TORTS REVIEWER
-1-
A. G e n e r a l Pr i n c i p l e s
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.
Elements
1. Act or omission with fault or negligence
2. Damage or injury is caused to another
3. No pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties
4. Causal connection between damage done and
act/omission.
Requisites
1. Negligence
2. Damage
3. Causal connection
Concepts
Quasi-delict – Source of obligation wherein by the act
or omission of somebody, there being fault or
negligence, he causes damage to another for which
he is liable to the latter and there is no pre-existing
contract between them.
Tort –an act which causes damage to another person.
It is a civil wrong consisting of a violation of a right
or a breach of duty for which the law grants a
remedy in damages or other relief. (Therefore, a tort
encompasses a broader concept than quasi-delict; it
also includes breach of contract and crimes)
Negligence – failure to observe for the protection of
the interests of another person, that degree of care,
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such person suffers injury.
Fault – a condition where a person acts in a manner
contrary to what normally should’ve done
Damage – loss, hurt or harm which results from
injury.
Scope
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
All wrongful acts or omissions as long as:
1. They do not constitute a breach of contract
2. They are not punishable as offenses.
Classes of Actions
1. Quasi-delict: based on negligence
2. Breach of Contract: based on existence
of a contract
3. Torts in human Relations: based on
intentional act of the tort-feasor
4. Crime: based on violation of a penal
statute
Cases
 Barredo v Garcia
Facts: Collision between taxi and carretela. Criminal
action filed against driver and this suit against taxi
owner. Taxi owner contends liability is governed by
RPC which is only subsidiary.
Held:
A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal
institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity
all its own and individuality that is entirely apart and
independent from a delict or crime.
A negligent act causing damages may produce civil
liability arising from a crime under the RPC or a
separate responsibility for fault or negligence.
xxx
 Elcano v Hill
Facts: Defendant is married but is still a minor who
lives with parents and getting subsistence from them.
In the criminal case, he was acquitted.
Held:
The concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which
are criminal in character or in violation of the penal
law, whether voluntary or negligent
xxx
 Garcia v Florido
Facts: Spouses hire PU for road trip. Collided with
passenger bus. Both drivers were negligent. Crim
cases filed. Defense of defendant was that since crim
case was filed first no civil action could be filed.
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-2-

Held: Sanction or Reparation or Imprisonment,

The same negligent act causing damages may penalty indemnification of fine or both. Also
produce a civil liability arising from crime or create injury or damages accessory
an action for quasi-delict. The former is a violation of penalties
crim law while the latter is a distinct and independent
negligence having always had its own foundation and
individuality.

xxx Quasi-delict distinguished from contract

 Cinco v Canoy Basis Quasi-delict Contract

Merely incidental
Facts: Collision between Cinco’s car and jeepney. Negligence is to the
Criminal and civil action instituted. Defendants move Nature of direct, performance of
to suspend civil action pending criminal action. negligence substantive and the contractual
independent obligation. There
Held: Quasi-delict is an independent source of is a preexisting
obligation hence there can be an independent civil contract or
action for damages to property during pendency of obligation.
criminal action. (Rakes v Atlantic)
(Rakes v Atlantic)
xxx Complete and Not a complete
Defense of proper defense and proper
 Mendoza v Arrieta good father insofar as those defense in the
of family vicariously liable selection and
Facts: 3 way accident with Truck hits jeep which in are concerned supervision of
turn hits Benz. Crim case absolved jeep. Suit against employees.
truck.
(Art 2180, last (Cangco v MRC)
Held: Civil case based on quasi-delict may proceed par.)
independently regardless of result of crim case. Gen rule: injured There is
Hence failure to reserve right to file independent party must prove presumption as
civil action in crim does not bar civil action based on negligence long as it can be
quasi-delict which is distinct and different from civil Presumptio otherwise proved that there
liability arising from RPC. n of complaint will be was a breach of
negligence dismissed. the contract.
Defendant must
Quasi-Delict distinguished from crime
(Cangco v MRC) prove there was
no negligence.
Basis Quasi-Delict Crime Except: cases
Legal basis Fault or Law punishing the specified by law
of liability negligence act (Cangco v MRC)
resulting in
damage
Criminal Not necessary essential  Cangco v MRC
intent
Nature of Private right: Public right: Facts: Guy alighted from train and stepped on
right Against private Against the state watermelons. Results in violent fall. Suit for
violated individual damages. Defense of good father of family in
Liability for Always gives rise Some crimes do selection and supervision of employees.
damages to liability for not give rise to
damages liability for Held: Liability arose from contract of carriage.
damages Since there is breach of contract:
Quantum Preponderance of Proof beyond
of proof evidence reasonable doubt

Katheri Ann L. Charcos 3S San Beda

College of Law
TORTS REVIEWER
-3-
Negligence on part of the employees which resulted
in the breach would make MRC liable even if it proves
diligence in selecting and supervising employees.
Negligence is not even necessary in order to make it
liable. As long as there is a breach, liability may
arise.
xxx
 Held: Although the relation between a passenger and
Manila Railroad v. Compania Transatlantica
Facts: MRC has contract with Transatlantica to
transport 2 locomotive boilers. Transatlantica
contracted with Atlantic Company for discharging the
heavy cargo from the ship to the port. Atlantic
Company messed up in lifting the boilers from the
ship and as a result they were badly damaged. Suit
against Transatlantica. Defense: Points finger at
Atlantic Company.
Held: There is a contract bet MRC and Transatlantica.
Hence Transatlantica is liable for injury done to the
boiler while it was being discharged from the ship.
Negligence in the performance of a contractual
obligation is distinct from negligence in quasi-delict.
They are governed by different provisions.
xxx
Quasi-delictual liability where there are contractual
relations
 Singson v BPI
Facts: Checks of Singson were rejected because his
account with BPI was mistakenly garnished. Singson
files suit for damages under quasi-delict. Lower court
dismissed saying that the relation between the
parties is contractual in nature so it does not fall
under quasi-delict.
Held:
The existence of a contract between the parties does
not bar the commission of a tort by the one against
the other and the consequent recovery of damages.
Where the act that breaks the contract may also be a
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
tort, the contractual relation of the parties does not
bar the recovery of damages.
xxx
 Air France v Carrascoso
Facts: Filipino passenger flying first class was forced
to vacate his seat for a white man who had a “better
right.” He files for damages.
the carrier is contractual both in origin and nature,
the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.
xxx
 City of Manila v IAC
Facts: Widow suddenly finds her husband’s remains
removed from cemetery. Her contract with City of
manila was for 50 years. After 5 years husband’s
body was exhumed and removed and the cemetery
lot was leased to another person. Defense of City
Manila: Immune from suit
Held: Operations and functions of a public cemetery
are proprietary. Hence breach of contract between
lessee and the city gives rise to damages.
xxx
Interference with Contracts
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to
violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the
other contracting party.
Elements of interference:
1. Existence of a valid contract
2. Knowledge on the part of the 3 rd party of the
existence of the contract
3. Inducement or interference of the 3 rd party
without legal justification or excuse
4. breach of contract
5. causes damage to the other party
Possible defenses:
1. Business competition where lawful means are
used
> No intent to cause damage
2. honest advice
3S San Beda
 TORTS REVIEWER
-4-
> made good faith
> performance of duty as an adviser
3. lack of element of inducement
 Gilchrist v Cuddy
Facts: Cuddy owns film Zigomar, has a contract with
Gilchrist to show film in the latter’s theater. Cuddy
backs out of the contract saying he had made other
arrangements with the film with Espejo.
Held: Espejo liable. Interference of contracts.
Malice is not an element. Fact of no malice does not
relieve them of legal liability for interfering with
contact and causing its breach. Their liability arises
from unlawful acts and not from contractual
obligation.
xxx
No Double Recovery Rule
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence
under the preceding article is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence
under the penal code. But the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or omission
of the defendant.
B. Basic Elements
Act or omission in breach of a legal duty
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.
 Rakes v AG&P
Facts: While transporting rails from a barge, the track
sagged causing rails to slide off which caught Rakes
and as a result broke his leg (which was later
amputated). Rakes files for damages. Both claim the
other was negligent.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Held: AGP was negligent. It was duty of defendant
to build and maintain its track in reasonably sound
condition so as to protect its workingmen from
unnecessary danger. It is plain that in one respect or
the other it failed in its duty, otherwise the accident
could not have occurred.
xxx
 Cangco v MRC
Held: In contract of carriage there is duty to carry
passenger in safety and to provide safe means of
entering and leaving its trains. Defendant breached
this duty by leaving watermelons on an unlit platform
where the same can cause injury.
xxx
 Lilius v Manila Railroad Co.
Facts: Lilius and family on road trip. Collided with
train at a railroad crossing. There was nothing to
indicate that the crossing existed and that it was
impossible to see an approaching train since there
were many houses and shrubs and trees blocking the
view.
Held: Railroad Company had failed in its duty to
install a sephamore at a crossing and to see to it that
its flagman and switchman are faithfully complying
with their duties of remaining at the crossing when
train arrives. Hence company is liable for damages
suffered by plaintiff and his family.
xxx
 Yamada v Manila Railroad Co.
Facts: Plaintiffs rented a car with chauffeur for road
trip. On the way back car was struck by a train while
crossing tracks of defendant Railroad Company. Taxi
did not reduce its speed while crossing the tracks.
Held: Railroad Company not negligent. Taxicab
company is. The taxicab did not perform its full duty
when it furnished a safe and proper car and a driver
with a long and satisfactory record. It was also
negligent in approving custom of drivers to pass over
railroad crossings without any effort to determine the
proximity of trains, and the company made no effort
to change such custom or to instruct its drivers
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-5-

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of an obligor

xxx
 Del Rosario v MERALCO
Facts: Live wire was reported to MERALCO at 2pm.
At 4pm little kid touched the wire (ay! Madre!) and
was electrocuted. Father sues.
Held: After it received a report, MERALCO had the
duty to address the problem immediately. Undue
delay in leaving danger unguarded and unattended
for so long after report was received constituted
negligence.
xxx
 Del Prado v MERALCO
consists in the omission of the diligence required
by the obligation and the circumstances of the
persons, time and place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of Art 1171 and 2201 par. 2
shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence
which is to be observed in the performance, that
which is expected of a good father of a family shall
be required.
Negligence – Want of care required by the nature of
the obligation and the circumstances of the persons,
time and place.

Facts: Del Prado hails a street car at an undesignated

stop. Street car slowed and plaintiff seized handpost
with left hand and puts one foot on the platform
when suddenly driver speeds up causing plaintiff to
lose balance and fall where his foot was crushed by
the moving car.

Held: It was the motorman’s duty to do no act that

would gave the effect of increasing the plaintiff’s peril
while he was attempting to board the car. The
premature acceleration of the car was a breach of
this duty.
xxx
 Astudillo v MERALCO
Facts: Teenager Astudillo died by electrocution when
he grasped a charged electric wire with his right
hand.
Held: MERALCO negligent in placing its pole and
wires within proximity to a place frequented by many
people with the possibility ever present of someone
losing his life by coming in contact with a highly
charged and defectively insulated wire
The duty of exercising high degree of
diligence and care extends to every place where
persons have a right to be.
xxx
Fault or Negligence
The Test
Would a prudent man, in the position of the
person to whom negligence is attributed,
foresee harm to the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course about
to be pursued?
If so, the law imposed a duty on the actor to
refrain from the course or take precaution
against its mischievous results, and the
failure to do so constitutes negligence.
(Picart v Smith)
 Wright v MERALCO
Facts: horse stumbled and caused the vehicle to hit
one of the rails of defendant’s rail tracks. It is shown
that the rails were a few inches above the level of the
street. Defendant was negligent in maintaining its
tracks as described. Its defense was that plaintiff was
also negligent by coming home intoxicated.

Katheri Ann L. Charcos 3S San Beda

College of Law
TORTS REVIEWER
-6-

Held: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the

mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was
care. the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was
xxx only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due
 Corliss v Manila Railroad Co. care, the plaintiff may recover damages but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
Facts: Collision between jeep and train in Clark Air
force Base. Jeep slowed down before reaching the
crossing but did not stop even though the locomotive
could be clearly seen 300 meters away and which Art 2179
also blew its siren. Widow seeks damages.
The defendant can show The defendant can also
Held: Negligence is want of the car required by the
that the immediate and show that although the
circumstances. It is a relative or comparative term
proximate cause of the proximate cause of the
and its application depends upon the situation of the
injury was the negligence injury was defendant’s
parties and the degree of care and vigilance which
of the plaintiff himself. lack of due care, the
the circumstances reasonably require. Where danger
plaintiff also contributed
is great, a high degree of care is necessary and the
Operates as a complete to the injury with his own
failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under
defense. Defendant not negligence.
the circumstances.
liable
A railroad track is in itself a warning and
Operates as a partial
those who ignore such warning do so at their own
defense. Defendant is
risk and responsibility. It is by no means proper care
still liable but his liability
to cross a railroad track without taking reasonable
may be mitigated by the
precautions against a train…
court.
Xxx

Negligence – failure to observe for the protection of

the interests of another person, that degree of care,
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such person suffers injury.

 Umali v Bacani

Facts: Storm caused banana plant to fall on electric  Rakes v AG&P

wires. Live electric wire was cut and one end fell to
the ground under fallen banana plants. Following
Comparative Contributory Proportional
morning, 3 yr old child gets electrocuted and dies.
negligence Negligence damages
Defense of force majeure and contributory negligence
(common law)
of parents.
Allows recovery Any negligence, Reducing the
Held: Defendant electric plant liable. Negligent in
provided his however slight, award to a
allowing the banana plants to grow taller than the
negligence was on the part of plaintiff in
electric post when it could have easily seen that even
slight compared person injured proportion to
in case of moderate winds the electric line would be
with that of which is one of his
endangered. Company did not even take necessary
defendant the causes responsibility
precaution to eliminate the source of danger nor did
proximately for the accident.
they cut off the flow of electricity when warned by
contributing to
the existence of the live wire pending its inspection.
his injury, bars
his recovery
xxx

Contributory Negligence

Katheri Ann L. Charcos 3S San Beda

College of Law
TORTS REVIEWER
-7-
Held: Where he contributes to the principal
occurrence as one of its determining factors, he
cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with the
occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he
may recover the amount that the defendant
responsible for the event should pay for such injury,
less a sum deemed equivalent for his own
imprudence.
Negligence of Rakes will not totally bar him
from recovering anything from Atlantic, although the
liability of the latter will be mitigated as a result of
Rakes’ contributory negligence, the primary causes of
the accident was still the weak rails which Atlantic
refused to repair.
xxx
Last Clear Chance
Doctrine of the Last Clear Chance
A person who has the last clear chance or
opportunity of avoiding an accident,
notwithstanding the negligent acts of the
other party is considered in law solely
responsible for the consequences of the
accident.
Elements:
1. Prior negligence on part of plaintiff
(antecedent negligence)
2. Defendant is aware of the plaintiff
3. Defendant had the last clear chance to
avoid the accident by exercise of
ordinary care but failed to exercise such
last clear chance and
4. Accident occurred as proximate cause of
such failure.
(Applies usually to motor collision cases)
 Picart v Smith
Facts: Pony crossing a bridge. Automobile coming
from other direction sounds horn and moves to the
right expecting pony to move to other side. Pony did
not. Automobile does not slow down. Realizing too
late that pony cannot get to other side it swerved in
order to avoid hitting the pony. Pony becomes
frightened and turned its head toward railing, got hit
tuloy… pony died of injuries…
Held:
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
The person who has the last fair chance to
avoid impending harm and fails to do so is
chargeable with consequences without
reference to prior negligence of other party.
xxx
Last clear chance --- “Even though a person’s own
acts may have placed him in a position of peril and
an injury results, the injured is entitled to recover if
the defendant through the exercise of reasonable
care and prudence might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff.”
 Phoenix Construction v IAC
Facts: Collision between drunk driver and parked
truck. No headlights (suddenly failed daw), no curfew
pass. Truck was parked askew.
Held: Court used Art 2179 on contributory negligence
saying that Last clear chance doctrine should not be
applied in negligence cases in the Philippine Civil law
system
xxx
 Glan People’s Lumber v CA
Facts: Drunk, zigzagging, jeepney driver collides with
truck. Truck run some 25cm to the left of center of
road. Before jeep collided, the truck was at full stop
already. Skid marks indicate truck had applied brakes
while jeepney did not.
Held: Jeepney had last clear chance to avoid the
accident. He should have stopped or swerved his jeep
away from the truck which he had sufficient time to
do running at 30km/h. His duty was to seize the
opportunity of avoidance and not merely rely on a
supposed right to expect the truck to serve.
xxx
 Bustamante v CA
Facts: Collision between gravel and sand truck and
passenger bus. Suit brought by passenger.
Held: Principle of last clear chance applies in a suit
between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles.
It does not arise where a passenger demands
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-8-
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations.
xxx
 McKee v. IAC
Facts: Mckee swerved onto the other side of road to
avoid hitting pedestrians who suddenly darted to the
middle of his lane. He switched on headlights and
applied brakes and attempted to return to his lane.
Before doing so it collided with a cargo truck.
Held: Court applied…
The Emergency Rule
One who suddenly finds himself in a place of
danger, and is required to act without time
to consider the best means that may be
adopted to avoid the impending danger, is
not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt
what subsequently and upon reflection may
appear to have been a better method, unless
the emergency in which he finds himself is
brought about by his own negligence.
Presumed Negligence
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was
in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably
presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been
found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding
two months.
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation.
The driver is disputably presumed negligent if:
1. he had been found guilty of recklessly driving at
least twice within the next preceding two months.
2. he had been found guilty of violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months
3. at the time of the mishap, he was violating any
traffic regulation.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant if the death
or injury results from his possession of dangerous
weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison,
except when the possession or use thereof is
indispensable in his occupation or business.
Art. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to
passengers, common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to gave acted negligently, unless
they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
as prescribed in Articles 1733 ad 1755.
Respondeat superior – “let the employer/principal be
responsible. If negligence of the employee has been
proved, there is no need to prove the negligence of
the employer. The employer is already presumed
negligent in hiring and/or supervision of the
employee. The presumption is rebuttable. – usually
applies to common carriers.
Defenses – when defendant is presumed negligent,
he may invoke the ff defenses:
1. contributory negligence
2. assumption of risk
3. last clear chance
4. prescription
5. fortuitous events
6. diligence
7. mistake and waiver
8. others.
 Teague v Fernandez
Facts: Stampede in beauty school causes death.
Violation of ordinance requiring 2 stairways.
Held: The violation of a general statute or ordinance
is not rendered remote as the cause of an injury by
the intervention of another agency is the occurrence
of the accident, in the manner in which it happened
was the very thing which the statute or ordinance
was intended to prevent.
xxx
Res Ipsa Loquitur
(the deed speaks for itself)
Res Ipsa Loquitur
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-9-
Where the thing which caused injury, without
fault of the injured person, is under the
exclusive control of the defendant and the
injury is such as in the ordinary course of
things does not occur if he having such
control used proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of the
explanation, that the injury arose from
defendant’s want of care.
Elements:
1. Thing that caused the injury is under
exclusive control of defendant.
2. No fault of the injured person.
3. Injury would not have occurred if the
person who controlled the thing used
proper care.
4. Fault or negligence is not directly
imputable to anyone or there is no direct
evidence supporting the same
(applies when one cannot point out
the cause or the breach)
 Africa v Caltex
Facts: Caltex gas station –Fire breaks out while
gasoline was being hosed from tank truck to
underground storage. Fire spreads and burns nearby
houses.
Held: Gas station with all its appliances, equipment
and employees is under the control of Caltex. Person
who knew or could’ve explained how the fire started
were appellees and their employees, but they gave
no such explanation. It is a fair and reasonable
inference that the incident happened because of want
of care.
xxx
 Republic v Luzon Stevedoring Corporation
Facts: Barge towed by tugboats rammed against
bridge. At the time, river was swollen.
Held: Considering that the bridge was an immovable
and stationary object and provided with adequate
openings for passage of watercraft, it is undeniable
that the unusual event that the barge, exclusively
controlled by appellant, rammed the bridge, supports
the presumption of negligence on the part of
appellant or its employees manning the barge or the
tugs that towed it. For in the ordinary course of
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
events, such a thing does not happen if proper care
is used.
xxx
 F.F. Cruz v CA
Facts: Fire broke out in furniture manufacturing shop.
Both shop and adjacent house were razed to the
ground. Prior to fire, a repeated request for a firewall
to be built had been made by adjacent house.
Request was ignored.
Held: Res ipsa loquitur applies, considering that in
the normal course of operations of a furniture
manufacturing shop, combustible material such as
wood chips, sawdust and paint… may be found
thereon.
xxx
 Layugan v IAC
Facts: Plaintiff was repairing tire of truck in highway.
Defendant’s truck (driven recklessly) bumped into
the parked car and injured plaintiff. Defense of
defendant was res ipsa loquitur –parked truck was
presumed negligent because there were no early
warning devices.
Held: Clear and convincing evidence shows that there
was a lighted kerosene lamp 3-4 meters from the
rear of the truck as an early warning device.
The doctrine of is not a rule of substantive
law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural
convenience. It does not dispense with the
requirement of proof of culpable negligence. It
merely determines and regulates what shall be prima
facie evidence thereof and facilitates the burden of
plaintiff of proving a breach of the duty of due care.
The doctrine can be invoked when and only when,
under the circumstances involved, direct evidence
is absent and not readily available.
xxx
Assumption of Risk
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the
law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, -
or when the nature of obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for
those events which could not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable.
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-10-
Assumption of Risk
Involves an action to which one consents,
and the injury suffered is due to a risk
involved in that action.
A plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of
harm arising from the negligent or reckless
conduct of a defendant cannot recover for
such harm.
It is one of the principal defenses available to
a defendant in an action for negligence
Requisites:
1. That plaintiff had actual knowledge of the
danger
2. That the plaintiff understood and
appreciated the risk
3. That the plaintiff voluntarily exposed
himself to the risk
 Afialda v Hisole
Facts: Afialda was the caretaker of carabaos of
defendant. While tending the animals, he was gored
by one of them and later died as a result of his
injuries.
Held: As caretaker, it was his duty to prevent the
animal from causing damage to anyone, including
himself. And being injured by the animal under those
circumstances was one of the risks of the
occupation that he had voluntarily assumed and for
which he must take the consequences.
Causal Relation Between Act or Omission and injury
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.
Plaintiff’s own conduct caused the harm
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was
the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was
only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
care, the plaintiff may recover damages but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
 Del Prado v MERALCO (dissent)
One is not entitled to recover damages for personal
injuries that he himself, through his own negligence,
occasioned, without any negligence, imprudence or
malice on the part of the person or entity charged
with causing said damages.
xxx
 MERALCO v Remoquillo
Facts: Magno was repairing a media agua of his
brother in law when, holding a galvanized iron sheet
and standing on the media agua, swung around and
hit the electric wire with the lower end of the iron
sheet. He died from electrocution.
Held: Proximate cause of the accident was the
reckless or negligent act of Magno himself in turning
around and swinging the iron sheet in his hands
without looking hence the company should not be
held guilty of negligence.
xxx
 Bernardo v Legaspi
Facts: 2 automobiles collide. Both found to be
negligent
Held: Where the plaintiff in a negligence action, by
his own carelessness contributes to principal
occurrence, he cannot recover. Since both of them
equally contributed to the principle occurrence as
determining cause thereof, neither can recover of the
other for the damages suffered.
xxx
Plaintiff’s Conduct is only a Remote Cause
 Bernal v House
Facts: After attending a religious procession. Mother
lets daughter walk some distance ahead of her.
Automobile comes and scares the child causing her to
run. As a result child falls into the street gutter where
there was hot water coming from the Electric and Ice
plant of J.V. House. Child died from 3rd degree burns
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-11-
from all over the body. Mother files suit. Defense
was contributory negligence.
Held: Mother and child had a perfect right to be on
the street on the evening when the religious
procession was held. There was nothing abnormal in
allowing the child to run along a few paces in
advance of the mother. No one could foresee the
coincidence of an automobile appearing and of a
frightened child running and falling into a ditch with
hot water. Contributory negligence of the child and
her mother does not operate as a bar to recovery,
but in its strictest sense could only result in reduction
of damages.
xxx
Proximate Cause
 Bataclan v Medina
Facts: One of front tires of passenger bus burst
causing bus to fall into a canal on the right side of
the road and turn turtle. Rescuers carrying torches
fueled by petroleum arrived and fire started because
of the leaking gasoline. Those trapped in the bus died
because of the fire. Defense of bus: it’s the fault of
the rescuers!
Held: Proximate cause was the overturning of the bus
because by turning completely on its bank, the
leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not
unnatural and unexpected. The coming of the men
with torches was to be expected because of call for
help. Also, The driver and the conductor must have
known there was leaking gas since it could be smelt
and detected even from a distance.
Proximate Cause
That cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have
occurred.
The proximate legal cause is that
acting first and producing the injury,
either immediately or by setting other events in
motion,
all constituting a natural and continuous chain of
events,
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor,
the final event in the chain immediately
effecting the injury as a natural and probable
result of the cause which first acted,
under such circumstances that the person
responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily
prudent and intelligent person,
have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of
his act or default that an injury to some person might
probably result therefrom.
xxx
 MERALCO v Remoquillo
Held: A prior and remote cause cannot be made the
basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing
more than furnish the condition or give rise to the
occasion by which the injury was made possible, if
there intervened between such prior or remote cause
and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated and
efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury
would not have happened but for such condition or
occasion.
If no danger existed in the condition except because
of the independent cause, such condition was not the
proximate cause.
And if an independent negligent act or defective
condition sets into operation the circumstances which
result in injury because of the prior defective
condition, such subsequent act or condition is the
proximate cause.
xxx
 Taylor v MERALCO
Facts: 15 year old picks up fulminating caps from
premises of MERALCO and takes them home and
conducts experiments. He cut open the fulminating
cap and lit the contents with a match. Explosion
causes him to lose his right eye.
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-12-
Held: MERALCO is negligent in leaving the caps
exposed on the premises however this is not the
proximate cause of the injury received by plaintiff.
Plaintiff's action in cutting open the detonating cap
and putting a match to its contents was the
PROXIMATE CAUSE of the explosion and of the
resultant injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff.
Distinction must be made between the accident and
the injury, between the event itself, without which
there could have been no accident, and those acts of
the victim not entering into it, independent of it, but
contributing to his own proper hurt. Where he
contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its
determining factors, he cannot recover.
(Rakes v AGP)
xxx
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his premises
dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of
a character likely to attract children in play,
and who fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing therewith or
resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender
years who is injured thereby, even if the
child is technically a trespasser in the
premises.
Rationale:
The condition or appliance in question
although its danger is apparent to those of
age, is so enticing or alluring to children of
tender years as to induce them to approach,
get on or use it, and this attractiveness is an
implied invitation to such children.
 Hidalgo v Balandan
Facts: 8 year old boy takes a swim in water tank of
defendant company’s ice plant factory. He drowns.
Lower court held defendant liable because of
attractive nuisance doctrine.
Held: The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is
not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as
natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or
artificial feature other than the mere water and, its
location.
There are numerous cases in which the attractive
nuisance doctrine has been held not to be applicable
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
to ponds or reservoirs, pools of water, streams,
canals, dams, ditches, culverts, drains, cesspools or
sewer pools.
WHY?
Nature has created streams, lakes, and pools which
attract children. Lurking in their waters is always the
danger of drowning. Against this danger children are
early instructed so that they are sufficiently
presumed to know the danger; and if the owner of
private property creates an artificial pool on his own
property, merely duplicating the work of nature
without adding any new danger, he is not liable
because of having created an attractive nuisance
xxx
 Teague v Fernandez
Held: Violation of statute or ordinance is the
proximate cause of an injury if injury sustained was
that which was precisely intended to be prevented by
the violated statute or ordinance.
xxx
 Gabeto v Araneta
Facts: Araneta stopped horse protesting that he
hailed it first. Driver jerked the reins to free the
horse from control of Araneta. Because the bridle
was loose or rotten, the bit came out of horses
mouth. Driver jumps out to fix it but horse goes
berserk and runs around. Passenger Gabeto jumped
out of the “speeding” vehicle and died as result of
injuries. Widow sues Araneta.
Held: Stopping of the rig by Araneta was too remote
a cause from the accident that presently ensued to
be considered a proximate or legal cause.
xxx
 Gregorio v Go Chong Bing
Facts: Defendant asked his cargador to drive his
truck. The cargador is only a student driver. Later he
lets policeman Orfanel do the driving since the
policeman insisted. Truck hits pedestrian Gregorio.
Gregorio dies. Suit for damages.
3S San Beda
 TORTS REVIEWER
-13-
Held: Proximate cause was negligence of Orfanel who
took the wheel from defendant’s cargador, in spite of
protest of the latter
There is no direct and proximate causal connection
between the negligence or violation of the law
(allowing student driver to drive) by the defendant to
the death of Gregorio
xxx
 NPC v CA (series)
Facts: Typhoon hits. Water in Angat dam rises. NPC
opens spillway gates causing damage to property,
neighborhoods etc…
Held: Even though the typhoon was an act of God or
what we may call FORCE MAJEURE, NPC cannot
escape liability because its negligence was the
proximate cause of the loss and damage.
When the effect, the cause of which is to be
considered, is found to be in part the result of the
participation of man, whether it be from active
intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole
occurrence is thereby humanized, as it was, and
removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God.
xxx
C. Pe r s o n s G e n e r a l l y L i a b l e
Tortfeasor, for His Own Acts
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.
Art. 2181 Whoever pays for the damage caused by
his dependents or employees may recover from the
latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of
the claim.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Persons Liable for the Acts of Others
Vicarious Liability – Liability for acts of others based
solely on a relationship between two persons.
Art. 2180 The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions,
but also for those persons for whom one is
responsible…
Defense common to all
…The responsibility treated of in this article
shall cease when persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of
a good father of a family to prevent damage.
Art 2180 last par.
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing
damage has no parents or guardians, the minor or
insane person shall be answerable with his own
property in an action against him where a guardian
ad litem shall be appointed
Others vicariously liable:
O Parents
O Guardians
O Employers
O Owners/Managers
O State through special agent
O Teachers/ heads of arts & trades
O Minor (if w/o parents/guardians)
Parents
Art. 2180 (1)
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by
the minor children who live in their company.
Art. 221 Family Code
Parents and other persons exercising parental
authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and
damages caused by the acts or omission of their
unemancipated children living in their company and
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-14-
under their parental authority subject to the
appropriate defenses provided by law.
Requisites:
1. Child is below 18
2. Child committed tortuous act
3. Child lives in the company of parent concerned
whether single or married.
 Salen v Balce
Facts: Minor Balce convicted of homicide. Was
insolvent and could not pay. Demand for the father
to pay. Defense: civil liability arises from criminal
liability and therefore liability must be determined by
RPC. RPC does not provide for civil liability of a
minor.
Held: Absent a rule in RPC, general rule should apply.
Art 2180 also applies to obligations arising from
criminal offenses. It is absurd that liability of parents
attaches if there is mere negligence but not when
there is criminal intent.
xxx
 Libi v IAC
Facts: Rejected ex-boyfriend shoots girlfriend then
commits suicide. Gun used belongs to father.
Parents negligent and not keeping gun in safe place.
Held: Liability of parents is PRIMARY. If it was
subsidiary then parents cannot invoke the defense of
diligence of good father of the family. If it is
primary, diligence would constitute a valid and
substantial defense. Art 2180 provides for a defense
of diligence. Hence it is primary. Such interpretation
reconciles art 2180 with 2194 which calls for solidary
liability of joint tortfeasors.
xxx
 Exconde v Capuno
Facts: Defendant’s son attends parade and drove jeep
they were riding. Jeep turned turtle, death of
plaintiff’s daughter. Resulted. Defendant did not
know that his son was attending a parade.
Held: Civil liability imposed on father is a “necessary
consequence of the parental authority they exercise
over them which imposes upon the parents the duty
of supporting them, keeping them in their company,
educating them and instructing them in proportion to
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
their means while on the other hand, gives them the
right to correct and punish them in moderation.
Only way defendant can relieve themselves is
if they prove diligence.
xxx
 Fuellas v Cadano
Facts: Fuellas’ son Rico hid pencil of classmate in
pocket of injured party Pepito. When classmate asked
return of the pencil, Pepito gave it to him. Rico got
angry. After fighting, he managed to break Pepito’s
arm. Parents sue Fuellas for his son’s acts. Defense:
Art 2180 only applies if there is fault or negligence on
part of his son. Here son’s acts were deliberate.
Held: Civil liability under 2180 bases liability of the
father ultimately on his own negligence and not that
of his son (relationship of paterfamilias).
Children and wards do not yet have the capacity to
govern themselves, the law imposes upon the
parents and guardians the duty of exercising special
vigilance over the acts of their children and wards in
order that damages to 3rd persons due to ignorance,
lack of foresight or discernment of such children may
be avoided.
If the parents & guardians fail to comply with this
duty they should suffer the consequences of their
abandonment or negligence by repairing the damage
caused.
xxx
 Cuadra v Monfort
Facts: 2 girls weeding grass in school. Monfort’s
daughter decided to frighten Cuadra’s daughter by
tossing a plastic headband saying it was an
earthworm. Headband hits the eye of Cuadra’s
daughter which resulted in blindness. Suit filed
against the Monfort parents.
Held: Vicarious liability is merely a prima facie
presumption and therefore may be rebutted as
indicated by last par. of Art 2180 providing for
defense of diligence.
In determining the degree of diligence required, the
law implies a consideration of the attendant
circumstances in every individual case, to determine
whether or not by the exercise of such diligence the
damage could have been prevented.
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-15-
There was no indication that respondent parents
could have prevented the damage or that they were
in any way remiss in their authority in failing to
foresee the occurrence of the incident. On the
contrary, his child was at school, where it was
his duty to send her and where she was, as he
had the right to expect her to be, under the care
and supervision of the teacher.
It was an innocent prank not unusual among
children at play and which no parent, however
careful, would have any special reason to anticipate,
much less guard against.
xxx
 Elcano v Hill
Held: Emancipation by marriage is not full or
absolute. son, although married, was still living with
his father and getting subsistence from him.
Therefore he was still subservient to and dependent
on his father.
However since son had attained age, as a matter of
equity, the liability had become merely subsidiary to
that of his son.
xxx
 Rodriguez-Luna v IAC
Facts: Roberta Luna was killed in a collision with a
Toyota driven by a 13 yr old with no license. Heirs
sued father of the 13 yr old. They were held liable
but they failed to pay the amount. Father contends
that his son is now of age and as a matter of equity,
his liability should be subsidiary only.
Held: Son is abroad and beyond the reach of
Philippine Courts. he does not have any property
either in the Philippines or elsewhere. In fact his
earnings are insufficient to support his family. Strict
law should be applied in order to serve ends of
justice.
xxx
 Tamargo v CA
Facts: 10 yr old Bundoc shot Tamargo with an air
rifle. Bundoc acquitted in crim case. Natural parents
of Bundoc contend that they should not be liable
since Bundoc was already adopted. The adopting
parents should be liable.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Held: Liability is anchored on parental authority. In
this case, the act occurred when natural parents still
exercised parental authority.
Retroactive effect may NOT be given to decree of
adoption. At the time the adopting parents were
abroad, it would be unfair if they were held liable for
something unforeseen.
xxx
Doctrine of Imputed Negligence
Liability is extended so as to include
responsibility for the negligence of those
persons whose acts or omissions are
imputable, by legal fiction, to others who are
in a position to exercise an absolute or
limited control over them.
This moral responsibility may consist in
having failed to exercise due care in one’s
own acts, or in having failed to exercise due
diligence and care in the selection and
control of one’s agents or servants, or in the
control of persons who, by reasons of their
status, occupy a position of dependency with
respect to the person made liable for their
conduct.
Guardians
Art. 2180 (2)
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.
O If ward is incapacitated, he does not need to be
below 21. What is important is guardianship is
subsisting.
O Law applies to de facto guardians –to compel
them to exercise control and supervision over
orphans whom they voluntarily assumed the
duties of parenthood.
Art. 216 Family code
In default of parents or a judicially appointed
guardian, the ff persons shall exercise substitute
parental authority over the child in the order
indicated:
1. The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art
214.
2. The oldest brother or sister, over 21 yrs of age,
unless unfit or disqualified.
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-16-
3. The child’s actual custodian, over 21 yrs, unless
unfit or disqualified.
Whenever the appointment of a judicial guardian
over the property of the child becomes necessary,
the same order of preference shall be observed.
Order of Preference:
1. Father
2. Mother *in case of death/incapacity of father*
3. Judicially appointed guardian
4. Surviving grandparent
5. Oldest brother/sister
6. Actual custodian
Art. 217 Family code
In case of foundlings, abandoned, neglected or
abused children, parental authority shall be entrusted
in summary judicial proceedings to heads of
children’s homes, orphanages and similar institutions
duly accredited by the proper government agency.
Owners/Managers
Art. 2180 (3)
The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
Employers
Art. 2180 (4)
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
their employees and household helpers acting within
the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry.
Requisites:
1. Employee was chosen by the employer personally
or through another
2. Service to be rendered is in accordance with
orders which the employer has the authority to
give at all times
3. That the illicit act of the employee was in the
occasion or by the reason of the functions
entrusted to him.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
 Ortaliz v Echarri
Facts: Plaintiff’s son was struck by a car driven by
employee of defendant.
Held: Cause of action is in Art 2180. it even provides
that employers can be held liable even if the are not
engaged in any business or industry.
xxx
 Cuison v Norton and Hamson
Facts: 7 yr old was walking when large pieces of
lumber fell from truck and pinned the boy almost
causing instant death. Ora was owner of truck.
Driver was employee of Ora and Ora was employee
of Norton. Duty of Ora to direct the loading and
transpotation of lumber.
Held: Basis of civil law liability is NOT respondeat
superior but the relationship of paterfamilias. This
theory bases the liability of the master ultimately on
his own negligence and not that of his servant.
Norton liable because Ora was is employee charged
with duty of directing and loading lumber in which it
was the negligence in loading the lumber was what
caused the death.
xxx
 China Airlines v CA
Facts: Plaintiff bought ticket from PAL office for flight
with China Airlines. He was informed that his flight
was at 5:20 pm. When he arrived at airport the plane
had already left earlier that morning. PAL was a
ticket agent for China Airlines. China Airlines had
informed all of change of schedule. Complaint for
moral damages against China Airlines
Held: No basis to hold China Airlines liable. It is not
the employer or PAL. PAL is only an agent of China
Airlines. For liability to attach, EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
relationship must be established.
PAL is liable instead.
xxx
 Filamer Christian Inxtitute v IAC
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-17-
Facts: Funtecha is janitor and student of Filamer. He
is assigned to clean school premises. He has a
student’s license and requested Allan Masa, the
school’s driver/security guard to drive on the way to
house of school president. Truck nearly hit them, the
car swerved and hit pedestrian Kapunan. Defense:
Driving was not in the scope pf Futencha’s duties as
janitor.
Held: Driving the vehicle to and from the house of
school president is an act in furtherance of the
interest of petitioner school.
As an employee, he need not have an official
appointment for drivers position in order that
petitioner may be held responsible for his grossly
negligent act, it being sufficient that the act of
driving at the time of the incident was for the
benefit of the employer.
xxx
 Duavit v CA
Held: Owner cannot be held liable for the acts of a
driver who was not an employee of the owner and
did not have permission to drive the vehicle.
xxx
 Dulay v CA
Held: When an injury is caused by the negligence of
an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of
law that there was negligence on the part of the
master or employer in supervision and selection or
both. Liability is direct and immediate. Prior recourse
against negligent employee not necessary
xxx
 De Leon Brokerage v CA
Held: Owners of an establishment or enterprise are
solidarily liable with their driver for any accident
resulting from the latter’s negligent operation of the
vehicle even if said owners are not riding therein at
the time.
xxx
 Bahia v Litonjua
Held: Presumption of negligence is rebuttable.
Defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of his employee is available and if
proved, he is relieved from liability.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
xxx
 Yamada v Manila Railroad
Held: Civil Code bases the responsibility if the
master, in cases contemplated by Art 2180,
ultimately on his own negligence and not that of his
servant.
xxx
 Metro Manila Transit v CA
Held: It is not enough to invoke existence of
guidelines and policies in hiring to prove due
diligence in selection and supervision. He must show
that the proper requirement procedures and
company policies on safety were followed.
xxx
 Metro Manila Transit Corp. v CA
Held: In order for defense of due diligence to
prosper, the ff requisites must be met:
In selection of prospective employees – employers
are required to examine them as to their
qualification, experience and service records.
With respect to supervision of employees –
employers should formulate standard operating
procedures, monitor their implementation, and
impose disciplinary measures for breach thereof.
xxx
 Guitierrez v CA
Facts: Workers of Guiterrez dig and dump dirt against
exterior side of school fence via a crane. Portion of
fence gave way and pinned student.
Held: Employer liable since the contract specifically
stipulated an employer-employee relationship.
xxx
 Walter Smith & Co. v Cadwallader
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-18-
Held: Employment of a duly licensed captain,
authorized to direct and navigate a vessel of any
tonnage, hired because of his reputation as a
captain, constitutes due diligence that overcomes the
presumption.
xxx
 Ong v Metropolitan Water district
Held: Person claiming damages has the burden of
proving that the damage is caused by the fault or
negligence of the person from whom the damage is
claimed, or his employees.
xxx
 St. Francis High School v CA
Held: Before an employer may be held liable for the
negligence of his employees, the act or omission that
caused the damage must have occurred while the
employee was in the performance if its assigned
tasks.
xxx
 Beliza v Brazas
Held: Although Art 2180 provides for liability of an
employer for tortuous act of his employees, this does
not exempt employees from personal liability,
especially if there are no persons having direct
supervision against them, or there is proof of
negligence on their part. One can sue both employer
and employee at the same time as joint defendants.
xxx
State
Art. 2180 (5)
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
through a special agent; but not when the damage
had been caused by the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which case what is
provided in Art. 2176 is applicable
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Special Agent – receives a definite and fixed order of
commission, foreign to the exercise of the ordinary
duties of his office.
The Test
(Anything performed not within ordinary
duties) –“an employee who on his own
responsibility performs the functions inherent
in his office and naturally pertaining there to
is not a special agent.”
Aspects of Liability of the State
1. Public or governmental  State Liable for tort of
its special agents
2. Private or non-governmental  State is liable as
an ordinary employer
Note: Characterization in Art 2180 only determines
liability.
 It is entirely different from suability.
Gen Rule:
State cannot be sued without its consent. Exceptions
are when there is express legislative consent and
when the State filed the case.
Take note that SUABILITY is different from
LIABILITY. Suability considers whether an action can
be filed while liability considers the actual award
already.
 Merrit v Government
Facts: Collision between motorcycle and ambulance.
Accident was due solely to the negligence of the
ambulance driver. There is a legislative act that
allows plaintiff to sue the Government. Is the State
liable since driver is an agent?
Held: Legislative act was only consent to be sued and
not an admission of liability. A SPECIAL AGENT is not
a mere official who does job in discharge of function
of his office BECAUSE neither fault nor negligence
can be presumed on the part of the State in the
organization of branches of the public service and
appointment of its agents. The State is only liable for
torts caused by its special agents, specifically
commissioned to carry out the acts complained of
outside the agent’s regular duties.
Ambulance driver was not a special agent
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-19-

xxx
 Rosete v Auditor General
Facts: Employee ignited recklessly a cigarette lighter
near a 5 gallon drum of gasoline stored in ECA
warehouse. Fire started which caused damages to
buildings belonging to plaintiff
Held: Negligence was not done by a special agent.
Officers of ECA did not act as special agents of the
government
 Fontanilla v Maliaman
Facts: NIA’s driver caused injuries to plaintiff’s son
who died as a result. Defense is that NIA does not
perform solely and primarily proprietary functions but
is an agency of govt tasked with governmental
functions.
Held: Principal aim of NIA is irrigation of lands. It is a
government agency invested with a corporate
personality separate and distinct from government. It
has its own assets and liabilities and has corporate
powers. Therefore its function is basically proprietary
in nature even if its responsibility concerns public
welfare and public benefit.

Dissent: ECA is not a branch or office of the govt. It xxx

was an agency set up for specific purposes which
were not attainable through the official functions
entrusted by law to the government or its branches
xxx
 Palafox v Province of Ilocos Norte
Teachers , et. Al.
Art. 2180 (6)
Teachers or heads of establishment of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody.

Facts: Palafox got ran over by a driver of District Gen Rule:

Engineer. Teachers are liable for acts of their students.

Held: State not liable since driver not special agent. Exception:
Besides Art 2180 only applies to the Insular as If technical school then the head of the
distinguished from the provincial or municipal institution is liable.
governments. Respondent superior should be
applied since it concerns liability of municipal Art. 218. Family Code
corporations. Employee is engaged in governmental The school, its administrators and teachers, or the
function –construction and maintenance of roads individual, entity or institution engaged in child care
hence the government is not liable. shall have special parental authority and
responsibility over the minor child while under their
xxx supervision, instruction or custody.

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all

 Republic v Palacio authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school entity or institution.
Facts: Irrigation Service Unit induced Handong
Irrigation Association to occupy land of plaintiff.
Question of whether its function is governmental or Art. 219. Family Code
not. Those given authority in 218 shall be principally and
solidarily liable for damages caused by the
Held: ISU was not established to earn profit or gain. act/omission of the unemancipated minor. Parents
It is for the benefit of the farmers Court looked at shall be subsidiarily liable
nature of funds. Even if it makes profit it does not
convert this economic project of the government into
a corporate activity. Art 218 of F.C. Art 2180 C.C.
xxx
School, administration, Teachers, heads of
teachers engaged in child establishment in Arts and
care are made expressly Trades are made

Katheri Ann L. Charcos 3S San Beda

College of Law
TORTS REVIEWER
-20-

liable expressly liable.  Recess is a temporary adjournment of school

Liability of school, admin, No such express solidary activities where the student still remains within
teachers is solidary and nor subsidiary liability is call of his mentor and is not permitted to leave
parents are made stated the school premises or the area within which the
subsidiarily liable school activity is conducted. Hence recess does
Students involved must Students involved are not not include dismissal.
be minor necessarily minor.
Ylarde v Aquino
 It is only the teachers and not the principal or
head of an academic school who should be
Basis of Liability of Teachers: answerable for torts committed by their
Principle of loco parentis (stand in place of students. In the case of a school of arts and
parents) trades, it is only the head of the school which
can be held liable.

PSBA v CA
Development of Jurisprudence  Art 2180 only applies when damage is caused
or inflicted by pupils or students of the
Exconde v Capuno educational institution and not by outsiders.
 Art 2180 only applies to teachers or directors  However school can be liable for breach of
of schools of arts and trades and not academic contract. Where school has duty to provide a
educational institution. safe environment for learning.

Mercado v CA Soliman v Tuazon

 Upheld Exconde Ruling and ruled that custody
refers to pupils living and boarding with teacher
such that the control, direction and influence on
the pupil supersedes those of the parents.
Palisoc v Brillantes
 Court defined custody as protective and
supervisory custody that the school and its heads
exercise over the pupils and students for as long
as they are at attendance in the school, including
RECESS time.
Amadora v CA
 There is really no substantial distinction
between the academic and non-academic
schools. Article 2180 should be applied to ALL
schools, academic as well as non-academic. The
same vigilance is expected from teacher over
students under his control and supervision,
whatever the nature of the school where he is
teaching.
 As long as it can be shown that the student is
in the school premises in pursuance of a
legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a
legitimate student right and even in the
enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the
responsibility of the school authorities over the
student continues.
Salvosa v CA
 Affirms PSBA ruling.
St. Francis High School v CA
 School can be made liable as employer if
teacher is the culprit.
Pa r t i c u l a r Pe r s o n s H e l d L i a b l e b y L a w
Possessor or User of Animal
Art. 2183
The possessor of an animal or whoever may make
use of the same is responsible for the damage which
it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage
should come from force majeure or from the fault of
the person who has suffered damage.
Damage caysed by: Animal
Person Primarily liable:
1. Possessor of animal
2. Whoever may make use of the same.
Defenses available:
1. Force Majeure
2. Contributory negligence/ fault of plaintiff
3. Damage was caused by act of 3rd person
 Vestil v IAC

Katheri Ann L. Charcos 3S San Beda

College of Law
TORTS REVIEWER
-21-
Facts: Dog bites 3 year old. Died from rabies.
Held: Ownership of dog is immaterial. Law holds the
POSSESSOR liable, he may not necessarily be the
owner.
Obligation is not based on negligence but on the
principle that “he who possesses animals for his
utility, pleasure or service must answer for the
damages which such animal may cause.”
If animal escaped or is lost –possessor is still liable.
xxx
Owner of Motor Vehicle
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was
in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably
presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been
found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding
two months.
If owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions
of Art 2180 are applicable.
Damage caysed by: Driver of motor vehicle
Person Primarily liable: Owner of the motor vehicle
Requisites of liability of owner:
1. Owner is in the vehicle at the time of the mishap
2. The owner could have prevented the misfortune
by the use of due diligence.
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation.
Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file
with proper government office a bond executed by a
government-controlled corporation or office, to
answer for damages to 3rd persons. The amount of
the bond and other terms shall be fixed by the
competent public official.
 De Leon Brokerage v CA
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Held: In order that an owner of a motor vehicle may
be relieved from liability, the said employee must
have abandoned completely his master’s business to
engage in some purpose wholly his own.
Art 2184 only applies to owners of vehicles who are
not included in art 2180.
xxx
 Chapman v Underwood
Facts: Plaintiff got hit by Underwood car. Driver
negligent.
Held: An owner who sits in his automobile and
permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law
by the performance of negligent acts, after he has
had a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to
direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes
himself responsible for such acts.
If the driver, by a sudden act of negligence and
without the owner having a reasonable opportunity to
prevent the act or its continuance, injures a person
or violates the criminal law, the owner of the
automobile, although present therein at the time of
the act was committed, is not responsible therefore.
The act complained of must be continued in the
presence of the owner for such length of time that
the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver’s
act his own.
xxx
 Caedo v Yu Khe Thai
Facts: Driver of defendant tried to pass a carretela
and instead caught the rig’s wheel and wrenched it
off and the car skidded to the other lane, colliding
with plaintiff’s car.
Held: If the causative factor was the driver’s
negligence, the owner of the vehicle is likewise liable
if he could have prevented the mishap by the
exercise of due diligence.
Basis of liability is not respondeat superior but rather
the relationship of paterfamilias. The theory is that
ultimately the negligence of the servant, if known to
the master and susceptible of timely correction by
him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct
it in order to prevent injury or damage.
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-22-
The test of imputed negligence (see p11 of this
reviewer) under Art 2184 is necessarily subjective.
Car owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible
standard of diligence as are professional drivers.
 Duavit v CA
Held: An owner cannot be held liable for any
negligent acts perpetrated by driving the said
owner’s car when negligent party is under no
authority to drive the car and is indeed not an
employee of the said owner.
xxx
Manufacturers
Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any
noxious or harmful substances used, although no
contractual relation exists between them and the
consumers.
Requisites:
1. Defendant is manufacturer of foodstuffs, drinks,
toilet articles and similar goods involved.
2. Defendant uses noxious or harmful substances in
the manufacture and processing
3. Plaintiff used/consumed the product, unaware of
injurious condition
4. Plaintiff’s injury/death was caused by product
used or consumed.
Theory of Strict Liability:
Applies even if manufacturer has exercised all the
possible care in preparation/sale of product.
Under the Consumers Act RA No. 7394:
 The manufacturer, importer, and seller can be held
liable for actual injury or damage incurred.
 Prescription: 2 years
 Sanctions: Fine of P5000 and imprisonment of not
more than 1 year
 Note: An action based on RA 7394 does not
preclude filing of case under Art 2187.
Provinces, Cities and Municipalities
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall
be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries
suffered by, any person by reason of the defective
condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings,
and other public works under their control or
supervision.
Sec 24. Local govt code
Local Government Units and their officials are not
exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or
damage to property.
Damage caysed by: defective condition of roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings and other public
works
Person Primarily liable: Provinces, cities,
municipalities
Condition: The road, street, bridge, public building
and public work must be under the control or
supervision of province, city or municipality
Defense: Due diligence
 City of Manila v Teotico
Facts: Teotico (plaintiff) fell inside an uncovered
manhole when he stepped down a curb to board a
jeepney. He sues City.
Held: RA 409 deals with a general subject matter—
“damages arising from failure of city officers…”
whereas Art 2189 constitutes a particular prescription
making “provinces, cities and municipalities liable for
damages due to the defective condition of roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings and other public
words under their control or supervision. Hence Art
2189 is applicable.
Under Art 2189, it is not necessary that the defective
roads or streets belong to the city. What said article
requires is that the city have either control or
supervision over said street or road.
xxx
 Jimenez v City of Manila
Facts: Petitioner buys bagoong at public market. He
falls into an uncovered opening which could not be
seen because of the rain water, causing a dirty and
rusty 4 inch nail to pierce his left leg. City has a
contract with Asiatic Integrated Corporation that AIC
shall be liable for any injury suffered by 3rd persons.
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-23-
Held: City still liable because despite the contract,
stipulations therein showed that public market
remained under the control and supervision of the
City
xxx
 Guilatco v City of Dagupan
Facts: Plaintiff fell into manhole while boarding a
tricycle. Defense is that road is a national road which
is not under its control. It is the ministry of Public
Highways who exercises control
Held: Maintenance foreman and maintenance
engineer who are employed by the National
Government are detailed with the City and receives
instructions and supervision from the city through the
City engineer. Hence the city still has supervisory
authority over public works in question.
xxx
Proprietor of building, factory, etc..
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure
is responsible for the damages resulting from its total
or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of
necessary repairs.
Art. 2191. The proprietor of a building shall also be
responsible for damages caused
1. By the explosion of machinery which has not
been taken care of with due diligence and the
inflammation of explosive substances which have
not been kept in a safe and adequate place.
2. By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to
person or property.
3. By the falling of trees situated at or near
highways or lanes, if not caused by force
majeure.
4. By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
deposits of infectious matter, constructed without
precautions suitable to the place.
 Gotesco v Chatto
Facts: Mother and daughter went to see the movie
“Mother Dear” in defendant’s theater. !0 mins into
the movie the balcony collapsed causing injury to
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
both. Defense of force majeure and approval of
structural design and plans of building
Held: Even though design and plans were approved
by city engineer it does not prove that there were no
defects in the construction, especially as regards the
ceiling, considering that there was no proper
investigation conducted to find out the cause of the
collapse.
Engineers/Architects/contractors
Art. 2192. If damages referred to in Art 2190 and
2191 should be the result of any defect in the
construction mentioned in Art 1723, the 3 rd person
suffering damages may proceed only against the
engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with
said article, within the period therein fixed.
Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up
the plans and specifications for a building is liable for
damages if within 15 years from the completion of
the structure, the same should collapse by reason of
a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to
the defects in the ground.
The contractor is likewise responsible for the
damages if the edifice falls, within the same period,
on account of defects in the construction or the use
of materials of inferior quality furnished by him or
due to any violation of the terms of contract. If the
engineer or architect supervises the construction, he
shall be solidarily liable with the contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does
not imply waiver of any of the cause of action by
reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding
paragraph.
The action must be brought within 10 years following
the collapse of the building.
Head of the Family
Art. 2193. The head of the family that lives in a
building or a part thereof is responsible for damages
caused by things thrown or falling from the same.
 Dingcong v Kanaan
Facts: Dingcong brothers operated hotel. They leased
ground floor to plaintiff who operated a merchandise
store. One night one of the guests of the hotel left
faucet running. Water seeped to the floor which
damaged merchandise in store below.
3S San Beda
 TORTS REVIEWER
-24-
Held: Dingcong did not exercise due diligence since
he knew water pipes were then under repair and he
knew that it was inevitable that his guest would use
the faucet. He should have provided some form of
drainage to prevent the occurrence.
E. Joint and solidary Liability
To r t f e a s o r s
Art. 2194. The responsibility of 2 or more persons
who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary
F. C i v i l L i a b i l i t y A r i s i n g f rom C r i m e
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence
under Art. 2176 is entirely separate and distinct from
the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of
defendant.
Rule 111, Sec. 1 :: Rules of Court.
Institution of criminal and civil actions –
(a). When a criminal action is institutes, the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability arising from
the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with
the criminal action unless the offended party
Waives the civil action,
Reserves the right to institute it separately or
Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately
the civil action shall be made before the prosecution
starts presenting its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended party a
reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil
liability against the accused by way of moral,
nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without
specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or
information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute
a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is
specified in the complaint or information, the
corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the
offended party upon filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing
fees shall be required for actual damages.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint
may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but
any cause of action which could have been the
subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil
action.
of (b) The criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be
allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint and criminal and
civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the
filing fees based on the amount of the check
involved, which shall be considered as the actual
damages claimed. Where the complaint or
information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral,
nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the
amount alleged therein. If the amounts are not so
alleged but any of the damages are subsequently
awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the
amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the
judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and
trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be
consolidated with the criminal action upon application
with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall
proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule
governing consolidation of the civil and criminal
actions.
Rule 111, Sec. 2. When separate civil action is
suspended --
After the criminal action has been commenced, the
separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be
instituted until final judgment has been entered in
the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action
has already been instituted, the latter shall be
suspended in whatever stage it may be found before
judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last
until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action.
Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is
rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon
motion of the offended party, be consolidated with
the criminal action in the court trying the criminal
action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already
adduced in the civil action shall be deemed
reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to
the right of prosecution to cross-examine the
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-25-
witnesses presented by the offended party in the
criminal case and of the parties to present additional
evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil action
shall be tried and decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the
running of the period of prescription of the civil action
which cannot be instituted separately or whose
proceeding had been suspended shall be tolled.
The extinction of the penal action does not
carry with it extinction of the civil action.
However, the civil action based on delict may be
deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final
judgment in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did
not exist.
Rule 111, Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed
independently –
In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
independent civil action may be brought by the
offended party. It shall proceed independently of the
criminal action and shall require only a private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
preponderance of evidence. In no case, however,
may the offended party recover damages twice for
the same act or omission charged in the criminal
action.
Rule 111, Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions –
The death of the accused after arraignment and
during the pendency of the criminal action shall
extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict.
However, the independent civil action instituted
under Section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is
instituted to enforce liability arising from other
sources of obligation may be continued against the
estate or legal representative of the accused after
proper substitution or against said estate. The heirs
of the accused may be substituted for the deceased
without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian
ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal
representative/s to appear and be substituted within
a period of 30 days from notice
A final judgment entered in favor of the
offended party shall be enforced in the manner
especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting
claims against the estate of the deceased.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall
be dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the
offended party may file against the estate of the
deceased.
Rule 111, Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar
–
A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving
the defendant from civil liability is not a bar to a
criminal action against the defendant for the same
act or omission subject of the civil action.
Distinguished from Independent Civil Actions
and Liability for Quasi-Delict
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an
obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of in a felony, such civil action may
proceed independently of the criminal proceedings
regardless of the result of the latter.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or
impairs any of the following rights and liberties of
another person (Bill of Rights) shall be liable to the
latter for damages.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether
or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to
commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
action for damages and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal
prosecution (if the latter be instituted) and may be
proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable
from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a
violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical
injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought
by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence.
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-26-
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal
police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection
to any person in case of danger to life or property,
such peace officer shall be primarily liable for
damages, and the city or municipality shall be
subsidiarily responsible therefore. The civil action
herein recognized shall be independent of any
criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
evidence shall suffice to support such action.
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence
under Art. 2176 is entirely separate and distinct from
the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of
defendant.
 Abellana v Marave
Facts: Plaintiffs failed to reserve right to institute an
independent civil action when criminal case for
physical injuries through reckless imprudence.
Accused was found guilty. The offended party filed
with another branch a separate independent civil
action while the criminal case was on appeal.
Held: Article 33 is quite clear. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution,
and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
That is a substantive right, not to be frittered
away by a construction that could render it nugatory,
if through oversight, the offended parties failed at the
initial stage to seek recovery for damages in a civil
suit. The grant of power to this Court, both in the
present Constitution and under the 1935 Charter,
does not extend to any diminution, increase or
modification of substantive right.
 Yakult Phil. v. CA
Facts: 5 yr old sideswiped by motorcycle owned by
Yakult. Yakult contends that civil action for damages
for physical injuries cannot be made separately
without a reservation.
Held: SC retroactively applied 1985 Rules of Court
retroactively. Since father of 5 yr old initiated the
separate civil action before the prosecution in the
criminal case started presenting its evidence and the
judge was informed thereof, then the actual filing of
the civil action is even far better than a compliance
with the requirement of an express reservation that
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
should be made by the offended party before the
prosecution presents its evidence.
Note: Court said that previous reservation includes
recovery of indemnity under RPC, Art 32-34 and
2176. (1990 case)
 Andamo v IAC
Facts: Petitioners filed a civil case for damages after
criminal case for destruction by means of inundation.
Case was suspended and then subsequently
dismissed since criminal case was not yet resolved.
Held: Court distinguished between civil liability
arising from crime and that arising from quasi-delict.
They are independent of each other. Therefore, an
acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely
irrelevant in the civil case, unless in the event of an
acquittal where the court has declared that the fact
from which the civil action arose did not exist, in
which case the extinction of criminal liability will carry
with it extinction of civil liability.
 San Idelfonso Lines v. CA
Facts: Toyota van collides with passenger bus. Crim
case filed against bus. Insurer of van files case for
damages though there was no reservation. TC held
that civil action may be instituted even in absence of
reservation. CA affirmed.
Held: Court used 1988 amendments which used the
phrase “the independent action which has been
reserved” and concluded that prior reservation is a
condition sine qua non before any independent
civil action can be instituted and thereafter have a
continuous determination apart from or simultaneous
with the criminal action.
Note: 2000 Rules now provide that reservation is not
required for independent civil action.
xxx
Effect of Acquittal
Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution
is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted. Such action requires only a
preponderance of evidence.
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-27-
Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require
the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in
case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is
based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so
declare. In the absence of any declaration to that
effect, it may be inferred from the test of the decision
whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
 Jarantilla v CA
Facts: Jarantilla was acquitted in a criminal case for
serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence on
the ground of reasonable doubt. There was no
reservation. Private respondent filed a civil action
based on the same subject matter and act
complained of in the criminal case.
Held: The well-settled doctrine is that a person, while
not criminally liable may still be civilly liable. The
judgment of acquittal extinguishes the civil liability of
the accused only when it includes a declaration that
the facts from which the civil liability might arise did
not exist
Article 29 enunciates the rule that a civil action for
damages is not precluded by an acquittal.
xxx
 People v Ritter
Facts: Foreigner acquitted in criminal case for rape of
young girl who later died from a foreign object found
inside her vagina. However court pronounced that he
was guilty of pedophilia which was injurious to the
public good and the domestic tranquility of the
people. It does not necessarily follow that a person
while not criminally liable may still be civilly liable.
Held: While the guilt of the accused in a criminal
prosecution must be established beyond reasonable
doubt, only a preponderance of evidence is required
in a civil action for damages. The 2 liabilities are
separate and distinct from each other. One affects
the social order and the other, private rights. One is
for punishment or correction of the offender while the
other is for the reparation of damages suffered by
the aggrieved party.
xxx
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Prejudicial Questions
Art. 36. Prejudicial questions, which must be
decided before any criminal prosecution may be
instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by the
rules of court which the Supreme Court shall
promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the
provisions of the Civil Code.
Rule 111, Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of
prejudicial question. –
A petition for suspension of the criminal action based
upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil
action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or
the court conducting the preliminary investigation.
When the criminal action has been filed in court for
trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the
same criminal action at any time before the
prosecution rests.
The Test
Rule 111, Sec. 7. Elements of a prejudicial
question –
The elements of prejudicial question are:
(a) the previously instituted civil
action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action,
(b) the resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed.
 Jarantilla v CA
Facts: Jarantilla was acquitted in a criminal case for
serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence on
the ground of reasonable doubt. There was no
reservation. Private respondent filed a civil action
based on the same subject matter and act
complained of in the criminal case.
Held: The well-settled doctrine is that a person, while
not criminally liable may still be civilly liable. The
judgment of acquittal extinguishes the civil liability of
the accused only when it includes a declaration that
the facts from which the civil liability might arise did
not exist
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-28-
Article 29 enunciates the rule that a civil action for
damages is not precluded by an acquittal.
xxx
 Zapanta v Montesa
Facts: Wife files case for bigamy against husband
alleging that husband had a prior marriage which has
not been dissolved.
A month later husband files case for annulment on
ground of duress, force and intimidation. Husband
then files petition to suspend based on prejudicial
question.
Held: A prejudicial question is that which arises in a
case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent
of the issue involved therein and the cognizance of
which pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial
question must be determinative of the case before
the court and jurisdiction to try the same must be
lodged in another court. Petition granted.
Note: crim case was filed before civil case. No
amendment yet so court ruled this way.
xxx
 Merced v Diez
Facts: Husband filed for annulment of 2 nd marriage
based on force and duress. Next month wife filed
action for bigamy. Husband filed motion to suspend
because of prejudicial question.
Held: In this jurisdiction, where the courts are vested
with both civil and criminal jurisdiction, the principle
of prejudicial question is to be applied even of there
is only one court before which the civil action and the
criminal action are to be litigated. But in this case
the court, when exercising its jurisdiction over the
civil action for the annulment of marriage, is
considered as a court distinct and different from itself
when trying the criminal action for bigamy.
xxx
 People v Aragon
Facts: Husband is charged with bigamy. His wife also
files for annulment based on force and intimidation.
Husband wants provisional dismissal on ground of
prejudicial question
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Held: The nullity of the marriage is not a defense to
the criminal action for bigamy filed against him. If
the wife was the one who was charged with bigamy
then she could perhaps raise force or intimidation as
a defense, but not the other party who used the force
or intimidation. The latter may not use his own
malfeasance to defeat the action based on his
criminal act.
xxx
H u m a n Re l a t i o n s
Basic Principles; Abuse of Right
Art. 19. Every person, must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty
and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully
or negligently causes damage to another shall
indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
 Pe v Pe
Facts: Daughter was swept away by a collateral
relative who frequented their house on pretext of
wanting to learn the rosary. Daughter never
returned. Family filed for damages under Art 21.
Held: Circumstances under which defendant tried to
win the daughter’s affection show that it was done
through an ingenious scheme or trickery. Such
caused the family immeasurable wrong considering
the fact that he is a married man. Verily, he has
committed an injury to the family in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs and public policy
as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code.
 Hermosisima v CA
Facts: Plaintiff was a teacher who was engaged with
defendant who was 10 yrs younger. She gave up
teaching and intimacy developed. She got pregnant
and defendant promised to marry her. Defendant
married another woman after baby was born. She
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-29-
filed for moral damages for breach of promise to
marry
Held: Award of moral damages is untenable in the
light of clear and manifest intention of the law-
making body not to sanction actions for breach of
promise to marry.
History:
Spanish civil code – had breach of promise to marry
provisions. These articles were never in force in the
Phils. The proposed civil code had a chapter on this
but was eliminated because of the reason that “no
other action has more readily lent itself to abuse by
designing women and unscrupulous men” (De Jesus v
Syquia)
xxx
 Wassmer v Velez
Facts: Velez & Wassmer were engaged and set the
date for the wedding. 2 days before the big day,
Velez left a note saying that wedding would have to
be postponed since his mother opposed it. The next
day he sent a telegram saying nothing has changed.
He never returned. Wassmer sued Velez and the
court awarded her for damages and cost.
Held: While mere breach of promise to marry is NOT
an actionable wrong, Art 21 says when a person
willfully causes loss or injury contrary to good
custom, he shall compensate the latter for damages.
It is the abuse of right which can be a cause for
moral and material damages. To formally set a
wedding and go through all the expenses and
planning only to walk out in the end is unjustifiably
contrary to good customs.
xxx
 Gashem Shookat Baksh v CA
Facts: Iranian courted girl and proposed to marry her.
They agreed to get married at end of sem. Guy even
visited parents to get permission. He forced her to
live with him where she lost her virginity. It turned
out that he was already married to someone else.
Girl files for breach of promise to marry.
Held: Petitioner really had no intention of marrying
her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme
to entice her to accept him and obtain her consent to
the sexual act and could justify an award of damages
under Art 21. Such acts of petitioner (Iranian), who
is a foreigner and who has abused Philippine
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
hospitality have offended our sense of morality, good
custom and culture.
Xxx
 Velayo v Shell
Facts: CALI was indebted to Shell. CALI called a
meeting with its creditors to inform them of its
insolvency. Creditors agreed to settle among
themselves about the preferences of credits, shell
included. Shell goes behind the back of CALI and
other creditors and got CALI’s plane in the US.
Held: Art 19 is a declaration of principle while Art 21
implements such principle. Shell infringed upon the
rights of the other creditors by taking advantage of
its knowledge that CALI would institute insolvency
proceedings in the event the creditors would not
come into an agreement. Shell cannot be said to
have a vested right to betray the creditors.
Malicious Prosecution
To constitute malicious prosecution there
must be proof that the prosecution was
prompted by a design to vex and humiliate a
person and that it was initiated deliberately
by the defendant knowing that the charges
were false and groundless.
 Globe Mackay v CA
Facts: Tobias, an employee of Globe discovered
fictitious purchases and other fraudulent
transactions. He reported this to his superior. He
then became the #1 suspect and was dismissed. A
lot of cases one after the other were filed against
him. His superior threatened him and even said bad
things to the employee’s prospective employer so
that he would not be hired.
Held: Principle of Abuse of Right under Art 19 sets
certain standards which must be observed not only in
the exercise of one’s rights but also in the
performance of one’s duties. A right though itself
legal because recognized or granted by law as such
may nevertheless become the source of some
illegality. The right to institute criminal prosecutions
cannot be exercised maliciously and in bad faith.
In this case, petitioners acted in bad faith since police
reports already exculpated the employee and they
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-30-
still hastily filed 6 criminal cases and threatened to
file 100 more cases. Court is led to no other
conclusion than that petitioners were motivated by
malicious intent.
xxx
 Albenson v CA
Facts: Albenson delivered steel plates to Guaranteed
industries. Eugenio Baltao paid by check. Check
bounced and so a demand was made upon Baltao.
Baltao denied that he issued the check. Complaint for
BP 22 was filed against him. He was acquitted. He
filed a case for malicious prosecution. It turns out
that his son was also a Eugenio Baltao and had an
office in the same building. It was the son who
signed the check.
Held: Petitioners did not violate the principle of abuse
of right. What prompted them to file the case was
their failure to collect the amount. Through their
inquiries and investigations, the name of Balao came
up which let them to honestly believe that he was the
one who issued the check. Balao did not even try to
clarify the matter by informing them that he had a
name sake. The filing of the case was a sincere
attempt on the part of petitioners to find the best
possible means by which they could collect the sum
of money due them.
xxx
Elements of Abuse of Right
(1) There is a legal right or
duty
(2) Which is exercised in
bad faith
(3) For the sole intent of
prejudicing or injuring another
Elements of Art 21
(1) There is an act which is legal
(2) But which is contrary to morals, good
custom, public order or public policy
(3) And it is done with the intent to injure
Unjust Enrichment
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Art. 22. Every person who through an act or
performance of another, or any other means,
acquires or comes into possession of something at
the expense of the latter without just or legal ground,
shall return the same to him.
Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage
to another’s property was not due to the fault or
negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable
for indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited.
Art. 2154. If something is received when there is
no right to demand it and it was unduly delivered
through mistake, the obligation to return it arises.
Protection of Disadvantaged
Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other
relations, when one of the parties is at a
disadvantage on account of his moral dependence,
ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age
or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his
protection.
Art. 1332. When one of the parties is unable to
read, or if the contract is in a language not
understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged,
the person enforcing the contract must show that the
terms thereof have been fully explained to the
former.
Ostentatious Display of Wealth
Art. 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for
pleasure or display during a period of acute public
want or emergency may be stopped by order of the
courts at the instance of any government or private
charitable institution.
Respect for Dignity, Personality, Privacy &
Peace of Mind of Another
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy, peace of mind of his neighbors
and other persons. The following and similar acts,
though they may not constitute a criminal offense,
shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief.
(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated
from his friends
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-31-
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of
his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place
of birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.
 Ayer v Capulong
Facts: An Australian film maker wanted to make a
film about EDSA revolution but Enrile wanted them
stopped coz it would violate his right to privacy.
Held: Right to privacy is not an absolute right. The
right of privacy cannot be invoked to resist
publication and dissemination of matters of public
interest. The interest sought to be protected by the
right of privacy is the right to be free from
“unwarranted publicity, from the wrongful publicizing
of the private affairs and activities of an individual
which are outside the realm of legitimate public
concern.”
xxx
 Tenchavez v Escano
Facts: Vicenta Escano had a secret marriage with
Pastor Tenchavez, they were about to elope when the
family found out and separated them saying that
they should have a recelebration to validate the
marriage, this time with the Archbishop’s approval.
The couple was estranged and Escano left for the
States and divorced Tenchavez. Escano found
another husband. Tenchavez filed a complaint
against Vicenta’s family for alienating her affections.
Held: A parent is liable for alienation of affections
resulting from his own malicious conduct, as where
he wrongfully entices his son or daughter to leave his
or her spouse, but he is not liable unless he acts
maliciously, without justification and from unworthy
motives. In this case the parents of Vicenta acted
without malice, all they wanted was a recelebration
of marriage, and when it did not happen they just
respected their daughter’s decision or abided her
resolve, which in law does not constitute alienation of
affection.
xxx
Dereliction of Duty
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss
because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his official
duty may file an action for damages and other relief
against the latter, without prejudice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
 Amaro v Samanguit
Facts: Amaro was assaulted and shot near the city
government building. He and his father went to the
Chief of Police for assistance but instead they were
harassed and terrorized, the defendant ordering
them to appear in his office when he was absent and
then threatening to arrest them. Plaintiffs filed a
complaint for damages against the Chief of Police but
the same was dismissed in the lower court on the
ground that facts do not state a cause of action.
Held: The basis for relief was not harassment but the
refusal of the Chief of Police to render assistance.
Such constituted a dereliction of duty under Art. 27.
Although the complaint is vague and imperfectly
drafted, all that the Rules require is that there be a
showing, by a statement of ultimate facts, that the
plaintiff has a right and such right has been violated
by the defendant.
xxx
 Zulueta v Nicolas
Facts: Plaintiff filed a complaint for libel against the
governor of Rizal and the members of the Phil. Free
Press. The fiscal conducted an investigation. After
such investigation the fiscal decided that there was
no prima facie case. Plaintiff then filed a complaint
against the fiscal based on Art 27.
Held: Art 27 contemplates a refusal or neglect
without just cause by a public servant or employee to
perform his official duty. The fiscal has a legal duty to
prosecute crimes when there is enough evidence to
justify such action. BUT it is equally his duty no to
prosecute when after such investigation he has
become convinced that the evidence available is not
enough to establish a prima facie case.
Unfair Competition
Art. 27. Unfair competition in agricultural,
commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor
through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or high-
handed method shall give rise to a right of action by
the person who thereby suffers damage.
Separate Civil Actions
Violation of Civil Rights
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-32-
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any
private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or
impairs any of the following rights and liberties of
another person (enumeration of Bill of Rights) shall
be liable to the latter for damages.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether
or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to
commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
action for damages and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal
prosecution (if the latter be instituted) and may be
proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable
from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a
violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
 Lim v Ponce de Leon
Facts: A motor launch was sold to a person. The
motor launch was then forcibly taken by the seller
and sold to a 3rd party. A complaint was filed. Fiscal
Ponce de Leon after conducting a PI found out that
the motor launch was in Palawan in the possession of
Lim. The motor launch was seized and impounded
without a warrant.
Held: Without the proper search warrant, no public
official has the right to enter the premises of another
without his consent for the purpose of search and
seizure. Defendants have violated the constitutional
right against unreasonable search and seizure. A
person whose constitutional rights have been violated
is entitled to actual and moral damages from the
public officer or employee responsible therefore
under Article 32.
 Aberca v Ver
Facts: Illegal searches and seizures and other
violations of rights and liberties of plaintiffs were
made by various intelligence units of the AFP
pursuant to the order by General Ver to conduct pre-
emptive strikes against communist-terrorists. A
complaint was filed against them. Their defense was
State immunity since they were merely responding to
their duty.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Held: This duty cannot be construed as a blanket
license or a roving commission untrammeled by any
constitutional restraint, to disregard or transgress
upon the rights and liberties of the individual citizens
enshrined and protected by the Constitution. Art 32
does not exempt the respondents from responsibility.
Only judges are exempted under said article provided
their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of
the Penal Code or other penal statute. The
respondent’s superior, General Ver is also liable since
Art 32 speaks of an officer or employer or person
“directly” or “indirectly” responsible for the
violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of
another. Thus, it is not the actor alone who must
answer for damages under Art 32; the person
indirectly responsible has also to answer for the
damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party.
xxx
 MHP Garments v CA
Facts: MHP garments had the exclusive franchise to
sell and distribute Boy Scouts uniforms, supplies,
badges and insignias. They were also given authority
to undertake the prosecution in court of all illegal
sources of scout uniforms and other scouting
supplies. Later they received information that some
others were selling uniforms without authority. They
asked the police to investigate and the police raided
the said store and seized the uniforms without
warrant.
Held: The right against search and seizure protects
not only those who appear to be innocent but also
those who appear to be guilty but are nevertheless
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
There was enough time to get a warrant from the
time of receipt of the information up to the time of
the raid. MHP Garments was indirectly involved in
transgressing the right of private respondents since
the raid was conducted with the active participation
of their employee who was present in the raid but did
not lift a finger to stop the seizure.
Defamation, fraud & physical injuries
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical
injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought
by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence.
 Carandang v Santiago
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-33-
Facts: Valenton was found guilty of frustrated
homicide. On appeal a separate civil action was filed
for damages. Trial judge ruled civil action should be
suspended pending the criminal action arguing that
physical injuries is used to designate a specific crime
in the RPC and so frustrated murder doesn’t fall
within the separate civil action in Art 33.
Held: Art 33 uses defamation and fraud in their
ordinary sense because there are no specific
provisions in the RPC using these terms as offenses
defined therein. Therefore the term “physical
injuries” should also be understood in the generic
sense.
 Marcia v CA
Facts: Bus collides with jeep. An information was filed
for reckless imprudence resulting in death and
physical injuries. Defendant was acquitted saying
that negligence was wanting and what happened was
pure accident but the plaintiffs filed a separate civil
action for damages anyway.
Held: Art 33 speaks only of defamation, fraud and
physical injuries. The charge against the defendant
was not one for homicide or physical injuries but for
reckless imprudence or criminal negligence. Such is
not one of the 3 crimes mentioned in Art 33 and
therefore no civil action shall proceed independently
of the criminal prosecution,
Nonfeasance of Police
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal
police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection
to any person in case of danger to life or property,
such peace officer shall be primarily liable for
damages, and the city or municipality shall be
subsidiarily responsible therefore. The civil action
herein recognized shall be independent of any
criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
evidence shall suffice to support such action.
When no independent civil action is provided
Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a
criminal offense, charges another with the same, for
which no independent civil action is granted in this
Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace
finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime
has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney
refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the
complainant may bring a civil action for damages
against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
defendant’s motion, the court may require the
plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in
case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an
information should be presented by the prosecuting
attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the
termination of the criminal proceedings.
Nuisance
Definition
Art. 694. A nuisance is any act or omission,
establishment, condition of property or anything else
which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of
others
(2) Annoys or offends the senses
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or
morality
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage
of any public highway or street, or any body
of water
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property
Kinds
Public or Private
Art. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A
public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood
or any considerable number of persons, although the
extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon
individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one
that is not included in the foregoing definition.
Per se or Per accidens
Definitions
Nuisance per se – act, occupation or
structure which is a nuisance at all times
and under any circumstances regardless of
location or surroundings. It is anything
which of itself is a nuisance because of its
inherent qualities, productive of injury or
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-34-

provided for requirements for operating such

dangerous to life or property without regard factories. A complaint was filed against Salao for
to circumstance. maintaining a nuisance since it did not comply with
the requirements of the ordinance.
Nuisance per accidens – act, occupation or
structure not a nuisance per se, but which Held: Municipal ordinance are to be construed as
may become a nuisance by reason of having only prospective operation unless the
circumstances, location or surroundings. intention to give them retrospective effect is
expressly declared or necessarily implied in the
language used. There is nothing in the ordinance
showing the intention to give it a retrospective effect.
 Iloilo Cold Storage v Municipal Council
Nuisances per se constitute a direct menace to public
Facts: Ice and cold storage plant. Nearby residents health or safety and for that reason may be abated
complained of the smoke coming from the plant. summarily under the undefined law of necessity. On
Council formed a committee and upon its findings it the other hand nuisances per accidens depends upon
passed a resolution requiring ISC to elevate the certain conditions and circumstances; and its
smokestacks in a month otherwise it will close down existence being a question of fact, it cannot be
or suspend the operations of the plant. abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal
authorized to decide whether such a thing does in
Held: Plant is not a nuisance per se. Although the law constitute a nuisance.
municipal council may be empowered to declare and
abate nuisances it cannot find as a fact that a
Salao’s factory is not a nuisance per se hence the
particular thing is a nuisance when such a thing is
order of the municipal president to summarily abate
not a nuisance per se. It cannot authorize
the factory is null and void.
extrajudicial condemnation of a nuisance per
xxx
accidens. It must be determined by the courts.
 Sitchon v Aquino
xxx
Facts: Houses occupied certain portions of a public
 Tan Chat v Municipality of Iloilo
street in such a way that the roads and drainage on
both sides were obstructed. City Engineer advised
Facts: An ordinance was passes that the storing and
the residents to vacate as they were to be
keeping of lumber stores was considered a public
demolished. Residents are claiming violation of right
nuisance since the area is a densely populated
to due process.
commercial and residential zone which require fire-
proof buildings and that lumber stores were potential
Held: It is clear that houses standing on public
sources for fires. Tan Chat et al were lumber
streets are public nuisances. Houses constructed,
merchants and filed a case to annul the ordinance.
without governmental authority on public streets and
waterways, obstruct at all times the free use by the
Held: Municipalities have the power to enact
public of said streets and waterways and accordingly
ordinances for purposes of declaring and abating
constitute nuisances per se aside from public
nuisances under the Administrative Code, a power
nuisances. As such the summary removal thereof
conferred by legislation under the State’s police
without judicial process or proceedings may be
power. Tan Chat’s store is a nuisance since it can be
authorized despite the due process clause.
a fire menace, a source of danger to and destruction
of surrounding property. The location should at least
xxx
be within the control of proper municipal authorities
of every city or village having a population and built
 Ramcar v Millar
up district sufficiently large to render them a menace
to public order and safety.
Facts: Ramcar had an auto repair and body building
shop within a residential zone. The noise it emitted
 Salao v Santos
annoyed the neighbors and the filed a case claiming
it violated the zoning ordinance. Ramcar argued that
Facts: Salao owned and operated a smoked fish
the ordinance allowed garages and gasoline service
factory prior to the enactment of an ordinance that
stations. CA ordered the removal of the shop.

Katheri Ann L. Charcos 3S San Beda

College of Law
TORTS REVIEWER
-35-
Held: Ramcar’s shop did not fall under the permitted
“garage” found in the ordinance. A garage involves
minor repairs. “Repairs” does not include building
and remodeling of bodies or structures which is the
principal business of Ramcar. The municipal officers
do not have exclusive power whether or not the
subject matter is a nuisance. The courts may look
into it. Even if the shop was covered by a valid
license, the abatement of a nuisance does not
preclude the right of any person injured to recover
damages for its past existence (art 697).
However CA erred in ordering the removal of the
buildings and structures. The establishment is not a
nuisance per se, it only became a public nuisance
because of its location. To abate it, it is not
necessary to remove all buildings and
structures because it may be utilized for other
pursuits not forbidden by law. It is enough to
enjoin the operation of the business in its present
location without requiring the demolition of the
existing buildings.
 Ayala v Barretto
Facts: Barretto wants to build a brewery/iceplant in a
residential street. The street turns out to be semi-
industrial in nature since there are already existing
industries within the vicinity. Residents complain that
the brewery would be a nuisance.
Held: The proposed brewery is not a nuisance.
One who becomes a resident of a trading or
manufacturing neighborhood or who remains while a
residence district gradually becomes a trading or
manufacturing neighborhood, should be held bound
to submit to the ordinary annoyances,
discomforts and injuries which are fairly
incidental to the reasonable and general conduct of
such business in his chosen neighborhood.
xxx
 Velasco v MERALCO
Facts: Velasco sold 2 out of 3 of his lots to MERALCO
which constructed a substation. The 3rd lot he built
his house on. A sound continuously emanated from
the substation for which Velasco filed an action
seeking judicial decree for abatement.
Held: To constitute an actionable nuisance, it must
be a noise which affects injuriously the health or
comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an
unreasonable extent. The noise continuously emitted
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
constitutes an actionable nuisance for which Velasco
is entitled to relief.
xxx
Test for Actionable Nuisance
Whether the rights of property and health or
comfort are so injuriously affected by the
noise that the sufferer is subjected to a loss
which goes beyond the reasonable limit
imposed upon him by the condition of living,
or of holding property, in a particular locality
devoted to uses which involve the emission
of noise although ordinary care is taken to
confine it within reasonable grounds.
General Rule: Everyone is bound to bear the
habitual or customary inconvenience that result from
the proximity of others, and so long as this level is
not surpassed, he may not complain against them.
Exception: If it exceeds the inconveniences that
such proximity brings, the neighbor who cause such
disturbance is held responsible for the resulting
damage causing nuisance.
(Velasco v Meralco)
Abatement
Art. 696. Every successive owner or possessor of
property who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in
that property started by a former owner or possessor
is liable therefore in the same manner as the one
who created it.
Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not
preclude the right of any person injured to recover
damages for its past existence.
Art. 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any
nuisance, whether public or private.
Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance
are:
(1) A prosecution under the RPC or any local
ordinance
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-36-
(2) A civil action
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings
 Timoner v People
Facts: Mayor Timoner ordered laborers to fence off
stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of a highway.
These establishments had been recommended for
closure for non-compliance with certain health and
sanitation requirements. Timoner was charged with
grave coercion. Timoner argues that the sealing off of
the stalls was done in abatement of a public
nuisance.
Held: The barbershop stall in question did constitute
a public nuisance since it occupied a portion of the
sidewalk of a highway and had been recommended
for closure by the Municipal Health officer. There is
no semblance of any legality or right that exists in
favor of defendants to build a stall and conduct their
business in a sidewalk, especially in a highway where
it constitutes a menace to the health of the general
public passing through the street. Even if it has been
there for a number of years does not lend legality to
an act which is a nuisance per se. Even without a
judicial pronouncement, Timoner cannot be faulted
for fencing off the barbershop since Art 699 provides
for abatement of a public nuisance without judicial
proceedings.
xxx
Art. 700. The district health officer shall take care
that one or all of the remedies against a public
nuisance are availed of.
Art. 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the
maintenance of a public nuisance, such action shall
be commenced by the city or municipal mayor.
Art. 702. The district health officer shall determine
whether or not abatement, without judicial
proceedings, is the best remedy against a public
nuisance.
Art. 703. Any private person may file an action on
account of a public nuisance, if it is especially
injurious to himself.
Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public
nuisance which is specially injurious to himself by
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing
which constitutes the same, without committing a
breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But
it is necessary:
(1) That demand be first made upon the owner
or possessor of the property to abate the
nuisance
(2) That such demand has been rejected
(3) That the abatement be approved by the
district health officer and executed with the
assistance of local police
(4) That the value of the destruction does not
exceed 3000 pesos.
Art. 705. The remedies against a private nuisance
are:
(1) A civil action
(2) Abatement; without judicial proceedings
Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance
may abate it by removing, or if necessary by
destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance,
without committing a breach of the peace, or doing
unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that
the procedure for extra-judicial abatement of a public
nuisance by a private person be followed.
Art. 707. A private person or a public official
extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for
damages:
(1) If he causes unnecessary injury
(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the
courts to be not a real nuisance.
Easement Against nuisance
Art. 682. Every building or piece of land is subject
to the easement which prohibits the proprietor from
committing nuisance through noise, jarring, offensive
odor, smoke, heat, dust, water, glare and other
causes.
Art. 683. Subject to zoning, health, police and other
laws and regulations, factories and shops may be
maintained provided the least possible annoyance is
caused to the neighborhood.
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-37-
Attractive Nuisance
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his premises
dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of
a character likely to attract children in play,
and who fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing therewith or
resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender
years who is injured thereby, even if the
child is technically a trespasser in the
premises.
Rationale:
The condition or appliance in question
although its danger is apparent to those of
age, is so enticing or alluring to children of
tender years as to induce them to approach,
get on or use it, and this attractiveness is an
implied invitation to such children.
 Taylor v MERALCO
Facts: 15 year old picks up fulminating caps from
premises of MERALCO and takes them home and
conducts experiments. He cut open the fulminating
cap and lit the contents with a match. Explosion
causes him to lose his right eye.
Held: MERALCO is negligent in leaving the caps
exposed on the premises however this is not the
proximate cause of the injury received by plaintiff.
Plaintiff's action in cutting open the detonating cap
and putting a match to its contents was the
PROXIMATE CAUSE of the explosion and of the
resultant injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff.
xxx
 Hidalgo v Balandan
Facts: 8 year old boy takes a swim in water tank of
defendant company’s ice plant factory. He drowns.
Lower court held defendant liable because of
attractive nuisance doctrine.
Held: The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is
not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as
natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or
artificial feature other than the mere water and, its
location.
There are numerous cases in which the attractive
nuisance doctrine has been held not to be applicable
to ponds or reservoirs, pools of water, streams,
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
canals, dams, ditches, culverts, drains, cesspools or
sewer pools.
WHY?
Nature has created streams, lakes, and pools which
attract children. Lurking in their waters is always the
danger of drowning. Against this danger children are
early instructed so that they are sufficiently
presumed to know the danger; and if the owner of
private property creates an artificial pool on his own
property, merely duplicating the work of nature
without adding any new danger, he is not liable
because of having created an attractive nuisance
xxx
Damages
General Provisions
Art. 2195. The provision of this Title shall be
respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in
Article 1157.
Art. 2196. The rules under this Title are without
prejudice to special provisions on damages
formulated elsewhere in this Code. Compensation for
workmen and other employees in case of death,
injury or illness is regulated by special laws. Rules
governing damages laid down in other laws shall be
observed insofar as they are not in conflict with this
Code.
Art. 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory
(2) Moral
(3) Nominal
(4) Temperate or Moderate
(5) Liquidated
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
Art. 2198. The principles of the general law on
damages are hereby adopted insofar as they are not
inconsistent with this Code.
Concept: Damages refer to the pecuniary
compensation, recompense or satisfaction for an
injury sustained by the injured party to be paid by
the person who caused the injury. It is the pecuniary
consequences imposed by law or agreement of the
parties for breach of some duty or violation of some
right
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-38-

is awarded. There is only a need to prove the fact of

Examples Actual Damages death.
A robber steals a ring. value of the ring
Someone beats you up. expenses for going to the 2. Stipulation: if the parties stipulate the amount of
hospital, doctor, damages in case of breach of contract, it becomes
medicine. liquidated damages.
Contract with supplier of unrealized profit.
raw materials. Supplier Component Elements
fails to comply and
because of that, the Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall
buyer fails to comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered,
manufacture his but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to
products. obtain.

Actual damages may be:

General Principles of Damages
Under Article 22OO
(1) The amount should be fair and just and
commensurate to the damage.
(2) Damage and the amount must be proven by
competent evidence. “Competent” means that it
is admissible.
Ex: You lost jewelry to robbers. To prove
the amount of damages, you must present
documentary evidence, such as receipts.
But you probably don’t keep the receipts of
your jewelry around, so you can also
present testimonial evidence of an expert
witness, such as a jewelry appraiser.
Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered:
(3) Only proximate damages, not remote or
speculative, can be recovered.
Ex: If you run over a chicken, you only pay
the value of the chicken, not the eggs that
it would have produced.
Under Article 22O5
Actual or Compensatory Damages
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by
stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered
by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is
referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
Article 2199 provides the general rule that one is
entitled to an adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved.
a. Value of the loss suffered
b. Profits which the obligee failed to obtain
(unrealized profit)
How to prove this: documentary evidence
Example: X and Y killed A and threw his
body into a river, not knowing that he had
P100K in his pocket. X and Y are liable for
100K in actual damages because they are
liable for all the damages attributed to their
criminal act, even if they did not know of or
contemplate the loss of the 100K.
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in
cases of temporary or permanent personal
injury
(2) For injury to the plaintiff’s business standing
or commercial credit
1. Loss or impairment of earning capacity due to
temporary or permanent injury. “Permanent
injury” does not mean that you’re a
vegetable but that you cannot do the same
job as before because of the injury
How to prove this: present documentary
evidence, such as the ITR, payroll
2. Injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or
commercial credit

The exceptions are: How to prove this: present documentary

evidence, such as contracts for future
1. Provided by law: example is the fixed indemnity. If business or comparison or earnings before
someone is killed, automatically, an indemnity of 50K and after the injury.

Katheri Ann L. Charcos 3S San Beda

College of Law
TORTS REVIEWER
-39-
Dumdum emerges: Value of actual pecuniary loss
Lucrum Cessans: Expected Profits not realized
because of the act of the offender.
 General Enterprises v Lianga Bay Logging
Facts: Contract for certain number of logs to be
produced by Lianga bay Co. and for General
Enterprises to distribute it to the market for a 13%
commission. Lianga bay stopped supplying the logs,
thereby breaching the contract. General enterprises
sued.
Held: Under Art 2200, indemnification for damages
comprehends not only the value of the loss suffered
but also that of the profits which the creditor fails to
obtain. Lucrum cessans is also basis for
indemnification. The question that then arises is: Has
plaintiff failed to make profits because of defendant’s
breach of contract, and in the affirmative, is there
any basis for determining with reasonable certainty
such unearned profits? In this case had Lianga Bay
Logging continued to deliver the logs it is reasonable
to expect that General Enterprises would have
continued earning its commission in the same
manner as it used to in connection with the previous
shipment of logs.
xxx
 Basilan lumber Co v Cagayan Timber Export Co.
Facts: Basilan entered into a contract with Cagayan
where it would sell logs supplied by Cagayan to a Jap
company. The contract provides that in case Cagayan
fails to deliver, it would be liable for amount Basilan
will be held liable for by the Japs. Cagayan failed to
deliver. Basilan filed an action for damages even if it
hasn’t yet been liable by the Jap buyer. It was
actually an intermediary that paid for the damages to
the japs.
Held: Art 2199 provides that damages must be duly
proved. Such provision denies the grant of
speculative damages or damages not actually
proved to have existed and to have been caused to
the party claiming the same. In this case, the actual
damage was caused to the intermediary since it was
the one who paid the Japanese buyers and not
Basilan. Basilan has not paid anything yet and so it
has yet to sustain actual damage; its claim is
premature.
 GA Machineries Inc v Yaptinchay
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Facts: GA Machineries sold Yaptinchay a “brand new”
engine. A week after delivery the engine
malfunctioned and was repaired. It malfunctioned
again and again… Turns out it wasn’t brand new.
Yaptinchay sued. To prove damages he showed
documents that only proved that every time a truck
travels he earns P369. this amount was then
multiplied the number of trips the truck would have
traveled. Actual damages were awarded. But the
amount for probable income was not since mere
assertions of a loss is not the “best evidence”
Held: When the existence of a loss is established,
absolute certainty as to its amount is not required.
The benefit to be derived from a contract which one
of the parties has absolutely failed to perform is of
necessity to some extent, a matter of speculation,
but the injured party is not to be denied all remedy
for that reason alone. He must produce the best
evidence of which his case is susceptible and if that
evidence warrants the inference that he has been
damaged by the loss of profits which he might with
reasonable certainty have anticipated but for the
defendant’s wrongful act, he is entitled to recover.
What Yaptinchay should’ve done was present
evidence that prove average actual profits in order to
prove unearned profits.
xxx
NOTE: Best evidence should not be confused with the
best evidence rule in Evidence. Best evidence in
damages means ‘preponderance of evidence’
 Songco v Sellner
Facts: Songco and Sellner were neighboring sugar
cane farms. Sellner wanted to mill his cane at a
nearby sugar central but was refused. He found out
that the central was milling his neighbor’s canes. He
decided to buy Songco’s sugar canes. He paid only
2/3. Songco recovered the balance in a suit. Sellner
then sues Songco for damages for the wrongful
attachment of his property by his creditors.
Held: The attachment was wrongfully sued out BUT
damages arising from this is remote and speculative.
It is not a probable consequence that the suing out of
this attachment that the hands of the creditors would
come down upon their unfortunate client with
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-40-
disastrous results; and Songco should not be held
liable for the complication of Sellner’s affairs.
xxx
 Seavan Carrier v GTI Sportswear
Facts: Seavan lost 294 cartons of denim jeans owned
by GTI sportswear. GTI claims damages for unearned
profits.
Held: GTI failed to furnish the best evidence
obtainable or even to warrant the P2M it claims to
have lost as expected profits. Their only basis was
testimony that customers who learned of the loss
cancelled orders No document or written instrument
was shown. The evidence cannot warrant the amount
of damages for the loss of anticipated profits much
less P2M which is way above the value of the cartons
of denim jeans actually lost.
xxx
Subrogation
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff’s property has been
insured, and he has received indemnity from the
insurance company for the injury or loss arising out
of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the
insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights
of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person
who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by
the insurance company does not fully cover the injury
or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to
recover the deficiency from the person causing the
loss or injury.
 Pan Malayan Insurance Corp v CA
Facts: A car insured by Pan Malayan was hit by a
pickup and suffered damages. Pan Malayan paid the
insured and subsequently filed a complaint for
damages against the owner of the pick up.
Held: Pan Malayan has a cause of action. Under
2207, it is subrogated to the rights of the insured.
xxx
Principles of Subrogation
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
 If the insured property is destroyed or
damaged through the fault or negligence
of a party other than the insured, then
the insurer, upon payment to the
insured, will be subrogated to the
rights of the insured to recover from
the wrongdoer the extent that the
insurer has been obligated to pay.
 Payment by the insurer to the insured
operates as an equitable assignment
to the former of all remedies which the
latter may have against the 3rd party
whose negligence or wrongful act caused
the loss.
 The right of subrogation is not dependent
upon, nor does it grow out of any privity
of contract or upon written assignment of
claim. It accrues simply upon
payment of the insurance claim by the
insurer.
Exceptions:
1. If the insured by his own act releases the
wrongdoer or 3rd party liable for the loss
or damage, the insured’s right of
subrogation is defeated.
2. Where the insurer pays the insured the
value of the lost goods without notifying
the 3rd party who has in good faith
settled the claim or loss, the settlement
is binding on both the insured and the
insurer and the latter cannot bring an
action on his right of subrogation.
3. Where the insurer pays the insured for a
loss which is not a risk covered by the
policy, thereby effecting “voluntary
payment” the former has no right of
subrogation against the 3rd party liable
for the loss.
Attorney’s Fees and Expenses of Litigation
 RCPI v Rodriguez
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-41-
Facts: Rodriguez sent 2 telegrams to important
people abroad informing them of his arrival in Sudan
for the purposes of their upcoming convention.
Telegram never reached its destination and so no one
came to pick Rodriguez up and so he was forced to
sleep in the airport and the convention was
subsequently cancelled. Rodriguez sued.
Held: Attorney’s fees were denied because such was
not alleged in the complaint and there was no
evidence presented to prove it. The reason for the
award of attorney’s fees must be stated in the text of
the court’s decision otherwise if it is only stated in
the dispositive portion the same must be disallowed
on appeal. The lower court stated that the amount
for attorney’s fees was reasonable but it failed to
justify its payment hence it must be disallowed and
deleted.
 Polytrade Corp. v Blanco
Facts: Plaintiff filed a case to recover the purchase
price of rawhide it delivered to defendant. Plaintiff
was awarded damages for each of the 4 causes of
action. In addition, defendant is to pay attorneys
fees, and the costs of the suit. Defendant protests
on the ground that the sum is “exorbitant and
unconscionable.”
Held: Attorney’s fees here are not the attorney’s fees
recoverable as between client and attorney. Rather
they are in the nature of liquidated damages. As
such it is aptly called a penal clause. Such is binding
upon defendant as long as it does not contravene
law, morals, or public order. Governing law is Art
2227, for this reason we do not really have to
strictly view the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees
in the light of such factors as the
 Amount and character of the services
rendered,
 The nature and importance of the litigation
and the professional character and
 The social standing of the attorney.
We do concede, however, that these factors may be
an aid in the determination of the iniquity or
unconscionableness of attorney’s fees as
liquidated damages.
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s
fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial
costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded
(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with 3rd
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
persons or to incur expenses to protect his
interest
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution
against the plaintiff
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding against the plaintiff
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
plaintiff’s plainly valid, just and demandable
claim
(6) In actions for legal support
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of
household helpers, laborers and skilled
workers
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s
compensation and employer’s liability laws
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil
liability arising from a crime
(10) When at least double judicial costs are
awarded
(11) In any other case where the court deems it
just and equitable that attorney’s fees and
expenses of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation must be reasonable.
Interest
Rules on Interest
1. If there is a stipulation as to the rate of
interest, apply the rate unless it is contrary to
law, morals, and good customs, in which case
apply the legal rate.
2. If interest is imposed, but no rate is
stipulated, or there is delay, apply the legal
rate (either 6% or 12%)
a. When the obligation involves the payment
of indemnities in the concept of damage,
the legal rate or interest is 6% computed
as follows:
i From date of demand if the amount of
indemnities can be established with
reasonable certainty;
ii If not, from the date of the judgment
of the trial court.
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-42-
b. When the obligation consists of a loan or
forbearance of money, goods or
credits as well as judgment involving
such loan or forbearance, the legal rate of
interest shall be 12% per annum
computed from default, that is, from
judicial or extrajudicial demand.
c. In both cases, the legal rate of interest
shall be 12% from the finality of
judgment until the judgment is paid.
Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment
of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay,
the indemnity for damages, there being no
stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of
the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of
stipulation, the legal interest, which is 6% per
annum.
Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the
court, be allowed upon damages awarded for breach
of contract.
Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a
part of the damages may, in a proper case, be
adjudicated in the discretion of the court.
Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest
from the time it is judicially demanded, although the
obligation may be silent upon this point.
Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon
unliquidated claims or damages, except when the
demand can be established with reasonable certainty.
Central Bank Circular no. 416. By virtue of the
authority under the Usury Law, the Monetary Board
has prescribed the rate of interest for the loan or
forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the
rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of express
contract as to such rate of interest, shall be 12% per
annum. This circular shall take effect immediately.
 Reformina v Tomol
Held: An action for damages for injury to persons
and property does not involve any loan, much less
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
forbearances of any money goods or credits. Central
bank circular does not apply. Interest should be 6%.
xxx
 Eastern Shipping Lines
Facts: Drums of riboflavin were shipped. Arrived to
the consignee damaged.
Held: When an obligation, regardless of its source is
breached, the contravenor can be held liable for
damages. With regard to an award or interest in the
concept of actual and compensatory damages, the
rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is
imposed as follows:
 When the obligation is breached, and it consists
in the payment of a sum of money (i.e., a loan or
forbearance of money), the interest due should
be that which may have been stipulated in
writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself
earn legal interest from the time it is judicially
demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate
of interest shall be 12% per annum to be
computed from default i.e., from judicial or
extrajudicial demand under and subject to the
provision of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
 When an obligation, not constituting a loan or
forbearance of money, is breached, an interest
on the amount of damages awarded may be
imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate
of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be
adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages
except when or until the demand can be
established with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, where the demand is established
with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin
to run from the time the claim is made judicially
or extrajudicially but when such certainty cannot
be so reasonably established at the time the
demand is made, the interest shall begin to run
only from the date the judgment of the court is
made (at which time the quantification of
damages may be deemed to have been
reasonably ascertained). The actual base of the
computation of legal interest shall, in any case,
be on the amount finally adjudged.
 When the judgment of the court awarding a sum
of money becomes final and executory, the rate
of legal interest, whether the case falls under
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-43-

paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 above shall be 12%
per annum from such finality until its satisfaction,
this interim period being deemed to be by then
an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
PAL could not have foreseen the damages at the time
the film was ordered.
Note: Maam disagrees. Contract of carriage requires
extraordinary diligence which PAL failed to show.

Extent or scope of actual damages xxx

 Cariaga v LTB Co
Contracts and quasi-contracts
Facts: Bus accident leads to injury of med student.
Injury left him physically and intellectually impaired.
Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the
(parts of brain got sliced off)
damages for which the obligor who acted in good
faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and
Held: Court in this case in addition to medical
probable consequences of the breach of the
expenses awarded damages for loss of earning
obligation, and which the parties have reasonably
capacity since it could be reasonably foreseen that he
foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.
would’ve passed the board exam and become a
physician.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude,
the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which
xxx
may be reasonably attributed to the non-
performance of the obligation.

Art. 2215. In contracts and quasi-contracts, and

quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the
damages under circumstance other than the case
referred in the preceding article, as in the following
instances:
(1) that the plaintiff himself has contravened the
terms of the contract
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as
a result of the contract
(3) In cases where exemplary damager are to be
awarded, that the defendant acted upon the
advice of counsel;
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any
event
(5) That since the filing of the action, the
defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s loss or injury
 Villa Rey Transit v CA
Facts: Bus hit a bull cart in the dark. Pole from the
cart went through the windshield and impaled
passenger.
Held: The life expectancy of the deceased or the
beneficiary whichever is shorter is a an important
factor in measuring the value of a human life. Other
factors include:
 Pecuniary loss to plaintiff/beneficiary
 Loss of support
 Loss of service
 Loss of society
 Mental suffering of the beneficiaries
 Medical and funeral expenses

 Mendoza v PAL
Loss of Earning Capacity
Facts: Mendoza owned a theater. He ordered a film Loss of earning capacity – This presupposes that the
from manila to be shown in time for the fiesta in the person concerned is dead.
City. He advertised the film extensively but was not
able to show the film since PAL failed to deliver the How to compute:
film on the day of the fiesta.
First step: Determine the life expectancy:
Held: Mendoza did not specify that the film was to be x ( )
shown under the special circumstances then PAL is 2 80 –
not liable for the damages claimed by Mendoza since ______ Age at
it should only be liable for the natural consequences. death
3

Katheri Ann L. Charcos 3S San Beda

College of Law
TORTS REVIEWER
-44-

earnings based on life of the beneficiary and not the

Second step: Compute for earning capacity:
( - )x
Gross Necessary Life
earnings living expectanc
per year expenses y Philippine laws provide that award should be
How do you prove the net earnings per year:
a. documentary evidence: ITR, payroll
b. Oral testimony on minimum wage (but this is not
always admitted)
Some cases say that the net earnings of the deceased is
divided by two since the law presumes that half of it goes
to his living expenses. But if other evidence is presented
to establish the actual personal expenses of the deceased,
then this figure may be used instead.
 People v Quilaton
Facts: Quilaton killed his superior after an altercation
with the latter over Quilaton’s habits of sleeping in
and bringing women to the office. Earning capacity
computed differently.
Held: Number of years the victim would have lived
and the rate of loss sustained by the deceased’s heirs
were taken into consideration. Life expectancy also
has gone up since the Villa Rey case due to
technology, improved nutrition.
deceased
Held: Although US jurisprudence provides that
damages should be computed from “life expectancy
of deceased or the beneficiary whichever is shorter”,
computed in the basis of the life expectancy of the
deceased.
xxx
 Metro Manila Transit Corp. v CA
Facts: 3rd year UPIS student got hit by bus in along
Katipunan.
Held: Compensation should be allowed for loss of
earning capacity resulting from death of a minor who
has not yet commenced employment or training for a
specific profession if sufficient evidence is presented
to establish the amount thereof.
Crimes and quasi-delicts
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the
defendants shall be liable for all damages which are
the natural and probable consequences of the act or
omission complained of. It is not necessary that such
damages have been foreseen or could have
reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to
minimize the damages resulting from the act or
omission in question.

Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be

Σ (Lx+1, Lx+2,…,Lx+n), where n = 100 – x adjudicated may be respectively increased or
__________________________________ lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating
__________________________________________ circumstances.
Lx x = age upon death
L = number of people Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory
in sample surviving
negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages
after x number of
that he may recover.
years
Art. 2215. In contracts and quasi-contracts, and
Court also took into consideration that a man does
quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the
not continue working up to the final month in his life.
damages under circumstance other than the case
Years considered should be reduced up to retirement
referred in the preceding article, as in the following
age.
instances:
 PAL v CA (6) that the plaintiff himself has contravened the
terms of the contract
Facts: PAL plane crashed killing passenger. Mother (7) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as
sued PAL for damages. PAL wanted computation of a result of the contract

Katheri Ann L. Charcos 3S San Beda

College of Law
TORTS REVIEWER
-45-
(8) In cases where exemplary damager are to be
awarded, that the defendant acted upon the
advice of counsel;
(9) That the loss would have resulted in any
event
(10) That since the filing of the action, the
defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s loss or injury
Crimes and quasi-delicts
resulting in death
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death
caused by a crime or quasi delict shall be at least
P3000, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstance. In addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of
the earning capacity of the deceased, and
the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the
latter; such indemnity shall in every case be
assessed and awarded by the court, unless
the deceased on account of permanent
physical disability not caused by the
defendant, had mo earning capacity at the
time of his death.
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support
according to the provisions of Article 291, the
recipient who is not an heir called to the
decedent’s inheritance by law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support
from the person causing the death, for a
period not exceeding 5 years, the exact
duration to be fixed by the court.
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
descendants and ascendants of the deceased
may demand moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the
deceased.
Note:
 Jurisprudence has fixed the amount of
damages for death to P50,000 due to the
devaluation of the peso.
 Article 2206 applies to death of a passenger
due to breach of contract of common carrier
by express provision of Article 1764.
 Heirs of Raymundo Castro v Bustos
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Facts: Bustos killed Castro in a fit of passion and was
convicted
Held: When death occurs as a result of a crime, the
heirs of the deceased are entitled to the ff:
1. Fixed indemnity P12, 000 (now P50,000)
even if there are mitigating circumstances
2. Loss of earning capacity
3. Moral damages
4. Exemplary damages
5. Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation
6. Interests in proper cases
7. It must be emphasized that the loss of
earning capacity and moral damages are
recoverable separately from and in addition
to the fixed indemnity.
xxx
 People v Quilaton
Facts: Quilaton killed his superior after an altercation
with the latter over Quilaton’s habits of sleeping in
and bringing women to the office. Earning capacity
computed differently.
Held: Aside from ordinary indemnity for death which
is P50,000, appellant is obliged to
1. Compensate the heirs for loss of earning
capacity
2. give support to dependents for 5 years
3. Pay for moral damages
Sample Problem:
Andrew was a 40 year-old company executive
earning P400,000 a year. His wife Rose was engaged
in the realty business and was earning P20,000 a
month on the average. One day, they were on the
way to a meeting where Rose would buy a land which
she intended to resell at a profit of P200,000 when a
speeding truck hit their P500,000 car. The injured
Andrew was brought to the hospital but late died, and
Rose was incapacitated for 3 months. Hospital and
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-46-

funeral expenses cost P100,000 and P80,000. Their
car was totally wrecked and the P50,000 money Rose
was carrying as down payment for the land was lost
or stolen. Compute for the actual damages.
1. Under Article 2200
a. value of the loss suffered:
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though
incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages
may be recovered if they are the proximate result of
the defendant's wrongful act for omission.

 Hospital expenses P100K

 Funeral expenses P80K
Art. 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages,
 Car P500K
the sentimental value of property, real or personal,
 Money lost P50K
may be considered.
b. profits which the obligee failed to obtain
(unrealized profit) Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the
following and analogous cases:
 Expected profit from the sale of land
P200K (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical
injuries;
2. Under Article 2205 (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
a. loss or impairment of earning capacity (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other
due to temporary or permanent injury lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
 Earnings of Rose for 3 months P20K x (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
3 months = P60K (6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of
b. injury to the plaintiff’s business standing
defamation;
or commercial credit:
(8) Malicious prosecution;
 not applicable (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in
3. Fixed indemnity: 50K for death of Andrew Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and
35.
4. Loss of earning capacity of Andrew:
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped,
 First Step: Life expectancy = 2/3 x or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may
(80-40) = 26.67 years also recover moral damages.

 Second Step: Earning capacity = The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers
(400,000/2) x 26.67 years = and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9
P5,333,333 of this article, in the order named.

5. Interest: 6% Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal

ground for awarding moral damages if the court
should find that, under the circumstances, such
damages are justly due. The same rule applies to
breaches of contract where the defendant acted
Moral Damages fraudulently or in bad faith.

Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary

Art. 309. Any person who shows disrespect to the
in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or
dead, or wrongfully interferes with a funeral shall be
exemplary damages may be adjudicated. The
liable to the family of the deceased for damages,
assessment of such damages, except liquidated
material and moral.
damages, is left to the circumstances of each case.

Katheri Ann L. Charcos 3S San Beda

College of Law
TORTS REVIEWER
-47-
Note: Moral damages must be proven, but the
amount is determined by the judge. Plaintiff must
prove the legal basis for the award; actual amount is
up to the judge.
Factors in determining the amount of moral
damages:
1. political, social, financial standing of offended
party and offender
2. Mental anguish
Example: Compare the mental anguish of two
mothers whose sons died in two different
incidents. One son was shot to death, and he
died instantly. The other son was partying at
Ozone when it burned down. He suffered for
several weeks with painful burns before he finally
died. The mental suffering of the Ozone victim’s
mother is greater than that of the mother of the
son who was shot to death, since the former had
to watch as her son had to withstand the agony
of the burns.
3. Sentimental value
Example: Two rings – one with a huge stone
that you won at a raffle and another with a tiny
stone that was given to you by your one true
love. Of course, the senntimental value of the
second ring is greater.
When recoverable
Contractual relation
 Lopez v Pan Am
Facts: Senator Lopez and family bought first class
tickets. When they got to Tokyo and were ready to
board the plane to San Francisco, they were forced to
fly in the economy class.
Held: Senator and family suffered social humiliation,
mental anguish, and serious anxiety. A lot of schwar
schwar on him being a senate president pro tempore,
prestigious sya eklat. According to SC-- It may not
be humiliating to travel as tourist passengers;
it is humiliating to be compelled to travel as
such, contrary to what is rightfully to be
expected from the contractual undertaking. In
conclusion, SC wanted to stress that amount of
damages awarded in this appeal has been
determined by adequately considering the official,
political, social, and financial standing of the offended
parties on the one hand, and the business and
financial position of the offender on the other, And
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
further considering the present rate of exchange and
the terms at which the amount of damages awarded
would approximately be in US dollars.
xxx
 Zulueta v Pan Am
Facts: Zulueta got off-loaded from the plane on Wake
Island because of a fight with the manager of the
airport and the pilot. The case of the “beach is my
toilet”
Held: The records amply establish plaintiff’s right to
recover moral damages, there was mental anguish,
serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock and
social humiliation due to the defendants acts:
 Rude and rough reception of plaintiff upon
returning from the beach
 Menacing attitude in which he asked plaintiff to
open his bags
 Abusive language and scornful reference to them
as “monkeys”
 Unfriendly attitude, ugly stares and unkind
remarks by other passengers
 Wife suffered nervous breakdown as a result of
the embarrassment, insults and humiliations
xxx
 Yutuk v MERALCO
Facts: Yutuk was accused by MERALCO’s lineman of
using a “jumper”. Turns out Yutuk’s electricity was
maliciously disconnected by the lineman. MERALCO
maliciously filed a case for theft of electricity against
Yutuk and even supported the lineman against her
complaint for slander.
Held: Moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary
estimation may be awarded provided that they are
the proximate result from the defendant’s wrongful
act or omission. In this case the lineman and
MERALCO’s acts were wrongful and reckless and they
directly resulted in Yutuk’s mental anguish, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock and social humiliation.
xxx
 RCPI v Rodriguez
Held: Moral damages are awarded only to enable the
injured party to obtain means, diversions or
amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral
suffering he has undergone by reason of the
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-48-
defendant’s culpable action. The award of moral
damages must be proportionate to the suffering
inflicted.
 Simex International v CA
Facts: Simex checks were dishonored because bank
made an error. As a result his business standing in
the community was severely affected.
Held: As a general rule juridical persons cannot suffer
moral damages since it cannot experience physical
suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings,
serious anxiety, mental anguish and moral shock but
it does have a business reputation which can be
tarnished and reduced hence moral damages may be
awarded in such cases.
Extra-contractual
 Magbanua v IAC
Facts: Defendants diverted the free flow of water
from the Magbanua’s land with intent to force them
to vacate the land.
Held: Art 2219 permits the award of moral damages
for acts mentioned under Art 21. Defendants
unjustifiably diverted the water violating the rights of
the plaintiffs hence moral damages should be
awarded.
xxx
 Tan Kapoe v Masa
Facts: Masa wanted to convert his share tenancy to
one of leasehold which Tan Kapoe rejected. Masa
asked the court and was granted. Tan Kapoe
retaliated by filing 6 criminal cases against Masa but
were eventually dismissed. Complaint for malicious
prosecution.
Held: Moral damages may be awarded for malicious
prosecution under Art 2219. Tan kapoe filed the
criminal cases to harass and embarrass Masa and a s
a retaliatory measure for the conversion case,
making the latter suffer moral suffering and anxiety.
xxx
 Ford v CA
Facts: Fabrigar was slapped by her ninang in public
because of Fabrigar’s fight with the son of the Bgy
Captain regarding the referendum held that day.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
Held: Art 2219 permits the award of moral damages
for acts mentioned under Art 21. Defendants
unjustifiably diverted the water violating the rights of
the plaintiffs hence moral damages should be
awarded.
xxx
When not recoverable
 Mercado v Lira
Facts: Bus plunges into a ravine. Plaintiffs want to
recover moral damages for death and physical
injuries.
Held: Moral damages resulting from breach of
contract may be awarded to death but not physical
injuries. Art 2220 expressly requires that bad faith or
malice be proved in order to recover moral damages.
xxx
automatic reward of moral damages:
 Rape
 Death
 Cariaga v LTB Co.
Held: moral damages can be awarded on account of
breach of contract since defendant did not act
fraudulently or in bad faith in connection therewith
xxx
 Bagumbayan v IAC
Facts: Waiter spilled drinks on customer during the a
nice show. Customer had to go to the ladies room
and missed the show. She was so drenched that she
had to remove her dress and was not even given a
towel. She felt embarrassed since a lot of people
witnessed the event
Held: Damages for mental anguish are limited to
cases in which there has been a personal physical
injury or where the defendant willfully, wantonly,
recklessly or intentionally caused mental anguish.
In short moral damages consisting of embarrassment
and mental suffering may be awarded when
 Act is willful or wanton even if there is no
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-49-
physical injury or
 Act is negligent only, there is no intent BUT
it results in physical injuries
Nominal Damages
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary
in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or
exemplary damages may be adjudicated. The
assessment of such damages, except liquidated
damages, is left to the circumstances of each case.
Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in
order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized and not fir the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by
him.
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages
in every obligation arising from any source
enumerated in Article 1157 or in every case where
any property right has been invaded.
Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages
shall preclude further contest upon the right involved
and all accessory questions, as between the parties
to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.
Nominal – not for indemnification of loss but
vindication of a right violated
 Vda de Medina v Cresencia
Facts: Medina died when jeepney he was riding
crashed into a post
Held: Nominal damages may not be awarded where
there are already compensatory and exemplary
damages awarded since compensatory and
exemplary damages are in themselves judicial
recognition that rights were violated.
 Northwest Airlines v Cuenca
Facts: Classic case of first class passenger
downgraded to tourist.
Held: Nominal and exemplary damages can go
together. The defendant’s tortuous act was
committed with knowledge that plaintiff was a public
official, the nominal damages recognized that
wrongful act while exemplary damages punish the
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
wanton, oppressive and reckless manner of
defendant in committing said act.
xxx
 Cogeo-Cubao Operators v CA
Facts: LSTC was awarded a certificate of public
convenience to operate a jeepney service on the
Cogeo-cubao route. Defendants formed a human
barricade and prevented LSTC from dispatching their
jeepneys
Held: Certificate of public convenience is considered
a property right. The court may award damages in
every case where any property right has been
invaded.
Temperate or Moderate Damages
Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which
are more than nominal but less than compensatory
damages, may be recovered when the court finds
that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its
amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be
proved with certainty.
Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be
reasonable under the circumstances.
 Araneta v Bank of America
Facts: Classic case of dishonored check because of
bank’s error.
Held: Injury to one’s commercial credit or to the
good will of the business firm is often hard to show
with certainty in terms of money. Temperate
damages are awarded where definite proof of
pecuniary loss cannot be offered but the court is
convinced that there has been a loss.
Liquidated Damages
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed
upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case
of breach thereof.
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended
as an indemnity or penalty, shall be equitably
reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
Art. 2228. When the breach of contract committed
by the defendant is not one contemplated by the
parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-50-
law shall determine the measure of damages and not
the stipulation.
 NPC v NAMERCO
Held: Proof of pecuniary loss is not necessary. The
stipulation for liquidated damages is intended to
obviate controversy on the amount of damages.
Exemplary or Corrective Damages
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are
interposed, by way of example or correction for the
public good, in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages.
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages
as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when
the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances. Such damages are
separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to
the offended party.
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages
may be granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence.
Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the
court may award exemplary damages if the
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner.
Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered
as a matter of right; the court will decide whether or
not they should be adjudicated.
Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary
damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show
that he is entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages before the court may
consider the question of whether or not exemplary
damages should be awarded. In case liquidated
damages have been agreed upon, no proof of loss is
necessary in order that such liquidated damages may
be recovered, nevertheless, before the court may
consider the question of granting exemplary in
addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must
show that he would be entitled to moral, temperate
or compensatory damages were it not for the
stipulation for liquidated damages.
Katheri Ann L. Charcos
College of Law
 Singson v Aragon
Held: Amount of exemplary damages need not be
proved because it is dependent upon what court may
award as compensatory damages. Since it need not
be proved, it also need not be alleged or pleaded in
the complaint because the same cannot be pre-
determined. One need only ask that it be determined
by the court in the exercise of its discretion if the
same is warranted by the evidence.
 San Miguel Brewery v Magno
Held: Just because a case is found unmeritorious
doesn’t mean that case is frivolous and warrants
exemplary damages. Otherwise it would violate
people’s rights to free access to the courts.
 Pan Pacific Co. v Phil Advertising Corp.
Held: Court may award exemplary damages if
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner.
 Munsayac v De Lara
Held: Principal cannot be held liable for exemplary
damages for the acts of its agent. Exemplary
damages can only be awarded against the one who
has participated in the offense.
 Octot v Ybanez
Held: In the absence of proof that the Regional
Director acted in bad faith & with grave abuse of
discretion, Octot is not entitled to backwages &
consequently cannot claim for damages. The officials
were not motivated by ill will or personal malice in
dismissing Octot but only their desire to comply with
mandates of PD 6.
 RCPI v CA
Facts: Condolence message on happy birthday
stationary and xmas envelope.
Held: Gross negligence resulting in a breach of
contract constitutes wanton misconduct hence
exemplary damages may be awarded.
Filing fees for actions with damages
Rule 111, Sec. 1 :: Rules of Court.
xxx
3S San Beda
TORTS REVIEWER
-51-

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil

liability against the accused by way of moral,
nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without
specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or
information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute
a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is

specified in the complaint or information, the
corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the
offended party upon filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing

fees shall be required for actual damages

xxx

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint and criminal and

civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the
filing fees based on the amount of the check
involved, which shall be considered as the actual
damages claimed. Where the complaint or
information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral,
nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the
amount alleged therein. If the amounts are not so
alleged, but any of the damages are subsequently
awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the
amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the
judgment.

 People v Escano

Held: No filing fees for actual damages needed. Only

for moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages
are alleged. If not alleged then it constitutes a first
lien on the judgment and need not be paid

 General v Claravall

Held: Manchester rule says that in cases of

intentional non-filing of fees, the court should dismiss
case for intention to defraud court. This rule was
relaxed in the Sunlife and Tacay cases, where it held
that unpaid filing fees should constitute a lien on final
judgment. Lien should be allowed when the filing fee
cannot be ascertained and was only proven during
the trial.

-Finis-

Katheri Ann L. Charcos 3S San Beda

College of Law