ARTICLE 1172:

Responsibility arising from

negligence in the performance of
every kind of obligation is also
demandable, but such liability may
be regulated by the courts,
according to the circumstances.

Responsibility Arising from

Negligence Demandable

NEGLIGENCE or FRAUD?

FRAUD!

KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE
ACCORDING TO SOURCE
OF OBLIGATION

Kinds of negligence according to source

of obligation:
1.

Contractual Negligence (culpa

contractual)- negligence in
contracts resulting in their breach.

Kinds of negligence according to source

of obligation:
2. Civil negligence (culpa aquiliana)negligence which by itself is the source of an
obligation between the parties not formally
bound before the pre-existing contract.

Kinds of negligence according to source

of obligation:
3. Criminal negligence (culpa criminal)negligence resulting in the commission of
crime.

Article 1173:
The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
omission of that diligence which is required by the
nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the
place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions
of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence
which is to be observed in the performance, that which
is expected of a good father of a family shall be
required.

Meaning of Fault or negligence:

According to our Supreme Court:

Negligence is conduct that creates

undue risk or harm to another. It is
the failure to observe for the
protection of the interests of another
person, that degree of care,
precaution and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers
injury.

NEGLIGENCE
or

NOT???

Factors to be considered:

Nature of the
obligation

Circumstances of
the person

Circumstances of
the time

Circumstances of
the place

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

Negligence in the care of goods.

Facts: S discharged a large shipment of

potatoes belonging to B into a lorcha
which was then left for two days in the
sun tightly closed and without ventilation.
As a result, the potatoes rotted and
became useless.

Issue: Is S liable for the loss?

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

Negligence in the care of goods.

ANSWER:

Yes. S was guilty of gross

negligence with respect to the
care of the potatoes, a
perishable property.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

Negligence in not giving previous

warning against a dangerous machine.

Facts: R employed a young ignorant boy to do

ordinary chores in the performance of which he
did not come in contact with machinery.
Without giving any previous warning, and over
the objections of the boy, the latter was
ordered to assist in the cleaning of a dangerous
machine. His fingers were cut in the machine.

Issue: Is R liable for damages?

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

Negligence in not giving previous

warning against a dangerous
machine.

ANSWER:

Yes. It was negligence on his part

not to warn the boy and give him
instructions to avoid accidents in
the cleaning of a machine with
which the boy was unfamiliar.

THANK YOU!