One day, Pagwapa went to the clinic

of Dr. Pabaya to have her

liposuction operation.
Liposuction operation should have
just taken place only for 90minutes.
However, Dr. Pabaya fell asleep and
Pagwapas liposuction operation was
already done wrongly for 6 hours.

1.Wrong leg amputated by the doctor

2.functioning kidney removed
3.Student in the classroom injured because the teacher is sleeping.
4. Lawyer unable to file briefs of the client due to partying.

What is negligence?

Omission of that
diligence required by the
circumstances of
persons, place and time.
(NCC)

 The degree of care, vigilance,

precaution, depends on the
circumstances of the persons, place,
and time.
Example: degree of care required
when you drive in a thickly populated
place is not the same with that of a
less populated place.

What is extraordinary
diligence?
diligence of a very cautious person as far
as utmost human care and foresight can
provide with a due regard for all the
circumstances."

Extraordinary diligence: common

carriers
Article 1732.Common carriers are
persons, corporations, firms or
associations engaged in the business of
carrying or transporting passengers or
goods or both, by land, water, or air, for
compensation, offering their services to
the public.

Extraordinary diligence
Degree of care and diligence required of the
carrier as espoused in article 1733 and 1755
Article 1733. COMMON CARRIERS, from the
nature of their business and for reasons of
public policy, are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
the goods and for the safety of the
passengers transported by them, according
to all the circumstances of each case.

Article 1755
A common carrier is bound to carry
the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can
provide, using the utmost diligence
of very cautious persons, with a due
regard for all the circumstances.

The test to determine

negligence
Reasonable foresight of harm.
DID the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act use the
reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent person would
have used in the same situation?
If not then ?

 In one case, the Supreme court ruled that

the person was not guilty because the
actor could not have reasonably foreseen
the harm that would befall upon him.
In another case, the supreme court held
that the person was negligent because
he could have foreseen the harm that
would befall upon him

 What constitutes conduct of a

prudent man?
Determine in the light of human
experience and in view of the facts
involve in a particular case.

Degree of care required

That which is expected of a good
father of a family. Why?
Exception: when the law or
stipulation of the parties require for
another standard of care
Varied with the capacity of the
person endangered, to care for
himself. Minor should not be held to
same degree as of an adult.

Defenses that can be interposed in quasi delict

1. last clear chance

failure of the person whos got this last
chance to avoid the impending harm
will make him liable for damages
without reference to the prior
negligence of the other party

 When the accident happened Plaintiff Pony

is at the wrong side of the road while
riding his pony and the defendant Carry
was on the same direction with his car.

Carry was held liable for damages

although Pony was on the wrong side
because Carry had the last clear chance to
avoid the impending harm by merely
swerving but he failed.

 2. contributory negligence- mitigate

the award for damages
Act or omission amounting to want of
ordinary care on the part of the
person injured concurring with the
negligence of the defendant, is the
proximate cause of the injury.
Defendant may claim the plaintiffs
own negligence contributed to his
injury.

Example: In some
jurisdictions
avictimwhoisatfaulttoanydegree,
includingonly1%atfault,maybedenied
compensationentirely.
Avictim,whotookoneortwoshotsof
alcoholbeforedriving,waswronglyhitby
anothercar.Hisconditionbeingabitdrunk
iscontributoryandmitigatestheliabilityof
defendant.

Defenses that can be interposed in quasidelict

4. Proximate cause of the loss or injury

is the negligence of the plaintiff.
Ex. Phoenix driver wrongly parked the
dump truck. A, a bit drunk while driving ,
saw it and tried to avoid but to no avail.
Both are negligent, but the proximate
cause of the injury of A is the improper
parking of the dump truck. TRUCK
DRIVER IS responsible.

7. Force Majeure
This can be the defense that can be
interpose by the possessor or user of the
animal under article 2183.

 A dog bit my niece while she was playing at

the park. The dogs owner is the boyfriend of
our neighbor. He does not live in our
subdivision; according to some neighbors, he
lives in Laguna. He only gave us P3,000
definitely not enough to answer for the
hospitalization and medical needs of my niece.
Can I file a case for reckless imprudence
resulting in physical injuries?

 You cannot file a criminal complaint against

the boyfriend of your neighbor. While he is the
owner of the dog that was involved in the
unfortunate incident, no criminal responsibility
attaches to him because he was not the one
who committed the wrongful act.

 Instead,file a civil action for damages on the

basis of quasi-delict. As provided for under
Article 2176 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines, 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 quasi-delict

 Prove that the biting incident

transpired on account of the
negligence of the said owner and that
your niece did not contribute to the
incident.

 This is in consonance with Article 2183 of the

New Civil Code of the Philippines, which states
that, The possessor of an animal or whoever may
make use of the same is responsible for the
damage which 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.

Vergara vs. Court of appeals

Principle owner of the car cannot
be faulted because he lost control of
his car when in order to avoid a
head-on collusion with a passenger
bus which suddenly swerved into hi
lane, he veered his car to the
shoulder of the highway and collided
with a private jeep.

Radio communications of
the Phil. Vs.
Court of appeals
Principle : RCPIs claim of good faith
predicated on the exhaustion of social
condolence forms is of no moment.
Gross negligence and carelessness can be
attributed to defendant in not supplying its
stations with adequate social condolence
forms.