Laws and jurisprudence that may apply

1. Article 2176 of the Civil Code

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

2. Article 2179 of the Civil Code

When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

3. Article 2180 of the Civil Code

The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. xxx xxx xxx The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. xxx xxx xxx

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

4. Article 1170 of the Civil Code

Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.

5. Article 2202 of the Civil Code

In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.

6. Article 2203 of the Civil Code

The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question.

7. Article 2214 of the Civil Code

In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.

8. Article 2215 of the Civil Code

In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article, as in the following instances: (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract; (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract;

(3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel; (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event; (5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.

9. Article 2216 of the Civil Code

No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.

10. Article 2217 of the Civil Code

Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.

11. Article 2219 of the Civil Code

Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: xxx xxx xxx

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; xxx xxx xxx

12. Article 2221 of the Civil Code

Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

13. Article 2229 of the Civil Code

Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

14. Article 2231 of the Civil Code

In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.

15. Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999, 321 SCRA 375

An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant. It is "a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens."

On the other hand, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is "the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury."

Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist with the other. Accident occurs when the person concerned is exercising ordinary care, which is not caused by fault of any person and which could not have been prevented by any means suggested by common prudence.

16. Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagorio, G.R. No. 150920, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 236

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies where (1) the accident was of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant's negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.

17. Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 569

The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this provision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.

18. Saludaga v. Far Eastern University, G.R. No. 179337, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 741

In order for force majeure to be considered, respondents must show that no negligence or misconduct was committed that may have occasioned the loss. An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to take steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a loss. One's negligence may have concurred with an act of God in producing damage and injury to another; nonetheless, showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damage or injury was a fortuitous event would not exempt one from liability. When the effect is found to be

partly the result of a person's participation - whether by active intervention, neglect or failure to act - the whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.

19. Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 569

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.

20. Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral, G.R. No. 143951, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 153

It must be remembered that moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused a person. Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; thus, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. Since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances, there is no hard and fast rule in determining the proper amount.

21. B.F. Metal (Corporation) v. Lomotan, G.R. No. 170813, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 618

In the case of moral damages, recovery is more an exception rather than the rule. Moral damages are not punitive in nature but are designed to compensate and alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly caused to a person. In order that an award of moral damages can be aptly justified, the claimant must be able to satisfactorily prove that he has suffered such damages and that the injury causing it has sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Then, too, the damages must be shown to be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. The claimant must establish the factual basis of the damages and its causal tie with the acts of the defendant. In fine, an award of moral damages would require, firstly, evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological

suffering sustained by the claimant; secondly, a culpable act or omission factually established; thirdly, proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the claimant; and fourthly, that the case is predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code.

22. Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 175587, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 738

[N]ominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, and not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss but for the recognition and vindication of a right. Indeed, nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact. They are recoverable where some injury has been done but the pecuniary value of the damage is not shown by evidence and are thus subject to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of the case.

23. B.F. Metal (Corporation) v. Lomotan, G.R. No. 170813, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 618

Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded.
LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE FAMILY CODE PARENTAL AUTHORITY ART. 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the person and property of their unemancipated children, parental authority and responsibility shall include the caring for and rearing of such children for civic consciousness and efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being. Art. 20. Parental authority and responsibility may not be renounced or transferred except in the cases authorized by law. Art. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with respect to their unemancipated children or wards the following rights and duties: (1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right

precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means; xxx xxx xxx (8) To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and (9) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and guardians. Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. CIVIL CODE PERSONAL LIABILITY Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligent ly causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. NUISANCE Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, esta blishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or xxx xxx xxx Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence. Attractive Nuisance One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent childr en from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender year s who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises. (Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., v. Balandan, et al., L-3422, June 13, 1952, 91 Phil. 488) QUASI-DELICTS Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-

Page 6 of 8
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant. xxx On the other hand, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the

conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. xxx Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist with the other. Accident occurs when the person concerned is exercising ordinary care, which is not caused by fault of any person and which could not have been prevented by any means suggested by common prudence. (Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999, 321 SCRA 375) The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies where (1) the accident was of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant's negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured. (Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagorio, G.R. No. 150920, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 236) The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course actually pursued? (Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 569) Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury bei ng the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection. xxx xxx xxx It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which, concurring with the defendants negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury. (National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Noble Casionan, G.R. No. 165969, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 71) Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. (Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 526) Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. xxx xxx xxx The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for

damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. xxx xxx xxx The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. DAMAGES

Page 7 of 8
Art. 2197. Damages may be: (1) Actual or compensatory; (2) Moral; (3) Nominal; (4) Temperate or moderate; (5) Liquidated; or (6) Exemplary or corrective. Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss su ffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. (National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Noble Casionan, G.R. No. 165969, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 71) In Phoenix Construction, Inc., v. Intermediate Appellate Court , where we held that the legal and proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisios injuries was the wrongful and negligent manner in which the dump truck was parked but found Dionisio guilty of contributory negligence on the night of the accident, we allocated most of the damages on a 20-80 ratio. In said case, we required Dionisio to bear 20% of the damages awarded by the appellate court, except as to the award of exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs. (Estacion v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 144723, February 27, 2006, 483 SCRA 222) Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission. Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

xxx xxx xxx (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; xxx xxx xxx RULES OF COURT EVIDENCE Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge ; hearsay excluded .A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules. Where the statements or writings attributed to a person who is not on the witness stand are being offered not to prove the truth of the facts stated therein but only to prove that those statements were actually made or those writings were executed, such evidence is not covered by the hearsay evidence rule. (Cornejo, Sr., vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58831, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 559) Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is

Page 8 of 8
immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply. (People v. Gumimba et al., G.R. No. 174056, February 27, 2007, 517 SCRA 25) Sec. 42. Part of res gestae . Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae . xxx A declaration made spontaneously after a startling occurrence is deemed as part of the res gestae when (1) the principal act, the res gestae is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. (Zarate v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental, G.R. No. 152263, July 3, 2009, 591 SCRA 510) Sec. 48. General rule

. The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following sections. Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions . The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: xxx (d)That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns; (q)That the ordinary course of business has been followed; (y)That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life; In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred. (Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagorio, G.R. No. 150920, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 236)

Laws and jurisprudence that may apply

1. Article 694 of the Civil Code

A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.

2. Article 695 of the Civil Code

Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition.

3. Article 699 of the Civil Code

The remedies against a public nuisance are: (1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or (2) A civil action; or (3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

4. Article 704 of the Civil Code

Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is necessary: (1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance; (2) That such demand has been rejected; (3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police; and (4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos.

5. Article 705 of the Civil Code

The remedies against a private nuisance are:

(1) A civil action; or (2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

6. Article 1159 of the Civil Code

Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.

7. Article 2176 of the Civil Code

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

8. Article 2179 of the Civil Code

When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

9. Article 2180 of the Civil Code The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

10. Secosa vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 160039, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 273, 277

When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption that there has been negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selection of his employee or in the supervision over him after his selection. The presumption may be rebutted by a clear showing that the employer exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of his employee.

11. Philippine National Railways vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157658, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 147, 154

Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury all that the law requires is for a person to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances.

12. Ramos vs. C.O.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 526, 535-536

Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.