TORTS  EX.
The caretaker employed (to whom the
Introduction Proper
Provisions of laws where Torts & Damages may be found (pp.1-2)
Quasi-contract
 Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical
relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly
enriched or benefited at the expense of another [2142]
o EX. An obligation only arises for compensation if there was an
act that was done to save another (p.2)
Torts
Definition
 Ordinary Definition: Private or civil wrong or injury that provides a
remedy in the form of action for damages
 Not a purely civil wrong (with remedies in the form of civil actions)
(ex. remedies for nuisance,p.3)
 Codally speaking, it does not include breaches of contract (pre-existing
contractual relation)
 Rationale: The existence of the latter would only be limited to
those for breaches of contract (ex.rescission or specific
performance, with action for damages in either case)
 However, breaches of contract may be a tort when such tort is the
cause for the breach of contract
o The breach of contract of carriage (improper treatment
of airline staff) also finds a tortous act present, since any
discourteous conduct gives the passenger an action for
damages (albeit not merely limited to damages alone, in
lieu of Art 26 and 699) (Air France v. Carrascoso) (pp.3-4)
o Thus, there is not exact definition for tort, as an act for
breach of contract may also be classified as a tort (which
may also be classified as a crime)
 Tort v. Crime (p.4)
 New Definition: Miscellaneous and unconnected group of civil wrongs
(other than breach of contract) that gives rise to an action for damages
Action is available against both private and public entities, thus the government
is not immune from torts
 Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the
death of, or injuries suffered by, any person [2189]
o by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under their control
or supervision
 The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special
agent [2180]
o EXC: but not when the damage has been caused by the official
to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what
is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable
 Rationale (p.3)
Classes of Torts
a) Negligence torts
 Correlate with 2176. Hence, if there is no negligence, then there is
no tort nor quasi-delict
 Most prevalent tort, because anything can be subsumed as long as
an individual fails to act as a reasonable person to someone he
owes a duty to
 Elements
i. Person owes a duty or service to the plaintiff (duty)
ii. He violated such duty or obligation (breach)
iii. An injury arises because of that specific obligation (causation,
or a cause-and-effect relationship between the the conduct
and result)
 Types of causation
a. Causation-in-fact
o Injury incurred due to the party’s actions
b. Proximate causation (causation in law)
o Definition of proximate cause
o Even if one is causation-in-fact, it does not
necessarily mean it is also a proximate causation
(due to the element of foreseeability, EX pp.7-8)
iv. Cause of injury must have been reasonably foreseeable as a
result of the negligent action (damages)
b) Intentional torts
 Does not depend on negligence, but on the intent of the party
causing damage
 Arises a criminal offense
 EX. Art 26 (p.5)
c) Strict liability torts
 Law determines that such acts are liable for damages, regardless of
intent or negligence
 Examples (p.5)
o Maintenance of fire hazard (RA 9514)
o The possessor of an animal is responsible for the
damage which it may cause, although it may escape or
be lost [2183]
 EX. Dog bites, even if there was no
negligence on the part of the owner
animal was under custody) is responsible for
the damage (Afialda v. Hisole)
 This responsibility shall cease only in case the
damage should come from force majeure or
from the fault of the person who has suffered
damage.
o Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks,
toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death
or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances
used (although no contractual relation exists between
them and the consumers) [2187]
o The head of a family that lives in a is responsible for
damages caused by things thrown or falling from the
same. [2193]
 Negligence tort v. Strict liability tort (p.5)
Tort sometimes encompasses both negligent and intentional acts (act may be
prosecuted both as a crime and as a civil wrong/tort)
 EX. If a defamatory statement is published, it may be punished under the
RPC. If it was uttered privately, then it may be punished as intentional
affliction of mental distress (Art 26) (NB: Based merely on J.Carpio’s dissent)
o Gravamen of the offense is not the injury to the reputation,
but the actual harm to the mental and emotional state
o The requirements of libel (reputation) is immaterial in Art 26
o EX. (MVRS v. Islamic Dawal Council, p.6)
Torts law covers actual, potential, and foreseeable injuries
 While PH law only covers actual injury, Western tort law covers mere
potential injuries
o Roman concepts in torts
 Dejectum Effesumve Aliquid (2193)
 Del Positis Vel Suspensis
 Mere placing of an object in a
dangerous position is already a ground
for liability, even if no one was injured
 EX. Fire hazard and nuisance (p.8)
 Covers physical and non-physical injuries
o EX. p.8
Aims or Theories of Tort Law (pp.8-9)
QUASI-DELICT
2176-2179
Quasi-delict
 Latin Origin and as a misnomer (p.9)
 Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence (where if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties) is obliged to pay for the damage done [2176]
o An obligation is a juridical necessity to give (real), to do or
not to do (personal) (quasi-delict as a source of obligation)
o It is the fact of damage caused by fault or negligence that gives
rise to the obligation
o EX. An obligation to be a careful driver, arises from a natural
obligation, not necessarily from 2176 (p.2)
 Quasi-delict v. Tort (p.9)
 Elements
i. Damage
ii. Negligence
iii. Relation of cause and effect between the two
 De La Llana v. Biong (pp.9-10)
Fault or Negligence
 Differentiating dolo and culpa (p.10)
 Negligence (definition) (p.10)
 Types of Fault
i. Fault substantive and independent (culpa aquiliana or culpa extra-
contractual)
ii. An incident in the performance of an obligation (culpa contractual,
since arising from a pre-existing obligation)
 EX. Contract of commodatum (p.10)
 Culpa Aquiliana v. Culpa Criminal v. Culpa Contractual (pp.13-14)
 Negligence must be proved (by preponderance of evidence) in a quasi-
delict case for the plaintiff to recover
o EXC: Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor
 When the presence of facts and circumstnaces
surrounding the injury clearly indicate negligence.
Burden of proof rets on the party charged of
negligence
 Requisites (p.14)
 Not substantive law, but a mere procedural
convenience (does not dispense requirement of
proof of culpable negligence, as it is only invoked
when direct evidence is absent and not readily
available) (p.15)
Due Care
 Reasonable person: an imaginary prudent person who takes necessary
precaution to avoid harming another (equated to DGFF)
 Due care: Does not necessarily mean DGFF, but depends on the nature
of the obligation and the circumstances of the persons,time, and place
(since reasonableness is relative) (EX. p.7)
o Examples of instances when absolute, not relative (p.11)
 EX. A car crashes on a bicycle. The former is liable
and must had exerted more care than the latter, as
it poses a greater danger than the bicycle (Heirs of
Complete v. Albayda)
 Types of Diligence Required Under the Civil Code
1. Agreed upon by the parties
2. Required by law
 DGFF (bonum pater familias) as the default
3. Extraordinary diligence
Instances when required by law
o Common carriers
Over the goods and safety of its passengers,
and carry them safely as far as human care
and foresight can provide [1733 and 1755]
o Public utility companies
EX. Death due to a faulty wire from a post
hitting heavy flooded streets. Negligence in
duty of avoiding harm to the public, and
cannot be justified of a fortituous event, since
the act of God combines the negligence to
produce an injury (Ilocos Norte v. CA)
 In relation to Doctrine of assumption of
risk (pp.11-12)
o BIR and Customs Examiners
In the performance of their duties, and liable
for any injury suffered by any business
establishment or taxpayer [RA 9335]
o Banks
Only to the extent of which the fiduciary
relationship between the bank and their
depositors are concerned (ex. diligence as to
forged checks), and not to other commercial
transactions
o Board of Canvassers during election
o SEC officers (p.12)
o Respondent public officers in Writ of Amparo
cases
 Must prove such diligence that the ruels
were observed in the performance of
duty (presumption of regularity does
not apply)
 Responsibility and accountability (p.13)

Also applicable to intentional acts

 As to employers where the employees committed the act, 2176 would
make the former’s liability primary and direct (not subsidiary as to Art
100 RPC)
o An independent action for 2176 may prosper despite prior
filing of a criminal case, as long as there is no double recovery
of damages (p.13)