TOPIC: Damages; Moral & Exemplary (2009 BAR)

PROBLEM: Rodolfo, married to Sharon, had an illicit affair with his secretary, Nanette, a
19-year old girl, and begot a baby girl, Rona. Nanette sued Rodolfo for damages: actual,
for hospital and other medical expenses in delivering the child by caesarean section;
moral, claiming that Rodolfo promised to marry her, representing that he was single when,
in fact, he was not; and exemplary, to teach a lesson to like-minded Lotharios.
ISSUE: Whether or not all the claims of Nanette would be awarded to Rodolfo.
ANSWER: YES.
LAW: Quasi-delict is governed by Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, in which a fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called
quasi-delict.
APPLICATION: If Rodolfo's marriage could not have been possibly known to Nanette or
there is no gross negligence on the part of Nanette, Rodolfo could be held liable for moral
damages. If there is gross negligence in a suit for quasi-delict, exemplary could be
awarded.
CONCLUSION: Rodolfo would only bear moral damage if there is no gross negligence
on the part of Nanette, but if gross negligence is present, exemplary damages could be
awarded as well.
TOPIC: Death Indemnity (2009 BAR)
PROBLEM: Rommel’s private car, while being driven by the regular family driver, Amado,
hits a pedestrian causing the latter’s death. Rommel is not in the car when the incident
happened.
ISSUE: Whether or not Rommel is liable for damages to the heirs of the deceased.
ANSWER: Yes
LAW: Art. 2180 of the Civil Code states that the diligence that must be like a good father
in order to prevent damage.
APPLICATION: Rommel may be held liable for damages if he fails to prove that he
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising his family
driver. The owner is presumed liable unless he proves the defense of diligence. If the
driver was performing his assigned task when the accident happened, Rommel shall be
solidarily liable with the driver. In case the driver is convicted of reckless imprudence and
cannot pay the civil liability, Rommel is subsidiarily liable for the damage awarded against
the driver and the defense of diligence is not available.
CONCLUSION: Rommel would be liable for damages to the heirs of the deceased
Amado.