2010 BAR QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTED ANSWERS

II. Multiple choice.

a. A had a 4-storey building which was constructed by Engineer B. After five years, the building
developed cracks and its stairway eventually gave way and collapsed, resulting to injuries to
some lessees. Who should the lessees sue for damages? (1%)

1. A, the owner

2. B, the engineer

3. both A & B

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. 3. Both A & B.

The lessee may proceed against A for breach of contract, and against B for tort or
statutory liability. Under Article 1654 (2) of the New Civil Code, the lessor is obliged to
make all the necessary repairs in order to keep the leased property suitable for the use to
which it has been devoted. Consequently, under Article 1659 NCC, the proprietor of a
building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial
collapse, if it is due to lack of necessary repairs.

Under Article 1723, NCC, the engineer or architect who drew up the plans and
specifications for a building is liable for damage if 15 years from the completion of the
structure the same should collapse by a reason of a defect by those plans and
specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. This liability maybe enforced against
the architect or engineer even by a third party who has no privity of contract with the
architect or engineer under Article 2192, NCC.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No.1. A , the owner . The lessee can sue only the lessor for breach of contract under Article
1659 in relation to Article 1654, NCC. The lessee cannot sue the architect or the engineer
because there was no privity of contracts between them. When sued, however, the lessor
may file a third party claim against the architect or the engineer.

ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No. 2. B, the Engineer . Under Article 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. Under Article 2192 (NCC),
however, if the damages should be the result of any of the defects in the construction
mentioned in Art 1723, NCC, the third person suffering damages may proceed only
against the engineer or architect or contractor within the period fixed therein. The
damages suffered by the lessee in the problem are clearly those resulting from defects in
the construction plans or specifications.

b. Define quasi tort. Who are the persons liable under quasi torts and what are the defenses
available to them?

Note: It is recommended that the examiner exercise leniency and liberality in grading the
answers given to this question. The term quasi-tort is not part of legal developments in civil
law. In Philippine legal tradition, quasi- delict has been treated as the closest civil law
equivalent of the common law tort. In fact, in a number of Supreme Court decisions, the two
terms have been considered synonymous. In reality, however, the common law tort is much
broader in scope than the civil law quasi-delict. In recent developments in common law, the
concept of “quasi-torts” can be considered as the closest common law equivalent of the civil
law concept of quasi-delict. This is because it is argued that the growing recognition of quasi-
torts as a source of obligation is hinged on the acceptance at common law of the civil law
principles of quasi-delict.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Quasi -tort is a legal concept upholding the doctrine that some legal duty exists that cannot
be classified strictly as a personal duty (thus resulting in a tort), nor as a contractual duty
but rather some other kind of duty recognizable by the law. ” Tort “ or ” Quasi-tort” is
an Anglo American or Common Law concept, while “Delict” or “Quasi-Delict“ is a Civil
Law concept (Wikipedia encyclopedia).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Quasi -tort is considered as the equivalent of quasi-delict. Hence the rules of the latter
pertaining to persons who can be held liable and their defenses would also apply.

Those liable for quasi-delict include:

(1) Those tortfeasor or the person causing damage to another through fault or negligence
( Article 2176 NCC ); and
(2) Persons vicariously liable under Article 2180 (NCC).

The defenses available include:

(a) That the defendant was not negligent or that he exercised due diligence ( Article 2176
NCC );
(b) That although the defendant is negligent his negligence is not the proximate cause of
the injury ( Article 2179 NCC );
(c) That the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury ( Article 2179 NCC );
(d) That the person vicariously liable has observed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent damage ( Article 2180 NCC ); and
(e) That the cause of action has prescribed after the lapse s (Article 2179 NCC ).
The fact that the plaintiff had committed contributory negligence is a partial defense (Art
2179, NCC).

XIV

Primo owns a pet iguana which he keeps in a man-made pond enclosed by a fence situated in
his residential lot. A typhoon knocked down the fence of the pond and the iguana crawled out
of the gate of Primo’s residence. N, a neighbor who was passing by, started throwing stones at
the iguana, drawing the iguana to move toward him. N panicked and ran but tripped on
something and suffered a broken leg.

Is anyone liable for N’s injuries? Explain. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No one is liable. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage 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 (Arrt 2183, NCC).