REVIEWER
PART ONE:
TORT AND QUASI- DELICT
References:
i. Intent of the Framers was to reject the term tort in favor of the term
quasi-delict.
- It was agreed to use if the term quasi-delict and rejected the
term tort because the former best describe the civil action
for damages envisioned under the proposed code. The latter
was rejected because the common law concept overed far
more that what the Commission envisioned.
- The original plan was to exclude intentional and malicious
acts from the coverage of the concept because these are to
be governed by the Revised Penal Code.
ii. Civil Code Test
Article 1902 Old Civil Coder (cf Article 2176 Civil Code)
Art. 1902 of the old Civil code the exact definition/description of a tort.
- a tort is a Wrong
- A tortuous act is the commission or omission of an act by
one, without right, whereby another receives some injury,
directly or indirectly, in person, property or reputation.
- Court is saying that intent is not an element of tort
d. Elements of Tort
Case: The Hepatitis B Surface Antigen Test. Mali yung result ng test ni Garcia.
-The court ruled that violation of a statutory duty is negligence. Where the law
imposes upon a person the duty to do something, his omission or non-
performance will render him liable to whoever may be injured thereby.
- Garcia failed to comply with the standards because he conducted the test
without the supervision of the pathologist and released the result without
authorization of the latter.
Case: Yung nag ka sore eyes tapos nabulag ang isang mata ni Lucas.
- For lack of a specific law geared towards the type of negligence committed by
members of the medical profession, such claim for damages is almost always
anchored on the alleged violation of Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
In medical negligence cases, also called medical malpractice suits, there exist
a physician-patient relationship between the doctor and the victim. But just
like any other proceeding for damages, four essential (4) elements i.e., (1)
duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation,[76] must be
established by the plaintiff/s. All the four (4) elements must co-exist in order
to find the physician negligent and, thus, liable for damages.
- There is breach of duty of care, skill and diligence, or the improper
performance of such duty, by the attending physician when the patient is
injured in body or in health [and this] constitutes the actionable malpractice.
[80] Proof of such breach must likewise rest upon the testimony of an expert
witness that the treatment accorded to the patient failed to meet the standard
level of care, skill and diligence which physicians in the same general
neighborhood and in the same general line of practice ordinarily possess and
exercise in like cases.
- Even so, proof of breach of duty on the part of the attending physician is
insufficient, for there must be a causal connection between said breach and
the resulting injury sustained by the patient. Put in another way, in order
that there may be a recovery for an injury, it must be shown that the injury
for which recovery is sought must be the legitimate consequence of the wrong
done; the connection between the negligence and the injury must be a direct
and natural sequence of events, unbroken by intervening efficient causes;
[81] that is, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. And the
proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in the natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.[82]
- Just as with the elements of duty and breach of the same, in order to
establish the proximate cause [of the injury] by a preponderance of the
evidence in a medical malpractice action, [the patient] must similarly use
expert testimony, because the question of whether the alleged professional
negligence caused [the patients] injury is generally one for specialized expert
knowledge beyond the ken of the average layperson; using the specialized
knowledge and training of his field, the experts role is to present to the
[court] a realistic assessment of the likelihood that [the physicians] alleged
negligence caused [the patients] injury.
Ocean Builders v. Spouses Cubacub, G.R. No. 150898, April 13, 2011 (see
Bersamin dissent)
- The court ruled that Hao (General Manager) was not negligent for he complied
with his obligation under article 161 of the Labor Code.
- This is interesting because negligence does not appear to be relevant in the
context if the elements identified by the court nor in the violation of the legal
provision
- Regardless of whether the provision was violated negligently or not, the
violations would be liable for damages. Negligence of the employer would only
be relevant if the action was based on quasi-delict.
1. Historical Background
2. Nature
3. Governing Provisions
Article 1162
- Quasi-delicts are primarily governed by 19 articles of the civil code
and by special laws.
- 19 articles of the civil code (Arts. 2176-2194)
4. Definition
5. Scope
a. Intentional acts
Article 2176
Cangco v. Manila Railroad, G.R. No. 12191. October 14, 1918
- the liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always
based upon a voluntary act or omission which, without
willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has
caused damage to another. (Cangco vs Manila Railroad)
- A voluntary act- merely referring to an act freely done or
without compulsion.
- Willful intent- an act done for the purpose of harm.
b. Damage to Property
6. Elements
Article 2176
1. Act or Omission
2. Damage to another
3. Fault or negligence; and
4. No pre-existing contractual relation
Andamo v. IAC G.R. No. 74751 November 6, 1990
1. Damage to the plaintiff
2. Negligence by act or omission of the defendant, or by some other
person for whose act the defendant must respond; and
3. Connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.
1. Distinct concepts
-Torts under Philippine law are those causes of action entitling a person to
remedies, mainly in the form of damages, for the injury caused to him.
-A quasi-delict is the concept dfined under article 1276 of the Civil Code. It is a
cause of action whereby one who is injured by an act or omission of another, there
being fault or negligence, is entitled to an award of damages, there being no pre-
existing contractual relationship between the parties
- Torts: A classification of several causes of action. It includes both negligence acts
and acts with intent to harm.
-Quasi-delict: Is a single cause of action. Cover only negligent acts with no intent to
harm
2. Framework
-One way of looking is that a quasi-delict is a tort committed via negligence or a
quasi delict is a negligence tort.
- The Relationship may be represented by two circles, with quasi-delict as smaller
circle completely within the larger circle of tort.
- the court ruled that the case was a negligence suit brought under article 2176 of the
civil code to recover damages primarily from the petitioners as employers responsible
for their negligent driver pursuant to article 2180 of the civil code.
b. Burden of proof
Negligent act or omission (culpa aquillana)
- The burden of proof rests upon plaintiff to prove the
negligence.
- Negligence or the fault
Contractual undertaking (culpa contractual)
- Proof of the contract and its non-performance is sufficient
prima facie to warrant a recovery.
- All that the plaintiff had to present were proof of the
contract and its non-performance.
Article 2176
II. NEGLIGENCE
A. Concept of Negligence
Article 1173
- Article 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. Article 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174
are also applicable to a quasi-delict.
Article 1173
- Determining the diligence required Article 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.
- What determines the diligence required are the following:
1. The nature of the obligation; and
2. The circumstances of the persons, of the time and
of the place.
Article 1173
- 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.
B. Degrees of Negligence
C. Standard of conduct
TEST:
1. Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent
act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the
same situation? If not then he is guilty of
negligence.
2. Whether the actor disregarded the foreseeable
harm caused by his action.
Article 1173
Picart v. Smith G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918
- An automobile hit a horseman, who was on the wrong side
of the road. The horseman thought he did not have time to
get to the other side. The car passed by too close that the
horse turned its body across, with its head toward the
railing. Its limb was broken, and its rider was thrown off and
injured. The SC found the automobile driver negligent, since
a prudent man should have foreseen the risk in his course
and that he had the last fair chance to avoid the harm.
Doctrine: The test to determine the existence of negligence in
a particular case is: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same
situation? The law here in effect adopts the standard
suppose to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the
discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of
negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to
the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before
him. The law considers what would be reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence
and prudence and determines liability by that.
Notes: The Picart test is the most cited test of negligence. It
introduced the use of the fictitious person. It has the
markings of common law but because it uses the concept of
the discreet paterfamilias, later enshrined in the Civil Code
as the good father of a family, it is now a civil law test.
Sicam v. Jorge G.R. No. 159617. August 8, 2007
- Jorge pawned jewelry with Agencia de R. C. Sicam. Armed
men entered the pawnshop and took away cash and jewelry
from the pawnshop vault. Jorge demanded the return of the
jewelry. The pawnshop failed. The SC held Sicam liable for
failing to employ sufficient safeguards for the pawned goods.
It held that robbery, if negligence concurred, is not a
fortuitous event. Also, Article 2099 requires a creditor to take
care of the thing pledged with the diligence of a good father
of a family.
Doctrine: The diligence with which the law requires the
individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the
nature of the situation in which he is placed and the
importance of the act which he is to perform. Negligence,
therefore, 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. It is want of care required by the
circumstances.
Notes: The fictitious person is not the standard. It is his
conduct.
Corinthian Gardens v. spouses Tanjangco G.R. No. 160795. June 27, 2008
- The Cuasos built their house on a lot adjoining that owned
by the Tanjangcos. Their plan was approved by Corinthian
Gardens. It turned out, however, that the house built
encroached on the lot of the Tanjangcos. The SC found
Corinthian Gardens negligent for conducting only "table
inspections," when it should have conducted actual site
inspections, which could have prevented the encroachment.
Doctrine: A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be
merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and
may be one which creates a situation involving an
unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable
action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force of
nature. A negligent act is one from which an ordinary
prudent person in the actor's position, in the same or
similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable
risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to
do it in a more careful manner.
Notes: The test cited in the case was the Picart test.
3. Special Circumstances
4. Children
Casumpang v. Cortejo G.R. Nos.171127, 171217 & 171221 March 11, 2015
- Once a physician-patient relationship is established, the
legal duty of care follows. The doctor accordingly becomes
duty-bound to use at least the same standard of care that a
reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a medical
condition under similar circumstances.
Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, Inc. G.R. No. 191018 January 25, 2016
- The standard is based on the norm observed by other reasonably
competent members of the profession practicing the same field of
medicine. Because medical malpractice cases are often highly
technical, expert testimony is usually essential to establish: (1) the
standard of care that the defendant was bound to observe under the
circumstances; (2) that the defendant's conduct fell below the
acceptable standard; and (3) that the defendant's failure to observe
the industry standard caused injury to his patient.
- The expert witness must be a similarly trained and experienced
physician. Thus, a pulmonologist is not qualified to testify as to the
standard of care required of an anesthesiologist22 and an autopsy
expert is not qualified to testify as a specialist in infectious diseases.
Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if
the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence, prevented
the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been
found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the
next preceding two months. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions
of Article 2180 are applicable.
Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving
a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
1. Previous violation
Articles 2184
2. Simultaneous violations
Article 2185
Tison v. Sps. Pomasin G.R. No. 173180 August 24, 2012
- The court gave greater weight to the trial courts finding
of negligence on the part of the jitney driver and that
this was the proximate cause of the accident.
- We(SC) did not lose sight of the fact that at the time of the
incident, Jabon was prohibited from driving the truck due to
the restriction imposed on his drivers license, i.e.,
restriction code 2 and 3. As a matter of fact, Jabon even
asked the Land Transportation Office to reinstate his
articulated license containing restriction code 8 which would
allow him to drive a tractor-trailer. The Court of Appeals
concluded therefrom that Jabon was violating a traffic
regulation at the time of the collision.
Doctrine: The violation if the traffic code was not enough. Such violation
must be the proximate cause of the injury. It did not say that the
violation must be the proximate cause before the presumption could
arise.
- First of all, it has not been shown how the alleged negligence
of the Cimarron driver contributed to the collision between
the vehicles. Indeed, petitioner has the burden of showing a
causal connection between the injury received and the
violation of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. He
must show that the violation of the statute was the
proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it substantially
contributed thereto. Negligence, consisting in whole or in
part, of violation of law, like any other negligence, is without
legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of the
injury. 3 Petitioner says that "driving an overloaded vehicle
with only one functioning headlight during nighttime
certainly increases the risk of accident," 4 that because the
Cimarron had only one headlight, there was "decreased
visibility," and that the tact that the vehicle was overloaded
and its front seat overcrowded "decreased [its]
maneuverability," 5 However, mere allegations such as these
are not sufficient to discharge its burden of proving clearly
that such alleged negligence was the contributing cause of
the injury.
Note: the court ruled that article 2185 should not apply to
non-motorized vehicles, even by analogy. It said that there
was factual and legal basis that necessitated the distinction
under Article 2185, and to adopt Anonuevos thesis would
unwisely obviate this distinction.
Article 2188
Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous
weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the
possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business.
C. Common carriers
Article 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.
Article 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that
they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.
1. Definition
2. Statement of the Rule
Definition/statement of the rule. This doctrine is stated thus: Where the thing
which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant,
and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if
those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable
evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from want of care.
3. Elements
1. Occurrence of an injury and it does not occur out of normal course
of event, unless someone is negligent.
2. The thing which caused the injury was under control and
management of the defendant (exclusive control)
3. The occurrence was such in the ordinary course of things would not
happen if those who had control or management used proper care.
4. The absence of explanation by the defendant.
Josefa v. Manila Electric Co. G.R. No. 182705 July 18, 2014
-The present case satisfiesall the elements of res ipsa loquitur. It is very
unusual and extraordinary for the truck to hit an electricity post, an
immovable and stationary object, unless Bautista, who had the exclusive
management and control of the truck, acted with fault or negligence. We
cannot also conclude that Meralco contributed to the injury since it
safely and permanently installed the electricity post beside the street.
Thus, in Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp.,52 we imputed vicarious
responsibility to Luzon Stevedoring Corp. whose barge rammed the
bridge, also an immovable and stationary object. In that case, we found it
highly unusual for the barge to hit the bridge which had adequate
openings for the passage of water craft unless Luzon Stevedoring Corp.s
employee had acted with negligence.
Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that literally means "the thing or the
transaction speaks for itself." It is a maxim for the rule that the fact of
the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances,
may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make
out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and present a question of fact for
defendant to meet with an explanation. Where the thing that caused the
injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the
defendant or his servants; and the accident, in the ordinary course of
things, would not happen if those who had management or control used
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of a
sufficient, reasonable and logical explanation by defendant that the
accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's want of care.
This rule is grounded on the superior logic of ordinary human
experience, and it is on the basis of such experience or common
knowledge that negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of
the accident itself. Hence, the rule is applied in conjunction with the
doctrine of common knowledge.
However, much has been said that res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive
law and, as such, does not create orconstitute an independent or separate
ground of liability. Instead, it is considered as merely evidentiary or in the
nature of a procedural rule. It is regarded as a mode of proof, or a mere
procedural convenience.
Nature of a procedural rule, a rule of evience and not a rule of substantive law
and therefore does not create or constitute an independent or separate ground of
liability.
The rule, when applicable to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, is
not intended to and does not dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable
negligence on the part of the party charged. It merely determines and regulates
what shall be prima facie evidence thereof and facilitates the burden of plaintiff
of proving a breach of the duty of due care. [Layugan v. IAC, 1988; Batiquin v.
CA, 1996]
[I]t furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of producing
specific proof of negligence.[Ramos v. CA, 1999; Tan v. JAM Transit, 2009]
It is not for the defendant to explain or prove its defense to prevent the
presumption or inference from arising.
Evidence by the defendant of say, due care, comes into play only after the
circumstances for the application of the doctrine has been established. [DM
Consunji v. CA, 2001]
Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, Inc. G.R. No. 191018 January 25, 2016
Res ipsa loquitur is not applicable when the failure to observe due
care is not immediately apparent to the layman.
The petitioner cannot invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to shift the
burden of evidence onto the respondent. Res ipsa loquitur, literally, "the
thing speaks for itself;" is a rule of evidence that presumes negligence
from the very nature of the accident itself using common human
knowledge or experience.
The application of this rule requires: (1) that the accident was of a kind
which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) that the
instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the
exclusive: control of the person charged with negligence; and (3) that the
injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution from the injured person.38 The concurrence of these
elements creates a presumption of negligence that, if unrebutted,
overcomes the plaintiffs burden of proof.
Cayao- Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete G.R. No. 159132 December 18, 2008
Dr. Cayao-Lasam conducted a dilatation and curettage procedure (raspa)
on Ramolete. Almost a month after, she went back to the hospital. A dead
fetus was found in her womb. She underwent operations, which rendered
her incapable of bering a child. The SC absolved Dr. Cayao-Lasam, since
there was no expert testimony presented to the effect that she breached
her professional duties, and Ramolete herself failed to attend the follow-
up check-ups after the operation, which could have avoided the injury.
Doctrine: There are four elements involved in medical negligence cases:
duty, breach, injury and proximate causation. A physician is duty-bound
to use at least the same level of care that any reasonably competent
doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances.
Breach of this duty, whereby the patient is injured in body or in health,
constitutes actionable malpractice. As to this aspect of medical
malpractice, the determination of the reasonable level of care and the
breach thereof, expert testimony is essential.
Notes: The elements enumerated is the same as that for a tort. It,
therefore, shares the same problem as that of tort, that is, lack of
statutory basis. The requirement of expert testimony is understandable
in this case.
Lucas v. Tuao G.R. No. 178763 April 21, 2009
Lucas consulted Dr. Tuao his "sore eyes." He was prescribed a medicine.
Not long after, however, his sore eyes turned into a viral infection.
Maxitrol was then prescribed. The infection subsided. Upon discovery
that Maxitrol increased the chance of contracting glaucoma, he
consulted Dr. Tuao, who brushed it aside. His right eye became blind
because of glaucoma. On consultation to another physician, Lucas was
informed that his condition would require long-term care. The SC
absolved Dr. Tuao. It found that Lucas failed to discharge the burden of
proof by failing to present expert testimony to establish the standard of
care required, breach, and proximate causation, which requires expert
testimony.
Doctrine: Just like any other proceeding for damages, four essential
elements i.e., (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation,
must be established in medical negligence cases. In accepting a case, the
physician, for all intents and purposes, represents that he has the
needed training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons
practicing in the same field; and that he will employ such training, care,
and skill in the treatment of the patient. This standard level of care, skill
and diligence is a matter best addressed by expert medical testimony,
because the standard of care in a medical malpractice case is a matter
peculiarly within the knowledge of experts in the field.
Notes: The action was primarily based on Article 2176. However, instead
of using the three elements for quasidelict, the elements of the common-
law tort was used.
Ramos v. CA G.R. No. 124354 December 29, 1999
- For her cholecystectomy, the surgeon for Ramos was late,
and her anesthesiologist was incompetent. Something went
wrong during the intubation, that her nailbeds became
bluish. She had to be placed in a trendelenburg position, so
her brain can get enough oxygen. A respiratory machine was
rushed into the operating room. For lack of oxygen in her
brain, she went into a comatose condition. In the action for
damages, the SC held that the damage sustained presents a
case for the application of res ipsa loquitur. Brain damage
does not normally occur in a gall bladder operation in the
absence of negligence. The anesthesia was under the
exclusive control of the doctors. The patient was
unconscious, incapable of contributory negligence. The
presumption of negligence arose, and remained unrebutted.
- Doctrine: The injury incurred by petitioner Erlinda does not
normally happen absent any negligence in the
administration of anesthesia and in the use of an
endotracheal tube. The instruments used in the
administration of anesthesia, including the endotracheal
tube, were all under the exclusive control of Dr. Gutierrez
and Dr. Hosaka. Thus the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor can
be applied in this case. Res ipsa could apply in medical
cases. In cases where it applies, expert testimony can be
dispensed with.
- Notes: Expert testimony may be dispensed with when res
ipsa loquitur applies. There were proof of negligence in this
case. Nonetheless, the doctrine was still applied.