LAW ON TORTS & DAMAGES

SYLLABUS
Prosec. Noemi S. Macababbad

Negligence
I. Negligence, Defined. Corliss v. Manila Railroad Co., GR L-21291,
March 28, 1969

Legal Provisions:

Article 2176, NCC

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

Article 2178, NCC

The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a
quasi-delict

Article 1172, NCC

Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every
kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be
regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances.

Article 1173, NCC

The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of
that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and
of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of
Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good
father of a family shall be required.

Art 1174, NCC

Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable.

A. Quasi Delict
Capili v. Cardana GR 157906, November 2, 2006
Elcano & Elcano v. Hill & Hill, 77 SCRA 98
B. Sources of Obligation
 C. Persons liable for Quasi Delict

Article 2180
Republic Act 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
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

Rule 111 Criminal Procedure – Prosecution of a Civil

Action / Enforcement of the civil liability arising from crime
See Ateneo crimpro reviewer

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
thereof shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such 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. (1a)

(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. (cir. 57-97)

Section 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 stage 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 is 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
witnesses 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 of the period of
prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose
proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled. (n)

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.
(2a)

Section 3. When civil action may proceeded independently. — In the cases

provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended
party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require
only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended
party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the
criminal action. (3a)
Section 4. Effect of death on civil actions. — The death of the accused after
arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish
the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action
instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to
enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued
against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper
substitution or against said estate, as the case may be. The heirs of the
accused may be substituted for the deceased without requiring the
appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a
guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to

appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in
the manner especially provided in these rules for prosecuting claims against
the estate of the deceased.

If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without
prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of
the deceased. (n)

Section 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar. — A final judgment rendered in

a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is not a bar to a
criminal action against the defendant for the same act or omission subject of
the civil action. (4a)

Section 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — A petition for

suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial
question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the
court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has
been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same
criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. (6a)

Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. — The elements of a prejudicial

question are:
(a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed. (5a)

Liability of Employers, with respect to damages caused by their

employees. Torts book p. 688, 772
1. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR - Applies with respect to Article 2180; i.e. to

 employers, common carriers, banks, and 
 principals in relation to
agents; 

Art 2180 - owners and managers of a establishment or enterprise are
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. It further provides that employ- ers 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 liability is direct and primary.

The liability of the employer can be established by proving the existence of

an employer-employee relationship with the actor and that the latter caused
the injury while performing his assigned task or functions. The employer can
escape liability by establishing that he exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of the employee.

The phrase “even though the former are not engaged in any business or
industry” found in the fifth paragraph = it is not necessary for the employer
to be engaged in any business or industry to be liable for the negligence of
his employee who is acting within the scope of his assigned task.

(1) Proof of Employer-Employee Relationship.

> Use control test
if the employer controls not only the end but also the manner and
means to be used, the latter is an employee.

one who hires an independent contractor but controls the latter’s work, is
responsible also for the latter’s negligence.

If the person hired is really a contractor, the person who hired him is not
liable under Article 2180. The contractor is liable for all the claims of laborers
and others employed by him, and of third persons for death or physical
injuries during the construction.

a school is not liable as employer for the acts of the guard manning its
premises if the latter was employed by a security agency which is separate
and distinct from the school. There is no employer-employee relationship
between the school and the guards and the contractual relationship is
between the school and the security agency.

(2) Working scholars = considered as employees

for purpose of applying Art 2180

(3) Labor-Only Contractors

the principal employer is responsible to the employees of the “labor-only”
contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the principal
employer
 D. Standard of Care- Test: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent man would have used in the same situation?
If not, then he is negligent.

E. Proof of Negligence- PLDT v. CA, 278 SCRA 94

A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the

burden of proving the existence of such fault or negligence causative
thereof. The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively
established by competent evidence. Whosoever relies on negligence
for his cause of action has the burden in the first instance of proving
the existence of the same if contested, otherwise his action must fail.

F. Quantum of Proof- Rule 133 Section 1, Rules of Court

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil

cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance
or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court
may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and
also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately
appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of
witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the
greater number.

G. Presumptions of Negligence
a. Res Ipsa Loquitor - the thing speaks for itself. Its function
is to aid the plaintiff in proving the elements of a
negligence case by circumstantial evidence

b. Respondent Superior
China Airlines, Ltd v CA, GR No. 45985, May 18,
1990.

for his negligence, Espiritu is primarily liable to respondent Pagsibigan

under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. For the failure of PAL to rebut the
legal presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of its
employee, it is also primarily liable under Article 2180 of the same
code which explicitly provides that 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.
Under the aforesaid provision, all that is required is that the employee,
by his negligence, committed a quasi-delictwhich caused damage to
another, and this suffices to hold the employer primarily and solidarity
responsible for the tortious act of the employee. PAL, however, can
demand from Espiritu reimbursement of the amount which it will have
to pay the offended party's claim.

c. Violation of Traffic Rules & Land Transportation Law

Article 2184-2185, NCC

d. Anti Drunk and Drugged Driving Act

H. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

Pantranco North Express, Inc. Baesa, GR Nos. 79050-51,
November 14, 1989
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc v. IAC GR Nos. 66102-04

I. Proximate Cause
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.

J. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor

Capili v. Cardana GR 157906 November 2, 2006
Layugan v. IAC GR 73998, November 14, 1998

The private respondent is sued under Art. 2176 in relation to Art.

2180, paragraph 5, of the Civil Code. In the latter, when an injury is
caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly
arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of
the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or
employee, or in supervision over him after selection, or both. Such
presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure and consequently,
may be rebutted. If follows necessarily that if the employer shows to
the satisfaction of the court that in the selection and in the supervision
he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family,
the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability. 45 In
disclaiming liability for the incident, the private respondent stresses
that the negligence of his employee has already been adequately
overcome by his driver's statement that he knew his responsibilities as
a driver and that the truck owner used to instruct him to be careful in
driving. 46
We do not agree with the private respondent in his submission. In the
first place, it is clear that the driver did not know his responsibilities
because he apparently did not check his vehicle before he took it on
the road. If he did he could have discovered earlier that the brake fluid
pipe on the right was cut, and could have repaired it and thus the
accident could have been avoided. Moveover, to our mind, the fact
that the private respondent used to intruct his driver to be careful in
his driving, that the driver was licensed, and the fact that he had no
record of any accident, as found by the respondent court, are not
sufficient to destroy the finding of negligence of the Regional Trial
Court given the facts established at the trial 47 The private respondent
or his mechanic, who must be competent, should have conducted a
thorough inspection of his vehicle before allowing his driver to drive it.
In the light of the circumstances obtaining in the case, we hold that
Isidro failed to prove that the diligence of a good father of a family in
the supervision of his employees which would exculpate him from
solidary liability with his driver to the petitioner. But even if we
concede that the diligence of a good father of a family was observed
by Isidro in the supervision of his driver, there is not an iota of
evidence on record of the observance by Isidro of the same quantum
of diligence in the supervision of his mechanic, if any, who would be
directly in charge in maintaining the road worthiness of his (Isidro's)
truck. But that is not all. There is paucity of proof that Isidro exercised
the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of his driver,
Daniel Serrano, as well as in the selection of his mechanic, if any, in
order to insure the safe operation of his truck and thus prevent
damage to others. Accordingly, the responsibility of Isidro as employer
treated in Article 2180, paragraph 5, of the Civil Code has not ceased.

Africa v. Caltex (Phil), Inc. GR No. L-12986

K. Gross Negligence
NPC v. Casionan, GR 165969, November 27, 2008
L. Due Diligence
Article 2180, NCC
Good Father of the family (in pater familias)
M. Medical Malpractice

Carillo v. People, GR No. 86890, January 21, 1994.

Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio, GR No. 118141, September 5, 1997.
Cruz v. CA, GR No. 122445, November 18, 1997.
Batiquin, et. al. v. CA, GR No. 118231, July 5, 1996.
Ramos, et al v. CA, GR No. 124345, December 29, 1999.
Reyes, et al v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, GR No. 130547,
October 3, 2000.
Ramos v. CA, GR No. 124354, April 11, 2002
Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center, GR No. 142625, December
19, 2006
Professional Services, Inc. v. Sps. Agana; Agana v. Fuentes;
and Ampil v. Sps. Agana, GR No. 126279, GR No. 126467 and
GR No. 127590, January 31, 2007.
Ilao-Oreta v. Sps. Ronquillo, GR No. 172406, October 11, 2007.

N. Emergency Rule or Doctrine of Sudden Peril

Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v C & Construction, Inc. GR
No. 150634, October 1, 2003
Valenzuela v. CA, 253 SCRA 303, February 7, 1996

O. Prescription- Article 1146, NCC, Rule 111, ROC

P. Doctrine of Relations Back
Allied Banking Corp. v. CA, October 13, 1989 (time of
discovery)
Q. Force Majeure & Acts of God
R. Doctrine of Contributory Negligence
Article 2179
1. Comparative Negligence
2. Imputed Contributory Negligence
S. Doctrine of Imputed Negligence
T. Special Liability in Particular Activities
U. Classification of Actionable Negligence
 a. Culpa Contractual (Articles 1140-1174, NCC)
b. Culpa Aquiliana (Article 2176, NCC)
c. Criminal Negligence (Article 365, RPC)

II. Nuisance (Law on Property)

Article 23, 695, 682, 683, 698, 705, 707, 1143
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. Balandan, (1952)

III. Strict Liability

Article 2005, 2183, 2193, 1711, 1712 2187, NCC
Milagros Ibardovs, Pelagia Nava v CA GR No. 28587-R
Vestil v IAC GR No. 74431, November 6, 1989
Candano Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Sugata-on GR No. 163212, March
13, 2007
PAL v CA, 193 Phil. 560

Consumer Act of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 7394)

IV. Warranties (Law on Sales)

Article 1546, NCC
Article 2187, NCC

Torts
I. Principles of Torts
A. Abuse of Right
Article 19-21, CC
Arlegui v. CA, GR 126437, March 6, 2002; Globe v. CA,
1989; Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes, 2005

B. Unjust Enrichment
Article 22-23, CC
Nemo cum alteris detriment locupletari potest
II. Kinds of Tort
1. Constitutional Tort
2. Government Tort
3. Mass Tort
4. Intentional Tort
5. Prenatal Tort
6. Prima Facie Tort
7. Personal Tort
8. Property Tort
9. Quasi Tort
III. Classification of Torts
IV. Tortfeasor
a. Vicarious Liability
b. Special Agent
 c. Joint Tortfeasors
d. Assumption of Risk
e. Implied Assumptions
V. Intentional Torts
Battery
Assault
Illegal Detention
Trespass
VI. Intentional Non Physical Harm

Damages

I. Injury v Damage
II. Classification
a. Moral- Article 2217
b. Exemplary- Article 2229
c. Nominal- Article 2221
d. Temperate or Moderate
e. Actual or Compensatory- Article 2199, NCC
f. Liquidated- Article 226
III. Interest
Article 2209-2213, NCC
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v CA, GR No. 97412, July 12, 1994
IV. Attorney’s Fees
See Canon of Professional Responsibility on Attorneys Fees
awarded by courts.
V. Restitutio in Integrum
VI. Damages in case of death
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v Curso, GR No. 157009, March 17, 2010

Trial Practice

Direct Examination of witness to prove civil liability. See law on trial

technique.