Civil Law

QUASI-DELICT/TORT

Quasi-delict The law prohibits plaintiff from recovering

Art. 2176 CC
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence is
obliged to pay for the damage done.
Requisites: C,D,F
1. Damage suffered by the plaintiff;
2. Fault or negligence of defendant;
3. Connection of cause and effect
between the fault or negligence of
defendant ad the damage incurred by
plaintiff
Prescriptive period:
An action based on quasi-delict must be
instituted within FOUR YEARS
Scope
Not limited to acts or omission resulting from
negligence.
damages twice under delict and quasi-delict for
the same act or omission.
The failure of recovery in one will not preclude
the recovery in other.
Even if the cause of action ex quasi
delicto had already prescribed, the
subsidiary liability under delict can still
be enforced.
Culpa Aquiliana
Wrongful or negligent act or omission which
creates a vinculum juris and gives rise to an
obligation between two persons not formally
bound by any obligation
Culpa Contractual
Fault or negligence incident in the performance
of an obligation which already existed and
which increases the liability from such existing
obligation.

Art. 2176 covers not only acts committed with Culpa Aquiliana Culpa Contractual
Cause of Action
negligence but also which are voluntary and
Negligence Negligence in the
intentional.
performance of a
contractual obligation
Two kinds of Civil Liability
Negligence is considered
1. Civil liability arising from the crime Culpa is substantive Considered as an
under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal and independent accident in the
which of itself performance of an
Code;
constitutes the source obligation already
2. Civil liability arising from quasi-delict of an obligation existing
under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code Proof
Negligence should be Mere proof of
Note: clearly established existence of the
because it is the basis contract and the
The two civil liabilities are distinct and
of the action failure of its
independent of each other. compliance justify,
prima facie a
corresponding right of

1
 Civil Law
QUASI-DELICT/TORT
relief
Law governing
Article 2176 Article 1170 to 1174
Effect of pre-existing contractual relations
The court has repeatedly held that the
existence of a contract between the parties
does not bar the commission of a tort by one
against the other and the consequent recovery
of damages.
The liability of tort may even arise under a
contract where tort is that which breaches the
contract.
Negligence (CULPA)
Failure to exercise the standard of care that a
reasonably prudent person would have
exercised in a similar situation.
Test to determine existence of negligence
1. Foreseeability Test- to be negligent, a
defendant must have acted or failed to
act in such a way that an ordinary
reasonable man would have realized
that certain interests of certain persons
were unreasonable subjected to a
general but definite class of risks.
2. Emergency rule- an individual who
suddenly finds himself in a situation of
danger and is required to act without
much time to consider the best means
that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence if he fails to undertake what
subsequently and upon reflection may
appear to be a better solution, unless
the emergency was brought by his own
negligence.
2
Emergency rule is not applicable where
the danger or emergency is caused by
the actor’s own negligence.
LIABILITY
Defendant
To be held liable, there must be a finding that
the act or omission considered as negligent was
the proximate cause of the injury caused by
negligence must have a causal connection to
the accident.
Requisite
The injury must be shown that the injury for
which the recovery is sought must be the
legitimate consequence of the wrong done.
Doctrine of Proximate cause
Applicable only in actions for quasi-delict .
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.
Damage must be a natural and probable result
of the act or omission.
Plaintiff
When he plaintiff’s own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages
BURDEN OF PROOF
General rule: Plaintiff in quasi-delict who has
the burden of proof and who is required to
establish the existence of negligence
 Civil Law
QUASI-DELICT/TORT

Exceptions: b. It does not arise where a passenger

i. When law provides for presumption
of negligence;
ii. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is
applicable
Evidence required: Preponderance of evidence.
DOCTRINES
Doctrine of Contributory Negligence
If the negligence of the plaintiff was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of
due care, the plaintiff may recover damages but
the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.
Contributory negligence of the injured will nit
defeat the action it is shown that the defendant
might be, by the exercise of reasonable care
and prudence, have avoided the consequences.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
Both parties are negligent, but the negligent act
of one is appreciably later in time than that of
the other, or when is impossible to determine
whose fault or negligence should be attributed
to the incident, the one who had last clear
opportunity to avoid the impending harm and
failed to do so is chargeable with the
consequences thereof.
demands responsibility from the carries
to enforce its contractual obligations.
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
The thing speaks for itself.
It holds a defendant liable where the thing
which caused the injury complained of is shown
to be under the latter’s management and the
accident is such that, in the ordinary course of
things, cannot be expected to happen if those
who have its management or control use proper
care.
Requisites:
1. The event is of a kind which does not
ordinarily occur in the absence of
negligence;
2. Other causes, including the conduct of
the plaintiff and third persons, are
sufficiently eliminated by the evidence;
3. It is caused by an instrumentality within
the exclusive control of the defendant.
Instances where negligence is presumed
Motor vehicle mishaps

Not applicable:

a. Where the party charged is required to

act instantaneously and the injured
cannot be avoided by the application of
all means at hand after the peril is or
should have been discovered.