SAN BEDACOLLEGE OF LAWAlabang, Muntinlupa

TORTS AND DAMAGES(1st Semester SY 2012-2013)

Textbook : Aquino, T.A., TORTS AND DAMAGES 2nd

Edition, 2005.

COURSE OUTLINE

I. CONCEPT OF TORTS; HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF PHILIPPINE LAW ON TORTS

Sangco, pp. XXXI to XLV, pp. 1 to 10Aquino, pp. 1 to 10

II. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT

A.   Elements

Article 2176, CCBarredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil 607Elcano vs. Hill, 77 SCRA 98Cinco vs. Canonoy, 90 SCRA 369Baksh vs. CA, 219 SCRA 115Dulay vs. CA, 243 SCRA 220 (1995)Garcia vs. Florido, 52 SCRA 420Andamo vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 195Taylor vs. Manila Electric Company, 16 Phil 8Tayag vs. Alcantara, 98 SCRA 723

B. Distinctions

1. Quasi-delict v. Delict

Article 2177, CCArticle 365, RPCBarredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil 607Padilla vs. CA, 129 SCRA 558Cruz vs. CA, 282 SCRAPhilippine Rabbit vs. People, GR No. 147703 (2004) People vs. Ligon, 152 SCRA 419  (1987)Aquino, pp 24-26I Sangco, pp. 115-120

2. Quasi-delict v. Breach of contract

Articles 1170-1174, CCArticle 1174, CCArticle 2178, CC

Cangco vs. Manila Railroad, 38 Phil 768Fores vs. Miranda, 105 Phil 266Far East vs. CA, 241 SCRA 671Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 PSBA vs. CA, 205 SCRA 729Syquia vs. CA, 217 SCRA 624Calalas vs. Sunga, 332 SCRA 356 (2000)Aquino, pp. 25-26

III. NEGLIGENCE

A. Concept of Negligence1. Definition; Elements

Article 20, CCArticle 1173 CCPicart vs. Smith, 37 Phil 809V. Tolentino, pp. 506-507

2. Standard of Conduct

2.1. Ordinary prudent person

I Sangco, pp. 7-8

2.2 Special Cases

Children

Article 12, RPC & Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Law

Taylor vs. Manila Railroad, 16 Phil 8Jarco Marketing vs. CA, GR No. 129792Del Rosario vs. Manila, 57 Phil 478Ylarde vs. Aquino, 163 SCRA 697II Sangco, pp. 7-8

Experts/Professionals

Article 2187,CCCulion vs. Philippine, GR No. 32611US vs. Pineda, 37 Phil 456BPI vs. CA, 216  SCRA 51

Intoxication

Wright vs. Manila Electric, 28 Phil 122

Insanity

Articles 2180, 2182, CCUS vs. Baggay, 20 Phil 142

A. Degrees of Negligence

Article 2231, CCMarinduqe vs. Workmen’s, 99 Phil 48

B. Proof of Negligence

1. Burden of proof

Rule 131, Rules of Court (“ROC”)

2. Presumption

Articles 2184-2185, 2188, 1734-1735, CC

3. Res ipsa loquitur

Layugan vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 363Ramos vs. CA, 321 SCRA 584Batiquin vs. CA, 258 SCRA 334DM Consunji vs. CA, 357 SCRA 249

D.   Defenses

1. Plaintiff’s Negligence

Article 2179, CCManila Electric vs. Remonquillo, 99 Phil 117 GR No.

L-8328 (1956)Bernardo vs. Legaspi, 29 Phil 12Bernal vs. House, 54 Phil 327PLDT vs. CA, GR No 57079, 178 SCRA 94

(September 29, 1989)

1. Contributory Negligence

Articles 2179, 2214, CCGenobiagon vs. CA, 178 SCRA 422Rakes vs. Atlantic, GR No 1719 (1907)Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA, 269 SCRA 695

3. Fortuitous Event

Article 1174, CCJuntilla vs. Funtanar, 136 SCRA 624Hernandez vs. COA, 179 SCRA 39Gotesco Investment vs. Chatto, 210 SCRA 18Servando vs. Phil Steam, 117 SCRA 832National Power vs. CA, GR Nos. 103442-45 (1993)Southeastern College vs. CA, GR No. 126389, 292

SCRA 422 (July 10, 1998)

4. Assumption of Risk

Afialda vs. Hisole, 85 Phil 67Ilocos Norte vs. CA, 179 SCRA 5

5. Due diligence

Ramos vs. Pepsi, 19 SCRA 289Metro Manila vs. CA, 223 SCRA 521

6. Prescription

Kramer vs. CA, 178 SCRA 518Allied Banking vs. CA, 178 SCRA 526

7. Double  recovery

Article 2177, CC

IV.   CAUSATION

A. Proximate Cause

1. Definition

Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil 181(L-10126) (1957)Fernando vs. CA, 208 SCRA 714 (92087) (1992)Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988)Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, 148 SCA 353 (L-

652095) (1987)Pilipinas Bank vs. CA, 234 SCRA 435 (105410) (1994)Quezon City vs. Dacara, (150304) (June 15, 2005)

2. Distinguished from other kinds

Remote

Gabeto vs. Araneta, 42 Phil 252 (15674) (1921)Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988)

Concurrent

Far East Shipping vs. CA, 297 SCRA 30 (130068) (1998)

Sabido vs. Custodio, L-21512 (Aug 31, 1966)

3. Tests

“But for”

Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil 181

Substantial Factor

Philippine Rabbit vs. IAC, 189 SCRA 158 (66102-04) (1990)

Cause v. Condition

Phoenix vs. IAC, supraManila Electric vs. Remoquillo, 99 Phil 117 (L-8328)

(1956)Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad,  (15688) (November

19, 1921)

B. Efficient Intervening Cause

McKee vs. IAC, 211 SCRA 517 (68102) (1992)Manila Electric vs. Remoquillo, 99 Phil 117 (L-8328) (1956Teague vs. Fernandez, 51 SCRA 181 (L-29745) (1973)Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988)

C. Last Clear Chance

Aquino, pp. 311-329Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil 809Bustamante vs. CA, 193 SCRA 603 (89880) (1991)Phoenix vs. IAC, 148 SCA 353 (L-652095) (1987)Glan vs. IAC, GR No. 70493 (May 18, 1989)Pantranco vs. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384 (79050-51) (1989)Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA, 269 SCRA 695

(97626) (1997)Ong vs. Metropolitan, 104 Phil 397 (L-7664) (1958)Anuran vs. Buno, (L-21353) (May 20, 1966)Raynera vs. Hiceta, 306 SCRA 102 (April 21, 1999)Canlas vs. CA, GR No 112160 (February 28 2000)Consolidated Bank vs. CA, GR No 138569 (September 11,

2003)Engada vs. CA, GR No. 140698 (June 20, 2003)

V. LIABILITY

A. Possessor of Animals

Article 2183, CCVestil vs. IAC,  179 SCRA 47

B. Things thrown or falling from a building

Article 2193, CCDingcong vs. Kanaan, 72 Phil 14

C. Death/Injuries in the course of employment

Article 1711, CC  cf 1712Afable vs. Singer Sewing Machine, 58 Phil 39

D. Strict Liability/Product LiabilityBlack’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p. 142

Article 2187, CCArticles 50 –52, 97, 99, 106-107, Consumer ActSec. 11 RA 3720Coca-cola vs. CA, 227 SCRA 293II Sangco, pp. 714-734

E. Interference With Contractual Relations

Article 1314, CCGilchrist vs. Cuddy, 29 Phil 542So Ping Bun vs. CA, (120554) (September 21, 1999)Aquino, pp. 795-801

F. Liability of Local Government Units

Article 2189, CCGuilatco vs. City of Dagupan, (61516) 171 SCRA 382

G. Presumption of Negligence

Articles 2185, 2188, 2190 to 2193, Civil Code

VI.   PERSONS LIABLE

A.   The Tortfeasor

Articles 2176, 2181, 2194, CCWorcester vs. Ocampo, (5932) 22 Phil 42 (1912)Article 2184, CCChapman vs. Underwood, (9010) 27 Phil 374 (1914)Caedo vs. Yu Khe Thai, G.R. No. L-20392 (Dec 18 1968)Rodriguez Luna vs. IAC,  135 SCRA 242 (1995)

B. Vicarious LiabilityQuasi-tort – Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p.1489

Article 58 PD No. 603Articles 216, 218- 219, 221, 236, FCArticles 101-103, RPCSec. 6, RA 9344Articles 2180 – 2182, CC

1. Parents

Exconde vs. Capuno, (L-10134) 101 Phil 843 (1957)Salen vs. Balce, (L-14414) 107 Phil 748 (1960)Fuellas vs. Cadano, (L-14409) 3 SCRA 361 (1961)Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, (34840) 56 Phil 177 (1931)Rodriguez-Luna vs. IAC, (L-62988) 135 SCRA 242

(1985)Libi vs. IAC, (70890) 214 SCRA 16 (1990)Tamargo vs. CA, (85044) 209 SCRA 518 (1992)Cuadra vs. Monfort, 35 SCRA 160 (1970)

2. Guardians

Articles 216 and 218, Family CodeArticles 2180-2181, CC

2. Teachers and Heads of Institutions

Articles 218-219, FCArticle 2180, CCMercado vs. CA, (L-14342) 108 Phil 414 (1960)

Palisoc vs. Brillantes, (L-29025) 41 SCRA 548 (1971)Amadora vs. CA, L-47745 (April 15, 1988)Pasco vs.CFI, (L-54357) 160 SCRA 785 (1988)Ylarde vs. Aquino, (L-33722) 163 SCRA 697 (1988)Salvosa vs. IAC, (L-70458) 166 SCRA 274 (1988)St Francis vs. CA, (82465) 194 SCRA 340 (1991)PSBA vs. CA, 205 (84698) 205 SCRA 729 (1992)Soliman vs. Tuazon, (66207) 209 SCRA 47 (1992)St. Mary’s Academy vs. Carpitanos, (143363) (Feb 6

2002)1. Owners and Managers of Establishments

Philippine Rabbit vs. Phil American, (L-25142) 63 SCRA 231 (1975)

2. Employers

Philtranco vs. CA, (120553) 273 SCRA 562 (1997)Castilex vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 132266 (Dec 211999)Filamer vs. IAC,  (75112) 212 SCRA 637 (1992)NPC vs. CA, (119121) 294 SCRA 209 (1998)Light Rail Transit vs. Navidad, (145804) 397 SCRA

75(2003)Mckee vs. IAC, (68102) 211 SCRA 517 (1992)Valenzuela vs. CA,  (115024) 253 SCRA 303 (1996)

6. State

Merrit vs. Government, (11154) 34 Phil 311 (1916)Rosete vs. Auditor General, (L-1120) 81 Phil 453

(1948)Mendoza vs. De Leon, (9596) 33 Phil 508 (1916)Fontanilla vs. Maliaman, (55963) 194 SCRA 486

(1991)Article 2189, CCCity of Manila vs. Teotico, (L-23052) 22 SCRA 267

(1968) Republic vs. Palacio, 23 SCRA 899

A. Others  

Article 1723, CC1. Proprietors of Buildings

Articles 2190- 2192, CC

2.          Employees

Araneta vs. Joya, (L-25172) 57 SCRA 59 (1974)

3.          Engineer/Architect

B. Nature of Liability: Joint or Solidary?

Lanuzo vs. Ping and Mendoza, 100 SCRA 205 (1980)Malipol vs. Tan,  55 SCRA 202 (1974)Viluan vs. CA, 17 SCRA 742

VII. TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION

A. Violation of Civil and Political Rights

Article 32, CC1 Sangco, pp. 228-255 (1993)

Delfin Lim vs. Ponce de Leon, G.R. No. L-22554 (1975)Aberca vs. Ver, G.R. No. L-69866 (1988)MHP Garments vs. CA, 236 SCRA 227

B. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries

Article 33, CCArticles 353-359, RPCMarcia vs. CA, 205 Phil 147Madeja vs. Caro, 211 Phil 469Arafiles vs. Phil Journalists, GR No 135306 (2004)

1.   Defamation

MVRS vs. Islamic, GR No 135306, 396 SCRA 210 (January 28, 2003)

2. Fraud

Salta vs. De Veyra, 202 Phil 527

3.   Physical Injuries

Capuno vs. Pepsi Cola, G.R. No. L-19331 (1965)Corpus vs. Paje, G.R. No. L-26737 (1969)Madeja vs. Caro, supraDulay vs. CA, GR No 108017 (1995)

C. Neglect of Duty0

Article 34, CC

D. Action for damages where no in independent civil action is provided

Article 35, CC

VIII.   INTENTIONAL TORTS

A. Abuse of Rights

Article 19, CCVelayo vs. Shell, 100 Phil 186Saudi Arabia vs. CA, 297 SCRA 469Globe Mackay vs. CA, 176 SCRA 778 Albenson vs. CA, G.R. No. 88694.  January 11, 1993.Amonoy vs. Gutierrez, 351 SCRA 731UE vs. Jader, 325 SCRA 804 GR No 132344 (2000)Garciano vs. CA, 212 SCRA 436Barons Marketing vs.CA, 286 SCRA 96BPI vs. CA, 296 SCRA 260

B. Acts contra bonus mores

Article 21, CC

1.   Elements

Ruiz vs. Secretary, GR No. L-15526 (1963)1. Examples

a. Breach of promise to marry, Seduction and Sexual Assault

Wassmer vs. Velez, 12 SCRA 648Tanjanco vs. Santos, GR No L-18630 (1966)Bunag vs. CA, 211 SCRA 441Constantino  vs. Medez, GR No 5722 (1992)Quimiguing vs. Icao, 34 SCRA 132Pe vs. Pe, GR No. L-17396 (1962)

b. Malicious prosecution

Article 2219, CCAquino, pp. 384-391Lao vs. CA, 325 SCRA 694Que vs. IAC, 169 SCRA 137Drilon vs. CA, 270 SCRA 211

c. Public Humiliation

Patricio vs. Leviste, G.R. No. 51832 (1989)Grand Union vs. Espino, G.R. No. L-48250

(1979)

d.         Unjust Dismissal

Singapore Airlines vs. Paño, 122 SCRA 671 (1983)

Medina vs. Castro-Bartolome, G.R. No. L-59825 (1982) 116 SCRA 597

IX. OTHER TORTS

A. Dereliction of Duty

Article 27, CCAmaro vs. Samanguit, L-14986  July 31, 1962

B. Unfair Competition

Article 28, CC

C. Violation of Human Dignity and Privacy

Article 26, CC

St Louis vs. CA, GR No. L-46061 (1984), 133 SCRA 179 (November 14, 1984)

Concepcion vs. CA, GR No. 120706 (2000), 324 SCRA 85 (January 31, 2000)

X. DAMAGES

A. Definition and Concept

Aquino, pp. 842-843People vs. Ballesteros, 285 SCRA 438Custodio vs. CA, 253 SCRA 483Articles 2195, 2197, CCHeirs of Borlado vs. CA, G.R. 114118 (2001), 363 SCRA

753Lazatin vs. Twano,  2 SCRA 842 (1961)

Damnum Absque InjuriaAquino, pp. 843-845Board of Liquidators vs. Heirs of Kalaw, 20 SCRA 987Custodio vs. CA, supra

B. Kinds of Damages

1. Actual or Compensatory

Articles 2216, 2199, 2200, 205, CCAlgarra vs. Sandejas, 27 Phil 284

a. Kinds

PNOC vs. CA, 297 SCRA 402Integrated Packing vs. CA, 333 SCRA 170

b. Extent

Articles 2201-2202, CC

c. Certainty

DBP vs. CA, GR No. 118367 (1998)Fuentes vs.CA, 323 Phil 508 (1996)

d. Damage to property

PNOC vs.CA, supraa. Personal Injury and Death

Article 2206, CCRamos vs. CA, G.R. No. 124354 (1999), 380

SCRA 467 (April 11, 2002)Gatchalian vs. Delim, 203 SCRA 126

b. Attorney’s Fees

Article 2208, CCQuirante vs. IAC, G.R. No. 73886, 169 SCRA

769 (January 31, 1989)c. Interest

Articles 2209-2213, CCCrismina Garments vs. CA, G.R. No. 128721,

304 SCR

A 356 (March 9, 1999)

d. Mitigation of Liability

Articles 2203-2204, 2214, 2215Cerrano vs. Tan, 38 Phil 392

2. Moral

a. Concept

Article 2217, CC Kierulf vs. CA, 269 SCRA 433

a. Proof and Proximate Cause

Miranda-Ribaya vs. Carbonell, 95 SCRA 672Del Rosario vs. CA, 267 SCRA 58Raagas vs. Traya, 22 SCRA 839Enervida vs. dela Torre, 55 SCRA 339People vs. Bagayong, GR. No 126518, 299

SCRA 528 (Dec. 2, 1998)b. Cases where allowed

Articles 2219-2220, CCFrancisco vs. GSIS, 7 SCRA 577Expert Travel vs. CA, G.R. No. 130030 (1999)

e. Unfounded Suits

Mijares vs. CA, 271 SCRA 558De la Pena vs. CA, 231 SCRA 456 J Marketing vs. Sia, 285 SCRA 580Cometa vs. CA, 301 SCRA 459

i. Labor Cases

Triple Eight vs. NLRC, 299 SCRA 608ii. Taking of Life

People vs. Pirame,  327 SCRA (2000)Carlos Arcona y Moban vs. CA, GR No

134784, 393 SCRA 524(Dec.

9, 2002)c. Factors in determining amount

PNB vs. CA, 266 SCRA 136Fule vs. CA, 286 SCRA 698Philippine Airlines vs. CA, 275 SCRA 621Valenzuela vs. CA, supraSumalpong vs. CA, 268 SCRA 764Lopez vs. Pan American, 16 SCRA 431Producer’s Bank vs. CA, GR No 111584, 365

SCRA 326 (Sept.17, 2001)d. Who may recover

Strebel vs. Figueros, 96 Phil 321ABS-CBN vs. CA, G.R. No. 128690, 301 SCRA

572 (Jan. 21, 1999)National Power vs. Philipp Brothers, G.R. No

126204, 369 SCRA 629(Nov. 20,

2001)3. Nominal

Articles 2221-2223, CCVentanilla vs. Centeno, 1 SCRA 215Robes-Francisco vs. CFI, 86 SCRA 59People vs. Gopio, 346 SCRA 408Armovit vs. CA, 184 SCRA 476

4. Temperate

Articles 2224-2225, CCPleno vs. CA, G.R. No. 56505 (1988)People vs. Singh, 360 SCRA 404People vs. Plazo, 350 SCRA 433, 161 SCRA 208

(May 9, 1988)

5. Liquidated

Articles 2226-2228, CC

6. Exemplary or Corrective

Articles 2229-2235, CCPNB vs. CA, 256 SCRA 44Del Rosario vs. CA, 267 SCRA 158

REFERENCES

SANGCO, CESAR J. Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, Rev. Ed., Quezon City, JMC Press

Vol. 1 (1993), Vol. II (1994)

TOLENTINO, ARTURO  Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines

Vols. I, IV and V, Quezon City

CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (CC)

FAMILY CODE (FC)

REVISED PENAL CODE (RPC)