COURSE OUTLINE FOR TORTS AND DAMAGES

UB School of Law, SY 2018

Course Description

This two unit course is designed to provide law students an insight into the core
concepts of civil liability for damages caused by a breach of an imposed duty. Topics
pursued include negligence, delict, absolute liability, intentional torts, special torts, and
kinds of damages.

Course Requirements

MIDTERM:
1. Active Participation in Class Discussions (20%)
2. Quiz/Seatwork (35%)
3. Case digest(5%)
4. Midterm Exams (40%)

FINALS:
1. Active Participation in Class Discussions (15%)
2. Quiz/Seatwork (20%)
3. Case Digest (5%)
3. Final Exams (60%)

Reference:
New Civil Code

Course Outline

(first meeting) Organizational Meeting

Organizational Matters and Course Completion

• Regular Schedule/Make up Time
• Class Coordinators (per group)
• Email Group (cda_farinas@yahoo.com)

I. INTRODUCTION
 CONCEPT OF TORTS
 Classes of Torts
o Negligent
 Involve voluntary acts or omissions which result in injury to others
without intending to cause the same or because the actor fails to
exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions.
o Intentional
 Include conduct where the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act
or believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.
 They are found in Chapter 2 of the Preliminary Title of the NCC entitled
“Human Relations”. Although this chapter covers negligent acts, the torts
mentioned herein are mostly intentional in nature or torts involving malice or
bad faith.
o Strict
 When the person is made liable independent of fault or negligence upon
submission of proof of certain facts specified by law.
NOTE: Strict liability tort can be committed even if reasonable care was
exercised and regardless of the state of mind of the actor at that time.
II. SOURCES OF CIVIL LIABILITY (based on Negligent torts)
 Articles 29 to 31; Articles 1159 to 1162 of the Civil Code
 Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code
 Sections 1 and 2, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

Kinds of Negligence
Arising from Crime
 People of the Philippines vs. Bayotas (G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994, 236
SCRA 239)
 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People of the Philippines

Arising from Contract

 Air France vs. Carascoso, et al

Arising from Tort

 Andamo, et al vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al
 Castro vs. People of the Philippines

CULPA AQUILANA/CULPA CONTRACTUAL/CULPA CRIMINAL

 Article 2177 of the Civil Code
 Fabre, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
 Calalas vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

III. CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT

1. ELEMENTS OF A QUASI-DELICT
 Article 2176 of the Civil Code
 Cinco vs. Canonoy, et al (90 SCRA 369)

2. DISTINCTIONS

A. Quasi-delict v. Delict
 Article 2177, CC
 Article 365, RPC
 Philippine Rabbit vs. People, GR No. 147703 (2004)

B. Quasi-delict v. Breach of contract

 Articles 1170-1174, CC
 Article 1174, CC
 Article 2178, CC
 Far East vs. CA, 241 SCRA 671
 Calalas vs. Sunga, 332 SCRA 356 (2000)

IV. NEGLIGENCE

Concept of Negligence
Definition; Elements
 Article 20, CC
 Article 1173 of the Civil Code
 Picart vs. Smith, Jr. (37 Phil 809)

Negligence as the Proximate Cause

 Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

Proof of Negligence
A. Burden of proof
 Rule 131, Rules of Court (“ROC”)
  Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

B. Presumption of Negligence
 Articles 2184-2185, 2188, 1734-1735, CC

C. Res ipsa loquitur

 Layugan vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 363
 Batiquin vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

Respondeat superior
 Castilex Industrial Corporation vs. Vasquez, Jr., et al.

Violation of Traffic Rules

 Article 2184 of the Civil Code
 Caedo, et al. vs. Yu Khe Thai, et al.
 BLT Bus co. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.

Dangerous weapons and substances

 Article 2188 of the Civil Code

V.DEFENSES
KINDS of DEFENSES
-complete
-partial

a. Contributory negligence
 Article 2179, 2214 of the Civil Code
 Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company (GR No 1719 (1907))

b. Assumption of Risk
 Afiada vs. Hisole (85 Phil 67)

c. Last clear chance

 Picart vs. Smith, Jr (37 Phil 809)
 Spouses Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District (104 Phil 397)

d. Prescription
 Article 1146 of the Civil Code
 Article 169 of the Consumer Act of the Philippines
 Ferrer, et al. vs. Ericta, et al
 Kramer, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (178 SCRA 518)

e. Force majeure/ Fortuitous event

 Article 1170, 1174 of the Civil Code
 Gotesco vs. Chatto, et al (210 SCRA 18)
 National Power Corporation, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al (GR Nos. 103442-45
(1993)

f. Exercise of diligence
 Article 2180 of the Civil Code
 Ramos vs. Pepsi, (19 SCRA 289)

g. Mistake and waiver

 Gatchalian vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

h. Damnum absque injuria

 National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al
VI.CAUSATION

Proximate Cause

1. Definition
 Fernando vs. CA, 208 SCRA 714
 Pilipinas Bank vs. CA, 234 SCRA 435

2. Distinguished from other kinds

Remote
 Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1
Concurrent
 Far East Shipping vs. CA, 297 SCRA 30

VII. VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Article 2180 to 2194 of the Civil Code

1. PARENTS AND GUARDIANS

 Article 2180, 2181 and 2182 of the Civil Code
 Articles 216 and 218, Family Code
 Republic Act No. 6809
 Canlas vs. Chan Lin Po, et al. Spouses Libi vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, et al

2. TEACHERS AND HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENTS

 Articles 218-219, FC
 Article 2180, CC
 Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (108 Phil 414 (1960))

3. OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS

 St. Francis High School, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al

4. EMPLOYERS
 Martin vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
 Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al

VIII. PRIMARY LIABILITY (in relation to strict torts)

1. POSSESSORS /USERS OF ANIMALS

 Article 2183 of the Civil Code
 Vestil, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. (179 SCRA 47)

2. OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES

 Article 2184 of the Civil Code
 Caedo, et al. vs. Yu Khe Thai, et al.
 Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al

3. MANUFACTURERS AND PROCESSORS

 Article 2189 of the Civil Code
 in general, Consumer Act of the Philippines

4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
 Article 2189 of the Civil Code
 Section 24 of the Local Government Code
 City of Manila vs. Teotico, et al.
5. BUILDING PROPRIETORS
 Articles 2190, 2191, 2192 and 2193 of the Civil Code

6. ENGINEERS /ARCHITECTS /CONTRACTORS

 Article 2192 and 1723 of the Civil Code
 Nakpil & Sons, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

IX. SPECIAL TORTS (in relation to intentional torts)

1. ABUSE OF RIGHTS

Article 19 of the Civil Code

 Velayo vs. Shell Company of the Philippines Islands, Ltd (100 Phil 186)

2. ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONTRARY TO MORALS

 Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code
 Wassmer vs. Velez

3. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
 Articles 22 and 23 of the Civil Code

4. JUDICIAL VIGILANCE
 Article 24 of the Civil Code

5. THOUGHTLESS EXTRAVAGANCE
 Article 25 of the Civil Code

6. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
 Article 26 of the Civil Code
 St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
 Castro vs. People of the Philippines

7. DERELICTION OF DUTY
 Article 27 of the Civil Code
 Torio, et al. vs. Fontanilla, et al

8. UNFAIR COMPETITION
 Article 28 of the Civil Code

9. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 Article 32 of the Civil Code
 Lim vs. Ponce de Leon

10. INTERFERENCE IN CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

 Article 1314 of the Civil Code
 Daywalt vs. La Corporacion delos Padres Agustino Recoletos, et al

X. DAMAGES

CONCEPT/KINDS
 Article 2195 to 2198 of the Civil Code
 Filinvest Credit vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
 Spouses Custodio, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al

A. ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
 Article 2199 to 2215 of the Civil Code
 a. In General
 PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (297 SCRA 402)

b. Death and permanent incapacity

 Article 2206, CC
 Manzanares vs. Moreta
 Borromeo vs. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co

c. Attorney’s Fees
 Article 2208, CC
 Agustin vs. Court of Appeals

d. Interest
 Articles 2209-2213, CC
 Eastern Shipping vs. Court of Appeals

B. MORAL DAMAGES
CONCEPT
 Article 2217 to 2220 of the Civil Code
 Lopez vs. Pan American World Airways

C. NOMINAL AND TEMPERATE DAMAGES

 Articles 2221 to 2225 of the Civil Code
 Japan Airlines vs. Court of Appeals
 Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Spouses Vasquez

D. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
 Articles 2226 to 2228 of the Civil Code
 Country Bankers vs. Court of Appeals

E. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES

 De Leon vs. Court of Appeals
 People of the Philippines vs. Cristobal