CIVIL LAW
TORTS
I. Concept of Tort
Tort
It is an act or omission producing an injury to another,
without any previous existing lawful relation of which
the said act or omission may be said to be a natural
outgrowth or incident.1
A tort is not a crime, not a breach of contract, not
necessarily concerned with property rights or
problems of government.2 Tort law is not concerned
with the civil liability of the offender.
Philippine jurisprudence does not have a definite
scope on “corporate tort”. Essentially, tort consists in
the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty
imposed by law. Simply stated, tort is a breach of
legal duty.3
There must always be a violation of some duty that
must arise by operation of law and not by mere
agreement of the parties.4
Liability in tort is not precluded by the fact that
defendant acted without evil intent.5
A. ELEMENTS OF TORT
Duty
Where the law imposes upon a person the duty to do
something, his omission or non – performance will
render him liable to whoever may be injured.6
Breach
The act or omission should play a substantial part in
bringing about or actually causing the injury or
damage.7
Injury
The injury or damage should either be a direct result
or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or
omission.8
Proximate Causation
The act should be the proximate cause of the injury or
damage sustained. Proximate cause is that which, in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an
efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and
without which, the result would not have occurred.9
1
Aquino, 2005.
2
Prosser and Keeton
3
Naguiat v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116123, 13 March 1997.
4
Black’s Law dictionary citing Coleman vs California Meeting of Friends
Church, 27 Scal. App. 2d 579, 81 P. 2d 469, 470
5
Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, G.R. No. 141309, 19
June 2007.
6
Garcia vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 168512, 20 Mar 2007
7
Ocean Builders Construction Corp. vs. Cubacub, G.R. No. 150898, 13
Apr 2011
8
Ocean Builders Construction Corp. vs. Cubacub
9
Mamaril v Boy Scouts, G.R. No. 179382, 14 Jan 2013.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Tortious act
The commission or omission of duty of an act by one,
without right, whereby another receives some injury,
directly or indirectly, in person, property or
reputation.10
Direct Tortfeasor
The person who is held liable for acting with an
intention that the law treats as unjustified, or acting
in a way that departs from a reasonable standard of
care
Every person legally responsible is liable for a tort
committed by him provided it is the proximate cause
of an injury to another.11
Tortfeasors can either be natural or artificial beings. A
corporation may be civilly liable in the same manner
as natural persons. 12
Joint Tortfeasors
Two or more persons acting together in committing a
wrong, or contributing to its commission, or
participating therein actively and with common
intent, so that injury results to a third person
therefrom.13
Persons made responsible for others (vicarious
liability)
(See discussion below)
SOLIDARY LIABILITY OF JOINT TORTFEASORS
If several persons commit a tort, the plaintiff or
person injured, has his election to sue all or some of
the parties jointly, or one of them separately,
because the tort is in its nature a separate act of
each individual. The injury must be indivisible
Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. The damages
cannot be apportioned among them, except among
themselves. They cannot insist upon an
apportionment, for the purpose of each paying an
aliquot part. They are jointly and severally liable for
the full amount.14
A payment in full of the damage done by one
tortfeasor satisfies any claim which might exist against
the others. The release of one of the joint tortfeasors
by agreement generally operates to discharge all.
Joint tortfeasors are all the persons who command,
instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance,
cooperate in, aid or abet in the commission of a tort,
or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their
benefit. They are each liable as principals to the same
10
74 Am. Jur. 2d 620
11
De Leon, Comments and Cases on Torts and Damages (2012)
12
PNB vs CA, 83 SCRA 237
13
De Leon, Comments and Cases on Torts and Damages, supra 18.
14
Bevins vs. McElroy, 52 Am. Dec., 258
 CIVIL LAW
extent and in the same manner as if they had
performed the wrongful act themselves.15
If a passenger was injured in a vehicular accident
involving the public utility vehicle where he was
riding, and another vehicle, the drivers of both
vehicles are solidarily liable if it can be established
that their respective negligence are the proximate
causes of the injury.16
An action based on quasi-delict may be instituted
against the employer for an employee’s act or
omission. The liability of the employer for the
negligent conduct of the subordinate is direct and
primary, subject to the defense of due diligence in
the selection and supervision of the employee.17
B. CLASSIFICATION OF TORTS
NEGLIGENT TORT
It is the omission to do acts required under the
attendant circumstances resulting in damage or injury
to another. It is a voluntary act or omission which
results in injury to others, without intending to cause
the same.
Note: Quasi-delict represents an area of tort law
concerned with damage resulting from fault (by doing
positive act constituting negligence) or negligence (by
omitting to do an act due to negligence) of the
defendant.
INTENTIONAL TORT
Tort or wrong perpetrated by one who intends to do
that which the law has declared wrong. It is a conduct
where the actor desires to cause the consequences of
his act or believes the consequences are substantially
certain to result therefrom.
STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT
The person is made liable independent of fault or
negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts.
It rests not on negligence but on intentional doing of
that which a person knows or should, in the exercise
of ordinary care, know may reasonably cause loss to
another in the normal course of events. Liability is
based on the breach of an absolute duty to make
something safe. Also known as “absolute liability” or
“liability without fault”.
C. REMEDIES FOR TORTS
COMPENSATORY
Action for sum of money for damages suffered.
15
Filipinas Broadcasting Network vs. AMEC-BCCM, G.R. No. 141994, 17
Jan 2005.
16 Aquino, 2005.
17 Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Estrella,
G.R. No. 147791. 08 Sep 2006.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
PREVENTIVE
Petition for the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction and a temporary restraining order to enjoin
the defendant from continuing the acts constitutive of
the tortious conduct.
RESTITUTION
To disgorge gains that the defendant wrongfully
obtained by the doing of the tort.
D. PURPOSE OF TORT LAW
To afford compensation for injuries sustained by one
person as the result of the conduct of another.18
II. Quasi – Delict or Culpa
Aquiliana
A. QUASI – DELICT
Bar 1993, 97, 2006, 07
Article 2176, Civil Code
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.
SCOPE
Intentional Acts
The concept of quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana includes
acts which are criminal in character, whether
voluntary or negligent.19
Damages may be awarded not because of promise to
marry but because of fraud and deceit behind it.20
Damage to Property
The concept of quasi-delict is so broad that it includes
not only injuries to persons but also damage to
property i.e. Article 2191 (2) of the Civil Code which
holds proprietors responsible for damages caused by
excessive smoke which may be harmful to persons or
property.21
ELEMENTS OF QUASI – DELICT
● An act or omission constituting fault or
negligence;
● Damage caused by the said act or omission;
● Direct causal relation between the damage and
the act or omission; and
● Absence of contractual relation between the
plaintiff and the defendant.
18
Prosser and Keeton
19 Elcano vs. Hill, G.R. No. L-24803, 26 May 1977.
20 Baksh vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336, 19 Feb 1993.
21 Cinco vs. Canonoy, G.R. No. L-33171, 31 May 1979.
 CIVIL LAW TORTS AND DAMAGES

delict, quasi-delict and breach of contract.23

QUASI-DELICT PRESUPPOSES TWO CONDITIONS:
(1) a connection of cause and effect between the
person liable and the fact from which damage results;
(2) fault of the person liable, which implies at once an
act of intelligent volition that is illicit or contrary to
law.22
There may be a concurrence of actions even if only
one person is sought to be held liable.
Although an act or omission may give rise to two
causes of action, the plaintiff cannot recover twice for
the same act or omission of the defendant.24

QUASI-DELICT & TORT, DISTINGUISHED Inasmuch as civil liability co-exists with criminal
Quasi-Delict as provided for in Art. 2176 of the New responsibility in negligence cases, the offended party
Civil Code is limited to negligent acts or omissions and has the option between an action for enforcement of
excludes the notion of willingness or intent. Tort is civil liability based on culpa criminal under Art. 100 of
much broader than quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana the Revised Penal Code or an action for damages
because it includes not only negligence but intentional under Art. 2177 of the Civil Code.
acts as well.
The choice of remedy, whether to sue for a delict or a
CULPA AQUILANA & CRIME, DISTINGUISHED quasi-delict, affects the procedural and jurisdictional
issues of action. An action based on quasi-delict may
Quasi-Delict Delict proceed independently from the criminal action.25
(Culpa Aquiliana) (Culpa Criminal)
Source FURTHER DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN QD & D:
It is the wrongful act, The vinculum juris exists
negligence or omission independently of the A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal
which creates the breach of voluntary duty institution under the Civil Code, with a substantivity
vinculum juris assumed by the parties all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and
when entering into independent from delict or crime.26
contractual relation
Violated Against When the accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been
Private right is violated. Affects public interest.
proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for
It is a wrongful act Commission of a crime is
damages for the same act or omission may be
against a private a wrong against the
instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance
individual. State.
of evidence.
Governing Law
The Civil Code merely The Penal Code punishes
A judgment of acquittal operates to extinguish the
repairs the damage, by or corrects criminal acts. criminal liability. It does not, however, extinguish the
means of indemnification. civil liability unless there is a clear showing that the
Scope act from which the civil liability might arise did not
Includes all acts in which The acts are punished exist.27
any kind of fault or only if there is a penal
negligence intervenes. law clearly covering Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code,
them. employers are subsidiarily liable for the adjudicated
Burden of Proof civil liabilities of their employees in the event of the
The burden of proof rests The guilt of the accused latter’s insolvency.The decision convicting an
upon Proof of the fault or must be proved beyond employee in a criminal case is binding and conclusive
negligence requires only reasonable doubt. upon the employer not only with regard to the
preponderance of former’s civil liability, but also with regard to its
evidence. amount. The liability of an employer cannot be
Available Defenses separated from that of the employee.28
The exercise of diligence The defenses are Victims of negligence have a choice between an action
of a good father of the provided to enforce the civil liability arising from culpa criminal
family is available as a under the RPC under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an
defense action for quasi-delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil

23 Far East Bank and Trust Co. vs. Court of Appeals

CAUSES OF ACTION FOR QUASI-DELICT AND DELICT
An act or omission may give rise to an action based on
22 Sangco, Cezar J. Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, pp.5-7.
24 Aquino, 2005
25
Barredo v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-48006, July 8, 1942
26 Barredo v. Garcia, G.R. No. 48006, 8 Jul 1942.
27 Padilla v. CA, G.R. No. L-39999, 31 May 1984.
28 Philippine Rabbit v. People, G.R. No. 147704, 2004.
 CIVIL LAW TORTS AND DAMAGES

Code. If the action chosen is for quasi-delict, the Extra-contractual obligation has its source in the
plaintiff may hold the employer liable for the breach or omission of those mutual duties which
negligent act of its employee, subject to the civilized society imposes upon its members, or which
employer’s defense of exercise of the diligence of a arise from these relations, other than contractual, of
good father of a family. Whereas if the action chosen certain members of society to others, generally
is for delict, the plaintiff can hold the employer embraced in the concept of status. The breach of
subsidiarily liable only upon proof of prior conviction these general duties whether due to willful intent or
of its employee.29 to mere inattention, if productive of injury, give rise
to an obligation to indemnify the injured party. The
QUASI-DELICT & BREACH OF CONTRACT, fundamental distinction between obligations of this
DISTINGUISHED character and those which arise from contract, rests
upon the fact that in cases of non-contractual
Quasi-Delict Breach of Contract obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or
(Culpa Aquiliana) (Culpa Contractual) omission itself which creates the vinculum juris,
Nature of Negligence whereas in contractual relations the vinculum exists
Negligence is direct, Negligence is merely independently of the breach of the voluntary duty
substantive and incidental to the assumed by the parties when entering into the
independent. performance of the contractual relation.31
contractual obligation.
In culpa contractual, the mere proof of the existence
Presumption of Negligence of the contract and the failure of its compliance
There is no presumption There is a presumption of justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief.
of negligence. The negligence as long as it On the other hand, in culpa aquiliana, the claimant
injured party must prove can be proved that there for damages should prove negligence or fault on the
the negligence of the was breach of the part of the defendant.32
defendant. contract. In culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves a
Legal Defenses breach of contract, there is a presumption that the
The exercise of diligence The exercise of diligence defendant was at fault or negligent. The burden is on
of a good father of a of a good father of a the defendant to prove that he was not at fault or
family to prevent damage family to prevent damage negligent. In contrast, in culpa aquiliana the plaintiff
is a proper defense is not a complete and has the burden of proving that the defendant was
insofar as parents, proper defense in the negligent. 33
guardians, employees are selection and supervision
concerned of employees. OVERLAP BETWEEN CULPA AQUILIANA AND CULPA
Employer’s Liability CONTRACTUAL
Presumptive Direct and immediate.
A quasi-delict can be the cause for breaching a
responsibility for the
contract that might thereby permit the application of
negligence of his
applicable principles on tort even where there is a
servants.
pre-existing contract between the plaintiff and the
Existence of Pre-existing Contractual Obligation
defendant. The test, whether a quasi-delict can be
There may or may not be There is always a pre - deemed to undertie the breach of a contract, can be
a pre-existing contractual existing contractual stated thusly: where, without a pre-existing contract
obligation. relation. between two parties, an act or omission can
Doctrine of Proximate Cause nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself,
Applicable Not applicable the fact that the parties are contractually bound is no
Governing Provisions bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the
Article 2176 Articles 1170 to 1174 case.34

When an act which constitutes a breach of contract

FURTHER DISTINCTION BETWEEN Q AND BOC:
While it is true that in order a person may be liable
for quasi-delicts, there must be no pre-existing
contractual relationship between the parties, yet, if
there is an act that violates the contract
independently of the contract, the act can give rise to
liability under quasi-delicts.30
29 L.G. Foods v. Philadelphia, G.R. No. 158995, 26 Sept 2006.
would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-
delictual liability had no contract existed between the
parties, the contract can be said to have been
breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to
apply.35
31 Cangco v. Manila Railroad, G.R. No. 12191, 14 Oct 1918
32
FGU Insurance v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 141910, 6 Aug 2002
33 Consolidated Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 138569, 11 Sept 2003

30 YHT Realty Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.No. 126780, February 17, 34 Far East v. CA, G.R. No. 108164, 23 Feb 1995.
35 Light Rail Transit v. Natividad, G.R. No. 145804, 6 Feb 2003.
2005
 CIVIL LAW
Although there was a pre-existing contract between
the air carrier and the passenger, the stress of the
action was put on the wrongful expulsion of the latter
from the former’s premises, which is a violation of a
public duty, which a is a quasi-delict. Passengers have
a right to be treated by the carrier’s employees with
kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration.36
It has been repeatedly held that the act that breaks a
contract may also be a tort. However, this principle
applies only if the breach of contract was done in (1)
bad faith and (2) in violation of Art. 21 of the New
Civil Code.
III. Negligence
A. CONCEPT
Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection
of the interest of another person, that degree of care,
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
injury.37
Negligence is a relative or comparative concept. Its
application depends upon the situation that the
parties are in and the degree of care and vigilance
which the prevailing circumstances reasonably
requires.38
TEST OF NEGLIGENCE
Would a prudent man, in the position of the
tortfeasor, foresee harm to the person injured as a
consequence of the course to be pursued? If so, the
law imposes a duty on the actor to take precaution
against its mischievous results, and failure to do so
constitutes negligence. 39
STEPS IN DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE
1. Determine the diligence required of the actor
under the circumstances
2. Determine if the actor exercised the
diligence required
Article 1173, Civil Code
The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
omission of that diligence which is required by the
nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the
place. When negligence shows bad faith, the
provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201 paragraph 2, shall
apply
If the law or contract does not state the diligence
which is to be observed in the performance, that
which is expected of a good father of a family shall be
36 Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. L-21438, 28 Sept 1996.
37 Sangco, Cezar J. Philippine Law on Torts and Damages.
38 Bulilan v. COA, G.R. No. 130057, December 22, 1998.
39 Picart vs. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918
TORTS AND DAMAGES
required
THE “CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP” DOCTRINE
A surgeon is likened to a captain of the ship, in that it
is his duty to control everything going on in the
operating room.40
THE THEORY OF PRESUMED NEGLIGENCE
In contrast with the American doctrine of respondent
superior, where the negligence of the employee is
conclusively presumed to be the negligence of the
employer, is clearly deducible from the last paragraph
of Article 2180 of the Civil Code which provides that
the responsibility therein mentioned shall cease if the
employers prove that they observed all the diligence
of a good father of a family to prevent damages.41
Negligence
It is the omission to do something which a reasonable
man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily
regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or
the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do.42
B. STANDARD OF CONDUCT
I. DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY
Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in
the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen
that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently
probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding
against its consequences.43
The state of mind of the actor is not important; good
faith or use of sound judgment is immaterial. Even if
the actor believed that he exercised proper diligence,
he will still be liable if his conduct did not correspond
to what a reasonable man would have done under the
same circumstances.44
The test to determine the existence of negligence in a
particular case may be stated as follows: Did the
defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinary
prudent person would have used in the same situation?
If not, the person is guilty of negligence.45
II. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
A motor vehicle poses a greater danger of harm to a
bicyclist than vice versa. While the duty of using
reasonable care falls alike on a motorist and a
bicyclist, due to the inherent differences in the two
40 Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 380 SCRA 467
41 Poblete v, Fabros, 93 SCRA 200
42
PNR v. Brunty, G. R. No. 169891, 2 Nov 2006.
43 Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918.
44 Aquino, 2005.
45 Corinthian Gardens v. Spouses Tanjanco, G.R. No. 160795, 27 Jun
2008.
 CIVIL LAW
vehicles, more care is required from the motorist to
fully discharge the duty than from the bicyclist.46
A higher degree of care is required of someone who
has in his possession or under his control an
instrumentality extremely dangerous in character. A
business dealing with dangerous weapons requires the
exercise of a higher degree of care.47
A. CHILDREN
Art. 12. Revised Penal Code
Circumstances which exempt from criminal
liability:
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under
fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in
which case, such minor shall be proceeded
against in accordance with the provisions of Art.
80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph,
shall commit him to the care and custody of his
family who shall be charged with his surveillance
and education otherwise, he shall be committed
to the care of some institution or person
mentioned in said Art. 80.
Standard: Ordinarily Prudent Child
The standard of conduct which a child must conform
for his own protection is that of a reasonable person
of like age, intelligence and experience under like or
similar circumstances or that degree of care ordinarily
exercised by children of the same age, capacity,
discretion, knowledge and experience under the same
or similar circumstances.48
Turntable Cases, defined
A class of cases where the owner of the property is
held liable to children who are trespassing thereon
and injured, upon the ground that the owner is bound
to know that children may be attracted and may be
injured thereby, although the owner is guilty of no
negligence except in maintaining the property in such
condition that children may trespass thereon to their
harm.49
While it is the general rule in regard to an adult that
to entitle him to recover damages for an injury
resulting from the fault or negligence of another, he
must have been free from fault, such is not the rule in
regard to an infant of tender years. The care and
46
Anonuevo v. CA, G. R. No. 130003, 20 Oct 2004.
47Pacis vs. Morales, G. R. No. 169467, 25 Feb 2010.
48Sangco, Cezar J. Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, pp.71.
49Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co., G. R. No. 4977, 22
Mar 1910.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
caution required of a child is according to his maturity
and capacity only, and this is so determined by the
circumstances of each case. 50
A child under 9 years of age is conclusively presumed
to be incapable of negligence; and that the
presumption of lack of discernment or incapacity for
negligence in the case of a child over 9 but under 15
years of age is rebuttable, under our law.51
B. EXPERTS
a. In General
When a person holds himself out as being competent
to do things requiring professional skill, he will be
held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care
and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular
work which he attempts to do.52
C. PHARMACISTS
The profession of pharmacy is one demanding care and
skill. The responsibility of the druggist to use care can
be qualified as the highest degree of care known to
practical men, which is the highest practicable degree
of prudence, thoughtfulness, vigilance and the most
exact and reliable safeguards consistent with
reasonable conduct of business.53
There exists an imperative duty on the seller or the
druggist to take precaution to prevent death or injury
to any person who relies on one’s absolute honesty
and peculiar learning.54
D. MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS
Doctors or physicians are experts, who, because of
their training and the very nature of their work, are
required to exercise utmost diligence in the
performance of their tasks.55
A doctor has a duty to use at least the same level of
care that any other reasonable competent doctor
would use to treat a condition under the same
circumstances.56
The standard contemplated is not what is actually the
average merit among all known practitioners from the
best to the worst and from the most to the least
experienced, but the reasonable average merit among
the ordinarily good physicians.57
50Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad
51Jarco Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
52Culion Ice, Fish & Electric Co. vs. Philippine Motors Corporation, g.r.
No. 32611, 3 Nov. 1930.
53United States vs. Pineda, G. R. No. L-12858, 22 Jan 1918
54
Mercury Drug v. De Leon, G. R. No. 165622, 17 Oct 2009.
55Aquino, 2005
56Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 122445, 18 Nov 1997.
57Reyes vs. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, G.R. No. 130547, 3 Oct, 2000.
 CIVIL LAW
E. LAWYERS
An attorney is not bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence, but only a reasonable degree of care and
skill, having reference to the character of the business
he undertakes to do. Prone to err like any other
human being, he is not answerable for every error or
mistake, and will be protected as long as he acts
honestly and in good faith to the best of his skill and
knowledge. 58
E. INSANE PERSONS
The act or omission of a person who is suffering from
mental defect is still subject to the standard test of a
reasonable man.
Civil liability generally accompanies criminal liability
because every person liable criminally is also liable for
reparation of damage and for indemnification for the
harm done; but by express provision of the penal laws
there may be civil liability even when the perpetrator
is held to be exempt from criminal liability. Such is
the case of a lunatic or demented person who, in spite
of his deranged mind is still-reasonably and justly
liable with his property for the consequences of his
acts, even though they be performed unwittingly. 59
F. BANKS
The law imposes in banks high standards in view of the
fiduciary nature of banking. This fiduciary relationship
means that the bank’s obligation to observe high
standards of integrity and performance is deemed
written into every deposit agreement between the
bank and its depositor. The fiduciary nature of
banking requires banks to assume the diligence higher
than that of the good father of the family. 60
G. POSSESOR OF EXTREMELY DANGEROUS
INSTRUMENTALITIES
A higher degree of care is required of someone who
has in his possession or under his control an
instrumentality extremely dangerous in character,
such as dangerous weapons or substances. Such person
in possession or control of dangerous instrumentalities
has the duty to take exceptional precautions to
prevent any injury being done thereby. Unlike the
ordinary affairs of life or business which involve little
or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous weapons
requires the exercise of a higher degree of care . 61
C. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
NEGLIGENCE
An absence of that degree of vigilance which persons
of extraordinary prudence and foresight are
58Adarne vs. Aldaba, Adm. Case No. 80, June 27, 1978
59US vs. Baggay, Jr. G.R. No. 6706, Sept. 1, 1911
60
Consolidated Bank vs CA, G.R. No. 138569, 2003
61 Pacis vs Morales, G.R. No. 169467, 2010
TORTS AND DAMAGES
accustomed to us.62
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
Want of even scant care. It is the failure to exercise
even that care which a careless person would use.63
Notorious negligence is also interpreted to mean the
same thing as “gross” negligence — implying
“conscious indifference to consequences” “pursuing a
course of conduct which would naturally and probably
result in injury” “utter disregard of consequences.”
Getting or accepting a free ride on the company’s
haulage truck couldn’t be gross negligence, because
as the referee found, “no danger or risk was
apparent.”64
Jumping into the sea, one mile and a half from the
seashore, to recover a fallen 2-peso bill, is an open
and reckless disregard of one’s safety and the
resulting death is undoubtedly caused by notorious
negligence.65
WILLFUL, WANTON AND RECKLESS
The actor has intentionally done an act of
unreasonable character in disregard of a risk known to
him, and so great as to make it highly probable that
harm would follow.
D. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
I. BURDEN OF PROOF
If the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was
damaged because of the negligent acts of the
defendant, the plaintiff has the burden of proving
such negligence.66
The quantum of proof required is preponderance of
evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court).
There are exceptional cases when the rules of the
laws provide for cases when negligence is presumed.67
II. PRESUMPTIONS
The party invoking presumptions provided by law must
still establish certain preconditions before the
presumption can operate.
The following are “exceptions” to the general rule
that negligence is not to be presumed by must be
affirmatively proven.
62Sangco, Torts and Damages, pp. 10-12
63Supra.
64
Marinduque v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, G. R. No. L-
8110, 30 Jun 1956.
65Amedo v. Rio, G. R. No. L-6870, 24 May 1954.
66Taylor vs. Manila Railroad
67Aquino, 2005.
 CIVIL LAW
A. In motor vehicle mishaps
LIABILITY OF THE OWNER
Bar 1996, 98, 2002
Article 2184, Civil Code
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle,
could have, by the use of due diligence, prevented
the misfortune. It is disputable presumed that a driver
was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless
driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice
within the next preceding two months
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
provisions of Article 2180 are applicable
Article 2186, Civil Code
Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the
proper government office a bond executed by a
government-controlled corporation or office, to
answer for damages to third persons. The amount of
the bond and other terms shall be fixed by the
competent public official.
Owner- actual legal owner of the vehicle registered
with the LTO.
Note: Registration is not required, it is only necessary
for the identification of the owner of the motor
vehicle.
Solidary liability of the Owner to the Driver of the
vehicle:
1. The owner is in the vehicle at the time of the
mishap AND
2. The owner could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the misfortune
In absence of all the circumstances stated above,
the owner of the vehicle is liabile under Article 2180
of the Civil Code.
The registered owner/operator of a passenger vehicle,
jointly and severally liable with the driver for
damages incurred by passengers or third persons as a
consequence of injuries (or death) sustained in the
operation of said vehicles. The operator of record
continues to be the operator of the vehicle in
contemplation of law, as regards the public and third
persons, and such is responsible for the consequences
incident to its operation, such owner-operation of
record as the employer, in contemplation of law, the
driver. In this case, the court considered the actual
operation and employer as the agent of the operator
of record.68
Liability of the Driver
Article 2184, Civil Code
68 Vargas vs. Langcay, G.R. No. 17459
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was
in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably
presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been
found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding
two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. (n)
Article 2185, Civil Code
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation. (n)
Claimant must show that the violation of the statute
was the proximate or legal cause of the injury or that
it substantially contributed thereto. Negligence,
consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like
any other negligence, is without legal consequence
unless it is a contributing cause of the injury. 69
Art. 2185 was not formulated to compel or ensure
obeisance by all to traffic rules and regulations. If
such were indeed the evil sought to be remedied or
guarded against, then the framers of the Code would
have expanded the provision to include non-motorized
vehicles or for that matter, pedestrians. Article 2185
exists precisely to recognize such higher standard.
Consequently, the standards applicable to motor
vehicle are not on equal footing with other types of
vehicles.70
B.Possession of dangerous weapons or
substances
Article 2188, Civil Code
There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the
part of the defendant if the death or injury results
from his possession of dangerous weapons or
substances, such as firearms and poison, except when
the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business
However, the presumption does not apply to those
whose occupation or business requires the possession
or use of a firearm, such as peace officers or armed
forces, or in the case of poisonous substances, the
drug companies or drug stores. 71
C. Common carriers
Article 1734, Civil Code
Common carriers are responsible for the loss,
69 Sanitary Steam vs CA, G.R. No. 119092, 1998
70 Anonuevo vs CA, G.R. No. 130003, 2004
71Sangco, Torts and Damages
 CIVIL LAW
destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the
same is due to any of the following causes only:
Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural
disaster or calamity;
Act of public enemy in war, whether international or
civil;
Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
The character of the goods or defects in the packing
or in the containers;
Order or act of competent public authority
Article 1735, Civil Code
In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5 of the preceding articles, if the goods are
lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733
Article 1752, Civil Code
Art. 1752. Even when there is an agreement limiting
the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance
over the goods, the common carrier is disputably
presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss,
destruction or deterioration
RES IPSA LOQUITUR (DOCTRINE OF COMMON
KNOWLEDGE) 
 of certain types of occurrences may justify an
Definition
It is a Latin phrase that literally means “the thing or
the transaction speaks for itself”. It is a maxim for the
rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury,
taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit
an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or
make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a
question of fact for defendant to meet with an
explanation.72
Requisites for the application of the doctrine 73
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not
occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; 
 part of the person who controls the instrument
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the
exclusive control of the defendant.
3. The possibility of contributing conduct, which
would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
When doctrine is not applicable:
It is not applicable if there is direct proof of absence
or presence of negligence.
If the injured party had
knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of
the accident, or that the party to be charged with
negligence has inferior knowledge or opportunity for
explanation of the accident.
72Tan v. Jam Transit, G. R. No. 183198, 25 Nov 2009
73Rogelio Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354, December 29,
1999.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
If the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence.
All of the requisites must be present.
Basis of the Doctrine
The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is based in part upon
the theory that the defendant in charge of the
instrumentality which causes the injury either knows
the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity
of ascertaining it and that the plaintiff has no such
knowledge, and therefore is compelled to allege
negligence in general terms and to rely upon the proof
of the happening of the accident in order to establish
negligence. 74
Rationale
As a matter of common knowledge and experience,
the very nature of certain types of occurrences may
justify an inference of negligence on the part of the
person who controls the instrumentality causing the
injury in the absence of some explanation by the
defendant who is charged with negligence.75
3.3.) In medical negligence cases

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is simply a
recognition of the postulate that, as a matter of
common knowledge and experience, the very nature
inference of negligence on the part of the person who
controls the instrumentality causing the injury in the
absence of some explanation by the defendant who is
charged with negligence. It is grounded in the superior
logic of ordinary human experience and on the basis of
such experience or common knowledge, negligence
may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the
accident itself. Hence, res ipsa loquitur is applied in
conjunction with the doctrine of common
knowledge.76
In cases involving medical negligence, the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur allows the mere existence of an
injury to justify a presumption of negligence on the
causing the injury, provided that the following
requisites concur:
(1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not
occur in the absence of someone’s negligence;
(2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the
exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; AND
(3) The possibility of contributing conduct which
would make theplaintiff responsible is eliminated.77
74 DM Consunji vs CA, G.R. No. 137873, 2001
75 Rogelio Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 124354, 29 Dec 1999.

76 Ramos v. CA, 321 SCRA 584
77 Cantre v. Go, G.R. No. 160889, April 27, 2007
 CIVIL LAW
IV. Defenses against Charge of
Negligence
The defenses herein enumerated may be raised by
defendants in negligence cases. It may either be
partial (contributory negligence) or complete
(assumption of risk and fortuitous event) defenses.
KINDS OF DEFENSES:
1. Partial – mitigates liability
2. Complete – completely bars recovery
A. PLAINTIFF’S OWN NEGLIGENCE
PROXIMATE CAUSE
Article 2179, Civil Code
When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages.
A party cannot charge another for the damage caused
by his own negligence. A person claiming damages for
the negligence of another has the burden of proving
the existence of such fault or negligence causative
thereof. Whosoever relies on negligence for his cause
of action has the burden in the first instance of
proving the existence of the same if contested,
otherwise his action must fail.78
B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
It is the conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has
suffered, which falls below the standard which he is
required to conform for his own protection.79
It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary
care on the part of the person injured which,
concurring with the defendant’s negligence, is the
proximate cause of the injury.80
WHEN PLAINTIFF IS LIABLE
To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries,
it must be shown that he performed an act that
brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings or
signs of an impending danger to health and body. To
prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to
establish a causal link, although not proximate,
between the negligence of the party and the
succeeding injury.
78PLDT v. CA, G. R. No. 57079, 29 Sept 1989.
79NPC vs. Heirs of Casionan, G.R. No. 165969, November 27, 2008.
80NPC vs Heirs of Casionan
TORTS AND DAMAGES
WHEN DEFENSE IS NOT APPLICABLE
The defense of contributory negligence does not apply
in criminal cases committed through reckless
imprudence, since one cannot allege the negligence of
another to evade the effects of his own negligence.81
DOCTRINE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
The relative degree of negligence of the parties is
considered in determining whether, and to what
degree, either should be responsible for his
negligence.82 The rule involves apportionment of
damages.83
IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
AS THE
Negligence is imputed if the actor is different from
the person who is being made liable.84
EFFECT OF IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
The defendant will be subject to mitigated liability
even if the plaintiff was not himself personally
negligent because the negligence of another is
imputed to the plaintiff.
WHEN APPLICABLE
This rule is applicable where the negligence was on
the part of the person for whom the plaintiff is
responsible, and especially, by negligence of an
associate in the transaction where he was injured.85
C. FORTUITOUS EVENT/CASA FORTUITO
FORTUITOUS EVENT
An event which could not be foreseen, or which
though foreseen, was inevitable.
Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary
events not foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore,
not enough that the event should not have been
foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed but
it must be one impossible to foresee or avoid. The
mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not the
impossibility to foresee the same.86
ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to
comply with his obligation, must be independent
of human will;
2. It must be impossible to foresee the event which
constitutes the ‘caso fortuito’, or if it can be
foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid;
81Genobiagan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 40452, October 12, 1989.
8257 Am. Jur 2d 847
83
Prosser and Keeton, p. 472
84Aquino, 2005
85Reyes and Puno, Outline of Phil. Civil Law, Vol. 6, p. 169
86Sicam v. Jorge, G. R. No.159617, 8 Aug 2007.
 CIVIL LAW
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation
in a normal manner; and
4. The obligor must be free from any participation in
the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
creditor.87
KINDS OF CASA FORTUITO
1) Acts of God – Events which are totally independent
of the will of every human being e.g. earthquake,
lightning, eruption of volcano.
2) Acts of Man – Events which are independent of the
will of the obligor but not of other human wills e.g.
war, fire, robbery, insurrection.
D. PLAINTIFF’S ASSUMPTION OF RISK/VOLENTI NON
FIT INJURIA
DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK
A plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm
arising from the negligent or reckless conduct of the
defendant cannot recover for such harm.88
ELEMENTS:
● The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
● He must further understand its nature; and
● His choice to incur it is free and voluntary.89
EXCEPTION
The plaintiff is excused from the force of the rule if
an emergency is found to exist or if the life or
property of another is in peril or when he seeks to
rescue his endangered property.90
KINDS:
1. Express Waiver of the Right to Recover
There is assumption of risk if the plaintiff, in advance,
has expressly waived his right to recover damages for
the negligent act of the defendant.91
Rights can be waived unless the waiver is contrary to
law, public order, public policy, morals or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law.92
The waiver contemplated here is the waiver of the
right to recover before the negligent act was
committed.93
87Aquino, 2005
88Sangco, Torts and Damages, pp. 81 – 82
89Prosser and Keaton, p. 487
90Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 5
[1989
91Aquino, 2005
92Canete vs. San Antonio Agro – Industrial Development Corporation,
113 SCRA 723 [1982]
93Aquino, 2005
TORTS AND DAMAGES
2. Implied Assumption
A. DANGEROUS CONDITIONS
A person who, knowing that he is exposed to a
dangerous condition, voluntarily assumes the risk of
such dangerous condition may not recover from the
defendant who maintained such dangerous
conditions.94
B. CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
By entering into a relationship freely and voluntarily
where the negligence of the defendant is obvious, the
plaintiff may be found to accept and consent to it,
and to undertake to look out for himself and to relieve
the defendant of the duty.95
The doctrine is based on the implied consent of the
servant to accept or continue in the employment after
becoming aware of the risk which resulted in his
injury.
It is true that the employee assumes the ordinary risks
inherent in the industry in which he is employed. But
as to those abnormal risks arising from unusual
conditions, it requires the question of fact and to
require cogent and convincing evidence of such
consent.96
In the contract of carriage, when a passenger boards a
common carrier, he takes the risks incidental to the
mode of travel he has taken.97
C. DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES
Persons who voluntarily participate in dangerous
activities assume the risks which are usually present in
such activities i.e. professional athletes who are
deemed to assume the risks of injury incident to their
trade.98
D. DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE
When the plaintiff is aware of the risk created by the
defendant’s negligence, yet he voluntarily decided to
proceed to encounter it i.e. If the plaintiff has been
supplied with a product which he knows to be unsafe,
he is deemed to have assumed the risk of using such
unsafe product.99
E. DUE DILIGENCE
In order that the defense of due diligence in the
selection and supervision of the employees may be
deemed sufficient and plausible, the employer has the
burden of proving that it has been diligent not only in
the selection of employees but also in the actual
94Aquino, 2005
95Prosser and keeton, p. 485
96
Cerezo vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co.
97Yobido vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 1 [1997]
98Aquino, 2005
99Prosser and Keaton, p. 481
 CIVIL LAW
supervision of their work.100
Where the defendant-bank is shown to have exercised
the degree of diligence expected of an ordinary
prudent person in commercial transactions that do not
involve their fiduciary relationship with their
depositors, such as when the relationship between
plaintiff and defendant-bank is that of a buyer and
seller, respectively, the bank is absolved from any
liability.101
F. LAST CLEAR CHANCE
The doctrine of last clear chance states that where
both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one
is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it
is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
caused the loss, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is
chargeable with the loss. The antecedent negligence
of the plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering
damages caused by the supervening negligence of the
defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent
the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
102
G. EMERGENCY RULE
Under the Emergency Rule, one who suddenly finds
himself in a place of danger, and is required to act
without time to consider the best means that may be
adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty
of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently
and upon reflection may appear to have been a better
method.103
When not applicable
If the emergency in which the plaintiff finds himself in
is brought about by his own negligence.
H. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
There is a material distinction between damages and
injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right;
damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results from
the injury; and damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus,
there can be damage without injury in those instances
in which the loss or harm was not the result of a
violation of a legal duty. These situations are often
called damnum absque injuria.104
One who makes use of his own legal right does no
injury. If damage results from a person’s legal rights,
it is damnum absque injuria.105
100Metro Manila v. CA, G.R. NO. 104408, 21 June 1993.
101
Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 118492, 15 Aug 2001.
102Consolidated Bank vs. CA, G.R. No. 138569. September 11, 2003
103Gan v. CA, G. R. No. L-44264, 19 Sep 1988.
104 Custodio v. CA, G.R. No. 116100. 9 Feb 1996.
105 Proline v. CA, Proline v. CA, G. R. No. 118192, 23 Oct 1997.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
I. PRESCRIPTION
The prescriptive period begins from the day the
quasi-delict is committed.
The prescriptive period must be counted when the last
element occurs or takes place, that is, the time of the
commission of an act or omission violative of the right
of the plaintiff, which is the time when the cause of
action arises.106
J. DOUBLE RECOVERY
Article 2177, New Civil Code
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 or omission of the
defendant.
V. Causation
A. PROXIMATE CAUSE
PROXIMATE CAUSE
That cause which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred.107
Proximate cause is not necessarily the nearest cause
but rather the procuring efficient and predominant
cause.108
It is not enough that there be proof of negligence and
damage. It is still required that the plaintiff presents
proof that the proximate cause of the damage to the
plaintiff is the negligent act or omission of the
defendant.
B. NEAREST CAUSE
Nearest Cause
That cause which is the last link in the chain of
events. It is the nearest point in time or relation109
C. CONCURRENT CAUSE
Concurrent Cause
Where several causes producing the injury are
concurrent and each is an efficient cause without
which the injury would not have happened, the injury
may be attributed to all or any of the causes and
recovery may be had against any or all of the
responsible persons.110
106 Kramer vs. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 526, 13 Oct, 1989.
107
57 Am. Jur. 2d 482
108 Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. vs. Sikes, 166 ALR 375
109 Aquino, 2005
110 Aquino, 2005
 CIVIL LAW
When applicable
When it is impossible to determine in what proportion
each contributed to the injury and either of them is
responsible for the whole injury.
Note: The liability of concurrent negligence is
solidary.
D. REMOTE CAUSE
Remote Cause
That cause which some independent force merely took
advantage of to accomplish something not the natural
effect thereof111
E. INTERVENING CAUSE/ NOVUS ACTUS INTERVIENS
Intervening Cause
An efficient intervening cause is one that breaksthe
causal connection between the negligent act and
injury and thereby negatives liability.112
A cause is not an intervening cause if it is already in
operation at the time the negligent act is committed
When not applicable
There is no efficient intervening cause if the force
created by the negligent act or omission have either:
(1) remained active itself, or (2) created another
force which remained active until it directly caused
the result, or (3) created a new active risk of being
acted upon by the active force that caused the
result.113
Foreseeable Intervening Cause
It cannot be considered as a sufficient intervening
cause because there is an opportunity to guard against
it.
Unforeseen and Unexpected Act or Cause
The intervention of an unforeseen and unexpected
cause is not sufficient to relieve the wrongdoer from
consequences of negligence if such negligence directly
and proximately cooperates with the independent
cause in the resulting injury.114
An unforeseen and unexpected act of a third person
may not be considered an efficient intervening cause
if it is duplicative in nature or if it merely aggravated
the injury that resulted because of the prior cause.
The same conclusion can be reached if the third
person’s act is part of the causal set, together with
the defendant’s negligence, that operated to cause
the injury.
111
57 Am. Jur. 2d 484
112 Moril vs. Moril, 60 ALR 102
113 57 Am. Jur. 2d 507
114 Africa vs. Caltex, G.R. No. L – 12986
TORTS AND DAMAGES
VI. Tests to Determine
Proximate Cause
A. “BUT FOR” TEST/SINE QUA NON TEST
The defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of the
damage which would not have resulted had there been
no negligence on the part of the defendant.
Whether such negligent conduct is a cause without
which the injury would not have taken place (sine qua
non rule) or is the efficient cause which set in motion
the chain of circumstances leading to the injury.115
The proximate legal cause is that acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by setting
other events in motion, all constituting a natural and
continuous chain of events, each having a close causal
connection with its immediate predecessor, the final
event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as
a natural and probable result of the cause which first
acted, under such circumstances that the person
responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary
prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable
ground to expect at the moment of his act or default
that an injury to some person might probably result
therefrom.116
B. SUFFICIENT LINK
Plaintiff must establish a sufficient link between the
act or omission and the damage or injury. That link
must not be remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no
liability will attach. The damage or injury must be a
natural or probable result of the act or omission.117
C. MIXED CONSIDERATIONS
There is no exact mathematical formula to determine
proximate cause. It is based upon mixed
considerations of logic, common sense, policy and
precedent.118
D. SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST
It makes the negligent conduct the cause in fact of
the damage if it was a substantial factor in producing
the injuries.
In order to be a substantial factor in producing the
harm, the causes set in motion by the defendant must
continue until the moment of the damage or at least
down the setting in motion of the final active injurious
force which immediately produced or preceded the
damage.119
115 Bataclan v. Medina, L-10126, 1957.
116
supra
117 Dy Teban v. Jose Ching, G. R. No. 161803, 4 Feb 2008.
118 supra
119 65 CJS 1157
 CIVIL LAW
If the actor‘s conduct is a substantial factor in
bringing about harm to another, the fact that the
actor neither foresees nor should have foreseen the
harm or the manner in which it occurred, does not
prevent him from being liable.120
E. CAUSE V. CONDITION
Many courts have sought to distinguish between the
active "cause" of the harm and the existing
"conditions" upon which that cause operated. If the
defendant has created only a passive static condition
which made the damage possible, the defendant is
said not to be liable. "Cause" and "condition" still find
occasional mention in the decisions; but the
distinction is now almost entirely discredited. So far
as it has any validity at all, it must refer to the type of
case where the forces set in operation by the
defendant have come to rest in a position of apparent
safety, and some new force intervenes. But even in
such cases, it is not the distinction between "cause"
and "condition" which is important, but the nature of
the risk and the character of the intervening cause."
121
Distinction between Cause and Condition
The cause is the active aspect whereas the condition
is the passive action that may produce the injury. A
condition was a cause at some point time. It is the
passive set of circumstances given in a situation which
may lead to a certain injury or damage.
VII. Doctrine of Last Clear
Chance
The doctrine of Last Clear Chance, in essence, is to
the effect that where both parties are negligent, but
the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time
than that of the other, or when it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence should be
attributed to the incident, the one who had the last
clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and
failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences
thereof. Stated differently, the rule would also mean
that an antecedent negligence of a person does not
preclude the recovery of damages for supervening
negligence of, or bar a defense against the liability
sought by, another if the latter, who had the last fair
chance, could have avoided the impending harm by
the exercise of due diligence.122
ELEMENTS OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
● Plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his
own negligence, became unable to escape from
such position by the use of ordinary care;
● Defendant knew that the plaintiff was in a
120 Philippine Rabbit v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 189 SCRA 158,
1990.
121 Phoenix Construction v. IAC, G. R. No. L-65295, 10 Mar 1987.
122LBC Air Cargo, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 619
TORTS AND DAMAGES
position of danger or in the exercise of ordinary
care should have known such;
● Defendant had the Last Clear Chance to avoid
the accident by the exercise of ordinary care but
failed to exercise such last clear chance; and
● The accident occurred as a proximate result of
such failure.
PARTY WHO MAY INVOKE THE DOCTRINE
● Plaintiff or Person injured
● Defendant - he may prove that plaintiff had the
last clear opportunity and establish that plaintiff
was guilty of contributory negligence.
The rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person
does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the
supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last
[clear] chance to prevent the impending harm by the
exercise of diligence.123
Last clear chance applies only if the person who
allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the
accident was aware of the existence of peril or
should, with exercise of due care, have been aware of
it.124
WHEN NOT APPLICABLE
Last clear chance does not apply where the party
charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the
injury cannot be avoided by the application of all
means at hand after the peril is or should have been
discovered.125
It cannot be extended into the field of joint
tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them
should be held liable to the injured person and it
cannot be invoked as between defendants
concurrently negligent.126
The principle of Last Clear Chance would call for the
application in a suit between the owners and drivers
of two colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a
passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to
enforce its contractual obligations.127
VIII. Vicarious Liability
There is vicarious liability where a person is not only
liable for torts committed by himself, but also for
torts committed by others with whom he has a certain
relationship and for whom he is responsible.128
123Canlas v. IAC, G.R. No. 112160, 28 Feb 2000.
124 Pantranco v. Baesa L-79050-51, 1989.
125
Ong v. Metropolitan, L-7664, 1958.
126 Bustamante v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89880, February 6, 1991.
127 Anuran v. Buno, L-21353, May 20, 1966.
128 Tamargo vs. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 518
 CIVIL LAW
The basis of liability is not the doctrine of respondeat
superior or command responsibility under which the
negligent act or omission of the servant is conclusively
the master’s negligence. The liability is rather based
on pater familias or the failure of the persons
mentioned therein to exercise due care and vigilance
over the acts of subordinates to prevent the damage.
Article 2180, New Civil Code
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for one’s own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, are responsible for the damages caused
by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
their employees and household helpers acting within
the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
through a special agent; but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which case what is
provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts
and trades shall be liable for damages caused by
their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as
they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall
cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that
they observed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent damage.
Article 2181, New Civil Code
Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
dependents or employees may recover from the latter
what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the
claim.
A. PARENTS/ GUARDIANS
Article 2180, New Civil Code
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, are responsible for the damages caused
by the minor children who live in their company.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
The basis of liability of parents for the acts or
omissions of their minor children is the parental
authority that they exercise over them.
The civil liability of the father is a necessary
consequence of the parental authority he exercises.
The only defense that can be interposed is the proof
of diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
the damage.129
Article 2180, New Civil Code
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.
Children and wards do not have the capacity to govern
themselves so parents and guardians have the duty to
exercise special vigilance. If they fail to comply with
this duty, they should suffer the consequences of their
abandonment or negligence by repairing the damage
caused.
WHO ARE INCOMPETENT (Rules of Court;
Rule 92)
1. Persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction
2. Hospitalized lepers
3. Prodigals, deaf and dumb who are unable to read
and write
4. Those who are of unsound mind, even though they
have lucid intervals
5. Persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason
of age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes,
cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves
and manage their property, becoming thereby an easy
prey for deceit and exploitation.
Article 216, Family Code
In default of parents or a judicially appointed
guardian, the following persons shall exercise
substitute parental authority over the child in the
order indicated:
● The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art.
214;
● The oldest brother or sister, over twenty – one
years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and
● The child’s actual custodian, over twenty – one
years of age, unless unfit or disqualified.
● Whenever the appointment of a judicial
guardian over the property of the child becomes
necessary, the same order of preference shall
be observed.
Article 217, Family Code
In case of foundlings, abandoned, neglected or abused
children and other children similarly situated,
parental authority shall be entrusted in summary
judicial proceedings to heads of children’s homes,
orphanages and similar institutions duly accredited by
the proper government agency.
129 Exconde v. Capuno, L-10134, 1957.
 CIVIL LAW
Article 221, Family Code
Parents and other persons exercising parental
authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and
damages caused by the acts or omissions of their
unemancipated children living in their company and
under their parental authority subject to the
appropriate defenses provided by law.
PARENTAL AUTHORITY
Liability based on parental authority is not limited to
parents; the same is also imposed on those exercising
substitute parental authority and special parental
authority.130
The father, or in case of death or incapacity, the
mother are civilly liable for any damages that may be
caused by the minor children who live in their
liability.
PRIMARY LIABILITY
The parent's liability under 2180 should be primary
and not subsidiary. If it were subsidiary, the parents
cannot invoke due diligence as a defense. Such
interpretation reconciles Articles 2180 with 2194
which calls for solidary liability of joint tortfeasors. 131
The liability of parents for felonies is likewise primary
and not subsidiary. Art. 101 of the Revised Penal Code
says so. For both quasi-delict and delict, the fact that
parents primarily respond for such damages is
buttressed by the corresponding provisions in both the
RPC and NCC that the minor transgressor shall be
answerable or shall respond with his own property
only in the absence of parents or their insolvency. Art.
2182 of the New Civil Code and Art. 101 of the Revised
Penal Code support this.
PERSONS EXERCISING PARENTAL AUTHORITY OTHER
THAN PARENTS
Other persons exercising parental authority include
the adopter and a court-appointed guardian.132
Adopters – liable when the adopting parents had
actual or physical custody over the adopted child.
Guardians – liable for damages caused by minors or
incapacitated persons (even if they are already of age)
under their authority and live in their company.
PERSONS EXERCISING SUBSTITUTE PARENTAL
AUTHORITY
Persons mentioned under Art. 216 of the Family Code
are civilly liable only in cases where both parents are
dead, absent or otherwise incapacitated to perform
their duty.
● Surviving grandparents;
130 Aquino, 2005
131 Libi v. IAC, G. R. No. 10890, 18 Sept 1992.
132Ibid.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
● Oldest Sibling, over twenty-one years old unless
unfit or disqualified;
● Child’s actual custodian, over twenty-one years
old unless unfit or disqualified.
LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF THOSE NO LONGER MINORS
The parents or guardians can still be held liable even
if the minor is already emancipated provided that he
is below twenty-one years of age.
DEEP POCKET THEORY
Young Filipinos aged 18-21 are usually not yet
gainfully employed and without property. The law
allows the injured party to pursue actions against the
tortfeasor’s parents.
Parents are not liable if their child is presently living
with a relative under an informal adoption
arrangement.133
RULE UNDER ART. 101 OF THE RPC
A child under fifteen (15) years of age or under is
exempt from criminal liability under R.A. 9344 or the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.
LIABILITY OF MINORS/INCOMPETENT TORTFEASORS
WITHOUT A PARENT/GUARDIAN
He shall be answerable with his own property in an
action against him where a guardian ad litem should
be appointed. (Article 2182 Civil Code)
B. TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS
Article 2180, New Civil Code
Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody.
The protective custody of the school heads and
teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the
parents, and hence, it becomes their obligation as
well as that of the school itself to provide proper
supervision of the students’ activities during the
whole time that they are at attendance in the school,
including recess time, as well as to take the necessary
precautions to protect the students in their custody
from dangers and hazards that would reasonably be
anticipated, including injuries that some student
themselves may inflict wilfully or through negligence
on their fellow students.134
It is only the head of the school, not the teacher, who
is held liable where the injury is caused in a school of
133Aquino, 2005
134 Palisoc v. Brillantes, G. R. No. L-47745, 4 Oct 1971.
 CIVIL LAW
arts and trade.135
The principal of the school cannot be held liable for
the reason that the school he leads is an academic
school and not a school of arts and trades.136
Article 218, Family Code
The school, its administrators and teachers, or the
individual, entity or institution engaged in child care
shall have special parental authority and
responsibility over the minor child while under their
supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school, entity or institution.
The liability of teachers and heads of institutions
under Article 2180 are modified by Art. 218 of the
Family Code by making the school itself liable. The
liability extends to acts committed even outside the
school so long as it is an official activity of the
school.137
Article 219, Family Code
Those given the authority and responsibility under the
preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily
liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of
the unemancipated minor. The parents’ judicial
guardians or the persons exercising substitute
parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily
liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the
preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that
they exercised the proper diligence required under
the particular circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding
articles shall be governed by the provisions of the
Civil Code on quasi – delicts.
The basis of liability under Article 219 is special
parental authority.138
Although parental authority remains, the parents are
not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the
school nor with the authority and supervision of the
teacher while the child is under instruction.139
To be held liable under articles 218 and 219 of the
Family Code, the negligence of the school authorities
must have been the proximate cause of the
accident.140
Article 102, Revised Penal Code
In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,
135 Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-47745, 15 Apr 1988.
136 Ylarde v. Aquino, L-33722, 1988.
137
Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 303
138 Aquino, 2005
139 Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 315
140 St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos, G. R. No. 143363, 6 Feb 2002.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations
shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation of
municipal ordinances or some general or special police
regulation shall have been committed by them or
their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the
restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within
their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the
payment of the value thereof, provided that such
guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper
himself, or the person representing him, of the
deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall
furthermore have followed the directions which such
innkeeper or his representative may have given them
with respect to the care and vigilance over such
goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons unless
committed by the innkeeper’s employees.
Article 103, Revised Penal Code
The subsidiary liability established in the next
preceding article shall also apply to employers,
teachers, persons and corporations engaged in any
kind of industry for felonies committed by their
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees
in the discharge of their duties.
The teacher is liable whether he is employed in an
academic or non-academic institution regardless
whether his/her pupil is a minor or not.141
C. OWNERS/ MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS/
EMPLOYERS
Art. 2180 (4) New Civil Code
The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
Art. 2180 (5) New Civil Code
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
their employees and household helpers acting within
the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The responsibility of employers for the negligence of
their employees in the performance of their duties is
primary, that is, the injured party may recover from
the employers directly, regardless of the solvency of
their employees.142
141 Aquino, 2005
142 Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA
562
 CIVIL LAW
REQUISITES FOR THE CLAIM AGAINST EMPLOYER
● 1. That the employee was chosen by the
employer personally or through another;
● 2. That the service to be rendered in accordance
with orders which the employer has the authority
to give at all times; and
● 3. That the illicit act of the employee was on the
occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted
to him.
WHEN APPLICABLE
1. Employer-employee relationship
The liability of the employer can be established by
proving the existence of an employer-employee
relationship with the actor and that the latter caused
the injury while performing his assigned task or
functions.143
For the purpose of apportioning responsibility in
medical negligence cases, an employer-employee
relationship in effect exists between hospitals and
their attending and visiting physicians.144
2. Within the scope of their assigned tasks
To make the employee liable under paragraphs 5 and
6 of Article 2180, it must be established that the
injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time
the employee was performing his functions.
The employer is liable only if the employee was
performing his assigned task at the time the injury
was caused.145 It is enough that the task is
indispensable to the business or beneficial to the
employer.146
An employer is expected to impose upon its employees
the necessary discipline called for in the performance
of any act indispensable to the business and beneficial
to their employer. Supervision includes the
formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the
guidance of its employees and the issuance of proper
instructions intended for the protection of the public
and persons with whom the employer has relations
through his employees.147
Owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise do not include a manager of a
corporation.148
REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTION
Once negligence on the part of the employee is
established, a presumption instantly arises that the
employer was negligent in the selection and/or
143 Aquino, 2005
144 Professional Services v. Agana, G. R. No. 126297, 31 Jan 2007.
145
St. Francis High School vs. Court of Appeals
146 Filamer Christian Institute vs. IAC
147 Filamer Christian Institute vs. IAC, G. R. No. 75112, 16 Oct 1990; 17
Aug 1992
148 Philippine Rabbit vs. Philam Forwarders
TORTS AND DAMAGES
supervision of said employee. To rebut this
presumption, the employer must present adequate
and convincing proof that he exercised care and
diligence in the selection and supervision of his
employees.149
In the selection of its prospective employees, the
employer is required to examine them as to their
qualifications, experience, and service records. With
respect to the supervision of its employees, the
employer should formulate standard operating
procedures, monitor their implementation, and
impose disciplinary measures for their breach. To
establish compliance with these requirements,
employers must submit concrete proof, including
documentary evidence.150
Article 103, Revised Penal Code
The subsidiary liability established in the next
preceding article shall also apply to employers,
teachers, persons and corporations engaged in any
kind of industry for felonies committed by their
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees
in the discharge of their duties.
REQUISITES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER ARTICLE
103, RPC
● Employer is engaged in any kind of industry
● Employee was convicted of the offense
committed in the discharge of his duties
● Employee is insolvent
D. STATE
Article 2180, New Civil Code
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
through a special agent; but not when the damage has
been caused by the official to whom the task done
properly pertains, in which case what is provided in
Article 2176 shall be applicable.
TWO ASPECTS OF LIABILITY OF THE STATE
● Its public or governmental aspects where it is
liable for the tortious acts of special agents only.
● Its private or business aspects (as when it engages
in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as
an ordinary employer.151
In this jurisdiction, the State assumes a limited
liability for the damage caused by the tortious acts or
conduct of its special agent.
Under paragraph six (6) of Art. 2180, the State has
149 Lampesa v. De Vera, G. R. No. 155111, 14 Feb 2008.
150 Mercury Drug v. Huang, 172122, 22 Jun 2007.
151Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines; Annotated, Paras, p. 961, 1986
Ed.
 CIVIL LAW
voluntarily assumed liability for acts done through
special agents.
The State's agent, if a public official, must not only be
specially commissioned to do a particular task but that
such task must be foreign to said official's usual
governmental functions.
If the State's agent is not a public official, and is
commissioned to perform non-governmental functions,
then the State assumes the role of an ordinary
employer and will be held liable as such for its agent's
tort. Where the government commissions a private
individual for a special governmental task, it is acting
through a special agent within the meaning of the
provision.152
Officials – comprises all officials and employees of the
government who exercise duties of their respective
public offices. The responsibility of employers for the
negligence of their employees in the performance of
their duties is primary, that is, the injured party may
recover from the employers directly, regardless of the
solvency of their employees.153
Special Agent – all others who are acting by
commission of the government, whether individual or
juridical bodies.
The State is not responsible for the damages suffered
by private individuals in consequence of the acts
performed by its employees pertaining to their office
because neither fault nor negligence can be presumed
on the part of the State in the organization of
branches of public service and appointment of its
agents.154
VIII. Strict Liability
Strict Liability
There is strict liability if one is made liable
independent of fault, negligence or intent after
establishing certain facts specified by law.
Strict liability tort can be committed even if
reasonable care was exercised and regardless of the
state of mind of the actor at that time.
A case is one of strict liability when neither care nor
negligence, neither good nor bad faith, neither
knowledge nor ignorance will save the defendant.155
152
Sangco, Torts and Damages, p. 347, 1984 Ed.
153 Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA
562
154 Merrit vs. Government of Philippine Islands, 34 Phil 311
155 Black’s Law Dictionary
TORTS AND DAMAGES
A. POSSESSOR OR USER OF ANIMALS
Article 2183, New Civil Code
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.
The Civil Code provision is applicable whether the
animal is domestic, domesticated or wild.156
Possession of the animal, not ownership, is
determinative of liability under Art. 2183. The
obligation imposed by said article is not based on the
negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the
possessor or user of the animal causing damage. It is
based on natural equity and on the principle of social
interest that he who possesses animals for his utility,
pleasure, or service, must answer for any damage
which such animal may cause.157
B. OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Article 2184, New Civil Code
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the
vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed
that a driver was negligent, if he had been found
guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding
two months.
Ratio: the owner’s own omission is a concurring
proximate cause of the injury
REGISTERED OWNER RULE
The registered owner of a public service vehicle is
responsible for damages that may arise from
consequences incident to its operation or that may be
caused to any of the passengers therein.158
With respect to the public and third persons, the
registered owner of a motor vehicle is directly and
primarily responsible for the consequences of its
operation regardless of who the actual vehicle owner
might be. Well- settled is the rule that the registered
owner of the vehicle is liable for quasi-delict resulting
from its use.159
C. LIABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
Article 2189, New Civil Code
156
Vestil vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74431, 6 Nov 1989.
157Vestil vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
158 Gelisan vs. Alday, G.R. No. L – 30212
159 FEB Leasing and Finance Corp. v. Baylon, 653 SCRA 22
 CIVIL LAW
Provinces, cities, and municipalities shall be liable for
damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any
person by reason of the defective condition roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public
works under their control or supervision.
The provisions of Article 2189 of the New Civil Code
encapsulates the responsibility of the city government
relative to the maintenance of roads and bridges since
it exercises the control and supervision over the same.
It is not even necessary for the defective road or
street to belong to the province, city or municipality
for liability to attach. The abovementioned article
only requires that either control or supervision is
exercised over the defective road or street. 160
Failure of the City Engineer to comply with the
statutory provision found in the subject-article is
tantamount to negligence per se which renders the
City government liable.161
D. PROPRIETORS OF BUILDINGS
Bar 1990, 2007
Article 2190, New Civil Code
The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible
for the damages resulting from its total or partial
collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary
repairs.
Bar 2002
Article 2191, New Civil Code
Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages
caused:
● By the explosion of machinery which has not been
taken care of with due diligence, and the
inflammation of explosive substances which have
not been kept in a safe and adequate place;
● By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to
persons or property;
● By the falling of trees situated at or near
highways or lanes, if not caused by force
majeure;
● By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
deposits of infectious matter, constructed
without precautions suitable to the place.
Article 2192, New Civil Code
If damage referred to in the two preceding articles
should be the result of any defect in the construction
mentioned in Article 1723, the third person suffering
damages may proceed only against the engineer or
architect or contractor in accordance with said
article, within the period therein fixed.
160 Guilatco v. Dagupan, G. R. No. 61516, 21 Mar 1989.
161 Quezon City v. Dacara, G. R. No. 150304, 15 Jun 2005.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
E. ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT OF COLLAPSED BUILDING
Article 1723. New Civil Code
The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and
specifications for a building is liable for damages if
within fifteen 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. The contractor is likewise
responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within
the same period, on materials of inferior quality
furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms
of the contract. If the engineer or architect supervises
the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the
contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does
not imply waiver of any of the causes of action by
reason of any defect mentioned in the preceeding
paragraph.
The action must be brought within ten years following
the collapse of the building.
F. HEAD OF A FAMILY FOR THINGS THROWN/
FALLING FROM A BUILDING
Article 2193, New Civil Code
The head of a family that lives in a building or a part
thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things
thrown or falling from the same.
Liability is absolute. It does not indicate a
presumption or admit proof of care. 162
The term head of the family is not limited to the
owner of the building and it may even include the
lessee thereof.163
G. OWNERS OF ENTERPRISES/ OTHER EMPLOYEES
Article 1711, New Civil Code
Owners of enterprises and other employers are
obliged to pay compensation for the death of or
injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or
other employees even though the event may have
been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous
cause, if the death or personal injury arose out of and
in the course of the employment. The employer is also
liable for compensation if the employee contracts any
illness or disease caused by such employment or as
the result of the nature of the employment, If the
mishap was due to the employee’s own notorious
negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the
employer shall not be liable for compensation. When
the employee’s lack of due care contributed to his
death or injury, the compensation shall be equitable
162 Reyes and Puno, p. 165
163 Dingcong vs. Kanaan, 72 Phil. 14
 CIVIL LAW
reduced.
Liability exists even if the cause is purely accidental.
Article 1712, New Civil Code
If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a
fellow – worker, the latter and the employer shall be
solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow –
worker’s intentional or malicious act is the only cause
of the death or injury, the employer shall not be
answerable, unless it should be shown that the latter
did not exercise due diligence in the selection or
supervision of the plaintiff’s fellow – worker.
H. PRODUCT LIABILITY
Article 2187, New Civil Code
Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks,
toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for
death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used, although no contractual relation
exists between them and the consumers.
LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE PRODUCT OR SERVICE
1. Manufacturer
Liability shall be imposed upon manufacturers
independent of fault. (Secs. 97 and 98, Consumer Act
or R.A. 7394)
2. Tradesman or Seller
Not generally liable for damages caused by defective
products under the Act.
Exceptions:
● It is not possible to identify the manufacturer,
builder, producer or importer;
● The product is supplied, without clear
identification of the manufacturer, producer,
builder or importer;
● He does not adequately preserve perishable goods
(Section 98, Consumer Act or R.A. 7394)
I. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
A. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
Elements
● Existence of a valid contract;
● Knowledge on the part of the third person of the
existence of the contract; and
● Interference of the third person without legal
justification or excuse.164
One who wrongfully interferes in a contract between
others, and, for the purpose of gain to himself induces
one of the parties to break it, is liable to the party
164 So Ping Bun vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120554
TORTS AND DAMAGES
injured thereby; and his continued interference may
be ground for an injunction where the injuries
resulting will be irreparable.165
The defendant guilty of interference with contractual
relations cannot be held liable for more than the
amount for which the party who was induced to break
the contract can be held liable.166
B. INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ADVANTAGE
If there is no contract yet and the defendant is only
being sued for inducing another not to enter into a
contract with the plaintiff, the tort committed is
appropriately called interference with prospective
advantage.
C. UNFAIR COMPETITION
Article 28, New Civil Code
Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or
industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of
force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other
unjust, oppressive or high handed method shall give
rise to a right of action by the person who thereby
suffers damage.
Monopoly embraces any combination the tendency of
which is to prevent competition in the broad and
general sense, or to control prices to the detriment of
the public. It is the concentration of business in the
hands of a few. The material consideration in
determining its existence is not that prices are raised
and competition actually excluded but
that power exists to raise prices or exclude
competition when desired. 167
D. SECURITIES RELATED TORTS
Kinds
● Fraudulent Transactions (Section 26, Securities
Regulation Code or R.A. 8799)
● Misstatements or Omission of statement of a
material fact required to be stated (Sections 56
and 57, Securities Regulation Code or R.A. 8799)
Defendants are not liable if they can prove that at the
time of the acquisition the plaintiff knew of the
untrue statement if he was are of the falsity.168
IX. Torts with Independent
Civil Action
A. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Article 32, New Civil Code
165 Gilchrist v. Cuddy, G.R. No. 9356, 18 Feb 1915.
166 Aquino, 2005
167 Gokongwei vs SEC, G.R. No. L-45911, April 11, 1979
168Aquino, 2005
 CIVIL LAW
Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs
any of the following rights and liberties of another
person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
● Freedom of religion;
● Freedom of speech;
● Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a
periodical publication;
● Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
● Freedom of suffrage;
● The right against deprivation of property without
due process of law;
● The right to a just compensation when private
property is taken for public use;
● The right to the equal protection of the laws;
● The right to be secured in one’s person, house,
papers, and effects against unreasonable search
and seizures;
● The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
● The privacy of communication and
correspondence;
● The right to become a member of associations or
societies for purposes not contrary to law;
● The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to
petition the Government for redress of
grievances;
● The right to be free from involuntary servitude in
any form;
● The right of the accused against excessive bail;
● The right of the accused to be heard by himself
and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
● Freedom from being compelled to be a witness
against one’s self, or from being forced to confess
guilt, or from being induced by a promise of
immunity or reward to make such confession,
except when the person confessing becomes a
State witness;
● Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and
unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed
or inflicted in accordance with a statute which
has not been judicially declared unconstitutional;
and
● Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether
or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to
commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal
prosecution, if the latter be instituted, and may be
proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable
from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a
TORTS AND DAMAGES
violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
RATIONALE
The creation of an absolutely separate and
independent civil action for the violation of civil
liberties is essential to the effective maintenance of
democracy.169
Although Article 32 normally involves intentional acts,
the tort of violation of civil and political rights can
also be committed through negligence.
GOOD FAITH IS NOT A DEFENSE
Good faith on the part of the defendant does not
necessarily excuse such violation.
PERSONS LIABLE
● Public officers or employees
● Private individuals
A person may be held liable whether his participation
is direct or indirect.
B. DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHYSICAL INJURIES
In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a
civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct
from the criminal action, may be brought by the
injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence.170
THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO THINGS ABOUT ART. 33 OF THE CIVIL
CODE WHICH ARE WORTH NOTING, NAMELY:
● The civil action for damages which it allows to be
instituted is ex-delicto or quasi-delict. This is
manifest from the provision which uses the
expressions "criminal action" and "criminal
prosecution."
● The term "physical injuries" is used in a generic
sense. It is not the crime of physical injuries
defined in the Revised Penal Code. It includes not
only physical injuries but consummated,
frustrated and attempted homicide.
I. DEFAMATION
Defamation
An invasion of the interest in reputation and good
name, by communication to others which tends to
diminish the esteem in which the plaintiff is helf, or
to excite adverse feeligns or opinion against him.171
This action is similar to the action in tort for libel or
slander, deceit, and assault and battery.172
169
Code Commission
170 Madeja v. Caro, 211 Phil 469.
171 Prosser, Handbook on the Law on Torts, p. 572
172 Code Commission
 CIVIL LAW
Defamation is that which tends to injure reputation or
diminish esteem, respect, good will, or confidence of
the plaintiff, or excite derogatory feelings about him.
It must be personal.173
Reason for liability
The desire to protect the reputation of every
individual
Requisites
1. IT MUST BE DEFAMATORY;
The defamatory character of the imputation may be
established by showing that the statement is
defamatory as a matter of law i.e. where the
imputation is the commission of a crime, the
defamation is so plain that the charge is automatically
deemed libelous.
If the statement is not defamatory as a matter of law,
the Court must then make a determination on the
defamatory capability of the statement.
2. IT MUST BE MALICIOUS;
There is malice when the author of the imputation is
prompted by personal ill – will or spite and speaks not
in response to a duty but merely to injure the
reputation of the person who claims to have been
defamed.174
3. IT MUST BE GIVEN PUBLICITY; AND
There must be a communication of the defamatory
information to third persons.
Communication to a single individual is sufficient.
No liability will result if the defamatory matter is not
seen or heard by anyone except the defendant and the
plaintiff.175
4. THE VICTIM MUST BE IDENTIFIABLE.
The plaintiffs or the complainants in defamation cases
include natural and juridical persons.
It must be shown that at least a third person could
identify him as the object of the libelous publication.
II. FRAUD
Elements of Fraud/Misrepresentation
● The defendant must have made false
representation to the plaintiff;
● The representation must be one of fact;
● The defendant must know that the representation
is false or be reckless about whether it is false;
● The defendant must have acted on the false
representation;
● The defendant must have intended that the
173 MVRS vs. Islamic Da'wah, G. R. No. 135306, 28 Jan 2003.
174 Alonzo vs. Court of Appeals
175 Aquino, 2005
TORTS AND DAMAGES
representation should be acted on;
● The plaintiff must have suffered damage as a
result of acting on the representation.176
III. PHYSICAL INJURIES
Battery
An intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive
bodily contract.
Offensive bodily contact – offends a reasonable
person’s sense of dignity even though it is intended
only as a joke or a compliment.
Elements:
1. Intent
2. Harmful or offensive conduct
3. Absence of privilege
Assault
Intentional conduct by one person directed at another
placing the latter in apprehension of immediate bodily
harm or offensive act.
Elements:
1. An act by defendant creating a reasonable
apprehension in plaintiff
2. Immediate harmful or offensive contact to
plaintiff’s person
3. Intent
4. Causation
The “Doctrine of Privileged Communication”
Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings
are absolutely privileged. This absolute privilege
remains regardless of the defamatory tenor and the
presence of malice if the same are relevant, pertinent
or material to the cause in hand or subject of the
inquiry. Thus, the person making these statements
such as a judge, lawyer or witness does not thereby
incur the risk of being found liable thereon in a
criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery of
damages.177
C. NEGLECT OF DUTY
Article 34, New Civil Code
When a member of a city or municipal police force
refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any
person in case of danger to life or property. Such
peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages,
and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
responsible thereof. The civil action herein recognized
shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and
preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support
such action.
It is intended to afford a remedy against police
176 Elliot and Quinn, Tort law, p. 69
177 Navarrete v. Generoso, 325 SCRA 540
 CIVIL LAW
officers who connive with bad elements, are afraid of
them or are simply indifferent to duty.178
Subsidiary liability of cities and municipalities is
imposed so that they will exercise great care in
selecting conscientious and duly qualified policeman
and exercise supervision over them in the
performance of their duties as peace officers.179
D. “CATCH-ALL” INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
Article 35, New Civil Code
When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal
offense, charges another with the same, for which no
independent civil action is granted in this Code or any
special law, but the justice of the peace finds no
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or
fails to institute criminal proceedings, the
complainant may bring a civil action for damages
against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the
defendant’s motion, the court may require the
plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in
case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
X. Human Relations:
Intentional Torts
A. ABUSE OF RIGHTS
Article 19, New Civil Code
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and
in the performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith.
SCOPE
● The expanded coverage of tort finds resonance in
Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the New Civil Code.
● Under any of these three provisions of law, an act
which causes injury to another may be made the
basis for an award of damages.
● This provision is believed to be a mere
declaration of principles which is being
implemented by other provisions.
ELEMENTS
● There is a legal right or duty;
● which is exercised in bad faith;
● for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another.180
178 1 Capistrano 38
179 Jarencio
180 Tolentino, p. 71
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Article 19 of the Civil Code contains the principle of
abuse of rights which sets certain standards which
must be observed not only in the exercise of one’s
right but also in the performance of one’s duties.
While the said provision lays down a rule of conduct
for the government of human relations and for the
maintenance of social order, the remedies for its
violations may be found in Arts. 20 and 21 of the Civil
Code. 181
B. ILLEGAL ACTS
Article 20, New Civil Code
Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify
the latter for the same.
The rule pervades the entire legal system, and renders
it impossible that a person who suffers damage
because another has violated some legal provision,
should find himself without relief.182
It speaks of the general sanction for all other
provisions of law which do not especially provide for
their own sanction.183
C. ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES
Article 21, New Civil Code
Any person who willfully 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.
Elements
● There is an act which is legal;
● But which is contrary to morals, good custom,
public order, or public policy;
● And it is done with intent to injure.184
The common element under Articles 19 and 21 is that
the act complained of must be intentional, and
attended with malice or bad faith. There is no hard
and fast rule which can be applied to determine
whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be
invoked. The question of whether or not this principle
has been violated, resulting in damages under Articles
20 and 21, or other applicable provision of law,
depends on the circumstances of each case.185
181 Globe Mackay v. CA, G. R. No. 81262, 25 Aug 1989.
182
Code Commission
183 Tolentino, p. 71
184 Albenson v. CA, G. R. No. 88694, 11 Jan 1993.
185 Mata v. Agravante G.R. No. 147597 August 6, 2008.
 CIVIL LAW
I. BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY, SEDUCTION AND
SEXUAL ASSAULT
Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable
wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through
all the above-described preparation and publicity,
only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to
be solemnized, is quite different. This palpably and
unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which
defendant must be held answerable in damages
pursuant to Article 21.186
To constitute seduction there must in all cases be
some sufficient promise or inducement and the
woman must yield because of the promise or other
inducement.187
Where a man's promise to marry is the reason for the
acceptance of his love by a woman and his
representation to fulfil that promise thereafter
becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself
unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in
reality, no intention of marrying her and that the
promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device
to entice her to accept him and to obtain her consent
to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages
pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to
marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it
and the wilful injury to her honor and reputation.188
II. PUBLIC HUMILIATION
The hitting on the face is contrary to morals and good
customs which may cause mental anguish, moral
shock, wounded feelings and social humiliation. Thus,
the award of moral damages is proper.189
The reason underlying the award of damages under
Article 21 is to compensate the injured party for the
moral injury caused upon his person.190
III. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be
proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister
design to vex and humiliate a person that it
was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing
that his charges were false and groundless.191
Elements
● The fact of the prosecution and the further fact
that the defendant was himself the prosecutor
and that the action finally terminated with an
acquittal;
● That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted
186 Wassmer v. Velez, G. R. No. L-20089, 26 Dec 1964.
187 Tanjanco v. CA, G. R. No. L-18630, 17 Dec 1966.
188
Baksh v. CA, G. R. No. 97336, 19 Feb 1993.
189 Patricio v. Leviste, G.R. No. 51832, 1989.
190 Code Commission
191 Que v. IAC, G. R. No. 66865, 13 Jan 1989.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
without probable cause; and
● That the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by
legal malice, that is by improper or sinister
motive.192
When Not Applicable
The mere act of submitting a case to the authorities
for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious
prosecution.
IV. OPPRESSIVE DISMISSAL
An action for damages under Article 21 may be
instituted if the complaint is grounded on the manner
and consequent effect of dismissal and not the
dismissal itself.
If the dismissal was done anti-socially or oppressively,
as the complaint alleges, then the respondents
violated Art. 1701 of the Civil Code which prohibits
acts of oppression by either capital or labor against
the other and Article 21, which makes a person liable
for damages if he wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policy, sanction for which, by way
of moral damages.193
D. VIOLATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY
Article 26, New Civil Code
Every person shall respect the dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other
person. The following and similar acts, though they
may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a
cause of action for damages, prevention and other
relief:
● Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
● Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another;
● Intriguing to cause another to be alienated fom
his friends;
● Vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of
birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.
THE COURT RECOGNIZES THAT EVERY PERSON IS ENTITLED TO
RESPECT OF HIS DIGNITY, PERSONALITY, PRIVACY AND PEACE OF
MIND.
Article 26 of the Civil Code grants a cause of action
for damages, prevention, and other relief in cases of
breach, though not necessarily constituting a criminal
offense, of the following rights: (1) right to personal
dignity; (2) right to personal security; (3) right to
family relations; (4) right to social intercourse; (5)
192 Drilon v. CA, G. R. No. 107019, 20 Mar 1997.
193 Quisaba v. Sta. Ines, G. R. No. L-38000, 30 Aug 1974.
 CIVIL LAW
right to privacy; and (6) right to peace of mind.
Prying into the privacy of another's residence" and
"meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
relations of another" and "similar acts", "though they
may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a
cause of action for damages, prevention and other
relief".195
E. DERELICTION OF DUTY
Article 27, New Civil Code
Any person suffering material or moral loss because a
public servant or employee refuses or neglects,
without just cause, to perform his official duty may
file an action for damages and other relief against the
latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary
administrative action that may be taken.
F. UNFAIR COMPETITION
Article 28, New Civil Code
Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or
industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of
force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other
unjust, oppressive or high 0 handed method shall give
rise to a right of action by the person who thereby
suffers damage.
DAMAGES
I. Concept of Damages
Damage
It is the detriment, injury or loss which is occasioned
by reason of fault of another in the property or
person.
Damages
The pecuniary compensation, recompense, or
satisfaction for an injury sustained, or as otherwise
expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law
imposes for the breach of some duty or the or the
violation of some right.196
A complaint for damages is a personal action.
Damnum Absque Injuria
Literally means “damage without injury”. A person
may have suffered physical hurt or injury, but for long
as no legal injury or wrong has been done, there is no
liability.
Where the conjunction of damages and wrong is
absent there can be no actionable wrong if either one
or the other is wanting.
194 Gregorio v. CA, G. R. No. 179799, 11 Sep 2009.
195 St. Louis v. CA, G. R. No. L-46061, 14 Nov 1984.
196 People vs. Ballesteros, G.R. No. 120921, 29 Jan 1998.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
194 There is a material distinction between damages and
injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right;
damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from
the injury; and damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damages suffered. 197
II. Kinds of Damages
A. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
Definition
Bar 1991, 96, 2004
Article 2199, New Civil Code
Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is
entitled to an adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.
Such compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages.
It includes all damages that the plaintiff may show he
has suffered in respect to his property, business,
trade, profession, or occupation, and no other
damages whatever.198
The burden of proof of the damage suffered is
imposed on the party claiming the same who should
adduce the best evidence available in support
thereof.199
Purpose
To compensate for the injury inflicted, and not to
impose a penalty.200
I. PROOF REQUIRED
There must be pleading and proof of actual damages
suffered for the same to be recovered. It must also be
actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty,
premised upon competent proof or the best evidence
obtainable.201
Damages cannot be presumed and courts, in giving an
award, must point out specific facts that could afford
a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or
actual damages are borne.202
Pecuniary Loss
Loss of money or something by which money or
something of money value may be acquired.
Proof of Pecuniary Loss Required
To justify an award for actual damages.
197 Custodio vs. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 483
198 Algarra vs. Sandejas, 27 Phil 284.
199
Oceaneering Contractors vs. Baretto, G.R. No. 184215, Feb. 9, 2011
200 Algarra vs. Sandejas
201 Oceaneering Contractors vs. Baretto
202 PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,
297 SCRA 402
 CIVIL LAW
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof of the damage suffered is
imposed on the party claiming the same who should
adduce the best evidence available in support thereof,
like sales and delivery receipts, cash and check
vouchers and other pieces of documentary evidence of
the same nature.203
II. LOSS COVERED
Article 2200, New Civil Code
Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not
only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of
the profits which the obligee failed to obtain.
A party is entitled to adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss actually suffered and duly proved.
Basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, the
amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but
must actually be proven with a reasonable degree of
certainty, premised upon competent proof or best
evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof.204
Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not
only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of
the profits which the obligee failed to obtain.205
III. IN CONTRACTS AND QUASI-CONTRACTS
Bar 1994
Article 2201, New Civil Code
In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for
which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable
shall be those that are the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation, and
which the parties have foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was
constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude,
the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which
may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance
of the obligation.
A common carrier which allowed overbooking without
informing its passengers that they can breach the
contract should be responsible for all damages which
may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance
of its obligation pursuant to Article 2201.206
IV. IN CRIMES AND QUASI-DELICT
Article 2202, New Civil Code
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be
liable for all damages which are the natural and
203
Oceaneering Contractors vs. Baretto, G.R. No. 184215, Feb. 9, 2011.
204 PNOC v. CA, G.R. No. 107518, 8 Oct 1998.
205 Candano v. Sugata-on, G.R. No. 163212, 13 Mar 2007.
206 Spouses Zalamea v. CA,G.R. No. 104235, 18 Nov 1993.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
probable consequences of the act or omission
complained of. It is not necessary that such damages
have been foreseen or could have reasonably been
foreseen by the defendant.
Article 2204, New Civil Code
In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be
respectively increased or lessened according to the
aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
According to law and jurisprudence, civil indemnity is
in the nature of actual and compensatory damages for
the injury caused to the offended party and that
suffered by her family, and moral damages are
likewise compensatory in nature.207
The principal consideration for the award of damages
is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the
offense because of its heinousness, not the public
penalty actually imposed on the offender.208
V. EARNING CAPACITY
Bar 1993
Article 2205, New Civil Code
Damages may be recovered:
● For loss or impairment of earning capacity in
cases of temporary or permanent personal injury;
● For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or
commercial credit.
Loss or impairment of earning capacity
The indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the
deceased is awarded not for loss of earning, but for
loss of capacity to earn money.209
The important variables taken into account in
determining the compensable amount of lost earnings
are:
● The number of years for which the victim would
otherwise have lived (life expectancy); and
● The total of the earnings less expenses necessary
for the creation of such earnings and less living or
other incidental expenses (net income/earnings).
Formula
{2/3 x (80 – age of death)} x (mo. Earnings/2) x 12
General Rule: Documentary evidence should be
presented to substantiate the claim for damages for
loss of earning capacity.
Exception: Damages for loss of earning capacity may
be awarded despite the absence of documentary
evidence when:
● The deceased is self – employed and earning less
than the minimum wage under current labor laws,
in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the
207 People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, 10 Sept 2009.
208 Ibid.
209 Philippine Hawk v. Lee, G.R. No. 166869, Feb. 16, 2010.
 CIVIL LAW
fact that in the deceased’s line of work no
documentary evidence is available; or
● The deceased is employed as a daily wage worker
earning less than the minimum wage under
current labor laws.210
To determine the amount for the award for damages
of loss or impairment of his earning capacity, the
court must consider his age, probable life expectancy,
the state of his health, and his mental and physical
condition before the accident.211
VI. DEATH BY CRIME OR QUASI – DELICT
Bar 1992, 93, 2007
Article 2206, New Civil Code
The amount of damages for death caused by a crime
or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos,
even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:
● The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the
earning capacity of the deceased, and the
indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter;
such indemnity shall in every case be assessed
and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on
account of permanent physical disability not
caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity
at the time of his death;
● If the deceased was obliged to give support
according to the provisions of Article 291, the
recipient who is not an heir called to the
decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support from
the person causing the death, for a period not
exceeding five years, the exact duration to be
fixed by the court;
● The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
descendants and ascendants of the deceased may
demand moral damages for mental anguish by
reason of the death of the deceased.
Civil/Death Indemnity
Civil indemnity due to a crime is in the nature of
actual damages and is mandatorily granted to the
heirs upon proving of the fact of the crime. It is
granted without any need of proof other than the
commission of the crime.212
The current amount of fixed damages is P50,000. The
amount of P3,000 is the minimum. The Supreme Court
had repeatedly increased the amount of indemnity in
order to reflect the current value of currency and
prevailing inflation.213
210
Philippine Hawk Corporation, v. Lee, G.R. No. 166869, Feb. 16,
2010.
211 Mercury Drug v. Huang, G.R. No. 172122, 22 Jun 2007.
212 People v. Buban, G.R. No. 170471, May 11, 2007.
213 Aquino, 2009.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
The award of P75,000 as civil indemnity is proper in
cases where the proper imposable penalty is death.214
Loss of Earning Capacity
The rule is that documentary evidence should be
presented to substantiate a claim for loss of earning
capacity.215
It is well-settled in jurisprudence that the factors that
should be taken into account in determining the
compensable amount of lost earnings are: (1) the
number of years for which the victim would otherwise
have lived; and (2) the rate of loss sustained by the
heirs of the deceased.216
VII. IN RAPE CASES
Civil indemnity due to a crime, rape, is in the nature
of actual damages and is mandatorily granted to upon
proving of the fact of the crime. It is granted without
any need of proof other than the commission of the
crime.
Jurisprudence has consistently upheld the ruling that
the civil indemnity for Simple Rape is P50,000 while
P75,000 for Qualified Rape.217
The award of moral damages is separate and distinct
from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims. The
moral damages cannot take the place of the civil
indemnity. While the award of moral damages is
discretionary on the part of the court, the civil
indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or
compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding
of the fact of rape.218
VIII. ATTORNEY’S FEES
Bar 1991, 94, 2002
Article 2208, New Civil Code
In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs,
cannot be recovered, except:
● When exemplary damages are awarded;
● When the defendant's act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his
interest;
● In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against
the plaintiff;
● In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding against the plaintiff;
● Where the defendant acted in gross and evident
bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's
plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
● In actions for legal support;
214 People v. Apacible, G.R. No. 189091, Aug. 25, 2010
215
People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 188902, 16 Feb 2011.
216 Pleyto v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 148737, 16 Jun 2004.
217 People v. Astrologo, G.R. No. 169873, June 8, 2007.
218 People v. Banago, G.R. No. 128384, 29 Jun 1999.
 CIVIL LAW
● In actions for the recovery of wages of household
helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
● In actions for indemnity under workmen's
compensation and employer's liability laws;
● In a separate civil action to recover civil liability
arising from a crime;
● When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
● In any other case where the court deems it just
and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses
of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation must be reasonable.
Kinds
Ordinary – the attorney’s fee is the reasonable
compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the
legal services he has rendered to the latter.
Extraordinary – the attorney’s fee is an indemnity for
damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing
party in a litigation to the prevailing party.
Payable not the lawyer but to the client, unless they
have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer
as additional compensation or as part thereof.219
Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal
and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to
speculation or conjecture.
When granted, the court must explicitly state in the
body of the decision, and not only in the dispositive
portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of
attorney’s fees.220
In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation must be reasonable.
IX. INTEREST
Article 2209, New Civil Code
If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of
money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity
for damages, there being no stipulation to the
contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed
upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal
interest, which is six per cent per annum.
Bar 2002
Article 2210, New Civil Code
Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be
allowed upon damages awarded for breach of
contract.
Bar 2002
Article 2211, New Civil Code
219 Benedicto v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 185020, 6 Oct. 2010.
220 Briones v. Macabagdal, G.R. No. 150666, Aug. 3, 2010
TORTS AND DAMAGES
In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the
damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the
discretion of the court.
Article 2212, New Civil Code
Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it
is judicially demanded, although the obligation may
be silent upon this point.
Article 2213, New Civil Code
Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims
or damages, except when the demand can be
established with reasonably certainty.
No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly
stipulated in writing.221
Brief Rulings on Compensatory Damages
● Actual damages must be specifically prayed for.
● May be executed pending appeal but not an award
for moral or exemplary damages which cannot be
disregarded as fixed until there is a final
judgment.
What is “The Abrazaldo Doctrine” 
?
Where the amount of the actual damages cannot be
determined because of the absence of receipts to
prove the same, but it is shown that the heirs are
entitled thereto, temperate damages may be
awarded.222
X. MITIGATION OF LIABILITY
Article 2203, New Civil Code
The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family to minimize
the damages.
Article 2204, New Civil Code
In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be
respectively increased or lessened according to the
aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Article 2214, New Civil Code
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may
recover.
Article 2215, New Civil Code
In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the
court may equitably mitigate the damages under
circumstances other than the case referred to in the
preceding article, as in the following instances:
● That the plaintiff himself has contravened the
terms of the contract;
● That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a
221 Pan Pacific v. Equitable, G.R. No. 169975, March 18, 2010
222 People v. Abrazaldo, 397 SCRA 137, 149-150
 CIVIL LAW
result of the contract;
● In cases where exemplary damages are to be
awarded, that the defendant acted upon the
advice of counsel;
● That the loss would have resulted in any event;
● That since the filing of the action, the defendant
has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or
injury.
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences
It is a well-recognized principle of law that damages
resulting from avoidable consequences of the breach
of a contract are not recoverable. It is the duty of one
injured by the act of another to take such measures as
prudent men usually take under such circumstances to
reduce the damage as much as possible.223
B. MORAL DAMAGES
To be entitled to moral damages, a party must have a
right based upon law.224
Purpose
Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured
party to obtain the means, diversions, or amusements
that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has
undergone by reason of the tragic event.225
Moral damages are in the category of an award
designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury
suffered, and not to impose a penalty on the
wrongdoer.226
When Recoverable
Such damages must be the proximate result of a
wrongful act or omission the factual basis of which is
satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party.
Bar 1991, 2002, 03
Article 2217, New Civil Code
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act for omission.
Bar 1992, 93, 96, 2002, 04, 06
Article 2219, New Civil Code
Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
analogous cases:
● A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
● Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
● Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious
acts;
223
Cerrano v. Tan, 38 Phil 392.
224 Kierulf v. CA, G.R. No. 99301, 13 Mar 1997.
225 Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, G.R. No. 157009, March 17, 2010
226 ABS – CBN v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128690, Jan. 21, 1999
TORTS AND DAMAGES
● Adultery or concubinage;
● Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
● Illegal search;
● Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
● Malicious prosecution;
● Acts mentioned in Article 309;
● Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped,
or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may
also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers
and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of
this article, in the order named.
Bar 1994, 2004, 05
Article 2220, New Civil Code
Wilful injury to property may be a legal ground for
awarding moral damages if the court should find that,
under the circumstances, such damages are justly
due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract
where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad
faith.
General Rule
The plaintiff must allege and prove:
● The factual basis for moral damages; and
● Its causal relation to the defendant’s act.
Exception
Moral damages may be awarded to the victim in
criminal proceedings without the need for pleading of
proof of the basis thereof. 227
Moral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of
the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud or
constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in
a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy.228
The award of moral damages is unsupported where
the widow of the victim did not testify on any mental
anguish or emotional distress, which she suffered as a
result of her husband’s death.229
MORAL DAMAGES IN CULPA CONTRACTUAL
Moral damages are recoverable in breach of contracts
where defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.230
Moral damages are in the category of an award
designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury
suffered and not to impose a penalty on the
wrongdoer. The person claiming moral damages must
prove the existence of bad faith by clear and
convincing evidence for the law always presumes good
227
Aquino, 2009.
228 Triple Eight v. NLRC, 299 SCRA 608
229 People v. Pirame, 327 SCRA 552
230 Lopez v. Pan American, 16 SCRA 431
 CIVIL LAW
faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered
sleepless nights, mental anguish, serious anxiety as
the result of the actuations of the other party. Such
action must be shown to have been wilfully done in
bad faith or with ill motive.231
Article 1764 of the New Civil Code provides that moral
damages may also be awarded in case the death of a
passenger results from a breach of a contract of
carriage.
MORAL DAMAGES IN CULPA AQUILIANA
When an act or omission causes physical injuries or
where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort,
moral damages may be aptly recovered.232
MORAL DAMAGES IN CULPA CRIMINAL
Moral damages are automatically granted in rape
cases without the need of further proof other than the
commission of the crime because it is assumed that a
rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries
entitling her to such award.233
Art. 2219 of the Civil Code provides that moral
damages may be recovered in cases of illegal
detention; especially so when the victim is shown to
have suffered serious anxiety and fright when she was
detained for more than five months.234
MORAL DAMAGES IN LABOR CASES
Moral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of
the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud or
constituted an act oppressive to labor or was done in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public
policy.235
FACTORS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING AMOUNT
The claimant must be able to satisfactorily prove that
he has suffered moral damages and that the injury
causing it has sprung from any of the cases listed in
Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code
Conditions for awarding moral damages are:
● There must be an injury, whether physical,
mental, or psychological, clearly substantiated by
the claimant;
● There must be a culpable act or omission
factually established;
● The wrongful act or omission of the defendant
must be the proximate cause of the injury
sustained by the claimant; and
● The award of damages is predicated on any of the
231 Spouses Valenzuela v. Spouses Mano, G.R. No. 172611, 9 Jul 2010.
232
De Leon, Torts.
233 People v. Lizano, G.R. No. 174470, 27 April 2007.
234 People v. Madsali, G.R. No. 179570, 4 Feb 2010.
235 Triple Eight v. NLRC, G.R. No.129584, 3 Dec 1998.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.236
WHO MAY RECOVER
1. Relatives of Injured Persons
Art. 2219, New Civil Code
Moral damages may be recovered in the following
and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious
acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted,
raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article,
may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers
and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9
of this article, in the order named.
2. Juridical Persons
General Rule
A corporation may not be awarded moral damages, it
being a juridical person thus it cannot suffer from
wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or
moral shock.237
Exception
Article 2279, par. 7 of the Civil Code expressly
authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of
libel, slander or any other form of defamation. But
there must be evidence to prove it to justify the
award.238
C. NOMINAL DAMAGES
NATURE AND PURPOSE
Nominal damages are not intended for indemnification
of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition
of a right violated or invaded.
They are recoverable where some injury has been
done the amount of which the evidence fails to show,
the assessment of damages being left to the discretion
of the court according to the circumstances of the
236 Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, G.R. No. 157009, 17 March 2010
237 Manila Electric Co. v. T.E.A.M. Corporation, G.R. No. 131723, 13 Dec
2007.
238 Filipinas Broadcasting Network Inc. v. Ago Medical and Education
Center, G.R. No. 141994, 17 Jan 2005.
 CIVIL LAW
case.239
Nominal damages by their nature are small sums fixed
by the court without regard to the extent of the harm
done to the injured party. However, nominal damage
is a substantial claim, if based upon the violation of a
legal right; in such a case, the law presumes damage
although actual or compensatory damages are not
proven.
Bar 1991, 94, 2005
Article 2221, New Civil Code
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a
right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying
the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
WHEN AWARDED
Article 2222, New Civil Code
The court may award nominal damages in every
obligation arising from any source enumerated in
Article 1157, or in every case where any property
right has been invaded.
Where a legal right is technically violated and must be
vindicated against an invasion that has produced no
actual present loss of any kind or where there has
been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or
actual damages whatsoever have been or can be
shown.
EFFECT OF AWARD
Article 2223, New Civil Code
The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude
further contest upon the right involved and all
accessory questions, as between the parties to the
suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.
WHEN INAPPLICABLE
When there is an award of actual or compensatory
damages. Nominal damages cannot coexist with actual
or compensatory damages. The law presumes damage
although actual or compensatory damages are not
proven.
D. TEMPERATE DAMAGES
Definition
These are damages, which are more than nominal but
less than compensatory, and maybe allowed in cases
where from the nature of the case, definite proof of
pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court
is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some
pecuniary loss.240
239 Robes – Francisco v. Court of First Instance, 86 SCRA 59.
240 Adriano v. Lasala, G.R. No. 197842, 9 Oct 2013.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
WHEN RECOVERABLE
Bar 1994
Article 2224, New Civil Code
Temperate or moderate damages which are more than
nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be
recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary
loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from
the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
Article 2225, New Civil Code
Temperate damages must be reasonable under the
circumstances.
Temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss
of earning capacity may be awarded where earning
capacity is plainly established but no evidence was
presented to support the allegation of the injured
party’s actual income.241
Also, when actual damages proven by receipts during
the trial amount to less than P25,000, the award of
temperate damages for P25,000 is justified in lieu of
actual damages of a lesser amount.242
CASES WHERE AMOUNT OF LOSS IS NOT PROVEN
General Rule
Documentary evidence should be presented to
substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity.
Exception
(1) The deceased is self-employed and earning less
than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in
which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact
that in the deceased's line of work, no documentary
evidence is available; or
(2) The deceased is employed as a daily wage worker
earning less than the minimum wage under current
labor laws.243
FACTORS IN DETERMINING AMOUNT
In cases where the resulting injury might be
continuing and possible future complications directly
arising from the injury, while certain to occur are
difficult to predict, temperate damages can and
should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory
damages; in such cases there is no incompatibility
between actual and temperate damages.244
If actual damages, proven by receipts during the trial,
amount to less than P25, 000, the victim shall be
entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,
000, in lieu of actual damages.245
241 Tan v. OMC Carriers, G.R. No. 190521, Jan. 12, 2011.
242
People v. Barde, 631 SCRA 187
243 Tan v. OMC Carriers
244 Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354
245 Serrano v. People, G.R. No. 1752021, July 5, 2010
 CIVIL LAW TORTS AND DAMAGES

WHEN INAPPLICABLE of example or correction for the public good, in

addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
When there is an award of actual or compensatory compensatory damages.
damages. Temperate and actual damages are mutually
exclusive in that both may not be awarded at the
Article 2230, New Civil Code
same time.246
In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of
the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was
E. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES committed with one or more aggravating
Definition circumstances. Such damages are separate and
Article 2226, New Civil Code distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended
Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the party.
parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach
thereof. Article 2231, New Civil Code
In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if
Purpose the defendant acted with gross negligence.
To prevent breach of obligations between the
contracting parties. Article 2232, New Civil Code
REDUCING THE AMOUNT In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award
exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a
Article 2227, New Civil Code wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
Liquidated damages, whether intended as an malevolent manner.
indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if
they are iniquitous or unconscionable. Article 2233, New Civil Code
Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter
Article 2228, New Civil Code of right; the court will decide whether or not they
When the breach of the contract committed by the should be adjudicated.
defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties
in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law
ii. In addition to other damages
shall determine the measure of damages, and not the
stipulation. Bar 1991
Article 2234, New Civil Code
The determination of whether the penalty is iniquitous While the amount of the exemplary damages need not
or unconscionable is addressed to the sound discretion be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled
of the court and depends on several factors such as to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before
the type, extent, and purpose of the penalty, the the court may consider the question of whether or not
nature of the obligation, the mode of breach and its exemplary damages should be awarded. In case
consequences.247 liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although
no proof of loss is necessary in order that such
F. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless,
before the court may consider the question of
granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated
Purpose
damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be
Article 2229, New Civil Code entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated
of example or correction for the public good, in damages.
addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages. Jurisprudence has set down the requirements for
exemplary damages to be awarded:
They are designed to reshape behavior that is socially ● They may be imposed by way of example in
deleterious in its consequence.248 addition to compensatory damages, and only after
the claimant’s right to them has been
WHEN IMPOSED established;
i. In General ● They cannot be recovered as a matter of right,
Bar 2003, 05 their determination depending upon the amount
Article 2229, New Civil Code of compensatory damages that may be awarded
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way to the claimant;
● The act must be accompanied by bad faith or
done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or
246 People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 188602, 4 Feb 2010.
malevolent manner.249
247 Titan Construction Corporation v. Uni – Field Enterprises, G.R. No.
153874, March 1, 2007
248 Mevenas v. Court of Appeals 249 PNB v. CA, G.R. No. 108630, 2 Apr 1996.
 CIVIL LAW TORTS AND DAMAGES

iii. Renunciation Not Allowed

Article 2235, New Civil Code
A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are
renounced in advance shall be null and void.
iv. In Crimes
Article 2230, New Civil Code
In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of
the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. Such damages are separate and
distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended
party.

An aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or

qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an
award of exemplary damages within the unbridled
meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.250

Courts may still award exemplary damages based on

Article 2230, even if the aggravating circumstance has
not be alleged, so long as it has been proven, in
criminal cases instituted before the effectivity of the
Revised Rules which remained pending thereafter.251

Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages,

therefore, can be awarded, not only in the presence
of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the
circumstances of the case show the highly
reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the
offender.252

v. In Quasi-Delicts
Article 2231, New Civil Code
In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if
the defendant acted with gross negligence.

vi. In Contracts and Quasi – contracts

Article 2232, New Civil Code
In contracts and quasi – contracts, the court may
award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.

A principal or master can be held liable for exemplary

or punitive damages based upon the wrongful act of
his agent or servant only where he participated in the
doing of such wrongful act or has previously
authorized or subsequently ratified it with full
knowledge of the facts.253

250
People v. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, 23 Aug 2001.
251 People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 188106, 25 Nov 2009
252Ibid.
253 Munsayac v. De Lara, G.R. No. L-21151, 26 Jun 1968.