POSSIBLE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT IN CASE OF QUASI DELICT

1) Proximate and immediate cause of injury is plaintiff total defense

---imputed negligence
2179- When the plaintiffs negligence is the proximate and immediate cause
of his injury he cannot recover damages; - - - But if his negligence is merely
contributory he may recover but the courts shall mitigate the damages which
he may recover
Example: (PEOPLE VS SAN GABRIEL) If the person who crossed the railroad is
negligent, which negligence is the proximate cause he cannot recover
(RAYNERA VS HICETA) When the vehicle of the plaintiff was the one who
crushed the rear of the other , both in motion, the plaintiff who bumped the
rear cannot recover
(KIM VS PHIL AERIAL TAXI CO) the injured partys own negligence in not
awaiting proper instruction and time in disembarking is proximate cause and
he cannot recover
GSIS VS PACIFIC AIRWAYS
F. - The Twin Otter aircraft carrier of PAC has landed and passengers
disembarked safely.
- In the process taxing it to the hanger Pilots Bungabog and Galvez has
made such
communications with the air transportation office
-However the last communication necessary was made prematurely, and
during the same time when the belated taxing was made the Boeing
aircraft of PAL was by virtue of timely communication in the process of
taking off
- a collision took place which resulted to injuries of pilots of PAC
I. Can the pilots and their company recover
H. 1) no. the negligence of employee is deemed negligence of employer
under 2180
2) Where the plaintiffs own negligence is the proximate cause of the injury he cannot
recover

Negligence + proximate cause

Negligence here consists of the failure to give communication so as not
to create dangerous traffic of aircrafts;
the failure of the plaintiff to respect the right of PAL .follow air
transportation rules that in case of a taxing and taking off the taxing
must give way to the other
(in case of taxing aircraft a) converging -the one in left shall give way b) approaching
head on- shall full stop or change course)

PLDT VS ESTEBAN
F. Spouses Esteban are in their jeepney the headlights of which in dim mode
traversing lacson street of manila. Mr esteban suddenly changed from inner
to outer lane, it was too late when he noticed the 3 feet high pile of soil with
said excavation for underground conduit system of PLDT, their jeep fell into
an open trench
- they suffered injuries with scars on face and lips
I. Whether he cannot recover

H. spouses cannot recover because their negligence was the proximate

cause of the loss taking into a count also absence of negligence on part of
PLDT.
- Mr esteban was negligenct because had he excercised ordinary diligence
of reasonable prudent man he could not have suffered,
the factors being the headlights and his knowledge of the existing excavation

2) Contributory negligence- partial defense

---imputed contributory negligence (negligence of teller under master
servant relationship that will mitigate damages can be recovered by the
bank, ee-er, agency?) taxi driver passenger no no
2179 that in case of contributory negligence by plaintiff he can still recover but
the court shall mitigate the damages to be recovered.
TEST TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
#whether injured partys act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that
could cause him harm or put his life in danger
TEST USED TO DETERMINE EXTENT OF LIABILITY
# COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE RULE is a scheme were the degree of
responsibility of opposing parties are determined by their degree of negligence
or culpability COURT IS FREE TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF MITIGATION IT IS
SAID THAT COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE RULE IS USED
RAKES VS ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC CO
F. Plaintiffs are employees of defendant company
- they were in a journey to transport rails from harbor to companys yard
- the crosspieces were however defective bur they still continued the trip
- in a bridge their truck was upset and the rails fell injuring plaintiffs
I. what is effect of negligence of plaintiffs employees
h- it is contributory negligence
- The proximate cause os the negligence of the company in making sure the
safety of their equipments
CANGCO VS MR CO
F. Cangco is employee of Mrco and who avails free trips from Mrco
- one evening he rode the train and upon arrival to his point of destination he
disembarked while the train is in a slow motion
- his act of alighting was however sustained him injuries as he fell upon
disembarking because of a sack of watermelon in the edge of the platform
I- is cangco guilty of negligence or contributory negligence
H. not guilty of both
- test of ordinary prudent man taking into account age sex and gender

PHOENIX VS IAC AND DIONISIO

F. Dionisio attended a party and drunk a little bit. he still drove himself his
volkwagon . he had no
certificate of excemption from curfew thats
why he closed his headlights to prevent interrogation of police.
But at time he opened it it was already too late to prevenet a collision with a dump
truck of Phoenix irregularly parked askew and also exposed to the opposing
direction
I.
Is dionisio guilty of contributory negligence
H- yes his act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight as would aggravate his
injury that is driving fast and putting out headlights
---- but the proximate cause is still the irregular parking by the defendant without
adequate warning device , such that given the situation created by phoenix the
injury is naturally expected to arise
---- doctrine of last clear chance inapplicable in this jurisdiction because it is
applied only in common law country as when the contributory negligence
prevents the plaintiff from recovery , his remedy is to invoke doctrine imputing
to the defendant the last clear chance and therefore can recover
3) VIOLATION OF STATUTE BY THE VICTIM OR AGENT
Violation of statute is treated as negligence per se when the injury incurred
by the violation is the one that statute or ordinance sought to be prevented
Violation of statute may result as
1) Negligence that is proximate cause- when the colliding vehicle is in the
wrong lane
2) Contributory negligence the pedestrian crossing in a no pedestrian zone
3) Both negli and contri- negligence of vehicle over speeding or not following
traffic light and contributory negligence of pedestrian
4) Neither both
ANONUEVO VS CA

--- violation of statute is not sufficient to hold violator liable of negligence

THERE MUST BE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE VIOOLATION AND INJURY SUSTAINED
(so tama parin per se )
4) ASSUMPTION OF RISK---PRINCIPLE OF VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
REQUISITES when the injured party had knowledge of the risk,
understanding of its nature and still voluntarily assumed the act he therefore
assumes the injury sustained
KINDS
EXPRESSED ASSUMPTION- there is a contract of assumption of risk or present
negligence

IMPLIED ASSUMPTION- the assumption (requisites) can be implied from the

situation and acts
EG=====employer employee relationship employee takes risk that is
inherent in the employment a security guard ??
EG: dangerous activity like sprained ankle in basketball
Eg: a house along side of a railway takes the risk of damages by operation of
the locomotive
The expectators in a sports game to have assumed ordinary risks
The passenger in ordinary perils of the sea
LIMITATIONS OF THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK BY PLAINTIFF
1) WHEN ASSUMPTION MADE TO MEET AN EMERGENCY TO AID ANOTHER
2) shall not waive future negligence or fraud & not contrary to but waiver of
Negligence in present is valid (art 1171)
3) not contrary to law morals etc
CASE OF EXPRESSED ASSUMPTION
TRANSPORTO VS MIJARES
F Transporto got hold of a firecracker in his office he said that he can handle the
firecracker during its explosion with a trick that the will have a good hold of the said
firecracker
-There was also a joke that the firecracker is bogus
-a dare was made that he do what he said
- he agreed but he was injured and was unable to work because of injuries sustained
more that a month
- the officemates who dared agreed to pay him 1,000 but the other500 later refused
to be paid hence tranporto filed case
I whether there was an assumption to bar recovery
H yes volenti fit non injuria
Murphy vs steeplechase --- by riding the flopper the riders assumed the known risk
of it as understood by ordinary person
5) FORTOUITOUS EVENT
Unforeseen
Of such nature
Independent of human will
Without intervention
Without delay by obligor
Due diligence of obligor to prevent injury before and after
Proximate and only cause
NaPoCor VS CA
F- Typhoon kading had caused the angat dam to reach its high level the
officers of Napocor panicked and released a huge amount of water to the
effect that the properties of rayos is inundated napocor invoked fe
H- cannot fe when there is negligence of the napocor employees
Southeastern college vs ca
F typhoon saling caused the ripping away of schools roof and damaging other
properties

Owner of latter sued for negligence of the school

H fe because all requisites are present the ocular inspection that the u shape
of the school is faulty cannot be given too much credence because the city
allowed its restoration with same design
5) Invlountariness-complete defense
Act done against my will is not my act --- as he is under compulsion of an
irresistible force or imminent threat in gunpoint
6) PRESCRIPTION
Quasi delict prescribes 4 years but criminal negligence not (doctrine of
relation back an act is by legal fiction to have taken place in antecedent time,,
eg discovery of the injury as would commence the prescriptive period )
DEATH NOT DEFENSE HE IS MERELY SUBSTITUTUED