Torts and Damages Case Digest

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines

De Bataclan vs. Mariano Medina ......... 20 Sofia Fernando vs. CA .......................... 22 Filomeno Urbano vs. CA................ ....... 22 Phoenix Construction vs. IAC ............... 23 Manila Electric vs. Sotero Rebioquillo .....6 Juan Bernardo vs. M. B. Legaspi...............6

Pilipinas Bank vs. CA.................. .......... 23 Quezon City vs. Fulgencio Dacara ........ 24

Tomas Bernal vs. J. V. House ....................7 PLDT vs. CA ...............................................8

Gregorio Genobiagon vs. CA ....................8 M. H. Rakes vs. Atlantic .................. ..........9

Gabeto vs. Agaton Araneta .................. 25 Filomeno Urbano vs. Appellate Court.. 25

Philippine Bank Of Commerce vs. CA .......9 Far Eastern Shipping Co. Roberto Juntilla vs. Clemente Fontanar 10

vs

CA ............. 26

Prospero Sabido vs. CArlos Custodio Cus todio ... 27

Teodoro M. Hernandez vs. COA ............ 11 Gotesco Investment vs. Chatto ............. 12 Servando vs. Philippine Steam .............. 13 NAPOCOR vs. CA ................................... 13 Southeastern College, Inc. vs. CA.......... 15

De Bataclan vs. Mariano Medina ......... 27 Philippine Rabbit vs. IAC ...................... ............ .......... 28 Phoenix Construction vs. IAC ............... 29 Manila Electric vs. Sotero Rebioquillo . 30 Remigio Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad30

Margarita Afialda vs. Basilio Hisole ....... 16 Ilocos Norte Electric Co.

vs.

CA ............. 16 George Mckee vs. IAC ................... ....... 31 Manila Electric vs. Sotero Rebioquillo . 32

Placido C. Ramos vs. Pepsi-Cola ............ 17 Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. CA ....... 18

Ernesto Kramer, Jr. vs. CA ..................... 19 Allied Banking Corp. vs. CA ................... 20

Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

Teague vs. Elena Fernandez ................. 33 Filomeno Urbano vs. Appellate Court.. 34

Amado Picart Pica rt vs. Frank Smith, Jr. ......... 35 Emma Adriano Bustamante vs. CA ...... 35

Submitted to: Atty. Jennifer N. Asuncion

Page 1

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Phoenix Construction vs. IAC ................ 36

Chapman vs. James M. Underwood ......50

Glan People’s Lumber

IAC................ 38

Marcial T. CAedo vs. Yu Khe Thai ...........51

Pantranco vs. Maricar Bascos Baesa ..... 38

Felina Rodriguez-Luna Rodriguez-Luna vs. IAC ................53

vs.

Philippine Bank vs. CA ........................... 39 Amador C. Ong vs. Metropolitan Metropolitan 40 Gregorio Anuran vs. Pepito Buno ......... 41 Edna A. Raynera vs. Freddie Hiceta ...... 42 Osmundo S. CAnlas vs. CA ..................... 42 Consolidated Bank vs. CA .................. .... 43 Rogelio Engada vs. CA ........................... 43

Sabina Exconde vs. Delfin Capuno .........53 Severino Salen vs. Jose Balce .................54 Agapito Fuellas vs. Elpidio Cadano .........55 Gutierrez

vs.

Bonifacio Gutierrez ...........56

Felina Rodriguez-Luna Rodriguez-Luna vs. IAC ................57 Cresencio Libi vs. IAC .............................58 Macario Tamargo vs. CA .......................59

Purita Miranda Vestil vs IAC................. . 44

Maria Teresa Y. Cuadra vs. Monfort ......60

Jose Dingdong vs. Halim Kanaan ........... ........... 44 Ciriaco L. Mercado vs. CA ................. ......61 Moises P. Palisoc vs. Brillantes ...............61 Justa Afable vs. Singer Sewing .............. 45

Jose S. Amadora vs. CA ..........................62 Reynaldo Pasco vs. CFI ...........................63 Federico Ylarde vs. Edgardo Aquino ......64

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS vs. CA................ 46

Benjamin Salvosa vs. IAC ........................65 St. Francis High School vs. CA.................66 PSBA vs. CA.............................................67

E. A. Cuddy Cud dy Et Al. ........ 47

Maximino Soliman, Jr. vs. Tuazon ..........68

So Ping Bun vs. CA ................................. 48

St. Mary's Academy vs. Carpitanos ........69

Florentina A. Guilatco

Philippine Rabbit vs. Phil-American .......70

C. S. Gilchrist

vs.

vs.

Dagupan ....... 48

Philtranco vs. CA ....................................71 Castilex Industrial Vs. Vasquez ...............72 Dean C. Worcester Worcester vs. Martin Ocampo 50


|


Page 2

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Filamer vs. IAC ....................................... 72 NPC vs. CA ............................................. 73

Victoria G. Capuno

Light Rail Transit

Marjorie Navidad 74

Laura Corpus vs. Felardo Paje ................91

George Mckee vs. IAC ........................... 74

Maria Benita A. Dulay vs. CA ..................92

vs.

vs. Pepsi-Cola

.........90

Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela Valenzuela vs. CA ............. 75

E. Merritt vs. Gov’t Of The Philippine ... Philippine ... 76 Inocencio Rosete vs. Auditor General ... 77 Marcos Mendoza vs. De Leon ............... 78 Jose Fontanilla vs. Maliaman ................ 79 City Of Manila vs. Genero M. Teotico ... 79 Republic vs. Perfecto R. Palacio ............ 80

Alfredo M. Velayo vs. Shell ....................93 Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA..................93 Globe Mackay vs. CA ..............................93 Albenson Enterprises

vs.

CA ................. 94

Sergio Amonoy vs. Spouses Gutierrez ...95 UE vs. Romeo A. Jader ...........................95 Esteria F. Garciano vs. CA ................. ......96

Luis Ma. Araneta vs. Antonio R. De Joya 81 Felix Lanuzo vs. Mendoza ..................... 81

Barons Marketing vs. CA ........................97 BPI vs. CA ................................................97

Francisca Viluan vs. CA .......................... 82

enrique J.L. Ruiz vs. Secretary ................ 98

Delfin Lim vs. De Leon ........................... 83 Rogelio Aberca vs. Fabian Ver ............... 84 MHP Garments, Inc. vs. CA ................... 85

Beatriz P. Wassmer vs. Velez .................99 Apolonio Tanjanco vs. CA................. ......99 Conrado Bunag, Jr. vs CA .....................100 Amelita Constantino vs. Ivan Mendez .101

Maximo Marcia vs. CA................. .......... 86 CArmen L. Madeja vs. Felix T. CAro ...... 86

CArmen Quimiguing vs. Felix Icao ........101 Cecilio Pe vs. Alfonso Pe ......................102

Arafiles vs. Philippine Journalists, Inc. .. 87 Andres Lao vs. CA .................................103 MVRS Publications vs. Islamic .............. 88

Magtanggol Que vs. Iac ........................103 Franklin M. Drilon vs. CA .................. ....104

Almario T. Salta vs. Jesus De Veyra ....... 89


|


Page 3


Rafael Patricio vs. Oscar Leviste .......... 105

Dbp vs. CA ............................................115

Grand Union vs. Jose J. Espino ............ 105

Alejandro Fuentes vs. CA .....................116

Singapore Airlines vs. Cruz Paño ........ 106

PNOC Shipping vs. CA ...........................116

Medina

vs.

Astro-Bartolome .............. 107 Rogelio E. Ramos vs. CA .......................117 Reynalda Gatchalian vs. Delim .............118

Cornelio Amaro vs. Sumanguit............ 107 Jose C. Quirante vs. Iac ........................118

Crismina Garments vs. CA ....................119 St. Louis Realty vs. CA ......................... 108 Rodrigo Concepcion vs. CA ................. 109

People vs. Felipe Ballesteros ............... 110

Vivencio Cerrano vs. Tan Chuco ...........119

Victor Kierulf vs. CA..............................120

Spouses Custodio vs. CA ..................... 111 Heirs Of Borlado vs. CA ....................... 111

Miranda-Ribaya vs. Bautista ................121

Lazatin vs. Twaño ................................ 112

Virgilio M. Del Rosario

vs.

CA ...............122

Raagas vs. Octavio Traya ......................122 Board Of Liquidators vs. Kalaw ........... 112 Spouses Custodio vs. CA ..................... 113

Roque Enervida vs. De La Torre ...........123 People vs. Rodelio Bugayong ...............124

Trinidad J. Francisco vs. GSIS ...............124 Expertravel

vs.

CA ................................124

Lucio Algarra vs. Sixto Sandejas .......... 113 Editha M. Mijares vs. CA ......................126 Pnoc Shipping vs. CA ........................... 114 Integrated Packaging vs. CA ................ 115

Pantaleon De La Peña vs. CA ................127 “J” Marketing Corp. vs. Felicidad Sia....127 Reynaldo T. Cometa vs. CA ..................128


|


Page 4

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Triple Eight vs. NLRC ........................... 129 People vs. Pirame ................................ 129 CArlos Arcona vs. CA ........................... 129

PNB vs. CA ........................................... 130 Gregorio Fule vs. CA ............................ 131 Philippine Airlines vs. CA ..................... 132 Arturo P. Valenzuela vs. CA ................. 132 Aurelio Sumalpong vs. CA ................... 133 Fernando Lopez vs. Pan American ...... 134 Producers Bank vs. CA ......................... 135

Emilio Strebel vs. Jose Figueras ........... 135 Abs-Cbn vs. CA .................................... 136 Napocor vs. Philipp Brothers .............. 137

Robes-Francisco Realty vs. Cfi ............. 137 People vs. Agustin Gopio .................... 138 Herman Armovit vs. CA ....................... 139

Maximo Pleno vs. CA ........................... 139 People vs. Balwinder Singh ................. 140 People vs. Edison Plazo ....................... 140

PNB vs. CA ........................................... 141 Virgilio M. Del Rosario

vs.


CA .............. 141

|


Page 5

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines III. NEGLIGENCE

injury, even though such injury would

A. CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE B. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE C. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE

not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed

in

the

condition

except

because’ of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate

D. DEFENSES

cause.

And

if

an

independent

negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the circumstances which result in injury because of the prior

defective

condition,

such

subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause. The principal and proximate cause of the electrocution was not the electric wire, evidently a remote cause, but rather the reckless and negligent act of Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet

The court found upon the evidence

without taking any precaution, such

that

as looking back toward the street and

defendant were negligent in handling

at the wire to avoid its contacting said

their

iron sheet, considering the lattery

negligence was of such a character

length of 6 feet.

and extent on the part of both as to

A prior and remote’ cause cannot be

prevent either from recovering.

made the basis of an action if such

Upon the facts, as they appear of

remote cause did nothing more than

record,

furnish the condition or give rise to

affirmed,

the occasion by which the injury was

supports the decision of the trial

made possible, if there intervened

court. The law applicable to the facts

between such prior or remote cause

also requires an affirmance of the

and the injury a distinct, successive,

judgment appealed from. Where the

unrelated, and efficient cause of the

plaintiff in a negligence action, by his


|

both

the

plaintiff

automobiles

the as

and

judgment the


and

the

that

said

must

evidence

be

clearly

Page 6

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines own carelessness contributes to the

strictest sense could only result in

principal occurrence, that is, to the

reduction of the damages.

accident, as one of the determining

Having reached the conclusion that

causes thereof, he cannot recover.

liability

This is equally true of the defendant;

discover who can recover damages for

and

the obligation, and against whom the

as

both

of

them,

by

their

negligent acts, contributed to the

exists,

we

next

turn

to

action will lie. The plaintiffs are

determining cause of the accident,

Tomas Bernal and Fortunata Enverso.

neither can recover.

The

latter

was

the

mother

of

Purification Bernal and the former was the natural father, who had never legally

recognized

his

child.

The

daughter lived with the mother, and presumably was supported by her. Under these facts, recovery should be The mother and her child had a

permitted the mother but not the

perfect right to be on the principal

father. As to the defendants, they are

street of Tacloban, Leyte, on the

J. V. House and the Tacloban Electric

evening when the religions procession

& Ice Plant, Ltd. J. V. House was

was

nothing

granted a franchise by Act No. 2700

abnormal in allowing the child to run

of the Philippine Legislature approved

along a few paces in advance of the

on March 9, 1917. He only transferred

mother. No one could foresee the

this franchise formally to the Tacloban

coincidence

automobile

Electric & Ice Plant, Ltd. on March 30,

appearing and of a frightened child

1926, that is, nearly a year after the

running and falling into a ditch filled

death of the child Purificacion Bernal.

with

Under these facts, J. V. House is solely

held.

hot

There

of

water.

was

an

The

doctrines

announced in the much debated case

responsible.

of Bakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., still rule. Article 1902 of the Civil Code must again be enforced. The contributory negligence of the child and her mother, if any, does not operate as a bar to recovery, but in its


|


Page 7

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines cannot charge PLDT for their injuries where their own failure to exercise due and reasonable care was the The perils of the road were known to,

cause thereof. It is both a societal

hence appreciated and assumed by,

norm and necessity that one should

private

exercising

exercise

prudence,

caution

respondents. By

reasonable

care

and

a

reasonable for

degree

his

of own

respondent Antonio Esteban could

protection. Furthermore, respondent

have

Antonio Esteban had the last clear

avoided

consequences

of

the his

assuming arguendo that

injurious act, there

even was

chance or opportunity to avoid the accident,

notwithstanding

the

some alleged negligence on the part

negligence he imputes to petitioner

of petitioner.

PLDT. As a resident of Lacson Street,

The presence of warning signs could

he passed on that street almost

not have completely prevented the

everyday and had knowledge of the

accident; the only purpose of said

presence

signs was to inform and warn the

excavations

public of the presence of excavations

negligence that exposed him and his

on the site. The private respondents

wife to danger, hence he is solely

already knew of the presence of said

responsible for the consequences of

excavations. It was not the lack of

his imprudence.

and

location

there. It

of

the

was

his

knowledge of these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into

the

excavation

but

the

unexplained sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident mound. As opined in some quarters, the omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of warning signs on the site of the excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only

The alleged contributory negligence

when the doing of the said omitted

of

act would have prevented the injury. It

exonerate the accused. “The defense

is

of contributory negligence does not

basic

that

private

respondents

the

victim,

if

any,

does

not

apply in criminal cases committed Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 8

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines through reckless imprudence, since

and, as I understand it, in every case

one cannot allege the negligence of

in which contributory negligence is a

another to evade the effects of his

defense it is made so because the

own negligence.”

negligence of the plaintiff is the cause of the accident, to this extent, that if the plaintiff had not been negligent the

accident

would

not

have

happened, although the defendant was also negligent. In other words, the negligence of the defendant is not Under the circumstances the plaintiff

alone sufficient to cause the accident.

was negligent in placing himself on

It requires also the negligence of the

the side of the car where he knew that

plaintiff.

he would be injured by the falling of the rails from the car when they reached this point in the track where the two stringers were left without any support at their ends. He either should have refused to work at all or he should have placed himself behind the car, on the other side of it, or in front of it, drawing it with a rope. He was guilty of contributory negligence and is not entitled to recover.

While it is true that had private respondent

checked

the

monthly

statements of account sent by the petitioner bank to RMC, the latter would have discovered the loss early

In order to impose liability upon the

on, such cannot be used by the

defendant, it must appear that its

petitioners to escape liability. This

negligence caused the accident. The

omission on the part of the private

reason why contributory negligence

respondent does not change the fact

on the part of the plaintiff is a defense

that were it not for the wanton and

in this class of cases is that the

reckless negligence of the petitioners’

negligence of the defendant did not

employee in validating the incomplete

alone cause the accident. If nothing

duplicate deposit slips presented by

but that negligence had existed, the

Ms. Irene Yabut, the loss would not

accident would not have happened

have occurred. Considering, however,


|


Page 9

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines that the fraud was committed in a

proximate cause of his injury, he

span of more than one (1) year

cannot recover damages. But if his

covering various deposits, common

negligence was only contributory,

human experience dictates that the

the immediate and proximate cause

same would not have been possible

of the injury being the defendant’s

without any form of collusion between

lack of due care, the plaintiff may

Ms. Yabut and bank teller Mabayad.

recover damages, but the courts

Ms. Mabayad was negligent in the

shall mitigate the damages to be

performance of her duties as bank

awarded.

teller

nonetheless.

petitioners

are

Thus,

entitled

to

the claim

reimbursement from her for whatever they shall be ordered to pay in this case. The

foregoing

notwithstanding,

it

cannot be denied that, indeed, private respondent was likewise negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account. Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the series of frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary. The damage would definitely not have ballooned to such an amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised even a little vigilance in their financial affairs. This omission by

RMC

amounts

to

contributory

negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the private respondent under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code, to wit:

grooves of the tire were still visible, this fact alone does not make the explosion of the tire a fortuitous event. No evidence was presented to show that the accident was due to adverse

road

conditions

or

that

precautions were taken by the jeepney driver

to

conditions accidents.

compensate liable

to

for

any cause

The sudden blowing-up,

therefore, could have been caused by too much air pressure injected into jeepney was overloaded and speeding

negligence was the immediate and |

blew-up was still good because the

the tire coupled by the fact that the

“When the plaintiff’s own


While it may be true that the tire that

at the time of the accident.


Page 10

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines In Lasam v. Smith (45 Phil. 657), we

know the correct measures to take

laid down the following essential

when a tire blows up thus insuring the

characteristics of caso fortuito:

safety of passengers at all times.

“

‘In

a

legal

sense

and,

consequently, also in relation to contracts, a caso fortuito presents the

following

essential

characteristics: (1) The cause of the unforeseen

and

unexpected

occurrence, or of the failure of the

Section

debtor

Administrative Code reads as follows:

to

comply

with

his

638

of

the

Revised

obligation, must be independent of

SEC. 638. Credit for loss occurring

the human will.

(2) It must be

in transit or due to casualty —

impossible to foresee the event

Notice to Auditor . — When a loss of

which constitutes the caso fortuito ,

government

or if it can be foreseen, it must be

occurs while the same is in transit

impossible

The

or is caused by fire, theft, or other

occurrence must be such as to

casualty, the officer accountable

render it impossible for the debtor

therefor or having custody thereof

to fulfill his obligation in a normal

shall immediately notify the Auditor

manner.

obligor

General, or the provincial auditor,

(debtor) must be free from any

according as a matter is within the

participation in the aggravation of

original jurisdiction of the one or

the injury resulting to the creditor.’”

the other, and within thirty days or

In the case at bar, the cause of the

such longer period as the Auditor,

unforeseen

unexpected

or provincial auditor, may in the

occurrence was not independent of

particular case allow, shall present

the human will.

his application for relief, with the

to

And

avoid.

(4)

and

(3)

the

The accident was

funds

available

of the driver or because of mechanical

thereof. An officer who fails to

defects in the tire. Common carriers

comply with this requirement shall

should teach their drivers not to

not be relieved of liability or allowed

overload their vehicles, not to exceed

credit for any such loss m the

safe and legal speed limits, and to

settlement of his accounts.

|


m

property

caused either through the negligence


evidence

or

support

Page 11

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines This provision has since then been reiterated,

with

some

slight

modification, in Section 73 of P.D. No. 1445,

otherwise

known

as

the

It is settled that, “The owner or

“Government Auditing Code of the

proprietor

Philippines,” which was promulgated

amusement impliedly warrants that

on June 11, 1978.

the

As for Hernandez’s choice between Marilao, Bulacan, and Ternate, CAvite,

of

a

premises,

place

of

public

appliances

and

amusement devices are safe for the purpose for which they are designed, the doctrine being subject to no other

one could easily agree that the former

exception or qualification than that he

was

being

does not contract against unknown

nearer, and in view of the comparative

defects not discoverable by ordinary

hazards in the trips to the two places.

or reasonable means.”

It

petitioner

This implied warranty has given rise

miscalculated, but the Court feels he

to the rule that, “Where a patron of a

the

is

safer

true

destination,

that

the

should not be blamed for that. The decision he made seemed logical at that time and was one that could be

theater

or

other

place

of

public

amusement is injured, and the thing that caused the injury is wholly and exclusively under the control and

expected of a reasonable and prudent

management of the defendant, and

person. And if, as it happened, the

the accident is such as in the ordinary

two robbers attacked him in broad

course of events would not have

daylight in the jeep while it was on a

happened if proper care had been

busy highway, and in the presence of other passengers, it cannot be said that all this was the result of his imprudence and negligence. This was undoubtedly

a

covered

the

by

fortuitous said

event

provisions,

something that could not have been

exercised, its occurrence raises a presumption

or

permits

of

an

inference of negligence on the part of the defendant.” That presumption or inference was not overcome by the petitioner. Besides, even assuming for the sake of

argument

that,

as

petitioner

reasonably foreseen although it could

vigorously insists, the cause of the

have happened, and did.

collapse was due to force majeure ,


|


Page 12

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines petitioner would still be liable because

unforeseen

and

unexpected

it was guilty of negligence, which the

occurrence, or of the failure of the

trial court denominated as gross. As

debtor to comply with his obligation,

gleaned from Bouvier’s definition of

must be independent of the human

and Cockburn’s elucidation on force

will; (2) it must be impossible to

majeure , for one to be exempt from

foresee the event which constitutes

any liability because of it, he must

the ‘caso fortuito‘, or if it can be fore-

have exercised care, i.e., he should

seen, it must be impossible to avoid;

not have been guilty of negligence.

(3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.” In the case at bar, the or

burning of the customs warehouse

force majeure is the immediate and

was an extraordinary event which

proximate cause of the loss, the

happened independently of the will of

obligor is exempt from liability for

the appellant. The latter could not

non-performance. The Partidas,

have foreseen the event.

Where

fortuitous

event

the

antecedent of Article 1174 of the Civil Code, defines ‘caso fortuito‘ as ‘an event that takes place by accident and could

not

have

foreseen. Examples

been

of

this

are

destruction of houses, unexpected

To exempt the obligor from liability

fire, shipwreck, violence of robbers.’

under Article 1174 of the Civil Code,

In its dissertation of the phrase ‘caso fortuito‘ the Enciclopedia Juridicada Española says: “In a legal sense and, consequently,

also

in

relation

to

contracts, a ‘caso fortuito‘ presents the

following

essential

characteristics: (1) the cause of the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

for a breach of an obligation due to an ‘act of God,’ the following must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event must

be

either

unforeseeable

or

unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the


Page 13

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines debtor to fulfill his obligation in a

liability

normal manner; and (d) the debtor

immediate cause of the damage was

must be free from any participation

the act of God. To be exempt from

in, or aggravation of the injury to the

liability for loss because of an act of

creditor.

God, he must be free from any

Thus, if upon the happening of a fortuitous event or an act of God, there concurs a corresponding fraud, negligence,

delay

or

violation

by

showing

that

the

previous negligence or misconduct by which that loss or damage may have been occasioned.

or

Accordingly, petitioners cannot be

contravention in any manner of the

heard to invoke the act of God

tenor of the obligation as provided for

or force majeure to escape liability for

in Article 1170 of the Civil Code,

the loss or damage sustained by the

which results in loss or damage, the

private respondents since they, the

obligor cannot escape liability.

petitioners, were guilty of negligence.

The principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that the act

must

be

one

occasioned

exclusively by the violence of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded from creating or entering into the cause of the mischief. When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found to be in part the result of the participation of man, whether it be from active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole

The event then was not occasioned exclusively by an act of God or force majeure ; a

human factor

negligence or imprudence intervened.

The

effect

— — had

then

of

the force majeure in question may be deemed to have, even if only partly, resulted from the participation of man. Thus, the whole occurrence was thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.

occurrence is thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God. Thus it has been held that when the negligence of a person concurs with an act of God in producing a loss, such person is not exempt from Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 14

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines engendered

thereby,

there

should

have been no human participation amounting to a negligent act. In other In order that a fortuitous event may

words,

exempt a person from liability, it is

exoneration from liability must not be

necessary that he be free from any

guilty of negligence. Negligence, as

previous negligence or misconduct by

commonly

reason of which the loss may have

which naturally or reasonably creates

been occasioned. An act of God

undue risk or harm to others. It may

cannot be invoked for the protection

be the failure to observe that degree

of a person who has been guilty of

of care, precaution, and vigilance

gross negligence in not trying to

which

forestall

adverse

demand, or

the

person’s

something

which

negligence concurs with an act of God

reasonable

in producing damage or injury to

considerations

another, such person is not exempt

regulate the conduct of human affairs,

from liability by showing that the

would do.

its

possible

consequences.

When

a

immediate or proximate cause of the damage or injury was a fortuitous event. When the effect is found to be partly the result of the participation of man – whether it be from active intervention, or neglect, or failure to act – the whole occurrence is hereby humanized, and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.

the

person

understood,

the

seeking

is

conduct

circumstances omission a

justly to

prudent

man,

and

guided

which

do by

ordinarily

In the present case, other than the said

ocular

investigation

inspection, was

no

conducted

to

determine the real cause of the partial unroofing

of

petitioner’s

school

building. Private respondents did not even

show

specifications

that and

the

plans,

design of

said

school building were deficient and

There is no question that a typhoon or

defective. Neither did they prove any

storm is a fortuitous event, a natural

substantial

occurrence which may be foreseen but

approved plans and specifications.

is unavoidable despite any amount of

Nor did they conclusively establish

foresight, diligence or care. In order

that the construction of such building

to be exempt from liability arising

was basically flawed.

from

any

adverse


deviation

from

the

consequence |


Page 15


Under the circumstances of the case, petitioner was negligent in seeing to it that no harm is done to the general public “… considering that electricity In a case where an animal caused

is an agency, subtle and deadly, the

injury to a stranger or third person. It

measure of care required of electric

is therefore no authority for a case

companies must be commensurate

like the present where the person

with or proportionate to the danger.

injured was the caretaker of the

The duty of exercising this high

animal. The distinction is important.

degree of diligence and care extends

For

to every place where persons have a

the

statute

names

the possessor or or user of of the animal as

right

the person liable for “any damages it

petitioner having been shown, it may

may cause,” cause,” and this for the obvious

not now absolve itself from liability by

reason that the possessor or user has

arguing that the victim’s death was

the custody and control of the animal

solely due to a fortuitous event.

and is therefore the one in a position

“When an an act of God combines or

to prevent it from causing damage.

concurs with the negligence of the

In the present case, the animal was in

defendant to produce an injury, the

the custody and under the control of

defendant is liable if the injury would

the caretaker, who was paid for his

not have resulted but for his own

work as such. Obviously, it was the

negligent conduct or omission”.

caretaker’s business to try to prevent

Likewise, the maxim “volenti “volenti non fit

the animal from causing injury or

injurid ” relied upon up on by petitioner finds

damage to anyone, including himself.

no application in the case at bar. It is

And being injured by the animal

imperative to note the surrounding

under those circumstances, where one

circumstances

of the risks of the occupation which

deceased to leave the comforts of a

he had voluntarily assumed and for

roof and brave the subsiding typhoon.

which

As testified by Linda Alonzo Estavillo

he

must

take

consequences. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

the

and |

to

Aida

be”

.The

which

Bulong,


negligence

impelled

the

of

the

deceased, Page 16

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines accompanied by the former two, were on their way to the latter’s grocery store “to see to it that the goods were not flooded.” As such, shall We punish her for exercising her right to protect her property from the floods by imputing upon her the unfavorable presumption that she assumed the risk of personal injury? Definitely not. For it has been held that a person is excused from the force of the rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a known danger he must abide by the consequences, if an emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of another is in peril, or when he seeks

to

rescue

his

endangered

property. Clearly, an emergency was at hand as the deceased’s property, a source of her livelihood, was faced with an impending loss. Furthermore, the deceased, at the time the fatal incident occurred, was at a place where she had a right to be without

As testified to by Añasco, PEPSI-COLA did in fact carefully examine the driver-applicant Bonifacio as

to

his

qualifications, experiences and record of service, taking all steps mentioned by the CA in its decision already quoted. Such being the case, there can be no doubt that PEPSI-COLA exercised the required due diligence in the selection of its driver.

In order order

that the defendant may be considered as having exercised all diligence of a good father of a family, he should not be satisfied with the mere possession of a professional driver’s license; he he should have carefully examined the applicant for employment as to his qualifications,

his

experience

and

record of service.

regard to petitioner’s consent as she

It should perhaps be stated that in the

was

her

instant case no question is raised as

private

to due diligence in the supervision by

respondents, as heirs, may not be

PEPSI-COLA of of its driver. Article 2180 2180

barred from recovering damages as a

of the Civil Code provides:

on

her

way

merchandise.

result

of

the

to

protect

Hence,

death

caused

petitioner’s negligence negligence..

by

“The

owners

and managers of

an

es-

tablishment or enterprise are


|

likewise

responsible

damages

caused


by

for their Page 17

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. “The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when

the

persons

herein

mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.”

Due diligence in the supervision of employees,

on

the

other

hand,

includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations

When an injury is caused by the

through his or its employees and the

negligence of a servant or employee

imposition of necessary disciplinary

there instantly arises a presumption

measures upon employees in case of

of law that there was negligence on

breach or as may be warranted to

the part of the master or employer

ensure

either in the selection of the servant

indispensable to the business of and

or employee, or in supervision over

beneficial to their their employer. employer. To this, this,

him after the selection, or both. If the

we add that actual implementation

employer shows to the satisfaction of

and

the

in

compliance with said rules should be

has

the constant concern of the employer,

court

that

selection and supervision

he

the

monitoring

exercised the care and diligence of a

acting

good

supervisors

father

of

a

family,

the

performance

of

through who

of

acts

consistent

dependable should

regularly

presumption is overcome and he is

report on their supervisory functions.

relieved from liability.

In order that the defense of due diligence

in

the

selection

and

supervision of employees may be deemed sufficient and plausible, it is not enough to emptily invoke the existence of said company guidelines and

policies

on

hiring

and

supervision. As the negligence of the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 18

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines employee

gives

rise

to

the

In Español vs. Chairman, Philippine

presumption of negligence on the

Veterans

Administration, this

part of the employer, the latter has

held as follows –

Court

the burden of proving that it has been

“The right of action accrues

diligent not only in the selection of

when there exists a cause of

employees but also in the actual

action,

supervision of their work. The mere

which consists

3 elements,

namely:

of

a)

a

allegation of the existence of hiring

right in favor of the plaintiff

procedures and supervisory policies,

by whatever

without anything more, is decidedly not

sufficient

to

overcome

such

presumption.

means

and

under whatever law it arises or

is

created;

obligation on the

b)

an

part

of

defendant to respect such right;

and

c)

an

act

or

omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff xxx. It is only when the last element occurs or takes place that it can be said in law that a cause of action has arisen Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, an

action

based

upon

xxx.”

a quasi-

delict must be instituted within four

From the foregoing ruling, it is clear

(4) years. The prescriptive period

that the prescriptive period must be

begins

the quasi-

counted when the last element occurs

delict is committed. In an action for

or takes place, that is, the time of the

damages

commission

from

the

day

of

an

act

collision of two (2) trucks, the action

or omission violative

of

the

being based

right of the plaintiff, which is the time

arising on

from

the

a quasi-delict, the

four (4) year prescriptive period must

when the cause of action arises.

be counted from the day of the

It is therefore clear that in this action

collision.

for damages arising from the collision of two (2) vessels the four (4) year


|


Page 19

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines prescriptive period must be counted

conditions, hence, they are precluded

from the day of the collision. The

from asserting ignorance of the legal

aggrieved party need not wait for a

effects

determination by an administrative

assumed

body like a Board of Marine Inquiry,

presumed that private transactions

that the collision was caused by the

have been fair and regular and that he

fault

who alleges has the burden of proving

or

negligence

party before he

of

can

the

file

other

an action

for damages.

his

of

the

undertaking

thereunder.

allegation

with

It

the

they

is

also

requisite

quantum of evidence. But here the records of this case do not support their claims. Last, we find the defense of laches unavailing. The question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and since laches is an

Under Section 3 (d), Rule 131 of the

equitable doctrine, its application is

Rules of Court, it is presumed that a

controlled

person takes ordinary care of his

considerations.

concerns.

Hence,

the

by

equitable

natural

presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself

of

its

consequences.

contents

Said

and

presumption

IV. CAUSATION: PROXIMATE CAUSE

acquires greater force in the case at bar where not only one document but

A. DEFINITION

several documents were executed at different times and at different places by the herein respondent guarantors and sureties. In this case, having affixed their

Proximate

consenting

signatures

which,

documents

executed

in at

several different

CAuse

in natural

is

“that

cause,

and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient

times, it is safe to presume that they

intervening

had full knowledge of its terms and

injury, and without which the result


|

cause,


produces

the

Page 20

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines would not have occurred.’ And more

vehicle. But in the present case and

comprehensively, ‘the proximate legal

under the circumstances obtaining’ in

cause

the same, we do not hesitate to hold

is

producing

that the

acting

first

injury,

and either

immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural

that the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was the overturning of the

and continuous chain of events, each

bus, this for the reason that when the

having a close causal connection with

vehicle turned not only on its, side

its immediate predecessor, the final

but

event

leaking of the gasoline from the tank

in

the

chain

immediately

effecting- the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the

completely

on

its

back,

the

was not unnatural or unexpected; that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response to the call for

first event should, as an ordinarily

help,

prudent and intelligent person, have

passengers, but most probably, by the

reasonable ground to expect at the

driver and the conductor themselves,

moment ofhis act or default that an

and that because it was very dark

injury to some person might probably result therefrom.”

made

not

only

by

the

(about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to carry a light with

It may be that ordinarily, when a passenger bus overturns, and pins down a passenger, merely causing him physical injuries, if through some event, unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire, say, by lightning, or if some highwaymen after looting the vehicle sets it on fire, and the passenger is burned to death,

them; and coming as they did from a rural

area

where

lanterns

and

flashlights were not available, they had to use a torch, the most handy and available; and what was more natural than that said rescuers should innocently approach the overturned vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from them.

one might still contend that the proximate cause of his death was the fire and not the overturning of the


|


Page 21


To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of

There is a likelihood that the wound

another, a claimant must establish the

was but the remote cause and its

relation between the omission and the

subsequent infection, for failure to

damage. He must prove under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code that the defendant’s

negligence

was

the

immediate and proximate cause of his

take

necessary

precautions,

with

tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier’s death with which the petitioner had nothing to do. A prior and remote cause cannot be

injury. Proximate cause has been


defined as that cause, which, in


natural

sequence


unbroken by any efficient intervening


cause,

and

continuous

produces

the

injury,

and

without which the result would not have occurred (Vda. De Bataclan, et al. v. Medina, 102 Phil 181, 186).

made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would

Proof of such relation of cause and effect is not an arduous one if the

not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed

in

the

condition

except

claimant did not in any way contribute

because of the independent cause,

to the negligence of the defendant.

such condition was not the proximate

However, where the resulting injury

cause.

was the product of the negligence of

negligent act or defective condition

both parties, there exists a difficulty to

discern

which

acts

shall

be

considered the proximate cause of the accident.


And

if

an

independent

sets into operation the circumstances, which result in injury because of the prior

defective

condition,

such

subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause.

|


Page 22


Private

respondent

Dionisio’s

For Article 2179 of the Civil Code to

negligence was “only contributory”,

apply, it must be established that

that the “immediate and proximate

private respondent’s own negligence

cause” of the injury remained the

was the immediate and proximate

truck driver’s “lack of due care” and

cause of his injury. The concept of

that

respondent

proximate cause is well defined in our

Dionisio may recover damages though

corpus of jurisprudence as “any cause

such

which,

consequently

damages

are

subject

to

The legal and proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisio’s injuries was the wrongful or negligent manner in which the dump truck was parked — in other words, the negligence of petitioner CArbonel. That there was a relationship

between

petitioner CArbonel’s negligence on the one hand and the accident and respondent’s injuries on the other hand, is quite clear. Put in a slightly different manner, the collision of Dionisio’s car with the dump truck was

a

natural

and

and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient

mitigation by the courts.

reasonable

in natural

foreseeable

consequence of the truck driver’s negligence.

intervening cause, produces the result complained of and without which would not have occurred and from which it ought to have been forseen or reasonably anticipated by a person of

ordinary

case

that

the

injury

complained of or some similar injury, would result therefrom as a natural and probable consequence.”[4] In the case at bench, the proximate cause of the

injury

is

of petitioner’s

the

negligence

employee

in

erroneously posting the cash deposit of private respondent in the name of another depositor who had a similar first name. Applying the test, the bank employee is, on that basis, deemed to have


|


Page 23

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines failed to exercise the degree of care required in the performance of his duties. As earlier stated, the bank employee posted the cash deposit in the account of Florencio Amador from his

assumption

that

the

Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces injury in a natural

name

and continuous sequence, unbroken

Florencio appearing on the ledger

by any efficient intervening cause,

without, however, going through the

such that the result would not have

full name, is the same Florencio

occurred otherwise. Proximate cause

stated in the deposit slip. He should have continuously gone beyond mere assumption, which was proven to be erroneous, and proceeded with clear certainty,

considering

the

amount

is determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy and precedent. What really caused the subject vehicle to turn turtle is a factual issue that

involved and the repercussions it

this Court cannot pass upon, absent

would create on the totality of the

any whimsical or capricious exercise

person notable of which is the credit

of judgment by the lower courts or an

standing

ample showing that they lacked any

of

the

person

involved

should a mistake happen. The checks issued by the plaintiff in the course of

basis

for

their

conclusions.

The

unanimity of the CA and the trial court in their factual ascertainment

his business were dishonored by the

that petitioners’ negligence was the

bank because the ledger of Florencio

proximate cause of the accident bars

Reyes indicated a balance insufficient

us from supplanting their findings

to cover the face value of checks.

and substituting these with our own. The function of this Court is limited to the review of the appellate court’s alleged errors of law. It is not required to weigh all over again the factual evidence already considered in the proceedings below. Petitioners have not shown that they are entitled to an


|


Page 24

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines exception to this rule. They have not

who testified for the defendant gave a

sufficiently demonstrated any special

more credible account of the affair

circumstances to justify a factual

than the witnesses for the plaintiff.

review.

According to the witnesses for the defendant, it was Julio who jerked the rein, thereby causing the bit to come

B. DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER KINDS

out of the horse’s mouth; and they say that Julio, after alighting, led the horse over to the curb, and proceeded to fix the bridle; and that in so doing the bridle was slipped entirely off, when the horse, feeling himself free from control, started to go away as

The stopping of the rig by Agaton

previously stated.

Araneta in the middle of the street was too remote from the accident that presently ensued to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof. Moreover, by getting out and taking his post at the head of the horse, the driver

was

the

person

primarily


responsible for the control of the

was but the remote the remote cause cause and its

animal, and the defendant cannot be


charged with liability for the accident

take

resulting from the action of the horse

tetanus may have been the proximate

thereafter.

cause of Javier’s death with which the

The evidence indicates that the bridle

petitioner had nothing to do.

was old, and the leather of which it

A prior and remote cause cannot be

was made was probably so weak as to


be easily broken. Julio Pagnaya had a


natural interest in refuting this fact,


as well as in exculpating himself in


other respects; and we are of the


opinion that the several witnesses



|

necessary

precautions,


with

Page 25

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines and the injury a distinct, successive,

which the injury would not have


resulted to as great an extent, and


that such cause is not attributable to

not have happened but for such

the person injured. It is no defense to

condition or occasion. If no danger

one of the concurrent tortfeasors that

existed

except

the injury would not have resulted


from his negligence alone, without the


negligence or wrongful acts of the

cause.

other

in

the

And

condition

if

an

independent

concurrent

tortfeasor. Where


several causes producing an injury are

sets into operation the circumstances,

concurrent and each is an efficient

which result in injury because of the

cause without which the injury would

prior

such

not have happened, the injury may be

subsequent act or condition is the

attributed to all or any of the causes

proximate cause.

and recovery may be had against any

defective

condition,

or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them was more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured person was not the same. No actor’s Negligence

in

order

to

render

a

person liable need not be the sole cause of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring with one or more

efficient

causes

other

than

plaintiff’s, is the proximate cause of the injury. Accordingly, where several

negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury.

causes combine to produce injuries, a

There is no contribution between joint

person is not relieved from liability

tortfeasors whose liability is solidary

because he is responsible for only one

since both of them are liable for the

of them, it being sufficient that the

total damage. Where the concurrent

negligence of the person charged with

or

injury is an efficient cause without

omissions of two or more persons,


|

successive

negligent


acts

or

Page 26

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines although acting independently, are in

came from the opposite direction, so

combination the direct and proximate

that, in this sense, petitioners’ truck

cause of a single injury to a third

had the last clear chance.

person, it is impossible to determine

According to the great weight of

in what proportion each contributed

authority, where the concurrent or

to the injury and either of them is

successive negligent acts or omission

responsible

for

the

whole

injury.

of two or more persons, although

Where their concurring negligence

acting independently of each other,

resulted in injury or damage to a third

are, in combination, the direct and

party, they become joint tortfeasors and

are

solidarity

liable

for

the

proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is impossible to

resulting damage under Article 2194

determine in what proportion each

of the Civil Code.

contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury, or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the other tortfeasor.

C. TESTS

Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is independent, in its execution, of the negligence of the truck driver and its owner, both acts of negligence are the proximate cause of the death of Agripino Custodio. In fact, the negligence of the first two (2) would not have produced this result without the negligence of petitioners’ herein. What is more, petitioners’ negligence was the last , in point of time, for Custodio was on the running board

of

the

carrier’s

sometime before before petitioners’ petitioners’ Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

bus truck truck

Proximate which,

CAuse CAuse

is

in natural

“that

cause,

and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening

cause,

produces

the

injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.’ And more comprehensively, ‘the proximate legal cause

is

producing

that

acting

the

first

injury,

and either

immediately or by setting other events


Page 27

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines in motion, all constituting a natural

bus, this for the reason that when the


vehicle turned not only on its, side


but

its immediate predecessor, the final event

in

the

chain

immediately

effecting- the injury as a natural and

completely

on

its

back,

the

leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected; that

probable result of the cause which

the coming of the men with a lighted

first acted, under such circumstances

torch was in response to the call for

that the person responsible for the

help,

first event should, as an ordinarily

passengers, but most probably, by the

prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably

made

not

only

by

the

driver and the conductor themselves, and that because it was very dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to carry a light with

result therefrom.” It may be that ordinarily, when a passenger bus overturns, and pins down a passenger, merely causing him physical injuries, if through some event, unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire, say, by lightning, or if some highwaymen after looting the vehicle sets it on fire, and the passenger is burned to death,

them; and coming as they did from a rural

area

where

lanterns

and

flashlights were not available, they had to use a torch, the most handy and available; and what was more natural than that said rescuers should innocently approach the overturned vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from them.

one might still contend that the proximate cause of his death was the fire and not the overturning of the vehicle. But in the present case and under the circumstances obtaining’ in

It is the rule under the substantial

the same, we do not hesitate to hold

factor test that if the actor’s conduct

that the proximate cause of the death

is a substantial factor it bringing

of Bataclan was the overturning of the

about harm to another, the fact that


|


Page 28

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines the actor neither foresaw nor should

created only a passive static condition

have foreseen the extent of the harm

which made the damage possible, the

or the manner in which it occurred

defendant is said not to be liable. But

does not prevent him from being

so far as the fact of causation is

liable (Restatement, Torts, 2d). Here,

concerned, in the sense of necessary

We find defendant bus running at a

antecedents which have played an

fast speed when the accident occurred

important

part

and did not even make the slightest

result,

is

effort to avoid the accident,

distinguish between active forces and

x x x. The bus driver’s conduct is

passive situations, particularly since,

thus a substantial factor in bringing

as is invariably the case, the latter are

about harm to the passengers of

the result of other active forces which

the jeepney, not only because he was

have gone before . The defendant who

driving fast and did not even attempt

spills gasoline about the premises

to avoid the mishap, but also because

creates a “condition;” but the act may

it was the bus which was the physical

be culpable because of the danger of

force which brought about the injury

fire.

and death to the passengers of

gasoline, the condition has done quite

the jeepney.

as much to bring about the fire as the

it

When

in

producing

quite

a

impossible

spark

ignites

the to

the

spark; and since that is the very risk which the defendant has created, the defendant

will

not

escape

responsibility. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the “condition” remains static will not Many

courts

to

necessarily affect liability; one who

distinguish between the active “cause”

digs a trench in the highway may still

of

be liable to another who falls into it a

the

harm

have

and

sought

the

existing

“conditions” upon which that cause

month

operated.

“condition”

If

the

defendant


|

has

afterward. still


“ CAuse” find

and

occasional Page 29

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines mention in the decisions; but the


distinction is now almost entirely


discredited .


So far as it has any

validity at all, it must refer to the type of case where the forces set in

made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive,

operation by the defendant have come


to rest in a position of apparent


safety,

force


intervenes. But even in such cases, it


and

some

new

is not the distinction betwe en en “cause” and “condition” which is important, but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause .” .”

existed

in

the

condition

except

because’ of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause.

And

if

an

independent

negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the circumstances which result in injury because of the prior

defective

condition,

such


The principal and proximate cause of the electrocution was not the electric wire, evidently a remote cause, but rather the reckless and negligent act of Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet without taking any precaution, such as looking back toward the street and at the wire to avoid its contacting said iron sheet, considering the lattery length of 6 feet.

With respect to the case of Remigio Rodrigueza it is to be inferred that his house stood upon this ground before the Railroad Company laid its line over this course; and at any rate there is no proof that this plaintiff had unlawfully


railroad’s

intruded property

in

upon the

the

act

of

made the basis of an action if such Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 30

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines building

his

occurred

undoubtedly

company,

house. upon

What is

really

that

making

locomotives

was

an

antecedent

the

condition that may in fact have made

this

the

disaster

possible,

but

that

extension, had acquired the land only,

circumstance cannot be imputed to

leaving the owner of the house free to

him

remove

be

destructive of his right of action,

considered to have been a trespasser

because, first, that condition was not

in the beginning. Rather, he was there

created by himself; secondly, because

at the sufferance of the defendant

his house remained on this ground by

company, and so long as his house

the toleration, and therefore with the

remained in this exposed position, he

consent of the Railroad Company; and

undoubtedly assumed the risk of any

thirdly, because even supposing the

loss that might have resulted from

house to be improperly there, this fact

fires occasioned by the defendant’s

would not justify the defendant in

locomotives if operated and managed

negligently destroying it.

it.

Hence

he

cannot

as

contributory

negligence

with ordinary care. But he cannot be held to have assumed the risk of any damage that might result from the unlawful defendant.

negligent Nobody

acts is

of

the

bound

D. EFFICIENT INTERVENI INTERVENING NG

to

CAUSE

anticipate and defend himself against the possible negligence of another. Rather he has a right to assume that the other will use the care of the Proximate cause has been defined as,

ordinarily prudent man. In

the

situation

now

under

consideration the proximate and only cause of the damage that occurred was the negligent act of the defendant in causing this fire. The circumstance that Remigio Rodrigueza’s house was partly

on

the

property

of

the

defendant company and therefore in dangerous

proximity


to |

passing

“that

cause,

which, in natural

and

continuous sequence, unbroken by any

efficient

produces

the

intervening injury,

and

cause, without

which the result would not have occurred.’

And

more

comprehensively, the proximate legal cause

is

producing

that

acting

the

first

injury,

and either

immediately or by setting other events


Page 31

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines in motion, all constituting a natural

precautionary


given circumstances, the truck driver


continued at full speed towards the

its immediate predecessor, the final

car. The truck driver’s negligence

event

immediately

becomes more apparent in view of the

effecting the injury as a natural and

fact that the road is 7.50 meters wide

probable result of the cause which

while the car measures 1.598 meters

first acted, under such circumstances

and the truck, 2.286 meters, in width.

that the person responsible for the

This would mean that both car and

first event should, as an ordinary

truck could pass side by side with a

prudent and intelligent person, have

clearance

reasonable ground to expect at the

spare. Furthermore, the bridge has a

moment of his act or default that an

level

injury to some person might probably

partially accommodated the truck.

result therefrom.”

Any reasonable man finding himself in

in

the

Applying

chain

the

above

definition,

although it may be said that the act of Jose Koh, if at all negligent, was the

of

sidewalk

measure

3.661 which

under

meters could

the

to have

the given situation would have tried to avoid the car instead of meeting it head-on.

initial act in the chain of events, it cannot be said that the same caused the

eventual

because

of

sufficient

injuries the

and

deaths

occurrence

intervening

of

event,

a the

negligent act of the truck driver, which was the actual cause of the

The principal and proximate cause of

tragedy. The entry of the car into the

the electrocution was not the electric

lane of the truck would not have

wire, evidently a remote cause, but

resulted in the collision had the latter

rather the reckless and negligent act

heeded the emergency signals given

of Magno in turning around and

by the former to slow down and give

swinging the galvanized iron sheet

the car an opportunity to go back into

without taking any precaution, such

its proper lane. Instead of slowing

as looking back toward the street and

down and swerving to the far right of

at the wire to avoid its contacting said

the

road,

which

was


the |

proper Submitted to: Atty. Jennifer N. Asuncion

Page 32

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines iron sheet, considering the lattery

an

length of 6 feet.

another agency if the occurrence of


the accident, in the manner in which it


happened, was the very thing which


the statute or ordinance was intended

furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened

injury

by

the

intervention

of

to prevent.” To consider the violation of the ordinance as the proximate


cause of the injury does not portray


the situation in its true perspective; it


would be more accurate to say that


the overcrowding at the stairway was


the proximate cause and that it was

condition or occasion. If no danger existed

in

the

condition

except

because’ of the independent cause,

precisely what the ordinance intended to prevent by requiring that there be


two stairways instead of only one.

cause.

independent

Under the doctrine of the cases cited


by the respondents, the principle of

sets into operation the circumstances

proximate

And

if

an

which result in injury because of the prior

defective

condition,

such

cause

applies

to

such

violation.

subsequent act or condition is the

As thus projected the violation of the

proximate cause.

ordinance, it is argued, was only a remote cause, if at all, and cannot be the

basis

of

liability

since

there

intervened a number of independent causes which produced the injury complained of. A statement of the doctrine relied upon is found in The general principle is that the violation of a statute or ordinance is

Manila Electric Co. vs . Remoquillo, L8328, May 18, 1956, wherein this Court, citing Corpus Juris , said:

not rendered remote as the cause of Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 33

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines “A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than


furnish the condition or give

was but the remote cause and its

rise to the occasion by which


the

take

injury

was

made

necessary

precautions,

with

possible, if there intervened

tetanus may have been the proximate

between

cause of Javier’s death with which the

such

prior

or

remote cause and the injury

petitioner had nothing to do.

a

successive,

A prior and remote cause cannot be

unrelated, and efficient cause


of the injury, even though


such injury would not have


happened

such


condition or occasion. If no


danger

the


condition except because of


the independent cause, such


condition

the


proximate cause. And if an


independent negligent act or


defective condition sets into

existed

operation the circumstances


which


distinct,

but

for

existed

in

was

result

not

in

the

condition

except

in

injury

the

prior

cause.

such


subsequent act or condition

sets into operation the circumstances,

is the proximate cause.

which result in injury because of the

because

of

defective

condition,

prior

And

if

defective

an

independent

condition,

such



|


Page 34

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines E. LAST CLEAR CHANCE

his negligence at that point will prevent a recovery. When a traveler has reached a point where he cannot extricate himself and vigilance on his

The existence of negligence in a given

part will not avert the injury, his

case is not determined by reference to

negligence in reaching that position

the personal judgment of the actor in

becomes the condition and not the

the situation before him. The law

proximate cause of the injury and will

considers what would be reckless,

not preclude a recovery.

blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that. It will be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not

The doctrine of “last clear chance”, as

contemporaneous, since the

stated broadly, is that the negligence

negligence of the defendant

of the plaintiff does not preclude a

succeeded the negligence of the

recovery for the negligence of the

plaintiff by an appreciable interval.

defendant where it appears that the

Under these circumstances the law is

defendant, by exercising reasonable

that the person who has the last fair

care

chance to avoid the impending harm

avoided injurious consequences to the

and fails to do so is chargeable with

plaintiff

the consequences, without reference

plaintiff’s negligence. In other words,

to the prior negligence of the other

the doctrine of last clear chance

party.

means that even though a person’s

The "last clear chance" rule of the law

own acts may have placed him in a

of negligence as particularly applied

position of peril, and an injury results,

to automobile accidents. This rule

the injured person is entitled to

cannot be invoked where the

recovery. As the doctrine is usually

negligence of the plaintiff is

stated, a person who has the last clear

concurrent with that of the defendant.

chance or opportunity of avoiding an

Again, if a traveler when he reaches

accident,

the point of collision is in a situation

negligent acts of his opponent or that

to extricate himself and avoid injury,

of a third person imputed to the


|

and

prudence,

might

notwithstanding

notwithstanding


have the

the

Page 35

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines opponent is considered in law solely

negligent. As against third persons, a

responsible for the consequences of

negligent actor cannot defend by

the accident.

pleading that another had negligently

The practical import of the doctrine is

failed to take action which could have

that a negligent defendant held liable

avoided the injury.”

to a negligent plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff

who

has

been

grossly

negligent in placing himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff’s peril, or according to some authorities, should have

been

aware

of

it

in

the

reasonable exercise of due case, had

The theory here of petitioners is that

in fact an opportunity later than that

while the petitioner truck driver was

of the plaintiff to avoid an accident

negligent, private respondent Dionisio

The principle of “last clear chance”

had the “last clear chance” of avoiding

applies “in a suit between the owners

the accident and hence his injuries,

and drivers of colliding vehicles. It

and that Dionisio having failed to take

does not arise where a passenger

that “last clear chance” must bear his

demands

own injuries alone.

responsibility

from

the

The last clear

its

contractual

chance doctrine of the common law

it

would

he

was imported into our jurisdiction

inequitable to exempt the negligent

by Picart vs. Smith but it is a matter

driver of the jeepney and its owners

for debate whether, or to what extent,

on the ground that the other driver

it has found its way into the Civil

was likewise guilty of negligence.”

Code

carrier

to

enforce

obligations.

For

Furthermore,

“as

between

defendants: The doctrine cannot be extended

into

the

field

of

joint

tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter’s peril, and it cannot

be

invoked

defendants Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

as

between

concurrently |

of

the

Philippines.

The

historical function of that doctrine in the common law was to mitigate the harshness of another common law doctrine or rule — that of contributory negligence. The common law rule of contributory negligence prevented any recovery at all by a plaintiff who was also negligent, even if the plaintiff’s negligence was relatively minor as


Page 36

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines compared with the wrongful act or

time

omission

defendant’s

of

the

defendant.

The

of

the

plaintiff’s negligent

and

the

acts

or

common law notion of last clear

omissions, is only one of the relevant

chance permitted courts to grant

factors

recovery to a plaintiff who had also

account.

been negligent provided that the

importance are the nature of the

defendant had the last clear chance to

negligent act or omission of each

avoid the casualty and failed to do so.

party and the character and gravity of

Accordingly, it is difficult to see what

the risks created by such act or

role, if any, the common law last clear

omission

chance doctrine has to play in a

community. The petitioners urge that

jurisdiction where the common law

the truck driver (and therefore his

concept of contributory negligence as

employer) should be absolved from

an absolute bar to recovery by the

responsibility

plaintiff, has itself been rejected, as it

negligence because the unfortunate

has been in Article 2179 of the Civil

plaintiff

Code of the Philippines.

increased diligence which had become

Is there perhaps a general concept of “last

clear

chance”

that

may

be

that

may

Of

be

more

for

the

for

failed

taken

fundamental

rest

his

to

into

act

of

own with

the

prior that

necessary to avoid the peril precisely created by the truck driver’s own

extracted from its common law matrix

wrongful act or omission. To accept

and utilized as a general rule in

this proposition is to come too close

negligence

to

cases

in

jurisdiction like ours?

a

civil

law

We do not

believe so. Under Article 2179, the

wiping

out

the

fundamental

principle of law that a man must respond

for

the

foreseeable

task of a court, in technical terms, is

consequences of his own negligent

to determine whose negligence — the

act or omission. Our law on quasi-

plaintiff’s or the defendant’s — was

delicts seeks to reduce the risks and

the legal or proximate cause of the

burdens of living in society and to

injury. That task is not simply or even

allocate them among the members of

primarily an exercise in chronology or

society.

physics, as the petitioners seem to imply by the use of terms like “last” or “intervening”

or

“immediate”.

To accept the petitioners’

proposition must tend to weaken the very bonds of society.

The

relative location in the continuum of Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 37

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines The doctrine of the last clear chance provides

as

valid

and

complete a

defense to accident liability today as it Both drivers, as the Appellate Court

did when invoked and applied in the

found, had had a full view of each

1918 case of Picart vs. Smith, which

other’s vehicle from a distance of one

involved a similar state of facts.

hundred fifty meters. Both vehicles were travelling at

a

speed

of

approximately thirty kilometers per hour. The private respondents have admitted that the truck was already at a full stop when the jeep plowed into it. And they have not seen fit to deny or

impugn

petitioners’

imputation

that they also admitted the truck had been brought to a stop while the jeep

For the doctrine to be applicable, it is

was still thirty meters away.

From

necessary to show that the person

these facts the logical conclusion

who allegedly had the last opportunity

emerges that the driver of the jeep had

what

judicial

appropriately

doctrine

has

called the last

clear

to avert the accident was aware of the existence of the peril or should, with

while

exercise of due care, have been aware

still at that distance of thirty meters

of it. One cannot be expected to

from the truck, by stopping in his turn

avoid an accident or injury if he does

or swerving his jeep away from the

not know or could not have known the

chance to avoid the

truck,

either

of

accident,

which

he

had

sufficient time to do while running at a speed of only thirty kilometers per hour. In

those

circumstances,

his

existence of the peril. In this case, there

is

nothing

to

show

that

the jeepney driver David Ico knew of

duty was to seize that opportunity of

the impending danger. When he saw

avoidance,

a

at a distance that the approaching bus

supposed right to expect, as the

was encroaching on his lane, he did

Appellate Court would have it, the

not immediately swerve the jeepney to

not

merely

rely

on

truck to swerve and leave him a clear path. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

the dirt shoulder on his right since he


Page 38

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines must have assumed that the bus

attributed to the incident, the one

driver will return the bus to its own

who had the last clear opportunity to

lane

avoid the impending harm and failed

upon

the jeepney approaching

seeing from

the

consequences

opposite direction. the last clear chance doctrine “can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered”

[Ong v.

to do so is chargeable with the

Metropolitan

Water District].

thereof.

Stated

differently, the rule would also mean that an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of

damages

negligence

for

of,

the

or

supervening

bar

a

defense

against liability sought by another, if the latter, who had the last fair chance,

could

have

avoided

the

impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. Here, assuming that private respondent RMC was negligent in entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, thus providing the latter with the opportunity to defraud the

Under the doctrine of “last clear chance” (also referred to, at times as “supervening

negligence”

or

as

“discovered peril”), petitioner bank was indeed the culpable party. This doctrine, in essence, states that where both parties are negligent, but the

company,

as

advanced

by

the

petitioner, yet it cannot be denied that the petitioner bank, thru its teller, had the last clear opportunity to avert the injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation procedure.

negligent act of one is appreciably

Coming now to the doctrine of “last

later in time than that of the other, or

clear chance,” it is my considered view

when it is impossible to determine

that the doctrine assumes that the

whose fault or negligence should be

negligence


|

of

the


defendant

was

Page 39

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines subsequent to the negligence of the

taken ordinary care of its concerns, as

plaintiff and the same must be the

what

proximate cause of the injury. In

negligence,

short, there must be a last and a clear

contributory but the immediate and

chance, not a last possible chance, to

proximate cause of its injury.

the

law

presumes.

therefore,

is

Its not

avoid the accident or injury. It must have been a chance as would have enabled a reasonably prudent man in like position to have acted effectively to avoid the injury and the resulting damage to himself.

The doctrine of last clear chance

In the case at bar, the bank was not

simply means that the negligence of a

remiss in its duty of sending monthly

claimant does not preclude a recovery

bank

for the negligence of defendant where

statements

to

private

respondent RMC so that any error or

it

discrepancy in the entries therein

exercising

reasonable

prudence,

might

could

be

brought

to

the

bank’s

attention at the earliest opportunity. Private respondent failed to examine

appears

that

the

latter, care

have

by and

avoided

injurious consequences to claimant

these bank statements not because it

notwithstanding his negligence. Or,

was prevented by some cause in not

“As the doctrine usually is stated, a

doing

person who has the last clear chance

so,

but

because

it

was

purposely negligent as it admitted that it does not normally check bank statements given by banks.

last and clear chance to prevent any further misappropriation by Yabut had it only reviewed the status of its accounts

on

the

bank

statements sent to it monthly or regularly. Since a sizable amount of cash was entrusted to Yabut, private respondent should, at least, have Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

opportunity

accident,

of

avoiding

notwithstanding

an the

negligent acts of his opponent or the

It was private respondent who had the

current

or

|

negligence of a third person which is imputed

to

his

opponent,

is

considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident.” Since it is not known how minor Ong came into the big swimming pool and it being apparent that he went there


Page 40

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines without any companion in violation of

remembered that the obligation of the

one of the regulations of appellee as

carrier to transport its passengers

regards the use of the pools, and it

safely is such that the New Civil Code

appearing

requires “utmost diligence” from the

that

lifeguard

Abaño

responded to the call for help as soon

carriers

as his attention was called to it and

“presumed to have been at fault or to

immediately after retrieving the body

have acted negligently, unless they

all efforts at the disposal of appellee

prove

had been put into play in order to

extraordinary diligence” (Art. 1756).

bring him back to life, it is clear that

In

there is no room for the application of

presumption

the

by

confirmed by the CA’ finding that the

to

driver of the jeepney in question was

doctrine

appellants

to

now

invoked

impute

liability

appellee.

at

The last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the

(Act.

that this

fault

1755)

they

have

instance,

in

of

who

are

observed

this

legal

negligence

parking

the

is

vehicle

improperly. It must follow that the driver—and

the

owners—of

the

jeepney must answer for injuries to its passengers.

application of all means at hand after

The principle about the “last clear

the peril is or should have been

chance” would call for application in a

discovered; at least in cases in which

suit between the owners and drivers

any previous negligence of the party

of the two colliding vehicles . It does

charged

not arise where a passenger demands

cannot

be

said

to

have

contributed to the injury.

responsibility

from

the

carrier

to

enforce its contractual obligation. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver Upon further and more extended

was

likewise

guilty

of

negligence.

consideration of the matter, we have become convinced that error of law. was

committed

in

releasing

the

jeepney from liability. It must be Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 41

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is It has been said that drivers of

impossible to determine whose fault

vehicles

or

“who

bump

the

rear

of

negligence

brought

about

the

another vehicle” are presumed to be

occurrence of the incident, the one

“the cause of the accident, unless

who had the last clear opportunity to

contradicted by other evidence”. The

avoid the impending harm but failed

rationale behind the presumption is

to do so, is chargeable with the

that the driver of the rear vehicle has

consequences

full control of the situation as he is in

Stated differently, the rule is that the

a position to observe the vehicle in

antecedent negligence of a person

front of him.

does

not

arising

preclude

therefrom.

recovery

of

the

damages caused by the supervening

collision with the front vehicle lies

negligence of the latter, who had the

with the driver of the rear vehicle.

last

The

responsibility

to

avoid

Consequently, no other person was to

fair

chance

to

prevent

the

impending harm by the exercise of

blame but the victim himself since he

due diligence.

was

his

Assuming that Osmundo CAnlas was

motorcycle into the rear of the Isuzu

negligent in giving Vicente Mañosca

truck. He had the last clear chance of

the opportunity to perpetrate the

avoiding the accident.

fraud, by entrusting to latter the

the

one

who

bumped

owner’s

copy

of

the

transfer

certificates of title of subject parcels of land, it cannot be denied that the bank had the last clear chance to prevent the fraud, by the simple expedient of faithfully complying with Under

the

doctrine

of

last

clear

chance, which is applicable here, the respondent bank must suffer the

the

requirements

for

banks

to

ascertain the identity of the persons transacting with them.

resulting loss. In essence, the doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 42

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract. The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence

The doctrine of last clear chance

caused the loss, the one who had the

states that a person who has the last

last clear opportunity to avoid the loss

clear

but failed to do so, is chargeable with the

loss.

Stated

differently,

the

antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does

not

preclude

him

from

chance

or

opportunity

of

avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible

recovering damages caused by the

for

supervening

the

accident. But as already stated on this

defendant, who had the last fair

point, no convincing evidence was

negligence

of

chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. We do not apply the doctrine of last clear

chance

to

the

present

case. Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence in the

the

consequences

of

the

adduced by petitioner to support his invocation of the abovecited doctrine. Instead, what has been shown is the presence of an emergency and the proper application of the emergency

contractual

rule. Petitioner’s act of swerving to

obligation to L.C. Diaz. This is a case

the Tamaraw’s lane at a distance of

of culpa contractual , where neither

30 meters from it and driving the

the contributory negligence of the

Isuzu pick-up at a fast speed as it

performance

of

its

plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant

from

liability.

Such

approached the Tamaraw, denied Iran time and opportunity to ponder the

contributory negligence or last clear

situation at all. There was no clear

chance by the plaintiff merely serves

chance to speak of. Accordingly, the

to reduce the recovery of damages by

CA did not err in holding petitioner


|


Page 43

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines responsible for the vehicular collision

hardly be faulted for whatever she

and the resulting damages, including

might have done to the animal.

the injuries suffered by Mrs. Sheila Seyan and the total loss of the Tamaraw jeepney. It also did not err in

imposing

on

petitioner

the

sentence of four (4) months of arresto

B. THINGS THROWN OR FALLING FROM A BUILDING

mayor.

As Jose Dingcong joint tenant and manager

V. LIABILITY

of

the

hotel,

with

full

possession of the top of the house, A. POSSESSOR OF ANIMALS

you must answer for damages caused by things that were thrown or fell from it (Article 1910 Civil Code).

Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal should “escape or be lost” and so be removed from his control. And it does not

matter

either

that,

as

the

petitioners also contend, the dog was tame and was merely provoked by the child into biting her. The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause

injury.

As

for

the

alleged

provocation, the petitioners forget that Theness was only three years old

Francisco Echevarria was a guest of the hotel was the one who directly by their neglect, leaving open the tap, let the water pipe pull back on the ground and seep into the low, dipping the

articles

and

goods

of

the

plaintiffs. Dingcong Jose, on the other hand, do not practice the diligence of a good father to prevent this damage, however

they

knew

because

they

could cause then repair the pipes, then, must presume that Echavarria could use the tap does not provided some

container

with

adequate

at the time she was attacked and can Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 44

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines drainage, and if you just put a pan

pursuance of his employment. At the

under it that, when filled, the water

time that he was run over by the truck

was spread on the ground.

Leopoldo Madlangbayan was not in the pursuance of his employment with the defendant corporation, but was on his way home after he had finished his work for the day and had left the

C. DEATH INJURIES IN THE

territory where he was authorized to

COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT

make collections for the defendant. The

employer

is

not

an

insurer

“against all accidental injuries which might happen to an employee while in As

the

deceased

Madlangbayan

was

Leopoldo killed

on

November 16, 1930, and Act No. 3812

was

not

approved

until

December 8, 1930, it is apparent that the law which is applicable is Act No. 3428, section 2 of which reads as follows:

as a general rule an employee is not entitled to recover from personal injuries resulting from an accident that befalls him while going to or returning

from

employment,

his

place

of

because

such

an

accident does not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

“When any employee receives a personal

the course of the employment”, and

injury

from

any

accident due to and in the pursuance of the employment, or contracts any illness directly caused by such employment or the result of the nature of such employment, his employer shall pay compensation in the sums

The

phrase

“due

to

and

in

the

pursuance of” used in section 2 of Act No. 3428 was changed in Act No. 3812 to “arising out of and in the course of”. Discussing this phrase, the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of

Mueller

Construction

Co.

vs.

Industrial Board, said:

and to the persons hereinafter

“The words ‘arising out of’ refer

specified.”

to the origin or cause of the accident, and are descriptive of

The accident which caused the death

its character, while the words

of the employee was not due to and in

‘in the course of refer to the


|


Page 45

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines time, place, and circumstances under which the accident takes place. (Fitzgerald vs. Clarke

D. STRICT LIABILITY / PRODUCT LIABILITY

&

Sons, 1 B. W. C. C, 197; Dietzen Co. vs. Industrial Board, 279 III., 11; 116 N. E,, 684.) By the use

The vendor could likewise be liable

of these words it was not the

for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of

intention of the legislature to

the Civil Code, and an action based

make the employer an insurer

thereon

against all accidental injuries

vendee. While it may be true that the

which

pre-existing

might

happen

to

an

may

be

brought

contract

by

the

between

the

employee while in the course of

parties may, as a general rule, bar the

the employment, but only for

applicability of the law on quasi-

such injuries arising from or

delict,

growing

risks

deemed to arise from quasi-delict,

peculiar to the nature of the

i.e., the act which breaks the contract

work

may

out

in

workman’s

of

the

the

scope

of

the

employment

or

incidental to such employment, and accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed in a special degree by reason of such which

employment. all

Risks

persons

to

similarly

situated are equally exposed and

not

traceable

in

some

special degree to the particular employment are excluded.”

the

liability

also

be

Thus, in Singson

may

a vs.

itself

be

quasi-delict. Bank

of

the

Philippine Islands, this Court stated: "We

have

repeatedly

held,

however, that the existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the other

and

the

recovery

consequent

of

damages

therefor. Indeed, this view has been, in effect, reiterated in a comparatively Thus,

in

Air

recent France

CArrascoso, involving airplane

case.

passenger

vs. an who,

despite his first-class ticket, had been illegally ousted from Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 46

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines E.

his first-class accommodation

INTERFERANCE WITH

CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

and compelled to take a seat in the tourist compartment, was held

entitled

to

recover

damages from the air-carrier, upon the ground of tort on the

Everyone has a right to enjoy the

latter’s part, for, although the

fruits and advantages of his own

relation between the passenger and a carrier is ‘contractual both in origin and nature x x x

enterprise, industry, skill and credit. He has no right to be protected

the act that breaks the contract

against competition; but he has a

may also be a tort.’"

right to be free from malicious and

Otherwise put, liability for quasidelict may still exist despite the

wanton interference, disturbance or annoyance.

If

disturbance

or

losscome as a result of competition,

presence of contractual relations. Under American law, the liabilities of

or the exercise of like rights by

the manufacturer or seller of injury-

others, it is damnum absque injuria ,

causing products may be based on

unless

negligence, breach

contract or otherwise is interfered

of

warranty, tort, or other grounds such as

fraud,

deceit,

some

superior

right

by

with.

or as

It is said that the ground on which the

defined in Article 2176 of the Civil

liability of a third party for interfering

Code, (which is known in Spanish

with a contract between others rests,

legal treatises as culpa aquiliana,

is

culpa

malicious.

misrepresentation. Quasi-delict ,

extra-contractual

or

cuasi¬

that

the

interference

was

contrary

view,

The

not

however, is taken by the Supreme

identical to tort under the common

Court of the United States in the case

law, which

includes

of Angle vs. Railway Co. (151 U. S.,

negligence,

but

delitos)

is

homologous

also

but not

only

intentional

1).

The only motive for interference

criminal acts, such as assault and

by the third party in that case was the

battery,

desire to make a profit to the injury of

false

imprisonment,

and

one

deceit.

of

the

parties

of

the

contract. There was no malice in the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 47

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines case beyond the desire to make an unlawful gain to the detriment of one of the contracting parties. In the case at bar the only motive for the interference with the GilchristCuddy contract on the

part of the

appellants was a desire to make a profit by exhibiting the film in their’ theater. There was no malice beyond this desire; but this fact does not

The elements of tort interference are: (1) existence of a valid contract; (2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of contract; and (3) interference of the third person is without legal justification or excuse.

relieve them of the legal liability for

Section

interfering

contract

categorically provides also that, “Any

It is,

third person who induces another to

therefore, clear, under the above

violate his contract shall be liable for

authorities, that they were liable to

damages to the other contracting

Gilchrist for the damages caused by

party.” Petitioner argues that damage

their acts, unless they are relieved

is

from such liability by reason of the

interference, and since the trial court

fact that they did not know at the time

and the appellate court ruled that

the

private respondents were not entitled

with

and causing

identity

its

that breach.

of

the original

to

lessee (Gilchrist) of the film. The liability of the appellants arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual obligations, as they were

an

1314

of

essential

actual,

the

Civil

element

moral

or

Code

of

tort

exemplary

damages, it follows that he ought to be absolved of any liability, including attorney’s fees.

under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist.

F. LIABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

The liability of public corporations for damages Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

arising


from

injuries Page 48

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines suffered by pedestrians from the defective

condition

of

roads

is

expressed in the Civil Code as follows:

xxx (j) He shall have the care and custody of the public system of

Article 2189. Provinces, cities and

waterworks and sewers, and all

municipalities shall be liable for

sources of water supply, and shall

damages for the death of, or

control, maintain and regulate the

injuries suffered by, any person

use of the same, in accordance

by reason of the defective

with the ordinance relating thereto;

condition of roads, streets,

shall inspect and regulate the use

bridges, public buildings, and

of all private systems for supplying

other public works under their

water

control or supervision.

inhabitants, and all private sewers,

It is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong to

and

to their

The

liability to attach. The article only

provides

requires

construction

supervision

either

is

control

exercised

over

or the

city

and

connection

with

its the

public sewer system.

the province, city, or municipality for that

the

same charter

streets,

that

of Dagupan also

the

and

avenues

laying

out,

improvement and

alleys

of and

defective road or street.

sidewalks, and regulation of the use

In the case at bar, this control or

thereof, may be legislated by the

supervision is provided for in the

Municipal Board. Thus the charter

charter of Dagupan and is exercised

clearly indicates that the city indeed

through the City Engineer who has the

has supervision and control over the

following duties:

sidewalk where the open drainage

Sec. 22. The City Engineer — His

hole is located.

powers, duties and compensation

The express provision in the charter

— There shall be a city engineer,

holding

who shall be in charge of the

damages or injuries sustained by

department of Engineering and

persons or property due to the failure

Public Works. He shall receive a

of any city officer to enforce the

salary

three

provisions of the charter, cannot be

thousand pesos per annum. He

used to exempt the city, as in the case

shall have the following duties:

at bar.

of

not

exceeding


|

the

city


not

liable

for

Page 49

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines VI. PERSONS LIABLE

Joint tort feasors are not liable pro rata.

A. THE TORTFEASOR

The

apportioned

damages

can

not

among

them,

be

except

among themselves. They can no insist upon

an

apportionment,

for

the

purpose of each paying an aliquot part. They are jointly and severally The joint tort feasors are all the persons

who

promote,

command,

liable for the full amount.

instigate,

encourage,

advise,

countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to the same extent and

The

in the same manner as if they had

responsible for the negligence of his

performed

driver,

the

wrongful

act

themselves.

defendant, under

however, the

is

facts

not and

circumstances of this case. As we

Joint tort feasors are jointly and

have

said

in

the

case

of

severally liable for the tort which they

Johnson vs. David (5 Phil. Rep., 663),

commit. The person injured may sue

the driver does not fall within the list

all of them, or any number less than

of persons in article 1903 of the Civil

all. Each is liable for the whole

Code for whose acts the defendant

damage

would be responsible.

caused

by

all,

and

all

together are jointly liable for the

Although in the David case the owner

whole damage. It is no defense for

of the vehicle was not present at the

one sued alone, that the others who

time the alleged negligent acts were

participated in the wrongful act are

committed by the driver, the same

not joined with him as defendants;

rule

nor is it any excuse for him that his

present, unless the negligent acts of

participation

was

the driver are continued for such a

insignificant as compared with that of

length of time as to give the owner a

the others.

reasonable opportunity to observe

in

the

tort

applies

where

the

owner

is

them and to direct his driver to desist Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 50

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines therefrom. An owner who sits in his

In the case before us it does not

automobile, or other vehicle, and

appear from the record that, from the

permits his driver to continue in a

time the automobile took the wrong

violation

the

side of the road to the commission of

performance of negligent acts, after

the injury, sufficient time intervened

he has had a reasonable opportunity

to give the defendant an opportunity

to observe them and to direct that the

to correct the act of his driver.

driver

becomes

Instead, it appears with fair clearness

himself responsible for such acts. The

that the interval between the turning

owner of an automobile who permits

out to meet and pass the street car

his chauffeur to drive up the Escolta,

and the happening of the accident

for example, at a speed of 60 miles an

was so small as not to be sufficient to

hour, without any effort to stop him,

charge defendant with the negligence

although he has had a reasonable

of the driver.

of

cease

opportunity

the

law

by

therefrom,

to

do

so,

becomes

himself responsible, both criminally and civilly, for the’ results produced by the acts of his chauffeur. On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden

Whether or not the owner of an automobile driven by a competent driver, would be responsible, whether present or not, for the negligent acts of his driver when the automobile was

act of negligence, and without the

a part of a business enterprise, and

owner

reasonable

was being driven at the time of the

opportunity to prevent the act or its

accident in furtherance of the owner’s

having

continuance,

a

injures

a

person

or

violates the criminal law, the owner of the

automobile,

although

business, we do not now decide.

present

therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible, either civilly or criminally, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own.

Article 2184 provides that, “In motor vehicle

mishaps,

owner is solidarily

liable

the with

his

driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due


|


Page 51

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines diligence, pre¬vented the misfortune.

appreciate the relative dangers posed

It is disputably presumed that a driver

by the different situations that are

was negligent, if he has been found

continually

guilty of reckless driving or violating

road. What would be a

traffic regulations at least twice within

omission under the aforesaid Article

the next preceding two months.”

on the part of a car owner who is in

Under the foregoing provision, if the causative

factor

was

the

driver’s

negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was present is likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap

encountered

the

negligent

the prime of age and knows how to handle

a

motor

vehicle

is

not

necessarily so on the part, say, of an old

and

infirm

person

who is not

similarly equipped.

by the exercise of due diligence.

The law

does not

The basis of the master’s liability in

a person

must

civil law is not respondeat superior

on

require

possess

a

that certain

measure of skill or proficiency either

but rather the relationship of pater

in the mechanics of driving or in the

familias. The theory is that ultimately

observance of traffic rules before he

the negligence of the servant, if

may own a motor vehicle. The test of

known to the master and susceptible

his negligence, within the meaning of

of timely correction by him, reflects

Article 2184, is his omission to do

his own negligence if he fails to

that

correct it in order to prevent injury or

his own senses tells him he should do

the

evidence

of

in order to avoid the accident. And as

damage. The test of imputed negligence under Article 2184 of the Civil Code is, to a great degree, necessarily subjective. CAr owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional drivers.

In many

cases they refrain from driving their own cars and instead hire other persons to drive for them precisely because

which

they

are

not

trained

or

endowed with sufficient discernment to know the rules of traffic or to Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

far as perception

is

concerned,

absent a minimum level imposed by law, a maneuver that appears to be fraught with danger to one passenger may appear to be entirely safe and commonplace to another. Were the law to require a uniform standard of perceptiveness,

employment

of

professional drivers by car owners who, by their very inadequacies, have real need of drivers’ services, would be effectively proscribed.


Page 52

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines the determination of the trial court which it had previously affirmed. The deceased Roberto R. Luna had been engaged in car racing as a sport, having participated in tournaments

B.

both here and abroad;” it said that Luna’s

habit

and

manner

of

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

life

should be “one of the factors affecting the value of mortality table in actions for

damages;”

and,

consequently,

concluded that Luna could not have lived beyond 43 years. The result was

Under the law above quoted, “teachers

that the 30-year life expectancy of

or directors of arts

Luna was reduced to 10 years only.

liable for

The

CA,

in

reducing

Luna’s

life

expectancy from 30 to 10 years said that his habit and manner of life should be taken into account, i.e. that he had been engaged in car racing as a sport both here and abroad – a dangerous and risky activity tending to shorten his life expectancy. That Luna had engaged in car racing is not based

on

record.

That Luna was engaged in

go-kart

any

racing

evidence is

the

on

correct

statement but then go-kart racing

and trades are

any damages

caused

by

their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody”,

but this

provision only applies to an institution of arts

and trades and not to any

academic Here

educational

Dante

CApuno

institution. was then a

student of the Balintawak Elementary School

and as part of his extra-

curricular activity, he attended parade in honor of Dr.

the

Jose Rizal

upon instruction of the city school’s supervisor.

And it was in connection

with that.

cannot be categorized as a dangerous

The

sport for go-karts are extremely low

impose upon the father, and, in case

slung, low powered vehicles, only

of his death or

slightly larger than foot-pedalled four

mother, for any damages that may be

wheeled conveyances. It was error on

caused by the minor children who

the part of the CA to have disturbed

live with them, is obvious.

This is

a

of


|

civil

necessary

liability which

incapacity, the

consequence


the law

the

Page 53

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines parental authority they exercise over

under 15 years of age, who acts

them

without

which

imposes

upon

the

discernment,

unless

it

parents the “duty of supporting them,

appears that there is no fault or

keeping

negligence

them

in

their

company,

on

his

part.

This

is

educating them and instructing them

because a son who commits the act

in proportion to their means”, while,

under any of those conditions is by

on the other hand, gives them the

law exempt from criminal liability

“right

punish

(Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3,

them in moderation” (Articles 154

Revised Penal Code). The idea is not

and 155, Spanish Civil Code). The

to leave the act entirely unpunished

only way by which they can relieve

but to attach certain civil liability to

themselves of this liability is if they

the person who has the delinquent

prove that.

minor under his legal authority or

to

correct

and

control. But a minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability, for which reason the Code is silent as to the subsidiary liability of his parents should he stand In holding that the civil liability of the

convicted. In that case, resort should

son of appellee arises from his

be had to the general law which is our

criminal liability and, therefore, the

Civil Code.

subsidiary liability of appellee must be

The particular law that governs this

determined under the provisions of

case is Article 2180, the pertinent

the Revised Penal Code, and not

portion of which provides: “The father

under Article 2180 of the new Civil Code which only applies to

and, in case of his death or incapacity, the

mother,

damages

are

caused

responsible by

the

for

minor

obligations which arise from quasi-

children who lived in their company.”

delicts.

To hold that this provision does not

Under Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code, a father is made civilly liable for the acts committed by his son only if the latter is an imbecile, an insane, under 9 years of age, or over 9 but Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

apply to the instant case because it only covers obligations which arise from quasi-delicts and not obligations which arise from criminal offenses, would result in the absurdity that


Page 54

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines while

for

an

act

where

mere

discernment, Art. 101 of the same

negligence intervenes the father or

Code can not include him. And as par.

mother may stand subsidiarily liable

2,

for the damage caused by his or her son, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent.

of

Art.

exemption

101, from

states

that

criminal

“the

liability

established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5

Verily, the void that apparently exists

and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision

in

is

4 of Art. 11 of this Code does not

subserved by this particular provision

include exemption from civil liability,

of our Civil Code, as may be gleaned

which shall be enforced subject to the

the

Revised

Penal

Code

from some recent decisions of this Court which cover equal or identical cases.

following rules: First, in cases of subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person and by a person under nine years of age or by one over nine but under fifteen years of

age,

who

has

acted

without

discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal The only way by which a father can be

authority or control, unless it appears

made responsible for the criminal act

that there was no fault or negligence

of his son committed with deliberate

on

intent and with discernment, is an

concluded that this provision covers

action based on the provisions of the

only a situation where a minor under

Revised Penal Code on subsidiary

15 but over 9 years old commits a

liability

criminal act “without discernment.”

of

the

parents;

that

the

minor-Fuellas having been convicted of serious physical injuries at the age

their

part”,

the

appellant

Under Art. 101 of the Revised Penal Code, a father is made civilly liable for

of 13, the provisions of par. 3 of Art.

the acts committed by his son only if

12, Revised Penal Code, could have

the latter is an imbecile, an insane,

been applied, but having acted with

under 9 years of age, or over 9 but


|


Page 55

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines under 15 years of age, who acts

while

without

it

negligence intervenes the father or

appears that there is no fault or

mother may stand subsidiarily liable

negligence

is

for the damage caused by his or her

because a son who commits the act

son, no liability would attach if the

under any of those conditions is by

damage is caused with criminal intent.

law exempt from criminal liability

Verily, the void apparently exists in

(Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3,

the Revised Penal Code is subserved

Revised Penal Code). The idea is not

by this particular provision of our Civil

to leave the act entirely unpunished’

Code, as may be gleaned from some

but to attach certain civil liability to

recent decisions of this Court which

the person who has the delinquent

cover equal or identical cases.

discernment, on

his

unless

part.

This

for

an

act

where

mere

minor under his legal authority or control. But a minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability, for which reason the Code is silent as to the subsidiary liability of his parents should he stand convicted. In that case, resort should be had to the general law which is our

In the United States, it is uniformly

Civil Code.

held that the head of a house, the

The particular law that governs this

owner

case is Article 2180, the pertinent

maintains it for the general use of his

portion of which provides: ‘The father

family

and, in case of his death or incapacity,

operation by one of his children,

the

for

whom he designates or permits to

minor

run it, where the car is occupied and

children who lived in their company.’

being used at the time of the injury

To hold that this provision does not

for the pleasure of other members of

apply to the instant case because it

the owner’s family than the child

only covers obligations which arise

driving it. The theory of the law is

from quasi-delicts and not obligations

that the running of the machine by a

which arise from criminal offenses,

child to carry other members of the

would result in the absurdity that

family

mother,

damages

are

caused

responsible by


the

|

of is

an liable

is

automobile, for

within


its

the

who

negligent

scope Page 56

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines of the owner’s business, so that he is

liable

for

the

negligence

of

the child because of the relationship The deceased Roberto R. Luna had

of master and servant. The liability of Saturnino Cortez, the owner

of

the

truck,

and

of

his

chauffeur Abelardo Velasco rests on a different

basis,

namely,

that

of contract which, we think, has been sufficiently allegations

demonstrated of

the

by

the

complaint,

not

controverted, and the evidence. The reason for this conclusion reaches to the

findings

of

the

trial

court

concerning the position of the truck

been engaged in car racing as a sport, having participated in tournaments both here and abroad;” it said that Luna’s

habit

and

manner

of

life

should be “one of the factors affecting the value of mortality table in actions for

damages;”

and,

consequently,

concluded that Luna could not have lived beyond 43 years. The result was that the 30-year life expectancy of Luna was reduced to 10 years only.

on the bridge, the speed in operating

The

the machine, and the lack of care

expectancy from 30 to 10 years said

employed by the chauffeur.

While

that his habit and manner of life

not as clearly

should be taken into account, i.e. that

evidenced as are those which convict

he had been engaged in car racing as

the other defendant, we nevertheless

a sport both here and abroad – a

hesitate

points

dangerous and risky activity tending

In its

to shorten his life expectancy. That

broader aspects, the case is one of

Luna had engaged in car racing is not

two drivers approaching a narrow

based

on

bridge from opposite directions, with

record.

That Luna was engaged in

neither being willing to slow up and

go-kart

give the right of way to the other, with

statement but then go-kart racing

the inevitable result of a collision and

cannot be categorized as a dangerous

an accident.

sport for go-karts are extremely low

these facts

to

are

disregard

the

emphasized by the trial judge.

CA,

in

reducing

any

racing

Luna’s

evidence is

the

life

on

correct

slung, low powered vehicles, only slightly larger than foot-pedalled four wheeled conveyances. It was error on the part of the CA to have disturbed Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 57

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines the determination of the trial court

mother. This was amplified by the

which it had previously affirmed.

Child and Youth Welfare Code which provides that the same shall devolve upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother or, in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian, but the liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a

The parents are and should be held

relative

primarily liable for the civil liability

youthful offender. However, under the

arising

offenses

Family Code, this civil liability is now,

committed by their minor children

without such alternative qualification,

under their legal authority or control,

the responsibility of the parents and

or who live in their company, unless

those who exercise parental authority

it is proven that the former acted with

over the minor offender. For civil

the diligence of a good father of a

liability

family to prevent such damages. That

committed by minors, the same rules

primary liability is premised on the

shall apply in accordance with Articles

provisions

2180 and 2182 of the Civil Code.

from

of

criminal

Article

101

of

the

or

family

arising

friend

from

of

the

quasi-delicts

Revised Penal Code with respect to

In the case at bar, whether the death

damages ex delicto caused

their

of the hapless Julie Ann Gotiong was

children 9 yrs of age or under, or over

caused by a felony or a quasi-delict

9 but under 15 years of age who

committed

by

acted without discernment; and, with

respondent

court

regard to their children over 9 but

holding petitioners liable for damages

under 15 yrs of age who acted with

arising

discernment, or 15 yrs or over but

preceding

under 21 years of age, such primary

premises relied upon by it therefor

liability shall be imposed pursuant to

and

Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

imperatives

herein

conjoin

its

Under

said

Article

by

2180,

the

on

Wendell

therefrom.

did

not

Subject

modifications the

in

bases

Libi,

of

err to of

the the

the

legal

explained,

findings

in

that

we said

enforcement of such liability shall be

petitioners failed to duly exercise the

effected against the father and, in

requisite diligentissimi patris familias

case of his death or incapacity, the

to prevent such damages.


|


Page 58

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines upon such parents. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a The law imposes civil liability upon

tortious

the father and, in case of his death or

negligent in the performance of their

incapacity,

any

legal and natural duty closely to

damages that may be caused by a

supervise the child who is in their

the

mother,

for

minor child who lives with them. Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

of

what

is

frequently

designated as vicarious liability, or the doctrine

of

“imputed

the

parents

were

custody and control. Parental liability is, in other words, anchored upon parental

This principle of parental liability is a species

act,

authority

coupled

with

presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such

authority.

dereliction

is,

The of

parental

course,

only

negligence”

presumed and the presumption can

under Anglo-American tort law, where

be overturned under Article 2180 of

a person is not only liable for torts

the Civil Code by proof that the

committed by himself, but also for

parents had exercised all the diligence

torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom

he

is

responsible.

Thus,

parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents

of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. In the instant case, the shooting of Jennifer by Adelberto with an air rifle occured when parental authority was still lodged in respondent Bundoc

– their

spouses, the natural parents of the

parental authority – which includes

minor Adelberto. It would thus follow

the

that the natural parents who had then

instructing,

controlling

and

actual custody of the minor Adelberto,

disciplining of the child.

are the indispensable parties to the The

civil

liability

imposed

upon

suit for damages.

parents for the torts of their minor children living with them, may be seen to

be

based

upon

the

parental

authority vested by the Civil Code Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 59

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.” The liability of a parent for an act of his minor child which causes damage to another under the specific facts related

above

provisions

and

of

the

the

applicable

Civil

Code,

particularly Articles 2176 and 2180 thereof, which read:

The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Article 2176 is the fault or negligence accompanying the act or the omission, there being no willfulness or intent to cause damage thereby. When the act or omission is that of one person for whom another

“ART. 2176. Whoever by act or

is

omission

becomes himself liable under Article

causes

damage

to

responsible,

the

latter

then

another, there being fault or

2180,

negligence, is obliged to pay for

enumerated therein, such as that of

the damage done. Such fault or

the father or the mother under the

negligence, if there is no pre-

circumstances

existing

basis

contractual

relation

in

of

the

different

above

this

cases

quoted.

vicarious,

The

although

between the parties, is called a

primary, liability is, as in Article 2176,

quasi-delict and is governed by

fault

the provisions of this Chapter.”

presumed

“ART.

accompanied the causative act or

2180.

imposed

by

The

obligation

Article

2176

is

or

omission.

negligence, from The

which

that

is

which

presumption

is

demandable not only for one’s

merely prima facie and may therefore

own acts or omissions, but also

be rebutted. This is the clear and

for those of persons for whom

logical inference that may be drawn

one is responsible.

from the last paragraph of Article 2180,

which

states

“that

the

The father and, in case of his death or

responsibility treated of in this Article

incapacity,

are

shall cease when the persons herein

responsible for the damages caused

mentioned prove that they observed

by the minor children who live in their

all the diligence of a good father of a

company.

family to prevent damage.”

the

mother,

The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the persons Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 60

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines supersedes those of the parents. In these circumstances the control or influence

over

the

conduct

and

actions of the pupil would pass from the father and mother to the teacher; and so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil. Such a situation does not appear in the case at bar;

Teachers, or directors of arts and

the pupils appear to go to school

trades are liable for any damage caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody’,

during school hours and go back to their homes with their parents after school

but this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic educational

is

over.

The

situation

contemplated in the last paragraph of Article 2180 does not apply, nor does paragraph 2 of said article, which

institution.

makes father or mother responsible

The last paragraph of Article 2180 of

for the damages caused by their

the Civil Code, upon which petitioner

minor

rests his claim that the school where

petitioner that responsibility should

his son was studying should be made

pass to the school must, therefore, be

liable, is as follows:

held to be without merit.

children.

The

claim

of

“Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages pupils

caused and

by

students

their or

apprentices, so long as they The rationale of the liability of school

remain in their custody.” It would seem that the clause “so long as they remain in their custody,”

heads

and

teachers

for

the tortious acts of their pupils and

contemplates a situation where the

students, so long as they remain in

pupil

the

their custody, is that they stand, to a

control,

certain extent, as to their pupils and

lives

teacher,

and

such

boards that

with

the

direction and influence on the pupil Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

students, in

loco parentis and


are

Page 61

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines called upon to “exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child.” This is expressly provided for in Articles 349, 350 and 352 of the

The high school principal and the

Civil Code. In the law of torts, the

dean of boys cannot be held liable

governing

principle

because

protective

custody

heads

is of

that the

and

the

school teachers

is mandatorily substituted for that of

none

of

teacher-in-charge

them

was

as

the

previously

defined. Each of them was exercising only a general authority over the student body and not the direct

the parents, and hence, it becomes

control and influence exerted by the

their obligation as well as that of the

teacher placed in charge of particular

school

classes

itself

to

provide

proper

supervision of the students’ activities during the whole time that they are at attendance in the school, including recess time, as well as to take the

or

sections

and

thus

immediately involved in its discipline. The evidence of the parties does not disclose who the teacher-in-charge of the offending student was. The mere fact that Alfredo Amadora had gone

necessary precautions to protect the

to school that day in connection with

students

in

from

his physics report did not necessarily

dangers

and

would

make the physics teacher, respondent

their

custody

hazards

that

reasonably be anticipated, including injuries that some student themselves may

inflict

willfully

or

through

negligence on their fellow students.

Celestino

Dicon,

the

teacher-in-

charge of Alfredo's killer. At any rate, assuming that he was the teacher-in-charge,

there

is

no

showing that Dicon was negligent in enforcing discipline upon Daffon or that he had waived observance of the rules and regulations of the school or condoned their non-observance. His absence when the tragedy happened cannot be considered against him because he was not supposed or Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 62

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines required to report to school on that

Finally, as previously observed, the

day. And while it is true that the

Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot

offending student was still in the

be held directly liable under the article

custody

teacher-in-charge

because only the teacher or the head

even if the latter was physically absent

of the school of arts and trades is

when the tort was committed, it has

made responsible for the damage

not been established that it was

caused by the student or apprentice.

caused by his laxness in enforcing

Neither can it be held to answer for

discipline upon the student. On the

the tort committed by any of the other

contrary,

respondents

private respondents for none of them

have proved that they had exercised

has been found to have been charged

due

the

with the custody of the offending

school

student or has been remiss in the

that

discharge of his duties in connection

of

the

the

private

diligence,

enforcement regulations,

through

of in

the maintaining

discipline. In

the

with such custody.

absence

of

a

teacher-in-

charge, it is probably the dean of boys who should be held liable especially in view of the unrefuted evidence that he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from one of the students and returned

the

same

later

to

him

Article 2180 of the Civil Code which states:

without taking disciplinary action or

Lastly,

reporting

establishments of arts and trades

the

matter

to

higher

teachers be

liable

or

heads

authorities. While this was clearly

shall

negligence on his part, for which he

caused

deserves sanctions from the school, it

students or apprentices, so long

does not necessarily link him to the

as they remain in their custody.

by

their

for

of

damages

pupils

and

shooting of Amador as it has not been

is equally applicable to academic

shown

institutions.

that

he

confiscated

and

returned pistol was the gun that killed the petitioners' son.

The Court no necessity of discussing the applicability of the Article to educational institutions (which are not


|


Page 63

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines schools of arts and trades) for the

The

issue

should apply to all schools,

in

this

petition

is

actually

provision

question

whether or not, under the article, the

academic

school or the university itself (as

academic. Where the school is

distinguished

academic rather than technical

from

as

in well

vocational

as

in

non-

the teachers or heads ) is liable. The

or

nature,

Court answers in the negative , for

responsibility

surely the provision concerned speaks

committed by the student will

only of "teachers or heads ."

attach to the teacher in charge

for

the

tort

of such student, following the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the made

general rule. In other words,

responsible for the death of the child

teachers in general shall be

Ylarde, he being the head of an

liable for the acts of their

academic school and not a school of

students

arts and trades. This is in line with the

school is technical in nature, in

ruling in Amadora vs. CA, wherein this

which

Court

thereof

The

principal

cannot

thoroughly

be

discussed

the

except

case

where

it is

the

the

head

shall

be

Following

the

who

doctrine that under Article 2180 of

answerable.

the Civil Code, it is only the teacher

canon

and not the head of an academic

sinquilis

school who should be answerable for

apply to the words "pupils and

torts committed by their students.

students'

This Court went on to say that in a

establishments

school of arts and trades, it is only the

trades

head of the school who can be held

"apprentices."

of

reddendo 'teachers' and to

singula should

'heads

of

arts

and

of the

word

liable. In the same case, the Court

Hence, applying the said doctrine to

explained:

this case, the Court rule that private respondent


|

Soriano,


as

principal, Page 64

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines cannot be held liable for the reason

long as they are at attendance in the

that the

school , including recess time."

school

he

heads

is

an

academic school and not a school of arts and trades. Besides, as clearly admitted

by

private

respondent

In the case at bar, in holding that Jimmy

B.

Abon

was

stin

in

the

Aquino, private respondent Soriano

protective and supervisory custody of

did not give any instruction regarding

the Baguio Colleges Foundation when

the digging.

he

shot

Napoleon

CAstro,

the

respondent Court ruled that: it is true that Abon was not attending any class or school function

at

the

time

of

the

shooting incident , which was at about 8 o'clock in the evening; Under the penultimate paragraph of

but considering that Abon was

Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, teachers

employed as an armorer and

or heads of establishments of arts and

property custodian of the BCF

trades are hable for "damages caused

ROTC unit, he must have been

by

attending

their

pupils

and

students

or

night

classes

and

apprentices, so long as they remain in

therefore that hour in the evening

their custody." The rationale of such

was just about dismissal time for

liability is that so long as the student

him or soon thereafter. The time

remains in the custody of a teacher,

interval

the latter "stands, to a certain extent,

"recess time" that the trial court

in loco parentis [as to the student]

spoke of and envisioned by the

and

Palisoc case, supra .

[is]

called

reasonable

upon

to

supervision

exercise over

the

conduct of the [student]." Likewise, "the phrase used in [Art. 2180 — 'so long as (the students) remain in their custody means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

is

safely

within

the

In line with the case of Palisoc , a student not "at

attendance

in

the

school" cannot be in "recess" thereat. A "recess," as the concept is embraced in the phrase "at attendance in the school," contemplates a situation of temporary

adjournment


of

school Page 65

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines activities

where

the

student

still

also for those of persons for whom

remains within call of his mentor and

one is responsible.

is not permitted to leave the school

Employers shall be liable for the

premises, or the area within which the

damages

school activity is conducted. Recess

employees and household helpers

by

acting within the scope of their

its

nature

does

not

include

dismissal. Likewise, the mere fact of being

enrolled

or

being

in

caused

by

their

assigned tasks, even though the

the

former are not engaged in any

premises of a school without more

business or ind ustry.”

does not constitute "attending school" and

Under this par., it is clear that before

supervisory custody' of the school, as

an employer may be held liable for the

contemplated in the law.

negligence of his employee, the act or

or

being

in

the

"protective

omission which caused damage or Upon the foregoing considerations,

prejudice must have occurred while an

we hold that Jimmy B. Abon cannot be

employee was in the performance of

considered

his assigned tasks.

to

have

been

"at

attendance in the school," or in the custody

of

BCF,

when

he

shot

Napoleon CAstro. Logically, therefore, petitioners cannot under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code be held solidarity liable with Jimmy B. Abon for damages resulting from his acts.

In

the

case

at

bar,

the

teachers/petitioners were not in the actual performance of their assigned tasks.

The incident happened not

within the school premises, not on a school day and most importantly while the teachers and students were holding a purely private affair, a picnic. It is clear from the beginning that the incident happened while some members of the I-C class of St. Francis High School were having a

Article 2180, par. 4 states that:

picnic at Talaan Beach. This picnic

“The obligation imposed by article

had no permit from the school head

2176 is demandable not only for

or

one’s own acts or omissions, but

because this picnic is not a school

its

principal,

sanctioned Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

Benjamin

activity


neither

Illumin is

it

Page 66

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines considered

as

an

extra-curricular

presumably suffice to equip him with

activity.

the necessary tools and skills to

As earlier pointed out by the trial

pursue

court,

by

profession. On the other hand, the

the

student covenants to abide by the

planning of the picnic by the students

school’s academic requirements and

mere

knowledge

petitioner/principal

Illumin

of

and their teachers does not in any way

higher

education

or

a

observe its rules and regulations.

or in any manner show acquiescence

A school, like a common carrier,

or consent to the holding of the

cannot be an insurer of its students

same.

The application therefore of

against all risks. This is specially true

Article 2180 has no basis in law and

in the populous student communities

neither

of the so-called “university belt” in

is

it

supported

by

any

jurisprudence. If we were to affirm

Manila

where

there

have

been

the findings of respondent Court on

reported several incidents ranging

this score, employers will forever be

from gang wars to other forms of

exposed to the risk and danger of

hooliganism. It would not be equitable

being hailed to Court to answer for

to expect of schools to anticipate all

the misdeeds or omissions of the

types of violent trespass upon their

employees

premises,

even

if

such

act

or

for

notwithstanding

the

omission he committed while they are

security measures installed, the same

not in the performance of their duties.

may still fail against an individual or group determined to carry out a nefarious deed inside school premises and environs. Should this be the case, the school may still avoid liability by proving

When an academic institution accepts students

for

enrollment,

there

is

established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. For

its

part,

the

school

undertakes to provide the student with

an

education


that |

would

that

the

breach

of

its

contractual obligation to the students was not due to its negligence, here statutorily defined to be the omission of that degree of diligence which is required

by

the

nature

of

the

obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time and place.


Page 67

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Soliman, Jr. Private respondent school was

not

the

employer

of

Jimmy

Solomon. The employer of Jimmy Solomon was the R.L. Security Agency Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code,

Inc., while the school was the client or

the obligation to respond for damage

customer of the R.L. Security Agency

inflicted by one against another by

Inc. It is settled that where the

fault

not

security agency, as here, recruits,

only for one’s own act or omission,

hires and assigns the work of its

but also for acts or omissions of a

watchmen or security guards, the

person for whom one is by law

agency is the employer of such guards

responsible. Among the persons held

or watchmen. Liability for illegal or

vicariously responsible for acts or

harmful

acts

omissions of another person are the

security

guards

following:

employer agency, and not to the

or

negligence

exists

by

the

to

the

attaches


clients

damages

agency. As a general rule, a client or

caused

employees

by

and

their

household

or

committed

customers

of

such

customer of a security agency has no

helpers acting within the scope of

hand in selecting who among the pool

their assigned tasks, even though

of

the former are not engaged in

employed by the agency shall be

any business or industry.

assigned to it, the duty to observe the

security

guards

or

watchmen

diligence of a good father of a family Lastly,

teachers

of

in the selection of the guards cannot,

establishments of arts and trades

in the ordinary course of events, be

shall

demanded from the client whose

be

caused

liable

by

or

heads

for

their

damages

pupils,

their

premises or property are protected by

students or apprentices, so long

the security guards. The fact that a

as they remain in their custody.”

client company may give instructions

The first paragraph quoted above offers

no

Colleges

basis liable

for for

holding the

the

alleged

wrongful acts of security guard Jimmy B. Solomon inflicted upon petitioner Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

or directions to the security guards assigned to it, does not, by itself, render the client responsible as an employer concerned

of

the

and

security liable

for

guards their

wrongful acts or omissions. Those


Page 68

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines instructions

or

are

only a remote cause of the accident.

ordinarily no more than requests

Between the remote cause and the

commonly envisaged in the contract

injury,

for services entered into with the

negligence of the minor’s parents or

security

the detachment of the steering wheel

agency.

directions

There

being

no

employer-employee

relationship

between

and

the

Colleges

Jimmy

there

intervened

the

guide of the jeep. "The proximate cause of an injury is

Solomon, petitioner student cannot

that cause, which, in natural and

impose vicarious liability upon the

continuous sequence, unbroken by

Colleges for the acts of security guard Solomon.

any

efficient

produces

the

intervening injury,

and

cause, without

Since there is no question that Jimmy

which the result would not have

Solomon was not a pupil or student or

occurred."

an apprentice of the Colleges, he

Considering that the negligence of the

being in fact an employee of the R.L.

minor driver or the detachment of the

Security Agency Inc., the other above-

steering wheel guide of the jeep

quoted paragraph of Article 2180 of

owned by respondent Villanueva was

the Civil Code is similarly not available for

imposing

liability

upon

an event over which petitioner St.

the

Mary’s Academy had no control, and

Republic Central Colleges for the acts

which was the proximate cause of the

or omissions of Jimmy Solomon.

accident, petitioner may not be held liable for the death resulting from such accident.

The liability for the accident, whether caused by the negligence of the minor driver or mechanical detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep, must

be

pinned

on

the

minor’s

parents primarily. The negligence of petitioner St. Mary’s Academy was Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 69

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines and

household

helpers

acting

within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. “The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons

The Civil Code provides: “ART. 2176. omission another,

herein mentioned prove that they

Whoever by act or

causes there

damage

being

fault

observed all the diligence of a good

to

father

or

damage.”

of

a

family

to

prevent

negligence, is obliged to pay for the or

The novel and unprecedented legal


issue in this appeal is whether the

existing

relation

terms “employers” and “owners and

between the parties, is called a

managers of an establishment or

quasi-delict and is governed by the

enterprise” (dueños o directores de un

provisions of this Chapter.

establicimiento o empresa ) used in

damage

“ART. imposed

done.

Such

fault

contractual

2180. by

The

obligation

article

2176

is

demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

2180

of

the

Civil

Code,

formerly article 1903 of the old Code, embrace the manager of a corporation owning a truck, the reckless operation of which allegedly resulted in the vehicular accident from which the damage arose.

“The owners and managers of an establishment

article

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.

damages caused by their employees |

do not include the manager of a corporation. It may be gathered from the context of article 2180 that the term

“manager”

(“director”

in

the

Spanish version) is used in the sense of “employer”.

“Employers shall be liable for the


We are of the opinion that those terms

Hence, under the allegations of the complaint,

no

tortious


or

quasiPage 70

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines delictual liability can be fastened on

…

Balingit as manager of Phil-American

The owners and managers of an

Forwarders, Inc., in connection with

establishment or enterprise are

the

likewise

vehicular

accident

already

responsible

mentioned because he himself may be

damages

regarded

as

employees in the service of the

his

branches in which the latter are

employer, Phil-American Forwarders,

employed or on the occasion of

Inc.

their functions.

an employee or dependiente of

caused

for

by

their

Employers shall be liable for the damages

caused

employees

and

by

their

household

helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks even though

the

former

are

not

Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil

engaged in any business or

Code provide:

industry.

ART. 2176. Whoever by act or

…

omission

to

The responsibility treated of in

another, there being fault or

this article shall cease when the

negligence, is obliged to pay for

persons

the damage done. Such fault or

prove that they observed all the


diligence of a good father of a

existing

family to prevent damage.

causes

damage

contractual

relation

between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. ART.

2180.

The

obligation

herein

mentioned

We have consistently held that the liability of the registered owner of a public service vehicle, like petitioner Philtranco,[16] for

damages

arising

imposed by Article 2176 is

from the tortious acts of the driver is

demandable not only for one’s

primary, direct, and joint and several

own acts or omissions, but also

or solidary with the driver. [17] As to

for those of persons for whom

solidarity,

one is responsible.

provides:


|

Article


2194

expressly

Page 71


Since

ART. 2194. The responsibility of

assigned

two or more persons who are

complained of was committed. It is

liable for a quasi-delict is

only then that the employer may find

solidary.

it necessary to interpose the defense

the

employer’s

liability

is

primary, direct and solidary, its only

task

when

the

tort

of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.

recourse if the judgment for damages

It is undisputed that ABAD was a

is satisfied by it is to recover what it

Production

has paid from its employee who

CASTILEX at the time of the tort

committed the fault or negligence

occurrence. As to whether he was

which gave rise to the action based on

acting

quasi-delict. Article 2181 of the Civil

assigned task is a question of fact,

Code provides:

which the court a quo and the CA

ART. 2181. Whoever pays for

Manager

within

the

of

petitioner

scope

of

his

resolved in the affirmative.

the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. Supervision includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulation for Under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180, whether or not engaged in any business or industry, an employer is liable for the torts committed by employees within the scope of his assigned tasks. But it is necessary to establish

the

employer-employee

relationship; once this is done, the plaintiff must show, to hold the employer liable, that the employee was acting within the scope of his Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

the guidance of its employees and the issuance

of

proper

instructions

intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations through his employees. An employer is expected to impose upon its employees the necessary discipline called for in the performance of any act indispensable to the business and beneficial to their employer.


Page 72

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines In the present case, the petitioner

With respect to the liability of NPC as

has not shown that it has set forth

the direct employer, Article 2180 of

such rules and guidelines as would

the Civil Code explicitly provides:

prohibit any one of its employees

“Employers shall be liable for

from taking control over its vehicles if

the damages caused by their

one is not the official driver or

employees and household

prohibiting the driver and son of the

helpers acting within the scope

Filamer president from authorizing

of their assigned tasks, even

another employee to drive the school

though the former are not

vehicle. Furthermore, the petitioner has

failed

imposed

to

prove

sanctions

that

or

it

had

warned

engaged in any business or industry.”

its

employees against the use of its

In this regard, NPC’s liability is direct,

vehicles by persons other than the

primary and solidary with PHESCO and

driver.

the driver. Of course, NPC, if the judgment for damages is satisfied by it, shall have recourse against PHESCO and the driver who committed the negligence which gave rise to the action.

Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the Labor Code will determine the liability of NPC in a civil suit for damages instituted by an injured person for any negligent act of the employees

of

the

“labor

only”

contractor. This is consistent with the ruling that a finding that a contractor was

a

“labor-only”

equivalent

to

a

contractor

finding

employer-employee

that

is an

relationship

existed between the owner (principal contractor)

and

the

contractor,

including

“labor-only” the

workers. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

latter’s

Finally, NPC, even if it truly believed that it was not the employer of the driver, could still have disclaimed any liability had it raised the defense of due diligence in the selection or supervision

of

PHESCO

and

Ilumba. However, for some reason or another, NPC did not invoke said defense. Hence, by opting not to present any evidence that it exercised due diligence in the supervision of the activities of PHESCO and Ilumba, NPC has foreclosed its right to interpose the same on appeal in conformity with


Page 73

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines the rule that points of law, theories,

injury,

issues of facts and arguments not

contractual and

raised

below

aquiliana , Article 2194 of the Civil

cannot be ventilated for the first time

Code can well apply. In fine, a liability

on appeal. Consequently, its liability

for tort may arise even under a

stands.

contract, where tort is that which

in

the

proceedings

one

breaches differently,

resulting

in culpa

the

in culpa

the

other

contract.

when

an

Stated

act

which

constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual

liability

had

no

contract existed between the parties, is

the contract can be said to have been

negligence or fault on the part of the

breached by tort, thereby allowing the

employee.

rules on tort to apply.

For

the

employer’s Once

liability

such

fault

is

established, the employer can then be

Regrettably

made liable on the basis of the

perhaps the surviving spouse and

presumption juris

tantum that

the

heirs of the late Nicanor Navidad, this

employer

failed

to

Court is concluded by the factual

exercise diligentissimi families in

the

patris

selection

for

LRT,

finding of the CA

as

well

as

that “there is

and

nothing to link (Prudent) to the death

supervision of its employees. The

of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason

liability is primary and can only be

that the negligence of its employee,

negated by showing due diligence in

Escartin, has not been duly proven.”

the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not

been

shown.

Absent

such

a

showing, one might ask further, how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be

It was the truck driver’s negligence in

solidary. A contractual obligation can

failing to exert ordinary care to avoid

be breached by tort and when the

the collision which was, in law, the

same act or omission causes the

proximate cause of the collision. As


|


Page 74

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines employers of the truck driver, the

The

private respondents are, under Article

referred to means the diligence in the

2180 of the Civil Code, directly and

selection

primarily

resulting

employees. The answers of the private

damages. The presumption that they

respondents in Civil CAses Nos. 4477

are

the

and 4478 did not interpose this

negligence of their employee. That

defense. Neither did they attempt to

presumption, however, is only juris

prove it.

liable

negligent

for

the

flows

from

diligence

of

and

a

good

father

supervision

of

tantum, not juris et de jure. Their only possible

defense

is

that

they

exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.

Article

2180

reads

as

follows: “The obligation imposed by Article

The relationship in question is not

2176 is demandable not only for

based on the principle of

one’s own acts or omissions, but

which

holds

the

master

also for those of persons for whom

liable for acts of the servant, but that

one is responsible.

of


ultimately falls upon the employer, for

damages

their

his failure to exercise the diligence of

employees and household helpers

a good father of the family in the

acting within the scope of their

selection

assigned tasks, even though the

employees. It is up to this point,

former are not engaged in any

however, that our agreement with the

business or industry.

respondent

caused

by

in which the liability

and

supervision

court

the

ends.

of

his

Utilizing standard

The responsibility treated of in this

expressed in Article 2180 of the Civil

article

the

Code, we are of the opinion that Li’s

persons herein mentioned prove

employer, Alexander Commercial, Inc.

that they observed all the diligence

is jointly and solidarily liable for the

of a good father of a family to

damage caused by the accident of

shall

cease

when

prevent damage.”


June 24, 1990.

|


Page 75

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines First, the case of St. Francis High School vs. CA upon which respondent court has placed undue reliance, dealt with the subject of a school and its teacher’s during These

supervision

an

of

students

extracurricular

cases

now

fall

activity.

under

the

provision on special parental authority

Paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code reads:

found in Art. 218 of the Family Code

“The state is liable in this sense

which

when it acts through a special

generally

encompasses

all

authorized school activities, whether

agent,

inside or outside school premises.

damage

Second,

primary

caused by the official to whom

liability under the concept of pater

properly it pertained to do the

familias embodied by Art. 2180 (in

act performed, in which case

relation to Art. 2176) of the Civil Code

the provisions of the preceding

is

article shall be applicable.”

the

employer’s

quasi-delictual

or

tortious

in

but

not

should

when have

the been

character. His liability is relieved on a

The

showing

defining the scope of this paragraph

that

he

exercised

the

diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees. Once evidence is introduced showing that the employer exercised the required amount of care in selecting its employees, half of the employer’s burden is overcome. The question however,

of

diligent depends

supervision, on

circumstances of employment.

the

supreme

court

of

Spain

in

said: “That the obligation to indemnify for damages which a third person causes to another by his fault or negligence

is

based,

as

is

evidenced by the same Law 3, Title 15, Partida 7, on that the person obligated, by his own fault or negligence, takes part in the act or omission of the third party who caused the damage. It follows therefrom that the state, by virtue of such provisions of law, is not responsible for the damages


|

suffered


by

private Page 76

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines individuals in consequence of

ambulance of the General Hospital

acts performed by its employees

was not such an agent.

in the discharge of the functions pertaining to their office, because neither fault nor even negligence can be presumed on the part of the state in the organization of branches of the public service and in the appointment of its agents; on the contrary, we must presuppose all foresight humanly possible on its part in order that each branch of service serves the general weal and that of private persons

interested

operation. and

its

Between these latter

the

relations

in

state, of

a

therefore, private

no

nature

governed by the civil law can arise except in a case where the state acts as a judicial person capable of acquiring rights and contracting obligations.”

The responsibility of the state is limited by article 1903 to the case wherein

it

acts through

a

special

agent (and a special agent, in the sense

in

which

these

words

are

employed, is one who receives a definite

and

fixed

order

or

commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special

official)

so

that

in

representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof, he executes the trust confided to him. This concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an employee

It is, therefore, evident that the State

of the active administration and who

(the Government of the Philippine

on his own responsibility performs

Islands) is only liable, according to the

the functions which are inherent in

above

quoted

decisions

of

the

Supreme Court of Spain, for the acts of its agents, officers and employees when they act as special agents within

and naturally pertain to his office and which

are

regulated

by

law

and

regulations. ‘That according to paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code and the

the meaning of paragraph 5 of article

principle laid down

1903, and that the chauffeur of the

among others,

of the 18th of May,

1904,

damage


|

in

a


in

a

decision, case,

the

Page 77

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines responsibility of the state is limited to

and with the express purpose of

that which it contracts through a

inflicting injury upon the plaintiff. If

special agent, duly empowered by

they exercise their honest judgment

a definite order or commission to

in the performance of their duties,

perform some act or charged with

their errors cannot be charged against

some definite purpose which gives

them. So it may be said that in so far

rise to the claim, and not where the

as its governmental functions are

claim is based on acts or omissions

concerned, a municipality is not liable

imputable to a public official charged

at all, unless expressly made so by

with some administrative or technical

statute; nor are its officers, so long as

office who can be held to the proper

they perform their duties honestly and

responsibility in the manner laid down

in good faith. The most common

by the law of civil responsibility.

illustration of both phases of this rule

Consequently, the trial court in not so

is the action for false imprisonment

deciding and in sentencing the said entity to the payment

of

damages,

caused by an official of the second class referred to, has by erroneous interpretation infringed the provisions

so often brought either against a municipality or s municipal police officer.

So, in Field vs. City of Des

Moines,

it

was

held

that

a

municipality, acting under authority

of article 1902 and 1903 of the Civil

given it by the central government to

Code.

destroy houses in the path of a conflagration,

was

not

liable

in

damages in the absence of a statute expressly making it so. From what has already been said, it should be clear that 4 municipality is not exempt from liability for the Officers or agents of the Government charged with the performance of governmental duties which are in their nature legislative, or quasi judicial, are not liable for the consequences of their official acts, unless it be shown that they act willfully and maliciously, Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

negligent

performance

of

its

corporate or proprietary or business functions. In the administration of its patrimonial

property,

it

is

to

be

regarded as a private corporation or individual so far as its liability to third persons on contract or in tort is


Page 78

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines concerned.

Its

contracts,

validly

and

pump

irrigation

projects.”

entered into, may be enforced and

Certainly,

damages may be collected from it for

community as a whole are largely

the torts of its officers or agents within the scope of their employment in precisely the same manner and to

the

state

and

the

benefited by the services the agency renders, but these functions are only

the same extent as those of private

incidental to the principal aim of the

corporations or individuals.

agency, which is the irrigation of

such

matters

the

As to

principles

of

lands.

respondeat superior applies. It is for these purposes that the municipality

The National Irrigation Administration

is made liable to suits in the courts.

is

a

government

juridical

agency

personality

with

separate

a

and

distinct from the government. It is not a mere agency of the government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions.

Therefore, it

may be held liable for the damages The National Irrigation Administration was not created for purposes of local

caused by the negligent act of its driver who was now its special agent.

government. While it may be true that the NIA was essentially a service agency of the government aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare, such fact does not make the NIA

essentially

and

purely

a

Under Article 2189 of the Civil Code,

“government-function”

it is not necessary for the liability

corporation. NIA was created for the

therein established to attach that the

purpose of “constructing, improving,

defective roads or streets belong to

rehabilitating, and administering all

the province, city or municipality from

national irrigation systems in the

which responsibility is exacted. What

Philippines, including all communal

said


|

article

requires


is

that

the

Page 79

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines province, city or municipality have

is relaxed, the power of the

either “control or supervision” over

courts

said street or road. Even if P. Burgos avenue were, therefore, a national highway, this circumstance would not

ends

judgment

when

is

the

rendered.

Although the liability of the state

has

been

Judicially

ascertained, the state is at

necessarily detract from its “control or

liberty to determine for itself

supervision” by the City of Manila,

whether to pay the judgment

under Republic Act 409.

or not, and execution cannot issue on a judgment against the state.

Such statutes do

not authorize a seizure of state

property

judgments Acknowledging

the

nature

of

the

to

satisfy

recovered,

and

only convey an implication

Pump Irrigation Trust Fund as a public

that

fund, the CA nevertheless sustained

recognize such judgment as

the garnishment order, on the ground

final and make provision for

that the ISU, by engaging in the

the satisfaction thereof.”

private business of purchasing and

“Judgments against a state,

selling

on

in

waived

its

consented

and,

by

generally operate merely to

irrigation

installment

basis,

governmental

pumps has

immunity

the

legislature

cases

where to

will

it

be

has sued,

implication, consented to the suit.

liquidate

and

establish

It is apparent that this decision of the

plaintiffs

claim

in

CA

absence

of

suffers

from

the

erroneous

the

express

assumption that because the State has

provision;

waived its immunity, its property and

cannot

funds become liable to seizure under

processes of law; and it is for

legal process. This emphatically is

the legislature to provide for

not

their

the

law

(Merritt

vs.

Insular

be

otherwise

they

enforced

payment

in

by

such

manner as it sees fit.”

Government, 34 Phil. 311). “Even though the rule as to immunity of a state from suit Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 80

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines of a tort by one against the other and the consequent recovery of damages.

The petitioner’s assertion that he signed the questioned payroll checks in

good

faith

has

not

been

substantiated, he in particular not having testified or offered testimony

For his own negligence in recklessly

to

driving the truck owned and operated

prove

such

claim.

Upon

the

contrary, in spite of his being a vicepresident and director of the Ace Advertising, the petitioner remained

by his employer, the driver, Salvador Mendoza, is primarily liable under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. On the other

hand,

the

liability

of

his

passive, throughout the period of

employer, Sy Bon Ping, is also primary

Taylor’s stay abroad, concerning the

and direct under Article 2180 of the

unauthorized

same Code, which explicitly provides:

disbursements

of

corporate funds for the latter. This

“Employers shall be liable for

plus the fact that he even approved

the damages caused by their

thrice payroll checks for the payment

employees

of Taylor’s salary, demonstrate quite distinctly that the petitioner neglected

and

household

helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though

the

former

are

not

to perform his duties properly, to the

engaged in any business or

damage of the firm of which he was

industry.”

an officer.

The fact that he was

occupying a contractual position at the

Ace

Advertising

his negligence in the selection and

moment. The existence of a contract

supervision of his employee, he is

between the parties, as has been

likewise responsible for the damages

repeatedly

caused by the negligent act of his

by

this

of

Ping to rebut the legal presumption of

no

held

is

For failure of the appellant Sy Bon

Court,

constitutes no bar to the commission Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

employee (driver) Salvador Mendoza,


Page 81

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines and

his

liability

is

primary

and

solidary.

imprudence

of

the

third

party

defendant Gregorio Hufana” and, in

“What needs only to be alleged

petitioner’s motion for leave to file a

under

aforequoted

third party complaint, it was stated

provision (Article 2180, Civil

that “Patricio Hufana and Gregorio

Code) is that the employee

Hufana were not made parties to this

the

(driver) has, by his negligence

action, although the defendants are

(quasi-delict ) caused damage to

entitled

make the employer, likewise,

subrogation against them in respect

responsible for the tortious act of

the

employee,

and

his

to

indemnity

and/or

of plaintiff’s claim.” It should make no difference therefore

liability is, as earlier observed,

whether

primary and solidary”

brought in as principal defendants or

But although the employer is solidarily liable with the employee for damages, the

employer

may

demand

reimbursement from his employee (driver)

for

employer

whatever

will

have

amount to

pay

the the

offended party to satisfy the latter’s claim.

the

respondents

were

as third-party defendants. As Moran points out, since the liability of the third-party

defendant

is

already

asserted in the third-party complaint, the amendment of the complaint to assert wuch liability is merely a matter of form, to insist on which would not be in keeping with the liberal spirit of the Rules of Court. Nor should it make any difference that the liability of petitioner springs from contract while that of respondents arises from quasi-delict. As early as 1931,

we

already

ruled

in

Gutierrez vs . Gutierrez, 56 Phil. 177, The third party complaints filed by

that in case of injury to a passenger

petitioner and her driver charged

due to the negligence of the driver of

respondents with direct liability to the

the bus on which he was riding and of

plaintiffs. It was contended that the

o£ the driver of another vehicle, the

accident

fault,

drivers as well as the owners of the

and

two vehicles are jointly and severally

was

negligence,

due

“to

the

carelessness


|


Page 82

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines liable for damages. Some members of

A person whose constitutional rights

the Court, though, are of the view that

have been violated or impaired is

under the circumstances they are

entitled to actual and moral damages

liable on quasi-delict.

from the public officer or employee responsible therefor. But

defendant-appellee

Orlando

VII. TORTS WITH

Maddela cannot be held accountable

INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION

because he impounded the motor

A. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND

launch upon the order of his superior

POLITICAL RIGHTS

officer.

While a subordinate officer

may be held liable for executing unlawful orders of his superior officer, there are certain circumstances which The mere fact that a man is an officer,

would warrant Maddela’s exculpation

whether of high or low degree, gives

from liability. The records show that

him no more right than is possessed

after Fiscal Ponce de Leon made his

by the ordinary private citizen to

first

break in upon the privacy of a home

Commander

and

the

Maddela was reluctant to impound the

indignity of a search for the evidence

motor launch despite repeated orders

of crime, without a legal warrant

from his superior officer. It was only

procured

purpose. No

after he was furnished a copy of the

amount of incriminating evidence,

reply of Fiscal Ponce de Leon, dated

whatever its source, will supply the

June 26, 1962, to the letter of the

place of such warrant. At the closed

Provincial Commander, justifying the

door of the home be it palace or

necessity of the seizure of the motor

hovel, even bloodhounds must wait

launch

till the law, by authoritative process,

subsequent sale of the launch to

bids it open.

Delfin Lim could not prevent the court

subject

for

its

occupant

that

to

request

on

to on

the

the June

ground

Provincial 15,

1962

that

the

from taking custody of the same, that Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 83

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines he impounded the motor launch on

provided their acts or omissions do

July 6, 1962. With said letter coming

not constitute a violation of the Penal

from the legal officer of the province,

Code or other penal statute.

Maddela was led to believe that there was a legal basis and authority to impound the launch. Then came the

The law speaks of an officer or employee

or

"indirectly"

person

'directly'

responsible

for

or the

order of his superior officer to explain

violation of the constitutional rights

for the delay in the seizure of the

and liberties of another. Thus, it is not

motor launch. Faced with a possible

the actor alone (i.e. the one directly

disciplinary

his

responsible) who must answer for

commander, Maddela was left with no

damages under Article 32; the person

action

from

alternative but to seize the vessel. In the light of the above circumstances,

indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party.

the Court is not disposed to hold By this provision, the principle of

Maddela answerable for damages.

accountability of public officials under the

Constitution acquires

meaning

and

asgilrnes

added a

larger

dimension. No longer may a superior official relax his vigilance or abdicate his

duty

to

supervise

his

subordinates, secure in the thought Article 32 of the Civil Code renders

that he does not have to answer for

any public officer or employee or any

the transgressions committed by the

private individual liable in damages for violating the Constitutional rights and

liberties

of

another,

as

latter

against

the

constitutionally

protected rights and liberties of the citizen.

Part

of

the

factors

that

propelled people power in February

enumerated therein, does not exempt

1986 was the widely held perception

the respondents from responsibility.

that the government was callous or

Only

indifferent

judges

liability

under

are

excluded

the

said

from article,

responsible

to,

if

for,

not the

actually rampant

violations of human rights. While it Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 84

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines would certainly be go naive to expect

The acts committed by the PC soldiers

that violators of human rights would

of

easily be deterred by the prospect of

merchandise and of filing the criminal

facing

complaint

damage

suits,

it

should

unlawfully for

seizing

appellees’

unfair

appellees

competition

nonetheless be made clear in no ones

against

were

for

the

terms that Article 32 of the Civil Code

protection and benefit of appellant

makes the persons who are directly,

corporation. Such being the case, it is,

as well as indirectly, responsible for

thus, reasonably fair to infer from

the transgression joint tort-feasors.

those acts that it was upon appellant corporation’s instance that the PC soldiers

conducted

the

raid

and

effected the illegal seizure. These circumstances should answer the trial court’s query — posed in its decision The very nature of Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal. It is not necessary therefore that there should be malice or bad faith. To make such a requisite would defeat

now under consideration — as to why the PC soldiers immediately turned over the seized merchandise appellant corporation. The raid was conducted with the active participation of their employee.

the main purpose of Article 32 which

Larry de Guzman did not lift a finger

is

to stop the seizure of the boy and girl

the

effective

protection

of

individual rights. Public officials in the

scouts

past have abused their powers on the

and apparently assenting thereto, he

pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the

performance

of

their

duties. Precisely, the object of the

items.

By

standing

by

was liable to the same extent as the officers petitioner

themselves. So corporation

with which

the even

received for safekeeping the goods

Article is to put an end to official

unreasonably seized by the PC raiding

abuse by plea of the good faith. In the

team and de Guzman, and refused to

United States this remedy is in the

surrender them for quite a time

nature of a tort.

despite the dismissal of its complaint for unfair competition.


|


Page 85

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines B. DEFAMATION, FRAUD,

extinction

PHUSICAL INJURIES

proceeds

from

a

declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.” Otherwise stated, unless the act from which the civil criminal

liability arises is declared to be non-

negligence is not one of the three

existent in the final judgment, the

crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the

extinction of the criminal liability will

Civil Code, which provides:

not carry with it the extinction of the

Reckless

imprudence

or

civil liability. Thus, if a person is

“ART. 33. In cases of

charged

defamation, fraud, and

with

homicide

and

successfully pleaded self-defense, his

physical injuries, a civil

acquittal

action for damages, entirely

by

reason

thereof

will

extinguish his civil liability. He has

separate and distinct from

not incurred any criminal liability. On

the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and

the other hand, if his acquittal is, for instance, due to the fact that he was not sufficiently identified to be the assailant, a civil action for damages may be maintained. His acquittal is

shall require only a preponderance of evidence.”

not due to non-existence of the crime from which civil liability might arise,

The above article speaks only of

but because he was not, in the eyes of

defamation,

the court, sufficiently identified as the

injuries.

fraud

The

and

injuries

physical

suffered

by

perpetrator of the crime.

herein petitioners were alleged to be the result of criminal negligence; they were not inflicted with malice. Hence, no

independent

damages

may

civil be

action

instituted

for in

connection therewith. Further, Section 3(c), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court

The term “physical injuries” is used in

states that “(c) Extinction of the penal

a generic sense. It is not the crime of

action

physical

does

not

carry

with

it

extinction of the civil, unless the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

injuries

defined

in

the

Revised Penal Code. It includes not


Page 86

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines only

physical

consummated,

injuries

but

recommendation

frustrated

and

accepted by the Legislature when it

have

approved

The Article in question uses the words

recommended. If the intent has been

‘defamation’, ‘fraud’ and ‘physical

to establish a civil action for the

injuries.’ Defamation and fraud are

bodily

harm

article

been

attempted homicide.

used in their ordinary sense because

the

must

intact

received

by

as

the

complainant similar to the civil action

there are no specific provisions in the

for assault and battery, as the Code

Revised Penal Code using these terms

Commission states, the civil action

as means of offenses defined therein, so that these two terms defamation

should

lie

whether

the

offense

committed is that of physical injuries,

and fraud must have been used not to

or frustrated homicide, or attempted

impart to them any technical meaning

homicide, or even death.

in the laws of the Philippines, but in their

generic

sense. With

this

apparent circumstance in mind, it is evident

that

the

terms

physical

injuries’ could not have been used in its specific sense as a crime defined in the Revised Penal Code, for it is

Article 33 contemplates a civil action

difficult to believe that the Code

for the recovery of damages that is

Commission would have used terms in the same article – some in their general and another in its technical sense. In ‘physical

other

unrelated

to

the

purely

criminal aspect of the case. A civil

the

term

action for libel under this article shall

should

be

be instituted and prosecuted to final

words,

injuries’

entirely

understood to mean bodily injury, not

judgment

and

proved

by

the crime of physical injuries, because

preponderance of evidence separately

the terms used with the latter are

from and entirely independent of the

general terms. In any case the Code Commission recommended that the civil action for physical injuries be

institution, pendency or result of the criminal action because it is governed

similar to the civil action for assault

by the provisions of the New Civil

and battery in American Law, and this

Code and not by the Revised Penal


|


Page 87

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Code governing the criminal offense

be

read

in

connection

charged and the civil liability arising

language which follows.

with

the

therefrom. In actions for damages for libel, it is axiomatic that the published work alleged to contain libelous material must be examined and viewed as a whole. The article must be construed as an entirety including the headlines, as

Defamation, which includes libel and

they may enlarge, explain, or restrict

slander, means the offense of injuring

or

a

be

enlarged,

explained

or

person’s

character,

reputation

context. Whether or not it is libelous,

malicious statements. It is that which

depends upon the scope, spirit and

tends

motive of the publication taken in its

diminish the esteem, respect, good

entirety.

will or confidence in the plaintiff or to

publication

defamatory

claimed

must

be

to read

be and

construed in the sense in which the readers to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand it.

So,

the whole item, including display lines, should be read and construed together,

and

its

meaning

and

In order to ascertain the meaning of a published article, the whole of the must

be

considered,

each

phrase must be construed in the light of

the

entire

injure

reputation

and or

to

excite derogatory feelings or opinions about

the

publication injurious

plaintiff. It of

to

is

anything the

good

the

which

is

name

or

reputation of another or tends to bring him into disrepute. Defamation is

an

invasion

of

a relational

interest since it involves the opinion which others in the community may

signification thus determined.

article

to

false

or

strengthened or restricted by the

A

through

fame

publication.

The

headlines of a newspaper must also

have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff. It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se , and mere words

of

general

abuse

however

opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not


|


Page 88

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines constitute a basis for an action for

Although the gist of an action for

defamation in the absence of an

defamation is an injury to reputation,

allegation for special damages. The

the focus of a defamation action is

fact that the language is offensive to

upon

the

statement itself and its predictable

plaintiff

does

not

make

it

actionable by itself.

the

effect

Defamation is made up of the twin

allegedly

upon

statement

is

third

defamatory persons.

ordinarily

A

considered

torts of libel and slander – the one

defamatory if it “tend[s] to expose one

being, in general, written, while the

to public hatred, shame, obloquy,

other in general is oral. In either form, defamation is an invasion of the

contumely, odium, contempt, ridicule, aversion, ostracism, degradation or

interest in reputation and good name.

disgrace…” The Restatement of Torts

This is a “relational interest” since it

defines a defamatory statement as

involves the opinion others in the

one that “tends to so harm the

community may have, or tend to have

in the estimation of the community or

of the plaintiff. The law of defamation protects the interest in reputation – the interest in acquiring,

reputation of another as to lower him

retaining

and

to

deter

third

persons

from

associating or dealing with him.”

enjoying

one’s reputation as good as one’s character and conduct warrant. The mere fact that the plaintiff’s feelings and sensibilities have been offended is not enough to create a cause of action for defamation. Defamation requires

that

something

be

communicated to a third person that may affect the opinion others may have of the plaintiff. The unprivileged communication must be shown of a statement that would tend to hurt plaintiff’s

reputation,

to

impair

plaintiff’s standing in the community.

It is significant to note that under Article 31 of the New Civil Code, it is made

clear

permitted

that therein

the to

civil be

action filed

separately from the criminal action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings “regardless of the result of the latter.” It seems


|


Page 89

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines perfectly reasonable to conclude that the civil actions mentioned in Article 33, permitted in the same manner to be filed separately from the criminal case,

may

proceed

similarly

regardless of the result of the criminal case.

In filing the civil action as they did appellants correctly considered it as entirely independent of the criminal

Indeed, when the law has allowed a

action, pursuant to Articles 31 and 33

civil case related to a criminal case, to

of the Civil Code, which read:

be filed separately and to proceed independently

even

during

the

pendency of the latter case, the intention is patent to make the court’s disposition of the criminal case of no effect whatsoever on the separate civil case. This must be so because the offenses specified in Article 33 are of such a nature, unlike other offenses not mentioned, that they may be

“Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising

from

proceed independently of the criminal

proceedings

the latter.”

defamation,

separability

of

their

distinct respective

and

regardless of the result of

action

the

or

felony, such civil action may

“Art.

of

act

omission complained of as a

made the subject of a separate civil because

the

33.

physical

In

cases fraud,

injuries,

of and

a

civil

juridical cause or basis of action. This

action of damages, entirely

is clearly illustrated in the case of

separate and distinct from

swindling, a specie of an offense

the criminal action may be

committed by means of fraud, where

brought by the injured party.

the civil case may be filed separately

Such

and proceed independently of the

proceed independently of the

criminal case, regardless of the result

criminal

of the latter.

shall

civil

action

shall

prosecution, require

and

only

a

preponderance of evidence.” The term “physical injuries” in Article 33 includes bodily injuries causing death. In other words the civil action Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 90

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines for

damages

been

vs. Yatco, et al., GR NO. L-9623,

appellants

January 22, 1957, this Court held that

immediately upon the death of their

the term “physical injuries” used in

commenced

could

have

by

decedent, Cipriano CApuno, on January 3, 1953 or thereabouts, and the same would not have been

article 33 of the Civil Code includes homicide, it is to be borne in mind

stayed by the filing of the criminal

that

action for homicide through reckless

against Felardo Paje was for reckless

imprudence. But the complaint here

imprudence resulting in homicide,

was

and not for homicide and physical

filed

only

on September

26,

1958, or after the lapse of more than five years.

the

charge

injuries. The offense of criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally punishable

Criminal negligence, that is, reckless imprudence, is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil

Code

which

authorizes

the

institution of an independent civil action, that is, of an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages,

done, as

a

thus

the

careless

act,

not

consequence

negligent the

gravity is

be

felony. The

penalizes

thereof. The

would

only

law or

result

of

the

taken

into

account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the offense.

which shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall be

It is, therefore, clear that the charge

proved only by a preponderance of

against Felardo Paje was

evidence. Said article mentions only

homicide but for reckless imprudence,

the

that is, criminal negligence resulting

crimes

(estafa)

of

and

defamation, physical

fraud

injuries.

Although in the case of Dyogi, et al. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

in

homicide

(death

not

of

for

Clemente

Marcia) and double physical injuries


Page 91

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines suffered by two other persons. As

consummated,

reckless

attempted homicide. Thus, petitioners

imprudence

or

criminal

frustrated

negligence is not one of the three

maintain

crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the

conviction is unnecessary since the

Civil Code, there is no independent

civil action can proceed independently

civil action for damages that may be

of the criminal action. On the other

instituted in connection with said

hand, it is the private respondents’

offense. Hence,

through

argument that since the act was not

criminal

committed

reckless

homicide

imprudence

or

that

and

Torzuela’s

with

prior

negligence,

the

negligence comes under the general

petitioners have no cause of action

rule

under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the

that

the

acquittal

of

the

defendant in the criminal action is a

New

Civil

Code.

bar to his civil liability based upon the

contemplated in Article 2177 is not

same criminal act notwithstanding

applicable to acts committed with

that the injured party reserve his right

deliberate intent, but only applies to

to institute a separate civil action. In

quasi-offenses under Article 365 of

the language of the Rules of Court

the Revised Penal Code. Torzuela’s act

(Rule 111, Sec. 3), the extinction of

of shooting Atty. Dulay to death, aside

the criminal action by acquittal of the

from being purely personal, was done

defendant on the ground that the

with deliberate intent and could not

criminal act charged against him did

have been part of his duties as

not exist, necessarily extinguished

security guard. And since Article 2180

also the civil action for damages

of the New Civil Code covers only acts

based upon the same act.

done

within

employee’s

the

The

civil

scope

assigned

action

of

the

tasks,

the

private respondents cannot be held liable for damages.

The term "physical injuries" under Article 33 has been held to include Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 92

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines VIII. INTENTIONAL TORTS A. ABUSE OF RIGHTS

Respondent

has

no

obligation

to

plead and prove the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since her cause of action is based on Articles 19 A moral wrong or injury, even if it does not constitute a violation of a statute law, should be compensated by

damages.

Moral damages (Art.

Philippines. Considering that it was the petitioner who was invoking the applicability

of

the

law

of

Saudi

may

Arabia, thus the burden was on it to

In Article

plead and to establish what the law of

2217)

be recovered (Art. 2219).

and 21 of the Civil Code of the

20, the liability for damages arises

Saudi Arabia is.

from a willful or negligent act contrary to law. In this article, the act is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy” Article 23 of the Civil Code goes as far as to provides that, “Even if an act or event causing damage to another’s property was not due to the fault or

In determining whether or not the

negligence of the defendant, the latter

principle of abuse of rights may be

shall be liable for indemnity if through

invoked, there is no rigid test which

the act or event he was benefited.”

can be applied. While the Court has

With mere much more reason the

not hesitated to apply Article 19

Defendant

whether

should

be

liable

for

indemnity for acts it committed in bad faith and with betrayal of confidence.

the

circumstances

legal called

and

factual for

its

application the question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has

been

violated

resulting

in

damages under Article 20 or Article Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 93

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines 21 or other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. And in the instant case, the Court, after examining the record and considering

under Article 19 are the following: (1)

significant

There is a legal right or duty; (2)

circumstances, finds that petitioners

which is exercised in bad faith ; (3) for

have indeed abused the right that

the

they

injuring another. Article 20 speaks of

invoke,

certain

The elements of an abuse of right

causing

damage

to

private respondent and for which the latter must now be indemnified. The Court has ruled that the right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised

sole intent of

prejudicing

or

the general sanction for all other provisions

of

law

especially

provide

sanction.

Thus,

which for

do

their

anyone

not own who,

whether willfully or negligently , in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes

damage

indemnify

his

to

another,

victim

for

shall

injuries

and the effects flowing therefrom. If

suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with

the dismissal is done abusively, then

acts contra bonus mores, and has the

the employer is liable for damages to

following elements: 1) There is an act

the

which is legal; 2) but which is contrary

employee.

Under

the

circumstances of the instant case, the petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the latter the right

to

recover

damages

under

Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of

to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; 3) and it is done with intent to injure. Thus, under any of these three (3) provisions of law, an act which causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages.

the Civil Code.


|


Page 94

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines In the ultimate analysis, petitioner’s liability is premised on the obligation to repair or to make whole the damage caused to another by reason Well-settled

that

of one’s act or omission, whether

damage resulting from the legitimate

done intentionally or negligently and

exercise of a person’s rights is a loss

whether or not punishable by law.

without

is

injury

the

maxim

— damnum

absque

injuria — for which the law gives no remedy. In other words, one who merely exercises one’s rights does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable for damages. In

this

case,

the

demolition

of

The institution of learning involved

respondents’

house

by

petitioner,

herein

despite

receipt

of

the

TRO,

engaged in legal education, it should

was not only an abuse but also an

have practiced what it inculcates in its

his

unlawful exercise of such right . In insisting on his alleged right, he wantonly violated this Court’s Order

is

students,

a

university

more

which

specifically

is

the

principle of good dealings enshrined

and wittingly caused the destruction

in Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil

of respondents’ house.

Code.

Obviously,

petitioner

invoke damnum principle

cannot

absque

premised

injuria ,

on

the

a

valid

exercise of a right. Anything less or

In belatedly informing respondent of the result of the removal examination, particularly at a time when he had

beyond such exercise will not give rise

already commenced preparing for the

to

the

bar exams, cannot be said to have

principle accords. And when damage

acted in good faith. Absence of good

or prejudice to another is occasioned

faith must be sufficiently established

thereby, liability cannot be obscured,

for a successful prosecution by the

the

legal

protection

that

much less abated. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of |


Page 95

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines right under Article 19 of the Civil

control over the instrumentality which

Code. Good faith connotes an honest

caused the damage or injury.

intention

to

abstain

from

taking

undue advantage of another, even though the forms and technicalities of the law, together with the absence of all information or belief of facts, would

render

the

transaction

unconscientious. It is the school that

Liability for damages under Articles

has access to those information and it

19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code arises

is only the school that can compel its

only

professors to act and comply with its

negligent acts that are contrary to

rules, regulations and policies with

law, or morals, good customs or

respect to the computation and the

public policy.

prompt

submission

of

grades.

Students do not exercise control, much less influence, over the way an educational institution should run its affairs, particularly in disciplining its professors and teachers and ensuring their compliance with the school’s rules and orders. Being the party that hired them, it is the school that exercises

general

supervision

and

exclusive control over the professors with respect to the submission of reports standing.

involving Exclusive

the

students’

control

means

that no other person or entity had any

from

unlawful,

willful

or

The right to recover damages under Article 21 is based on equity, and he who

comes

to

court

to

demand

equity, must come with clean hands. Article 21 should be construed as granting the right to recover damages to

injured

persons

who

are

not

themselves at fault. Moral damages are recoverable only if the case falls under Article 2219 in relation to Article

21.

In

the

case

at

bar,

petitioner is not without fault. Firstly, she went on an indefinite leave of absence and failed to report back in time

for

the

regular

opening

of

classes. Secondly, for reasons known Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 96

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines to herself alone, she refused to sign a

right is unjust, or when there has

written

been an abuse of right.

Lastly,

contract she

of

employment.

ignored

the Board

of

Directors’ order for her to report for duty on July 5, 1982.

It is an elementary rule in this jurisdiction

that

good

faith

is

presumed and that the burden of proving bad faith rests upon the party alleging the same. In the case at bar, petitioner has failed to prove bad faith on the part of private respondent. Petitioner’s

The law, as set forth in Article 19 of the

Civil

Code,

prescribes

a

“primordial limitation on all rights” by setting certain standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof. There is undoubtedly an abuse of

allegation

that

private

respondent was motivated by a desire to terminate its agency relationship with

petitioner

so

that

private

respondent itself may deal directly with Meralco is simply not supported by the evidence.

right when it is exercised for the only purpose of prejudicing or injuring another. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established, and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to injure

To find the existence of an abuse of right under Article 19 the following

another. Ultimately, however, and in

elements must be present: (1) There

practice, courts, in the sound exercise

is a legal right or duty; (2) which is

of

exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole

their

determine

discretion, all

will

the

have

facts

to and

circumstances when the exercise of a

intent

of

prejudicing

or

injuring

another. The Court has held that good faith is presumed and the burden of proving


|


Page 97

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines bad faith is on the party alleging

no remedy for damages resulting

it. This private respondent failed to

from an act which does not amount to

do. In fact, the action of the petitioner

a

belies the existence of bad faith. As early as 28 October 1989, petitioner could

have

suspended

private

legal

injury

or

wrong.

These

situations are often called damnum absque injuria.

respondent’s card outright. Instead, petitioner allowed private respondent to use his card for several weeks. Petitioner had even notified private respondent

of

the

impending

B. ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES

suspension of his credit card and made special accommodations for him

for

settling

his

outstanding

account. As such, petitioner cannot be said

to

have

arbitrarily

capriciously

canceled

the

and

private

respondent’s credit card. There

is

a

material

distinction

Appellants invoke Article 21 of the

between damages and injury. Injury is

Civil Code, which states, “Any person

the illegal invasion of a legal right;

who wilfully cause loss or injury to

damage is the loss, hurt, or harm

another in a manner that is contrary

which results from the injury; and

to morals, good customs or public

damages

policy shall compensate the latter for

are

the

compensation

recompense

awarded

for

or the

damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage

without

injury

in

those

instances in which the loss or harm

the damages.” Contending that the word “injury” in the said article, refers not only to any indeterminate right or property, but also to honor or credit. It may be

was not the result of a violation of a

added, however, that this article also

legal

the

envisions a. situation where a person

consequences must be borne by the

has a legal right, and such right is

injured person alone, the law affords

violated by another in a manner

duty.

In

such


cases,

|


Page 98

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines contrary to morals, good customs or

walk out of it when the matrimony is

public policy; it presupposes losses or

about to be solemnized, is quite

injuries, material or otherwise, which

different.

one may suffer as a result of said

unjustifiably

violation. The pleadings do not show

customs, for which defendant must be

that damages were ever asked or

held

alleged in connection with this case,

accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.

predicted upon the article aforecited.

Per express provision of Article 2219

And

(10) of the new Civil Code, moral

under

the

facts

and

circumstances obtaining in this case, one

cannot

plausibly

sustain

the

This

is

palpably

contrary

answerable

in

to

and good

damages

in

damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of said Code.

contention that the failure or refusal

As to exemplary damages, defendant

to extend the recognition, was an act

contends that the same could not be

contrary to morals, good customs or

adjudged against respondent because

public policy.

under Article 2232 of the new Civil Code the condition precedent is that “the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner”.

The Court ruled that to constitute seduction there must in all cases be some

sufficient

Inducement and

the

promise woman

or must

Mere breach of promise to marry is

yield because of the promise or other

not an actionable wrong. But to

inducement . If she consents merely

formally

set

a

from carnal lust and the intercourse is

through

all

the

wedding

and

go

above-described

preparation, and publicity, only to Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

from

mutual

desire,

there

is

no

seduction. She must be induced to


Page 99

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines depart from the path of virtue by the

apart from the right to recover money

use

or property advanced by the plaintiff

of

some

species

of

arts,

persuasions and wiles, which are

upon

calculated to have and do have that

promise.[8] Generally,

effect,

breach of promise to marry per se is

and

which

result

in

her

the

faith

such

therefore,

not

the sexual embraces of her seducer

plaintiff

And in American Jurisprudence the

expenses for the wedding and the

Court find: “On the other hand, in an

necessary incidents thereof.

action by the woman, the enticement,

However, the award of moral damages

persuasion

the

is allowed in cases specified in or

essence of the injury; and a mere

analogous to those provided in Article

proof of intercourse is insufficient to

2219 of the Civil Code. Correlatively,

warrant a recovery. Accordingly it is

under Article 21 of said Code, in

not seduction where the willingness

relation to paragraph 10 of said

arises out of sexual desire or curiosity

Article 2219, any person who wilfully

of the female, and the defendant

causes loss or injury to another in a

merely

needed

manner that is contrary to morals,

opportunity for the commission of the

good customs or public policy shall

act. It has been emphasized that to

compensate

allow a recovery in all such cases

damages. Article 21 was adopted to

would tend to the demoralization of

remedy the countless gaps in the

the female sex, and would be a

statutes which leave so many victims

reward for unchastity by which a class

of moral wrongs helpless even though

of adventuresses would be swift to

they have actually suffered material

profit.”

and moral injury, and is intended to

affords

deception

her

the

is

except

has

where

a

ultimately submitting her person to

or

actionable,

of

actually

the

latter

the

incurred

for

moral

vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which

is

impossible

for

human

foresight to specifically provide for in the statutes. Under the circumstances obtaining in An action for breach of promise to

the case at bar, the acts of petitioner

marry has no standing in the civil law,

in


|

forcibly

abducting


private Page 100

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines respondent

and

having

carnal

desire. At the time she met Ivan at

knowledge with her against her will,

Tony’s

and thereafter promising to marry her

already 28 years old and she admitted

in order to escape criminal liability,

that she was attracted to Ivan. Her

only to thereafter renege on such

attraction to Ivan is the reason why

promise after cohabiting with her for

she surrendered her womanhood. Had

twenty-one

irremissibly

she been induced or deceived because

constitute acts contrary to morals and

of a promise of marriage, she could

good customs. These are grossly

have immediately severed her relation

insensate

reprehensible

with Ivan when she was informed after

indisputably

their first sexual contact sometime in

warrant and abundantly justify the

August, 1974, that he was a married

award

man.

days,

and

transgressions of

which

moral

and

exemplary

Restaurant,

Her

Amelita

declaration

was

that in the

damages, pursuant to Article 21 in

months of September, October and

relation to paragraphs 3 and 10,

November, 1974, they repeated their

Article 2219, and Articles 2229 and

sexual intercourse only indicates that

2234 of the Civil Code.

passion and not the alleged promise of marriage was the moving force that made her submit herself to Ivan.

Claim for damages which is based on Articles19 & 21 of the Civil Code on the

theory

that

through

Ivan’s

promise of marriage, she surrendered her virginity, we cannot but agree with the CA

that

mere

sexual

intercourse is not by itself a basis for recovery. Damages could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of voluntariness and mutual Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

For a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to his lust constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that entitles her to claim compensation for the damage caused. Says Article 21 of the Civil Code

of

the

21. Any person

Philippines:

“ART.

who wilfully causes

loss or injury to another in a manner


Page 101

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines that is contrary to morals, good

eventually fell in love with each other

customs

shall

and conducted clandestine love affairs

the

not only in Gasan but in Boac where

or

public

compensate

the

policy

latter

for

damage.”

Lolita used to teach in a barrio school.

The rule of Article 21 is supported by Article 2219 of the same Code that moral damages may be recovered in Seduction,

abduction, rape or

other

When the rumors about their ilicit affair reached the knowledge of her parents,

defendant

was

forbidden

from going to their house and even

lascivious acts.

from seeing Lolita. Plaintiffs even filed deportation

proceedings

against

defendant who is a Chinese national. Nevertheless, defendant continued his love

affairs

with

Lolita

until

she

disappeared from the parental home. The

circumstances

which

Indeed, no other conclusion can be

Lolita’s

drawn from this chain of events than

affection cannot lead to any other

that defendant not only deliberately,

conclusion than that it was he who,

but

thru an ingenious scheme or trickery,

succeeded in winning the affection

seduced the latter to the extent of

and love of Lolita to the extent of

making her fall in love with him. This

having illicit relations with her.

defendant

tried

under

to

win

through

a

clever

strategy,

is shown by the fact that defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. Because of the frequency of his visits to the latter’s family who was allowed free access because he was a collateral relative and was considered as a member

of

her

family,

the

two

The wrong he has caused her and her family

is

indeed

immeasurable

considering the fact that he is a married

man.

Verily,

he

has

committed an injury to Lolita’s family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs

and

public

policy

as

contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code.


|


Page 102

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines malice, i.e., by improper and sinister motives.

Malicious

prosecution

has

been

defined as an action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit or

One cannot be held liable in damages

other

for

legal

instituted

proceeding

maliciously

has

and

been

without

probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. As thus defined, the fact of termination

of

the

prosecution,

civil

suit

proceeding without

maliciously

probable

criminal or

legal

filed

and

cause,

should

precede the complaint for malicious prosecution. Such a complaint states a cause of action if it alleges: (a) that the

defendant

was

himself

the

prosecutor or at least instigated the prosecution; (b) that the prosecution finally terminated in the acquittal of the plaintiff; (c) that in bringing the action the prosecutor acted without probable cause, and (d) that the prosecutor

was

actuated


|

by

maliciously

prosecution

instituting

where

he

acted

a with

probable cause. Probable cause is the existence of such

facts

would

and

excite

circumstances

the

belief,

in

as a

reasonable mind, acting on the facts within

the

knowledge

of

the

prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. The general rule is well settled that one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with probable cause . In other words, a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried

on

without

probable

cause. And the reason for the rule as stated by Blackstone, is ‘that it would be a very great discouragement to


Page 103

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines public justice if prosecotors, who had

regularly, for the mere purpose of

a tolerable ground of suspicion, were

vexation or injury.

liable to be sued at law when their

The statutory basis for a civil action

indictments miscarried.’

for

damages

prosecution

for

are

malicious

found

in

the

provisions of the New Civil Code on Human Relations and on damages particularly Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 2217 and 2219 (8). To constitute

malicious

prosecution,

however, there must be proof that the The term malicious prosecution has

prosecution

been defined in various ways. In

sinister design to vex and humiliate a

American jurisdiction, it is defined as:

person, and that it was initiated

“One

deliberately by the defendant knowing

begun

in

malice

without

prompted

can

with

groundless. Concededly, the mere act

intention of injuring defendant and

of submitting a case to the authorities

without probable cause, and which

for prosecution does not make one

terminates in favor of the person

liable for malicious prosecution. Thus,

prosecuted. For this injury an action

in order for a malicious prosecution

on the case lies, called the action of

suit to prosper, the plaintiff must

malicious prosecution.”

prove three (3) elements: (1) the fact

Instituted

In Philippine jurisdiction, it has been defined as: “An action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other

legal

instituted

proceeding

maliciously

has

and

been

without

probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in favor of the defendant

were

false

a

that

sustained.

charges

by

probable cause to believe the charges be

his

was

and

of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor and that the action finally terminated with an acquittal; (2) that in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (3) that the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive.

therein. The gist of the action is the putting of legal process in force, Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 104

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Pursuant to Art. 21 of the Civil Code in relation to par. (10) of Art. 2219 of the

same

Code,

“any

person

who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public Moral damages may be recovered in

policy shall compensate the latter for

cases where a defendant’s wrongful

the damage.”

act

or

omission

complainant mental anxiety,

has

caused

physical

anguish,

the

suffering,

fright,

besmirched

serious

reputation,

wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury. An award of moral damages is allowed in

The

fact

that

no

actual

or

compensatory damage was proven before

the

trial

court,

does

not

adversely affect petitioner’s right to recover

moral

damages

may

damages. Moral be

awarded

in

appropriate cases referred to in the chapter on human relations of the

cases specified or analogous to those

Civil Code (Articles 19 to 36), without

provided in Article 2219 of the Civil

need of proof that the wrongful act

Code.

complained physical

of

had

injury

caused

any

upon

the

The act of private respondent in

complainant. It

hitting

is

report of the Code Commission that

contrary to morals and good customs

the reason underlying an award of

and caused the petitioner mental

damages under Art. 21 of the Civil

anguish,

Code is to compensate the injured

petitioner

moral

feelings

on

the

shock

face

wounded

and

social

humiliation. Private respondent has to

take

full

responsibility

party

for

is

clear

the moral

from

the

injury caused

upon his person

for his

act and his claim that he was unaware of what he had done to petitioner because of drunkenness is definitely no excuse and does not relieve him of his liability to the latter.

Upon the facts and under the law, plaintiff has clearly made the cause of


|


Page 105

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines action

for

defendants.

damages

against

Defendants

the

wilfully

dignity of a person. Everyone must respect

the

dignity,

personality,

caused loss or injury to plaintiff in a

privacy and peace of mind of his

manner that was contrary to morals,

neighbors and other persons (Article

good

policy,

26, Civil Code). And one must act with

making them amenable to damages

justice, give everyone his due and

customs

or

Public

under Articles 19 and 21 in relation to

observe

honesty

and

Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

(Article 19, Civil Code).

good

faith

The false accusation charged against the private respondent after detaining and

interrogating

him

by

the

uniformed guards and the mode and manner in which he was subjected. shouting at him, imposing upon him a fine, threatening to call the police and in the presence and hearing of many people at the Supermarket which brought and caused him humiliation

While seemingly petitioner’s claim for

and

damages

embarrassment,

sufficiently

rendered the petitioners liable for damages under Articles 19 and 21 in

arises

from

employer-

employee relations, and the latest amendment to Article 217 of the Labor Code under PD No. 1691 and BP

relation to Article 2219 of the Civil

Blg. 130 provides that all other claims

Code. We rule that under the facts of

arising

the case at bar, petitioners wilfully

relationship are cognizable by Labor

caused

Arbiters, in essence, petitioner’s claim

loss

or

injury

to

private

respondent in a manner that was contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. It is against morals,

from

employer-employee

for damages is grounded on the “wanton failure and refusal” without just cause of private respondent Cruz to report for duty despite repeated

good customs and public policy to

notices

humiliate, embarrass and degrade the

disapproval of his application for


|

served

upon


him

of

the

Page 106

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines leave of absence without pay. This,

governing statute is the Civil Code

coupled with the further averment

and not the Labor Code.

that Cruz “maliciously and with bad faith”

violated

the

terms

and

conditions of the conversion training course agreement to the damage of petitioner

removes

the

present

IX. OTHER TORTS

controversy from the coverage of the Labor Code and brings it within the A. DERELICTION OF DUTY

purview of Civil Law. Clearly, the complaint was anchored not on the abandonment per se by private respondent Cruz of his job—as the latter was not required in the Complaint to report back to work— but

on

the manner and consequent

effects of such abandonment of work translated in terms of the damages

the

facts

set

out

constitute

an

actionable dereliction on appellee’s part in the light of Article 27 of the

which petitioner had to suffer.

Civil

Code.

That

appellants

were

“harassed and terrorized” may be a conclusion

of

law

and

hence

improperly pleaded. Their claim for relief, however, is not based on the fact of harassment and terrorization but on appellee’s refusal to give them It is obvious from the complaint that

assistance, which it was his duty to do

the plaintiffs have not alleged any

as

unfair labor practice.

requirement

Theirs is a

an

officer

of

under

the the

law.

The

aforesaid

simple action for damages for tortious

provision that such refusal must be

acts

“without just cause” is implicit in the

allegedly

committed

by

the

defendants. Such being the case, the


|

context

of

the


allegation.

The

Page 107

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines statement of appellee’s dereliction is

produce

repeated in a subsequent paragraph

damages,

of the complaint, where it is alleged

relief.”

that “he is about to order the arrest of

The damages fixed by Judge Leuterio

the plaintiffs” to make them sign

are sanctioned by Articles 2200, 2208

affidavits of exculpation in favor of the policeman.

a

cause

of

action

prevention

and

for other

and 2219 of the Civil Code. Article 2219 allows moral damages for acts mid actions mentioned in Article 26. As

lengthily

explained

by

Justice

Gafmailan, the acts and omissions of

B. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE

the firm fall under Article 26. St.

Louis

Realty’s

employee

was

C. VIOLATION OF HUMAN

grossly negligent in mixing up the

DIGNITY AND PRIVACY

Aramil and Arcadio residences in a widely

circulated

publication

like

the Sunday Times. To suit its purpose, it never made any written apology and explanation of the mix up. It just St. Louis Realty contends that the decision is contrary to law and that

contented

itself

with

a

cavalier

“rectification.”

the case was decided in a way not in

Persons, who know the residence of

conformity with the rulings of this

Doctor Aramil, were confused by the

Court. It argues that the case is not

distorted, lingering impression that

covered by Article 26 which provides

he was renting his residence from

that “every person shall respect the

Arcadio or that Arcadio had leased it

dignity, personality, privacy and peace

from him. Either way, his private life

of mind of his neighbors and other

was

persons”. “Prying into the privacy of

exposed. He suffered diminution of

another’s residence” and “meddling

income and mental anguish.

mistakenly

and

unnecessarily

with or disturbing the private life or family

relations

of

another”

and

“similar acts ,” “though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 108

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines himself by claiming that he made an appointment to see Nestor through a nephew, Roncali, the son of Florence, It is petitioner’s position that the act

so he could talk with Nestor to find

imputed to him does not constitute

out the truth about his rumored illicit

any of those enumerated in Arts 26

relationship with Florence. He said

and 2219. In this respect, the law is

that he wanted to protect his nephews

clear. The violations mentioned in the

and nieces and the name of his late

codal provisions are not exclusive but

brother (Florence’s husband). How he

are merely examples and do not

could be convinced by some way

preclude other

or

other than a denial by Nestor, and

therefore

how he would protect his nephews

are allowable for actions against a

and nieces and his family’s name if

person’s dignity, such as profane,

the rumor were true, he did not say.

insulting, humiliating, scandalous or

Petitioner

abusive language. Under Art. 2217 of

already talked with Florence herself

the Civil Code, moral damages which

over the telephone about the issue,

include

similar

analogous acts.

Damages

physical

anguish,

fright,

besmirched

although

serious

anxiety,

alleged immoral relationship. Yet, he

wounded

could not let the matter rest on the

shock,

social

strength of the denial of his sister-in-

similar

injury,

law. He had to go and confront

pecuniary

Nestor, even in public, to the latter’s

and

incapable

the

had

with the latter vehemently denying the

of

computation, may be recovered if they are

he

mental

moral

humiliation,

that

suffering,

reputation,

feelings,

admitted

proximate

result

of

humiliation.

the

defendant’s wrongful act or omission. There is no question that private respondent Nestor Nicolas suffered mental

anguish,

reputation,

besmirched

wounded

feelings

and

social humiliation as a proximate result

of

petitioner’s

abusive,

scandalous and insulting language. Petitioner

attempted

to


exculpate |


Page 109

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines X. DAMAGES

In this case, the claim for actual

A. DEFINITION AND CONCEPTS

damages by the heirs of the victims is not controverted, the same having been fully substantiated by receipts accumulated by them and presented

Damages may be defined as the

to the court. Therefore, the award of

pecuniary compensation, recompense,

actual damages is proper. However,

or satisfaction for an injury sustained,

the

or

the

damages to the heirs of Jerry Agliam

pecuniary consequences which the

and Eduardo Tolentino Sr. must be

law imposes for the breach of some

amended. Consistent with the policy

duty

some

of this Court, the amount of fifty

compensatory

thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) is given

as

otherwise

or

the

expressed,

violation

right. Actual

or

damages

those

are

of

awarded

in

order

granting

compensatory

to the heirs of the victims by way

satisfaction of, or in recompense for,

of indemnity, and

not

as

loss

compensatory damages. As

regards

or

injury

sustained, whereas

moral damages may be invoked when

moral

the

psychological pain, damage and injury

complainant

mental

has

anguish,

experienced

serious

anxiety,

damages,

the

amount

of

caused to the heirs of the victims,

physical suffering, moral shock and

although

so forth, and had furthermore shown

determined by the trial court in its

that these were the proximate result

discretion. Hence, we see no reason

of the offender’s wrongful act or

to disturb its findings as to this

omission. In

matter.

compensatory

granting

actual

damages,

the

or

inestimable, may

be

party

making a claim for such must present the

best

evidence

available,

viz.,

receipts, vouchers, and the like, as corroborated by his testimony.


|


Page 110

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines underlying basis for the award of tort damages

is

the

individual

premise

was

that an

injured

in

To warrant the recovery of damages,

contemplation of law.

there must be both a right of action

must first be the breach of some duty

for a legal wrong inflicted by the

and the imposition of liability for that

defendant, and damage resulting to

breach

the

Wrong

awarded; it is not sufficient to state

without damage, or damage without

that there should be tort liability

wrong, does not constitute a cause of

merely because the plaintiff suffered

action, since damages are merely part

some pain and suffering).

plaintiff

therefrom.

of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong. There

is

a

injuries

accidents are

damages

occur

inflicted

may

and by

be

many

acts

or

distinction

omissions which cause damage or

between damages and injury. Injury is

loss to another but which violate no

the illegal invasion of a legal right;

legal duty to such other person, and

damage is the loss, hurt, or harm

consequently

which results from the injury; and

action in his favor. In such cases, the

damages

or

consequences must be borne by the

the

injured person alone. The law affords

damage suffered. Thus, there can be

no remedy for damages resulting

damage

from an act which does not amount to

are

compensation

material

Many

before

Thus, there

the

recompense

awarded

without

for

injury

in

those


create

no

cause

of

a legal injury or wrong.

was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach

As a matter of law, the trial court and

of duty which the defendant owed to

the CA erred in holding petitioners

the plaintiff — a concurrence of injury

liable

to the plaintiff and legal responsibility

hundred (100) cavans of palay every

by

the

person

causing


|

it.

to

pay

respondents

one

The


Page 111

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines year from 1972 until they vacate the

profits of the business, during the

premises of the land in question.

time of its stoppage.

The one hundred cavans of palay was awarded as a form of damages. We cannot sustain the award. “Palay” is not legal tender currency in the Philippines.

B. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA

A high regard for normal judicial The law on damages is found on Title

admissions made in court pleadings

XVII of the Civil Code (Arts. 2195 to

would

2235). The rules governing damages

permitting

laid down in other laws, and the

away therefrom, to charge now that

principles of the general law on

the damage suffered was because

damages are adopted in so far as they

of Kalaw’s negligence,

are not inconsistent with the Code

matter, by reason of the board’s

(Arts. 2196 and 2198). Article 2197

ratification of the contracts.

mentions

damages

Indeed, were it not for the typhoons,

recoverable, among which are (1)

NACOCO could have, with ease, met

actual or compensatory and (2) moral.

its

Article

accessibility

the

2219

damages

kind

of

provides

may

be

that

moral

recovered

in

suffice

to

deter

plaintiff

contractual

us to

or

from stray

for

that

obligations. Stock

was

no

problem.

NACOCO had 90 buying agencies

the following and analogous cases * *

spread

* (8) malicious prosecution .

could purchase 2,000 tons of copra a

Where there is no issue of malice,

day. The various contracts involved

damages

delivery of but 16,500 tons over a

must

be

compensatory

throughout

the

islands. It

merely, and confined to the actual

five-month

loss from deprivation of the property

typhoons, NACOCO was still able to

attached or injury to it, or in case of

deliver a little short of 50% of the

closing business, to the probable

tonnage required under the contracts.


|

period. Despite


the

Page 112

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines As the trial court correctly observed,

legal duty. These situations are often

this is a case of damnum absque

called damnum absque injuria.

injuria.

In order that a plaintiff may maintain

Conjunction of damage and

wrong is here absent.

There cannot

an action for the injuries of which he

be an actionable wrong if either one

complains, he must establish that

or the other is wanting.

such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff — a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by

the

person

causing

it.

The

underlying basis for the award of tort damages

is

the

premise

that an

To warrant the recovery of damages,

individual

there must be both a right of action

contemplation of law.

for a legal wrong inflicted by the

must first be the breach of some duty

defendant, and damage resulting to

and the imposition of liability for that

the

breach

plaintiff

therefrom.

Wrong

was

before

injured

in

Thus, there

damages

may

be

without damage, or damage without

awarded; it is not sufficient to state

wrong, does not constitute a cause of

that there should be tort liability

action, since damages are merely part

merely because the plaintiff suffered

of the remedy allowed for the injury

some pain and suffering).

caused by a breach or wrong. There

is

a

material

distinction

between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right;

C. KINDS OF DAMAGES

damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and damages

are

compensation

the

recompense

awarded

for

or the

damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage

without

injury

in

those

The requirements of article 1902, that


the defendant repair the damage done

was not the result of a violation of a


|

can only mean what is set forth in the


Page 113

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines above definitions, Anything short of

repair that of which one has been

that would not repair the damages

deprived by the wrong of another.

and anything beyond that would be excessive. damages

Actual are

compensatory

those

allowed

for

tortious wrongs under the Civil Code; nothing more, nothing less.

Compensatory damages are such as awarded to compensate the injured party for caused by the wrong, and must be only such as make just and fair compensation, and are due when

The purpose of the law in awarding

the wrong is established, whether it

actual damages is to repair the wrong

was committed maliciously — that is,

that has been done, to compensate

with evil intention — or not.

for the injury inflicted, and not to impose a penalty. Actual damages are not dependent on nor graded by the intent with which the wrongful act is done. The words "actual damages" shall be construed to include all damages that the plaintiff may he has


suffered in respect to his property,

actual or compensatory damages are

business,

those awarded in satisfaction of, or in

trade,

profession,

or

occupation, and no other damages

recompense

for,

loss

or

injury

whatever.

sustained. They proceed from a sense of natural justice and are designed to

Actual damages are compensatory only.

`Compensatory

damages'

as

indicated by the word employed to characterize them, simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong. They proceed from a sense of natural justice, and are designed to


|

repair the wrong that has been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted and

not

to

impose

a

penalty. In

actions based on torts or quasidelicts, actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of.


Page 114

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines There are two kinds of actual or

the

compensatory damages: one is the

P1,850,750.55 and by deducting the

loss

already

production cost of P1,060,426.20,

possesses (daño emergente ), and the

petitioner could have earned profit of

other is the failure to receive as a

P790,324.30.

benefit

evidence relied upon by the trial court

of

what

that

a

person

which

would

have

quoted

selling

price

Admittedly,

of

the

in arriving at the amount are mere

pertained to him (lucro cesante ).

estimates prepared by petitioner. Said evidence is highly speculative and manifestly hypothetical. It could not provide sufficient legal and factual basis for the award of P790,324.30 as compensatory damages representing Indemnification comprehends suffered,

that

for not is

damages

only to

the say

loss

petitioner’s

self -serving

claim

of

unrealized profit.

actual

damages (damnum emergens), but also profits which the obligee failed to obtain, referred to as compensatory damages (lucrum cessans). However, to

justify

a

compensatory

grant

of

actual

damages,

it

or is

necessary to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured

Article 2199 provides: “Except as

party, the actual amount of loss.

provided by law or by stipulation, one is

entitled

to

an

adequate

In the case at bar, the trial court

compensation only for such pecuniary

erroneously concluded that petitioner

loss suffered by him as he has duly

could have sold books to Philacor at

proved.


|

Such

compensation


is

Page 115

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines referred to as actual or compensatory

evidence

damages.”

simply rely on speculation, conjecture

Actual

or

compensatory

damages

cannot be presumed, but must be

available.

Courts

cannot

or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages.

proved with reasonable degree of certainty.

A court cannot rely on

speculations,

conjectures,

or

guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. It must point out specific facts which could afford a basis

for

measuring

whatever

Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense

for,

loss

or

injury

compensatory or actual damages are

sustained. They proceed from a sense

borne.

of natural justice and are designed to repair the wrong that has been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted and

not

to

impose

a

penalty. In

actions based on torts or quasidelicts, actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of In

crimes

and

quasi-delicts,

the

defendant is liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. To seek recovery for

the act or omission complained of. There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is the loss

of

what

a

person

already

actual damages it is essential that the

possesses (daño emergente ), and the

injured

party

other is the failure to receive as a

amount

of

proves

loss

with

the

actual

reasonable

degree of certainty premised upon

benefit

that

which

would

have

pertained to him (lucro cesante ).

competent proof and on the best Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 116

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines In addition, nominal damages are

case, where the resulting injury might

awarded in every obligation arising

be continuing and possible future

from law, contracts, quasi-contracts,

complications directly arising from

acts or omissions punished by law,

the injury, while certain to occur, are

and quasi-delicts, or in every case

difficult to predict.

where

property

right

has

been

invaded. Under Article 2223 of the Civil

Code,

nominal further

“(t)he

adjudication

damages contest

shall

of

preclude

upon

the

right

involved and all accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.”

Established medical procedures and practices, though in constant flux are devised for the purpose of preventing complications.

A

physician’s

experience with his patients would sometimes tempt him to deviate from established community practices, and he may end a distinguished career using unorthodox methods without incident. However, when failure to follow established procedure results in the evil precisely sought to be averted

by

observance

of

the

procedure and a nexus is made between the deviation and the injury or

damage,

the

physician

would

necessarily be called to account for it. Actual

or

compensatory

damages

In the case at bar, the failure to

generally assume that at the time of

observe

litigation, the injury suffered as a

protocol which would have influenced

consequence of an act of negligence

the intubation in a salutary way was

has been completed and that the cost

fatal to private respondents’ case.

pre-operative

assessment

can be liquidated. However, these provisions

neglect

to

take

into

account those situations, as in this Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 117

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines litigation has been decided and the subject A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his or her body; if that integrity is violated or diminished, actual injury is suffered for which

of

recovery

is

at

the

disposition of the court. The issue over attorney’s fee only arises when something has been recovered from which the fee is to be paid.

actual or compensatory damages are

Well settled is the rule that counsel’s

due

Petitioner

“claim for attorney’s fees may be

Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as

asserted either in the very action in

nearly as possible in the condition

which the services in question have

that she was before the mishap. A

been

scar, especially one on the face of the

action.

woman, resulting from the infliction

chosen, the Court may pass upon said

of injury upon her, is a violation of

claim, even if its amount were less

bodily integrity, giving raise to a

than the minimum prescribed by law

legitimate claim for restoration to

for the jurisdiction of said court, upon

her conditio

is

the theory that the right to recover

not

attorney’s fees is but an incident of

grievously disfigure the victim, the

the case in which the services of

cost of surgery may be expected to be

counsel have been rendered”. It also

correspondingly modest.

rests on the assumption that the court

and

relatively

assessable.

ante. If small

the

and

scar

does

rendered, If

or

the first

in

a

separate

alternative

is

trying the case is to a certain degree already familiar with the nature and extent of the lawyer’s services. The rule against multiplicity of suits will in effect be subserved.

An

attorney’s

determined

until

fee

cannot

after


the |

be main


Page 118

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines a given period of time, from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due and payable.” Using this standard, the obligation in this case was obviously not a forbearance of money, goods or credit. A monetary award shall earn interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of the finality of the judgment

until

its

satisfaction,

regardless of whether or not the case involves a loan or forbearance of money. The interim period is deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit.

It is a well-recognized principle of law

Because the amount due in this case

that

arose from a contract for a piece of

avoidable consequences of the breach

work, not from a loan or forbearance

of a contract or other legal duty are

of money, the legal interest of six

not recoverable. It is the duty of one

percent (6%) per annum should be applied.

Furthermore,

since

the

amount of the demand could be

damages

resulting

from

injured by the unlawful act of another to take such measures as prudent

established with certainty when the

men

usually

take

under

such

Complaint was filed, the six percent

circumstances to reduce the damages

(6%) interest should be computed

as much as possible.

from the filing of the said Complaint. But after the judgment becomes final

When the existence of a loss is

and executory until the obligation is

established, absolute certainty as to

satisfied,

its

the

interest

should

be

reckoned at twelve percent (12%) per year.

amount

is

not

required.

The

benefit to be derived from a contract which

one

of

the

parties

has

A “forbearance” in the context of the

absolutely failed to perform is of

usury law is a “contractual obligation

necessity to some extent, a matter of

of lender or creditor to refrain, during Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

speculation, but the injured party is


Page 119

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines not to be denied all remedy for that

category of an award designed to

reason alone. He must produce the

compensate the claimant for actual

best evidence of which his case is

injury suffered and not to impose a

susceptible

and

if

that

evidence

warrants the inference that he has

penalty

on

the

wrongdoer. In

Francisco vs. GSIS, the Court held that there must be clear testimony on the

been damaged by the loss of profits

anguish and other forms of mental

which

reasonable

suffering. Thus, if the plaintiff fails to

certainty have anticipated but for the

take the witness stand and testify as

defendant's

to

he

might

with

wrongful

act,

he

is

his/her

social

humiliation,

wounded feelings and anxiety, moral

entitled to recover.

damages

cannot

be

awarded.

In

Cocoland Development Corporation vs.

National

Commission,

Labor

the

Relations

Court

held

that

“additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being,

x

x

x

social

humiliation,

wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc., that resulted therefrom.” Moral damages are awarded to enable While no proof of pecuniary loss is

the injured party to obtain means,

necessary

in

order

that

moral

diversions or amusements that will

damages

may

be

awarded,

the

serve to alleviate the moral suffering

amount of indemnity being left to the

he/she has undergone, by reason of

discretion

is

the defendant’s culpable action. [44] Its

the

award is aimed at restoration, as

claimant should satisfactorily show

much as possible, of the spiritual

the existence of the factual basis of

status quo ante; thus, it must be

damages and its causal connection to

proportionate

defendant’s acts. This is so because

inflicted. Since each case must be

moral damages, though incapable of

governed

pecuniary

circumstances, there is no hard and

of

nevertheless

the

court, it

essential

that

estimation,


are |

in

the

by

to its


the own

suffering peculiar

Page 120

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines fast rule in determining the proper

malevolence

through

amount. The yardstick should be that

respondents

the amount awarded should not be so

deceitfully incurring and then evading

palpably and scandalously excessive

settlement

as to indicate that it was the result of

certainly

passion, prejudice or corruption on

exemplary

the part of the trial judge. Neither

example and correction for the public

should it be so little or so paltry that

good and also to serve as a deterrent

it rubs salt to the injury already

to

inflicted on plaintiffs.

misdeeds

defrauded of

their

justifies

the

liability

award

of

way

of

by

commission by

petitioners, just

damages

the

which

of

others, even

similar if

the

transaction were viewed as a breach of civil contract. The Court do not share respondent court’s narrow view that petitioner Niceta’s

failure

to

use

in

her

testimony the precise legal terms or “sacramental anguish,

phrases”

fright,

of

serious

“mental anxiety,

wounded feelings or moral shock” and the like justifies the denial of the Petitioners’ testimonial evidence to

claim for damages. It is sufficient that

the

Niceta

these exact terms have been pleaded

suffered “extremely” and that for

in the complaint and evidence has

three months she could not sleep was

been adduced, as cited above, amply

a clear demonstration of her physical

supporting

suffering, mental anguish and serious

complaint. Indeed, petitioner Niceta

anxiety and similar injury, resulting

vividly portrayed in simple terms the

from respondents’ malevolent acts

moral

that show her to be clearly entitled to

underwent as a result of respondents’

moral damages.

wanton abuse of her good faith and

effect

Petitioners moral

that

having

damages,

addition damages.

thereto, The

petitioner

established are

entitled

to

shock

averments

and

of

suffering

the

she

confidence.

in

exemplary

wantonness


the

the

|

and


Page 121


The

law

explicitly

authorizes

the

award of moral damages “in breaches

Even if the allegations regarding the

of contract where the defendant acted

amount of damages in the complaint

fraudulently or in bad faith.” There

are not specifically denied in the

being, moreover, satisfactory evidence

answer,

of

deemed admitted.

the

psychological

and

mental

such

damages

are

not

The Court held

trauma actually suffered by the Del

that in no uncertain terms that actual

Rosarios, the grant to them of moral

damages must be proved, and that a

damages is warranted. Over a period

court cannot rely on “speculation,

of about a month, they experienced

conjecture or guesswork” as to the

“feelings of shock, helplessness, fear,

fact and amount of damages, but

embarrassment and anger.”

must depend on actual proof that

There is, to be sure, no hard and fast rule for determining what would be a fair amount of moral (or exemplary) damages, each case having to be governed by its attendant particulars. Generally,

the

amount

of

moral

damages should be commensurate with

the

actual

loss

or

suffered.


injury

damages had been suffered and on evidence of the actual amount.

The

rule that although an allegation is not necessary

in

order

that

moral

damages may be awarded, “it is, nevertheless, claimant

essential

satisfactorily

that

the

prove

the

existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to defendant’s acts.”

|


Page 122

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines Furthermore, while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that

moral

damages

may

be

awarded, the amount of indemnity Unlike

compensatory

damages

which

or

are

actual

being left to the discretion of the

generally

court (Art. 2216), it is, nevertheless,

recoverable in tort cases as long as

essential

there is satisfactory proof thereof

satisfactorily prove the existence of

(Art. 2202), the Code has chosen to

the factual basis of the damage (Art.

enumerate the cases in which moral

2217) and its causal relation to

damages may be recovered (Art.

defendant’s

2219). A like enumeration is made

because moral damages, though

in

regard

attorney’s

to

the

fees

as

that

the

acts.

claimant

This

is

so

recovery

of

incapable of pecuniary estimation,

an

of

are in the category of an award

item

damage (Art. 2208). But the two

designed

enumerations differ in the case of a

claimant for actual injury suffered

clearly unfounded suit, which is

and not to impose a penalty on the

expressly mentioned in Art. 2208

wrongdoer (Algara vs. Sandejas, 27

(par.4), as justifying an award of

Phil., 284). The trial court and the

attorney’s fees, but is not included

CA both seem to be of the opinion

in the enumeration of Art. 2219 in

that the mere fact that respondent

respect to moral damages. It is true

were

that Art. 2219 also provides that

foundation entitled

moral damages may be awarded in

award of moral damages, hence

“analogous

those

they made no definite finding as to

enumerated, but we do not think

what the supposed moral damages

the

suffered

Code

unfounded

cases” intended civil

to ‘a

clearly

sued

compensate

without

consist

any them

of.

the

legal to

Such

an

a

or

conclusion would make of moral

proceedings’ to be one of these

damages a penalty, which they are

analogous

moral

not, rather than a compensation for

damages may be recovered, or it

actual injury suffered, which they

would have expressly mentioned it

are intended to be. Moral damages,

in Art. 2219, as it did in Art. 2208;

in other words, are not corrective or

or else incorporated Art. 2208 by

exemplary damages.

cases

action

to

wherein

reference in Art. 2219. Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 123

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines years of age and the offender is the common-law spouse of her mother. The amendatory law, however, cannot Appellant

sexually

assaulted

be applied in this case, because there

complainant in 1993 when she was 10

is no showing that the crime was

years

committed after the effectivity of the

old.

Thus,

the

trial

court

correctly convicted him of statutory

said law.

rape under Article 335 (3) of the Revised

Penal

Code.

Moreover,

appellant is also guilty of acts of lasciviousness committed on October 15, 1995. The

trial

court

correctly

awarded

P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, an amount

which

is

automatically

granted to the offended party without

Not only on account of the plaintiff’s failure to take the witness stand and

need of further evidence other than

testify

the fact of the commission of rape.

wounded feelings, anxiety, etc., as the

Consistent with recent jurisprudence,

to

her

social

humiliation,

decision holds, but primarily because

appellant should also be ordered to

a breach of contract like that of

pay the victim the additional amount

defendant, not being malicious or

of

fraudulent,

P50,000

as

moral

damages.

In People v. Prades, the Court resolved that “moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in the

does

not

warrant

the

award of moral damages under Article 2220 of the Civil Code.

criminal proceeding, in such amount as the Court deems just, without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof as has heretofore been the practice.” Republic Act 7659, which amended the Revised Penal Code, prescribes,

Moral damages are not punitive in

among

nature

others,

the

death

penalty

but

are

designed

to

where the rape victim is under 18 Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 124

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines compensate[3] and alleviate in some

the provisions of this law, in culpa

way the physical suffering, mental

contractual or

anguish,

anxiety,

moral damages may be recovered

wounded

when the defendant acted in bad faith

shock,

social

or was guilty of gross negligence

similar

injury

(amounting to bad faith) or in wanton

unjustly caused to a person. Although

disregard of his contractual obligation

incapable of pecuniary computation,

and, exceptionally, when the act of

moral damages, nevertheless, must

breach of contract itself is constitutive

somehow be proportional to and in

of tort resulting in physical injuries.

fright,

besmirched feelings,

serious

reputation, moral

humiliation,

and

approximation inflicted.[4]

of

Such

the

suffering

damages,

to

be

recoverable, must be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission the

factual

satisfactorily

basis

for

which

established

by

is the

aggrieved party.[5] An award of moral damages

would

require

certain

conditions to be met; to wit: (1) First, there must be an injury, whether physical,

mental

or

psychological,

clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) second, there must be a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of

the

injury

sustained

by

the

claimant; and (4) fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219. Under Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

breach

of

contract,

By special rule in Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206, of the Civil Code, moral damages may also be awarded in case the death of a passenger results from a breach of carriage. In culpa aquiliana , or quasidelict, (a) when an act or omission causes physical injuries, or (b) where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered. This rule also applies, as aforestated,

to

contracts

when

breached by tort. In culpa criminal , moral damages could be lawfully due when the accused is found guilty of physical

injuries,

lascivious

acts,

adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary illegal

detention, search,

or

illegal

arrest,

defamation.

Malicious prosecution can also give


Page 125

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines rise to a claim for moral damages.

inquiry as to the truth and had

The term “analogous cases,” referred

available means for ascertaining it, at

to

following

least where actual fraud has not been

the ejusdem generis rule,

must

practised on the party claiming the

held

expressly

in

Article

similar

to

2219,

those

be

enumerated by the law.

estoppel. It is evident in this case that private respondent was barking up the wrong tree

when

it

sought

to

hold

petitioners liable for the value of the pharmaceutical products delivered at the

drugstore

evidence One who claims the benefit of an estoppel on the ground that he has

in

question.

The

shows

that

clearly

petitioners were not the owners of said drugstore when the deliveries were made. Hence, no meeting of the

been misled by the representations of

minds

another must not have been misled

respondent could have taken place;

through his own want of reasonable

no

care and circumspection. A lack of

arisen. The absence of any privity of

diligence by a party claiming an

relations between the parties at the

estoppel is generally fatal. If the party conducts

himself

with

careless

between them

contract

of

sale

and

private

could

have

time of the deliveries precludes any cause of action in favor of private respondent against petitioners. The

indifference to means of information

Regional Trial Court therefore did not

reasonably at hand, or ignores highly

err

suspicious circumstances, he may not

respondent’s

invoke the doctrine of estoppel. Good

petitioners.

faith

as

The trial court however erred when it

requiring the exercise of reasonable

awarded moral damages in favor of

diligence to learn the truth, and

petitioners. Petitioners have failed to

is

generally

regarded

accordingly estoppel is denied where the party claiming it was put on Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

when

it

dismissed complaint

private against

show that private respondent was motivated

by

bad


faith

when

it

Page 126

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines instituted the action for collection

replevin

case

against

private

below.

respondent based on the latter’s own challenge to the former that if they really had a right on the motorcycle, then

they

necessary

should case

institute

in

court.

the When

petitioner did sue private respondent and filed a third party complaint An award for attorney’s fees and

against the person from whom private respondent claims to have brought

moral damages on the sole basis of

the motorcycle, it cannot be said that

an

be

the institution of the replevin suit was

a

tainted with gross and evident bad

deliberate intent to cause prejudice to

faith or was done maliciously to

the other party is improper. The right

harass, embarrass, annoy or ridicule

action

unfounded

later in

declared

the

to

absence

of

to litigate is so precious that a penalty should not be charged on those who

private respondent. Moreover, the adverse result of an action

may exercise it erroneously.

–

dismissal

of

petitioner’s

complaint – does not per se make an act unlawful and subject the actor to the payment of moral damages. It is not a sound public policy to place a premium on the right to litigate. No damages can be charged on those who may exercise such precious right in

A person’s right to litigate should not

good

faith,

even

if

done

erroneously.

be penalized by holding him liable for

The award of exemplary damages has

damages. This is especially true when

likewise no factual basis. It is a

the filing of the case is to enforce

requisite

what he believes to be his rightful

accompanied by bad faith or done in

claim against another although found

wanton,

to

manner – circumstances which are

be

erroneous.

petitioner

precisely

In

this

instituted


|

case, the

absent

that

the

fraudulent in

this

act or

case.


must

be

malevolent In

addition, Page 127

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines exemplary

damages

cannot

be

awarded as the requisite element of compensatory

damages

was

not Lack of probable cause is an element

present. With respect to the attorney’s fees, an adverse decision does not ipso facto justify

the

award

thereof

to

the

winning party. All indications point to the

fact

that

petitioner

honestly

separate and distinct from that of malice. It follows, therefore, that one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with probable cause.

thought that they had a good cause of

Obviously, a determination that there

action,

the

was no probable cause cannot be

dismissal of their case, no attorney’s

made to rest solely on the fact that

fees

the trial court, acting on private

so

can

notwithstanding

be

granted

to

respondent. Considering

private

that

the

respondent Guevarra’s demurrer to

latter claims to be the owner of the

evidence,

motorcycle, petitioner was compelled

prosecution, just as it cannot be made

to

to

sue

him.

“necessarily”

When

the

former

a

party

became

turn

dismissed on

the

the fact

criminal that

the

Department of Justice reversed the

defendant no attorney’s fees and

fiscal’s

litigation expenses can automatically

criminal

be recovered even if he should win, a

respondent Guevarra to be filed in

it is not the fact of winning alone that

court. The first would transform all

entitles recovery of such items but

acquittals into veritable countersuits

rather

special

for malicious prosecution. On the

enumerated

other hand, the second would result

exceptions in Article 2208 of the New

in the dismissal of all complaints for

Civil Code. There being no bad faith

malicious prosecutions.

reflected in petitioner’s persistence in

Accordingly, the inquiry should be

pursuing its case, other than an

whether sufficient facts are alleged

erroneous

the

showing that in bringing the criminal

righteousness of its cause, attorney’s

action, the defendant in the civil

fees cannot be recovered as cost.

action for malicious prosecution acted

the

attendance

circumstances –

the

of

conviction

of

findings case

and

ordered

against

the

private

without probable cause. This Court has Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

ruled

that

for


purposes

of

Page 128

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines malicious cause”

prosecution,

means

“such

“probable facts

and

circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on

The Court concur with the trial court’s

the facts within the knowledge of the

award

prosecutor, that the person charged

appellant Florencio Pirame and co-

was guilty of the crime for which he

accused Teodorico Cleopas as death

was prosecuted.” In this case, even if we consider the allegations in the complaint as true, as well as the order

of

P50,000.00

each

from

indemnity to the victim’s heirs, which is in line with current jurisprudence.

of the trial court annexed thereto, we

The Court also find the amount of

do not find the same sufficient to

P23,214.00 awarded by the trial court

establish the absence of probable

as “burial and incidental expenses”

cause.

supported by the records. The award of P50,000.00 from each accused as moral

and

exemplary

damages,

however, is unsupported. The widow of the victim did not testify on any mental anguish or emotional distress, The rule is that moral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad faith or

fraud

or

constituted

an

act

oppressive to labor, or was done in a

which she suffered as a result of her husband’s death. The absence of any generic

aggravating

circumstance

attending the crime likewise precludes the award of exemplary damages.

manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. Likewise, exemplary damages may be awarded if the dismissal was effected in a wanton,

oppressive

or

malevolent

manner.

On the other hand, the award of moral damages in the sum of P 10,000.00


|


Page 129

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines must be increased to P50,000.00. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and

necessarily

brings

about

emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim’s family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved

The doctrine on the grant of moral

one becomes the victim of a violent or

and exemplary damages, as follows:

brutal killing. Such violent death or

“To begin with, there is no hard and

brutal killing not only steals from the

fast rule in the determination of

family of the deceased his precious

what would be a fair amount of

life, deprives them forever of his love,

moral damages, since each case

affection

must

and

support,

but

often

leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs’ emotional suffering.

be

governed

by

its

own

peculiar circumstances. “Article 2217 of the Civil Code recognizes

that

moral

damages

which include physical suffering, mental

anguish,

fright,

serious

anxiety,

besmirched

Finally, the award of actual damages

wounded

feelings,

in the amount of P10,000.00 does not

social humiliation and similar injury,

appear to have been substantiated.

are

Only those expenses which are duly

estimation.

proven, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim, will be recognized in court. Hence, the same must be deleted.

incapable

reputation,

moral of

shock,

pecuniary

“As to exemplary damages, Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that such damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public

good.

While

exemplary

damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right, they need not be proved,

although

plaintiff

must

show that he is entitled to moral, temperate Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

or


compensatory Page 130

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines damages

before

the

court

may

claim for moral damages could be

consider the question of whether or

based, such indemnity could not be

not exemplary damages should be

outrightly awarded. The same holds

awarded.”

true with respect to the award of exemplary damages where it must be shown that the party acted in a wanton,

oppressive

or

malevolent

manner. As a rule, moral damages cannot be recovered from a person who has filed Moral and exemplary damages may be

a complaint against another in good

awarded without proof of pecuniary

faith because it is not sound policy to

loss. In awarding such damages, the court shall take into account the circumstances obtaining in the case

place a penalty on the right to litigate, the same, however, cannot apply in

and assess damages according to its

the case at bar. The factual findings of

discretion. To warrant the award of

the courts a quo to the effect that

damages, it must be shown that the

petitioner filed this case because he

person to whom these are awarded

was the victim of fraud; that he could

has sustained injury. He must likewise

not have been such a victim because

establish sufficient data upon which the

court

estimate

can

properly

of

the

base

amount

its of

he should have examined the jewelry in question before accepting delivery

damages. Statements of facts should

thereof, considering his exposure to

establish such data rather than mere

the banking and jewelry businesses;

conclusions or opinions of witnesses.

and that he filed the action for the

Thus,

be

nullification of the contract of sale

the

with unclean hands, all deserve full

for

moral

awarded,

it

is

claimant

must

damages

essential have

to

that

satisfactorily

proved during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection with the adverse party’s acts. If the court has

faith

and

credit

conclusion

that

to

support

petitioner

the was

motivated more by ill will than a sincere attempt to protect his rights

no proof or evidence upon which the Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 131

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines in

commencing

suit

against

respondents.

rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however,

shall

unliquidated

be

adjudged

claims

or

on

damages

except when or until the demand can be

established

certainty. Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded only to allow the former to obtain

means,

amusements

that

diversion,

or

will

to

serve

alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone due to the defendant’s culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional

to

the

inflicted. However, damages excessive

do

not

suffering substantial

translate

damages. Except

into for

attorney’s fees and costs of suit, it will be noted that the CA affirmed point by point the factual findings of

demand

with

Accordingly, is

reasonable where

established

the with

reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.

the lower court upon which the award of damages had been based. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed

For

at the discretion of the court at the

Philamgen


|

the

pivotal and

factor the


rendering

other

private Page 132

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines respondents liable in damages is that the

termination

General

by

Agency

them

of

Agreement

the was

tainted with bad faith.

To

justify

a

grant

compensatory

of

actual

damages,

it

or is

Hence, if a principal acts in bad faith

necessary to prove with a reasonable

and with abuse of right in terminating

degree of certainty, premised upon

the agency,

in

competent proof and on the best

damages. This is in accordance with

evidence obtainable by the injured

the

party, the actual amount of loss.

then

precepts

in

he is

liable

Human

Relations

enshrined in our Civil Code that “every person must in the exercise of his

Although

the

authority

to

assess

damages or indemnity in criminal

rights and in the performance of his

cases is vested in trial courts, it is

duties act with justice, give every one

only in the first instance. On appeal,

his due, and observe honesty and

such authority passes to the appellate

good faith” (Art. 19, Civil Code), and

court. Thus, this Court has, in many

every

person

law, wilfully or

who,

contrary

negligently

to

causes

damages to another, shall indemnify

cases,

increased

the

damages

awarded by the trial court, although the offended party had not appealed from said award, and the only party

the latter for the same (Art. 20,

who sought a review of the decision

id). “Any person who wilfully causes

of said court was the accused.

loss or injury to another in a manner

The Court finds the award of nominal

contrary to morals, good customs and

and

public policy shall compensate the

amount of P10,000.00 justified under

latter for the damages” (Art. 21, id.).

the circumstances. Nominal damages

moral

damages

both

in the

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. In other words, whenever there has Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 133

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines been a violation of an ascertained

defendant

legal

actual

fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or

damages resulted or none are shown,

malevolent manner (Articles 2229,

right,

although

no

the award of nominal damages is proper. There is no room to doubt that some

species

of

injury

was

acted

in

a

wanton,

2232, New Civil Code). And, third, a written contract for an attorney’s

caused to the complainant because of

services shall control the amount to

the medical expenses he incurred in

be paid therefor unless found by the

having his wounds treated, and the

court

loss of income due to his failure to

unreasonable

work

during

his

hospitalization.

However, in the absence of competent proof

of

the

amount

of

to

be

unconscionable (Sec.

24,

Rule

or 138,

Rules of Court).

actual

The amount of damages awarded in

damages, the complainant is entitled

this case has been determined by

only to nominal damages.

adequately considering the official, political, social, and financial standing of the offended parties on one hand, and

the

business

and

financial

position of the offender on the other (Domingding vs. Ng, 55 Off. Gaz. 10). The rules and principles in awarding

And further considering the present

moral damages are the following:

rate of exchange and the terms at

First, moral damages are recoverable

which

in breach of contracts where the

awarded would approximately be in

defendant acted fraudulently or in bad

U.S. dollars, this Court is all the more

faith (Art. 2220, New Civil Code).

of the view that said award is proper

Second, in addition to moral damages,

and reasonable

the

amount

of

damages

exemplary or corrective damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in breach

of

contract


where

|

the


Page 134

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines damages: one is the loss of what a person already possesses, and the In this case, the damage to private respondents’ reputation and social standing

entitles

them

to

moral

damages. Article 2217, in relation to Article

2220,

explicitly

of

the

provides

Civil that

Code “moral

damages include physical suffering, mental anxiety,

anguish,

fright,

besmirched

serious

reputation,

wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation,

and

similar

injury.” Obviously, petitioner bank’s wrongful act caused serious anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation to

other is the failure to receive as a benefit pertained

that

which

to

him.

would In

the

have latter

instance, the familiar rule is that damages

consisting

profits,

of

frequently

as “ganacias

unrealized referred

frustradas” or “lucrum

cessans,” are not to be granted on the basis of mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise, but rather by reference to some reasonably definite standard such as market value, established experienced, or direct inference from known circumstances.

private respondents for which they are entitled to recover moral damages in the amount of P300,000.00 which the Court deem to be reasonable. Under Articles 2199 and 2200 of the Civil Code, actual or compensatory damages

are

those

awarded

in

satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss

or

injury

sustained.

They

proceed from a sense of natural justice and are designed to repair the wrong that has been done. There are two kinds of actual or compensatory Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

As a general rule, the right of recovery for mental suffering resulting from “bodily injuries is restricted to the person who has suffered the bodily hurt, and there can be no recovery for distress

caused

by


sympathy

for

Page 135

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines another’s suffering, or for fright due

by the plaintiff, of moral damages for

to a wrong against a third person. So

the

the anguish of mind arising as to the

Hernandez. If the mental anguish

safety of others who may be in

allegedly

personal peril from the same cause

consequence thereof ware sufficient

cannot be taken into consideration.

to give him a cause of action therefor,

As

stated

in

the

American

Jurisprudence, “Injury or Wrong to

temporary

transfer

suffered

by

of

plaintiff

Dr.

in

there would be no valid legal reason to deny the same relief to any other

Another.—In law mental. anguish is

person who might have thus been

restricted as a rule, to such mental

inconvenienced, such as the friends of

pain or suffering as arises from an

Dr. Hernandez, and public officials

injury or wrong to the person himself ,

similarly situated, as veil as those who

as distinguished from that form of mental

suffering

accompaniment sorrow

for

which

of

is

sympathy

another’s

suffering

the or or

may have been adversely affected by the deterioration, if any, in the service of the office or bureau which had

which arises from a contemplation of

been temporarily deprived of the

wrongs committed on the person

services of said physician.

of another .

Pursuant

to

the

rule

stated, a husband or wife cannot recover for mental suffering caused by his or her sympathy for the other’s suffering.” In this case, plaintiff is not even related to Dr. Hernandez . The latter’s wife is a daughter of Mrs. Strebel by a previous

marriage .

Hernandez affinity,

is

not

merely to

Hence, related

Strebel,

but

Dr. by to

a relative by affinity of said plaintiff. It would be extremely dangerous, apart

The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because, being an

artificial person

and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, therefore,

no

senses.

experience

It

cannot, physical

from unjust, to sanction a recovery, Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 136

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines suffering and mental anguish, which

mental

can be experienced only by one

anxiety,

having

wounded feelings, moral shock, social

a

nervous

statement

system.

in People

The v.

anguish,

fright,

besmirched

humiliation,

and

similar

serious

reputation,

injury.

A

Manero and Mambulao Lumber Co. v.

corporation, being an artificial person

PNB that a corporation may recover

and having existence only in legal

moral damages if it “has a good

contemplation, has no feelings, no

reputation that is debased, resulting

emotions, no senses; therefore, it

in social humiliation” is an obiter

cannot experience physical suffering

dictum .

this score alone the

and mental anguish. Mental suffering

award for damages must be set aside,

can be experienced only by one

since RBS is a corporation.

having a nervous system and it flows

On

from real ills, sorrows, and griefs of life – all of which cannot be suffered by respondent bank as an artificial person.” Moral damages are not, as a general rule, granted to a corporation. While it is true that besmirched reputation is included in moral damages, it cannot cause

mental

anguish

to

a

corporation, unlike in the case of a natural person, for a corporation has no reputation in the sense that an individual has, and besides, it is

The pertinent provisions of our Civil

inherently

Code follow:

impossible

for

a

corporation to suffer mental anguish.

“Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of

Moral

damages

are

granted

in

recompense for physical suffering, Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

the

plaintiff,

violated

or

which invaded


has

been

by

the

Page 137

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, purpose

and

of

not

for

the

indemnifying

the

plaintiff for any loss suffered by


him.”

nominal damages are adjudicated in order that the right of the plaintiff,

“Art. 2222. The Court may award

which has been violated or invaded by

every

the defendant, may be vindicated or

obligation arising from any source

recognized, and not for the purpose

enumerated in article 1157, or in

of indemnifying the plaintiff for any

every case where any property

loss suffered by him. As has been

nominal

damages

in

right has been invaded.” Under

the

foregoing

held,

“whenever there has been a

provisions

violation of an ascertained legal right,

nominal damages are not intended for

although no actual damages resulted

indemnification of loss suffered but

or none are shown, the award of

for the vindication or recognition of a

nominal damages is proper.” In this

right violated or invaded. They are

case,

recoverable where some injury has

incurred medical expenses due to the

been done the amount of which the

rape

evidence

the

appellant. The victim suffered from

assessment of damages being left to

pains in her navel which required her

the discretion of the court according

physical examination.

to the circumstances of the case.

P2,000.00 as nominal damages is

fails

to

show,

The facts in this case show that the right of the vendee to acquire title to

thus

the

victim’s

committed

appropriate

family

by

clearly

accused-

An award of

under

the

circumstances.

the lot bought by her was violated by petitioner and this entitles her at the very least to nominal damages.


|


Page 138

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines course, subject to the condition that the The purpose of nominal damages is to vindicate or recognize a right that has

award

for

damages

is

not

excessive under the attendant facts and circumstance of the case.

been violated, in order to preclude

Temperate damages are included

further contest thereon; “and not for

within the context of compensatory

the

damages. In arriving at a reasonable

purpose

of

indemnifying

the Plaintiff for any loss suffered by him” (Articles 2221, 2223, new Civil Code.) Hence, the deletion of the nominal damages by the appellate court in this

level of temperate damages to be awarded, trial courts are guided by the Supreme Court’s ruling that: ... There are cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of

pecuniary

loss

cannot

be

case is well-taken since there is an

offered,

award of actual damages.

Nominal

convinced that there has been such

damages cannot co-exist with actual

loss. For instance, injury to one's

or compensatory damages.

commercial

although

credit

the

or

court

to

is

the

goodwill of a business firm is often hard to show certainty in terms of money. Should damages be denied for that reason? The judge should be

empowered

to

calculate

moderate damages in such cases, rather than that the plaintiff should The employer's liability in quasi-delict

suffer, without redress from the

is primary and solidary. The award of

defendant's wrongful act.

temperate,

moral,

and

exemplary

damages as well as attorney's fees lies upon the discretion of the court based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court's discretion is, of Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|


Page 139


The testimony of Balwinder Singh Gill,

The award of actual damages in the

first cousin of the deceased, on the

amount of P15,712.00 was based

alleged income of the deceased while

solely on the bare assertions of the

in the Philippines, is not enough. The

mother of the victim. The Court can

best evidence to substantiate income

only grant such amount for expenses

earned by foreigners while in the

if they are supported by receipts. In

Philippines is the payment of taxes

the

with

damages can be awarded. However, in

the

Revenue.

Bureau

of

Internal

Absent such proof, bare

allegation

is

Nevertheless,

insufficient.

lieu of

actual

thereof,

damages,

no

actual

temperate

damages under Art. 2224 of the Civil

the

Code may be recovered where it has

loss

been shown that the victim’s family

cannot be offered, and the fact of loss

suffered some pecuniary loss but the

has been established, appellants shall

amount thereof cannot be proved with

pay

Singh

certainty. The Court found the award

temperate damages in the amount of

of P15,000.00 as temperate damages

P200,000.00.

reasonable. Moral damages cannot be

definite

the

considering that

absence

proof

heirs

of

of

pecuniary

Surinder

In People vs. dela Tongga, G.R. No. 133246, July 31, 2000, the Court held

awarded

in

the

absence

of

any

evidence to support its award.

that in lieu of actual damages which was

not

proven

or

documented,

temperate damages may be awarded in a murder case.


|


Page 140

TORTS AND DAMAGES – Principles and Doctrines to pay private respondents, there is no

Under Art. 2232 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded if

a

party

acted

in

a

wanton,

fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. However, they cannot be recovered as a matter of

evidence

that

it

acted

in

a

fraudulent,

wanton,

reckless

or

oppressive

manner.

Furthermore,

there is no award to compensatory damages

which

is

a

prerequisite

before exemplary damages may be awarded. Therefore, the award by the trial court of P5,000.00 as exemplary damages is baseless.

right; the court has yet to decide whether

or

not

they

should

be

down

the

adjudicated. Jurisprudence

has

set

requirements for exemplary damages to be awarded: 1. they may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages,

and

only

after

the

claimant’s right to them has been established;

Article

2229

of

the

Civil

Code

provides that such damages may be imposed

by

way

of

example

or

correction for the public good. While exemplary

damages

cannot

be

recovered as a matter of right, they

2. they cannot be recovered as a

need not be proved, although plaintiff

matter of right, their determination

must show that he is entitled to

depending

moral, temperate or compensatory

upon

the

amount

of

compensatory damages that may be

damages

awarded to the claimant;

consider the question of whether or

3. the act must be accompanied by

not exemplary damages should be

bad faith or done in a wanton,

awarded. Exemplary

fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent

imposed not to enrich one party or

manner.

impoverish another but to serve as a

In the case at bench, while there is a clear breach of petitioner’s obligation Submitted by: Clifford Cubian

|

before

the

court

damages

may

are

deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions.”


Page 141

Torts and Damages Case Digest

Recommend Documents