TORTS DOCTRINES

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Sources of obligations under Philippine law

- Civil Code
o Articles 1156 to 1162, and 2176
Memorize: Articles 1157 and 2176

- Review: Causes of action (Rules of Court)

B. Quasi-delict distinguished from other sources of

obligations

- Quasi-delict v. Breach of contract

o Cases

Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil. 768 (1918)

o From this article two things are apparent: (1) That when an injury is
caused by the negligence of a servant or 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 the selection, or both; and
(2) that that presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and
consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the
employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and
supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of
a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.
o On the other hand, the liability of masters and employers for
the negligent acts or omissions of their servants or agents,
when such acts or omissions cause damages which amount to
the breach of a contract, is not based upon a mere presumption
of the master's negligence in their selection or control, and
proof of exercise of the utmost diligence and care in this regard
does not relieve the master of his liability for the breach of his
contract.
o As a general rule * * * it is logical that in case of extra- contractual
culpa, a suing creditor should assume the burden of proof of its
existence, as the only fact upon which his action is based; while on the
contrary, in a case of negligence which presupposes the existence of a
contractual obligation, if the creditor shows that it exists and that
it has been broken, it is not necessary for him to prove the
negligence.
o Not necessary for the plaintiff to prove the negligence of
defendant in a breach of contract
o The fundamental distinction between obligations of this character and
 those which arise from contract, rests upon the fact that in cases of
non-contractual obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or
omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas in contractual
relations the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the
voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the
contractual relation.
o These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say, the
mere act that a person is bound to another by contract does not
relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person.

Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 (1966)

o And this, because, although the relation of passenger and carrier is
"contractual both in origin and nature" nevertheless "the act that
breaks the contract may be also a tort".
o There must be bad faith in order to collect moral damage in a
breach of contract action

Singson v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. L-24837; 23 SCRA 1117
(1968)
o No moral damages because there is no bad faith on the part of the
bank.
o They tried to fix everything right away.

Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

84698, February 4, 1992
o Using the test of Cangco, supra, the negligence of the school would
not be relevant absent a contract. In fact, that negligence becomes
material only because of the contractual relation between PSBA and
Bautista. In other words, a contractual relation is a condition sine qua
non to the school's liability. The negligence of the school cannot
exist independently on the contract, unless the negligence
occurs under the circumstances set out in Article 21 of the Civil
Code.

Fabre v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111127, July 26, 1996

o A single act or omission may give rise to multiple causes of action

LRTA v. Navidad
o A single act may also have multiple defendants (LRTA Case)
o Breach of K= LRT
o QD= Security Agency
o QD= Security Guard
 o The premise for an employers liability is negligence or fault on the
part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can
then be made liable on the basis of the presumption that the employer
failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of
its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by
showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee.
o A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same
act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual
and the other in culpa aquillana.
o When an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself
constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract
existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been
breach by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
o Duty of a common carrier to provide safety for its passengers so
obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the
passenger are within its premises and where they ought to be in
pursuance to the contract of carriage.

- Quasi-delict v. Delicts
o Revised Penal Code
Articles 100 and 365

o Cases

Barredo v. Garcia

o Authorities support that the proposition that a quasi-delict or

culpa aquillana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code,
with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart
and independent from a delict or crime.
o The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability
arising from a crime under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or
create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under
articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. (old civ code yan)
Crime Quasi- delict
Affect public interest Only private concern
Penal code punishes or corrects the Indemnify; repairs damage
criminal act
Punished only if there is penal law Includes all acts in w/c any kind of
fault or negligence intervenes

Elcano v. Hill

o Reiteration of Barredo case

 o A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act,
whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or
acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is
actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores,
and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of
the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.
o the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only
and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the
criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has
been committed by the accused.

II. QUASI-DELICT

A. Elements

- Cases

Andamo v. IAC

o The nature of an action filed in court is determined by the facts alleged

in the complaint as constituting the cause of action.
o Elements: (a) damage 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

Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc.

o In quasi- delict, negligence is direct, substantive and independent,

while in breach of contract, negligence is merely incidental to the
performance of the contract or obligation
o Burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of the
elements of QD.

Lucas v. Tuano

o Elements of quasi-delict in relation to medical malpractice (a) duty, (b)

breach, (c) injury and (d) proximate causation
o A physician is under a duty to the patient to exercise the degree 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.
o The physician has the duty to use at least the same level of
care that any other reasonably competent physician would use
to treat the condition under the similar cirmcumstances.
 o This standard level of care, skill and diligence is a matter
addressed by expert medical testimony

Casumpang v. Cortejo(dengue case)

o Medical Negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) inury (4) proximate
causation
o Duty- standard behavior that imposes restrictions on ones
conduct; requires proof of professional relationship between the
physician and the agent.
Physician-agent rel is create when a patient engages the
services of a physician and the latter accepts or agrees to
provide care to the patient.
o Breach- occurs when the doctor fails to comply with, or
improperly performs his duties under professional standards
o Injury- resulted from the breach
o Proximate causation- when it appears, based on the evidence
and the expert testimony, that the negligence played an integral
part in causing the injury or damage, and that the injury or
damage was either a direct result, or a reasonably probable
consequence of the physicians negligence.
o In our jurisdiction, the criterion remains to be the expert witness
special knowledge experience and practical training that qualify
him/her to explain highly technical medical matters to the Court.
o Standard of diligence must be proven on the factual and legal basis
o Factual- provide the standard of diligence, which requires expert
witness
o Legal- the court will still decide whether or not the defendant
met the required standard of diligence
o Experts Testimony- does not need to be in the same specialization as
the tortfeasor; as long as he/she has a special knowledge
o Standard of care of attending physician and resident physician
is the same.

B. No Double Recovery Rule

- Civil Code
o Articles 1161, 2176 and 2177
Memorize Article 2177

- Cases

Joseph v. Bautista
o A cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or
omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary
rights. It is true that a single act or omission can be violative of
various rights at the same time, as when the act constitutes juridically
a violation of several separate and distinct legal obligations. However,
 where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of
action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated
belonging to one person. (better rule is that a single action can
give rise to 1 or more cause of action)

Padau v. Robles (cab accident, killing a kid)

o Civil liability coexists with criminal responsibility. In negligence cases,
the offended party has the option between an action for enforcement
of civil liability based on culpa criminal and action for recovery of
damages based on culpa aquiliana.

Atlantic Gulf v. CA
o In this case, there were two causes of action arising from two different
acts. (ruination of the land and usage of the land as depot or parkin)

Lim v. Kou Co (cement

o A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may
give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender- 1.
Delictarising from the criminal offense; 2. Independent civil liability
that may be pursued independently of the criminal proceeding.
o Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil
liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue the
two types if civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without
offending the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.
subject to prohibition on double recovery

C. Person/s liable; nature of liability

- Civil Code
o Article 2194 (Memorize)

- Cases

PNCC v. CA (sugarcane on the road)

o 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 do. It also refers to the conduct which
create undue risk of harm to another, the failure to observe that
degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances justly
demand, whereby that other person suffers injury.
o Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the
admonition born of this provision, is always necessary before
negligence can be held to exist.
o It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring with one or more
efficient causes other than plaintiffs is the proximate cause of
the injury. Accordingly, where several causes combine to
produce injuries, a person is not relieved from liability because
 he is responsible for only one of them, it being sufficient that
the negligence of the person charged with injury is an efficient
cause without which the injury would not have resulted to as
great an extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the
person injured.
o Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions
of two or more persons, although acting independently, are in
combination with the direct and proximate cause of a single
injury to a third person, it is impossible to determine in what
proportion each contributed to the injury and either of them is
responsible for the whole injury.

Ruks Konsult v. Adworld (billboard battle)

o When several causes producing an injury are concurrent and
each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not
have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the
causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the
responsible persons although under the circumstances of the
case, it may appear that one of them was more culpable, and
that he duty owed by them to the injured person was not same.
o No actors negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because
it does not exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrong doer is
responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his act were the
sole cause of the injury.

Chan, Jr. v. Iglesia ni Cristo (septic tank, hidden treasure)

o As a general rule, joint tortfeasors are all the persons who
command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance,
cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who
approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit.

Perea v. Zarate (school bus hit by a train)

o Test for a common carrier: whether the undertaking is a part of the
activity engaged in by the carrier that he has held out to the general
public as his business or occupation.
o (a) engaged in transporting passengers generally as business,
not just casual occupation; (b.) undertaking to carry passengers
over established roads by the method which the business is
conducted; (c.) transporting students for a fee
o Although the basis of the right to relief of the Zarates against
the Parenas was distinct from the basis of the Zaratess right to
relief against the PNR, they nonetheless could be held jointly
and severally by virtue of their respective negligence
combining to cause the death of Aaron.
o They were considered tortfeasor

Cerezo v. Tuazon
 o The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-
delict is solidary. Where the obligation of the parties is solidary, either
of the parties is indispensable, and the other is not even a necessary
party because complete relief is available from either.

III. Negligence

III. NEGLIGENCE

A. Concept

- Civil Code
o Articles 2178, 1172, 1173, and 1733
Memorize: Articles 1172 to 1174

- Cases

Picart v. Smith
o Test to determine the existence of negligence: Did the defendant in
doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution
which and ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
o The question as to what constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a
given situation must of course be always determined in the light of
human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular
case.
o Test of foreseeability: Could a prudent man in the case under
consideration foresee harm as a result of the course actually pursued?
o To know what a reasonable prudent man would have
done.
o Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of
the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another
was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct or
guarding against its consequences.
o It will be noted that the negligent acts of two parties were not
contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant succeeded
the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval.
o Under these circumstances the law is that the person who has
the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails
to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference
to the prior negligence of the other party.
While contributory negligence does not constitute a bar to
recovery, it could be received in evidence to reduce the
damages.

US v. Bonifacio (deaf mute hit by a train)

o This does not mean that in every case in which one accidentally injures
or kills another he is criminally liable therfor, if at the moment he
 happens to be guilty of a violation of some petty regulation. The injury
or death must have resulted from some imprudence or negligence on
his part. True it need only be slight negligence, if accompanied by the
violation of the regulations, but the relation of cause and effect must
exist between the negligence or imprudence of the accused and the
injury inflicted. If it appears that the injury in no wise resulted
from the violation of the regulations, or negligent conduct of
the accused, he incurs no criminal liability under the provisions
of this article.

Cusi v. PNR (Cusi cross the rail road and was hit by the train)
o Jurisprudence recognizes that if warning devices are installed in
railroad crossings, the travelling public has the right to rely on such
warning devices to put them on their guard and take the necessary
precautions before crossing the tracks.

Wright v. Manila Electric (drunk calesa driving)

o It is the general rule that it is immaterial whether a man is drunk or
sober if no want of ordinary care or prudence can be imputed to him,
and no greater degree of care is required to be exercised by an
intoxicated man for his own protection than by a sober one. If ones
conduct is characterized by a proper degree of care and prudence, it is
immaterial whether he is drunk or sober.

People v. Delos Santos (a truck hit several PNP while jogging)

o Test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act
whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another
is this: Could a prudent man in the position of the person to whom
negligence, is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law
imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to take
precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the failure to
do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed
by the ignoring of the admonition born of this prevision is always
necessary before negligence can be held to exist.
o Article 365 must consider the ff: (1) employment or occupation; (2)
his degree of intelligence; (3) his physical condition and (4) other
circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

Jarco Marketing v. CA (counter fell to a six year old child that caused her
death)
o Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot
exist with the other. Accident occurs when the person concerned is
exercising ordinary care, which is not caused by fault of any person
and which could not have been prevented by any means suggested by
common prudence.
o Below 9 years old, conclusively presumed to be incapable negligence
(old law)
Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan (Petitioner owns 2 tanks that looks like a
pool)
o Doctrine of attractive nuisance: One who maintains on his premises
dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to
attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable
to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is
technically a trespasser in the premises.
o Exception: If you put, attractive improvements in a pool or
artificial bodies of water

Sarmiento v. Cabrido (precious diamonds got broken)

o Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay and those who in any manner contravene the
tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
o GR: Moral damages not recoverable in an action for breach of contract
o Exception: when there is bad faith or gross negligence
o The use of the wrong equipment of the goldsmith, who had 40 years of
experience, amounted to gross negligence.= bad faith

Francisco v. Chemical Bulk (diesel bought from unauthorized person)

o One who is physically disabled is required to use the same degree of
care that a reasonably careful person who has the same physical
disability would use.
o They also considered the long experience of the blind person

Pacis v. Morales (gun store incident)

o Firearms should be stored unloaded and separate from ammunition
when the firearms are not needed for ready-access defensive use.
With more reason, guns accepted by the store for repair should not be
loaded precisely because they are defective and may cause an
accidental discharge such as what happened in this case.
o Diligence is based on a PNP circular.

Makati Shangrila v. Harper (foreign engineer killed in the hotel in his room)
o The hotel business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the
public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for their
guests but also security to the persons and belongings of their guest.
we hold that there is much greater reason to apply the same if not
greater degree of care and responsibility when the lives and personal
safety of their guests are involved.
o Since 5 star hotel= 5 star security

Consolidated Bank v. CA
o The law imposes on banks high standards in view of the fiduciary
nature of banking. Sec 2 of RA 8791 declares that the State recognizes
 the fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of
integrity and performance.
o Fiduciary relationship means that the banks obligation to observe high
standards of integrity and performance is deemed written into every
deposit agreement between a bank and its depositor.
o The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are
negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of
the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable
with the loss.

PNB v. Santos
o Plaintiffs are not client of the bank= the more they have to be
careful if not client
o The contractual relationship between banks and their depositors is
governed by the Civil Code provisions on simple loan. Once a person
makes a deposit of his or her money to the bank, he or she is
considered to have lent the bank that money. The bank becomes his
or her debtor, and he or she becomes the creditor of the bank, which
is obligated to pay him or her on demand.
o The public reposes its faith and confidence upon banks, such that even
the humble wage-earner has not hesitated to entrust his lifes savings
to the bank of his choice, knowing that they will be safe in the custody
and will even earn some interest for him. This is why we have
recognized the fiduciary nature of the banks functions and attached
a special standard of diligence for the exercise of their functions.

Dela Torre v. Imbuido

o The critical and clinching factor in a medical negligence case is proof of
the causal connection between the negligence and the injuries. A
verdict in a malpractice action cannot be based on speculation or
conjecture. Causation must be proven within a reasonable
medical probability based upon competent expert testimony.

Li v. Soliman
o Battery- unauthorized physical contact
o Four essential elements to prove in a malpractice action based
upon the doctrine of informed consent:
(1) The physician had a duty to disclose material risks;
(2) S/he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks;
(3) As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the
patient consented to treatment s/he otherwise would not have
consented to and
(4) Plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment
o Exception to informed consent
1. Emergency
2. Incompetent patient
 3. Minor treatment

Adarne v. Aldaba
o An attorney is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence, but only
a reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the
character of the business he undertakes to do. He is not
answerable for every error or mistake, and will be protected as long as
he acts honestly and in good faith to the best of his skill and
knowledge.

Issac v. A.L. Amnen

o Principles governing the liability of common carrier: (1) the
liability of carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its
obligation. (2) a carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with
the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, having due
regard for all the circumstances; (3) a carrier is presumed to be
at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death of, injury
to, passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised
extraordinary diligence; and (4) the carrier is not an insurer
against all risk of travel
o Proximate cause of injury is the negligence the plaintiff so plaintiff
cannot recover.

Calvo v. UPCB
o To prove the exercise of diligence required, it must prove that it used
all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of
goods tendered for transport and that it exercised due care in the
handling thereof.

Rjdo Tape v. CA
o Standard care of public utility (utmost diligence)

B. Negligence as proximate cause

- Cases

Bataclan v. Medina (bus accident; bus got burnt)

o This is a breach of contract case but proximate cause was used
not to impute liability but to assess the extent of damages to
be recovered.
o That cause which in natural and continuous sequence unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause produces the injury and
without which the result would have not occurred.

Urbano v. IAC(bolo hacking incident)

o The rule is that the death of the victim must be direct, natural, and
logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the
 accused. And since we are dealing with criminal conviction, the proof
that the accused caused the victims death must convince a rational
mind beyond reasonable doubt.

Phoenix Construction (car hit a improperly parked truck)

o Foreseeable intervening Causes. If the intervening cause is one which
in ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated, or one
which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular
circumstances, the defendant may be negligent, among other reasons,
because of failure to guard against it; or the defendant may be
negligent only for that reason.
o Of more importance are the nature of the negligent act or omission of
each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such
act or omission for the rest of the community.

Austria v. CA (almost the same facts as Phoenix)

o But the reckless driving of the accused was judged to be the proximate
cause of the collision. As the court said That he had no opportunity to
avoid the collision is of his own making and this should not relieve him
of liability.

Umali v. Bacani (a child got electrocuted by a live wire)

o We cannot agree with petitioners theory that the parents negligence
constituted the proximate cause of the victims death because the real
proximate cause was the fallen live wire which posed a threat to life
and property on that morning due to the series of negligence
adverted to above committed by the defendants employees ad which
could have killed any other person who might be accident get into
contact with it.
o Negligence of the employee is presumed to be the negligence of the
employer because the employer is supposed to exercise supervision
over the work of the employees. This liability is primary and direct.

Calalas v. CA (college student rode a jeepney and sat on an extension seat.

Jeepney was hit by an Isuzu truck)
o The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-
delict, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a
device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation
between hi and another party. In such case, the obligation is created
by law itself.
o But where the 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.
o Bad faith must be in the performance of the contract.

C. Proof of Negligence
 - Rules of Court
o Rule 131, Sections 1, 2 and 3(d)

- Case

Ong v. Metropolitan Water District (boyscout drowned in the pool; it is not

established how he drowned or how he came to the big pool)
o The operator of swimming pools will not be held liable for the drowning
or death of a patron, if said operator had exercised due diligence in the
selection of, and supervision over, its employees and that it had
observed the diligence required by law under the circumstancesin
that it has taken all necessary precautions to avoid danger to the lives
of its patrons or prevent accident which may cause their death.

D. Presumption of Negligence

(i) Res ipsa loquitur

- Cases

Africa v. Caltex (gas station got burnt)

o Res ipsa loquitur (the transaction speaks for itself)- where the thing
which caused the injury, without fault of the injured person, is under
the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not occur if he having such control use
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of the
explanation, that the injury arose from defendants want of care. And
the burden of evidence is shifted to him to establish that he has
observed due care and diligence.
o The intervention of an unforeseen and unexpected cause is not
sufficient to relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of negligence, if
such negligence directly and proximately cooperates with the
independent cause in the resulting injury.

DM Consunji v. CA (worker fell from 14th floor)

o As a rule of evidence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is peculiar to the
law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be
established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific
proof of negligence.
o Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of all the elements, the
burden then shifts to defendant to explain. The presumption or
inference may be rebutted or overcome by other evidence and,
under appropriate circumstances a disputable presumption, such as
that of due care or innocence, may outweigh the inference.
o The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means, literally, the thing
or transaction speaks for itself, or in one jurisdiction, that the thing or
instrumentality speaks for itself, the facts or circumstances
 accompanying an injury may be such as to raise a presumption, or at
least permit an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant,
or some other person who is charged with negligence.
o Where it is shown that the thing or instrumentality which caused
the injury complained of was under the control or management
of the defendant and that the occurrence resulting in the injury
was such as in the ordinary course of things would not happen if
those who had its control or management used proper care,
there is sufficient evidence, or as sometimes stated, reasonable
evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that
the injury arose from or was caused by the defendants want of
care.
o Requisites of res ipsa loquitur:
o The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur
unless someone is negligent
o The instrumentality or agency which cause the injury was under
the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence
o The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary
action or contribution on the part of the person injured

National Power Corporation v. CA (inundation of fish ponds due to the dam)

o In the absence of any clear explanation on what other factors could
have explained the flooding in the neighboring properties of the dam,
it is fair to reasonably infer that the incident happened because of
want of care on the part of NPC to maintain the water level of the dam
within the benchmarks at the maximum normal elevation of 702
meters.

Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works v. William Lines Inc.

o For doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply to a given situation, the
following conditions must concur:
o (1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur
unless someone is negligent;
o (2) that the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury
was under the exclusive control of the person charged with
negligence

Perla Compania de Seguros v. Spouses Sarangaya (car got burnt while in the
parking)
o Requisites of res ipsa loquitur:
o (1) The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily
occurs unless someone is negligent
o (2) The instrumentality or agency which cause the injury
was under the exclusive control of the person charged
with negligence
o (3) The injury suffered must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person
injured
 o (4) no direct evidence
o The exempting circumstance of caso fortuito may be availed only
when:
o (1) the cause of the unforeseen and enexpected occurrence was
independent of the human will
o (2) it was impossible to foreseen the event which constituted
the caso fortuito, or if it could be foreseen, it is impossible to
avoid
o (3) the occurences must be such as to render it impossible to
perform an obligation in a normal manner
o (4) the person tasked to perform the obligation must not have
participated in any course of conduct that aggravated the
accident

Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers Inc.

o Res ipsa loquitur is Latin phrase which literally means the thing or the
transaction speaks for itself. It relates to the fact of an injury that
sets out an inference to the cause thereof or establishes the plaintiffs
prima facie case. The doctrine rests on inferences and not on
presumption. The facts of the occurrence warrant the supposition of
negligence and they furnish circumstantial evidence of negligence
when direct evidence is lacking. Simply stated, this doctrine finds
no application if there is direct proof of absence or presence of
negligence. If there is sufficient proof showing the conditions
and circumstances under which the injury occurred, then the
creative reason for the said doctrine disappears.

Batiquin v. CA (rubber material was left in her womb)

The doctrine of res ipsa liquitur as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the
law of negligence which recognizes prima facie negligence may be
established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific
negligence. It is merely a mode of proof.
o The rule is not intended to and does not dispense with the requirement
of proof of culpable negligence on the party charged. It merely
determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence
thereof and facilities the burden of plaintiff of proving a breach
of the duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked when and
only when under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is
absent and not readily available.

Cantre v. Go (droplight; some placenta parts were left inside the womb)
o In case involving medical negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
allows the mere existence of an injury to justify a presumption of
negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrument
causing the injury provided that the requisites concur.

Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana

o Requisites of res ipsa loquitur
 a) The occurrence of an injury
b) The thing which caused the injury was under the control and
management of the defendant
c) The occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things,
would not have happened in those who had control or
management used proper care
d) The absence of the explanation by the defendant
o Res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive law, hence does not per e
create or constitute an independent or separate ground of liability,
being a mere evidentiary rule.
o In other words, mere invocation and application of the doctrine
does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence.

Ramos v. CA (was supposed to undergo gallbladder stone operation then

became comatose)
o when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, he
need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with beause the injury
itself provides the proof of negligence.
o Testimony as to the stetments and acts of physicians and surgeons,
external appearances and manifest conditions which are observable by
any one may be given by non-expert witness.
o Where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting
injury would not have occurred to the patient if due care had been
exercised, an inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an
application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitu without meical evidence
o When the doctrine is appropriate, the patient must prove the nexus
between the particular act and the injury sustained.
o Resort to res ipsa loquitur is allowed because there is no ther
way, under usual and ordinary conditions, by which the patient
can obtain redress for injury suffered by him.
o The real question, therefore, is WON in the process of the operation
any extraordinary incident or unusual event outside of the routine
performance occurred which is beyond the regular scope of customary
professional activity in such operations, which, if unexplained would
themselves reasonably speak to the average man as the negligent
cause or causes of the untoward consequences.

Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital (typhoid patient died)

o In this case, while it is true that the patient died just a few hours after
the professional medical assistance was rendered, there is really
nothing unusual or extraordinary about his death.
o Prior to his admission, the patient already had recurring fevers
and chills for five days unrelieved by the analgesic, antipyretic,
and antibiotics given him by his wife.
o Hindi nag RIL kasi hind obvious na may negligence.

(ii) Violation of rules and statutes

 a. Traffic rules (Memorize Articles 2184 and 2185)
b. Republic Act No. 10586, Section 13, and
implementing rules and regulations

- Cases

US v. Juanillo
o The operator of an automobile is bound to exercise care in proportion
to the verying danger and risks of highway and commensurate with
the danger naturally incident to the use of such vehicle.
o In determining the degree of care an operator of an automobile should
use, when on the highway, it is proper to take into consideration the
place, presence, or absence of other travelers, the speed of
automobile, its size, appearance, manner of movement, and the
amount of noise it makes, and anything that indicates unusual or
peculiar danger.
o Under such conditions appellant being in charge of the powerful
machine, capable of doing great damage if not skillfully manipulated,
was bound to use a high degree of common right to the highway.
o A driver of an automobile, under such circumstances, is required
to use a greater degree of care than drivers of animals, for the
reason that the machine is capable of greater destruction, and
further more, it is absolutely under the power and control of the
driver; whereas a horse, or other animal can and does to some
extent aid in averting an accident.

Chapman v. Underwood
o An owner who sits in his automobile, or other vehicle, and permits his
driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of
negligent acts, after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe
them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself
responsible for such acts.
o If the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without the
owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its
continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the
owner of the automobile, although present therein at the time
the act was committed, is not responsible, either civilly or
criminally, therefore.

Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai (accident in EDSA involving a caratella)

o The test of imputed negligence under Article 2184 of the Civil Code is,
to a great degree, necessarily subjective. Car owners are not held to a
uniform and inflexible standard of diligence, as are professional
drivers.
o The test of his negligence, within the meaning of Article 2184, is his
omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he
should do in order to avoid the accident.
Serra v. Mumar(van, corolla, and motorcycle accident)
o Under article 2180, employers are liable for the damages caused by
their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to
another, there instantly arises a presumption that the employer failed
to exercise the due diligence of a good father of the family in th
selection or supervision of its employees.
o under article 2184, if the causative factor was the drivers
negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was present is likewise held
liable if he could have prevented the mishap by the exercise of due
diligence.

Mallari, Sr. v. CA (jeepney overtook a Ford fierry and hit a car in the opposite
direction; this is an action for breach of contract)
o The rule is settled that a driver abandoning his proper lane for the
purpose of overtaking another vehicle in an ordinary situation has the
duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot
do so in safety.
o When a motor vehicle is approaching or rounding a curve, there is
special necessity for keeping to the right side of the road and the
driver does not have the right to drive on the left hand side relying
upon having time to turn to the right if a car approaching from the
opposite direction comes into view.

FGU Insurance v. CA(foreigner, rented a car and figured in an accident)

o The liability imposed by art 2180 arises by virtue of a presumption
juris tantum of negligence on the part of the persons made responsible
thereunder, derived from their failure to exercise due care and
vigilance over the acts of subordinates to prevent them from causing
damage.
o Obviously, this provision of Art. 2184 is neither applicable because of
the absence of master-driver relationship between respondent FILCAR
and foreigner driver.
o RENT A CAR

PCI Leasing and Finance Inc v. UCPB (contract of lease was not registered;
18 wheeler truck hit a lancer)
o In contemplation of the law, the registered owner of a motor
vehicle is the employer of its driver, with the actual operator
and employer, such as a lessee, being considered as merely the
owners agent.
o This being the case, even if the a sale has been executed before
a tortious incident, the sale, if unregistered, has no effect as to
the right of the public and third persons to recover from the
registered owner.
o A sale, lease, or financial lease, for that matter, that is not registered
with the LTO, still odes not bing the third persons who are aggrieved in
 tortious incidents, for the latter need only to rely on the public
registration of a motor vehicle as conclusive evidence of ownership.

PRIVATE RENTAL RENT-A-CAR

Owner/lessor liable together with Lessor/owner not liable (driver only is
driver liable)

Anonuevo v. CA
o Art 2185 does not apply to non-motorized vehicle such as a bicycle.
o The mere fact of violation is not sufficient basis for an inference that
such violation was the proximate cause of the injured complained.
However, if the very injury has happened which was intended to be
prevented by the statute, it has been held that violation of the statute
will be deemed to be the proximate cause of the injury.
o Negligence per se- violation of a statutory duty
o The petitioner has the burden of showing a causal connection between
the injury received and the violation of the LT and Traffic Code.

c. Statutes and ordinances/administrative rules

- Cases

Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. v. WCC

o Violation of a rule promulgated by a Commission or board is not
negligence per se.
o Evidence of negligence only

F.F. Cruz and Co. Inc v. CA (furniture business did not put firewall)
o The failure to comply with an ordinance providing for safety
regulations had been ruled by the Court as an act of negligence.

Cipriano v. CA (rust-proofing business did not comply with a law that

requires it to insure its business)
o Petitioners negligence is the source of his obligation. He is not being
held liable for breach of his contractual obligation due to negligence
but for his negligence in not complying with the duty imposed on him
by law.
o It is therefore immaterial that the loss occasioned to private
respondent was due to a fortuitous event, since it was
petitioners negligence in not insuring against the risk which was
the proximate cause of the loss.

Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v. CA

o 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 injury.
 (iii) Dangerous weapons and substances

- Civil Code
o Article 2188 (Memorize)
ccc
- Case
-
Araneta v. Arreglado
o Father was negligent for allowing the child to have possession of the
firearm.

IV. DEFENSES

A. Plaintiffs negligence is the proximate cause of injury

- Civil Code
o Article 2179 (Memorize)

- Cases

Taylor v. Manila Electric (kid went to the premises of manila electric and got
an explosive device)
o The test is simple. Distinction must be made between accident and the
injury, between the event itself, without which there could have been
no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it,
independent of it, but contributing to his own proper hurt.
o related to attractive nuisance but not applicable because the court
took in to account the mental capacity of Taylor.
o The explosive cups left by Meralco would have not exploded if Taylor
did not get it and played with it.

Fernando v. CA (men cleaned the septic tank and died)

o The proximate cause of the victims was due to their negligence. There
was no order to commence the cleaning of the septic tank. They
should have known the risk in cleaning a septic tank that was not
emptied for several years.

PLDT v. CA
o It is basic that private respondents cannot charge PLDT for their
injuries where their own failure to exercise due and reasonable care
was the cause thereof.
o Lack of warning is not the proximate cause because the
defendant pass by the road almost everyday and knew of the
existence of the excavation.
o He was also swerving and was driving fast.
Kim v. Philippine Aerial Taxi. Co. (passenger of the hydroplanes atat bumaba,
got himself injured by the propeller)
o The plaintiff ought to know that a propeller, be it that of a ship or of an
aeroplane, is dangerous while in motion and that to approach is to run
the risk of being caught and injured thereby.
o Also, he did not wait for the instructions of the plane employees
before going out of the plane.

American Express v. Cordero (credit card of Cordero was cut into half which
caused embarrassment)
o Amex cut the card in half because they were not able to determine if it
was really Cordero who was using the card. Cordero refused to talk to
their representative when asked to in order to verify his identity.
Because of his refusal to talk, the card was cut.

BJDC Construction v. Lanuzo (motorbicycle accident)

o BJDC was not negligent because there was proper lighting. Victim did
not wear helmet, which could have saved his life.
o He should be familiar with the road and should have known that a
construction was going on

Cagayan v. Rapanan (electric wire, motorcycle accident)

o Motorcycle was the proximate cause because the driver was driving
really fast and lost control.
o Mishap already occurred before reaching the electric wire.

B. Contributory negligence

- Civil Code
o Article 2179 (Memorize)

- Cases

Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf

Bernal v. House
o Applied the rakes cas

National Power Corp v. Casionan

o No contributory, the miners were doing ordinary routine.

Lambert v. Heirs (jeepney turning left without signal, trike hit the jeepney)
o Trike is contributory negligent kasi tailgaiting, overspeeding, drunk,
and .

Estacion V. Bernardo (sumabit sa jeepney)

o Estacion sumabit, so contributory negligence.
Phil national Rail v. Brunty
o Benz was contributory negligent because it did not slow down

C. Assumption of Risk
o ORDINARY RISK
Requisites:
(1) You know
(2) You understand
(3) Nevertheless, you still voluntary and freely exposed
yourself to the risk
Exception:
o However, a person is excused if an emergency is found to
exist or
o if the life or property of another is in peril or
o when he seeks to rescue his endangered property

- Cases

Afialda v. Hisole
o Under article 1905 of the Civil Code, the owner of an animal is not
liable for injury caused by it to its caretaker.
o The owner would be liable only if he had been negligent
or at fault

Ilocos Norte v. CA
o Exception to the assumption of risk
o However, a person is excused if an emergency is found to
exist or
o if the life or property of another is in peril or
o when he seeks to rescue his endangered property

Transporto v. Mijares(firecracker case)

o full knowledge and extent of the risk

D. Last Clear Chance

o Will not apply to breach of contract
o Or when the defendant was put to a position to act
instantaneously

- Cases

Picart v. Smith(pony got hit by a fast car)

 o It will be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not
contemporaneous since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the
negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these
circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair chance
to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without references to the prior negligence of the other
party.

Philippine National Railways Corp. v. Vizcara (jeepney got hit by a train while
on way to quezon wala daw stop look and listen)
o The doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable in the instant case.
o The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where
both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is
appreciably later in point of time than that of the other,
or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident,
the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with
the consequences arising therefrom.
The antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude
recovery of damages caused by the supervening
negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to
prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due
diligence.

Achevara v. Ramos(driver of the jeepney no longer had the opportunity to

avoid collision)
o The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply where the
party charged is required to act instantaneously, and the injury
cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after
the peril is or should have been discovered.

Bank of America v. Phil Racing Club

o In instances where both parties are at fault, this Court has consistently
applied the doctrine of last clear chance in order to assign liability.
o In the case at bar, petitioner cannot evade responsibility for the
loss by attributing negligence on the part of the respondent
because even if we concur that the latter was indeed negligent
in pre-signing blank checks, the former had the last clear
chance to avoid the loss.
They could have called.

Lapanday v. Angala(Uturn accident)

o We rule both parties are negligent so last clear chance is applicable.
o De Ocampo, had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. DE
Ocampo was driving the rear vehicle, he had full control of the
situation since he was in a position to observe the vehicle in front of
him.
Tiu v. Arriesgado (truck parked because of exploded, bus bumped)
o Does not apply because it only applies in a suit between the owners
and drivers of two colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a
passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations, for it would be inequitable to exempt the
negligent driver and its owner on the ground that the other driver was
guilty of negligence.

E. Prescription

- Civil Code
o Article 1146

- Cases

Ferrer v. Ericta (kid joyride, pick-up overturned)

o It is true that the defense of prescription can only be considered if the
same is invoked as such in the answer of the defendant and that in
this particular instance no such defense was invoked because the
defendants had been declared in default, but such rule does not
obtain when the evidence shows that the cause of action upon
which plaintiffs complaint is based is already barred by the
statute of limitations.

Kramer, Jr. v. CA (F/B and M/V, fb sinked because of mv. They waited for
marine board resolution)
o Under article 1146, an action based upon quasi delct must be
instituted within four (4) years. The prescriptive period begins rom the
day the quasi-delict is committed.

Santos v. Pizardo (collision bet bus and lite ac; civil action was reserved and
not instituted in the criminal case)
o The prescription of the action ex quiasi delicto deos not operate as a
bar to an action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime
especially as the latter action had been expressly reserved.

De Guzman v. Toyota Cubao( petitioner bought hilux, engine cracked, asked

for replacement based on implied warranty)
o

F. Fortuitous Event

o (1) the cause of the unforeseen and enexpected

occurrence was independent of the human will
o (2) it was impossible to foreseen the event which
constituted the caso fortuito, or if it could be foreseen, it
is impossible to avoid
 o (3) the occurences must be such as to render it
impossible to perform an obligation in a normal manner
o (4) the person tasked to perform the obligation must not
have participated in any course of conduct that
aggravated the accident

- Civil Code
o Article 1174 (Memorize)

- Cases

Gotesco v. Chatto (Mother and child watched a movie, the cinemas ceiling
collapsed)
o That Mr. Ong could not offer any explanation does not imply force
majeure.
o Such defects could have been easily discovered if only petitioner
exercised due diligence.

Servando v. Phil Steam (cargoes of petitioner arrived and was discharged at

BOC warehouse which got burned)
o There was no negligence on the part of the defendants. They did not
incur delay

Edgar Cokaliong v. UCPB (ship with cargo got burnt w/c originated from
unchecked crack in the engine)
o Fire was not a force majeure because it resulted from the negligence
of the officers of the vessel to inspect their ship frequently.

G. Waiver

- Civil Code
o Articles 6 and 1170

- Cases

Gatchalian v. Delim (bus was in accident because it bumped a cement flowe

pot)
o A waiver, to be valid and effective, must in first place be couched in
clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention
of a person to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him.
o Jurisprudential basis
o The circumstances under which the petitioner signed the waiver must
be considered.- vitiated consent
o To uphold a supposed waiver of any right to claim damages by an
injured passenger, under the circumstances like those exhibited in this
case, would be to dilute and weaken the standard of
 extraordinary diligence exacted by the law from common carriers
and hence render that standard unenforceable.
o Contrary to public policy

Sabena v. CA (petitioners luggage gone missing; twice)

o It is a breach of contract
o Extra ordinary diligence in taking care of the goods as well
o There is willful misconduct on the part of the carrier
because there is gross negligence on the part of the
carrier because it lost the luggage twice.

Valenzuela v. CA (carrier acted as a private carrier because it was chartered)

o In a contract of private carriage, the parties may freely stipulate their
duties and obligation, which will be binding on them.

H. Emergency

- Cases

Gan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44264, September 19, 1988 (old man)
o One who suddenly finds himself in the place of danger and is
required to act without time to consider the best means that
maybe adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of
negligence unless the emergency in which he finds himself is
brought about by his own negligence.

McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 211 SCRA 517 (1992)

o Kids suddenly cross the road, which gave the driver no time to
contemplate which is the means possible.

Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 115024 & 117944, February 7,

1996
o The conduct which is required of an individual in emergency cases is
dictated not exclusively by the suddenness of the event which
absolutely negate thoroughly care, but by the over-all nature of the
nature of the circumstances.

Delsan Transport Lines, Inc., v. C&A Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 156034,
October 1, 2003
o It is the ship captains fault the brought them to the emergency
situation.

Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Mangalinao, G.R. Nos. 174089
& 174266, January 25, 2012
o

I. Damnum absque injuria

 - Cases

Farolan v. Solmac Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 83589, March 13, 1991
o Presumption of regularity in the exercise of duty if a public officer or
employee.
o There was no bad faith since they just exercised their duty.

BPI Express Card Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120639,

September 25, 1998
o Applicable. Bank exercised its right to collect payment.

Custodio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116100, February 9, 1996

o

Amonoy v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 140420, February 15, 2001

o With bad faith. Despite receipt of TRO, the destruction of the building
was still continued.

DOLE Philippines, Inc., v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 174646, August 22, 2012
o With bad faith and injury because DOLE, destroyed the banana
plantation.

V. VICARIOUS LIABILITY

- Civil Code
o Articles 2180 to 2182 (Memorize)

A. Parents and Guardians

- Family Code (as amended by RA 6809)

o Articles 219, 221, 236

- Cases

Exconde v. Capuno, 101 Phil. 843 (1957) (a 15 year old kid, was convicted of
double homicide, his father argued that he should not be held liable with the
kid because he was not present during the accident, but the law said that he
is liable for his minor child.)
o The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father, and, in case
of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be
caused by the minor children who live with them, is obvious.
o This is a necessary consequence of the parental authority they
exercise over them.
o The only way by which they can relieve themselves of this
liability is if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent the damages.
Tamargo v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 518 (1992) (a kid shot another
person with air rifle; the shooter kid was then adopted after the shooting)
o Imputed negligence- where a person is not only liable for torts
committed by himself, but also for torts committed by others with
whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible.
o The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its
parents commits a tortious at, the parents were negligent in the
performace of their legal and natural duty closely to supervise the
child who is in their custody and control.
o The presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting
parents could have arising since Adelberto was not in fact subject to
their control at the time the tort was committed.

Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 214 SCRA 16 (1992) (ex boyfriend shot
ex girlfriend)
o The civil liability of parents for quasi delicts of their minor
children, as contemplated in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is
primary and not subsidiary.
o If we apply Article 2194 of said code which provides for solidary
liability of joint tortfeasors, the person responsible for the act or
omission, in this case the minor and the father and, in case of
his death or incapacity, the mother, are solidary liable.
o We are also persuaded that the liabilyt of the parents for felonies
committed by their minor children is likewise primary, not subsidiary.

Cuadra v. Monfort, G.R. No. L-24101, September 30, 1970 (school girl was
hit in the eye with an object by the classmate)
o all diligence of a good father of the family to prevent damage- it
implies a consideration of the attendant circumstances in every
individual case, to determine whether or ot by the exercise of such
diligence the damage could have been prevented.
o His child was at school where it was his duty to send her and where
she was, as he had right to expect her to be, under the care and
supervision of the teacher.
o It was an innocent prank not unusual among the children at play
and special reason to anticipate much less guard against. The
plaintiffs were not able to collect.

St. Marys Academy v. Carpitanos, G.R. No. 143363, February 6, 2002

(accident during school activity. The jeepney driven by the minor has its
steering wheel detached)
o For the petitioner to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or
omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the
injury caused because the negligence, must have a causal connection
to the accident.

B. Owners and Managers of Enterprises/Employers

Requisites (Ordinary Employers)
1. Employee committed tortious act
2. There is an Employer-Employee Relationship
3. Employee is acting within the scope of his/her assigned tasks.

Hospitals
1. Holding out
Employer-Employee relationship
Doctrine of Apparent Authority
Corporate Negligence (2176)
2. Reliance

- Cases
Dela Llana v. Biong, G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013 (whiplash injury)
o The petitioner failed to prove that the proximate cause of her whiplash
injury was the accident.

Josefa v. MERALCO, G.R. No. 182705, July 18, 2014 (truck rammed a
Meralco electric post)
o The finding that Bautista acted with negligence in driving the truck
give rise to the application of paragraph 5, Article 2180 of the Civil
Code which holds the employer vicariously liable for damages caused
by his employees within the scope of their assigned tasks.
o In quasi- delict cases, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is the
employer of its driver in contemplation of the law. The purpose of
motor vehicle registration is precisely to identify the owner so that if
any injury is caused by the vehicles, responsibility can be imputed to
the registered owner.

Castilex Industrial Corporation v. Vasquez, 321 SCRA 393 (1999)(totyota

hilux bumped a motorcycle;hilux did counterflowed)
o Distinction between par 4 and 5 of Article 2180
Par.4 Par. 5
Applies to owners and managers of Applies to employers in general, won
establishment or enterprise engaged in any business or industry
Covers negligent acts of employees Encompasses negligent acts of
committed either in the service of employees acting within the scope
the branches or on occasion of their of their assigned task
functions

o Under 5th par, an employer is liable for the torts committed by

employees within the scope of his assigned task.
1. It is necessary to establish the employer-employee relationship..
2. The plaintiff must show, to hold the employer liable, that the
employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when
the tort complained of was committed.
 o It is only that the employer may find it necessary to interpose
the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of
the employee.
o To hold that acts done within the scope of the employees
assigned task includes any act done by an employee in
furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the account
of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or
damages
o Operation of Motor vehicle in going to or from meals/ going to
or from work
Not ordinarily acting within the scope of his employment
in the absence of evidence of some special business
benefit. Evidence that by using MV, employee is enabled
to reduce his time-off and so devote more time to the
performance of his duty supports the finding that he is
acting within the scope of his employment.
The employer may be liable if employer derives some
special benefit from having the employee drive home in
the employers MV as when the employer benefits from
having the employee at work earlier.
special errand or roving commission rule- the
employee continues in the service of his employer until he
actually reaches home.
o The employer is not liable for the employees negligence where
at the time of the accident, the employee has left the direct
route to his work or back home and is pursuing a personal
errand of his own.

Jose v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118441-42, January 18, 2000(Ford escort
bumped a Bus, ford driver and passenger came from party and a part of the
car was broken)
o Therefore, before the presumption of the employers negligence in the
selection and supervision of its employees can arise, the negligence of
the employee must first be established.
o The failure to prove the employees negligence during the trial is
fatal to proving the employers vicarious liability.
o The allegation that John Macarubo was the authorized driver of the
Ford Escort is not equivalent to an allegation that he was an employee
of Juanita Macarubo.
o That John Macarubo was the authorized driver of the car simply
means that he drove the Ford Escort with the permission of
Juanita Macarubo, the registered owner.

Bahia v. Litonjua, 30 Phil. 624 (1915) (newly purchased cars steering gear
malfunctioned and caused an accident)
o The action against Litonjua is dismissed. Although she purchased the
automobile, she turned it over to the garage of her son for use therein.
 The establishment belonged to his son and had the full management of
control of such garage.
o When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee
there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence
on the part of the master or employer either in the selection or
supervision of the servant or employee.
o This is rebuttable.
o This theory bases the responsibility of the master ultimately on
his own negligence and not on that of his servant.

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., v. Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., G.R. No.
L-25142, March 25, 1975 (manager of Phil-American was sued for the
accident involving the driver of Phil-American)
o It may be gathered from the context of Article 2180 that the term
manager is used in the sense of employer.
o Hence, Balingit as manager can not be held liable because he
himself may be regarded as an employee of his employer, Phil-
American Forwarders, Inc.

Martin v. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 591 (1992) (a private car, driven by
someone else and not the owner, rammed a meralco post; Meralco sued the
owner and not the driver)
o No evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to show that the defendant
was the employer of the driver at the time of the accident.
o The ownership of the car and the circumstance of the accident, are not
enough bases for the inference that the petitioner is the employer of
Nestor Martin.
o The more plausible assumption is that Nestor (driver) is a close
relative of the the petitioner and on the date in question borrowed the
car for some private purpose. Nestor would probably not have been
accommodated if he were a mere employee for employees do not
usually enjoy the use of their employers car at two oclock in the
morning.
o if the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of
action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he
bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his
exception or defense.

St. Francis High School v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82465, February 25,
1991 (student trying to rescue a female teacher from drowning drowned)
o It is clear that before an employer may be held liable for the
negligence of his employee, the act or omission which caused the
damage or prejudice must have occurred while an employee was in
the performance of his assigned tasks.
o In the case at bar, the teachers were not in the actual
performance of their assigned tasks. The incident happened
 while the teachers and students were holding a purely private
affair, a picnic.
o Mere knowledge of the principal does not in any way manner show
acquiescence or consent to the holding of the picnic.
o If this is affirmed, employers will forever be exposed to the risks
and danger of being hailed to Court to answer for the misdeeds
or omissions of the employees even if such act or omission he
committed while they are noe in the performance of their duties.
o Teachers exercised due diligence to revive the victim.

Mercury Drug Corporation v. Huang, G.R. No. 172122, June 22, 2007 (big
truck of mercury figured in an accident with a car)
o Driver was found negligent
o The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is direct
and immediate. It is not conditioned in a prior recourse against the
negligent employee, or a prior showing of insolvency of such
employee. It is also joint and solidary with the employee.
o Mercury was negligent in the SS of employee.
No NBI Clearance.
Car used in the training was a Gallant not a truck.
Last driving seminar was 12 years ago
No back up driver despite the accused driver was already
13 hours in the road.

Sanitary Steam Laundry v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 20 (1998)( Sanitarys

panel truck figured in an accident with a Cimmaron; Sanitary did not require
NBI Clearance and Psychological test because no law requires it)
o Sanitary was negligent in the SS of the driver.
o It said that it is required of its all employees to have an NBI Clearance
but it was now able to show the NBI Clearance of the driverit is not
enough that requiring employees an NBI Clearance is an exercise of
due diligence
o Although no law requires a psychological test, it is a reliable indicator
that employer exercised due diligence in the SS.
o No test of skill, physical and mental and emotional were
conducted.
o There was even failure on the part of defendant to present its
concerned employees 204 file.

Carticiano v. Nuval, G.R. No. 138054, September 28, 2000(driver of Nuval

swerved to the center isle and had a head on collision with Citriano)
o Nuval argued that the driver was not anymore his employee because
he was not in the payroll.
o This is denied because a lot of employees of NUval was not in
the payroll as well
 o The driver had easy access to the keys and Nuval did not act as if the
car was stolen or they did not look for it.
o Third parties are not bound to by the allegation that the driver was
only authorized to operate the jeep only when the employers children
were on board the vehicle.
o Giving credence to this outlandish theory would enable
employers to escape their legal liabilities with impunity. Such
loophole is easy and is simply unacceptable.

Universal Aquarius, Inc., v. Q.C. Human Resources Management Corporation,

G.R. No. 155990, September 12, 2007 (Universal filed against Resources for
breach of contract; Tan filed against Resources for the strike performed by
its employees which caused damage to Tans business)
o The act of strike of Resources employees is beyond the range of
employment. They were acting on their own, beyond the range of their
employment.

Filamer Christian Institute v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75112, October 16,
1990 and Filamer Christian Institute v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75112,
August 17, 1992 (Kapunan Sr, was struck by Pinoy jeep driven by Funtecha)
o First decision
o Working scholars are not employee of the school
o Assuming that Funtecha was an employee, still Filamer can not
be held liable for FUntechas acts because at the time of the
accident, Funtecha was not acting within the scope of his
supposed employment.
o Second Decision
o The clause within the scope of their assigned tasks for
purposes of raising the presumption of liability of an employer,
includes any act done by an employee, in furtherance of the
interest of the employer or for the account of the employer at
the time of the infliction of the injury or damage.
Futencha is an employee of Filamer. He need not have an
official appointment for a drivers position in order that
the petitioner may be held responsible for his grossly
negligent act, it being sufficient that the act of driving at
the time of the incident was for the benefit of the
petitioner.
o An employer is expecte to impose upon its employees the
necessary discipline called for in the performance of any act
indispensable to the business and beneficial to their employer.
Filamer failed to show that it has set some guidelines to
prohibit its employee from using the vehicle if they are
not the authorized driver.
Jayme v. Apostol, G.R. No. 163609, November 27, 2008 (the driver of the
municipality figured in an accident while transporting the mayor to airport)
o To sustain claims against employers for the acts of their emloyees, the
following requisites must be established:
1. That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or
through another
2. That the service to be rendered in accordance with the
orders which the mployer has the authority to give at all
times
3. That the illicit act of employee was on the occasion or by
reason of the functions entrusted to him
o It must be established that the injurious or tortious act was committed
at the time the employee was performing his functions.
o Employer-employee relationship is not assumed. It is incumbent upon
the plaintiff to prove the relationship by preponderant evidence.
o It was Municipality who was the employer of the driver based on the
four-fold test. The driver was subsequently assigned to the Mayor
o An employer-employee relationship still exists even if the
employee was loaned by the employer to another person
because the control over the employee subsists.
o Assuming arguendo that the Mayor had authority to give intructions,
he still is not liable.
o The mere giving of instructions to the driver does not establish
that the passenger has control over the vehicle.
o Those instruction or directions are ordinarily no more than
requests commonly envisaged in the contract for services
entered into with the security agency.
o The law on the matter is clear: only the negligent driver, the drivers
employer, and the registered owner of the vehicle are liable.

Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas, G.R. No. 174156, June 20, 2012( driver
of car registered under Filcar, met an accident in an intersection with
Espinas)
o It is a well settled that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered
owner of the motor vehicle is considered as the employer of the
tortfeasor-driver, and is made primarily liable for tort committed by
the latter under Art 2176, in relation with Article 2180.
o The aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if
any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the
vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on
a definite individual, the registered owner.
o Thus whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the
registered owner and the driver is irrelevant in determining the liability
of the registered owner who the law holds primarily and directly
responsible for any accident, injury or death caused by the operation
of the vehicle in the streets and highways.

Del Carmen v. Bacoy, G.R. No. 173870, April 25, 2012

 o The operator on record of a vehicle is primarily responsible to third
persons for the deaths or injuries consequent to its operation,
regardless of whether the employee drove, the registered owners
vehicle in connection with his employment.
o The registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for public
service, woud primarily be responsible to the public or to third persons
for inuries caused the latter while the vehicle was being driven on the
highways or streets.
o Absent the circumstance of unauthorized use or that the subject
vehicle was stolen which are valid defenses available to a
registered owner, Oscar Jr. cannot escape liability for quasi-
delict resulting from his jeeps use.

Maranan v. Perez, G.R. No. L-22272, June 26, 1967 (taxi driver stabbed and
killed its passenger)
o The new Civil Code of the Philippines expressly akes the common
carrier liable for intentional assulats committed by its employees upon
its passengers, by the wording of Art. 1759
o It is enough that the assult happens within the course of the
employees duty. It is no defense for the carrier that the act was done
in excess if authority or in disobedience of the carriers orders. The
carriers liability here is absolute in the sense that it practically secures
the passengers from assaults committed by its own employees.
o Three reasons for this rule:
a. The special undertaking of the carrier requires that it furnish
its passenger that full measure of protection afforded by the
exercise of the high degree of care prescribed by the law,
inter alia from violence and insults at the hands of strangers
and other passengers, but above all, from the acts of the
carriers own servants charged with the passengers safety
b. Said liability of the carrier for the servants violation of duty
to passengers, is the result of the formers confiding in the
servants hands the performance of his contract to safely
transport the passenger with the utmost care prescribed by
law
c. As between the carrier and the passenger, the former must
bear the risk of wrongful acts or negligence of the carriers
employees against passengers, since it, and not the
passengers, has power to select and remove them.
o It is the carriers strict obligation to select its drivers and similar
employees with due regard not to their technical competence and
physical ability, but also, no less important, to their total personality,
including their patterns of behavior, moral fibers, and social attitude.

Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 584 (1999) and Ramos v. Court of
Appeals, 380 SCRA 467 (2002) (patient died because of wrong or improper
intubation) doctrines from Jason Arteches digest
 o 1st decision
o captain of the ship doctrine
it is the surgeons responsibility to see to it that those
under him perform their task in the proper manner
Doctor Osaka failed to make sure that the
anesthesiologist properly did her task
o In other words, private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real
control over their attending and visiting consultant staff.
o 2nd decision
o Moreover, the contract between the consultant in respondent
hospital and his patient is separate and distinct from the
contract between respondent hospital and said patient. The first
has for its object the rendition of medical services by the
consultant to the patient, while the second concerns the
provision by the hospital of facilities and services by its staff
such as nurses and laboratory personnel necessary for the
proper treatment of the patient.
No evidence was adduced to show that the injury suffered
by Erlinda was due to the failure of DLSMC to provide for
hospital facilities and staff necessary for her treatment.

Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center, G.R. No. 142625, December 19, 2006 (the
victim died after delivery because of the negligence of the attending
physician)
o In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent
contractor-physician.
o Exception: The hospital may be held liable if the physician is the
ostensible agent of the hospital. This exception is also known
the doctrine of apparent authority.
o The doctrine of apparent authority involves two factors to determine
the liability of an independent- contractor physician.
a. Whether the hospital acted in a manner, which would lead a
reasonable person to conclude that, the individual who was
alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the
hospital.
b. Whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of
the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and
prudence.

Professional Services, Inc., v. Agana, 513 SCRA 478 (2007) and Professional
Services, Inc., v. Agana, G.R. Nos. 126297, 126467, 127590, February 2,
2010
Casumpang v. Cortejo, G.R. Nos. 171127, 171217 & 17122, March 11, 2015

Ramos v. COL Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, August 28,

2009(accident in katipunan)
o If the master is injured by the negligence of a third person and by the
concurring contributory negligence of his own servant or agent, the
latters negligence is imputed to his superior and will defeat the
superiors action against the third person, assuming of course that the
contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the injury of which
the complaint is made.

C. The State

TORTFEASOR FUNCTION STATE LIABLE?

Public Officer Governmental State not liable.
functions PO liable under
2176
Public Officer Function foreign Liable, PO is a
to office special agent
Public Officer Proprietary Liable, state is an
Function ordinary
employer
Private Individual Governmental Liable, special
function agent
Private Individual Proprietary Liable, state is an
function ordinary
employer

- Cases

Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 11154, March 21,
1916 (guy in a motorcycle had an accident with an ambulance of General
Hospital)
o That the responsibility of the state is limited to case wherein it acts
through a special agent (and a special agent is one who receives a
definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise
of the duties of his office if he is a special official) so that in
representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent
thereof, he executes the thrust confided in him.
o This concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an
employee of the active administration and who on his own
responsibility performs the functions which are inherent in and
naturally pertain to his office and which are regulated by law
and the regulations.
Fontanilla v. Maliaman, G.R. No. 55963, December 1, 1989, and Fontanilla v.
Maliaman, G.R. No. 55963 & 61045, February 27, 1991 (NIA pick-up hit a
man riding a bicycle)
o The matter of due diligence on the part of respondent NIA becomes
crucial issue in determining its liability since it has been established
that respondent is a government agency performing propriety
functions and as such, it assumes the posture of an ordinary
employer which is responsible for the damages caused by its
employees provided that it has failed to observe or exercise due
diligence in the selection and supervision of the driver.
o While it may be true that the NIA was essentially a service agency of
the government aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare,
such fact does not make the NIA essentially and purely a
government-function corporation.
o Certainly, the state and the community as a while are largely
benefited by the services the agency renders, but these
functions are only incidental to the principal aim of the agency,
which is the irrigation.

D. Teachers and Heads of Establishments

If student committed acts under 2176- teacher only liable and not school
If teacher committed acts under 2176- school is also liable under 2180
Family Code

Person VL For whom Requisites Defenses Liab

Parents/ Children below 18 1. Living in Due Direct &
Sub PA (Fam Code, 221) company diligence to Primary
2. under prevent
their damage
authority
Parents Children 18-21 (CC 1. must be Due Direct &
(pursuant 2180, par 2, FC living in their diligence to Primary
deep pocket 236) company prevent
theory) damage
Special PA Below 18 (FC 218- Must be Due Direct &
(S,A,T,I) 219) (SIC) diligence to Primary
1. prevent
Supervision damage
2.
Instruction
3. Custody
Guardians Minor/incapacitated 1. Living in 1. Living in Direct &
company company Primary
2. under 2. under
their their
authority authority
 - Family Code
o Articles 218 and 219

- Cases

Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 108 Phil. 414 (1960) (students fight over
pitogo)
o Custody- contemplates a situation where the pupil lives and boards
with the teacher, such the control, direction, and onfluence on the
pupil supersedes those of the parents.
o The control or influence over the conduct and actions of the
pupil would pass from the father and mother to the teacher;and
so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil.

Palisoc v. Brillantes, 41 SCRA 557 (1971) (two students had a fist fight in the
laboratory which caused the death of one of them)
o custody- means protective and supervisory custody that the school
and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupil and students for as
long as they are at attendance in school, including recess time.
o There is nothing in the law that student ust live and board in the
school

Amadora v. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 315 (1988) (student shot by a gun
another student)
o The provision in question should apply to all schools, academic as well
as non-academic.
o In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of
their students except where the school is technical in nature, in
which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable.
Following the canon of reddendo singular singulis,
teachers should apply to the words pupils and
students and heads of establishment of arts and trades
to the word apprentices.
o The is really no substantial distinction between the academic
and non-academic schools isofar as torts committed by their
students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected from
the teacher over the students under his control and supervision,
ehatever the nature of the school where he is teaching.
o The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as
he is under the control and influence of the school and within its
premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has
already ended.
As long as it can be shown that the student is in the
school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student
objective, in the exercise of his legitimate student right,
and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right,
and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student
 privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over
the student continues.
o Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control
but refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the
discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence.
o If at all, the school, whatever its nature, may be held to answer
fot the acts of its teachers or even of the head therof under the
general principle of respondeat superior, but then it may
exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the
diligence of a bonus pater familias.
o Teachers or head are still liable even if the student is of age but
the lesser accountability.

Ylarde v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-33722, July 29, 1988 (4 students dug a hole in
order to burry a big stone)
o Applying the doctrine in amadora, the principal cannot be held liable
for the reason that the school he heads is an academic school and not
a school of arts and trades.

Salvosa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70458, October 5, 1988

(ROTC armorer and student at Baguio College Foundation shot someone)
o A student not at attendance in the school cannot be in recess thereat.
A recess as the concept is embraced in the phrase at attendance in
the school contemplates a situation of temporary adjournment of
school activities where the student still remains within call of his
mentor and is not permitted to leave the school premises, or the area
within the school activity is conducted.

Aquinas School v. Inton, G.R. No. 184202, January 26, 2011 (student was
kicked by a new teacher)
o Under the circumstances, it was quite evident that Aquinas did not
have control over Yamyamins teaching methods.
o Aquinas still had the responsibility of taking steps to ensure that
only qualified outside catechists are allowed to teach its young
students.
o Aquinas took all the steps to avoid the occurrence of such
injury. Therefore they are not liable.

St. Joseph's College v. Miranda, G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010 (student
got his eyes injured by chemicals during experiments)
o The proximate cause was the concurrent failure of the petitioners to
prevent foreseeable mishap that occurred during the conduct of the
science experiment.
o Art. 218 of the Family Code

E. Right to Reimbursement
 - Case

Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014 (truck bumped
by a bus)
o Registered owner is liable. The defenses available under Article 2180 is
no longer available because of motor vehicle registration law.
o However, under the civil law, the registered owner of the
motor vehicle has a right to be indemnified by the actual
employer of the driver.
o Under Article 2181, whoever pays for the damages caused by
his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what
he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 66102-
04, August 30, 1990 (Bus hit jeepney who is in the improper lane because it
rear wheel was detached)
o This is an action for breach of contract. The carrier can neither shift his
liability on the contract to his driver nor share it with him, for his
drivers negligence is his.
o Secondly if we make the driver jointly and severally liable
with the carrier, that would make the carriers liability
personl instead of merely vicarious and consequently,
entitled to reover only the share which corresponds to
the driver, contradictory to the explicit provision of
Article 2181.

See Cerezo v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004

F. Distinguished from subsidiary liability under the Revised

Penal Code

- Revised Penal Code

o Articles 102 and 103

- Cases

Carpio v. Doroja, 180 SCRA 1 (1989) (Jeepney bumped a pedestrian)

(criminal action, civil aspect was appealed)
o In order to that an employer subs liable for employees civ liability
arising from criminal action (execution only)
a. That the employer is engaged in any kind of industry
b. That the employee committed the offense in the
discharge of his duties
c. That he is insolvent
o The subsidiary liability of the employer, however, arises only after the
conviction of the employee in criminal action.
Bantoto v. Bobis, 18 SCRA 690 (1966) (Jeepney driver bumped a 3 year old
child)
o The masters liability, under the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes
committed by his servants and employees in the discharge of their
duties is not predicated upon the insolvency of the latter.
o In this case, both employer and employee are charged in the criminal
case.

Yonaha v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 397 (1996) (driver of Tamaraw

bumped someone and killed it)
o The execution against employer must not issue as just matter of
course, and it behooves the court, as a measure of due process to the
employer, to determine and resolve a priori, in a hearing set for the
purpose the legal applicability and propriety of employers liability. The
requirement is mandatory even when it appears prima facie
that the execution against the convicted employee cannot be
satisfied.
o The court must convince itself of the ff:
o The convicted employee is in truth in the employ of the
employer
o Latter is engaged in industry
o The employee has committed the crime to which civil liability
attaches while in the performance of his duties as such
o Employee is insolvent

VI. PRIMARY LIABILITY

- Civil Code
o Articles 2183 to 2193, and 1723 (Memorize)

A. Possessors/users of animals

- Case

Vestil v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 47 (1989) (dog bit a 3 year
old girl)
o Vestil were the occupants of the house so they are in possession of the
dog as well because they used the said house for business by renting
it.
o Manresa: Article 2183 is not based on the negligence or on the
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or use of the animal
causing the damage. It is based on natural equity and on the
principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for
his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage
which such animal may cause.
o Petitioners contention that they cannot exercise remote control over
the dog is not acceptable. Art 2183 holds the possessor liable even if
the animal should escape or lost
 B. Owners of Motor Vehicles

- See Section III(D)(ii)(a) above.

C. Manufacturers and Processors

- Case

Coca-Cola Bottlers v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110295, October 18, 1993.
(there is fiber like matter in the softdrinks offered by the canteen)
o Vendees remedies
o Implied warranty
o Annulment of contract upon proof of error or fraud
o Quasi-delict
Quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of
contractual relations.
o Under these three remedies, the vendee can claim damages.

D. Municipal Corporations

- Republic Act No. 7160, Section 24

- Cases

City of Manila v. Teotico, 22 SCRA 267 (1968) (a commuter, pumara ng jeep,

while trying to ride the jeep, he fell on a man hole and incurred injuries)
o Under 2189, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to
attach that the defective roads or streets belong to the province, city,
or municipality from which responsibility ex exacted. What is required
is that the province, city or municipality have either control or
supervision over said street or road.

Jimenez v. City of Manila, 150 SCRA 510 (1987) (petitioner was buying
bagoong in Sta. Ana Market. Due to the flood, he stepped on uncovered
opening and a nail pierced his leg, market was managed by a private entity)
o Despite the management and operating contract, between manila city
and Asiatic, Manila still retained the control of the market.
o It was admitted by the Mayor to a letter to the Sec of Finance
o Manila employed a market master whose duty is to take direct
supervision and control of that particular market
o Petitioner had the right to assume that there were no openings in the
middle of the passageways and if any, that they were adequately
covered.
Guilatco v. City of Dagupan, 171 SCRA 382 (1989) (petitioner, while waiting
for a tricycle in a sidewalk, fell on a manhole)
o The engineer exercise control or supervision over the public works in
question.
o Although the engineers are employees of the National
Government, they are detailed with the City of Dagupan and
hence receive instruction and supervision from the city through
the City Engineer.

E. Building Proprietors

- Cases

De Roy v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 757 (1988) (building firewall collapsed
and destroyed the house of the defendant)
o Petitioner is liable under Article 2190, which provides that the
proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damage
resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack
of necessary repairs.

F. Engineers/Architects/Contractors

- Cases

Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47851, October 3, 1986, and
Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47851, April 15, 1988 (PBA
building was not able to withstand an earthquake because of the fault in the
architectural design)
o 1st case
o to be exempt from liability under Article 1174 due to an act of
God the ff must concur:
a. the cause of the breach must be independent of the will
of the debtor
b. the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable
c. the event must be such as to render it impossible for the
debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner
d. the debtor must be free from ay participation in, or
aggravation of the injury to the creditor.
o 2nd Case
o citing Tucker v. Milan
One who negligently creates a dangerous condition
cannot escape liability for the natural and probable
consequences thereof, although the act of a third person,
or an act of God for which he is not responsible,
intervenes to precipitate the loss.
o There is no need for PBA to provide full-time supervision
because the construction involves highly technical matters
VII. SPECIAL TORTS (HUMAN RELATIONS)

A. Abuse of Rights and acts contra bonus mores

- Civil Code
o Articles 19 to 21 (Memorize)

- Cases

Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Pacilan, G.R. No. 157314, July
29, 2005 ( Defendant issued checks, his account was insufficiently
funded do the petitioner bank closed his account;defendant overdrawn
a lot of times)
o Elements of abuse of rights
a. The existence of a legal right or duty
b. Which is exercised in bad faith
c. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another
o The law always presumes good faith and any person who seeks
to be awarded damages due to acts of another has the burden
of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill-motive.
o Defendant improperly handled his account
o he overdrawn, used different signature s

Rellosa v. Pellosis, G.R. No. 138964, August 9, 2001(defendant, lessee

of petitioner. Defendants house was demolished by petitioner after
selling it and without letting def exercise their right to first refusal)
o A right is a power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed under a
constitution, statute or decisional law, or recognized as a result
of long usage, constructive of a legally enforceable claim of one
person against another.
o When petitioners implemented the demolition, it was only after
five days after the defendants received the notice. They still
have time to appeal and the said decision is not yet final and
executory.

Cebu Country Club, Inc., v. Elizagaque, G.R. No. 160273, January 18,
2008 (respondent wanted to join the club but he was rejected by the
Board)
o The exercise of right, though legal by itself, must nonetheless
be in accordance with the proper norm. When the right is
exercised arbitrarily, unjustly or excessively and results in
 damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the
wrong doer must be held responsible.
o Damnum absque injuria will not apply when there is an abuse of
a persons right.

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes, G.R. No. 154259, February 28,
2005 (Reyes was not invited to the party of gen man of Nikko hotel)
o Volenti non fit injuria (to which a person assents is not
esteemed in law as injury
o Refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury
which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has
knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger,
even if he is not negligent in doing so.
o

Calatagan Golf Club, Inc., v. Clemente, G.R. No. 165443, April 16,
2009 (Calatagan foreclosed Clementes share for delinquency in paying
the monthly due;)
o A non-stock corporation like Calatagan is not exempt from that
obligation in its treatment of its members. The obligation of a
corporation to treat every person honestly and in good faith
extends even to its shareholders or members, even if the latter
find themselves contractually bound to perform certain
obligations to the corporation. A certificate of stock cannot be a
character of dehumanization.
o Clemente was not given due notice here.

University of the East v. Jader, G.R. No. 132344, February 17,

2000(school made paasa the student that he is eligible to graduate)
o It is the contractual obligation of the school to timely inform and
furnish sufficient notice and information to each and every
student as to whether he or she had already complied with all
the requirements for the conferment of a degree or whether
they would be included among the those who will graduate.
o Graduation ceremony is the educational institutions way of
announcing to the whole world that the students included in the
list of those who will be conferred a degree during the ceremony
have satisfied all the requirements for such degree.

Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88694,

January 11, 1993 (albenson filed a bp 22 but it was dismissed)
o Elements of Article 21
a. There is an act which is legal
b. But which is contrary to morals, good custom,
public order, or public policy
 c. Done with intent to injure
o There is a common element under articles 19 and 21 and that
is, the act must be intentional. However, Article 20 does not
distinguish: the act may be done either willfully, or
negligently.
o In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or fraud or bad
faith, moral damages cannot be awarded and the adverse result
of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and
subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could
not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.
o To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that
the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and
humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately by the
defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless.
o Requisites for malicious prosecution;
a. The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the
defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action was
finally terminated with an acquittal
b. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without
probable cause
c. The prosecutor acted without probable cause

Martires v. Cokieng, G.R. No. 150192, February 17, 2005 (filed estafa
case)
o To merit the award of damages in a case of malicious
prosecution, the aggrieved party must prove:
a. That he has been denounced or charged falsely on an offense
by the defendant
b. That the latter knows that the charge was false or lack
probable cause
c. That the said defendant actd with malice, and, of course
d. The damage he has suffered
o The elements of want of probable cause and malice must
simultaneously exist; otherwise, the presence of probable cause
signifies, as a legal consequence, the absence of malice.

Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
81262, August 25, 1989
Ford v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 51171-72, June 4, 1990
Hermosisima v. Court of Appeals, 109 Phil. 628 (1960)
Wassmer v. Velez, 12 SCRA 648 (1964)
Baksh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993
Garciano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96126, August 10, 1992

B. Unjust Enrichment
- Civil Code
o Articles 22 and 23 (Memorize)

- Cases

Security Bank & Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117009,
October 11, 1995 (

Uy v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 147925-26, July 7, 2010

Car Cool Philippines, Inc., v. Ushio Realty and Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 138088, January 23, 2006
Almario v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 170928, September 11,
2007
Grandteq Industrial Steel Products, Inc., v. Margallo, G.R. No. 181393,
July 28, 2009
C. Judicial Vigilance

- Civil Code
o Article 24 (Memorize)

- Case

1. Everett Steamship Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

122494, October 8, 1998 (shipping; some of the shipment lost)
o Greater vigilance is required of the court when dealing with
contracts of adhesion in that the said contracts must be
carefully scrutinized in order to shield the unwary from
deceptive schemes contained in ready-made covenants.
o We assume that maruman trading has been
extensively engaged in the trading business. It can not
be said to be ignorant of the business transactions it
entered into involcing the shipment of its goods to its
customers.

D. Thoughtless Extravagance

- Civil Code
o Article 25 (Memorize)

E. Disrespect of Persons

- Civil Code
o Article 26 (Memorize)

- Cases
Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 179799, September 11, 2009
(respondent was arrested in front of her husband and daughter)
o The complaint here is not of malicious prosecution but quasi-
delist in relation with Article 26

Manaloto v. Veloso, G.R. No. 171365, October 6, 2010(petitioner filed

an unlawful det case against def; petitioner gave copies of mtc
decision to the neighborhood;def filed a case for humiliation)
o Requisite of cause of action
a. There is a right in favor of petitioner
b. There is an obligation on the part of the def to respect
such right
c. Act or omission of def to violate such right
o Art. 26 is not limited to those it enumerated.
o The philo behind art. 26 underscores th necessity for its
inclusion in our civil law.
o Human personality must be exalted
o The touchstone of every system of law is how far it
dignifies man.
o While petitioners were free to copy and distribute such copies of
the MeTC judgment to the public, the question is whether they
did so with the intent of humiliating respondent and destroying
the latters good name and reputation in the community.
o However, in this case, there was no sufficient evidence
presented by the petitioner.
o Good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has
the duty to prove the same.
o Bad faith imports dishonest purpose or moral obliquity
due to some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of
the nature of fraud.

Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc., v. Verchez, G.R. No.

164349, January 31, 2006 (radio telegram did not reach the family)
o RCPIs negligence in not promptly performing its obligation
undoubtedly disturbed the peace of mind not only of Grace but
also her co-respondents. As observed by the the appellate court,
it disrupted the filial tranquility among them as they blamed
each other for failing to respond swiftly to an emergency.

St. Louis Realty Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46061,

November 14, 1984(house of doctor was used in an ad)
o Prying into the privacy of anothers residence ad meddling with
ou disturbing the private life or family relations of another and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense,
 shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and
other relief.

Spouses Hing v. Choachuy, Sr., G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013( cctv
case)
o Right to privacy (consti)
o The right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of
ones person or from intrusion into ones private activities
in such a way as to cause humiliation to a persons
ordinary sensibilities.
o Article 26 covers business offices where the public are excluded
therefrom and only certain individuals are allowed to enter.
o Reasonble expectation of privacy test
1. Whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an
expectation privacy
2. Expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable

F. Dereliction of Duty

- Civil Code
o Article 27 (Memorize)

- Cases

Philippine Match Co., Ltd., v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. L-30745, January
18, 1978 (there was a tax ordinance; treasurer did not follow the
advise of city fiscal)
o The fiscals opinion on the legality of the ordinance is merly
advisory.
o The record clearly reveals that the city treasurer honestly
believed that he was justified under the tax ordinance in
collecting the sales tax.
o The city treasure acted within the scope of his authority and in
consonance with his bonafide interpretation of the tax
ordinance.
o A punlic officer is not personally liable to one inured in
consequence of an act performed within the scope of his official
authority, and in the line of his official duty.

Tuzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90107, August 21, 1992

(defendant was not issued business permit without signing the
agreement of )
o The record discloses that the resolution was uniformly applied to
all the threshers in in the municipality without discrimination.

Vital-Gozon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129132, July 8, 1998 (

doctor was demoted)
 o A public official may be made to pay damages for performing a
perfectly legal act, albeit with bad faith or in violation of the
abuse of right doctirne embodied in the preliminary articles of
the Civil Code under article 19 and 27.

Torio v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. L-29993, October 23, 1978 (fiesta;stage

collapsed)
o Holding of fiesta is a proprietary function of the municipal
o Macaraeg acted merely as an agent of the Municipality. Under
the doctrine of respondent superior mentioned earlier, petitioner
is responsible or liable negligence of its agent acting within this
assigned tasks.

G. Unfair Competition

- Civil Code
o Article 28 (Memorize)

- Cases

Willaware Products Corp. v. Jesichris Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No.

195549, September 3, 2014 (kinuha yung employee)
o Unfair competition
o It must involve an injury to a competition or trade rival
o It must involve acts which are characterized as contrary
to good conscience or shocking to judicial sensibilities or
otherwise unlawful.
In the language of our law, it includes force,
intimidation, deceit, machination
Calamba Medical Center, Inc., v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 176484, November 25, 2008
o The circulation of such list contatining names of alleged union
members intended to prevent employment of workers for union
activities similarly constitutes unfair labor practice, therby giving
a right of action for damages by the employees prejudiced.

H. Violation of Civil/Political Rights

- Civil Code
o Article 32 (Memorize)

- Cases

Lim v. De Leon, 66 SCRA 299 (1975) (there wa a sale of motor

launch)
o Valid search warrant
1. It must be issued upon probable cause
 2. The probable cause tmust be determined by the judge himself
and not by the applicant or any other person
3. He judge must examine under oath or affirmation the
complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce
4. The warrant issued ust particularly describe the place to be
searched and persons or things to be seized

MHP Garments, Inc., v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 227 (1994)

o Private persons who instigate an illegal warrantless search and
seizure ay be held liable for damages.

Newsweek v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 142 SCRA 141 (1986)

(sugar cane)
o Defamaroey remarks directed at a class or group of persons in
general language only, are not actionable by individuals
composing the class or group unless the statements are
sweeping;and it is very probabe that even then no action would
lie where the body is composed of so large a number of persons
that common sense would tell those to whom the publication
was made that there was room for persons connected with the
body tp pursue

MVRS Publications, Inc., v. Islamic DaWah Council of the Philippines,

G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003
Silahis International Hotel v. Soluta, G.R. No. 163087, February 20,
2006

VIII. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

- Civil Code
o Article 1314 (Memorize)

- Cases

1. Gilchrist v. Cuddy, 29 Phil. 542 (1915)

2. Daywalt v. Corporacion de PP Agustinos Recoletos, 39 Phil. 587
(1919)
3. Tayag v. Lacson, 426 SCRA 282 (2004)
4. Yu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86683, January 21, 1993
5. So Ping Bun v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 751 (1999)
6. Lagon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119107, March 18, 2005
7. Go v. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703, May 4, 2010

IX. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM CRIMES

- Rules of Court
o Rule 111
 - Civil Code
o Articles 29 to 31, and 33 to 36 (Memorize)

- Cases

Banal v. Tadeo, G.R. No. L-78911-25, December 11, 1987

Simon v. Chan, G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011
Cancio v. Isip, G.R. No. 133978, November 12, 2002
Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002
Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, G.R. Nos. 155531-34, July 29, 2005

Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 558 (1984) (grave

coercion;aquitted because reasonable doubt)
Petitioners were acquitted because these acts were
denominated coercion when they properly constituted some
other offense such as threat or malicious mischief
The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the
accused for damages only when it includes a declaration that
the facts from which the civil might arise did not exist. Thus, the
civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where the acquittal
is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence
is required in civil cases; where the court expressly declares
that the liability of the accused is not criminal but only civil in
nature.
A separate civil action may be warranted where additional facts
have to be established or move evidence must be adduced or
where the criminal case has been fully terminated and a
separate compalaint would be just as efficacious or even more
expedient than a timely remand to the trial court where the
criminal action was decided for further hearings on the civil
aspects of the case.

Romero v. People, G.R. No. 167546, July 17, 2009
People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994
Cabugao v. People, G.R. No. 163879, G.R. No. 165805, July 30, 2014
Sanchez v. Far East Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 155309,
November 15, 2005
Manliclic v. Calaunan, G.R. No. 150157, January 25, 2007
Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 282 SCRA 188 (1997)
Lim v. Ping, G.R. No. 175256, August 23, 2012
Consing v. People, G.R. No. 161075, July 15, 2013

X. DAMAGES

A. In General

- Civil Code
 o Articles 2195, 2197, and 2198
Memorize: Article 2197

- Case

1. Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117103, January 21, 1999

B. Actual Damages

- Civil Code
o Articles 2199 to 2202, 2204 to 2213
o Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, series of 2013
Memorize: Articles 2199, 2200, 2201, 2202, 2204, 2205,
and 2208

- Cases

1. PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.

No. 107518, October 8, 1998
2. Algarra v. Sandejas, 27 Phil. 284 (1914)
3. Cerrano v. Tan Chuco, G.R. No. 12907, August 1, 1918
4. Hicks v. Manila Hotel Company, G.R. No. 9973, November 6, 1914
5. Justiva v. Gustilo, 7 SCRA 72 (1963)
6. De Guia v. The Manila Electric Railroad & Light Company, G.R. No.
14335, January 28, 1920
7. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 91852, August
15, 1995
8. Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125817, January 16, 2002
9. Adrian Wilson International Associates, Inc., v. TMX Philippines,
Inc., G.R. No. 162608, July 26, 2010
10. People v. Mamaruncas, G.R. No. 179497, January 25, 2012
11. People v. Arellano, G.R. No. 122477, June 30, 2000
12. People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011
13. Cariaga v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, G.R. No. L-11037,
December 29, 1960
14. Villa Rey Transit v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-25499, February
18, 1970
15. Cruz v. Sun Holidays, Inc., G.R. No. 186312, June 29, 2010
16. De Caliston v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-63135, June 24, 1983
17. Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
116617, November 16, 1998
18. Tamayo v. Seora, G.R. No. 176946, November 15, 2010
19. Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16,
2010
20. OMC Carriers, Inc., v. Nabua, G.R. No. 148974, July 2, 2010
21. Spouses Perea v. Spouses Zarate, G.R. No. 157917, August 29,
2012
22. Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad, G.R. No. 159636, November 25,
2004
23. Daywalt v. Corporacion de PP Agustinos Recoletos, 39 Phil. 587
(1919)
24. Consolidated Dairy Products Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
100401, August 24, 1992
25. Continental Cement Corporation v. ASEA Brown Boveri, Inc., G.R.
No. 171660, October 17, 2011
26. Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, 90 Phil. 836 (1952)
27. Araneta v. Bank of America, G.R. No. L-25414, July 30, 1971
28. Simex International (Manila), Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 88013, March 19, 1990
29. National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-43814,
April 16, 1982
30. Padilla Machine Shop v. Javilgas, G.R. No. 175960, February 19,
2008
31. David v. Misamis Occidental II Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No.
194785, July 11, 2012
32. Lacson v. Reyes, 182 SCRA 729 (1990).
33. Petron Corporation v. National College of Business and Arts, 516
SCRA 168 (2007)
34. Buan v. Camaganacan, 16 SCRA 321 (1966)
35. Villanueva v. Salvador, 480 SCRA 39 (2006)
36. Eastern Shipping v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 78 (1994)
37. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013
38. Rivera v. Spouses Chua, G.R. No. 184458, January 14, 2015