Torts Reviewer Libre

TORTS M I D TERM REVI EW ER
I . I N TROD UCTI ON : TORTS AN D D AM AGES
1. Classes of Tort s
Ar t . 1 1 5 6 . An obliga t ion is a j u ridica l n e ce ssit y t o give , t o do or n ot t o do.
Ar t . 1 1 5 7 . Obliga t ion s a r ise fr om :
(1) La w ;
(2) Con t r a ct s;
(3) Qu a si- con t r a ct s;
(4) Act s or om ission s pu n ish e d by la w ; a n d ( 5 ) Qu a side lict s.
Ar t . 1 1 5 8 . Obliga t ion s de riv e d from la w a r e n ot pr e su m e d. On ly t h ose e x pr essly de t e r m in e d in t h is

Code or in spe cia l la w s a r e de m a n da b le , a n d sh a ll be r e gu la t e d by t h e pr e cep t s of t h e la w w h ich
e st a blish e s t h e m ; a n d a s t o w h a t h a s n ot be e n for ese e n , by t h e pr ovision s of t h is Book .
Ar t . 1 1 5 9 . Obliga t ion s a r isin g fr om con t r a ct s h a ve t h e for ce of la w be t w ee n t h e con t r a ct in g pa r t ie s

a n d sh ou ld be com plie d w it h in good fa it h .
Ar t . 1 1 6 0 . Obliga t ion s de riv e d from qu a si- cont r a ct s sh a ll be su bj e ct t o t h e pr ovision s of Ch a pt e r 1 ,

Tit le XV I I , of t h is Book .
Ar t . 1 1 6 1 . Civil obliga t ion s a r isin g from cr im in a l offe n se s sh a ll be gove r n e d by t h e pe n a l la w s,

su bj e ct t o t h e pr ovision s of Ar t icle 2 1 7 7 , a n d of t h e pe r t in e n t pr ovision s of Ch a pt e r 2 , Pr e lim in a r y
Tit le , on H u m a n Re la t ion s, a n d of Tit le X V I I I of t h is Book , re gu la t in g da m a ge s.
Ar t . 1 1 6 2 . Obliga t ion s de riv e d from qu a side lict s sh a ll be gove r n e d by t h e pr ovision s of Ch a pt e r 2 ,

Tit le XV I I of t h is Book , a n d by spe cia l la w s.
Tor t – A civil wrong, ot her t han br each of cont r act for which t he court will pr ov ide a rem edy in t he for m of an
act ion for dam ages ( Jar encio’s definit ion)
At t y. Abaño’s definit ion: A t or t is an act which causes dam age t o anot her per son. [ Ther efore, under his definit ion,
a t ort encom passes a br oader concept t han a quasi- delict ; it also includes breach of cont ract and crim es]
The t ort is t he cause, w hile t he effect is m anifest ed in dam ages.
Cla sse s of Act ion s
1. Qu a si- D e lict : based on negligence

2. Br e a ch of Con t r a ct : based on t he exist ence of a cont ract
3. Tor t s in H u m a n Rela t ion s: based on int ent ional act s of t he t ort - feasor
4. Cr im e : based on a v iolat ion of a penal st at ut e
2. Twofold Meaning of Dam ages
1. Dam ages as t he loss, pre j u dice , or in j u r y result ing fr om t he act of a person; and
2. Dam ages as com p e n sa t ion for such loss, prej udice, or inj ury
3. Culpa Aquiliana/ Cont ract ual/ Cr im inal
Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 1

Lect ure Not es and Not es from Jona Baut ist a’s Reviewer
Problem : A bus falls off a cliff due t o t he driv er ’s fault . What act ions m ay be filed by t he heirs of t he passengers
w ho died in t he accident ?
Answ er : Three act ions m ay be filed based on culpa aquiliana, culpa cont ract ual, and culpa crim inal. The
dist inct ions am ong t he t hree are as follow s:
CULPA AQUI LI AN A CULPA CON TRACTUAL CRI M I N AL

PROSECU TI ON
OBJECT Com plaint is against Violat ion of cont ract of Crim inal negligence
negligence carriage
ACTI ON Dam ages for quasi- Br each of cont ract wit h Crim inal pr osecut ion,
delict dam ages which includes civil
liabilit y under Ar t . 100
of t he RPC
AGAI N ST Dr iv er, Em ployer bus com pany Dr iv er
Bus Com pany, or
Bot h
QUAN TUM OF Preponderance of Preponderance of Proof bey ond
EV I D EN CE Evidence Evidence reasonable doubt
* once t he driver is
pr ov en negligent ,
em ployer is presum ed
negligent ( rebut t able
presum pt ion)
D EFEN SES Exer cise of ordinary Exer cise of I f driv er cannot pay t he
diligence on t he part of ext raordinar y diligence civil dam ages, t he
t he driver; ( in cont ract of car r iage, em ployer is subsidiar ily
t he diligence requir ed of liable. The em ploy er
Exer cise of diligence in t he com m on car rier is does not have any
t he select ion and ext raordinar y) defense in t his case.
supervision of t he driv er The negligence of t he
on t he part of t he em ployee is conclu sive
em ployer as t o t he em ployer for
pur poses of subsidiar y
liabilit y
N ot e : You can file m or e t han one of t hese cases. You can file any or all, depending on t he cir cum st ances. The
only lim it at ion is against double recover y . ( See I m son case) .
CASES
Ca n cio v. I sip
Cancio filed 3 count s of violat ion of BP22 against I sip, who had issued 3 bad check s. The case w as dism issed.
Subsequent ly, 3 cases for est afa w er e filed. The case w as dism issed again. Cancio t hen filed a civil case for
collect ion of sum of m oney t o recov er t he value of t he 3 checks from I sip. I sip m ov ed t o dism iss on t he ground
t hat t he act ion is bar red by res j udicat a and t hat Cancio was guilt y of for um shopping.
I SSUES:
1. Whet her t he civil act ion for collect ion is barr ed by r es j udicat a.
2. Whet her t here was forum shopping.
H ELD : No t o bot h.
An act or om ission causing dam age t o anot her m ay give rise t o t wo separ at e civil liabilit ies:
1. ex delict o under Art . 100 of t he RPC; and

2. independent civil liabilit ies such as:
a. t hose not arising from an act or om ission com plained of as a felony, such as culpa cont ract ual,
violat ions of Ar t icles 31, 32, and 34 of t he Civ il Code, and culpa aquiliana under Ar t icle 2176 of t he
Civ il Code;
b. wher e t he inj ured part y is grant ed a right t o file an act ion independent and dist inct fr om t he cr im inal
act ion ( ex: Art . 33 of t he Civil Code)

Eit her m ay be enfor ced against t he offender , but t he offended part y cannot r ecov er dam ages t wice for t he sam e
act or om ission or under bot h causes. Under t he Rules on Crim inal Procedur e, civil liabilit y ex delict o is deem ed
inst it ut ed w it h t he crim inal act ion, but t he offended part y m ay file t he separat e civil act ion befor e t he prosecut ion
st art s t o present evidence. How ever, t he independent civil act ions m ay be filed separat ely and pr osecut ed
independent ly ev en wit hout any reser v at ion in t he crim inal act ion.
I n t his case, t he basis of t he com plaint is culpa cont ract ual. I t is an independent civ il act ion which is based on
I sip’s br each of a cont ract ual obligat ion. This m ay proceed independent ly of t he crim inal proceedings, regardless
of t he result of t he lat t er . Ther e is no res j udicat a because t her e is no ident it y of causes of act ion.
I m son v. CA
This case arose fr om a vehicular collision involving I m son’s car and a t r uck r egist er ed under t he nam es of FNCB
and Holiday Hills. The collision seriously inj ured I m son and t ot ally wr eck ed his car. I m son filed a com plaint for
dam ages against :
1. t he owners of t he t r uck
2. t he t ruck driver
3. t he beneficial owner s of t he t ruck
4. t he t ruck insur er
All t he defendant s, except t he insur er , default ed. I m son and t he insur er ent er ed int o a com pr om ise, wher eby t he
insurer paid him 70K in full set t lem ent of his claim s against t he insurer. The RTC t hus dism issed t he claim against
t he insurer .
Holiday Hills, as ow ner of t he t ruck , t hen m ov ed t o dism iss t he case against all t he ot her defendant s on t he
ground t hat t hey w ere all indispensable part ies under a com m on cause of act ion. I t argued t hat t he dism issal of
t he case against t he insurer m ust result in t he dism issal of t he case against all of t hem .
I SSUE: Whet her t he act ion should be dism issed as against t he ot her defendant s.
H ELD : No. The act ion should not be dism issed against t he ot her defendant s because t her e is no ident it y in t he
causes of act ion against t hem .
The r ule is w here t he com plaint alleges a com m on cause of act ion against defendant s who are all indispensable
part ies t o t he case, it s dism issal against any one of t hem by vir t ue of a com prom ise agr eem ent wit h t he plaint iff
result s in a dism issal of t he case against t he ot her s, including t hose in default . For t his doct rine t o apply,
howev er , t he requisit es are:
1. t her e m ust be a com m on cause of act ion; and

2. all defendant s ar e indispensable part ies.
This doct rine is NOT applicable in t his case because t her e is no ident it y of cause of act ion. The causes of act ion
against each of t he defendant s are different . They are as follow s:
1. against t he dr iv er : quasi- delict under 2176

2. against t he ow ner s of t he t ruck: quasi- delict under 2180 ( v icarious liabilit y)
3. against t he insur ance com pany: cont ract ( t hird par t y liabilit y clause of it s insurance cont r act wit h t he
ow ners of t he t ruck allow s t he t hird part y t o collect direct ly from t he insurer even if t here is really not
cont r act ual r elat ionship bet w een t hem ) .
Moreover, t he defendant s are not all indispensable part ies. The t ruck driv er is t he only one w ho is indispensable.
All t he ot hers ar e m er ely necessar y or proper part ies.
BLTB v. CA
Quasi- delict is differ ent fr om crim inal negligence; it is an independent sour ce of obligat ion.
Aboit iz Sh ippin g v. CA
A com m on car rier is bound t o obser ve ext raor dinar y diligence. I f a passenger dies or is inj ured in t he cour se of
t he v oy age, t her e is a presum pt ion of fault or negligence. This gives rise t o an act ion for breach of cont ract of
carr iage.
D a n gw a Tr a n spor t v. CA

I n an act ion based on cont act of car riage, t he cour t need not m ak e an ex pr ess finding or fault or negligence in
or der t o hold t he car rier liable. By t he cont r act of car riage, t he carrier assum es t he express obligat ion t o t r ansport
t he passenger t o his dest inat ion safely and t o obser v e ext raordinar y diligence. Any inj ury t hat m ight be suffered
by t he passenger is right away at t ribut able t o t he fault or negligence of t he carrier.
I I . QUASI - D ELI CT
1. Elem ent s
Ar t . 2 1 7 6 . W h oe ve r by a ct or om ission ca u se s da m a ge t o a n ot h e r , t h er e be in g fa u lt or n e glige n ce , is
oblige d t o pa y for t h e da m a ge don e. Su ch fa u lt or n eglige n ce, if t h e r e is n o pr e - e x ist in g con t r a ct u a l
r e la t ion bet w e e n t h e pa rt ie s, is ca lle d a qu a side lict a n d is gov er n e d by t h e pr ovision s of t h is
Ch a pt er .
The elem ent s of a quasi- delict are:
1. Fault or Negligence
2. Dam age
3. Causal connect ion bet w een t he negligence and t he dam age
Problem : X was driving a car when he ran ov er a st one. The st one hit a pedest rian on t he head. The pedest rian
died. I s X liable for quasi- delict ?
Answ er : No, because t her e was no negligence on t he part of X.
Problem : A supplier’s em ploy ees w ent on st rik e, as a result of which t he supplier failed t o deliv er his goods t o his
client . Can t he client sue t he supplier for quasi- delict ?
Answ er : No. Alt hough t her e was dam age, t here was no negligence. [ Client should sue based on br each of
cont r act inst ead]
CASES:
An da m o v. I AC
Em m anual and Nat ividad Andam o owned a parcel of land adj acent t o t hat of t he Missionar ies of Our Lady of La
Sallet t e. Wit hin t he land or Our Lady, wat erpat hs and an ar t ificial lake wer e const ruct ed, allegedly inundat ing and
er oding t he Andam os’ land. This caused a young m an t o drown, dam aged t he Andam os’ crops and fences, and
endangered t heir lives. The Andam os inst it ut ed a crim inal act ion against t he officer s and direct ors of Our Lady for
dest ruct ion by m eans of inundat ion under Ar t . 324 of t he RPC. Subsequent ly , t hey filed a civil case for dam ages
against t he respondent s. Upon m ot ion of respondent s, t he civil case was dism issed for lack of j urisdict ion, since
t he crim inal case inst it ut ed ahead of t he civil case was st ill unresolv ed. This was based on t he pr ovision of t he
Rules of Court which provides t hat crim inal and civil act ions arising fr om t he sam e offense m ay be inst it ut ed
separat ely, but aft er t he crim inal act ion has been com m enced, t he civil act ion cannot be inst it ut ed unt il final
j udgm ent has been render ed in t he crim inal act ion.
I SSUE: Whet her t he civil act ion should have been dism issed.
H ELD : No. The civ il act ion should not have been dism issed since it was based, not on crim e, but on quasi- delict .
All t he elem ent s of a quasi- delict are present :
1. dam ages suffer ed by t he plaint iff;

2. fault or negligence of t he defendant or som e other per son for whose act s he m ust respond; and
3. connect ion of t he cause and effect bet w een t he fault or negligence of t he defendant and t he dam ages
incurr ed by t he plaint iff.
I n t his case, t he wat er pat hs and cont r iv ances built by respondent ar e alleged t o have inundat ed t he land of
pet it ioners. This was caused by t he failure of t he defendant t o inst all drainage pipes t hat could have pr ev ent ed
t he inundat ion. Ther e is t her efor e a causal connect ion bet w een t he act of building t he wat erpat hs wit hout
providing for an adequat e drainage sy st em and t he dam age sust ained by t he pet it ioners.
Ar t icle 2176 cov er s not only act s “ not punishable by law” but also act s crim inal in charact er , whet her int ent ional
and volunt ary or negligent . Consequent ly , a separat e civil act ion lies against t he offender in a cr im inal act ,
whet her or not he is cr im inally prosecut ed and found guilt y or acquit t ed, pr ovided t hat t he offended par t y is not
allow ed t o recover dam ages on bot h scor es and would only be ent it led t o t he bigger aw ar d of t he t wo.
FGU I n su r a n ce v. CA
A car owned by Soriano and being driv en by Jacildone collided wit h anot her car owned by Filcar and r ent ed and
driv en by Dahl- Jensen, a for eigner. FGU I nsur ance Cor p., Soriano’s insur er, paid Sor ian 25K for t he dam age. By
way of subr ogat ion, FGU sued Dahl- Jensen, Filcar, and Fort une I nsurance ( insur er of Filcar) for quasi- delict . The
case was dism issed by t he RTC on t he gr ound of failure of FGU t o subst ant iat e t he claim for subrogat ion. The CA
affir m ed by based on anot her gr ound: only t he fault or negligence of Dahl- Jensen ( who w as dr opped fr om t he
com plaint because sum m ons could not be serv ed on him ) was sufficient ly pr ov ed but not t hat of Filcar. Ther e was
t her efore no cause of act ion against Filcar for quasi- delict .
I SSUE: Whet her t he regist ered owner of a vehicle is liable for dam ages suffered by t hird per sons alt hough t he
vehicle is leased t o anot her.
H ELD : No. Filcar is not liable. To sust ain a claim based on quasi- delict , t he following requisit es m ust concur :
1. dam ages suffer ed by t he plaint iff;

2. fault or negligence of t he defendant or som e other per son for whose act s he m ust respond; and
3. connect ion of t he cause and effect bet w een t he fault or negligence of t he defendant and t he dam ages
incurr ed by t he plaint iff.
I n t his case, pet it ioner failed t o pr ov e t he fault or negligence of Filcar . The negligence was solely at t ribut able t o
Dahl- Jensen, t hus m ak ing t he dam age his per sonal liabilit y. Filcar had not part icipat ion t herein. Art icle 2180 on
vicarious liabilit y of owner s of m ot or vehicles is not applicable since t here is no em ploy er- em ploy ee relat ionship
bet w een Filcar and Dahl- Jensen.
Equ it a ble Le a se v. Su y om
A road t ract or driv en by Raul Tut or slam m ed int o a house/ t indahan. Thr ee per sons wer e pinned t o deat h under t he
engine of t he t r act or ; four were inj ur ed. Tut or was char ged w it h and conv ict ed of r eckless im prudence result ing in
m ult iple hom icide and m ult iple physical inj uries.
Since t he Official Receipt and Cert ificat e of Regist rat ion of t he vehicle show ed t he regist er ed ow ner t o be
“ Equit able Leasing/ leased t o Edwin Lim ,” respondent s filed a com plaint for dam ages against Equit able, Tut or, and
Ecat ine [ seem s t o be a cor porat ion of Edwin Lim ] . Tut or, Lim , and Ecat ine wer e subsequent ly dr opped fr om t he
com plaint because t hey could not be found.
Equit able, in it s answ er, raised t he defense t hat t he vehicle had already been sold t o Ecat ine and t hat Equit able
w as no longer in possession and cont rol t her eof at t he t im e of t he incident . I t also claim ed t hat Tut or was an
em ployee of Ecat ine, not Equit able.
I t seem s t hat Equit able and Lim had a finance lease agr eem ent wher eby Equit able would rem ain t he regist er ed
owner unt il t he vehicle was fully paid by Lim . I n t his case, t he vehicle w as fully paid and a deed of sale had
already been ex ecut ed. How ever, t her e w as failure t o regist er t he deed of sale w it h t he LTO.
The RTC and CA found Equit able t o be liable.
I SSUE: Whet her Equit able is liable.
H ELD : Equit able is liable.
I t is liable because it w as t he regist er ed owner at t he t im e of t he accident . The regist ered ow ner is t he law ful
oper at or insofar as t hir d persons ar e concer ned and consequent ly, it is dir ect ly and prim arily responsible for t he
consequences of it s operat ion. I n cont e m pla t ion of la w , t h e ow ne r / ope r a t or of r e cor d is t h e em ploye r of
t h e dr iver , t h e a ct u a l ope r a t or a nd e m ploy e r be in g conside r e d a s m e re ly it s a ge n t . The sam e principle
applies ev en if t he regist er ed owner of any vehicle does not use it for public serv ice.
This is not inconsist ent wit h t he earlier FGU case, wher ein t he owner of t he vehicle w as absolv ed fr om liabilit y
because of t he absence of t he vinculum j uris of an em ploy er - em ploy ee r elat ionship bet w een t he owner and t he
driver.
I n t he present case, t hough in fact , t here is no em ploy er- em ploy ee relat ionship bet w een Equit able and Tut or, t he
law deem s t he regist ered ow ner t o be t he em ployer of t he driver, and t he act ual operat or is deem ed t o be t he
owner ’s agent . Again, under law, Equit able is t he owner, Ecat ine is Equit able’s agent , Tut or is Equit able’s
em ployee.

The failure of Equit able and/ or Ecat ine t o regist er t he sale wit h t he LTO should not pr ej udice r espondent s, who
hav e t he legal r ight t o r ely on t he legal pr inciple t hat t he r egist er ed v ehicle ow ner is liable for t he dam ages caused
by t he negligence of t he driver .
2. No Double Recover y Rule
Ar t . 2 1 7 7 . Re spon sib ilit y for fa u lt or n e glige n ce u n der t h e pr e ce din g a r t icle is e n t ir e ly se pa r a t e a n d

dist in ct from t h e civil lia bilit y a r isin g fr om n e glige n ce u n de r t h e Pe n a l Code . Bu t t h e pla in t iff ca n n ot
r e cover da m a ge s t w ice for t h e sa m e a ct or om ission of t h e de fe n da n t .
Br oa de r con ce pt of Civil Lia bilit y
A single act can giv e rise t o t w o k inds of liabilit y – civil liabilit y for quasi- delict and liabilit y for crim e. Under t he
liabilit y for crim e, t he defendant has t wo kinds of liabilit y – crim inal liabilit y and civil liabilit y . This is illust rat ed by
t he following diagram :
Civ il liabilit y
| |
Quasi- Delict Crim e
| |
Crim inal liabilit y Civ il liabilit y
Problem : X filed a claim for 100K in dam ages in an act ion for quasi- delict . The j udge awar ded 50K. Can X filed a
crim inal act ion t o recov er t he rem aining 50K?
Answ er : No, t his would v iolat e t he principle of r es j udicat a. The vict im had t he opport unit y t o pr esent evidence in
t he crim inal case. I f he files anot her case, he will be m er ely pr esent ing t he sam e evidence.
CASES:
Ja ra n t illa v. CA
Jose Kuan Sing was cr ossing t he st reet when he w as sidesw iped by a Volk swagen Beet le dr iv en by Edgar
Jarant illa.
Sing inst it ut ed a cr im inal act ion against Jar ant illa for serious physical inj ur ies t hrough r eck less im prudence.
Sing int er v ened in t he pr osecut ion t hrough a privat e prosecut or and did not reserv e his right t o inst it ut e a
separat e civil act ion. Jarant illa was acquit t ed because of reasonable doubt .
Sing subsequent ly inst it ut ed a civil act ion for dam ages involving t he sam e subj ect m at t er and act
com plained of as in t he cr im inal case.
The t rial court found in fav or of Sing and awarded act ual and m oral dam ages, at t orney ’s fees, and cost s.
The CA affirm ed.
I SSUE: Whet her Sing could hav e filed t he separ at e civil act ion despit e Jarant illa’s acquit t al in t he cr im inal
act ion.
H ELD : Yes, t he civil act ion was pr oper ly filed.
The sam e act or om ission ( in t his case, t he negligent sideswiping of privat e respondent ) can cr eat e t wo
kinds of liabilit y on t he par t of t he offender : civil liabilit y ex delict o and civil liabilit y ex quasi delict o. Since
t he sam e negligence can giv e rise eit her t o a delict or crim e or t o a quasi- delict or t ort , e it h e r of t h e se
t w o t ype s of civil lia b ilit y m a y be en forced a ga in st t h e cu lpr it , su bj e ct t o t h e ca ve a t u n de r Ar t icle
2 1 7 7 of t h e Civil Code t h a t t h e offen de d pa r t y ca n n ot r e cove r da m a ge s u n de r bot h t yp e s of
lia bilit y.
The only inst ance wher e a civil act ion cannot be inst it ut ed aft er t he dism issal of t he cr im inal case is where
such dism issal was accom panied by a st at em ent of t he cour t declaring t hat t he act com plained of never
happened.
At la n t ic Gu lf a n d Pa cific v. CA
This is a resolut ion of a MR.

The Cast illos filed an act ion for dam ages against AG&P alleging t hat t he lat t er’s oper at ions on t he for m er’s
propert y caused t he soil t o becom e “ infert ile, salt y, unpr oduct ive and unsuit able for agr icult ur e.” The
Cast illos also averr ed t hat AG&P’s heav y equipm ent was park ed on t he for m er’s land wit hout rent al having
been paid.
The t rial court grant ed dam ages for bot h “ t he dam age t o t he land” and “ r ent als for t he sam e pr oper t y.”
I SSUE: Whet her t he grant of t he dam ages am ount s t o double r ecover y.
H ELD : I t does not am ount t o double recover y.
I t is clear ly appar ent t hat AG& P w a s gu ilt y of t w o cu lpa ble t r a n sg re ssion s on t he propert y right s of t he
Cast illos, t hat is, for t he r uinat ion of t he agricult ural fert ilit y or ut ilit y of t he soil of t heir pr oper t y and,
fur t her, for t he unaut horized use of said pr oper t y as a dum p sit e or depot for pet it ioner 's heavy equipm ent
and t ruck s. Dam ages wer e corr ect ly awar ded for t he dest r uct ion of t he land and for t he reasonable value for
t he use of t he pr em ises.
Ar t icle 2177 pr ovides t hat t he plaint iff cannot recov er dam ages t wice for t he sam e act or om ission of t he
defendant . I n t his case, t here wer e t wo separ at e act s or om issions.
I I I . N EGLI GEN CE
1. Concept of Negligence
Ar t . 1 1 7 3 . Th e fa u lt or n eglige n ce of t h e obligor con sist s in t h e om ission of t h a t dilige n ce w h ich is

r e qu ir e d by t h e n a t u re of t h e obliga t ion a n d cor r espon ds w it h t h e cir cu m st a n ce s of t h e per son s, of
t h e t im e a n d of t h e pla ce . W h e n n e glige n ce sh ow s ba d fa it h , t h e pr ovision s of Ar t icle s 1 1 7 1 a n d
2 2 0 1 , pa r a gr a ph 2 , sh a ll a pply .
I f t h e la w or con t r a ct doe s n ot st a t e t h e dilig e n ce w h ich is t o be obse r ve d in t h e pe r for m a n ce, t h a t

w h ich is e x pe ct e d of a good fa t h e r of a fa m ily sh a ll be r e qu ir e d.
N eglige n ce – Want of care r equir ed by t he nat ure of t he obligat ion and t he cir cum st ances of t he persons, tim e,
and place.
CASES
Cit y t r u st v. I AC
Em m e Her rer o issued sev eral post dat ed checks from her account w it h Cit yt r ust . She deposit ed cash in order
t o cov er t he check s. How ev er, in filling up t he deposit slip, she om it t ed a zero and wr ot e 2900823 inst ead of
29000823. Her check s wer e dishonored.
Herr er o filed a com plaint for dam ages against Cit yt rust . The t rial court dism issed t he com plaint . The CA
rev ersed and awar ded nom inal and t em perat e dam ages and at t orney’s fees.
I SSUE: Whet her Cit yt rust is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Cit yt rust is liable.
Banking is a business affect ed wit h public int er est and because of t he nat ure of it s funct ions, t he bank is
under obligat ion t o t reat t he account s of it s deposit or s wit h m e t icu lou s ca r e , alw ays having in m ind t he
fiduciary nat ure of t heir r elat ionship.
Ev en if t he account num ber wer e err oneous, Herr er o’s nam e was clear ly writ t en on t he deposit slip. The
t eller should have not iced t hat t here wer e only sev en num ber s inst ead of eight . Besides, t he use of num bers
is sim ply for t he conv enience of t he bank and t he deposit or’s nam e should st ill be cont rolling.
I n fact , t her e wer e ot her inst ances wher e Her rer o put down t he wr ong account num ber but t he deposit s
wer e st ill properly m ade. This indicat es t hat t h e r e a r e w a ys a n d m e a n s w h e r e by de posit s w it h
e rr on e ou s a ccou n t n u m be r s ca n st ill be cre dit e d t o t h e pr ope r a ccou n t . I t is t he bank’s obligat ion t o
see t o it t hat all funds invest ed w it h it are pr operly account ed for and duly post ed in it s ledger s.

The CA, howev er , er red in awar ding nom inal and t em per at e dam ages concur rent ly; t he t wo are
incom pat ible. Nom inal dam ages are m er ely t o recognize t he violat ion of a right and not t o indem nify.
Tem per at e dam ages ar e designed t o indem nify one for pecuniar y loss t he am ount of which cannot be
prov ed wit h r easonable cert aint y. Only nom inal dam ages are war rant ed in t his case.
Re ye s v. CA, FEBTC
Rey es and Puyat - Rey es, as Philippine Racing Club represent at ives, wer e t o at t end a racing confer ence in Sy dney.
I n order t o pay for t he conference fees, t hey sent t he club’s cashier t o FEBTC t o apply for a for eign exchange
dem and draft for AU$1610, payable t o t he conference or ganizer.
The applicat ion was denied at first because FEBTC did not have an account in any Sy dney bank. However , a
roundabout way was found wher eby t he r em it t ance of t he m oney could be achieved. FEBTC would draw a dem and
draft against West pac Bank in Sy dney and t he lat t er would r eim bur se it self from FEBTC’s account in West pac NY.
This arrangem ent has been resort ed t o since t he 1960s and t her e has never been a pr oblem .
When t he conference organizer present ed t he dem and draft , it w as dishonored. How ever, FEBTC’s account in
West pac NY had been debit ed. I n r esponse t o t he organizer’s com plaint of t he dishonor, FEBTC infor m ed West pac
Sydney t o r eim bur se it self from FEBTC’s West pac NY account . FEBTC also inst ruct ed West pac NY t o honor t he
claim for reim bursem ent . Despit e t his, t he draft w as dishonored a second t im e.
When t he Puyat s arriv ed in Sy dney t o regist er [ t hey arrived separat ely] , t hey w er e denied because t he draft s had
been dishonor ed t wice. This allegedly caused t hem m uch hum iliat ion, shock, t rem bling legs, et c. How ev er , aft er
agreeing t o pay in cash, t hey w ere adm it t ed t o t he confer ence.
Upon get t ing back t o Manila, t he Puyat s filed a com plaint for dam ages against FEBTC claim ing t hat as a result of
t he dishonor, t hey wer e ex posed t o unnecessar y shock, social hum iliat ion, and deep m ent al anguish in a for eign
count r y, and in t he pr esence of an int ernat ional audience.
I SSUE: Whet her FEBTC is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : I t is not liable.
The degr ee of diligence r equir ed of FEBTC, in t his case, is t hat degr ee of diligence ex pect ed of an or dinar y prudent
per son under t he circum st ances obt aining. The rule t hat a bank, due t o t he nat ure of it s relat ionship wit h t he
client , m ust exercise ex t r aor dinary diligence applies only when t he bank is act ing in it s fiduciar y capacit y, as w as
seen in t he Cit yt rust case. I n t he present circum st ance, t he relat ionship bet w een FEBTC and t he Puyat s w as
m er ely t hat of seller and buy er, wit h t he subj ect m at t er being a dem and draft .
That or dinar y diligence w as observ ed is evident fr om t he num erous follow ups t hat FEBTC undert ook in or der t o
get t he dem and dr aft paid. I t did all t hat it could have reasonably done. The reason t he dem and draft w as
dishonor ed was because West pac Sy dney m ist akenly r ead FEBTC’s cable m essage t o it [ a 1 was read as a 7] . As a
result , West pac Sy dney did not recognize t he cable m essage as a request for a dem and draft .
Adz u a r a v. CA
Adzuara, a law st udent , was driving his Galant along QC Ave.; in t he car wit h him w ere his t wo friends. He collided
wit h a Corona driv en by Mart inez. I t appear s t hat Mar t inez w as execut ing a U- t urn when Adzuara suddenly
ram m ed t he side of his car. The Cor ona w as flung 20 m et ers from t he point of im pact and it landed at op t he
cent er island of QC Ave. Mart inez filed a com plaint for reckless im prudence result ing in dam age t o propert y wit h
less serious phy sical inj uries [ Mart inez’s daught er was confined] . The right t o inst it ut e a separ at e civil act ion w as
reserv ed.
The RTC found Adzuara guilt y aft er t he follow ing fact s wer e est ablished:
• Adzuara was going m uch fast er t han t he 40 kph. he claim ed. This is evident from t he dam age t o t he
•
Cor ona and from t he dist ance it w as flung.
•
Adzuara had a red light . Mar t inez had a gr een light .
Adzuara did not st op at t he last clear chance when he saw t hat Mart inez had alm ost com plet ely
negot iat ed t he U- t ur n.
I SSUE: Whet her Adzuara is guilt y of negligence.
H ELD : Guilt y.
The fact s found by t he lower cour t war rant such a finding.

N eglige n ce is t h e w a n t of ca r e r equ ir e d by t h e cir cu m st a n ce s. I t is a re la t ive or com pa r a t ive , n ot a n
a bsolu t e, t e r m a n d it s a pplica t ion de pe n ds u pon t h e sit u a t ion of t h e pa r t ie s a n d t h e de gre e of ca r e a n d
vigila n ce w h ich t h e cir cu m st a n ce s r e a son a bly r e qu ir e .
What degree of care and vigilance t hen did t he circum st ances r equir e? At half past 1: 00 o'clock in t he m or ning
along an alm ost deser t ed avenue, or dinary care and vigilance would suffice. This m ay consist of keeping a
wat chful ey e on t he road ahead and observ ing t he t raffic rules on speed, right of way and t raffic light . The claim of
pet it ioner t hat Mart inez m ade a swift U- t ur n which caused t he collision is not credible since a U- t urn is done at a
m uch slow er speed t o avoid skidding and overt ur ning, com pared t o running st raight ahead. Nonet heless, no
ev idence was present ed show ing skid m ar k s caused by t he car driv en by Mart inez if only t o dem onst rat e t hat he
was driv ing at a fast clip in negot iat ing t he U- t ur n. On t he ot her hand, t he speed at which pet it ioner drov e his car
appears t o be t he pr im e cause for his inabilit y t o st op his car and av oid t he collision. His assert ion t hat he drove at
t he speed of 40 kph. is belied by Mart inez who t est ified t hat when he look ed at t he opposit e lane for any oncom ing
cars, e saw none; t hen a few seconds lat er, he w as hit by Adzuara's car. The ext ent of t he dam age on t he car of
Mart inez and t he posit ion of t he car s aft er t he im pact furt her confirm t he finding t hat pet it ioner went beyond t he
speed lim it r equir ed by law and by t he cir cum st ances.
Pica r t v. Sm it h
The t est for det er m ining negligence: Would a prudent m an in t he posit ion of t he per son t o whom t he negligence is
at t ribut ed for esee har m t o t he per son inj ured as a r easonable consequence of t he cour se about t o be pursued? I f
so, t he law im poses a dut y on t he act or t o refr ain from t hat cour se or t o t ake precaut ion against it s m ischiev ous
result s, and t he failur e t o do so const it ut es negligence. Reasonable for esight of harm , follow ed by t he ignoring of
t he adm onit ion of t his pr ovision, is t he const it ut ive fact in negligence.
2. Negligence as Proxim at e Cause
Pr ox im a t e Ca u se – t hat cause which, in t he nat ural and cont inuous sequence, unbr ok en by an efficient
supervening cause, produces t he inj ury and w it hout w hich t he inj ury w ould not have occur red.
Su bid o v. CA
This case involves an accident bet w een a t ruck [ or bus] belonging t o Laguna Tayabas Bus Com pany ( LTB) and
driv en by Mudales and a t ruck ow ned by Sabido and driv en by Lagunda.
The t wo vehicles wer e going in opposit e dir ect ions when t hey m et at a curv e in t he r oad. Cust odio, a passenger of
LTB was hanging [ sabit ] on t he left side of t he vehicle. He died aft er being sideswiped by Sabido’s t ruck.
The CFI held t he vehicle owner s and t he driv er s solidar ily liable. LTB and it s driv er wer e liable for violat ing t he
cont ract of carr iage; Sabido and his driv er wer e liable for quasi- delict .
I SSUE: Whet her Sabido and his driv er wer e guilt y of negligence; whet her t hey should be held solidar ily liable wit h
LTB.
H ELD : They are bot h guilt y of cont r ibut or y negligence.
Though LTB and it s driver wer e guilt y of negligence for allowing Cust odio t o hang fr om t he left side of t he bus,
Sabido and his driv er w er e guilt y of cont ribut or y negligence because t he t r uck was running at a considerable
speed, despit e t he fact t hat it was negot iat ing a sharp curve, and, inst ead of being close t o it s right side of t he
road, said t ruck was dr iv en on it s m iddle por t ion and so near t he passenger bus com ing from t he opposit e
dir ect ion as t o sideswipe a passenger r iding on it s running boar d.
Though t he negligence of LTB and it s driv er are independent from t he negligence of Sabido and his driv er, bot h
a ct s of n e glige n ce a r e t h e pr ox im a t e ca u se of t h e de a t h of Cust odio. I n fact , t he negligence of t he first t wo
would not have pr oduced t his r esult w it hout t he negligence of Sabido and his driv er . What is m or e, Sabido’s
driv er’s negligence was t he last , in point of t im e, for Cust odio was on t he running boar d of t he car rier's bus
som et im e befor e pet it ioner s' t ruck cam e from t he opposit e direct ion, so t hat , in t his sense, Sa bido’s t r u ck h a d
t h e la st cle a r ch a n ce .
Ev en t hough LTB’s liabilit y arises fr om breach of cont r act and Sabido’s ar ises from quasi- delict , t hey ar e solidarily
liable because t he rule is t hat w h e r e bot h n e glige n t a ct s, in com bin a t ion , a r e t h e dir e ct a n d pr ox im a t e
ca u se of a sin gle in j u r y t o a t h ir d pe r son a n d it is im possib le t o de t e r m in e in w h a t pr opor t ion e a ch
con t r ibu t e d t o t h e in j u r y, e it h e r is r e spon sible for t h e w h ole in j u r y , e ve n t h ou g h h is a ct a lon e m igh t
n ot h a ve ca u se d t h e e n t ir e in j u r y, or t h e sa m e da m a ge m igh t h a ve r e su lt e d fr om t h e a ct s of t h e ot h e r
t or t - fea sor .
Ridj o Ta pe v. CA

Pet it ioner s were being charged by MERALCO P415,317.66 for allegedly unregist ered elect r ic consum pt ion
( URE) for t he per iod of Nov em ber 1990 t o Febr uary 1991. MERALCO j ust ified it s dem and on t he ground t hat
t he URE was due t o defect s of t he elect r ic m et er. When pet it ioners refused t o pay, MERALCO not ified t hem
of disconnect ion which pr om pt ed pet it ioners t o file for pr elim inar y inj unct ion and/ or TEMPORARY
RESTRAI NI NG ORDER which was grant ed.
ON July 1992, pet it ioners r eceiv ed anot her dem and let t er , t his t im e requiring t hem t o pay P89,710.58 for
URE fr om July 1991 t o April 1992, t he deficiency again due t o t he defect ive m et er. Pet it ioner s again filed
for t he consolidat ion of t he t wo cases, and aft er t rial, t he inj unct ion w as m ade perm anent . CA rev ersed t he
decision of RTC
I SSUE: Whet her pet it ioners should be m ade t o pay t he said am ount s for t heir unregist ered elect ric
consum pt ion during t he said periods w hich w as due t o t he defect s of t he elect r ic m et er
H ELD : No.
MERALCO’s failure t o m ake t he necessar y repairs and replacem ent of t he defect iv e elect r ic m et er inst alled
wit hin t he prem ises of pet it ioners was obviously t he proxim at e cause of t he inst ant disput e bet w een t he
part ies. I ndeed, if an unusual elect ric consum pt ion w as not reflect ed in t he st at em ent s of account of
pet it ioner s, MERALCO, considering it s t echnical k nowledge and vast exper ience in pr oviding elect ric ser vice,
could have easily verified any possible err or in t he m et er reading. I n t he absence of such a m ist ake, t he
elect ric m et er s t hem selv es should be inspect ed for possible defect s or br eak dow ns and fort hwit h repair ed
and, if necessar y, r eplaced. Furt herm or e, if MERALCO discov er ed t hat cont rapt ions or illegal devices wer e
inst alled which would alt er t he result of t he m et er reading, t hen it should have filed t he appropr iat e cr im inal
com plaint against pet it ioner s.
N ot ice of a de fect n e ed n ot be dir e ct a n d e x pr e ss; it is e n ou gh t h a t t h e sa m e h a d e x ist e d for su ch

a le n g t h of t im e t h a t it is r e a son a b le t o pr e su m e t h a t it h a d be en de t e ct e d, a n d t h e pre se n ce of a
con spicu ou s de fe ct w h ich h a s ex ist e d for a con side r a ble le n g t h of t im e w ill cr e a t e a pr e su m pt ion
of con st r u ct ive n ot ice t h e r e of. H e n ce , M ERALCO's fa ilu r e t o discove r t h e defect , if a n y,
con side r in g t h e le n gt h of t im e , a m ou n t s t o in e x cu sa b le n e glige n ce .
Furt her m or e, t hat as a public utilit y , MERALCO has t he obligat ion t o dischar ge it s funct ions wit h ut m ost care
and diligence
The liabilit y of pet it ioner s for consum ed but unrecor ded elect ricit y m ust t herefor e be lim it ed by reason of
MERALCO’s negligence- only t he est im at ed consum pt ion on a t hree- m ont h average befor e t he cont rover sial
per iod ( P168,342.75) .
Er m it a n o v. CA, BPI
Luis Erm it ano was a cr edit cardholder t oget her w it h his wife Manuelit a who had an ext ension, in BPI wit h a
cr edit lim it of 10,000 w hich t hey oft en ex ceeded and BPI never seem ed t o have m inded for t he past 2
year s.
Manuelit a’s bag one day was snat ched, and t hat night she infor m ed by t elephone BPI of t he loss. This was
follow ed by a let t er t he next day, surr endering her husband’s car d as well, st at ing t hat she shall not be
responsible for any and all char ges incurr ed aft er August 29,1989 ( t he day of loss) , and sought for
replacem ent car ds inst ead.
Howev er in t heir m ont hly billing st at em ent t he t hief w ent on som e kind of a shopping spr ee am ount ing t o
3,ooo ( t hat ’s double a social sin for you! ) So she wr ot e again disclaim ing responsibilit y.
BPI point ed out t he st ipulat ion in t he cont ract t hey had signed st at ed
" I n t he ev ent t he card is lost or st olen, t he cardholder agr ees t o im m ediat ely report it s loss or t heft in
writ ing t o BECC ... pur chases m ade/ incurr ed arising from t he use of t he lost / st olen car d shall be for t he
ex clusiv e account of t he car dholder and t he car dholder cont inues t o be liable for t he pur chases m ade
t hr ough t he use of t he lost / st olen BPI Expr ess Card unt il aft er such not ice has been given t o BECC and t he
la t t e r h a s com m u n ica t e d su ch loss/ t h e ft t o it s m e m be r e st a blish m e n t s."
Luis t hreat ened t hat such was a cont ract of adhesion and t hat t hey’d sue for dam ages if BPI st ill insist ed on
having t hem pay when t hey already com plied w it h t he requirem ent of not ify ing t hem on t im e and should
t hus be absolv ed from any liabilit y.

Despit e t heir refusal t o pay, t heir car ds wer e st ill renew ed and som e t im e in 1991, w hen Luis was paying for
gas, lo and behold his card was dishonored! BPI inform ed t hem t hat t hey had exceeded t heir cr edit lim it and
because inclusiv e in t heir m ont hly bill, t he unaut horized paym ent s fr om his lost card wer e st ill carried over.
So Luis sued, and won, CA rev er sed
I SSUE: Whet her pet it ioner s should be liable for t he unaut hor ized pay m ent s in t heir cr edit card unt il such a
t im e t he bank had been able t o not ify all it s m em ber est ablishm ent s ev en w hen t hey had already exercised
due diligence in com ply ing prom pt ly wit h t he requir em ent of not ifying BPI of t he t heft .
H ELD : No.
Pr om pt n ot ice by t h e ca r dh olde r t o t h e cr e dit ca rd com pa n y of t h e loss or t h e ft of h is ca r d sh ou ld

be e n ou gh t o r e lie ve t h e for m er of a n y lia b ilit y occa sion e d by t h e u n a u t h or ize d u se of h is lost or
st ole n ca r d.
The quest ioned st ipulat ion in t his case, which st ill r equires t he cardholder t o w ait unt il t he credit car d
com pany has not ified all it s m em ber- est ablishm ent s, put s t he cardholder at t he m ercy of t he cr edit card
com pany which m ay delay indefinit ely t he not ificat ion of it s m em ber s t o m inim ize if not t o elim inat e t he
possibilit y of incurr ing any loss fr om unaut horized pur chases. Or , as in t his case, t he cr edit card com pany
m ay for som e r eason fail t o pr om pt ly not ify it s m em ber s t hrough absolut ely no fault of t he cardholder. To
requir e t he car dholder t o st ill pay for unaut horized purchases aft er he has given pr om pt not ice of t he loss or
t heft of his car d t o t he cr edit car d com pany would sim ply be unfair and unj ust .
Be n gu e t Ele ct r ic v CA
Jose Ber nar do m anaged a st all at t he Baguio Cit y m eat m ar k et . On 14 January 1985 at around 7: 50 in t he
m orning, Jose t oget her w it h ot her m eat vendor s went out of t heir st alls t o m eet a j eepney loaded wit h
slaught er ed pigs in or der t o select t he m eat t hey would sell for t he day. Jose was t he ver y first t o reach t he
park ed j eepney. Grasping t he handlebars at t he rear ent rance of t he vehicle, and as he was about t o raise
his right foot t o get inside, Jose suddenly st iffened and t rem bled as t hough suffering from an epilept ic
seizur e. Rom eo Pim ient a who saw Jose t hought he was m erely j oking but not iced alm ost in disbelief t hat he
was alr eady t ur ning black. I n no t im e t he ot her vendor s rushed t o Jose and t hey discov er ed t hat t he
ant enna of t he j eepney bearing t he pigs had got t en ent angled wit h an open elect ric wir e at t he t op of t he
roof of a m eat st all. Pim ient a quickly got hold of a broom and pried t he ant enna loose fr om t he open wir e.
But short ly aft er , Jose released his hold on t he handlebars of t he j eep only t o slum p t o t he ground.
His spouse and childr en filed a claim against BENECO, who t hen in t ur n filed a t hir d part y com plaint against
t he owner of t he j eep, who according t o BENECO w as t he pr oxim at e, if not , sole cause of t he deat h
I SSUE: Whet her BENECO was negligent .
H ELD : Yes.
Ther e is no quest ion t hat as an elect ric cooperat iv e holding t he ex clusiv e fr anchise in supplying elect r ic
power t o t he t owns of Benguet pr ovince, it s prim or dial concern is not only t o dist ribut e elect r icit y t o it s
subscriber s but also t o ensur e t he safet y of t he public by t he proper m aint enance and upkeep of it s facilit ies.
I t is clear t o t hen t hat BENECO was gr ossly negligent in leaving unprot ect ed and uninsulat ed t he splicing
point bet w een t he serv ice drop line and t he ser vice ent rance conduct or, which connect ion w as only eight ( 8)
feet fr om t he ground lev el, in violat ion of t he Philippine Elect rical Code. By leaving an open live wire
unat t ended for year s, BENECO dem onst rat ed it s ut t er disregar d for t he safet y of t he public. I ndeed, Jose
Bernar do's deat h was an accident t hat was bound t o happen in view of t he gross negligence of BENECO.
BENECO t heorizes in it s defense t hat t he deat h of Jose Bernardo could be at t ribut ed t o t he negligence of
Canave, Jr., in park ing his j eepney so close t o t he m ar k et st all which was neit her a park ing area nor a
loading area, wit h his ant enna so high as t o get ent angled wit h an open wir e abov e t he Dim asupil st or e. But
t his line of defense m ust be discar ded.
Canav e's act of park ing in an ar ea not cust om arily used for t hat purpose w as by no m eans t he independent
negligent act adver t ed t o by BENECO in cit ing Manila Elect r ic Co. v. Ronquillo. Canave was well wit hin his
right t o park t he vehicle in t he said area where t here was no showing t hat any m unicipal law or ordinance
was violat ed nor t hat t her e was any for eseeable danger posed by his act . One t hing howev er is sure, no
accident w ould have happened had BENECO inst alled t he connect ions in accordance w it h t he prescribed
vert ical clearance of fift een ( 15) feet .
St . M a r y’s v. Ca r pit a n os

St . Mary’s Academ y of Dipolog Cit y conduct ed an enr ollm ent driv e for t he school year 1995- 1996. A facet of t he
enrollm ent cam paign was t he visit at ion of schools fr om where prospect iv e enrollees were st udying. As a st udent
of St . Mary’s Academ y , Sher win Carpit anos w as part of t he cam paigning group. On t he fat eful day, Sher win,
along w it h ot her high school st udent s wer e riding in a Mit subishi j eep owned by defendant Viv encio Villanueva on
t heir way t o Larayan Elem ent ary School. The j eep was driv en by Jam es Daniel I I t hen 15 years old and a st udent
of t he sam e school. Allegedly , t he lat t er dr ov e t he j eep in a reckless m anner and as a r esult t he j eep t ur ned
t ur t le.
Sher win Car pit anos died as a result of t he inj uries he sust ained from t he accident .
The parent s claim ed dam ages from t he school, and won.
I SSUE: Whet her St . Mary’s should be liable for t he deat h of a st udent as a result of a car accident in an
aut hor ized school act ivit y
H ELD : No.
The Court of Appeals m ist akenly held pet it ioner St . Mary’s Academ y liable for t he deat h of Sherw in Carpit anos
under Art icles 218[ 7] and 219[ 8] of t he Fam ily Code, point ing out t hat pet it ioner was negligent in allowing a m inor
t o driv e and in not having a t eacher accom pany t he m inor st udent s in t he j eep.
Under Art icle 218 of t he Fam ily Code, t he following shall hav e special par ent al aut horit y over a m inor child while
under t heir superv ision, inst ruct ion or cust ody: ( 1) t he school, it s adm inist rat ors and t eacher s; or ( 2) t he
indiv idual, ent it y or inst it ut ion engaged in child car e. This special par ent al aut horit y and responsibilit y applies t o
all aut horized act ivit ies.
Under Art icle 219 of t he Fam ily Code, if t he per son under cust ody is a m inor, t hose ex er cising special parent al
aut hor it y ar e principally and solidarily liable for dam ages caused by t he act s or om issions of t he unem ancipat ed
m inor while under t heir super v ision, inst r uct ion, or cust ody.
Howev er , for pet it ioner t o be liable, t h e r e m u st be a fin din g t h a t t h e a ct or om ission con side r e d a s
n e glige n t w a s t h e pr ox im a t e ca u se of t h e in j u r y ca u se d be ca u se t h e n e glige n ce m u st h a ve a
ca u sa l con n e ct ion t o t h e a ccide n t .
I n t his case, t he respondent s failed t o show t hat t he negligence of pet it ioner was t he pr ox im at e cause of t he deat h
of t he vict im .
I n t heir com m ent t o t he pet it ion, respondent s Daniel spouses and Villanueva adm it t ed t he docum ent ar y
ex hibit s est ablishing t hat t he cause of t he accident was t he det achm ent of t he st eering wheel guide of t he
j eep. Hence, t he cause of t he accident w as not t he recklessness of Jam es Daniel I I but t he m echanical
defect in t he j eep of Viv encio Villanuev a.
Furt her , t her e was no evidence t hat pet it ioner school allow ed t he m inor Jam es Daniel I I t o driv e t he j eep of
respondent Vivencio Villanueva. I t w as Ched Villanueva, t he grandson, who had possession and cont rol of t he
j eep. He was driv ing t he vehicle and he allow ed Jam es Daniel I I , a m inor , t o dr iv e t he j eep at t he t im e of t he
accident .
Hence, liabilit y for t he accident , whet her caused by t he negligence of t he m inor driver or m echanical det achm ent
of t he st eer ing wheel guide of t he j eep, m ust be pinned on t he m inor’s parent s prim arily. Th e n e glige n ce of
pet it ion er St . M a ry ’s Aca de m y w a s on ly a r e m ot e ca u se of t h e a ccide n t . Be t w e e n t h e r e m ot e ca u se
a n d t h e in j u r y , t h e r e in t e r ve n e d t h e n e glige n ce of t h e m in or’s pa re n t s or t h e det a ch m e n t of t h e
st e er in g w h e e l gu ide of t h e j e e p.
3. Proof of Negligence
Food Ter m in a l I n cor por a t e d vs. CA. a nd Ba sic Foods Cor p.
Food Ter m inal I ncor porat ed ( FTI ) is engaged in t he business of warehousing st or age of goods or m erchandise for
com pensat ion at it s refrigerat ed w arehouse in Taguig, Met ro Manila. Basic Foods is engaged in t he product ion of
food and allied product s.
I n it s m anufact ure of food, Basic Foods uses Red St ar com pr essed yeast , which requir es st orage in a r efr igerat ed
space t o av oid spoilage. I t deposit ed 1,770 car t ons of yeast wit h FTI for cold st or age. 383 car t ons wor t h P161k
wer e dam aged, allegedly because of FTI ’s failure t o m aint ain t he pr oper t em per at ure.

FTI claim s t hat it exercised ut m ost diligence; t hat any dam age sust ained was due t o t he fault of Basic Foods; t hat
under t he cont ract , FTI would not be liable for dam age t o goods bey ond it s reasonable cont r ol; and t hat Basic
Foods w as est opped from filing t he act ion because it acknow ledged r eceipt of t he y east in good order.
The RTC dism issed; t he CA held t hat t her e was negligence.
I SSUE: Whet her FTI was guilt y of negligence in t he st orage of Basic Foods’ yeast .
H ELD : FTI was negligent .
I n t he first place, t he issue is fact ual, t hus, t he r uling of t he Court of Appeals is binding on t he par t ies and
m ay not be reviewed on appeal via cer t iorari.
I n t he second place, pet it ioner pract ically adm it t ed t hat it failed t o m aint ain t he agr eed t em per at ure of t he
cold st orage area at 2 t o 4 degrees cent igrade at all t im es, and t his caused t he det er ior at ion of t he y east
st or ed t her ein. Nonet heless, pet it ioner claim ed t hat t em per at ure was not t he sole cause for t he det er iorat ion
of respondent 's goods. Since negligence has been est ablished, pet it ioner's liabilit y for dam ages is
inescapable.
M or ris v. CA
Morris and Whit t ier wer e Am er ican cit izens em ploy ed in t he Philippines. They wer e book ed as fir st - class
passenger s on a 3: 50 pm Scandinavian Airline Sy st em ( SAS) flight fr om Manila t o Toky o. On t he day of
depart ur e, Mor ris and Whit t ier checked in at t he airpor t at 3: 10 pm . Howev er, t hey w ere t old t hat t hey could not
be accom m odat ed on t he plane because t heir seat s had been giv en t o ot her passengers. Appar ent ly, t he
econom y class of t he flight had been over booked and t he seat s of t he first class passengers w ho had not checked
in at least 40 m inut es befor e depart ur e t im e wer e given t o econom y class passenger s. Mor ris and Whit t ier filed a
claim against SAS for m oral and exem plary dam ages.
I SSUE: Whet her Morr is and Whit t ier are ent it led t o m oral and exem plary dam ages.
H ELD : No, t hey are not .
I n awar ding dam ages for br each of cont ract of car riage, t he breach m ust be want on and deliberat ely inj urious, or
t he one responsible act ed fraudulent ly or wit h m alice or bad fait h. Wher e in breaching t he cont ract of car riage,
t he defendant air line is not shown t o have act ed fraudulent ly or in bad fait h, liabilit y for dam ages is lim it ed t o t he
nat ural and pr obable consequences of t he br each of obligat ion w hich t he part ies had foreseen or could have
reasonably for eseen. Such liabilit y does not include m oral and ex em plar y dam ages. Moral dam ages m ay be
recov ered only where ( a) t he m ishap result s in t he deat h of a passenger; and ( b) it is pr ov ed t hat t he carr ier was
guilt y of fraud and bad fait h ev en if deat h does not result . Bad fait h does not sim ply connot e bad j udgm ent of
negligence. I t im por t s a dishonest pur pose or som e m or al obliquit y and conscious doing of a wr ong, a breach of
know n dut y t hrough som e m ot iv e or int er est or ill will t hat part ak es of t he nat ure of fraud.
I n t his case, what happened was at t ribut able t o t he fault of Morris and Whit t ier, since t hey failed t o check in on
t im e. SAS could not be fault ed for not ent ert aining t heir t icket s and papers for pr ocessing, since t he check ing in
of passenger s for t he flight was finished. There was no fraud or bad fait h as w ould j ust ify an aw ard of m oral
dam ages.
4. Presum pt ion of Negligence
The plaint iff m ay invoke t he following principles in order t o im put e presum ed negligence on t he defendant :
a. res ipsa loquit ur

b. respondeat superior
c. violat ion of t raffic r ules
d. danger ous w eapons and subst ances
I n t hese cases, t her e is no need for t he plaint iff t o show t hat t he defendant was negligent . Ther e is a rebut t able
presum pt ion of negligence on t he part of t he defendant . I t is incum bent upon t he defendant t o pr ove t hat he
ex er cised t he degree of car e requir ed by t he cir cum st ances. I f he fails t o prove t his, he shall be liable for
dam ages.
a. Res ipsa loquit ur
St at em ent of t he rule: “W h er e t h e t h in g w h ich ca u se d t h e in j u r y com pla in e d of is sh ow n t o be u n der t h e

m a n a ge m e n t of de fe n da n t or h is se r va n t s a n d t h e a ccid e n t is su ch a s in t h e or din a r y cou r se of t h in gs

doe s n ot h a pp e n if t h ose w h o h a ve it s m a n a ge m e n t or con t r ol u se pr ope r ca re , it a ffor ds r ea son a ble
e vide n ce , in a bse n ce of e x pla n a t ion by de fen da n t , t h a t t h e a ccide n t a r ose from w a n t of ca r e .”
Elem ent s:
1. t he t hing which caused t he inj ury is under t he exclusive cont rol of t he defendant ;
2. or dinar ily, such event will not happen unless t here is negligence;
3. defendant fails t o giv e an ex planat ion for t he happening of t he ev ent .
CASES:
Afr ica v. Ca lt e x
A fir e br ok e out at a Cat ex st at ion in Manila. I t st ar t ed while gasoline was being hosed from a t ank t ruck int o
t he under ground st orage, right at t he opening of t he receiving t ank w her e t he nozzle of t he hose w as
insert ed. The fire spread t o and burned several neighboring houses.
The owners of t he burned propert ies filed a com plaint for dam ages against Calt ex , as t he owner of t he
st at ion, and Boquir en, as t he agent in char ge of operat ion.
I SSUE: Whet her Calt ex was negligent under t he doct r ine of res ipsa loquit ur .
H ELD : Calt ex was negligent .
Fir st of all, it w as necessar y t o r ely on t he doct rine of res ipsa loquit ur because cert ain repor t s m ade by
officers of t he police and fire depart m ent s wer e ruled t o be inadm issible in evidence for being hear say.
Re s ipsa loqu it u r is a rule t o t he effect t hat “ Where t he t hing which caused t he inj ury com plained of is
show n t o be under t he m anagem ent of defendant or his ser vant s and t he accident is such as in t he or dinar y
cour se of t hings does not happen if t hose who have it s m anagem ent or cont r ol use proper car e, it affords
reasonable evidence, in absence of ex planat ion by defendant , t hat t he accident arose fr om want of care.”
The r ule applies in t his case. The gasoline st at ion, wit h all it s appliances, equipm ent and em ploy ees, was
under t he cont rol of appellees. A fire occurr ed t herein and spread t o and burned t he neighboring houses.
The persons who k new or could have known how t he fir e st art ed wer e appellees and t heir em ploy ees, but
t hey gav e no ex planat ion t her eof what soev er. I t is a fair and r easonable infer ence t hat t he incident
happened because of want of care.
The st at ion is in a ver y busy dist r ict and pedest r ians oft en pass t hrough or m ill around t he prem ises. Aside
fr om t his, it is used as a car barn for around t en t axicabs ow ned by Boquir en. Also, t her e is a st ore locat ed
around one m et er fr om t he hole of t he under gr ound t ank . At t his st or e, people hang out and possibly sm ok e
cigar et t es. I t was even alleged t hat t he fire w as caused by a m at ch which cam e int o cont r act wit h t he dense
fum es.
Furt her m or e, t he concret e walls adj oining t he neighborhood are only 2 ½ m et er s high at m ost and cannot
prevent t he flam es fr om leaping over it in case of fir e.
Anot her issue was whet her Calt ex should be liable as t he principal of Boquir en. I t was held t hat Calt ex was
liable because t her e was an agency r elat ionship and Boquiren was not an independent cont r act or. Calt ex
owned t he st at ion and ex er cised cont r ol over it .
Ba t iqu in v. CA
Dr . Bat iquin perfor m ed a Caesar ean sect ion on Mrs. Villegas. Aft er t he deliv er y of her baby, Mr s. Villegas began
t o suffer abdom inal pains and fever . When, despit e t aking m edicat ion pr escr ibed by Dr . Bat iquin, she st ill did not
get w ell, Mrs. Villegas consult ed anot her doct or, Doct or Kho. Doct ro Kho suggest ed t hat t hey open her up again.
Dur ing sur gery, Doct or Kho found lot s of pus and sev eral cy st s in Mr s. Villegas’s ovaries. She t hen discov er ed a
piece of rubber which seem ed like a part of a rubber glove or a rubber drain st uck near Mrs. Villegas’s ut erus.
This rubber glove was t he cause of t he infect ion of Mrs. Villegas’s int er nal or gans. Aft er it was t aken out , Mrs.
Villegas regained her healt h.
Mrs. Villegas filed an act ion for dam ages against Dr. Bat iquin.
I SSUE: Whet her Mrs. Villegas is ent it led t o dam ages.

H ELD : Yes. The r ule of res ipsa loquit ur ( t he t hing speak s for it self) is applicable in t his case. Under t his doct rine,
t he happening of an inj ury per m it s an infer ence of negligence where plaint iff pr oduces subst ant ial evidence t hat
t he inj ury was caused by an agency or inst rum ent alit y under t he exclusiv e cont r ol and m anagem ent of t he
defendant , and t hat t he occurr ence was such t hat in t he or dinary cour se of t hings would not happen if reasonable
car e had been used. The doct r ine of res ipsa loquit ur as a rule of evidence is peculiar t o t he law of negligence
which recognizes t hat prim a facie negligence m ay be est ablished wit hout dir ect proof and furnishes a subst it ut e for
specific pr oof of negligence. The doct r ine can be invok ed only when, under t he cir cum st ances, dir ect evidence is
absent and not r eadily available.
I n t his case, all t he requisit es for r ecour se t o t he doct rine are present . Fir st , t he ent ire proceedings of t he
caesar ean sect ion wer e under t he ex clusiv e cont r ol of Dr. Bat iquin. Mr s. Villegas did not hav e any direct evidence
as t o t he act ual culprit or t he exact cause of t he for eign obj ect finding it s way int o her body, which could not have
occur red unless t hrough t he int erv ent ion of negligence. Second, since aside from t he caesar ean sect ion, Villegas
under w ent no ot her operat ion which could have caused t he piece of rubber t o appear in her ut erus, it st ands t o
reason t hat such could only have been a by- product of t he caesar ean sect ion perfor m ed by Dr. Bat iquin. Dr .
Bat iquin failed t o over com e t he presum pt ion of negligence ar ising fr om resor t t o t he doct rine of res ipsa loquit ur .
She is t herefor e liable for negligent ly leaving behind a piece of r ubber in Villegas’s abdom en and for all t he
adver se effect s t her eof.
Re y e s v. Sist er s of M e rcy
Jor ge Rey es had been suffer ing from recur r ing fev er wit h chills for around 5 day s. Hom e m edicat ion afforded him
no r elief so he went t o Mer cy Com m unit y Clinic. Because t yphoid was com m on at t he t im e, t he Widal Test w as
per for m ed. Jorge cam e out posit iv e for t yphoid. Dr. Blanes or der ed t hat Jorge be t est ed for com pat ibilit y w it h
chlorom y cet in, an ant ibiot ic. Nur se Pagent e adm inist ered t he t est . As t her e was no adv erse r eact ion, Dr . Blanes
adm inist ered 500 m g of t he ant ibiot ic. Anot her dose w as given 3 hour s lat er. Subsequent ly , Jorge developed
high fever and ex perienced vom it ing and convulsions. He t hen t urned blue due t o deficiency in oxygen – cyanosis
– and died. The cause of deat h was st at ed t o be “ v ent ricular ar rhy t hm ia secondar y t o hyper py rex ia and t yphoid
fev er.”
I SSUE: Whet her t he Sist ers of Mercy Hospit al/ t he doct or s wer e negligent .
H ELD : Not negligent .
The doct r ine of res ipsa loquit ur is not applicable in t his case.
Though expert t est im ony is usually needed t o prov e m alpract ice, w here com m on know ledge and ex perience t each
t hat t he inj ur y would not have occur r ed if due car e had been ex er cised, t he doct r ine of res ipsa loquit ur can be
invok ed t o est ablish negligence. The elem ent s of res ipsa loquit ur are:
a. t he accident will not nor m ally occur unless som eone is negligent ;
b. t he inst rum ent alit y which caused t he inj ury w as under t he cont rol of t he person in charge; and
c. t he inj ury was not due t o t he volunt ary act of t he per son inj ured.
I n t his case, Jorge’s deat h was not unusual because he had been suffer ing fr om fev er and chills 5 day s prior t o
adm ission. Furt her m or e, as t o t he charge of m isdiagnosis, r es ipsa loquit ur cannot apply t o suit s involving t he
m erit s of a diagnosis.
b. respondeat superior
Ar t . 1 7 5 5 . A com m on ca r r ie r is bou n d t o ca rr y t h e pa sse n ger s sa fe ly a s fa r a s h u m a n ca r e a n d

for e sigh t ca n pr ovide , u sin g t h e u t m ost dilige n ce of ver y ca u t iou s pe r son s, w it h a du e r ega r d for a ll
t h e cir cu m st a n ce s.
Ar t . 1 7 5 6 . I n ca se of dea t h of or in j u r ie s t o pa sse n ge r s, com m on ca r r ie r s a re pr e su m e d t o h a ve be e n

a t fa u lt or t o h a ve a ct e d n e glige n t ly , u n le ss t h e y pr ove t h a t t h ey obse r ve d e x t r a or din a r y dilige n ce a s
pr escr ibe d in Ar t icle s 1 7 3 3 a n d 1 7 5 5 .

Ar t . 1 7 3 3 . Com m on ca r r ie r s, fr om t h e n a t u r e of t h e ir bu sin e ss a n d for r e a son s of pu blic policy, a r e
bou n d t o obse r ve e x t r a or din a r y dilige n ce in t h e vigila n ce ove r t h e goods a n d for t h e sa fe t y of t h e
pa sse n ge r s t r a n spor t e d by t h e m , a ccor din g t o a ll t h e cir cum st a n ce s of e a ch ca se .
Su ch e x t r a or din a r y dilige n ce in t h e vigila n ce ove r t h e goods is fu r t h e r ex pr e sse d in Ar t icle s 1 7 3 4 ,

1 7 3 5 , a n d 1 7 4 5 , N os. 5 , 6 , a n d 7 , w h ile t h e e x t r a or din a r y dilige n ce for t h e sa fe t y of t h e pa sse n ge r s
is fur t he r se t fort h in Ar t icle s 1 7 5 5 a n d 1 7 5 6 .
Ar t . 1 7 5 9 . Com m on ca r r ie r s a r e lia ble for t he de a t h of or in j u r ie s t o pa sse n ger s t h r ou gh t h e

n e glige n ce or w ilfu l a ct s of t h e form e r's e m ploye e s, a lt h ou gh su ch e m ploy ee s m a y h a ve a ct e d
be yon d t h e scope of t h e ir a u t h or it y or in viola t ion of t h e or de r s of t h e com m on ca r r ie r s.
Th is lia bilit y of t h e com m on ca rr ie r s doe s n ot ce a se u pon pr oof t h a t t h e y e x e r cise d a ll t h e dilige n ce

of a good fa t h e r of a fa m ily in t h e se le ct ion a n d su pe r vision of t h e ir em ploy e e s.
Re spon de a t su pe r ior – m eans “ let t he em ployer/ principal” be responsible
Under t his principle, if t he negligence of t he em ploy ee has been proved, t here is no need t o prove t he negligence
of t he em ployer. The em ployer is already presum ed negligent in t he hiring and/ or supervision of t he em ployee.
This pr esum pt ion is, how ev er, rebut t able and not conclusiv e.
As will be show n in t he follow ing cases, t he doct r ine of respondeat super ior is applicable not only t o com m on
carr ier s but t o ot her inst ances wher e an em ploy ee or agent , not necessarily of a com m on car rier, is negligent .
CASES:
Cit y of M a n ila v. I AC
Viv encio St o. Dom ingo died in 1971 and was buried in a lot in t he Nort h Cem et er y. The lot was leased t o his
w idow I r ene St o. Dom ingo unt il 2021. How ever, apart from t he receipt issued by t he cit y for t he rent al of t he lot ,
t her e wer e no ot her r ecor ds st at ing t he t erm of t he lease. I n 1978, t he Mayor of Manila, believ ed in good fait h
t hat t he lease in fav or of I r ene St o. Dom ingo was cov er ed by Adm inist r at iv e Or der No. 5, series of 1975 which
provided for t he lease of t he burial lot s only for a period of 5 y ears. Thinking t hat t he lease in favor of St o.
Dom ingo had already t erm inat ed by t his t im e, t he m ay or cer t ified t hat t he lot in which Vivencio was buried w as
ready for exhum at ion. I n accordance wit h t his cer t ificat ion, t he aut horit ies of t he Nor t h Cem et er y exhum ed t he
rem ains of Vivencio and put t hem in a bag which w as t hen st ored inside a bodega. The lot was t hen leased t o
anot her par t y. During All Saint s Day, I r ene St o. Dom ingo and her fam ily wer e shocked t o find t hat t he lot no
longer had t he st one m ark er which t hey placed on t he t om b. When she asked what happened t o t he rem ains of
her husband, she was t old t o look for t hem in t he bodega. Aggr ieved, I rene St o. Dom ingo filed a claim for
dam ages against t he Cit y of Manila, t he cit y healt h officer, and t he per son in char ge of t he cem et er y.
I SSUE: Whet her t he Cit y of Manila is liable t o St o. Dom ingo.
H ELD : Yes. Wit h respect t o pr opriet ary funct ions, a m unicipal corporat ion can be held liable t o t hird per sons ex
cont r act u or ex delict o. The superior or em ploy er m ust answ er civ illy for t he negligence or want of skill of it s
agent or ser vant in t he cour se or line of his em ploym ent , by which anot her, w ho is fr ee from cont ribut or y fault is
inj ured. Maint enance of cem et er ies is recognized as a m unicipal act ivit y of a pr opriet ar y charact er .
Hence, under t he doct rine of respondeat superior, pet it ioner Cit y of Manila is liable for t he t ort ious act com m it t ed
by it s agent s who failed t o v erify and check t he durat ion of t he cont ract of lease. The cont ent ion of t he pet it ioner-
cit y t hat t he lease is cov er ed by Adm inist r at iv e Or der No. 5, series of 1975 for five ( 5) year s only beginning fr om
June 6, 1971 is not m erit or ious for t he said adm inist rat ive or der cov er s new leases. When subj ect lot was cert ified
on January 25, 1978 as r eady for exhum at ion, t he lease cont ract for fift y ( 50) year s was st ill in full force and
effect .
The Cit y of Manila is or der ed t o give St o. Dom ingo t he right t o use a burial lot in t he Nort h Cem et er y
cor r esponding t o t he unexpired t er m of t he fully paid lease sued upon, t o sear ch for t he rem ains of t he lat e
Viv encio Dom ingo, and t o bury t he sam e in a subst it ut e lot t o be chosen by t he St o. Dom ingos. Mor eov er , m oral
and exem plar y dam ages are aw arded.
Ca la la s v. CA a n d Ju j e u r ch e Su n ga a n d Sa lva
Eliza Juj eur che Salva w as a college freshm an m aj oring in Physical Educat ion at t he Silim an Univer sit y in
Dum aguet e Cit y. One m orning, Sunga rode a j eep ow ned and operat ed by Calalas, but , since it w as already full,
she was giv en by t he conduct or an “ ex t ension seat ,” a wooden st ool at t he back of t he door at t he r ear end of t he
vehicle.
Along t he rout e, t he j eepney st opped t o let a passenger off. As she w as seat ed at t he rear of t he vehicle, Sunga
gave way t o t he out going passenger . Just as she was doing so, an I suzu t ruck driv en by Verena and owned by
Salva bum ped t he left rear port ion of t he j eepney. As a result , Sunga was inj ur ed. Because of her inj ury, she
decided not t o pur sue her Physical Educat ion m aj or as, in her wor ds, her “ left leg has a defect already.”
A com plaint for dam ages w as filed by Calalas against Salva and Verena on t he gr ound of quasi- delict – t his was
decided in favor of Calalas [ t his is not t he case we’r e st udying] .
Sunga subsequent ly filed a com plaint for dam ages against Calalas, alleging br each of cont ract of car riage. Calalas
filed a t hird- part y com plaint against against Salva [ t his is t he case we’r e st udying] .
The RTC absolved Calalas in t he br each of cont ract case and held Salva liable as t hird part y defendant . I t s ruling
was based on t he ruling in t he quasi- delict case.
The CA rev er sed and held t hat t he Sunga’s cause of act ion was based on br each of cont r act and not quasi- delict .
I SSUE: Whet her Calalas is guilt y of violat ing t he cont ract of car riage.
H ELD : Calalas is guilt y.
The RTC was wrong in deciding t he breach of cont ract [ BOC] case on t he basis of t he quasi- delict [ QD] case.
Fir st ly, Sunga was not a part y t o t he QD case and cannot be bound by it s ruling.
Secondly, t he issues or causes of act ion in bot h cases are different . The QD case is pr em ised on t he negligence of
t he t ort feasor. The BOC case is prem ised upon t he negligence of t he carrier in t he perform ance of t he cont ract ual
obligat ion.
Sunga’s com plaint was based on BOC. I t does not m at t er t hat a t hir d person’s act was t he pr oxim at e cause of t he
inj ury. The doct rine of proxim at e cause is applicable only t o QD. I n BOC, it is sufficient t o show t hat t here is a
cont ract ual relat ion bet w een t he part ies and t he com m on carr ier failed t o t ransm it t he passenger safely .
Ar t icles 1733, 1 7 5 5 , a n d 1 7 5 6 provide t hat a com m on car rier m ust exercise ext r aordinary diligence and t hat in
case of deat h or inj ury t o passenger s, t he presum pt ion is t hat t he car rier act ed negligent ly.
I n t his case, it is clear t hat t he pr esum pt ion of negligence has not been ov ercom e. When t he j eep st opped t o
unload, it s rear was prot ruding around t wo m et er s int o t he highway . Also, it was ov erloaded, hence t he
em ploym ent of t he ext ension seat . There is no fort uit ous event because t he dangers could have been foreseen
and avoided.
* m or al dam ages aw arded by t he CA were delet ed because t hey are gener ally not available in cases of BOC of
carr iage. The ex cept ions are deat h of t he passenger and bad fait h of fr aud of t he carrier.
Pe st a n o v. Su m a y a n g
Sum ay ang and Rom agos wer e riding a m ot orcy cle along a highway in Cebu. As t hey wer e about t o t ur n left at a
j unct ion, t hey were hit by a passenger bus driv en by Pest ano and owned by Met r o Cebu Aut obus Cor p. The bus
had t ried t o ov er t ak e t hem , but it hit t hem inst ead. Bot h Sum ayang and Rom agos died in t he accident . Crim inal
charges wer e inst it ut ed against Pest ano. The heirs of Sum ayang also filed a civil act ion for dam ages against
Pest ano ( as driv er of t he bus) , Met r o Cebu ( as owner of t he bus) , and t he insurer of Met r o Cebu.
The lower court and t he CA found Pest ano and Met ro Cebu guilt y of negligence. Pest ano was negligent in t ry ing t o
overt ake t he vict im ’s m ot orcycle at t he j unct ion, w hile Met r o Cebu w as negligent in allow ing t he bus t o ply it s
rout e despit e it s defect ive speedom et er.
I SSUE: Whet her Pest ano and Met ro Cebu ar e guilt y of negligence.
H ELD : Yes. The v ehicular collision was caused by Pest ano’s negligence when he at t em pt ed t o over t ak e t he
m ot or cy cle. As a pr ofessional driver operat ing a public t ranspor t bus, he should have ant icipat ed t hat ov ert aking
at a j unct ion w as a perilous m aneuv er , and he should have t hus exer cised ext rem e caut ion.

Met ro Cebu is also guilt y of negligence. Under Art icles 2180 and 2176 of t he Civil Code, owners and m anager s are
responsible for dam ages caused by t heir em ployees. When an inj ury is caused by t he negligence of a ser vant or
an em ploy ee, t he m ast er or em ploy er is pr esum ed t o be negligent eit her in t he select ion or in t he superv ision of
t hat em ployee. This presum pt ion m ay be over com e only by sat isfact orily show ing t hat t he em ployer ex ercised t he
car e and t he diligence of a good fat her of a fam ily in t he select ion and t he super vision of it s em ploy ee. I n t his
case, Met ro Cebu show ed laxit y in t he oper at ion of it s business and in t he super v ision of it s em ploy ees when it
allowed Pest ano t o ply his rout e w it h a defect iv e speedom et er . I t was r em iss in t he super vision of it s em ploy ees
and t he proper care of it s v ehicles. I t had t hus failed t o conduct it s business wit h t he diligence required by law.
c. Violat ion of t raffic rules
Ar t . 2 1 8 4 . I n m ot or ve h icle m ish a ps, t h e ow n e r is solida r ily lia ble w it h h is dr ive r , if t h e for m e r , w h o

w a s in t h e veh icle , cou ld h a ve , by t h e u se of t h e du e dilige n ce, pr e ve n t e d t h e m isfor t u n e . I t is
dispu t a bly pr esu m e d t h a t a dr iv er w a s n e glige n t , if h e h a d be e n fou n d gu ilt y or re ck le ss dr ivin g or
viola t in g t r a ffic re gu la t ion s a t lea st t w ice w it h in t h e n e x t pr e ce din g t w o m on t h s.
I f t h e ow n er w a s n ot in t h e m ot or ve h icle , t h e pr ovision s of Ar t icle 2 1 8 0 a r e a pplica ble . ( n )
Ar t . 2 1 8 5 . Un le ss t h e r e is pr oof t o t h e con t r a r y , it is pr e su m e d t h a t a pe r son dr ivin g a m ot or ve h icle

h a s be e n n e glige n t if a t t h e t im e of t h e m ish a p, h e w a s viola t in g a n y t r a ffic r e gu la t ion .
The driver is disput ably presum ed negligent if:
1. he had been found guilt y of r e ck le ss dr ivin g at least t w ice w it hin t he next preceding t w o m ont hs;
2. he had been found guilt y of v iola t in g t ra ffic r e gu la t ion s at least t w ice w it hin t he next preceding t w o
m ont hs; or
3. at t he t im e of t he m ishap, he w a s viola t in g a n y t r a ffic re gu la t ion .
M a n u e l v. CA
Ther e was a drizzle at ar ound 4 pm when t he Scout car, dr iv en by respondent Fer nando Abcede, which was
negot iat ing t he zigzag road in Cam arines Nort e, was hit on it s left side by a bus. The bus was owned by pet it ioner
Superlines Transpor t at ion, Co., I nc. and was driv en by pet it ioner Em iliano Manuel. Due t o t he im pact , t he Scout
car was t hrown back w ar ds against a prot ect iv e railing. Were it not for t he railing, t he Scout car would have fallen
int o a deep ravine. All it s t en occupant s, w hich included four childr en, wer e inj ured, sev en of t he vict im s sust ained
serious physical inj uries.
Em iliano Manuel, t he driver of t he bus, w as prosecut ed for m ult iple physical inj uries t hrough r eckless im prudence.
As he could lat er on not be found, an act ion for quasi- delict was filed against t he Bus Co. and it s insur er , and was
or dered t o pay P49, 954 in dam ages.
On appeal t hey cont ended t hat it w as act ually Abcede who was at fault , being only 19 yr s old and having no
driv er’s license. Proof of t his according t o t hem was a wom an passenger hear d say ing ‘. 'I yan na nga ba ang
sinasabi ko, napakalakas ang loob,’ when t he passenger s alight ed fr om t he Scout car.
Likew ise, pet it ioners quest ioned t he accuracy of t he pict ures and sket ches subm it t ed by priv at e respondent s as
ev idence t hat t he Super lines bus encr oached on t he lane of t he Scout car . Accor ding t o t hem , t he sket ch m ade by
t he police invest igat or showing flue skid m ark s of t he bus, is inadm issible as evidence because it was prepared t he
day aft er t he incident and t he alleged " t ell- t ale" skid m ar k s and ot her det ails had alr eady been oblit er at ed by t he
heavy downpour which last ed for at least an hour aft er t he accident
I SSUE: Whet her t he Bus Com pany is liable.
H ELD : Yes.
Ther e is st r ong pr esum pt ion of r egular it y of funct ions of t he policem en. Grant ing how ev er t hat t he placem ent of
sk idm ar ks wer e inaccur at e, nonet heless, t he finding of t he Court of Appeals t hat t he collision t ook place wit hin t he
lane of t he Scout car w as support ed by ot her conclusive evidence. " I ndeed, a t rail of br oken glass w hich w as
scat t er ed along t he car's side of t he road, w hereas t he bus lane w as ent irely clear of debris.”

Furt her m or e, t he fact t hat t he Scout car was found aft er t he im pact at rest against t he guar d railing show s t hat it
m ust have been hit and t hr ow n back wards by t he bus.
Fin a lly , t h e e vide n ce w it h r espect t o t h e issu e t h a t Fe r n a n do Abce de , Jr . w h o w a s n ot du ly lice n se d,

w a s t h e on e dr ivin g t h e Scou t ca r a t t h e t im e of t h e a ccide n t , cou ld n ot sim ply e x e m pt pe t it ion e r s'
lia bilit y beca u se t h e y w e re t h e pa r t ie s a t fa u lt for e n cr oa ch in g on t h e Scou t ca r 's la n e .
d. Danger ous Weapons and Subst ances
Ar t . 2 1 8 8 . Th e r e is pr im a fa cie pr e su m pt ion of n e glige n ce on t h e pa r t of t h e defe n da n t if t h e de a t h or

in j u r y r e su lt s fr om h is posse ssion of da n ger ou s w e a pon s or su bst a n ce s, su ch a s fir e a r m s a n d poison ,
e x ce pt w h e n t h e posse ssion or u se t h er e of is in dispe n sa ble in h is occu pa t ion or bu sin e ss.
RA6969 Toxic Subst ances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wast es Cont rol Act of 1990
Defendant is disput ably pr esum ed negligent if deat h or inj ury result s from his possession of dangerous weapons or
subst ances.
The defendant m ay invoke t he defense t hat possession or use of such danger ous w eapons or subst ances is
indispensable in his occupat ion or business.
Sm it h Be ll Sh ippin g v. Borj a
Sm it h Bell request ed Cust om s for inspect ion on it s vessel M/ T King Fam ily w hich was due t o arrive cont aining 750
m et ric t ons of alkyl benzene and m et hyl m et hacr ylat e m onom er . Cat alino Borj a, Cust om s I nspect or was t hen on
board t he vessel t o perform his dut ies.
At around noon, while M/ T King Fam ily was unloading chem icals unt o 2 bar ges owned by respondent I TTC, a
sudden explosion occur red set t ing t he vessels afire. Upon hearing t he explosion, Borj a w ho w as at t hat t im e inside
t he cabin pr epar ing report s, went out side t o check what had happened, and anot her ex plosion was heard, seeing
t he fire and fearing his life, j um ped ov erboard t o save him self. However, t he w at er was likewise on fire due
m ainly t o t he spilled chem icals. Despit e t he t rem endous heat , he sw am his way for 1 hour unt il he was r escued by
t he people living in t he squat t ers’ area and sent t o San Juan De Dios Hospit al.
Aft er weeks of int ensiv e care at t he hospit al, he w as diagnosed as perm anent ly disabled due t o t he incident . He
m ade dem ands against Sm it h Bell and I TTC for t he dam ages caused by t he explosion. How ever , bot h denied
liabilit ies and at t ribut ed t o each ot her negligence.
Trial cour t ruled in favor of Borj a and dism issed all count er claim s and such of Sm it h Bell t o I TTC. Cont r ary t o t he
claim of pet it ioner t hat no phy sical evidence was shown t o prove t hat t he ex plosion had originat ed fr om it s v essel,
CA held Sm it h Bell liable following t he findings of t he inv est igat ion conduct ed by t he Special Boar d of Marine
I nquir y.
I SSUE: Whet her Sm it h Bell whose car go on boar d cont ained danger ous chem icals is liable.
H ELD : Yes.
Sm it h Bell cannot shift t he blam e t o I TTC, as it st at ed t hat all t he explosions er upt ed from out side it s vessel and
not aboard. Negligence is conduct t hat cr eat es undue risk of harm t o anot her . I t is t he failur e t o observ e t hat
degree of car e, pr ecaut ion and vigilance t hat t he cir cum st ances j ust ly dem and, whereby t hat ot her per son suffer s
inj ury.
Pet it ioner ’s vessel was carr y ing chem ical cargo - - alk yl benzene and m et hyl m et hacr ylat e m onom er . While
know ing t hat t heir vessel w as carr ying danger ous inflam m able chem icals, it s officers and cr ew failed t o t ake all t he
necessary precaut ions t o prev ent an accident . Pet it ioner w as, t her efore, negligent .
As a result of t he fire and t he explosion during t he unloading of t he chem icals from pet it ioner ’s vessel, Respondent
Bor j a suffer ed burns t hat will per m anent ly disable him Hence, t he ow ner or t he per son in possession and cont r ol
of a vessel and t he vessel are liable for all nat ural and pr oxim at e dam age caused t o per sons and proper t y by
reason of negligence in it s m anagem ent or navigat ion.
Problem : Due t o recent bank robber ies in t he m et ropolis, a bank issued a cir cular t o all it s per sonnel, including
secur it y guards ( cont ract ed out t hrough a securit y agency) , t o t ight en securit y . X, a securit y guard at t he front
door of t he bank, t akes t his t o heart and has his shot gun ready. A, a cust om er of t he bank, ar riv es at t he front
door and opens her bag t o t ake out a gun for t he purpose of sur r ender ing it t o t he guar d. The guard, upon seeing

t he gun, inst inct iv ely shoot s at A. A dies. I s t her e a presum pt ion of negligence on t he part of ( a) t he guar d? ( b)
t he bank) ? ( c) t he securit y agency?
Answ er: The guard is pr esum ed negligent . But under w hat doct rine? I f you answ er ed under Art icle 2188
( possession of danger ous weapons) , y ou are wr ong. The guard cannot be presum ed negligent m er ely because he
possessed a gun because his possession of it w as indispensable t o his occupat ion as a securit y guard. This is one
of t he defenses t hat m ay be invok ed by t he defendant against t he presum pt ion of negligence under Art icle 2188.
Rat her, t he guard is presum ed negligent under t he principle of res ipsa loquit ur.
The securit y agency is pr esum ed negligent under t he doct r ine of respondeat super ior .
The bank is not presum ed negligent , since t her e is no em ployer- em ployee relat ionship bet w een it and t he guard.
I n order t o at t ribut e negligence t o t he bank, such m ust be est ablished by pr oof.
5. Defenses
When t he defendant is pr esum ed negligent , he m ay inv ok e t he follow ing defenses:
a. cont r ibut ory negligence

b. assum pt ion of risk
c. last clear chance
d. prescr ipt ion
e. fort uit ous ev ent s
f. diligence
g. m ist ak e and waiv er
h. ot her s
a. Cont ribut ory negligence
Ar t . 2 1 7 9 . W h e n t h e pla in t iff's ow n n e glige n ce w a s t h e im m e dia t e a n d pr ox im a t e ca u se of h is in j u r y,

h e ca n n ot r ecove r da m a ge s. Bu t if h is n e glige n ce w a s on ly con t r ibu t or y, t h e im m e dia t e a n d
pr ox im a t e ca u se of t h e in j u r y bein g t h e de fe n da n t ' s la ck of du e ca r e , t h e pla in t iff m a y r e cove r
da m a ge s, bu t t h e cou r t s sh a ll m it iga t e t h e da m a ge s t o be a w a r de d.
2179 t alks of t wo cases:
a. The defendant can show t hat t he im m ediat e and pr oxim at e cause of t he inj ury was t he negligence of t he
plaint iff him self. I n t his case, t he defendant is not liable at all.
b. The defendant can also show t hat alt hough t he proxim at e cause of t he inj ury w as t he defendant ’s lack of
due car e, t he plaint iff also cont ribut ed t o t he inj ury wit h his own negligence. I n case of cont ribut or y
negligence on t he part of t he plaint iff, t he defendant is st ill liable, but his liabilit y m ay be m it igat ed by t he
court .
At t y Abaño: Ther e was a case where t he vict im was a child below 9 y ears old. The defendant want ed his liabilit y
m it igat ed on t he ground t hat t he v ict im had cont ribut ed wit h his own negligence. The court held t hat a child below
9 y ears old is incapable of cont ribut ory negligence. Ther efore, t he dam ages cannot be m it igat ed.
CASES:
Ra k e s v. At la n t ic Gu lf ( not included in recit at ion but discussed in class by At t y. Abaño)
Rak es was a labor er em ploy ed by At lant ic. While t ransport ing iron rails fr om a barge t o t he com pany’s yard using
a railroad hand car , Rak es br ok e his leg w hen t he hand car t oppled over and t he rails fell on him . I t appears t hat
t he hand car fell due t o a sagging port ion of t he t rack t hat gav e wit h t he weight of t he rails. At lant ic knew of t he
weak st at e of t he rail but did not hing t o r epair it .
When Rakes filed an act ion for dam ages, At lant ic’s defense was t hat Rak es’ inj uries wer e caused by his own
negligence in w alk ing alongside t he car, inst ead of in front or behind it , as t he labor ers wer e t old t o do.
I SSUES:
1. Whet her Rak es was negligent .

2. Whet her At lant ic is liable t o Rak es.
H ELD :

1. Rak es was negligent . He disobey ed t he or der s of his superiors when he walked alongside t he car inst ead
of in front or behind it .
2. At lant ic is liable t o Rak es. The negligence of Rak es w ill not t ot ally bar him from recov er ing anyt hing fr om
At lant ic, alt hough t he liabilit y of t he lat t er will be m it igat ed as a r esult of Rakes’ cont ribut or y negligence.
This is because alt hough Rakes cont ribut ed wit h his ow n negligence, t he prim ary cause of t he accident
was st ill t he weak rails which At lant ic refused t o repair.
Dist inct ion m ust be m ade bet w een t he accident and t he inj ury, bet w een t he event it self, w it hout w hich
t her e could hav e been no accident , and t hose act s of t he vict im not ent ering int o it , independent of it , but
cont r ibut ing t o his own proper hurt .
Wher e he cont ribut es t o t he principal occur rence as one of it s det er m ining fact ors, he cannot r ecov er.
Wher e, in conj unct ion wit h t he occurr ence, he cont ribut es only t o his ow n inj ury, he m ay r ecov er t he
am ount t hat t he defendant r esponsible for t he event should pay for such inj ury , less a sum deem ed
equivalent for his own im pr udence.
Ph oe n ix v. I AC
Dionisio w as driving hom e from a cockt ails and dinner m eet ing w it h his boss. He w as pr oceeding down a st r eet
when his headlight s [ allegedly] suddenly failed. He swit ched t hem t o bright but it was t oo lat e for him t o avoid a
dum p t ruck loom ing 2 ½ m et er s away fr om his car . He crashed int o t he dum p t ruck, which w as par ked on t he
right side of t he st r eet in a m anner as t o st ick out and part ly block oncom ing t raffic. The t ruck had no light s,
reflect or s, et c. Dionisio, how ev er , adm it t ed t o having had a shot or t wo of liquor .
The dum p t ruck was owned by Phoenix but it was driv en hom e by an em ploy ee, Car bonel, because t he lat t er had
an early m orning j ob.
Dionisio suffered som e physical inj uries including som e perm anent facial scars, a “ nervous br eakdow n” and loss of
t wo gold bridge dent ures, t hereby im pairing his m illion- dollar sm ile.
The t rial court found t hat t he sole cause of t he accident w as Carbonel’s negligence and r endered j udgm ent in favor
of Dionisio. The CA affirm ed but slight ly reduced dam ages.
I SSUE: Whet her t he t her e was cont ribut ory negligence on Dionisio’s part .
H ELD : Ther e was cont r ibut ory negligence and t he awar d of dam ages should be r educed by 20% .
Dionisio’s claim t hat his headlight s suddenly failed was not believ ed by t he SC. The m or e plausible explanat ion w as
t hat he had no curfew pass and so, along t hat st ret ch of road, w hich, incident ally, had a police st at ion on it , he
sw it ched off his light s and sped t o avoid det ect ion. This is corr obor at ed by t he r eport of t he police officer who
found him and brought him t o Makat i Medical Cent er.
The officer repor t ed t hat Dionisio had no curfew pass on his per son and t hat when he appear ed on t he scene
m om ent s aft er t he collision [ he was m anning t he near by police st at ion] people who wit nessed t he accident t old
him t hat Dionisio was driving fast and w it hout headlight s. This t est im ony was an ex cept ion t o t he hearsay r ule for
being excit ed ut t erances of t he by st anders.
How ever , t her e is no doubt t hat t he reckless parking of t he t ruck w as t he indispensable and efficient cause of t he
accident .
Dionisio's negligence, alt hough lat er in point of t im e t han t he t ruck driv er's negligence and t her efor e closer t o t he
accident , was not an efficient int er v ening or independent cause – it was m erely a for eseeable consequence of t he
risk cr eat ed by t he negligent m anner in which t he t ruck dr iv er had park ed t he dum p t ruck .
Dionisio's negligence was not of an independent and ov er pow er ing nat ure as t o cut , as it wer e, t he chain of
causat ion in fact bet w een t he im proper park ing of t he dum p t ruck and t he accident , nor t o sever t he j uris
vinculum of liabilit y.
* Ther e was no evidence t o prov e t hat Dionisio was so heavily under t he influence of liquor as t o const it ut e his
driving a m ot or vehicle per se an act of reckless im prudence.
LBC Air Ca r go v. CA
Rogelio Mont er ola was riding his m ot orcy cle along a dust y highw ay. At about t he sam e t im e, a cargo van owned
by LBC Air Cargo driv en by Jaim e Tano Jr. was com ing from t he opposit e dir ect ion, on t he way t o t he airport . On
boar d t he van wer e Fer nando Yu, m anager of LBC, and his son. When Tano w as approaching t he vicinit y of t he

air port road ent r ance on his left , he saw t wo vehicles r acing against each ot her from t he opposit e direct ion. Tano
st opped t he van and wait ed for t he t wo racing vehicles t o pass. The r acing vehicles produced a cloud of dust t hat
m ade visibilit y ext r em ely bad. How ever, inst ead of w ait ing for t he dust t o set t le, Tano st art ed t o m ake a sharp
t ur n t owar ds t he airpor t road. Suddenly, t he m ot orcy cle driving by Mont er ola em erged fr om t he cloud of dust and
sm ashed head- on against t he LBC v an. Mont er ola died. The heirs of Mont er ola filed a case for hom icide t hr ough
reckless im pr udence against Tano and a civ il case against against Tano, Yu, and LBC Air Cargo.
I SSUE: Whet her LBC, Tano, and Yu are liable t o t he heirs of Mont erola.
H ELD : Tano and LBC are liable – Tano for his negligence as dr iv er of t he v an, and LBC for it s presum pt iv e
negligence as em ploy er of Tano. Yu is not liable, t her e being no em ployer - em ploy ee relat ionship bet ween him and
Tano.
The proxim at e cause of t he accident w as t he negligence of Tano w ho, despit e ex t r em ely poor visibilit y, hast ily
ex ecut ed a left t urn wit hout fir st wait ing for t he dust t o set t le. I t was t his negligent act of Tano, which had placed
t he LBC van direct ly on t he pat h of t he m ot or cycle com ing fr om t he opposit e dir ect ion, t hat alm ost inst ant aneously
caused t he collision t o occur . Sim ple pr udence requir ed him not t o att em pt t o cr oss t he ot her lane unt il aft er it
would have been safe from and clear of any oncom ing vehicle.
Pet it ioner s poor ly invok e t he doct rine of " last clear chance" ( also refer r ed t o, at t im es, as " superv ening
negligence" or as " discover ed per il" ) . The doct rine, in essence, is t o t he effect t hat where bot h part ies are
negligent , but t he negligent act of one is appreciably lat er in t im e t han t hat of t he ot her , or when it is im possible
t o det erm ine w hose fault or negligence should be at t ribut ed t o t he incident , t he one w ho had t he last clear
oppor t unit y t o avoid t he im pending harm and failed t o do so is chargeable w it h t he consequences t her eof. I n t his
case, t he vict im was t rav eling along t he lane w her e he was right ly supposed t o be. The incident occurr ed in an
inst ant . No appr eciable t im e had elapsed, from t he m om ent Tano sw er v ed t o his left t o t he act ual im pact , t hat
could have afforded t he vict im a last clear opport unit y t o avoid t he collision. Therefor e, t he doct r ine is not
applicable.
I t is t rue, how ev er , t hat t he deceased was not all t hat fr ee fr om negligence in evident ly speeding t oo closely
behind t he vehicle he was following. There was cont ribut or y negligence on t he vict im 's part t hat could warrant a
m it igat ion of pet it ioners' liabilit y for dam ages. Hence, t he dam ages due t he heirs of Mont er ola should be r educed
by 20% .
b. Assum pt ion of Risk
Ar t . 1 1 7 4 . Ex ce pt in ca se s ex pr e ssly spe cifie d by t h e la w , or w h e n it is ot h e r w ise de cla re d by

st ipu la t ion , or w h e n t h e n a t u r e of t h e obliga t ion r e qu ir e s t h e a ssu m pt ion of r isk , n o pe r son sh a ll be
r e spon sible for t h ose eve n t s w h ich cou ld n ot be for e se e n , or w h ich , t h ou gh for e se e n , w e r e
in e vit a ble .
Assum pt ion of risk involv es an act ion t o which one consent s, and t he inj ury suffered is due t o a risk involv ed in
t hat act ion.
Ex am ple: Engaging in cont act sport s – I n t his case, t her e is an assum pt ion of risk, but t her e are st ill rules which
m ust be follow ed in or der t o m inim ize t he risk . The defense of assum pt ion of risk by t he plaint iff cannot be
invok ed if t he defendant was guilt y of violat ing t hese rules.
CASES:
Afia da v. H isole
Lor et o Afialda was em ploy ed by t he Hisole spouses as car et ak er of t heir carabaos. While t ending t he carabaos,
Lor et o was gor ed by one of t hem and lat er died as a consequence of his inj uries.
This act ion for dam ages w as br ought by Lor et o’s elder sist er , Margarit a, who depended on him for support . She
seek s t o hold t he Hisole spouses liable under Art icle 1905 [ now Ar t . 2183] of t he old Civil Code, which reads:
The possessor of an anim al, or t he one who uses t he sam e, is liable for any dam ages it m ay cause, ev en if such
anim al should escape from him or st ray away.
This liabilit y shall cease only in case t he dam age should arise fr om for ce m aj eur e or fr om t he fault of t he per son
who m ay have suffer ed it .
The lower court ruled t hat art icle 1905 [ 2183] does not apply where dam age is caused t o t he car et ak er.

I SSUE: Whet her Art icle 1905 [ 2183] m akes t he owner of t he anim al liable wher e t he inj ur ed par t y is t he
car et ak er.
H ELD : Art icle 1905 [ 2183] does not apply.
The st at ut e nam es t he possessor or user of t he anim al as t he per son liable for “ any dam ages it m ay cause,” and
t his is for t he obvious reason t hat t he possessor or user has t he cust ody and cont rol of t he anim al and is t her efor e
t he one in a posit ion t o prev ent it fr om causing dam age.
I n t he present case, t he anim al w as in t he cust ody and under t he cont r ol of t he car et ak er , who w as paid for his
wor k as such. Obviously, it was t he car et ak er ’s business t o t ry t o pr ev ent t he anim al from causing inj ury or
dam age t o anyone, including him self. An d bein g in j u re d by t h e a n im a l u n de r t h ose cir cu m st a n ce s w a s on e
of t h e r isk s of t h e occu pa t ion w h ich h e h a d volu n t a r ily a ssu m e d a n d for w h ich h e m u st t a k e t h e
con se qu e n ce s.
Manr esa, cit ing t he Spanish Supr em e Cour t says t hat such an accident should com e under t he labor laws.
Howev er , Afialda br ought t he act ion only under t he Civil Code.
* At t y . Abaño – I n light of r ecent labor legislat ion, such as t he Work m en’s Com pensat ion Act , t his r uling would
probably have been differ ent had it been decided t oday. Under curr ent laws, t he em ployer has t he dut y t o adapt
t he necessary safet y m easures t o prot ect his em ployees.
Co v. CA
Co ent r ust ed his Nissan pickup t o t he repair shop for repairs and supply of part s. The car w as carnapped w hile it
was being r oad- t est ed by an em ploy ee of t he repair shop. Co filed a suit for dam ages against t he repair shop,
based on it s negligence. The repair shop denied liabilit y on t he ground t hat t he car was lost due t o a fort uit ous
ev ent – carnapping.
I SSUE: Whet her a repair shop can be held liable for t he loss of a cust om er ’s v ehicle while t he sam e is in it s
cust ody for a repair j ob.
H ELD : Yes, t he repair shop is liable.
Pursuant t o Art icles 1174 and 1262 of t he Civ il Code, liabilit y at t aches even if t he loss was due t o a fort uit ous
ev ent if t he nat ur e of t he obligat ion requires t he assum pt ion of risk . Carnapping is a norm al business risk for
t hose engaged in t he repair of m ot or vehicles. For j ust as t he owner is ex posed t o t hat risk, so is t he r epair shop,
since t he car was ent rust ed t o it . That is why r epair shops are required t o fir st regist er wit h t he DTI and t o secur e
and insurance policy for t he shop cov ering t he pr oper t y ent r ust ed by it s cust om er for repair, serv ice, and
m aint enance as a pre- requisit e for such accr edit at ion/ regist rat ion. Violat ion of t his st at ut ory dut y const it ut es
negligence per se.
c. Last Clear Chance
St at em ent of t he Principle: A pe r son w h o h a s t h e la st cle a r ch a n ce or opp or t u n it y of a voidin g a n a ccide n t ,

n ot w it h st a n din g t h e n e glige n t a ct s of h is oppon e n t or t h a t of a t h ir d pe r son im p u t e d t o t h e oppon e n t
is con side r e d in la w sole ly r e spon sible for t h e con se qu e n ce s of t h e a ccide n t . [ Ther efore, in t his case,
t her e is no m it igat ion of t he liabilit y of t he defendant even if t her e was cont ribut or y negligence on t he part of t he
plaint iff]
The negligence of t he plaint iff does not preclude recover y for t he negligence of t he defendant wher e it appear s
t hat t he defendant , by exercising reasonable care and prudence, m ight have avoided inj urious consequences t o
t he plaint iff, not wit hst anding t he plaint iff’s negligence.
Ev en t hough a per son’s own act s m ay hav e placed him in a posit ion of peril, and an inj ury r esult s, t he inj ured
per son is ent it led t o recov ery .
Elem ent s:
1. prior negligence on t he part of t he plaint iff

2. defendant is aware of t he plaint iff
3. defendant had t he last clear chance/ opport unit y t o avoid t he peril by t aking t he necessar y precaut ion, but
failed t o do so
4. accident occur s because of t he negligence of t he defendant .
CASES:

Bu st a m a n t e v. CA
A collision occur red bet w een a car go t ruck and a passenger bus. The car go t ruck and passenger bus wer e
appr oaching each ot her , com ing from t he opposit e sides of t he highway. The bus dr iv er claim ed t hat from 30
m et er s away, he could see t hat t he front t ires of t he t ruck wer e w riggling, and t hat t he t ruck was rapidly headed
t owar ds his lane. He t hought t hat t he t r uck driv er was a j ok est er, so despit e t he circum st ances, he dow nshift ed t o
incr ease his speed on t he ascending road in order t o ov er t ake t he vehicle in fr ont of him . At t his pr ecise m om ent ,
t he cargo t ruck and t he passenger bus sidesw iped each ot her. Several passenger s of t he bus w ere t hrow n out
and fiv e people died as a r esult of t he inj ur ies t hey sustained. The heirs of t he vict im s filed an act ion for dam ages
against t he dr iv ers and ow ners of t he t ruck and bus. The CA held t hat t he t ruck driv er and ow ner wer e not liable
t o t he heir s because t he driv er of t he bus had t he last clear chance t o avoid t he accident but failed t o do so.
Hence, only t he bus driv er and owner are liable.
I SSUE: Whet her t he doct rine of last clear chance is applicable.
H ELD : No, t he doct rine of last clear chance is not applicable. The doct r ine of last clear chance is applicable only
in a su it be t w e e n t h e ow n e r s a n d dr ive r s of t h e collidin g ve h icle s. I t doe s n ot a pply w h e r e a
pa sse n ge r de m a n ds r esp on sibilit y fr om t h e ca r rie r t o en for ce it s con t r a ct u a l oblig a t ion s.
I n t his case, t he act ion is not bet ween t he owner s and dr iv er s of t he colliding vehicles but is one brought by t he
heir s of t he deceased passenger s against bot h owner s and driv ers of t he colliding vehicles. Ther efore, t he
doct rine is not applicable. The t ruck driv er and owner should be solidarily liable wit h t he bus dr iv er and owner,
since t he t ruck driv er was found t o be negligent as well.
M cKe e v. I AC
Koh w as driv ing his car when t wo kids suddenly cr ossed his pat h. He sw er ved t o t he opposit e lane t o avoid t he
t wo kids and collided head- on w it h a t ruck . Koh and t wo of his pasenger s died, while t hree ot her s were seriously
inj ured. One of t he sur vivor s, McKee, filed a civil act ion for quasi- delict against t he t ruck’s owner s. Despit e
ev idence show ing t hat t he driver of t he t ruck was driving over t he speed lim it and failed t o st ep on t he brakes
ev en if he had enough t im e t o do so as he saw Koh sw er v ing in his dir ect ion, t he I AC held t hat Koh’s negligence
was t he proxim at e cause of t he accident . I t dism issed McKee’s com plaint for dam ages.
I SSUE: Whet her t he driv er and owner of t he t r uck ar e liable t o McKee.
H ELD : Yes. Under t he “ em er gency rule,” one who suddenly finds him self in a place of danger and is requir ed t o
act wit hout t im e t o consider t he best m eans t hat m ay be adopt ed t o avoid t he im pending danger is not guilt y of
negligence. I n t his case, any r easonable and or dinar y pr udent m an would have t ried t o avoid r unning ov er t he
t wo boys by swerving aw ay. Hence, Koh cannot be deem ed negligent .
And assum ing t hat Koh was negligent , t he doct rine of last clear chance provides t hat t he cont ribut or y negligence
of t he part y inj ured w ill not defeat his claim for dam ages if it is show n t hat t he defendant m ight , by t he ex ercise of
reasonable car e and prudence, have avoided t he negligence of said inj ur ed part y . I n t his case, it was pr ov en by
t he t est im ony of an unint erest ed part y t hat t he driv er of t he t ruck had t he last clear chance t o avoid t he m ishap if
only he st epped on t he t ruck’s brak es as he had t im e t o do so. Since he failed t o do so, he is consider ed by t he
law as solely responsible for t he dam age caused.
Ca n la s v. CA
The Canlas spouses agreed t o sell t w o parcels of land t o Mañosca for which t he lat t er issued t wo post dat ed check s.
The spouses t urned over t he cert ificat es of t it le t o Mañosca. How ever , t he checks issued by Mañosca t urned out
t o be insufficient ly funded. Mañosca m anaged t o m ort gage t he t wo par cels t o At t y . Magno wit h t he help of t wo
im post or s w ho int roduced t hem selves as t he spouses Canlas. He again m ort gaged t he propert ies t o t he Asian
Savings Bank wit h t he aid of t he t wo im post ors. When Mañosca default ed on his loan, t he bank for eclosed t he
m ort gage. The real Canlas spouses t hen inform ed t he bank t hat t he pr opert y had been m ort gaged w it hout t heir
consent and filed an act ion for t he annulm ent of t he m or t gage cont ract . The CA held t hat t he Canlas spouses
wer e not ent it led t o relief since t hey w er e negligent and m ust bear t he loss. I t also held t hat t he bank ex er cised
due diligence in appr oving t he loan and m ort gage applied for by Mañosca.
I SSUE: Whet her t he bank was guilt y of negligence.
H ELD : Yes, t he bank w as negligent . Therefore, it m ust bear t he loss result ing from t he fraudulent act s of
Mañosca.

The degr ee of diligence r equir ed of banks is m or e t han t hat of a good fat her of a fam ily, in keeping wit h t heir
responsibilit y t o exercise t he necessary care and prudence in dealing wit h regist ered or t it led proper t y. The
business of a bank is affect ed wit h public int er est , holding in t r ust t he m oney of t he deposit or s, which bank
deposit s t he bank should guar d against loss due t o negligence or bad fait h.
I n t his case, t he bank did not obser v e t he r equisit e diligence in ascert aining or ver ify ing t he real ident it y of t he
couple w ho int r oduced t hem selves as t he spouses Canlas. Not even a single ident ificat ion car d was exhibit ed by
t he said im post ors t o show t heir t rue ident it y; and yet , t he bank act ed on t heir represent at ions sim ply on t he basis
of t he residence cert ificat es bearing signat ures w hich t ended t o m at ch t he signat ur es affixed on a previous deed of
m ort gage t o a cer t ain At t y. Magno, cov ering t he sam e parcels of land in quest ion.
Under t he doct rine of last clear chance, which is applicable here, t he respondent bank m ust suffer t he result ing
loss. I n essence, t h e doct r in e of la st cle a r ch a n ce is t o t h e effe ct t h a t w h er e bot h pa r t ie s a r e n e glige n t
bu t t h e n e glige n t a ct of on e is a ppr e cia b ly la t e r in poin t of t im e t h a n t h a t of t h e ot h e r , or w h e r e it is
im possible t o det er m in e w h ose fa u lt or n e glige n ce br ou gh t a bou t t h e occu r r e n ce of t h e in cide n t , t h e
on e w h o h a d t h e la st clea r oppor t u n it y t o a void t h e im pe n din g h a r m bu t fa ile d t o do so, is ch a r ge a ble
w it h t h e con sequ e n ce s a risin g t h e r efr om .
Assum ing t hat Canlas was negligent in giv ing Mañosca t he oppor t unit y t o perpet rat e t he fraud, by ent rust ing t o
lat t er t he cert ificat es of t it le t o t he parcels of land, it cannot be denied t hat t he bank had t he last clear chance t o
prevent t he fraud, by t he sim ple ex pedient of fait hfully com plying w it h t he requirem ent s for banks t o ascert ain t he
ident it y of t he per sons t ransact ing wit h t hem .
For not obser v ing t he degree of diligence required of banking inst it ut ions, whose business is im pr essed wit h public
int er est , Asian Sav ings Bank has t o bear t he loss sued upon.
d. Prescr ipt ion
Ar t . 1 1 4 6 . Th e follow in g a ct ion s m u st be in st it u t e d w it h in fou r ye a r s:
( 1 ) Upon a n in j u r y t o t h e r igh t s of t h e pla in t iff;
( 2 ) Upon a qu a side lict ;
H ow e ve r , w h e n t h e a ct ion a r ise s fr om or ou t of a n y a ct , a ct ivit y , or con du ct of a n y pu blic office r

in volvin g t h e e x e r cise of pow e r s or a u t h or it y a r isin g fr om M a rt ia l La w in clu d in g t h e a rr e st , de t e n t ion
a n d/ or t r ia l of t h e pla in t iff, t h e sa m e m u st be br ou gh t w it h in on e ( 1 ) ye a r .
The four- year pr escript iv e per iod is r eck oned fr om t he dat e w hen t he t ort ious act was com m it t ed.
But , accor ding t o t he DI SCOVERY RULE: if t he inj ury is discov er ed aft er t he four- year per iod, t he reck oning point
is t he dat e of discover y and not t he dat e of com m ission of t he act .
Problem : X wor k ed in an asbest os fact or y . Ten y ears aft er his repeat ed ex posure t o asbest os, he show s
sy m pt om s of asbest osis. Can he st ill file an act ion for dam ages against t he em ploy er ?
Answ er: Yes. The prescr ipt ive period begins t o run from t he discover y of t he t or t ious act and not fr om it s
occur rence.
Consum er Act of t he Philippines
The consum er m ay sue not only t he m anufact ur er but also t he im port er and seller for defect ive product , design,
packaging, and lack of infor m at ion. The pr escript iv e per iods for bringing t he act ion are:
I f t he defect is appar ent : 4 years from pur chase

I f t he defect is hidden: 2 year s fr om t he purchase OR discov er y of t he hidden defect
Prescript ion v. Laches
Prescript ion per t ains t o t he ext inct ion of t he right t o file an act ion aft er t he lapse of a de fin it e per iod. Laches, on
t he ot her hand, is a relat iv e t erm . I t m eans t he inact ion of som eone who has a r ight ; it is t he failur e t o exercise
t his right .
CASES:
Un it e d Airlin e s v. Uy [ not assigned but discussed by At t y. Abaño]

On a flight t o t he UK, Uy was r equir ed by UA t o check in his briefcase. He refused because t he ot her passenger s
wer e not required t o do so. He w as t reat ed rudely by t he st aff and crew of UA. Finally , he checked in t he
briefcase. When he r eached his dest inat ion, t he br iefcase was lost . At t his point , Uy had t wo causes of act ion. He
could have filed an act ion for dam ages under t he Civil Code ( for t he rude t r eat m ent t hat he got from t he st aff) and
anot her act ion under t he Warsaw Convent ion which provides for com pensat ion for lost baggage. The pr escr ipt ive
period of t he act ion under t he Warsaw Conv ent ion is 2 years.
I nst ead of filing a court act ion, howev er, Uy filed a com plaint w it h t he UA office. UA did not act on Uy’s com plaint
and sat on it for 2 year s. Uy event ually filed t he t wo civil act ions against UA.
I SSUE: Whet her t he cause of act ion under t he Warsaw Conv ent ion had already pr escribed.
H ELD : No, t he act ion had not yet pr escribed. The cause of act ion under t he Warsaw Conv ent ion had not yet
prescr ibed even if it was filed bey ond t he t wo- year prescr ipt iv e period, since t he delay w as due t o t he fault of UA.
Court s will set aside t echnicalit ies if a st rict adher ence t o t hem would r esult in inj ust ice.
Ca pu n o v. Elor di
* A civ il act ion based on a quasi- delict m ust be inst it ut ed w it hin 4 years.
* An act ion based on a quasi- delict is gover ned by Ar t . 1150of t he CC as t o t he quest ion when t he pr escript ion
per iod of 4 year s shall begin t o run—t hat is from t he day t he act ion m ay be brought —from t he day t he quasi- delict
occur red or was com m it t ed.
Allie d Ba n k in g v. CA
Joselit o Yuj uico was a r anking officer of and a m em ber of t he fam ily which cont rolled Gener al Bank ing and Trust
Cor porat ion ( Genbank ) . I n 1976, he obt ained a 500k loan from said bank .
I n 1977, t he Monet ar y Boar d of t he Cent ral Bank issued a resolut ion forbidding Genbank fr om doing business in
t he Philippines. Lat er t hat sam e year, a resolut ion was issued or der ing t he liquidat ion of Genbank. Again, in t he
sam e year , t he liquidat or and Allied Bank ent ered int o an agreem ent w her eby Allied Bank acquir ed all t he asset s
and assum ed all t he liabilit ies of Genbank , including t he r eceivable due fr om Yuj uico.
Upon Yuj uico’s failure t o pay t he loan at m at urit y, Allied Bank filed, in 1979, a com plaint for collect ion against him .
I n a separat e case, in 1986, a ruling of t he CA t hat t he liquidat ion of Genbank was m ade in bad fait h and should
be annulled becam e final and execut or y.
I n 1987, Yuj uico filed a t hird part y com plaint t o im plead t he Cent ral Bank and t he liquidat or in t he case. Yuj uico
alleged t hat by r eason of t he t ort uous int erfer ence by t he Cent r al Bank wit h t he affair s of Genbank, he was
prevent ed from perfor m ing his obligat ion under t he loan.
The RTC denied t he m ot ion t o adm it t he t hird- part y com plaint . The CA annulled t he RTC’s or der and ordered t he
adm ission of t he t hird- part y com plaint .
I SSUE: Whet her t he t hird- part y com plaint should be adm it t ed.
H ELD : I t should not be adm it t ed.
Th ou g h t h e t h ir d- pa r t y com pla in t is pr oce du r a lly a llow a ble , it is ba r r e d by pr escr ip t ion .
A t hird- part y com plaint is a pr ocedur al device wher eby a “ t hird- part y ” who is neit her a part y nor priv y t o t he act
or deed com plained of by t he plaint iff, m ay be br ought int o t he case w it h leave of court , by t he defendant , w ho
act s as t hird- part y plaint iff t o enfor ce against such t hird- part y defendant a right for cont ribut ion, indem nit y,
subr ogat ion or any ot her relief, in respect of t he plaint iffs claim .
I n t his case, t he t hird- part y com plaint is “ in respect of “ Allied Bank’s claim and t herefor e pr ocedurally sound in
it self. How ever , since t he claim is based on t ort uous int erfer ence, which is a quasi- delict , t he com plaint should
hav e been filed wit hin four year s fr om t he t im e t he cause of act ion accr ued [ 1981, or four year s aft er t he 1977
or der of liquidat ion] . Cont rar y t o Yuj uico’s claim t hat t he ppr escript iv e period should be count ed fr om t he CA’s
decision annulling t he liquidat ion, it is an est ablished r ule t hat it is from t he dat e of t he act or om ission violat iv e of
t he r ight of a par t y w hen t he cause of act ion arises and it is from t his dat e t hat t he pr escript iv e per iod m ust be
reck oned.
D e los Re ye s v. CA

Spouses Genaro and Evar ist a delos Reyes owned a parcel of land m easuring 13,405 squar e m et ers. Evarist a sold
t o spouses Cat alina and Eulalio Pena 10,000 square m et er s of t he proper t y. On June 4, 1943, t he Penas wer e
able t o secur e a TCT cov er ing not only t he 10,000 square m et er s sold t o t hem but also t he rem aining 3,405
squar e m et er s left unsold. The Penas t hen sold t he whole propert y t o t he spouses de Guzm an. The de Guzm ans
sold it again. Event ually , t he land was acquired by Rodolfo and Zenaida Caina spouses. On July 17, 1963, a TCT
over t he ent ire proper t y w as issued in favor of t he Cainas. On Oct ober 3, 1978, t he heirs of Evarist a delos Rey es
filed an act ion against t he Cainas for reconv ey ance of t he 3,405 squar e m et er s, claim ing t hat t his por t ion was
invalidly included by t he Pena Spouses in t he t it ling of t he 10,000 sqaure m et er s t hat t hey had pur chased fr om
Ev arist a. The case was dism issed by t he t rial court on t he gr ound of laches.
I SSUE: Whet her t he act ion is barred by laches.
H ELD : Yes, t he act ion is bar r ed.
Pet it ioner s argue t hat t heir cause of act ion st ill subsist s because it accr ued eit her in Sept em ber 1962 when
Ev arist a delos Rey es died, or on 17 July 1963 when t he TCT was issued t o Rodolfo Caiña and his sist er Zenaida
Caiña. This is incor rect . A cause of act ion, being an act or om ission of one part y in violat ion of t he right of anot her ,
arises at t he m om ent such right is violat ed. I n t his case, pet it ioners' cause of act ion accr ued on 4 June 1943 w hen
t he Pena spouses caused t he r egist rat ion in t heir nam e of t he ent ire 13,405 squar e m et ers inst ead of t he 10,000
squar e m et er s t hat t hey act ually bought fr om Evarist a delos Reyes. For it was on t his dat e t hat t he right of
owner ship of Evarist a ov er t he rem aining 3,405 squar e m et er s was t r ansgr essed, and fr om t hat very m om ent
sprung t he right of t he owner, and hence all her successor s in int erest , t o file a suit for r econv eyance of t he
propert y wr ongfully t aken from t hem .
Reivindicat or y act ions m ay be brought by t he owner wit hin 30 year s aft er he has been depr iv ed of his pr oper t y .
Under Art . 1141 of t he Civil Code, real act ions over im m ovables prescribe aft er 30 years. Thus, ev en if we apply
t he 30- year pr escr ipt iv e per iod in accor dance w it h t he abov e legal pr ovisions, pet it ioners' right t o r ecover has
alr eady been effect iv ely for eclosed by t he lapse of t im e, having been init iat ed only aft er 36 year s from t he accrual
of t heir cause of act ion.
Be t hat as it m ay, even t hese law s m ay not apply t o t his case in t he light of t he Propert y Regist rat ion Decr ee.
Under t his law, t he Cainas, as fourt h t ransferees of t he pr opert y, w er e not required t o go beyond w hat appeared
in t he t ransfer cert ificat e of t it le in t he nam e of t heir t ransfer or. They wer e innocent pur chasers for value having
acquir ed t he proper t y in due cour se and in good fait h under a clean t it le.
Th e on ly r em e dy of a n ow n e r w h o w a s fr a u du le n t ly de pr ive d of h is la n d, w h ich w a s su bse qu e n t ly sold

t o a n in n oce n t pu r ch a se r for va lu e , is t o file a n a ct ion for da m a g e s a ga in st t h e per son w h o pe r pe t r a t e d
t h e fr a u d w it h in fou r ( 4 ) y ea r s a ft e r t h e discove r y of t h e de ce pt ion . Unfor t unat ely in t his case we m ay
never know w hy Evarist a delos Reyes chose not t o go aft er t he Pena spouses t o r ecover what could be r ight fully
hers, t he reason having appar ent ly been long int err ed wit h her.
e. For t uit ous Event s
According t o At t y. Abaño, t he requisit es of a for t uit ous ev ent , as a defense, are:
1. The event m ust be u n for e se e n , or if for eseen, in e vit a ble ;

2. Ther e m ust be n o con cu r r e n t n eglig e n ce on t he part of t he offended part y.
* I f an accident is caused by a t ire blow out , t her e is a pr esum pt ion t hat t here was negligence.
CASES:
N APOCOR v. CA
I n t he early m or ning hour s of Oct ober 27, 1978, at t he height of t yphoon " Kading" , a m assiv e flood cov ered t he
t owns near Angat Dam , part icular ly t he t own of Norzagaray, causing sev er al deat hs and t he loss and dest ruct ion
of houses, farm s, plant s, wor king anim als and ot her pr opert ies of t he people residing near t he Angat River.
The vict im s of t he flood, privat e respondent s herein, blam ed t he sudden rush of w at er t o t he reckless and
im prudent opening of all t he t hree ( 3) floodgat es of t he Angat Dam spillway, wit hout prior warning t o t he people
living near or wit hin t he vicinit y of t he dam .
Am ong t he defenses of NAPOCOR wer e: it observ ed t he necessar y diligence, it gave writ t en warnings of t he
opening of t he floodgat es, t here w as no causal relat ionship bet w een t he dam age and t he act s or om issions, t her e

was assum pt ion of risk on t he part of t he vict im s, and t he dam ages wer e caused by for t u it ou s e ve n t a n d
h e n ce , da m n u m a bsqu e in j u r ia , and respondent s have no cause of act ion.
The RTC and CA awar ded dam ages in favor of t he vict im s.
I SSUE: Whet her NAPOCOR is ent it led t o t he defense of fort uit ous event .
H ELD : NAPOCOR is liable, t he defense of fort uit ous ev ent does not apply .
NAPOCOR cannot escape liabilit y by invoking for ce m aj eur e. Act s of God or force m aj eure, by definit ion, are
ex t raor dinary ev ent s not for eseeable or av oidable, event s t hat could not be for eseen, or which, t hough foreseen,
are inev it able. I t is t herefore not enough t hat t he event could not have been for eseen or anticipat ed, as is
com m only believed, but it m ust be one im possible t o for esee or t o avoid. As a general rule, no person shall be
responsible for t hose event s which could not be for eseen or which t hough for eseen, wer e inevit able.
Howev er , t he principle em bodied in t he act of God doct rine st rict ly requir es t hat t he act m ust be occasioned solely
by t he violence of nat ur e. Hum an int er v ent ion is t o be excluded from cr eat ing or ent ering int o t he cause of t he
m ischief. When t he effect is found t o be in part t he r esult of t he part icipat ion of m an, whet her due t o his act ive
int er v ent ion or neglect or failur e t o act , t he whole occur rence is t hen hum anized and rem oved from t he rules
applicable t o t he act s of God.
I n t h e ca se a t ba r , a lt h ou gh t h e t y ph oon " Ka din g " w a s a n a ct of God, pe t it ion e r s ca n n ot e sca pe

lia bilit y beca u se t h e ir n e glige n ce w a s t h e prox im a t e ca u se of t h e loss a n d da m a ge –
( 1) They had sufficient warning of t he t y phoon and t hey should have t aken act ion by decr easing t he wat er lev el in
ant icipat ion of t he com ing r ain;
( 2) The r elease of t he wat er was not gradual; t he lower court found t hat t he opening of t he spillway s was sudden
and abrupt ;
( 3) The spillw ays w er e opened in t he w ee hour s of t he m orning and wit hout sufficient warning t o t he t ow nsfolk;
( 4) Though writ t en warnings wer e dispat ched, t hey wer e given t o ordinar y t ow n em ploy ees and policem en, and
not t o responsible cit y officers who could have r elay ed t he warning t o ever yone concerned.
Clearly, t he requir em ent t hat t he fort uit ous event not be hum anized is absent in t his case.
PAL v. CA
Pant ej o, t hen Cit y Fiscal of Surigao Cit y, disem bar ked from a PAL flight in Cebu. Due t o t yphoon Osang, flight was
cancelled. PAL gave out P100 & P200 t o passengers for t heir ex penses during t heir st ay in Cebu.
Pant ej o refused t he m oney. I nst ead, he ask ed t hat he be billet ed in a hot el at PAL’s ex pense. PAL refused.
Pant ej o st ay ed wit h fellow passenger s w hom he prom ised t o pay when t hey r each Surigao. Lat er on, he learned
t hat co- passenger s wer e reim bursed by PAL for t heir ex penses. PAL offered him P300 w hen he t hreat ened t o sue
on t he gr ound of undue discr im inat ion.
I SSUE: Whet her PAL is liable for dam ages for it s failure t o provide hot el accom m odat ions for Pant ej o and t o
reim bur se him for his ex penses incurr ed by r eason of t he cancellat ion of his connect ing flight due t o force
m aj eur e.
H ELD : Pal is liable.
A cont ract t o t r anspor t passenger s is quit e differ ent in kind and degree from any ot her cont ract ual relat ion, and
t his is because of t he relat ion which an air carrier sust ains wit h t he public. I t s business is m ainly wit h t he t ravelling
public. I t invit es people t o avail of t he com fort s and advant ages it offer s. The cont ract of air carr iage, t her efor e,
generat es a r elat ion at t ended w it h a public dut y. Neglect or m alfeasance of t he car rier 's em ployees nat ur ally could
giv e gr ound for an act ion for dam ages.
Assum ing arguendo t hat t he airline passenger s have no v est ed right t o t his am enit ies in case a flight is cancelled
due t o for ce m aj eur e, what m akes pet it ioner liable for dam ages in t his part icular case and under t he fact s
obt aining herein is it s blat ant r efusal t o accord t he so- called am enit ies equally t o all it s st randed passenger s w ho
wer e bound for Surigao Cit y. No com pelling or j ust ifying r eason was advanced for such discrim inat or y and
prej udicial conduct .
More im port ant ly, it has been sufficient ly est ablished t hat it is pet it ioner 's st andard com pany policy , whenever a
flight has been cancelled, t o ext end t o it s hapless passenger s cash assist ance or t o pr ov ide t hem accom m odat ions
in hot els wit h which it has ex ist ing t ie- ups.

Pet it ioner act ed in bad fait h in disr egarding it s dut ies as a com m on carr ier t o it s passenger s and in discrim inat ing
against herein r espondent Pant ej o. I t was even obliv ious t o t he fact t hat t his r espondent was ex posed t o
hum iliat ion and em barr assm ent especially because of his gov er nm ent posit ion and social prom inence, which
alt oget her necessarily subj ect ed him t o ridicule, sham e and anguish
Cipr ia n o v. CA
* Violat ion of a st at ut or y dut y is negligence per se.

* The exist ence of a cont ract bet w een t he part ies does not bar a finding of negligence under t he pr inciples of
quasi- delict .
- failure t o com ply wit h a st at ut or y dut y t o secur e insurance cover age const it ut es negligence.
Yobido v. CA
Spouses Tum boy & t heir m inor childr en boarded a Yobido Liner bus. While in Agusan del Sur , t he left front t ire of
t he bus ex ploded. The bus fell int o a ravine ar ound t hree ( 3) feet from t he road & st ruck a t ree. The incident
result ed in t he deat h of 28- year- old Tit o Tum boy , & physical inj uries t o ot her passenger s.
A com plaint for breach of cont r act of carriage, dam ages & at t orney 's fees was filed by Leny & her childr en against
Albert a Yobido, t he ow ner of t he bus, & Cresencio Yobido, it s driv er.The Yobidos raised t he affir m at iv e defense of
caso fort uit o.
The Tum boy s assert ed t hat violat ion of t he cont r act of carr iage bet ween t hem & t he Yobidos was br ought about by
t he driver 's failure t o exer cise t he diligence requir ed of t he carr ier in t ransport ing passengers safely t o t heir place
of dest inat ion.
According t o Leny Tum boy, t he winding road it t raversed w as not cem ent ed & w as w et due t o t he rain. The bus
which was full of passenger s had car goes on t op. Since it was "r unning fast ," she caut ioned t he driver t o slow
dow n but he m erely st ar ed at her t hrough t he m irr or
The Yobidos cont end t he accident w as due t o a fort uit ous event . The conduct or t est ified t hat bus w as not full, t hat
t he bus w as running at a speed of " 60- 50" & w as going slow because of t he zigzag road. He affir m ed t hat t he left
fr ont t ir e t hat exploded was a " brand new tire" w / c he m ount ed on t he bus 5 day s befor e t he incident .
I SSUE: Whet her t he t ire blow out was a for t uit ous event t hat w ould exem pt t he Yobidos from liabilit y .
H ELD : The t ire blowout was NOT a fort uit ous event . Ther efore, t he Yobidos are liable.
As a rule, when a passenger boards a com m on carrier, he t ak es t he risk s incident al t o t he m ode of t ravel he has
t aken. Aft er all, a carr ier is not an insur er of t he safet y of it s passengers & is not bound absolut ely & at all event s
t o car r y t hem safely & wit hout inj ur y. Howev er , w h e n a pa sse n ge r is in j u re d or die s, w h ile t r a v e lin g, t h e
la w pr esu m e s t h a t t h e com m on ca r rie r is n e glige n t .
I n culpa cont ract ual, once a passenger dies or is inj ured, t he carrier is pr esum ed t o have been at fault or t o have
act ed negligent ly. This disput able presum pt ion m ay only be ov ercom e by evidence t hat t he car rier had obser ved
ex t raordinary diligence as prescribed by Ar t icles 1733, 10 1755 & 1756 of t he Civil Code or t hat t he deat h or
inj ury of t he passenger was due t o a fort uit ous ev ent .
Consequent ly, t he court need not m ake an ex press finding of fault or negligence on t he part of t he car rier t o hold
it responsible for dam ages sought by t he passenger .
Under t he cir cum st ances of t his case, t he explosion of t he new t ire m ay not be consider ed a for t uit ous ev ent .
Ther e are hum an fact ors involv ed in t he sit uat ion. The fact t hat t he t ire was new did not im ply t hat it was ent ir ely
free fr om m anufact uring defect s or t hat it w as pr operly m ount ed on t he v ehicle. Neit her m ay t he fact t hat t he t ire
bought & used in t he vehicle is of a brand nam e not ed for qualit y, result ing in t he conclusion t hat it could not
ex plode w it hin five days' use. Be t hat as it m ay, it is set t led t hat an accident caused eit her by defect s in t he
aut om obile or t hrough t he negligence of it s driv er is not a caso fort uit o t hat would exem pt t he carrier fr om liabilit y
for dam ages.
Moreov er, a com m on car rier m ay not be absolv ed fr om liabilit y in case of force m aj eur e or for t uit ous ev ent alone.
The com m on car rier m ust st ill prov e t hat it w as not negligent in causing t he deat h or inj ury result ing fr om an
accident .
JAL v.CA
Respondent s in t his case are passengers of JAL from Sn Fo and LA bound for Mla. As an incent iv e for t raveling w/
JAL, t he flight s m ade an ov ernight st opover in Japan at t he airlines’ expense.

The passenger s wer e billet ed in Hot el Nikk o Narit a for t he night . The ff day, t hey learned t hat Mt . Pinat ubo
erupt ed and all flight s t o Mla wer e cancelled indefinit ely because NAI A was closed. JAL rebook ed t heir flight s for
t he 16t h of June ( 2 days aft er scheduled flight ) . JAL paid for t heir unexpect ed ov ernight st ay.
Unfort unat ely t heir flight on t he 16t h was also cancelled. However, JAL inform ed t hem t hat it ( JAL) would no
longer shoulder t heir expenses.
Respondent s st ayed in Japan until t he 22nd and t hey w er e for ced t o pay m eals & accom m odat ions fr om t heir
per sonal funds. A m ont h lat er, t he respondent s filed an act ion for dam ages against JAL.
I SSUE: Whet her JAL was obligat ed t o shoulder r espondent ’s expenses during t he unexpect ed st ay br ought about
by t he erupt ion of Pinat ubo.
H ELD : No.
Com m on car rier s are NOT absolut ely responsible for all inj ur ies or dam ages even if t he sam e wer e caused by a
fort uit ous ev ent . To rule ot her w ise would render t he defense of for ce m aj eur e as an ex cept ion from any liabilit y,
illusor y and ineffect iv e.
When a part y is unable t o fulfill his obligat ion because of force m aj eure, t he general rule is t hat he cannot be held
liable for dam ages for non- per for m ance. Airline passengers m ust t ake such risk s incident t o t rav eling. Adv er se
weat her condit ions/ ext r em e clim at e changes are som e of t he perils involved in air t ravel, t he consequences of
which t he passenger m ust assum e/ ex pect . Aft er all, com m on car riers are NOT t he insur er of all risk s.
I f t he fort uit ous event w as accom panied by neglect and m alfeasance by t he carrier’s em ployees, an act ion for
dam ages against t he car rier is per m issible. BUT t hat is not t he sit uat ion in t his case.
f. diligence
Ar t . 2 1 8 0 ( la st pa r .) Th e r e spon sibilit y t re a t e d of in t h is a r t icle sh a ll ce a se w h e n t h e pe r son s h e r e in

m e n t ion e d pr ove t h a t t h e y obse r ve d a ll t h e dilige n ce of a good fa t h e r of a fa m ily t o pr e ve n t da m a ge .
Sm it h v. Ca dw a lla de r
St eam er Helen C belonging t o Cadwallader Co. under t he com m and of Capt Lasa, in t he cour se of it s m aneuver s t o
m oor at Sm it h’s whar f, st r uck t he whar f, part ially dem olishing it and t hrowing t he t im ber piled t her eon int o t he
wat er.
Sm it h filed an act ion for dam ages against Cadwallader for t he dem olit ion of t he whar f and loss of t im ber .
Cadwallader alleged t hat t he dem olit ion of t he whar f was due

1. t o t he excessiv e weight of t he t im ber piled upon it by Sm it h t o be loaded on Helen C
2. bad condit ion of piles support ing t he wharf
I SSUE: Whet her Cadwallader is liable.
H ELD : Cadwallader is NOT liable.
The w harf w as overloaded. This could have cont ribut ed t o t he w harf’s collapse.
Capt ain Lasa was a duly licensed capt ain, aut horized t o nav igat e and direct a vessel of any t onnage and
Cadwallader cont ract ed his serv ices because of his reput at ion as a capt ain.
The presum pt ion of liabilit y has been ov ercom e by t he exer cise of care and diligence of a good fat her of a fam ily
in select ing Capt . Lasa. Cadwallader is t herefor e not liable, having exercised due diligence.
On g v. M e t r op olit a n W a t e r
Dom inador Ong went t o t he r ecr eat ional swim m ing pools of Met r o H2O Dist r ict wit h his 2 br ot her s. They st ay ed in
t he sm aller ( &shallower ) pool. His 2 bros. decided t o go t o t he bigger pool, and he decided t o buy a Cok e. Lat er,
som eone not iced him sw im m ing under w at er for a long t im e. The lifeguar ds and m edical per sonnel t ried t o reviv e
him , but it was t oo lat e. The cause of his deat h was asphy x ia by subm er sion in wat er.
The parent s of Ong filed an act ion for dam ages against MWD.

I SSUE: Whet her t he deat h of Ong can be at t ribut ed t o t he negligence of MWD and/ or it s em ployees so as t o
ent it le t he Ongs t o recov er dam ages.
H ELD : MWD was NOT negligent .
The operat or of t he sw im m ing pools will not be held liable as it ex er cised due diligence in t he select ion of and
superv ision ov er it s em ploy ees and t hat it had obser v ed t he diligence required by law—in t hat it has t aken all
necessary precaut ions t o avoid danger t o t he lives of it s pat rons/ pr ev ent accident w/ c m ay cause t heir deat h.
The person claim ing dam ages has t he bur den of pr oving t hat t he dam age is causedby t he fault / negligence of t he
per son fr om whom t he dam age is claim ed, or of one of his em ployees.
The Ongs are cont ending t hat MWD had t he last clear chance t o save t he boy’s life. The Court held t hat t he last
clear chance doct rine can nev er apply wher e t he part y char ged is requir ed t o act inst ant aneously, and if t he inj ury
cannot be avoided by t he applicat ion of all m eans at hand aft er t he peril is/ should have been discovered.
Fa br e v. CA
As com m on car riers, t he Fabr es w er e bound t o exercise “ ext raordinar y diligence” for t he safe t ransport at ion of t he
passenger s t o t heir dest inat ion. This dut y is of car e is NOT excused by proof t hat t hey exer cised t he diligence of a
good fat her of t he fam ily in t he select ion and supervision of t heir em ployee.
PBCom v. CA
As elucidat ed in Sim ex I nt er nat ional ( Manila) , I nc. I n t he case of banks, howev er , t he degr ee of diligence required
is m or e t han t hat of a good fat her of a fam ily. Considering t he fiduciar y nat ure of t heir relat ionship wit h t heir
deposit ors, banks ar e dut y bound t o t reat t he account s of t heir client s wit h t he highest degr ee of car e.
g. Mist ak e and Waiver
Ar t . 1 3 3 1 . I n order t h a t m ist a k e m a y in va lida t e con se n t , it sh ou ld r efer t o t h e su bst a n ce of t h e t h in g

w h ich is t h e obj e ct of t h e con t r a ct , or t o t h ose con dit ion s w h ich h a ve pr in cipa lly m ove d on e or bot h
pa r t ie s t o e n t e r in t o t h e con t r a ct .
Spou se s Th e is v. CA
Calson’s Dev elopm ent owned t hree lot s in Tagayt ay – Par cels Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Adj acent t o parcel no. 3 was
parcel no. 4, which was not owned by Calson’s. Calson’s built a house on Parcel No. 3. I n a subsequent surv ey ,
parcel no. 3, where t he house was built , was er roneously indicat ed t o be cov er ed by t he t it le t o parcel no. 1.
Parcel nos. 2 and 3 were m ist ak enly surv ey ed t o be locat ed where par cel no. 4 was locat ed. See diagr am below:
Act ual
Accor ding t o 1t he Sur vey2

/ What3Calson’s believed
4
2&3
1 Calson’s appeared t o be t he owner of par cel no. 4, Calson’s sold what it t hought
Unawar e of t his m ist ak e by w hich
was parcel nos. 2 and 3 ( but what was act ually par cel no. 4) t o t he Theis spouses. Upon execut ion of t he deed of
sale, Calson’s deliver ed t he cer t ificat es of t it le t o par cel nos. 2 and 3 t o t he spouses. The spouses t hen went t o
Ger m any . About t hree y ear s lat er, t hey ret urned t o Tagayt ay t o plan t he const r uct ion of t heir house. I t was t hen
t hat t hey discov er ed t hat par cel no. 4, which was sold t o t hem , was owned by som eone else, and t hat what was
act ually sold t o t hem wer e parcel nos. 2 and 3. The r eal par cel no. 3, how ev er , could not have been sold t o t hem
since a house had already been built t hereon by Calson’s even befor e t he ex ecut ion of t he cont ract , and it s
const ruct ion cost far exceeded t he pr ice paid by t he spouses for t he t wo par cels of land. The spouses insist ed t hat
t hey w ant ed par cel no. 4, but t his was im possible, since Calson’s did not ow n it . Calson’s offer ed t hem t he r eal
parcel nos. 1 and 2 inst ead since t hese were really what it int ended t o sell t o t he spouses. The spouses refused
and insist ed t hat t hey w ant ed parcel nos. 2 and 3 since t he TCTs t o t hese lot s w ere t he ones t hat had been issued
in t heir nam e. Calson’s t hen offer ed t o ret urn double t he am ount already paid by t he spouses. The spouses st ill
refused. Calson’s filed an act ion t o annul t he cont ract of sale.
I SSUE: Whet her t he cont ract of sale can be annulled.
H ELD : Yes, t he cont ract can be annulled on t he ground of m ist ak e. Ar t icle 1390 of t he Civ il Code provides t hat
cont ract s w here t he consent is vit iat ed by m ist a k e ar e annullable. I n or der t hat m ist ak e m ay inv alidat e consent ,
it should refer t o t he subst ance of t he t hing w hich is t he obj ect of t he cont ract , or t o t hose condit ions which have
principally m ov ed one or bot h part ies t o ent er int o t he cont ract . The concept of er ror includes: ( 1) ignorance,
which is t he absence of knowledge wit h respect t o a t hing; and ( 2) m ist ak e, which is a wr ong concept ion about
said t hing, or a belief in t he exist ence of som e fact , circum st ance, or ev ent , which in realit y does not exist . I n
bot h cases, t her e is a lack of full and cor r ect knowledge about t he t hing.

I n t his case, Calson’s com m it t ed an er r or of t he second t ype. This m ist ak e invalidat ed it s consent , and as such,
annulm ent of t he deed of sale is proper. The er ror w as an honest m ist ake, and t he good fait h of Calson’s is
ev ident in t he fact t hat when t he m ist ak e was discov er ed, it im m ediat ely offered t wo ot her vacant lot s t o t he
spouses or t o reim burse t hem w it h t wice t he am ount paid.
Pet it ioner s’ insist ence in claim ing par cel no. 3 on which st ands a house whose value ex ceeds t he price paid by
t hem is unr easonable. This w ould const it ut e unj ust enrichm ent . Moreov er , when t he wit ness for t he spouses
t est ified, he st at ed t hat what was point ed out t o t he spouses was a vacant lot . Ther efor e, t hey could not have
int ended t o purchase t he lot on which a house was already built .
Ga t ch a lia n v. D e lim
Reynalda Gat chalian boar ded respondent 's " Tham es" m ini- bus. While t he bus was running along t he highway " a
snapping sound" was suddenly heard at one part of t he bus. The bus driver dism issed it as a nor m al occurr ence.
Short ly t hereaft er, t he vehicle bum ped a cem ent flow er pot on t he side of t he road, w ent off t he road, t urned
t ur t le and fell int o a dit ch.
Sev er al passenger s, including Gat chalian, were inj ured. They wer e pr om pt ly t aken t o t he hospit al for t reat m ent .
While inj ured passenger s w er e confined, Mrs. Adela Delim , visit ed t hem and paid for t heir hospit alizat ion and
m edical expenses. She also gave Gat chalian P12.00 wit h w hich t o pay her t ransport at ion ex pense in going hom e
fr om t he hospit al. Mrs. Delim also asked t he inj ured passengers t o sign an already pr epar ed Joint Affidavit w hich
st at ed “ That we are no longer int er est ed t o file a com plaint , crim inal or civil against t he said driv er and owner of
t he said Tham es, because it w as an accident and t he said driv er and ow ner of t he said Tham es have gone t o t he
ex t ent of helping us t o be t reat ed upon our inj uries.”
Not wit hst anding t he docum ent , Gat chalian filed an act ion ext ra cont ract u t o r ecover com pensat or y and m oral
dam ages. ( inferiorit y com plex, lost beaut y and em ploy m ent opport unit ies)
Delim s aver r ed t hat t he vehicular m ishap was due t o for ce m aj eur e, and t hat Gat chalian had alr eady been paid
and had waived any right t o inst it ut e any act ion against t hem .
I SSUE: Whet her t he Delim s ar e liable t o Gat chalian, not wit hst anding her waiver .
H ELD : Yes. The Delim s ar e liable. The waiv er execut ed by Gat chalian was not a valid waiv er .
A w aiver, t o be valid and effect ive, m ust in t he first place be couched in clear and unequiv ocal t erm s which leav e
no doubt as t o t he int ent ion of a per son t o give up a r ight or benefit which legally pert ains t o him . A waiv er m ay
not casually be at t r ibut ed t o a per son when t he t er m s t her eof do not explicit ly and clearly evidence an int ent t o
abandon a right vest ed in such person.
Because what is involv ed her e is t he liabilit y of a com m on car rier for inj uries sust ained by passengers in respect of
whose safet y a com m on car rier m ust exercise ex t r aor dinary diligence, we m ust const rue any such pur por t ed
waiver m ost st r ict ly against t he com m on carr ier .
For a waiv er t o be valid and effect ive, it m ust not be cont r ary t o law, m or als, public policy or good cust om s. We
believ e t his purport ed waiver is offensiv e t o public policy because it dilut es t he degr ee of care requir ed of com m on
carr ier s.
I n case of deat h or inj uries t o passengers, a st at ut ory presum pt ion arises t hat t he com m on carrier w as at fault or
had act ed negligent ly unless it pr ov es t hat it [ had] obser v ed ext raordinar y diligence as prescr ibed in Art icles 1733
and 1755.
h. Ot her s
D a m n u m Absqu e I n j u r ia ( dam age wit hout inj ury) : Ther e is dam age but no liabilit y because t he per son who
caused t he inj ury was exercising a legal right .
Sim on v. D a vid
The dism issal by t he office of t he fiscal of t he com plaint for est afa filed by t he plaint iffs insufficient t o warr ant a
j udgm ent for dam ages in defendant 's fav or , in t he absence of com pet ent evidence t hat in filing t he com plaint ,
plaint iff had act ed in bad fait h, knowing t hat t he charge w as gr oundless.
Pr olin e Spor t s v. CA

By vir t ue of it s m er ger wit h A.G. Spalding Bros., I nc., QUESTOR becam e t he owner of t he t radem ar k " Spalding"
appearing in spor t ing goods, im plem ent s and appar at uses. PRO LI NE is t he exclusiv e dist r ibut or of " Spalding"
spor t s pr oduct s in t he Philippines.
UNI VERSAL, on t he ot her hand, is engaged in t he sale and m anufact ur e of sport ing goods w hile co- respondent
Monico Sehwani is im pleaded in his capacit y as president of t he cor por at ion.
16 year s ago( 1981) , Edw in Dy Buncio, Gener al Manager of PRO LI NE, sent a let t ercom plaint t o t he NBI r egar ding
t he alleged m anufact ure of fake " Spalding" balls by UNI VERSAL.
The NBI conduct ed a sear ch ( by vir t ue of a war rant ) on t he pr em ises of Univer sal. Basket balls and volleyballs
m ar k ed " Spalding" wer e seized and confiscat ed by t he NBI . UNI VERSAL’S fact ory was sealed and padlock ed as t he
m at erials & m achineries wer e t oo heavy t o be rem oved from t he prem ises and brought under t he act ual physical
cust ody of t he court .
Upon m ot ion of UNI VERSAL, Judge order ed t he lift ing of t he seal and padlock on t he m achiner ies. The pet ners
filed a pet n for cert ior ari in t he CA. Also, t he pet ners filed a cr im inal com plaint for unfair com pet it ion against
Sehw ani. The com plaint was dr opped but an info was lat er filed by t he Minist r y of Just ice. The case against
Sehw ani did not pr opser b/ c t hey wer e unable t o pr ov e t hat Sehwani sold t he fak e Spalding product s ( - - t he
selling being an essent ial elem ent of t he crim e) .
UNI VERSAL and Sehwani filed a civil case for dam ages ( m alicious prosecut ion) ch a r gin g t h a t PRO LI N E a n d
QUESTOR m a liciou sly a n d w it h ou t le ga l ba sis com m it t e d a ct s t o t h e ir da m a ge a n d pr e j u dice.
I SSUE: Whet her Pr oline and Quest or are liable for dam ages.
H ELD : PROLI NE & QUESTOR NOT liable for dam ages.
Ther e was no m alicious prosecut ion. The elem ent s of m alicious prosecut ion are:
( 1) absence of probable cause
( 2) legal m alice on t he part of t he defendant .
The filing of t he crim case w as based on probable cause: t hat a cor porat ion ot her t han t he cert ified owner of t he
t radem ark is engaged in t he unaut horized m anufact ur e of pr oduct s bear ing t he sam e TM engender s a reasonable
belief t hat a crim offense for unfair com pet it ion is being com m it t ed.
A resort t o j udicial processes is NOT per se ev idence of ill will upon which a claim for dam ages m ay be based;
Malice is an inexcusable int ent t o inj ure, oppr ess, vex , annoy or hum iliat e. Proline and Quest or , in filing t he
act ion, wer e m er ely exer cising t heir legal right s. Hence, t hey are not liable for dam ages.
Am on oy v. Gu t ie r r e z
* Well- set t led is t he m axim t hat dam age r esult ing fr om t he legit im at e ex ercise of a per son’s r ight is a loss wit hout
inj ury—dam num absque inj uria—for which t he law gives no rem edy.
* Even if t he act s of a part y m ay have been legally j ust ified at t he out set , t heir cont inuat ion aft er t he issuance of
t he TRO am ount ed t o an insidious abuse of his r ight —his act s const it ut ed not only an abuse of a right , but an
invalid exercise of a right t hat had been suspended.
* The exer cise of a right ends w hen t he r ight disappears when it is abused, especially t o t he prej udice of ot her s.
M a r isca l v. CA
Bella Cat alan filed an act ion for annulm ent of her m arriage wit h Rogelio Mariscal on t he gr ound t hat it was void ab
init io for having been solem nized w/ o a valid m arriage license and for being bigam ous. She also sought t o recov er
$32T and dam ages.
Rogelio Mariscal also filed for annulm ent claim ing t hat he was for ced t o m arr y her at gunpoint . He also asked for
dam ages.
Cat alan m oved for t he dism issal of t he case filed by Mariscal on t he ground of lit is pendent ia. The case was
dism issed by t he CA. Mariscal cont ends t hat t he case should not have been dism issed because it s resolut ion w ould
NOT const it ut e res j udicat a.
I SSUE: Whet her t he dism issal of t he case filed by Mariscal w as correct ly dism issed.
H ELD : Yes, t he case was cor rect ly dism issed on t he ground of lit is pendent ia.

I n lit is pendnet ia what is essent ial is t he ident it y and sim ilar it y of t he issues under consider at ion. I n his effor t t o
hav e t he case resolv ed in a differ ent venue, pet it ioner has r esor t ed t o nit - picking and in t he process has lost t rack
of t he real issue beset t ing t he 2 axns.
A count er claim part akes of t he nat ure of a com plaint and/ or a cause of axn against t he plaint iff in a case. To
int er pose a cause of act ion in a count er claim and again invok e it in a com plaint against t he sam e per son or part y
would be split t ing a cause of act ion not sanct ioned by t he Rules.
Spou se s Lim v. Un i Ta n
Uni- Tan filed a com plaint in t he MTC against t he Lim s for unlawful det ainer. The MTC ruled in fav or of Unit - Tan
and ordered t he Lim s t o vacat e t he prem ises and pay a sum as rent al unt il vacat ion.
On appeal, t he RTC reversed t he MTC ruling and dism issed t he com plaint against t he Lim s. Since propert ies of t he
Lim s had already been sold on ex ecut ion during t he proceeding befor e t he low er court , t he RTC, upon m ot ion,
ordered t hat t he it em s not sold at t he ex ecut ion sale should be ret urned t o t hem . The Lim s apparent ly w ant ed an
award of dam ages because of t he sale of t heir pr oper t y. The RTC denied t he claim on t he ground t hat t he Lim s
failed t o file a supersedeas bond t o st ay t he ex ecut ion of t he j udgm ent .
Lim s cont end t hat t he RTC erred in not awar ding t hem dam ages since t hey were prej udiced by t he ej ect m ent suit .
I SSUE: Whet her t he Lim s are ent it led t o dam ages.
H ELD : No, t hey are not ent it led t o dam ages.
Neit her t he Uni- Tan nor t he sheriff m ay be fault ed for t he it em s sold on ex ecut ion, because t he Lim spouses had
failed t o file a supersedeas bond t o st ay t he ex ecut ion of t he MTC j udgm ent . The im m ediat e ex ecut ion of a
j udgm ent fav or able t o t he plaint iff is m andat ed, and t he court ’s dut y t o or der it is pract ically m inist erial.
Ther e is no basis for pet it ioners’ claim for dam ages because respondent was in t he lawful exer cise of it s r ight at
t he t im e of t he execut ion sale. Spouses Lim should have paid t he bond, so t hat execut ion w ill be st ayed.
Those who ex ercise t heir r ight s pr operly do no legal inj ur y. I f dam ages result from t heir exer cise of t heir legal
right s, it is dam num absque inj uria—a loss wit hout inj ury, for which t he law giv es no rem edy.
I V . V I CARI OUS/ PRI M ARY/ SOLI D ARY LI ABI LI TY
1. Vicarious Liabilit y
Art icle 2 1 8 0 . Th e obliga t ion im pose d by Art icle 2 1 7 6 is dem a n da ble n ot on ly for on e ’s ow n
a ct s or om ission s, bu t a lso for t h ose of pe r son s for w h om on e is r e spon sible .
Th e fa t h e r a n d, in ca se of h is de a t h or in ca pa cit y , t h e m ot h e r, a r e r espon sible for t h e

da m a ge s ca u se d by t h e m in or ch ildr e n w h o liv e in t h e ir com pa n y.
Gu a r dia n s a r e lia ble for da m a ge s ca u se d by t h e m in or s or in ca pa cit a t e d pe r son s w h o a r e

u n der t h e ir a u t h or it y a n d live in t h e ir com pa n y.
Th e ow n e r s a n d m a n a ge r s of a n e st a blish m e n t or e n t e rpr ise a r e lik e w ise re spon sible for

da m a ge s ca u se d by t h e ir e m ploy ee s in t h e se r vice of t h e br a n ch e s in w h ich t h e la t t e r a r e e m ploye d
or on t h e occa sion of t h e ir fu n ct ion s.
Em ploy e r s sh a ll be lia ble for t h e da m a ge s ca use d by t he ir e m ploye e s a n d hou se h old he lpe r s

a ct in g w it h in t h e scope of t h e ir a ssign e d t a sk s, eve n t h ou gh t h e form e r a r e n ot e n ga ge d in a n y
bu sin e ss or in du st r y.
Th e St a t e is r e spon sible in lik e m a n n e r w h e n it a ct s t h r ou gh a spe cia l a ge n t ; bu t n ot w h e n t h e

da m a ge h a s bee n ca u se d by t h e officia l t o w h om t h e t a sk don e pr ope r ly pe rt a in s, in w h ich ca se w h a t
is pr ovide d in Ar t icle 2 1 7 6 sh a ll be a pplica ble .
La st ly, t e a ch e r s or h e a ds of e st a blish m e n t s of a r t s a n d t r a de s sh a ll be lia ble for da m a ge s

ca u se d by t h e ir pu pils a n d st u de n t s or a ppr e n t ice s, so lon g a s t h ey r em a in in t h e ir cu st ody.
Th e r e sp on sibilit y t r e a t e d of in t h is a r t icle sh a ll ce a se w h e n t h e pe r son s h er ein m e n t ion e d

pr ove t h a t t h e y obser ve d a ll t h e dilige n ce of a good fa t h e r of a fa m ily t o pr e ve n t da m a ge .

Art icle 2 1 8 1 . W h oe ve r pa ys for t h e da m a g e ca u se d by h is de pe n de n t s or e m ploye e s m a y
r e cover fr om t h e la t t e r w h a t h e h a d pa id or de live r e d in sa t isfa ct ion of t h e cla im .
Art icle 2 1 8 2 . I f t h e m in or or in sa n e pe r son ca u sin g da m a g e h a s n o pa r e n t s or gu a r dia n s, t h e

m in or or in sa n e pe r son sh a ll be a n sw e r a ble w it h h is ow n pr oper t y in a n a ct ion a ga in st h im w h e r e a
gu a r dia n a d lit e m sh a ll be a ppoin t e d.

PERSON V I CARI OUSLY LI ABLE N EGLI GEN T PERSON REQUI SI TE CON D I TI ON
Fat her/ Mot her Minor child ( below 21 year s old) Living wit h parent s
Guar dian Minor war d or incapacit at ed Under t he cust ody of t he guar dian
per son å t his m eans t hat t her e m ust be a
court appoint m ent
Owner and m anager of Em ployee I n t he service of t he branches or
est ablishm ent on t he occasion of t heir funct ions
( whet her or not act ing wit hin t he
scope of t heir assigned t ask s)
I t is necessar y t o pr ov e t hat t here

is an em ploy er- em ploy ee
relat ionship
Em ployer s even t hough not Em ployees and household helpers Act ing w it hin t he scope of assigned
engaged in business or indust ry t asks
St at e Special agent Definit e order t o do som e t ask,
for eign t o his usual funct ions
Teacher s St udent or apprent ice St udent or apprent ice m ust be in
t heir cust ody
Heads of Schools Teacher - in- charge is liable if t he
school is an academ ic inst it ut ion;
Head of school is liable if t he
school is an inst it ut ion of art s and
t rades
a. par ent s and guar dians
RA 6 8 0 9
- am ended Art icle 234 of t he Fam ily Code. As am ended by RA 6809, Ar t icle 234 now r eads as follows:
Ar t . 234. Em ancipat ion t akes place by t he at t ainm ent of m aj orit y . Unless ot herw ise provided, m a j or it y
com m e n ce s a t t h e a ge of e igh t e e n ye a r s.
- Effect s of em ancipat ion: Ter m inat es par ent al aut horit y ov er t he person and propert y of t he child, who
shall t hen be qualified and r esponsible for all act s of civil life, EXCEPT:
1. Cont ract ing m ar riage shall requir e parent al consent unt il t he age of 21.
2. Pa r e n t s a n d gu a r dia n s a r e st ill r e spon sible for t h e ir ch ildre n a n d w a r d s be low 2 1 ye a r s of
a ge m e n t ion e d in t h e se con d a n d t h ir d pa r a gr a ph s of Ar t icle 2 1 8 0 of t h e Civil Code .
Cu a dr a v. M on for t
Maria Teresa Cuadra, 12, and Maria Teresa Monfor t , 13, wer e classm at es in Grade 6. They w er e assigned t o weed
t he grass in t he school pr em ises. Monfort found a plast ic headband and j okingly said aloud t hat she had found an
eart hw or m . To fright en Cuadra, Monfor t t ossed t he headband at her. The headband hit Cuadr a in t he ey e.
Cuadra rubbed t he inj ured ey e and t reat ed it w it h som e pow der. The eye sw elled t he next day, and Cuadra w as
t aken t o t he doct or. She underw ent surgical oper at ion, but event ually, she lost sight in her right ey e. Cuadr a’s
parent s filed a civil suit against Monfort ’s fat her for dam ages.
I SSUE: Whet her Monfor t ’s fat her is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : No.
Ar t icle 2176 pr ovides for liabilit y in case of fault or negligence. When t he act or om ission is t hat of one per son for
whom anot her is r esponsible, t he lat t er becom es him self liable under Ar t icle 2180. The basis of t his vicarious
liabilit y is also fault or negligence, w hich is presum ed fr om t hat which accom panied t he causat iv e act or om ission.
The presum pt ion is m erely pr im a facie and m ay t her efore be rebut t ed.
I n t his case, t her e is not hing from which it m ay be inferr ed t hat Monfort ’s fat her could have prev ent ed t he dam age
by t he obser v ance of due car e, or t hat he was in any way rem iss in t he ex er cise of his par ent al aut horit y in failing
t o for esee such dam age, or t he act which caused it . On t he cont rar y , his child was at school, wher e it was his
dut y t o send her, and where she was, as he had t he right t o expect her t o be, under t he car e and superv ision of
t he t eacher. And as far as t he act w hich caused t he inj ury was concer ned, it w as an innocent prank not unusual
am ong childr en at play and which no par ent , howev er careful, would hav e any special reason t o ant icipat e, m uch

less guar d against . Nor did it rev eal any m ischiev ous propensit y, or indeed any t rait in t he child’s charact er which
would reflect unfav orably on her upbr inging and for which t he blam e could be at t r ibut ed t o her parent s.
Dissent ing opinion, Bar r edo, J:
Monfort ’s fat her should be liable. There was no evidence t hat he had proper ly advised his daught er t o behav e
properly and not t o play dangerous j ok es on classm at es and play m at es.
Elca n o v. H ill
Reginald Hill was a m inor, m arried, and living wit h and dependent on his fat her Mar vin. He killed Agapit o Elcano,
for which he was crim inally pr osecut ed. He was acquit t ed on t he gr ound of lack of int ent t o kill, coupled wit h
m ist ak e. The par ent s of Elcano filed an act ion for dam ages against Reginald and Mar vin Hill. Defendant s m ov ed
t o dism iss on t he grounds of res j udicat a and lack of cause of act ion against Marvin Hill. They claim t hat Marvin
Hill was reliev ed as guardian of Reginald t hrough em ancipat ion by m arr iage. Hence, t he Elcanos could not claim
dam ages against Marvin Hill.
I SSUE: Whet her Marvin Hill is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Yes.
While it is t rue t hat parent al aut horit y is t erm inat ed upon em ancipat ion of t he child, and under Art icle 397 of t he
Civ il Code, em ancipat ion t akes place by t he m ar riage of a m inor child, it also clear t hat pursuant t o Art icle 399,
em ancipat ion by m arriage of t he m inor is not really full or absolut e. The m inor em ancipat ed by m arr iage can sue
and be sued in cour t only wit h t he assist ance of his fat her, m ot her , or guar dian. Under Ar t icle 2180, t he fat her,
and in case of his deat h or incapacit y , t he m ot her , are responsible for t he dam ages caused by t he m inor childr en
who live in t heir com pany. I n t his case, Reginald, alt hough m ar ried, was living wit h his fat her and get t ing
subsist ence fr om him at t he t im e of t he occur rence in quest ion.
The r eason behind t he j oint and solidar y liabilit y of parent s wit h t heir offending child under Ar t icle 2180 is t hat it is
t he obligat ion of t he par ent t o super v ise t heir m inor children in order t o prev ent t hem from causing dam age t o
t hird per sons. On t he ot her hand, t he clear im plicat ion of Art icle 399, in providing t hat a m inor em ancipat ed by
m arr iage m ay not sue or be sued wit hout t he assist ance of t he parent s is t hat such em ancipat ion does not carr y
wit h it freedom t o ent er int o t ransact ions or do any act t hat can giv e rise t o j udicial lit igat ion. Sur ely, t he k illing of
a per son inv it es j udicial act ion. Hence, Ar t icle 2180 applies t o Marv in Hill.
Howev er , since Reginald is now of age, as a m at t er of equit y , Marvin Hill’s liabilit y has becom e m er ely subsidiary
t o t hat of his son.
b. Owners and Manager s of Ent er pr ises
H e ir s of D e los Sa n t os v. CA
The M/ V Mindoro ow ned by Com pania Marit im a was bound for New Washingt on, Aklan. I n t he w ee hour s of t he
m orning, t he vessel m et t yphoon “ Welm ing” on t he Sibuyan Sea, Aklan. The vessel sank, as a result of which,
m any of t he passenger s dr ow ned. I n a decision of t he Boar d of Marine I nquiry, it w as found t hat t he capt ain and
som e m em bers of t he cr ew w ere negligent in operat ing t he vessel. The Board im posed upon t hem a penalt y of
suspension and/ or revocat ion of t heir license. How ev er, t he decision could not be execut ed against t he capt ain
w ho perished wit h t he vessel.
The heirs of t he passengers and som e of t he surviv ors filed an act ion for dam ages against Com pania Marit im a.
The RTC and CA absolv ed Com pania from liabilit y . The CA found t hat t hat alt hough t her e was concurring
negligence on t he part of t he capt ain, Com pania cannot be held liable based on t he principle of lim it ed liabilit y of
t he shipowner or ship agent under Art icle 587 of t he Code of Com m erce.
I SSUE: Whet her Com pania Mar it im a is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Yes.
Ther e is no disput e as t o t he finding of t he capt ain’s negligence. The cont roversy cent ers on t he negligence of
Com pania Marit im ia and t he applicat ion of Art icle 587 of t he Code of Com m er ce. Art icle 587 provides:
Ar t . 587. The ship agent shall also be civilly liable for indem nit ies in fav or of t hir d persons which
m ay arise from t he conduct of t he capt ain in t he care of goods which he loaded on t he vessel,
but h e m a y e x e m pt h im se lf t h e re fr om by a ba n don in g t h e ve sse l w it h a ll h e r
e qu ipm e n t s a n d t h e fr e igh t it m a y ha ve e a r ne d du r in g t h e voy a ge .

Under t his pr ov ision, a shipowner or agent has t he right of abandonm ent , and his liabilit y is confined t o t hat which
he has a right t o abandon – t he vessel w it h all her equipm ent s and t he freight it m ay hav e earned during t he
voyage. How ev er , t his art icle applies only w here t he fault or negligence is com m it t ed solely by t he capt ain. I n
cases where t he shipowner is likew ise t o be blam ed, Art icle 587 does not apply. The sit uat ion will inst ead be
cov er ed by t he prov isions of t he Civil Code on Com m on Car rier s. Com m on car rier s are t ask ed t o obser v e
ex t raordinary diligence in t he vigilance over t he goods and for t he safet y of it s passenger s. Whenev er deat h or
inj ury t o a passenger occurs, com m on car rier s are pr esum ed t o have been at fault or t o have act ed negligent ly
unless t hey pr ov e t hat t hey observ ed ext raor dinar y diligence.
I n t his case, Com pania Mar it im a it self was negligent , as shown by t he following:
1. The capt ain knew of t he t y phoon befor ehand, so it can be presum ed t hat Marit im a also knew about t he
t yphoon adv isor ies. I n spit e of t he t yphoon advisor ies, it allowed t he ship t o depart fr om Manila. I n so doing,
Marit im a display ed lack of for esight and m inim um concern for t he safet y of it s passengers, t aking int o account
t he surr ounding cir cum st ances.
2. The CA held t hat t he capt ain w as negligent in ov erloading t he ship. However, Marit im a shared in t his
negligence. A closer supervision by Marit im a could have prevent ed t he overloading of t he ship. Moreover,
Marit im a allow ed t he ship t o leave Manila lat er t han it s schedule. I f it had m ade t he ship leave earlier, t he
encount er wit h t he t yphoon could have been avoided.
3. While t he ship was seawor t hy and had lifesav ing equipm ent , Mar it im a failed t o show evidence t hat it had
inst alled a radar which could have allow ed t he vessel t o navigat e safely for shelt er during a st or m .
Since t he for egoing show s t he lack of ext raor dinar y diligence and t he negligence of Marit im a, it is liable for
dam ages.
St . Fra n cis H igh Sch ool v. CA
Ferdinand Cast illo was a freshm an at St . Francis High School. He asked his par ent s for perm ission t o go t o a
picnic at a beach organized by his t eachers. His parent s allow ed him only t o bring food t o t he picnic and t o go
st r aight hom e aft er. Howev er , he went and st ay ed at t he picnic. While t he st udent s and t eacher s wer e in t he
w at er, one of t he fem ale t eachers appeared t o be dr ow ning. Fer dinand cam e t o her rescue, but in t he pr ocess, he
him self drow ned. His par ent s filed an act ion for dam ages against t he t eachers, t he school, and t he ow ner s of t he
school.
I SSUE: Whet her St . Francis High School and t he t eacher s are liable for dam ages.
H ELD : No. They are not liable because t hey wer e not guilt y of any negligence.
St . Francis is not liable. Under Art icle 2180, before an em ploy er m ay be held liable for t he negligence of his
em ployee, t he act or om ission which caused dam age or pr ej udice m ust have occur r ed while an em ploy ee was in
t he perfor m ance of his assigned t ask s. I n t his case, t he t eachers wer e not in t he act ual perfor m ance of t heir
assigned t ask s. The incident happened not w it hin school pr em ises, not on a school day, and while t he t eacher s
and st udent s wer e holding a pur ely privat e affair. The picnic had not per m it fr om t he school pr incipal; it was
neit her a school- sanct ioned act ivit y nor an ext ra- curr icular act ivit y. Mere knowledge by t he principal of t he picnic
does not show consent t o t he holding of t he sam e. Ther efore, Art icle 2180 is not applicable. To apply it w ould
m ake em ployers liable for act s or om issions of em ployees even if such w ere not com m it t ed by t he em ployees in
t he perfor m ance of t heir dut ies.
The t eachers are not liable eit her. They did t heir best and ex er cised t he diligence of a good fat her of a fam ily t o
prev ent any unt oward incident or dam ages t o t he st udent s who j oined t he picnic. I n fact , t he class adviser invit ed
t wo m ale t eacher s who wer e PE inst ruct ors and scout m ast er s w it h k nowledge of First Aid and swim m ing. Bot h
t hese t eachers did all t hat w as hum anly possible t o sav e t he child by adm inist ering first aid upon him .
Dissent ing opinion, Padilla, J.:
The school and t he t eacher s are liable.
Though t he t eachers did exert ever y effort t o resuscit at e t he child, t here w as negligence on t heir part because
t hey failed t o exer cise diligent superv ision ov er t he childr en BEFORE t he incident t ook place. They did not t est t he
wat er s t o see t he possible danger s of swim m ing in t he beach. Moreov er, t he m ale t eacher s who wer e supposed t o
act as lifeguar ds wer e nowher e wit hin t he vicinit y of t he beach at t he t im e t he incident happened. They m ight
ev en have been having a drink ing spr ee as t est ified by one of t he wit nesses.
The school is liable for t he negligence of t he t eachers under Art icle 2180. The excursion had t he st am p of
aut hor it y of t he school by reason of t he part icipat ion of sever al t eachers. The principal not only knew of t he

ex cur sion but was even invit ed t o at t end. Having know ledge of t he act ivit y , he should have t aken appr opr iat e
m easur es t o ensure t he safet y of t he st udent s. His silence m ust be const rued as im plied consent t o t he act ivit y .
As adm inist r at iv e head of t he school, t he pr incipal act ed as agent of t he school. Art icle 2180 par agraphs 1 and 5
are applicable in t his sit uat ion. No pr oof w as pr esent ed by t he owners of t he school t hat t hey ex ercised t he care
and diligence of a good fat her of a fam ily in t he select ion and/ or superv ision of t he em ploy ees causing t he inj ury
or dam age. Hence, t hey should be account able for t he deat h of t he st udent .
c. Em ploy er s
Fr a n co v. I AC
Yulo was driving a Franco Bus when he sw er ved t o t he opposit e lane t o av oid colliding wit h a par ked t ruck. The
Fr anco Bus t ook t he lane of an incom ing I suzu Mini Bus dr iv en by Lugue. The t wo vehicles collided, r esult ing in
t he deat hs of bot h driv er s and t wo passengers of t he Mini Bus.
The owner of t he I suzu Mini Bus, t he w ife of one of t he passengers w ho died, and t he w ife of t he driver of t he
Mini Bus filed an act ion for dam ages against Mr. and Mr s. Franco, ow ners of t he Franco Transpor t at ion Com pany.
The spouses set up t he defense t hat t hey exer cised t he diligence of a good fat her of a fam ily in select ing and
superv ising t heir em ploy ees, including t he deceased driver . The RTC held t hat t his defense of due diligence could
not be invok ed by t he spouses since t he case was one for crim inal negligence punishable under Art icle 102 and
103 of t he Revised Penal Code and not fr om Ar t icle 2180 of t he Civil Code. I t held t he spouses liable for dam ages
t o t he plaint iffs. The CA agr eed wit h t he low er court .
I SSUES:
1. Whet her t he act ion for dam ages was predicat ed upon crim e or quasi delict and whet her t he defense of
due diligence can be invok ed by t he spouses.
2. Whet her t he spouses ar e liable for dam ages.
H ELD : The act ion is predicat ed upon quasi delict , not upon crim e. Hence, t he defense of due diligence can be
invok ed by t he defendant s. Howev er , in t his case, t he spouses wer e not able t o prov e such due diligence.
Ther efore, t hey are liable for dam ages under Art icle 2180 of t he Civil Code.
1. Dist inct ion should be m ade bet ween t he subsidiar y liabilit y of t he em ploy er under t he RPC and t he
em ployer ’s prim ar y liabilit y under t he Civil Code, which is quasi- delict ual or t ort ious in charact er. The
first t y pe of liabilit y is gov erned by Art icles 102 and 103 of t he RPC, which provide t hat em ploy er s have
subsidiary civil liabilit y in default of t heir em ploy ees who com m it felonies in t he discharge of t heir dut ies.
The second kind is gov erned by Ar t icles 2176, 2177, and 2180 of t he Civil Code on t he vicarious liabilit y
of em ployer s for t hose dam ages caused by t heir em ploy ees act ing w it hin t he scope of t heir assigned
t asks. I n t his second kind, t he em ploy er’s liabilit y ceases upon pr oof t hat he obser v ed all t he diligence of
a good fat her of a fam ily t o prev ent dam age. Under Art icle 103 of t he RPC, t he liabilit y of t he em ploy er
is subsidiar y t o t he liabilit y of t he em ployee. Before t he em ploy er ’s subsidiar y liabilit y m ay be pr oceeded
against , it is im per at ive t hat t here should be a crim inal act ion wher e t he em ploy ee’s cr im inal negligence
are pr ov ed. Wit hout such crim inal act ion being inst it ut ed, t he em ploy er ’s liabilit y cannot be predicat ed
under Art icle 103. I n t his case, t here was no crim inal act ion inst it ut ed because t he driv er w ho should
st and as accused died in t he accident . Ther efor e, t her e is no basis for t he em ploy er’s subsidiar y liabilit y,
wit hout t he em ploy ee’s pr im ar y liabilit y. I t follow s t hat t he liabilit y being sued upon is based not on
crim e, but on culpa aquiliana, where t he defense of t he ex ercise of t he diligence of a good fat her of a
fam ily m ay be raised by t he em ployer .
2. The em ploy er s are liable since t hey failed t o pr ov e t hat t hey exer cised t he diligence of a good fat her of a
fam ily in select ing and/ or super vising t he driv er. They adm it t ed t hat t he only kind of superv ision given t o
t he driver s refer r ed t o t he running t im e bet w een t he t erm inal point s of t he line. They only had t wo
inspect ors w hose dut ies wer e only t icket inspect ions. There is no evidence t hat t hey wer e really safet y
inspect ors.
Go v. I AC
Flov er t o Jazm in w as a US cit izen, residing in t he Philippines at 34 Maravilla St . Mangat ar em , Pangasinan. He

regular ly received check s fr om t he US gov er nm ent t hrough t he Mangat arem post office, which he encashed at t he
Prudent ial Bank branch in Pam panga.
I n January 1975, he failed t o r eceiv e one of t he check s on t im e, pr om pt ing him t o inquire fr om t he post offices.
The r esult of his inquiries wer e unsat isfact or y , so he w rot e t he US Civil Serv ice Com m ission, com plaining about
t he delay in receiving his check. He received a subst it ut e check w hich he encashed.

Meanwhile, in April 1975, Agust in Go, in his capacit y as branch m anager of Solidbank ( which lat er becam e
Consolidat ed Bank) in Baguio Cit y, allowed a per son nam ed Flov ert o Jazm in t o open a savings account by
deposit ing t wo US t reasury check s for $1810 and $913.40 bot h payable t o t he or der of Flov er t o Jasm in of
Maranilla St . Mangat ar em , Pangasinan. The deposit or indicat ed in his infor m at ion sheet t hat he was Flov ert o
Jazm in wit h hom e addr ess at Maravilla St ., Mangat ar em , Pangasinan.
The checks wer e sent t o t he draw ee bank for clearance. Solidbank did not receiv e any w or d from t he draw ee
bank aft er t hree week s, so it allow ed t he deposit or t o w it hdraw t he am ount indicat ed in t he check s. More t han a
year lat er, t he checks w er e ret urned t o Solidbank wit h t he not at ion t hat t he am ount s wer e alt ered. Go r epor t ed
t he m at t er t o t he Philippine Const abular y in Baguio. The real Jazm in w as required t o appear before t he PC
headquar t er s in Benguet for invest igat ion regar ding t he com plain filed by Go against him for est afa. Event ually
t he inv est igat ors found t hat t he per son who m ade t he deposit and w it hdrawal was an im post or .
Jazm in filed a com plaint against Go and Consolidat ed Bank for m or al and ex em plar y dam ages, alleging t hat he
suffered hum iliat ion, em barrassm ent , and great inconvenience as a result of t he negligence of Go.
I SSUE: Whet her Go and Consolidat ed are liable t o Jazm in for dam ages.
H ELD : Yes, t hey are liable for nom inal dam ages.
Go’s negligence was t he root of all t he inconv enience and em bar rassm ent ex perienced by Jazm in. Go’s negligence
in fact led t o t he swindling of his em ployer Consolidat ed. Had Go ex ercised t he diligence expect ed of him as a
bank officer and em ployee, he w ould have not iced t he glaring disparit y bet w een t he payee’s nam e and address on
t he t reasury check s involved and t he nam e and addr ess of t he deposit or appear ing in t he bank recor ds.
Ther efore, t he bank , t hrough it s em ployees, was grossly negligence in handling t he business t ransact ion involv ed.
This was t he st art of t he consequent involv em ent of Jazm in, as his nam e was illegally used in t he illicit t ransact ion.
As Go’s negligent was t he root cause of t he com plained inconv enience, hum iliat ion, and em bar r assm ent , Go is
liable t o Jazm in for dam ages.
Consolidat ed is co- equally liable wit h Go for dam ages under t he fift h paragr aph of Ar t icle 2180 of t he Civil Code,
since it not only failed t o show t hat it ex ercised due diligence t o pr event dam age but t hat it w as not negligent in
t he select ion and supervision of it s em ployees.
Ca st ile x I n du st r ia l Cor p. v. V a sq u e z Jr .
At around 2 am , Rom eo Vasquez was driv ing a m ot orcy cle around Fuent e Osm ena Rot unda. Benj am in Abad,
m anager of Cast ilex , was driv ing a pickup ow ned by Cast ilex. I nst ead of going around t he Rot unda, he m ade a
short cut against t he flow of t r affic. I n t he pr ocess, he collided wit h t he m ot or cycle driv en by Vasquez. He rushed
Vasquez t o t he hospit al, but t he lat t er died lat er .
A crim inal case was filed against Abad, but it was dism issed for failur e t o prosecut e. The par ent s of Vasquez filed
an act ion for dam ages against Abad and Cast ilex.
I SSUE: Whet her Cast ilex is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : No, Cast ilex is not liable for dam ages.
While Cast ilex presum es t he negligence of Abad, it claim s t hat it is not vicariously liable for t he inj uries and
subsequent deat h caused by Abad.
Under t he fift h paragraph of Ar t icle 2180, an em ploy er is liable for t he t ort s com m it t e d by em ploy ee s w it h in
t h e scope of h is a ssign e d t a sk s, w het her or not t he em ployer is engaged in any business or indust r y. To m ak e
t he em ployer liable under t he fift h paragraph, t he plaint iff m ust :
1. est ablish an em ploy er- em ploy ee relat ionship; and

2. show t hat t he em ploy ee w as act ing wit hin t he scope of his assigned t ask when t he t ort com plained of was
com m it t ed.
I t is not incum bent upon t he em ployer t o prove t hat t he em ployee w as NOT act ing wit hin t he scope of his dut ies.
I t is t he obligat ion of t he plaint iff t o pr ov e t his averm ent .
Once t he plaint iff has shown t hese, t he pr esum pt ion of negligence of t he em ployer arises, and t he em ployer m ay
int er pose t he defense of t he due diligence in t he select ion and super vision of t he em ployee.
I n t his case, it is undisput ed t hat Abad was a pr oduct ion m anager of Cast ilex. The t est im onies of t he w it nesses,
including Abad, show t hat he did som e ov er t im e wor k at t he office. Thereaft er , he went t o Goldie’s Rest aurant in
Fuent e Osm ena, which is known t o be a place where prost it ut es, pim ps, and drug addict s liked t o hang out . At t he

rest aurant , Abad had som e snack s and chat t ed wit h friends. I t was when he left t he rest aur ant t hat t he incident
happened. Par ent het ically, t here was a wom an wit h him in t he car who shout ed “ Daddy , Daddy ! ” but t her e was
no w ay t hat t he wom an could have been his daught er because he was only 29 year s old.
Clearly, Abad was engaged in affair s of his ow n or w as car ry ing out a personal purpose not in line w it h his dut ies
at t he t im e he figured in t he accident . I t was around 2 am , way bey ond nor m al wor king hour s. Abad’s wor king
day had ended, and his overt im e work had already been com plet ed. His being at a pim p- pr ost i- druggie haven had
no r elat ion t o t he business of Cast ilex or t o his dut ies as a m anager . Rat her , Abad was m er ely using his ser vice
vehicle for personal purposes, which was m er ely a fringe benefit or per k att ached t o his posit ion.
Since Abad was not act ing wit hin t he scope of t he funct ions ent rust ed t o him when t he accident happened,
Casit lex had not dut y t o show t hat it exer cised t he diligence of a good fat her of a fam ily in providing Abad w it h a
ser vice vehicle. I t has not vicar ious liabilit y for t he consequences of t he negligence of Abad in driv ing it s vehicle.
At t y. Abaño – I f t he use of t he vehicle inures t o t he benefit of t he com pany, t he em ployer m ay be held liable
vicariously.
Vict or y Lin e r v. H e ir s of M a lecda n
Andr es Malecdan was a 75 year - old farm er. While he was crossing a highw ay, a Dalin Liner bus st opped t o allow
him and his carabao t o pass. Howev er, as Andres w as crossing, a Vict or y Liner Bus, driv en by Joson, by passed
t he Dalin bus and hit Andr es and t he carabao he w as riding. Andres w as t hrow n off t he carabao, w hile t he beast
t oppled over. The Vict ory Liner bus sped past t he old m an, w hile t he Dalin bus proceeded t o it s dest inat ion
wit hout helping him . Andr es was br ought t o t he hospit al, w here he died a few hour s lat er. The carabao also died.
A crim inal com plaint for r eckless im prudence result ing in hom icide and dam age t o pr oper t y was filed against
Joson. Subsequent ly, t he heir s of Malecdan br ought a suit for dam ages against Joson and Vict ory Liner. The RTC
held t hat Joson w as negligent in driv ing t he bus, while Vict or y Liner was guilt y of negligence in t he select ion and
superv ision of Joson. Vict ory Liner appealed.
I SSUE: Whet her Vict ory Liner is liable t o t he heirs of Malecdan.
H ELD : Yes.
Under Art icle 2180, t he responsibilit y of em ployers for t he negligence of t heir em ployees in t he per for m ance of
t heir dut ies is prim ar y and, t her efor e, t he inj ured part y m ay recov er fr om t he em ploy ers dir ect ly , regardless of t he
solv ency of t heir em ploy ees. Em ploy er s m ay be r eliev ed of r esponsibilit y for t he negligent act s of t heir em ploy ees
act ing w it hin t he scope of t heir assigned t ask only if t hey can show t hat t hey obser v ed all t he diligence of a good
fat her of a fam ily t o pr ev ent dam age. They have t he bur den of proving t hat t hey ex ercised such diligence in t he
select ion and super vision of t he em ploy ee. I n t he select ion of pr ospect ive em ployees, em ployer s ar e r equir ed t o
ex am ine t hem as t o t heir qualificat ions, ex perience and ser vice recor ds. Wit h r espect t o t he super v ision of
em ployees, em ployers m ust form ulat e st andard operat ing pr ocedures, m onit or t heir im plem ent at ion and im pose
disciplinar y m easur es for breaches t hereof. These fact s m ust be shown by concret e proof, including docum ent ary
ev idence.
I n t his case, Vict or y liner pr esent ed t he r esult s of Joson’s writ t en exam inat ion, act ual driv ing t est s, x- ray
ex am inat ion, psy chological exam inat ion, NBI clearance, physical exam inat ion, hem at ology exam inat ion, urinaly sis,
st udent driv er t raining, shop t raining, birt h cert ificat e, high school diplom a, and report s fr om t he Gener al
Maint enance Manager and t he Per sonnel Manager showing t hat he had passed all t he t est s and t raining sessions
and was ready t o work as a professional dr iv er. Howev er, Vict or y Liner did not pr esent pr oof t hat Joson had nine
year s of driv ing ex per ience. Ther e is also no r ecor d t hat Joson ever at t ended t he sem inar s on driving safet y giv en
by t he com pany t o it s driv er s at least t wice a year. Vict or y Liner also failed t o est ablish t he speed of it s buses
during it s daily t r ips or t o subm it in evidence t he t rip t ick et s, speed m et er s, and r eport s of filed inspect or s. The
finding of t he t rial court t hat t he Vict or y Liner bus w as running at a ver y fast speed when it ov er t ook t he Dalin bus
and hit t he deceased was not disput ed. For t hese reasons, Vict or y Liner should be consider ed as negligent in t he
superv ision of Joson.
d. St at e
General Rule: The St at e cannot be sued wit hout it s consent
Ex cept ions:
1. When t he st at e is per for m ing a pr opr iet ar y funct ion

2. When t he st at e ent er s int o a cont ract wit h a privat e per son
3. Under Art icle 2180 – when it act s t hrough a special agent

Fon t a n illa v. M a lia m a n
A pickup owned by t he Nat ional I rr igat ion Adm inist r at ion dr iv en officially by Hugo Garcia, an em ploy ee of t he NI A
as it s regular dr iv er , bum ped a bicy cle r idden by Francisco Font anilla and Rest it ut o Deligo. As a result , Font anilla
and Deligo wer e inj ured and br ought t o t he hospit al. Font anilla died.
The parent s of Font anilla filed an act ion for dam ages against t he NI A in connect ion wit h t he deat h of t heir son.
I SSUE: Whet her t he NI A is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Yes, t he NI A is liable.
The liabilit y of t he St at e has t wo aspect s, nam ely:
1. it s public or gov er nm ent al aspect s wher e it is liable for t he t ort ious act s of special agent s only; and
2. it s privat e or business aspect s ( as w hen it engages in privat e ent er pr ises) wher e it becom es liable as an
or dinar y em ploy er .
Under paragraph 6 of Art icle 2180, t he St at e assum es liabilit y for act s done t hrough special agent s. The st at e’s
agent , if a public official, m ust not only be specially com m issioned t o do a part icular t ask , but such t ask m ust be
for eign t o said official’s usual gov ernm ent al funct ions. I f t he st at e’s agent is not a public official, and is
com m issioned t o perfor m non- gov ernm ent al funct ions, t hen t he st at e assum es t he r ole of an or dinary em ploy er
and will be held liable as such for it s agent ’s t ort . When t he gov er nm ent com m issions a privat e indiv idual for a
special gov ernm ent t ask, it is act ing t hr ough a special agent w it hin t he m eaning of t he pr ovision.
When t he st at e is per for m ing gov er nm ent al funct ions, it is im m une from t or t liabilit y. When t he st at e per form s a
ser vice which m ight as well be provided by a privat e corporat ion, and w hen it collect s revenues t herefrom , t he
st at e is per form ing a pr opriet ary funct ion. I t is in t his inst ance where t her e m ay be liabilit y for t he t ort s of agent s
wit hin t he scope of t heir em ploy m ent .
The NI A is an agency of t he gover nm ent ex er cising pr opr iet ar y funct ions. Therefor e, it m ay be liable for dam ages
caused by accident s result ing fr om t he t ort ious act s of it s em ploy ees. I t assum es responsibilit y as an or dinary
em ployer and as such, it becom es answ erable for dam ages, if it fails t o prov e t hat it observ ed due diligence in t he
select ion and super vision of it s em ploy ees.
I n t his case, t he vict im was t hrow n 50 m et er s away fr om t he point of im pact . The pickup suffer ed subst ant ial
dam age, but t he people on boar d did not even bot her t o st op t o find out w hat t hey had bum ped. There are t hus
st r ong indicat ions t hat t he driver Garcia was driving at a high speed. Evident ly , t her e was negligence in t he
superv ision of t he driv er for t he reason t hat t hey wer e t raveling at a high speed w it hin cit y lim it s and y et t he
superv isor of t he gr oup failed t o caut ion and m ak e t he driver observe t he proper speed lim it . The negligence is
fur t her aggravat ed by t heir desir e t o reach t heir dest inat ion wit hout ev en checking whet her or not t he vehicle
suffer ed dam age from t he obj ect it bum ped, t hus showing im pr udence on t he part bot h of t he driv er and t he
superv isor of t he gr oup. Even if t he em ploy er can pr ov e t he diligence in t he select ion and superv ision of t he
em ployee, if he rat ifies t he w rongful act s or t akes no st ep t o avert furt her dam age, t he em ployer is st ill liable.
e. Teacher s/ heads of est ablishm ent s
Am a dor a v . CA
Alfr edo Am ador a was a st udent of t he Colegio de San Jose Recolet os. While in t he audit orium , he w as shot t o
deat h by his classm at e Pablit o Daffon. Daffon w as convict ed of hom icide t hrough reckless im prudence. The
parent s of Am ador a filed an act ion for dam ages under Art icle 2180 of t he Civil Code against Colegio de San
Recolet os, it s rect or, t he high school principal, t he dean of boys, and t he phy sics t eacher , t oget her wit h Daffon
and t wo ot her st udent s, t hr ough t heir parent s. The com plaint against t he st udent s was lat er dropped.
Am ador a’s par ent s cont end t hat t heir son was in school t o finish his phy sics ex perim ent ; hence, he was t hen under
t he cust ody of t he school. The school, on t he ot her hand, claim s t hat Am ador a had gone t o school only for t he
pur pose of subm it t ing his phy sics report and t hat he w as no longer in t heir cust ody because t he sem est er had
alr eady ended.
I SSUE: Whet her privat e respondent s ar e liable t o Am ador a’s par ent s.
H ELD : No.

Ar t icle 2180 should apply t o all schools, academ ic as well as non- academ ic. Wher e t he school is academ ic rat her
t han t echnical or vocat ional in nat ure, responsibilit y for t he t ort com m it t ed by t he st udent will at t ach t o t he
t eacher in char ge of such st udent , following t he first par t of t he pr ovision. This is t he general rule. I n t he case of
est ablishm ent s of art s and t rades, it is t he head t hereof, and only he, w ho shall be held liable as an except ion t o
t he gener al r ule.
The st udent is deem ed in t he cust ody of t he school aut horit ies as long as he is under t he cont rol and influence of
t he school and wit hin it s prem ises, whet her t he sem est er has not yet begun or has already ended. During all t hese
occasions, it is t he t eacher- in- charge w ho m ust answ er for his st udent s' t ort s. He is t he one designat ed by t he
dean, principal, or ot her adm inist rat ive superior t o exercise super vision ov er t he pupils in t he specific classes or
sect ions t o w hich t hey ar e assigned. I t should be not ed t hat t he liabilit y im posed by t his art icle is supposed t o fall
dir ect ly on t he t eacher or t he head of t he school of art s and t rades and n ot on t h e sch ool it se lf. I f at all, t he
school, what ev er it s nat ure, m ay be held t o answ er for t he act s of it s t eacher s or ev en of t he head t her eof under
t he gener al principle of respondeat super ior, but t hen it m ay exculpat e it self from liabilit y by pr oof t hat it had
ex er cised t he diligence of a bonus pat er fam ilias.
Such defense is, of cour se, also available t o t he t eacher or t he head of t he school of art s and t rades dir ect ly held
t o answer for t he t or t com m it t ed by t he st udent . As long as t he defendant can show t hat he had t aken t he
necessary precaut ions t o pr ev ent t he inj ury com plained of, he can ex oner at e him self from t he liabilit y im posed by
Ar t icle 2180. I t should also be not ed t hat t he t eacher is held answ er able by t he law for t he act of t he st udent
under him regardless of t he st udent 's age.
I n t his case, t he rect or , t he high school principal and t he dean of boy s cannot be held liable because none of t hem
was t he t eacher- in- charge as previously defined. Each of t hem was ex ercising only a gener al aut horit y over t he
st udent body and not t he direct cont r ol and influence exert ed by t he t eacher placed in char ge of part icular classes
or sect ions and t hus im m ediat ely involv ed in it s discipline. The evidence of t he part ies does not disclose w ho t he
t eacher - in- charge of t he offending st udent was. The m er e fact t hat Alfr edo Am adora had gone t o school t hat day
in connect ion wit h his physics report did not necessar ily m ake t he physics t eacher , respondent Celest ino Dicon,
t he t eacher- in char ge of Alfr edo's killer.
At any rat e, assum ing t hat he w as t he t eacher - in- charge, t here is no showing t hat Dicon was negligent in
enfor cing discipline upon Daffon or t hat he had waived obser vance of t he rules and regulat ions of t he school or
condoned t heir nonobser v ance. His absence when t he t ragedy happened cannot be consider ed against him
because he was not supposed or r equir ed t o r epor t t o school on t hat day . And w hile it is t rue t hat t he offending
st udent w as st ill in t he cust ody of t he t eacher- in- charge ev en if t he lat t er was physically absent when t he t ort was
com m it t ed, it has not been est ablished t hat it was caused by his laxness in enfor cing discipline upon t he st udent .
On t he cont rary, t he privat e respondent s have pr oved t hat t hey had exercised due diligence, t hrough t he
enfor cem ent of t he school r egulat ions, in m aint aining t hat discipline. The Colegio de San JoseRecolet os cannot be
held dir ect ly liable under t he art icle because only t he t eacher or t he head of t he school of ar t s and t r ades is m ade
responsible for t he dam age caused by t he st udent or appr ent ice.
Sa lvosa v. I AC
The Baguio Colleges Foundat ion w as an academ ic inst it ut ion and also an inst it ut ion of ar t s and t rade. I t had an
ROTC Unit . Jim m y Abon, t he appoint ed arm orer of t he ROTC unit w as a com m erce st udent of t he BCF. Abon shot
Napoleon Cast r o, a st udent of t he Univ er sit y of Baguio in t he park ing lot of BCF wit h an unlicensed fir ear m t aken
fr om t he arm ory of t he ROTC Unit y of t he BCF. Cast r o died, and Abon was pr osecut ed for and convict ed of
hom icide. The heir s of Cast r o sued for dam ages, im pleading Abon, t he ROTC Com m andant , t he officer s of BCF,
t he Dean of BCF and BCF it self. The RTC found t hem all solidarily liable for dam ages. Salv osa, President of BCF,
and BCF appealed.
I SSUE: Whet her Salvosa and BCF are liable for dam ages.
H ELD : No. Considering t hat t he shoot ing happened aft er classes, at around 8 pm , Abon cannot be consider ed t o
have been "at at t endance in t he school," or in t he cust ody of BCF, when he shot Napoleon Cast ro. Therefore,
Salv osa and BCF cannot be held solidarily liable wit h Abon for dam ages under Art icle 2180. Besides, t he recor d
show s t hat before t he shoot ing incident , Robert o B. Ungos ROTC Unit Com m andant , AFP, had inst ruct ed Abon " not
t o leav e t he office and [ t o keep t he ar m or y ] well guarded." Apart from negat ing a finding t hat Jim m y B. Abon was
under t he cust ody of t he school w hen he com m it t ed t he act for w hich t he pet it ioners are sought t o be held liable,
t his cir cum st ance show s t hat Abon was supposed t o be wor king in t he arm or y wit h definit e inst r uct ions fr om his
superior, t he ROTC Com m andant , when he shot Napoleon Cast r o.
PSBA v. CA
Carlit os Baut ist a was a t hird year com m er ce st udent at PSBA. He w as st abbed t o deat h inside t he school
prem ised by elem ent s fr om out side t he school. Baut ist a’s par ent s filed an act ion for dam ages against PSBA and

it s corpor at e officers on t he ground t hat t hey wer e guilt y of negligence, r ecklessness, and lack of securit y
precaut ions, m eans and m et hods befor e, during and aft er t he at t ack on t he vict im .
Defendant s sought t o hav e t he suit dism issed, alleging t hat since t hey are presum able sued under Art icle 2180 of
t he Civil Code, t he com plaint st at es no cause of act ion against t hem , as j urispr udence on t he subj ect is t o t he
affect t hat academ ic inst it ut ions such as PSBA are bey ond t he am bit of t hat r ule.
I SSUE: Whet her t he par ent s of Baut ist a have a cause of act ion against PSBA under Art icle 2180 of t he Civil Code.
H ELD : No, but t hey m ay have a cause of act ion based on breach of cont ract .
Ar t icle 2180, in conj unct ion wit h Art icle 2176, est ablishes t he rule of in loco par ent is. I t pr ovides t hat dam age
should have been caused or inflict ed by pupils or st udent s of t he educat ional inst it ut ion sought t o be held liable for
t he act s of it s pupils or st udent s while in it s cust ody . How ev er, t his sit uat ion does not exist in t his case, since t he
assailant s of Baut ist a were not st udent s of t he PSBA for whose act s t he school could be m ade liable.
This does not necessarily m ean t he PSBA is ex em pt from liabilit y. When an academ ic inst it ut ion accept s st udent s
for enrollm ent , t her e is est ablished a cont ract bet w een t hem , result ing in bilat eral obligat ions which bot h part ies
are bound t o com ply w it h. One of t hese obligat ions is t hat t he school m ust ensur e t hat adequat e st eps ar e t aken
t o m aint ain peace and or der wit hin t he cam pus prem ises and t o prev ent t he br eak down t her eof. To av oid liabilit y,
t he school m ust prov e t hat t he br each of t his cont r act ual obligat ion t o t he st udent s w as not due t o it s negligence.
Since t her e has been no t rial on t he m erit s, t he RTC is or dered t o cont inue proceedings t o det erm ine whet her
PSBA w as guilt y of t he cont ract ual breach.
2.Prim ary Liabilit y
a. Possessors/ Users of Anim als
Ar t . 2 1 8 3 . Th e posse ssor of a n a n im a l or w h oe ve r m a y m a k e u se of t h e sa m e is r e spon sib le for t h e

da m a ge w h ich it m a y ca u se , a lt h ou gh it m a y e sca pe or be lost . Th is r e spon sib ilit y sh a ll cea se on ly in
ca se t h e da m a ge sh ou ld com e fr om for ce m a j e u r e or fr om t h e fa u lt of t h e pe r son w h o h a s su ffe re d
da m a ge .
D a m a ge ca u se d by: an anim al
Pe r son pr im a r ily lia ble :

a. t he possessor of an anim al; or
b. whoev er m ay m ak e use of t he sam e
D e fe n se s:
a. t hat t he dam age was caused by for ce m aj eur e
b. t hat t he dam age was caused t hrough t he fault of t he person who suffered dam age
V e st il v. I AC
Thr ee year - old Theness Tan Uy was bit t en by a dog nam ed “ Andoy ” while she was playing wit h a child of t he
Vest ils in t he house of t he lat e Vicent e Miranda, fat her of Pur it a Vest il. Theness was r ushed t o t he hospit al wher e
she was t reat ed for m ult iple lacer at ed w ounds on t he forehead and w as given an ant i- rabies shot . She was
dischar ged aft er nine day s but was r e- adm it t ed a week lat er. She died t he following day, due t o broncho-
pneum onia. Sev en m ont hs lat er, t he Uys sued t he Vest ils for dam ages, alleging t hat t he Vest ils wer e liable t o
t hem as t he possessors of Andoy. The Vest ils denied liabilit y, claim ing t hat t he dog belonged t o t he deceased
Vicent e Miranda. Purit a Vest il insist ed t hat she was not liable since she w as not t he owner of t he house or of t he
dog, as his est at e had not yet been par t it ioned.
I SSUE: Whet her t he Vest ils ar e liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Yes, t he Vest ils are liable for dam ages.
Ow nership of t he house or of t he dog is im m at erial in t his case. What m ust be det erm ined is t he possession of t he
dog, since Ar t icle 2183 holds liable t he possessor of t he anim al t hat causes dam age. I n t his case, Purit a Vest il and
her husband w ere t he possessors of t he house at t he t im e w hen t he incident happened. Meanw hile, t he dog
st ayed in t he house and ev en rem ained t here aft er t he deat h of Vicent e Miranda, up t o t he t im e when it bit
Theness. Hence, t he Vest ils are deem ed in possession of t he dog and are liable for t he dam ages t hat it caused.
The Vest ils raised t he defense t hat , assum ing t hat t hey wer e in possession of t he dog, t hey w ere st ill not liable
because t her e was no causal connect ion bet w een t he broncho- pneum onia t hat caused t he deat h of Theness and
t he dog bit e. Mor eover , t hey argued t hat t he dog was t am e and was pr ov ok ed by Theness int o bit ing. The cour t
rej ect ed t hese defenses. I t held t hat t he br oncho- pneum onia suffered by Theness was a com plicat ion of rabies.
The Vest il’s cont ent ion t hat t hey could not be ex pect ed t o ex er cise rem ot e cont r ol of t he dog w as also found
unaccept able. Ar t icle 2183 holds t he possessor liable even if t he anim al should escape or be lost and so be
rem oved fr om his cont r ol. I t does not m at t er eit her t hat t he dog was t am e and was m er ely pr ov oked by t he child
int o bit ing her. The law does not speak only of vicious anim als but cov ers ev en t am e ones as long as t hey cause
inj ury. As for t he alleged provocat ion, Theness was only t hree year s old at t hat t im e and cannot be fault ed for
what ev er she m ight have done t o t he anim al.
b. Owners of Mot or Vehicles
Ar t . 2 1 8 4 . I n m ot or ve h icle m ish a ps, t h e ow n e r is solida r ily lia ble w it h h is dr ive r , if t h e for m e r , w h o

w a s in t h e veh icle , cou ld h a ve , by t h e u se of t h e du e dilige n ce, pr e ve n t e d t h e m isfor t u n e . I t is
dispu t a bly pr esu m e d t h a t a dr iv er w a s n e glige n t , if h e h a d be e n fou n d gu ilt y of re ck le ss dr ivin g or
viola t in g t r a ffic re gu la t ion s a t lea st t w ice w it h in t h e n e x t pr e ce din g t w o m on t h s.
I f t h e ow n er w a s n ot in t h e m ot or ve h icle , t h e pr ovision s of Ar t icle 2 1 8 0 a r e a pplica ble .
D a m a ge ca u se d by: driver of a m ot or vehicle
Pe r son solida r ily lia ble : owner of t he m ot or vehicle
Re qu isit e s of solida r y lia bilit y of t h e ow n e r:
1. owner is in t he vehicle at t he t im e of t he m ishap

2. t he owner could have pr ev ent ed t he m isfort une by t he use of due diligence
D ispu t a ble pr e su m pt ion of n e glige n ce of dr ive r: I f driver had been found guilt y of reckless driving or
violat ing t r affic regulat ions at least t wice w it hin t he next preceding t w o m ont hs.
M a n la n git v. Ur gel
Reynat o Manlangit owned a passenger j eepney. While he was on board t he j eepney wit h som e ot her passenger s,
t he driver of t he j eepney, Edgar do Cast illo, occupied t he w rong line while passing a blind curve. At t he curve,
t hey suddenly saw a park ed t r uck. By t hen, it w as t oo lat e t o av oid collision w it h t he t r uck. The j eepney swer v ed
t o t he r ight . Manlangit and Cast illo m anaged t o j um p off t he j eepney before it plunged int o a r iv er. The
passenger s wer e not as luck y. They sust ained inj uries and wer e brought t o t he nearest hospit al for t reat m ent .
A crim inal com plaint for serious physical inj uries t hrough r eckless im prudence was filed wit h t he sala of Judge
Ur gel against bot h t he dr iver Cast illo and t he owner Manlangit . The j udge issued a warrant for t he arrest of bot h.
Manlangit filed a m ot ion t o dr op him from t he crim inal com plaint and t o quash t he war rant . The j udge ruled
fav orably and dr opped him fr om t he com plaint . Manlangit t hen filed t his adm inist rat iv e com plaint against Judge
Ur gel for gross ignor ance of t he law in issuing a war rant for his ar rest .
I SSUE: Whet her Judge Urgel is guilt y of gr oss ignorance of t he law in issuing a w arrant for t he ar rest of t he owner
of t he j eepney .
H ELD : Yes. I t is a basic post ulat e in crim inal law t hat t he crim inal act of one person cannot be char ged t o anot her
wit hout a show ing t hat t he ot her part icipat ed dir ect ly or const r uct iv ely in t he act or t hat t he act was done in
fur t her ance of a com m on design or purpose for which t he part ies wer e unit ed in int ent ion. I n cases of em ploy er -
em ployee r elat ions, an em ploy er is not crim inally liable for t he crim inal act s of his em ployee or agent unless he, in
som e way , part icipat es in, counsels or abet s his em ployee’s act s or om issions. I n such case, t he em ployer him self
becom es a par t icipant t o t he crim inal act of his em ploy ee. His liabilit y under t he circum st ances is direct and
crim inal. Howev er , under Art icle 102, in relat ion t o Art icle 103 of t he RPC, t he em ploy er liabilit y for t he crim inal
negligence of his em ployee is subsidiary in nat ure and is lim it ed only t o civil indem nit y . Thus, an em ployer is
part y t o a crim inal case for t he crim inal negligence of his em ploy ee only by reason of his subsidiar y civil liabilit y
under t he law.
I n t his case, nowher e is it shown t hat Manlangit abet t ed or ev en appr ov ed t he negligent and r eckless m anner in
w hich t he driver m aneuvered t he vehicle on t hat blind cur ve. Moreover, it does not appear t hat t he driv er
cont inuously pursued a reckless and t hought less cont r ol of t he wheel t hr oughout t he j ourney, wit hout any
adm onit ion or repr oof on t he part of Manlangit . I t is evident t hat t he driv er’s decision t o go on t he wr ong lane
while appr oaching a blind cur v e was a split second j udgm ent which left neit her Manlangit nor t he ot her passenger s
t im e t o react t o t he per ilous m aneuv er.

c. Manufact ur er s and Processor s
Ar t . 2 1 8 7 . M a n u fa ct u r e r s a n d pr oce ssor s of foodst u ffs, dr in k s, t oile t a r t icle s a n d sim ila r goods sh a ll

be lia ble for de a t h or in j u r ie s ca u se d by a n y n ox iou s or h a r m fu l su bst a n ce s u se d, a lt h ou gh n o
con t r a ct u a l r e la t ion ex ist s be t w e e n t h e m a n d t h e con su m e r s.
RA 7 3 9 4 : Th e Con su m e r Act of t h e Ph ilippin e s
The m anufact ur er , im port er, and seller can be held liable for act ual inj ury or dam age incur r ed
Prescript ive period is 2 year s.
Problem : A fat her buys ice cream for his childr en from a superm arket . The kids eat ice cream . The ice cream has
shards of glass. One of t he childr en swallow s t he glass and wounds his t hroat . How can t he fat her prove liabilit y?
Answ er : Present t he follow ing evidence:
a. Test im onial – t he fat her , t he kids, t he doct or

b. Docum ent ary – doct or’s bills, x- ray, r e ce ipt fr om t h e st or e ( t he receipt is t he best evidence of
t he sale; need t o pr ov e t he pur chase and connect t he seller t o t he inj ur y)
c. Real – t he shar d of glass t aken from t he t hr oat of t he child, t he cont ainer of t he ice cream
d. Municipal Cor porat ions
Ar t . 2 1 8 9 . Pr ovin ce s, cit ie s a n d m u n icipa lit ie s sh a ll be lia ble for da m a ge s for t h e de a t h of, or in j u r ie s

su ffe r e d by, a n y per son by r e a son of t h e de fe ct ive con dit ion of roa ds, st r e e t s, br idge s, pu blic
bu ildin gs, a n d ot h e r pu blic w or k s u n de r t h e ir con t r ol or su pe r vision .
D a m a ge ca u se d by: defect ive condit ion of roads, st r eet s, bridges, public buildings, and ot her public wor ks
Pr im a r ily lia b le : Provinces, cit ies, m unicipalit ies
Con dit ion : t he road, st r eet , bridge, public building, or ot her public work m ust be under t he cont rol or super vision
of t he province, cit y, or m unicipalit y in quest ion
D e fe n se : Due diligence
Not e: Municipal corpor at ions are liable only for dam ages for t he deat h of or inj uries suffer ed by per son s and not
for dam age t o pr oper t y .
Gu ila t co v. Cit y of D a gu pa n
Flor ent ina Guilat co was about t o boar d a t r icy cle at a sidewalk locat ed at Perez Blvd. ( a nat ional road) w hen she
accident ally fell int o an open m anhole. Her right leg was fract ur ed, result ing in her hospit alizat ion and cont inuing
difficult y in locom ot ion. Because of her accident , Guilat co was unable t o go t o wor k, t her eby losing her incom e.
She also lost weight , and she is now no longer her for m er j ovial self since she is unable t o per form her religious,
social, and ot her act ivit ies. She filed an act ion for dam ages against t he Cit y of Dagupan.
The Cit y of Dagupan denied liabilit y on t he gr ound t hat t he m anhole was locat ed on a nat ional road, which was not
under t he cont r ol or superv ision of t he Cit y of Dagupan.
I SSUE: Whet her t he Cit y of Dagupan is liable t o Guilat co.
H ELD : Yes, t he Cit y of Dagupan is liable. For Art icle 2189 t o apply, it is not necessary for t he defect iv e road or
st r eet t o belong t o t he pr ovince, cit y or m unicipalit y. The art icle only r equir es t hat eit her cont r ol or super v ision is
ex er cised over t he defect iv e r oad or st r eet .
I n t his case, t his cont r ol or super v ision is pr ov ided for in t he chart er of Dagupan and is exer cised t hrough t he Cit y
Engineer , whose dut ies include t he car e and cust ody of t he public sy st em of w at er w or ks and sew ers. The chart er
of Dagupan pr ovides t hat t he lay ing out , const r uct ion, and im pr ov em ent of st r eet s, avenues, and alley s and
sidew alk s and t he regulat ion of t he use t hereof m ay be legislat ed by t he Municipal Board. Thus, t he chart er
clearly indicat es t hat t he cit y indeed has superv ision and cont rol over t he sidew alk w her e t he open drainage hole
is locat ed.

The express provision in t he chart er holding t he cit y not liable for dam ages or inj uries sust ained by persons or
propert y due t o t he failur e of any cit y officer t o enfor ce t he provisions of t he char t er cannot be used t o exem pt t he
cit y. The chart er only lays dow n t he general rules regulat ing t he liabilit y of t he cit y. On t he ot her hand, Ar t icle
2189 applies in part icular t o t he liabilit y arising from defect ive st r eet s, public buildings, and ot her public wor k s.
e. Building Propriet or s
Ar t . 2 1 9 0 . Th e pr opr ie t or of a bu ildin g or st r u ct u r e is r e spon sib le for t h e da m a ge s r e su lt in g fr om it s

t ot a l or pa r t ia l colla pse , if it sh ou ld be du e t o t h e la ck of n ece ssa r y r epa ir s.
Ar t . 2 1 9 1 . Pr opr iet or s sh a ll a lso be r e spon sible for da m a ge s ca u se d: ( ESTE)
( 1 ) By t h e e x plosion of m a ch in e r y w h ich h a s n ot be e n t a k e n ca r e of w it h du e dilige n ce , a n d t h e

in fla m m a t ion of e x plosive su bst a n ce s w h ich h a ve n ot be en k e pt in a sa fe a n d a de qu a t e pla ce ;
( 2 ) By e x ce ssive sm ok e , w h ich m a y be h a r m fu l t o pe r son s or pr op e r t y;
( 3 ) By t h e fa llin g of t r e e s sit u a t e d a t or n ea r h igh w a y s or la n e s, if n ot ca u se d by for ce m a j e u r e ;
( 4 ) By e m a n a t ion s fr om t u be s, ca n a ls, se w e r s or de posit s of in fe ct iou s m a t t er , con st r u ct e d w it h ou t

pr eca u t ion s su it a ble t o t h e pla ce .
Ar t . 2 1 9 3 . Th e h e a d of a fa m ily t h a t live s in a bu ildin g or a pa r t t h e r e of, is r espon sible for da m a ge s

ca u se d by t h in gs t h row n or fa llin g fr om t h e sa m e .
Got e sco v. Ch a t t o
Gloria Chat t o and her 15 year- old daught er Lina went t o see t he m ov ie “ Mot her Dear ” at Superam a I t heat er
owned by t he Got esco I nv est m ent Cor porat ion. Har dly t en m inut es aft er t he t wo ent ered t he t heat er, t he ceiling
of it s balcony collapsed. The t heat er was plunged int o dar kness and pandem onium ensued. Gloria and Lina wer e
able t o craw l under t he fallen ceiling and out of t he t heat er. They w ere lat er confined and t reat ed for t he inj uries
t hat t hey suffer ed. Due t o cont inuing pain in t he neck , headache, and dizziness, Gloria Chat t o went t o I llinois,
USA for furt her t r eat m ent . She st ayed in t he US for about 3 m ont hs during which she had t o go t o t he hospit al 5
or 6 t im es.
Gloria and Lina Chat t o filed an act ion for dam ages against Got esco. Got esco denied liabilit y on t he gr ound t hat
t he collapse of t he ceiling of it s t heat er was due t o for ce m aj eur e.
I SSUE: Whet her Got esco is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Yes. Having int erposed for ce m aj eur e as a defense, Got esco had t he bur den t o pr ov e t hat t he collapse was
indeed caused by force m aj eur e. Howev er, Got esco’s claim t hat t he collapse of t he ceiling was due t o for ce
m aj eur e is not founded on fact s. I t s wit ness, Jesus Lim Ong, w ho was supposedly t he archit ect of t he building,
adm it t ed t hat he could not giv e any reason why t he ceiling collapsed. That Mr . Ong could not offer any
ex planat ion does not im ply for ce m aj eur e. For ce m aj eur e is an inev it able accident pr oduced by any physical cause
which is irr esist ible, such as light ning, t em pest , per ils of t he sea, inundat ion, or eart hquak e. Got esco could hav e
easily discov er ed t he cause of t he collapse if indeed it wer e due t o force m aj eur e. I t appear s t hat t he r eal reason
why Mr. Ong could not ex plain t he reason for t he collapse is t hat eit her he did not act ually conduct t he
invest igat ion or t hat he is incom pet ent . On t he ot her hand, t he t rial court found t hat t he collapse was due t o
const ruct ion defect s. Ther e was no evidence offered t o ov ert ur n t his finding. The building was const r uct ed bar ely
4 y ears prior t o t he accident . I t was not shown t hat any of t he causes denom inat ed as for ce m aj eur e obt ained
im m ediat ely befor e or at t he t im e of t he collapse of t he ceiling. Such defect s could have been easily discov ered
had Got esco ex er cised due diligence and car e in k eeping and m aint aining t he prem ises.
I t is set t led t hat t he ow ner or propriet or of a place of public am usem ent im pliedly w arr ant s t hat t he pr em ises,
appliances, and am usem ent devices are safe for t he pur pose for which t hey are designed. Where a pat ron of a
t heat er or ot her place of public am usem ent is inj ur ed, and t he t hing t hat caused t he inj ury is wholly and
ex clusiv ely under t he cont r ol and m anagem ent of t he defendant , and t he accident is such as in t he or dinary cour se
of ev ent s w ould not have happened if proper care had been exer cised, it s occur rence raises a presum pt ion or

per m it s of an infer ence of negligence on t he part of t he defendant . That presum pt ion or infer ence was not
overcom e by Got esco.
And ev en assum ing t hat t he collapse was due t o for ce m aj eur e, Got esco st ill cannot escape liabilit y since t he t rial
court found t hat it was grossly negligent .
f. Engineer s/ Archit ect s/ Cont ract ors
Ar t . 2 1 9 2 . I f da m a ge r efer r ed t o in t h e t w o pr e ce din g a r t icle s sh ou ld be t h e re su lt of a n y de fe ct in

t h e con st r u ct ion m e n t ion e d in Ar t icle 1 7 2 3 , t h e t h ir d pe r son suffe r in g da m a ge s m a y pr oce e d only
a ga in st t h e e n gin e e r or a r ch it ect or con t r a ct or in a ccor da n ce w it h sa id a r t icle , w it h in t h e pe r iod
t h e r e in fix e d.
Ar t . 1 7 2 3 . Th e e n gin e e r or a r ch it ect w h o dr e w u p t h e pla n s a n d spe cifica t ion s for a bu ild in g is lia ble
for da m a ge s if w it h in fift e e n ye a r s fr om t h e com ple t ion of t h e st r u ct u r e , t h e sa m e sh ou ld colla pse by
r e a son of a de fe ct in t h ose pla n s a n d spe cifica t ion s, or du e t o t h e de fe ct s in t h e gr ou n d. Th e
con t r a ct or is lik e w ise r e spon sib le for t h e da m a ge s if t h e e difice fa lls, w it h in t h e sa m e pe r iod, on
a ccou n t of de fe ct s in t h e con st r u ct ion or t h e u se of m a t e r ia ls of in fe r ior qu a lit y fu r n ish e d by h im , or
du e t o a n y viola t ion of t h e t er m s of t h e con t r a ct . I f t h e en gin e er or a rch it e ct su pe r vise s t h e
con st r u ct ion , h e sh a ll be solida r ily lia ble w it h t h e con t r a ct or .
Accep t a n ce of t h e bu ildin g, a ft e r com ple t ion , doe s n ot im ply w a ive r of a n y of t h e ca u se of a ct ion by

r e a son of a n y defect m e nt ion e d in t h e pr e ce din g pa r a gr a ph.
Th e a ct ion m u st be br ou gh t w it h in t e n ye a r s follow in g t h e colla pse of t h e bu ildin g.
OW N ER/ PROPRI ETOR ARCH I TECT/ EN GI N EE CON TRACTOR

R
TI M E OF COLLAPSE Anyt im e Wit hin 15 year s aft er Wit hin 15 year s aft er
com plet ion com plet ion
CAUSE OF COLLAPSE Lack of necessar y repair s Defect s in t he I nfer ior m at er ials
plans/ specificat ions furnished by him
Defect s in t he gr ound Violat ion of t he cont ract

PRESCRI PTI V E 4 year s 10 year s 10 year s
PERI OD
N a k pil & Son s v. CA
The Philippine Bar Associat ion ( PBA) decided t o const ruct an office building in I nt ram ur os. For t he plans,
specificat ions and design, PBA cont ract ed t he ser vices of t he Juan Nak pil & Sons and Juan F. Nak pil ( NAKPI LS) .
For t he const ruct ion of t he building, PBA cont ract ed t he ser v ices of Unit ed Const ruct ion Com pany on an
adm inist rat ion basis. The building was com plet ed in 1966.
I n 1968, an unusually st r ong eart hquake hit Manila, and t he building sust ained m aj or dam age. The fr ont colum ns
of t he building buck led, causing t he building t o t ilt forwar d danger ously. As a t em porar y m easur e, t he building
w as shored up by Unit ed.
The PBA filed an act ion against Unit ed and it s Pr esident and Gener al Manager Juan Carlos, claim ing t hat t he
collapse of t he building w as caused by defect s in const r uct ion. Unit ed, in t urn, filed a t hird- part y com plaint
against t he Nakpils, alleging t hat t he collapse of t he building was due t o t he defect s in t he archit ect s’ plans,
specificat ions, and design.
I SSUE: Whet her Unit ed or t he Nak pils or bot h are liable for dam ages t o t he PBA.
H ELD : Bot h t he Nakpils and Unit ed are liable for t he dam age. While t he dam age sust ained by t he PBA building
w as caused direct ly by t he eart hquake, t hey wer e also caused by t he defect s in t he plans and specificat ions
prepar ed by t he Nakpils and Unit ed’s deviat ion from said plans and specificat ions and it s failur e t o observ e t he
requisit e wor k m anship in t he const ruct ion of t he building. Such want on negligence of bot h Unit ed and t he Nak pils
in effect ing t he plans, designs, specificat ions, and const r uct ion of t he PBA building is equivalent t o bad fait h in t he
per for m ance of t heir respect iv e t ask s.

Unit ed argues t hat it is t he legal dut y of t he PBA t o pr ovide full- t im e and act iv e super v ision in t he const ruct ion of
t he building. This claim has no legal or cont ract ual basis. The ordinar y pr act ice is for t he owner of a building t o
avail him self of t he services of archit ect s and engineers w hose t r aining and ex pert ise m ak e t hem m ore qualified t o
provide effect iv e super v ision of t he const r uct ion.
EPG Con st r u ct ion v. CA
EPG Const ruct ion and t he Univ ersit y of t he Philippines ent er ed int o a cont r act for t he const r uct ion of t he UP Law
Librar y Building. The agr eem ent cont ained a guarant ee wher eby EPG under t ook t o repair any defect ive work at is
own cost and ex penses for a per iod of 1 year fr om t he dat e of subst ant ial com plet ion and accept ance of t he wor k
by UP. On Jan. 13, 1983, t he building was form ally t urned over by EPG t o UP, which issued a cert ificat ion of
accept ance indicat ing t hat t he building was com plet ed wit hout any defect s what soev er . I n July 1983, UP
com plained t o EPG t hat 6 air- condit ioning unit s wer e not w or king pr operly. EPG agreed t o shoulder t he expenses
for t he repair in t he am ount of 38K. How ev er, t he repair was nev er undert ak en. Aft er dem ands m ade by UP for
EPG t o repair t he unit s wer e unansw er ed, UP cont ract ed wit h anot her com pany, which repair ed t he defect s for
190K. UP t hen dem anded reim bursem ent of t he 190K plus dam ages fr om EPG. EPG denied liabilit y and argued
t hat UP was est opped fr om invok ing t he guarant ee provision because it issued t he cer t ificat e of accept ance.
I SSUE: Whet her EPG is liable t o UP.
H ELD : Yes, EPG is liable t o UP.
Ther e is no m erit in t he ar gum ent t hat UP waived it s right t o invok e t he guarant ee by issuing t he cert ificat ion of
accept ance. All UP cert ified t o was t hat t he building was in good condit ion at t he tim e it was t urned ov er. I t did
not t her eby reliev e t he pet it ioner of liabilit y for any defect t hat m ight arise of be discov er ed lat er during t he one-
year period of t he guarant ee. Mor eover, accept ance of t he w ork by t he em ployer generally relieves t he cont ract or
of liabilit y ex cept if t he defect is hidden or if t he em ployer expressly reserves his right s against t he cont ract or by
reason of t he defect . I n t his case, t he defect s com plained against w ere hidden and t her e w as an express
reserv at ion by UP of it s r ight t o hold t he cont ract or liable for t he defect s during a period of one year. Therefor e,
m er e accept ance of t he work by UP did not reliev e EPG of liabilit y.
EPG’s cont ent ion t hat t he defect s were caused by for ce m aj eure as a result of t he frequent br ow nout s in Met ro
Manila is not m erit orious. The recurr ent pow er cut - offs cannot be classified as a for t uit ous ev ent . The real cause
of t he problem w as poor wor km anship.
Ther efore, EPG is liable t o UP. Howev er, t he low er cour t er red in holding Em m anuel de Guzm an, it s President ,
solidarily liable wit h EPG. De Guzm an cannot be held solidar ily liable since he act ed on behalf of EPG wit hin t he
scope of his aut horit y and wit hout any m alice or bad fait h.
g. Solidary Liabilit y
Ar t . 2 1 9 4 . Th e re spon sibilit y of t w o or m or e pe rson s w h o a r e lia ble for qu a side lict is solida r y.
V ica r iou s v. Solida r y Lia bilit y
The part y vicariously liable can get reim bursem ent for 100% of what he paid from t he part y who caused dam age.
The part y solidarily liable can be r eim bursed only for t hat por t ion pert aining t o t he ot her part y liable.
Cr u z v. N LRC [ not assigned but discussed]
I n labor recr uit m ent cases, if t he OCW suffer s dam age, bot h t he for eign em ployer and t he local recruit er are
solidarily liable.
Sin ga p or e Air lin e s v. CA
Sancho Rayos w as an OCW w ho had a cont ract wit h Arabian Am erican Oil Com pany ( ARAMCO) . As part of
ARAMCO’s policy, it s em ploy ees ret ur ning t o Saudi fr om Manila wer e allow ed t o claim reim bur sem ent for am ount s
paid for excess baggage up t o 50Kg as long as suppor t ed by receipt . Ray os t ook a Singapor e Airlines ( SLA) flight
t o Saudi wit h a 50Kg ex cess baggage for which he paid about 4K. ARAMCO reim bur sed t he am ount upon
present at ion of t he ex cess baggage t icket .
Lat er, Ray os learned t hat he was being invest igat ed by ARAMCO for fraudulent claim s. He ask ed his wife in Manila
t o obt ain a writ t en confir m at ion fr om SLA t he he paid an ex cess baggage of 50Kg. SLA’s m anager not ified t he
wife of it s inabilit y t o issue t he cert ificat ion because t he records show ed t hat only 3Kg were ent er ed and charged

as excess baggage. SLA issued t he cert ificat ion four m ont hs lat er, aft er t he w ife t hreat ened it w it h a law suit .
When t he year ended, Ray os’ cont ract wit h ARAMCO was not r enew ed.
Convinced t hat SLA was responsible for t he non- renew al of t he cont ract , t he spouses Ray os filed an act ion for
dam ages against SLA. SLA filed a t hird- par t y com plaint against it s handling agent PAL, claim ing t hat t he
t am per ing was com m it t ed not by SLA but by PAL. PAL denied any part icipat ion in t he t am per ing and at t ribut ed it
t o t he SLA per sonnel. The lower court held SLA liable t o t he spouses for dam ages and ordered PAL as t hird part y
defendant t o pay SLA w hat ev er it will pay t he Rayos spouses.
I SSUE: Whet her SLA is ent it led t o reim bur sem ent from PAL.
H ELD : SLA is ent it led t o reim bur sem ent fr om PAL, but only t o t he ext ent of one - ha lf ( ½ ) of t he am ount t hat it
paid t o t he Rayos spouses.
PAL cannot be held solely liable for t he sat isfact ion of t he ent ir e j udgm ent . While t he pr oxim at e cause of t he non-
renewal of Rayos’ em ploy m ent cont ract was t he t am pering of his ex cess baggage t ick et by PAL’s per sonnel, t he
im m ediat e cause of such non- renewal was SLA’s delay ed t ransm it t al of t he cert ificat ion needed by Ray os t o prove
his innocence t o his em ploy er . Thus, t he non- renewal of Ray os’ em ploy m ent cont ract was t he nat ural and
probable consequence of t he separat e t ort ious act s of SLA and PAL. Under Art icle 2176, Ray os is ent it led t o
com pensat ion for such dam ages. I nasm uch as t he responsibilit y of t wo or m or e per sons, or t ort - feasors, liable for
a quasi- delict is j oint and sev er al and t he sharing as bet ween such solidar y debt or s is pro- rat a, it is but logical,
fair, and equit able t o requir e PAL t o cont ribut e t o t he am ount awarded t o t he Ray os spouses already paid by SI A,
inst ead of t ot ally indem nify ing t he lat t er .
D e Guz m a n v. N LRC
De Guzm an was t he gener al m anager of t he Manila Office of Affiliat ed Machiner ies Agency Lt d. ( AMAL) and am ong
t he r espondent s in a com plaint for illegal dism issal and non- pay m ent of st at ut ory benefit s filed by for m er
em ployees of AMAL. The em ploy ees filed t he com plaint following AMAL’s r efusal t o pay t heir m onet ary claim s
aft er AMAL decided t o cease it s oper at ions in 1986. De Guzm an was im pleaded for allegedly selling part of AMAL’s
asset s and applying t he proceeds t o sat isfy his own claim s against t he com pany. He also for m ed a new com pany
nam ed Susar co and engaged in t he sam e line of business w it h t he form er client s of AMAL.
I SSUE: Whet her De Guzm an is liable for dam ages t o t he em ploy ees.
H ELD : Yes, De Guzm an is liable for dam ages t o t he em ployees ar ising from his bad fait h. However , he is not
solidarily liable for t he claim s for t he claim s of t he em ploy ees against AMAL.
De Guzm an is not solidarily liable wit h AMAL for t he em ployees’ claim s. As m ere m anagerial em ployee, De
Guzm an had no part icipat ion in t he decision t o cease operat ions and t o t er m inat e t he ser vices of t he em ploy ees,
which was t he exclusive responsibilit y of AMAL alone. Nev er t heless, for having act ed in bad fait h by appropriat ing
t he asset s of AMAL t o sat isfy his own claim s t o t he prej udice of t he em ploy ees’ pending claim s, De Guzm an is
dir ect ly liable for m or al and ex em plar y dam ages based on Art icles 19, 21, 2219 ( 10) and 2229 of t he Civil Code.
GSI S v. CA
The Nat ional Food Aut horit y ( NFA) was t he owner of a Chev r olet t ruck which was insured against liabilit ies for
deat h or and inj uries t o t hird part ies wit h t he GSI S.
The t ruck which was driv en by Cor bet a collided wit h a Toyot a Tam araw owned by Uy, killing 5 and inj uring 10
per sons, w ho wer e all passenger s of t he Tam araw.
Uy filed a case for quasi- delict , dam ages, and at t orney’s fees against NFA and Cor bet a.
An inj ured passenger filed an act ion for dam ages against Uy and his insurer Mabuhay I nsurance and Guarant y Co
( MI GC) . Uy filed a cross- claim against MI GC and a t hird- part y com plaint against Cor bet a and NFA.
The ot her inj ured passengers filed an act ion against t he following: NFA and Cor bet a for dam ages due t o quasi-
delict ; GSI S as insurer of t he t ruck; Uy for br each of cont ract of carriage; and MI GC as insur er of t he Toy ot a
Tam ar aw.
At t he t rial, it was found t hat t he prox im at e cause of t he collision was t he negligence of Corbet a. The findings of
t he t rial court st at ed t hat t he t r uck was speeding and was in t he wr ong lane at t he t im e of t he collision. The t rial
court dism issed t he com plaint against Uy. I t order ed MI GC, Cor bet a, NFA, and GSI S t o j oint ly and sev erally pay
dam ages t o t he vict im s of t he collision.
I SSUE: Whet her GSI S is solidar ily liable wit h NFA.

H ELD : GSI S is dir ect ly liable t o t he vict im s but only up t o t he ext ent of what is pr ovided in t he cont ract of
insurance w it h NFA. I t is NOT solidarily liable wit h NFA.
I t is now est ablished t hat t he inj ur ed or t he heir s of a deceased vict im of a vehicular accident m ay sue direct ly t he
insurer of t he vehicle. However , t he t hird par t y liabilit y of t he insurer is only up t o t he ext ent of t he insurance
policy and t hose requir ed by law. While it is t r ue t hat where t he insurance cont ract provides for indem nit y against
liabilit y t o t hird per sons, and such t hir d persons can direct ly sue t he insurer, t he direct liabilit y of t he insurer under
indem nit y cont ract s against t hir d part y liabilit y does not m ean t hat t he insurer can be held liable in solidum wit h
t he insured and/ or t he ot her part ies found at fault . This because t he liabilit y of t he insurer is based on cont ract ;
t hat of t he insured car rier or vehicle owner is based on t or t . The liabilit y of GSI S based on t he insurance cont ract
is direct , but not solidar y wit h t hat of t he NFA. The lat t er’s liabilit y is based separat ely on Art icle 2180 of t he Civil
Code.
I n t his case, t he Com pulsor y Mot or Vehicle Liabilit y I nsur ance coverage prov ided t hat t he m axim um indem nit y for
deat h w as 12K per vict im . Hence, t he heir s of t he vict im s w ho dies in t he incident could proceed against GSI S for
t he indem nit y of 12K for each dead vict im , and against NFA and Cor bet a for any ot her dam ages or ex penses
claim ed; or against NFA and Cor bet a t o pay t hem all t heir claim s in full. The ot her inj ured vict im s m ay also claim
t heir m edical expenses from any of t he follow ing: GSI S, NFA, or Cor bet a. As t o dam ages exceeding t hat allow ed
under t he insurance, t hey m ay pr oceed only against NFA or Cor bet a.

V. Spe cia l Tor t s ( H um a n Re la t ions)
1 . Abuse of Righ t
Ar t . 1 9 . Eve r y pe r son m ust , in t he e x e r cise of his r igh t s a nd in t h e pe r for m a n ce of his

dut ie s, a ct w it h j ust ice , give e ve r yon e his du e , a nd obse r ve h on e st y a nd good fa it h .
Ve la y o v. She ll Co.
Shell was one of t he credit ors of CALI . CALI becam e insolvent and called all of it s cr edit or s, including
Shell, t o a m eet ing. CALI t old t he credit ors t hat it was broke but t hat it had an airplane in t he US,
which it was planning t o sell t o PAL so t hat it could raise m ore m oney t o pay it s debt s. On t he sam e
day, act ing upon t he knowledge of ( 1) t he insolvency of CALI , and ( 2) t he ex ist ence of t he plane, Shell
assigned it s credit t o Shell USA. Shell USA t hen sued CALI in a California court and at t ached t he plane
as securit y. Thus, t he plane was placed beyond t he reach of CALI and t he ot her cr edit or s. The
assignee in insolvency of CALI filed an act ion against Shell for dam ages for t ak ing advant age of t he
infor m at ion t hat it acquired t o t he prej udice of CALI and t he ot her cr edit ors.
I SSUE: Whet her Shell is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Shell is liable for dam ages.
Shell t ook adv ant age of it s know ledge t hat insolvency proceedings were t o be inst it ut ed by CALI if t he
credit ors did not com e t o an underst anding as t o t he dist ribut ion of t he insolvent ’s asset s am ong
t hem . Believing t hat it was im probable for t he cr edit or s t o arrive at such an underst anding, it
schem ed and effect ed t he t ransfer of cr edit t o it s sist er corporat ion in t he US, t hereby disposing of
CALI ’s plane and depriving CALI of t he opport unit y t o recover it . I t is liable for dam ages under Ar t icle
19 of t he Civil Code, which provides t hat any person m ust , in t he ex ercise of his right s and in t he
perform ances of his dut ies, act wit h j ust ice, give everyone his due and observe honest y and good
fait h. This is im plem ent ed by Art icle 21 w hich prescribes t hat any person w ho w ilfully causes loss or
inj ury t o anot her in a m anner t hat is cont rary t o m orals, good cust om s or public policy shall
com pensat e t he lat t er for t he dam age.
D e Guz m a n v. N LRC
The em ploy ees of AMAL filed a case against AMAL for illegal dism issal and non- paym ent of benefit s.
AMAL refused t o pay and lat er on ceased oper at ions. The em ploy ees im pleaded De Guzm an, t he
general m anager of AMAL, in t he case because he sold part of AMAL’s asset s and applied t he proceeds
of t he sale t o sat isfy his own claim s against t he com pany.
I SSUE: Whet her De Guzm an is liable for dam ages t o t he em ployees.
H ELD : Yes, De Guzm an is liable for dam ages t o t he em ploy ees arising from his bad fait h. However,
he is not solidarily liable for t he claim s of t he em ployees against AMAL. ( His liabilit y t o t he em ployees
is per sonal and not as agent of AMAL) .
De Guzm an is not solidar ily liable w it h AMAL for t he em ployees’ claim s. As m ere m anagerial
em ployee, De Guzm an had no part icipat ion in t he decision t o cease oper at ions and t o t erm inat e t he
services of t he em ploy ees, which was t he exclusiv e responsibilit y of AMAL alone. Never t heless, for
having act ed in bad fait h by appr opriat ing t he asset s of AMAL t o sat isfy his own claim s t o t he
prej udice of t he em ployees’ pending claim s, De Guzm an is direct ly liable for m oral and exem plary
dam ages based on Art icles 19, 21, 2219 ( 10) and 2229 of t he Civil Code.
UE v. Ja de r
Jader was a st udent at t he UE College of Law. I n t he first sem of his last year, he failed t o t ake t he
regular final exam in Pract ice Court for which he was given an incom plet e grade. He enrolled for t he
second sem . Before gr aduat ion, he t ook an exam t o m ake up t he incom plet e grade. He was t hen

included in t he list of candidat es for graduat ion and act ually part icipat ed in t he gr aduat ion
cerem onies, receiving a pr et end- diplom a, t aking pict ures, and even t hrowing a graduat ion bash. Aft er
graduat ion, he st art ed preparing for t he bar. Howev er, in May, his professor in Pract ice Court
subm it t ed his failing grade of 5. Thus, he dr opped his review classes and did not t ake t he bar exam .
He t hen sued UE for dam ages alleging t hat he suffered m oral shock, m ent al anguish, serious anxiet y,
besm irched reput at ion, wounded feelings and sleepless night s when he was not able t o t ake t he bar
ex am inat ions arising from t he lat t er's negligence.
I SSUE: Whet her UE is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Yes, UE is liable for dam ages.
UE, in belat edly inform ing Jader of t he result of t he rem oval exam inat ion, part icular ly at a t im e when
he had already com m enced pr eparing for t he bar exam s, cannot be said t o have act ed in good fait h.
UE ought t o hav e known t hat t im e was of t he essence in t he perform ance of it s obligat ion t o inform
Jader of his grade. I t cannot feign ignorance t hat Jader will not prepar e him self for t he bar exam s
since t hat is pr ecisely t he im m ediat e concern aft er a law st udent graduat es. UE cannot j ust give out
it s st udent 's grades at any t im e because a st udent has t o com ply wit h cert ain deadlines set by t he
Suprem e Court on t he subm ission of requirem ent s for t aking t he bar. UE's liabilit y ar ose from it s
failure t o prom pt ly inform Jader of t he result of an exam inat ion and in m isleading t he lat t er int o
believing t hat he had sat isfied all requirem ent s for t he course.
However, while UE was guilt y of negligence and t hus liable t o Jader for t he lat t er's act ual dam ages,
Jader should not be awarded m oral dam ages. I f he w as indeed hum iliat ed by his failur e t o t ake t he
bar, he brought t his upon him self by not verifying if he had sat isfied all t he requirem ent s including his
school recor ds, befor e preparing him self for t he bar exam inat ion. Hence, UE is liable for act ual
dam ages and at t orney’s fees but not m oral dam ages.
Cla ss N ot e s:
Filin ve st v. CA
Plaint iff purchased a t ruck on inst allm ent . He failed t o pay am ort izat ion. The financing com pany
want ed t o t ake t he t ruck and had one of it s personnel im personat e t he sheriff in order t o seize t he
t r uck. Plaint iff filed a re- delivery bond t o get back t he t ruck, but by t hen, it had already been
cannibalized.
H ELD : Financing com pany is liable for dam ages under Art icle 19. I t had t he right t o seize t he car by
virt ue of a writ of replevin, but it act ed in bad fait h w hen it had it s repr esent at ive im personat e t he
sheriff and when it cannibalized t he t ruck.
Se a Com m e r cia l v. CA
Com pany appoint ed an exclusiv e dealer of it s product in t he pr ov ince. One of t he obligat ions of t he
dealer was t o prom ot e t he product , for which it spent m oney. When t he product was already popular,
t he Com pany discont inued t he dealer ship and sold t he product on it s own.
H ELD : Com pany is liable for dam ages t o dealer under Ar t icle 19. While it had t he right t o discont inue
t he dealer ship under t he t erm s of t he cont ract , it did not act in good fait h when it allowed t he dealer
t o inv est in prom ot ion expenses only t o t erm inat e t he dealership lat er on so t hat it could t hen benefit
from t he dealer’s invest m ent .
Sir ’s e x a m ple : Two societ y m at rons – one owned a bank and t he ot her m ort gaged her proper t y t o
t he bank. The m at rons had a cat fight . The debt or- m at ron t hen failed t o pay her debt t o t he bank.
The bank- owner m at ron t old t he bank t o publish a ½ page not ice of foreclosure in t he societ y pages of
a newspaper of general circulat ion. Liable for dam ages?

A: Bank- owner m at ron is liable for dam ages t o debt or- m at ron under Art icle 19. Though t he bank had
t he right t o foreclose t he m ort gage and t he obligat ion t o publish a not ice of foreclosur e, it should not
have been done in t his m anner ( not in t he societ y pages) . This const it ut es abuse of right .
2 . Cont r a r y t o La w a nd M or a ls
Ar t . 2 0 . Eve r y pe r son w ho, cont r a r y t o la w , w ilfully or ne glige n t ly ca use s da m a ge t o

a not he r , sha ll inde m n ify t h e la t t e r for t h e sa m e .
Ar t . 2 1 . Any pe r son w ho w ilfu lly ca u se s loss or inj u r y t o a not he r in a m a nne r t ha t is

con t r a r y t o m or a ls, good cust om s or public policy sha ll com pe nsa t e t he la t t e r for t h e
da m a ge .
Art icle 20 – “ cont rary t o law”
Even if t he part icular provision of law does not expr essly provide for indem nificat ion in case of
violat ion, so long as t here is a violat ion of law and dam age result ing t herefrom , t here is liabilit y for
dam ages under Ar t icle 20.
H e r m osisim a v. CA
Soledad Cagigas, was going out wit h Francisco Herm osisim a, who was alm ost t en ( 10) years younger
t han she. They were r egarded as engaged, alt hough he had m ade no pr om ise of m arriage t o her .
Soledad got pregnant . When she t old Francisco t hat she was in t he fam ily way, he prom ised t o m arry
her. Their child, Chris Herm osisim a, was born lat er. However, j ust a m ont h aft er t he birt h of Chris,
Francisco m arr ied anot her wom an. Hence, Soledad com m enced an act ion for recognit ion of Chris as
nat ural child of Francisco, support , and m oral dam ages for his breach of prom ise t o m arry her.
I SSUE: Whet her m or al dam ages are recoverable for breach of prom ise t o m arry.
H ELD : No. Moral dam ages are not recoverable for breach of prom ise t o m arry.
Breach of prom ise t o m ar ry is not act ionable. No ot her act ion lends it self m ore readily t o abuse by
designing wom en and unscrupulous m en.
The CA aw arded m oral dam ages t o Soledad on t he ground t hat she was seduced by Francisco. The SC
held t hat Fr ancisco was not m orally guilt y of seduct ion. He was approxim at ely 10 years younger t han
Soledad, who was a highly enlight ened form er high school t eacher and a life insurance agent .
Moreover, t he CFI found t hat , Soledad "surrendered herself" t o Francisco because, " ov erwhelm ed by
her love" for him , she " want ed t o bind" him " by having a fruit of t heir engagem ent ev en before t hey
had t he benefit of clergy.” I n ot her words, pinikot siya, t herefor e, an award of m oral dam ages is not in
order.
W a ssm e r v. Ve le z
A couple was engaged t o be m arried. The bride- t o- be undert ook all t he preparat ions for t he wedding.
Just a few days before t he wedding, t he groom - t o- be sent her a t elegram t hat he was backing out .
Bride- t o- be ( t hat never was) filed an act ion for dam ages against t he flaker.
H ELD : Breach of prom ise t o m arry, in it self, is not act ionable. But if t he bridegroom allows t he br ide
t o go t hrough t he preparat ions only t o walk out at t he last m inut e, such as in t his case, it is
act ionable.
Sir’s exam ple: This is even w orse t han Wassm er v. Velez. On t he day of t he wedding, t he groom was
lat e. Feeling im pat ient as w ell as excit ed t o live her dream of walking dow n t he aisle, t he bride

proceeded t o walk down t he aisle ev en if t he gr oom was not yet t her e. She wait ed for him at t he alt ar
and wait ed, and wait ed, and wait ed, but t he groom never showed up. Liable for dam ages?
A: Yes. Though br each of prom ise t o m arry is gener ally not act ionable in it self, it is t he act of let t ing
t he br ide- t hat - never- was go t hrough all t hat hum iliat ion t hat can give rise t o liabilit y for dam ages.
Shook a t v. CA
Em ployer who dism isses an em ployee wit hout j ust cause is liable for dam ages. Under t he Labor Code,
t he pr escript ive period is 3 years. So aft er 3 years, t he case can st ill be filed against t he em ployer
under t he Civil Code, since t he prescript ive period is 4 years.
M e de l v. CA
Servando Franco and Let icia Medel obt ained several loans from Veronica Gonzales, w or t h a t ot al of
500K and execut ed a prom issory not e payable in one m ont h wit h int er est at 5.5% per m ont h plus 2%
service char ge per annum from t he dat e of t he docum ent . The not e also cont ained an accelerat ion
and penalt y clause, which provided t hat should t hey fail t o pay any am or t izat ion when due, all ot her
inst allm ent s t oget her wit h all int er est accrued shall im m ediat ely be due and payable, wit h penalt y
int er est of 1% per m ont h, and t he furt her sum of 25% as at t orney’s fees. On m at urit y of t he loan,
t hey failed t o pay. Veronica Gonzales filed a com plaint for collect ion of t he full am ount of t he loan
including int erest s and ot her charges. The debt ors quest ion t he validit y of t he int erest rat e ( 5.5% per
m ont h) st ipulat ed.
I SSUE: Whet her t he int erest rat e st ipulat ed is valid.
H ELD : The st ipulat ed int erest is void.
The st ipulat ed int erest cannot be considered usur ious because CB Circular 905 has expr essly rem oved
int erest ceilings, m aking t he “ Usury Law ” non- exist ent . [ Sir says t hat t echnically, t he Usury Law is
not non- exist ent since t here has been no repeal by t he legislat ure. I t is m erely inoperat ive, since t he
CB has suspended int er est ceilings.] Howev er, t he rat e of int erest at 5.5% per m ont h or 66% per
annum is excessive, iniquit ous, unconscionable, and exorbit ant . I t is cont rary t o m orals, if not against
t he law, and as such, is void. The court s shall reduce equit ably liquidat ed dam ages, w het her int ended
as an indem nit y or a penalt y if t hey are iniquit ous or unconscionable. Consequent ly, under t he
circum st ances, int erest at 12% per annum , and an addit ional 1% a m ont h penalt y charge as
liquidat ed dam ages m ay be m ore reasonable.
Silve st r e v. Ra m os
Silvest re Pascual borr ow ed 150K from Rodrigo Ram os at t he int er est rat e of 7% ( P10,500) per m ont h.
As securit y, he execut ed a deed of sale wit h right t o r epurchase over his house and lot . Ram os gave
Pascual a year t o r epurchase t he proper t y by set t ling t he loan wit h int erest .
When, aft er one year, Pascual failed t o pay t he principal, Ram os filed an act ion t o consolidat e
ownership over t he propert y. The t rial court found t hat t he Pascuals had m ade paym ent s in t he t ot al
sum of 344K, and t hat wit h int er est at 7% pe r a n num , t he Pascuals had overpaid t he loan by
P141,500. The t rial court dism issed t he pet it ion t o consolidat e ownership and awar ded t he Pascuals
P141,500 as overpaym ent on t he loan and int erest s. Ram os m oved for reconsiderat ion, alleging t hat
t he t rial court err ed in using t he rat e of 7% per annum inst ead of 7% per m ont h as st ipulat ed in t he
agreem ent of t he part ies. Thus, t he Pascuals had not ov erpaid int erest , but even had a balance of
P643K in int erest . The t rial court acknowledged t hat it had inadvert ent ly declared t he int erest rat e t o
be 7% per annum inst ead of 7% per m ont h. However, since t he rat e was t oo burdensom e and
onerous, it r educed it t o 5% per m ont h and order ed t he Pascuals t o pay t he principal plus int er est at
5% per m ont h. The Pascuals now quest ion t he legalit y of t he int erest rat e of 5% per m ont h on t he
ground t hat it is exorbit ant , unconscionable, unreasonable, usurious, and inequit able, cit ing Medel v.
CA.
I SSUE: Whet her t he int erest rat e is valid.

H ELD : Yes, t he int erest rat e is valid.
The ruling in Medel v. CA is not applicable t o t his case. I n Medel v. CA, in addit ion t o t he int er est , t he
debt ors were also required t o pay service charge of 2% per annum , a penalt y char ge of 1% per
m ont h, and at t orney’s fee of 25% . Thus, t aken in conj unct ion wit h t he st ipulat ed service charge and
penalt y, t he int erest rat e of 5.5% in t he Medel case was found t o be excessive, iniquit ous,
unconscionable, exorbit ant and hence, cont rary t o m orals, t hereby m aking such st ipulat ion null and
void. I n t his case, however, t here is no ot her st ipulat ion for t he paym ent of an ext ra am ount except
int er est on t he pr incipal of t he loan. Considering t his variance in t he fact ual circum st ances of t he
Medel case and t his one, t he cour t is not prepared t o apply t he form er, lest it be const rued t hat
int er est rat es agreed upon by t he part ies in a loan t ransact ion can be st ruck down anyt im e by t he
cour t .
The int er est rat e of 7% per m ont h was volunt arily agreed upon by Ram os and t he Pascuals. There is
no showing t hat t he Pascuals w ere vict im s of fraud when t hey ent er ed int o t he agreem ent wit h
Ram os. Neit her is t here a showing t hat in t heir cont ract ual r elat ions wit h Ram os, t he Pascuals wer e at
a disadv ant age on account of t heir m oral dependence, ignorance, m ent al weakness, t ender age or
ot her handicap, which would ent it le t hem t o t he vigilant pr ot ect ion of t he court s as m andat ed by
Art icle 24 of t he Civil Code.
Sir ’s exam ple: A five- year loan agr eem ent had t he following t er m s:
Year I nt erest rat e
1 3% / m ont h
2 4% / m ont h
3 5% / m ont h
4 6% / m ont h
5 7% / m ont h
By t he end of t he five years, t he balance of t he P8M loan had ballooned t o P17M wit h all t he
accum ulat ed int er est . Credit or filed an act ion t o foreclose t he m ort gage. I f you w ere t he lawyer for
t he debt or, how would you appr oach t he case?
A: File an act ion for inj unct ion of t he foreclosure proceedings. Then, file for annulm ent of t he loan
agreem ent based on t he nullit y of t he int erest on t he ground t hat t he rat es are iniquit ous and
unconscionable.
Which int erest rat e is unconscionable – t he 7% only? 6% and 7% ?
A: You can argue t hat all of t he int erest rat es ( 3,4,5,6,7% ) when t aken as a whole are
unconscionable. ( Com m ent from t he SecTrans nerd: I don’t t hink t his is a valid argum ent . When t he
int er est r at e is void for being iniquit ous and unconscionable or for any ot her reason, t he loan
agreem ent it self is not void and should not be annulled. Only t he int er est is annulled, and it is j ust as
if t here were no int erest charged, or it can be r educed according t o t erm s t hat are j ust , in t he
discret ion of t he court . But t his is not SecTrans, so of cour se, we follow what Sir said.)

3 . Unj u st Enr ichm e n t
Ar t . 2 2 . Eve r y pe r son w ho t hr ou gh a n a ct or pe r for m a n ce by a not h e r , or a ny ot h e r m e a ns,

a cqu ir e s or com e s in t o posse ssion of som e t h ing a t t h e e x pe nse of t he la t t e r w it h ou t j ust
or le ga l gr ound, sha ll r e t ur n t h e sa m e t o him .
Ar t . 2 3 . Eve n w he n a n a ct or e ve nt ca using da m a ge t o a not h e r 's pr ope r t y w a s n ot due t o

t h e fa u lt or ne glige n ce of t he de fe nda nt , t h e la t t e r sha ll be lia ble for in de m n it y if t hr ough
t h e a ct or e ve n t he w a s be n e fit e d.
Elem ent s of Unj ust Enrichm ent :
1. There m ust be enrichm ent on t he part of t he defendant .
2. There is a concom it ant inj ury t o t he plaint iff.
3. There is no j ust cause or legal ground for t he enrichm ent .
Pe cson v. CA
Pecson owned a com m ercial lot on which he built a four- door t wo- st or ey apart m ent building. For
failure t o pay realt y t axes am ount ing t o 12K, t he lot was sold at public auct ion by t he Cit y Treasurer
t o Nepom uceno. Nepom uceno in t urn sold t he proper t y t o t he spouses Nuguid. Pecson filed a case
quest ioning t he validit y of t he auct ion sale. The t rial court dism issed t he com plaint but held t hat t he
sale did not include t he apar t m ent building. The Nuguid spouses filed a m ot ion for delivery of
possession of t he lot and t he apart m ent building, cit ing Art icle 546 of t he Civil Code ( rules on builder
in good fait h) . The spouses offered t o pay t he cost of const ruct ion spent by Pecson in 1965 as
indem nit y under Art . 448 and 546 of t he Civil Code.
I SSUE: How m uch indem nit y should be paid by t he Nuguid spouses t o Pecson?
H ELD : The Nuguid spouses should pay t he cur r e nt m a r k e t va lu e of t he apart m ent bulding on t he
lot . For t his pur pose, t he part ies should be allowed t o present evidence on t he current m ark et value.
The obj ect ive of Ar t icle 546 of t he Civil Code is t o adm inist er j ust ice bet ween t he part ies involved. I t
was form ulat ed in t rying t o adj ust t he right s of t he owner and possessor in good fait h of a piece of
land, t o adm inist er com plet e j ust ice t o bot h of t hem in such a way as neit her one nor t he ot her m ay
enr ich him self of t hat which does not belong t o him . Guided by t his precept , it is t herefore t he current
m ark et value of t he im provem ent s which should be m ade t he basis of reim bursem ent . A cont rary
ruling w ould unj ust ly enrich t he Nuguid spouses who would ot herwise be allow ed t o acquire a highly
valued incom e- yielding four- unit apart m ent building for a m easly am ount .
Se cur it y Ba nk v. CA
Ysm ael Ferrer was cont ract ed by SBTC and Rosit o Manhit t o const ruct t he building of SBTC in Davao

for 1.76M. The cont r act provided t hat Ferr er would finish const ruct ion in 200 working days. Ferrer
was able t o com plet e t he const ruct ion wit hin t hat period, but he was com pelled by a drast ic increase
in t he cost of const ruct ion m at er ials t o incur expenses of about 300K on t op of t he original cost . SBTC
refused t o pay and denied ever aut horizing paym ent of any am ount beyond t he original cont ract price.
I t also invoked Art icle I X of t he building cont ract , which st at es t hat in case of supervening increase in
prices of const ruct ion m at erials and/ or labor , t he owner ( SBTC) shall equit ably m ake t he appr opr iat e
adj ust m ent on m ut ual agreem ent of bot h part ies. Since t here was no such m ut ual agreem ent , t her e
w as no obligat ion on it s part t o pay above t he original cont ract price. Ferrer t hen filed a com plaint for
breach of cont ract wit h dam ages against SBTC.
I SSUE: Whet her SBTC is liable for t he addit ional am ount .
H ELD : Yes, SBTC is liable.
Art icle 22 of t he Civil Code em bodies t he m axim , Nem o ex alt erius incom m odo debet lecuplet ari ( no
m an ought t o be m ade r ich out of anot her ’s inj ury) . I n t his case, Ferrer incurred addit ional expenses
in const ruct ing SBTC’s building. SBTC derived benefit s when Ferrer com plet ed t he const ruct ion ev en
at an increased cost . Hence, t o allow SBTC t o acquire t he const ruct ed building at a price far below it s
act ual const ruct ion cost would undoubt edly const it ut e unj ust enrichm ent for t he bank, t o t he prej udice
of Ferrer. Such unj ust enrichm ent is not allow ed by law.
Va la r a o v. CA
Spouses Valar ao ent er ed int o an agreem ent wit h Ar ellano for t he sale t o t he lat t er of a parcel of land
for 3.225M pesos. The agreem ent , ent it led a “ Deed of Condit ional Sale” provided t hat should Ar ellano
fail t o pay t hree ( 3) successive m ont hly inst allm ent s or any one year - end lum p sum paym ent wit hin
t he period st ipulat ed, t he sale shall be considered aut om at ically rescinded wit hout t he necessit y of
j udicial act ion and all paym ent s m ade by t he vendee shall be forfeit ed in favor of t he vendors by way
of rent al for t he use and occupancy of t he proper t y and as liquidat ed dam ages. Aft er Arellano had
already paid around P2M, she failed t o pay t he inst allm ent s for t he m ont hs of Oct ober and Novem ber.
I n Decem ber , howev er, she at t em pt ed t o pay t he inst allm ent s due from Oct ober t o Decem ber but t he
Valar aos’ m aid – t o whom t he inst allm ent s had been habit ually paid – r efused t o accept t he t ender,
allegedly on her em ployers’ inst ruct ions. Because of t he refusal t o accept paym ent , Ar ellano consigned
t he m oney in court . On t he sam e dat e, t he Valaraos sent Arellano a let t er not ifying her t hat t hey were
enforcing t he aut om at ic rescission st ipulat ion in t he cont ract and t hat t hey were forfeit ing t he P2M in
inst allm ent s already m ade.
I SSUE: Whet her t he cont ract can be r escinded and t he pay m ent s already m ade forfeit ed.
H ELD : The cont ract cannot be rescinded and even if it could, t he paym ent s cannot be forfeit ed
because t he refusal of paym ent was unj ust ified.
Under t he Maceda Law, Ar ellano had a grace period of t hree m ont hs from Decem ber wit hin which
t o pay t he unpaid inst allm ent s. Thus, t he spouses Valarao did not hav e t he right t o rescind t he
cont ract yet . And even if t he cont ract could be rescinded, t he aut om at ic forfeit ure clause could
not be enforced because it w ould be inequit able t o allow t he forfeit ure of t he am ount of m ore t han
P2M already paid by Arellano, a sum which const it ut es t wo- t hirds of t he t ot al consider at ion.
Because she m ade a t ender of pay m ent which was unj ust ifiably r efused, t he Valaraos cannot
enforce t he aut om at ic forfeit ure clause of t he cont ract . To rule in fav or of t he Valaraos would
result in pat ent inj ust ice and unj ust enrichm ent . The SC is not m erely a court of law, but also a
cour t of j ust ice.
EPG Con st r u ct ion v. Vigila r

The m inist ry of Public Works and Highways forged individual cont ract s wit h pet it ioners EPG
Const ruct ion et al ( CONTRACTORS) for t he const ruct ion of 145 housing unit s. Under t he cont ract s,
t he scope of const ruct ion and funding t herefor cover ed only ar ound 2/ 3 of each housing unit . Aft er
t he cont r act ors perform ed t heir work on 2/ 3 of t he unit s, DPWH Undersecr et ar y Canlas request ed t hat
t hey perfor m addit ional const ruct ions t o com plet e t he unit s and gave his verbal assurance t hat
addit ional funds would be available and fort hcom ing. The cont ract ors perfor m ed t he addit ional
const ruct ions and com plet ed t he unit s. They were paid t he cont ract pr ice, represent ing 2/ 3 of t he
w ork act ually done, leaving an unpaid balance of about 6M for t he addit ional const ruct ions for t he
com plet ion of t he exist ing housing unit s. DPWH Secret ar y Vigilar denied t he m oney claim s for t he
addit ional am ount .
I SSUE: Whet her t he cont ract or s have a right t o be com pensat ed for t he addit ional const r uct ions
done.
H ELD : Yes, t hey should be com pensat ed.
The Adm inist r at iv e Code provides t hat t he exist ence of appr opriat ions and av ailabilit y of funds as
cert ified t o and verified by t he proper account ing officials are condit ions sine qua non for t he execut ion
of governm ent cont ract s. I n t his case, t he addit ional work was pursued t hrough a ver bal request of
DPWH Under secr et ary Canlas despit e t he absence of t he corresponding supplem ent al cont ract s and
appr opriat e funding. Because of t his, DPWH Secret ary Vigilar claim s t hat t he im plied cont ract s are
null and void, and are not binding on t he governm ent .
While it is t rue t hat t he im plied cont ract s cov ering t he addit ional const ruct ions are v oid, t he Court , in
t he int e r e st of subst a nt ia l j ust ice , upholds t he right of t he cont ract ors t o be com pensat ed for t he
addit ional const ruct ion, applying t he principle of quant um m eruit . The peculiar circum st ances in t his
case necessit at e t he allowance of t he cont ract ors’ m oney claim s. They believed in good fait h and in
t he int er est of t he gov ernm ent and t he public in general t hat appr opriat ions t o cover t he addit ional
const ruct ions and com plet ion of t he proj ect would be available and for t hcom ing. The const ruct ion of
t he housing unit s had already been com plet ed by t he cont ract or s and t he subj ect housing unit s had
been, since t heir com plet ion, under t he cont rol and disposit ion of t he governm ent pursuant t o it s
public works housing proj ect .
I t would t hus be t he apex of inj ust ice and highly inequit able t o defeat t he cont ract or s’ r ight t o be duly
com pensat ed for act ual work perform ed and services rendered, where bot h t he gov ernm ent and t he
public have, for year s, received and accept ed benefit s from said housing proj ect and reaped t he fruit s
of t he cont r act ors’ honest t oil and labor.
Sir’s exam ples:
A has crops plant ed on t op of a slope. Below t he slope, B’s cat t le gr azed. During a flood, t he port ion
where B’s cat t le gr azed was subm erged in wat er. The cat t le w ent up t he slope in order t o avoid
get t ing drowned. Unfort unat ely , t he cat t le t ram pled and dest r oyed A’s crops. Does B have t o
com pensat e A for t he dam age?
A: Yes. B was enriched – his cat t le wer e saved. On t he ot her hand, A suffered a loss – his crops got
t r am pled. I t would t hus const it ut e unj ust enrichm ent if B did not pay A.
You sell a house for P2M, payable in t en equal m ont hly inst allm ent s. Four m ont hs lat er, inflat ion has

t urned t he house int o a P10M pr oper t y. Can you refuse t o convey t he house t o t he buyer on t he
ground of unj ust enrichm ent ?
A: No. Sir did not explain exact ly why not , but I t hink it ’s because t here was no r eal loss on y our par t
if a supervening increase in t he value of t he proper t y happens due t o inflat ion, so t he second elem ent
is not present .
You owe som eone P100K. Ten years lapse wit hout paym ent . Therefore, t he loan has prescribed. Not
knowing t his, you pay. When you find out t hat you no longer had a legal obligat ion t o pay, you ask for
t he P100K back on t he gr ound of unj ust enrichm ent . Can you have your cake and eat it t oo?
A: No. Ther e’s st ill a nat ural/ m oral obligat ion t o pay. You cannot invoke unj ust enrichm ent .
Pinat ubo er upt ion. There was an im m ediat e need t o dredge a flooded area. The governm ent was
able t o cont ract a com pany t o perform t he ser vice on short not ice. The COA t hen disallow ed paym ent
because t here was no public bidding, and t he ot her for m alit ies for governm ent proj ect s wer e not
followed. Can t he governm ent r efuse t o pay?
A: No. The gover nm ent m ust pay t he cont r act or. I t would const it ut e unj ust enrichm ent if it is not
paid j ust because t he requirem ent s of public bidding, et c. were not follow ed, given t he em ergency
sit uat ion at t he t im e.
4 . Ju dicia l Vigila n ce
Ar t . 2 4 . I n a ll con t r a ct u a l, pr ope r t y or ot he r r e la t ion s, w he n one of t he pa r t ie s is a t a

disa dva n t a ge on a ccount of h is m or a l de pe nde n ce , ignor a nce , in dige n ce , m e n t a l
w e a k ne ss, t e nde r a ge or ot h e r ha ndica p, t h e cour t s m u st be vigila nt for his pr ot e ct ion.
Exam ples when t he court s exercised j udicial vigilance:
PLD T v. PLD T Un ion
PLDT hir ed a blind m an t o show t he world it s polit ical correct ness. Aft er t wo y ears, PLDT t erm inat ed
him on t he ground t hat he was blind.
H ELD : He w as illegally dism issed. The court ex ercised j udicial vigilance here in prot ect ing t he right s
of t he handicapped, under Art icle 24.
Deaf- m ut e was accused of m urder . The court appoint ed counsel de oficio who happened t o be a v ery
old guy who did not obj ect even once and did not cross- exam ine t he wit nesses for t he pr osecut ion.
Nat urally, t he deaf- m ut e w as convict ed.
H ELD : The case was rem anded t o t he t rial court for new t rial. The cour t order ed t he t rial cour t t o
appoint bet t er counsel de oficio.
5 . Though t le ss Ex t r a va ga nce
Ar t . 2 5 . Though t le ss e x t r a va ga n ce in e x pe n se s for ple a sur e or displa y du r ing a pe r iod of

a cut e public w a nt or e m e r ge ncy m a y be st oppe d by or de r of t h e cour t s a t t h e inst a n ce of
a n y gove r nm e nt or pr iva t e ch a r it a ble in st it ut ion.
6 . D isr e spe ct for Pe r son
Ar t . 2 6 . Eve r y pe r son sha ll r e spe ct t h e dign it y, pe r sona lit y, pr iva cy a nd pe a ce of m ind of

his ne igh bor s a nd ot h e r pe r sons. The follow in g a nd sim ila r a ct s, t h ough t h e y m a y not
con st it ut e a cr im in a l offe n se , sha ll pr odu ce a ca u se of a ct ion for da m a ge s, pr e ve n t ion a n d
ot h e r r e lie f:
( 1 ) Pr yin g in t o t he pr iva cy of a n ot h e r 's r e side n ce :
( 2 ) M e ddlin g w it h or dist ur bing t h e pr iva t e life or fa m ily r e la t ions of a not he r ;
( 3 ) I n t r igu ing t o ca u se a not h e r t o be a lie n a t e d fr om h is fr ie nds;
( 4 ) Ve x ing or hu m ilia t in g a not h e r on a ccoun t of h is r e ligious be lie fs, low ly st a t ion in life ,
pla ce of bir t h , physica l de fe ct , or ot h e r pe r son a l condit ion .
This includes sexual harassm ent .
Con ce pcion v. CA
The Nicolas spouses w ere lessees in an apart m ent owned by Florence Concepcion. Flor ence also
cont ribut ed capit al t o t he business t hat t he Nicolas spouses were engaged in. One day, Florence’s
brot her- in- law, Rodrigo, accused Mr. Nicolas in front of his children and friends of having an affair wit h
Flor ence. As a result of t he incident , Mr. Nicolas felt ext rem e em barrassm ent and sham e t o t he ext ent
t hat he could no longer face his neighbors. Florence also ceased t o do business wit h him by not
cont ribut ing capit al anym ore so m uch so t hat t he business vent ure of t he Nicolas spouses declined as
t hey could no longer cope wit h t heir com m it m ent s t o t heir client s and cust om ers. To m ake m at t ers
w or se, Mrs. Nicolas st art ed t o doubt Mr. Nicolas’s fidelit y , result ing in frequent bicker ings and quarrels
during which Mrs. Nicolas ev en expressed her desire t o leave her husband. Consequent ly, Mr. Nicolas
was forced t o writ e Rodrigo dem anding public apology and paym ent of dam ages. Rodrigo point edly
ignored t he dem and, for which r eason t he Nicolas spouses filed a civil suit against him for dam ages.
I SSUE: Whet her Rodr igo Concepcion is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Yes. Under Art icle 26, t he right s of persons are am ply prot ect ed, and dam ages are provided for
violat ions of a person's dignit y, personalit y, pr ivacy and peace of m ind. The violat ions m ent ioned in
Art icle 26 are not exclusiv e but are m erely exam ples and do not preclude ot her sim ilar or analogous

act s. Dam ages t herefore are allowable for act ions against a person's dignit y, such as profane,
insult ing, hum iliat ing, scandalous or abusiv e language.
M a r qu e z v. D e sie r t o
Lour des Mar quez was t he branch m anager of PCI B Julia Vargas. She received an order from
Om budsm an Aniano Desiert o t o produce several bank docum ent s for purposes of inspect ion in cam era
relat ive t o various account s m aint ained at t he bank. Marquez asked Desiert o for an ext ension t o
produce t he checks in quest ion, since t hey were payable t o cash or bear er and could not be easily
ident ified. Desier t o issued an order requir ing t he product ion of t he docum ent s and t hreat ened t o cit e
Marquez in indirect cont em pt and for obst r uct ion of j ust ice. Marquez filed an act ion for declarat ory
relief t o clarify how she could com ply wit h t he or der wit hout violat ing t he Secrecy of Bank Deposit s
Act . While t his act ion w as pending, Marquez was charged w it h indirect cont em pt .
I SSUE: Whet her Marquez m ay be cit ed for indir ect cont em pt for her failure t o produce t he docum ent s
request ed by t he Om budsm an. Whet her t he order of t he Om budsm an t o have an in ca m e r a
inspect ion of t he quest ioned account is allowed as an except ion t o t he law on secrecy of bank
deposit s.
H ELD : Marquez m ay not be cit ed for indirect cont em pt for her failure t o pr oduce t he docum ent s. The
order of t he Om budsm an t o inspect t he quest ioned account is not allow ed as an except ion t o t he law
on secrecy of bank deposit s.
The except ions t o t he law on secrecy of bank deposit s are:
1. Where t he deposit or consent s in writ ing;

2. I m peachm ent cases;
3. By court order in bribery or der elict ion of dut y cases against public officials;
4. D e posit is su bj e ct of lit iga t ion ;
5. Sec. 8, R.A. No.3019, in cases of unex plained wealt h.
Thus, before an in ca m e r a inspect ion m ay be allowed, t here m ust be a pending case befor e a court of
com pet ent j urisdict ion. Fur t her, t he account m ust be clearly ident ified, t he inspect ion lim it ed t o t he
subj ect m at t er of t he pending case before t he court of com pet ent j urisdict ion. The bank personnel and
t he account holder m ust be not ified t o be present during t he inspect ion, and such inspect ion m ay
cov er only t he account ident ified in t he pending case.
I n t his case, t her e is yet no pending lit igat ion before any court of com pet ent aut hor it y. What is
ex ist ing is an invest igat ion by t he Office of t he Om budsm an. I n short , what t he office of t he
om budsm an w ould wish t o do is t o fish for addit ional evidence. Ther e was no pending case in court
which would warr ant t he opening of t he bank account for inspect ion.
Zone of priv acy is r ecognized and prot ect ed in our laws. The Civil Code provides t hat “ every person
shall respect t he dignit y, personalit y, privacy and peace of m ind of his neighbor s and ot her persons”
and punishes as act ionable t ort s several act s for m eddling and pr ying int o t he priv acy of anot her. I t
also holds a public officer or em ployee or any priv at e individual liable for dam ages for any violat ion of
t he right s and libert ies of anot her person, and r ecognizes t he privacy of let t er s and ot her privat e
com m unicat ions. The Revised Penal Code m akes a crim e t he violat ion of secret s by an officer,

revelat ion of t r ade and indust rial secret s, and t respass t o dwelling. I nvasion of privacy is an offense in
special law s like t he Ant i- Wiret apping Law, t h e Se cr e cy of Ba nk D e posit s Act , and t he I nt ellect ual
Proper t y Code.
7 . D e r e lict ion of D ut y
Ar t . 2 7 . Any pe r son su ffe r ing m a t e r ia l or m or a l loss be ca use a public se r va nt or e m ploy e e

r e fuse s or ne gle ct s, w it h ou t j ust ca u se , t o pe r for m his officia l dut y m a y file a n a ct ion for
da m a ge s a nd ot he r r e lie f a ga inst he la t t e r , w it hout pr e j udice t o a ny disciplin a r y
a dm in ist r a t ive a ct ion t h a t m a y be t a k e n.
Ja ve lla n a v. Ta yo
M a yor Ta yo, t he Vice M a yor t w o councilor s, a nd t he se cr e t a r y of Bu e n a vist a , I loilo w e r e

a lw a ys a bse nt fr om t h e se ssions of t h e coun cil. Th us, t he r e m a in ing council m e m be r s
e le ct e d a m ong t h e m se lve s a t e m por a r y pr e siding office r a n d a se cr e t a r y t o t a k e not e s.
Th e y t h e n pr oce e de d w it h t h e m a t t e r s t o be t a k e n up by t he cou ncil. W he n t h e m inut e s of
a ll t h e ir pr oce e din gs w e r e pr e se n t e d t o M a yor Ta yo for a ct ion , t he m a yor r e fu se d t o a ct
upon t h e m , or pa r t icu la r ly t o a ppr ove or disa ppr ove t h e r e solu t ion t he y ha d be e n w or k ing
on a n d w h ich t h e y, a s a council, h a d a ppr ove d. Accor ding t o t h e m a yor , t h e se ssion s w e r e
nu ll a nd void. M a yor Ta yo e ve n r e fu se d t o a ffix h is signa t u r e t o t h e ir pa yr olls cove r ing t h e
pe r die m s ow ing t o t he m a lle gin g t h a t t he pr oce e din gs w e r e ille ga l due t o his a bse nce .
Trial Court : Sessions perfect ly valid and legal. Moral dam ages awarded pursuant t o ar t . 27 of t he NCC
t o Exequiel Golez w ho had t est ified and proved t hat he had suffered as a consequence of t he refusal of
Mayor Tayo t o perform his official dut y. Of course, t he hard- headed m ayor st ill refuses t o back down.
Hence, t his appeal.
I SSUE: Whet her Exequiel Golez is ent it led t o m oral dam ages.
HELD: Ye s. Th e a w a r d of m or a l da m a ge s is pr ope r unde r Ar t . 2 7 of t h e N CC con side r ing t h a t

a ccor ding t o t h e t r ia l cour t , Gole z w a s a ble t o pr ove t h a t he su ffe r e d a s a conse que n ce of
t he m a yor ’s r e fusa l t o pe r for m his officia l du t y, n ot w it h st a nding t he a ct ion t a k e n by t h e
pr ovin cia l fisca l a n d t he pr ovin cia l boa r d uph olding t he va lidit y of t he se ssions in que st ion .
8. Unfair Com pet it ion
Art . 28. Unfair com pet it ion in agricult ur al, com m ercial or indust rial ent erprises or in labor t hrough
t he use of force, int im idat ion, deceit , m achinat ion or any ot her unj ust , oppr essive or highhanded
m et hod shall give r ise t o a right of act ion by t he person who t hereby suffers dam age.
Not e t hat t his is differ ent from unfair com pet it ion under t he Revised Penal Code, which is a crim inal
offense.
H a ba n a v. Roble s
Habana was t he aut hor and copyright owner of a college t ext book ent it led “ College English for Today.”
He discover ed t hat anot her t ext book writ t en by Robles was st rik ingly sim ilar t o his own wit h regard t o
t he cont ent , schem e of present at ion, illust rat ions, and exam ples. Several pages of Robles’ book
direct ly plagiarized his own book. Habana sued Robles for copyright infringem ent , unfair com pet it ion,
and dam ages.
I SSUE: Whet her Robles is liable for dam ages.

H ELD : Yes. Robles is guilt y of copyright infringem ent . I nfringem ent of copyr ight consist s in doing by
any person, wit hout t he consent of t he owner of t he copying, of anyt hing, t he sole right t o do which is
conferr ed by st at ut e on said owner . Said infringem ent is in fact a t respass on a privat e dom ain owned
by t he owner of t he copyright . Wit h regard t o books and ot her lit erary works, t he purpose of
copywr it ing is t o give prot ect ion t o t he int ellect ual product of an aut hor. I n such a case, copying
alone is not w hat is prohibit ed – t he copy ing m ust pr oduce an inj urious effect .
I n t his case, even if Habana’s book, or even a large port ion of it , was not copied by Robles, if so m uch
is t aken t hat t he value of t he original work is subst ant ially dim inished, t hen Robles is indeed guilt y of
infringem ent . Wit h regard t o t he inj urious effect , t he least Robles could have done was t o
acknowledge Habana’s book as t he sour ce of t he cont est ed port ions of her own book. To allow
anot her t o copy t he book wit hout appr opr iat e acknowledgm ent is inj ury enough, hence t he requisit e of
inj urious effect is com plied wit h.
Sir’s exam ples:
A owns a hospit al nam ed St . Pet er ’s locat ed in a sm all t own. B owns anot her hospit al in t he sam e
t ow n. B put s up a funeral parlor across t he st reet from St . Pet er’s Hospit al and nam es it St . Pet er’s
Funeral Parlor. I s t his unfair com pet it ion under Art icle 28?
A: Yes. This is an unj ust , oppr essive, and highhanded m et hod of com pet ing wit h A.
The ad for a product claim s t hat “ Our product is num ber one.” Does t his const it ut e unfair com pet it ion?
A: No.
The ad for a product claim s t hat “ Our product is t he only good product .” Does t his const it ut e unfair
com pet it ion?
A: Yes.
9 . V iola t ion of Civil/ Polit ica l Right s
Ar t . 3 2 . Any public office r or e m ploye e , or a ny pr iva t e individua l, w ho dir e ct ly or indir e ct ly

obst r uct s, de fe a t s, viola t e s or in a ny m a nn e r im pe de s or im pa ir s a n y of t h e follow ing
r igh t s a n d libe r t ie s of a not h e r pe r son sh a ll be lia ble t o t h e la t t e r for da m a ge s:
( 1 ) Fr e e dom of r e ligion ;
( 2 ) Fr e e dom of spe e ch ;
( 3 ) Fr e e dom t o w r it e for t h e pr e ss or t o m a int a in a pe r iodica l publica t ion;

( 4 ) Fr e e dom fr om a r bit r a r y or ille ga l de t e nt ion ;
( 5 ) Fr e e dom of suffr a ge ;
( 6 ) The r igh t a ga in st de pr iva t ion of pr ope r t y w it hout due pr oce ss of la w ;
( 7 ) The r igh t t o a j u st com pe nsa t ion w he n pr iva t e pr ope r t y is t a k e n for public use ;
( 8 ) The r igh t t o t h e e qua l pr ot e ct ion of t h e la w s;
( 9 ) The r igh t t o be se cur e in one 's pe r son, house , pa pe r s, a nd e ffe ct s a ga inst

unr e a sona ble se a r ch e s a nd se izu r e s;
( 1 0 ) The libe r t y of a bode a n d of ch a n ging t he sa m e ;
( 1 1 ) The pr iva cy of com m u nica t ion a nd cor r e sponde nce ;
( 1 2 ) The r igh t t o be com e a m e m be r of a ssocia t ions or socie t ie s for pur pose s n ot con t r a r y
t o la w ;
( 1 3 ) The r igh t t o t a k e pa r t in a pe a ce a ble a sse m bly t o pe t it ion t he gove r nm e nt for

r e dr e ss of gr ie va nce s;
( 1 4 ) The r igh t t o be fr e e fr om in volun t a r y se r vit ude in a ny for m ;
( 1 5 ) The r igh t of t he a ccu se d a ga inst e x ce ssive ba il;
( 1 6 ) The r igh t of t he a ccu se d t o be h e a r d by h im se lf a nd coun se l, t o be in for m e d of t he

na t ur e a nd ca use of t h e a ccusa t ion a ga inst h im , t o ha ve a spe e dy a nd public t r ia l, t o m e e t
t h e w it n e sse s fa ce t o fa ce , a n d t o h a ve com pu lsor y pr oce ss t o se cur e t he a t t e nda n ce of
w it ne ss in h is be h a lf;
( 1 7 ) Fr e e dom fr om be ing com pe lle d t o be a w it n e ss a ga in st one 's se lf, or fr om be in g

for ce d t o confe ss gu ilt , or fr om be ing indu ce d by a pr om ise of im m u n it y or r e w a r d t o m a k e
such confe ssion , e x ce pt w he n t h e pe r son confe ssin g be com e s a St a t e w it n e ss;

( 1 8 ) Fr e e dom fr om e x ce ssive fin e s, or cr u e l a nd u nu su a l pu n ishm e n t , u n le ss t h e sa m e is
im pose d or inflict e d in a ccor da nce w it h a st a t u t e w hich ha s not be e n j u dicia lly de cla r e d
unconst it ut iona l; a nd
( 1 9 ) Fr e e dom of a cce ss t o t h e cour t s.
I n a n y of t h e ca se s r e fe r r e d t o in t h is a r t icle , w h e t he r or not t h e de fe n da nt 's a ct or

om ission const it ut e s a cr im ina l offe nse , t he a ggr ie ve d pa r t y h a s a r igh t t o com m e n ce a n
e n t ir e ly se pa r a t e a nd dist in ct civil a ct ion for da m a ge s, a nd for ot he r r e lie f. Such civil
a ct ion sha ll pr oce e d in de pe n de nt ly of a n y cr im ina l pr ose cut ion ( if t h e la t t e r be inst it ut e d) ,
a nd m a t be pr ove d by a pr e pon de r a n ce of e vide nce .
Th e inde m n it y sh a ll in clude m or a l da m a ge s. Ex e m pla r y da m a ge s m a y a lso be a dj udica t e d.
Th e r e spon sibilit y h e r e in se t for t h is n ot de m a nda ble fr om a j udge unle ss h is a ct or

om ission const it u t e s a viola t ion of t he Pe na l Code or ot h e r pe na l st a t u t e .
I f y ou will not ice, t he right s enum erat ed in Ar t icle 32 are t he sam e as t he r ight s prot ect ed under
Art icle I I I of t he Const it ut ion in t he Bill of Right s. I s Art icle 32 a sur plussage t hen?
A: No. The Const it ut ion prot ect s cit izens from violat ions of t heir civil right s by t he St at e. Art icle 32
covers violat ions com m it t ed even by privat e individuals. Moreover, Ar t icle 32 covers not only direct
violat ions of civ il right s, but also I NDI RECT violat ions. For exam ple, under Art icle 32, even a wit ness
for t he applicat ion of a search w arrant w ho lies in his t est im ony m ay be liable for dam ages t o t he
aggrieved part y .
M H P Ga r m e n t s v. CA
MHP had t he exclusiv e franchise t o sell and dist ribut e official Boy Scout uniform s and supplies. Act ing
upon inform at ion t hat pr ivat e respondent s w ere selling Boy Scout it em s wit hout aut hor it y, MHP sent
one of it s em ployees, t oget her wit h t hree m em bers of t he Philippine Const abulary, t o t he st or e of
priv at e respondent s. The em ployee and t he m em ber s of t he PC seized t he m erchandise in t he st ore
wit hout any warrant . The it em s were t hen t urned over t o MHP. When privat e respondent s dem anded
t he ret urn of t he goods, not all it em s were r et urned, while t he ot her s were of inferior qualit y. Privat e
respondent s filed an act ion for dam ages against MHP. MHP denies liabilit y on t he ground t hat it was
t he PC t hat conduct ed t he raid, and it s part icipat ion w as only t o report t he alleged illegal act ivit y of
priv at e respondent s.
I SSUE: Whet her MHP is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Yes. I t is not t he act or alone ( i.e. t he one direct ly responsible) who m ust answer for dam ages
under Art icle 32. The person indirect ly responsible m ust also answer for t he dam ages or inj ury caused
t o t he aggrieved part y. Art icle 32 of t he Civil Code m akes t he persons who ar e direct ly, as well as
indirect ly , responsible for t he t ransgression as j oint t ort feasors.
I n t his case, MHP was indirect ly involved in t ransgressing t he right of privat e respondent s against
unreasonable search and seizure. I t inst igat ed t he raid, which was even conduct ed wit h t he act ive
part icipat ion of one of t he em ployees of MHP. I t received for safekeeping t he goods unr easonably
seized and refused t o surrender t hem upon dem and. I t failed t o report t he unlawful peddling of t he
goods t o t he Boy Scout s of t he Philippines so t hat t he lat t er could have pr operly applied for a warrant .
Obr a v. CA
Obra, t he Regional Direct or of t he Bureau of Mines and Geo- Sciences ( BMGS) , received from Jeanet t e
Grybos a let t er on behalf of t he Gillies heirs com plaining t hat t he spouses Bret t had been conduct ing
illegal m ining act ivit ies in a m ining ar ea belonging t o t he Gillies fam ily. Obra request ed t he assist ance
of Br ig. Gen. Dum pit in appr ehending a t ruck allegedly used by t he spouses Bret t in illegal m ining.
Obra also issued t o Dum pit a BMGS cert ificat ion st at ing t hat t he spouses Br et t had no m ining perm it .
Four days lat er, t he elem ent s of t he m ilit ary seized a t ruck belonging t o t he Spouses Bret t as it w as
ent ering t he cont est ed m ining area. The t ruck was im pounded. The spouses filed a com plaint for
dam ages against Obra and Dum pit .
I SSUE: Whet her Obra and Dum pit are liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Yes. The const it ut ional right s of t he spouses t o due pr ocess and t o securit y against
unreasonable searches and seizure were violat ed. Art icle 32 of t he Civil Code m akes liable any public
officer who is direct ly or indirect ly responsible for violat ion of t he const it ut ional right . The language of
Art icle 32 m ak es bot h t he act or ( t he one dir ect ly r esponsible) and t he person indirect ly responsible
liable for dam ages. Thus, Dum pit could not claim t hat he had no knowledge of t he act s of his
subordinat es who seized t he t ruck. Neit her can he evade responsibilit y for his act s by claim ing t hat he
m erely perform ed a m inist er ial dut y in ordering t he im plem ent at ion of Obra’s request . Ot herwise,
liabilit y under Ar t icle 32 could easily be avoided by t he m ere plea t hat t he officer concerned was only
carrying out a m inist erial dut y.
VI . I nt e r fe r e nce in Cont r a ct ua l Re la t ion
Ar t . 1 3 1 4 . Any t h ir d pe r son w ho indu ce s a n ot he r t o viola t e h is cont r a ct sh a ll be lia ble for

da m a ge s t o t he ot he r con t r a ct ing pa r t y.
Elem ent s of I nt erference in Cont ract ual Relat ion:
1. Valid cont r act ;

2. Out sider know s of t he exist ence of t he cont ract ;
3. The t hird part y induces one part y t o breach his obligat ion under t he cont ract ;
4. Dam age.
I s m alice an elem ent of int erference in cont ract ual relat ion?
A: There ar e variances in opinion. Som e cases say t hat it is not , while ot her cases say t hat it is ( So
Ping Bun v. CA) . So if you’re t he lawyer for t he plaint iff, you should t ry t o pr ov e it anyway j ust t o be
sure.
What ar e t he defenses available t o t he defendant ?
(1) business com pet it ion & t he pur pose is ( i) furt herance of t he business; & ( ii) lawful m eans are
used. Not e t hat t her e is no int ent t o cause dam age. ( So Ping Bun v. CA)
( 2) honest advice m ade ( i) in good fait h and ( ii) in perform ance of his dut y as adviser
(3) innocence of breaching part y ( Sir doesn’t agree) ; elem ent of inducem ent lacking – Cit e
Daywalt – t hat t he t hird part y cannot be m ore liable t han t he par t y on whose behalf he
int erm eddles.
Gilch r ist v. Cuddy

Cuddy was t he owner of t he right s t o t he film “ Zigom ar.” He ent er ed int o an agr eem ent wit h C.S.
Gilchrist wher eby Gilchrist would rent t he film from Cuddy and scr een it for a week for P125. Gilchrist
paid t he m oney in advance. However, a few days before t he screening dat e agreed upon, Cuddy sent
t he m oney back, saying t hat he had m ade ot her arrangem ent s wit h his film . I t t urns out t hat Cuddy
ent er ed int o anot her agreem ent wit h Espej o and Zaldarriaga ( t he part ners) for t he rent al of t he film
for t he sam e week agreed upon wit h Gilchrist , for t he price of P350.
I SSUE: Whet her t he part ners ar e liable t o Gilchrist for dam ages for int erfering wit h t he cont ract
bet ween Gilchrist and Cuddy.
H ELD : Yes. The only m ot ive for t he int erfer ence by t he part ners in t he Gilchrist - Cuddy cont ract was a
desir e t o m ak e profit by exhibit ing t he film in t heir t heat er ; t here was no m alice involved. However,
t his fact does not relieve t hem of t he legal liabilit y for int erfering w it h t hat cont ract and causing it s
breach. I n t he US case Angle v. Railway Co., t he US Suprem e Court held t he t hird part y liable for
dam ages even if his only m ot ive for int erfer ence was t o m ak e a pr ofit .
Neit her is it necessary for t he t ort feasor t o know t he ident it y of t he person t o whom he causes
dam ages. Art icle 1902 [ of t he old Civil Code] provides t hat a person who, by act or om ission, causes
dam age t o anot her when t here is fault or negligence, shall be obliged t o repair t he dam age so done.
I t is clear t hat t his ar t icle does not requir e prior knowledge of t he ident it y of t he person t o whom t he
t ort feasor causes dam age in or der for him t o be liable for dam ages.
D a yw a lt v. La Cor por a cion de los Pa dr e s Agust inos Re cole t os
I n 1902, Teodor ica Endencia execut ed a cont ract whereby she obligat ed herself t o convey t o Geo W.
Daywalt a 452- hect ar e parcel of land for P4,000. They agreed t hat a deed should be execut ed as
soon as Endencia’s t it le t o t he land was perfect ed in t he Court of Land Regist rat ion and a Tor rens t it le
issued in her nam e. When t he Torrens t it le was issued, Endencia found out t hat t he propert y
m easured 1,248 hect ares inst ead of 452 hect ares, as she init ially believed. Because of t his, she
becam e reluct ant t o t ransfer t he whole t ract t o Daywalt , claim ing t hat she never int ended t o sell so
large an am ount and t hat she had been m isinform ed as t o it s area. Daywalt filed an act ion for specific
perform ance. The SC or dered Endencia t o convey t he ent ire t ract t o Daywalt .
Meanwhile, t he La Cor poracion de los Padr es Agust inos Recolet os ( Recolet os) , was a religious
cor porat ion, which owned an est at e im m ediat ely adj acent t o t he pr oper t y sold by Endencia t o
Daywalt . I t also happened t hat Fr. Sanz, t he r epresent at ive of t he Recolet os, exert ed som e influence
and ascendancy over Endencia, who was a wom an of lit t le force and easily subj ect t o t he influence of
ot her people. Fat her Sanz knew of t he exist ence of t he cont r act s wit h Daywalt and discouraged her
from conv eying t he ent ire t r act .
Daywalt filed an act ion for dam ages against t he Recolet os on t he ground t hat it unlawfully induced
Endencia t o refrain from t he perform ance of her cont ract for t he sale of t he land in quest ion and t o
wit hhold delivery of t he Torrens t it le. Daywalt ’s claim for dam ages against Recolet os was for t he huge
sum of P500,000 [ in t he year 1919] , since he claim s t hat because of t he int erference of t he Recolet os,
he failed t o consum m at e a cont ract wit h anot her person for t he sale of t he proper t y and it s conversion
int o a sugar m ill.
I SSUE: Whet her Recolet os is liable t o Daywalt .
H ELD : No, it is not liable.
Th e st r a n ge r w h o int e r fe r e s in a cont r a ct be t w e e n ot he r pa r t ie s ca nnot be com e m or e

e x t e nsive ly lia ble in da m a ge s for t h e n onpe r for m a n ce of t h e con t r a ct t ha n t h e pa r t y in
w hose be ha lf he int e r m e ddle s. Hence, in order t o det erm ine t he liabilit y of t he Recolet os, t here is
first a need t o consider t he liabilit y of Endencia t o Daywalt . The dam ages claim ed by Dayw alt fr om
Endencia cannot be r ecover ed from her, first , because t hese are special dam ages which were not
wit hin t he cont em plat ion of t he part ies when t he cont ract was m ade, and secondly, t hese dam ages
are t oo rem ot e t o be t he subj ect of recovery. Since Endencia is not liable for dam ages t o Daywalt ,
neit her can t he Recolet os be held liable. As alr eady suggest ed, by advising Endencia not t o perform
t he cont r act , t he Recolet os could in no event render it self m ore ext ensively liable t han t he principal in
t he cont r act .
Roble v. Ar ba sa ( Ju ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 )
New doct rine when it com es t o t he sale of land: Whet her t he considerat ion for t he sale of real
proper t y was in price per unit or a lum p- sum sale, if t he act ual size exceeds t he size cont ract ed upon,
t he buyer m ust pay t he value of t he excess.
Rubio v. CA
The Rubio spouses owned shares of st ock in Hacienda Benit o I nc. ( HBI ) , which t hey sold t o Robert O.
Phillips and Sons I nc. ( ROPSI ) for P5.5M. An init ial paym ent of P1.2M was paid by ROPSI t o t he
Rubios, leaving an unpaid balance of about P4.25M. The cont ract provided t hat t he spouses had a
right t o rescind t he sale in case ROPSI failed t o pay t he balance. Rober t O. Phillips ( t he person) and
his wife signed as guarant ors for t he am ount of t he balance.
I n t he m eant im e, Robert O. Phillips, in behalf of his wife and of ROPSI , ent ered int o negot iat ions for
t he sale of t hese sam e shares of st ock t o Alfonso Yuchengco. When he found out about t he
negot iat ions, Miguel Rubio wrot e a let t er rem inding ROPSI and Yuchengco t hat t he shares were
subj ect t o t he paym ent of t he unpaid balance, and t hat he st ill had t he right t o rescind t he sale in case
of non- paym ent . Rubio expressed no obj ect ions t o t he sale, provided t hat t he obligat ions in t heir
favor w ere sat isfied. ROPSI wrot e back, t elling Rubio t hat t he only obst acle t o t he consum m at ion of
t he sale of t he HBI shares t o Yuchengco was t he let t er t hat Rubio sent . ROPSI warned t hat unless t he
let t er was wit hdrawn, t hey would seek redr ess elsewhere. Rubio was also inform ed t hat Yuchengco
had given t he ult im at um t hat if t he let t er was not wit hdr awn, t he t ransact ion wit h ROPSI w ould be
cancelled. [ Yuchengco want ed t he let t er wit hdrawn because he did not want t o purchase t he shares of
st ock if t hey would lat er be involved in a collect ion suit ] . Rubio refused t o wit hdraw t he let t er and
inst ead t hreat ened t o file an act ion for collect ion in case t he balance of t he purchase price was not
paid when due. ROPSI , however, beat t hem t o cour t and filed a case against t he Rubios for unlawful
int er ference in t he t ransact ion bet w een ROPSI and Yuchengco.
I SSUE: Whet her t he Rubios ar e liable for int erfering in t he t ransact ion bet ween ROPSI and
Yuchengco.
H ELD : No, t he Rubios are not liable for int erfering in t he t r ansact ion bet ween ROPSI and Yuchengco.
There is no reason why Rubio should be accused of unlawful int erfer ence in m aint aining his st and t hat
he st ill had t he opt ion t o rescind t he cont ract bet ween him and ROPSI and in st at ing t he exist ence of
his vendor’s lien ov er t he shares of st ock.
Rubio never pr et ended t hat he st ill had full cont r ol of t he shares of st ock sold t o ROPSI . I n fact , he
adm it t ed t hat t he shares were already t ransferred t o ROPSI and t hat he did not have a recor ded lien
t herein. He m erely m ade of recor d his right t o rescind under t he original cont ract of sale. The det ails
per t aining t o t he earlier t r ansact ion governing t he sale of t he shares of st ock bet w een Rubio and
ROPSI were in fact known t o Yuchengco. Moreov er, Rubio was only int erest ed in recovering t he
P4.25M balance owing t o him . He expressed his int ent ion t o wit hdraw t he let t er, provided his
int er est s would be prot ect ed. Obviously, he felt t hat t he paym ent of his P4.25M was not secured
under t he t erm s of paym ent proposed by Yuchengco. Thus, he had t he right t o refuse t o wit hdraw t he
let t er. Ther e w as not hing illegal or inofficious about t he let t er or t he refusal t o wit hdraw it .
So Pin g Bun v. CA
Tek Hua Trading ent er ed int o agr eem ent s wit h DCCSI for t he lease of several pr oper t ies which Tek
Hua used t o st ore it s t ext iles. The successor of Tek Hua Trading, Tek Hua Ent erprises, allowed So
Ping Bun, t he grandson of t he m anaging part ner of Tek Hua Trading, t o use t he prem ises t o st or e his
own t ext iles. Lat er , Manual Tiong, one of t he m em ber s of Tek Hua Ent erprising Corp., ask ed So Ping
Bun t o vacat e t he warehouse wit hin 14 days since Tiong needed it for his t ext ile business. So Ping
Bun refused t o vacat e. I nst ead, So Ping Bun ent er ed int o lease cont ract s wit h DCCSI over t he sam e
prem ises. Tek Hua Ent erpr ises and Manuel Tiong filed an act ion t o nullify t he cont ract s of lease
bet ween So Ping Bun and DCCSI and also claim ed dam ages against So Ping Bun for unlawful
int erference in t he lease cont ract s bet ween DCCSI and Tek Hua Ent erprises.
I SSUE: Whet her So Ping Bun is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : No, So Ping Bun is not liable.
The elem ent s of t ort int erference ar e:
( 1) ex ist ence of a valid cont ract ;

( 2) knowledge on t he part of t he t hird person of t he exist ence of t he cont ract ; and
( 3) int er ference of t he t hird person is wit hout legal j ust ificat ion or excuse.
I n t his case, Trendset t er Market ing asked DCCSI t o ex ecut e lease cont ract s in it s favor, and as a
result , it was able t o depriv e Tek Hua Ent erprises of it s proper t y right . Clear ly, t he t hree elem ent s of
t ort int erference are present since So Ping Bun prevailed upon DCCSI t o lease t he warehouse t o his
ent erprise at t he ex pense of Tek Hua Ent erprises.
However, So Ping Bun st ill cannot be held liable for dam ages. Though he t ook int erest in t he pr oper t y
of Tek Hua and benefit ed from it , not hing on record im put es deliberat e w rongful m ot ives or m alice on
him . The business desire is t here t o m ake som e gain t o t he det rim ent of t he cont ract ing part ies. Lack
of m alice, however, precludes dam ages.
Sir’s exam ples:
A was a real est at e agent . She offered t o sell a condo unit t o X and X agreed t o purchase.
Subsequent ly, B, anot her real est at e agent , also offered a condo unit t o X. Because of B’s offer , X did
not proceed wit h t he purchase of t he first unit offered by A and bought t he one offered by B inst ead.
I s B liable for int erference in t he cont ract t o sell bet w een A and X?
A: No. There is no indicat ion t hat X was only planning t o buy one unit , such t hat if he bought from B,
he would aut om at ically not buy from A anym ore. Also, it was in furt herance of business and t he
m eans used were lawful.
Sam e sit uat ion as above, but B crit icized t he condo unit t hat A was selling, is B liable?
A: Yes. Under cont ract ual int erference and also unfair com pet it ion. This t im e, t he m eans used were
unj ust and unfair.
A ent ered int o a cont ract wit h B. A did not gr aduat e high school. C, a lawyer, advised A not t o
com ply wit h t he cont ract . B filed an act ion for dam ages against A. What defense can A inv oke?
A: A can claim t he defense t hat he was j ust follow ing his lawy er’s advice, so he is not liable.
Does t his m ean t hat C is also not liable for int erfer ence in cont ract ual relat ions under t he principle
t hat t he int erferor cannot be m ore liable t han t he part y in whose behalf he int erferes?
A: Probably not , since t he lawyer is supposed t o know t he law. However, he can set up t he defense
t hat he gav e t he adv ice in good fait h.
VI I . CI VI L LI ABI LI TY ARI SI N G FROM CRI M E

1 . Re m e die s
a . Civil Act ion w it h Cr im in a l Act ion
RULES OF COURT RULE 1 1 1 - PROSECUTI ON OF CI VI L ACTI ON
Se ct ion 1 . I n st it ut ion of cr im ina l a n d civil a ct ions. – ( a ) W h en a cr im in a l a ct ion is

inst it ut e d, t he civil a ct ion for t he r e cove r y of civil lia bilit y a r isin g fr om t h e offe n se ch a r ge d
sha ll be de e m e d in st it ut e d w it h t h e cr im ina l a ct ion unle ss t he offe nde d pa r t y w a ive s t h e
civil a ct ion , r e se r ve s t h e r ight t o inst it u t e it sepa r a t e ly or inst it u t e s t he civ il a ct ion pr ior t o
t h e cr im in a l a ct ion .
Th e r e se r va t ion of t h e r ight t o inst it u t e se pa r a t e ly t he civil a ct ion sh a ll be m a de be for e

t h e pr ose cu t ion st a r t s pr e se n t ing it s e vide n ce a nd u nde r cir cum st a n ce s a ffor din g t h e
offe nde d pa r t y a r e a son a ble oppor t un it y t o m a k e such r e se r va t ion.
W h e n t h e offe nde d pa r t y se e k s t o e n for ce civ il lia bilit y a ga inst t h e a ccuse d by w a y of

m or a l, nom in a l, t e m pe r a t e , or e x e m pla r y da m a ge s w it hout spe cifyin g t h e a m ou nt t h e r e of
in t h e com pla in t or in for m a t ion , t h e filin g fe e s t he r e for e sha ll const it u t e a fir st lie n on t he
j udgm e n t a w a r ding su ch da m a ge s.
W h e r e t h e a m oun t of da m a ge s, ot h e r t h a n a ct u a l, is spe cifie d in t he com pla int or

infor m a t ion, t h e cor r e sponding filing fe e s sha ll be pa id by t h e offe nde d pa r t y upon t he
filin g t h e r e of in cour t .
Ex ce pt a s ot he r w ise pr ovide d in t he se Rule s, no filin g fe e s sh a ll be r e quir e d for a ct u a l

da m a ge s.
N o count e r cla im , cr oss- cla im or t h ir d- pa r t y com pla int m a y be file d by t h e a ccuse d in t h e

cr im ina l ca se , but a n y ca use of a ct ion w hich could ha ve be e n t h e su bj e ct t h e r e of m a y be
lit iga t e d in a se pa r a t e civil a ct ion .
( b) Th e cr im in a l a ct ion for viola t ion of Ba t a s Pa m ba n sa Blg. 2 2 sha ll be de e m e d t o in clude

t h e cor r e spondin g civil a ct ion. N o r e se r va t ion t o file such civil a ct ion se pa r a t e ly sh a ll be
a llow e d.
Upon filing of t h e a for e sa id j oin t cr im ina l a nd civ il a ct ion s, t he offe nde d pa r t y sh a ll pa y in

fu ll t h e filin g fe e s ba se d on t h e a m oun t of t h e che ck in volve d, w h ich sh a ll be conside r e d
a s t h e a ct u a l da m a ge s cla im e d. W h e r e t h e com pla int or in for m a t ion a lso se e k s t o r e cove r
liqu ida t e d, m or a l, nom ina l, t e m pe r a t e or e x e m pla r y da m a ge s, t h e offe n de d pa r t y sha ll pa y
a ddit iona l filing fe e s ba se d on t h e a m ount s a lle ge d t h e r e in. I f t h e a m oun t s a r e not so
a lle ge d but a n y of t he se da m a ge s a r e su bse qu e nt ly a w a r de d by t h e cour t , t h e filin g fe e s
ba se d on t he a m ount a w a r de d sha ll const it ut e a fir st lie n on t h e j udgm e nt .

W h e r e t h e civ il a ct ion h a s be e n file d se pa r at e ly a nd t r ia l t he r e of ha s not ye t com m e nce d,
it m a y be consolida t e d w it h t he cr im in a l a ct ion upon a pplica t ion w it h t h e cour t t r ying t h e
la t t e r ca se . I f t h e a pplica t ion is gr a n t e d, t h e t r ia l of bot h a ct ion s sh a ll pr oce e d in
a ccor da nce w it h se ct ion 2 of t his Rule gove r nin g consolida t ion of t h e civil a nd cr im in a l
a ct ions.
Clarificat ion of t his rule:
This rule on civil act ions inst it ut ed wit h t he crim inal act ion has been am ended several t im es, hence
t he conflict ing j urisprudence.
Under t he 2000 Revised Rules of Crim inal Procedure, t he civil liabilit y arising from crim e is deem ed
inst it ut ed and not m erely “ im pliedly” inst it ut ed wit h t he inst it ut ion of t he crim inal act ion, unless:
1. t he offended part y waives t he civil act ion,

2. reserv es t he right t o inst it ut e it separat ely, or
3. inst it ut es t he civil act ion prior t o t he crim inal act ion.
But t ake not e t hat t he civil act ion t hat is deem ed inst it ut ed wit h t he cr im inal act ion is only t he one for
t he recovery of t he civil liabilit y arising from t he offense charged, and no ot her civ il act ion. All
decisions t o t he cont rary are no longer cont rolling.
What ar e t he independent civil act ions?
A: The independent civil act ions are t hose under Art icles 32, 33, 34, and 2176. These are NOT
deem ed inst it ut ed wit h t he crim inal act ion or considered as waived ev en if t here is no reserv at ion.
The need for reservat ion applies only t o t he civil liabilit y arising from t he offense charged.
Can an em ployer be held civilly liable for quasi delict in a crim inal act ion for r eckless im prudence filed
against his em ploy ee?
A: No. Quasi delict under Art icle 2176 is not deem ed inst it ut ed wit h t he crim inal act ion. I f at all, t he
only civil liabilit y of t he em ploy er in t he crim inal act ion would be his subsidiary liabilit y under t he
Revised Penal Code.
What is t he difference bet ween “ separat e civil act ion” under Sect ion 2 of Rule 111 of t he Rules of
Court and an “ independent civil act ion” ?
A: The independent civil act ions are t hose under Art icles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of t he Civil Code.
These are not deem ed inst it ut ed wit h t he crim inal act ion even if t her e is no reserv at ion m ade by t he
plaint iff. The separ at e civil act ion under Sect ion 2 of Rule 111 refers t o an act ion t o recover civil
liabilit y ar ising from t he cr im e. This is deem ed inst it ut ed wit h t he crim inal act ion, unless t he offended
part y waives it , m akes a r eser vat ion, or inst it ut es it prior t o t he inst it ut ion of t he crim inal act ion.
Not e t hat t his should r efer t o t he civil liabilit y ar ising from t he offense, and not t o any ot her civil
act ion which m ay be connect ed t o t he offense but does not necessarily arise from t he crim e ( ex: civil
case for legal separat ion in connect ion wit h a case for bigam y) .
M a n u e l v. Alfe ch e
A crim inal inform at ion for libel w as filed against Felipe Celino, Danny Faj ardo, Lem uel Fernandez, and
John Paul Tia, who were all m em bers of t he st aff of a regional new spaper known as “ Panay News,” for
m aliciously publishing a st ory t hat a cert ain Delia Manuel was t he “ Shabu Queen” in West er n Visayas.
The inform at ion also st at ed t hat , as a direct consequence of t he said art icle, Delia Manuel suffered
act ual, m oral, and exem plary dam ages in t he am ount of P10M. The t rial court convict ed t he first
t hr ee accused and acquit t ed t he fourt h. However, it dism issed t he claim for civil indem nit y by way of
m oral dam ages for lack of j urisdict ion on t he ground t hat Manuel did not pay t he filing fees t her efor.

Manuel filed t his act ion for cert iorari in t he Suprem e Court , quest ioning t he validit y of t he dism issal of
her claim for dam ages. Meanwhile, t he t hree defendant s appealed t heir convict ion t o t he CA.
I SSUE: Whet her Manuel is ent it led t o t he civil indem nit y by way of m oral dam ages.
H ELD : No.
Since t he case is already pending appeal wit h t he CA, Manuel should have filed her pet it ion also in t he
CA. This is because t he award of m oral and ex em plary dam ages by t he t rial court is inext ricably
linked t o and necessarily dependent upon t he fact ual finding and basis t herefor – t he exist ence of t he
crim e of libel. There would t hus be a possibilit y t hat t he CA would reverse t he t rial court and acquit
t he accused. I n such event , t he appellat e court ’s act ion could collide wit h an SC ruling awarding
dam ages in favor of Manuel. Such a sit uat ion would lead t o absurdit y and confusion and m ust be
av oided.
Manuel claim s t hat Art icle 33 of t he Civil Code allow s an independent civil act ion for dam ages in cases
of defam at ion, fr aud, and phy sical inj uries t o be inst it ut ed separ at ely and independent ly from t he
crim inal. She t hen concludes t hat t he civil aspect of t he case is not dependent on t he crim inal, but
rat her, m ay proceed independent ly t hereof, and t hat t herefore, t he review of t he civil aspect by t he
SC m ay t ake place sim ult aneously wit h and separat ely from t he review of t he crim inal aspect by t he
CA.
This reasoning is m isplaced. Sec. 1 of Rule 111 of t he Rules of Court provides t hat t he civil act ion for
recovery of civil liabilit y is im pliedly inst it ut ed w it h t he crim inal act ion unless t he offended part y
waives t he civil act ion, r eser ves his r ight t o inst it ut e it separat ely, or inst it ut es t he civil act ion prior t o
t he cr im inal act ion. I n t he present case, t he civil act ion had been act ually ( not j ust im pliedly)
inst it ut ed wit h t he crim inal prosecut ion, as shown by t he fact t hat Manuel t ook an act ive part in t he
prosecut ion of t he crim inal case. Thus, t here can no longer be any independent civil act ion t o speak
of, as t he civil aspect had previously been included in t he crim inal. Manuel, by at t em pt ing t o have
recourse t o t he SC while t he crim inal aspect is st ill pending wit h t he CA, was effect ively t r ying t o split
a single cause of act ion, which cannot be allowed.
[ This seem s t o be an applicat ion of t he old rule.]
Ba ñe z v. Va lde villa
Bañez w as t he sales operat ions m anager of Oro Market ing in it s branch in I ligan Cit y. I n 1993, t he
com pany “ indefinit ely suspended” Bañez. Bañez filed a com plaint for illegal dism issal wit h t he NLRC.
The labor arbit er found t hat he was illegally dism issed and or dered t he paym ent of separat ion pay in
lieu of reinst at em ent , backwages, and at t or ney’s fees. The decision was appealed t o t he NLRC but
was dism issed for being filed out of t im e. The com pany elevat ed t he pet it ion t o t he SC on cert iorari.
I t was dism issed on t echnical grounds, and t he SC point ed out t hat ev en if all t he procedural
requirem ent s were m et , it w ould st ill have been dism issed for failure t o show grave abuse of
discret ion on t he part of t he NLRC.
Subsequent ly, Oro Market ing filed a com plaint for dam ages against Bañez in t he RTC of Misam is
Orient al. Oro Market ing claim ed dam ages for lost profit s and earnings due t o t he abandonm ent or
neglect by Bañez of his dut ies as sales m anager because he was preoccupied wit h his unaut horized
inst allm ent sale schem e. I t also claim ed dam ages for t he value of it s proper t y and supplies which
Bañez used in conduct ing his own business. Bañez m ov ed t o dism iss on t he ground t hat t he act ion for
dam ages, having arisen from an em ployer - em ployee relat ionship, was under t he exclusive or iginal
j urisdict ion of t he NLRC and is barred by reason of t he final j udgm ent in t he labor case.
I SSUE: Whet her t he RTC has j urisdict ion ov er t he com plaint filed by Or o Market ing.
H ELD : No, t he RTC has no j urisdict ion.
Art icle 217 of t he Labor Code provides t hat Labor Arbit ers shall have original and exclusive j urisdict ion
t o hear and decide all claim s for dam ages arising from em ployer - em ploy ee relat ions. This art icle
applies not only t o claim s for dam ages filed by em ployees but also t o t hose filed by an em ploy er for
act ual dam ages against it s dism issed em ploy ee, where t he basis for t he claim arises from or is
necessarily connect ed wit h t he fact of t erm inat ion, and should be ent ered as a count erclaim in t he
illegal dism issal case.
I n t his case, t he claim of Oro Market ing against Bañez for act ual dam ages arose from a prior
em ployer- em ployee relat ionship. Oro Market ing would not have t aken issue wit h Bañez’s doing
business of his own had t he lat t er not been concurr ent ly it s em ployee. Second, t o allow t he RTC t o
proceed wit h t he act ion for dam ages would be t o open anew t he fact ual issue of whet her Bañez’s
inst allm ent sale schem e result ed in business losses and t he dissipat ion of Oro’s pr oper t y. This issue
had been duly raised and ruled upon in t he illegal dism issal case. The Labor Arbit er found t hat no
business losses m ay be at t r ibut ed t o Bañez, and it was in fact his inst allm ent plan which had brought
m ore sales t o t he com pany.
This should be different iat ed from t hose labor cases where t he em ployer- em ployee r elat ionship is
m erely incident al and t he cause of act ion proceeds from a different source of obligat ion. Thus, t he
j urisdict ion of regular cour t s was upheld where t he dam ages claim ed were based on t ort , m alicious
prosecut ion, or breach of cont ract .
The rem edy of Oro is not t he filing of a separat e act ion for dam ages but properly perfect ing an appeal
from t he Labor Arbit er’s decision. Having lost t he r ight t o appeal on t he ground of unt im eliness, t he
decision in t he labor case st ands as a final j udgm ent on t he m erit s, and t he inst ant act ion for dam ages
cannot t ak e t he place of such lost appeal.
D M PI Em ploye e s Cr e dit Coope r a t ive ( D M P- ECCI ) v. Ve le z
An inform at ion for est afa was filed against Carm en Mandawe for alleged failure t o account t o Eribert a
Villegas t he am ount of about P600K. Villegas ent r ust ed t his am ount t o Mandawe, an em ployee of
DMPI - ECCI , for deposit wit h t he t eller of DMPI - ECCI . Subsequent ly, Villegas filed wit h t he RTC a
com plaint against Mandawe and DMPI - ECCI for a sum of m oney and dam ages wit h prelim inary
at t achm ent arising out of t he sam e t ransact ion. DMP- ECCI filed a m ot ion t o dism iss on t he grounds
t hat t her e was already a pending crim inal case arising from t he sam e fact s, and t hat t he com plaint
failed t o cont ain a cert ificat ion against forum shopping. The t rial court dism issed t he case, but lat er,
upon m ot ion for reconsiderat ion of Villegas, it reversed it self and recalled t he dism issal of t he case.
I SSUE: Whet her t he civil case can proceed independent ly of t he crim inal case for est afa.
H ELD : Yes, t he civil case can proceed independent ly of t he crim inal case for est afa.
Under Rule 111, Sect ion 1 of t he Revised Rules of Crim inal Procedure, which becam e effect ive on
Decem ber 1, 2000, t he civil act ion for t he recovery of civil liabilit y arising from t he offense charged
shall be deem ed inst it ut ed w it h t he cr im inal act ion unless t he offended part y waives t he civil act ion,
reserv es t he right t o inst it ut e it separat ely, or inst it ut es t he civil act ion prior t o t he crim inal act ion.
Sect ion 2 of t he sam e rule provides t hat aft er t he crim inal act ion has been com m enced, t he separat e
civil act ion arising t herefrom cannot be inst it ut ed unt il final j udgm ent has been ent ered in t he crim inal
act ion.
However, only t he civil liabilit y arising fr om t he offense charged is deem ed inst it ut ed w it h t he crim inal
act ion unless t he offended part y w aives t he civil act ion, reserves his right t o inst it ut e it separat ely, or
inst it ut es t he civil act ion prior t o t he crim inal act ion. There is nor m ore need for a reservat ion of t he
right t o file t he independent civil act ions under Art icles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of t he Civil Code. The
reserv at ion refers only t o t he civil act ion for t he recovery of t he civil liabilit y arising fr om t he offense
charged [ under Ar t icle 100 of t he RPC] . This does not include recovery of civil liabilit y under Art icles
32, 33, 34, and 2176 of t he Civil Code ar ising from t he sam e act or om ission which m ay be
prosecut ed separat ely even wit hout a reserv at ion. Thus, t he civil case inst it ut ed by Villegas, an
independent civil act ion for dam ages on account of t he fr aud com m it t ed against him under Art icle 33
of t he Civil Code, m ay proceed independent ly even if t here w as no reservat ion as t o it s filing.
[ This is t he applicat ion of t he present rule.]

b. Se pa r a t e Civil Act ion
Se c. 2 . W he n se pa r a t e civil a ct ion is suspe nde d. – Aft e r t he cr im in a l a ct ion ha s be e n

com m e nce d, t h e se pa r a t e civil a ct ion a r isin g t h e r e fr om ca nnot be in st it ut e d un t il fin a l
j udgm e nt ha s be e n e nt e r e d in t h e cr im in a l a ct ion.
I f t he cr im in a l a ct ion is file d a ft e r t h e sa id civil a ct ion ha s a lr e a dy be e n inst it ut e d, t h e

la t t e r sh a ll be su spe nde d in w h a t e ve r st a t e it m a y be fou nd be for e j udgm e n t on t h e
m e r it s. Th e su spe n sion sha ll la st unt il fin a l j u dgm e nt is r e nde r e d in t h e cr im in a l a ct ion.
N e ve r t h e le ss, be for e j udgm e n t on t h e m e r it s r e nde r e d in t he civil a ct ion , t h e sa m e m a y ,
upon m ot ion of t he offe n de d pa r t y, be consolida t e d w it h t he cr im in a l a ct ion in t h e cour t
t r yin g t h e cr im in a l a ct ion . I n ca se of consolida t ion, t h e e vide n ce a lr e a dy a ddu ce d in t h e
civil a ct ion sha ll be de e m e d a u t om a t ica lly r e pr oduce d in t h e cr im ina l a ct ion w it hout
pr e j udice t o t h e r igh t of t h e pr ose cu t ion t o cr oss- e x a m in e t h e w it n e ss pr e se n t e d by t he
offe n de d pa r t y in t h e cr im in a l ca se a nd of t h e pa r t ie s t o pr e se n t a ddit ion a l e vide n ce . The
consolida t e d cr im ina l a nd civil a ct ion s sh a ll be t r ie d a nd de cide d j oin t ly.
D ur ing t he pe nde ncy of t h e cr im ina l a ct ion, t he r u nning pe r iod of pr e scr ipt ion of t h e civil
a ct ion w hich ca nnot be inst it u t e d se pa r a t e ly or w hose pr oce e ding h a s be e n suspe n de d
sha ll be t olle d.
Th e e x t in ct ion of t h e pe n a l a ct ion doe s not car r y w it h it e x t inct ion of t he civil a ct ion.

H ow e ve r , t h e civil a ct ion ba se d on de lict sha ll be de e m e d e x t in gu ish e d if t h e r e is a fin din g
in a fina l j udgm e n t in t h e cr im ina l a ct ion t h a t t he a ct or om ission fr om w h ich t h e civil
lia bilit y m a y a r ise did n ot e x ist .
CI VI L COD E
Ar t . 3 3 . I n ca se s of de fa m a t ion , fr a u d, a nd physica l in j ur ie s a civ il a ct ion for da m a ge s,

e n t ir e ly se pa r a t e a nd dist in ct fr om t he cr im in a l a ct ion , m a y be br ought by t h e in j ur e d
pa r t y. Such civil a ct ion sh a ll pr oce e d inde pe n de n t ly of t h e cr im in a l pr ose cu t ion , a n d sha ll
r e qu ir e on ly a pr e ponde r a nce of e vide n ce .
Sum m ary of t his Rule:
1. This rule cont em plat es a sit uat ion where t he offended part y files a separat e civil act ion t o
recover civil liabilit y arising fr om t he offense. This is a depart ure from t he general rule in
Sect ion 1 t hat t he civil act ion is deem ed inst it ut ed wit h t he crim inal act ion.
2. I f t he crim inal act ion has bee com m enced, and t he offended part y m akes a r eser vat ion t o
separat ely file t he civil act ion ar ising t herefrom , he cannot inst it ut e t he civil act ion unt il final
j udgm ent has been rendered in t he crim inal act ion.
3. I f t he separat e civil act ion has already been inst it ut ed pr ior t o t he filing of t he crim inal act ion,
upon filing of t he crim inal act ion, t he civil act ion shall be suspended in what ever st age it m ay
be found unt il final j udgm ent is render ed in t he crim inal act ion.

4. I n case t he crim inal act ion is inst it ut ed aft er t he civil act ion, t he t wo act ions m ay, upon m ot ion
of t he offended part y, be consolidat ed before j udgm ent on t he m erit s is rendered in t he civil
act ion. I t will be t ried and decided j oint ly by t he court t rying t he cr im inal act ion.
5. The only civil act ion t hat is deem ed suspended is t he civil act ion arising from t he offense
charged and not ot her civil act ions t hat m ay be r elat ed t o but do not arise fr om t he offense. A
civ il act ion m ay not be suspended under Rule 111 where t he act ion is not t o enforce civil
liabilit y from t he cr im e charged.
6. As a general rule, t here can only be consolidat ion of t he crim inal and civil act ions if t he civil
act ion is for recovery of t he civil liabilit y arising fr om t he offense. However, under cert ain
ex cept ional circum st ances, t here can st ill be consolidat ion of t he crim inal and civil act ions
ev en if t he civil act ion is not for t he recovery of civil liabilit y arising from t he offense ( ex: civil
act ion based on cont ract ) . The r equisit es for consolidat ion in t hese cases are:
a. t he act ions arise from t he sam e act , ev ent , or t ransact ion;

b. t hey involve t he sam e or like issues;
c. t hey depend largely or subst ant ially on t he sam e evidence
d. t he court m ust hav e j urisdict ion over t he cases t o be consolidat ed; and
e. a j oint t rial will not give one part y an undue advant age or prej udice t he subst ant ial
right s of any of t he par t ies.
7. The period of prescript ion of t he civil act ion arising from a crim e t hat has not been r eser ved or
t hat was filed ahead of t he crim inal act ion and was subsequent ly suspended shall not run while
t he cr im inal act ion is pending.
Coj u a ngco v. CA
A blind it em was published in a m agazine im plying t hat Gret chen Oppen- Coj uangco was prost it ut ing
her self t o speed up t he appr oval of a loan from t he governm ent . The spouses Coj uangco filed a civil
act ion for Dam ages based on Libel against t he owner, publisher, general m anager and edit or of t he
m agazine and writ er of t he art icle.
Subsequent ly, t he Fiscal filed wit h t he sam e court a cr im inal case for libel against t he defendant s. The
spouses filed m ot ions t o consolidat e t he civil and cr im inal cases, alleging t hat t he evidence t o be
present ed in bot h would be t he sam e and t hat Art icle 360 of t he RPC provides t hat in libel, t he civil
act ion shall be filed in t he sam e court w here t he crim inal act ion is filed and vice- versa, pr ov ided
how ever, t hat t he court wher e t he crim inal act ion or civil act ion for dam ages is filed shall acquire
j urisdict ion t o t he exclusion of ot her court s.
Respondent s opposed t he m ot ions t o consolidat e. They claim ed t hat t he spouses, having filed a
separat e civil act ion, have no legal st anding t o int ervene in t he crim inal case.
I SSUE: Whet her t he civil and crim inal act ions m ay be consolidat ed for j oint t r ial.
H ELD : Yes, t hey m ay be consolidat ed.
An independent civil act ion for t he r ecover y of civil liabilit y, aut horized under Art icles 32, 33, 34, and
2176 of t he Civil Code m ay be consolidat ed wit h t he crim inal case, subj ect t o t he condit ion t hat no
final j udgm ent has been render ed in t he crim inal case. Sect ion 1, Rule 31 of t he Rules of Court
aut hor izes consolidat ion of act ions involving com m on quest ions of law or fact pending befor e t he
cour t . The purpose or obj ect of consolidat ion is t o avoid m ult iplicit y of suit s, guar d against oppr ession
or abuse, prevent delay, clear congest ed docket s, sim plify t he work of t he t rial court , and save
unnecessar y cost s.
I n t his case, t he civil and crim inal cases involv e com m on or ident ical quest ions of fact and law, and
t hey w ould ev en have t he sam e wit nesses. Moreover , Ar t icle 360 of t he RPC provides t hat t he
crim inal case for libel and t he civil act ion for dam ages arising t herefrom m ust be filed in t he sam e
cour t . Therefor e, it is only proper t hat t he t w o cases be consolidat ed.
Sa r m ie n t o Jr . v. CA
Lim pin and Apost ol execut ed a t rust receipt over t heir m erchandise in favor of a bank t o secure t he
paym ent of a let t er of cr edit w ort h 495K obt ained by t he t wo from t he bank. Under t he t rust receipt ,
Lim pin and Apost ol undert ook t o hold t he goods in t r ust for t he bank, wit h aut horit y t o sell t he sam e,
t he pr oceeds t o be t urned over t o t he bank and applied t o t heir obligat ion. The due dat e of t he t r ust
receipt cam e, but Lim pin and Apost ol failed t o pay. A com plaint w as filed by t he bank against t hem
for Violat ion of t he Trust Receipt Law. Lim pin was convict ed. The bank t hen filed a civil act ion t o
collect t he 495K from Lim pin and Sarm ient o. Lim pin now claim s t hat t he civil act ion is barred because
it was not expr essly reserved in t he cr im inal act ion earlier filed against him .
I SSUE: Whet her t he civil act ion is barr ed.
H ELD : No, t he civil act ion is not barred.
The provisions of t he Rules of Crim inal Procedure show t hat t he offended par t y is required t o m ak e a
reserv at ion of his right t o inst it ut e a separat e civil act ion. Jurisprudence inst ruct s t hat such
reserv at ion need not be express but m ay be im plied. I t m ay be inferred not only from t he act s of t he
offended part y but also fr om act s ot her t han t hose of t he lat t er. For exam ple, t he SC has held in t he
Bernales case t hat t he failure of t he court t o m ake any pronouncem ent in it s decision concerning t he
civ il liabilit y of t he accused m ust be due t o t he fact t hat t he crim inal act ion did not involv e at all any
claim for civil indem nit y. This indicat es an im plied reservat ion of t he right t o inst it ut e a separat e civil
act ion. I n t he present case, not hing in t he records show t hat t he bank ever at t em pt ed t o enfor ce it s
right t o recover civil liabilit y dur ing t he pr osecut ion of t he crim inal act ion. Hence, it is deem ed t o
have m ade t he im plied reservat ion.
Moreover, t he com plaint of t he bank against Lim pin and Sarm ient o w as based on t he failure of t he
lat t er t o com ply wit h t heir obligat ion as spelled out in t he Trust Receipt execut ed by t hem . This
breach of obligat ion is separat e and dist inct fr om any crim inal liabilit y for “ m isuse and/ or
m isappr opriat ion of goods or proceeds realized from t he sale of goods, docum ent s or inst rum ent s
released under t rust receipt s,” punishable under Sect ion 13 of t he Trust Receipt s Law in relat ion t o
Art icle 315( 1) ( b) of t he RPC. Be ing ba se d on a n obliga t ion e x con t r a ct u a n d not e x de lict o, t he
civil a ct ion m a y pr oce e d inde pe nde n t ly of t h e cr im ina l pr oce e din gs inst it u t e d a ga inst
pe t it ion e r s r e ga r dle ss of t he r e sult of t h e la t t e r .
c. I nde pe n de n t Civil Act ion
Ar t . 3 0 . W h e n a se pa r a t e civil a ct ion is br ought t o de m a nd civil lia bilit y a r ising fr om a

cr im in a l offe n se , a nd no cr im in a l pr oce e din gs a r e inst it ut e d dur ing t he pe nde ncy of t h e
civil ca se , a pr e ponde r a n ce of e vide n ce sha ll lik e w ise be sufficie n t t o pr ove t h e a ct
com pla in e d of.
Ar t . 3 1 . W he n t h e civil a ct ion is ba se d on a n obliga t ion not a r ising fr om t h e a ct or

om ission com pla ine d of a s a fe lony , su ch civil a ct ion m a y pr oce e d inde pe nde n t ly of t h e
cr im in a l pr oce e din gs a n d r e ga r dle ss of t h e r e su lt of t he la t t e r .
Ru le s of Cour t
Se ct ion 3 . W he n civil a ct ion m a y pr oce e de d in de pe nde n t ly . — I n t he ca se s pr ovide d for in

Ar t icle s 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 4 a n d 2 1 7 6 of t h e Civil Code of t h e Philippin e s, t he in de pe nde n t civil
a ct ion m a y be br ough t by t h e offe n de d pa r t y. I t sh a ll pr oce e d inde pe nde nt ly of t h e
cr im ina l a ct ion a nd sha ll r e quir e only a pr e pon de r a nce of e vide n ce . I n no ca se , how e ve r ,
m a y t he offe nde d pa r t y r e cove r da m a ge s t w ice for t he sa m e a ct or om ission cha r ge d in
t h e cr im in a l a ct ion .
An da m o v. I AC
Em m anuel and Nat ividad Andam o owned a parcel of land adj acent t o t hat of t he Missionaries of Our
Lady of La Sallet t e. Wit hin t he land of Our Lady , wat er pat hs and an art ificial lake were const r uct ed,
allegedly inundat ing and eroding t he Andam os’ land. This caused a y oung m an t o drown, dam aged
t he Andam os’ crops and fences, and endanger ed t heir lives. The Andam os inst it ut ed a crim inal act ion
against t he officers and direct or s of Our Lady for dest ruct ion by m eans of inundat ion under Art . 324 of
t he RPC. Subsequent ly, t hey filed a civil case for dam ages against t he respondent s. Upon m ot ion of
respondent s, t he civil case was dism issed for lack of j urisdict ion, since t he cr im inal case inst it ut ed
ahead of t he civil case was st ill unresolv ed. This was based on t he provision of t he Rules of Court
which provides t hat cr im inal and civil act ions arising from t he sam e offense m ay be inst it ut ed
separat ely, but aft er t he crim inal act ion has been com m enced, t he civil act ion cannot be inst it ut ed
unt il final j udgm ent has been rendered in t he crim inal act ion.
I SSUE: Whet her t he civil act ion should have been dism issed.
H ELD : No. The civ il act ion should not have been dism issed since it was based, not on crim e, but on
quasi- delict under Ar t icle 2176 of t he Civil Code.
I n qua side lict s, t he civil a ct ion is e n t ir e ly inde pe nde nt of t h e cr im ina l ca se accor ding t o
Art icles 33 and 2177 of t he Civil Code. To subordinat e t he civil act ion cont em plat ed in t he said
art icles t o t he result of t he crim inal prosecut ion – whet her it be convict ion or acquit t al – would render
m eaningless t he independent charact er of t he civil act ion and clear inj unct ion in Art icle 31, t hat t his
a ct ion m a y pr oce e d inde pe n de n t ly of t he cr im in a l pr oce e dings a nd r e ga r dle ss of t h e r e sult
of t he la t t e r , subj e ct on ly t o t he r u le a ga in st dou ble r e cove r y.
Ca ncio v. I sip
Cancio filed 3 count s of violat ion of BP22 against I sip, w ho had issued 3 bad checks. The case was
dism issed. Subsequent ly, 3 cases for est afa were filed. The case was dism issed again. Cancio t hen
filed a civil case for collect ion of sum of m oney t o recover t he value of t he 3 checks from I sip. I sip
m oved t o dism iss on t he ground t hat t he act ion is bar red by res j udicat a and t hat Cancio was guilt y of
forum shopping.
I SSUES:
3. Whet her t he civil act ion for collect ion is barred by res j udicat a.
4. Whet her t here was forum shopping.
H ELD : No t o bot h.
An act or om ission causing dam age t o anot her m ay give rise t o t wo separat e civil liabilit ies:
3. ex delict o under Art . 100 of t he RPC; and

4. independent civil liabilit ies such as:
c. t hose not arising from an act or om ission com plained of as a felony, such as culpa
cont ract ual, violat ions of Art icles 31, 32, and 34 of t he Civil Code, and culpa aquiliana
under Art icle 2176 of t he Civil Code;
d. where t he inj ured part y is grant ed a right t o file an act ion independent and dist inct from
t he cr im inal act ion ( ex: Art . 33 of t he Civil Code)
Eit her m ay be enforced against t he offender, but t he offended part y cannot recover dam ages t wice for
t he sam e act or om ission or under bot h causes. Under t he Rules on Crim inal Pr ocedur e, civil liabilit y
ex delict o is deem ed inst it ut ed wit h t he crim inal act ion, but t he offended part y m ay file t he separat e
civ il act ion befor e t he prosecut ion st art s t o present evidence. Howev er, t h e in de pe nde n t civil
a ct ions m a y be file d se pa r a t e ly a nd pr ose cut e d inde pe nde nt ly e ve n w it hout a n y r e se r va t ion
in t h e cr im in a l a ct ion .

I n t his ca se , t h e ba sis of t he com pla int is culpa cont r a ct ua l. I t is a n inde pe nde nt civil a ct ion
w h ich is ba se d on I sip’s br e a ch of a con t r a ct ua l obliga t ion. Th is m a y pr oce e d in de pe nde nt ly
of t he cr im ina l pr oce e dings, r e ga r dle ss of t he r e sult of t he la t t e r . There is no res j udicat a
because t here is no ident it y of causes of act ion.
2 . Effe ct s
a . a cquit t a l/ dism issa l
Civil Code , Ar t . 2 9 . W he n t h e a ccuse d in a cr im in a l pr ose cu t ion is a cqu it t e d on t h e gr ound

t h a t h is gu ilt ha s n ot be e n pr ove d be yon d r e a sona ble doubt , a civil a ct ion for da m a ge s for
t h e sa m e a ct or om ission m a y be inst it u t e d. Such a ct ion r e quir e s on ly a pr e pon de r a nce of
e vide n ce . Upon m ot ion of t h e de fe n da n t , t h e cou r t m a y r e quir e t h e pla in t iff t o file a bon d
t o a nsw e r for da m a ge s in ca se t h e com pla int shou ld be found t o be m a licious.
I f in a cr im in a l ca se t h e j udgm e n t of a cquit t a l is ba se d u pon r e a son a ble doubt , t h e cou r t

sha ll so de cla r e . I n t h e a bse n ce of a ny de cla r a t ion t o t h a t e ffe ct , it m a y be in fe r r e d fr om
t h e t e x t of t h e de cision w he t h e r or not t h e a cquit t a l is due t o t ha t gr ound.
Ru le s of Cour t
Ru le 1 1 1 [ 2 - b] . Th e e x t in ct ion of t h e pe n a l a ct ion doe s not ca r r y w it h it e x t in ct ion of t he

civil a ct ion . H ow e ve r , t he civil a ct ion ba se d on de lict sha ll be de e m e d e x t inguishe d if t h e r e
is a finding in a fina l j udgm e n t in t h e cr im in a l a ct ion t ha t t he a ct or om ission fr om w hich
t h e civil lia bilit y m a y a r ise did n ot e x ist .
Ru le 1 2 0 [ 2 ] . Con t e n t s of t h e j udgm e n t . – I f t h e j udgm e n t is of con vict ion , it sha ll st a t e

( 1 ) t h e le ga l qu a lifica t ion of t h e offe n se con st it ut e d by t he a ct s com m it t e d by t he a ccuse d
a nd t h e a ggr a va t ing or m it iga t ing cir cum st a nce s w hich a t t e nde d it s com m ission; ( 2 ) t h e
pa r t icipa t ion of t h e a ccuse d in t h e offe nse , w he t he r a s pr in cipa l, a ccom plice , or a cce ssor y
a ft e r t he fa ct ; ( 3 ) t he pe n a lt y im pose d upon t h e a ccuse d; a nd ( 4 ) t h e civil lia bilit y or
da m a ge s ca u se d by h is w r on gfu l a ct or om ission t o be r e cove r e d fr om t he a ccuse d by t h e
offe nde d pa r t y , if t h e r e is a ny , un le ss t he e nfor ce m e nt of t h e civil lia bilit y by a se pa r a t e
civil a ct ion h a s be e n r e se r ve d or w a ive d.
I n ca se t h e j udgm e n t is of a cqu it t a l, it sh a ll st a t e w he t he r t he e vide n ce of t h e

pr ose cut ion a bsolut e ly fa ile d t o pr ove t h e guilt of t he a ccu se d or m e r e ly fa ile d t o pr ove h is
guilt be yond r e a sona ble dou bt . I n e it h e r ca se , t h e j u dgm e n t sh a ll de t e r m in e if t he a ct or
om ission fr om w h ich t h e civil lia bilit y m igh t a r ise did n ot e x ist .
Pa dilla v. Cour t of Appe a ls
Padilla et al were charged wit h gr ave coercion in t he CFI aft er forcibly opening and dem olishing t he
m ark et st alls and cart ing aw ay t he m erchandise of com plainant s. The CFI convict ed t hem . The
j udgm ent was appealed t o t he CA on t he gr ound t hat it was not support ed by t he evidence. The CA
m odified t he CFI ’s j udgm ent and acquit t ed Padilla et al on t he ground of reasonable doubt . They were,
how ever, order ed t o solidarily pay t he com plainant s P9,600 as act ual dam ages. An MR was filed,
cont ending t hat t heir acquit t al as t o crim inal liabilit y result s in t he ext inct ion of t heir civil liabilit y.

I SSUE: Whet her t he CA erred in requiring Padilla et al t o pay civil indem nit y aft er acquit t ing t hem
from t he cr im inal charge.
H ELD : The CA was correct .
Padilla et al were acquit t ed because of reasonable doubt and not because t hey did not com m it t he
act s st at ed in t he charge against t hem . Ther e is no disput e over t he forcible opening of t he m arket
st all, it s dem olit ion wit h axes and ot her inst rum ent s, and t he cart ing away of t he m erchandise. The
pet it ioners were acquit t ed because t hese act s were denom inat ed coercion when t hey pr operly
const it ut ed som e ot her offense such as t hr eat or m alicious m ischief. They could not , howev er, be
convict ed under t he lat t er offenses because t he infor m at ion did not charge t hem wit h t he sam e.
I n t his case, w here t he crim inal liabilit y was ex t inguished, t he civil liabilit y arising from t he crim e w as
also ext inguished. However, t he sam e act or om ission gave rise t o t wo kinds of civil liabilit ies: one
arising from cr im e and t he ot her arising from quasi- delict , subj ect t o t he rule on double recovery. I t is
on t he lat t er t hat t he award of dam ages was based. The only t im e t hat acquit t al will r esult in
ex t inct ion of bot h kinds of civil liabilit y is w here t he ruling was t hat t he act com plained of did not exist .
Despit e Ar t icle 29 of t he Civil Code, which provides for t he inst it ut ion of a civil act ion in case of
acquit t al, t her e is no m ore need t o inst it ut e a civil act ion in t his case because all of t he fact s necessary
t o award dam ages were befor e t he court . To require an act ion t o be filed anew would be t o clog t he
docket s unnecessarily.
H e ir s of Gu a r ing v. CA
A Philippine Rabbit bus collided wit h a car, killing t he driver of t he car. An act ion for dam ages based
on quasi- delict was filed by t he heirs of Guaring against Philippine Rabbit . The RTC found t he driv er of
t he bus at fault and aw arded dam ages. On appeal, t he CA set aside t he RTC decision on t he st rengt h
of a decision rendered by anot her RTC in a crim inal case for reckless im prudence result ing in hom icide
acquit t ing t he bus driver, based on reasonable doubt . The appellat e court held t hat since t he basis of
pet it ioners’ act ion was t he alleged negligence of t he bus driver, t he lat t er’s acquit t al in t he crim inal
case rendered t he civil case based on quasi- delict unt enable.
I SSUE: Whet her t he acquit t al of t he driver in t he crim inal case bars a civil act ion based on quasi-
delict .
H ELD : No. Acquit t al of t he accused, even if based on a finding t hat he is not guilt y, does not carry
w it h it t he ex t inct ion of t he civil liabilit y based on quasi- delict . Even if dam ages are sought on t he
basis of crim e and not quasi- delict , t he acquit t al was based not on a finding t hat he was not guilt y but
only on reasonable doubt . The j udgm ent of acquit t al ext inguishes t he liabilit y of t he accused for
dam ages only when it includes a declarat ion t hat t he fact s from which t he civil liabilit y m ight ar ise did
not exist .
Sa pie r a v. CA
Sapiera bought m erchandise from Sua and paid for t hem using t wo checks issued by Art ur o de
Guzm an and signed at t he back by Sapier a. The checks w ere dishonored. Sapiera was charged wit h
four count s of est afa and De Guzm an was charged wit h t w o violat ions of BP22. The RTC acquit t ed
Sapiera of all t he char ges of est afa but did not rule on whet her she could be held civ illy liable for t he
check s she indorsed t o Ram on Sua. De Guzm an was conv ict ed. Sua appealed on t he civil aspect and
prayed t hat t he court order Sapiera t o pay t he aggr egat e value of t he checks indorsed by her plus
int er est , et c. The CA denied t he appeal but , on MR, held t hat Sapiera was liable for P335K m inus
P125k t hat De Guzm an had already paid.
I SSUE: Whet her Sapiera’s acquit t al ext inguished her liabilit y for dam ages.
H ELD : No, Sapiera could st ill be and was properly held liable for dam ages.

The j udgm ent of acquit t al ext inguishes t he liabilit y of t he accused for dam ages only when it includes a
declarat ion t hat t he fact fr om which t he civil liabilit y m ight arise did not exist . Thus, t he civil liabilit y is
not ext inguished by acquit t al where: ( a) t he acquit t al is based on reasonable doubt ; ( b) where t he
cour t ex pressly declares t hat t he liabilit y of t he accused is not crim inal but only civil in nat ure; and,
( c) w here t he civil liabilit y is not derived from or based on t he crim inal act of which t he accused is
acquit t ed.
I n t his case, Sapiera’s acquit t al was due t o t he fact t hat conspiracy was not proved before t he t rial
cour t . Howev er, despit e t he absence of conspiracy, she did sign t he backs of t he checks and becam e
an indorser t her eon and obliged herself t o pay t he am ount of t he checks t o t he holder.
b. e x t in ct ion of civil lia bilit y
Ru le 1 1 1 [ 2 - b] . Th e e x t in ct ion of t h e pe n a l a ct ion doe s not ca r r y w it h it e x t in ct ion of t he

civil a ct ion . H ow e ve r , t he civil a ct ion ba se d on de lict sha ll be de e m e d e x t inguishe d if t h e r e
is a finding in a fina l j udgm e n t in t h e cr im in a l a ct ion t ha t t he a ct or om ission fr om w hich
t h e civil lia bilit y m a y a r ise did n ot e x ist .
Buna g v. CA
Conrado Bunag and Zenaida Cirilo were form er sweet heart s. Allegedly, Bunag forcibly abduct ed Cirilo,
brought her t o a m ot el and deflower ed her against her will. He t hen brought her t o his grandm ot her’s
house where t hey lived t oget her for 21 days. Bunag prom ised t o m arry her, but suddenly
disappeared. A crim inal act ion for forcible abduct ion w as filed against Bunag, but t his w as dism issed
by t he fiscal at t he prelim inary invest igat ion st age. Cirilo t hen filed a civil act ion for dam ages against
Bunag on account of t he forcible abduct ion. The t rial cour t awarded Cirilo dam ages. Bunag claim s
t hat t he dism issal of t he cr im inal act ion for abduct ion should have ext inguished his civil liabilit y.
I SSUE: Whet her t he dism issal of t he crim inal case result in t he ext inct ion of t he civil liabilit y.
H ELD : No. Ext inct ion of t he penal act ion does not carry wit h it t he ext inct ion of civil liabilit y unless
t he ext inct ion pr oceeds from a declarat ion in a final j udgm ent t hat t he fact from which t he civil m ight
arise did not exist . I n t his case, t he dism issal of t he com plaint for forcible abduct ion wit h rape was by
m ere resolut ion of t he fiscal at t he pr elim inary invest igat ion st age. There was no declarat ion in a final
j udgm ent t hat t he fact from which t he civil case m ight arise did not exist . Consequent ly, t he dism issal
did not in any way affect t he right Cirilo t o inst it ut e a civil act ion arising from t he offense because such
prelim inary dism issal of t he penal act ion did not car ry wit h it t he ext inct ion of t he civil act ion.
3 . Pr e j udicia l Que st ion
Ar t . 3 6 . Pr e - j udicia l que st ion s w h ich m ust be de cide d be for e a n y cr im in a l pr ose cu t ion m a y

be in st it u t e d or m a y pr oce e d, sha ll be gove r n e d by r u le s of cou r t w hich t h e Supr e m e Cour t
sha ll pr om u lga t e a nd w h ich sha ll n ot be in con flict w it h t h e pr ovisions of t h is Code .
Ru le s of Cour t – Ru le 1 1 1 Se c. 6 . Suspe nsion by r e a son of pr e j udicia l que st ion. – A

pe t it ion for suspe n sion of t h e cr im in a l a ct ion ba se d upon t h e pe n de ncy of a pr e j u dicia l
que st ion in a civil a ct ion m a y be file d in t h e office of t h e pr ose cut or or t he cour t
con du ct in g t h e pr e lim in a r y in ve st iga t ion. W he n t h e cr im ina l a ct ion ha s be e n file d in cou r t
for t r ia l, t h e pe t it ion t o suspe nd sha ll be file d in t h e sa m e cr im in a l a ct ion a t a n y t im e
be for e t h e pr ose cut ion r e st s.
Se c. 7 . Ele m e n t s of pr e j udicia l que st ion. – Th e e le m e n t s of a pr e j u dicia l que st ions a r e :

( a ) t h e pr e viously inst it ut e d civil a ct ion in volve s a n issu e sim ila r or in t im a t e ly r e la t e d t o
t h e issu e r a ise d in t h e subse que n t cr im in a l a ct ion , a nd ( b) t he r e solu t ion of su ch issu e
de t e r m ine s w h e t h e r or not t h e cr im in a l a ct ion m a y pr oce e d
What is a prej udicial quest ion?

A prej udicial quest ion is one based on a fact separ at e and dist inct fr om t he crim e but is so int im at ely
connect ed wit h it t hat it det erm ines t he guilt or innocence of t he accused.
Elem ent s:
1. t he pr eviously inst it ut ed civil act ion involves an issue sim ilar or int im at ely r elat ed t o t he issue
raised in t he subsequent crim inal act ion, and
2. t he resolut ion of such issue det erm ines whet her or not t he crim inal act ion m ay proceed.
Take not e t hat t he new rule is t hat t he civil act ion m ust have been previously inst it ut ed in order t o
const it ut e a prej udicial quest ion ( Torres v. Garchit orena) .
Apa v. Judge Fe r na nde z
An inform at ion for violat ion of t he Ant i- Squat t ing Law was filed against Apa, et al. I t alleged t hat t he
accused built resident ial houses on Rosit a Tigol’s land and against her will. Apa, et al m oved for t he
suspension of t he arraignm ent on t he ground t hat t here was a pr ej udicial quest ion pending resolut ion
in anot her case being t ried in anot her branch t he sam e court , where Apa, et al seek a declarat ion of
t he nullit y of Rosit a’s t it le t o t he lot in quest ion and t he part it ion of t he lot in quest ion am ong t hem
and Rosit a Tigol as heirs of Filom eno and Rit a Taghoy. The case had been filed t hree years befor e t he
squat t ing com plaint was filed.
I SSUE: Whet her t he quest ion of ownership over t he lot , which was pending in a civil case, is a
prej udicial quest ion j ust ifying suspension of t he proceedings in t he cr im inal case.
H ELD : Yes, it is a prej udicial quest ion.
A prej udicial quest ion is a quest ion which is based on a fact dist inct and separat e from t he crim e but
so int im at ely connect ed wit h it t hat it s resolut ion is det erm inat ive of t he guilt or innocence of t he
accused. To j ust ify suspension of t he crim inal act ion, it m ust appear not only t hat t he civil case
involves fact s int im at ely relat ed t o t hose upon which t he crim inal prosecut ion is based but also t hat
t he decision of t he issue or issues raised in t he civil case would be decisive of t he guilt or innocence of
t he accused.
The elem ent s of a prej udicial quest ion are: ( a) t he civil act ion involves an issue sim ilar or int im at ely
relat ed t o t he issue raised in t he crim inal act ion; and ( b) t he resolut ion of such issue det erm ines
whet her or not t he crim inal act ion m ay proceed.
Since t he inform at ion st at es t hat Apa, et al occupied t he lot wit hout t he consent of t he owner, it m ust
first be det erm ined w ho t he owner is.
I n fact , subsequent t o t he filing of t he inform at ion, t he TCT of t he lot in quest ion w as cancelled and
t he par t ies were held t o be co- owners of t he lot , which t hey inherit ed from t heir parent s. Surely, if
Apa, et al are co- owner s of t he lot in quest ion, t hey cannot be found guilt y of squat t ing because t hey
are as m uch ent it led t o t he use and occupat ion of t he land as are Rosit a Tigol and her fam ily.
Be lt r a n v. Pe ople
Husband filed a pet it ion for nullit y of m arriage on t he ground of psychological incapacit y against wife.
I n her answ er, Wife alleged t hat it was Husband who abandoned t he conj ugal hom e and lived wit h
anot her wom an. Wife subsequent ly filed a crim inal com plaint for concubinage against Husband and
his param our . The inform at ion was filed against t hem . Husband, in or der t o forest all t he issuance of
a warrant for his arrest , filed a m ot ion t o defer proceedings on t he ground t hat t here was a pending
civil case for t he declarat ion of nullit y of his m arriage, and t his const it ut ed a prej udicial quest ion t o
t he det erm inat ion of t he crim inal case.
I SSUE: Whet her t he pendency of t he pet it ion for declarat ion of nullit y or m arriage based on
psychological incapacit y is a prej udicial quest ion t o t he crim inal case for concubinage.

H ELD : No. For a civil case t o be consider ed prej udicial t o a crim inal act ion, it m ust appear not only
t hat t he said civil case involves t he sam e fact s upon which t he crim inal pr osecut ion would be based,
but also t hat in t he r esolut ion of t he issue or issues raised in t he aforesaid civil act ion, t he guilt or
innocence of t he accused w ould necessarily be det er m ined. Accor ding t o t he Fam ily Code and t he
case of Dom ingo v. CA, it is only for purposes of rem arriage t hat a final j udgm ent declaring a pr ior
m arriage void is t he only accept able proof of t he nullit y of such first m arriage. I n ot her cases, ot her
ev idence of t he nullit y of t he m arriage m ay be present ed. Thus, in a case for concubinage, t he
accused need not present a final j udgm ent declaring his m arriage void, for he can adduce ot her
ev idence. Thus, he need not wait for final j udgm ent in t he case for declarat ion of nullit y.
Wit h regard t o pet it ioner ’s argum ent t hat he could be acquit t ed of t he charge of concubinage should
his rem ar riage be declared void, suffice it t o st at e t hat ev en a subsequent pronouncem ent t hat his
m arriage is v oid fr om t he beginning is not a defense. Part ies t o t he m arriage should not be perm it t ed
t o j udge for t hem selves t he nullit y of t heir m arriage. A m arriage is presum ed valid unt il declar ed void
by t he cour t s, and he who cohabit s wit h a wom an not his wife before j udicial declarat ion of nullit y of
t he m arriage assum es t he risk of being prosecut ed for concubinage.
M a r be lla - Bobis v. Bobis
There are t hree m arriages involved here:

( 1) I sagani Bobis & Maria Dulce Javier
( 2) I sagani Bobis and I m elda Marbella
( 3) I sagani Bobis and Julia Sally Hernandez
Upon I m elda Marbella- Bobis’s com plaint , an inform at ion for bigam y was filed against I sagani.
Som et im e t hereaft er, I sagani init iat ed a civil act ion for t he j udicial declarat ion of absolut e nullit y of his
first m arriage on t he ground t hat it was celebrat ed w it hout a m arriage license. I sagani t hen filed a
m ot ion t o suspend t he proceedings in t he crim inal case for bigam y invoking t he pending civil case for
nullit y of t he first m arr iage as a prej udicial quest ion t o t he crim inal case.
I SSUE: Whet her t he subsequent filing of a civ il act ion for declarat ion of nullit y of a prev ious m arriage
const it ut es a prej udicial quest ion t o a crim inal case for bigam y.
H ELD : No. I n t he case at bar, I sagani's clear int ent is t o obt ain a j udicial declar at ion of nullit y of his
fir st m arriage and t hereaft er t o invoke t hat very sam e j udgm ent t o prevent his prosecut ion for
bigam y . He cannot have his cake and eat it t oo. Ot herwise, all t hat an advent urous bigam ist has t o do
is t o disr egar d Art icle 40 of t he Fam ily Code, cont ract a subsequent m arriage and escape a bigam y
charge by sim ply claim ing t hat t he first m arriage is void and t hat t he subsequent m arriage is equally
void for lack of a pr ior j udicial declarat ion of nullit y of t he first .
Here, I sagani was for all legal int ent s and pur poses regar ded as a m arried m an at t he t im e he
cont ract ed his second m arriage wit h pet it ioner . Against t his legal backdrop, any decision in t he civ il
act ion for nullit y would not erase t he fact t hat I sagani ent er ed int o a second m arriage during t he
subsist ence of a first m arr iage. Thus, a decision in t he civil case is not essent ial t o t he det erm inat ion
of t he cr im inal charge. I t is, t herefor e, not a prej udicial quest ion. I sagani cannot be perm it t ed t o use
his own m alfeasance t o defeat t he crim inal act ion against him .
[ Also, t ake not e t hat in t his case, t he crim inal case was inst it ut ed prior t o t he civil case. Hence, no
prej udicial quest ion under t he new rules which r equire t hat t he civil act ion be previously inst it ut ed.]
When is an act ion for declarat ion of nullit y of m arriage prej udicial t o a crim inal case for bigam y?
The only inst ance I can t hink of is: Husband m arries Wife1. Then, Wife2 forces him at gunpoint t o
m arry her. Husband files an act ion t o annul t he m arriage t o Wife2 on t he ground of vit iat ed consent .
Then Wife1 inst it ut es a crim inal act ion for bigam y against Husband. I n t his case, t he crim inal act ion
should be suspended pending t he det erm inat ion of t he validit y of t he m arriage t o Wife2. This is
because if t he t rial court finds t hat t he consent of t he Husband was indeed vit iat ed, t hen t hat m eans
t hat he also did not willfully com m it bigam y. Thus, t he civil act ion is det erm inat ive of t he guilt or
innocence of t he husband.
Tor r e s v. Ga r ch it or e n a
Susana Realt y, I nc. owned parcels of land locat ed at Cavit e. These were adj acent t o t he sea and over
t im e port ions t hereof were subm erged by sea wat er. Mayor Torres caused t he leveling and
reclam at ion of t he subm erged por t ion of SRI ’s proper t y for t he relocat ion of squat t ers. SRI filed wit h
t he Om budsm an a cr im inal com plaint against Torres for violat ion of t he Ant i- Graft & Corrupt Pr act ices
Act . Om budsm an charged Torres & Alvarez. Subsequent ly, t he Republic of t he Philippines filed wit h
t he RTC a com plaint against SRI for r ever sion of t he propert y back t o t he St at e. The Republic alleged
t hat said proper t y had been ascert ained by t he DENR t o be part of Manila Bay. Torres and Alvar ez
filed a m ot ion w it h t he Sandiganbayan for t he suspension of t he proceedings in t he crim inal case on
t he gr ound of t he exist ence of a pr ej udicial quest ion in t he civil case filed by t he Republic.
I SSUE: Whet her t here was a prej udicial quest ion.
H ELD : No. I n order t o const it ut e a prej udicial quest ion, t he civil act ion m ust be inst it ut ed pr ior t o
t he inst it ut ion of t he crim inal act ion. I n t his case, t he inform at ion was filed wit h t he Sandiganbayan
ahead of t he civil case. Thus, no prej udicial quest ion exist s.
4 . Subsidia r y Lia bilit y
Ar t . 1 0 2 . Su bsidia r y civil lia bilit y of innk e e pe r s, t a ve r n k e e pe r s a nd pr opr ie t or s of

e st a blishm e nt s. — I n de fa u lt of t h e pe r son s cr im in a lly lia ble , inn k e e pe r s, t a ve r nk e e pe r s,
a nd a ny ot h e r pe r sons or cor por a t ion s sha ll be civilly lia ble for cr im e s com m it t e d in t h e ir
e st a blishm e nt s, in a ll ca se s w he r e a viola t ion of m u nicipa l or din a nce s or som e ge n e r a l or
spe cia l police r e gula t ion sha ll ha ve be e n com m it t e d by t h e m or t h e ir e m ploye e s.
I n n k e e pe r s a r e a lso su bsidia r ily lia ble for t he r e st it u t ion of goods t a k e n by r obbe r y or

t h e ft w it h in t h e ir h ouse s fr om gue st s lodgin g t h e r e in , or for t he pa y m e n t of t he va lu e
t h e r e of, pr ovide d t h a t su ch gue st s sh a ll ha ve not ifie d in a dva n ce t h e inn k e e pe r h im se lf, or
t h e pe r son r e pr e se nt in g him , of t h e de posit of su ch goods w it h in t he inn ; a nd sh a ll
fur t h e r m or e ha ve follow e d t he dir e ct ions w h ich su ch inn k e e pe r or h is r e pr e se n t a t ive m a y
ha ve give n t he m w it h r e spe ct t o t h e ca r e a nd vigila nce ove r su ch goods. N o lia bilit y sh a ll
a t t a ch in ca se of r obbe r y w it h viole n ce a ga in st or in t im ida t ion of pe r sons un le ss
com m it t e d by t h e innk e e pe r 's e m ploy e e s.
Ar t . 1 0 3 . Subsidia r y civil lia bilit y of ot he r pe r sons. — The subsidia r y lia bilit y e st a blishe d in
t h e ne x t pr e ce din g a r t icle sh a ll a lso a pply t o e m ploye r s, t e a che r s, pe r son s, a nd
cor por a t ions e nga ge d in a ny k ind of indust r y for fe lon ie s com m it t e d by t h e ir se r va nt s,
pupils, w or k m e n, a ppr e nt ice s, or e m ploy e e s in t h e disch a r ge of t he ir dut ie s.
Requisit es of subsidiary civil liabilit y of t he em ployer, t eacher, cor porat ion, et c:
( a) t he exist ence of an em ployer - em ployee relat ionship;

( b) t hat t he em ployer is engaged in som e kind of indust ry;
( c) t hat t he em ployee is adj udged guilt y of t he wrongful act and found t o have com m it t ed t he offense
in t he discharge of his dut ies ( not necessarily any offense he com m it s " while" in t he discharge of
such dut ies) ; and
( d) t hat said em ployee is insolvent .
a . Conce pt a nd Re quisit e s

Yona ha v. CA a n d t he H e ir s of Ou a no
Ouana, allegedly a driver of Evelyn Yonaha, was charged wit h and convict ed of Reckless I m prudence
Result ing I n Hom icide – he ran over and killed Hect or Cañet e. Ouano pleaded guilt y and t he t rial court
sent enced him t o im prisonm ent and t o pay t he heirs of Cañet e a t ot al of P90k in dam ages. A writ of
ex ecut ion was issued for t he sat isfact ion of t he m onet ary awar d but t he writ was ret urned unsat isfied
aft er Ouano m anifest ed his inabilit y t o pay t he m onet ary obligat ion. The heirs of Ouano filed a m ot ion
for subsidiary ex ecut ion and t he t rial court , wit hout not ice or hearing t o Yonaha, order ed t he issuance
of a writ of subsidiar y ex ecut ion. The sheriff went t o Yonaha's residence t o enforce t he writ , and it was
t hen, allegedly for t he first t im e, t hat Yonaha was inform ed of Ouano's convict ion. Yonaha filed a
m ot ion t o st ay and t o recall t he subsidiary writ on t he ground of denial of due process and on t he fact
t hat t he em ployer’s liabilit y had yet t o be est ablished.
I SSUE: Whet her t he finding of t he subsidiary liabilit y of an em ployer requires not ice and hearing.
H ELD : Yes, not ice and hearing are required. The j udgm ent of convict ion of t he em ploy ee, of course,
is conclusive upon t he em ployer and t he subsidiary liabilit y m ay be enforced in t he sam e crim inal
case, but t o afford t he em ploy er due process, t he court should hear and decide t hat liabilit y on t he
basis of t he condit ions r equired t herefor by law. There is a need for not ice and hearing t o det erm ine
whet her t he requisit es for t he subsidiary liabilit y of an em ployer under Art . 103 of t he RPC are
present .
Ca t a cut a n v. H e ir s of Ka dusa le
Driver hit a t ricycle, killing it s dr iver and passenger. He was convict ed of reckless im prudence
result ing in double hom icide w it h physical inj uries and dam ages t o propert y and was sent enced t o
im prisonm ent & t o pay dam ages. The writ of ex ecut ion was ret urned unsat isfied as t he dr iver had
not hing t o pay off t he dam ages in t he decision. A subsidiary writ of execut ion was served on his
em ployer. Em ployer opposed claim ing t hat she was never a part y t o t he crim inal case, and t o
proceed against her w ould violat e due process.
I SSUE: Whet her t he em ployer is subsidiarily liable.
H ELD : Yes. Even if she was not able t o part icipat e in t he crim inal act ion, it cannot be said t hat t he
em ployer was not given due process. She was furnished a copy of t he m ot ion for subsidiary writ of
ex ecut ion t o which she filed her opposit ion. Thus, she is deem ed t o have been giv en not ice and
hear ing.
b. dilige nce not a de fe nse
Con ne l Br ot he r s Com pa n y v. Adun a
Aduna, em ployed as a driver by Ex- Meralco Em ployees Transport at ion Com pany ( EMETCO) , while
driv ing t he lat t er’s bus in a negligent m anner, bum ped an Oldsm obile car owned by Connel Brot hers
Com pany. The car fell int o a canal and sust ained dam age. Tw o passengers sust ained physical inj uries.
Aduna was convict ed of dam age t o pr oper t y and serious physical inj uries t hru reckless im prudence
and had served his prison sent ence. At t he t rial of said crim inal case, t he inj ured part ies reserv ed t heir
right t o file t he corresponding civil suit for dam ages. The civil case was filed and Aduna and EMETCO
w ere adj udged t o be liable for dam ages, despit e EMETCO’s allegat ion of diligence in select ion and
super vision.
I SSUE: Whet her EMETCO is solidarily liable.
H ELD : No, EMETCO is not solidarily liable. I t s liabilit y is m erely subsidiary.
Where t he act or om ission const it ut es an offense, an inj ur ed part y generally has t wo opt ions by which
t o recover dam ages: via t he offender’s civil liabilit y arising from convict ion of a crim e or via t he
offender’s civil liabilit y arising from quasi- delict .
I f he choose s t h e cr im ina l a ve nu e , a nd a n e m ploye r ’s subsidia r y lia bilit y is sought t o be
e n for ce d, t h e con vict ion of t h e e m ploye e is conclusive on t he e m ploye r a nd t he la t t e r m a y
be m a de t o pa y in t he e ve n t t ha t t h e for m e r is insolve nt . H e r e , t he guilt of t h e a ccuse d
m ust be pr ove d be yon d r e a son a ble doubt a nd t h e con vict ion is con clu sive on t he e m ploy e r
– t h e r e is no de fe nse of dilige n ce in se le ct ion a nd su pe r vision of t h e e m ploye e .
I f he choose s t h e civil a ct ion, u pon a fin ding of t h e e m ploye e ’s ne glige nce , t h e e m ploye r ’s
solida r y lia bilit y a t t a che s u n le ss he pr ove s dilige n ce in t h e se le ct ion a nd su pe r vision of t he
e m ploye e conce r ne d. H e r e , n e glige nce m a y be pr ove d by a pr e ponde r a n ce of e vide n ce .
I n t his case, it is clear t hat t he inj ured part ies based t heir act ion on t he result of t he cr im inal case
against Aduna or upon his civil liabilit y arising from cr im e. There w as no evidence present ed in t he
civ il case t o show Aduna’s negligence; only his convict ion was alleged.
Because t he act ion was based on t he result of t he crim inal case, EMETCO is only subsidiarily liable.
Aduna’s insolvency and t he ot her requisit es for a finding of subsidiary liabilit y m ust be sat isfied.
P ART T W O
V I I . D AM AGES
1 . CON CEPT / K I N D S OF D AM AGES
Ar t . 2 1 9 7 . D a m a ge s m a y be :
1. Act ua l or com pe nsa t or y;

2. M or a l;
3. N om in a l;
4. Te m pe r a t e or m ode r a t e ;
5. Liquida t e d; or
6. Ex e m pla r y or cor r e ct ive
What ar e t he kinds of dam ages and giv e a brief explanat ion.
Dam ages m ay be:
1. Act u a l – This is com pensat ion for t he pecuniary loss act ually suffered and proved by t he
plaint iff.
Exam ples:
A r obber st eals a ring. Act ual dam ages = value of t he ring

Som eone beat s you up. Act ual dam ages = expenses for going t o t he hospit al, doct or,
m edicine
Cont r act wit h supplier of raw m at erials. Supplier fails t o com ply and because of t hat , t he
buyer fails t o m anufact ure his pr oduct s. Act ual dam ages = unrealized profit .
2. M or a l – Moral dam ages include:

a. physical suffering
b. m ent al anguish
c. fright
d. serious anxiet y
e. besm irched reput at ion
f. w ounded feelings
g. m oral shock
h. social hum iliat ion
i. sim ilar inj ury
Exam ples:
Som eone beat s you up. Moral dam ages = pain, physical suffering
Som eone kills your wife. Moral dam ages = m oral suffering, which is pr esum ed by law once a
fam ily m em ber dies.
3. N om ina l – Adj udicat ed in or der t hat a right of t he plaint iff, which has been violat ed or
invaded by t he defendant , m ay be vindicat ed or recognized, and not for t he purpose of
indem nifying t he plaint iff for any loss suffered by him .
Exam ple: Police officers barge int o your hom e w it hout a warr ant .
4. Te m pe r a t e – More t han nom inal but less t han act ual/ com pensat ory. May be recovered when
t he court finds t hat som e pecuniary loss has been suffer ed but it s am ount cannot , from t he
nat ure of t he case, be proved wit h cert aint y .
Exam ple: Evidence present ed at t he t rial t o show t he value of t he dam age was wrong, but t he
dam age it self was proven.
5. Liqu ida t e d - agreed upon by t he par t ies t o a cont ract , t o be paid in case of breach t her eof.
Exam ple: Cont ract for const ruct ion which st at es t hat in case of delay in com plet ion, t he
cont ract or m ust pay 1/ 10 of 1% of t he proj ect cost for every day of delay.
6. Ex e m pla r y or cor r e ct ive - im posed, by way of exam ple or corr ect ion for t he public good, in
addit ion t o t he m oral, t em perat e, liquidat ed or com pensat ory dam ages.
Exam ple: When offender act ed wit h evident bad fait h and m alice, such as in crim es at t ended
by aggrav at ing circum st ances.
General Principles of Dam ages:
1. The am ount should be fair and j ust and com m ensurat e t o t he dam age.
2. Dam age and t he am ount m ust be proven by com pet ent evidence. “ Com pet ent ” m eans t hat it
is adm issible.
How t o pr ov e:
Exam ple: You lost j ewelry t o robbers. To prove t he am ount of dam ages, you m ust present
docum ent ary evidence, such as receipt s. But you probably don’t keep t he receipt s of y our
j ewelry around, so you can also present t est im onial evidence of an ex pert wit ness, such as a
j ewelry appraiser .
3. Only proxim at e dam ages, not rem ot e or speculat ive, can be recover ed.
Exam ples:
I f you run over a chicken, y ou only pay t he value of t he chicken, not t he eggs t hat it would
have produced.

Client appealed a case t hat he lost . His lawyer failed t o file appellant ’s brief, so his appeal was
dism issed. Client filed for dam ages against t he lawy er, claim ing t hat he w ould hav e been
awarded P1M by t he appellat e court had t he brief been filed. SC held t hat t his was t oo
speculat ive. Client was proceeding from t he assum pt ion t hat he would win t he case on
appeal, when t he probabilit y of t his happening was not very high since he already lost in t he
lower court . But t he SC order ed t he lawy er t o pay dam ages for his gr oss negligence in failing
t o file t he brief.
So Pin g Bun v. CA
I SSUE: Whet her Tek Hua is ent it led t o t he at t orney’s fees of P200,000.
H ELD : Tek Hua is ent it led t o an award of at t orney’s fees BUT only in t he am ount of P100,000.
The t rial court and t he Cour t of Appeals were bot h correct in not awar ding act ual, m oral, and
ex em plary dam ages. This is because So Ping Bun was not m ot ivat ed by any m alicious int ent in
prevailing upon DCCSI t o lease t he warehouse t o his ent erprise at t he expense of Tek Hua. Hence, he
cannot be deem ed a m alicious int erfer or.
However, t his does not m ean t hat So Ping Bun is t ot ally exem pt from liabilit y. He is st ill liable for
at t or ney’s fees. The r ecover y of at t orney’s fees in t he concept of act ual or com pensat or y dam ages, is
allow ed under t he circum st ances provided for in Art . 2208 of t he Civil Code. One such occasion is
when t he defendant ’s act or om ission has com pelled t he plaint iff t o lit igat e wit h t hird per sons or t o
incur expenses t o pr ot ect his int erest . But it has been consist ent ly held t hat t he award of considerable
dam ages should have clear fact ual and legal bases. I n connect ion wit h at t orney’s fees, t he award
should be com m ensurat e t o t he benefit s t hat w ould have been derived from a favorable j udgm ent .
Set t led is t he rule t hat fairness of t he award of dam ages by t he t rial court calls for appellat e rev iew
such t hat t he award, if far t oo excessive, can be reduced. This ruling applies wit h equal for ce on t he
award of at t orney’s fees. I n a long line of cases, it has been said t hat it is not sound policy t o place a
penalt y on t he right t o lit igat e.
I n t his case, considering t hat t he lease cont ract of Tek Hua ran only on a m ont h- t o- m ont h basis, t he
SC finds t he aw ard of P200,000 st ill exorbit ant in t he light of prevailing j urisprudence. Consequent ly,
t he aw ard is reduced t o P100,000.
2 . Ge ne r a l Pr inciple of Re cove r y
PAL v. M ia no
Miano t ook a PAL flight t o Germ any. When he arriv ed in Aust ria, his checked- in luggage was m issing.
He r epor t ed t he m at t er t o Luft hansa aut horit ies. I t was only 11 day s lat er t hat his baggage was
deliver ed t o him . He claim ed t hat due t o t he delay, he was forced t o borr ow m oney for clot hes, pay
$200 for t he t ranspor t at ion of his baggage from Aust ria t o Czechoslovakia, and he lost a cam era.
Miano lat er inst it ut ed an act ion for dam ages before t he RTC of Makat i. PAL disclaim ed any liabilit y on
t he gr ound t hat t her e was no repor t of m ishandled baggage on flight PR 722, and no t racer t elex from
it s Viena St at ion. I t also claim ed t hat if it is at all liable, it s obligat ion w as lim it ed by t he Warsaw
Conv ent ion rat e.
I SSUE: Whet her Miano is ent it led t o dam ages and at t orney’s fees.
H ELD : No. But he is ent it led t o act ual dam ages of $200 for expense incurred for t he t ranspor t at ion of
his baggage.
I n breach of cont ract of carriage by air, m oral dam ages are aw arded only if t he defendant act ed
fraudulent ly or in bad fait h. There was no bad fait h on t he part of PAL. I n fact , upon com plaint , it
im m ediat ely coor dinat ed wit h it s cent ral baggage services t o t race t he bag and found it . Exem plar y
dam ages cannot be awarded eit her . I n case of cont ract s and quasi cont ract s, t he defendant m ust

have act ed in a fraudulent , oppressive, reckless, or m alevolent m anner for exem plar y dam ages t o be
given. These do not charact erize PAL’s act ions.
When m oral and exem plary dam ages are elim inat ed, at t orney’s fees m ust be delet ed as well.
Pe ople v. Pa r a iso
Paraiso and an unknown com panion, John Doe, willfully and unlawfully ent ered int o t he house of a
neighbor, Lolit a Tigley, and robbed cert ain art icles such as j ew elry, a rolex wat ch, P200 cash, and a
t elescope, all valued at P180 K. They t hen hogt ied Paraiso’s 4 children, aft erwhich t hey t ook Tigley t o
anot her room and st abbed her t o deat h.
The low er cour t t hen held t hat Paraiso w as guilt y beyond reasonable doubt of t he special com plex
crim e of robber y wit h hom icide at t ended by 3 aggravat ing cir cum st ances: disregar d of t he respect due
t he vict im on account of her sex, t hat t he act was com m it t ed in t he vict im ’s dwelling wit hout
provocat ion on t he vict im ’s par t , and t hat t he accused t ook advant age of t heir super ior st rengt h.
Paraiso was t hen sent enced t o deat h and order ed t o pay act ual dam ages ( P180K) as well as m oral
dam ages ( P200K) and exem plary dam ages ( P100K) .
I SSUE: Did t he court a quo err in finding Par aiso guilt y beyond reasonable doubt ?
H ELD : No. But t he aw ard of dam ages is m odified.
Judgm ent wit h regard t o dam ages was m odified by t he SC in t he follow ing m anner:
1. As regards t he civil lia bilit y , following curr ent j urisprudence, t he am ount of P50K is
awarded for t he deat h of t he vict im Tagley. No ot her proof is necessary ot her t han t he fact
of t he deat h of t he vict im and t he accused’s responsibilit y t her efor.
2. As regards m or a l da m a ge s, such is in order because of t he obvious pain, anguish, and

grief suffered by t he vict im ’s children. However, since t he purpose of such an award is not
t o enrich t he vict im ’s children but t o com pensat e t hem for t he inj uries t o t heir feelings,
t he am ount of P200K is reduced t o P100 K.
3. As regards e x e m pla r y da m a ge s, t he presence of one or m ore aggravat ing circum st ances

j ust ifies such aft er proof t hat t he offended part y is ent it led t o m oral, t em perat e, or
com pensat ory dam ages. However, in t his case t he am ount of P100 K is reduced t o P50 K
as such is already reasonable.
4. As regards a ct u a l da m a ge s, such can only be prem ised upon com pet ent proof and on t he
best evidence obt ainable. I n t his case, except for t he am ount of P200 cash, t he value of
t he r est of t he st olen art icles ( j ewelry, rolex, et c) are not m at t ers of public knowledge and
in t he absence of receipt s or any ot her com pet ent evidence besides t he self- serving
valuat ion of t he prosecut ion, t he awar d of act ual dam ages should be reduced fr om P200K
t o P200 as t his was t he only am ount which was sufficient ly proven by t he prosecut ion
wit nesses.
Vict or y Lin e r v. M a le cda n
Andres Malecdan was a 75 year- old farm er. While crossing t he st reet , he was hit by a Vict ory Liner
bus, along wit h t he carabao he was riding. Bot h Andres and t he carabao died. A crim inal com plaint
for reckless im prudence result ing in hom icide and dam age t o proper t y was filed against Joson.
Subsequent ly, t he heirs of Malecdan brought a suit for dam ages against Joson and Vict ory Liner. The
RTC held t hat Joson w as negligent in driving t he bus, while Vict ory Liner was guilt y of negligence in
t he select ion and supervision of Joson. The RTC also awarded t he follow ing dam ages:
a. P50,000.00 as deat h indem nit y;

b. P88,339.00 for act ual dam ages;
c. P200,000.00 for m or al dam ages;
d. P50,000.00 as exem plar y dam ages;
e. Thir t y percent ( 30% ) as at t orney’s fees of what ever am ount t hat can be collect ed by t he
plaint iff; and
f. The cost s of t he suit .
On appeal, t he CA affirm ed t he RTC and fixed t he award of at t orney ’s fees at P50,000.
I SSUE: Whet her t he award of dam ages by t he RTC and it s affirm at ion by t he CA was proper.
H ELD : Yes, but t he am ount s are m odified/ r educed.
Act u a l D a m a ge s: To j ust ify an award of act ual dam ages, t here should be proof of t he act ual am ount
of loss incurred in connect ion wit h t he deat h, wake or burial of t he vict im . Receipt s show ing expenses
incurred som e t im e aft er t he bur ial of t he vict im , such as expenses relat ing t o t he 9 t h day, 40 t h day
and 1 st year deat h anniversaries, should not be t aken int o account . I n t his case, t he t rial court
awarded P88,339.00 as act ual dam ages. While t hese were duly support ed by receipt s, t hese included
t he am ount of P5,900.00, t he cost of one pig which had been but cher ed for t he 9 t h day deat h
anniv ersary of t he deceased. This it em cannot be allow ed. Therefore, t he am ount of act ual dam ages
is reduced t o P82,439.00.00.
M or a l D a m a ge s: The award of P200,000.00 for m oral dam ages should likew ise be reduced. The t rial
cour t found t hat t he wife and children of t he deceased underwent “ int ense m oral suffering” as a result
of t he lat t er’s deat h. Under Art . 2206 of t he Civil Code, t he spouse, legit im at e children and illegit im at e
descendant s and ascendant s of t he deceased m ay dem and m oral dam ages for m ent al anguish by
reason of t he deat h of t he deceased. Under t he circum st ances of t his case, an award of P100,000.00
would be in keeping wit h t he purpose of t he law in allowing m oral dam ages.
I de m n it y : The award of P50,000.00 for indem nit y is in accordance wit h current rulings of t he Court .
Ex e m pla r y D a m a ge s: Art . 2231 pr ov ides t hat exem plary dam ages m ay be recover ed in cases
involving quasi- delict s if t he defendant act ed w it h gross negligence. Exem plary dam ages are im posed
not t o enrich one part y or im poverish anot her but t o serve as a det err ent against or as a negat ive
incent iv e t o curb socially delet erious act ions. I n t his case, pet it ioner’s driv er Joson, Jr. was grossly
negligent in driving at such a high speed along t he nat ional highway and overt aking anot her vehicle
which had st opped t o allow a pedest rian t o cross. Wor se, aft er t he accident , Joson, Jr. did not st op
t he bus t o help t he vict im . Under t he circum st ances, t he t rial court ’s award of P50,000.00 as
ex em plary dam ages is proper.
At t or ne y’s Fe e s: Privat e respondent s are ent it led t o at t orney’s fees. Under Ar t . 2008 of t he Civil
Code, at t or ney’s fees m ay be recovered when, as in t he inst ant case, exem plar y dam ages are
awarded. I n t he r ecent case of Met ro Manila Transit Cor porat ion v. Cour t of Appeals, an awar d of
P50,000.00 as at t orney’s fees was held t o be reasonable. Hence, privat e respondent s are ent it led t o
at t or ney’s fees in t hat am ount .
3 . Act ua l D a m a ge s
Ar t . 2 1 9 9 . Ex ce pt a s pr ovide d by la w or by st ipu la t ion , one is e n t it le d t o a n a de qu a t e

com pe nsa t ion on ly for such pe cunia r y loss su ffe r e d by h im a s he h a s duly pr ove d. Such
com pe nsa t ion is r e fe r r e d t o a s a ct ua l or com pe nsa t or y da m a ge s.
Ar t . 2 2 0 0 . I nde m n ifica t ion for da m a ge s sha ll com pr e h e nd not on ly t h e va lue of t he loss

suffe r e d, but a lso t h a t of t h e pr ofit s w h ich t he oblige e fa ile d t o obt a in .

Ar t . 2 2 0 1 . I n cont r a ct s a nd qu a si- con t r a ct s, t h e da m a ge s for w h ich t h e obligor w h o a ct e d
in good fa it h is lia ble sha ll be t hose t h a t a r e t h e na t ur a l a nd pr oba ble conse qu e n ce s of t h e
br e a ch of t h e obliga t ion , a nd w hich t he pa r t ie s h a ve for e se e n or cou ld ha ve r e a sona bly
for e se e n a t t h e t im e t h e obliga t ion w a s con st it u t e d.
I n ca se of fr a ud, ba d fa it h , m a lice or w a n t on a t t it ude , t he obligor sha ll be r e spon sible for

a ll da m a ge s w h ich m a y be r e a sona bly a t t r ibut e d t o t h e non - pe r for m a n ce of t h e obliga t ion .
Ar t . 2 2 0 2 . I n cr im e s a nd qua side lict s, t he de fe nda nt sha ll be lia ble for a ll da m a ge s w h ich

a r e t h e n a t ur a l a n d pr oba ble conse qu e nce s of t h e a ct or om ission com pla in e d of. I t is not
ne ce ssa r y t h a t such da m a ge s h a ve be e n for e se e n or could ha ve r e a sona bly be e n for e se e n
by t h e de fe nda nt .
Ar t . 2 2 0 3 . The pa r t y su ffe r in g loss or in j ur y m ust e x e r cise t h e dilige n ce of a good fa t he r of

a fa m ily t o m in im iz e t h e da m a ge s r e su lt ing fr om t h e a ct or om ission in que st ion .
Ar t . 2 2 0 5 . D a m a ge s m a y be r e cove r e d:
( 1 ) For loss or im pa ir m e nt of e a r ning ca pacit y in ca se s of t e m por a r y or pe r m a ne nt

pe r son a l in j ur y;
( 2 ) For in j ur y t o t he pla int iff's busine ss st a nding or com m e r cia l cr e dit .
Ar t . 2 2 0 7 . I f t h e pla in t iff's pr ope r t y ha s be e n insur e d, a n d h e ha s r e ce ive d inde m n it y fr om

t h e in sur a nce com pa n y for t he in j ur y or loss a r isin g out of t h e w r on g or br e a ch of cont r a ct
com pla in e d of, t h e insur a n ce com pa n y sh a ll be su br oga t e d t o t h e r ight s of t h e insur e d
a ga in st t h e w r on gdoe r or t he pe r son w ho ha s viola t e d t h e con t r a ct . I f t h e a m ou nt pa id by
t h e in sur a nce com pa n y doe s not fu lly cove r t he in j ur y or loss, t h e a ggr ie ve d pa r t y sh a ll be
e n t it le d t o r e cove r t h e de ficie n cy fr om t h e pe r son ca usin g t h e loss or in j u r y.
Ar t . 2 2 0 9 . I f t h e obliga t ion consist s in t h e pa ym e n t of a sum of m one y, a nd t h e de bt or

incur s in de la y, t h e inde m nit y for da m a ge s, t h e r e be in g no st ipula t ion t o t h e cont r a r y ,
sha ll be t h e pa ym e nt of t h e in t e r e st a gr e e d u pon , a nd in t h e a bse n ce of st ipu la t ion , t h e
le ga l int e r e st , w h ich is six pe r ce n t pe r a nnum .
Art icle 2199 provides t he general rule t hat one is ent it led t o an adequat e com pensat ion only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly pr ov ed. The except ions are:
1. provided by law: exam ple is t he fixed indem nit y. I f som eone is killed, aut om at ically, an
indem nit y of 50K is awarded. There is only a need t o prove t he fact of deat h.
2. st ipulat ion: if t he part ies st ipulat e t he am ount of dam ages in case of breach of cont r act , it
becom es liquidat ed dam ages.
Act ual dam ages m ay be:
1. Under Art icle 2200

a. value of t he loss suffered
b. profit s which t he obligee failed t o obt ain ( unrealized profit )
å how t o prove t his: docum ent ary evidence
Exam ple: X and Y killed A and t hrew his body int o a river , not knowing t hat he had P100K in
his pocket . X and Y ar e liable for 100K in act ual dam ages because t hey ar e liable for all t he
dam ages at t ribut ed t o t heir crim inal act , even if t hey did not know of or cont em plat e t he loss
of t he 100K.

a. loss or im pairm ent of earning capacit y due t o t em porary or perm anent inj ury
å “ perm anent inj ury” does not m ean t hat you’re a veget able but t hat y ou cannot do
t he sam e j ob as before because of t he inj ury
åhow t o prove t his: present docum ent ary evidence, such as t he I TR, payroll
b. inj ury t o t he plaint iff’s business st anding or com m ercial credit
åhow t o prove t his: present docum ent ary evidence, such as cont ract s for fut ure
business or com parison or earnings before and aft er t he inj ury.
3. Fixed indem nit y – The law provides a fixed indem nit y in cert ain cases, such as deat h, rape,
seduct ion, et c. For deat h: 50K.
4. Loss of ear ning capacit y – This presupposes t hat t he person concerned is dead. How t o
com put e:
First st ep: Det erm ine t he life expect ancy using t he following form ula:
Life ex pect ancy = 2/ 3 x ( 80 - age of t he deceased at t he t im e of deat h)
Second st ep: Com put e for earning capacit y using t he following form ula:
Earning capacit y = net earnings per y ear x life expect ancy

2
How do you prove t he net earnings per year :
a. docum ent ary evidence: I TR, pay roll

b. Oral t est im ony on m inim um wage ( but t his is not always adm it t ed)
The net earnings of t he deceased is divided by t wo since t he law presum es t hat half of it goes
t o his living expenses. But if ot her ev idence is present ed t o est ablish t he act ual personal
ex penses of t he deceased, t hen t his figur e m ay be used inst ead.
5. I nt erest
Rules:
a. I f t here is a st ipulat ion as t o t he rat e of int erest , apply t he rat e unless it is cont rary t o
law, m orals, and good cust om s, in which case apply t he legal rat e.
b. I f int er est is im posed, but no rat e is st ipulat ed, or t here is delay, apply t he legal rat e
( eit her 6% or 12% )
( 1) when t he obligat ion involv es t he paym ent of indem nit ies in t he concept of
dam age, t he legal rat e or int erest is 6% com put ed as follow s:
( a) from dat e of dem and if t he am ount of indem nit ies can be est ablished
wit h reasonable cert aint y;
( b) if not , from t he dat e of t he j udgm ent of t he t rial court .
( 2) When t he obligat ion consist s of a loan or for bearance of m oney, goods or

credit s as well as j udgm ent involv ing such loan or forbearance, t he legal r at e
of int erest shall be 12% per annum com put ed from default , t hat is, fr om
j udicial or ext raj udicial dem and.

( 3) I n bot h cases, t he legal rat e of int erest shall be 12% from t he finalit y of
j udgm ent unt il t he j udgm ent is paid.
Sam ple Problem :
Andrew was a 40 year- old com pany execut ive earning P400,000 a year. His wife Rose was engaged in
t he realt y business and was earning P20,000 a m ont h on t he average. One day, t hey were on t he way
t o a m eet ing where Rose would buy a land which she int ended t o resell at a profit of P200,000 when a
speeding t ruck hit t heir P500,000 car. The inj ured Andrew was br ought t o t he hospit al but lat e died,
and Rose was incapacit at ed for 3 m ont hs. Hospit al and funer al expenses cost P100,000 and P80,000.
Their car was t ot ally wrecked and t he P50,000 m oney Rose was carrying as downpaym ent for t he land
w as lost or st olen. Com put e for t he act ual dam ages.

a. value of t he loss suffered:
Hospit al expenses P100K

Funeral expenses P80K
Car P500K
Money lost P50K
b. profit s which t he obligee failed t o obt ain ( unrealized profit )
Ex pect ed profit from t he sale of land P200K
c. loss or im pairm ent of earning capacit y due t o t em porary or perm anent inj ury
Earnings of Rose for 3 m ont hs P20K x 3 m ont hs = P60K
d. inj ury t o t he plaint iff’s business st anding or com m ercial credit : not applicable
4. Fixed indem nit y: 50K for deat h of Andrew
5. Loss of ear ning capacit y of Andrew:
First St ep: Life expect ancy = 2/ 3 x ( 80- 40) = 26.67 years
Second St ep: Earning capacit y = ( 400,000/ 2) x 26.67 years

= P5,333,333
6. I nt erest : 6%
PN OC Sh ipping v. CA
The plaint iff t ried t o prove act ual dam ages by present ing his general m anager who t est ified as t o t he
value of t he proper t y dam aged and also by present ing docum ent ary evidence in t he form of brochures
quot ing t he prices of sim ilar equipm ent .
I SSUE: Whet her t he act ual dam ages were adequat ely est ablished by t he evidence present ed.
H ELD : No. To enable an inj ured part y t o recover act ual or com pensat ory dam ages, he is required t o
prove t he act ual am ount of loss wit h reasonable degr ee of cert aint y prem ised upon com pet ent proof
on t he best evidence available.
I n t his case, act ual dam ages were proven t hrough t he sole t est im ony of Maria Efigenia’s general
m anager and cert ain pieces of docum ent ary evidence. The t est im ony of t he general m anager as t o t he
valuat ion of t he ship is not reliable because he is an int erest ed part y and because it was not wit hin his
com pet ence t o det erm ine t he value of t he proper t y . On t he ot her hand, t he docum ent ary evidence in
t he form of brochur es are not adm issible for being hearsay evidence. They do not const it ut e an
ex cept ion t o t he hearsay rule since t hey are not com m ercial list s. Since t he persons who prepared
t hem wer e not present ed in court , t hey cannot be adm it t ed in evidence.
Nom inal dam ages were awar ded inst ead. [ Though, in realit y, t hey should hav e been called t em perat e
dam ages – t he dam age was proved, but t he am ount was not .]
Ba nk of Am e r ica v. Am e r ica n Re a lt y Cor p
Bank of Am er ica NT & SA ( BANTSA) is an int ernat ional banking and financing inst it ut ion licensed t o do
business in t he Philippines, organized under t he law s of California. Am erican Realt y Corp. ( ARC) is a
dom est ic corpor at ion. Bank of Am erica Lim it ed ( BAI L) is a lim it ed liabilit y com pany organized under
t he laws of England.
BANTSA and BAI L ext ended m ult i- m illion dollar loans t o t hr ee cor porat e borr ow ers, all of which were
ex ist ing under t he law s of Panam a and w ere foreign affiliat es of ARC. The borr ow ers default ed in
paym ent , so t hey ent ered int o a rest ruct uring agreem ent wit h BANTSA. As addit ional securit y for t he
rest ruct ured loans, ARC, as t hird par t y m ort gagor, ex ecut ed t wo REMs over it s parcels of land in
Bulacan. The cor porat e borrowers default ed, pr om pt ing BANTSA t o file civil act ions for collect ion
before foreign court s ( England and Hong Kong) . ARC was not im pleaded in t his civil act ions filed
before foreign court s.
Subsequent ly, BANTSA filed befor e t he Office of t he Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan an applicat ion for
ex t raj udicial foreclosur e of real est at e m ort gage. The pr oper t ies were sold at public auct ion t o I CCS.
ARS filed an act ion for dam ages against BANTSA for t he lat t er ’s act of foreclosing t he m ort gages
despit e t he pendency of t he civil suit s before foreign court s for t he collect ion of t he principal loan.
I SSUE: Whet her ARS is ent it led t o dam ages.
H ELD : ARS is ent it led t o act ual or com pensat ory dam ages inasm uch as t he act of BANTSA in
ex t raj udicially foreclosing t he REM const it ut ed a clear violat ion of t he right s of ARC as t hird par t y
m ort gagor. This is because BANTSA, in filing a collect ion case, had effect ively abandoned or w aiv ed
it s right t o foreclose t he m ort gage const it ut ed by ARC.
Act ual or com pensat ory dam ages are t hose recoverable because of pecuniary loss in business, t rade,
proper t y, profession, j ob or occupat ion, and t he sam e m ust be proved, ot herwise if t he proof is flim sy
and non- subst ant ial, no dam ages will be giv en. I n t his case, t he valuat ion of t he real proper t ies which
ARS lost as a result of t he foreclosur e w as m ade by t he Philippine Appr aisal Com pany in a 23- page
repor t . This was corroborat ed by t he t est im ony of anot her wit ness present ed by ARS. The j udge also
conduct ed an ocular inspect ion of t he pr oper t y. Based on t hese considerat ions, t he SC affirm s t he
ruling of t he t rial court as regards t he valuat ion of t he propert y at P99M.
Pet it ioner quest ions t he validit y of an aw ard of dam ages higher t han t hat prayed for in t he com plaint .
Act ual dam ages higher t han t hat prayed for in t he com plaint m ay be aw arded by t he court if it is
proved by evidence, and t he adv erse part y was given t he opport unit y t o refut e and obj ect t o t he
ev idence. I n t his case, t his requirem ent w as sat isfied. Hence, t he award is j ust ified.
a . da m num e m e r ge ns/ lu cr um ce ssa ns
Ar t . 2 2 0 0 . I nde m n ifica t ion for da m a ge s sha ll com pr e h e nd not on ly t h e va lue of t he loss

suffe r e d, but a lso t h a t of t h e pr ofit s w h ich t he oblige e fa ile d t o obt a in .
Ar t . 2 2 0 1 . I n cont r a ct s a nd qu a si- con t r a ct s, t h e da m a ge s for w h ich t h e obligor w h o a ct e d

in good fa it h is lia ble sha ll be t hose t h a t a r e t h e na t ur a l a nd pr oba ble conse qu e n ce s of t h e

br e a ch of t h e obliga t ion , a nd w hich t he pa r t ie s h a ve for e se e n or cou ld ha ve r e a sona bly
for e se e n a t t h e t im e t h e obliga t ion w a s con st it u t e d.
I n ca se of fr a ud, ba d fa it h , m a lice or w a n t on a t t it ude , t he obligor sha ll be r e spon sible for

a ll da m a ge s w h ich m a y be r e a sona bly a t t r ibut e d t o t h e non - pe r for m a n ce of t h e obliga t ion .
Pe ople v. D e gom a
The Tagbilaran Friendly Bazaar was a vict im of robbery on t he evening of April 12, 1988, in t he sum s
of US$300 and P200. During such robbery, t he securit y guar d of t he st or e, Alex ander Parilla, was
allegedly shot and killed wit h t he use of a firearm by Efren Degom a, who was one of t he r obbers. The
lower court found t he accused guilt y and also order ed t hem t o j oint ly and sever ally indem nify t he
owners of t he Tagbilaran Bazaar t he sum of P200.00 and t he equivalent exchange r at e prevailing for
US$300, indem nify t he heirs of Alexander Par illa in t he sum of P36,000 for his deat h, P200,000 for
m oral dam ages, P87,947.94 for act ual expenses, and P5,000 for at t orney’s fees for counsel of Parilla.
I SSUE: Whet her t he award for dam ages was correct .
H ELD : The award for act ual dam ages should be reduced.
I n delict , t he defendant is liable for all dam ages which are t he nat ural and probable consequences of
t he act or om ission com plained of. To seek recovery for act ual dam ages, it is necessary t o prove wit h
a reasonable degr ee of cert aint y , prem ised upon com pet ent pr oof and on t he best evidence obt ainable
by t he inj ured par t y t he act ual am ount of loss. Cour t s cannot sim ply assum e t hat dam ages were
sust ained by t he inj ured part y, nor can it rely on speculat ion or guesswork in det erm ining t he fact and
am ount of dam ages.
I n t his case, t he awar d of act ual dam ages in t he am ount of P87,947.94 is not sust ained by a review of
t he evidence of record. Of t he expenses allegedly incurred, t h e Cour t ca n on ly give cr e de n ce t o
t hose suppor t e d by a r e ce ipt a nd w h ich a ppe a r t o h a ve be e n ge nu in e ly in cur r e d in
con ne ct ion w it h t h e de a t h , w a k e , or bur ia l of t h e vict im .
The court ca nnot t ake account of r eceipt s showing t he following ex penses:
1. t hose incurred befor e t he dat e of t he slaying of t he vict im ;

2. t hose incurred aft er a considerable lapse of t im e from t he burial of t he vict im which do not
have any relat ion t o his deat h, wak e, or burial;
3. t hose incurred for purely aest het ic or social purposes, such as t he lining wit h m arble of t he
t om b of t he vict im ;
4. t hose which appear t o hav e been m odified t o show an increase in t he am ount of expendit ure,
such as by adding a num ber t o incr ease t he purchase value from t ens t o hundr eds;
5. t hose expendit ures which could not be r easonably it em ized or det erm ined t o have been
incurred in connect ion wit h t he deat h, wake, or burial of t he vict im ;
6. t hose which would nonet heless have been incurr ed, t he deat h, wak e or burial of t he vict im
being m erely incident al;
7. and t hose which were not in fact shoulder ed by t he im m ediat e heirs of t he vict im , such as
plane t rips by relat ives or in- law s.
Having t hese guidelines, t he Court put s t he gross ex penses proved by t he im m ediat e heirs of t he
vict im at P10,175.85. The Court off- set s t he am ount of P6,400, repr esent ing t he alm s received by t he
heirs of t he vict im against t he am ount of P10,175.85, leaving t he am ount of P3,775.85 as t he act ual
am ount of loss sust ained by t he im m ediat e heirs of t he vict im .
The Court increases t he am ount of indem nit y for t he deat h of Par illa t o P50,000 in line wit h present
j urisprudence.
Asun cion v. Eva nge list a

Evangelist a in t he 70s was t he sole propriet or of a piggery. Aft er a decade, he had it incorpor at ed as
Em bassy Farm s I nc. He was t he m aj or it y st ockholder of t he corpor at ion, wit h 90% of t he shares in
his nam e. He obt ained loans from num erous banks and owed t he m illions. He w as only able t o pay
around P200,000 of t hese debt s. He probably t hen had no choice but t o cede his t reasured piggery t o
a rich fellow nam ed Asuncion under a Mem orandum of Agreem ent whereby Asuncion would pay t he
loans of Evangelist a and Evangelist a would in t urn t r ansfer t o Asuncion his int er est in Em bassy Far m s
as well as t it le t o several proper t ies t hat he had m ort gaged, free from t he encum br ance. Asuncion
regularly paid Evangelist a t he am ount s t hat he was required t o pay under t he MOA. When Asuncion
dem anded t hat Evangelist a t ransfer t it le t o t he shares and t o t he m ort gaged propert ies, Evangelist a
refused. Asuncion lat er found out t hat som e of t he m ort gaged pr opert ies had already been
for eclosed. He t hereaft er filed for rescission of t he MOA. The RTC found t hat it was Asuncion who
breached t he MOA; hence, it was Evangelist a who was ent it led t o rescission and dam ages. The t r ial
cour t declar ed t he MOA rescinded and order ed Asuncion t o pay Evangelist a P32M as act ual or
com pensat ory dam ages arising from t he rescission of t he MOA. Asuncion was furt her order ed t o pay
around P27M represent ing ear nings of Em bassy Farm s as addit ional com pensat or y dam ages.
I SSUE: Whet her Asuncion is ent it led t o rescission and is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Asuncion is ent it led t o rescission and is not liable for dam ages. How ever , he is not ent it led t o
dam ages or t o recovery of what he had paid eit her. Mut ual rest it ut ion is im possible.
The MOA ent ered int o by Evangelist a and Asuncion should be rescinded. The refusal of Asuncion t o
pay Evangelist a’s over due loans was j ust ified, considering t hat Evangelist a was t he first t o r efuse t o
deliver t o Asuncion t he proper t ies and cert ificat es of st ock t hat w ere t he considerat ion for t he alm ost
6 m illion pesos in debt t hat Asuncion was t o assum e and pay.
The award of P32M in dam ages t o Evangelist a is t ot ally baseless and m ust be st ruck down. Act ual or
com pensat ory dam ages cannot be presum ed but m ust be duly pr ov ed wit h reasonable degr ee of
cert aint y.
Neit her m ay t he Court allow t he grant of dam ages corr esponding t o t he value of t he land foreclosed
by t he credit ors of Evangelist a upon t he lat t er’s failure t o m ake his loan paym ent s. Evangelist a, in his
am ended count erclaim , prayed for t he rescission of t he MOA. I n case of rescission, while dam ages
m ay be assessed in fav or of t he prej udiced par t y, only t hose kinds of dam ages consist ent wit h t he
rem edy of rescission m ay be grant ed, keeping in m ind t hat had t he part ies opt ed for specific
perform ance, ot her kinds of dam ages w ould hav e been called for which are absolut ely dist inct from
t hose kinds of dam ages accruing in t he case of rescission. I n t his case, com pensat or y dam ages
consist ing of t he value of Evangelist a’s landholdings would have been pr oper in case he resort ed t o
t he rem edy of specific per form ance, not rescission. Since his count erclaim prayed for t he rescission of
t he MOA, it was grave error for t he lower court t o have enforced said agr eem ent by ordering Asuncion
t o pay him t he value of t he landholdings.
However, Asuncion is not ent it led t o recover t he am ount of P3M t hat he spent in com pliance wit h his
undert aking under t he MOA. Mut ual rest it ut ion is requir ed in r escission, but t his presupposes t hat
bot h part ies m ay be r est ored in t heir or iginal sit uat ion. I n t his case, an essent ial part of t he
considerat ion of t he am ount of P3M paid by Asuncion was t ak ing over t he effect ive m anagem ent of
Em bassy Farm s. Mut ual rest it ut ion would r equire Asuncion t o r est ore Evangelist a on t he effect ive
m anagem ent of said corporat ion and t hat Evangelist a ret urn t he am ount t o Asuncion. This has been
rendered im possible by t he foreclosure of t he landholdings of Evangelist a and t he shut down of t he
piggery’s oper at ions.
b. disa bilit y / com m e r cia l cr e dit
Ar t . 2 2 0 5 . D a m a ge s m a y be r e cove r e d:
( 1 ) For loss or im pa ir m e nt of e a r ning ca pacit y in ca se s of t e m por a r y or pe r m a ne nt

pe r son a l in j ur y;
( 2 ) For in j ur y t o t he pla int iff’s busine ss st a nding or com m e r cia l cr e dit .

PN B v. CA
Lily Puj ol opened wit h PNB an account denom inat ed as “ Com bo Account ” , a com binat ion of Savings
Account and Current Account in her business nam e “ Puj ol Tr ading” under which checks drawn against
her check ing account could be charged against her savings account should t he funds in her current
account be insufficient t o cover t he value of her checks.
She issued t w o checks, one t o her daught er- in- law, and anot her t o her daught er, bot h were
dishonored allegedly for insufficiency of funds. When issued and pr esent ed for paym ent , how ever,
t here were sufficient funds in her savings account . Realizing it s m ist ake as t o t he 2 nd check, PNB
subsequent ly accept ed and honored it .
Lily, how ever, filed wit h t he RTC a com plaint for m oral and exem plar y dam ages against PNB for
dishonoring her checks despit e sufficiency of her funds. The t rial court rendered a decision or dering
PNB t o pay Lily m oral dam ages of P100,000 and at t y’s fees of P20,000. it found t hat Lily had suffered
m ent al anguish and besm irched r eput at ion as a result of t he dishonor of her checks, and t hat being a
form er m em ber of t he j udiciary who was expect ed t o be t he em bodim ent of int egrit y and good
behavior , she was subj ect ed t o em barr assm ent due t o t he erroneous dishonor of her checks by PNB.
( Daught er - in- law confr ont ed her and son- in- law would no longer hold her in high est eem .)
I SSUE: Whet her PNB is liable t o Lily for m oral dam ages due t o t he m ent al anguish, em barrassm ent ,
besm irched reput at ion, schwar, schwar, she suffered.
H ELD : Yes. The award of m oral dam ages and at t y’s fees affirm ed.
A bank is under obligat ion t o t r eat t he account s of it s deposit or s wit h m et iculous care. Responsibilit y
arising from negligence in t he perform ance of ever y kind of obligat ion is dem andable. While PNB’s
negligence in t his case m ay not hav e been at t ended wit h m alice and bad fait h, never t heless, it caused
serious anxiet y, em barrassm ent and hum iliat ion t o Lily for w hich she is ent it led t o recover reasonable
m oral dam ages. I n t he case of Leopold Aranet a v. Bank of Am erica it was held t hat it can hardly be
possible t hat a cust om er’s check can be wr ongfully refused paym ent wit hout som e im peachm ent of his
credit which m ust in fact be an act ual inj ury, alt hough he cannot , fr om t he nat ure of t he case, furnish
independent and dist inct proof t hereof.
Dam ages are not int ended t o enrich t he com plainant at t he expense of t he defendant , and t here is no
har d and fast rule in t he det erm inat ion of what would be a fair am ount of m oral dam ages since each
case m ust be governed by it s own peculiar fact s. The yar dst ick should be t hat it is not palpably and
scandalously excessiv e. I n t his case, considering t he reput at ion and social st anding of Lily, t he award
of dam ages is reasonable.
c. Fix e d I nde m n it y
Ar t . 1 7 6 4 . D a m a ge s in ca se s com pr ise d in t his Se ct ion ( Com m on Ca r r ie r s) sh a ll be

a w a r de d in a ccor da n ce w it h Tit le X VI I I of t h is Book , conce r n ing D a m a ge s. Ar t . 2 2 0 6 sh a ll
a lso a pply t o t h e de a t h of a pa sse nge r ca use d by t h e br e a ch of con t r a ct by a com m on
ca r r ie r .
Ar t . 2 2 0 6 . The a m ount of da m a ge s for de a t h ca use d by a cr im e or qua side lict sh a ll be a t
le a st Thr e e t hou sa nd pe sos, e ve n t hough t h e r e m a y h a ve be e n m it iga t in g cir cum st a nce s.
I n a ddit ion :
( 1 ) Th e de fe nda n t sh a ll be lia ble for t h e loss of t h e e a r n ing ca pa cit y of t h e de ce a se d, a nd
t h e in de m n it y sh a ll be pa id t o t h e h e ir s of t he la t t e r ; such inde m n it y sha ll in e ve r y ca se be
a sse sse d a n d a w a r de d by t h e cour t , un le ss t h e de ce a se d on a ccount of pe r m a n e nt
ph ysica l disa bilit y n ot ca u se d by t h e de fe nda nt , ha d no e a r nin g ca pa cit y a t t he t im e of h is
de a t h ;
( 2 ) I f t h e de ce a se d w a s oblige d t o give suppor t a ccor ding t o t h e pr ovisions of Ar t . 2 9 1 ,

t h e r e cipie nt w ho is not a n he ir ca lle d t o t h e de ce de nt ’s inh e r it a n ce by t h e la w of t e st a t e
or in t e st a t e succe ssion , m a y de m a nd su ppor t fr om t h e pe r son ca usin g t h e de a t h , for a
pe r iod not e x ce e ding five ye a r s, t h e e x a ct dur a t ion t o be fix e d by t h e cour t ;
( 3 ) Th e spouse , le git im a t e a nd ille git im a t e de sce nda n t s a n d a sce nda nt s of t he de ce a se d

m a y de m a n d m or a l da m a ge s for m e nt a l a n gu ish by r e a son of t h e de a t h of t h e de ce a se d.
For t une Ex pr e ss v. CA
Fort une is a bus com pany operat ing in Nort hern Mindanao. One of t he Fort une buses figured in an
accident wit h a j eepney w here t wo Maranaos w ere killed. The Philippine Const abulary heard report s
t hat ot her Maranaos were planning t o t ake rev enge on Fort une by burning som e of it s buses. The
operat ions m anager of Fort une assured t he const abulary t hat t he necessary precaut ions would be
t ak en t o insure t he safet y of t he lives and pr oper t y of t he passengers.
I n Novem ber 1989, t hree arm ed Maranaos, who pr et ended t o be passengers, seized a Fort une bus.
They shot t he driver in t he arm , st art ed pouring gasoline in t he bus, t hen order ed ot her passenger s t o
get off. One At t y. Caorong ret ur ned t o t he but t o get som et hing from t he ov erhead rack. When he
saw t hat t he Maranaos w ere pouring gasolinve over t he head of t he driver, he pleaded wit h t hem t o
spare his life. While t his occurred, t he driver surrept it iously escaped t hrough a window.
Shot s were heard from inside t he bus. The ot her passengers rushed t o help t he shot At t y. Caorong
from t he burning bus, but he died lat er while under surgery.
The heirs of At t y. Caorong filed an act ion for dam ages against Fort une. The lower court found t hat t he
am bush was an event t hat could not be foreseen and not liabilit y should at t ach t o Fort une. I t furt her
claim ed t hat t he obligat ion t o provide securit y guards was not requir ed of com m on carr ier s.
The CA reversed and held Fort une liable. I t found t hat no prevent iv e m easures were t ak en, t hat t he
ev ent was not unforeseen, as Fort une had been previously warned t hat t here was a possibilit y t hat
one of it s buses would be am bushed, and t hat frisking should at least have been resor t ed t o as a
safet y m easure.
I SSUE: Whet her For t une is liable t o t he heir s of At t y. Caorong.
H ELD : Yes.
Due t o t he negligence of Fort une, t he seizure of it s bus was m ade possible. I t is t hus liable for inj uries
suffered by it s passengers and for t he deat h of At t y. Caorong. This is not a case of force m aj eure
because Fort une had sufficient warning. Also, At t y. Caorong was not guilt y of cont r ibut ory negligence
when he went back t o t he bus. The t arget of t he assailant s was t he bus and not t he passengers. His
prot ract ed st ay inside was due t o his desir e t o save t he life of t he driver. Thus, his act could not be
considered an act of negligence, let alone recklessness.
I N D EM N I TY FOR D EATH : Art . 1754 of t he Civil Code, relat ive t o Art . 2206 t hereof, provides for t he
paym ent of indem nit y for t he deat h of passenger s caused by t he br each of cont ract of carriage by a
com m on carrier. I nit ially fixed at P3,000 by Art . 2206, t he am ount has been increased gradually in
view of t he declining value of t he peso. I t is present ly fixed at P50,000. The heirs of At t y. Caorong
are ent it led t o t his am ount . They are also ent it led t o act ual, m oral and exem plary dam ages and
at t or ney’s fees. They are also ent it led t o com pensat ion for t he loss of earning capacit y in addit ion t o
indem nit y for deat h.
Pe ople v. Ba lgos
Cr iselle Fuent es, a 6 year old, went t o Balgos’ house t o play wit h her 2 friends, t he lat t er’s nieces.
While t hey were playing, Baldos asked his nieces t o go out and buy som e snack s. While t hey were
gone, Baldos t ried t o rape Criselle but could not penet rat e t he lat t er’s vagina as it was t oo dam n
sm all.

Cr iselle event ually t old her parent s about t he incident who report ed t he sam e t o t he police. At t rial,
t he court a quo found Baldos guilt y bey ond r easonable doubt of t he crim e of st at ut ory rape and was
sent enced t o deat h. He was also or dered t o pay P50K as civil dam ages.
Upon aut om at ic review by t he SC, Baldos argued t hat he was not able t o penet rat e Criselle’s vagina,
hence he should only be held liable for act s of lascivousness and not r ape.
I SSUE: Whet her Baldos is guilt y of rape.
H ELD : Yes.
As w e all know, t he crim e of rape is consum m at ed by t he m ere “ t ouching” of t he penis and t he labia,
hence act ual penet r at ion is not necessary.
More im port ant ly, as t o dam ages, if t he com m ission of rape is qualified by any of t he circum st ances
under Art . 335 RPC for which t he penalt y of deat h is im posed, t he civil liabilit y for t he vict im shall be
fix e d at not less t han P75K . I n t his case, since t he rape is qualified by t he fact t hat t he vict im was
less t han 7 years old at t he t im e of t he cr im e, t he penalt y of deat h is t hus im posed and t he civ il
liabilit y t herefor e should be increased from P50 K t o P75K.
Moreover, Art 2219 CC provides t hat m oral dam ages m ay be awarded in cases of rape, seduct ion,
abduct ion, or ot her lascivious act s. Also, said art icle pr ov ides t hat t he parent s of vict im s of such
crim es m ay also av ail of m oral dam ages. Therefore, in line wit h current j urispr udence, Criselle is t hus
also ent it led t o m oral dam ages in t he am ount of P50 K.
d. Loss of Ea r n ing Ca pa cit y
Ar t . 2 2 0 6 . The a m ount of da m a ge s for de a t h ca use d by a cr im e or qua side lict sh a ll be a t

le a st Thr e e t hou sa nd pe sos, e ve n t hough t h e r e m a y h a ve be e n m it iga t in g cir cum st a nce s.
I n a ddit ion :
( 1 ) Th e de fe nda n t sh a ll be lia ble for t h e loss of t h e e a r n ing ca pa cit y of t h e de ce a se d, a nd
t h e in de m n it y sh a ll be pa id t o t h e h e ir s of t he la t t e r ; such inde m n it y sha ll in e ve r y ca se be
a sse sse d a n d a w a r de d by t h e cour t , un le ss t h e de ce a se d on a ccount of pe r m a n e nt
ph ysica l disa bilit y n ot ca u se d by t h e de fe nda nt , ha d no e a r nin g ca pa cit y a t t he t im e of h is
de a t h ;
( 2 ) I f t h e de ce a se d w a s oblige d t o give suppor t a ccor ding t o t h e pr ovisions of Ar t . 2 9 1 ,

t h e r e cipie nt w ho is not a n he ir ca lle d t o t h e de ce de nt ’s inh e r it a n ce by t h e la w of t e st a t e
or in t e st a t e succe ssion , m a y de m a nd su ppor t fr om t h e pe r son ca usin g t h e de a t h , for a
pe r iod not e x ce e ding five ye a r s, t h e e x a ct dur a t ion t o be fix e d by t h e cour t ;
( 3 ) Th e spouse , le git im a t e a nd ille git im a t e de sce nda n t s a n d a sce nda nt s of t he de ce a se d

m a y de m a n d m or a l da m a ge s for m e nt a l a n gu ish by r e a son of t h e de a t h of t h e de ce a se d.
D a vila v. PAL
A PAL plane crashed r esult ing in t he deat h of passenger s and crew. Appellant s here are par ent s of
Davila, who died in t he crash. They are appealing t he award of dam ages by t he lower court :
( 1) For t he deat h of Pedro T. Davila Jr. t he am ount of P6,000;

( 2) For t he loss of t he earning capacit y of t he deceased at t he rat e of P12,000 per annum for five
years in t he am ount of P60,000.
I SSUE: Whet her t he com put at ion of loss of earning capacit y is w rong, t hus ent it ling t he par ent s of
Davila t o a larger am ount .
H ELD : Yes, m ore t han double pa nga dapat eh. Wanna know why? Read on t hen…

The deceased was em ployed as a m anager of a r adio st at ion, from which he was ear ning P8,400 a
year, consist ing of a m ont hly salary of P600 and allowance of P100. As a lawy er and j unior part ner of
his fat her in t he law office, he had an annual incom e of P3,600. From farm ing, he was get t ing an
av erage of P3,000. All in all, t her efore, t he deceased had gross earning of P15,000 a year .
According t o Art icle 2206 ( 1) of t he Civil Code, “ The defendant shall be liable for t he loss of t he
ear ning capacit y of t he deceased, and t he indem nit y shall be paid t o t he heir s of t he lat t er .” This
art icle, while r efer ring t o “ dam ages for deat h caused by cr im e or quasi- delict ,” is expr essly m ade
applicable by Art icle 1764 “ t o t he deat h of a passenger caused by t he breach of cont r act by a com m on
carrier.”
The deceased, Pedro Davila Jr. was single and 30 years of age when he died. At t hat age, one’s
norm al life expect ancy is 33- 1/ 3 y ears, according t o t he form ula ( 2/ 3 x [ 80 – 30] ) adopt ed by t his
Court in t he case of Villa Rey Transit I nc. v. CA on t he basis of t he Am er ican Expect ancy Table of
Mort alit y or t he Act uar ial of Com bined Experience Table of Mort alit y. However, alt hough t he deceased
was in relat ively good healt h, his m edical hist ory shows t hat he had com plained of and had been
t r eat ed for such ailm ent s as backaches, chest pains, and occasional feelings of t iredness. I t is
reasonable t o m ake an allowance for t hese circum st ances and consider, for purposes of t his case, a
reduct ion of his life expect ancy t o 25 years.
I n t he sam e case of Villa Rey Transit , t his cour t st at ed: “ …earning capacit y, as an elem ent of dam ages
t o one’s est at e for his deat h by wrongful act is necessarily his net earning capacit y or his capacit y t o
acquire m oney, less t he necessary expense for his own living.” St at ed ot herwise, t he am ount
recoverable is not loss of t he ent ire earnings, but rat her t he loss of t hat port ion of t he earnings which
t he beneficiary would have received. I n ot her words, only net earnings, not gr oss earnings, are t o be
considered, t hat is t he t ot al of t he earnings less expenses necessary in t he cr eat ion of such earnings
or incom e and less living and ot her incident al expenses.
Considering t he fact t hat t he deceased was get t ing his incom e from t hree ( 3) different sources,
nam ely, from m anaging a radio st at ion, from law pract ice, and from farm ing, t he ex penses incident al
t o t he generat ion of such incom e were necessarily m ore t han if he had only one source. Toget her wit h
his living expenses, a deduct ion of P600 a m ont h, or P7,200 a year seem s reasonable, leaving a net
yearly incom e of P7,800. This am ount , m ult iplied by 25 year s, or P195,000, is t he am ount which
should be awar ded t o t he plaint iffs.
Pe ople v. Je r e z
Jerez went around t own looking for a carabao buyer. Reynaldo Ochoa and
Joselit o Balbast ro expressed int erest . Jerez t old t hem t hat t he carabaos
were in Barangay Teddy, so t he t hree t ook a t ricycle t o Barangay Tedd t o
check t he condit ion of t he carabaos. I t was t he last t im e, how ever, t hat t he
t wo w ere seen alive. When t he lat t er failed t o ret urn t he following day, a
search was conduct ed. The bodies of Reynaldo and Joselit o were lat er found
lifeless, having sust ained several m ort ally- inflict ed st ab w ounds in different
part s of t heir bodies. The vict im s w ere divest ed of t heir wat ches, rayban
glasses, and a sum of m oney am ount ing t o P37,000.00. Jerez was convict ed
of robbery wit h double hom icide. The RTC ordered him t o pay dam ages t o
t he heirs of Reynaldo and Joselit o, including P100,000 for loss of earning
capacit y. The RTC com put ed loss of earning capacit y using t he following
form ula: est im at ed incom e x life span.

I SSUE: Whet her t he RTC used t he correct form ula in com put ing loss of
earning capacit y.
H ELD : No, t he com put at ion of t he dam ages is erroneous.
The form ula consist ent ly used by t he Suprem e Court in det erm ining life expect ancy is ( 2/ 3 x [ 80 - age
of t he vict im at t he t im e of deat h] ) . Thus, t he award for loss of earning capacit y for each vict im shall
be as follow s:
Joselit o Balbast r o
P36,000.00 — gross annual incom e ( P3,000.00 x 12 m os.)

Mult iply: 30 — life expect ancy ( 2/ 3 x 45 [ 80 - 35 { age at t im e of deat h} ] )
P1,080,000.00 — t ot al loss of earning capacit y
Reynaldo Ochoa
P36,000.00 — gross annual incom e ( P3,000.00 x 12 m os.)

Mult iply: 21 — life expect ancy ( 2/ 3 x 31 [ 80 - 49 { age at t im e of deat h} ] )
P756,000.00 — t ot al loss of earning capacit y
Rosa le s v. CA
Liza Rosalie was a high school st udent in UP- I S when she was ran over by an MMTA bus while crossing
Kat ipunan Road. The driver was found guilt y of reckless im prudence and t he em ployers were found
solidarily liable. The par ent s r aised t his appeal for an increase of am ount of dam ages awarded t o
t hem .
I SSUE: Whet her pet it ioner s are ent it led t o be com pensat ed for loss of earning capacit y of t heir m inor
child, a m ere high school st udent .
H ELD : Yes.
Art . 2206 of t he Civil Code pr ov ides t hat in addit ion t o t he indem nit y for deat h caused by a crim e or
quasi- delict , t he “ defendant shall be liable for loss of ear ning capacit y of t he deceased, and t he
indem nit y shall be paid t o t he heirs of t he lat t er …” Com pensat ion of t his nat ure is awarded not for
loss of earnings but for loss of capacit y t o earn m oney. Evidence m ust be present ed t hat t he vict im , if
not yet em ploy ed at t he t im e of deat h, was reasonably cert ain t o com plet e t raining for a specific
profession.
I n t his case, t he spouses Rosales present ed evidence t o show t hat Liza Rosalie was a good st udent ,
prom ising art ist , and obedient child. She consist ent ly perform ed well in her st udies. A guidance
counselor t est ified and a facult y m em ber of UP Fine Art s who had been conduct ing workshops wit h her
ev ery sum m er t est ified t hat she had art ist pot ent ial. 51 sam ples of Liza Rosalie’s wat ercolor,
charcoal, and pencil drawings were subm it t ed as exhibit s. Considering her good academ ic r ecord,
ex t ra- curricular act ivit ies, and varied int erest s, it is reasonable t o assum e t hat Liza Rosalie would have
enj oyed a successful professional career had it not been for her unt im ely deat h. Hence, it is proper
t hat com pensat ion for loss of earning capacit y should be awarded t o her heirs in accordance wit h t he
for m ula est ablished for com put ing net earning capacit y in decided cases:
Net Earning Capacit y = Life Ex pect ancy x Gross Annual I ncom e – Necessary Living Expenses
Life ex pect ancy is equivalent t o 2/ 3 m ult iplied by t he difference bet ween 80 and t he age of t he
deceased. Since Liza Rosalie was 16 at t he t im e of her deat h, her life expect ancy was 44 m ore years.
Her proj ect ed gross annual incom e, com put ed based on t he m inim um wasge for workers in t he non-
agricult ural sect or in effect at t he t im e of her deat h, t hen fixed at P37.00 is P14,630.46. Allowing for
necessary living expenses of 50% of her proj ect ed gross annual incom e, her t ot al net earning capacit y
am ount s t o P321,870.00.
e . I n t e r e st
Ar t . 2 2 0 9 . I f t h e obliga t ion con sist s in t h e pa ym e n t of a sum of

m on e y, a n d t h e de bt or incur s in de la y, t he in de m nit y for da m a ge s,
t h e r e be in g n o st ipu la t ion t o t h e con t r a r y, sh a ll be t he pa ym e nt of
t h e in t e r e st a gr e e d u pon , a nd in t he a bse nce of st ipu la t ion , t he
le ga l int e r e st , w hich is six pe r ce n t pe r a n num .
Ar t . 2 2 1 0 . I nt e r e st m a y, in t he discr e t ion of t he cou r t , be a llow e d

upon da m a ge s a w a r de d for br e a ch of cont r a ct .
Ar t . 2 2 1 1 . I n cr im e s a n d qua side lict s, in t e r e st a s a pa r t of t he

da m a ge s m a y, in a pr ope r ca se , be a dj u dica t e d in t he discr e t ion of
t he cour t .
Ar t . 2 2 1 2 . I nt e r e st due sh a ll e a r n le ga l int e r e st fr om t he t im e it is
j udicia lly de m a nde d, a lt hough t h e obliga t ion m a y be sile nt upon
t h is point .
Ar t . 2 2 1 3 . I nt e r e st ca n n ot be r e cove r e d u pon un liquida t e d cla im s

or da m a ges, e x ce pt w he n t h e dem a n d ca n be e st a blishe d w it h
r e a son a bly ce r t a in t y.
Ea st e r n Sh ipping v. CA
Two drum s of riboflavin were shipped from Japan for delivery on board t he v essel “ SS EASTERN
COMET” owned by East ern Shipping Lines. The shipm ent was insured by Mercant ile I nsurance
Com pany. When t he shipm ent arr iv ed in Manila, one drum was found t o be in bad or der. As a r esult
of t he alleged fault and negligence of bot h East er n Shipping Lines, t he Met ro Por t Service, and t he
Allied Broker age Corporat ion, t he insurance com pany had t o pay t he consignee of t he shipm ent
around 19K for t he dam aged carge. The insur ance com pany t hen filed an act ion against t he t hree,
claim ing t hat under t he m arine insurance policy, it becam e subrogat ed t o all t he right s of act ion of t he
consignee against t he defendant s.

The CA order ed t he defendant s t o j oint ly and severally pay t he insurer 19K wit h legal int erest at 12%
per annum from t he dat e of t he filing of t he com plaint , unt il fully paid.
I SSUES:
1. Whet her t he int erest should com m ence from t he dat e of t he filing of t he com plaint or from t he
dat e of t he decision of t he t rial court .
2. Whet her t he proper rat e of int er est is 12% per annum or 6% per annum .
H ELD : I nt erest t o be paid is 6% on t he am ount due, com put ed fr om t he dat e of t he decision of t he

cour t a quo. A 12% int er est , in lieu of 6% , shall be im posed on such am ount upon finalit y of t his
decision unt il t he pay m ent t her eof.
When an obligat ion, regar dless of it s source ( law, cont ract s, quasi- cont ract s, delict s, quasi- delict s) is
breached, t he cont ravenor can be held liable for dam ages. Wit h r egard t o an awar d or int erest in t he
concept of act ual and com pensat ory dam ages, t he rat e of int erest , as well as t he accrual t hereof, is
im posed as follow s:
1. When t he obligat ion is breached, and it consist s in t he paym ent of a sum of m oney ( i.e., a
loan or forbearance of m oney) , t he int erest due should be t hat which m ay have been
st ipulat ed in writ ing. Furt herm ore, t he int erest due shall it self earn legal int erest from t he
t im e it is j udicially dem anded. I n t he absence of st ipulat ion, t he rat e of int erest shall be 12%
per annum t o be com put ed from default i.e., from j udicial or ext raj udicial dem and under and
subj ect t o t he provision of Ar t icle 1169 of t he Civil Code.
2. When an obligat ion, not const it ut ing a loan or forbearance of m oney, is breached, an int er est
on t he am ount of dam ages awar ded m ay be im posed at t he discret ion of t he court at t he rat e
of 6% per annum . No int erest , howev er, shall be adj udged on unliquidat ed claim s or dam ages
ex cept when or unt il t he dem and can be est ablished wit h reasonable cer t aint y. Accordingly,
where t he dem and is est ablished wit h r easonable cert aint y, t he int erest shall begin t o run
from t he t im e t he claim is m ade j udicially or ext raj udicially but when such cert aint y cannot be
so reasonably est ablished at t he t im e t he dem and is m ade, t he int erest shall begin t o run only
from t he dat e t he j udgm ent of t he court is m ade ( at which t im e t he quant ificat ion of dam ages
m ay be deem ed t o have been reasonably ascer t ained) . The act ual base of t he com put at ion of
legal int er est shall, in any case, be on t he am ount finally adj udged.
3. When t he j udgm ent of t he court awar ding a sum of m oney becom es final and execut ory, t he
rat e of legal int erest , whet her t he case falls under paragraph 1 or par agraph 2 above shall be
12% per annum from such finalit y unt il it s sat isfact ion, t his int erim period being deem ed t o be
by t hen an equivalent t o a forbearance of credit .
M e de l v. CA
Servando Franco and Let icia Medel obt ained several loans from Ver onica Gonzales at 6% int erest per
m ont h. Due t o t heir failure t o pay t he loans upon m at urit y, Franco and Medel consolidat ed all said
loans bringing t heir indebt edness t o a t ot al of P500K, and execut ed a prom issory not e t o cov er said
am ount wit h an int erest of 5.5% per m ont h plus 2% service charge per annum .
Due t o Franco and Medel’s failure t o pay upon m at urit y, a com plaint for collect ion of m oney was filed
against t hem by Gonzales. The lower court held t hat alt hough t he usury law was repealed, t he int er est
charged by Gonzales was unconscionable and was t her efore invalid. The CA however upheld t he
validit y of t he aforem ent ioned st ipulat ed int er est and held t hat since t he usury law was repealed, t he
lender and borr ow er could agree on any int er est t hat m ay be char ged on t he loan.
Medel t hen filed cert iorari wit h t he SC, arguing t hat t he int erest charged by Gonzales was iniquit ous,
unconscionable, and exorbit ant .
I SSUE: Was t he int erest st ipulat ion in t his case valid?

H ELD : No.
Alt hough Circular No. 905 of t he Cent ral Bank expressly repealed t he usury law , t he int erest in t his
case of 5.5% per m ont h or 66% per annum is iniquit ous or un consciona ble , and hence cont r ary t o
law and m orals. Such a st ipulat ion of int er est is void and t he court s in such a case shall equit ably
reduce liquidat ed dam ages, whet her int ended as an indem nit y or a penalt y, if t hey ar e iniquit ous and
unconscionable.
I n t his case, due t o t he iniquit ousness of t he st ipulat ed int erest , t he SC im posed t he “ legal rat e of
int er est for loan or forbearance of m oney, goods, or credit ” which was 12% per annum , plus an
addit ional 1% m ont hly penalt y charge.
D a vid v. CA
I n a civ il case bet ween Jesus Dav id ( as plaint iff) and Peña and Afable ( as defendant s) , Judge Diaz
order ed Afable t o pay David P66,500 plus int er est from January 4, 1966, unt il fully paid.
To execut e j udgm ent , a public auct ion of propert ies belonging t o Peña and Afable were sold at public
auct ion. The Sheriff inform ed David t hat t he t ot al am ount of t he j udgm ent was around P270K, which
included a com put at ion of sim ple int erest . David claim ed t hat t he j udgm ent award should be ar ound
P3M because t he am ount due ought t o be based on com pounded int er est .
At t he public auct ion, David was t he highest bidder, having bid around P3M for t he auct ioned
proper t ies. However, t he Sheriff did not issue t he Cert ificat e of Sale because David did not pay t he
bid price. The Sheriff cont ended t hat t he sale was not consum m at ed since Dav id had failed t o pay
around P2.94M of t he bid price. The P2.94M was com put ed by deduct ing from t he bid price of P3M
t he j udgm ent award t o which David was ent it led in t he am ount of P270K. According t o David, on t he
ot her hand, he did not have t o pay t he P2.94M, since t he j udgm ent award should have been P3M
( enough t o cover t he ent ire bid price) if int er est were com pounded inst ead of j ust sim ple.
I SSUE: Whet her int erest should be sim ple or com pounded.
H ELD : Sim ple int erest only.
Com pounded int er est m ay be charged only when t here is st ipulat ed or convent ional int erest which has
accrued when dem and was j udicially m ade. I n case where no int erest had been st ipulat ed by t he
part ies, no accrued convent ional int er est could furt her earn int erest upon j udicial dem and. I n t his
case, no int er est was st ipulat ed by t he part ies. Ther efore, David is not ent it led t o com pounding
int er est .
Ex a m ple in cla ss: Fir st M e t r o I nve st m e nt Cor p ca se
Loan agreem ent wit h fixed int er est at 18% , plus officers of t he bank were t o be em ployed as
consult ant s of t he debt or for a fee. Held: Consult at ion fee is act ually disguised int erest . I t is
unconscionable and should be st ruck down.
4 . M or a l D a m a ge s
Ar t . 2 2 1 7 . M or a l da m a ge s in clu de phy sica l su ffe r in g, m e n t a l a ngu ish , fr igh t , se r iou s

a n x ie t y, be sm ir ch e d r e pu t a t ion , w ounde d fe e lings, m or a l shock , socia l hu m ilia t ion , a nd
sim ila r in j ur y. Thou gh in ca pa ble of pe cun ia r y com put a t ion , m or a l da m a ge s m a y be
r e cove r e d if t h e y a r e t h e pr ox im a t e r e su lt of t h e de fe nda n t 's w r on gfu l a ct for om ission .
Ar t . 2 2 1 8 . I n t h e a dj udica t ion of m or a l da m a ge s, t h e se n t im e nt a l va lu e of pr ope r t y, r e a l or

pe r son a l, m a y be conside r e d.

Ar t . 2 2 1 9 . M or a l da m a ge s m a y be r e cove r e d in t he follow in g a nd a n a logous ca se s:
( 1 ) A cr im in a l offe n se r e sult ing in physica l in j ur ie s;
( 2 ) Qu a side lict s ca u sin g ph ysica l in j ur ie s;
( 3 ) Se duct ion , a bduct ion, r a pe , or ot he r la scivious a ct s;
( 4 ) Adu lt e r y or concubin a ge ;
( 5 ) I lle ga l or a r bit r a r y de t e nt ion or a r r e st ;
( 6 ) I lle ga l se a r ch ;
( 7 ) Libe l, sla nde r or a n y ot h e r for m of de fa m a t ion ;
( 8 ) M a licious pr ose cut ion;
( 9 ) Act s m e nt ion e d in Ar t icle 3 0 9 ;
( 1 0 ) Act s a n d a ct ions r e fe r r e d t o in Ar t icle s 2 1 , 2 6 , 2 7 , 2 8 , 2 9 , 3 0 , 3 2 , 3 4 , a nd 3 5 .
Th e pa r e nt s of t h e fe m a le se du ce d, a bduct e d, r a pe d, or a buse d, r e fe r r e d t o in N o. 3 of t h is
a r t icle , m a y a lso r e cove r m or a l da m a ge s.
Th e spou se , de sce nda n t s, a sce nda nt s, a nd br ot he r s a nd sist e r s m a y br ing t he a ct ion

m e nt ione d in N o. 9 of t h is a r t icle , in t h e or de r na m e d.
Ar t . 2 2 2 0 . W illfu l in j ur y t o pr ope r t y m a y be a le ga l gr ound for a w a r ding m or a l da m a ge s if

t h e cour t sh ou ld find t h a t , u nde r t h e cir cum st a n ce s, such da m a ge s a r e j ust ly due . Th e
sa m e r u le a pplie s t o br e a ch e s of cont r a ct w he r e t h e de fe nda n t a ct e d fr a udule nt ly or in
ba d fa it h .
Ar t . 3 0 9 . An y pe r son w ho show s disr e spe ct t o t h e de a d, or w r ongfu lly in t e r fe r e s w it h a

fune r a l sha ll be lia ble t o t h e fa m ily of t he de ce a se d for da m a ge s, m a t e r ia l a nd m or a l.
Fr a ncisco v. Fe r r e r

The wedding cake was not deliv ered on t he wedding day. They had t o eat sans r iv al inst ead. Moral
dam ages were awarded in favor of t he plaint iffs.
Anot her case: The br ide and groom hir ed som eone t o cover t heir wedding on video. But not hing was
recorded on video kasi wala yat ang lam ang t ape. Moral dam ages were not awarded because t here
was no bad fait h. Just nom inal dam ages.
Requisit es of award of m oral dam ages:
1. One of t he grounds under art icle 2177 ( physical suffering, m ent al anguish, et c.) m ust be
present .
2. Such m ust be t he proxim at e effect of t he t or t ious act ( fraud/ bad fait h) .
3. Test im ony of t he offended par t y or ot her evidence t o prove t he suffering.
Ex: Because of shock, plaint iff suffered a heart at t ack. Prove t his by pr esent ing m edical
records.
The wording of Art icle 2219 says t hat m oral dam ages “ m ay” be awarded, not “ shall.” This is because
in addit ion t o t he m oral suffer ing, et c, t here m ust be fraud or bad fait h on t he part of t he defendant .
Under 2219 ( 3) , m oral dam ages are awarded t o t he rape vict im and her parent s. The law also
provides a fixed indem nit y, w hich is 50K. For qualified rape, it is 75K. This fixed indem nit y is
differ ent and apart from t he m oral dam ages under 2219 ( 3) . Fixed indem nit y is given for every count
of rape. So if t here are m any rapist s, t he fixed indem nit y is m ult iplied by t he num ber of count s.
A person who com m it s a crim e is deem ed in bad fait h.
2219 ( 9) – Act s m ent ioned under Art icle 309 – t his includes scoffing at t he corpse, like burning t he
body or chopping it up.
Cases when m oral suffering is presum ed:
1. rape
2. m urder
3. hom icide
a . Am ount of Aw a r d
Moral dam ages m ust be proven, but t he am ount is det erm ined by t he j udge. Plaint iff m ust prove t he
legal basis for t he award; act ual am ount is up t o t he j udge.
Fa ct or s in de t e r m ining t he a m ount of m or a l da m a ge s:
1. polit ical, social, financial st anding of offended part y and offender
2. m ent al anguish
Exam ple: Com par e t he m ent al anguish of t wo m ot hers whose sons died in t wo differ ent
incident s. One son was shot t o deat h, and he died inst ant ly. The ot her son was part y ing at
Ozone when it burned down. He suffered for sev eral weeks wit h painful burns befor e he finally
died. The m ent al suffering of t he Ozone vict im ’s m ot her is great er t han t hat of t he m ot her of
t he son who was shot t o deat h, since t he form er had t o wat ch as her son had t o wit hst and t he
agony of t he bur ns.
3. Sent im ent al value
Exam ple: Tw o rings – one wit h a huge st one t hat you won at a raffle and anot her wit h a t iny
st one t hat was giv en t o you by your one t rue lov e. Of course, t he sent im ent al value of t he
second ring is gr eat er.

Lope z v. PAN AM
Senat or Lopez and his fam ily were inadv ert ent ly bum ped off fir st class and had t o t ak e coach. They
sued for dam ages.
I SSUE: Whet her plaint iffs are ent it led t o all dam ages sought for.
H ELD : YES. The relevant port ion wit h regard t o m oral dam ages is t hat t he Senat or and fam ily
suffered social hum iliat ion, m ent al anguish, serious anxiet y. A lot of schwar schwar on him being a
senat e president pr o t em por e, prest igious sya eklat . According t o SC- - I t m ay not be hum iliat ing t o
t r avel as t ourist passengers; it is hum iliat ing t o be com pelled t o t r avel as such, cont r ary t o what is
right fully t o be expect ed from t he cont ract ual undert aking.
I n conclusion, SC w a nt e d t o st r e ss t h a t a m ount of da m a ge s a w a r de d in t his a ppe a l ha s be e n

de t e r m ine d by a de qua t e ly conside r ing t he officia l, polit ica l, socia l, a nd fina ncia l st a nding of
t he offe nde d pa r t ie s on t h e one ha n d, a nd t he busin e ss a n d fin a ncia l posit ion of t h e
offe nde r on t h e ot h e r , And fur t he r conside r in g t h e pr e se n t r a t e of e x ch a n ge a nd t he t e r m s
a t w h ich t he a m ount of da m a ge s a w a r de d w ou ld a ppr ox im a t e ly be in US dolla r s.
b. ba d fa it h/ fr a u d/ m a lice
Exam ple in class: Couple was booked for econom y t icket s. The airline had overbooked t he econom y
class, so t hey were asked t o sit in t he business class sect ion. This was allegedly against t heir will.
They felt bad because t heir repapips were in econom y. They filed for dam ages against t he airline.
Held: No dam ages. Ther e was no bad fait h here.
Za la m e a v. CA
Passengers filed for dam ages since t hey were bum ped off t heir flight because t he air line had
over book ed.
I SSUE: Whet her t here was bad fait h in over book ing and t hereby ent it ling pet it ioners t o dam ages.
H ELD : YES.
REspondent avers t hat t here is no ba d fa it h w he r e ove r book ing is a com m on a cce pt e d pr a ct ice
in t he COde of Federal Regulat ions in t he Civil Aer onaut ic Boar d. HOwever, t here was no docum ent
present ed as ev idence t o t hat effect . ONly t he sole st at em ent of TWA's cust om er service agent was
relied upon. Moreover, in t his j urisdict ion, j urisprudence st at es t hat overbooking am ount s t o bad fait h,
ent it ling passengers t o an award of m oral dam ages.
Assum in g a r gue ndo ove r book ing is a llow e d, TW A is st ill guilt y of ba d fa it h in not infor m ing
it s pa sse nge r s be for e ha nd t ha t it could br e a ch t he con t r a ct of ca r r ia ge e ve n if t he y h a d
con fir m e d t ick e t s, in t he e ve nt of ove r book in g. TW A should ha ve incor por a t e d st ipu la t ions
in ove r book ing on t he t ick e t s or pr ope r ly in for m it s pa sse nge r s a bou t such policie s so t h a t
t he pa sse nge r s m a y be pr e pa r e d for su ch a n e ve nt ua lit y , or w ou ld ha ve t h e ch oice of r iding
on a n ot he r a ir line . M or a l da m a ge s a w a r de d.
Pr ude n t ia l Ba nk v. CA
A check issued by Valenzuela bounced even if she had enough m oney in her account . Lat er, it was
found t hat t he check bounced because t he bank had m ade a m ist ake in credit ing her deposit s t o
anot her account .
I SSUE: Whet her Valenzuela is ent it led t o m oral dam ages.
H ELD : Yes, Valenzuela is ent it led t o m oral dam ages.

Prudent ial claim s t hat Valenzuela is not ent it led t o m oral dam ages because it act ed in good fait h and
com m it t ed an honest m ist ake. This is unt ent able. As a business affect ed wit h public int erest and
because of t he nat ure of it s funct ions, t he bank is under obligat ion t o t reat t he account s of it s
deposit or s wit h m et iculous care, always having in m ind t he fiduciary nat ure of t heir relat ionship. Even
if m alice or bad fait h was not sufficient ly proved in t his case, t he fact rem ains t hat t he bank
com m it t ed a serious m ist ake. The bank ’s negligence was t he result of lack of due care and caut ion
required of m anagers and em ploy ees of a firm engaged in so sensit ive and dem anding a business as
banking. Accordingly, t he award of m oral dam ages was proper.
* This is t he except ion t o t he general rule t hat in breach of cont ract , m oral dam ages are pr oper only
when t here was fraud, m alice, or bad fait h. When t he part y breaching t he cont ract is a bank, in t he
ex ercise of it s fiduciary capacit y, t here is no need for bad fait h in order for t he m oral dam ages t o be
awarded.
c. m a liciou s pr ose cu t ion
Elem ent s of Malicious Prosecut ion:
1. There m ust be a baseless prosecut ion

2. The one who filed t he crim inal act ion m ust be aware t hat t her e was no probable cause
3. There m ust be a dism issal of t he crim inal case at t he t im e of t he prelim inary invest igat ion
( indicat ing t hat t her e was no probable cause)
4. Malice
La o v. CA
Lao was present ed as a wit ness in a case filed by his em ployer against Espir it u. The case was filed by
t he pr osecut or but was lat er dism issed. Espirit u filed a case for m alicious pr osecut ion against Lao.
I SSUE: Whet her Lao m ay be held liable for m alicious pr osecut ion.
H ELD : NO.
Lao had a valid defense t o t he act ion for m alicious pr osecut ion ( Civil Case No. 84- M) because it was
his em ploy er t hat was t he com plainant in t he est afa case against Espirit u. Lao was only a wit ness, not
t he pr osecut or in t he est afa case.
Moreover, t here was probable cause for t he charge of est afa against Espirit u, as found and cert ified by
t he invest igat ing fiscal him self.
Lao was not m ot ivat ed by m alice in m ak ing t he affidavit upon which t he fiscal based t he filing of t he
infor m at ion against Espirit u. He execut ed it as an em ployee, a salesm an of t he St . Joseph Lum ber
from whom Espirit u m ade his purchases of const ruct ion m at er ials and who, t herefor e, had personal
knowledge of t he t r ansact ion. Alt hough t he prosecut ion of Espirit u for est afa did not prosper, t he
unsuccessful prosecut ion m ay not be labelled as m alicious.
[ Not e in t his case t hat t he decision of t he CA finding Lao guilt y of m alicious pr osecut ion had already
becom e final and execut ory. But since Lao was depriv ed of due pr ocess due t o t he negligence of t he
lawyer, which was why he lost t he case, and he had a valid defense against m alicious prosecut ion, t he
SC allowed t he act ion for annulm ent of j udgm ent .]
La o v. CA
G.R. 109205, 18 April 1997
Deuna point ed out t o t he police a j eepney used in running ov er Eduardo. The owner could not be
found, so t he police left word at t he residence of t he alleged driv er t hat t he j eepney was t aken t o t he
police st at ion for safekeeping and t o be used in connect ion wit h t he invest igat ion of t he incident .
Subsequent ly, t he owner of t he j eepney filed a com plaint for carnapping against Deuna. The
com plaint was dism issed by t he pr osecut or/ DOJ for lack of probable cause. Deuna filed an act ion for
m alicious pr osecut ion against t he owner .
I SSUE: Whet her t he defendant s are liable for m alicious prosecut ion.
H ELD : Yes.
I n t his case, t her e w as m alicious int ent in t he filing of t he com plaint for carnapping. The elem ent s of
m alice and absence of pr obable cause are present . The owner had already been t old t hat Deuna,
along wit h som e policem en, had t aken t he vehicle t o t he police st at ion aft er t he incident . She cannot
validly claim t hat prior t o t he filing of t he com plaint for carnapping, she did not know t he whereabout s
of t he vehicle. That t here was no pr obable cause for t he filing of t he carnapping charge against and
Frank led t o t he dism issal of t he case. The vehicle was t aken by policem en and brought t o t he st at ion
in connect ion wit h t he frust rat ed hom icide case against Geor ge. There was clearly no int ent t o gain,
which is an essent ial elem ent of t he crim e of carnapping.
d. la bor ca se s
Most of t he t im e, m oral dam ages ar e awarded in labor cases as long as bad fait h, oppr ession against
labor are proven, or if t he em ploy er act ed cont rary t o law, m orals, good cust om s, et c.
Au dion Ele ct r ic v. N LRC
Nicolas Madolid had been em ploy ed by Audion Elect ric Com pany for 13 y ears when t he com pany
t erm inat ed his services. Madolid filed a com plaint wit h t he Labor Ar bit er, claim ing t hat he w as
illegally dism issed. He asked for reinst at em ent , wit h full backw ages, as w ell as m oral and ex em plary
dam ages. The Labor Arbit er grant ed his claim s.
I SSUE: Whet her Madolid is ent it led t o m oral and exem plary dam ages.
H ELD : No.
The Labor Arbit er was correct in ordering t he reinst at em ent wit h full backwages of Madolid. Howev er,
his award of m oral and ex em plary dam ages m ust be delet ed for being devoid of legal basis. Moral
and ex em plary dam ages are recoverable only where t he dism issal of an em ploy ee was at t ended by
bad fait h or fraud, or const it ut ed an act oppr essive t o labor, or was done in a m anner cont rar y t o
m orals, good cust om s or public policy. The person claim ing m oral dam ages m ust prove t he exist ence
of bad fait h by clear and conv incing evidence, for t he law always presum ed good fait h. I t is not
enough t hat one m er ely suffered sleepless night s, m ent al anguish, serious anxiet y as t he result of t he
act uat ions of t he ot her part y. I nvariably, such act ion m ust be shown t o have been willfully done in
bad fait h or wit h ill m ot ive, and bad fait h or ill m ot ive under t he law cannot be presum ed but m ust be
est ablished wit h clear and convincing evidence. I n t his case, Madolid predicat ed his claim for such
dam ages on his own allegat ions of sleepless night s and m ent al anguish wit hout est ablishing bad fait h,
fraud, or ill m ot ive as legal basis t herefor.
Pa guio v. PLD T
Paguio was appoint ed head of PLDT’s garnet exchange. For several years, he crit icized t he m et hod by
which t he m anagem ent of PLDT m ade t he perform ance evaluat ion of it s em ployees. He repeat edly
com plained about t he rat ing syst em being unfair. Aft er t hree years, Sant os, his superior , t r ansferred
him t o anot her office of t he PLDT. His new posit ion was act ually a funct ionless posit ion, wit h no office
and st aff, and wit hout any oppor t unit y t o get any prom ot ion or wage increase. Paguio com plained t o
Ferido, a VP of PLDT, but t he lat t er affirm ed t he aut horit y of Sant os t o reassign em ployees according
t o t he needs of t he com pany. Ferido also st at ed in his decision t hat t he t ransfer was based on Sant os’
w ell- founded conclusion t hat Paguio was not a t eam player and could not accept decisions of
m anagem ent already ar rived at , short of insubor dinat ion. Enrique Perez, COO of PLDT, affir m ed t he
act ion t aken by Ferido and explained t o Paguio t hat his t ransfer was not in t he nat ure of a disciplinary
act ion t hat required com pliance wit h t he process of “ invest igat ion, confront at ion, and evaluat ion”

before it can be im plem ent ed and t hat t he sam e was not done in bad fait h.
As a result , Paguio filed a com plaint for illegal dem ot ion and dam ages against PLDT.
I SSUE: Whet her Paguio is ent it led t o m oral and exem plary dam ages.
H ELD : Yes.
Under Art icle 21 of t he Civil Code, any person who wilfully causes loss or inj ury t o anot her in a m anner
t hat is cont rary t o m or als, good cust om s or public policy shall com pensat e t he lat t er for t he dam age.
The illegal t ransfer of Paguio t o a funct ionless office was clearly an abuse by PLDT of it s right t o
cont rol t he st ruct ur e of it s organizat ion. The right t o t ransfer or reassign an em ployee is decidedly an
em ployer’s exclusive right and prerogat ive. How ever, such m anagerial prer ogat ive m ust be exer cised
wit hout grave abuse of discret ion, bearing in m ind t he basic elem ent s of j ust ice and fair play. Having
t he right should not be confused wit h t he m anner by which such right is t o be exercised. I n t his case,
t here is no clear j ust ificat ion for t he t ransfer of Paguio except t hat it was done as a result of his
disagreem ent wit h his super iors wit h regar d t o com pany policies.
Paguio is ent it led t o an award of m or al and exem plar y dam ages. I n det erm ining ent it lem ent t o m oral
dam ages, it suffices t o prove t hat t he claim ant has suffered anxiet y, sleepless night s, besm irched
reput at ion and social hum iliat ion by reason of t he act com plained of. Exem plary dam ages, on t he
ot her hand, are grant ed in addit ion t o m oral dam ages by way of exam ple or correct ion for t he public
good. Fur t herm ore, as Paguio was com pelled t o lit igat e and incur ex penses t o enfor ce and prot ect his
right s, he is ent it led t o an award of at t orney’s fees. The am ount of dam ages recoverable is, in t urn,
det erm ined by t he business, social and financial posit ion of t he offended part ies and t he business and
financial posit ion of t he offender.
I n t his case, an award of P50,000.00 as m oral dam ages, P20,000.00 as exem plary dam ages and
at t or ney’s fees equivalent t o 10% of t he am ount t o which pet it ioner is ent it led is reasonable.
e . Cor por a t ion
We learned in Corp law t hat a corporat ion is generally not ent it led t o dam ages because it is an
art ificial person and is not capable of feeling pain, m oral suffering, et c. However, t he court m ay
award dam ages if, as a result of t he act of t he defendant , t he corpor at ion suffers dam age t o it s
goodwill and reput at ion.
At t y. Abaño does not seem t o agree wit h t his ex cept ion. He says it was in j ust one old, old case and
was never repeat ed by t he SC.
Exam ple: A com m it t ed a t ort ious act against Corp X, causing besm irched reput at ion of t he
Corpor at ion. As a result , t he Corp suffered losses. I s A liable for m oral dam ages t o t he st ockholders
of Corp X? No. The cor p is separat e and dist inct from it s st ock holders.
5 . N om in a l D a m a ge s
Ar t . 2 2 2 1 . N om in a l da m a ge s a r e a dj u dica t e d in or de r t h a t a r ight of t h e pla in t iff, w hich

ha s be e n viola t e d or in va de d by t h e de fe nda n t , m a y be vindica t e d or r e cogn iz e d, a n d not
for t h e pur pose of in de m n ify in g t h e pla in t iff for a ny loss su ffe r e d by him .
Ar t . 2 2 2 2 . The cour t m a y a w a r d nom ina l da m a ge s in e ve r y obliga t ion a r isin g fr om a ny

sour ce e num e r a t e d in 1 1 5 7 , or in e ve r y ca se w h e r e a n y pr ope r t y r igh t h a s be e n in va de d.
Ar t . 2 2 2 3 . The a dj u dica t ion of nom in a l da m a ge s sh a ll pr e clu de fu r t h e r con t e st upon t h e

r igh t in volve d a nd a ll a cce ssor y que st ions, a s be t w e e n t h e pa r t ie s t o t he suit , or t h e ir
r e spe ct ive he ir s a nd a ssigns.

PAL v. CA
Re le va n t t o t h e t opic of N om in a l D a m a ge s: As a general rule, an appellee who has not appealed

( such as Mrs. Padilla in t his case) is not ent it led t o affirm at ive relief ot her t han t he ones grant ed in t he
decision of t he court below. How ever , in t his case, t her e was a 16- year delay in t he disposit ion of t his
case due t o t he m ult iple appeals filed by PAL. Mrs. Padilla her self has alr eady j oined her son in t he
Great Beyond wit hout being able t o receive t he indem nit y she w ell deserved. Considering how
inflat ion has deplet ed t he value of t he j udgm ent in her favor, in t he int erest of j ust ice, PAL is ordered
t o pay legal rat e of int er est on t he indem nit y due her.
JAL v. CA
On June 13, 1991, Jose Miranda boarded a JAL flight from San Francisco t o Manila. Enrique Agana,
Maria Angela Agana, and Adelia Francisco were also passengers of a JAL flight from LA t o Manila. As
an incent ive for t raveling wit h JAL, t he flight s m ade an over night st opover in Japan at t he airline’s
ex pense.
Upon arrival in Japan on June 14, t he passengers were billet ed in Hot el Nikko Narit a for t he night .
The following day, t hey learned t hat Mt . Pinat ubo erupt ed, and all flight s t o Manila w ere cancelled
indefinit ely because NAI A was closed. JAL rebooked t hem on flight s due t o depar t on June 16. JAL
paid for t heir unexpect ed ov ernight st ay.
Unfort unat ely, t he June 16 flight was also cancelled. JAL inform ed t he st randed passengers t hat it
w ould no longer shoulder t heir expenses. The passengers st ayed in Japan unt il t he 22 nd and were
for ced t o pay m eals and accom m odat ions fr om t heir personal funds.
The passenger s filed an act ion for dam ages against JAL, claim ing t hat JAL failed t o live up t o it s dut y
t o provide care and com fort t o it s st randed passengers w hen it refused t o pay for t heir hot el and
accom m odat ion ex penses from June 16 t o 21.
I SSUE: Whet her JAL is liable for t he expenses incurred by it s st randed passenger s brought about by
t he unexpect ed erupt ion of Mt . Pinat ubo.
H ELD : No. However, JAL is liable for nom inal dam ages.
JAL is not liable for t he expenses incurred by t he passengers, since t he reason why JAL was prevent ed
from resum ing it s flight t o Manila was due t o t he effect s of t he Mt . Pinat ubo erupt ion, which was a
for t uit ous ev ent .
However, JAL is not com plet ely absolved from liabilit y. I t m ust be not ed t hat t he passengers bought
t ick et s from t he US wit h Manila as t heir final dest inat ion. While JAL was no longer required t o defray
t he passengers’ living expenses during t heir st ay in Japan on account of t he fort uit ous event , JAL had
t he dut y t o m ake t he necessary arrangem ent s t o t ranspor t t he passenger on t he first available
connect ing flight t o Manila. JAL reneged on it s obligat ion t o look aft er t he com fort and convenience of
it s passengers when it declassified t hem from “ t ransit passenger s” t o “ new passenger s,” as a result of
which t hey were obliged t o m ake t he necessary arrangem ent s t hem selves for t he next flight t o Manila.
They were placed on t he wait ing list from June 20 t o June 24. To assur e t hem selves of a seat on an
av ailable flight , t hey were com pelled t o st ay in t he airpor t t he whole day of June 22, and it was only at
8 pm of t hat day t hat t hey were advised t hat t hey could be accom m odat ed in said flight , which flew at
about 9 am t he next day.
Because of JAL’s failur e t o m ak e t he necessary arrangem ent s t o t ranspor t t he passengers on it s first

av ailable flight t o Manila, an aw ard of P100,000 as nom inal dam ages, in favor of each passenger, is in
order.
BPI I nve st m e nt v. CA

Frank Roa obt ained a loan at an int er est rat e of 16.25% per annum from Ayala I nvest m ent and
Developm ent Corp ( AI DC) , t he pr edecessor of BPI I nvest m ent , for t he const ruct ion of a house on his
lot in Alabang. The house and lot was m ort gaged t o AI DC t o secur e t he loan. Roa t hen sold t he
house and lot t o ALS Managem ent and Developm ent Corp and Ant onio Lit onj ua ( privat e respondent s)
for P850K. Privat e respondent s paid 350K in cash and assum ed t he 500K balance of Roa’s
indebt edness wit h AI DC. AI DC, howev er, was not willing t o ext end t he old int rest rat e t o privat e
respondent s, so it grant ed t hem a new loan for 500K t o be applied t o Roa’s debt and secured by t he
sam e pr oper t y, at an int erest rat e of 20% per annum . The m ort gage deed st ipulat ed t hat t he
paym ent of t he am or t izat ions of t he new loan would begin t he following m ont h, on May 1, 1981.
On August 13, 1982, priv at e respondent s updat ed Roa’s arr earages by paying BPI t he sum of
P190,601.35. This reduced Roa’s principal balance t o P457,204.90, which in t urn, was paid off when
BPI C applied t heret o t he proceeds of privat e respondent s’ loan of 500K. Thereaft er, on Sept em ber
13, 1982, BPI r eleased t o privat e respondent s P7,146.87, purpor t ing t o be what was left of t heir loan
aft er full paym ent of Roa’s loan.
Two years lat er , BPI inst it ut ed foreclosure pr oceedings against privat e r espondent s on t he ground t hat
t hey failed t o pay t heir m ort gage indebt edness. Priv at e respondent s filed a case against BPI , alleging
t hat t hey were not in arrears in t heir pay m ent . The t rial court ruled t hat privat e respondent s were not
in arrear s. I t also found t hat t hey suffered dam ages when BPI caused t heir publicat ion in a new spaper
of general circulat ion as default ing debt ors. I t t hus awarded m oral and exem plary dam ages. On
appeal, t he CA found t hat BPI had no basis in ex t raj udicially foreclosing t he m ort gage and publishing
in newspapers t hat privat e respondent s were delinquent debt ors. I t affirm ed t he gr ant of m oral and
ex em plary dam ages.
I SSUE: Whet her BPI is liable for m or al and exem plary dam ages.
H ELD : No, but it is liable for nom inal dam ages.
First , pr ivat e respondent s were not in arrears. The loan was perfect ed only on Sept em ber 13, 1982
since t hat was t he only t im e when it s proceeds were released by BPI t o privat e respondent s. Before
t hat t im e, t hey had no obligat ion t o pay t he m ont hly am ort izat ions. Their obligat ion t o pay arose only
a m ont h aft er Sept em ber 13, and not on May 1, 1982, as st ipulat ed in t he m ort gage cont ract .
Moreover, t he t ot al am ount released t o ALS and Lit onj ua was less t han 500K ( 457K applied t o Roa’s
loan + 7K released on Sept em ber 13 = about 464K) . Thus, t he balance of about 36K which was not
released t o t hem should have been applied as part of t heir m ont hly am ort izat ions.
BPI claim s t hat it should not be held liable for m oral and exem plary dam ages because it did not act
m aliciously when it init iat ed t he foreclosure pr oceedings. I t m er ely exercised it s right under t he
m ort gage cont r act because ALS and Lit onj ua were irregular in t heir m ont hly am ort izat ion. On t he
ot her hand, ALS and Lit onj ua claim t he BPI was guilt y of bad fait h and should be liable for said
dam ages because it insist ed on t he paym ent of am ort izat ion on t he loan befor e it was released.
Furt her, it did not m ake t he corresponding deduct ion in t he m ont hly am ort izat ion t o conform t o t he
act ual am ount of t he loan released, and it im m ediat ely init iat ed foreclosure proceedings when ALS and
Lit onj ua failed t o m ake t im ely paym ent .
The SC held t hat BPI cannot be liable for m oral and exem plary dam ages. ALS and Lit onj ua adm it t ed
t hem selves t hat t hey were irregular in t heir pay m ent of m ont hly am ort izat ions. Hence, it cannot be
said t hat BPI act ed in bad fait h when it inst it ut ed foreclosure proceedings.
However, BPI w as negligent in relying m erely on t he ent ries found in t he deed of m ort gage, wit hout
check ing and correspondingly adj ust ing it s r ecords on t he am ount act ually r eleased t o ALS and
Lit onj ua and t he dat e when it was released. Such negligence result ed in dam age t o ALS and Lit onj ua,
for which an award of nom inal dam ages should be given in recognit ion of t heir r ight s which w ere
violat ed by BPI . For t his pur pose, t he am ount of 25K is sufficient .
6 . Te m pe r a t e D a m a ge s

Ar t . 2 2 2 4 . Te m pe r a t e or m ode r a t e da m a ge s, w h ich a r e m or e t h a n nom in a l bu t le ss t h a n
com pe nsa t or y da m a ge s, m a y be r e cove r e d w he n t h e cour t fin ds t ha t som e pe cu n ia r y loss
ha s be e n suffe r e d but it s a m ount ca n not , fr om t h e na t ur e of t h e ca se , be pr ove d w it h
ce r t a in t y.
Ar t . 2 2 2 5 . Te m pe r a t e da m a ge s m ust be r e a sona ble u nde r t h e cir cum st a n ce s.
N e ce ssit o v. Pa r a s
Sever ina Garces and her one- year old son, Precillano Necessit o, boar ded a Philippine Rabbit Bus at
Agno, Pangasinan. When t he bus ent ered a wooden bridge, it s fr ont wheels swerved t o t he right . The
driver lost cont rol, and t he bus fell int o a creek where wat er was breast deep. Severina drowned,
w hile her son Precillano suffer ed abrasions and a fract ured fem ur.
Two act ions for dam ages and at t orney’s fees were filed against t he carrier. The CFI found t hat t he
accident was caused by t he defect iv e st eering knuck le of t he bus, which could not have been known
by t he carrier. The CFI exoner at ed t he carrier on t he ground of fort uit ous ev ent .
I SSUE: Whet her t he carrier is liable for dam ages.
H ELD : Yes, t he carrier is liable for dam ages.
The accident was not due t o a fort uit ous event . The ev idence present ed shows t hat t he car rier m erely
conduct ed visual inspect ions of t he st eering knuckle every t hirt y days t o see if any cracks developed.
Neit her t he m anufact urer of t he bus nor t he car rier t est ed t he st eering knuckle t o ascert ain whet her
it s st r engt h was up t o st andar d, or t hat it had not hidden flaws t hat would im pair it s st rengt h. This
periodic visual inspect ion of t he st eering knuckle did not m easure up t o t he requir ed legal st andard of
“ ut m ost diligence of very caut ions persons” required of com m on carriers. Therefore, t he knuckle’s
failure can not be considered a fort uit ous event t hat exem pt s t he carrier fr om responsibilit y.
As t o t he dam ages: No allowance m ay be m ade for m oral dam ages, since t he carrier did not act
fraudulent ly or in bad fait h. Neit her can exem plary dam ages be awarded, since t he carrier has not
act ed in a want on, fr audulent , reckless, oppr essive, or m alevolent m anner . Hence, t he court believ es
t hat for Precillano Necessit o, and indem nit y of P5,000 would be adequat e for t he abrasions and
fract ure of t he fem ur, including m edical and hospit alizat ion ex penses, t here being no evidence t hat
t here would be any perm anent im pairm ent of his facult ies or bodily funct ions, beyond t he lack of
anat om ical sym m et ry.
As for t he deat h of Severina Garces, who was 33 years old, wit h seven m inor children when she died,
her heirs are ent it led t o indem nit y not only for t he incident al losses of pr oper t y ( cash, wrist wat ch,
and m erchandise) w or t h P394 t hat she carried at t he t im e of t he accident and for t he bur ial ex penses
of P490, but also for t he loss of her earnings ( average of P120 a m ont h) and for t he depriv at ion of her
prot ect ion, guidance, and com pany. I n t he j udgm ent of t he court , an award of P15,000 w ould be
adequat e.
The low incom e of t he plaint iffs- appellant s m akes an awar d for at t orney’s fees j ust and equit able. A
fee of P3,500 would be reasonable.
Con solida t e d Plyw ood I n dust r ie s I n c. v. CA
Consolidat ed Plywood I ndust ries was in t he business of logging and m anufact uring t im ber product s in
Davao. Willie and Alfred Kho operat ed a fleet of hauling t rucks. Consolidat ed ent ered int o a verbal
agreem ent wit h t he Khos whereby t he Khos undert ook t o haul t he logs of Consolidat ed. The part ies
also agreed t hat as a pre- condit ion befor e t he Khos sent t heir t ruck haulers t o t he j obsit e,
Consolidat ed w ould provide financial assist ance t o t he Khos in t he am ount of 180K cash, t o defray t he
cost of repair s and recondit ioning of t he t rucks and ot her expenses necessary for t he hauling
operat ions. The 180K was in t he nat ure of a cash advance obt ained by t he Khos from Equit able bank
in t he aggregat e am ount of 180K, on t he guarant y of Henry Wee, Pr esident of Consolidat ed, pay able

by t he Khos. The agreem ent also provided t hat t he hauling services shall cont inue unless and unt il
t he loan from Equit able r em ained unpaid.
Aft er t he Khos obt ained t he 180K, t hey com m enced t he hauling service for Consolidat ed. How ever,
aft er hauling logs for about a year, t he Khos, wit hout giving not ice t o Consolidat ed, suddenly and
surrept it iously at night t im e, wit hdrew all it s t ruck haulers fr om t he j obsit e. This was in violat ion of t he
agreem ent , since t hey had not yet paid t he 180K loan wit h Equit able.
Because of t he sudden and surrept it ious abandonm ent by t he Khos of it s obligat ion t o haul logs,
Consolidat ed filed an act ion for dam ages. I t allegedly suffer ed t he following dam ages:
1. Aquarius Trading, a Taiwan log im por t er, charged Consolidat ed P56K repr esent ing t he
cancellat ion fee t hat it had t o pay for a chart er ed vessel, LC ext ension fee and ot her charges
due t o t he failure of Consolidat ed t o deliver logs w hich result ed from t he failure of hauling by
t he Khos on t he due dat e. Consolidat ed also failed t o realize a profit of 150K because t his sale
was cancelled.
2. Aft er t he sudden abandonm ent by t he Khos, Consolidat ed did not have im m ediat e
replacem ent haulers for a m ont h. During t his period, it could have produced 5,000 cu. m . of
logs, represent ing a loss of P350K.
3. Because t he Khos did not pay t he 180K loan wit h Equit able, Henry Wee was exposed t o
liabilit y t o Equit able as guarant or of t he loans. Dem ands for paym ent result ed in unduly
annoy ing and vexing Wee, ent it ling him t o m oral dam ages in t he am ount of P200K.
The t rial court awarded t hese claim s, along wit h at t orney’s fees, awards for unpaid ov erdr aft cash
vales, and t he 56K reim bursem ent char ges t hat Consolidat ed had t o pay Aquarius. On appeal, t he CA
m odified t he j udgm ent and awarded only t he 150K unrealized profit in t he t ransact ion wit h Aquar ius,
t he 56K reim bursem ent charges paid t o Aquar ius, and t he am ount of t he unpaid overdraft .
I SSUE: Whet her Consolidat ed is ent it led t o t he awar ds for unfulfilled im port of logs, m oral dam ages,
and at t or ney’s fees.
H ELD :
There was no evidence t o suppor t t he claim for 350K for t he unfulfilled im por t of logs. This claim
apparent ly refers t o an alleged com m it m ent t o a cert ain Ching Kee Trading of Taiwan, as dist inguished
from t he claim for act ual dam ages incurred in connect ion wit h it s t r ansact ion wit h Aquar ius. While t he
com m it m ent t o Aquarius Trading was sufficient ly subst ant iat ed by docum ent ary evidence, t he alleged
com m it m ent of Consolidat ed t o Ching Kee was not support ed by evidence ot her t han t he self- serv ing
st at em ent of Wee. Nor did t hey present any ot her evidence which would show t hat t hey had ot her
unfulfilled shipm ent s for which t hey incurred dam ages because of t he pull- out of t he Khos’ t rucks. But
ev en assum ing t hat t here was a com m it m ent t o Ching Kee, t he shipm ent was scheduled som e 2
m ont hs aft er t he Khos pulled out t heir t rucks. That would have given t hem t o find ot her t rucks t o do
t he j ob.
Consolidat ed insist s t hat if t he CA did not consider t he 350K dam ages for unfulfilled shipm ent s, it
should hav e been awarded t his am ount as a form of t em perat e or m oderat e dam ages. This is
incorr ect . Tem per at e or m oderat e dam ages m ay be recovered when t he Court finds t hat som e
pecuniary loss has been suffered but it s am ount cannot , fr om t he nat ure of t he case, be proved wit h
cert aint y. I n t his case, t he nat ure of t he cont ract bet ween t he part ies is such t hat dam ages which t he
innocent par t y m ay have incurred can be subst ant iat ed by evidence. Hence, it is not ent it led t o 350K
as t em perat e or m oderat e dam ages.
The court also awar ded 50K as m oral dam ages because t he Khos act ed in bad fait h when t hey
surrept it iously pulled out t heir t rucks befor e t he t erm inat ion of t he cont ract .
Fr om M s. N g’s Re vie w e r :
8 ) Ex e m pla r y D a m a ge s

Ar t . 2 2 2 9 . EX EM PLARY OR CORRECTI VE D AM AGES a r e im pose d, by w a y of e x a m ple or
cor r e ct ion for t he pu blic good, in a ddit ion t o t h e m or a l, t e m pe r a t e , liqu ida t e d or
com pe nsa t or y da m a ge s.
Ar t . 2 2 3 0 . I n ( 1 ) cr im ina l offe nse s, e x e m pla r y da m a ge s a s a pa r t of t he civil lia bilit y m a y

be im pose d w h e n t he cr im e w a s com m it t e d w it h one or m or e a ggr a va t in g cir cum st a nce s.
Such da m a ge s a r e se pa r a t e a nd dist inct fr om fine s a n d sha ll be pa id t o t h e offe nde d pa r t y.
Ar t . 2 2 3 1 . I n ( 2 ) qua side lict s, e x e m pla r y da m a ge s m a y be gr a n t e d if t h e de fe n da n t a ct e d

w it h gr oss n e glige n ce .
Ar t . 2 2 3 2 . I n ( 3 ) con t r a ct s a nd qua si- con t r a ct s, t h e cour t m a y a w a r d e x e m pla r y da m a ge s

if t he de fe nda n t a ct e d in a w a n t on, fr a udu le nt , r e ck le ss, oppr e ssive , or m a le vole n t
m a nn e r .
Ar t . 2 2 3 3 . Ex e m pla r y da m a ge s ca nn ot be r e cove r e d a s a m a t t e r of r igh t ; t h e cour t w ill

de cide w he t h e r or not t he y shou ld be a dj udica t e d. DI SCRETI ONARY
Ar t . 2 2 3 4 . W h ile t h e a m oun t of t h e e x e m pla r y da m a ge s n e e d n ot be pr ove d, t h e pla in t iff

m ust show t ha t he is e nt it le d t o m or a l, t e m pe r a t e or com pe nsa t or y da m a ge s be for e t h e
cour t m a y conside r t h e que st ion of w h e t he r or not e x e m pla r y da m a ge s should be
a w a r de d. I n ca se liqu ida t e d da m a ge s ha ve be e n a gr e e d u pon, a lt hough no pr oof of loss is
ne ce ssa r y in or de r t ha t such liquida t e d da m a ge s m a y be r e cove r e d, n e ve r t h e le ss, be for e
t h e cour t m a y conside r t he que st ion of gr a n t ing e x e m pla r y in a ddit ion t o t he liquida t e d
da m a ge s, t h e pla in t iff m ust show t h a t he w ould be e n t it le d t o m or a l, t e m pe r a t e or
com pe nsa t or y da m a ge s w e r e it not for t h e st ipu la t ion for liquida t e d da m a ge s.
Ar t . 2 2 3 5 . A st ipu la t ion w he r e by e x e m pla r y da m a ge s a r e r e n ounce d in a dva n ce sha ll be

null a n d void.
Oct ot v. Yba ñe z
Diosdado Oct ot , a securit y guard in t he Regional Healt h Office of Cebu, was sum m arily dism issed.
Oct ot was convict ed for libel but sam e was pending appeal. When his acquit t al was obt ained, he
sought reinst at em ent . H is r e qu e st w a s give n due cour se bu t de spit e n ot ice s t o h im t o fill u p
t he n e ce ssa r y pa pe r s t o suppor t h is n ew a ppoin t m e nt , he fa ile d t o a ppe a r but inst ead filed t he
inst ant act ion for m andam us praying for reinst at em ent , paym ent of back salaries, cost of living
allow ance, com pensat ory, exem plary and m oral dam ages. I s Oct ot ent it led t o backwages and
dam ages?
H ELD : N o, sor r y Oct ot ! ( w h a t a na m e … :P)

I n t he a bse nce of pr oof t h a t t he Re gion a l D ir e ct or a ct e d in ba d fa it h & w it h gr a ve a buse of
discr e t ion, Oct ot is not e n t it le d t o ba ck w a ge s & conse qu e n t ly ca nn ot cla im for da m a ge s.
The officials were not m ot ivat ed by ill will or personal m alice in dism issing Oct ot but only t heir desir e
t o com ply wit h m andat es of PD 6.
I f t he r e w a s a ny de la y in his r e inst a t e m e nt , it w a s a t t r ibut e d t o h is ow n fa u lt & n e glige n ce .

Aft er his reinst at em ent was aut horized by t he Office of t he President , Officials prom pt ly com m unicat ed
wit h him , direct ing him t o repor t t o t he Regional Office & accom plish t he necessary papers for his
reinst at em ent , but he delayed doing so. W he r e it is cle a r t h a t his se pa r a t ion fr om t h e
gove r nm e n t se r vice ha d n ot be e n sh ow n t o be in ba d fa it h , a n a w a r d for m or a l da m a ge
un de r t h e cir cum st a n ce w ou ld n ot be j u st a n d pr ope r . Neit her is it am ong t he cases m ent ioned
in Art icles 2219 and 2220 of t he Civil Code wherein m oral dam ages m ay be recovered.
An em ployee who was dism issed but whose reinst at em ent was lat er order ed is not ent it led t o m oral
dam ages where he refused t o repor t for work despit e sever al calls for said purpose.
Ex e m pla r y da m a ge s a r e N OT ge n e r a lly r e cove r a ble in a spe cia l civil a ct ion for m a nda m us
UN LESS t h e de fe n da n t pa t e n t ly a ct e d w it h vin dict ive n e ss or w a nt onne ss & n ot in t h e
e x e r cise of h on e st j udgm e n t . The claim for exem plary dam ages m ust presuppose t he ex ist ence of
t he circum st ances under Art 2231 & 2232.
Exem plary or correct ive dam ages ar e im posed by w ay of exam ple or correct ion for t he public good, in
addit ion t o t he m oral, t em perat e, liquidat ed or com pensat ory dam ages. Such dam ages are required
by public policy , for want on act s m ust be suppr essed. They are an ant idot e so t hat t he poison of
wickedness m ay not run t hrough t he body polit ic.
CON D I TI ON S FOR AW ARD OF EX EM PLARY D AM AGES

( 1) im posed by way of exam ple or cor rect ion only in ADDI TI ON t o com pensat ory, liquidat ed,
m oral, & t em per at e dam ages
( 2) CANNOT be recovered as a m at t er of right , t heir det erm inat ion depending upon t he am t of
dam ages t hat m ay be awar ded t o t he claim ant
( 3) Claim ant m ust first est ablish his right t o m oral, t em perat e, liquidat ed, or com pensat ory
dam ages
( 4) Wrongful act m ust be accom panied by bad fait h & t he award w ould be allowed only if t he
guilt y par t y act ed in want on, fraudulent , reckless, oppr essive or m alevolent m anner
PAL v. CA
Pant ej o, Cit y Fiscal of Surigao Cit y, boarded a PAL plane in Manila & disem barked in Cebu where he
was supposed t o t ake his connect ing flight t o Surigao. However, due t o t yphoon “ Osang” , t he flight
was cancelled. PAL gave out cash assist ance t o it s st randed passengers. Pant ej o request ed t hat he be
billet ed in a hot el at PAL’s expense because he didn’t have cash wit h him at t hat t im e but PAL refused.
Kaya nangut ang m una si Fiscal sa isang co- passenger. Lat er on, he learned t hat PAL reim bursed
ot her passengers. PAL offered t o reim burse him but Fiscal Pant ej o sued PAL for discrim inat ing
against him . I s PAL in bad fait h and t herefor e liable for dam ages?
H ELD : Ye s, Fisca l w in s. W h ooope e e !

Assum ing arguendo t hat t he airline passengers have no vest ed right t o t hese am enit ies in case a flight
is cancelled due t o force m aj eure, w ha t m a k e s PAL lia ble for da m a ge s is it s bla t a n t r e fusa l t o
a ccor d t he so- ca lle d a m e nit ie s e qua lly t o a ll it s st r a nde d pa sse nge r s w h o w e r e bound for
Su r iga o Cit y. N o com pe llin g or j u st ify in g r e a son w a s a dva n ce d for such discr im in a t or y a nd
pr e j u dicia l condu ct .
Th e r e fund of hot e l e x pe nse s w a s su r r e pt it iously a n d discr im ina t or ily m a de by PAL since

t he sa m e w a s not m a de k now n t o e ve r yon e e x ce pt t hr u w or d of m out h t o a ha ndful of
pa sse nge r s. PAL act ed in bad fait h in disregar ding it s dut ies as a com m on carrier t o it s passengers &
discrim inat ing against Pant ej o. Fiscal dude was ex posed t o hum iliat ion and em barrassm ent especially
because of his governm ent al posit ion & social prom inence. Moral, exem plar y, and act ual dam ages
PLUS int er est awarded!
x t in n g
3D
Pe ople v. La s Piñ a s
I ñego Las Piñas was charged wit h t he rape of 12 yr old Sar ah Joy Arpon. CA convict ed him of rape &
was sent enced t o suffer t he penalt y of reclusion per pet ua & t o pay t he vict im P50T as m oral dam ages
& cost s. I s Las Piñas guilt y of rape?
H ELD : YES!
Bast a guilt y sha sa rape.
Pe ople v. Ca t ubig: Aggravat ing circum st ances com m it t ed befor e t he effect ivit y of t he Dec 1, 2000
Revised ROC on Crim pro m ay serve as basis for awarding exem plary dam ages even if not alleged in
t he info, so long as said circum st ances are proven at t he t rial.
The prosecut ion was able t o prove t hat Las Piñas is t he hubby of t he younger sist er of t he vict im ’s
fat her & t herefore a relat ive of t he fam ily by affinit y wit hin t he t hird civil degr ee. Th is cir cu m st a nce
j ust ifie s t h e im posit ion of e x e m pla r y da m a ge s in t he a m t of P2 5 T.

Las Piñas should furt her pay t he vict im P50T as civil indem nit y, in addit ion t o m oral dam ages of P50T
awarded by t he CA.
9 ) At t or n e y ’s Fe e
(1) a s FEES: lawyer - client relat ionship; belongs t o lawy er

(2) a s D AM AGES: belongs t o client
Ge n e r a l Rule : At t y’s fees cannot be recover ed.

Ex ce pt ion : Grant ed in inst ances under 2208. There m ust be a legal basis for t he award of at t y’s
fees.
Court m ust st at e basis fro award. Ot herwise, it s null & void.
Case of A v. B who are fight ing ov er ownership of land. A’s counsel agrees t o represent A for 25% of
t he value of t he land. I f A wins, can A’s counsel file for an at t orney’s lien on t he proper t y? No. At t y ’s
lien on real propert y subj ect of lit igat ion is not allow ed. But if t he act ion was principally for dam ages
and A wins, t he at t y’s fees can const it ut e a lien on t he m oney awarded. The lien is allowed only if t he
subj ect m at t er is m oney, not real proper t y .
What if your agreem ent wit h your client is t hat you’ll be paid 100K but client is awarded only 50K.
Are you ent it led t o j ust 50K? No. The cont ract bet ween you and t he client is a separat e agreem ent .
Ar t . 2 2 0 8 . I n t h e a bse n ce of st ipu la t ion , a t t or n e y's fe e s a n d e x pe nse s of lit iga t ion , ot he r

t h a n j udicia l cost s, ca nnot be r e cove r e d, e x ce pt :
( 1 ) W h e n e x e m pla r y da m a ge s a r e a w a r de d;
( 2 ) W h e n t h e de fe nda n t 's a ct or om ission ha s com pe lle d t he
pla in t iff t o lit iga t e w it h t h ir d pe r sons or t o incur e x pe nse s t o pr ot e ct h is in t e r e st ;
( 3 ) I n cr im in a l ca se s of m a liciou s pr ose cut ion a ga inst t he pla int iff;
( 4 ) I n ca se of a cle a r ly unfou nde d civil a ct ion or pr oce e ding a ga inst t h e pla int iff;
( 5 ) W h e r e t h e de fe nda nt a ct e d in gr oss a nd e vide n t ba d fa it h in r e fusing t o sa t isfy t h e
pla in t iff's pla in ly va lid, j u st a n d de m a nda ble cla im ;
( 6 ) I n a ct ions for le ga l suppor t ;
( 7 ) I n a ct ions for t he r e cove r y of w a ge s of house h old he lpe r s, la bor e r s a nd sk ille d
w or k e r s;
( 8 ) I n a ct ions for inde m n it y unde r w or k m e n's com pe nsa t ion a n d e m ploy e r 's lia bilit y la w s;
( 9 ) I n a se pa r a t e civil a ct ion t o r e cove r civil lia bilit y a r isin g fr om a cr im e ;
( 1 0 ) W h e n a t le a st double j udicia l cost s a r e a w a r de d;
( e.g. docket fees, TSN expenses; can be sizeable)
( 1 1 ) I n a ny ot he r ca se w he r e t he cour t de e m s it j ust a nd e qu it a ble t ha t a t t or ne y's fe e s
a nd e x pe nse s of lit iga t ion sh ou ld be r e cove r e d.
( e.g. case last ed for several years & handled by sam e lawyer)
I n a ll ca se s, t h e a t t or n e y's fe e s a nd e x pe nse s of lit iga t ion m ust be r e a son a ble .
Algoon v. CA: There can be no at t y’s lien on real propert y subj ect of
lit igat ion. However, if case was for dam ages, at t y can claim a lien over t he
award.
x t in n g
3D
Com pania Marit im a v. CA:
Quant um Meruit ; reasonable value of services based on t he ff:
( 1) t im e & ext ent of services
( 2) novelt y & difficult y of quest ions involved
( 3) im port ance of subj ect m at t er
( 4) skill dem anded of case
( 5) probabilit y of losing ot her client s coz of accept ance
( 6) am ount involved & benefit s by client
( 7) cert aint y of com pensat ion ( cont ingency)
( 8) professional st anding of lawyer
PN B v. Ut ilit y Assur a nce Sur e t y ( UTASSCO)

Kangkyo Bank issued a Let t er of Credit in favor of Pedro Bart olom e Ent t o
cover an export of shipm ent of logs t o Japan. LOC assigned t o Lanuza
Lum ber. Lat er, Lanuza Lum ber, obt ained a P25T loan from PNB. Ut ilit y
Assurance furnished t he suret y bond. Lanuza Lum ber & UTASSCO default ed.
Thus, PNB filed an act ion t o recover t he am t of t he PN wit h int erest PLUS
at t y’s fees. UTASSCO claim s t hat it s obligat ion under t he suret y bond was t o
secure t he perform ance of t he T&C of t he Let t er of Credit & had not
guarant eed perform ance of Lanuza’s obligat ion under it s P25T loan from
PNB. I s UTASSCO liable t o pay t he obligat ion & at t y’s fees?
H ELD : YES.
The suret y bond was int ended t o secure t he paym ent of Lanuza Lum ber’s
loan wit h PNB. ( 1) The suret y bond explicit ly st at ed t he P25T loan was being
secured by t he bond. ( 2) While t he bond & endorsem ent referred t o t he LOC,
Lanuza Lum ber had NO obligat ion under t he LOC as it was t he beneficiary-
assignee of t he LOC.
Cla use lim it ing t he lia bilit y of UTASSCO doe s n ot pr e ve n t gr a n t of

int e r est & a t t y’s fe e s. Tagawa vs. Aldanese: credit ors suing on a
suret yship bond m ay recover from t he suret y as part of t heir dam ages,
int erest at t he legal rat e even if t he suret y would t hereby becom e liable t o
pay m ore t han t he t ot al am ount st ipulat ed in t he bond. 'The t heory is t hat
int erest is allowed only by way of dam ages for delay upon t he part of t he
suret ies in m aking paym ent aft er t hey should have done. " The sur e t y is
m a de t o pa y in t e r e st , n ot by r e a son of t h e con t r a ct , bu t by r e a son of
it s fa ilur e t o pa y w he n de m a nde d a n d for ha ving com pe lle d t h e
pla in t iff t o r e sor t t o t h e cou r t s t o obt a in pa ym e n t .
The NCC perm it s recovery of at t orney's fees in eleven cases enum erat ed in
Art 2208, am ong t hem 'where t he court deem it j ust and equit able t hat
at t orney's fees and expenses of lit igat ion should be recovered' or 'when t he
defendant act ed in gross and evident bad fait h in refusing t o sat isfy t he
plaint iffs plainly valid, j ust and dem andable claim .' This give s t he cour t s
discr e t ion in a ppor t ion in g a t t or n e y's fe e s.
I ba a n Rur a l Ba n k v. CA
Spouses Reyes m ort gaged 3 parcels lf land wit h I baan Rural Bank. The
Reyeses sold t he sam e t o t he Tarnat e spouses under a DOAS wit h
Assum pt ion of Mort gage. The Tarnat es failed t o pay t he loan & t he bank
ext ra- j udicially foreclosed t he propert ies. N o n ot ice of t h e ex t r a - j u dicia l
for e closur e w a s give n t o t h e Ta r n a t e s. Tarnat es t ried t o redeem t he
propert ies but t he bank & Sheriff refused. The Tarnat es t hen filed a
com plaint t o com pel t he bank t o allow t heir redem pt ion of t he foreclosed
lot s. LC ordered redem pt ion of t he propert ies plus paym ent of at t y’s fees as
dam ages. Was t he award of at t y’s fees on t he basis of t he bank’s refusal t o
allow redem pt ion proper?
H ELD : N O.
Th e a w a r d of a t t y’s fe e s m ust be disa llow e d for la ck of le ga l ba sis.
The fact t hat t he Tarnat es w ere com pelled t o lit igat e & incur expenses t o
prot ect & enforce t heir claim does not j ust ify t he aw ard of at t y’s fees.
The general rule is t hat at t y’s fees cannot be recovered as part of dam ages
because of t he public policy t hat no prem ium should be placed on t he right
t o lit igat e. The aw ard of at t y’s fees m ust be delet ed where t he award of
m oral & exem plary dam ages are elim inat ed.
1 0 ) M it iga t ion of D a m a ge s
Ar t . 1 1 9 2 . I n ca se BOTH PARTI ES H AV E COM M I TTED A BREACH of t h e obliga t ion , t h e

lia bilit y of t h e fir st infr a ct or sh a ll be e qu it a bly t e m pe r e d by t h e cour t s. I f it ca nnot be
de t e r m ine d w hich of t h e pa r t ie s fir st viola t e d t h e cont r a ct , t h e sa m e sha ll be de e m e d
e x t ingu ishe d, a nd e a ch sha ll be a r his ow n da m a ge s.
Ar t . 2 2 0 3 . The pa r t y suffe r ing loss or inj ur y m ust e x e r cise t h e

D I LI GEN CE OF A GOOD FATH ER OF A FAM I LY t o m inim ize t he
da m a ge s r e su lt ing fr om t he a ct or om ission in que st ion .
Ar t . 2 2 0 4 . I n cr im e s, t he da m a ge s t o be a dj u dica t e d m a y be
r e spe ct ive ly incr e a se d or le sse ne d a ccor din g t o t he AGGRAVATI N G
OR M I TI GATI N G CI RCUM STAN CES.
Ar t . 2 2 1 4 . I n qua side lict s, t h e CON TRI BUTORY N EGLI GEN CE of t h e pla in t iff sha ll r e du ce
t h e da m a ge s t h a t he m a y r e cove r .
Ar t . 2 2 1 5 . I n cont r a ct s, qua si- cont r a ct s, a nd qu a side lict s, t he cour t m a y EQUI TABLY

M I TI GATE t h e da m a ge s u nde r cir cum st a n ce s ot h e r t h a n t h e ca se r e fe r r e d t o in t h e
pr e ce ding a r t icle , a s in t h e follow ing inst a n ce s:
( 1 ) Th a t t h e pla in t iff h im se lf h a s cont r a ve n e d t h e t e r m s of t h e con t r a ct ;
( 2 ) Th a t t h e pla in t iff h a s de r ive d som e be n e fit a s a r e sult of t h e cont r a ct ;
( 3 ) I n ca se s w h e r e e x e m pla r y da m a ge s a r e t o be a w a r de d, t ha t t h e de fe n da nt a ct e d u pon
t h e a dvice of counse l;
( 4 ) Th a t t h e loss w ou ld ha ve r e su lt e d in a n y e ve n t ;

( 5 ) Th a t since t h e filin g of t h e a ct ion, t h e de fe nda n t ha s done h is be st t o le sse n t he
pla in t iff's loss or in j ur y.
EX TI N GUI SH ES LI ABI LI TY a nd EACH BEARS OW N LOSS: can’t det erm ine who was t he first
infract or
M I TI GATES LI ABI LI TY
( 1) diligence of a good fat her of a fam ily
( 2) m it igat ing circum st ances
(3) cont ribut ory negligence on t he part of t he adverse part y ( Ex: case in crim 1 wher e t he vict im in
a hacking incident went and subm er ged his hands in canal wat er. Of course, he died of
infect ion or t et anus lat er on. He was guilt y of cont ribut ory negligence)
( 4) plaint iff him self has cont ravened t he t erm s of t he cont ract
( 5) plaint iff has derived som e benefit as a result of t he cont ract
(6) I n cases where exem plary dam ages ar e t o be awarded, t hat t he defendant act ed upon t he
advice of counsel;
(7) loss w ould have result ed in any event ;
(8) since t he filing of t he act ion, t he defendant has done his best t o lessen t he plaint iff's loss or
inj ury. ( Exam ple: if you run over som eone, you should br ing him t o t he hospit al. Your liabilit y
will be m it igat ed.)
M a la ysia n Air line s v. CA

Malaysina Airline Syst em Bernad recr uit ed Renat o Ar ellano from PAL for his t raining & ex perience and
cont ract ed his services as pilot for t wo years. When t he plane he was driving landed at Bint ulo
airport , all t he t ires burst , causing alarm am ong t he passengers but causing no inj uries. Arellano was
found negligent by t he invest igat ing boar d in Malaysia & was dism issed by Malaysian Airlines. RTC-
Pnas held t hat Ar ellano’s dism issal from service w as im pr oper as he was not negligent & or dered
paym ent of P3M m oral dam ages, P1M exem plary dam ages, am ong ot hers. Was t he am ount of
dam ages awarded excessive?
H ELD : YES.
Th e in or din a t e a m ount gr a nt e d t o Ar e lla no ca lls for t h e m ode r a t ing of t h e Cou r t , t ha t j u st ice
m a y be t e m pe r e d w it h r e a son inst e a d of be ing t a in t e d w it h w ha t a ppe a r s he r e t o be a
r ut hle ss vindict ive n e ss.
The com plaint pr ayed for paym ent of unpaid salaries from July 1981 t o July 1982 which corresponds
t o t he periods of t he renewed cont ract . On t he basis of his m ont hly salary of Malaysian $4,025, or
P33,568.50, his t ot al unearned salaries will be P402,822. To t his should be added t he am ount of
P123,098.40 as allowance for t he sam e period of one year at t he rat e of $1,230/ m nt h plus P80T,
represent ing his ex penses in t ransferring his fam ily t o t he Philippines, am ount ing t o an aggr egat e sum
of P605,920.40 in act ual dam ages.
Moral dam ages is reduced t o P500T and at t y’s fees t o P25T. All ot her awards are disaut horized.
Br ick t ow n v. Am or - Tie r r a
Brickt own Developm ent Corporat ion ex ecut ed t wo Cont ract s t o Sell in favor of Am or- Tierra
Developm ent Cor p covering 96 resident ial lot s at Mult inat ional Village. Of t he t ot al purchase price of
P21M, Am or- Tierra only paid P1.3M. Brickt own sent a not ice of cancellat ion t o Am or- Tierra. Am or-
Tierra dem anded a refund OR assign t o it an equivalent num ber of lot s. Brickt own refused. Am or
filed for rescission of t he cont r act . Was t he rescission and forfeit ure of paym ent valid?
H ELD : YES a n d N O.
W hile Br ick t ow n st ill a ct e d w it hin it s le ga l r igh t t o de cla r e t h e con t r a ct s t o se ll r e scinde d or
ca nce lle d, conside r ing t he ne got ia t ions w hich m a de Am or - Tie r r a be lie ve t ha t t he y w ould be
e n t e r ing in t o a ne w cont r a ct , it w ould be uncon scion a ble t o lik e w ise sa n ct ion t he for fe it u r e
of pa ym e nt s. Th e r e la t ionsh ip be t w e e n pa r t ie s in a n y con t r a ct m u st a lw a ys be ch a r a ct e r iz e d
a nd punct ua t e d by good fa it h a nd fa ir de a ling. Brickt own did fall well behind t hat st andard. We
do not find it equit able, how ever , t o adj udge any int er est pay m ent by Brickt own on t he am ount t o be
t hus refunded, com put ed from j udicial dem and, for, indeed, Am or- Tierra should not be allowed t o
t ot ally free it self from it s own breach. 1 2 % in t e r e st / a nnu m t o com m e n ce on ly fr om t h e fin a lit y
of t h is de cision unt il su ch r e fu n d is e ffe ct e d.
I n t e r n a t ion a l School v. CA
Spouses Torr alba filed a com plaint for dam ages against I S for t he deat h of t heir only son Eric, while in
t he cust ody of I S & it s officers. RTC aw arded dam ages. I S appealed. The Torralba’s m oved for
ex ecut ion of j udgm ent pending appeal on grounds t hat t he appeal is m erely dilat ory & filing of a bond
is anot her good reason for execut ion. RTC grant ed sam e. CA affirm ed. Was t he execut ion of
j udgm ent pending appeal im proper?
H ELD : YES.
Reason t hat an appeal is dilat or y does NOT j ust ify ex ecut ion pending appeal, neit her does t he filing of
a bond, wit hout any t hing m ore, j ust ify t he sam e. I S could not be fault ed for it s wit hdrawal of it s
super sedeas bond inasm uch as t he LC gr ant ed t he execut ion pending appeal & r ej ect ed it s offer of
super sedeas bond.
x t in n g
3D
Th e a w a r ds for m or a l & e x e m pla r y da m a ge s CAN N OT be t he su bj e ct of e x e cu t ion pe ndin g
a ppe a l.
RATI ON ALE: The execut ion of any award for m oral & exem plary dam ages is dependent on t he
out com e of t he m ain case. Unlike act ual dam ages for which pet it ioners m ay clearly be held liable if
t hey breach a specific cont ract & t he am t s of which ar e fixed & cert ain, liabilit ies wit h respect t o m oral
& exem plary dam ages as well as t he exact am ount s rem ain uncer t ain & indefinit e pending resolut ion
by t he I AC & SC. The exist ence of t he fact ual bases of t hese t ypes of dam ages and t heir causal
relat ion t o t he pet it ioner’s act will have t o be det erm ined in t he light of errors on appeal. I t is
possible t h a t t h e pe t it ion e r s, a ft e r a ll, w h ile lia ble for a ct ua l da m a ge s m a y not be lia ble for
m or a l & e x e m pla r y da m a ge s. Or in som e ca se s e le va t e d t o t h e SC, t h e a w a r ds m a y be
r e duce d.
I X . PROCED URAL RULES ON D AM AGES - Just look at Sir’s handout . Ok yon.
Good Luck!


Torts Reviewer Libre

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Torts Reviewer Libre

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TORTS M I D TERM REVI EW ER

I . I N TROD UCTI ON : TORTS AN D D AM AGES

Ar t . 1 1 5 6 . An obliga t ion is a j u ridica l n e ce ssit y t o give , t o do or n ot t o do.

Ar t . 1 1 5 7 . Obliga t ion s a r ise fr om :

Ar t . 1 1 5 8 . Obliga t ion s de riv e d from la w a r e n ot pr e su m e d. On ly t h ose e x pr essly de t e r m in e d in t h is

Ar t . 1 1 5 9 . Obliga t ion s a r isin g fr om con t r a ct s h a ve t h e for ce of la w be t w ee n t h e con t r a ct in g pa r t ie s

Ar t . 1 1 6 0 . Obliga t ion s de riv e d from qu a si- cont r a ct s sh a ll be su bj e ct t o t h e pr ovision s of Ch a pt e r 1 ,

Ar t . 1 1 6 1 . Civil obliga t ion s a r isin g from cr im in a l offe n se s sh a ll be gove r n e d by t h e pe n a l la w s,

Ar t . 1 1 6 2 . Obliga t ion s de riv e d from qu a si- de lict s sh a ll be gove r n e d by t h e pr ovision s of Ch a pt e r 2 ,

The t ort is t he cause, w hile t he effect is m anifest ed in dam ages.

Cla sse s of Act ion s

1. Qu a si- D e lict : based on negligence

2. Twofold Meaning of Dam ages

3. Culpa Aquiliana/ Cont ract ual/ Cr im inal

Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 1

CULPA AQUI LI AN A CULPA CON TRACTUAL CRI M I N AL

1. ex delict o under Art . 100 of t he RPC; and

Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 2

1. t her e m ust be a com m on cause of act ion; and

1. against t he dr iv er : quasi- delict under 2176

Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 3

The elem ent s of a quasi- delict are:

Answ er : No, because t her e was no negligence on t he part of X.

All t he elem ent s of a quasi- delict are present :

1. dam ages suffer ed by t he plaint iff;

1. dam ages suffer ed by t he plaint iff;

The RTC and CA found Equit able t o be liable.

I SSUE: Whet her Equit able is liable.

H ELD : Equit able is liable.

Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 5

2. No Double Recover y Rule

Ar t . 2 1 7 7 . Re spon sib ilit y for fa u lt or n e glige n ce u n der t h e pr e ce din g a r t icle is e n t ir e ly se pa r a t e a n d

Br oa de r con ce pt of Civil Lia bilit y

H ELD : Yes, t he civil act ion was pr oper ly filed.

This is a resolut ion of a MR.

Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 6

I SSUE: Whet her t he grant of t he dam ages am ount s t o double r ecover y.

H ELD : I t does not am ount t o double recover y.

Ar t . 1 1 7 3 . Th e fa u lt or n eglige n ce of t h e obligor con sist s in t h e om ission of t h a t dilige n ce w h ich is

I f t h e la w or con t r a ct doe s n ot st a t e t h e dilig e n ce w h ich is t o be obse r ve d in t h e pe r for m a n ce, t h a t

I SSUE: Whet her Cit yt rust is liable for dam ages.

H ELD : Cit yt rust is liable.

Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 7

I SSUE: Whet her FEBTC is liable for dam ages.

H ELD : I t is not liable.

I SSUE: Whet her Adzuara is guilt y of negligence.

The fact s found by t he lower cour t war rant such a finding.

Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 8

2. Negligence as Proxim at e Cause

H ELD : They are bot h guilt y of cont r ibut or y negligence.

Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 9

N ot ice of a de fect n e ed n ot be dir e ct a n d e x pr e ss; it is e n ou gh t h a t t h e sa m e h a d e x ist e d for su ch

Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 10

So Luis sued, and won, CA rev er sed

Pr om pt n ot ice by t h e ca r dh olde r t o t h e cr e dit ca rd com pa n y of t h e loss or t h e ft of h is ca r d sh ou ld

I SSUE: Whet her BENECO was negligent .

Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 11

The parent s claim ed dam ages from t he school, and won.

Food Ter m in a l I n cor por a t e d vs. CA. a nd Ba sic Foods Cor p.

Digest s by Sher yl, Cay o, Rosa 12

The RTC dism issed; t he CA held t hat t her e was negligence.

H ELD : FTI was negligent .

H ELD : No, t hey are not .

4. Presum pt ion of Negligence