TORTS AND DAMAGES

C&M NOTES
INTRODUCTION
TORT DEFINED

In common Law, TORT is the unlawful violation of private right not created by contract, and which gives rise to damages. Under
the NCC (2176) TORT is the act or omission causes damge to another, there being fault or negligence. Anyone who commits such is obliged
to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no existing contractual relation between the parties is called quasi-delict.

KINDS OF TORTS

1. INTENTIONAL TORTS
2. NEGLIGECE
3. STRICT LIABILTY

 Gashem Shookat Baksh v CA

“Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage done.” NCC ART 21

“The breach to promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. However, if there is deceit and fraud employed, the deceit and
fraud employed constitute a violation of Art, 21 of the NCC”

SOURCES OF OBLIGATION UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW (CIVIL CODE 1156-1162 and 2176)

Art. 1156. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do. (n)

Art. 1157. Obligations arise from:

(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts. (1089a)

Art. 1158. Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are
demandable, and shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them; and as to what has not been foreseen,
by the provisions of this Book. (1090)

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. 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-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

QUASI-DELICT (NCC: 2176)

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-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES
 Andamo v IAC

“The elements of a quasi-delict are, to wit:

(a) Damages suffered by the plaintiff

(b) Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond

(c) The connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the
plaintiff”

“It must be stressed that the use of one’s property is not without limitations. The NCC provides that the owner of the thing cannot
make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person.”

 Lucas v Tuano

“The fact of want of competence or diligence is evidentiary in nature, the veracity of which can best be passed upon after a full-
blown trial for it is virtually impossible to ascertain the merits of a medical negligence case without extensive investigation,
research, evaluation and consultation with the medical experts.”

“In medical negligence suits the patient or his heirs, in order to prevail, is required to prove by is required to prove by
preponderance of evidence that the physician failed to exercise that degree of skill, care and learning possessed by other
persons in the same profession; and that as a proximate result of such failure, the patient or his heirs suffered damages.”

“In medical negligence cases, the four essential elements are the following: 1. Duty, 2. Breach of Duty, 3 Injury and 4. Breach is the
proximate cause of injury. This must be established by the petitioner. The injury must be a direct and natural sequence of events,
unbroken by intervening efficient causes.

QUASI-DELICT DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER SOURCES OF OBLIGATIONS (NC: 1172-1173)

Art. 1172. 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. (1103)

Art. 1173. 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. (1104a)

 Air France v Carrasco

”ART. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's
employees, naturally, could give ground for an action for damages. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They
have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. Although the
relation of passenger and carrier is "contractual both in origin and nature" nevertheless "the act that breaks the contract may be
also a tort"

 PSBA v CA

“Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the rule in in loco parentis. Article 2180 provides that
the damage should have been caused or inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution sought to be held liable for
the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody. However, this material situation does not exist in the present case for, as earlier
indicated, the assailants of Carlitos were not students of the PSBA, for whose acts the school could be made liable. But it does not
necessarily follow that PSBA is absolved form liability.

“When an academic institution accepts students for enrolment, there is established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral
obligations which both parties is bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an
education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES
profession. This includes ensuring the safety of the students while in the school premises. On the other hand, the student covenants
to abide by the school's academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations.”

“When an academic institution accepts students for enrolment, there is established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral
obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an
education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a
profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school’s academic requirements and observe its rules.”

“Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or ‘built-in -obligation of providing their student with an atmosphere that
promotes or assists in attaining its primary undertaking of imparting knowledge. Certainly no student can absorb the intricacies of
physics or higher mathematics or explore the realm of arts and other sciences when bullets are flying or grenades exploding in the
air or where there looms around the school premises a constant threat to life and limb. Necessarily, the school must ensure that
adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the campus premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof.”

“Even if there be a finding of negligence, the same could give rise generally to a breach of contract only and that contractual
relation is a condition snine qua non to the schools liability. Even in the absence of a contract, the school may still be liable as
employer under 2176.

 LRTA v Navidad

“The employer is presumed to be negligent and the presumption flows from the negligence of the employee. The premise for the
employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be
made liable on the basis of the presumption that the employer failed to exercise diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of its employees.”

“Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is
burdened with the duty off exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers”

“Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still
establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is
due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure”

QUASI-DELICT v DELICT (RPC: 100 and 365)

Article 100 “Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable”

Article 365 “Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would
have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty ofarresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would
have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed.

Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.

When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender
shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall
in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.

A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or
negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.

Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is
not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES
 Barredo v Garcia and Almario

“Crimes under the Penal Code differ from culpa aquiliana or quasi-delitos under the Civil Code, viz.: a) Crimes affect the public
interest, while cuasi-delitos are only of private concern; b) The Penal Code punishes or corrects criminal act, while the Civil Code,
by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage; c) Delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because the former are
punished only if there is a penal law clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which any kind of fault
or negligence intervenes; and d) The liability of the employer of the actor-employee is subsidiary in crimes while his liability is direct
and primary in quasi-delict.”

“Employers are subsidiarily liable of the acts of employees. Plaintiff can go against the employer and the employer can go
against the employee”

 Elcano v Hill

“Article 101 does not cover cases involving minors over nine who acted with discernment. However, prevailing jurisprudence is to
the effect that parents and other persons exercising parental authority are also liable for the acts of their children over nine (9) but
under fifteen (15) years of age who acted with discernment pursuant to Article 2180.”

(NCC: 2180: 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.)

PROSCRIPTION AGAINST DOUBLE RECOVERY (NCC: 2177)

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. (n)

 Equitable Leasing Corporation v Lucita Suyom

“The limitation imposed by law is the proscription against double recovery provided for under Article 2177 of the Civil Code.
Although an act or omission may give rise to two causes of action, the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or omission
of the defendant”

NEGLIGENCE
CONCEPT (NCC 1172 to 1174)

Art. 1172. 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. (1103)

Art. 1173. 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. (1104a)

Art. 1174. 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. (1105a)

 Picart v Smith

“The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in
doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in
the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the supposed to be supplied by the
imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined
by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.

The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of course be always determined
in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case. Abstract speculation cannot here be of
much value but this much can be profitably said: Reasonable men govern their conduct by the circumstances which are before

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES
them or known to them. They are not, and are not supposed to be, omniscient of the future. Hence, they can be expected to
take care only when there is something before them to suggest or warn danger. Could a prudent man, in the case under
consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to
guard against harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this provision, is always
necessary before negligence can be held to exist. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion for determining the existence of
negligence in a given case is this: Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would
have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct or guarding
against its consequences.”

“The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment but by the behavior of the
actor in the situation before him. “

 Corliss v Manila Railroad Corp

“One cannot just single out a circumstance and then confidently assign to it the decisive weight and significance.”

“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.”

“Negligence is want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute term and its
application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably
require. Where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care
under the circumstances.”

 Pacis v Morales

“A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under his control an instrumentality extremely
dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in possession or control of dangerous
instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs
of life or business which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous weapons requires the exercise of a higher
degree of care.”

 Civil Aeronautics Administration v CA and Ernest E. Simke

"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 person, of the time and of the place. The obligation of the CAA in maintaining the
viewing deck, a facility open to the public, requires that CAA insure the safety of the viewer’s using it.

 Makati Shangrila-Hotel and Resort v Harper

“The hotel business is imbued with public interest. Hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for their guests but also
security to their persons and belongings to their guest. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business”

“The test of negligence is objective. WE measure the act or ommission of the tortfeasor with a perspective as that of an ordinary
reasonable person who is similarly situated. The test, as applied to the extant case, is whether or not [Shangri-la Hotel], under the
attendant circumstances, used that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same
situation.”

 Associated Bank v Tan

“The degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family where the fiduciary nature of their
relationship with their depositors is concerned.”

 Philippine Hawk Corp v Vivian Tan Lee

“To be negligent, a defendant must have acted or failed to act in such a way that an ordinary reasonable man would have
realized that certain interests of certain persons were unreasonably subjected to a general but definite class of risks.”

“An employer shall be liable for the acts of the employee and is liable also to the injured party when it failed to exercise diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee.”

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES

 Li v Soliman

“Medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical
professional which has caused bodily harm. In order to successfully pursue such claim, a patient must prove that a health care
provider in most cases a physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have
done or that he or she did something that a reasonably health care provider would not have done; and that failure or action
caused injury to the patient.”

“Medical negligence cases are best proved by opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the same general neighborhood and in
the same general line of practice as defendant physician or surgeon.”

“A patient to give consent to any medical procedure or treatment; every human being of adult year and sound mind has a right
to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent
commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages. From a purely ethical norm, informed consent evolved into a general
principle of law that a physician has a duty to disclose what a reasonably prudent physician in the medical community in the
exercise of reasonable care would disclose to his patient as to whatever grave risk of injury might be incurred from a proposed
course of treatment, so that a patient, exercising ordinary care for her own welfare and faced with a choice of undergoing the
proposed treatment, as alternative treatment, or none at all, may intelligently exercise his judgement by reasonably balancing
the probable risk against the probable benefits.”

“There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice action based upon the doctrine of informed consent: 1.)
the physician had a duty to disclose material risks; 2.) he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks; 3.) as a direct and
proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to; and 4.)
plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment. The gravamen in an informed consent requires the plaintiff to point to significant
undisclosed information relating to the treatment which could have altered her decision to undergo it.”

 Calvo v UCPB

“Mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination in bad order, makes out
a prima facie case against the carrier, so that if no explanation is given as to how the injury occurred, the carrier must be held
responsible. Extraordinary responsibility lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of and received
by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered actually or constructively by the carrier to the consignee or to the
person who has the right to receive the same

 The Hiers of Redentor Completo and Elpidio Abiad v Sgt. Amando C. Albayda Jr.

“In negligence suits the Plaintiff has the burden of proof by providing a preponderance of evidence.”

“Employers are liable for damage caused by employees, but the responsibility ceases upon proof that employers observed the
diligence of the good father of the family in the selection and supervision of employees. The burden of proof is on the employer.
The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for QD is solidary. The employer’s civil liability for his employee’s negligent
acts is also primary and direct, owing to his own negligence in selecting and supervising them, and this liability attaches even if
the employer is not in the vehicle at the time of collision.

In the selection of employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records.
With respect to supervision, employers should formulate SOPs and monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures
for breaches. To establish these factors in a trial involving the issue of vicarious [secondary] liability, employers must submit
concrete proof, including documentary evidence.”

 Hidalgo Enterprises Inc v Balandan

“The doctrine of Attractive Nuisance exists when an owner is liable if he maintains in his premises dangerous instrumentalities or
appliances of a character likely to lure children in play and he fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children of tender age
from playing therewith or resorting thereto.”

“Attractive Nuisance exists when a person maintains on his premise dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of charter likely to
attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent the children from playing therewith, is liable to a child of
tender years who is injured even if the child is a trespasser.”

“A swimming pool or pond or reservoir of water is not considered attractive nuisance. The Supreme Court explained that “nature
has created streams, lakes and pools which attract children. Lurking in their waters is always the danger of drowning. Against this

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES
danger children are to know the danger;” and the owner of private property is not liable if he merely duplicated the work of
nature by creating an artificial pool on his own property without adding new danger.”(EXCEPTION TO ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE RULE)

NEGLIGENCE AS PROXIMATE CAUSE/ PROXIMATE CAUSE DOCTRINE

(Proof of causation /causal relation between negligence/ act or omission and damage is an indispensable element of liability)

The plaintiff must still present proof that the proximate cause of his injury is the negligence of the defendant. Proof must be presented that
there was causal connection between the negligence or violation of statute and the injury. Absent such proof, the defendant will not be
held liable.

 Honoria Delgado Vda de Gregorio, et al v Go Chong Bing

“It is important to emphasize, however, that in any event, the requisites of quasi-delict must still be complete before an action
based thereon can prosper. Although violation of statute is negligence per se (or even in case negligence is merely presumed),
the plaintiff must still present proof that the proximate cause of his injury is the negligence of the defendant. Proof must be
presented that there was causal connection between the negligence or violation of statute and the injury. Absent such proof, the
defendant will not be held liable.”

 Batacan v Medina

“Proximate cause is 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.”

 Fernando v CA

“Proximate cause, is that it is 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”

 Urbano v IAC

“Proximate cause is 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 ordinarily 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."

 Mercury Drug v Banking

“The drugstore business is imbued with public interest. The health and safety of the people will be put into jeopardy if drugstore
employees will not exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in selling medicines. The care required must be
commensurate with the danger involved, and the skill employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of the business
which the law demands.”

“Any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that
the result would not have occurred otherwise; determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic,
common sense, policy and precedent”

 Umali v Bacani

“The employer is presumed to be negligent and the presumption flows from the negligence of the employee. The premise for the
employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES
made liable on the basis of the presumption that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and
supervision of its employees. However, that presumption is only juris tantum, not juris et de jure.”

 S.D Martinez v Buskirk

“That it is a universal practice of merchants during that time to deliver products through horse-drawn vehicles; and it is also
considered universal practice to leave the horses in the manner in which they were left during the accident. It has been
practiced for a long time and generally has not been the cause of accidents or injuries”

“It could very well be that the custom in a community is the correct way of doing things under certain circumstances. The way of
doing things in a particular situation may, in fact, have ripened into custom precisely because it is how a reasonable man would
act under the same circumstances. The very reason why they have been permitted by society is that they are beneficial rather
than prejudicial”

 BPI v Suarez

“The bank must at all times maintain a high level of meticulousness and should guard against injury attributableto negligence or
bad faith on its part.”

IMMEDIATE CAUSE; INTERVENING CAUSE

IMMEDIATE CAUSE

INTERVENING CAUSE

An efficient intervening cause is one that destroys the causal connection between the negligent act and injury and thereby
negatives liability. An intervening cause will be regarded as the proximate cause and the first cause as too remote, where the
chain of events is so broken that they become independent and the result cannot be said to be the consequence of the primary
cause.

There is no efficient intervening cause if the force created by the negligent act or omission have either: (1) remained active itself
or (2) created another force which remained active until it directly caused the result, or (3) created a new active risk of being
acted upon by the active force that caused the result.

The test of the sufficiency of an intervening cause to defeat recovery for negligence is not to be found in the mere fact of its
existence, but rather in its nature and manner in which it affects the continuity of operation of the primary cause or the
connection between it and the injury.

A cause is not an intervening cause if it is already in operation at the time the negligent act is committed.

PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE (ROC: Rule 131, Section 1, 2 and 3 (d))

Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. (1a, 2a)

Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:

(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a
particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be
permitted to falsify it:

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them. (3a)

Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted
and overcome by other evidence:

(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES
 Ong v Metropolitan Water District

“The rule is well settled that the owners of resorts to which people generally are expressly or by implication invited are legally
bound to exercise ordinary care and prudence in the management and maintenance of such resorts, to the end of making them
reasonably safe for visitors.’’

“The person claiming damages has the burden of proving that the damage is caused by the fault or negligence of the person
from whom the damage is claimed, or of one of his employees”

“The last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously and if the injury
cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered; at least in cases in
which any previous negligence of the party charged cannot be said to have contributed to the injury.”

PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
RES IPSA LOQUITOR

Another rule which is relied upon in negligence cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself. Its function is to
aid the plaintiff in proving the elements of a negligence case by circumstantial evidence

 Layugan v IAC

“Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence,
in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.”

 Africa v Caltex

“Where the thing which caused injury, without fault of the injured person, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the
injury is such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur if he having such control use proper care, it affords reasonable
evidence, in the absence of the explanation, that the injury arose from defendant’s want of care.”

“The persons who knew or could have known how the fire started were the defendant and their employees, but they gave no
explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of care”

“The proximate cause is not necessarily the sole cause of the accident. The defendant is still liable in case there is a concurrent
cause brought about by acts or omissions of third persons. The actor is not protected from liability even if the active and
substantially simultaneous operation of the effects of a third person’s innocent, tortious or criminal act is also a substantial factor in
bringing about the harm so long as the actor’s negligent conduct actively and continuously operate to bring about harm to
another.”

“The intervention of an unforeseen and unexpected cause, is not sufficient to relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of
negligence, if such negligence directly and proximately cooperates with the independent cause in the resulting injury.’’

 Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works Inc v William Lines Inc

“For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply to a given situation, the following conditions must concur:

(1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; and
(2) that the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with
negligence.”

 Perla Compania de Seguros Inc v Spouses Sarangaya

“Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitur:

1) The accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent “Ordinary” refers to the usual course of
events

2) The cause of the injury was under the exclusive control of the person in charge and

3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.”

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES
“When there is caso fortuito:

(a) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was independent of the human will. Human agency must be
entirely excluded as the proximate cause or contributory cause of the injury or loss

(b) It was impossible to foresee the event which constituted the caso fortuito or, if it could be foreseen, it was impossible to avoid

(c) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible to perform an obligation in a normal manner

(d) The person tasked to perform the obligation must not have participated in any course of conduct that aggravated the
accident”

 Reyes v Sisters of Mercy Hospital

“Though expert testimony is usually needed to prove malpractice, where common knowledge and experience teach that the
injury would not have occurred if due care had been exercised, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be invoked to establish
negligence.

Hence, in cases where the res ipsa loquitur is applicable, the court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of
injury to the patient, without the aid of expert testimony, where the court from its fund of common knowledge can determine the
proper standard of care. Where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting injury would not have occurred to
the patient if due care had been exercised, an inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an application of the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without medical evidence, which is ordinarily required to show not only what occurred but how and
why it occurred.

When the doctrine is appropriate, all that the patient must do is prove a nexus between the particular act or omission complained
of and the injury sustained while under the custody and management of the defendant without need to produce expert medical
testimony to establish the standard of care.”

“The practice of medicine is a profession engaged in only by qualified individuals. It is a right earned through years of education,
training, and by first obtaining a license from the state through professional board examinations. Such license may, at any time
and for cause, be revoked by the government. In addition to state regulation, the conduct of doctors is also strictly governed by
the Hippocratic Oath, an ancient code of discipline and ethical rules which doctors have imposed upon themselves in
recognition and acceptance of their great responsibility to society. Given these safeguards, there is no need to expressly require
of doctors the observance of “extraordinary” diligence.

As it is now, the practice of medicine is already conditioned upon the highest degree of diligence. And, as we have
already noted, the standard contemplated for doctors is simply the reasonable average merit among ordinarily good physicians.”

VIOLATION OF RULES AND STATUTES

Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by
the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been
found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. If the owner was
not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. (n)

Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the
time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. (n)

RA 1086 Section 13 and IRR

 Mallari v CA

“This act of overtaking was in clear violation of Sec. 41, pars. (a) and (b), of RA 4136 as amended, otherwise known as The Land
Transportation and Traffic Code. A driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle in an ordinary
situation has the duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do so in safety. When a motor vehicle is
approaching or rounding a curve, there is special necessity for keeping to the right side of the road and the driver does not have
the right to drive on the left hand side relying upon having time to turn to the right if a car approaching from the opposite
direction comes into view.”

 PCI Leasing and Finance Inc v UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES
“The principle of holding the registered owner of a vehicle liable for quasi-delicts resulting from its use is well-established in
jurisprudence, registration is required not to make said registration the operative act by which ownership in vehicles is transferred,
as in land registration cases, because the administrative proceeding of registration does not bear any essential relation to the
contract of sale between the parties, but to permit the use and operation of the vehicle upon any public highway (section 5 [a],
Act No. 3992, as amended.) The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or
that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite
individual, the registered owner. Instances are numerous where vehicles running on public highways caused accidents or injuries
to pedestrians or other vehicles without positive identification of the owner or drivers, or with very scant means of identification. It
is to forestall these circumstances, so inconvenient or prejudicial to the public, that the motor vehicle registration is primarily
ordained, in the interest of the determination of persons responsible for damages or injuries caused on public highways.”

 Anonuevo v CA

“Art. 2185 is not applicable to non-motorized vehicle. A motorized vehicle, unimpeded by the limitations in physical exertion. is
capable of greater speeds and acceleration than non-motorized vehicles. At the same time, motorized vehicles are more
capable in inflicting greater injury or damage in the event of an accident or collision. This is due to a combination of factors
peculiar to the motor vehicle, such as the greater speed, its relative greater bulk of mass, and greater combustibility due to the
use of fuel.”

“The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by the personal judgment of the actor in a given situation, but
rather, it is the law which determines what would be reckless or negligent. Añonuevo asserts that Villagracia was negligent as the
latter had transgressed traffic regulations. However, Añonuevo was speeding as he made the left turn, and such negligent act
was the proximate cause of the accident. Even assuming that Añonuevo had failed to see Villagracia because the bicycle was
not equipped with headlights, such lapse on the cyclist’s part would not have acquitted the driver of his duty to slow down as he
proceeded to make the left turn.”

STATUTES AND ORDINANCES/ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

STATUTES AND ORDINANCES- violation of statute may be treated either as (1) a circumstance which establishes a presumption of
negligence, (2) negligence per se or (3) a circumstance which should be considered together with other circumstances as
evidence of negligence.

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES- with respect to the rules promulgated by administrative agencies, the Supreme Court observed in one
case that “there is practically unanimity in the proposition that violation of a rule promulgated by a Commission or Board is not
negligence per se but it may be evidence of negligence.”

 FF Cruz and Co Inc v CA (NEGLIGENCE PER SE)

“The failure to construct a firewall in accordance with city ordinances would suffice to support a finding of negligence.

 Cipriano v CA

“The reason for this rule is that the statute or ordinance becomes the standard of care or conduct to which the reasonably
prudent person is held. Failure to follow the statute involved constitutes a breach of the legal duty imposed and fixed by the
statute. Since negligence is a breach of legal duty, the violator of a statute is then negligent as a matter of law.”

 Sanitary Steam Laundry v CA

“Article III, Section 2 of R.A. No. 4136, known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, which provides that “no person
operating any vehicle shall allow more passengers or more freight or cargo in his vehicle than its registered carry capacity” and
Article IV, Section 3(e) which states that “every motor vehicle of more than one meter of projected width, while in use on any
public highway shall bear tow headlights . . . which not later than one-half hour after sunset and until at least one-hour before
sunrise and whenever weather conditions so require, shall both be lighted. The petitioner, however, had the burden of showing a
causal connection between the injury received and the violation of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. He must show that
the violation of the statute was the proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto. Negligence,
consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing
cause of the injury.”

DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND SUBSTANCES (NCC: 2188)

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his
possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is
indispensable in his occupation or business. (n)

 Araneta v Arreglado

“Using the test of foreseeability, the parents can be said to have failed to exercise due diligence in supervising their child if they al-
lowed the latter to have access to the pistol used to injure another. A good father of a family would have foreseen that a gun in
the hands of an immature child may cause injury either to the child or to third persons.”

DEFENSES
COMPLETE DEFESE

PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY

ARTICLE 2179

 Paulan v Sarabia
 American Express International Inc v Cordero
 Fernando v CA
 PLDT v CA
 Pantaleon v American Express International Inc

EXCEPTION: DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE

 Taylor v Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co

 Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc v Balandan

ASSUMPTION OF RISK

ARTICLE 2179

 Afiliada v Hosole and Hosole

 Ilocos Norte Co. v CA
 Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, et al v Reyes

DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE; DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING NEGLIGENCE; DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERED PERIL, or THE HUMANITARIAN
DOCTRINE

 Picart v Smith
 PNRC v Vizcara
 Echevara v Ramos
 Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corp. v Angala
 Tiu v Arriesgado

FORTUITOUS EVENTS

EMERGENCY RULE

PRESCRIPTION

INCOMPLETE DEFENSE

DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

PARENTS AND GUARDIAN

OWNERS AND MANAGERS ESTABLISHMENT

EMPLOYERS

PADAYON LANG!:D
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
C&M NOTES

PADAYON LANG!:D