Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PHILIPPINE TORT LAW (c) liability of the occupier if he keeps any object
suspended from the building which would do
SOURCES damage if it fell, and
As a source of obligation
Quasi-delict as a source of obligation (ARTICLE 1157, NCC) (d) the liability of the shop keeper, innkeeper or keeper
This source of obligation is classified as “extra-contractual of a stable for any theft or damage caused by slaves
obligation” and is governed by Chapter XVII, Chapter 2 of or employees, or in case of the innkeepers, of
the Code consisting of Articles 2176 to 2194. permanent residents. (Barry Nicholas, An
Introduction to Roman Law, 1962 Ed., pp. 224-225).
NOTE: Other provisions that are considered “tort”
provisions can be found in other titles of the Code and in NOTE: This has been embodied in ARTICLE 2000 of the
special laws. NCC. However, the liability is now part of contract law rather
than tort law. [Contract of DEPOSIT]
Derivation:
The project of the Civil Code is based upon the Civil Code of SCOPE AND APPLICABLE LAWS
1889, which is of Spanish and French origin. The proposed Tort as a Source of Liability
Code has been strengthened and enriched with new provisions Although the word tort does not appear in the New Civil
chosen with care from the codes, laws and judicial decisions Code, there are statutory provisions that use the word thereby
of various countries as well as from the works of jurists of recognizing tort as a source of liability. The provisions that
various nations. Among them are: Spain, the various States of recognize tort liability and use the term “tort” include
the American Union, — especially California and Louisiana, Sections 22 and 100 of the Corporation Code, Art. 68 of the
— France, Argentina, Germany, Mexico, Switzerland, Child and Youth Welfare Code and Sec. 17(a)(6) of the Ship
England, and Italy. In addition, there are a number of articles Mortgage Decree.
which restate the doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court
of the Philippines. Finally, there are hundreds of amendments
Tort involving intentional acts
and new rules agreed upon by the Commission originally and
not having in mind any code, decision or treatise, in order to
The Supreme Court had, in fact, repeatedly used the term tort
consecrate Filipino customs, or to rectify unjust or unwise in deciding cases involving negligent acts or omissions as
provisions heretofore in force, or to clarify doubtful articles well as those involving intentional acts.
and clauses in the present Code, or to afford solutions to
numerous questions and situations not foreseen in the Civil Tort as a breach of legal duty
Code of 1889 and other laws. The Supreme Court broadly defined tort as a breach of legal
Code Commission duty. The Supreme Court explained that tort essentially
consists in the violation of a right given or omission of
Reliance on the laws of other countries statutory duty imposed by law. (Naguiat vs. NLRC, 269 SCRA
It is not surprising that various torts in other countries are 564 [1997]).
likewise recognized as such in this jurisdiction. It is also not
surprising that the Supreme Court borrows heavily from the Incorporation of Common Law Torts
decisions of the Court in other countries especially Spain and The New Civil Code as enacted and the Report of the Code
the United States. Commission itself, reveal an evident intent to adopt the
common law concept of tort and to incorporate the different,
Roman Law as the main inspiration intentional and unintentional common law torts in the New
Roman Law served as the main inspiration of the New Civil Civil Code. Tortious conduct for which civil remedies are
Code. The influence of Roman Law is quite evident in the available are embodied in different provisions of the New
field of quasi-delict. Code.
Examples: Independent civil actions (Arts. 32, 33, 34, 35 and
It should be noted that the “Institutes’’ in Roman law added 36 of the Civil Code)
the category of obligations that arise quasi ex delicto. Four
are listed within such category: Inclusion of Anglo-American Rules
(a) liability of a judge who misconducts a case or gives The same intent to incorporate Anglo-American rules is
a wrong decision, present in the rules regarding proximate cause and
contributory negligence (Article 2199, NCC).
(b) the liability of an occupier of a building for double
the damage caused by anything thrown or forced out Enlarged Concept of Tortious Acts
of the building, no matter by whom, on to a public The intent to adopt the expanded common law concept of
place, intentional and unintentional tort is more evident in Articles
19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code.
NOTE: This has been embodied in ARTICLE 2193 of the NOTE: It introduces malice in the commission of torts.
New Civil Code of the Philippines. Article 20 is the “general sanction for all other provisions of
law which do not especially provide their own sanction” and
“is broad enough to cover all legal wrongs which do not
constitute violations of contract.”
…thereby making it clear that the concept of culpa aquiliana Interests Protected under the Civil Code
includes acts which are criminal in character or in violation of Interest Protected Torts and/or Provisions
the penal law, whether voluntary or negligent. Involved
Person
… Such distinction between criminal negligence and “culpa Freedom from contract Physical Injuries (Art. 32);
extra-contractual’’ or “cuasi-delito’’ has been sustained by Quasi-delict (ART. 2176)
decision of the Supreme Court of Spain and maintained as
Freedom from distress Moral damages (ARTS.
clear, sound and perfectly tenable by Maura, an outstanding
2217-2220)
Spanish jurist. Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177,
acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether Dignity
on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent Reputation Defamation (ART. 33)
civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal Privacy Violation of Privacy (ART.
negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict or “culpa 26)
aquiliana.’’ But said article forestalls a double recovery.” Freedom from wrongful Malicious Prosecution
(Elcano and Elcano vs. Hill and Hill, 77 SCRA 98) actions (ARTS. 20 and 21)
Property
Real Property Nuisance (ARTS. 694-770);
Quasi-delict (ART. 2176)
Economic/Pecuniary
Contracts Interference with
contractual rights (ART.
1314)
Freedom from Deception Fraud (ART. 33)
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES NOTE: Consistent with the moral perspective is the maxim
Ubi jus ibi remedium — there is no wrong without a remedy.
Equity and Justice Consequently, the focus of tort law from the moral
These general considerations are embodied in Articles 21 and perspective is the wrong committed and the moral
26 of the Civil Code. Thus, justice and equity demand that shortcoming of the actor.
persons who may have been damaged by the wrongful or
negligent act of another are compensated. Social and Economic Perspective
Each interest which receives recognition and protection by
NOTE: Acting with justice involves the duty the law, receives such protection to the extent of the social
(a) to indemnify for damage caused under Arts. 20, 21, significance of the individual interest, as compared with the
28, 27; other conflicting individual interests. In other words, public
(b) to indemnify by reason of unjust enrichment under policy requires that some interests not be invaded too far in
Arts. 22 and 23; and the advancement of other interests.
(c) to protect the weaker party under Article 24
The social function of tort may also be viewed from an
Equity economic perspective. “Economic analysis of tort law
Equity has broadly been defined as justice according to focuses on the allocation of the risks of loss due to the
natural law and right. It is also described as justice outside destruction of property or injury to persons created by those
legality. activities. Tort law may be viewed as a system of rules
NOTE: Equity is often invoked in justifying the rule designed to maximize wealth by allocating risks so as to
regarding mitigation of liability if the plaintiff was guilty of minimize the costs associated with engaging in daily
contributory negligence. activities.
Wrongful or negligent act or omission creates An unborn child, however, is not entitled to damages.
vinculum juris Although the bereaved parents may be entitled to damages, all
The fundamental distinction between obligations of this such damages must be those inflicted directly upon them as
character and those which arise from contract, rests upon the distinguished from the injury or violation of the rights of the
fact that in cases of non-contractual obligation it is the unborn child, his right to life and physical integrity. (Geluz vs.
Court of Appeals, 2 SCRA 802 [1961]).
wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the
vinculum juris, whereas in contractual relations the vinculum
exists independently of the breach of the voluntary duty Defendants: Persons who may be held liable
assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual Defendants in tort cases can either be natural or artificial
relation. (Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Company) beings.
Preventive Remedy
A prayer for injunction and a writ of preliminary injuction
and a temporary restraining order may be justified under
certain circumstances. Thus, in proper cases, the defendant
may be enjoined from continuing with the performance of a
tortious conduct.
ARTICLE 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage 3. that it be without malice;
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no 4. that material damage results from the reckless
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called imprudence; and
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
5. that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the
Essential Requisites of Quasi-delict part of the offender, taking into consideration his
1. Damages suffered by the plaintiff; employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other physical condition, and other circumstances
person for whose acts he must respond; and regarding persons, time and place.
3. The connection of cause and effect between the fault (Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 282 SCRA 188)
or negligence of the defendant and the damages
incurred by the plaintiff. CONTRACT
(Dr. Genevieve L. Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., G.R. Culpa contractual is governed by the Civil Code provisions
No. 180440, December 5, 2012) on Obligations and Contracts particularly Articles 1170 to
1174.
NOTE: It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court
added a fourth requisite in some cases, that is, the absence of Article 1170 provides that those, who in the performance of
contractual relation between the plaintiff and the defendant. the obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, are
liable for damages.
HOWEVER, it is no longer being cited because it is now
well-settled that an action based on quasi-delict can be Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of
maintained even if there is an existing contractual relation every kind of obligation is demandable, but such liability may
between the parties. be regulated by courts, according to the circumstances.
(Article 1172, Civil Code).
DELICT
NOTE: By express provision of Article 2178, Articles 1172
Criminal Negligence to 1174 are applicable to quasi-delict cases.
ARTICLE 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person
who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which,
had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its maximum period; if it would have
constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor
in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed.