I.
Introduction
A. Sources of Obligations
- Civil Code – Articles 1156 – 1162, 2176
B. Concept: Culpa Aquiliana, quasi-delict, torts
1. Padilla v. CA
Facts:
Issue:
Doctrine:
- The judgement 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.
- Civil liability is not extinguished:
1. By acquittal based on reasonable doubt
2. Where the court expressly declares that
the liability of the accused is not criminal
but only civil in nature (Ex. Estafa, theft,
malicious mischief committed by certain
relatives)
3. Where civil liability does not arise from
or is not based upon the criminal act of
which the accused was acquitted
2. Syquia v. CA
Facts:
Issue:
Doctrine:
- Negligence – the omission of that diligence
which is required by the nature of the
obligations and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, time and
place.
- The diligence to be observed in the
performance of the obligations is that which
is expected of a good father of a family.
3. Gashem Shookat Baksh v. CA
Facts:
Issue:
Doctrine:
- A breach of promise to marry per se is not
an actionable wrong.
- But damages pursuant to Art. 21 may be
awarded because of the fraud and deceit
and willful injury to her honor and
reputation.
- The injury should have been committed
contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy.
4. LRTA v. Navidad
Facts:
Issue:
Doctrine:
- A liability for tort may arise even under a
contract, where tort is that which breaches
the contract.
- When an act which constitutes a breach of
contract would have itself constituted the
source of a quasi-delict liability had no
contract existed between the parties, the
contract can be said to have been breached
by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to
apply.
C. Distinctions
a. Culpa Aquiliana
b. Culpa Contractual
c. Culpa Criminal
- RPC – Art. 100 and 365
5. Calalas v. CA
Facts:
Issue:
Doctrine:
- Culpa aquiliana – in quasi-delict, the
negligence or fault should be clearly
established because it is the basis of the
action.
- Culpa contractual – prove:
1. Existence of the contract
2. Obligor breached contract
- The doctrine of proximate cause is
applicable only in actions for quasi-delict,
not in actions involving breach of contract.
6. Barredo v. Garcia
Facts:
Issue:
Doctrine:
- Quasi-delict or “culpa aquiliana” is a
separate legal institution under the Civil
Code with a substantivity of its own, and
individuality that is entirely apart and
independent from delict/crime.
7. Cangco v. MRR
1
Facts:
9. Daywalt v. La Corporacion de Los Padres
Issue: Agustino Recoletos
Facts:
Doctrine: Issue:
- Contractu – Negligent act of an employee Doctrine:
causes damage which amounts to a breach - A stranger cannot become more extensively
of contract liable in damages for the nonperformance of
- Ex-contractu – Does not amount to any the contract that the party in whose behalf
breach of contract he intermeddles.
- In ex-contractu; 10.
o When an injury is caused by the B. No double recovery rule (Art. 1161,
negligence of a servant or 2176, 2177 CC)
employee, there arises a
presumption that there was
negligence on the part of the
employer in the selection or
supervision or both of the employee
o This presumption is rebuttable. The
employer must show the court that in
selection and supervision, he
exercised due diligence.

II. Quasi-delict
A. Elements (Art. 2176)
i. Culpable act or negligence
ii. Damage to another
iii. Causal relation between the
culpable act or negligence
and the damage to another

8. Picart v. Smith
Facts:
Issue:
Doctrine:
- Test to determine the existence of
negligence:
o W/N the defendant, in doing the
alleged negligent act, used that
reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent person would
have used in the same situation.
- Negligent:
o 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
- Where both parties are negligent, 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.