rachtorts reviewer

8/7/2019 rachtorts reviewer

1/29

Rachels Torts reviewer -1-

G e n e r a l P r i n c i p l e s

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damagedone. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existingcontractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict andis governed by the provisions of this chapter.

Elements

1. Act or omission with fault or negligence2. Damage or injury is caused to another3. No pre-existing contractual relation between the parties4. Causal connection between damage done andact/omission.

Requisites

1. Negligence2. Damage3. Causal connection

Concepts

Quasi-delict Source of obligation wherein by the act or omission of somebody, there being fault or negligence, he causes damage toanother for which he is liable to the latter and there is no pre-existing contract between them.

Tort an act which causes damage to another person. It is a civilwrong consisting of a violation of a right or a breach of duty forwhich the law grants a remedy in damages or other relief.(Therefore, a tort encompasses a broader concept than quasi-delict;it also includes breach of contract and crimes )

Negligence failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance whichthe circumstances justly demand, whereby such person suffersinjury.

Fault a condition where a person acts in a manner contrary to whatnormally shouldve done

Damage loss, hurt or harm which results from injury.

Scope

All wrongful acts or omissions as long as:1. They do not constitute a breach of contract2. They are not punishable as offenses.

Classes of Actions

1. Quasi-delict: based on negligence2. Breach of Contract: based on existence of acontract3. Torts in human Relations : based on intentional actof the tort-feasor

4. Crime: based on violation of a penal statute

Cases

Barredo v Garcia

Facts: Collision between taxi and carretela. Criminal action filedagainst driver and this suit against taxi owner. Taxi owner contendsliability is governed by RPC which is only subsidiary.

Held: A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution underthe Civil Code with a substantivity all its own and individuality that isentirely apart and independent from a delict or crime.

A negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arisingfrom a crime under the RPC or a separate responsibility for fault ornegligence.

Elcano v Hill

Facts: Defendant is married but is still a minor who lives withparents and getting subsistence from them. In the criminal case, hewas acquitted.

Held:The concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal incharacter or in violation of the penal law, whether voluntary ornegligent

Garcia v Florido

Facts: Spouses hire PU for road trip. Collided with passenger bus.Both drivers were negligent. Crim cases filed. Defense of defendantwas that since crim case was filed first no civil action could be filed.

Held :The same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liabilityarising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict. The former isa violation of crim law while the latter is a distinct and independentnegligence having always had its own foundation and individuality.

Cinco v Canoy

Facts: Collision between Cincos car and jeepney. Criminal and civilaction instituted. Defendants move to suspend civil action pendingcriminal action.

Held: Quasi-delict is an independent source of obligation hence therecan be an independent civil action for damages to property duringpendency of criminal action.

Mendoza v Arrieta

Facts : 3 way accident with Truck hits jeep which in turn hits Benz.Crim case absolved jeep. Suit against truck.

Held: Civil case based on quasi-delict may proceed independentlyregardless of result of crim case. Hence failure to reserve right tofile independent civil action in crim does not bar civil action basedon quasi-delict which is distinct and different from civil liabilityarising from RPC.

Quasi-Delict distinguished from crime

Basis Quasi-Delict CrimeLegal basis of

liability Fault or negligenceresulting in damage

Law punishing the act

Criminal intent Not necessary essential

Nature of right violated

Private right:Against privateindividual

Public right:Against the state

Liability for damages

Always gives rise toliability for damages

Some crimes do notgive rise to liability fordamages

Quantum of proof

Preponderance of evidence

Proof beyondreasonable doubt

Sanction or penalty

Reparation orindemnification of injury or damages

Imprisonment, fine orboth. Also accessorypenalties

Quasi-delict distinguished from contract

Basis Quasi-delict Contract

Negligence is direct,Merely incidental to theperformance of the


2/29


3/29


Rakes v AG&P

Facts: While transporting rails from a barge, the track saggedcausing rails to slide off which caught Rakes and as a result brokehis leg (which was later amputated). Rakes files for damages. Bothclaim the other was negligent.

Held: AGP was negligent. It was duty of defendant to build andmaintain its track in reasonably sound condition so as to protect itsworkingmen from unnecessary danger. It is plain that in one respector the other it failed in its duty, otherwise the accident could nothave occurred.

Cangco v MRC

Held : In contract of carriage there is duty to carry passenger insafety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains.Defendant breached this duty by leaving watermelons on an unlitplatform where the same can cause injury.

Lilius v Manila Railroad Co.

Facts : Lilius and family on road trip. Collided with train at a railroadcrossing. There was nothing to indicate that the crossing existedand that it was impossible to see an approaching train since therewere many houses and shrubs and trees blocking the view.

Held : Railroad Company had failed in its duty to install a sephamoreat a crossing and to see to it that its flagman and switchman arefaithfully complying with their duties of remaining at the crossingwhen train arrives. Hence company is liable for damages sufferedby plaintiff and his family.

Yamada v Manila Railroad Co.

Facts: Plaintiffs rented a car with chauffeur for road trip. On the wayback car was struck by a train while crossing tracks of defendantRailroad Company. Taxi did not reduce its speed while crossing thetracks.

Held: Railroad Company not negligent. Taxicab company is. Thetaxicab did not perform its full duty when it furnished a safe andproper car and a driver with a long and satisfactory record. It wasalso negligent in approving custom of drivers to pass over railroadcrossings without any effort to determine the proximity of trains,and the company made no effort to change such custom or toinstruct its drivers

Del Rosario v MERALCO

Facts: Live wire was reported to MERALCO at 2pm. At 4pm little kidtouched the wire (ay! Madre!) and was electrocuted. Father sues.

Held: After it received a report, MERALCO had the duty to addressthe problem immediately. Undue delay in leaving danger unguardedand unattended for so long after report was received constitutednegligence.

Del Prado v MERALCO

Facts : Del Prado hails a street car at an undesignated stop. Streetcar slowed and plaintiff seized handpost with left hand and puts onefoot on the platform when suddenly driver speeds up causingplaintiff to lose balance and fall where his foot was crushed by themoving car.

Held : It was the motormans duty to do no act that would gave theeffect of increasing the plaintiffs peril while he was attempting to

board the car. The premature acceleration of the car was a breach of this duty.

Astudillo v MERALCO

Facts: Teenager Astudillo died by electrocution when he grasped acharged electric wire with his right hand.

Held : MERALCO negligent in placing its pole and wires withinproximity to a place frequented by many people with the possibilityever present of someone losing his life by coming in contact with ahighly charged and defectively insulated wire

The duty of exercising high degree of diligence and careextends to every place where persons have a right to be.

Fault or Negligence

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of an obligor consists in theomission of the diligence required by the obligation and thecircumstances of the persons, time and place . Whennegligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Art 1171 and 2201 par.2 shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to beobserved in the performance, that which is expected of a good fatherof a family shall be required.

Negligence Want of care required by the nature of the obligationand the circumstances of the persons, time and place.

The TestWould a prudent man, in the position of the person towhom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to theperson injured as a reasonable consequence of the courseabout to be pursued?

If so, the law imposed a duty on the actor to refrain fromthe course or take precaution against its mischievousresults, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.

(Picart v Smith)

Wright v MERALCO

Facts: horse stumbled and caused the vehicle to hit one of the railsof defendants rail tracks. It is shown that the rails were a fewinches above the level of the street. Defendant was negligent inmaintaining its tracks as described. Its defense was that plaintiff wasalso negligent by coming home intoxicated.

Held: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary care.

Corliss v Manila Railroad Co.

Facts: Collision between jeep and train in Clark Air force Base. Jeepslowed down before reaching the crossing but did not stop eventhough the locomotive could be clearly seen 300 meters away andwhich also blew its siren. Widow seeks damages.

Held: Negligence is want of the car required by the circumstances. Itis a relative or comparative term and its application depends uponthe situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilancewhich the circumstances reasonably require. Where danger is great,a high degree of care is necessary and the failure to observe it is awant of ordinary care under the circumstances.

A railroad track is in itself a warning and those who ignoresuch warning do so at their own risk and responsibility. It is by nomeans proper care to cross a railroad track without takingreasonable precautions against a train


4/29

Rachels Torts reviewer -4-Negligence failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance whichthe circumstances justly demand, whereby such person suffersinjury.

Umali v Bacani

Facts: Storm caused banana plant to fall on electric wires. Liveelectric wire was cut and one end fell to the ground under fallenbanana plants. Following morning, 3 yr old child gets electrocutedand dies. Defense of force majeure and contributory negligence of parents.

Held: Defendant electric plant liable. Negligent in allowing thebanana plants to grow taller than the electric post when it couldhave easily seen that even in case of moderate winds the electricline would be endangered. Company did not even take necessaryprecaution to eliminate the source of danger nor did they cut off theflow of electricity when warned by the existence of the live wirepending its inspection.

Contributory Negligence

Art. 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediateand proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. Butif his negligence was only contributory, the immediate andproximate cause of the injury being the defendants lack of due care,the plaintiff may recover damages but the courts shall mitigate thedamages to be awarded.

Art 2179

The defendant can show that theimmediate and proximate causeof the injury was the negligenceof the plaintiff himself.

Operates as a complete defense.Defendant not liable

The defendant can also showthat although the proximatecause of the injury wasdefendants lack of due care, theplaintiff also contributed to theinjury with his own negligence.

Operates as a partial defense.Defendant is still liable but hisliability may be mitigated by thecourt.

Rakes v AG&P

Comparativenegligence

ContributoryNegligence

(common law)

Proportionaldamages

Allows recoveryprovided hisnegligence wasslight compared withthat of defendant

Any negligence,however slight, onthe part of personinjured which is oneof the causesproximatelycontributing to hisinjury, bars hisrecovery

Reducing the awardto a plaintiff inproportion to hisresponsibility for theaccident.

Held: Where he contributes to the principal occurrence as one of itsdetermining factors, he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction withthe occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he mayrecover the amount that the defendant responsible for the eventshould pay for such injury, less a sum deemed equivalent for hisown imprudence.

Negligence of Rakes will not totally bar him fromrecovering anything from Atlantic, although the liability of the latterwill be mitigated as a result of Rakes contributory negligence, theprimary causes of the accident was still the weak rails which Atlanticrefused to repair.

Last Clear Chance

Doctrine of the Last Clear Chance

A person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent actsof the other party is considered in law solely responsiblefor the consequences of the accident.

Elements:1. Prior negligence on part of plaintiff (antecedent

negligence)

2. Defendant is aware of the plaintiff 3. Defendant had the last clear chance to avoid theaccident by exercise of ordinary care but failed toexercise such last clear chance and

4. Accident occurred as proximate cause of such failure.

(Applies usually to motor collision cases )

Picart v Smith

Facts: Pony crossing a bridge. Automobile coming from otherdirection sounds horn and moves to the right expecting pony tomove to other side. Pony did not. Automobile does not slow down.Realizing too late that pony cannot get to other side it swerved inorder to avoid hitting the pony. Pony becomes frightened and turnedits head toward railing, got hit tuloy pony died of injuries

Held: The person who has the last fair chance to avoid impendingharm and fails to do so is chargeable with consequenceswithout reference to prior negligence of other party.

Last clear chance --- Even though a persons own acts may haveplaced him in a position of peril and an injury results, the injured isentitled to recover if the defendant through the exercise of reasonable care and prudence might have avoided injuriousconsequences to the plaintiff.

Phoenix Construction v IAC

Facts: Collision between drunk driver and parked truck. Noheadlights (suddenly failed daw), no curfew pass. Truck was parkedaskew.

Held: Court used Art 2179 on contributory negligence saying thatLast clear chance doctrine should not be applied in negligence casesin the Philippine Civil law system

Glan Peoples Lumber v CA

Facts: Drunk, zigzagging, jeepney driver collides with truck. Truckrun some 25cm to the left of center of road. Before jeep collided, thetruck was at full stop already. Skid marks indicate truck had appliedbrakes while jeepney did not.

Held: Jeepney had last clear chance to avoid the accident. He shouldhave stopped or swerved his jeep away from the truck which he had

sufficient time to do running at 30km/h. His duty was to seize theopportunity of avoidance and not merely rely on a supposed right toexpect the truck to serve.

Bustamante v CA

Facts: Collision between gravel and sand truck and passenger bus.Suit brought by passenger.

Held: Principle of last clear chance applies in a suit between theowners and drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where apassenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforceits contractual obligations .


5/29


McKee v. IAC

Facts : Mckee swerved onto the other side of road to avoid hittingpedestrians who suddenly darted to the middle of his lane. Heswitched on headlights and applied brakes and attempted to returnto his lane. Before doing so it collided with a cargo truck.

Held: Court applied

The Emergency Rule

One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, andis required to act without time to consider the best meansthat may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, isnot guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt whatsubsequently and upon reflection may appear to havebeen a better method, unless the emergency in which hefinds himself is brought about by his own negligence.

Presumed Negligence

Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liablewith his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, bythe 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 withinthe next preceding two months.

Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed thata person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

The driver is disputably presumed negligent if:1. he had been found guilty of recklessly driving at leasttwice within the next preceding two months.2. he had been found guilty of violating traffic regulations atleast twice within the next preceding two months3. at the time of the mishap, he was violating any trafficregulation.

Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on thepart of the defendant if the death or injury results from hispossession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearmsand poison, except when the possession or use thereof isindispensable in his occupation or business.

Art. 1756 . In case of death of or injuries to passengers, commoncarriers are presumed to have been at fault or to gave actednegligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinarydiligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 ad 1755.

Respondeat superior let the employer/principal be responsible. If negligence of the employee has been proved, there is no need toprove the negligence of the employer. The employer is alreadypresumed negligent in hiring and/or supervision of the employee.The presumption is rebuttable. usually applies to common carriers.

Defenses when defendant is presumed negligent, he may invokethe ff defenses:

1. contributory negligence2. assumption of risk3. last clear chance4. prescription5. fortuitous events6. diligence7. mistake and waiver8. others.

Teague v Fernandez

Facts: Stampede in beauty school causes death. Violation of ordinance requiring 2 stairways.

Held: The violation of a general statute or ordinance is not renderedremote as the cause of an injury by the intervention of anotheragency is the occurrence of the accident, in the manner in which it

happened was the very thing which the statute or ordinance wasintended to prevent.

Res Ipsa Loquitur(the deed speaks for itself)

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Where the thing which caused injury, without fault of theinjured person, is under the exclusive control of the

defendant and the injury is such as in the ordinary courseof things does not occur if he having such control usedproper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in theabsence of the explanation, that the injury arose fromdefendants want of care.

Elements:1. Thing that caused the injury is under exclusive

control of defendant.2. No fault of the injured person.3. Injury would not have occurred if the person who

controlled the thing used proper care.4. Fault or negligence is not directly imputable to

anyone or there is no direct evidence supporting thesame

(applies when one cannot point out

the cause or the breach)

Africa v Caltex

Facts : Caltex gas station Fire breaks out while gasoline was beinghosed from tank truck to underground storage. Fire spreads andburns nearby houses.

Held : Gas station with all its appliances, equipment and employeesis under the control of Caltex. Person who knew or couldveexplained how the fire started were appellees and their employees,but they gave no such explanation. It is a fair and reasonableinference that the incident happened because of want of care.

Republic v Luzon Stevedoring Corporation

Facts: Barge towed by tugboats rammed against bridge. At the time,river was swollen.

Held: Considering that the bridge was an immovable and stationaryobject and provided with adequate openings for passage of watercraft, it is undeniable that the unusual event that the barge,exclusively controlled by appellant, rammed the bridge, supports thepresumption of negligence on the part of appellant or its employeesmanning the barge or the tugs that towed it. For in the ordinarycourse of events, such a thing does not happen if proper care isused.

F.F. Cruz v CA

Facts : Fire broke out in furniture manufacturing shop. Both shop andadjacent house were razed to the ground. Prior to fire, a repeatedrequest for a firewall to be built had been made by adjacent house.Request was ignored.

Held : Res ipsa loquitur applies, considering that in the normal courseof operations of a furniture manufacturing shop, combustiblematerial such as wood chips, sawdust and paint may be foundthereon.

Layugan v IAC

Facts: Plaintiff was repairing tire of truck in highway. Defendantstruck (driven recklessly) bumped into the parked car and injuredplaintiff. Defense of defendant was res ipsa loquitur parked truckwas presumed negligent because there were no early warningdevices.


6/29

Rachels Torts reviewer -6-Held : Clear and convincing evidence shows that there was a lightedkerosene lamp 3-4 meters from the rear of the truck as an earlywarning device.

The doctrine of is not a rule of substantive law but merelya mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. It does notdispense with the requirement of proof of culpable negligence. Itmerely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidencethereof and facilitates the burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of the duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked when and onlywhen, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence isabsent and not readily available .

Assumption of Risk

Art. 1174 . Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when itis otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of obligationrequires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible forthose events which could not be foreseen, or which, thoughforeseen, were inevitable.

Assumption of RiskInvolves an action to which one consents, and the injurysuffered is due to a risk involved in that action.

A plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm arisingfrom the negligent or reckless conduct of a defendantcannot recover for such harm.

It is one of the principal defenses available to a defendantin an action for negligence

Requisites:1. That plaintiff had actual knowledge of the danger2. That the plaintiff understood and appreciated the risk3. That the plaintiff voluntarily exposed himself to the

risk

Afialda v Hisole

Facts : Afialda was the caretaker of carabaos of defendant. While

tending the animals, he was gored by one of them and later died asa result of his injuries.

Held: As caretaker, it was his duty to prevent the animal fromcausing damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured bythe animal under those circumstances was one of the risks of theoccupation that he had voluntarily assumed and for which he musttake the consequences.

Causal Relation Between Act or Omission and injury

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damagedone. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existingcontractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict andis governed by the provisions of this chapter.

Plaintiffs own conduct caused the harm

Art. 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediateand proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. Butif his negligence was only contributory, the immediate andproximate cause of the injury being the defendants lack of due care,the plaintiff may recover damages but the courts shall mitigate thedamages to be awarded.

Del Prado v MERALCO (dissent)

One is not entitled to recover damages for personal injuries that hehimself, through his own negligence, occasioned, without anynegligence, imprudence or malice on the part of the person or entitycharged with causing said damages.

MERALCO v Remoquillo

Facts: Magno was repairing a media agua of his brother in law when,holding a galvanized iron sheet and standing on the media agua,swung around and hit the electric wire with the lower end of the ironsheet. He died from electrocution.

Held: Proximate cause of the accident was the reckless or negligentact of Magno himself in turning around and swinging the iron sheetin his hands without looking hence the company should not be heldguilty of negligence.

Bernardo v Legaspi

Facts: 2 automobiles collide. Both found to be negligent

Held: Where the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his owncarelessness contributes to principal occurrence, he cannot recover.Since both of them equally contributed to the principle occurrence asdetermining cause thereof, neither can recover of the other for thedamages suffered.

Plaintiffs Conduct is only a Remote Cause

Bernal v House

Facts: After attending a religious procession. Mother lets daughterwalk some distance ahead of her. Automobile comes and scares thechild causing her to run. As a result child falls into the street gutterwhere there was hot water coming from the Electric and Ice plant of J.V. House. Child died from 3 rd degree burns from all over the body.Mother files suit. Defense was contributory negligence.

Held: Mother and child had a perfect right to be on the street on theevening when the religious procession was held. There was nothingabnormal in allowing the child to run along a few paces in advance of the mother. No one could foresee the coincidence of an automobileappearing and of a frightened child running and falling into a ditchwith hot water. Contributory negligence of the child and her motherdoes not operate as a bar to recovery, but in its strictest sense couldonly result in reduction of damages.

Proximate Cause

Bataclan v Medina

Facts: One of front tires of passenger bus burst causing bus to fallinto a canal on the right side of the road and turn turtle. Rescuerscarrying torches fueled by petroleum arrived and fire startedbecause of the leaking gasoline. Those trapped in the bus diedbecause of the fire. Defense of bus: its the fault of the rescuers!

Held: Proximate cause was the overturning of the bus because byturning completely on its bank, the leaking of the gasoline from thetank was not unnatural and unexpected. The coming of the menwith torches was to be expected because of call for help. Also, Thedriver and the conductor must have known there was leaking gassince it could be smelt and detected even from a distance.

Proximate CauseThat cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces theinjury, and without which the result would not haveoccurred.

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,


7/29

Rachels Torts reviewer -7-each having a close causal connection with its immediatepredecessor,

the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury asa natural and probable result of the cause which first acted,

under such circumstances that the person responsible for the firstevent should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person,

have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act ordefault that an injury to some person might probably resulttherefrom.

MERALCO v Remoquillo

Held: A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of anaction if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish thecondition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was madepossible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause andthe injury a distinct, successive, unrelated and efficient cause of theinjury, even though such injury would not have happened but forsuch condition or occasion.

If no danger existed in the condition except because of theindependent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause.

And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets intooperation the circumstances which result in injury because of theprior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is theproximate cause.

Taylor v MERALCO

Facts: 15 year old picks up fulminating caps from premises of MERALCO and takes them home and conducts experiments. He cutopen the fulminating cap and lit the contents with a match.Explosion causes him to lose his right eye.

Held: MERALCO is negligent in leaving the caps exposed on thepremises however this is not the proximate cause of the injuryreceived by plaintiff. Plaintiff's action in cutting open the detonatingcap and putting a match to its contents was the PROXIMATE CAUSEof the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted uponthe plaintiff.

Distinction must be made between the accident and the injury,between the event itself, without which there could have been noaccident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it,independent of it, but contributing to his own proper hurt. Where hecontributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its determiningfactors, he cannot recover.

(Rakes v AGP)

Doctrine of Attractive NuisanceOne who maintains on his premises dangerousinstrumentalities or appliances of a character likely toattract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinarycare to prevent children from playing therewith orresorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is

injured thereby, even if the child is technically atrespasser in the premises.

Rationale:The condition or appliance in question although its dangeris apparent to those of age, is so enticing or alluring tochildren of tender years as to induce them to approach,get on or use it, and this attractiveness is an impliedinvitation to such children.

Hidalgo v Balandan

Facts : 8 year old boy takes a swim in water tank of defendantcompanys ice plant factory. He drowns. Lower court held defendantliable because of attractive nuisance doctrine.

Held: The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable tobodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of someunusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and,its location.

There are numerous cases in which the attractive nuisance doctrinehas been held not to be applicable to ponds or reservoirs, pools of water, streams, canals, dams, ditches, culverts, drains, cesspools orsewer pools.

WHY?

Nature has created streams, lakes, and pools which attract children.Lurking in their waters is always the danger of drowning. Againstthis danger children are early instructed so that they are sufficientlypresumed to know the danger; and if the owner of private propertycreates an artificial pool on his own property, merely duplicating thework of nature without adding any new danger, he is not liablebecause of having created an attractive nuisance

Teague v Fernandez

Held: Violation of statute or ordinance is the proximate cause of aninjury if injury sustained was that which was precisely intended to beprevented by the violated statute or ordinance.

Gabeto v Araneta

Facts: Araneta stopped horse protesting that he hailed it first. Driverjerked the reins to free the horse from control of Araneta. Becausethe bridle was loose or rotten, the bit came out of horses mouth.Driver jumps out to fix it but horse goes berserk and runs around.Passenger Gabeto jumped out of the speeding vehicle and died asresult of injuries. Widow sues Araneta.

Held: Stopping of the rig by Araneta was too remote a cause fromthe accident that presently ensued to be considered a proximate orlegal cause.

Gregorio v Go Chong Bing

Facts: Defendant asked his cargador to drive his truck. The cargadoris only a student driver. Later he lets policeman Orfanel do thedriving since the policeman insisted. Truck hits pedestrian Gregorio.Gregorio dies. Suit for damages.

Held: Proximate cause was negligence of Orfanel who took the wheelfrom defendants cargador , in spite of protest of the latter

There is no direct and proximate causal connection between thenegligence or violation of the law (allowing student driver to drive)by the defendant to the death of Gregorio

NPC v CA (series)

Facts: Typhoon hits. Water in Angat dam rises. NPC opens spillwaygates causing damage to property, neighborhoods etc

Held: Even though the typhoon was an act of God or what we maycall FORCE MAJEURE, NPC cannot escape liability because itsnegligence was the proximate cause of the loss and damage.

When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found tobe in part the result of the participation of man, whether it be fromactive intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole occurrenceis thereby humanized, as it was, and removed from the rulesapplicable to the acts of God.

P e r s o n s G e n e r a l l y L i a b l e

Tortfeasor, for His Own Acts

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage


8/29

Rachels Torts reviewer -8-done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existingcontractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict andis governed by the provisions of this chapter.

Art. 2181 Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependentsor employees may recover from the latter what he has paid ordelivered in satisfaction of the claim.

Persons Liable for the Acts of Others

Vicarious Liability Liability for acts of others based solely on arelationship between two persons.

Art. 2180 The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable notonly for ones own acts or omissions, but also for those persons forwhom one is responsible

Defense common to allThe responsibility treated of in this article shall ceasewhen persons herein mentioned prove that they observedall the diligence of a good father of a family to preventdamage.

Art 2180 last par.

Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has noparents or guardians, the minor or insane person shall beanswerable with his own property in an action against him where aguardian ad litem shall be appointed

Others vicariously liable:

O ParentsO GuardiansO EmployersO Owners/Managers

O State through special agentO Teachers/ heads of arts & tradesO Minor (if w/o parents/guardians)Parents

Art. 2180 ( 1 ) The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, areresponsible for the damages caused by the minor children who livein their company.

Art. 221 Family Code Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall becivilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or

omission of their unemancipated children living in their company andunder their parental authority subject to the appropriate defensesprovided by law.

Requisites:1. Child is below 182. Child committed tortuous act3. Child lives in the company of parent concerned whether single

or married.

Salen v Balce

Facts: Minor Balce convicted of homicide. Was insolvent and couldnot pay. Demand for the father to pay. Defense: civil liability arisesfrom criminal liability and therefore liability must be determined byRPC. RPC does not provide for civil liability of a minor.

Held: Absent a rule in RPC, general rule should apply. Art 2180 alsoapplies to obligations arising from criminal offenses. It is absurd thatliability of parents attaches if there is mere negligence but not whenthere is criminal intent.

Libi v IAC

Facts: Rejected ex-boyfriend shoots girlfriend then commits suicide.Gun used belongs to father. Parents negligent and not keeping gunin safe place.

Held : Liability of parents is PRIMARY. If it was subsidiary thenparents cannot invoke the defense of diligence of good father of thefamily. If it is primary, diligence would constitute a valid andsubstantial defense. Art 2180 provides for a defense of diligence.Hence it is primary. Such interpretation reconciles art 2180 with2194 which calls for solidary liability of joint tortfeasors.

Exconde v Capuno

Facts: Defendants son attends parade and drove jeep they wereriding. Jeep turned turtle, death of plaintiffs daughter. Resulted.Defendant did not know that his son was attending a parade.

Held: Civil liability imposed on father is a necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them which imposes uponthe parents the duty of supporting them, keeping them in theircompany, educating them and instructing them in proportion to theirmeans while on the other hand, gives them the right to correct andpunish them in moderation.

Only way defendant can relieve themselves is if they provediligence.

Fuellas v Cadano

Facts: Fuellas son Rico hid pencil of classmate in pocket of injuredparty Pepito. When classmate asked return of the pencil, Pepito gaveit to him. Rico got angry. After fighting, he managed to breakPepitos arm. Parents sue Fuellas for his sons acts. Defense: Art2180 only applies if there is fault or negligence on part of his son.Here sons acts were deliberate.

Held: Civil liability under 2180 bases liability of the father ultimatelyon his own negligence and not that of his son (relationship of paterfamilias).

Children and wards do not yet have the capacity to governthemselves, the law imposes upon the parents and guardians theduty of exercising special vigilance over the acts of their childrenand wards in order that damages to 3 rd persons due to ignorance,lack of foresight or discernment of such children may be avoided.

If the parents & guardians fail to comply with this duty they shouldsuffer the consequences of their abandonment or negligence byrepairing the damage caused.

Cuadra v Monfort

Facts: 2 girls weeding grass in school. Monforts daughter decided tofrighten Cuadras daughter by tossing a plastic headband saying itwas an earthworm. Headband hits the eye of Cuadras daughterwhich resulted in blindness. Suit filed against the Monfort parents.

Held: Vicarious liability is merely a prima facie presumption andtherefore may be rebutted as indicated by last par. of Art 2180providing for defense of diligence.

In determining the degree of diligence required, the law implies aconsideration of the attendant circumstances in every individualcase, to determine whether or not by the exercise of such diligencethe damage could have been prevented.

There was no indication that respondent parents could haveprevented the damage or that they were in any way remiss in theirauthority in failing to foresee the occurrence of the incident. On thecontrary, his child was at school, where it was his duty to sendher and where she was, as he had the right to expect her tobe, under the care and supervision of the teacher.


9/29


10/29


11/29

Rachels Torts reviewer -11-State cannot be sued without its consent. Exceptions are whenthere is express legislative consent and when the State filed thecase.

Take note that SUABILITY is different from LIABILITY. Suabilityconsiders whether an action can be filed while liability considers theactual award already.

Merrit v Government

Facts: Collision between motorcycle and ambulance. Accident wasdue solely to the negligence of the ambulance driver. There is alegislative act that allows plaintiff to sue the Government. Is theState liable since driver is an agent?

Held : Legislative act was only consent to be sued and not anadmission of liability. A SPECIAL AGENT is not a mere official whodoes job in discharge of function of his office BECAUSE neither faultnor negligence can be presumed on the part of the State in theorganization of branches of the public service and appointment of itsagents. The State is only liable for torts caused by its specialagents, specifically commissioned to carry out the acts complainedof outside the agents regular duties.

Ambulance driver was not a special agent

Rosete v Auditor General

Facts: Employee ignited recklessly a cigarette lighter near a 5 gallondrum of gasoline stored in ECA warehouse. Fire started which causeddamages to buildings belonging to plaintiff

Held : Negligence was not done by a special agent. Officers of ECAdid not act as special agents of the government

Dissent: ECA is not a branch or office of the govt. It was an agencyset up for specific purposes which were not attainable through theofficial functions entrusted by law to the government or its branches

Palafox v Province of Ilocos Norte

Facts: Palafox got ran over by a driver of District Engineer.

Held : State not liable since driver not special agent. Besides Art2180 only applies to the Insular as distinguished from the provincialor municipal governments. Respondent superior should be appliedsince it concerns liability of municipal corporations. Employee isengaged in governmental function construction and maintenance of roads hence the government is not liable.

Republic v Palacio

Facts: Irrigation Service Unit induced Handong Irrigation Associationto occupy land of plaintiff. Question of whether its function isgovernmental or not.

Held : ISU was not established to earn profit or gain. It is for thebenefit of the farmers Court looked at nature of funds. Even if itmakes profit it does not convert this economic project of thegovernment into a corporate activity.

Fontanilla v Maliaman

Facts: NIAs driver caused injuries to plaintiffs son who died as aresult. Defense is that NIA does not perform solely and primarilyproprietary functions but is an agency of govt tasked withgovernmental functions.

Held : Principal aim of NIA is irrigation of lands. It is a governmentagency invested with a corporate personality separate and distinctfrom government. It has its own assets and liabilities and hascorporate powers. Therefore its function is basically proprietary innature even if its responsibility concerns public welfare and publicbenefit.

Teachers , et. Al.

Art. 2180 (6) Teachers or heads of establishment of arts and trades shall be liablefor damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, solong as they remain in their custody.

Gen Rule:Teachers are liable for acts of their students.

Exception:If technical school then the head of the institution is liable.

Art. 218. Family Code The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entityor institution engaged in child care shall have special parentalauthority and responsibility over the minor child while under theirsupervision, instruction or custody.

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activitieswhether inside or outside the premises of the school entity orinstitution.

Art. 219. Family CodeThose given authority in 218 shall be principally and solidarily liablefor damages caused by the act/omission of the unemancipatedminor. Parents shall be subsidiarily liable

Art 218 of F.C. Art 2180 C.C.School, administration, teachersengaged in child care are madeexpressly liable

Teachers, heads of establishmentin Arts and Trades are madeexpressly liable.

Liability of school, admin,teachers is solidary and parentsare made subsidiarily liable

No such express solidary norsubsidiary liability is stated

Students involved must beminor

Students involved are notnecessarily minor.

Basis of Liability of Teachers:Principle of loco parentis (stand in place of parents)

Development of Jurisprudence

Exconde v CapunoArt 2180 only applies to teachers or directors of schools of

arts and trades and not academic educational institution.

Mercado v CAUpheld Exconde Ruling and ruled that custody refers to

pupils living and boarding with teacher such that the control,direction and influence on the pupil supersedes those of theparents.

Palisoc v BrillantesCourt defined custody as protective and supervisory custody

that the school and its heads exercise over the pupils andstudents for as long as they are at attendance in the school,including RECESS time.

Amadora v CAThere is really no substantial distinction between the

academic and non-academic schools. Article 2180 should beapplied to ALL schools, academic as well as non-academic. Thesame vigilance is expected from teacher over students underhis control and supervision, whatever the nature of the schoolwhere he is teaching.

As long as it can be shown that the student is in the schoolpremises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in theexercise of a legitimate student right and even in theenjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibilityof the school authorities over the student continues.

Salvosa v CARecess is a temporary adjournment of school activities

where the student still remains within call of his mentor and isnot permitted to leave the school premises or the area withinwhich the school activity is conducted. Hence recess does notinclude dismissal.


12/29


Ylarde v AquinoIt is only the teachers and not the principal or head of an

academic school who should be answerable for torts committedby their students. In the case of a school of arts and trades, itis only the head of the school which can be held liable.

PSBA v CAArt 2180 only applies when damage is caused or inflicted by

pupils or students of the educational institution and not by

outsiders.However school can be liable for breach of contract. Where

school has duty to provide a safe environment for learning.

Soliman v TuazonAffirms PSBA ruling.

St. Francis High School v CA

School can be made liable as employer if teacher is theculprit.

P a r t i c u l a r P e r s o n s He l d L i a b l e by L a w

Possessor or User of Animal

Art. 2183The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same isresponsible for the damage which it may cause, although it mayescape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case thedamage should come from force majeure or from the fault of theperson who has suffered damage.

Damage caysed by: Animal

Person Primarily liable:1. Possessor of animal2. Whoever may make use of the same.

Defenses available:1. Force Majeure2. Contributory negligence/ fault of plaintiff 3. Damage was caused by act of 3 rd person

Vestil v IAC

Facts: Dog bites 3 year old. Died from rabies.

Held : Ownership of dog is immaterial. Law holds the POSSESSORliable, he may not necessarily be the owner.

Obligation is not based on negligence but on the principle that hewho possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service mustanswer for the damages which such animal may cause.

If animal escaped or is lost possessor is still liable.

Owner of Motor Vehicle

Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liablewith his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, bythe use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputablypresumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice withinthe next preceding two months.

If owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Art 2180 areapplicable.

Damage caysed by: Driver of motor vehicle

Person Primarily liable: Owner of the motor vehicle

Requisites of liability of owner:1. Owner is in the vehicle at the time of the mishap2. The owner could have prevented the misfortune by theuse of due diligence.

Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed thata person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with propergovernment office a bond executed by a government-controlledcorporation or office, to answer for damages to 3 rd persons. Theamount of the bond and other terms shall be fixed by the competentpublic official.

De Leon Brokerage v CA

Held : In order that an owner of a motor vehicle may be relievedfrom liability, the said employee must have abandoned completelyhis masters business to engage in some purpose wholly his own.

Art 2184 only applies to owners of vehicles who are not included inart 2180.

Chapman v Underwood

Facts: Plaintiff got hit by Underwood car. Driver negligent.

Held : An owner who sits in his automobile and permits his driver tocontinue in a violation of the law by the performance of negligentacts, after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe them andto direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts.

If the driver, by a sudden act of negligence and without the ownerhaving a reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or itscontinuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the ownerof the automobile, although present therein at the time of the actwas committed, is not responsible therefore.

The act complained of must be continued in the presence of theowner for such length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence,makes his drivers act his own.

Caedo v Yu Khe Thai

Facts: Driver of defendant tried to pass a carretela and insteadcaught the rigs wheel and wrenched it off and the car skidded to theother lane, colliding with plaintiffs car.

Held : If the causative factor was the drivers negligence, the ownerof the vehicle is likewise liable if he could have prevented the mishapby the exercise of due diligence.

Basis of liability is not respondeat superior but rather therelationship of paterfamilias. The theory is that ultimately thenegligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails tocorrect it in order to prevent injury or damage.

The test of imputed negligence (see p11 of this reviewer) under Art2184 is necessarily subjective. Car owners are not held to a uniformand inflexible standard of diligence as are professional drivers.

Duavit v CA

Held : An owner cannot be held liable for any negligent acts

perpetrated by driving the said owners car when negligent party isunder no authority to drive the car and is indeed not an employee of the said owner.

Manufacturers

Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toiletarticles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries causedby any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractualrelation exists between them and the consumers.

Requisites:1. Defendant is manufacturer of foodstuffs, drinks, toiletarticles and similar goods involved.2. Defendant uses noxious or harmful substances in themanufacture and processing


13/29

Rachels Torts reviewer -13-3. Plaintiff used/consumed the product, unaware of injuriouscondition4. Plaintiffs injury/death was caused by product used orconsumed.

Theory of Strict Liability:Applies even if manufacturer has exercised all the possible care inpreparation/sale of product.

Under the Consumers Act RA No. 7394:The manufacturer, importer, and seller can be held liable for

actual injury or damage incurred.Prescription: 2 yearsSanctions: Fine of P5000 and imprisonment of not more than 1

year Note: An action based on RA 7394 does not preclude filing of case

under Art 2187.

Provinces, Cities and Municipalities

Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable fordamages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person byreason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, publicbuildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.

Sec 24. L ocal govt code Local Government Units and their officials are not exempt fromliability for death or injury to persons or damage to property.

Damage caysed by: defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,public buildings and other public works

Person Primarily liable: Provinces, cities, municipalities

Condition: The road, street, bridge, public building and public workmust be under the control or supervision of province, city ormunicipality

Defense: Due diligence

City of Manila v Teotico

Facts: Teotico (plaintiff) fell inside an uncovered manhole when hestepped down a curb to board a jeepney. He sues City.

Held : RA 409 deals with a general subject matter damagesarising from failure of city officers whereas Art 2189 constitutes aparticular prescription making provinces, cities and municipalitiesliable for damages due to the defective condition of roads, streets,bridges, public buildings and other public words under their controlor supervision. Hence Art 2189 is applicable.

Under Art 2189, it is not necessary that the defective roads orstreets belong to the city. What said article requires is that the cityhave either control or supervision over said street or road.

Jimenez v City of Manila

Facts: Petitioner buys bagoong at public market. He falls into anuncovered opening which could not be seen because of the rainwater, causing a dirty and rusty 4 inch nail to pierce his left leg. Cityhas a contract with Asiatic Integrated Corporation that AIC shall beliable for any injury suffered by 3 rd persons.

Held : City still liable because despite the contract, stipulationstherein showed that public market remained under the control andsupervision of the City

Guilatco v City of Dagupan

Facts: Plaintiff fell into manhole while boarding a tricycle. Defense isthat road is a national road which is not under its control. It is theministry of Public Highways who exercises control

Held : Maintenance foreman and maintenance engineer who areemployed by the National Government are detailed with the City andreceives instructions and supervision from the city through the Cityengineer. Hence the city still has supervisory authority over publicworks in question.

Proprietor of building, factory, etc..

Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsiblefor the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if itshould be due to the lack of necessary repairs.

Art. 2191. The proprietor of a building shall also be responsible fordamages caused

1. By the explosion of machinery which has not been takencare of with due diligence and the inflammation of explosivesubstances which have not been kept in a safe and adequateplace.2. By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to person orproperty.3. By the falling of trees situated at or near highways orlanes, if not caused by force majeure.4. By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable tothe place.

Gotesco v Chatto

Facts: Mother and daughter went to see the movie Mother Dear indefendants theater. !0 mins into the movie the balcony collapsedcausing injury to both. Defense of force majeure and approval of structural design and plans of building

Held : Even though design and plans were approved by city engineerit does not prove that there were no defects in the construction,especially as regards the ceiling, considering that there was noproper investigation conducted to find out the cause of the collapse.

Engineers/Architects/contractors

Art. 2192. If damages referred to in Art 2190 and 2191 should bethe result of any defect in the construction mentioned in Art 1723,the 3 rd person suffering damages may proceed only against theengineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article,within the period therein fixed.

Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans andspecifications for a building is liable for damages if within 15 yearsfrom the completion of the structure, the same should collapse byreason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to thedefects in the ground.

The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edificefalls, within the same period, on account of defects in theconstruction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished byhim or due to any violation of the terms of contract. If the engineeror architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liablewith the contractor.

Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiverof any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned inthe preceding paragraph.

The action must be brought within 10 years following the collapse of the building.

Head of the Family

Art. 2193. The head of the family that lives in a building or a partthereof is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or fallingfrom the same.

Dingcong v Kanaan

Facts: Dingcong brothers operated hotel. They leased ground floor toplaintiff who operated a merchandise store. One night one of theguests of the hotel left faucet running. Water seeped to the floorwhich damaged merchandise in store below.

Held : Dingcong did not exercise due diligence since he knew waterpipes were then under repair and he knew that it was inevitable thathis guest would use the faucet. He should have provided some formof drainage to prevent the occurrence.

J o i n t a n d s o l i d a r y L i a b i l i t y o f To r t f e a s o r s


14/29

Rachels Torts reviewer -14-Art. 2194. The responsibility of 2 or more persons who are liablefor a quasi-delict is solidary

C i v i l L i a b i l i t y A r i s i n g f r o m C r i m e

Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176 isentirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising fromnegligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recoverdamages twice for the same act or omission of defendant.

Rule 111, Sec. 1 :: Rules of Court. Institution of criminal and civil actions

(a). When a criminal action is institutes, the civil action for therecovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall bedeemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party

Waives the civil action,Reserves the right to institute it separately orInstitutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil actionshall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidenceand under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonableopportunity to make such reservation.

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against theaccused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary

damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint orinformation, the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien onthe judgment awarding such damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in thecomplaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paidby the offended party upon filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall berequired for actual damages.

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filedby the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action whichcould have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separatecivil action.

(b) The criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed toinclude the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil

action separately shall be allowed.

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint and criminal and civil actions, theoffended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damagesclaimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recoverliquidated, moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages, theoffended party shall pay the filing fees based on the amount allegedtherein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of the damagesare subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on theamount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.

Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof hasnot yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal actionupon application with the court trying the latter case. If theapplication is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed inaccordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of thecivil and criminal actions.

Rule 111, Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended -- After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civilaction arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment hasbeen entered in the criminal action.

If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has alreadybeen instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage itmay be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shalllast until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action.Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civilaction, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, beconsolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminalaction. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in thecivil action shall be deemed reproduced in the criminal actionwithout prejudice to the right of prosecution to cross-examine the

witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case andof the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidatedcriminal and civil action shall be tried and decided jointly.

During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the periodof prescription of the civil action which cannot be institutedseparately or whose proceeding had been suspended shall be tolled.

The extinction of the penal action does not carry with itextinction of the civil action. However , the civil action based ondelict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a finaljudgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from whichthe civil liability may arise did not exist.

Rule 111, Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the CivilCode of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be broughtby the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminalaction and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In nocase, however, may the offended party recover damages twice forthe same act or omission charged in the criminal action.

Rule 111, Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendencyof the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising fromthe delict. However, the independent civil action instituted underSection 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce

liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continuedagainst the estate or legal representative of the accused after propersubstitution or against said estate. The heirs of the accused may besubstituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of anexecutor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative/sto appear and be substituted within a period of 30 days from notice

A final judgment entered in favor of the offended partyshall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rulesfor prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.

If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissedwithout prejudice to any civil action the offended party may fileagainst the estate of the deceased.

Rule 111, Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar

A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendantfrom civil liability is not a bar to a criminal action against thedefendant for the same act or omission subject of the civil action.

Distinguished from Independent Civil Actions and Liability forQuasi-Delict

Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arisingfrom the act or omission complained of in a felony, such civil actionmay proceed independently of the criminal proceedings regardless of the result of the latter.

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual,

who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in anymanner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and libertiesof another person (Bill of Rights) shall be liable to the latter fordamages.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not thedefendants act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, theaggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate anddistinct civil action for damages and for other relief. Such civil actionshall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latterbe instituted) and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damagesmay also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judgeunless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Codeor other penal statute.


15/29


Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civilaction for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminalaction, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shallproceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall requireonly a preponderance of evidence.

Art. 34. 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 tolife or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable fordamages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarilyresponsible therefore. The civil action herein recognized shall beindependent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176 isentirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising fromnegligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recoverdamages twice for the same act or omission of defendant.

Abellana v Marave

Facts: Plaintiffs failed to reserve right to institute an independentcivil action when criminal case for physical injuries through recklessimprudence. Accused was found guilty. The offended party filedwith another branch a separate independent civil action while thecriminal case was on appeal.

Held : Article 33 is quite clear. Such civil action shall proceedindependently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only apreponderance of evidence. That is a substantive right , not to befrittered away by a construction that could render it nugatory, if through oversight, the offended parties failed at the initial stage toseek recovery for damages in a civil suit. The grant of power to thisCourt, both in the present Constitution and under the 1935 Charter,does not extend to any diminution, increase or modification of substantive right.

Yakult Phil. v. CA

Facts: 5 yr old sideswiped by motorcycle owned by Yakult. Yakultcontends that civil action for damages for physical injuries cannot bemade separately without a reservation.

Held : SC retroactively applied 1985 Rules of Court retroactively.Since father of 5 yr old initiated the separate civil action before theprosecution in the criminal case started presenting its evidence andthe judge was informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civilaction is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the offended partybefore the prosecution presents its evidence.Note: Court said that previous reservation includes recovery of indemnity under RPC, Art 32-34 and 2176. (1990 case)

Andamo v IAC

Facts: Petitioners filed a civil case for damages after criminal casefor destruction by means of inundation. Case was suspended andthen subsequently dismissed since criminal case was not yetresolved.

Held : Court distinguished between civil liability arising from crimeand that arising from quasi-delict. They are independent of eachother. Therefore, an acquittal or conviction in the criminal case isentirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless in the event of an acquittalwhere the court has declared that the fact from which the civil actionarose did not exist, in which case the extinction of criminal liabilitywill carry with it extinction of civil liability.

San Idelfonso Lines v. CA

Facts: Toyota van collides with passenger bus. Crim case filedagainst bus. Insurer of van files case for damages though there wasno reservation. TC held that civil action may be instituted even inabsence of reservation. CA affirmed.

Held : Court used 1988 amendments which used the phrase theindependent action which has been reserved and concluded thatprior reservation is a condition sine qua non before anyindependent civil action can be instituted and thereafter have acontinuous determination apart from or simultaneous with thecriminal action.

Note: 2000 Rules now provide that reservation is not required forindependent civil action.

Effect of Acquittal

Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted onthe ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonabledoubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission maybe instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence.

Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff tofile a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should befound to be malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based uponreasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of anydeclaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the test of thedecision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.

Jarantilla v CA

Facts: Jarantilla was acquitted in a criminal case for serious physicalinjuries thru reckless imprudence on the ground of reasonabledoubt. There was no reservation. Private respondent filed a civilaction based on the same subject matter and act complained of inthe criminal case.

Held : The well-settled doctrine is that a person, while not criminallyliable may still be civilly liable. The judgment of acquittalextinguishes the civil liability of the accused only when it includes adeclaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise didnot exist

Article 29 enunciates the rule that a civil action for damages is notprecluded by an acquittal.

People v Ritter

Facts: Foreigner acquitted in criminal case for rape of young girl wholater died from a foreign object found inside her vagina. Howevercourt pronounced that he was guilty of pedophilia which wasinjurious to the public good and the domestic tranquility of thepeople. It does not necessarily follow that a person while notcriminally liable may still be civilly liable.

Held : While the guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution mustbe established beyond reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action for damages. The 2 liabilitiesare separate and distinct from each other. One affects the socialorder and the other, private rights. One is for punishment orcorrection of the offender while the other is for the reparation of damages suffered by the aggrieved party.

Prejudicial Questions

Art. 36. Prejudicial questions, which must be decided before anycriminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall begoverned by the rules of court which the Supreme Court shallpromulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of the Civil Code.

Rule 111, Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.

A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon thependency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the


16/29

Rachels Torts reviewer -16-office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminaryinvestigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court fortrial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminalaction at any time before the prosecution rests.

The TestRule 111, Sec. 7. Elements of a prejudicial question

The elements of prejudicial question are:

(a) the previously instituted civil actioninvolves an issue similar or intimately related to the issueraised in the subsequent criminal action,

(b) the resolut ion of such issue determineswhether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Jarantilla v CA

Facts: Jarantilla was acquitted in a criminal case for serious physicalinjuries thru reckless imprudence on the ground of reasonabledoubt. There was no reservation. Private respondent filed a civilaction based on the same subject matter and act complained of inthe criminal case.

Held : The well-settled doctrine is that a person, while not criminallyliable may still be civilly liable. The judgment of acquittalextinguishes the civil liability of the accused only when it includes adeclaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise didnot exist

Article 29 enunciates the rule that a civil action for damages is notprecluded by an acquittal.

Zapanta v Montesa

Facts: Wife files case for bigamy against husband alleging thathusband had a prior marriage which has not been dissolved.A month later husband files case for annulment on ground of duress,force and intimidation. Husband then files petition to suspend basedon prejudicial question.

Held : A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case, the

resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involvedtherein and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case beforethe court and jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in anothercourt. Petition granted.

Note: crim case was filed before civil case. No amendment yet socourt ruled this way.

Merced v Diez

Facts: Husband filed for annulment of 2 nd marriage based on forceand duress. Next month wife filed action for bigamy. Husband filedmotion to suspend because of prejudicial question.

Held : In this jurisdiction, where the courts are vested with both civiland criminal jurisdiction, the principle of prejudicial question is to beapplied even of there is only one court before which the civil actionand the criminal action are to be litigated. But in this case the court,when exercising its jurisdiction over the civil action for theannulment of marriage, is considered as a court distinct anddifferent from itself when trying the criminal action for bigamy.

People v Aragon

Facts: Husband is charged with bigamy. His wife also files forannulment based on force and intimidation. Husband wantsprovisional dismissal on ground of prejudicial question

Held : The nullity of the marriage is not a defense to the criminalaction for bigamy filed against him. If the wife was the one who wascharged with bigamy then she could perhaps raise force orintimidation as a defense, but not the other party who used the force

or intimidation. The latter may not use his own malfeasance todefeat the action based on his criminal act.

H u m a n R e l a t i o n s

Basic Principles; Abuse of Right

Art. 19. Every person, must, in the exercise of his rights and in theperformance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his dueand observe honesty and good faith.

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligentlycauses damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another ina manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policyshall compensate the latter for the damage.

Pe v Pe

Facts: Daughter was swept away by a collateral relative whofrequented their house on pretext of wanting to learn the rosary.Daughter never returned. Family filed for damages under Art 21.

Held : Circumstances under which defendant tried to win thedaughters affection show that it was done through an ingeniousscheme or trickery. Such caused the family immeasurable wrongconsidering the fact that he is a married man. Verily, he hascommitted an injury to the family in a manner contrary to morals,good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of thenew Civil Code.

Hermosisima v CA

Facts: Plaintiff was a teacher who was engaged with defendant whowas 10 yrs younger. She gave up teaching and intimacy developed.She got pregnant and defendant promised to marry her. Defendantmarried another woman after baby was born. She filed for moraldamages for breach of promise to marry

Held : Award of moral damages is untenable in the light of clear andmanifest intention of the law-making body not to sanction actions forbreach of promise to marry.

History:Spanish civil code had breach of promise to marry provisions.These articles were never in force in the Phils. The proposed civilcode had a chapter on this but was eliminated because of the reasonthat no other action has more readily lent itself to abuse bydesigning women and unscrupulous men (De Jesus v Syquia)

Wassmer v Velez

Facts: Velez & Wassmer were engaged and set the date for thewedding. 2 days before the big day, Velez left a note saying thatwedding would have to be postponed since his mother opposed it.The next day he sent a telegram saying nothing has changed. Henever returned. Wassmer sued Velez and the court awarded her fordamages and cost.

Held : While mere breach of promise to marry is NOT an actionablewrong, Art 21 says when a person willfully causes loss or injurycontrary to good custom, he shall compensate the latter fordamages. It is the abuse of right which can be a cause for moraland material damages. To formally set a wedding and go through allthe expenses and planning only to walk out in the end isunjustifiably contrary to good customs.

Gashem Shookat Baksh v CA

Facts: Iranian courted girl and proposed to marry her. They agreedto get married at end of sem. Guy even visited parents to getpermission. He forced her to live with him where she lost hervirginity. It turned out that he was already married to someone else.Girl files for breach of promise to marry.

Held : Petitioner really had no intention of marrying her and that thepromise was only a subtle scheme to entice her to accept him andobtain her consent to the sexual act and could justify an award of damages under Art 21. Such acts of petitioner (Iranian), who is a


17/29

Rachels Torts reviewer -17-foreigner and who has abused Philippine hospitality have offendedour sense of morality, good custom and culture.

Velayo v Shell

Facts: CALI was indebted to Shell. CALI called a meeting with itscreditors to inform them of its insolvency. Creditors agreed to settleamong themselves about the preferences of credits, shell included.Shell goes behind the back of CALI and other creditors and gotCALIs plane in the US.

Held : Art 19 is a declaration of principle while Art 21 implementssuch principle. Shell infringed upon the rights of the other creditorsby taking advantage of its knowledge that CALI would instituteinsolvency proceedings in the event the creditors would not comeinto an agreement. Shell cannot be said to have a vested right tobetray the creditors.

Malicious Prosecution

To constitute malicious prosecution there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a design to vex andhumiliate a person and that it was initiated deliberately bythe defendant knowing that the charges were false andgroundless.

Globe Mackay v CA

Facts: Tobias, an employee of Globe discovered fictitious purchasesand other fraudulent transactions. He reported this to his superior.He then became the #1 suspect and was dismissed. A lot of casesone after the other were filed against him. His superior threatenedhim and even said bad things to the employees prospectiveemployer so that he would not be hired.

Held : Principle of Abuse of Right under Art 19 sets certain standardswhich must be observed not only in the exercise of ones rights butalso in the performance of ones duties. A right though itself legalbecause recognized or granted by law as such may neverthelessbecome the source of some illegality. The right to institute criminalprosecutions cannot be exercised maliciously and in bad faith.

In this case, petitioners acted in bad faith since police reportsalready exculpated the employee and they still hastily filed 6

criminal cases and threatened to file 100 more cases. Court is led tono other conclusion than that petitioners were motivated bymalicious intent.

Albenson v CA

Facts: Albenson delivered steel plates to Guaranteed industries.Eugenio Baltao paid by check. Check bounced and so a demand wasmade upon Baltao. Baltao denied that he issued the check.Complaint for BP 22 was filed against him. He was acquitted. He fileda case for malicious prosecution. It turns out that his son was also aEugenio Baltao and had an office in the same building. It was theson who signed the check.

Held : Petitioners did not violate the principle of abuse of right. Whatprompted them to file the case was their failure to collect theamount. Through their inquiries and investigations, the name of Balao came up which let them to honestly believe that he was the

one who issued the check. Balao did not even try to clarify thematter by informing them that he had a name sake. The filing of thecase was a sincere attempt on the part of petitioners to find the bestpossible means by which they could collect the sum of money duethem.

Elements of Abuse of Right

(1) There is a legal right or duty(2) Which is exercised in badfaith(3) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another

Elements of Art 21

(1) There is an act which is legal(2) But which is contrary to morals, good custom, publicorder or public policy(3) And it is done with the intent to injure

Unjust Enrichment

Art. 22. Every person who through an act or performance of another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground,shall return the same to him.

Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to anothersproperty was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, thelatter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he wasbenefited.

Art. 2154. If something is received when there is no right todemand it and it was unduly delivered through mistake, theobligation to return it arises.

Protection of Disadvantaged

Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of

the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence,ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or otherhandicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.

Art. 1332. When one of the parties is unable to read, or if thecontract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake orfraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show thatthe terms thereof have been fully explained to the former.

Ostentatious Display of Wealth

Art. 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure ordisplay during a period of acute public want or emergency may bestopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government orprivate charitable institution.

Respect for Dignity, Personality, Privacy & Peace of Mind of

Another

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy,peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following andsimilar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shallproduce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief.

(1) Prying into the privacy of anothers residence(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life orfamily relations of another(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated fromhis friends(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of hisreligious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth,physical defect, or other personal condition.

Ayer v Capulong

Facts: An Australian film maker wanted to make a film about EDSA

revolution but Enrile wanted them stopped coz it would violate hisright to privacy.

Held : Right to privacy is not an absolute right. The right of privacycannot be invoked to resist publication and dissemination of mattersof public interest. The interest sought to be protected by the right of privacy is the right to be free from unwarranted publicity, from thewrongful publicizing of the private affairs and activities of anindividual which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern.

Tenchavez v Escano

Facts: Vicenta Escano had a secret marriage with Pastor Tenchavez,they were about to elope when the family found out and separatedthem saying that they should have a recelebration to validate themarriage, this time with the Archbishops approval. The couple wasestranged and Escano left for the States and divorced Tenchavez.


18/29

Rachels Torts reviewer -18-Escano found another husband. Tenchavez filed a complaint againstVicentas family for alienating her affections.

Held : A parent is liable for alienation of affections resulting from hisown malicious conduct, as where he wrongfully entices his son ordaughter to leave his or her spouse, but he is not liable unless heacts maliciously , without justification and from unworthy motives.In this case the parents of Vicenta acted without malice, all theywanted was a recelebration of marriage, and when it did not happenthey just respected their daughters decision or abided her resolve,which in law does not constitute alienation of affection.

Dereliction of Duty

Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because apublic servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause,to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and otherrelief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinaryadministrative action that may be taken.

Amaro v Samanguit

Facts: Amaro was

rachtorts reviewer

Documents

Transcript of rachtorts reviewer