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]

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. 

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.”  

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.” 

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.”

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],

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.” 

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]

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]

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”.

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. 

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]

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.”