Art. 29.
When the accused in a criminal The reservation of the right to institute
prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his
guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act
or omission may be instituted. Such action
requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon
motion of the defendant, the court may require
the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages
in case the complaint should be found to be
malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is
based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so
declare. In the absence of any declaration to that
effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to
that ground.
Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought
to demand civil liability arising from a criminal
offense, and no criminal proceedings are
instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a
preponderance of evidence shall likewise be
sufficient to prove the act complained of.
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an
obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of as a felony, such civil action may
proceed independently of the criminal
proceedings and regardless of the result of the
latter.
Art. 1159. Obligations arising from contracts
have the force of law between the contracting
parties and should be complied with in good faith.
(1091a)
Art. 1160. Obligations derived from quasi-
contracts shall be subject to the provisions of
Chapter 1, Title XVII, of this Book. (n)
Art. 1161. Civil obligations arising from criminal
offenses shall be governed by the penal laws,
subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of
the pertinent provisions of Chapter 2, Preliminary
Title, on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this
Book, regulating damages. (1092a)
Art. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts
shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 2,
Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws.
(1093a)
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony.
Every person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable.
RULE 111 - PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil
actions.
(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves
the right to institute it separately or institutes the
civil action prior to the criminal action.
separately the civil action shall be made before
the prosecution starts presenting its evidence
and under circumstances affording the offended
party a reasonable opportunity to make such
reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil
liability against the accused by way of moral,
nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages
without specifying the amount thereof in the
complaint or information, the filing fees therefore
shall constitute a first lien on the judgment
awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than
actual, is specified in the complaint or
information, the corresponding filing fees shall be
paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof
in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no
filing fees shall be required for actual damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
complaint may be filed by the accused in the
criminal case, but any cause of action which
could have been the subject thereof may be
litigated in a separate civil action.
(b) 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.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and
civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full
the filing fees based on the amount of the check
involved, which shall be considered as the actual
damages claimed. Where the complaint or
information also seeks to recover liquidated,
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary
damages, the offended party shall pay additional
filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein.
If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these
damages are subsequently awarded by the court,
the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately
and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may
be consolidated with the criminal action upon
application with the court trying the latter case. If
the application is granted, the trial of both actions
shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this
Rule governing consolidation of the civil and
criminal actions.
Sec. 2. When separate civil action is
suspended. After the criminal action has been
commenced, the separate civil action arising
therefrom cannot be instituted until final
judgment has been entered in the criminal
action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil
action has already been instituted, the latter shall
be suspended in whatever state it may be found
before judgment on the merits. The suspension
shall last until final judgment is rendered in the
criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on
the merits rendered in the civil action, the same
may, upon motion of the offended party, be
consolidated with the criminal action in the court
trying the criminal action. In case of
consolidation, the evidence already adduced in
the civil action shall be deemed automatically
reproduced in the criminal action without
prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-
examine the witness presented by the offended
party in the criminal case and of the parties to
present additional evidence. The consolidated
criminal and civil actions shall be tried and
decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the
running period of prescription of the civil action
which cannot be instituted separately or whose
proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled.
The extinction of the penal action does not
carry with it extinction of the civil action.
However, the civil action based on delict shall be
deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final
judgment in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise
did not exist.
Kinds of Negligence
Arising from Crime
Arising from Contract
Arising from Tort
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure has clarified
what civil actions are deemed instituted in a
criminal prosecution. When a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged shall be
deemed instituted with the criminal action unless
the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action.
Kinds of Negligence:
1. Culpa Contractual (contractual negligence)
Governed by CC provisions on Obligations and
Contracts, particularly Arts. 1170 to 1174 of the
Civil Code.
2. Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)
Governed mainly by Art. 2176 of the Civil Code
3. Culpa Criminal (criminal negligence)
Governed by Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
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 Penal Code. But the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the defendant.
Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons,
corporations, firms or associations engaged in the
business of carrying or transporting passengers
or goods or both, by land, water, or air for
compensation, offering their services to the
public.
The above article makes no distinction between
one whose principal business activity is the
carrying of persons or goods or both, and one
who does such carrying only as an ancillary
activity (in local idiom, as "a sideline").
Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any
distinction between a person or enterprise
offering transportation service on a regular or
scheduled basis and one offering such service on
an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis.
Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a
carrier offering its services to the "general
public," i.e., the general community or
population, and one who offers services or solicits
business only from a narrow segment of the
general population. We think that Article 1732
deliberately refrained from making such
distinctions
Culpa Contractual
The foundation of the liability of the defendant is
the contract
In breach of contract committed through the
negligence of employee, the employer cannot
erase his primary and direct liability by invoking
exercise of diligence of a good father of a family
in the selection and supervision of the employee.
Culpa Aquiliana
It is a separate source of obligation independent
of contract
In quasi-delict the presumptive responsibility for
the negligence of his servants can be rebutted by
proof of the exercise of due care in their selection
and supervision.
Culpa Aquiliana
Only involves private concern
The Civil Code by means of indem-nification
merely repairs the damage
Includes all acts in which any kind of fault or
negligence intervenes
Liability is direct and primary in quasi-delict
Crime
Affect the public interest
The Revised Penal Code punishes or corrects
criminal act
Punished only if there is a penal law clearly
covering them
Liability of the employer of the actor-employee is
subsidiary in crimes
Concept of Negligence:
Picart vs. Smith, Jr. (37 Phil 809)
WHAT MUST BE PROVED
Negligence: In quasi delict: plaintiff must prove
negligence of defendant.
(except: in cases where negligence is presumed
or imputed by law (rebuttable-violation of traffic
rules, dangerous weapons/substance), principle
of res ipsa loquitor)
Damage/ Injury
Causal connection between negligence and
damage
Causal connection between negligence and
damage
To be actionable:
- Defendants negligence must be the
proximate cause of the injury sustained by
the plaintiff to enable plaintiff to recover.
Thus, if plaintiffs own conduct is the cause of the
injury there can be no recovery.
- If plaintiffs negligence is only
contributory:
He is considered partly responsible only.
- May plaintiff still recover?
Yes, but must be reduced by the court in
proportion to his own negligence.
Concept of PROXIMATE CAUSE:
The adequate and efficient cause which in the
natural order of events and under the particular
circumstances surrounding the case, would
naturally produce the event.
DEFENSES:
1. Contributory Negligence
2. Concurrent Negligence
3. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
4. Emergency Rule
5. Doctrine of Assumption of Risk
6. Due Diligence
7. Fortuitous Event
8. Damnum Absque Injuria
9. Law
10. Exercise of Diligence
11. Prescription
12. Act or Omission is not the Proximate
Cause of the Damage
13. Other grounds: Motion to Dismiss
Contributory Negligence
The theory here is:
Plaintiff was also negligent together with the
defendant:
To constitute as a defense, proximate cause of
injury/damage must the negligence of the
defendant.
Concurrent Negligence
The theory here is:
Both parties are equally negligent; the courts will
leave them as they are; there can be no recovery.
Last Clear Chance
Even though a persons own acts may have
placed him in a position of peril and an injury
results, the injured is entitled to recover if the
defendant thru the exercise of reasonable care
and prudence might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff.
NOTE: This defense is available only in an action
by the driver or owner of one vehicle against the
driver or owner of the other vehicle involved.
Elements:
1. Plaintiff was in a position of danger by his
own negligence;
2. Defendant knew of such position of the
Plaintiff;
3. Defendant had the last clear chance to
avoid the accident by exercise of ordinary
care but failed to exercise such last clear
chance; and
4. Accident occurred as proximate cause of
such failure
Who may invoke?:
Plaintiff
Inapplicable to:
1. Joint tortfeasors
2. Defendants concurrently negligent
3. As against 3rd persons
Emergency Rule
A person is not expected to exercise the same
degree of care when he is compelled to act
instinctively under a sudden peril because a
person confronted with a sudden emergency may
be left with no time for thought and must make a
speedy decision upon impulse or instinct.
When applicable?
Only to situations that are sudden and
unexpected such as to deprive actor of all
opportunity for deliberation.
Action must still be judged by the standard of the
ordinary prudent man
Absence of forseeability
Assumption of Risk
-Volenti non fit Injuria
-Intentional exposure to a known danger
-One who voluntarily assumed the risk of an
injury from a known danger cannot recover in an
action for negligence or an injury is incurred.
-Plaintiffs acceptance of risk ( by
law/contract/nature of obligation) has erased
defendants duty so that his negligence is not a
legal wrong
-Applies to all known danger
Due Diligence
Diligence required by law/ contract/ depends on
circumstances of persons, place, things
(contract: Exercise of extraordinary diligence [in
contract of carriage],Force Majeure, quasi-delict:
Exercise of diligence of good father of a family in
the selection and supervision of employees)
Fortuitous Event
No person shall be responsible for those events
which cannot be foreseen, or which though
foreseen were inevitable
Exeption:
Assumption of risk
Damnum Absque Injuria
A principle that involves damage without injury,
therefore no liability is incurred;
There is no legal injury
Law
Specific provision of law
Exercise of Diligence of Good Father of
Family in Selection and supervision of
employees
Prescription
- Injury to right of plaintiff/quasi-delict
4 years
- Defamation
1 year
Proscription Against Double Recovery
Responsibility for fault or negligence under quasi-
delict is entirely separate and distinct from civil
action arising from the RPC but plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.
Act or Omission is NOT the Proximate Cause
of the Damage
Other grounds: Motion to Dismiss
1. Lack of Jurisdiction:
2. over the person of the defendant
3. Over the subject matter
4. Venue improperly laid
5. Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue
6. There is another action pending between
same parties for some cause
7. Cause of action is barred by prior
judgement/ statute of limitations
8. Pleading asserting claim states no cause
of action
9. Claim set forth in pleading has been paid,
waived, abandoned, extinguished
10. Claim is unenforceable uner the provision
of statute of fraud
11. Condition precedent for filing claim has
not been complied with
Persons liable for Quasi-delict
1. Tortfeasor
2. Persons Vicariously Liable
3. Persons expressly made liable by the law
Persons liable for Quasi-delict
TORTFEASOR
Art. 2176.
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being no fault or negligence is
obliged to pay for the damage done
Persons Vicariously Liable
The obligation imposed in Art. 2176 is
demandable not only for ones own act or
omission BUT ALSO for those persons for whom
one is responsible (Art. 2180)
Vicarious liability
Law imputed negligence;
A person who himself is not guilty of negligence is
made liable for conduct of another.
Reason:
Public policy: capacity to pay/ deeper pocket
Violation of duty on account of relationship
Persons Vicariously liable:
1. Parent/s
2. Guardians
Owners and managers of
establishment/enterprise
3. Employers
4. State
5. Schools, Administrator, Teacher
PARENTS:
Rule:
The father, and in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother are responsible for damaged caused
by:
- Minor child/ren; and
- Who live in their company
NOTE: Father and Mother shall jointly exercise
parental authority over common children.
GUARDIAN/S:
Are liable for damages caused by the minor or
incapacitated persons who are:
- Under their authority; and
- Live in their company
OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF
ESTABLISHMENTS/ENTERPRISE:
Owners and managers of establishment or
enterprise are responsible for damages caused by
their employees:
In the service of the branches in which the
employee/s is /are employed;
In occasion of their function
EMPLOYERS
Employers shall be liable for damages caused by
their employees and household helpers.
Acting within the scope of their assigned task
Even though the employer/s is/are not engaged in
any business or industry
Defenses available to employers:
Exercise of due diligence in selection and
supervision of employees
Act/omission was made outside working hours
and in violation of companys rules and
regulations
STATE:
The state is responsible when it acts through a
special agent,
but not when the same is caused by an official to
whom task done properly pertains in which case
art. 2176 is applicable.
SCHOOLS, ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER
Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by
their:
Pupils, students and apprentices
As long as they remain in their custody
NOTE:
Family Code Art. 218: The school, its
administration and teachers or the individual,
entity or institution engaged in child care shall
have special parental authority and responsibility
over the minor child under their supervision,
instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school, entity or institution.
Family Code, Art. 219:
Those given the authority and responsibility shall
be solidarily and principally liable for damages
caused by act/omission of the unemancipated
minor: (parents, judicial guardian or person
exercising substitute parental authority over said
minor shall be subsidiarily liable)
Issues/questions:
Whether or not school are liable?
- If culprit is a teacher
Sue the school as employer
- If culprit is a stranger
Sue the school based on contract
- If culprit is a student
Apply art. 2180 (vicarious liability)
Basis of liability of teacher: principle of loco
parentis (stand in place of parents)
Persons expressly made liable by law (even
without fault)
1. Possessor of animal or whoever makes use of
them even if the animal is lost or escaped
2. Owner of motor vehicle
3. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
4. Defendant in possession of dangerous weapons
or substances, such as firearms and poison
5. Provinces, cities, & municipalities
6. Proprietor of building or structure
7. Engineer, Architect or contractor
8. Head of family that lives in a building or part
thereof
Persons expressly made liable by law (even
without fault
1. Possessor of animal or whoever makes use of
them even if the animal is lost or escaped
Except:
Force Majeure
- Fault of the injured/damaged person
- Owner of Motor Vehicle
- In motor vehicle mishap, the owner is
solidarily liable with the driver if:
- He was in the vehicle; and
- Could have through due diligence
prevented the misfortune
Manufacturers & Processors of Foodstuffs,
drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
Liable for death an injuries caused by any or
harmful substances used although no contractual
relation exists between them and the consumers
Defendant in possession of Dangerous Weapons
or substance, such as firearms and poison
There is prima facie presumption of negligence
on the part of the defendant if death or injury
results from such possession
Exception: The possession or use thereof is
indispensable in his occupation or business
Provinces, Cities and Municipalities
Liable for the death or injuries suffered by any
person by reason of defective condition of roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public
works under their control or supervision.
Proprietor of Building or Structure
Responsible for the damages resulting from any
of the following:
- total or partial collapse of building or
structure if due to lack of necessary
repairs
- Explosion of machinery which has not
been taken cared of with due diligence,
and the inflammation of explosive
substances which have not been kept in a
safe and adequate place
- By excessive smoke, which may be
harmful to persons or property
- By falling of trees situated or near
highways or lanes, if not caused by force
majeure
- By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers,
or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions suitable
to the place
Engineer, Architect or Contractor
If damage of building or structure is caused by
defect in construction which happens within 15
years from construction; action must be brought
within 10 years from collapse
Head of Family that Lives in a Building or
part thereof
Liable for damages caused by things thrown of
falling from the same.
SPECIAL TORTS
1. Art. 19, 20, 21 (NCC)
2. Unjust enrichment
3. Ostentatious Display of Wealth
4. Violation of Right of Privacy and Family
Relations
5. Dereliction of Official Duty of Pubic Officers
6. Unfair competition
7. Malicious Prosecution
8. Violation of Rights and Liberties of Another
person
9. Nuisance
1. Art. 19, 20, 21 (NCC)
A. Abuse of Rights (Art. 19)
- There is a legal right or duty
- Which is exercised in bad faith
- For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another
General Sanction (Art. 20)
- For all other provisions of law which do not
especially provide their own sanction
Elements:
-In the exercise of his legal right or duty
-Willfully or negligently causes damage to
another
Contra Bonus Mores (Art. 21)
Elements:
- There is an action which is legal
- But which is contrary to morals, good
customs, public order or public policy
- And it is done with intent to injure
Unjust enrichment
Arts. 22, 23, 2142 & 2143
Ostentatious Display of Wealth
Art. 25; Thoughtless extravagance for pleasure or
display during a period of public want or
emergency
Violation of Right of Privacy and Family
Relations
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons.
following acts may not constitute a criminal
offense, only produce a cause of action for
DAMAGES, prevention and other relief:
- Prying into the privacy of anothers
residence
- Meddling with or disturbing the private life
of family relations of another
- Intriguing to cause another to be alienated
from his friends
- Vexing or humiliating another on account
of hid religious beliefs, lowly station in life.
Place of birth, physical defect, or other
personal condition.
Dereliction of Official Duty of Public Officers
May be brought by any person suffering from
material or moral loss because a public servant
refuses or neglects, without just cause to perform
his official duty (Art. 27)
Requisites:
- Defendant is a public officer charged with
the performance of a duty in favor of the
plaintiff
- He refused or neglected without just cause
to perform such duty (ministerial)
- Plaintiff sustained material or moral loss
as consequence of such non-performance
- The amount of such damages, if material
Unfair competition
Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or
industrial enterprises or in labor through the use
of force, intimidation, deceit. Machinations or
other unjust, oppressive method (Art. 28)
Malicious Prosecution
Elements:
- That the defendant was himself the
prosecutor/instigated its commencement
- That it finally terminates in his acquittal
- That in bringing it the prosecutor acted
without probable cause, and
- That he was actuated by legal malice, that
is, by improper and sinister motive
Violation of Rights and Liberties of Another
Person
Nuisance
- Any act, omission, establishment,
condition of property, or anything else
which:
- Injures or endangers the health or safety
of others; or
- Annoys or offends the senses; or
- Shocks, defies, or disregards decency or
morality; or
- Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or streets,
or any body of water; or
- Hinders or impairs use of property
Nuisance per se
Denounced as nuisance by common law or by
statute
Nuisance per accidens
Those which are in their nature not nuisances, but
may become so by reason of their locality,
surroundings, or the manner in which they may
be conducted, managed, etc
Public
Affects a community or neighborhood or any
considerable number of persons
Private
Affects an individual or a limited number of
individuals only
Remedies against Public Nuisances
- Prosecution under the RPC or any local
ordinance
- Civil Action
- Abatement, without Judicial Proceedings
Who may avail of Remedies:
- Public Officers
- Private Persons
- If nuisance is specially injurious to himself
Steps:
- Demand be first made upon owner or
possessor of the property to abate the
nuisance
- That such demand has been rejected
- That the abatement be approved by the
district health officer and executed with
the assistance of the local Police
- That the value of the destruction does not
exceed Php 3,000
Remedies against private nuisances
- Civil action
- Abatement without Judicial Process
Who may avail of remedies:
- Public officers
- Private persons
If nuisance is specially injurious to himself
Steps:
- Same with public nuisance
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
A class of cases within the general rule that one
is liable for injury resulting to another from failure
to exercise the degree of care commiserate with
the circumstances:
The attractiveness of the premises or of the
dangerous instrumentality to children of tender
years is to be considered as an implied invitation,
which takes the children who accepted it out of
the category of a trespasser and puts them in the
category of invitees towards whom the owner of
the premises or instrumentality owes the duty of
ordinary care.