
Dean: Who can be held liable for the act
person, and by a person under nine years
or omission causing damage to another of
of age, or by one over nine but under
the minor opt for adoption, the biological
fifteen years of age, who has acted
parents or the adopter/adopting parents?
without discernment, shall devolve upon
If the basis of the charging is the ability to
those having such person under their legal
supervise, the one who has the actual
authority or control, unless it appears that
custody at the time of the incident should
there was no fault or negligence on their
be the one who can be held responsible.
part.
And in this case, the parent held liable not
Should there be no person having such
because they are the natural parents and
insane, imbecile or minor under his
their blood is in the blood of this boy but
authority, legal guardianship or control, or
because it was the natural parents who
if such person be insolvent, said insane,
have the actual custody. The court settled
imbecile, or minor shall respond with their
the issue by determining who has the
own property, excepting property exempt
actual custody at the time of the act
from execution, in accordance with the
complained of.
civil law.
Xxx
SUMMARY: (basis of civil liability)
The parents shall be held primarily liable
1. Family code- Parents and other
with respect to damages ex delicto
persons exercising parental authority
caused by children 9 years of age or
of unemancipated child living in the
under, or over 9 but under 15 years of age
company of your parents;
who acted without discernment; and, with
regard to the children over 9 but under 15
2. Civil code- parents and guardians
years of age acted with discernment, or 15
for children and wards below 21
years or over but under 21 years of age,
years of age
such primary liability shall be imposed
- Parents with respect to
pursuant to Article 2180 of NCC.
damages ex delicto caused by
children over 9 years of age but
19 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
under 15 years of age who acted
with discernment. Article 2180(4). The owners and managers
of an establishment or enterprise are
3. Revised penal code- parents with likewise responsible for damages caused
respect to damages ex delicto by their employees in the service of the
caused by 9 years of age or below, branches in which the latter are employed
or 9 years but under 15 years who or on the occasion of their functions.
acted without discernment. Article 2180(5). Employers shall be liable for
the damages caused by their employees
GUARDIANS and household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks, even though
Art. 2180 (c). The obligation imposed by the former are not engaged in any
Article 2176 is demandable not only for business or industry.
one's own acts or omissions, but also for
Paragraphs 4 & 5 is the legal basis of the
those of persons for whom one is
liability of the employer.
responsible.
xxx  Par. 4 is the basis if the employer is
Guardians are liable for damages caused engaged in business.
by the minors or incapacitated persons
The employer is liable if the
who are under their authority and live in
employee is in the service of the
their company.
branches or is acting in the occasion
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person
of his function.
causing damage has no parents or
guardian, the minor or insane person shall  Par. 5 is the basis if not engaged in
be answerable with his own property in an business.
action against him where a guardian ad
litem shall be appointed. The employer is liable if the
employee is in the performance of
Dean: If there is no property, it’s better not his assigned task.
to sue the child because it will be just a
ON THE OCCASION OF EMPLOYEE’S
waste of money and other resources.
FUNCTION; meaning
EMPLOYER Q: Is going to and from the employee’s
workplace considered to be on the
Can either be under: occasion of employee’s function?
1. Art. 2180 of New Civil Code A: Apply the Special Benefit Rule.
2. Art. 103 of Revised Penal Code
3. Provision involving a Common SPECIAL BENEFIT RULE
Carrier Under such rule, it will only be considered
as done on the occasion of employee’s
TN: The importance to differentiate these
function if the employer has derived some
provisions is for one to know what defenses
special benefit.
to raise.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER ART. 2180 OF Getting to the workplace is ordinarily the
CIVIL CODE employee’s personal problem. Therefore,
20 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
not part of the services an employee “Plaintiff vs. “People vs.
would render to the employer. If an Employer”; Employee”;
employee then travels to work using a Employee need not Employer may be
company issued vehicle, it is more of a be impleaded as he held subsidiarily
benefit given to such employee than it is not an liable (file a motion).
being of benefit to the employer. Hence, indispensable party.
not done on the occasion of one’s
functions. If there is conviction and at the same time
damages to be awarded under Article
It can be however be considered a special
benefit to the employer when the 103, judgment will be enforced by a
motion for issuance of a writ of execution.
employee is using a company issued
This is a writ directed to a sheriff to satisfy
vehicle to attend a meeting with a client
the judgment through the properties of the
during lunch break. As such, the employer
accused.
may be held liable as it is on the occasion
of the employee’s functions. Q: If the civil aspect is returned unsatisfied
because of the insolvency of judgment
TN: Without such special benefit, the use of
debtor, what should be done next?
the company issued vehicle alone does
A: File a motion to hold the employer
not make the act done on the occasion of
subsidiarily liable under Art. 103.
the employee’s functions.
WHAT TO ALLEGE IN THE MOTION?
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY UNDER ARTICLE 103 OF
THE REVISED PENAL CODE 1. Employer is engaged in some kind of
industry;
2. That the employee has committed
Art. 103, Revised Penal Code. Subsidiary
an act in the discharge of his
civil liability of other persons. — The
function; and
subsidiary liability established in the next
3. The employee is insolvent.
preceding article shall also apply to
employers, teachers, persons, and Q: How do you show that the employee is
corporations engaged in any kind of insolvent?
industry for felonies committed by their A: Sheriff’s report indicating that the writ is
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or returned unsatisfied since the judgment
employees in the discharge of their duties. debtor/accused is insolvent.
ARTICLE 2180 OF THE NCC vs. ARTICLE 103
ENGAGED IN SOME KIND OF INDUSTRY;
OF THE RPC
meaning
ARTICLE 2180 OF THE ARTICLE 103 OF THE
NCC RPC In this case of Solidum vs people, SC has
Employer is liable Employer must have defined for us what is meant by the phrase
regardless of been engaged in “engaged in some kind of industry”. It is
whether it is some kind of an defined as “any department, branch of
engaged in business industry or business art, occupation or business that employs
or not. in order to be held labor and capital". The employer must
liable have been earning some profits from it. In
Vicarious liability Subsidiary liability this case, the employer of Dr. Solidum, the
21 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
hospital, was a non-stock, non-profit qualifications, experience and
institution. However, it does not mean that service record. These facts must be
the establishment is not earning profits. It is shown by concrete proof including
still earning profits, but are not distributed. documentary evidence. Oral
There must be some expectation of profit. testimony, which tends to prove that
the employer had examined all
Q: In this motion, the employer is being
these, is not enough. Such testimony
brought for the first time and holding him
has to be testified on AND also
liable totally. How does this not offend due
supported by the corresponding
process?
documents.
A: There is no violation of due process since
by bringing this motion, there will be a
2. DUE DILIGENCE IN THE SUPERVISION
hearing on such motion and in which case,
the employer can set up defenses.
There has to be showing that the
employer formulated standard
Q: If all the elements (the allegations to be
operating procedure, monitored the
proved in the motion, as discussed earlier)
implementation of those SOPs or
are present, what happens?
policies and imposed sanction in the
A: The liability becomes automatic. The
event of any breach or violations.
employer cannot claim that there is denial
These should be established by
of due process because the employer is
documentary evidence. Caution
given a day in court to set up defenses
them on just issuing oral warning or
and to prove that not all the elements are
reprimand. Everything has to be in
present.
writing like in a memo.
Q: Can the defense of due diligence in the TN: The court requires documents because
selection and supervision be raised in this testimonies can be biased.
action?
CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE
A: NO. This is not one of the defenses that
Article 1759, New Civil Code. Common
can be set up under Art. 103. Anchor your
carriers are liable for the death or injuries to
defenses that not all the elements are
passengers through the negligence or
present. Defense of due diligence in the
wilful acts of the former’s employees,
selection and supervision can only be
although such employees may have
raised as a defense in an action under Art.
acted beyond the scope of their authority
2180.
or in violation of the orders of the common
carriers. This liability of the common carriers
Under Article 2180, It must be proved that
does not cease upon proof that they
the employer has exercised due diligence
exercised all the diligence of a good
in both the selection and supervision of the
father of a family in the selection and
employee. How is this satisfied?
supervision of their employees.
1. DUE DILIGENCE IN THE SELECTION
Illustration: For a certain distance, the usual
The court said that the employer travel time is 3 hours. However, the driver
must scrutinize and examine the travelled such distance for only for 2.5
employee’s application, hours. This will give an impression that the
22 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
driver had broken all possible prescribed b. If so, what is the nature of the
speed limit. employer’s liability? And how may
the civil damages be satisfied? 3%
The defense of having a policy and the
consequent violation of the employee of BAR QUESTION 2013 (8%)
these orders is not available to the
PhilAsia air flight 916 was on schedule flight
common carrier. Even if the employee has
from Manila when they crashed as it
exceeded his authority, the common
landed in CDO airport. The pilot
carrier will still be held liable. This is as
miscalculated the plane’s approach and
opposed to Article 2180 of the New Civil
the plane undershot the runway. Of 150
Code, wherein having these guidelines /
people on board 10 passengers died at
policies may be a defense.
the crash scene. Of the 10, one of the
TN: The civil code is explicit in saying that passengers managed to leave the plane
the defense of diligence of good father of but was run over by an ambulance.
family in the selection and supervision of Another was an airline employee who had
employees cannot be used, precisely a free ride who was not in the passenger
because that defense is only for Art 2180. manifesto. It appears from the civil
aeronautics investigation authority that the
DEFENSE OF THE COMMON CARRIER
co-pilot who has the control of the ring has
 Exercise of extraordinary diligence.
less than the required flight and landing
time experience and should not have the
BAR QUESTION 2015 (7%)
plane in control at that time. He was
A driver of a bus owned by company Z, run allowed to fly as the co-pilot because of
over a boy who died instantly. A criminal the scarcity of the pilot because the
case for reckless imprudence resulting to Philippine Pilot have been recruited by
homicide was filed against the driver. He foreign airlines and improved their flying
was convicted and was ordered to pay 2 terms and wages so the newer and less
million for actual and moral damages to trained pilots are being locally deployed.
the parents of the boy who was an honor The main pilot on the other hand, had a
student and had a bright future. Without very high level of blood alcohol at the time
even trying to find out if the driver has of the crash. You are part of the team for
assets or means to pay the awarded the victims to handle the case, as a group
damages, the parents of the boy filed a in your case conference the following
civil action against the bus company to questions came out:
make it directly liable for the damages.
1. Explain the causes of action legally
a. Will the action prosper? If the parents possible under the given facts
of the boy do not wish to file against the airline and the pilots.
separate civil action against the bus Who will be impleaded in these
company, can they still make the causes of action?
bus company liable if the driver
A: The cause of action is breach of
cannot pay the awarded damages?
contract of carriage. Implead Phil Asia as
4%
common carrier. File a case against the
pilots for criminal case of reckless
imprudence. Insolvency is the requirement
23 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018
before Phil Asia may be impleaded by a  CTC: When the basis of suit is
mere motion through Article 103 of the contract of carriage, the defense is
RPC. extraordinary diligence.
 UTI: If the basis of suit is quasi-delict,
2. How will you handle the case
defense of good father of family in
against the driver of the ambulance
the selection and supervision is
who ran over one of the passengers?
applicable.
What governs the ambulance
 And as to the basis of the criminal
driver? Quasi-delict. Who will be
case against the driver, the elements
impleaded? The driver of the
of Art 103 of the RPC will be
ambulance
applicable.
A: The passenger who was run over by an
ambulance may file a case against Phil
Asia and the owner of the hospital under
quasi-delict.
BAR QUESTION 2009 (9%)

One of the passenger buses owned by


Continental Transit Corporation (CTC),
plying its usual route, figured in a collision
with another bus owned by Universal
Transport, Inc. (UTI). Among those injured
inside the CTC bus were: Romeo, a stow
away; Samuel, a pickpocket then in the
act of robbing his seatmate when the
collision occurred; Teresita, the bus driver’s
mistress who usually accompanied the
driver on his trips for free; and Uriel, holder
of a free riding pass he won in a raffle held
by CTC.
(a) Will a suit for breach of contract of
carriage filed by Romeo, Samuel, Teresita,
and Uriel against CTC prosper? Explain.
(3%)
(b) Do Romeo, Samuel, Teresita, and Uriel
have a cause of action for damages
against UTI? Explain. (3%)

(c) What, if any, are the valid defenses that


CTC and UTI can raise in the respective
actions against them? Explain. (3%) (Only
latter C was answered)
A: Valid defenses of CTC and UTI:

24 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES | DEAN JOAN LARGO | MIDTERMS | A.Y. 2017-2018