COURSE OUTLINE

TORTS & DAMAGES

(Updated, 1st Semester AY 2011-2012)

Atty. Ada D. Abad

Lyceum of the Philippines University College of Law

REFERENCE MATERIALS: 1
Sangco, J. Cezar S. Philippine Law on Torts and Damages (5th ed). JMC Press, Inc., 388 Quezon Avenue, QC. Aquino, Timoteo B. Torts and Damages (1st ed. 2001), Volumes 1 and 2. Rex Book Store, 856 Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., City of Manila. Albano, Ed Vincent S. and Alcantara, Samson. Torts and Damages (2001). Q n A Bookstore, 923-B Padre Noval St., Sampaloc, City of Manila

A. INTRODUCTION - Day One [14 April 2011]

1. Historical Background of the Law on Torts Sangco, Introduction, pp. xxxi to lviii Balderama, Benedicto. The Phil. Law of Torts and Damages, pp. 1-17.
(see hand-out)

2.

Fundamental Principles and Justifications on Torts Aquino, pp. 13-30 Article 2176, Civil Code on definition of quasi-delict Article 1157-1162, Civil Code on sources of obligation

3.

Classifications of torts: a) Negligence quasi-delicts, Articles 2176 to 2194 Civil Code b) Intentional torts on human relations, Arts. 19-35, Civil Code c) Strict liability torts on nuisance, Arts. 694-707, Civil Code -- on liability of possessors of animals, Art. 2183 -- on foodstuffs, product and service liability, Art. 2187 -- falling objects from tenements, Art. 2193

DAY TWO 19 APRIL 2011

1

Any edition will do, but it is better that you secure the more updated ones. We only will use this for the commentaries and for your easy reference, but some of my cases are not the ones digested therein.

3.1 Distinguished from civil liability arising from crime Art. 100-113, and 365, Revised Penal Code. Rule 111, Section 1, Rules of Court Sangco, pp. 115-218; Aquino, pp. 591-623; Albano, 365-383 3.3.1 General Rule: Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable (Art. 100) Barredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil. 607 Elcano vs. Hill, 77 SCRA 93 Virata vs. Ochoa, 81 SCRA 472 Banal vs. Tanedo, 156 SCRA 325 Occena vs. Icamina, 181 SCRA 328 [1990] Alfredo and Cleopatra Pacis vs. Jerome Joevanne Morales, G.R.
No. 169467, 25 February 2010

3.3.2 Reservation of right to institute a separate civil action for damages (Rule 111, Rules of Court); but plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for same act or omission committed by the defendant (Art. 2177, Civil Code) People vs. Amistad, 108 SCRA 601 Jarantilla vs. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 429 Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi, G.R. No. 165496, 12 February
2007

3.3.3 Extinction or survival of civil liability arising from criminal offenses (Rule 120, Sec. 2, Rules of Court) People vs. Navoa, 132 SCRA 410 People vs. Manuel Badeo, 204 SCRA 122 [1991] Rolito Calang and Philtranco vs. People of the Philippines, G.R
No. 190696, 03 August 2007

3.3.4 Extent of liability of principals as against employers Franco vs. IAC, 178 SCRA 331 [1989] 3.2 Distinguished from civil liability arising from breach of contract; AND tort arising from contract Arts. 1172-1173, Art. 1314, Civil Code Cangco vs. Manila Railroad, 38 Phil. 768 Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 Singson vs. BPI, 23 SCRA 117 So Ping Bun vs. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 751 Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Navidad, 397 SCRA 75 [2002]

Consolidated Bank & Trust Co. vs. CA, 410 SCRA 562 [2003]
Crisostomo vs. Court of Appeals , et al., 409 SCRA 528 [2003]

DAY THREE 26 APRIL 2011

[will be coming from Balayan, Batangas hearing; may be late] B. QUASI-DELICTS (ARTS. 2176-2194)
On the part of the plaintiff, in order to be able to prosecute claims under quasi-delict, the following elements must be present:

An act or omission amounting to fault or negligence on the part of the defendant Such act or omission causes damage to the plaintiff Causal connection between the fault or negligence and the damage No pre-existing contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant

1.

NEGLIGENCE Aquino, pp. 34-165; Sangco, 1-29 and 74-85; Albano, 24-83 1.1 Concept Article 1173 Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 813
Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corp. vs. Borja, 383 SCRA 341 [2002] Delsan Transport Lines vs. C & A Construction, Inc., 412 SCRA 524 [2003] Phil. National Construction Corp vs. CA, 467 SCRA 719 [2005] Phil. National Railways vs. CA, 536 147 [2007] Guillang vs. Bedania, 555 SCRA 73 [2009]

1.2

Standard of Care Diligence of a good father of a family Aquino, 73-111

1.3. General Rule: Burden of proof upon plaintiff to show negligence Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil. 397 Cangco vs Manila Railroad, 38 Phil. 768 Exceptions: When defendant is presumed negligent 1.3.1 Conviction of, or active violation of traffic regulations (Art. 2184, par. 1, Civil Code)
Marikina Autoline Transport vs. People, 486 SCRA 284 [2006]

1.3.2 Where death or injury results from possession of dangerous weapons or substances (Art. 2188, Civil Code)

1.3.3 Common carriers Arts. 1732-1733; Art.1755-1763 1.3.4 Doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur Africa vs. Caltex Phils., 16 SCRA 448
Dra. Abdula Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 607 [1997] FGU Insurance vs. Sarmiento Trucking, 08 August 2002 Perla Compania de Seguros vs. Sarangaya III, 474 SCRA 191 [2005]

1.3.5 Doctrine of respondeat superior vs. negligence in the selection and supervision by employer of his employees (Art. 2180) - Ramos vs. Pepsi Cola, 19 SCRA 289

DAY FOUR 28 APRIL 2011

1.3.6 Negligence of professionals Medical Malpractice Batiquin vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 334 [1996] Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio, 278 SCRA 769 [1997]

Captain of the Ship doctrine Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 584 [1999]

Doctrine of apparent authority

Rogelio Nogales vs. Capitol Medical Center, 511 SCRA 204 [2006] Professional Services Inc. vs. Agana, 513 SCRA 478 [2007]

Negligence of Attorneys Robert Del Mar vs. Court Of Appeals and Norma Ebersole Del Mar, G.R. No. 139008. [13 March 2002] De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan, 256 SCRA 171 [1996]

Other professionals Culion Ice, Fish vs. Phil. Motors, 55 Phil. 129

Sarmiento vs. Sps. Sun-Cabrido, 410 SCRA 121 [2003]

2. CAUSATION Aquino, pp. 253-313; General Rule: If the negligence of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury/damage to property, then plaintiff may claim damages. Exception: If the negligence of the plaintiff is the proximate cause of injury or damage, the plaintiff is wholly responsible for the same and he cannot recover damages

2.1 Definition of Proximate Cause Vda. De Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil. 181 Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 353 Belarmino vs. ECC, 185 SCRA 308 Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 714 Ramos vs. C.O.L Realty, G.R. No. 184905, 28 August 2009 2.2 Tests of Proximate Cause 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 Cause in fact Effectiveness of the cause (sine qua non) but for rule Substantial factor test Foreseeability test Umali vs. Bacani, 69 SCRA 263 Natural and probable consequence test Ordinary and natural or direct consequence test

2.3 Intervening cause Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 7 Phil. 359 Taylor vs. Manila Electric Co., 16 Phil. 8 Teague vs. Fernandez, 57 SCRA 181 McKee vs. IAC, 211 SCRA 517

DAY FIVE 03 MAY 2011

3. WHO MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER QUASI-DELICT 3.1 The tortfeasor Natural persons, Art. 37-40, 42 CC Juridical persons, Art. 44-46 CC

Joint tortfeasor
Construction Devlpmt. Corp. vs. Rebecca Estrella, 501 SCRA 228 [2005]

3.2 Vicarious Liability 3.2.1 Parents/Guardians Exconde v. Capuno, 3 SCRA 843 Cuadra v. Monfort, 35 SCRA 160 3.2.2 Owners/Managers of establishments 3.2.3 Employers
Gutierrez v. Court of Appeals, 74 SCRA 128 Phil. Rabbit Lines Inc. v. Phil. Am. Forwarders, 63 SCRA 232 Pilipinas Shell vs. CA, 221 SCRA 389 Metro Manila Transit vs. CA, 223 SCRA 521 Pleyto, et al. vs. Lomboy, et al., G.R. No. 148737, 16 June 2004 YHT Realty Corporation vs. CA, 451 SCRA 638 [2005] Macalino vs. Ong, 477 SCRA 740 [2005] Mercury Drug vs. Huang, 525 SCRA 427 [2007]

3.2.4 State
Meritt v. Government of P.I. 34 Phil. 311 Republic v. Palacios, 23 SCRA 899 Fontanilla vs. Maliama; National Irrigation Admi vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 61045, 01 December 1989 Quezon City Govt. vs. Dacara, 460 SCRA 243 [2005] Municipality of San Juan vs. CA, 466 SCRA 78 [2005]

DAY SIX 05 MAY 2011

3.2.5 Liability of Teachers/Heads of Establishments Exconde vs. Capuno, 101 Phils. 842 Mercado vs. Court of Appeals
Palisoc vs. Brillantes, 41 SCRA 548 Ylarde vs. Aquino, 163 SCRA 697 Salvosa vs. IAC, 166 SCRA 274 Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 315

Liability of Schools wrt students

Pasco vs. CFI-Bulacan, 160 SCRA 784 St. Marys Academy vs. William Carpitanos, 376 SCRA 473 [2002] Child Learning Center et. al. vs. Tagario, G.R. 150920, 25 Nov. 2005 Saludaga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 179337, 30 April 2008 Liability of Schools as Employers St. Francis High School vs. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 341 PSBA vs. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 729 Soliman vs. Tuazon, 209 SCRA 47

3.3. Other Individuals 3.3.1 Owner of carrier/motor vehicle Art. 2184 C.C. 3.3.2 Manufacturers, Art. 2187 3.3.3 Possessor/user of animal 3.3.4 Proprietor of building/thing, Art. 2190-2193, 1663 C.C.

DAY SEVEN 10 MAY 2011

4. DEFENSES THAT MAY BE RAISED BY DEFENDANT 4.1 Damnum Absque Injuria or Volenti non fit injuria (self-inflicted injury/consent to injury) Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes, 452 SCRA 532 [2005] Contra: Cebu Country Club vs. Elizagaque, 542 SCRA 65 [2007] 4.2 Contributory Negligence by the plaintiff Cabardo vs. CA, 19 May 1998 Negros Navigation vs. CA, 07 November 1997 4.3 Doctrine of Last clear chance Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 813 Corliss vs. Manila Railroad, PLDT vs. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 94
Lapanday Agri and Devlpt Corp (LADECO) vs. Angala, 525 SRA 229 [2007] Contra: LBC Air Cargo vs. CA, 241 SCRA 619 Achevara vs. Ramos, 601 SCRA 270 [2009], G.R. No. 175172 29 September 2009

4.4 Fortuituous event and the doctrine of the assumption of risk Co vs. CA, 22 June 1998 Cipriano vs. CA, 30 October 1996 Servando vs. Phil. Steam Navigation, 23 October 1982
Delsan Transport Lines vs. C & A Construction, Inc., 412 SCRA 524 [2003] Schmitz Transport & Brokerage vs. Transport Venture, 456 SCRA 557 [2005]

4.5 Emergency and sudden peril doctrine McKee vs. IAC, 211 SCRA 517 4.6 Due Diligence in the selection and supervision of employees (See discussion: Employers in Section 3.2.3)

DAY EIGHT 12 MAY 2011

7

C. INTENTIONAL TORTS (HUMAN RELATIONS) and STRICT LIABILITY TORTS

Articles 20-34; 694-707; 2183, 1. Specific individual rights and family relations 1.1 Abuse of Rights Pe vs. Pe, 5 SCRA 200 Valenzuela vs. CA, 191 SCRA 1 [1989] Globe Mackay vs. CA, 176 SCRA 778 University of the East vs. Jader, 325 SCRA 804 [2000] 1.2 Breach of Promise to Marry Tanjanco vs. CA, 18 SCRA 994 [1966] 1.3 Deprivation of Property/Right Manila Gas vs. CA, 30 October 1990 1.4 Public Humiliation Patricio vs. Hon. Oscar Leviste, 172 SCRA 774 [1989] American Express Intl. Vs. Cordero, 473 SCRA 42 [2005] 1.5 Violation of Right to Privacy Socorro Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590 1.6 Interference with Family and Other relations Tenchavez v. Escao, 15 SCRA 355 Lagon vs. Court of Appeals, 453 SCRA 616 [2005] 1.7 Sexual Harassment Villarama vs. NLRC and Golden Donuts, 236 SCRA 280 [1994] 2. Violation of rights committed by public officials
Liwayway Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune Tobacco Corp, 525 SCRA 11 [2007] Silahis Hotel et al vs. Soluta et al, G.R. No. 163087, 20 Feb 2006

3. Defamation, Fraud and Physical Injuries as Torts with Independent Civil Action
MVRS Publications vs. Islamic Dawah Council of Phils., 396 SCRA 210 [2003]

DAY NINE 17 MAY 2011

4. Tort arising from property use: Nuisance Art. 694-707 C.C. 1.1 Nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens

1.2 Public nuisance and private nuisance 1.3 Attractive nuisance Velasco v. Meralco, 40 SCRA 342 City of Mla. v. Garcia, 19 SCRA 413 Farrales v. Mayor of Baguio City, 44 SCRA 239 Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balanda, 44 SCRA 489 5. Strict liability of employer to pay for death or injuries to employees Article 1711, Civil Code 6. Animals - Article 2183, Civil Code Vestil v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 47 (1988) 7. Product and Service Liability Article 2187, Civil Code; Republic Act No. 7394, The Consumer Act of the Philippines, Article 2, 4, 50-52, 68, 97-107 Virgilio M. Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals and Metal Forming Corporation, G.R. No. 118325, 29 January 1997 Coca-Cola Bottlers vs. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 393 [1993]

DAY TEN 19 MAY 2011

D. DAMAGES
1. Concept of damages Heirs of Bolado vs. Vda de Bulan, 02 August 2001 Chiang Yia Min vs. RCBC, 355 SCRA 608 [2001] Kinds of damages 2.1 Actual or compensatory

2.

As to actual loss suffered Producers Bank vs. Chua, 17 Sept. 2001 De Vera vs. San Diego Construction, 18 October 2001 Meralco vs. TEAM Electronics, 540 SCRA 62 [2007] As to earnings Pleyto vs. Lomboy, et al., G.R. No. 148737, 16 June 2004 Nelen Lambert vs. Heirs of Ray Castillon, 452 CRA 285 [2005] As to requisites for extraordinary inflation Equitable PCI Bank vs. Ng Sheung Ngor, 541 SCRA 223 [2007]

Attorneys Fees Lagon vs. Hooven Comalco Ind., 349 SCRA 363 [2001] SCC Chemicals vs. State Investment, 353 SCRA 70 [2001] Cf. Temperate damages BPI Investment vs. DG Carreon Comml., 29 Nov. 2001

2.2

Moral damages Iringan vs. Palao, 26 Sept. 2001 City Trust vs. Villanueva, 361 SCRA 446 [2001] Filipinas Broadcasting Network vs. Ago Medical and Educational Center, 448 SCRA 412 [2005] Meralco vs. TEAM Electronics, supra. Exemplary damages BPI Investment vs. DG Carreon Comml., supra. Producers Bank vs. Chua, supra.

2.3

2.4 Nominal damages Pedrosa vs. Rodriguez, 353 SCRA 620 [2001]

Updated 06 APRIL 2011/ada

10