Barredo vs Garcia

There are two actions available for

parents of Garcia. One is under the
A100RPC wherein the employer is only
subsidiarily liable for the damages
arising from the crime thereby first
exhausting
the
properties
of
Fontanilla. The other action is under
A1903CC
(quasi-delict
or
culpa
aquiliana) wherein as the negligent
employer of Fontanilla, Barredo is held
primarily liable subject to proving that
he exercising diligence of a good
father of the family.

Elcano vs Hill

Article 2177, acquittal from an

accusation of criminal negligence,
whether on reasonable doubt or not,
shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil
action, not for civil liability arising from
criminal negligence, but for damages
due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa
aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a
double recovery, Article 2176, where
it refers to "fault or negligence,"
covers not only acts "not punishable
by law" but also acts criminal in
character, whether intentional and
voluntary or negligent.

Cinco vs Canonoy

Liability being predicated on quasidelict, the civil case may proceed as a

separate and independent civil action,
as specifically provided for in Art 2177
of the Civil Code.
The concept of quasi-delict, as
enunciated in Art 2176 of the Civil
Code, is so broad that in includes not
only injuries to persons but also
damage to property. It makes no
distinction
between
damage
to
persons on the one hand and
damage to property on the other.

Baksh vs CA

The existing rule is that a breach of

promise to marry per se is not an
actionable
wrong.
This
notwithstanding,
the
said
Code
contains a provision, Article 21, which
is designed to expand the concept of
torts or quasi-delict in this jurisdiction
by granting adequate
legal remedy
for the untold number of moral wrongs
which is impossible for human
foresight to specifically enumerate and
punish in the statute books.
Art.21 Any person who wilfully
causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall
compensate
the
latter
for
the
damage.
In the general scheme of the
Philippine legal system envisioned by
the
Commission
responsible
for
drafting
the
New
Civil
Code,
intentional and malicious acts, with
certain exceptions, are to be governed
by the Revised Penal Code while
negligent acts or omissions are to be
covered by Art.2176 CC. In between
these opposite spectrums are injurious
acts which, in the absence of Art.21,
would have been beyond redress.
Thus, Art.21 fills that vacuum. It is
even postulated that together with
Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code,
Art.21 has greatly broadened the
scope of the law on civil wrongs

Dulay vs CA

There is no justification for limiting the

scope of Article 2176 of the Civil Code
to acts or omissions resulting from
negligence. Well-entrenched is the
doctrine that article 2176 covers not
only acts committed with negligence,
but also acts which are voluntary and
intentional.
Under Article 2180 of the New Civil
Code as aforequoted, when an injury is
caused by the negligence of the

employee, there instantly arises a

presumption of law that there was
negligence on the part of the master
or employer either in the selection of
the servant or employee, or in
supervision over him after selection or
both. The liability of the employer
under Article 2180 is direct and
immediate; it is not conditioned upon
prior recourse against the negligent
employee and a prior showing of the
insolvency
of
such
employee.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the
private respondents to prove that they
exercised the diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection and
supervision of their employee.

Garcia vs Florido

An action based on quasi-delict may

be maintained independently from a
criminal action. By instituting a civil
action based on a quasi-delict, a
complainant may be deemed to
abandon his/her right to press
recovery for damages in the criminal
case. Undoubtedly an offended party
loses his right to intervene in the
prosecution of a criminal case, not
only when he has waived the civil
action or expressly reserved his right
to institute, but also when he has
actually instituted the civil action. For
by either of such actions his interest in
the criminal case has disappeared.

Andamo vs IAC

As held in In Azucena vs. Potenciano,

in quasi-delicts, "the civil action is
entirely independent of the criminal
case according to Articles 33 and 2177
of the Civil Code. There can be no
logical conclusion than this, for to
subordinate
the
civil
action
contemplated in the said articles to
the result of the criminal prosecution
whether it be conviction or acquittal
would render meaningless the
independent character of the civil

action and the clear injunction in

Article 31, that his action may proceed
independently
of
the
criminal
proceedings and regardless of the
result of the latter."
It must be stressed that the use of
one's
property
is
not
without
limitations. Article 431 of the Civil
Code provides that "the owner of a
thing cannot make use thereof in such
a manner as to injure the rights of a
third person. Moreover, adjoining
landowners
have
mutual
and
reciprocal duties which require that
each must use his own land in a
reasonable manner so as not to
infringe upon the rights and interests
of others.

Taylor vs Manila Electric

We are of opinion that under all the

circumstances of this case the
negligence of the defendant in leaving
the caps exposed on its premises was
not the proximate cause of the injury
received by the plaintiff. In order to
establish his right to a recovery, must
establish by competent evidence:

(1) Damages to the plaintiff.

(2) Negligence by act or omission of
which defendant personally, or some
person for whose acts it must
respond, was guilty.
(3) The connection of cause and
effect between the negligence and
the damage.

It is clear that the accident could not

have
happened
and
not
the
fulminating caps been left exposed at
the point where they were found, or if
their owner had exercised due care in
keeping them in an appropriate place;
but it is equally clear that plaintiff
would not have been injured had he
not, for his own pleasure and
convenience,
entered
upon
the
defendant's premises, and strolled
around thereon without the express
permission of the defendant, and had
he not picked up and carried away the
property of the defendant which he
found on its premises, and had he not
thereafter deliberately cut open one of
the caps and applied a match to its
contents.
We are satisfied that the plaintiff in
this case had sufficient capacity and
understanding to be sensible of the
danger to which he exposed himself
when he put the match to the contents
of the cap; that he was sui juris in the
sense that his age and his experience
qualified him to understand and
appreciate the necessity for the
exercise of that degree of caution
which would have avoided the injury
which resulted from his own deliberate
act; and that the injury incurred by
him must be held to have been the
direct and immediate result of his own
willful and reckless act, so that while it
may be true that these injuries would
not have been incurred but for the
negligence act of the defendant in
leaving the caps exposed on its
premises, nevertheless plaintiff's own
act was the proximate and principal
cause of the accident which inflicted
the injury.

Loadmasters
Brokerage

vs

Glodel

Both Glodel and Loadmasters were

negligent as the cargo failed to reach
its destination. Loadmasters failed to
ensure that its employees would not
tamper with the cargo. Glodel failed to
ensure that Loadmasters is sufficiently
capable of completing the delivery.
Glodel and Loadmasters are therefore
joint tortfeasors and are solidarily
liable to R&B Insurance.

Padilla vs CA

The SC, quoting Section 3 (C) of Rule

111 of the Rules of Court and various
jurisprudence
including
PNB
vs
Catipon, De Guzman vs Alvia, held
that extinction of the penal action
does not carry with it the extinction of
the civil, unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in the
final judgment that the facts from
which the civil action might arise did
not exist. In the case at bar, the
judgment of not guilty was based on
reasonable doubt. Since the standard
of proof to be used in civil cases is
preponderance of evidence, the court
express a finding that the defendants
offenses are civil in nature

Cruz vs CA

The elements of reckless imprudence

are:
(1) That the offender does or fails to
do an act; (2) That the doing or the
failure to do that act is voluntary;
(3) That it be without malice;
(4) That material damage results from
the reckless imprudence; and
(5) That there is inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the offender,

taking
into
consideration
his
employment or occupation, degree of
intelligence, physical condition, and
other
circumstances
regarding
persons, time and place.
WON has committed an "inexcusable
lack of precaution" in the treatment of
his patient is to be determined
according to the standard of care
observed by other members of the
profession in good standing under
similar circumstances bearing in mind
the advanced state of the profession
at the time of treatment or the present
state of medical science.
In
litigations
involving
medical
negligence, the plaintiff has the
burden of establishing appellant's
negligence and for a reasonable
conclusion of negligence, there must
be proof of breach of duty on the part
of the surgeon as well as a causal
connection of such breach and the
resulting death of his patient.

Philippine Rabbit vs People

The accused cannot be accorded the

right to appeal unless they voluntarily
submit to the jurisdiction of the court
or are otherwise arrested within 15
days from notice of the judgment
against them. While at large, they
cannot seek relief from the court, as
they are deemed to have waived the
appeal. Consequently, the judgment
against them will be final and
executory.
Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal
Code, employers are subsidiarily liable
for the adjudicated civil liabilities of
their employees in the event of the
latters insolvency. To allow employers
to dispute the civil liability fixed in a
criminal case would enable them to

amend, nullify or defeat a final

judgment rendered by a competent
court.

By the same token, to allow them to

appeal the final criminal conviction of
their employees without the latters
consent
would
also
result
in
improperly amending, nullifying or
defeating the judgment.
The decision convicting an employee
in a criminal case is binding and
conclusive upon the employer not only
with regard to the formers civil
liability, but also with regard to its
amount. The liability of an employer
cannot be separated from that of the
employee.

People vs Ligon

The Court is not convinced with moral

certainty that the guilt of the accused
Fernando Gabat has been established
beyond reasonable doubt. In our view,
the quantum of proof necessary to
sustain Gabat's conviction of so
serious a crime as robbery with
homicide has not been met in this
case. He is therefore entitled to
acquittal on reasonable doubt.
However, it does not follow that a
person who is not criminally liable is
also free from civil liability. While the
guilt of the accused in a criminal
prosecution must be established
beyond reasonable doubt, only a
preponderance of evidence is required
in a civil action for damages.
Article 29 of the Civil Code, which
provides that the acquittal of the
accused on the ground that his guilt

has
not
been
proved
beyond
reasonable doubt does not necessarily
exempt him from civil liability for the
same act or omission

Cangco vs Manila Railroad

In determining the question of

contributory negligence in performing
such act - that is to say, whether the
passenger
acted
prudently
or
recklessly - the age, sex, and physical
condition of the passenger are
circumstances necessarily affecting
the safety of the passenger, and
should be considered.
The employees of the railroad
company were guilty of negligence in
piling these sacks on the platform.
Their presence caused the plaintiff to
fall as he alighted from the train; and
that they constituted an effective legal
cause of the injuries sustained by the
plaintiff. It follows that the defendant
company is liable for the damage
unless recovery is barred by the
plaintiff's own contributory negligence.
Under the doctrine of comparative
negligence announced in the Rakes
case, if the accident was caused by
plaintiff's own negligence, no liability
is imposed upon defendant, whereas if
the
accident
was
caused
by
defendant's negligence and plaintiff's
negligence merely contributed to his
injury, the damages should be
apportioned
"The test by which to determine
whether the passenger has been
guilty of negligence in attempting to
alight from a moving railway train, is
that of ordinary or reasonable care. It
is to be considered whether an
ordinarily prudent person, of the age,
sex and condition of the passenger,
would have acted as the passenger

acted
under
the
circumstances
disclosed by the evidence. This care
has been defined to be, not the care
which may or should be used by the
prudent man generally, but the care
which a man of ordinary prudence
would
use
under
similar
circumstances, to avoid injury."
It is the Courts conclusion that the
conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking
to alight while the train was yet
slightly
under
way
was
not
characterized by imprudence and that
therefore he was not guilty of
contributory negligence.

Fores vs Miranda

Moral damages are not recoverable in

damage actions predicated on a
breach
of
the
contract
of
transportation, in view of Articles 2219
and 2220 of the new Civil Code, which
provide as follows:
"ART. 2219. Moral damages may be
recovered in the following and
analogous cases:
(1)
A criminal offense resulting in
physical injuries;
(2)
Quasi-delicts causing physical
injuries;
ART. 2220. Willful injury to property
may be a legal ground for awarding
moral damages if the court should find
that, under the circumstance, such
damages are justly due. The same rule
applies to breaches of contract where
the defendant acted fraudulently or in
bad faith."
Exception: with moral damages if:

defendant acted fraudulently or in

bad faith
result in the death of a passenger
in which case Article 1764 makes
the common carrier expressly
subject to the rule of Art. 2206,

that
entitles
the
spouse,
descendants and ascendants of the
deceased passenger to "demand
moral damages for mental anguish
by reason of the death of the
deceased"
The
difference
in
conditions,
defenses and proof, as well as the
codal concept of quasi-delict as
essentially
extra
contractual
negligence, compel us to differentiate
between action ex contractu, and
actions quasi ex delicto, and prevent
us from viewing the action for breach
of
contract
as
simultaneously
embodying an action on tort.

Fareast Bank vs CA

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission

causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to
pay for the damage done. Such fault
or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between
the parties, is called a quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.
The exception to the basic rule of
damages now under consideration is a
mishap resulting in the death of a
passenger, in which case Article 1764
makes the common carrier expressly
subject to the rule of Art. 2206, that
entitles the spouse, descendants and
ascendants of the deceased passenger
to "demand moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the
deceased. But the exceptional rule of
Art. 1764 makes it all the more
evident that where the injured
passenger does not die, moral
damages are not recoverable unless it
is proved that the carrier was guilty of
malice or bad faith. We think it is clear
that the mere carelessness of the
carrier's driver does not per se
constitute or justify an inference of
malice or bad faith on the part of the
carrier; and in the case at bar there is

no other evidence of such malice to

support the award of moral damages
by the Court of Appeals. To award
moral damages for breach of contract,
therefore, without proof of bad faith or
malice on the part of the defendant, as
required by Art. 2220, would be to
violate the clear provisions of the law,
and constitute unwarranted judicial
legislation.
A quasi-delict can be the cause for
breaching a contract that might
thereby permit the application of
applicable principles on tort
even
where there is a pre-existing contract
between
the
plaintiff
and
the
defendant
This
doctrine,
unfortunately, cannot improve private
respondents' case for it can aptly
govern only where the act or omission
complained of would constitute an
actionable tort independently of the
contract. The test (whether a quasidelict can be deemed to underlie the
breach of a contract) can be stated
thusly: Where, without a pre-existing
contract between two parties, an act
or omission can nonetheless amount
to an actionable tort by itself, the fact
that the parties are contractually
bound is no bar to the application of
quasi-delict provisions to the case.
Here, private respondents' damage
claim is predicated solely on their
contractual relationship; without such
agreement, the act or omission
complained of cannot by itself be held
to stand as a separate cause of action
or as an independent actionable tort.

Air France vs CA
Basahin mon a lang, haba e

PSBA vs CA

Although a school may not be liable

under Art. 2180 on quasi-delicts, it

may still be liable under the law on

contracts.
It is expressly mentioned in Art. 2180
that the liability arises from acts done
by pupils or students of the institution.
In this sense, PSBA is not liable. But
when an academic institution accepts
students for enrollment, the school
makes itself responsible in providing
their students with an atmosphere
that is conducive for learning.
Certainly, no student can absorb the
intricacies of physics or explore the
realm of arts when bullets are flying or
where there looms around the school
premises a constant threat to life and
limb.

Syquia vs CA

Parties are bound by the terms of their

contract, which is the law between
them. A contracting party cannot incur
a liability more than what is expressly
specified in his undertaking. It cannot
be extended by implication, beyond
the terms of the contract. (RCBC v CA)
Although a pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties does not
preclude the existence of a culpa
aquiliana, circumstances of the case
do not show negligence. The reason
for the boring of the hole was
explained by Henry Flores, Interment
Foreman, who said that: When the
vault was placed on the grave a hole
was placed on the vault so that water
could come into the vault because it
was raining heavily then because the
vault has no hole the vault will float
and the grave would be filled with
water.

Private respondent has exercised the

diligence of a good father of a family
in preventing the accumulation of
water inside the vault which would
have resulted in the caving in of earth
around the grave. Finding no evidence
of negligence, there is no reason to
award damages.

CALALAS VS MENDOZA

Distinction between culpa aquiliana or

culpa extracontractual, and culpa
contractual Quasi-delict, also known as
culpa
aquiliana
or
culpa
extra
contractual, has as its source the
negligence of the tortfeasor. On the
other hand, breach of contract or
culpa contractual is premised upon
the negligence in the performance
of a contractual obligation. In quasidelict, the negligence or fault should
be clearly established because it is the
basis of the action, whereas in breach
of contract, the action can be
prosecuted merely by proving the
existence of the contract and the fact
that the obligor, in this case the
common carrier, failed to transport his
passenger safely to his destination.

Doctrine of proximate cause applicable

only in quasi-delict, not in breach of
contract
The doctrine of proximate cause is
applicable only in actions for quasidelict, 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.

Herein, it is immaterialthat the

proximate cause of the collision
between the jeepney and the truck
was the negligence of the truck driver.

PNB vs FF Cruz

As we have often ruled, the banking

business is impressed with public trust.
[21]
A higher degree of diligence is
imposed on banks relative to the
handling of their affairs than that of an
ordinary business enterprise.[22] Thus, the
degree of responsibility, care and
trustworthiness expected of their officials
and employees is far greater than those
of ordinary officers and employees in
other enterprises.[23] In the case at bar,
PNB failed to meet the high standard of
diligence required by the circumstances
to prevent the fraud

Ocean Builders vs Sps. Cubacub

At all events, the alleged negligence of

Hao cannot be considered as the
proximate cause of the death of
Bladimir. An injury or damage is
proximately caused by an act or failure
to act, whenever it appears from the
evidence in the case that the act or
omission played a substantial part in
bringing about or actually causing the
injury or damage, and that the injury
or damage was either a direct result or
a reasonably probable consequence of
the act or omission.