Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Who can file the action for damages against the offenders?
The following, in the order named, may file an action for damages: (a) spouse; (b) descendants; (c)
ascendants, and (d) brothers and sisters
May a corporation which is an artificial person suffer moral damages?
It depends on the specific basis relied upon. In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corpoation v. CA, the Supreme Court
held, The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because, being an artificial
person and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no senses, It
cannot, therefore, experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which call be experienced only by one
having a nervous system. The statement in People v. Manero and Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB that a
corporation may recover moral damages if it "has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social
humiliation" is an obiter dictum. On this score alone the award for damages must be set aside, since RBS is a
corporation.
It is therefore clear that if a corporation bases its claims for moral damages on physical sufferings or
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, mental shock, social humiliation and similar
internal injury, the corporation cannot be awarded with moral damages for the obvious reason that an
artificial person cannot suffer such internal feelings for lack of a nervous system
However, if the corporation is basing its claim for moral damages on sufferance of besmirched reputation,
then it is entitled to moral damages if warranted by the evidence. It is, however, essential that it enjoys a
good reputation
When can an employer be liable for exemplary damages for the acts of his employee?
As a rule, no. A principal or master can be held liable for exemplary or punitive damages based upon the
wrongful act or has previously authorized or subsequently ratified it, with full knowledge of the facts.
Exemplary damages punish the intent and this cannot be presumed on the part of the employer merely
because of the wanton, oppressive or malicious intent on the part of the agent. (Munsayac v. de Lara)
Can the agency of the State be subjected to temperate and exemplary damages?
The court finds it proper to award temperate and exemplary damages in light of NIAs misuse of its power
of eminent domain any arm of the state that exercises the delegated power of eminent domain must wield
that power with circumspection and utmost regard for procedural requirements (Republic v. CA, 454 SCRA
516)
Is it necessary that the aggravating circumstance/s be alleged in the information to justify a grant of exemplary
damages?
Decisions are conflicting. But the better rule (at least according to Pineda) is that notwithstanding the
failure to allege the aggravating circumstances, the proven presence thereof is still material in the
determination of exemplary damages to be awarded to the complainant (PP v. Legaspi)
Is the concept of tort or quasi-delict applicable to both persons and property?
As a general rule, the concept of tort or quasi-delict applies to persons. Thus the chapter on quasi-delict
generally speaks of physical injuries and death caused to persons. This tort is referred to as personal tort.
Personal tort is one involving or consisting in an injury to the person or to the reputation or feelings, as
distinguished from an injury or damage to real or personal property, called a property tort
There are however, articles which speaks of property particularly the ff: [emphasis supplied]
o Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by 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.
o Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or
negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited.
Transcribed by Janz Serrano
o
o
o
o
o
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 other handicap,
the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief
against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
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 to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages,
and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein
recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall
suffice to support such action.
Art. 694. 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.
Art. 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in
that property started by a former owner or possessor is liable therefor in the same manner as the one
who created it.
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence, and the
inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter, constructed without
precautions suitable to the place.
public interests or safety, or when absolutely necessaty for the protection of private property (R.A. 2056;
see Macatangay v. Sec. of Public Works; Lovina v. Moreno)
When is there an automatic presumption of fault or negligence in contract of carriage?
When there is death or injuries caused to passengers, the common carrier is automatically presumed to
have been at fault or to have acted negligently (Art.1756; Sy v. Malate Taxicab)
Is Art. 1174 applicable to common carriers?
Yes, insofar as the last portion of the article is concerned reading, no person shall be responsible for those
events which could not be foreseen, or which though foreseen were inevitable. Thus, a carrier is not liable
for injuries suffered by a passenger caused by another vehicle without contributory negligence on the part
of the former (see: Ampang v. Guinoo Transportation; Cayanan v. La Mallorca)