BASIC RULES AND PRINCIPLES ON QUASI-DELICT

1. No liability where there is no breach of a given right

It is a settled rule that to warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action
for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom.
Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a cause of action, since
damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.
Custodio et al. vs. CA, et al. [G.R. No. 116100, February 9, 1996]

2. Case where the bank was absolved upon a finding that it exercised the required
diligence
The Court absolved the bank from liability, arguing that while the bank is mandated by the
General Banking Act of 2000 to observe the highest standards of integrity and performance and
that it is under obligation to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, no gross
negligence can however be ascribed to the bank. In order for the account holder to hold the bank
liable for gross negligence, he must establish that the latter did not exert any effort at all to avoid
unpleasant consequences, or that it willfully and intentionally disregarded the proper protocols
or procedure in the handling of US dollar notes and in selecting and supervising its employees. In
Spouses Carbonell v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company [G.R. No. 178467, April 26, 2017],
the High Court sustained the findings of the CA and the RTC that the bank had exercised the
diligence required by law in observing the standard operating procedure, in taking the necessary
precautions for handling the US dollar bills in question, and in selecting and supervising its
employees.

3. Injury and damage, distinguished

Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results from
the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered.
Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not
the result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the
injured person alone, the law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does
not amount to a legal injury or wrong. BPI Express Card Corporation v. CA, et al. [G.R. No.
120639, September 25, 1998]
In Custodio et al. vs. CA, et al. [G.R. No. 116100, February 9, 1996], the Supreme Court
distinguished these concepts as follows: “Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is
the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in
those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These
situations are often called damnum absque injuria.”

4. What is damnum absque injuria?

Damnum absque injuria literally means damage without injury. Meaning, the loss or harm is not
a result of a violation of a duty and is therefore not compensable. It is emphasized that “in order
that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, that act must be not only hurtful, but
wrongful. There must be damnum et injuria. If, as may happen in many cases, a person sustains
actual damage, that is, harm or loss to his person or property, without sustaining any legal injury,
that is, an act or omission which the law does not deem an injury, the damage is regarded as
damnum absque injuria. Custodio et al. vs. CA, et al. [G.R. No. 116100, February 9, 1996]
In Spouses Carbonell v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company [G.R. No. 178467, April 26,
2017], the Court referred to injury as the illegal invasion of a legal right and damage as the loss,
hurt, or harm which results from the injury; while “damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in
those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty.” The
Court, thus, concluded that “in every situation of damnum absque injuria, therefore, the injured
person alone bears the consequences because the law affords no remedy for damages resulting
from an act that does not amount to a legal injury or wrong.”

5. Case where no contributory neglect can be attributed to a 9-year old child

In the case of Jarco Marketing Corporation, et al. vs. CA, et al. [G.R. No. 129792, December 21,
1999], the Court applied the conclusive presumption that favors children below nine (9) years
old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence. Citing the book of former Judge Cezar
S. Sangco, the Court asseverated that “in our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is
conclusively presumed to have acted without discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from
criminal liability. The same presumption and a like exemption from criminal liability obtains in a
case of a person over nine and under fifteen years of age, unless it is shown that he has acted
with discernment. Since negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict and required discernment
as a condition of liability, either criminal or civil, a child under nine years of age is, by analogy,
conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence; and that the presumption of lack of
discernment or incapacity for negligence in the case of a child over nine but under fifteen years
of age is a rebuttable one, under our law. The rule, therefore, is that a child under nine years of
age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.”

6. Case where death of a child cannot be attributed to accident

The child’s death cannot be attributed to simple accident. In our jurisdiction, an accident pertains
to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant. The Court,
citing Black’s Law Dictionary, defines “accident” as “[a]n unintended and unforeseen injurious
occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be
reasonably anticipate
In this instant case, the death of the child was not without human agency. Her death can be
attributed to the defective and dangerous counter of the department store, without which the
death would not have occurred. Jarco Marketing Corporation, et al. vs. CA, et al. [G.R. No.
129792, December 21, 1999]

7. What is an accident?
In Julleza v. Orient Line Philippines, Inc. et al. [G.R. No. 225190, July 29, 2019], the Court defined
accident in this wise: Black’s Law Dictionary defines “accident” as “[a]n unintended and
unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or
that could not be reasonably anticipated, x x x [a]n unforeseen and injurious occurrence not
attributable to mistake, negligence, neglect or misconduct.” x x x The Philippine Law Dictionary
defines the word “accident” as “[t]hat which happens by chance or fortuitously, without
intention and design, and which is unexpected, unusual and unforeseen.”

8. Case where tire explosion was not considered fortuitous event

Under the circumstances of this case, the explosion of the new tire may not be considered a
fortuitous event. There are human factors involved in the situation. The fact that the tire was
new did not imply that it was entirely free from manufacturing defects or that it was properly
mounted on the vehicle. Neither may the fact that the tire bought and used in the vehicle is of a
brand name noted for quality, resulting in the conclusion that it could not explode within five
days’ use. Be that as it may, it is settled that an accident caused either by defects in the
automobile or through the negligence of its driver is not a caso fortuito that would exempt the
carrier from liability for damages. Yobido v. CA, et al. [G.R. No. 113003, October 17, 1997]

9. What constitutes fortuitous event?

A fortuitous event is possessed of the following characteristics: (a) the cause of the unforeseen
and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligations, must be
independent of human will; (b) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the
casofortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be
such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d)
the obliger must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
creditor. Yobido v. CA, et al. [G.R. No. 113003, October 17, 1997]

Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable. It is

therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is
commonly believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to
foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same. Metro Concast Steel corporation
et al. v. Allied Bank Corporation [G.R. No. 177921, December 04, 2013]

10. Rule that volenti non fit injuria will not apply when there is an emergency
In this jurisdiction, “volenti non fit injuria” is not applicable when there is an emergency or when
life or property is in peril. In Ilocos Norte Electric Company v. CA, et al. [G.R. No. L-53401,
November 6, 1989], the Court held that the deceased who was on her way to her grocery store
to see to it that the goods were not flooded is not bound by the rule on “volenti non fit injuria”.

11. Case where the bank was absolved on the basis of volenti non fit injuria on the part of
client
In Pantaleon v. American Express International, Inc. [G.R. No. 174269, August 25, 2010], the
Court absolved the bank of any liability, arguing that the damages, if any, suffered by the card
holder was not due to a breach of duty on the part of the bank but was due to his own act.
Applying the doctrine of “volenti non fit injuria”, the card holder knew that the most basic rule
when travelling in a tour group is that you must never be a cause of any delay and when the card
holder “made up his mind to push through with his purchase, he must have known that the group
would become annoyed and irritated with him. This was the natural, foreseeable consequence
of his decision to make them all wait.” In other words, the card holder could have cancelled the
card transaction in order not to jeopardize the schedule group tour but he did not.

12. What is volenti non fit injuria?

The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (“to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as
injury”) refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of
damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not
negligent in doing so. Nikko Hotel Manila garden et al. v. Reyes [G.R. No. 154259, February 28,
2005]

13. No assumption of risk when passenger was made to seat in an “extension seat”

It is a settled rule that a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm arising from the negligent
or reckless conduct of the defendant cannot recover for such harm. However, in Calalas vs. CA
[G.R. No. 122039, May 31, 2000], the Supreme Court was quite emphatic when it held that “we
find it hard to give serious thought to petitioner’s contention that Sunga’s taking an “extension
seat” amounted to an implied assumption of risk. It is akin to arguing that the injuries to the many
victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely because those passengers
assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry.”