Torts Reviewer

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Concept of a tort

Naguiat v. NLRC

Taxi drivers claiming TORT: consists in the violation of a right separation pay; given or the omission of a duty imposed by operation of taxi law; breach of a legal duty services within Clark Air Base

Concept of a tort

Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune

Re-classification of cigarettes

Concept of a QD

Barredo v. Garcia

Collision of taxi and caretela; employer of taxi driver sued for civil liability

Concept of a QD

Elcano v. Hill

Concept of a QD

Cinco v. Canonoy

Concept of a QD

Baksh v. CA

Minor killed another; parents of victim sued both minor and father

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Not bound by the definition because it is OBITER; definition is very broad - any crime or breach of contract may be included; we cannot consider every crime a tort because in some crimes, no single individual is injured whereas in tort, there should be a person injured TORT: a wrong, a tortious act which has been Definition is overly broad; also OBITER defined as the commission or omission of an act by one, without right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime

Barredo doctrine not needed anymore because of Article 2177:

Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under The same negligent act causing damages the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover may produce civil liability arising from a crime damages twice for the same act or omission of the under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, defendant. or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code.

Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence" covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent Recovery of The concept of quasi-delict as enunciated in damages due to Article 2176 of the Civil Code, is so broad that vehicular accident; it includes not only injuries to persons but suspension of civil also damage to property. It makes no case pending final distinction between "damage to persons" on determination of the one hand and "damage to property" on criminal case the other Action for damages Article 2176 is limited to negligent acts or for breach of promise omissions and excludes the notion of to marry against willfulness or intent Iranian

The Court so holds to make the father liable. The doctrine is intended to plug the hole in Article 2180

Court used Article 2191(2) to illustrate damage to property but said Article pertains to Strict Liability, not QD - Strict Liab because whether or not there is negligence, proprietor is still liable

Not necessary because discussion is an OBITER. QD still includes intentional acts

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Concept of a QD

Coca-Cola Bottlers v. CA

Discovery of fiber-like material and other foreign substances in Coke and Sprite

Article 2176 is homologous but not identical to tort under the common law, which includes not only negligence, but also intentional criminal acts, such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit

Elements of QD and Tort

Andamo v. IAC

Works made by the Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette caused damage to adjacent land of the Andamos

ELEMENTS of QD: 1) damages suffered by the plaintiff 2) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond 3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Elements part of RATIO #1 and 3 elements should be DAMAGE, not DAMAGES #2 element contemplates Article 2180

The acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless in the event of an acquittal where the court has declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist, in which case the extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it the extinction of the civil liability

Elements of QD and Tort

PNR v. Brunty

Elements of QD and Tort

BPI v. Lifetime

Rhonda Brunty going to Baguio, the car she was riding collided with PNR train

REQUISITES of QD must concur: Tama na yong word - DAMAGE 1) damage to plaintiff 2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty 3) connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damage After the deposit slips ELEMENTS of QD: Same with Andamo - bumalik sa DAMAGES were machine1) fault or negligence of the defendant, or validated, agent SC equated Tort with QD some other person for whose acts he must requested teller to respond reverse the 2) damages suffered by the plaintiff transactions 3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Elements of QD and Tort

Garcia v. Salvador

Wrong result from Hepatitis test

ELEMENTS of an ACTIONABLE CONDUCT: Elements of an actionable conduct, not of QD 1) duty 2) breach 3) injury 4) proximate causation

Elements of QD and Tort

Gregorio v. CA

Gregorio charged with 3 counts of violation of BP 22; complainant desisted because Gregorio was not one of the signatories

In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: 1) damages suffered by him 2) fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person to whose act he must respond 3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred 4) that there must be no preexisting contractual relation between the parties

Elements of QD and Tort

Distinguishing Tort, QD from Delict Distinguishing Tort, QD from Delict Distinguishing Tort, QD from Delict

Ocean Builders v. Spouses Antonio

Actions filed under Article 2176 considered as a tort case Added another element - no preexisting contractual relation between the parties These are the elements of QD

Employee contracted To successfully prosecute an action anchored Lumped two elements in #3 chicken pox and died on torts, three ELEMENTS must be present: These elements are usually for medical negligence 1) duty cases 2) breach 3) injury and proximate causation No statutory support to sue based on Torts

Barredo v. Garcia

See Crime vs QD tab

Article 2176 only and correctly applies to QD; pwede may tort sa Article 2176 first sentece but the problem is the elements See Crime vs QD tab

Elcano v. Hill

See Crime vs QD tab

See Crime vs QD tab

Andamo v. IAC

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Distinguishing Tort, QD from Delict

L.G. Foods v. Philadelfa Driver committed suicide after hitting a 7-year old child; parents of victim sued LG Foods (employer)

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender: 1) civil liability ex delicto 2) independent civil liabilities: (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as felony (e.g. culpa contractual or obligations arising from law; intentional torts; culpa aquiliana) (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action Victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delict under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC

Cangco v. Manila Railroad

Clerk of Manila Railroad Company; slipped from the train, feet hit a sack of watermelon; arm was amputated

See QD vs BoC tab

Negligence of employees should not be employer's defense because even if it is proven that employees are negligent, that will not absolve The field of non-contractual obligation is broader than that of contractual obligations, it employer. Once negligence of employees is proven, the presumption that employer is negligent comprising the whole extent of juridical human relations. Two fields are concentric - immediately attaches. Employer should prove that it exercised due diligence in the selection and the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from supervision of its employees. extra-contractual liability to such person. It is possible to have BoC and Culpa Aquiliana at When such a contractual relation exists the the same time. obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties. Duty of defendant, being contractual, was direct and immediate, and its nonperformance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant's servants

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC

FGU Insurance v. Sarmiento

Delivery of refrigerators

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

CULPA CONTRACTUAL: mere proof of the Due diligence different from due diligence in the existence of the contract and the failure of selection and supervision of employees its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. Remedy serves to preserve the interests of the promisee: 1) expectation interest - interest in having the benefit of his bargain by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed 2) reliance interest - interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract not been made 3) restitution interest - interest in having restored to him any benefit that he has conferred on the other party DEFENSE: 1) proof of his exercise of due diligence (diligence of a good father of a family or by stipulation or by law, that of extraordinary diligence) 2) attendance of fortuitous event, to excuse him from his ensuing liability

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC

Batal v. San Pedro

Survey of land; See QD vs BoC tab spouses Batal contracted to determine boundaries of lot; placed the wrong markings

Frank's negligence could be beyond contract. It could have been culpa aquiliana

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC

Calalas v. CA

Extension seat

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party. In such a case, the obligation is created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties themselves who create the obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created. Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence.

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC

Fores v. Miranda

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC

Far East v. CA

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC

PSBA v. CA

Air France v. Carrascoso

Moral damages in breach of contract Filipino ousted from first class seat to accommodate white man Credit card became hot card; restaurant did not honor the credit card payment

See QD vs BoC tab The act that breaks the contract may be also a tort

TEST whether a QD can be deemed to underlie the BoC: Where, without a pre-existing contract between two parties, an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself, the fact that the parties are contractually bound is no bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the case

Culpa contractual easy in terms of proof, but difficult for moral damages to be awarded Does not contradict Article 2176 because this is a tort, not QD

Far East qualified Air France doctrine - QD should be independent of BoC

See QD vs BoC tab Student stabbed to death inside PSBA

Should the act which breaches a contract be done in bad faith and be violative of Article 21, then there is a cause to view the act as constituting a quasi-delict

SC tried to temper the Air France doctrine by limiting its applicability by these tests: 1) Was it done in bad faith which will limit it to NCC Art 21? 2) Can the negligence still subsist without the contract?

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC

Syquia v. CA

Vault containing the coffin had a hole at the bottom

RULE: There may be culpa aquiliana in a contractual obligation, but if there is a contract and negligence is proven, then it's culpa contractual. It would only be culpa aquiliana if there was no contract Rule of priority - kung may contract, sue based on contract muna

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC

Light Rail Transit v. Navidad

Drunk LRT passenger; fist fight with security guard; fell on the LRT tracks, killed by moving train

When an 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, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply. A common carrier is liable for death of or injury to passengers a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission

Distinguishing Tort, QD from BoC

Consolidated Bank v. CA

Passbook given to another person

See QD vs BoC tab The law on QD is generally applicable when there is no pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties Petitioner bound by the negligence of its employees under the principle of respondeat superior or command responsibility

TOPIC

CASE

Concept of Negligence

PNR v. Brunty

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE NEGLIGENCE: the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do; want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require Employed PICART Test 1

Concept of Negligence

PNR v. CA

Driver of car stopped then proceeded accordingly; defective "Stop, Look and Listen" sign

NEGLIGENCE: failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury No hard and fast rule whereby such degree of care and vigilance is calibrated; it is dependent upon the circumstances in which a person finds himself. All that the law requires is that it is perpetually compelling upon a person to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

Degrees of Diligence Amedo v. Rio

Degrees of Diligence Marinduque v. Workmen’s

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Seaman jumped into "Notorious negligence" has been held to be the water to retrieve 2- tantamount to "gross negligence" peso bill GROSS NEGLIGENCE: 1) want of even slight care and diligence 2) such entire want of care as to raise a presumption that the person in fault is conscious of the probable consequences of carelessness, and is indifferent, or worse, to the danger of injury to person or property of others; the negligence must amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of person or property

If the act is dangerous per se and he still did it, it's gross negligence

Hitched a ride in the company's hauling truck which hit a coconut tree

Notorious negligence = gross negligence GROSS NEGLIGENCE: implying 1) conscious indifference to consequences 2) pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally and probably result in injury 3) utter disregard of consequences Violation of a rule promulgated by a commission or board is not negligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence

What determines if an act is negligent is the danger of an act - the nature of the act of jumping into the sea involves danger

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Degrees of Diligence Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo

Doctor did not arrive on time to perform operation; just got back from honeymoon in Hawaii

GROSS NEGLIGENCE: implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. It is characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected

Same with Amedo: whether the act in question is dangerous per se (here, operation was only to determine infertility, not to cure a life-threatening disease)

Standard of Conduct - Picart v. Smith In General

Horse on the wrong side of the bridge

STANDARD supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law

Paterfamilias - one of many standards

TOPIC

CASE

Conduct of a prudent man determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case TESTS: 1) Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? 2) Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences

Standard of Conduct - Sicam v. Jorge In General

Pawnshop robbed

The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed and the importance of the act which he is to perform

TOPIC

CASE

Standard of Conduct - Corinthian Gardens v. In General Spouses Tanjangco

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Subdivsion lot owners built house on a lot owned by another Collision of taxi and bicycle

Same standard as in Picart v. Smith = discreet paterfamilias

Standard of Conduct - Taylor v. Manila Children Railroad

Child lost his eye due to explosion of fulminating caps found in the premises of Manila Railroad

The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only, and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of the case

Standard of Conduct - Jarco Marketing v. CA Children

Gift-wrapping counter Conclusive presumption that favors children fell on a 6-year old below nine years old in that they are child incapable of contributory negligence

Standard of Conduct - Ylarde v. Aquino Children

Child was pinned by a boulder

Standard of Conduct - Culion v. Philippine Experts in General Motors

Back fire occurred in When a person holds himself out as being the cylinder chamber competent to do things requiring professional skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempts to do

Standard of Conduct - Heirs of Completo v. Special Circumstance Albayda

Standard of Conduct - Pacis v. Morales Special Circumstance

The bicycle occupies a legal position that is at least equal to that of other vehicles lawfully on the highway, and it is fortified by the fact that usually more will be required of a motorist than a bicyclist in discharging his duty of care to the other because of the physical advantages the automobile has over the bicycle Accidental discharge A higher degree of care is required of of a defective firearm someone who has in his possession or inside a gun store under his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons or substances

The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

Standard of Conduct - US v. Pineda Pharmacists

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Pineda sold barium chlorate (poisonous) instead of potassium chlorate which killed two horses

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

The profession of pharmacy is one demanding care and skill. The responsibility of the druggist to use care has been variously qualified as "ordinary care," "care of a special high degree," "the highest degree of care known to practical men." The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved, and the skill employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of the business which the law demands Mistake is negligence and care is no defense

Standard of Conduct - Mercury Drug v. De Pharmacists Leon

Mercury Drug gave ear drops instead of eye drops

Druggists must exercise the highest practicable degree of prudence and vigilance, and the most exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of the business, so that human life may not constantly be exposed to the danger flowing from the substitution of deadly poisons for harmless medicines

Standard of Conduct - Cruz v. CA Medical Professionals

Clinic untidy, no antibiotics, no blood supply, no oxygen supply

Whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his patient is to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science. For whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is, in the generality of cases, a matter of expert opinion.

Needs expert testimony to establish the standard of care exercised by doctors in good standing, to determine if medical procedure perfromed according to the standard, to determine if the breach of duty is the proximate causation of the injury

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Standard of Conduct - Professional Services v. Left 2 sponges in the Medical Agana body of Agana; Professionals doctor did not inform her

To successfully pursue this kind of case, a No need for expert testimony because it is already obvious (RIL) patient must only prove that a health care provider either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient. The emerging trend is to hold the hospital responsible where the hospital has failed to monitor and review medical services being provided within its walls.

Standard of Conduct - Cayao-Lasam v. Medical Spouses Ramolete Professionals

Ectopic pregnancy; patient did not return for a follow up check up

Standard of Conduct - Lucas v. Dr. Tuano Medical Professionals

Eye problem; was given Maxitrol; no expert testimony

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances In treating his patient, a physician is under a duty to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence which physicians in the same general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice ordinarily possess and exercise in like cases. Stated otherwise, the physician has the duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent physician would use to treat the condition under similar circumstances.

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Layugan v. IAC

Repairing tire of cargo truck which was parked along the right side of the national highway; hit by another truck; RIL not applicable because there is direct evidence

The one who usually raises RIL is the party injured, not the defendant (in this case, it was defendant who raised the doctrine)

Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. RIL - rule of evidence peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence; not a rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience.

RIL - can only be invoked when direct evidence is absent and not readily available; cannot be availed of, or is overcome 1) where plaintiff has knowledge and testifies or presents evidence as to the specific act of negligence which is the cause of the injury complained of 2) where there is direct evidence as to the precise cause of the accident and all the facts and circumstances attendant on the occurrence clearly appear 3) once the actual cause of injury is established beyond controversy

Can defendant really raise RIL? IMPOSSIBLE Notes of KatM: Only allowed if the defendant is pursuing a counterclaim

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Ramos v. CA

Doctor late; wrong intubation by anaesthesiologist

What is involved here is pre-operation - no operation happened; the qualifications of the physician was not involved

RIL - the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation

Similar with Voss vs. Bridwell - this is how you draw the line: 1) delivered his person over to the care, custody and control of his physician Simply a recognition that, as a matter of 2) physician had complete and exclusive control common knowledge and experience, the very over him nature of certain types of occurrences may 3) operation was never performed 4) at the time of submission he was neurologically justify an inference of negligence on the sound and physically fit in mind and body part of the person who controls the 5) injury was one which does not ordinarily occur in instrumentality causing the injury in the the absence of negligence absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence; applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Malpractice suits: REQUISITES OF RIL: General Rule: Expert testimony needed 1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s Exception: Case can be gleaned from knowledge negligence; 2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and 3) The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated When RIL is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence When RIL is appropriate, all that the patient must do is prove a nexus between the particular act or omission complained of and the injury sustained while under the custody and management of the defendant without need to produce expert medical testimony to establish the standard of care Res Ipsa Loquitor

Tan v. JAM Transit

Jitney loaded with quail eggs and duck eggs; JAM Transit collided with jitney

Requisites - pls see above

RIL should not have been applied here; need only establish that the driver of JAM was negligent because he was violating traffic regulation Even if there is evidence, provided it is not clear and convincing to say that a person is negligent, RIL still applies

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Cantre v. Go

Gave birth; fresh Requisites - pls see above gaping wound on the arm; caused by burn from droplight

Why expert testimony was dispensed with? Because injury was not connected to the procedure, merely incidental Application for #3 requisite (could not have contributed to the injury because she was unconscious) - not a proper application; decisions you make prior to operation constitutes contribution

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Batiquin v. CA

Caesarian operation; Where the thing which causes injury is shown doctor left rubber to be under the management of the glove inside the body defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen in those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.

Why is there no expert testimony when this pertains to a medical operation? Leaving a foreign thing inside the human body speaks for itself that doctor in charge is negligent. RIL applies

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Professional Services v. See above Agana

REQUISITES for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: 1) the occurrence of an injury 2) the thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant 3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care 4) the absence of explanation by the defendant Of the foregoing requisites, the most instrumental is the “control and management of the thing which caused the injury"

Control also pertains to constructive control

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Res Ipsa Loquitor

DM Consunji v. CA

Construction worker fell 14 floors

The inference which the doctrine permits is grounded upon the fact that the chief evidence of the true cause, whether culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to the injured person. Some courts add to the three prerequisites for the application of the RIL doctrine the further requirement that for the doctrine to apply, it must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or that the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the accident. Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of all the elements, the burden then shifts to defendant to explain. The presumption or inference may be rebutted or overcome by other evidence and, under appropriate circumstances a disputable presumption, such as that of due care or innocence, may outweigh the inference. It is not for the defendant to explain or prove its defense to prevent the presumption or inference from arising. Evidence by the defendant of say, due care, comes into play only after the circumstances for the application of the doctrine has been established.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Res Ipsa Loquitor

College Assurance v. Belfranlt

Fire due to coffee perculator

Merong testimony/evidence - why is RIL applied? The evidence pertains to the source of the fire, not proof of negligence. As long as there's no direct evidence as to the negligence of the defendant, RIL still applies

Requisites - pls see above

If direct evidence of negligence is present, RIL will not apply Defenses against Bernardo v. Legaspi charge of negligence plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause

Defenses against PLDT v. CA charge of negligence plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause

Where the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his own carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence, that is, to the accident, as one of the determining causes thereof, he cannot recover. This is equally true of the defendant; and as both of them, by their negligent acts, contributed to the determining cause of the accident, neither can recover.ch Plaintiffs' jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench; they pass the area/road frequently; accident caused by the abrupt swerving of the jeep from the inside lane

Where the plaintiff's negligence was not merely contributory but goes to the very cause of the accident, he has no right to recover damages for the injuries he suffered

TOPIC

CASE

Defenses against Manila Electric v. charge of negligence - Remoquillo plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Repair of the media agua

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

A prior and remote cause cannot be made the Remote cause - would have been the proximate basis of an action if such remote cause did cause if not for the intervening cause nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was 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 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 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.

TOPIC

CASE

Defenses against NPC v. Heirs of charge of negligence - Casionan contributory negligence of plaintiff

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Pocket miner carrying Contributory negligence is conduct on the Definition of CN problematic because it makes CN bamboo electrocuted part of the injured party, contributing as a proximate cause legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection. There is contributory negligence when the party’s act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which, concurring with the defendant’s negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury. On warning signs (Ma-ao Sugar Central ): To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings or signs on an impending danger to health and body.

Defenses against Genobiagon v. CA charge of negligence contributory negligence of plaintiff

Defenses against M.H. Rakes v. The charge of negligence - Atlantic contributory negligence of plaintiff

Rig overtaking another rig hit an old woman; defense was old woman's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident

The defense of contributory negligence does What about proximate cause? Can it be a defense? not apply in criminal cases committed through YES, citing Cruz v. CA reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence

Where he contributes to the principal Proximate cause - negligence which caused the occurrence, as one of its determining factors, accident he can not recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to his CN - negligence which aggravates the injury own injury, he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Defenses against Lambert v. Heirs of Ray charge of negligence - Castillon contributory negligence of plaintiff

Riding a motorcycle; speeding, tailgating Tamaraw; imbibed one or two bottles of beer

The underlying precept on contributory The court held 50-50. It would make CN equal to negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly proximate cause responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. The determination of the mitigation of the defendant’s liability varies depending on the circumstances of each case.

Defenses against PNR v. Brunty charge of negligence contributory negligence of plaintiff

See above

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part Doctrine is contradictory of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls Hindi si Rhonda ang may CN below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health and body. To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link, although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury, and not simply a condition for its occurrence. The only effect such contributory negligence could have is to mitigate liability

TOPIC

CASE

Defenses against Juntilla v. Fontanar charge of negligence fortuitous event

Defenses against Southeastern College charge of negligence fortuitous event

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Tire of jeep blew up Essential characteristics of caso fortuito: causing the vehicle to 1) The cause of the unforeseen and fall on its side unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will 2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid 3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner 4) The obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor

Necesito, et al. v. Paras, et al.: A passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury...whenever it appears that the defect would have been discovered by the carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances was incumbent upon it, with regard to inspection and application of the necessary tests

Due to a storm, roof of school was ripped off and blown away, destroying the roof of Dimaanos

Not necessary previous negligence, could be simultaneous negligence

FE may be produced by two general causes: (1) by nature, such as earthquakes, storms, floods, epidemics, fires, or (2) by the act of man, such as an armed invasion, attack by bandits, governmental prohibitions, robbery In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability, it is necessary that he be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been occasioned. An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse consequences...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.

All the requisites must concur before defense of FE is available

Not necessary gross negligence

TOPIC

CASE

Defenses against Sicam v. Jorge charge of negligence fortuitous event

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

See above

The very measures which petitioners had allegedly adopted show that to them the possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable, but actually foreseen and anticipated. Petitioner Sicam’s testimony contradicts petitioners’ defense of fortuitous event.

Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same.

SIR: Act of taking measures should not bar the defense of FE - only makes the defense available to the negligent which in effect makes it impossible to raise as a defense Robbery is a FE but the defense of FE may or may not be available

Defenses against Afialda v. Hisole charge of negligence plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria

Defenses against Ilocos Norte v. CA charge of negligence plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria

Defenses against Calalas v. CA charge of negligence plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria

Caretaker of It was the caretaker's business to try to carabaos gored by prevent the animal from causing injury or one of them and died damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences. Old woman A person is excused from the force of the electrocuted while rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a she was going to her known danger he must abide by the store to check her consequences: merchandise 1) if an emergency is found to exist 2) if the life or property of another is in peril 3) when he seeks to rescue his endangered property See above Hard to give serious thought to contention that taking an "extension seat" amounted to an implied assumption of risk. It is akin to arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely because those passengers assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry.

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA - applies to noncontractual relations REQUISITES: 1) plaintiff had actual knowledge of the damage 2) he understood and appreciated the risk from danger 3) he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Defenses against Nikko Hotel v. Roberto charge of negligence - Reyes plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria

Gatecrasher during the birthday party of the manager of Nikko Hotel

Defenses against Pantaleon v. American charge of negligence - Express plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria

European tour; credit Same with Nikko Hotel but in this case, the card company took doctrine is applicable long to approve transaction; other tourists got irritated

Defenses against Kramer v. CA charge of negligence prescription

Collision of two sea vessels

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury") refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so. As formulated by petitioners, however, this doctrine does not find application to the case at bar because even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party, petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code, were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame. Why different from Nikko Hotel? Pantaleon's cause of action is BoC, not Articles 19-21

Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, an If multiple collision or oil spill where there are many action based upon a quasi-delict must be ships - it is reasonable to wait for the BMI's findings instituted within four years. The prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed. Prescriptive period must be counted from the time of the commission of an act or omission violative of the right of the plaintiff, which is the time when the cause of action arises.

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Proximate Cause

Bataclan v. Medina

Bus turned turtle; gasoline leaked; caught fire; passengers who were stuck inside were charred to death

Regardless of proximate cause, carrier is still liable. Proximate cause does not matter is BoC

Proximate Cause

Mercury Drug v. Baking Given a potent sleeping tablet

Proximate Cause

Pilipinas Bank v. CA

Wrong account number; deposit posted in another account

PROXIMATE CAUSE: that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred

Why did Court discuss proximate cause? Because under BoC, defendant would only be liable for physical injuries. They had to discuss proximate PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE: that acting first cause to make carrier liable for the death of the and producing the injury, either immediately victims - to increase damages or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event 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 first event should, as an ordinary 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 result therefrom Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy, and precedent. Foreseeability should not be a factor PROXIMATE CAUSE: any cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces If there's a case similar to Pilipinas Bank, apply Pilipinas Bank definition 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.

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Concurrent Cause

Far Eastern v. CA

Berthing of vessel

If the concurrent act was the proximate cause, the degree of participation does not matter

Where several causes combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the person charged with injury is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have resulted to as great an extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured. It is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the injury would not have resulted from his negligence alone, without the negligence or wrongful acts of the other concurrent tortfeasor. Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against any 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.

What is the rule on liability? Liability is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury

Remote Cause

Gabeto v. Araneta

Horse nakawala

No actor's 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. An appreciable interval of time elapsed before It was broken by an efficient intervening cause the horse started on his career up the street. It is therefore evident that the stopping of the Prove chronology of events to determine proximate rig by Agaton Araneta in the middle of the cause street was too remote from the accident that presently ensued to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof.

Remote Cause

Manila Electric v. Remoquillo

See above

See above

See above

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Intervening Cause

Phoenix Construction v. Came home from a IAC cocktail party; no headlights probably because driver has no pass; truck parked askew

If the intervening cause is one which in When does it become an efficient intervening ordinary human experience is reasonably to cause? Should not be foreseeable be anticipated or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances, the defendant may be negligence among other reasons, because of failure to guard against it; or the defendant may be negligent only for that reason. The defendant cannot be relieved from liability by the fact that the risk or a substantial and important part of the risk, to which the defendant has subjected the plaintiff has indeed come to pass. Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope original risk, and hence of the defendant's negligence.

Tests to Determine Proximate Cause

Dy Teban v. Jose Ching Prime mover parked askew

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

There is no exact mathematical formula to determine proximate cause. It is based upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent. Plaintiff must, however, establish a sufficient link between the act or omission and the damage or injury. That link must not be remote or farfetched; otherwise, no liability will attach. The damage or injury must be a natural and probable result of the act or omission.

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Tests to Determine Proximate Cause

Phoenix Construction v. See above IAC

The distinctions between "cause" and "condition" have already been "almost entirely discredited." It is quite impossible to distinguish between active forces and passive situations, particularly since, as is invariably the case, the latter are the result of other active forces which have gone before. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the "condition" remains static will not necessarily affect liability. It is not the distinction between "cause" and "condition" which is important but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause.

Last Clear Chance

Picart v. Smith

See above

The person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Last Clear Chance

Bustamante v. CA

Collision between truck and bus; heirs of passengers sued owners of colliding vehicles

This is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles

The principle of LCC applies in a suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence. 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 as between defendants concurrently negligent. As against third persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had negligently failed to take action which could have avoided the injury.

Last Clear Chance

Phoenix Construction v. See above IAC

Under Article 2179, the task of a court, in technical terms, is to determine whose negligence was the legal or proximate cause of the injury. That task is not simply or even primarily an exercise in chronology or physics, as the petitioners seem to imply by the use of terms like "last" or "intervening" or "immediate." The relative location in the continuum of time of the plaintiff's and the defendant's negligent acts or omissions, is only one of the relevant factors that may be taken into account. Of more fundamental importance are the nature of the negligent act or omission of each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such act or omission for the rest of the community.

Common law - LCC tempers contributory negligence of plaintiff such that he can recover provided defendant has the last clear chance to avoid the accident (sa US kasi, kapag may CN plaintiff cannot recover) LCC not applicable in our jurisdiction because of Article 2179 - reason for the rule does not exist in our jurisdiction LCC - sort of back up to determine proximate cause; if you cannot BUT-FOR to determine PC, use LCC Issue of control is secondary, first is nature of negligent act. If nature of negligent act is relatively the same, person who is last in control may be applied

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Last Clear Chance

Phil Bank of Commerce Secretary entrusted v. CA with funds deposits money in the bank account of husband; accomplished two deposit slips, altered the second one

LCC states that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Commercial transactions are repetitive - difficult to determine what's the first negligent act Problematic: 1) there was already a breach of contract 2) Court already determined proximate cause 3) they still applied CN after applying LCC

The rule would also mean that an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the supervening negligence of, or 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.

Last Clear Chance

Glan v. IAC

Collision between jeep and truck

The doctrine of the last clear chance provides Doctrine here counteracts Phoenix - LCC as valid and complete a defense to accident applicable in our jurisdiction liability today as it did when invoked and applied in the 1918 case of Picart vs. Smith.

Last Clear Chance

Pantrangco v. Baesa

Two families on their way to celebrate wedding anniversary of the other couple

For LCC to be applicable, it is necessary to Vda de Bonifacio - motorist in proper lane entitled show that the person who allegedly had the to assume that approaching vehicle coming from last opportunity to avert the accident was wrong side will return to proper lane aware of the existence of the peril or should, with the exercise of due care, have been aware of it

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Last Clear Chance

Canlas v. CA

Mortgage executed by impostor

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

LCC - 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 impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. The rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.

Last Clear Chance

Consolidated Bank v. CA

See above

In culpa contractual, neither the contributory LCC does not apply in BoC negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant from liability. Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract.

Last Clear Chance

Engada v. CA

Emergency rule

EMERGENCY RULE - a person who is confronted with a sudden emergency might have no time for thought, and he must make a prompt decision based largely upon impulse or instinct. Thus, he cannot be held to the same standard of conduct as one who had an opportunity to reflect, even though it later appears that he made the wrong decision.

Last Clear Chance

PNR v. Brunty

See above

The proximate cause of the injury having been established to be the negligence of petitioner, we hold that the above doctrine finds no application in the instant case.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Last Clear Chance

Lapanday v. Angala

Persons Vicariously Liable - Persons Exercising Parental Authority

Libi v. IAC

Why was LCC applied here when the Court ruled that both were equally negligent? Shouldn't there have been concurrent negligence? Sweethearts killed; ex- Parents are and should be held primarily Family Code amended Article 2180 such that boyfriend killed exliable for the civil liability arising from criminal parents are equally liable, not alternative girlfriend and also offenses committed by their minor children killed himself using under their legal authority or control, or who gun of the father live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages. Under Article 2180, the enforcement of such liability shall be effected against the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother. This was amplified by the 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 relative or family friend of the youthful offender. However, under the Family Code, this civil liability is now, without such alternative qualification, the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender.

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Persons Vicariously Liable - Persons Exercising Parental Authority

Tamargo v. CA

Parental authority contested if it lies with adoptive or natural parents

The civil liability imposed upon parents for the Law presumes minor living with parent is under the torts of their minor children living with them, control of parent may be seen to be based upon the parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious acts, the parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty to closely supervise the child who is in their custody and control. Parental liability is, in other words, anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. The parental dereliction is, of course, only presumed and the presumption can be overtuned under Article 2180 of the Civil Code by proof that the parents had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. Article 221 of the FC has similarly insisted upon the requisite that the child, doer of the tortious act, shall have been in the actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable for the ensuing damage.

Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School

Palisoc v. Brillantes

Contention was students were not living and boarding with teacher or school official (based on Mercado ruling)

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

"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 long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School

Amadora v. CA

About to graduate; Teachers in general shall be liable for the Issue should be custody over the person causing shot by fellow student acts of their students except where the school the injury, not over the person injured is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. "in the custody" - as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended.

Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School

Salvosa v. IAC

Student and at the same time armorer

A student not "at attendance in the school" cannot be in "recess" thereat RECESS - contemplates a situation of temporary adjournment of school activities where the student still remains within call of his mentor and is not permitted to leave the school premises, or the area within which the school activity is conducted The mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a school without more does not constitute "attending school" or being in the "protective and supervisory custody" of the school.

Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School

St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos

Enrolment campaign There must be a finding that the act or drive omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence must have a causal connection to the accident

Applying Article 218, QD because it requires proximate cause To determine when liability arises: 1) Look at person who caused the injury 2) Is he within custody? 3) Was he negligent? 4) Was negligence proximate cause of the injury?

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Persons Vicariously Lampesa v. De Vera Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

Left middle finger cut Once negligence on the part of the employee Proximate cause should go into the the negligence off is established, a presumption instantly arises of the actor, not of the employer that the employer was negligent in the selection and/or supervision of said employee. To rebut this presumption, the employer must present adequate and convincing proof that he exercised care and diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees.

Persons Vicariously Spouses Jayme v. Liable Apostol Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

Mayor on board vehicle on their way to airport; driver employee of the municipality; vehicle owned by another person

Doctrine of vicarious liability is not applicable in cases wherein there is no employeremployee relationship REQUISITES to sustain claims against employers for the acts of their employees: 1) That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another 2) That the service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times 3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him To make the employer liable under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180, it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was performing his functions

Four-fold Test to determine the existence of an employment relationship: 1) the employer’s power of selection 2) payment of wages or other remuneration 3) the employer’s right to control the method of doing the work 4) the employer’s right of suspension or dismissal

TOPIC

CASE

Persons Vicariously Castilex v. Vasquez Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Fuente Osmena Rotunda in Cebu

Filamer doctrine Operation of Employer’s Motor Vehicle in Going to or from Meals NOT ordinarily acting within the scope of his employment in the absence of evidence of some special business benefit to the employer (Example: by using the employer’s vehicle to go to and from meals, an employee is enabled to reduce his time-off and so devote more time to the performance of his duties) Operation of Employer’s Vehicle in Going to or from Work In the absence of some special benefit to the employer other than the mere performance of the services available at the place where he is needed, the employee is not acting within the scope of his employment. When employer liable: 1) As when the employer benefits from having the employee at work earlier and, presumably, spending more time at his actual duties 2) Where the employee’s duties require him to circulate in a general area with no fixed place or hours of work, or to go to and from his home to various outside places of work, and his employer furnishes him with a vehicle to use in his work (“special errand” or “roving commission” rule) under which it can be found that the employee continues in the service of his employer until he actually reaches home

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

However, even if the employee be deemed to be acting within the scope of his employment in going to or from work in his employer’s vehicle, the employer is not liable for his negligence where at the time of the accident, the employee has left the direct route to his work or back home and is pursuing a personal errand of his own. Use of Employer’s Vehicle Outside Regular Working Hours Generally not liable for the employee’s negligent operation of the vehicle during the period of permissive use, even where the employer contemplates that a regularly assigned motor vehicle will be used by the employee for personal as well as business purposes and there is some incidental benefit to the employer "within the scope of their assigned tasks" for purposes of raising the presumption of liability of an employer, includes any act done by an employee, in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage

Persons Vicariously Filamer v. IAC Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

Persons Vicariously NPC v. CA Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

Labor only

Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the To give laborers relief in cases of labor disputes Labor Code will determine the liability of a kaya sila considered as employees principal contractor 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" contractor is equivalent to a finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the owner (principal contractor) and the "labor-only" contractor, including the latter's workers.

TOPIC

CASE

Persons Vicariously Valenzuela v. CA Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Flat tire

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Company-issued car serves important business purpose: 1) Related to the image of success an entity intends to present to its clients and to the public in general 2) For practical and utilitarian reasons - to enable its managerial and other employees of rank or its sales agents to reach clients conveniently Since important business transactions and decisions may occur at all hours in all sorts of situations and under all kinds of guises, the provision for the unlimited use of a company car therefore principally serves the business and goodwill of a company and only incidentally the private purposes of the individual who actually uses the car, the managerial employee or company sales agent. As such, in providing for a company car for business use and/or for the purpose of furthering the company’s image, a company owes a responsibility to the public to see to it that the managerial or other employees to whom it entrusts virtually unlimited use of a company issued car are able to use the company issue capably and responsibly.

Persons Vicariously Professional Services v. See above Liable Agana Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

Refer to KatM's notes

Ramos ruling - there is ER-EE relationship between Medical City and Dr. Ampil

Persons Vicariously Professional Services v. See above Liable Agana Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

Refer to KatM's notes

Ramos doctrine stays

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Persons Vicariously Professional Services v. See above Liable Agana Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

Refer to KatM's notes

Persons Vicariously Mercury Drug v. Huang Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers

The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned on a prior recourse against the negligent employee, or a prior showing of insolvency of such employee. It is also joint and solidary with the employee.

Collision between truck owned by Mercury Drug and Toyota Corolla dirven by Huang; Huang paralyzed

To be relieved of liability, the employer should show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, both in the selection of the employee and in the supervision of the performance of his duties. Thus, in the selection of its prospective employees, the employer is required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records. With respect to the supervision of its employees, the employer should formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for their breach. To establish compliance with these requirements, employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S No EE-ER relationship between Medical City and Dr. Ampil - doctors are merely consultants without any ER-EE relationship

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Persons Vicariously Liable - State

Meritt v. Government

Collision between motorcycle and PGH ambulance; Government passed an Act authorizing Meritt to sue the Government

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

The responsibility of the state is limited to that Special agent which it contracts through a special agent, 1) pubic official performing other task duly empowered by a definite order or 2) private individual perfroming governmental task commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim, and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official charged with some administrative or technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. SPECIAL AGENT - 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

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Persons Vicariously Liable - State

Rosete v. Auditor General

Emergency Control Administration stored gasoline in a warehouse, violating an ordinance; caught fire

The Civil Code distinguishes the special agent from the official with specific duty or duties to perform. Under the meaning of the paragraph, the word official comprises all officials and employees of the government who exercise duties of their respective public offices. All others who are acting by commission of the government belong to the class of special agents, whether individual or juridical bodies. In qualifying the special agent with the adjective "special", the Civil Code aimed at distinguishing it from the regular or ordinary agent of government, which refers to all officers and employees in the public service. There cannot be any dispute that all persons in the active service of the government, regardless of department or branch, are agents of the State or of the people. All of them are properly designated as servants of the people. Servants are agents. The Civil Code uses the adjective "special", because its authors could not miss the fact that the official is also an agent.

Persons Vicariously Liable - State

Mendoza v. De Leon

Council members revoked a lease for an exclusive ferry privilege awarded to Mendoza and gave it to someone else

It is the well-settled rule that the state is not liable to private persons who suffer injuries through the negligence of its officers — and the rule extends to township and cities — while in the performance of state functions, imposed upon them by law. In so far as its governmental functions are concerned, a municipality is not liable at all, unless expressly made so by statute; nor are its officers, so long as they perform their duties honestly and in good faith.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE A municipality is not exempt from liability for the 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 concerned. Its contracts, validly entered into, may be enforced and damages may be collected from it for the torts of its officers or agents within the scope of their employment in precisely the same manner and to the same extent as those of private corporations or individuals. As to such matters the principles of respondeat superior applies. It is for these purposes that the municipality is made liable to suits in the courts.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Persons Vicariously Liable - State

Fontanilla v. Maliaman

Pickup owned by NIA The liability of the State has two aspects: bumped a bicycle 1) Its public or governmental aspects where it ridden by Fontanilla is liable for the tortious acts of special agents only 2) Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer Under Art. 2180(6), the State has voluntarily assumed liability for acts done through special agents. The State's agent, if a public official, must not only be specially commissioned to do a particular task but that such task must be foreign to said official's usual governmental functions. If the State's agent is not a public official, and is commissioned to perform non-governmental functions, then the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for its agent's tort. Where the government commissions a private individual for a special governmental task, it is acting through a special agent within the meaning of the provision.

Persons Vicariously Liable - State

Fontanilla v. Maliaman

Motion for Recon

NIA is a government agency with a juridical personality separate 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 caused by the negligent act of its driver who was not its special agent.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Persons Specifically Liable - Possessors of Animals

Vestil v. IAC

Little girl bitten by dog

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. According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Persons Specifically Liable - Owner of Motor Vehicles

Chapman v. Underwood Single-track street car line

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

An owner who sits in his automobile, or other Diligence required - subjective, depends on his vehicle, and permits his driver to continue in a circumstance violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had a reasonable Nearly impossible; gamitin na lang ang Article 2180 opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent the acts or its continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the automobile, although 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 a time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's act his own.

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Persons Specifically Liable - Owner of Motor Vehicles

Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai

One car on the way to the airport, the other one to Wack Wack to play golf

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

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. The law does not require that a person must possess a certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the mechanics of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before he may own a motor vehicle. The test of his intelligence, within the meaning of Article 2184, is his omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident. The basis of the master's liability in civil law is not respondent superior but rather the relationship of paterfamilias. The theory is that ultimately the negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage.

Persons Specifically Liable - Provincies, Cities, Municipalities

Guilatco v. Dagupan

It is not even necessary for the defective road Article 2189 not QD or street to belong to the province, city or municipality for liability to attach. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street.

Persons Specifically Liable - Provincies, Cities, Municipalities

Quezon City v. Decara

Rammed into pile of earth/diggings

Persons Specifically Liable - Head of a Family for things thrown/falling

Dingcong v. Kanaan

Water dripping from a hotel room

QC negligent for not putting any warning or barricade - proximate cause of injury

SC required negligence, transformed/characterized Article 2189 as QD because of proximate cause and basis of moral damages Strict liability, not QD. Do not apply but-for, intervening cause

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Persons Specifically Liable - Owners of Enterprise/Other Employers

Afable v. Singer Sewing Riding a bicycle from "arising out of" refer to the origin or cause Machine making collections of the accident, and are descriptive of its character "in the course of" refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident takes place By the use of these words it was not the intention of the legislature to make the employer an insurer against all accidental injuries which might happen to an employee while in the course of the employment, but only for such injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar to the nature of the work in the scope of the workman's employment of 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 employment. Risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally exposed and not traceable in some special degree to the particular employment are excluded. To come within the term "injury received in the course of employment " it must be shown that the injury originated in the work, and, further, that it was received the employee while engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs of the employer. If it be conceded that the injury originated in the work, it would still be necessary, in our opinion, to show that the employee was engaged in the furtherance of his employer's business.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Persons Specifically Liable - Owners of Enterprise/Other Employers

Alarcon v. Alarcon

Dig a well

Independent Civil MHP Garments v. CA Actions - Violation of Civil and Political Rights

Under the principle of ejusdem generis, said "other employers" must be construed to refer to persons who belong to a class analogous to "owners of enterprises", such as those operating a business or engaged in a particular industry or trade, requiring its managers to contract the services of laborers, workers and/or employees. 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 the main purpose of Article 32 which is the effective protection of individual rights. Public officials in the past have abused their powers on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of their duties. Precisely, the object of the Article is to put an end to official abuse by plea of the good faith. The law speaks of an officer or employee or person "directly or indirectly" responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. Thus, it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages under Article 32; the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Independent Civil Silahis v. Soluta Actions - Violation of Civil and Political Rights

The Code Commission thus deemed it necessary to hold not only public officers but also private individuals civilly liable for violation of rights enumerated in Article 32 of the Civil Code. That is why it is not even necessary that the defendant under this Article should have acted with malice or bad faith, otherwise, it would defeat its main purpose, which is the effective protection of individual rights. It suffices that there is a violation of the constitutional right of the plaintiff.

Independent Civil Vinzons-Chato v. Actions - Violation of Fortune Civil and Political Rights

The complaint in the instant case was brought under Article 32 of the Civil Code. Considering that bad faith and malice are not necessary in an action based on Article 32 of the Civil Code, the failure to specifically allege the same will not amount to failure to state a cause of action.

Independent Civil Vinzons-Chato v. Actions - Violation of Fortune Civil and Political Rights

An individual can hold a public officer personally liable for damages on account of an act or omission that violates a constitutional right only if it results in a particular wrong or injury to the former

Independent Civil Joaquin v. Aniceto Actions - Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries

While a separate and independent civil action for damages may be brought against the employee under Article 33 of the Civil Code, no such action may be filed against the employer on the latter's subsidiary civil liability because such liability is governed not by the Civil Code but by the Penal Code, under which conviction of the employee is a condition sine qua non for the employer's subsidiary liability.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

Independent Civil Madeja v. Caro Actions - Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Death because of appendectomy

The civil action for damages which it allows to be instituted is ex-delicto. This is manifest from the provision which uses the expressions "criminal action" and "criminal prosecution. The term "physical injuries" is used in a generic sense. It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. It includes not only physical injuries but consummated, frustrated and attempted homicide. The general rule is that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party reserves his right to institute it separately; and after a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted. The present articles creates an exception to this rule when the offense is defamation, fraud, or physical injuries, In these cases, a civil action may be filed independently of the criminal action, even if there has been no reservation made by the injured party; the law itself in this article makes such reservation.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Independent Civil Arafiles v. Phil Actions - Defamation, Journalists Fraud, Physical Injuries

News report about Article 33 contemplates a civil action for the Arafiles being a rapist recovery of damages that is entirely unrelated to the purely criminal aspect of the case. A civil action for libel under this article shall be instituted and prosecuted to final judgment and proved by preponderance of evidence separately from and entirely independent of the institution, pendency or result of the criminal action because it is governed by the provisions of the New Civil Code and not by the Revised Penal Code governing the criminal offense charged and the civil liability arising therefrom.

Independent Civil MVRS v. Islamic Actions - Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries Independent Civil Heirs of Simon v. Elvin Actions - Defamation, Chan Fraud, Physical Injuries

Muslims treat pigs as Defamation of a large group does not give sacred rise to a cause of action on the part of an individual unless it can be shown that he is the target of the defamatory matter BP 22 The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. An action based on a QD is governed by Article 33 not QD. Prescriptive period should have Article 1150 of CC; as to the question of when been governed by Article 1146, par 1 the prescriptive period of four years shall begin to run, that is, "from the day (the action) may be brought," which means from the day the quasi-delict occurred or was committed

Independent Civil Capuno v. Pepsi Cola Actions - Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries

The institution of a criminal action cannot have the effect of interrupting the institution of a civil action based on a quasi-delict. The term "physical injuries" in Article 33 includes bodily injuries causing death.

TOPIC

CASE

Independent Civil Corpus v. Paje Actions - Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries

Independent Civil Actions - Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries Independent Civil Actions - Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries Independent Civil Actions - Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Criminal negligence

The extinction of the criminal action by acquittal of the defendant on the ground that the criminal act charged against him did not exist, necessarily extinguished also the civil action for damages based upon the same act.

FOOTNOTE: Physical Injuries is to be understood in its ordinary meaning and does not include homicide or murder because where physical injuries result in homicide or murder, the reason for the law (namely, to give the injured party personally the initiative to demand damages by an Criminal negligence, that is, reckless independent civil action) ceases, for the reason that imprudence, is not one of the three crimes a dead person can no longer personally, through mentioned in Article 33 which authorizes the his lawyer institute an independent civil action for institution of an independent civil action, that damages. is, of an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, which shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall be proved only by a preponderance of evidence.

Bonite v. Zosa

Article 33 of the Civil Code assumes a defamation, fraud, or physical injuries intentionally committed.

Jervoso v. People

The term "physical injuries" in Art. 33 is used in a generic sense. It includes consummated, frustrated, or attempted homicide

Dulay v. CA

Lawyer and security guard

Velayo v. Shell

Transferred credit to Shell US

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Article 19 only contains a mere declaration of principles and while such statement may be essentially correct, such declaration is implemented by Article 21 Forgoing rule would vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights

Globe Mackay v. CA

"Crook" and "swindler"

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

When a right is exercised in a manner which Damnum absque injuria does not apply when there does not conform with the norms enshrined in is an abuse of right Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper. In determining whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked, there is no rigid test which can be applied - depends on the circumstances of each case.

The right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively, then the employer is liable for damages to the employee Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights

Albenson v. CA

Person sued for insufficient check was the wrong person; it was the father who was sued (namesake)

Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights

Amonoy v. Gutierrez

Right suspended by TRO

The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19: 1) There is a legal right or duty 2) Which is exercised in bad faith 3) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others.

Article 19 - act must be intentional Article 20 - either intentional or unintentional Article 21 - intentional

Damnum absque injuria does not apply when there is an abuse of right Strange because there is no right already

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights

UE v. Jader

Law student not able to take the bar because she got a 5 for which she was not informed on time

Absence of good faith must be sufficiently In determining applicability of Article 19: established for a successful prosecution by 1) Apply words of provision the aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of right 2) See if elements are present under Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith connotes an honest 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.

Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights

Barons Marketing

Collection for a sum of money

No abuse of right Test of Abuse of Right - There is undoubtedly an abuse of 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 another.

Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights

Diaz v. Davao Light

Theft of electricity

Good faith refers to the state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. Good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment to simple negligence, dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.

TOPIC

CASE

Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights Human Relation Torts - Illegal Acts

Pantaleon v. American Express

Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Velayo v. Shell

Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Albenson v. CA

Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Garcia v. Salvador

Wassmer v. Velez

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S No abuse of right

Wrong hepatitis test result

Groom to be went to Mindanao a day before the wedding

Article 20 provides the legal basis for the award of damages to a party who suffers damage whenever one commits an act in violation of some legal provision. This was incorporated by the Code Commission to provide relief to a person who suffers damage because another has violated some legal provision. Every good law draws its breath of life from morals, from those principles which are written with words of fire in the conscience of man. If this premises is admitted, then the proposed rule is a prudent earnest of justice in the face of the impossibility of enumerating, one by one, all wrongs which cause damages. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: 1) There is an act which is legal 2) But which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy 3) And it is done with intent to injure.

From Albenson : Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction. Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby.

There is a common element under Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act must be intentional. This is not a case of mere breach of promise Humiliation + Expenses - basis of damages to marry. Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the abovedescribed preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Tanjanco v. CA

Woman got pregnant To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement and the woman must yield because of the promise or other inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse is from mutual desire, there is no seduction. She must be induced to depart from the path of virtue by the use of some species of arts, persuasions and wiles, which are calculated to have and do have that effect, and which result in her ultimately submitting her person to the sexual embraces of her seducer.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

It is not seduction where the willingness arises out of sexual desire or curiosity of the female, and the defendant merely affords her the needed opportunity for the commission of the act. Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Baksh v. CA

BAKSH RULE: Where a man's promise to Article 21 does not require proximate cause marry is in fact the proximate cause of the because it is not QD acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Pe v. Pe

Man is married; daughter and man eloped

Pe took advantage of their family, tarnished their reputation

Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Que v. IAC

The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. 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.

Stop payment order One cannot be held liable in damages for because goods were maliciously instituting a prosecution where he defective acted with probable cause. Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which be was prosecuted To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution

Dismissal of the case does not automatically give rise to a cause of action for malicious prosecution Presence of probable cause signifies as a legal consequence absence of malice

No moral seduction

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Drilon v. CA

Coup d'etat

American Jurisdiction - One begun in malice without probable cause to believe the charges can be sustained. Instituted with intention of injuring defendant and without probable cause, and which terminates in favor of the person prosecuted. For this injury an action on the case lies, called the action of malicious prosecution Phil Jurisdiction - An action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. The gist of the action is the putting of legal process in force, regularly, for the mere purpose of vexation or injury

For a malicious prosecution suit to prosper, all three elements must concur: 1) the fact 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 3) that the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive The statutory basis for a civil action for damages for malicious prosecution are Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 2217 and 2219 (8)

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Magbanua v. Junsay

Household helper accomplice in the theft

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

MP - While generally associated with unfounded criminal actions, the term has been expanded to include unfounded civil suits instituted just to vex and humiliate the defendant despite the absence of a cause of action or probable cause. Gravamen - not the filing of a complaint based on the wrong provision of law, but the deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the charges were false and groundless Four elements: 1) the prosecution did occur, and the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement; 2) the criminal action finally ended with an acquittal 3) in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause 4) the prosecution was impelled by legal malice -- an improper or a sinister motive

Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Grand Union v. Espino

Accused of shoplifting

Mere filing of a suit does not render a person liable for malicious prosecution should he be unsuccessful, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. It is against morals, good customs and public Very easy to decide based on Article 19, why base policy to humiliate, embarrass and degrade it on Article 21? Why add Article 26? the dignity of a person. Everyone must respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons (Article 26, Civil Code). And one must act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith (Article 19, Civil Code).

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Carpio v. Valmonte

Wedding coordinator True, petitioner had the right to ascertain the accused of stealing identity of the malefactor, but to malign diamond jewelry respondent without an iota of proof that she was the one who actually stole the jewelry is an act which, by any standard or principle of law is impermissible. Petitioner had willfully caused injury to respondent in a manner which is contrary to morals and good customs.

Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Quisaba v. Sta Ines

Internal auditor constructively dismissed

If the dismissal was done anti-socially or oppressively, as the complaint alleges, then the respondents violated article 1701 of the Civil Code which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the other, and article 21, which makes a person liable for damages if he wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, the sanction for which, by way of moral damages, is provided in article 2219, no. 10.

Human Relation Torts - Violation of Human Dignity Human Relation Torts - Violation of Human Dignity

St Louis v. CA

Mix up of houses

Article 26 merely invoked

Human Relation Torts - Violation of Human Dignity

Spouses Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la

Gregorio v. CA

Article 26 grants a cause of action for damages, prevention, and other relief in cases of breach, though not necessarily constituting a criminal offense, of the following rights: 1) right to personal dignity 2) right to personal security 3) right to family relations 4) right to social intercourse 5) right to privacy 6) right to peace of mind Bad service for wedding reception

The Court recognizes that every person is entitled to respect of his dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind. Respondent’s lack of prudence is an affront to this right.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

Under which situation does it fall?

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE

Interference with Gilchrist v. Cuddy Contractual Relations

Lease of film

Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill and credit. He has no right to be free from malicious and wanton interference, disturbance or annoyance. If disturbance or loss come as a result of competition, or the exercise of like rights by others, it is damnum absque injuria, unless some superior right by contract or otherwise is interfered with.

Interference with So Ping Bun v. CA Contractual Relations

Warehouse

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 3) interference of the third person is without legal justification or excuse Justification exists where the actor's motive is to benefit himself Justification does not exist where his sole motive is to cause harm to the other Not necessary: 1) that the interferer's interest outweigh that of the party whose rights are invaded 2) that an individual acts under an economic interest that is substantial, not merely de minimis, such that wrongful and malicious motives are negatived, for he acts in selfprotection

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Justification for protecting one's financial position should not be made to depend on a comparison of his economic interest in the subject matter with that of others. It is sufficient if the impetus of his conduct lies in a proper business interest rather than in wrongful motives. Lack of malice precludes damages but does not relieve him of legal liability for entering into contracts and causing breach

Interference with Lagon v. CA Contractual Relations

Rental

“induce” refers to situations where a person causes another to choose one course of conduct by persuasion or intimidation

Interference with Go v. Cordero Contractual Relations

Sea vessel

While it is true that a third person cannot possibly be sued for breach of contract because only parties can breach contractual provisions, a contracting party may sue a third person not for breach but for inducing another to commit such breach.

Concept of Damages People v. Ballesteros

Damages may be defined as the pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation of some right.

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

TOPIC

CASE

Concept of Damages Custodio v. CA

IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a cause of action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong Injury - illegal invasion of a legal right Damage - loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury Damages - recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered

SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S

REFERENCE Barredo vs Garcia

CRIMES Affect the public interest

Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act

Elcano vs. Hill

L.G. Foods v. Philadelfa

QUASI-DELICTS Affect only that of private concern

Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage

Delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because Include all acts in which "any kind of fault or the former are punished only if there is a penal negligence intervenes" law clearly covering them Violation of the criminal law Of ancient origin, having always had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal negligence Plaintiff can hold the employer subsidiarily liable Plaintiff may hold the employer liable for the only upon proof of prior conviction of its negligent act of its employee, subject to the employee employer’s defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family

SIR CASIS' COMMENTS QD has public concern under Article 2180 which embodies state interest in teacher and students, parent and child, state agents Difference really is STANDING TO SUE - in QD, the only one with locus standi is the injured party QD has a punitive aspect in that there are punitive kinds of damages - exemplary and nominal

REFERENCE Baksh vs. CA

TORTS An Anglo-American or common law concept Much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but international criminal acts as well such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit

Prosser and Keeton

Commenced and maintained by injured person

QUASI-DELICTS A civil law concept Intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be governed by the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code Offense against the public at large; state will bring proceedings (criminal prosecution)

State can never sue in tort in its political or government capacity although it may do so as owner of property Primary purpose is to compensate for damage suffered at the expense of the wrongdoer

Purpose of proceeding is to protect an vindicate interests of the public as a whole Criminal prosecution is not concerned directly with compensation of injured individual against whom the crime is committed Victim's part - accuser and witness of state

REFERENCE Cangco v. Manila Railroad

FGU Insurance v. Sarmiento

QUASI-DELICTS Presumptive liability

BREACH OF CONTRACT Direct and immediate

Defendant employer's defense

Rebut presumption through proof of the exercise of due care in selection and supervision

Prove performance of contract or contributory negligence?

Vinculum juris (legal tie)

Created by the wrongful or negligent act/omission

Independent of the breach of duty assumed by the parties

What a plaintiff needs to prove

Defendant's fault or negligence

The contract and its nonperformance; negligence need not be proved

What a plaintiff needs to prove

Mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance 1) Proof of his exercise of due Due diligence different from due diligence (diligence of a good diligence in the selection and father of a family or by stipulation supervision of employees or by law, that of extraordinary diligence) 2) Attendance of fortuitous event, to excuse him from his ensuing liability Wrongful or negligent act or Fault or negligence incident in the omission which creates a performance of an obligation vinculum juris and gives rise to an which already existed, and which obligation between two persons increases the liability from such not formally bound by any other already existing obligation obligation Article 2176 of the Civil Code and Articles 1170-1174 of the Civil the immediately following Articles Code

Liability of defendant employer

Defense

Batal v. San Pedro

Definition

Governing law

SIR CASIS' COMMENTS Liability both direct and primary

Calalas v. CA

Fores v. Miranda

Source

Has as its source the negligence of the tortfeasor

What a plaintiff needs to prove

Negligence or fault should be clearly established because it is the basis of the action

Proximate cause Moral damages

Applicable Recoverable for QD causing physical injuries (Article 2219, par 2) Proof of due diligence in selection and supervision of employees

Defendant carrier's defense

What a plaintiff needs to prove Far East v. CA

Moral damages

Exemplary damages

Consolidated Bank v. CA

Premised upon the negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation Action can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the contract and the fact that the obligor failed to fulfill his obligation

Not applicable Recoverable only if passenger dies or if there is malice or bad faith Proof of due diligence in selection and supervision of employees not available Carrier's fault or negligence Injury to passenger; no need to prove that it was carrier's fault Recoverable for QD causing Recoverable only if passenger physical injuries (Article 2219, par dies or if there is malice or bad 2) faith If the defendant is shown to have If the defendant is found to have been so guilty of gross negligence acted in a wanton, fraudulent, as to approximate malice reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner

Proof required

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent

Once the plaintiff proves a breach of contract, there is a presumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent. The burden is on the defendant to prove that he was not at fault or negligent

Defense of exercising the required diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not a complete defense in culpa contractual, unlike in culpa aquiliana Contributory negligence and last clear chance

Complete defense

Not a complete defense

Merely serve to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract