TORTS AND DAMAGES Held:
ATTY. ERDELYNE GO ● Section 3 (c) of Rule 111 specifically provides
I. INTRODUCTION
A. SOURCES OF OBLIGATIONS
CIVIL CODE - ARTICLES 1156 TO 1162,2176
Art. 1156. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do. (n)
Art. 1157. Obligations arise from:
(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts. (1089a)
Art. 1158. Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those
expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and
shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them; and as
to what has not been foreseen, by the provisions of this Book. (1090)
Art. 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between
the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. (1091a)
Art. 1160. Obligations derived from quasi-contracts shall be subject to the
provisions of Chapter 1, Title XVII, of this Book. (n)
Art. 1161. Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed
by the penal laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent
provisions of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on Human Relations, and of Title
XVIII of this Book, regulating damages. (1092a)
Art. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the
provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws.
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.
B. CONCEPT: CULPA AQUILIANA, QUASI-DELICT, TORTS
PADILLA V. CA, L-39999, 129 SCRA 558 (1984)
 Mayor v. Vergara family; criminal info: grave coercion
 TC convicted, awarded 40k damages to Vergara. CA acquitted (malicious
mischief dapat) but awarded damages
 Mayor contention: acquitted of crime, there should be no civil liability
○ Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of
the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
● Thus, the civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where the acquittal is
based on reasonable doubt.
● Article 29 of the Civil Code also provides that:
○ 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
● A separate civil case may be filed but there is no statement that such separate
filing is the only and exclusive permissible mode of recovering damages.
● There appear to be no sound reasons to require a separate civil action to still
be filed considering that the facts to be proved in the civil case have already
been established in the criminal proceedings where the accused was
acquitted.
SYQUIA V. CA, GR98695 (JANUARY 27, L993).
 Coffin with a hole; filed a complaint for damages based on breach of contract
OR quasi-delict
 No culpa aquiliana: no negligence
 SC: had there been negligence, liability would be based on breach of contract
or culpa contractual under Art.1170
o Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are
guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages
 However, there was no agreement that the coffin would be waterproof, only
that it will be sealed
GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH V. CA, GR 97336, 217 SCRA (1993).
 Breach of promise to marry based on Art 21:
o Art. 21. Any person who wilfully 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.
LRTA V. NAVIDAD, GR 145804, 397 SCRA 75 (2003)
 Navidad: drunk, Escartin: guard; altercation
 Prudent: Securtiy Guard Agency
 Roman driver of LRT
 TC: Prudent and Roman liable; CA: only LRTA and Roman
C. DISTINCTIONS
CALALAS V. CA, G.R. NO. L22039 (MAY 31, 2000)
1. CULPA AQUILIANA
BARREDO V. GARCIA, 73 PHT 607
2. CULPA CONTRACTUAL
CANGCO V. MR& 38 PHIL 769
3. CULPA CRIMINAL
II. QUASR-DELTCT
REVISED PENAL CODE - AFTICLES 100 AND 365
A. ELEMENTS (ARTICLE 2176, CC)
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable
for a felony is also civilly liable. 1. CULPABLE ACT OR NEGLIGENCE
2. DAMAGE TO ANOTHER
Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by simple imprudence or 3. CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN THE CULPABLE ACT OR NEGLIGENCE
negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall AND THE DAMAGE TO ANOTHER
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have
constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period PICART V. SMITH, 37 PHIL. 809
shall be imposed.

When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage
to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an DAYWALT V. CORPORACION DE PP AGUSTINO RECOLETOS, 39 PHIL. 587
amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall
in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.

A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any
person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if AIR FRANCE V. CARRASCOSO, 18 SCRA 155.
done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony. GILCHRIST V. CUDDY, 29 PHT.542
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion,
without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four.

The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided
in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty
next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the period which they may
deem proper to apply.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INIURIA
BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS V. KALAW, GR 18805 (AUGUST 14, L967)
FAROLAN V. SOLMAC MARKETING CORP., GR 83589 (MARCH 13, 1991)

2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, to
death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do
an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition
and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which
the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed
upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may
be in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A. 1790, approved June 21, 1957).
B. NO DOUBLE RECOVERY RULE (AFTICLES 1161, 2L76 AND 2177, CC)
Art. 1161. Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by the penal
laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent provisions of Chapter
2, Preliminary Title, on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book, regulating
damages
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. 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.