TORTS AND DAMAGES
SYLLABUS
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I.GENERAL CONSIDERATION
Definition of “tort”
Classes of Tort/Kinds of tort liabilities
Intentional torts – conduct where the actor desires to cause
the consequences of his acts or believes that consequences
are substantially certain to result from it.
EXAMPLE: Battery, assault, false imprisonment,defamation,
invasion of privacy, interference of property
Negligence – voluntary acts or omissions which result in injury
to another without intending to cause the same. The actor
fails to exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions
strict liability – the person is made liable independent of fault
or negligence.
Philippine Tort Law
Article 1157 of the NCC is the primary statute that
governs torts in the Philippines.
Scope and Applicable Laws
Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith.
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify
the latter for the same.
Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury
to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damage.
II. NEGLIGENCE
Statutory Basis and Requisites.
II. Kinds of Negligence:
1. CULPA CONTRACTUAL (contractual fault) is governed
by the provisions on Obligations and Contracts
under Art. 1170 to 1174 NCC; by express provisions,
Arts. 2178, 1172-1174 of the NCC are applicable to
quasi-delict cases. Action for damages based on
contracts are not tort actions.
2. CULPA AQUILIANA (quasi-delict)
Art. 2176 NCC. “Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, thee being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Requisites: 3 (Taylor vs Mla Electric Co.16
Phil 8)
1. There must be an act or omission constituting
fault or negligence;
2. Damage caused by the said act or omission;
and
3. Causal relation between damage and the act
or mission
A 4th requisite has been added by the SC in
some cases, that is, the absence of contractual
relation bewtween the plaintiff and the
defendant. (as cited in the case of Gregoria vs
CA, G.R. No. 179799, Sept. 11, 2009)
3. DELICT (Criminal negligence) is found in Article 365,
RPC.
Elements of a crime
1. The offender does or fails to do an act;
2. The doing or failure to do that act is voluntary;
3. It is without malice;
4. The material damage results from the reckless
imprudence; and
5. There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the
part of the offender, taking into consideration
his employment or occupation, degree of
intelligence, physical condition, and other
circumstances regarding person, time and place
(Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 282 SCRA 188)
Distinction between culpa aquiliana from culpa contractual
Distinction between culpa aquiliana from crimes
Concurrence of causes of action- a single act or omission may
give rise to two or more causes of action.
Civil liability arising from quasi-delict
Civil liability for personal acts and omissions
Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf, 7 Phil 359
Wright vs. Manile Electric, 28 Phil 122
Samson vs. Dionisio, 11 Phil 538
Tenchavez vs. Escano, 15 SCRA 355
III. QUASI DELICT
Concept and Elements of Quasi Delict
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(1902a)
Responsibility for negligence under Article 2176 distinct and
separate from that under RPC
Barredo vs. Garcia and Almario, 78 Phil 607
Virata vs. Ochoa, 81 SCRA 472
Liability of employers for acts and omissions of employees
Paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code
provide:
“The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but
also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
“The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by
their employees in the service of the branches in which
the latter are employed or on the occasion of their
functions. “Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry.”
PSBA vs. CA (Feb 4 1992)
Employer liable for act or omission of employee, even if not
engaged in business or industry
Under paragraph 5 of Article 2180 of the Civil Code
employees are liable for the damages caused by
their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks even though
they are not engaged in any business or industry.
Ortaliz vs. Echarri, 101 Phil 947
Employer not liable when injury did not occur in the course of
duty or service
An employer is liable for the damage caused by his
employees only when said employees are “in the
service of the branches in which they are employed
or on the occasion of their functions.”
Marquez vs. Castillo, 68 Phil 568
Due diligence as a defense
Bajia vs Litonjua and Leynes
Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District
Distinction of liability of employer under Art 2180 and their
liability for breach of contract
Cangco vs. Manila Railroad
Vasquez vs. De Borja
Delsan Transport vs. C & A Construction, GR No.
156034 October 1, 2003
Metro Mla. Transit vs. C.A., GR No. 116617 Nov. 16,
1998
Rosales Vs. C.A., GR No. 126395, Nov. 16, 1998
Due diligence of employer not a defense in cases of breach of
contract
In case the fault or negligence of the employee
results in a breach of contract, due diligence in the
selection of his employee and in the supervision
over his acts, is not available as a defense on the
part of the employer.
Castro vs. Acro Taxicab
De Guia vs. Mla. Electric
Del Prado vs. Mla. Electric
Proof of defendant’s fault or negligence not necessary in cases
of breach of contract of carriage
Brito Sy vs. Malate Taxicab
Castro vs. Taxi Cab
Injured party may sue employee or both employer and
employee jointly
Belizar vs. Brazas et al. 2 SCRA 526
Distinction of liability of employers under Art 2180 from their
liability under RPC
Mendoza vs. La Mallorca Bus Co., 82 SCRA 245
Practical importance of the distinction
Liability of parents for their children or ward
The first, second and third paragraphs of Art. 2180
of the Civil Code
Cuadra vs. Monfort
Mercado vs. CA
Fuellas vs. Cadano
Escano vs. Hill
Liability of State for acts of special agents
Meritt vs. Govt. of P.I.
Palafox vs. Prov of Ilocos Norte
Republic vs. Palacio
Liability of teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trade
Palisoc vs. Brillanted et. al, 41 SCRA 548,
Mercado vs. CA & Quisumbing 108 Phil 414
Right of reimbursement
Due diligence as a defense
Liability does not apply to teachers and heads of academic
schools
Liability of possessors and users of animals
Afialdo vs. hilsole et. al
Liability of owners of motor vehicles
Liability of manufacturers and possessors
Liability of proprietors
Dingcong vs Kanaan
Responsibility of join-tortfeasors
Period for filing action for damages in quasi-delict
Ferrer vs. Ericta
Concurrence of Causes of Action
A single act or omission may give rise to
two or more causes of action. The obligation based
on one is separate and distinct from the other. That
is, the act or omission may give rise to an action
based on delict, quasi-delict and even contract.
 Afialda vs. Hisole, 85 Phil 67
III.CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE
Definition- Article 1173 NCC The doctrine of “last clear chance”-
Jurisprudential definition Picart vs Smith
Layugan vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 363 (1988) citing Blacks Law
Dictionary Res Ipsa Loquitur
Layugan vs IAC, citing Cooley on torts, 4E vol. 3, Africa vs Caltex et al
265. Republic vs Luzon Stevedoring

Concept of negligence under Phil. Law- US vs. Juanillo, 23 V.OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ARISING FROM HUMAN
Phil212.213, Corlis vs. Mla Railroad RELATIONS

Concept of Negligence in American Law- Negligence is a Manner of exercising rights and duties
conduct not a state of mind Velayo vs Shell Co
PNB vs. CA
Concept of negligence in English Law-
Damages for acts contrary to morals, good customs, public
The standard of care-Good father of a family (Picart vs Smith) policy
Mla Gas Corp vs CA
Test to determine the existence of negligence Grand Union Supermarket vs. Espino Jr.
Picart vs. Smith Quisumbing vs ICAO
PNCC vs. C.A., GR No. 159270, Aug. 22, 2005 Pe et al vs Pe
Mandarin Villa Inn vs. C.A., 257 SCRA 538,543 Wassmer vs. Velez

Acts or omissions held negligently by the Supreme Court Return of things acquired without just or legal cause
Wright vs Mla. Elecric
Yamada vs. Mla. Railroad Liability for benefits received although not due to fault or
La Mallorca vs. De Jesus negligence
Rodriguez v. Mla. Railroad
Culion Ice Fish v Phil Motors Duty of courts to give protection in certain cases
Corliss vs. Mla Railroad
Umali vs Bacani Extravagant expenses in period of public want or emergency

IV.CAUSATION Right of privacy

Concept of Proximate Cause
Definition- Vda de Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil 108
Difficulty of determining proximate cause- Why?
Test adopted by American courts to determine proximate
cause
a. The “but for” or “sine qua non” rule
b. The foreseeability test-
427; Vda. De Bataclan vs. Median, 102
Phil. 171; Gabeto vs. Araneta, 42 Phil 252; Vda.De
Imperial vs. Helad Lumbre Co., 3 SCRA 178; Picart vs.
Smith, 37 Phil. 809)
c. The cause and condition test
d. Natural and probable consequences test.
Many courts have said that the
defendant is liable only if the harm suffered is the
natural and probable consequence of his act.
The problem of apportionment of damages among causes
Vda de Bataclan vs Medina
Subido vs Custodio
Teague vs. Fernandez
Interference with family relations
Vexing or humiliating a person
Refusal or neglect to perform official duty
Jovellano et al vs Tayo
Zulueta vs. Nicolas
Phil Match Co. Ltd vs. City of Cebu
Unfair Competition
Civil action where accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt
Bernardes vs. Bohol Land Transp.
Violation or obstruction of civil or political rights
Lim and Taja vs. Ponce de Leon
Separate and independent action for fraud, defamation and
physical injuries
Carandang vs Santiago and Valenton
Refusal or failure of police to render assistance

Defenses in negligence cases--Contributory Negligence, Where no independent civil action is granted and the municipal
Assumption of risk judge or fiscal fails or refuses to institute criminal action
Rakes vs. Atlantic
Taylor vs Mla Electric Pre-jucidial questions
Bernardo vs Legaspi
The time to ask for suspension or criminal action
Assumption of risk-
VI. NUISANCE Art. 2195.
Art. 2196.
Kinds of nuisance Art. 2197
Art. 2198.
Remedies against public nuisance
ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
Liability for extra-judicial abatement Art. 2199.
Art. 2200.
Easement against nuisance Art. 2201.
Ayala vs Baretto Art. 2202.
Sitchon et al vs. Aquino Art. 2203.
Velasco vs Mla Electric Art. 2204.
Tat Chan vs. Mun of Iloilo Art. 2205.
Art. 2206.
Art. 2207.
VI. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACUAL RELATIONS Art. 2208.
History under the Common La in the Philippines Art. 2209.
Art. 2210.
Art. 2211.
VII. LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES
Art. 2212.
Dual aspect of crime
Art. 2213.
People and Manuel vs Coloma
Art. 2214.
Art. 2215.
Subsidiary liability of innkeepers and proprietors
Arambulo vs. Manila Electric
CHAPTER 3
Yumul vs. Juanito & Pamapanga Bus Co.
OTHER KINDS OF DAMAGES
Employer’s liability being subsidiary, employee must be
Art. 2216.
convicted first
Art. 2217.
Jamilo vs Serfino
Art. 2218.
Joaquin vs Aniceto
Art. 2219.
Art.2220.
Employer liable only when engaged in industry; meaning of
Art. 2221.
“industry”
Art. 2222.
Telleria vs. Garcia
Art. 2223.
Clemente vs Foreign Mission Sisters
SECTION 3. - Temperate or Moderate Damages
Employee’s conviction conclusive upon employer
Art. 2224.
Martinez vs Barredo
Art. 2225.
Orsal vs Arisbo
Miranda vs Malate Garage
SECTION 4. - Liquidated Damages
Art. 2226.
Employee’s insolvency not necessary for employer’s subsidiary
Art. 2227.
liability
Art.2228.
Bntot vs Bobis
SECTION 5. - Exemplary or Corrective Damages
Crime must be in the discharge of employee’s duty
Art. 2229.
Basa Marketing Corp. vs Bolinao Security Etc
Art. 2230.
Art. 2231.
What is included in civil liability
Art. 2232.
Padua vs. Roblez
Art. 2233.
Lanuza vs Ping
Art. 2234.
Manio vs Gaddi
Art. 2235.
Chan vs yatco 103 Phil 1126
Mendoza vs Arrieta
Elcano vs Hill Meaning of Damages
PNB vs Purisima
Albornos vs Racela The law on damages-where found

I. DAMAGES Fundamental rule on damages

Title XVIII. - DAMAGES Damages and its amount must be proved

CHAPTER 1 Only proximate cause, not remote cause recoverable

Juntilla vs. Fontanar,
GENERAL PROVISIONS
 GR No. L-45637, May 31, 1985

Speculative damages, not recoverable

Damages recoverable

Lopez et al vs PANAM
Air France vs Carrascoso
Ortigas vs Lufthansa German Airlines

Damages recoverable in quasi-delict

Duty of injured party to minimize damages

Lasam vs Smith

Damages increased or diminished by aggravating or mitigating

circumstances

Damages for impairment of earning capacity

Borromeo vs Mla Electric Co

Soberano vs Mla Railroad
Marchan vs Mendoza
Damages for injury to business standing

Factors to be considered in determining damages in case of

death of person
Cilla Ray Transit vs CA

Subrogation on insurance company

Attorney’s fees when recoverable

Payment on interest
Effect of plaintiff’s contributory negligence
Rakes vs Atlantic Gulf
Taylor vs Mla electric
Laguna Tayabas Bus vs Cornista

Power of courts to mitigate damages on equitable grounds

No proof of pecuniary loss necessary to recover moral,
nominal, temperate or liquidated or exemplary damages, but
factual basis must be shown

Moral damages
Cases where moral damages may be recovered

Moral damages for breach of contract

Acts contrary to moral, public policy, good customs
Araneta vs Bank of America