Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SCHOOL OF LAW
COURSE SYLLABUS
Course Requirements:
Attendance
Recitations
Case Digests
Quizzes
Grading System
Course Outline
This course is divided into four (4) major parts – (a) Concept of Torts & Damages (b)
Quasi-Delicts; (c) Damages; (d) Special Torts or other Actionable Wrongs;
For each topic, the students will be introduced to the concepts, theories and prevailing
jurisprudence and new doctrines developed under Philippine jurisprudence.
1
Under the topic of Concept of Torts & Damages, the aim is to let the students
understand the different kinds of wrongful acts and distinguish them from each other to
determine the right causes of action to pursue and the defenses available.
Under the topic of Quasi-Delicts (Article 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines), the aim is to teach the students the scope of negligence and acts or
omissions committed through negligence, definition, tests, circumstances, standard vs.
specific rules, degrees and proof of negligence, as well as its legal consequences.
Likewise, we will deal with negligence of health care professionals, lawyers and
accountants and selected business organizations and defenses in negligence cases such
as plaintiff’s conduct, accident, proximate cause, emergency rule, res ipsa loquitur, last
clear chance, etc.
Under the topic Special Torts or other Actionable Wrongs, the aim is to teach the
students the almost unlimited applicability of all wrongs in all facets of human actions
and relations, private or public, community, business enterprises, etc.
Under the topic Damages (Articles 2195 to 2235 of the Civil Code of the Philippines),
the aim is to teach the students the scope and various forms of damages and how to
apply them in actual situations;
I. Introduction
H. Classification of Torts
I. Difference between Culpa Aquiliana, Culpa contractual and Crime
K. Elements of Quasi-delict
-CASES-
2
ii. Daywalt vs. La Corporacion delos Padres Agustinos G.R. # 13505,
February 4,1919
iii. Elcano and Elcano vs. Hill and Hill, G.R. #L-24803, May 26, 1977
iv. Cangco vs. Manila Railroad, G.R. # L-12191, October 14, 1918
v. Barredo vs. Garcia G.R. # L-48006, July 8, 1942
vi. Andamo vs. IAC G.R. # 74761, November 6, 1990
vii. Dulay vs. CA, G.R. # 108017 April 3, 1995
III. NEGLIGENCE
A. STATUTORY BASIS AND REQUISITES
1. Quasi-delict
2. Delict
3. Contract
4. Distinctions: Culpa aquiliana vs. culpa contractual; Culpa aquiliana and
Crime
5. Concurrence of causes of action
-CASES-
i. Child Learning Center vs. Tagario, G.R. # 150920 November 25, 2005
ii. Donaldson vs. Smith, G.R. # 411, April 23, 1902
iii. The Receiver vs. Ybanez, G.R. L-22183, August 30, 1968
iv. Cinco vs. Canonoy, G.R. # L-33171, May 31, 1979
v. Bulao vs. CA GR # 101983, February 1, 1983
vi. Gregorio vs. CA GR # 179799, September 11, 2009
vii. Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco, GR # 160795,
June 27, 2009
viii. PSBA vs. CA GR # 84698, February 4, 1992
ix. Fores vs. Miranda, G.R. # L-12163, March 4, 1959
x. Air France vs. Carrascoso GR # L-21438, September 28, 1966
xi. Consolidated Bank vs. CA, G.R. # 138569, September 11, 2003
xii. American Express vs. Cordero G.R. # 138550, October 14, 2005
xiii. Syquia vs. CA, G.R. # 98695, January 27, 1993
xiv. Far East bank vs. Ca, G.R. # 108164, February 23, 1995
xv. BLTB vs. IAC, G.R. #s 74387-90, November 14, 1998
xvi. Makati Shangri-La Hotel vs. Harper, G.R. # 189998, August 29, 2012
B. CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE
1. Definition
2. Test of Negligence
-CASES-
i. PLDT vs. CA, GR No. 57079, September 29, 1989
ii. Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. CA, GR No. 53401, November 6, 1989
iii. Picart vs. Smith, G.R. # L-12219, March 15, 1918 37 Phil. 809
iv. People vs. Delos Santos, 355 SCRA 415 (2001)
v. Evelyn Acuna vs. Rodolfo A. Alventara, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br.50, Villasis,
Pangasinan (A.M. No. 01-1463, March 20, 2001)
Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping M.V., et.al. vs. Phil. Insurance
Co., In., GR No. 14133, June 5, 2002
3
-CASES-
i. Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 353 (1987)
ii. Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil 398 (1958)
iii. Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. Court of Appeals and Ernest E.
Simke, G.R. No. L-51806, November 8, 1988
iv. Philippine Hawk Corp. vs. Tan Lee, G.R. # 166869, February 16, 2010
v. Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. CA, G.R. # 159270,
August 22, 2005
vi. Greenstar Express, Inc. vs. Universal Robina Corp., G.R. # 205090,
October 16, 2016
vii. Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Company, G.R. # 164749, March 15, 2017
4. Probability
-CASE-
i. Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 30 (1998)
5. Negligence is conduct
6. Calculation of risk
7. Circumstances to consider in determining negligence (Time, Place,
Emergency, Gravity of Harm to be Avoided, Alternative Course of Action,
Social Value or Utility of Activity, Person Exposed to the Risk)
-CASES-
i. People vs. Ramirez, G.R. # L-24084, November 3, 1925
ii. Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co., 16 Phil. 8 (1910)
iii. United States vs. Bonifacio, 34 Phil. 65 (1916)
iv. Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 303 (1996)
v. McKee vs. IAC, G.R. # L-68102, July 16, 1992
vi. Delsan Transport Lines vs. C &A Construction, Inc., G.R. # 156034,
October 1, 2003
vii. Julian del Rosario vs. Manila Electric Co., 57 Phil. 478 (1932)
viii. Manila Electric Co. vs. Remoquillo, G.R. # L-8328, May 18, 1956
-CASES-
i. Julian del Rosario vs. Manila Electric Co., 57 Phil. 478 (1932)
ii. PLDT vs. CA, G.R. 57079, September 29, 1989
iii. Corliss vs. Manila Railroad, G.R. # L-21291, March 28, 1969
iv. BJDC Construction vs. Lanuzo, G.R. # 161151, March 24, 2014
v. Federico Ylarde, et al. vs. Edgardo Aquino, 163 SCRA 697, July 29, 1988
vi. Jarco Marketing Corporation vs. CA, G.R. # 129792, December 21, 1999
vii. Francisco vs. Chemical Bulk Carriers Incorporated, G.R. # 193577,
September 9, 2011
viii. Culion Ice, Fish and Electric Co. vs. Phil. Motors Corporation, 55 Phil.
129 (1930)
ix. BPI vs. CA, G.R. # 102383, November 26, 1992
x. Smith Bell Dodwell vs. Borja, G.R. # 143008, June 10, 2002
xi. Dr. Ninevetch Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 282 SCRA 188 (1997)
4
xii. E.M. Wright vs. Manila Electric R.R. & Light Co., G.R. No. 7760, October
1, 1914
Cases:
i. Anonuevo vs. CA, G.R. # 130003, October 20, 2004
ii. Cipriano vs. CA, G.R. # 107968, October 30, 1996
iii. FF Cruz vs. CA, 164 SCRA 731 (1988)
iv. Teague vs. Fernandez, G.R. # L-29745, June 4, 1973
v. Delgado, et al. vs. Go Chong Bing, 102 Phil 556
vi. Sanitary Steam Laundry vs. CA, 300 SCRA 20
vii. Yamada vs. Manila Railroad, 33 Phil 11, 12-13
viii. SD Martinez vs. Van Buskirk, G.R. # L-5691, December 27, 1910
Cases:
i. People vs. Vistan, G.R. # 17218, September 8, 1921
ii. US vs. Gomez, G.R. # 14068, January 17, 1919
iii. Chan vs. Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. #160283, October 14, 2005
iv. Negros Navigation, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. # 110398, November 7, 1997
5
ix. Batiquin vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCR 334 (1996)
x. Cebu Shipyard vs. William Lines, G.R. # 132607, May 5, 1999
xi. D.M. Consunji vs. CA, G.R. # 137873, April 20, 2001
Cases:
i. Cayao-Lasam vs. Ramolete, G.R. # 159132, December 18, 2008
ii. Lucas vs. Tuano, G.R. # 171636, April 7, 2009
iii. Solidum vs. People, G.R. # 192123, March 10, 2014
iv. Reyes vs. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, G.R. # 130547, October 3, 2000
v. Rogelio Ramos vs. CA, G.R. # 124354, December 29, 1999
vi. Li vs. Sps. Soliman, G.R. # 165279, June 7, 2011
vii. Rosit vs. Davao Doctors Hospital, G.R. # 210445, December 7, 2015
viii. Ramos vs. CA, GR # 124354, April 11, 2002
ix. Professional Services, Inc. vs. Agana, G.R. # 126297, February 2,
2010
x. Manila Doctors Hospital vs. So Un Chua, G.R. # 150355, July 31,
2006
xi. LEONILA GARCIA-RUEDA vs. WILFREDO L. PASCASIO, G.R. #
118141. September 5, 1997
xii. ORLANDO D. GARCIA, JR., doing business under the name and style
COMMUNITY DIAGNOSTIC CENTER and BU CASTRO vs. RANIDA D.
SALVADOR, G.R. #168512, March 20, 2007
xiii. CARLOS BORROMEO, Petitioner, v. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL, INC.
AND RAMON S. INSO, M.D., G.R. # 191018, January 25, 2016
6
VII. DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
A. PLAINTIFF’S OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE
Article 2179, NCC
Cases:
1. PLDT vs. SPOUSES ESTEBAN
2. KIM vs. PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI, CO., 58 Phil. 838 (1933)
B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Cases:
1. M.H. RAKES vs. THE ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY, G.R.
No. L-1719, January 23, 1907
2. PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ARMANDO U. CARBONEL vs.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and LEONARDO DIONISIO,
G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987
D. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Requisites
Kinds:
a. Express Waiver of the Right to Recover
b. Implied Conditions
Cases:
1. Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Company, G.R. # 164749, March 15, 2017
2. TRANSPORTO vs. MIJARES (1961)
E. FORTUITOUS EVENT
Cases:
1. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, et al. vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS, GAUDENCIO C. RAYO, et al., 222 SCRA 415, G.R. Nos.
103442-45, May 21, 1993
2. SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., G.R.
No. 126389, July 10, 1998
VIII. CAUSATION
A. PROXIMATE CAUSE
a. Definition
Cases:
1. Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 83,
1998)
2. Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 243 SCRA
619(1991)
3. Syjuco vs. Manila Railroad Company, CA- G.R. No. 22631-R,
December 17, 1959
4. Prospero Sabido vs. Carlos Custodio, 124 Phil. 516, 1966
7
5. Fransisco Vinluan vs. The Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-21477-81,
April 29, 1966
B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Definition
Plaintiff’s Negligence is the Cause
Compound Cases
Part of the Same Causal Set
Defendant’s Negligence is the Only Cause
Cases:
1. PLDT vs. CA
2. Glan People’s Lumber and Hardware, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, et al., G.R. No. 70493, May 18, 1989
3. Phoenix Construction, Inc. Vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
65295, March 10, 1987
4. Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Maricar Bascos Baesa, et al., G.R. Nos.
79050-51, November 14, 1989
5. LBC Air Cargo vs. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 619 (1995)
Cases:
8
1. Grand Union Supermarket vs. Jose J. Espino, Jr., G.R> No. L-48250,
December 28, 1979
2. Enrique J.L. Ruiz, et.al. vs. The Secretary of National Defense, G.R. No.
L-15526, December 28, 1963
3. Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 176
SCRA 778 (1989)
Abuse of Rights
Elements
Cases:
1. University of the East vs. Romeo A. Jader, G.R. No. 132344, February 17,
2000
2. Arturo P. Valenzuela, et.al. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et.al.,
G.R. No. 83122, October 19, 1990
Desertion by a Spouse
Cases:
1. Pastor B. Tenchaves vs. Vicenta F. Escano, et al., G.R. No. L-19671, July
26, 1966
9
Cases:
1. Antonio Geluz vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-16439, July 20,
1961
Malicious Prosecution
Definition
Elements
Cases:
1. Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 81262, August 25, 1989
2. Drilon vs. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 211 (1997)
3. Manila Gas Corp vs CA (1980)
Public Humiliation
Cases:
1. Rafael vs. The Honorable Oscar Leviste, G.R. No. 51832, April 26, 1989
2. Grand Union Supermarket, Inc. vs. Jose J. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. L-48250,
December 28, 1979
X. HUMAN DIGNITY
Article 26
Privacy
Constitutional Right to Privacy
a. Scope of Protection: Bill of Rights Sec. 1, 2, 3(1), 6, 8 & 17
Interference with Family and Other Relations
Cases:
1. Tenchavez vs. Escano, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965
Vexation and Humiliation
10
2. Qualified Privilege
Cases:
1. Arturo Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14,
1999
2. Esteban C. Manuel vs. The Hon. Ernani Cruz-Pano, G.R. No. L-
46079, April 17, 1989
Fraud
Cases:
1. Elenita Ledesma Silva, et al. vs. Esther Peralta, G.R. No. L-13114,
November 25, 1960
Physical Injuries
11
Civil Liability Ex Delicto, Article 101 of the RPC
Cases:
1. Cuadra, et al. vs. Alfonso Monfort, 35 Phil. 160 (1970)
2. Macario Tamargo, et al. vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., 209
SCRA 518 (1992)
3. Cresencio Libi, et al. vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.,
214 SCRA 16 (1962)
Cases:
1. Jose S. Amadora, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
L-47745, April 15, 1988
2. Phil. School of Business Administration vs. Court of Appeals,
205 SCRA 729 (1992)
Employers
Article 2180, NCC
Article 103, RPC
Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers
Article 102, RPC
1. ANIMALS
Case: Purita Miranda Vestil and Agustin Vestil vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 74431, November 6, 1989
2. FALLING OBJECTS
Article 2193
3. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS
Article 1711 and 1712 of the Civil Code
4. NUISANCE
a. Definition
b. Kinds
12
c. Strict Liability and Persons Liable
d. Abatement
Cases: Velasco vs. Manila Electric Company, 40 SCRA 342
(1971)
XVII. DAMAGES
1. Definition
2. Damnum Absque Injuria
Case: Spouses Cristino and Brigida ustodio, et al. vs Court of Appeals, et
al., 253 SCRA 483
3. Kinds of Damages
Article 2197
a. Actual or Compensatory, Articles 2199, 2200, 2201, 2202, 2205, 2206
Case: Manzanares vs. Moreta, 38 Phil. 823
b. Moral Damages
c. Nominal and Temperate Damages
Articles 2221, 2222, 2223, 2224 and 2225
Cases:
1. Rogelio Ramos vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 124354, December
29, 1999
2. Araneta vs. Bank of America, 40 SCRA 114 (1971)
d. Liquidated Damages
Articles 2226, 2227 and 2228
e. Exemplary or Corrective Damages
Articles 2230, 2231, 2232, 22333, 2234 and 2235
References:
TORTS AND DAMAGES by Timoteo B. Aquino, latest edition
TORTS AND DAMAGES ANNOTATED by Dean Ernesto L. Pineda
COURSE POLICIES
Use of electronic devices is permitted, but only for use in class work.
Attendance in class is a must. Excused absence must have approval
13
Note: The professor reserves the option of amending the reading list and
assignments.
14