XII.

TORTS AND DAMAGES

A. Torts
It is a civil wrong wherein one person’s conduct causes a compensable injury to the person, property or recognized
interest of another, in violation of a duty imposed by law.
1. Elements
The elements of a quasi-delict are:
(a) damages suffered by the plaintiff;
(b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must
respond;
(c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the
damages incurred by the plaintiff

2. Culpa aquiliana vs. culpa contractual vs. culpa criminal

3. Vicarious liability
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: PARENTS
Basis of vicarious liability of the parents (2005 BAR);
“Principal of Parental Liability”
This liability is made natural as a logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents exercising parental
authority which includes controlling, disciplining and instructing their children. In this jurisdiction the parent’s liability is
vested by law which assumes that when a minor or unemancipated child living with their parent, commits a tortious act,
the parents are
presumed negligent in the performance of their duty to supervise the children under their custody (Tamagro v. CA,G.R.
No. 85044, June 3, 1992).
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children
who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their
company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in
the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the
official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

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. (1903a)

4. Res ipsa loquitur (Doctrine of Common Knowledge)

The thing speaks for itself. Rebuttable presumption or inference that defendant was negligent, which
arises upon proof that instrumentality causing injury was in defendant’s exclusive control, and that the
accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in absence of negligence.
Resort to the doctrine may be allowed only when:
1. The accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant’s
negligence;
2. The accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the
person charged with the negligence complained of; and
3. The accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured (Josefa
v. MERALCO, G.R. No. 182705, July 18, 2014).

5. Last clear chance

-a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of
his opponent or the negligence of a third person which is imputed to his opponent, is considered in law solely
responsible for the consequences of the accident.
- applies only in a situation where the defendant, having the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and failed to
do so, becomes liable for all the consequences of the accident notwithstanding the prior negligence of the plaintiff.
- doctrine of discovered peril, humanitarian doctrine, doctrine of intervening negligence,
the “known danger rule” or the “rule of Davies vs. Mann,1”
Requisites:
1. Plaintiff is placed in danger by his own negligent acts and he is unable to get out from such situation by any
means;
2. Defendant knows that the plaintiff is in danger and knows or should have known that the plaintiff was
unable to extricate himself therefrom; and
3. Defendant had the last clear chance or opportunity to avoid the accident through the exercise of ordinary care but
failed to do so, and the accident occurred as a proximate result of such failure

6. Damnum absque injuria

It means damage without injury. One who merely exercises one’s rights does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable for
damages

- If damage results from a person’s exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria1
Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and damages are
the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered
There can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty.
In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone

B. Proximate cause
Proximate cause has been defined as: “. . . ‘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

C. Negligence
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do [Layugan v. IAC, G.R. No. 73998
(1988)].
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the
time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201,
paragraph 2, shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that
which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. (1104a)

1. Standard of care

2. Presumptions

D. Damages
1. General provisions
2. Kinds of damages
3. In case of death