Art. 29.
When the accused in a criminal prosecution is constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the
same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires
only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the
defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond
to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found
to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon
reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence
of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the
text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that
ground.
Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand
civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal
proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil
case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient
to prove the act complained of.
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not
arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony,
such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal
proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
Art. 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of
law between the contracting parties and should be complied
with in good faith. (1091a)
Art. 1160. Obligations derived from quasi-contracts shall be
subject to the provisions of Chapter 1, Title XVII, of this Book.
(n)
Art. 1161. Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall
be governed by the penal laws, subject to the provisions of
Article 2177, and of the pertinent provisions of Chapter 2,
Preliminary Title, on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of
this Book, regulating damages. (1092a)
Art. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be
governed by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this
Book, and by special laws. (1093a)
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every
person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
RULE 111 - PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall
be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to
institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil
action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting
its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended
party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability
against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or
exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in
the complaint or information, the filing fees therefore shall
damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is
specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding
filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing
thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees
shall be required for actual damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may
be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of
action which could have been the subject thereof may be
litigated in a separate civil action.
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action.
No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be
allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions,
the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the
amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as
the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or
information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal,
temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall
pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged
therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these
damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing
fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien
on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial
thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with
the criminal action upon application with the court trying the
latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both
actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule
governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. After the
criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil
action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final
judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has
already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in
whatever state it may be found before judgment on the
merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is
rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before
judgment on the merits rendered in the civil action, the same
may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated
with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal
action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already
adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically
reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the
right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witness
presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of
the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated
criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running
period of prescription of the civil action which cannot be
instituted separately or whose proceeding has been
suspended shall be tolled.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based
on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in
a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
Kinds of Negligence
Arising from Crime
Arising from Contract
Arising from Tort
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure has clarified what civil
actions are deemed instituted in a criminal prosecution.
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall
be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to
institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action.
Kinds of Negligence:
1. Culpa Contractual (contractual negligence)
Governed by CC provisions on Obligations and Contracts,
particularly Arts. 1170 to 1174 of the Civil Code.
2. Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)
Governed mainly by Art. 2176 of the Civil Code
3. Culpa Criminal (criminal negligence)
Governed by Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same
act or omission of the defendant.
Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms
or associations engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or
air for compensation, offering their services to the public.
The above article makes no distinction between one whose
principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods
or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary
activity (in local idiom, as "a sideline").
Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction
between a person or enterprise offering transportation
service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such
service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis.
Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier
offering its services to the "general public," i.e., the general
community or population, and one who offers services or
solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general
population. We think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained
from making such distinctions
Culpa Contractual
The foundation of the liability of the defendant is the contract
In breach of contract committed through the negligence of
employee, the employer cannot erase his primary and direct
liability by invoking exercise of diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of the employee.
Culpa Aquiliana
It is a separate source of obligation independent of contract
In quasi-delict the presumptive responsibility for the
negligence of his servants can be rebutted by proof of the
exercise of due care in their selection and supervision.
Culpa Aquiliana
Only involves private concern
The Civil Code by means of indem-nification merely repairs
the damage
Includes all acts in which any kind of fault or negligence
intervenes
Liability is direct and primary in quasi-delict
Crime
Affect the public interest
The Revised Penal Code punishes or corrects criminal act
Punished only if there is a penal law clearly covering them
Liability of the employer of the actor-employee is subsidiary
in crimes
Concept of Negligence:
Picart vs. Smith, Jr. (37 Phil 809)
WHAT MUST BE PROVED
Negligence: In quasi delict: plaintiff must prove negligence of
defendant.
(except: in cases where negligence is presumed or imputed
by law (rebuttable-violation of traffic rules, dangerous
weapons/substance), principle of res ipsa loquitor)
Damage/ Injury
Causal connection between negligence and damage
Causal connection between negligence and damage
To be actionable:
- Defendants negligence must be the proximate cause
of the injury sustained by the plaintiff to enable
plaintiff to recover.
Thus, if plaintiffs own conduct is the cause of the injury there
can be no recovery.
- If plaintiffs negligence is only contributory:
He is considered partly responsible only.
- May plaintiff still recover?
Yes, but must be reduced by the court in proportion to his
own negligence.
Concept of PROXIMATE CAUSE:
The adequate and efficient cause which in the natural order
of events and under the particular circumstances surrounding
the case, would naturally produce the event.
DEFENSES:
1. Contributory Negligence
 2. Concurrent Negligence
3. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance Assumption of Risk
4. Emergency Rule -Volenti non fit Injuria
5. Doctrine of Assumption of Risk -Intentional exposure to a known danger
6. Due Diligence -One who voluntarily assumed the risk of an injury from a
7. Fortuitous Event known danger cannot recover in an action for negligence or
8. Damnum Absque Injuria an injury is incurred.
9. Law -Plaintiffs acceptance of risk ( by law/contract/nature of
10. Exercise of Diligence obligation) has erased defendants duty so that his negligence
11. Prescription is not a legal wrong
12. Act or Omission is not the Proximate Cause of the -Applies to all known danger
Damage
13. Other grounds: Motion to Dismiss Due Diligence
Diligence required by law/ contract/ depends on
Contributory Negligence circumstances of persons, place, things
The theory here is:
Plaintiff was also negligent together with the defendant: (contract: Exercise of extraordinary diligence [in contract of
To constitute as a defense, proximate cause of injury/damage carriage],Force Majeure, quasi-delict: Exercise of diligence of
must the negligence of the defendant. good father of a family in the selection and supervision of
employees)
Concurrent Negligence
The theory here is: Fortuitous Event
Both parties are equally negligent; the courts will leave them No person shall be responsible for those events which cannot
as they are; there can be no recovery. be foreseen, or which though foreseen were inevitable

Last Clear Chance Exeption:

Even though a persons own acts may have placed him in a Assumption of risk
position of peril and an injury results, the injured is entitled to
recover if the defendant thru the exercise of reasonable care Damnum Absque Injuria
and prudence might have avoided injurious consequences to
A principle that involves damage without injury, therefore no
the plaintiff.
liability is incurred;
NOTE: This defense is available only in an action by the driver
or owner of one vehicle against the driver or owner of the There is no legal injury
other vehicle involved.
Law
Elements:
Specific provision of law
1. Plaintiff was in a position of danger by his own
negligence; Exercise of Diligence of Good Father of Family in Selection
2. Defendant knew of such position of the Plaintiff; and supervision of employees
3. Defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the
accident by exercise of ordinary care but failed to Prescription
exercise such last clear chance; and - Injury to right of plaintiff/quasi-delict
4. Accident occurred as proximate cause of such failure 4 years
- Defamation
Who may invoke?: 1 year
Plaintiff Proscription Against Double Recovery

Responsibility for fault or negligence under quasi-delict is

Inapplicable to:
entirely separate and distinct from civil action arising from
1. Joint tortfeasors
the RPC but plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
2. Defendants concurrently negligent
same act or omission of the defendant.
3. As against 3rd persons
Act or Omission is NOT the Proximate Cause of the Damage
Emergency Rule
A person is not expected to exercise the same degree of care Other grounds: Motion to Dismiss
when he is compelled to act instinctively under a sudden peril
1. Lack of Jurisdiction:
because a person confronted with a sudden emergency may
2. over the person of the defendant
be left with no time for thought and must make a speedy
3. Over the subject matter
decision upon impulse or instinct.
4. Venue improperly laid
5. Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue
When applicable?
6. There is another action pending between same
Only to situations that are sudden and unexpected such as to
parties for some cause
deprive actor of all opportunity for deliberation.
7. Cause of action is barred by prior judgement/ statute
Action must still be judged by the standard of the ordinary
of limitations
prudent man
8. Pleading asserting claim states no cause of action
Absence of forseeability
 9. Claim set forth in pleading has been paid, waived, - Under their authority; and
abandoned, extinguished
- Live in their company
10. Claim is unenforceable uner the provision of statute
of fraud OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF
11. Condition precedent for filing claim has not been ESTABLISHMENTS/ENTERPRISE:
complied with
Owners and managers of establishment or enterprise are
Persons liable for Quasi-delict responsible for damages caused by their employees:
1. Tortfeasor In the service of the branches in which the employee/s is /are
employed;
2. Persons Vicariously Liable
In occasion of their function
3. Persons expressly made liable by the law
EMPLOYERS
Persons liable for Quasi-delict
Employers shall be liable for damages caused by their
TORTFEASOR
employees and household helpers.
Art. 2176.
Acting within the scope of their assigned task
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
Even though the employer/s is/are not engaged in any
being no fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage
business or industry
done
Defenses available to employers:
Persons Vicariously Liable
Exercise of due diligence in selection and supervision of
The obligation imposed in Art. 2176 is demandable not only
employees
for ones own act or omission BUT ALSO for those persons for
whom one is responsible (Art. 2180) Act/omission was made outside working hours and in
violation of companys rules and regulations
Vicarious liability
STATE:
Law imputed negligence;
The state is responsible when it acts through a special agent,
A person who himself is not guilty of negligence is made liable
for conduct of another. but not when the same is caused by an official to whom task
done properly pertains in which case art. 2176 is applicable.
Reason:
SCHOOLS, ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER
Public policy: capacity to pay/ deeper pocket
Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall
Violation of duty on account of relationship
be liable for damages caused by their:
Persons Vicariously liable:
Pupils, students and apprentices
1. Parent/s
As long as they remain in their custody
2. Guardians
NOTE:
Owners and managers of establishment/enterprise
Family Code Art. 218: The school, its administration and
3. Employers teachers or the individual, entity or institution engaged in
child care shall have special parental authority and
4. State
responsibility over the minor child under their supervision,
5. Schools, Administrator, Teacher instruction or custody.

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized

activities whether inside or outside the premises of the
PARENTS: school, entity or institution.
Rule: Family Code, Art. 219:
The father, and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother Those given the authority and responsibility shall be solidarily
are responsible for damaged caused by: and principally liable for damages caused by act/omission of
the unemancipated minor: (parents, judicial guardian or
- Minor child/ren; and
person exercising substitute parental authority over said
- Who live in their company minor shall be subsidiarily liable)

NOTE: Father and Mother shall jointly exercise parental Issues/questions:

authority over common children.
Whether or not school are liable?
GUARDIAN/S: - If culprit is a teacher
Sue the school as employer
Are liable for damages caused by the minor or incapacitated - If culprit is a stranger
persons who are: Sue the school based on contract
 - If culprit is a student
Apply art. 2180 (vicarious liability)
Basis of liability of teacher: principle of loco parentis (stand in
place of parents)
Persons expressly made liable by law (even without fault)
1. Possessor of animal or whoever makes use of them even if
the animal is lost or escaped
2. Owner of motor vehicle
3. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet
articles and similar goods
4. Defendant in possession of dangerous weapons or
substances, such as firearms and poison
5. Provinces, cities, & municipalities
6. Proprietor of building or structure
7. Engineer, Architect or contractor
explosive substances which have not been kept in a
safe and adequate place
- By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to
persons or property
- By falling of trees situated or near highways or lanes,
if not caused by force majeure
- By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers, or
deposits of infectious matter, constructed without
precautions suitable to the place
Engineer, Architect or Contractor
If damage of building or structure is caused by defect in
construction which happens within 15 years from
construction; action must be brought within 10 years from
collapse
Head of Family that Lives in a Building or part thereof
Liable for damages caused by things thrown of falling from
the same.

8. Head of family that lives in a building or part thereof SPECIAL TORTS

Persons expressly made liable by law (even without fault 1. Art. 19, 20, 21 (NCC)

1. Possessor of animal or whoever makes use of them even if 2. Unjust enrichment

the animal is lost or escaped 3. Ostentatious Display of Wealth
Except: 4. Violation of Right of Privacy and Family Relations
Force Majeure 5. Dereliction of Official Duty of Pubic Officers
- Fault of the injured/damaged person 6. Unfair competition
- Owner of Motor Vehicle
- In motor vehicle mishap, the owner is solidarily 7. Malicious Prosecution
liable with the driver if:
8. Violation of Rights and Liberties of Another person
- He was in the vehicle; and
- Could have through due diligence prevented the 9. Nuisance
misfortune

Manufacturers & Processors of Foodstuffs, drinks, toilet

articles and similar goods 1. Art. 19, 20, 21 (NCC)

Liable for death an injuries caused by any or harmful A. Abuse of Rights (Art. 19)
substances used although no contractual relation exists - There is a legal right or duty
between them and the consumers
- Which is exercised in bad faith
Defendant in possession of Dangerous Weapons or
substance, such as firearms and poison - For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another

There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of General Sanction (Art. 20)
the defendant if death or injury results from such possession
- For all other provisions of law which do not
Exception: The possession or use thereof is indispensable in especially provide their own sanction
his occupation or business
Elements:
Provinces, Cities and Municipalities
-In the exercise of his legal right or duty
Liable for the death or injuries suffered by any person by
-Willfully or negligently causes damage to another
reason of defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public
buildings, and other public works under their control or Contra Bonus Mores (Art. 21)
supervision.
Elements:
Proprietor of Building or Structure
- There is an action which is legal
Responsible for the damages resulting from any of the - But which is contrary to morals, good customs,
following: public order or public policy
- And it is done with intent to injure
- total or partial collapse of building or structure if due
to lack of necessary repairs Unjust enrichment
- Explosion of machinery which has not been taken
cared of with due diligence, and the inflammation of Arts. 22, 23, 2142 & 2143
Ostentatious Display of Wealth Nuisance per se

Art. 25; Thoughtless extravagance for pleasure or display Denounced as nuisance by common law or by statute
during a period of public want or emergency
Nuisance per accidens
Violation of Right of Privacy and Family Relations
Those which are in their nature not nuisances, but may
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, become so by reason of their locality, surroundings, or the
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other manner in which they may be conducted, managed, etc
persons.
Public
following acts may not constitute a criminal offense, only
Affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable
produce a cause of action for DAMAGES, prevention and
number of persons
other relief:
Private
- Prying into the privacy of anothers residence
- Meddling with or disturbing the private life of family Affects an individual or a limited number of individuals only
relations of another
- Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his Remedies against Public Nuisances
friends
- Prosecution under the RPC or any local ordinance
- Vexing or humiliating another on account of hid
- Civil Action
religious beliefs, lowly station in life. Place of birth,
- Abatement, without Judicial Proceedings
physical defect, or other personal condition.
Who may avail of Remedies:
Dereliction of Official Duty of Public Officers
- Public Officers
May be brought by any person suffering from material or
- Private Persons
moral loss because a public servant refuses or neglects,
- If nuisance is specially injurious to himself
without just cause to perform his official duty (Art. 27)
Steps:
Requisites:
- Demand be first made upon owner or possessor of
- Defendant is a public officer charged with the
the property to abate the nuisance
performance of a duty in favor of the plaintiff
- That such demand has been rejected
- He refused or neglected without just cause to
- That the abatement be approved by the district
perform such duty (ministerial)
health officer and executed with the assistance of
- Plaintiff sustained material or moral loss as
the local Police
consequence of such non-performance
- That the value of the destruction does not exceed
- The amount of such damages, if material
Php 3,000
Unfair competition
Remedies against private nuisances
Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial
- Civil action
enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation,
- Abatement without Judicial Process
deceit. Machinations or other unjust, oppressive method (Art.
28) Who may avail of remedies:

Malicious Prosecution - Public officers

Elements:
- That the defendant was himself the
prosecutor/instigated its commencement
- That it finally terminates in his acquittal
- That in bringing it the prosecutor acted without
probable cause, and
- That he was actuated by legal malice, that is, by
improper and sinister motive
Violation of Rights and Liberties of Another Person
Nuisance
- Any act, omission, establishment, condition of
property, or anything else which:
- Injures or endangers the health or safety of others;
or
- Annoys or offends the senses; or
- Shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality; or
- Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any
public highway or streets, or any body of water; or
- Hinders or impairs use of property
- Private persons
If nuisance is specially injurious to himself
Steps:
- Same with public nuisance
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
A class of cases within the general rule that one is liable for
injury resulting to another from failure to exercise the degree
of care commiserate with the circumstances:
The attractiveness of the premises or of the dangerous
instrumentality to children of tender years is to be considered
as an implied invitation, which takes the children who
accepted it out of the category of a trespasser and puts them
in the category of invitees towards whom the owner of the
premises or instrumentality owes the duty of ordinary care.