Culpa Aquiliana, Culpa Criminal and Culpa Contractual Distinguished

Culpa Aquiliana, Culpa Criminal and Culpa Contractual Distinguished Reference: Torts and Damages by Pineda

Basis Legal basis of liability

Liability for damages

Culpa Aquiliana There can be a quasi-delict as long as there is fault or negligence resulting in damage or injury to another. It is broader in scope than crime. Criminal intent is not necessary for quasi delict to exist. Fault or negligence without intent will suffice. Right violated is a private right. Quasi delict is a wrongful act against a private individual. Every quasi delict gives rise to liability for damages.

Quantum of proof

Preponderance of evidence

Sanction and penalty

Reparation or indemnification of the injury or damage.

Nature of negligence

Direst, Substantive and independent (Rakes vs. Atlantic, etc., 7 Phil. 395).

Defense of a “good father of a family”

Complete and proper defense insofar as parents, guardians, employers are concerned (Art. 2180, last par.)

Presumption of negligence

NO presumption of negligence. The injured party must prove the negligence of the

Criminal intent

Nature of right violated

Culpa Criminal There can be no crime unless there is a law clearly punishing the act.

Culpa Contractual

Criminal intent is essential for criminal liability to exist. Right violated is a public one. Crime is a wrong against the State. Some crimes do not give rise to liability, e.g., Illegal possession of firearm, contempt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. Punishment is either imprisonment, fine or both; sometimes other accessory penalties are imposed. Negligence is merely incidental to the performance of the contractual obligation. There is a pre-existing contract or obligation (Rakes vs. Atlantic, etc., 7 Phil. 395). NOT a complete and proper defense in the selection and supervision of employees (Cangco vs. MRC, 38 Phil. 768). There is presumption of negligence as long as it can be proved that there was

defendant (Cangco vs. MRC, 38 Phil 768). Otherwise, the complaint of injured party will be dismissed.

breach of the contract . The defendant must prove there was no negligence in the carrying out of the terms of the contract (Cangco vs. MRC, 38 Phil. 768).