Oblicon

Personal Elements
-1 Creditor (active) he demands the performance of subject
-2 Debtor (passive) awaits the command of the creditor

Object - subject matter of the obligation

Vinculum (efficient cause) reason why

-2 Law
-3 Contracts
-4 Delicts
-5 Quasi-delicts
-6 Quasi-contracts
(2142) - Solutio indebity (unjust enrichment)
(2154) - negotiorum gestio
(officio's manager)

Damages (mental)
-7 Moral
-8 Exemplary
-9 Nominal
-10 Temperate
-11 Actual
-12 Liquidated

Cases
1. Far East bank vs CA (241 S 671)
The court ruled that

In culpa contractual, moral damages may be recovered where the defendant is

shown to have acted in bad faith or with malice in the breach of the contract. Bad
faith, in this context, includes gross, but not simple, negligence. Exceptionally, in
contract of carriage, moral damages are also allowed in case of death of a passenger
attributable to the fault (which is presumed) of the common carrier. Concededly, the
bank was remiss in indeed neglecting to personally inform Luis of his own card's
cancellation. Nothing in the findings of the trial court and the appellate court,
however, can sufficiently indicate any deliberate intent on the part of FEBTC to cause
harm to private respondents. Neither could FEBTC's negligence in failing to give
personal notice to Luis be considered so gross as to amount to malice or bad faith.
Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for
a dishonest purpose or moral obliguity; it is different from the negative idea of
negligence in that malice or bad faith contemplates a state of mind affirmatively
operating with furtive design or ill-will. Article 21 of the Code, it should be observed,
contemplates a conscious act to cause harm. Thus, even if we are to assume that the
provision could properly relate to a breach of contract, its application can be
warranted only when the defendant's disregard of his contractual obligation is so
deliberate as to approximate a degree of misconduct certainly no less worse than fraud
or bad faith. Most importantly, Article 21 is a mere declaration of a general principle
in human relations that clearly must, in any case, give way to the specific provision of
Article 2220 of the Civil Code authorizing the grant of moral damages in culpa
contractual solely when the breach is due to fraud or bad faith.

The bank's failure, even perhaps inadvertent, to honor its credit card issued to
private respondent Luis should entitle him to recover a measure of damages
sanctioned under Article 2221 of the Civil Code providing thusly: "Art. 2221.
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him."

2. Pal vs Miano (242 S 235)

The court ruled that

Bad faith under the law cannot be presumed; it must be established by

clear and convincing evidence. Again, the unbroken jurisprudence is that in
breach of contract cases where the defendant is not shown to have acted
fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and
probable consequences of the breach of the obligation which the parties had
foreseen or could reasonably have foreseen. The damages, however, will not
include liability for moral damages." (Citations omitted)
We can neither sustain the award of exemplary damages. The
prerequisite for the award of exemplary damages in cases of contract or quasi-
contract 14 is that the defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent manner. 15 The undisputed facts do not so warrant
the characterization of the action of petitioner.
The award of attorney's fees must also be disallowed for lack of legal leg
to stand on. The fact that private respondent was compelled to litigate and incur
expenses to protect and enforce his claim did not justify the award of attorney's
fees. The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of
 damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to
litigate. 16 Petitioner is willing to pay the just claim of $200.00 as a result of
the delay in the transportation of the luggage in accord with the Warsaw
Convention. Needless to say, the award of attorney's fees must be deleted
where the award of moral and exemplary damages are eliminated

In RCPI case
-13 respondent superior
-14 the very act of the employer is your act also

Obligation is to give, to do or not to do

-15 determinate
-16 indeterminate
-17 upon order it may be indeterminate, it will become determinate if the
contract is fulfilled
-18 in contract, the agreement will become the law

Extraordinary diligence- common carrier

In the absence of agreement - diligence of a good father required by law

Alluvion - Gradually decreases (soil)

Accession descrita - accession of fruits

Accessories - everything that would produced or incorporated

Ex. Motherpearl -> son of pearl

In case the debtor fails to do (remedy)

-19 specific performance
-20 ask for damages
-21 to have the obligation performed

Kinds of mora (default)

1. mora solvendi - default by the debtor
2. mora accipiendi - default by the creditor
3. compensation morae - when there is reciprocal default

When Liable for damages

-22 fraud
-23 negligence
 -24 default (delay)
-25 violation of terms

Negligence
-26 May be simple
-27 May be gross
-28 May be mitigated by courts

Airfrance vs Caruscuso
Caruscuso was forced to replace his 1st class seat to common class, caruscuso
sued the airfrance for negligence and the defense of the airfrance that it was based on
contracts not quasi delicts.
The court ruled that culpa contractual arises from culpa aquilana.

But in most cases, the liability arises from culpa contractual based on the
stipulation of contracts by both parties.

Example of contract adhesion

-bargaining power

Fortuitous event

 the cause of unforeseen must be independent of the human will

 if it is seen, it is unavoidable
 must be free from the creditor
 it is impossible of the debtor to fulfill his obligation

Theft is not a fortuitous event, since the owner of the thing is negligent hence
he should have take good care of his things

Cases:
Tayag vs CA (219 S 480)

The court ruled that

Respondent court applied Article 1186 of the Civil Code on constructive
fulfillment which petitioners claim should not have been appreciated because they are
the obligees while the proviso in point speaks of the obligor. But, petitioners must
concede that in a reciprocal obligation like a contract of purchase (Ang vs. Court of
Appeals, 170 SCRA 286 [1989]; 4 Paras, supra, at p. 201), both parties are mutually
obligors and also obligees (4 Padilla, supra, at p. 197), and any of the contracting
parties may, upon non-fulfillment by the other privy of his part of the prestation,
rescind the contract or seek fulfillment (Article 1191, Civil Code). In short, it is
puerile for petitioners to say that they are the only obligees under the contract since
they are also bound as obligors to respect the stipulation in permitting private
respondent to assume the loan with the Philippine Veterans Bank which petitioners
impeded when they paid the balance of said loan. As vendors, they are supposed to
execute the final deed of sale upon full payment of the balance as determined
hereafter.

Gacal vs Animas (183 S 189)

The court ruled that:

Under the Civil Code, common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary
diligence in their vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers transported
by them, according so all the circumstances of each case (Article 1733). The source of
a common carrier's legal liability is the contract of carriage, and by entering into said
contract, it binds itself to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and
foresight can provide. There is breach of this obligation if it fails to exert
extraordinary diligence according to all the circumstances of the case in exercise of
the utmost diligence of a very cautious person
They are presumed at fault or to have acted negligently whenever a passenger
dies or is injured (Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
124 SCRA 583 [1983]) or for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods in cases
other than those enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code (Eastern Shipping
Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 150 SCRA 463 [1987]). It is the duty of a
common carrier to overcome the presumption of negligence (Philippine National
Railways v. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 87 [1985]) and it must be shown that the
carrier had observed the required extraordinary diligence of a very cautious person as
far as human care and foresight can provide or that the accident was caused by a
fortuitous event (Estrada v. Consolacion, 71 SCRA 523 [1976]). Thus, as ruled by this
Court, no person shall be responsible for those "events which could not be foreseen or
which though foreseen were inevitable." (Article 1174, Civil Code). The term is
synonymous with caso fortuito (Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657 [1924]) which is of the
same sense as "force majeure"
In order to constitute a caso fortuito or force majeure that would exempt a
person from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, it is necessary that the
following elements must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be
independent of the human will (the will of the debtor or the obligor); (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; and (d) the
debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the
creditor (Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657 [1924]; Austria v. Court of Appeals, 39 SCRA
527 [1971]; Estrada v. Consolacion, supra; Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA
553 [1985]; Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals, 144 SCRA 596 [1986]). Caso
fortuito or force majeure, by definition, are extraordinary events not foreseeable or
avoidable, events that could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, are inevitable.
It is, therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated,
as is commonly believed, but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The
mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same