Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta.
Barbara
CAUSATION
1. Article1172
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.
2. Article 2201
In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good
faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the
breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen at the time the obligation
was constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible
for all the damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the
obligation.
3. Article 2202
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants shall be liable for all the damages which
are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is
not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen
by the defendant.
4. Article 2179
When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the
immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care,
the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
5. What is the Chain of Causation? Draw an example and explain.
We pick out the cause which our judgment ought to be treated as the dominant one
with reference, not merely to the event itself, but to the jural consequences that ought
to attach to the event. There is an opinion by Lord Shaw in the English House of Lords
in which he refers to the common figure of speech whereby a succession of causes is
represented as a chain. He reminds us that the figure though convenient, is inadequate.
(page 313. Aquino)
The causal connection between an original cause and its subsequent effects especially
as a basis for criminal or civil liability [intervening acts of third parties will not break
the chain of causation (Brownell v. Figel, Internet)
6. What is a cone of Causation? Draw a cone of causation and differentiate from
the chain of causation.
H.L.A Hart and A.M Honore refer to the “cone of causation”. They observed that “if
we look into the past of any given event, there is an infinite number of events, each of
which is a necessary condition of the given event and so, as much as any other, it is its
cause. This is the “cone” of causation so called because, since any event has a number
of simultaneous conditions, the series fans out as we go back in time. (page 312,
Aquino)
In the Chain of Causation, there is only the causal connection of the original cause and
its subsequent effects while in the cone of causation, there is an infinite number of
events as the cause.
7. What is the net of Causation? Draw net/web of causation and explain.
In Paradoxes of Legal Science, Justice Cardozo also discussed infinite numbers of
events that preceded an event in question. He cited Lord Shaw who referred to what is
known as the “net” of causation. Justice Cadozo discussed the problem of causation in
law in this wise:
1|P age
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
“xxx The law has its problems of causation. It must trace events to its causes, or say
with Hume that there is no cause, but only juxtaposition or succession.
At each point, influences, forces, events, precendent and simultaneous meet, and the
radiation from each point extends to infinitely. From this complex web the law picks
out now this cause and now that one. Thus, the same event may have one jural cause
when it is considered as giving rise to a cause of action for a tort. The law accepts or
rejects one or another as it measures its own ends and the social benefits or evils of
rejection or acceptance. (page 313, Aquino)
8. Sps. Vergara v Torrecampo Sonkin
Doctrines: Contributory negligence is the conduct on the part of the injured party
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard
he is required to conform for his own protection.
The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly
responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but
must bear the consequences of his negligence.
Key words: Contributory Negligence
Sps Sonkin- failed to observe the 2 meter set back of the National Building Code and
disregarded legal easement constituted on their property.
Sps. Vergara- failed to provide adequate drainage system
Facts: The petitioners Sps. Vergara and Sps. Sonkin are adjoining landowners in
Poblacion, Norzangaray, Bulacan. The property owned by the Sps. Sonkin (Sonkin
Property) is slightly lower in elevation than that owned by Sps. Vergara (Vergara
Property).
When Sps. Sonkin bought the property sometime in 1999, they raised the height of the
partition wall and caused the construction of their house thereon. The house itself was
attached to the partition wall such that a portion thereof became a part of the wall of
the master’s bedroom and bathroom.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Thereafter, the Sps. Vergara levelled the uneven portion of their property by filling it
with gravel, earth and soil, making it even higher than that of the Sonkin Property.
Eventually, Sps. Sonkin began to complain that water coming from the Vergara
Property was leaking into their bedroom through the partition wall, causing cracks, as
well as damage, to the paint and the wooden parquet floor. Sps. Sonkin repeatedly
demanded that Sps. Vergara build a retaining wall on their property in order to contain
the landfill that they had dumped thereon, but the same went unheeded.
Sps. Sonkin filed the instant complaint for damages and injunction with prayer for
preliminary mandatory injunction and issuance of a temporary restraining order.
RTC – found Sps. Vergara Civilly liable to Sps. Sonkin for damages and directed them
a) to scrape the earth and other filling materials dumped in the adjacent parameter wall
of the Sonkin property and erect a retaining wall in accordance with the standards of
the National Building Code; b) Install and provide an adequate drainage system in
accordance with the same code; c) jointly and severally pay Sps. Sonkin for damages.
CA - on appeal ruled that while the act of the Sps Vergara in elevating their property
was the proximate cause of the water seepage, the Sps. Sonkin were guilty of
contributory negligence in building their house directly abutting the perimeter wall.
Thus, it deleted the actual damages ordered by the RTC. It nevertheless awarded the
Sonkins moral damages and attorney’s fees.
Issue: W/N it should have ordered the demolition of the portion of the Sps. Sonkin’s
house that adjoins the partition wall.
Held: YES
Art. 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause
of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory,
the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care,
the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.
2|P age
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Verily, contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing
as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which
he is required to conform for his own protection.
The CA correctly held that while the proximate cause of the damage sustained by the
house of Sps. Sonkin was the act of Sps. Vergara in dumping gravel and soil onto their
property, thus, pushing the perimeter wall back and causing cracks thereon, as well as
water seepage, the former is nevertheless guilty of contributory negligence for not only
failing to observe the two (2)-meter setback rule under the National Building Code,
but also for disregarding the legal easement (to receive water from higher estates)
constituted over their property. As such, Sps. Sonkin must necessarily and equally bear
their own loss.
In view of Sps. Sonkin’s contributory negligence, the Court deems it appropriate to
delete the award of moral damages in their favor. While moral damages may be
awarded whenever the defendant’s wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of
the plaintiffs physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury in the
cases specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, they
are only given to ease the defendant’s grief and suffering and should, therefore,
reasonably approximate the extent of hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong done.
Note: Article 637 of the Civil Code: Lower estates are obliged to receive waters which
naturally and without intervention of man descend from the higher estates, as well as
stones or earth which they carry with them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will impede this easement;
neither can the owner of the higher estate make works which will increase the burden.
9. Explain relativity of causation e.g. fire
When we speak of the cause of an event we are only picking out what is relevant to
the standpoint of a special inquiry, and is determined in its scope by the particular
concept which our purpose makes us have in view.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Cause,’ says Lord Halden in his Book, The Reign of Relativity, ‘is very indefinite
expression. Externality of the effect is of its essence, but its meaning is relative in all
cases to the subject-matter. For the house maid the cause of the fire is the match she
lights and applies. For the physicist the cause of the fire is the conversion of potential
energy to kinetic energy, through the combination of carbon atoms with those of
oxygen and the formation of oxides in the shape of gases which become progressively
oxidized. For the judge who is trying a case of arson, it is the wicked action of the
prisoner in the dock. In each case there is a different field of inquiry, determined
from a different standpoint. But no such field is even approximately exhaustive.
( Aquino, page 313).
10. What is Proximate cause?
Proximate cause is defined as 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.
a. Why does the law or courts insist in using proximate cause when in identifying
who is liable, when it is not a case of proximity but with what is remote? Why do
courts insist in suing proximate cause when it is not a function of proximity? Why
not use not-so-far cause?
In a given situation, a cause cannot be considered remote without identifying the
proximate cause which sets the chain of events into action. Liability attaches to the
person whose negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. [ Short opinion ko lang].
It was held in Abrogar v Cosmos Bottling:
In the course of decisions of cases in which it is necessary to determine which
of several causes is so far responsible for the happening of the act or injury
complained of, what is known as the doctrine of proximate cause is constantly
resorted to in order to ascertain whether the act, omission, or negligence of the
person whom it is sought to hold liable was in law and in fact responsible for
the result which is the foundation of the action.
When the intervening cause is set in operation by the original negligence, such
negligence is still the proximate cause. XXX.. But whenever a new cause
3|P age
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
intervenes, which is not a consequence of the first wrongful cause, which is not
under control of the wrongdoer, which could not have been foreseen by the
exercise of reasonable diligence, and except for which the final injurious
consequence could not have happened, then such injurious consequence must be
deemed too remote.
11. What is Remote cause?
Remote cause is that cause which some independent force merely took advantage of
to accomplish something not the natural effect thereof. It cannot be considered the
legal cause of the damage (Aquino, 302).
A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action, if such remote
cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion
by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior
or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated and efficient
cause, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition
or occasion. If no damage exists in the condition except because of the independent
cause, such condition was not the proximate cause.
12. What is Immediate Cause?
Immediate cause is the cause closest in time to the injury (Abrogar v Cosmos Bottling).
It is the nearest cause, the last link in the chain of events.
a. Immediate cause vs Proximate cause (compare not merely define)
To be considered the proximate cause of the injury, the negligence need not be
the event closest in time to the injury; a cause is still proximate, although
farther in time in relation to the injury, if the happening of it set other foreseeable
events into motion resulting ultimately in the damage.
13. Is proximate cause a requirement for a cause of action? .Is proximate cause a
requirement under Article 2176? What are the requisites of a quasi delict?
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Proximate cause is a requirement for a cause of action in a quasi- delict case. Quasi-
delictual actions involve 3 requirements: negligence, damage, and causal connection
between the damages and the negligent act or omission. Proof of negligence is not
enough. It is still required that the plaintiff presents proof that the proximate cause of
the damage to the plaintiff is the negligent act or omission of the defendant. (Aquino,
307).
14. How is causation determined in quasi- delict ?
It was observed that proximate cause is determined by the facts if each case upon
mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent.
Proximate cause may be determined using cause-in-fact tests and policy tests of
negligence.
• CAUSE-IN- FACT TEST: The initial step in determining proximate cause is
to determine if the negligent act or omission of the defendant is the “cause-
in-fact” of plaintiff’s injury. In this test, courts address the empirical
questions of causal connection. In an ordinary vehicular accident, the
defendant will not be made liable for the injury if he can establish that thr
plaintiff had that injury prior to the accident. The defendant did not cause any
harm which occurred before his wrongful conduct.
• POLICY TESTS: If the damage or injury to the plaintiff is beyond the scope
or limit of the liability fixed by law, the defendants conduct cannot be
considered the proximate cause of the damage. Such scope or limit of liability
is determined by applying policy tests.
15. How about in action for culpa contractual?
In culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves a breach of contract, there is a
presumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent. The burden is on the
defendant to prove that he was not at fault or negligent. In contrast, in culpa
aquiliana the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent. .
a. How is it different in contractual obligations?
4|P age
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
In contractual obligations, 1170 provides that those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, or those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, is liable for damages. Here, negligence is only one of the
causes for breach of contract.
16. Consolidated Bank v. CA
a. How did SC decide on this case on the theory of culpa contractual?
Article 1172 of the Civil Code provides that “responsibility arising from
negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is demandable.” For
breach of the savings deposit agreement due to negligence, or culpa contractual,
the bank is liable to its depositor.
Solidbank is bound by the negligence of its employees under the principle of
respondeat superior or command responsibility. The defense of exercising the
required diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not a complete
defense in culpa contractual, unlike in culpa aquiliana. The bank must not only
exercise “high standards of integrity and performance,” it must also insure that
its employees do likewise because this is the only way to insure that the bank
will comply with its fiduciary duty.
b. In Consolidated Bank, the court took effort in determining the proximate cause;
is the court correct in doing so? Why did the SC still decide on who was the
proximate cause in this case?
The court took effort in determining the proximate cause because the trial court and
CA disagree as to who is the proximate cause of the unauthorized withdrawal. By
determining the proximate cause, the SC can resolve whether there is a breach of
contract of loan.
In this case, SC held that : Proximate cause is determined by the facts of each case
upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent.L.C. Diaz
was not at fault that the passbook landed in the hands of the impostor. Solidbank
was in possession of the passbook while it was processing the deposit. Solidbank
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
failed to fulfill its contractual obligation because it gave the passbook to another
person.
c. What is the juridical tie between the parties?
Simple contract of loan. There is a debtor-creditor relationship between the bank
and its depositor. The bank is the debtor and the depositor is the creditor. The
depositor lends the bank money and the bank agrees to pay
d. In Consolidated bank, the SC still delved on the culpa contractual.( you just
have to answer the 2 requisites.
• Proof of existence of the contract
• Breach of the contract
e. Is the doctrine of last clear chance applicable in culpa contractual?
No. We do not apply the doctrine of last clear chance to the present case.
Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence in the performance
of its contractual obligation to L.C. Diaz. This is a case of culpa contractual,
where neither the contributory negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance
to avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant from liability. Such contributory
negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the
recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from
his breach of contract.
f. What is the Theory of Culpa Contractual
The mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justify,
prima facie, a corresponding right of relief.
Article 1172 of the Civil Code provides that “responsibility arising from
negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is demandable.
g. What was the duty breached by the Bank, particular act?
5|P age
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
The bank breach its fiduciary duty to its depositors to treat their account with
meticulous care. It was the negligent act of Solidbank’s Teller No. 6 that gave
the impostor presumptive ownership of the passbook. Had the passbook not fallen
into the hands of the impostor, the loss of P300,000 would not have happened.
Thus, the proximate cause of the unauthorized withdrawal was Solidbank’s
negligence in not returning the passbook to Calapre.
h. Is the proximate cause a requisite of culpa contractual? As compared to quasi
delict?
No. Proximate cause is not a requisite of culpa contractual unlike in quasi-delict.
In culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves a breach of contract, there is a
presumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent. The burden is on the
defendant to prove that he was not at fault or negligent. In contrast, in culpa
aquiliana the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent.
17. Is proximate cause a requirement under Article 20?
Yes. It is provided under that section that every person who contrary to law willfully
causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same. The willful or
negligent act that is contrary to law must be the proximate cause of the damage in this
article (Hula)
18. How about under Article 21?
Yes. It is provided under Article 22 that any person who willfully caused damage or
injury to another in a way that is contrary to morals, good custom and public policy
must compensate the latter for damages. The wllful act which is contrary to morals,
good custom or public policy must be the proximate cause of the injury in this case
(Hula)
19. How about Article 22?
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
No. Because it is not in the requisites of an accion in rem verso as provided under
Article 22. It is provided in that section that every person who, through an act of
performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the
same to him. In Accion in rem verso, it need not be that the act of the defendant is the
proximate cause of the loss. When the enrichment of the defendant is without legal
ground despite the fact that it is not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s loss, there
can still be a valid action against the former. (Hula lang ito. Walang nakalagay sa book)
20. What are the requisites of accion in rem verso?
• That the defendant has been enriched
• That the plaintiff has suffered a loss
• That the enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal ground
• That the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi contract, crime
and quasi delict (Aquino,p. 709)
21. How about Article 2187?
Yes. It is provided under article 2187 that Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by
any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists
between them and the consumers. The noxious or harmful substance used must be the
proximate cause of the injury or death of the person ( Hula)
21. How about under the Consumer’s Act?
Yes. Proximate cause is necessary to institute an action for strict liabilities under the
Consumer’s act
Under Art. 97, the defects resulting from design, manufacture, construction, assembly
and erection, formulas and handling and making up, presentation or packing of their
products must be the proximate cause of the damage caused to the consumer
6|P age
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Under Art. 99 the defects relating to the rendering of the services, as well as for
insufficient or inadequate information on the fruition and hazards must be the
proximate cause of the damage caused to the consumer.
22. State a pertinent provision on Consumer Act relating to the matter.
Article 97. Liability for the Defective Products. – Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer,
producer, and any importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of fault, for
damages caused to consumers by defects resulting from design, manufacture,
construction, assembly and erection, formulas and handling and making up,
presentation or packing of their products, as well as for the insufficient or inadequate
information on the use and hazards thereof.
A product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it, taking
relevant circumstances into consideration, including but not limited to:
a) presentation of product;
b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
c) the time it was put into circulation.
A product is not considered defective because another better quality product has been
placed in the market.
The manufacturer, builder, producer or importer shall not be held liable when it
evidences:
a) that it did not place the product on the market;
b) that although it did place the product on the market such product has no
defect;
c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at fault.
Article 99. Liability for Defective Services. – The service supplier is liable for redress,
independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects relating to the
rendering of the services, as well as for insufficient or inadequate information on the
fruition and hazards thereof.
The service is defective when it does not provide the safety the consumer may
rightfully expect of it, taking the relevant circumstances into consideration, including
but not limited to:
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
a) the manner in which it is provided;
b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be expected of it;
c) the time when it was provided.
A service is not considered defective because of the use or introduction of new
techniques.
The supplier of the services shall not be held liable when it is proven:
a) that there is no defect in the service rendered;
b) that the consumer or third party is solely at fault
23. What is the liability of a manufacturer of defective products?
Under Art. 97 it is provided that any Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer, and
any importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of fault, for damages caused to
consumers by defects resulting from design, manufacture, construction, assembly and
erection, formulas and handling and making up, presentation or packing of their
products, as well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on the use and
hazards thereof.
The Consumer Act contemplates 4 kinds of defects in products according to this article
• Manufacturing defect-defects resulting from manufacture, construction,
assembly and erection
• Design Defect- defects resulting from designs and formulas
• Presentation defect-Defects resulting from the andling, making up,
presentation, or packaging of products
• Absence of Appropriate Warning-defects resulting from insufficient or
inadequate information on the use and hazard of the products. (Aquino, p.
733)
24. What are the tests in determining proximate cause?
CAUSE-IN-FACT TESTS
7|P age
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
• Sine Qua Non Test/But-for test
Defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of the injury if the damage would not
have resulted had there been no negligence on the party of the defendant
• Substantial Factor Test
Makes the negligent conduct the cause in fact of the damage if it was a substantial
factor in producing the injuries
To be a substantial factor in producing harm, the causes set in motion by the defendant
must continue until the moment of the damage or at least down the setting in motion
of the final active injurious force which immediately produced or preceded the damage
If the accident would not have happened had there been no negligence of the part of
the defendant, the defendant’s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the
damage or injury Important in cases where there are concurrent causes.
• Necessary Element of Sufficient Set (NESS) Test
Whether a particular condition qualifies as a causally relevant factor will depend on
whether it was necessary to complete a set of conditions jointly sufficient to account
for the given occurrence .
A condition was a cause under the NESS test if it was necessary for the sufficiency of
any actually sufficient set, even if, due to other duplicative or pre- empted set of
conditions, it was not – as required by the but-for test – necessary in the circumstances
for the consequence
Meanings
Necessary- circumstance in whose absence the event cannot occur. Its non-existence
ensures in the same sense that its effect do not exists
Sufficient- In whose presence the event must occur Existence of the cause ensures that
its effects also exist
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
POLICY TESTS
• Foreseeability Test
The liability is within the risk created by the defendant’s negligent act. If the defendant
could not reasonably foresee any injury as a result of his act, or if his conduct was
reasonable in the light of what he could anticipate, there is no negligence, and no
liability (De leon, p. 253)
• Natural and Probable Consequence Test
The injury was not only the natural but also the probable consequence of the conduct
as distinguished from consequences that are merely possible
Since what is probable is, in real sense, foreseeable, foreseeability appears to be an
implicit element of this test of proximate cause
Natural and probable consequences have been said to be hose which human foresight
anticipate because they happen so frequently, they may be expected to recur, as
contrasted with “possible consequences” which are those that happen so infrequently
that they are not expected to happen again
• Natural or ordinary or direct consequences test
Defendant is liable for all the damage that flows as the ordinary and natural, or direct
consequence of his conduct to be determined from the circumstances of the case rather
than upon whether he might or must have reasonably expected the resulting injury
• Hindsight Test
A wrongdoer is responsible for all the consequences which a prudent man charged
with knowledge of all the facts would have thought possible to follow from his
negligent act and they appear to obviate foreseeability as an element of proximate
cause
8|P age
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
• Orbit of risk test
If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty which the defendant breached,
liability is imposed for any resulting injury within the orbit or scope of such risk
provided the defendant’s conduct was a cause in fact of such injury
Whether the result of the act is within the ambit of the hazards covered by the duty
imposed upon the defendant
Foreseeability is nevertheless recognized as useful in determining the limits of the
defendant’s duty and the reasonableness of his conduct, so that the purpose of the “risk
theory” is to cause the creation of unduly hazardous situations to produce legal liability
for resulting injury where a foreseeable risk causes harm in an improbable manner
25. Is the determination of proximate cause a 2-step process?
Yes. The two tests to determine if the alleged act is the proximate cause are the
following:
• 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?
• Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a
result of the course actually pursued? (Aquino, p. 47)
26.What is a Natural and probable test? (page 329 Aquino)
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages,
which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of.
It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably
been foreseen by the defendant.
Natural and Probable involves two things, that is causality and adequacy.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Causality means that the damage would not have resulted without the fault or
negligence if the defendant
Adequacy means that the fault of the defendant would normally result in the damage
suffered by the obligee.
The plaintiff must establish a sufficient link between the act or omission and the
damage or injury. The link must not be remote or far-fetched; otherwise no liability
will attach. The damage or injury must be a natural and probable result of the act or
omission
27. What is Cause-in-fact test? (Aquino)
Causation in fact is a precondition for the imposition of liability based on quasi-delict.
It appears that, at least in these cases, the proximate cause as an element of quasi-delict
is equated with factual causation or causation in fact
28. What is the But-for test? (Sangco)
Test whether negligent conduct was the efficient or proximate cause of the injury or
loss suffered by the claimant. That such conduct is a cause without which the injury
would not have taken place, or is the efficient cause which set in motion the chain of
circumstances leading to the injury.
Example given: Even if the bus was running very fast on its lane, it could not have
caused the collision if not for the fact that the driver of the motorcycle tried to overtake
a cargo truck and encroached on the lane traversed by the bus while approaching a
curve.
29. Hypo: Cars A and B are both sufficient to kill X. Simultaneously hit X. Do
you apply the but- for test?
9|P age
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
No, here we apply the NESS Test because there are multiple causes. Both Cars A and
B could have been the cause of hitting X. So long as any of them facilitated the criminal
act they will be held liable and it is not necessary to deliver the fatal blow.
a. In NESS test, is A’s negligence a necessary element for a sufficient set? But A’s
negligence is one set, right?
Yes. Sufficient means that the existence of the cause ensures that its effects also exist.
Since Car A is sufficient to kill X and hit him then
b. In the same problem, what if. Either Car A or Car B is the proximate cause?
(Explanation from Wiki)
Applying the NESS Test then the two cars will be liable to X because it is a necessary
condition for the occurrence of a specified event (the sufficieny to kill X) which is a
circumstance in whose absence the event cannot occur while a sufficient condition for
the occurrence of an event is a circumstance in whose presence the event must occur
(the hitting of X)
30. What is the converse proposition of this test? (Sangco)
The converse of this rule is that a negligent act cannot be said to be the proximate
cause of the accident unless the accident could have been avoided without such
negligent act.
31. What is the “NESS” test? (Aquino)
Applied in multiple causation causes. NESS Test means something is a cause if it is a
necessary element of set of conditions jointly sufficient for the result
32. What is a set? (Sangco)
Set means the set of conditions required to bring about the result of the victim’s injury.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
33. What is the meaning of “necessary” and “sufficient” in the ness test? (Aquino)
Sufficient means that the existence of the cause ensures that its effects also exist .
Necessary means that its non-existence ensures in the same sense that its effect do not
exists.
34. Necessary vs. Sufficient under NESS test?
Thus for cause to be sufficient for the effect is for effect to exist if cause does; and that
for cause to be necessary for effect is for effect not to exists if cause does not.
35. What is Substantial Factor Test? (Aquino)
The issue of proximate causation asks whether the defendant’s conduct could be
regarded as a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff’s harm, and that inquiry
often is translated into one that asks whether any of the human actions or natural events
occur after the defendant’s conduct but before the plaintiff’s harm severs the causal
connection between them.
Not substantial factor = Not proximate cause of injury.
The Substantial factor test is ,in fact, used in cases involving concurrent negligence.
36. Who is liable in substantial factor test?
The defendant
37. What is Orbit of Risk test? (Sangco)
It is a test of duty and not a test of proximate cause. That the defendant under the
circumstances had no duty that was owed to the plaintiff.
10 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty which the defendant breached, liability
is imposed for any resulting injury within the orbit or scope of such injury. It is not the
unusualness of the act resulting in injury to plaintiff that is the test of foreseeability
but whether the result of the act is within the ambit of the hazards covered by the duty
imposed upon defendant
38. What is Duplicative causation/Preemptive causation? (Aquino)
Duplicative occurs when two or more such sets operate simultaneously to produce the
effect, in other words the effect is over-determined.
Pre emptive causation occurs when through coming about first in time, one causal set
of trumps another, potential set lurking in the background.
39. What is Egg- skull rule? Why is it called such?
The Egg-skull rule (also known as Thin-skull rule) basically states that the tortfeasor
is required to take the victim (plaintiff) as he finds him. A tortfeasor whose act,
superimposed upon a prior latent condition, results in an injury may be made liable for
damages. The tortfeasor-defendant is liable even though the negligent act caused an
injury that is greater than what is usually experienced by a normal person because of
a prior condition of the plaintiff (Aquino, 2016; p. 334). If a tortfeasor inflicts a graver
loss on his victim than one would have expected because the victim had some pre-
existing vulnerability, that is the tortfeasor's bad luck; you take your victim as you find
him. That is the famous "eggshell skull" rule of tort law [Schmude v. Tricam Indus.,
556 F.3d 624, 628 (7th Cir. Wis. 2009)].
The rule has its roots has its roots in Dulieu v. White & Sons, where it was observed
that “if a man is negligently run over or otherwise negligently injured in his body, it is
no answer to the sufferer’s claim for damages that he would have suffered less injury,
or no injury at all, if he had not had and unusually thin skull or unusually weak heart”
(Aquino, 2016; p. 334). The term comes from the idea that if an individual’s skull was
especially fragile—like the shell of an egg—and another person struck them in the
head, the defendant would be liable for any damages they caused when they struck the
thin-skulled person.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
40. Hypo: X was hit by Car A. It was sinful for religion of X to receive blood
transfusion. X died due to severe blood loss. Is the act of Car A the Proximate
cause?
YES. The act of Car A is the proximate cause. 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 (Aquino,
2016; p. 300). In this case, the act of Car A is that cause which, in the natural and
continuous sequence, caused the injury.
a. Will the refusal break the chain?
NO. The refusal will not break the chain. Proximate cause will only be broken by an
efficient intervening cause. An efficient intervening cause is one that destroys the
causal connection between the negligent act and injury and thereby negatives liability
(Aquino, 2016; p. 334). A cause is not an intervening cause if it is already in operation
at the time the negligent act is committed as shown in the case of Rodrigueza vs.
Manila Railroad Company. In this case, the refusal was not an intervening cause
because the restriction by the religion was already existing or in operation by the time
the negligent act was committed. Also the refusal did not break the chain of causation
between the negligence of Car A and the resulting injury to X.
41. Hypo: Owner of Car A (20% damage) filed a complaint against Car B owner
(80%) The latter filed a counterclaim against the former. 1M for each.
How much can B recover. Note: first sentence of 2179.
In the usual situation where the negligence of the plaintiff is at issue, as well as that of
the defendant, there will undoubtedly be a counterclaim filed. The cross-plaintiff,
guilty of some degree of negligence would be entitled to a verdict awarding him such
damages as in the judgment were proportionate with his negligence and the negligence
of cross-defendant. This could result in two verdicts—one for plaintiff and one for
cross-plaintiff. In such event, the Court should enter one judgment in favor of the party
receiving the larger verdict, the amount of which should be difference between the two
verdicts. In rare cases the net result of two such claims will be that the party more
11 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
responsible for an accident will recover more than the party less responsible. The
liability of the defendant in such a case should not depend upon the damages he
suffered but upon the damages he caused (Sangco, 1984; pp. 144-145). In this case, B
can recover 80% of the total damages.
a. What if no counterclaim was filed but each car incurred 50% damage each?
If plaintiff and defendant are both at fault, the former may recover, but the amount of
his recovery may only be such proportion of the entire damages plaintiff sustained as
the defendant’s negligence bears to the combined negligence of both the plaintiff and
the defendant. For example, where it is found that the plaintiff’s negligence is at least
equal to that of the defendant, the amount awarded to the plaintiff should be reduced
by ½ from what it otherwise would have been (Sangco, 1984; pp. 144).
42. State Art 2179
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's
lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded.
a. Is the 2nd sentence of Art. 2179 the Anglo-American settting?
It is a statutory enactment of the rule in Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. wherein
the Supreme Court rejected contributory negligence of the plaintiff as a complete
defense, and held that the same merely mitigates the amount of damages recoverable
by the plaintiff, which rule was reiterated and applied in subsequent cases (Sangco,
1984; pp. 158). “Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its
determining factors, he cannot recover. Where in conjunction with the occurrence, he
contributes only to his own injury he may recover the amount that the defendant
responsible for the event should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed in a suitable
equivalent for his own imprudence” (Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. qtd. in
Aquino, 2016; pp. 267-268).
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
43. What is the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence
The relative degree of negligence of the parties is considered in determining whether
and to what degree, either should be responsible for his negligence. It does not
completely bar recovery but merely mitigates the same (Aquino, 2016; pp. 266-267).
44. Pure vs Modified Comparative Negligence
Pure comparative negligence permits recovery from a negligent defendant regardless
of the extent of the plaintiff’s own negligence.
Modified comparative negligence provides that contirbutory negligence shall not bar
a recovery in an action by any person or his legal representative to recover damages
for negligence resulting in death or injury to person or property, if such negligence
was not as great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought, but
any damages allowed shall be diminised by the jury in proportion to the amount of
negligence attributable to the person recovering (Sangco, 1984; pp. 151-152).
45.What is contributory negligence
Contributory negligence is a conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a
legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is
required to conform for his own protection (Aquino, 2016; p. 269).
46. What is the test of contributory negligence
The test is still foreseeability. There is contributory negligence when the party’s act
showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put
his life in danger.
47. Differentiate Modified Comparative negligence vs. Pure Comparative
negligence vs. Contributory negligence
12 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Modified comparative negligence provides that contirbutory negligence shall not bar
a recovery in an action by any person or his legal representative to recover damages
for negligence resulting in death or injury to person or property, if such negligence
was not as great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought, but
any damages allowed shall be diminised by the jury in proportion to the amount of
negligence attributable to the person recovering.
Pure comparative negligence permits recovery from a negligent defendant regardless
of the extent of the plaintiff’s own negligence (Sangco, 1984; pp. 151-152).
Contributory negligence is a conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a
legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is
required to conform for his own protection (Aquino, 2016; p. 269).
48. State the Humanitarian doctrine.
If a plaintiff negligently puts himself in a place of danger and his negligence and
danger are discovered by the defendant, there devolves upon the defendant a new duty
which intervenes or arises subsequent to the negligence of the plaintiff, and that duty
is to save the plaintiff if he can from the consequence of his negligence. (Sangco, p.
128)
49. Why is it called as such?
The humanitarian negligence doctrine proceeds upon the precepts of humanity and
natural justice to the end that every person shall exercise ordinary care for the
preservation of another’s life after seeing him in peril when such injury can be averted
without injury to the defendant or others. (Sangco, supra)
50. It is otherwise called as?
Doctrine of last clear chance, doctrine of discovered peril, or as the doctrine of
supervening negligence. (Sangco, p. 126)
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
51. This is to counter which common law doctrine?
The doctrine of last clear change negatives an essential element of the defense of
contributory negligence by rendering plaintiff’s negligence a mere condition or remote
cause of the accident. As stated, in cases of this class, the subsequent negligence of the
defendant in failing to exercise ordinary care to avoid injuring the plaintiff becomes
immediate or proximate and efficient cause of the accident, which intervenes between
the accident and the more remote negligence of the plaintiff.
Some courts regard last clear chance doctrine as the true exception to, rather than a
logical qualification of, the doctrine of contributory negligence.
(Sangco, pp. 127-128)
52. What if the parties are concurrently negligent? Is the doctrine of last clear
chance applicable?
No. It cannot be applied it defendant’s negligence is a concurrent cause and which was
still in operation up to the time the injury was inflicted (Aquino, p. 352). The doctrine
cannot be extended into the field of joint-tortfeasors as a it and cannot be invoked as
between defendants who are concurrently negligent. (Aquino, supra; Sangco, p. 130)
53. Does it apply in our jurisdiction? If yes, in what way?
The prevailing view is that the doctrine, as was introduced in Picart v. Smith, and
reiterated, at least discussed, in the number of cases, that the doctrine is applicable in
this jurisdiction. (Aquino, pp. 347-8)
As a phase of proximate cause principle, the doctrine negatives an essential element
of the defense of contributory negligence by rendering the plaintiff’s negligence a
mere condition or remote cause of the accident; the subsequent negligence of the
plaintiff becomes the immediate or proximate and efficient cause of the accident,
which intervenes between the accident and more remote negligence of the plaintiff.
The failure to avoid injuring a person occupying a position of peril may be a
supervening cause. Where this view is taken, there must be a time sequence that is an
interval – in which plaintiff’s act of negligence is complete and in which defendant by
the exercise of reasonable care has had the opportunity to aver disaster.
13 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
As separate and distinct doctrine and cause of action, if a plaintiff negligently puts
himself in a place of danger and his negligence and danger are discovered by the
defendant, there devolves upon the defendant a new duty which intervenes or arises
subsequent to the negligence of the plaintiff, and that duty is to save the plaintiff if he
can from the consequence of his negligence. Here, the doctrine may be invoked by the
person injured not only to avoid the effect of contributory negligence, but also as a
cause of action, distinct and separate from any cause of action based solely upon any
original or primary negligence chargeable to the defendant. (Sangco, pp. 127-8)
Examination of the cases where the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of last clear
chance reveals that the doctrine is being applied for the purpose of determining the
procimate cause of the accident. The Supreme Court does not relate the doctrine to the
rule on contributory negligence or comparative negligence. In fact, in most cases, the
Supreme Court used the doctrine in determining if the negligence of the defendant was
the proximate cause and that of the plaintiff as contributory. (Aquino, p. 350)
54. Is the doctrine of last clear chance applicable even if the plaintiff is grossly
negligent in placing himself in peril? Why or why not?
A negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff who
has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiffs peril,
or according to some authorities, should have been aware of it in the reasonable
exercise of due case, had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid
an accident. (Aquino, p. 348)
55. Is the doctrine of last clear chance applicable in culpa contractual?
No, the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable in culpa contractual because
according to the case of Consolidated Bank vs Court of Appeals, in culpa contractual
cases, neither the contributory negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to
avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant from liability. Such contributory
negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of
damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of
contract
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Note: The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but
the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had
the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the
loss. Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude
him from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence of the defendant,
who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due
diligence.
56. Differentiate last clear chance and supervening event.
Note: Last clear chance is also known as Doctrine of Supervening Negligence or the
Doctrine of Discovered peril (Aquino, page 347).
57. Is the doctrine of comparable negligence applicable in last clear chance?.
Humanitarian Doctrine/ Last Clear chance (It was designed to temper the
common law doctrine of contributory negligence)
The common law doctrine of contributory negligence is not applicable in last clear
chance cases. Last clear chance is an exception or modification of the doctrine of
contributory negligence, so that the application of last clear chance doctrine permits a
plaintiff to recover in spite of his prior contributory negligence (Sangco, page 165).
Humanitarian negligence doctrine is considered something more than an exception to
the law of contributory negligence; it proceeds upon the precepts of humanity and
natural justice, to end that every person must exercise ordinary care for the
preservation of another life after seeing him in peril.
Requisites:
• Plaintiff was in a position of peril
• Defendant has notice thereof
• Defendant, after taking such notice, had the present ability, with the means at
hand, to have averted the impending injury without injury to himself or to
others.
• He failed to exercise ordinary care to avert such impending injury
14 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
• By reason thereof, plaintiff was injured (Sangco, page 167)
58. Types of comparative negligence
Comparative Negligence rules include any rule under which the relative degree of
negligence of the parties is considered in determining whether, and to what degree,
either should be responsible for the damages (Aquino, page 266).
Under the pure type of comparative negligence, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence
does not operate to bar his recovery altogether but does serve to reduce his damage in
proportion to his fault.
Under the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, the negligence of
defendant, which contributes to his injury, completely bars recovery. (Aquino, page
267).
Note: The contributory negligence rule in common law is different from the concept
of contributory negligence under the New Civil Code.
Contributory negligence definition: conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause, to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the
standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.
59. Ruling in Consolidated Bank
Ruling:
We hold that Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence, or culpa
contractual. The contract between the bank and its depositor is governed by the
provisions of the Civil Code on simple loan. "The bank is under obligation to treat the
accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary
nature of their relationship.
This fiduciary relationship means that the bank's obligation to observe "high standards
of integrity and performance" is deemed written into every deposit agreement between
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
a bank and its depositor. The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a
degree of diligence higher than that of a good father of a family. In culpa contractual ,
once the plaintiff proves a breach of contract, there is a presumption that the defendant
was at fault or negligent. The burden is on the defendant to prove that he was not at
fault or negligent. In contrast, in culpa aquiliana the plaintiff has the burden of proving
that the defendant was negligent. In the present case, L.C. Diaz has established that
Solidbank breached its contractual obligation to return the passbook only to the
authorized representative of L.C. Diaz. There is thus a presumption that Solidbank was
at fault and its teller was negligent in not returning the passbook to Calapre. The burden
was on Solidbank to prove that there was no negligence on its part or its employees.
Proximate Cause of unauthorized Withdrawal
L.C. Diaz was not at fault that the passbook landed in the hands of the impostor.
Solidbank was in possession of the passbook while it was processing the deposit. After
completion of the transaction, Solidbank had the contractual obligation to return the
passbook only to Calapre, the authorized representative of L.C. Diaz. Solidbank failed
to fulfill its contractual obligation because it gave the passbook to another person.
We do not subscribe to the appellate court's theory that the proximate cause of the
unauthorized withdrawal was the teller's failure to call up L.C. Diaz to verify the
withdrawal. Solidbank did not have the duty to call up L.C. Diaz to confirm the
withdrawal. There is no arrangement between Solidbank and L.C. Diaz to this effect.
Even the agreement between Solidbank and L.C. Diaz pertaining to measures that the
parties must observe whenever withdrawals of large amounts are made does not direct
Solidbank to call up L.C. Diaz.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
\We do not apply the doctrine of last clear chance to the present case. Solidbank is
liable for breach of contract due to negligence in the performance of its contractual
obligation to L.C. Diaz. This is a case of culpa contractual, where neither the
contributory negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss,
would exonerate the defendant from liability. 31 Such contributory negligence or last
clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages by the
plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract.
15 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Mitigated Damages
Article 1172, "liability (for culpa contractual) may be regulated by the courts,
according to the circumstances." This means that if the defendant exercised the proper
diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee, or if the plaintiff was guilty
of contributory negligence, then the courts may reduce the award of damages.
Petitioner Solidbank Corporation shall pay private respondent L.C. Diaz and Company,
CPA's only 60% of the actual damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. The
remaining 40% of the actual damages shall be borne by private respondent L.C. Diaz
and Company, CPA's. Proportionate costs.
60. Calalas vs CA
Facts:
At 10 o'clock in the morning of August 23, 1989, private respondent Eliza Jujeurche
G. Sunga, then a college freshman majoring in Physical Education at the Siliman
University, took a passenger jeepney owned and operated by petitioner Vicente
Calalas. As the jeepney was lled to capacity of about 24 passengers, Sunga was given
by the conductor an "extension seat," a wooden stool at the back of the door at the rear
end of the vehicle.
On the way to Poblacion Sibulan, Negros Occidental, the jeepney stopped to let a
passenger off. As she was seated at the rear of the vehicle, Sunga gave way to the
outgoing passenger. Just as she was doing so, an Isuzu truck driven by Iglecerio Verena
and owned by Francisco Salva bumped the left rear portion of the jeepney. As a result,
Sunga was injured. She sustained a fracture of the "distal third of the left tibia-bula
with severe necrosis of the underlying skin." Closed reduction of the fracture, long leg
circular casting, and case wedging were done under sedation. Her connement in the
hospital lasted from August 23 to September 7, 1989. Her attending physician, Dr.
Danilo V. Oligario, an orthopedic surgeon, certied she would remain on a cast for a
period of three months and would have to ambulate in crutches during said period.
Sunga led a complaint for damages against Calalas, alleging violation of the contract
of carriage by the former in failing to exercise the diligence required of him as a
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
common carrier. Calalas, on the other hand, led a third-party complaint against
Francisco Salva, the owner of the Isuzu truck.
Held:
It is immaterial that the proximate cause of the collision between the jeepney and the
truck was the negligence of the truck driver. The doctrine of proximate cause is
applicable only in actions for quasi-delict , not in actions involving breach of contract.
In the case at bar, upon the happening of the accident, the presumption of negligence
at once arose, and it became the duty of petitioner to prove that he had observed
extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers. The fact that Sunga was seated
in an "extension seat" placed her in a peril greater than that to which the other
passengers were exposed. Therefore, not only was petitioner unable to overcome the
presumption of negligence imposed on him for the injury sustained by Sunga, but also,
the evidence showed he was actually negligent in transporting passengers.
The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not in
actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to
a person where there is no relation between him and another party. In such a case, the
obligation is created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, it is the parties themselves who create the obligation, and
the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created. Insofar as
contracts of carriage are concerned, some aspects regulated by the Civil Code are those
respecting the diligence required of common carriers with regard to the safety of
passengers as well as the presumption of negligence in cases of death or injury to
passengers.
61. Urbano vs. IAC
Facts:
At about 8:00 o'clock in the morning of October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano
went to his ricefield at Barangay Anonang, San Fabian, Pangasinan located at about
100 meters from the tobacco seedbed of Marcelo Javier. He found the place where he
stored his palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal nearby which had
overflowed. Urbano went to the elevated portion of the canal to see what happened
16 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
and there he saw Marcelo Javier and Emilio Erfe cutting grass. He asked them who
was responsible for the opening of the irrigation canal and Javier admitted that he was
the one. Urbano then got angry and demanded that Javier pay for his soaked palay. A
quarrel between them ensued. Urbano unsheathed his bolo (about 2 feet long,
including the handle, by 2 inches wide) and hacked Javier hitting him on the right palm
of his hand, which was used in parrying the bolo hack. Javier who was then unarmed
ran away from Urbano but was overtaken by Urbano who hacked him again hitting
Javier on the left leg with the back portion of said bolo, causing a swelling on said leg.
When Urbano tried to hack and inflict further injury, his daughter embraced and
prevented him from hacking Javier.
Antonio Erfe, Emilio Erfe, and Felipe Erfe brought Javier to his house about 50 meters
away from where the incident happened. Emilio then went to the house of Barangay
Captain Menardo Soliven but not finding him there, Emilio looked for barrio
councilman Felipe Solis instead. Upon the advice of Solis, the Erfes together with
Javier went to the police station of San Fabian to report the incident. As suggested by
Corporal Torio, Javier was brought to a physician. They go to Dr. Mario Meneses
because Dr. Padilla had no available medicine.
Upon the intercession of Councilman Solis, Urbano and Javier agreed to settle their
differences. Urbano promised to pay P700.00 for the medical expenses of Javier.
At about 1:30 a.m. on November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed to the Nazareth General
Hospital in a very serious condition. When admitted to the hospital, Javier had lockjaw
and was having convulsions. Dr. Edmundo Exconde who personally attended to Javier
found that the latter's serious condition was caused by tetanus toxin. He noticed the
presence of a healing wound in Javier's palm which could have been infected by
tetanus
Issue: whether or not there was an efficient intervening cause from the time Javier was
wounded until his death which would exculpate Urbano from any liability for Javier's
death
Held:
The evidence on record does not clearly show that the wound inflicted by Urbano was
infected with tetanus at the time of the infliction of the wound. The evidence merely
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
confirms that the wound, which was already healing at the time Javier suffered the
symptoms of the fatal ailment, somehow got infected with tetanus However, as to
when the wound was infected is not clear from the record.
Medically speaking, the reaction to tetanus found inside a man's body depends on the
incubation period of the disease. In the case at bar, Javier suffered a 2-inch incised
wound on his right palm when he parried the bolo which Urbano used in hacking him.
This incident took place on October 23, 1980. After 22 days, or on November 14, 1980,
he suffered the symptoms of tetanus, like lockjaw and muscle spasms. The following
day, November 15, 1980, he died.
If, therefore, the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already infected by
tetanus germs at the time, it is more medically probable that Javier should have been
infected with only a mild cause of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus appeared
on the 22nd day a f t e r the hacking incident or m o r e t h a n 1 4 d a y s after the
infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time should have been more than 6 days.
Javier, however, died on the second day from the onset time.
Consequently, Javier's wound could have been infected with tetanus after the hacking
incident. Considering the circumstance surrounding Javier's death, his wound could
have been infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to 22 days before he died.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical
consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. And since we are
dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused caused the victim's death
must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The medical findings,
however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was
an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time
of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
Doubts are present. There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and
its subsequent infection, for failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus may
have been the proximate cause of Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing
to do.
a. What was the weapon involved?
17 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Bolo (about 2 feet long, including the handle, by 2 inches wide)
b. Which parts of the body were hit?
right palm of Javier’s hand, which was used in parrying the bolo hack
c. Date? Create a Timeline
• Oct 23, 1980 8AM. Hacking incident between Urbano and Javier
• October 27, 1980. Formalization of the Amicable Settlement
• November 5, 1980, Javier was seen catching fish in the shallow irrigation by
Barangay Captain Soliven
• November 14, 1980 1:30 a.m. Javier rushed to the hospital for having lockjaw
and convulsions.
• November 15, 1980 at exactly 4:18 p.m Javier died
• April 10, 1981. Filomeno Urbano was charged with the crime of homicide
before the then Circuit Criminal Court of Dagupan City
d. What was the ruling of the RTC?
After trial, the trial court found Urbano guilty as charged for the crime of Homicide.
e. What was the ruling of the CA?
CA affirmed the decision of the Trial court.
The claim of appellant that there was an efficient cause which supervened from the
time the deceased was wounded to the time of his death, which covers a period of 23
days does not deserve serious consideration. True, that the deceased did not die right
away from his wound, but the cause of his death was due to said wound which was
inflicted by the appellant. Said wound which was in the process of healing got infected
with tetanus which ultimately caused his death.
f. How did the SC use these days?
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
SC used these days to determine whether or not it was the hacking of Urbano that was
the proximate cause of Javier’s death.
Medically speaking, the reaction to tetanus found inside a man's body depends on the
incubation period of the disease. In the case at bar, Javier suffered a 2-inch incised
wound on his right palm when he parried the bolo which Urbano used in hacking him.
This incident took place on October 23, 1980. After 22 days, or on November 14, 1980,
he suffered the symptoms of tetanus, like lockjaw and muscle spasms. The following
day, November 15, 1980, he died.
If, therefore, the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already infected by
tetanus germs at the time, it is more medically probable that Javier should have been
infected with only a mild cause of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus appeared
on the 22nd day a f t e r the hacking incident or m o r e t h a n 1 4 d a y s after the
infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time should have seen more than six days.
Javier, however, died on the second day from the onset time.
g. What is the basis for the Motion for New Trial or MR?
Based on an affidavit of Barangay Captain Menardo Soliven stating that during first
week of November, 1980, there was a typhoon that swept Pangasinan and other places
of Central Luzon including San Fabian, a town of said province. That on November 5,
1980, while I was conducting survey, I saw the late Marcelo Javier catching fish in the
shallow irrigation canals with some companions; "That few days thereafter, or on
November 15, 1980, I came to know that said Marcelo Javier died of tetanus.
h. What was the diagnosis?
ADMITTED due to trismus DX: TETANUS
i. Define incubation period; onset time; reflex spasm
Incubation period: is the period between exposure to an infection and the appearance
of first symptoms
Onset time: is the duration of time it takes for a disease’s or infection’s effects to come
to prominence.
18 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Reflex spasm: a twitch, jerk or stiffening of the muscle. This usually occurs within 24
to 72 hours of the first symptoms, on interval referred to as the onset time.
j. What is the incubation period for mild tetanus?
Mild tetanus is characterized by an incubation period of at least 14 days and an onset
time of more than 6 days.
k. What is the implication of the incubation period for mild tetanus?
Medically speaking, the reaction to tetanus found inside a man's body depends on the
incubation period of the disease.
l. What is onset time?
Onset time is the duration of time it takes for a disease’s effects to come to prominence.
m. Why is hacking only a remote cause?
There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent
infection, for failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the
proximate of Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing to do. A prior and
remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing
more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was
made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a
distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such
injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion.
As the plaintiff argued: the proximate cause of the death of Marcelo Javier was due to
his own negligence, that Dr. Mario Meneses found no tetanus in the injury, and that
Javier got infected with tetanus when after two weeks he returned to his farm and
tended his tobacco plants with his bare hands exposing the wound to harmful elements
like tetanus germs.
n. What was the efficient intervening cause?
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
The medical findings lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound
by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier was
wounded to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to
the crime
Javier catching fish in the shallow irrigation and thereby catching tetanus germs which
subsequently lead to his death.
o. What is the test in determining the efficient intervening cause?
Test: 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.
p. What was the test in this case to conclude that the independent cause was the
intervening cause? This is also used in Manila Electric Co. case.
Test: a prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote
cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which
the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause
and injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even
though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no
danger existed in the condition except because of the independent cause, such
condition was not the proximate cause. If an independent act or defective condition
sets into operation the circumstances that result in injury because of the prior defective
condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause (Aquino, page 332)
62. Difference of contributory negligence between common law and Philippine
jurisprudence
Under the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, the negligence of
defendant, which contributes to his injury, completely bars recovery. (Aquino, page
267).
Note: The contributory negligence rule in common law is different from the concept
of contributory negligence under the New Civil Code. Art 2179 states that if the
19 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
plaintiff’s negligence is merely contributory, the plaintiff is not barred from recovering
from the defendant (Aquino, page 266).
In Philippine jurisdiction, negligence of the plaintiff merely results in mitigation of
liability.
63. In Phoenix, did the driver had the last clear chance?
No, in Phoenix, the Court did not apply the last clear chance doctrine in order to
absolve Phoenix from liability. According to the court, to accept this proposition is to
come too close to wiping out the fundamental principle of law that a man must respond
for the foreseeable consequences of his own negligent act or omission. Our law on
quasi-delicts seeks to reduce the risks and burdens of living in society and to allocate
them among the members of society. To accept the petitioners' proposition must tend
to weaken the very bonds of society. c
64. Determination of proximate cause is not merely an exercise of chronology in
Physics. Why?
No, it is not merely an exercise of chronology in physics.
65. What is immediate cause? Differentiate with Proximate cause.
Immediate cause is the final act in a series of provocations leading to a particular event.
Immediate cause is the cause closest in time to the injury (Abrogar v Cosmos Bottling).
It is the nearest cause, the last link in the chain of events.
"The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by settling 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 affecting 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." (Urbano vs. CA) e.g. an
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
individual who was driving while intoxicated crashed his/her car and was killed. The
immediate cause of death was the crash. The proximate cause was the individual’s
state of intoxication.
PERSONS LIABLE
1.Art. 2180
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who
are under their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise 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.
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.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not
when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly
pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, 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.
20 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.
2. Can the registered owner raise the defense under Art. 2180?
Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas stated that the registered owner of a vehicle can
no longer use the defenses found in Article 2180. Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez
reiterated this doctrine.
However, Aguilar, Sr., Del Carmen, Filcar, and Mendoza should not be taken to mean
that Article 2180 of the Civil Code should be completely discarded in cases where the
registered-owner rule finds application.
As acknowledged in Filcar, there is no categorical statutory pronouncement in the
Land Transportation and Traffic Code stipulating the liability of a registered
owner.101 The source of a registered owner's liability is not a distinct statutory
provision, but remains to be Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code:
While Republic Act No. 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code does not
contain any provision on the liability of registered owners in case of motor vehicle
mishaps, Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code imposes an
obligation upon Filcar, as registered owner, to answer for the damages caused to
Espinas's car.
Thus, it is imperative to apply the registered-owner rule in a manner that harmonizes
it with Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. Rules must be construed in a manner
that will harmonize them with other rules so as to form a uniform and consistent system
of jurisprudence. In light of this, the words used in Del Carmen are particularly
notable. There, this court stated that Article 2180 "should defer to" the registered-
owner rule. It never stated that Article 2180 should be totally abandoned.
Therefore, the appropriate approach is that in cases where both the registered-owner
rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the
registered owner of the vehicle in question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that the requirements of Article 2180
have been proven. As a consequence, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to
show that no liability under Article 2180 has arisen (Caravan v. Abejar (2016)).
a. Battery vs. Assault
The main difference between a battery charge and an assault charge is the actual
presence of harm and the threat of harm. Someone can only be charged with battery if
they have caused real physical harm to someone, while a person can be charged with
assault if the mere threat of harm is present.
The independent civil action for physical injuries under Article 33 of the New Civil
Code include the crime of “battery” in American law. (Report of the Code
Commission, p. 47). Battery is an intentional infliction of harmful or offensive
bodily contact. Bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable person’s sense
of dignity. It is offensive even if the defendant’s conduct is intended only as a
joke or a compliment. (Restatement [Second] of Torts, Section 19). Battery should
be distinguished from “assault” which is an intentional conduct by one person
directed at another which places the latter in apprehension of immediate bodily harm
or offensive act. However, the evident intent of the Code Commission is to provide
for independent civil action even for “assault.”
3. Rule under Family Code with regard to vicarious liability of parents
“Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly
liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their
unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority
subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.”
The basis of liability of parents for the acts or omissions of their minor children
is the parental authority that they exercise over them. Their liability is a necessary
consequence of the parental authority which imposes upon them the duty of
supporting their children, keeping them in their company and educating them in
proportion to their means. At the same time, parental authority gives them the right
to correct and punish their children in moderation. (Fuellas vs. Cadano)
21 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
4. Reddendo singula singulis; meaning
Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that means by referring each to each;
referring each phrase or expression to its corresponding object.
Following the canon of reddendo singula singulis, "teachers" should apply to the
words "pupils and students" and "heads of establishments of arts and trades" to
the word "apprentices."
5. In Art. 2180, the liability is primary and direct/solidary. Does it not obliterate
the liability of the negligent person?
No it does not. According to Article2181 Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in
satisfaction of the claim.Also, the liability of the employer is, under Article 2180,
primary and solidary. However, the employer shall have recourse against the negligent
employee for whatever damages are paid to the heirs of the plaintiff (Filamer Christian
Institute vs. IAC).
6. Deep pocket theory
It is imposing vicarious liability on parents of persons who are above 18 and below 21.
The parents are still being made liable because they are the persons who are financially
capable of satisfying any judgment obligation. It should be noted that such policy is
not novel and is considered by some as the basis of responsibility of employer in
American law. (AQUINO, 618)
a. Is it responsibility without authority?
Yes. Parental authority is not the basis of responsibility because there is no such
authority after emancipation (takes places after attainment of the age of majority, Art.
234 Civil Code). Senator Tolentino believes that is a case of responsibility without
authority.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
The imposition of liability on parents may be justified because of the moral
responsibility imposed on them and the power that they exercise over their children
who live in their company. It is believed that moral responsibility need not be based
on parental authority. Nevertheless, the fact that they no longer exercise parental
authority, the age of the actor and his level of maturity are circumstances that should
be considered in determining the degree of diligence required of the parents. Definitely,
the degree of diligence required of them is lower compared to cases when they exercise
parental authority over the actor. (AQUINO, 617-618)
b. Is the liability of parent and minor solidary?
Yes. The Supreme Court explained in Libi v Intermediate Appellate court: “We
believe that the civil liability of the parents for quasi-delicts of their minor children, as
contemplated in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is primary and not subsidiary. In fact,
if we apply Article 2194 of said code which provides for solidary liability of joint
tortfeasors, the persons responsible for the act or omission, in this case the minor and
the father and, in case of his death of incapacity, the mother, are solidarily liable.
Accordingly, such parental liability is primary and not subsidiary, hence the last
paragraph of Atricle 2180 provides that" (t)he responsibility treated of in this article
shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages." (AQUINO, 616)
7. Why are we giving the employer the right to recover the entire amount from
the employee which will negate the liability of employer considering the employer
is negligent under Art. 2180?
The weight of authority is to hold the employer and employee solidarily liable. The
aggrieved party may choose to sue either or both of them. If only the employer is sued
and made liable for damages caused by his employer, he may recover from the
employee what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. In Metro Manila
Transit Corporation v CA, the SC reversed the ruling of the trial court in so far as it
made the employer primarily liable and the employee secondarily liable. The court
explained: “As already stated, MMTC is primarily liable for damages for the
negligence of its employee in the view of Art. 2180. Pursuant to Art. 2184, it can
recover from its employee what it may pay. This does not make the employee’s
liability subsidiary. It only means that if the judgment for damages is satisfied by the
22 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara

common carrier, the latter has a right to receive what is has paid from its employee
who committed the fault or negligence which gave rise to the action based on quasi
delict.”

From another point of view, Article 2194 provides that the responsibility of two or No- Vicarious liability is
more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary”. In a recent case of Philtranco generally not governed by the
Service Enterprises v CA, the liability of the registered owner of a public service doctrine of respondeat
vehicle… for damages arising from the tortious acts of the driver is primary, direct, superior.
and joint and several or solidary with the driver.
The employer or parent are
In solidary obligation, each debtor is liable to pay from the entire obligation, either being made liable not only
party indispensable and it is not necessary to join the other. (AQUINO, 661-662) because of the negligent or
YES- Liability is strictly wrongful act of the person for
Whether imputed, that is, the whom they are responsible but
8. Basis of Vicarious liability. Vicarious employer is liable not also because of their own
Liability is because of his act or negligence
The doctrine is also called the “doctrine of imputed negligence” in Anglo-American governed by omission but because of the
Tort Law. The basis of vicarious liability as explained in Cangco v Manila Railroad Respondeat act or omission of the -Still vicarious or imputed
Co. in the following terms: “With respect to extra-contractual obligation arising from Superior employee (the conduct of because there is no direct link
negligence, whether of act or omission, it is competent for the legislature to elect - and the employee) between their act or omission
our Legislature has so elected - whom such an obligation is imposed is morally and the injury
culpable, or, on the contrary, for reasons of public policy, to extend that liability,
without regard to the lack of moral culpability, so as to include responsibility for the
negligence of those person who acts or mission are imputable, by a legal fiction, to
others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them. The Exception: Respondeat
legislature which adopted our Civil Code has elected to limit extra-contractual liability Superior is applicable under
- with certain well-defined exceptions - to cases in which moral culpability can be Art. 103 RPC (irrespective of
directly imputed to the persons to be charged. This moral responsibility may consist his due care)
in having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one's agents or
servants, or in the control of persons who, by reason of their status, occupy a position
of dependency with respect to the person made liable for their conduct.”

Anglo American Philippines

23 | P a g e
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
The employer cannot
escape liability by
claiming that he exercised
As defense
due diligence in the
selection and supervision of
the employee
(AQUINO 608-609)
As to statutory provisions containing vicarious liability: Articles 2180 to 2182 of the
Civil Code; Articles 58 and 201 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code; Articles 219,
221, and 236 of the Family Code; and Articles 101, 102, and 103 of the Revised Penal
Code. (AQUINO 607-613)
9. How did SC illustrated how parents can exercise diligence over children
As Justice Regalado explained in Libi v Intermediate Appellate Court, that diligence
of a good father of a family required by law in a parent and child relationship consists,
to a large extent, of instruction and supervision of a child. This includes the duty and
responsibility of monitoring and knowing the activities of their children. This is
especially true if their children are engaged in dangerous work. (AQUINO, 621)
10. Quasi-tort?
Quasi-tort is a legal term that is sometimes used to describe unusual tort actions, on
the basis of a legal doctrine that some legal duty exists which cannot be classified
strictly as negligence in a personal duty resulting in a tort nor as a contractual duty
resulting in a breach of contract, but rather some other kind of duty recognizable by
the law. It has been used, for example, to describe a tort for strict liability arising out
of product liability, although this is typically simply called a 'tort'. (WIKI Definition)
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
11. Art. 2180(par 1), how did this become vicarious?
Under the law, Parental authority gives the parents the right to correct and punish their
children. Since children and wards do not yet have the capacity to govern themselves,
the law imposes upon them the parents and guardians the duty to exercise special
vigilance over the acts of their children and wards in order that damages to third
persons due to the ignorance, lack of foresight or discernment of such children and
wards may be avoided. If the parents fail to comply with this duty, they should suffer
the consequences of their abandonment or negligence by repairing the damages caused.
(Aquino p. 614)
12.Solidary liability of owner of car with driver
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
a. Hypo: -A driver; B owner; bumped M – wouldn’t be unfair for the owner of
the car?
It is not unfair. Solidary liability is imposed on the owner of the vehicle not because
of his imputed liability but because his own omission is a concurring proximate cause
of the injury. An owner who sits in his automobile and permits his driver to continue
in violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had a
reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct the driver to desist therefrom,
becomes himself responsible for such acts.
13. Article 2190, 2192
24 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages
resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary
repairs.
Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of
any defect in the construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third person suffering
damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in
accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed
a. Contributory negligence does not apply to joint tortfeasors?
Yes. Contributory negligence does not apply to joint tortfeasors.whose liability is
solidary since both of them are liable for the total damage (Aquino p. 600)
14.Hypo: A owner, B architect; A day after its construction, the house collapsed;
C was injured, are A and B considered joint tortfeasors? In the example if A’s
negligence =20%; B=80%, is your answer still the same?
My Answer will not be the same anymore. Art. 2192 provides that if damage referred
to in the two preceding articles should be the result of any defect in the construction
mentioned in Article 1723, the third person suffering damages may proceed only
against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article, within
the period therein fixed. And under Art. 1723 Article 1723 of the Civil Code states
that "The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a building
is liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure, the
same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to
the defects in the ground.
Thus, in this case, even though there are concurrent causes, the strict liability under
Art. 2192 in relation to Art.1723, made the architect is solely liable
15. Art. 221, 236 FC
Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable
for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the
appropriate defenses provided by law
Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the person
and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of
civil life.
16. Hypo: A (parent) B (6 yrs old) strangled C (6 yrs old); Can A be liable? If A
sufficiently proved that he has exercised the diligence of a good father of a family,
is he still liable?
YES. A can be held liable for B’s acts. Under Libi vs. IAC, the Court, citing the IAC
ruling, stated that the subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor
children imposed by Art. 2180 covers both quasi-delicts and criminal offenses in
relation to Art. 101 of the Revised Penal Code. To hold that Art. 2180 only covers
obligations which arise from quasi-delicts only would result in absurdity that while an
act where mere negligence intervenes the father or mother may stand subsidiarily
liable for the damages caused by his or her own son, no liability would attach if damage
is caused with criminal intent. On the other hand, Art. 101 of the Revised Penal Code
as modified by RA 9344, liability arises with respect to damages ex delicto caused by
their children nine years of age or under without need to determine if the minors in
such age groups acted with discernment. They are conclusively presumed to have acted
without discernment because of the exemption from criminal liability of minors who
are of such age. (AQUINO, 2016, p. 619) However the Court clarified in the
aforementioned case that the liability should be direct and primary, not subsidiary, in
order for the parents to invoke the defense of a good father of a family as provided in
the last paragraph of Art. 2180.
NOTE: According to Libi vs. IAC, primary liability is premised on the provisions of
Art. 101 of the Revised Penal Code with respect to damages ex delicto caused by their
children 9 years of age or under, or over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted without
discernment; and, with regard to their children over 9 but under 15 years of age who
acted with discernment, or 15 years or over but under 21 years of age, such primary
liability shall be imposed pursuant to Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.
25 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
NO. A is no longer liable if A is able to sufficiently prove diligence of a good father
of a family. The Court ruled in the same case that in order for the parents to invoke
diligence of a good father of a family under the last paragraph of Art. 2180, the liability
must be direct and primary. That in both quasi-delict and crimes, the parents primarily
respond for such damages is buttressed by the corresponding provisions in both codes
that the minor transgressor shall be answerable or shall respond with his own property
only in the absence or in case of insolvency of the former. Art. 2182 of the New Civil
Code states that “if the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or
guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an
action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed” and Art. 101 (3) of
the Revised Penal Code states that “should there be no person having such insane,
imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person
be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property,
excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.”
17. Vicarious Liability of parents; how did the Family Code amend?
The following provisions of the Family Code modified Art. 2180-2182 of the New
Civil Code regarding vicarious liability of parents:
Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article
shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions
of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising
substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply
if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular
circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the
provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n)
Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable
for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the
appropriate defenses provided by law. (2180(2)a and (4)a ).
Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the
person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts
of civil life. (412a)
The provisions with respect to the parents in the second paragraph of Art. 2180 is
modified by Art. 221 of the Family Code by removing the alternative qualification of
the liability of the father and the mother. Art. 201 of the Child and Youth Welfare
Code should also be deemed to have been modified by Art. 221 of the Family Code
by removing the alternative qualification. Parents are liable without the preference
as to the father. (AQUINO, 2016, pp. 611-612)
18. Compare Art. 2181 and 2194
Art. 2181 refers to the right of the employer to reimbursement from his or her driver,
in appropriate cases, for what he or she has been made to pay to an injured third party.
Art. 2194 refers to the solidary liability of two drivers having concurring negligence
which resulted to damage or injury to a third person. (SANGCO, p. 100-101)
19. Why did the Congress allow the parent to recover what was paid, though in
the given scenario, the negligence of parents (culpa in vigilando) is established?
To secure the injured party against possible insolvency of the author of the negligent
act. The phrase “dependents or employees” in Art. 2181 of the New Civil Code should
be construed to include all persons for whom another is held liable under Art. 2180 of
the same Code. The reason is that the legislator, by imposing liability upon the persons
with supervisory authority over them, did not exempt the author of the negligent act
or omission from personal liability; the injured is merely secured against possible
insolvency of said author. If he is solvent, there is no reason why he should not be
liable to another who has paid for him. (TOLENTINO, p. 621-622)
26 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
20. What is a prodigal? Can the guardian be liable for the quasi-delict committed
by the prodigal?
A prodigal is someone who spends money or resources freely and recklessly or is
wastefully extravagant. NO. The guardian will not be liable for the quasi-delict
committed by the prodigal. Although prodigality affects a person’s capacity to act, not
all guardians of incompetents specified in Rule 92 and Arts. 38 and 39 of the New
Civil Code are vicariously liable. In Art. 101 of the Revised Penal Code, liability is
imposed only on the guardian of the imbecile or insane persons. On the other hand,
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code limits the liability of guardians to acts of incapacitated
persons who are under their authority and who live in their company. The legal
authority referred to in Art. 2180 is legal authority over the person of the ward. Such
limitation and requirement that the ward must live in their company virtually limit the
liability of guardians to the acts of persons of unsound mind who live in the company
of the guardian. A prodigal does not come in these qualifications.
21. Nogales v. CMC (Please refer to No. 47)
22. Amadora et. al v. CA (1988)
a. Under this case, is Dean Jara liable in case?
As the Dean of College of Law, Dean Jara is not liable. He exercises only a general
authority over the student body and not the direct control and influence exerted by the
teacher placed in charge of particular classes or sections and thus immediately
involved in its discipline.
As a professor / teacher for a specific subject at a specific class time, he may be liable
for torts committed by his student so long as the latter is under his control and
influences at the time of the occurrence of the injury subject to the defenses under
2180.
b. Is Atty. SB liable in case?
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Yes, Atty. Sta. Barbara may be held liable as a teacher-in-charge for the torts
committed by his student who is under his control and influence.
c. How did the SC differentiate an academic school to arts and trades school?
Historically, the head of the school of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage
over his pupils than the head of the academic school. The old schools of arts
and trades were engaged in the training of artisans apprenticed to their master
who personally and directly instructed them on the technique and secrets of their
craft. The head of the school of arts and trades was such a master and so was
personally involved in the task of teaching his students, who usually even
boarded with him and so came under his constant control, supervision and
influence. By contrast, the head of the academic school was not as involved
with his students and exercised only administrative duties over the teachers who
were the persons directly dealing with the students. The head of the academic
school had then (as now) only a vicarious relationship with the students.
• Statutory legal maxim
Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that means by referring each to each;
referring each phrase or expression to its corresponding object.
Following the canon of reddendo singula singulis, "teachers" should apply to the
words "pupils and students" and "heads of establishments of arts and trades" to
the word "apprentices."
-“Teacher-in-charge” meaning; can a torts professor be considered as such
even if there is no minor student?
• The teacher-in-charge is the one designated by the dean, principal,
or other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in
the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned.
• It is not necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher be
physically present and in a position to prevent it. Custody does not
connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to the
influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a
27 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
result of such influence. Thus, for the injuries caused by the student,
the teacher and not the parent shall be held responsible if the tort was
committed within the premises of the school at any time when its
authority could be validly exercised over him.
• Yes, torts professor be considered as such even if there is no minor student.
Unlike the parent, who will be liable only if his child is still a minor,
the teacher is held answerable by the law for the act of the student
under him regardless of the student's age. In this sense, Article 2180
treats the parent more favorably than the teacher.
23. Libi vs. IAC
a. Why did they break-up?
Julie Ann broke up her relationship with Wendell after she supposedly found him to
be sadistic and irresponsible.
b. Where is the entry wound?
Located at the head, temporal region of Wendell Libi
c. Are the parents covered by vicarious liability rule?
Yes, with the Supreme Court holding that the, appellants are liable under Article 2180
of the Civil Code, citing Fuellas v. Cadano, which supposedly holds that the subsidiary
liability of parents for damages caused by their minor children imposed by Article
2180 of the New Civil Code covers obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and
criminal offenses.
However, the court averred, that while they do not contend with upholding the doctrine,
it is their belief that the civil liability of parents for quasi-delicts of their minor children
under the vicarious liability rule, as contemplated in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is
primary and not subsidiary.
24. Castilex Industrial Corp v Vasquez
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
a. Relate to Caravan v Abejar
In the case of Caravan, the registered owner rule was applied. However in Castillex it
was not. Castillex as compared to Caravan is a new case (Castillex-1999, Caravan-
2016 case) The registered owner rule is already modified. In the case of Castillex, the
registered owner can still raise the defense of 2180: 1) that the employee acts beyond
the scope of his assigned task; 2) that it exercised diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent damage. Mere proof that the employer is the registered owner of the car is
necessary to held him liable.
b. Common law principles about the use of employer’s motor vehicle.
Principles in American Jurisprudence on employer’s liability for the injuries inflicted
by the negligence of an employee in the use of an employer’s motor vehicle:
1. Operation of employer’s motor vehicle in going to or from meals
2. Operation of employer;s vehicle in going to or from work
3. Use of employer’s vehicle outside regular working hours (see table above)
The foregoing principles and jurisprudence are applicable in our jurisdiction
albeit based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, not on the principle of
bonus pater familas as in ours. Whether the fault or negligence of the
employee is conclusive on his employer as in American law or jurisprudence,
or merely gives rise to a presumption juris tantum of negligence on the part
of the employer as in ours. It is indispensable that the employee as acting in
his employer’s business or within the scope of his assigned task.
c. Can the registered owner raise the defense under Art. 2180
No. Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas stated that the registered owner of a vehicle
can no longer use the defenses found in Article 2180:
Neither can Filcar use the defenses available under Article 2180 of the Civil Code -
that the employee acts beyond the scope of his assigned task or that it exercised the
due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage - because the motor
vehicle registration law, to a certain extent, modified Article 2180 of the Civil Code
28 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
by making these defenses unavailable to the registered owner of the motor vehicle.
Thus, for as long as Filcar is the registered owner of the car involved in the vehicular
accident, it could not escape primary liability for the damages caused to Espinas.
Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez reiterated this doctrine.
However, Aguilar, Sr., Del Carmen, Filcar, and Mendoza should not be taken to mean
that Article 2180 of the Civil Code should be completely discarded in cases where the
registered-owner rule finds application.
As acknowledged in Filcar, there is no categorical statutory pronouncement in the
Land Transportation and Traffic Code stipulating the liability of a registered owner.
The source of a registered owner's liability is not a distinct statutory provision, but
remains to be Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code:
While Republic Act No. 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code does not
contain any provision on the liability of registered owners in case of motor vehicle
mishaps, Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code imposes an
obligation upon Filcar, as registered owner, to answer for the damages caused to
Espinas' car.
Thus, it is imperative to apply the registered-owner rule in a manner that harmonizes
it with Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. Rules must be construed in a manner
that will harmonize them with other rules so as to form a uniform and consistent system
of jurisprudence. In light of this, the words used in Del Carmen are particularly notable.
There, this court stated that Article 2180 "should defer to"104 the registered-owner
rule. It never stated that Article 2180 should be totally abandoned.
Therefore, the appropriate approach is that in cases where both the registered-owner
rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the
registered owner of the vehicle in question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves
ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that the requirements of Article 2180
have been proven. As a consequence, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to
show that no liability under Article 2180 has arisen. (Caravan v Abejar)
d. Special Errand rule / Roving Commission rule
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
The employer may, however, be liable where he derives some special benefit from
having the employee drive home in the employer's vehicle as when the employer
benefits from having the employee at work earlier and, presumably, spending more
time at his actual duties. Where the employee's duties require him to circulate in a
general area with no fixed place or hours of work, or to go to and from his home to
various outside places of work, and his employer furnishes him with a vehicle to use
in his work, the courts have frequently applied what has been called the "special
errand" or "roving commission" rule, under which it can be found that the employee
continues in the service of his employer until he actually reaches home. (Castilex vs
Vasquez)
e. Registered owner Rule
The rule in this jurisdiction is that the person who is the registered owner of a vehicle
is liable for any damages caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle although the
same was already sold or conveyed to another person at the time of the accident. The
registered owner is liable to the injured party subject to his right of recourse against
the transferee or buyer. (Aquino, page 663)
f. The SC did not allow ROR to apply in this case, why? Is the SC wrong?
No. In this case the registered owner rule was not mentioned. The court only relied on
Art. 2180 even though the employer was the registered owner of the vehicle. This court
absolved Castilex of liability, reasoning that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to
prove that the negligent employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task.
Note: again, this rule was modified as this is an old case, read registered owner rule in
relation to 2180 above.
25. Loadmaster v. Glodel
26. Hypo: A kasambahay went to the market and slapped the seller when the
latter refused to bargain. Is the employer liable?
29 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Art. 2180 provides that employees 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 employer is liable only if the employee was performing his assigned task at the
time the injury was caused. This includes any act done by the employee in furtherance
of the interest of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage. The
vicarious liability attaches only when the tortuous conduct of the employee relates to,
or is in the course of his employment. The requirement that the employee must be
performing his functions is due to the fct that the employer is not expected to exercise
supervision over their employee’s private activity or during the performance of tasks
either unsanctioned by the former or unrelated to the employee’s task. (Aquino, 2016,
p. 644, 652-653)
INTERFERENCE
27. Elements of Tort Interference
The elements of the tort of interference with contractual relation are:
• Existence of a valid contract
The existence of a contract is a primary element of liability for procuring a
breach of contract, and one of the elements of the tort of interference with a
business relationship is the existence of abusiness relationship or the
exepctation that one will arise. (Sangco, 1984, p. 697) No action can be
maintained if the contract is void. There can be no action for inducing to
breach an illegal contract or one that is contrary to public policy. (Aquino,
2016, p. 752)
• Malice
Malice means the intentional doing of a harmful act without legal or social
justification or excuse. It is enough if the wrongdoer, having knowledge of
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
the existence of the contract relation, in bad faith sets about to break it up. If
the persuasion is used for the indirect purpose of injuring the plaintiff or
benefitting the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff, it is a malicious act
which in law and fact a wrongful act. (Aquino, 2016, p. 753) To break a
contract is wrongful and, when a third person act with the knowledge of the
contract, and without legal excuse, in procuring breach of the contract by a
party thereto, malicous. (Sangco, 1984, p. 695)
• Intent
Where an act interfering with contractual relations is unlawful in itself, it is
presumed that the wrongdoer intended to injure the plaintiff in his proper
right, as one must be resumed to intend the consequences of his unlawful
conduct. Knowledge on the part of the defendant of the existence of a contract
has sometimes been regarded by the courts as supplying the element of
malicious or unlawful motive necessary to make his act in interfering with
the contract a tort. (Sangco, 1984, p. 696-697)
• Causal Relation
Unless the act complained of was the proximate cause of the injury
complained of, there is no liability for interference. It must be shown that by
reason of defendant’s act, a contract which oterwise would have been
performed was abandoned; that there was a breach and that the defendant was
a moving cause thereof. (Sangco, 1984, p. 697)
• Damage or injury
Damage is an essential element of the tort of interference. It must appear that
the acts of the defendant were to the plaintiff’s damage. (ibid.)
28. Quasi-tort?
Quasi-tort means a tort for which a non-perpetrator is held liable. In a quasi tort, a
person who did not actually commit a wrong is anyway held liable. For instance, a
30 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
master will be held liable for a tort committed by a servant under the principle of
vicarious liability. Under quasi tort, the liability is fixed on the presumption that some
legal duty exists that cannot be classified strictly as a personal duty or as a contractual
duty, but rather as some other kind of duty recognizable by the law.
29. Who are joint tortfeasors?
In Worcester v Ocampo, joint tortfeasors are all persons who command, instigate,
promote, encourage, advice, countenance, cooperate in, aid, or abet the commission of
a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. Article 2194
provides for their liability, to wit:
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons liable for quasi-delict is
solidary. (Aquino, 2016, p. 599, 601)
a. Can they be considered as such if they participated after the event of the
wrongful act?
Yes. The definition in Worcester v Ocampo includes tortfeasors as persons
who approve of it [the tort committed] after it is done, if done for their
benefit.
Defendants may likewise be considered joint tortfeasors if each of their acts
or omissions are part of the casual set that is sufficient to cause the damage
to the plaintiff. The defendant may have acted with proper agreement or may
have acted independently but the totality of their acts or omissions
collectively caused the damage or injury.
30. Can torts be committed by inaction?
Yes. Torts can be committed by inaction. Note in Article 2176 whoever by act or
OMISSION... Also, As a general rule there is no duty to rescue or nonfeasance,
however certain exceptions are admitted:
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
• Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code. Abandonment of person in danger
and abandonment of one's own victim. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall
be imposed upon:
a. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find
in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such
assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a
more serious offense.
b. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has
accidentally wounded or injured.
c. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age,
shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to
take him to a safe place.
• No driver of a motor vehicle concerned in a vehicular accident shall leave the
scene of the accident without aiding the victim unless he is excused from
doing so (RA 4136, Land Transportation Code, Sec 55)
• Individuals required by law to take care of another person e.g. parents to their
children or guardians to their wards.
• The defendant in special relationship (e.g. common carrier passenger)
31.What if the contract interfered is an unenforceable contract?
There is authority for the view that an action for interference can be maintained even
if the contract is unenforceable, e.g., when it does not comply with the statute of frauds.
The view is that inducement, if reprehensible in an enforceable contract, is equally
reprehensible in an unenforceable one. The defendant cannot cite the statute of frauds
because the statute is enacted for the protection of the person charged on the contract.
It is personal and not available to strangers. (Harper, A Treatise on the Law of Torts,
Aquino page 752)
TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION- TOXIC TORTS
31 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
32. Art. 19
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith
Requisites of Abuse of Right
1. There is legal right or duty
2. The legal right or duty is exercised in bad faith; and
3. The exercise if for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another (Albenson
Enterprises v CA; Art 19; Aquino page 367)
33. Art. 20
Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same.
a. Violation of contract is not equal to violation of law, True?
False. When there is a violation of a contract, there is also a violation of law. Culpa
Contractual is governed by provisions on Obligations and Contracts particularly Art.
1170 to 1174.(Aquino, Page 40)
Note: Negligence is therefore only one of the ways of breaching a contract (fraud and
delay are also ways of breach of contract) and the presence of negligence is not
indispensable for a finding of a breach of contract. (Aquino, Page 40)
Art. 1170: Those in the performance of the obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence,
or delay are liable for damages.
Art. 1171: Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any
waiver of an action for future fraud is void.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
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 circumstances.
Art 1173: The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that degree
of negligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with
the circumstances of persons, time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith,
the provisions of Article 1171 and 2201 par. 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: Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise declared
by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which, could not be foreseen, or which
though foreseen is inevitable.
34. Art 21
Any person who willfully or causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs, public policy shall compensate the latter for
damages.
Requisites of Acts Contra Bonus Mores:
1. There is an act which is legal
2. The act is contrary to morals, good custom, public order or public policy and
3. The act is done with the intent to injure (Aquino, page 381)
a. Morals vs good customs
Morals refers to ethical standards enforced in a society, by law or social pressure and
applied to public life.
32 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Customs are rules of conduct formed by repetition of acts uniformly observed by
social rule. They are legally binding and obligatory. (Sta. Maria)
b. Public Policy vs Public Order
Public policy (orden publico) represents the law of persons the public, social and
legal interest, that which is permanent and essential of the institutions, that which,
even in favoring an individual in whom right lies, cannot be left to his own will.
(Manresa); Public policy can be generally defined as a system of laws, regulatory
measures, courses of action, and funding priorities concerning a given topic
promulgated by a governmental entity or its representatives.
Public Order- refers to the normal standards and operations of society. In the
context of the law, crimes against public order are crimes that cause a disturbance
to or violation of this order. Prostitution, public drunkenness and drug use are all
considered to be crimes that are against the public order. These are rules to protect
the safety and security of the people.
c. Does Art 21. Include acts contrary to public order?
Yes. Art. 21 expands torts in this jurisdiction. Art 21 is another provision that
fleshes out the principles in Art. 19. Breach is not only limited to breach of morals
but also to breach of good custom, public policy and public order. That is the
reason why it is observed that every imaginable wrong is compensable in this
jurisdiction. (Aquino, page 381)
d. Heart balm suit
It was based on the premise that an engagement was a binding contract between
two people. If one person were to break off the contract without consulting the
other, the law could step in and award damages to the other party. However, this
was already eliminated by the congress for the reason that the history of breach of
promise suits in the US and in England has shown no other action lends itself
more readily to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous men. It is this
experience which has led the abolition of action in the so-called “Heart Balm”
suits in many of the American States.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
As a general rule, breach of promise to marry by itself is not an actionable
tort. However, it becomes actionable if there are additional circumstances that
make it fall within the purview of Articles 19, 20, 21 or 2176 of the NCC. In such
cases, there is another act independent of the breach of promise to marry which
gives rise to liability. These include cases where: 1. There was a financial damage,
2. Social humiliation; 3. There was moral seduction. (Baksh v CA; Aquino page
383)
e. Is a negligent act covered by Art. 21
No. Art 21 concerns injuries that may be caused by acts which are not necessarily
prescribed by law. This article requires that the act be willful, that is, that here is
an intention to do the act and a desire to achieve the outcome. (Aquino, page 360)
35. HYPO: A and B are childhood sweethearts. B’s father is a known enemy of
A’s family. When A was 19 years old and B was 18 years old, they were engaged
to marry. A’s father withheld his consent to the marriage. B already paid P1M
for the marriage. Is A’s father liable? Is F liable for damages under: Art 19 ? Art
20? Art 21?
No, F is not liable. According to the Family Code, a marriage between 2 persons who
are 18 years old but below 21 years old is annullable at the instance of the parent who
did not give his/her consent to the marriage. Also, parental consent is required in
obtaining marriage license. Hence, the act of B spending 1M for the wedding can be
considered as damnum absque injuria.
a. What is the perfect age to marry
The legal capacity to marry is 18 according to the Family Code.
b. What is an Absolute right?
36. Art. 26
33 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Art 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality and privacy and peace of
mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they
may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief.
1. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life and relations of another;
3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
4. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly
station in life, place of birth, physical defect or other personal condition.
a. Does it include the American Doctrine on assault and battery?
Yes. As stated in a seminal article in Harvard Law Journal in 1890 entitled, “the Right
to Privacy”, the individual shall have full protection in person and in property, but has
been found necessary to define the nature and extent of such protection.. The scope of
these legal rights have broadened, and the right to life has come to mean the right to
enjoy life. As there is the recognition of the legal value of sensations, the protection
against bodily injury was extended to prohibit mere attempts to do such injury; that is,
putting another in fear of such injury. From the action of battery grew that of assault.
(Aquino, 412-413)
b. When offended party is private individual? What are the rules? Is there
criminal liability?
The right to privacy belongs to the individual in his private capacity. Generally, only
natural persons can invoke the right to privacy. This right is purely personal in nature,
hence, only the person whose privacy is claimed to have been violated may invoke it.
As a personal right, the right to privacy can be subject to waiver of the person whose
zone of privacy is sought to be intruded into. Also, in consequence of the fact that it is
a purely personal right, the right ceases upon the death of the person (except in cases
where the law allows the heirs of the deceased to enter into a licensing agreement for
the depiction of the life of the deceased.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
No, the provision expressly states that: “The following and similar acts, though they
may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief.”
c. Libel when offended party is a private individual? Where to file case?
General rule: criminal action for libel may be filed with the RTC of the province or
city where the libelous article is printed and first published.
If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed
in the RTC of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission
of the offense. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the
time of the commission of the offense, the criminal action may be filed in the RTC of
Manila.
If the offended party is a public officer whose office is outside Manila, the
action may be filed in the RTC of the province or city where he held office at the time
of the commission of the offense
d. What if libelous matter was posted on FB? Where to file action?
The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction, including any violation committed
by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission.
37. Art 30
Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from
a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of
the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act
complained of.
a. What if the victim is dead, is he covered?
Yes, the party may be substituted by his heirs pursuant to Sec 16 Rule 3 of the Rules
of Court, which provides, to wit: “Whenever a party to a pending action dies, it is the
34 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
duty of the counsel of the deceased party to inform the court of such fact within thirty
(30) days after such death. The counsel has also the obligation to give the name and
address of the legal representative of the deceased. This duty is mandatory and failure
to comply with this duty is a ground for disciplinary action.” Note that this duty is
imposed upon the counsel of the deceased party, not upon the counsel of the adverse
and surviving party.”
38. Art. 33
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for
damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by
the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
a. What is defamation?
Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means the offense of injuring a person’s
character, fame or reputation through false and malicious statements. It is that which
tends to injure reputation or to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in
the plaintiff or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the plaintiff. (Aquino,
page 507)
b. Why is it invasion of relational interest?
Because it involves the opinion which others in the community may have, or tend to
have, of the plaintiff. (Aquino, page 507)
c. Absolute privilege v qualified privilege
A privileged communication may be either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly
privileged.
Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable even if the
author has acted in bad faith. An example is found in Sec. 11, Art.VI, of the 1987
Constitution which exempts a member of Congress from liability for any speech or
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
debate in the Congress or in any Committee thereof. Upon the other hand, Qualifiedly
privileged communications containing defamatory imputations are not actionable
unless found to have been made without good intention justifiable motive. To this
genre belong "private communications" and "fair and true report without any
comments or remarks."
d. Define pleading; is a statement made in such an absolute privilege?
Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties
submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. (Rule 6, Section 1)
Allegations and averments in pleadings filed in court are absolutely privileged as long
as they are relevant or pertinent to the issues. The test to break through the protective
barrier of an absolutely privileged communication is not bona fides but relevance.
e. What is the reason why it is absolute?
“If the rule were otherwise, the courts would be flooded with libel suits from irate
litigants who will be suing each other on the basis of each and every pleading. Such a
rule will breed endless vexatious litigations contrary to public policy and the orderly
administration of justice.” (Justiniani vs Castillo, Aquino, page 548)
f. Do physical injuries include homicide?
The term "physical injuries" is used in a generic sense. It is not the crime of physical
injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. It includes not only physical injuries but
consummated, frustrated and attempted homicide. (Madeja vs Caro)
g. Robbery with homicide, covered in this article?
Yes. It has been ruled in this jurisdiction that the term “physical injuries” in Article 33
include bodily injuries causing death. (Dyogi vs Yatco)
39. Hypo: “Kung di ka lang babae sinampal na kita” Tortious act of assault?
35 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
No. Assault is the tort of acting intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable
apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. For there to be assault as
basis for tort liability, the following must be present: (1) An act by defendant creating
a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff; (2) of immediate harmful or offensive
contact to plaintiff's person; (3) Intent; (4) Causation.
There is no actual threat in the statement that will create reasonable apprehension.
40. Hypo: Statement. “All lawyers practicing in ACCRA are masamang tao except
Atty. Andy Nachura.” Rule on venue when the offending party is a private person
If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be
filed in the RTC of the province where he actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense
41. Art. 354, RPC (Crime of Defamation)
Article 354. Requirement for publicity. - Every defamatory imputation is presumed
to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for
making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of
any legal, moral or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of
any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential
nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any
other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions
a. Crime of defamation, is there such thing in RPC?
Yes. Defamation, which includes libel or slander, mens the offense of injuring a
person’s character, fame and reputation through false and malicious statements. It is
that which tends to injure reputation or to diminish the esteem,respect and good will
or confidence in the plaintiff or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the
plaintiff
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime,
or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means
of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200
to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the
offended party
b. How about crime of fraud? Is there such thing in the RPC?
Yes. It includes Estafa which is punishable under Art.315 of RPC. There is fraud
when through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the
other is induced to enter into a contract without which he would not have agreed.
c. Presumption
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious even if it is true, if no
good intention or justifiable motive for making it is shown.
d. Exceptions
Private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any
legal, moral or social duty; or
A fair and true report, maid in good faith, without any comments or remarks of any
judicial, legislative or other proceedings which are not of a confidential nature, or of
any statement, report , or speech delivered in said proceedings or of any other act
performed by public offices in the exercise of their functions
e. 2 instances
Malice in Law
36 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Malice in Fact
f. What if a complaint was published in Inquirer? Is it defamatory?
It depends. If it is malicious and no good intention or motive for making it is shown
then it is defamatory. However if a fair and true report, maid in good faith, without
any comments or remarks of any judicial, legislative or other proceedings which are
not of a confidential nature then it is not
g. What is necessary to prove a news report as defamatory?
It is necessary to prove that there is reckless disregard of what is false or not, that is,
the author or publisher entertains serious doubt as to the truth of the publication or
that he possesses a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity
h. What are the rules on Venue on criminal libel (under RPC) 360?
Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the
publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be
responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a
daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the
defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as
provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court
of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first
published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense:
Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose
office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action
shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city or
province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such
public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in
the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first
published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action
shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is
printed and first published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in
the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided,
furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is
first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, provided,
finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil
and/or criminal actions which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of
this law.
Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written defamations as provided for
in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or
city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such action
may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which
cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon
complaint expressly filed by the offended party. (As amended by R.A. 1289,
approved June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965).
i. What if the libelous matter is published online? Aside from the residence of
the offended party? Is this possible?
The Court reiterated that the venue of libel cases, where the complainant or offended
party is a private individual, is limited only to either of two places: 1) where the
complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2)
where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.”
42. Article 34
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render
aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer
shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any
37 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such
action.
a. Reason for subsidiary liability of the municipality
The subsidiary liability of cities and municipalities is imposed so that they will
exercise great care in selecting conscientious and duly qualified policeman and
exercise supervision over them in the performance of their duties as peace officers.
43. Art. 1314
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable
for damages to the other contracting party. (n)
a. What if motive of inducement is purely economic?
It is an actionable tort.
The liability for damages may be demanded even though the motive for the
interference was a desire to make a profit and there was no malice beyond the desire.
It follows that one who is not a party to a contract and who interferes thereon is not
necessarily an officious or malicious intermeddler but may still be held liable for
damages.
b. Interference with prospective advantage?
It is actionable.
In Tuttle vs Buck, the Court said, “When a man starts an opposition place of business,
not for the sake of profit himself, but regardless of loss to himself, and for the sole
purpose of driving his competitor out of business and with the intention of himself
retiring upon the accomplishment of his malevolent purpose, he is guilty of a wanton
wrong and actionable tort”
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
44. Art. 28, SC (Unfair Competition?)
Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in
labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust,
oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who
thereby suffers damage
a. Requisites?
1. It must involve an injury to a competitor or trade rival
2. It must involve acts which are characterized as “contrary to good conscience”
or “shocking to judicial sensibilities”, or otherwise unlawful
45. Hypo: X invents a chair Y copies the design. Will the case prosper even if the
object in dispute is not patented?
Yes, the case will prosper under Art 28 of NCC because both requisites are present.
First, that it caused an injury to X, a competitor of Y, as he may suffer financial losses
as a result of the act. Second, that his act is contrary to good conscience to copy the
design of another
a. Is it required that they are trade rivals?
No. The intent of the makers of the law is to prevent not the competition per se but
the unjust, oppressive, high-handed methods which may deprive others of a fair chance
to engage in business or to earn a living. (Not sure)
CASES:
46. Vinzons Chato v. Fortune Tobacco
a. Bivens Action
38 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Action for damages/ liability suit for money damages
b. Limitations
However, it is extremely dubious whether a Bivens action against a government tax
officials and employees may prosper, if we consider the pronouncement of the US
Supremem court in Schweiker v Chilicky, that a Bivens remedy will not be allowed
when other “meaningful safeguards or remedies for the rights of the persons situated
as (is the plaintiff)” are available. It has also been held that a Bivens action is not
appropriate in the civil service system or in the military justice system.
c. Why it is called Bivens?
This was from a case filed by Webster Bivens against Six Unknown Named Agents of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation in which the US Supreme court held that Bivens
is entitled to recover damages for injuries he suffered as a result of the agents’ violation
of the Fourth Amendment.
d. What happened to Bivens?
In this case, federal narcotics officers broke into Bivens' home at 6:30 a.m. without a
search warrant and in the absence of probable cause. The agents handcuffed Bivens,
searched his premises, employed excessive force, threatened to arrest his family,
subjected him to a visual strip search in the federal court house, fingerprinted,
photographed, interrogated and booked him. When Bivens was brought before a
United States Commissioner, however, charges against him were dismissed. On the
issue of whether violation of the Fourth Amendment "by a federal agent acting under
color of authority gives rise to a cause of action for damages consequent upon his
constitutional conduct", the U.S. Supreme Court held that Bivens is entitled to recover
damages for injuries he suffered as a result of the agents' violation of the Fourth
Amendment.
e. Bivens action- Relevance in Vinzons Chato?
U.S. Code 1983, a provision incorporated into the Civil Rights Act of 1871, presents
a parallel to our own Article 31 of the Civil Code as it states: “Every person who, under
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, usage, or any State or Territory,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity or other proper proceeding for redress.” This provision has been
employed as the basis of tort suits by many petitioners intending to win liability cases
against government officials when they violate the constitutional rights of citizens.
47. Nogales vs. CMC
a. Estoppel means?
Estoppel rests on this rule: "Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or
omission, intentionally and deliberately led 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."
How concept was related in this case
In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor-
physician. There is, however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be liable
if the physician is the "ostensible" agent of the hospital. This exception is also known
as the "doctrine of apparent authority."
The doctrine of apparent authority essentially involves two factors to determine the
liability of an independent-contractor physician.
The first factor focuses on the hospital's manifestations and is sometimes described as
an inquiry whether the hospital acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable
person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an
employee or agent of the hospital. In this regard, the hospital need not make express
representations to the patient that the treating physician is an employee of the hospital;
rather a representation may be general and implied.
39 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
The doctrine of apparent authority is a species of the doctrine of estoppel. Article 1431
of the Civil Code provides that "[t]hrough estoppel, an admission or representation is
rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as
against the person relying thereon." Estoppel rests on this rule: "Whenever a party has,
by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led 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. Age of deceased
Corazon Nogales is 37 years old and on her fourth pregnancy.
c. Ruling of SC on other respondents?
• Dr. Ely Villaflor
Dr. Villaflor admitted administering a lower dosage of magnesium sulfate. However,
this was after informing Dr. Estrada that Corazon was no longer in convulsion and that
her blood pressure went down to a dangerous level. At that moment, Dr. Estrada
instructed Dr. Villaflor to reduce the dosage of magnesium sulfate from 10 to 2.5
grams. Since petitioners did not dispute Dr. Villaflor’s allegation, Dr. Villaflor’s
defense remains uncontroverted. Dr. Villaflo’rs act of administering a lower dosage of
magnesium sulfate was not out of her own volition or was in contravention of Dr.
Estradas order.
• Dr. Rosa Uy
Dr. Rosa Uys alleged negligence consisted of her failure (1) to call the attention of Dr.
Estrada on the incorrect dosage of magnesium sulfate administered by Dr. Villaflor;
(2) to take corrective measures; and (3) to correct Nurse Dumlaos wrong method of
hemocoel administration.
As a second year resident physician then at CMC, Dr. Uy was merely authorized to
take the clinical history and physical examination of Corazon. However, that routine
internal examination did not ipso facto make Dr. Uy liable for the errors committed by
Dr. Estrada. Nothing shows that Dr. Uy participated in delivering Corazon’s baby.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Further, it is unexpected from Dr. Uy, a mere resident physician at that time, to call
the attention of a more experienced specialist, if ever she was present at the delivery
room.
• Dr. Joel Enriquez
Dr. Enriquez is an anesthesiologist whose field of expertise is definitely not obstetrics
and gynecology. As such, Dr. Enriquez was not expected to correct Dr. Estradas errors.
Besides, there was no evidence of Dr. Enriquezs knowledge of any error committed
by Dr. Estrada and his failure to act upon such observation.
• Dr. Perpetua Lacson
There was no unreasonable delay in the delivery of blood from the time of the request
until the transfusion to Corazon. Dr. Lacson competently explained the procedure
before blood could be given to the patient. Taking into account the bleeding time,
clotting time and cross-matching, Dr. Lacson stated that it would take approximately
45-60 minutes before blood could be ready for transfusion. Further, no evidence exists
that Dr. Lacson neglected her duties as head of the blood bank.
• Dr. Noe Espinola
Dr. Espinolas order to do hysterectomy which was based on the information he
received by phone is not negligence. Dr. Espinola, upon hearing such information
about Corazons condition, believed in good faith that hysterectomy was the correct
remedy. At any rate, the hysterectomy did not push through because upon Dr.
Espinolas arrival, it was already too late. At the time, Corazon was practically dead.
• Nurse J. Dumlao
There is no evidence of Nurse Dumlaos alleged failure to follow Dr. Estradas specific
instructions. Even assuming Nurse Dumlao defied Dr. Estradas order, there is no
showing that side-drip administration of hemacel proximately caused Corazons death.
No evidence linking Corazons death and the alleged wrongful hemacel administration
40 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
was introduced. Therefore, there is no basis to hold Nurse Dumlao liable for
negligence.
d. Doctrine of Apparent Authority
The doctrine of apparent authority is a species of the doctrine of estoppel. Article 1431
of the Civil Code provides that "[t]hrough estoppel, an admission or representation is
rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as
against the person relying thereon."
e. Requisites?
The doctrine of apparent authority essentially involves two factors to determine the
liability of an independent-contractor physician:
1. The first factor focuses on the hospital's manifestations and is sometimes
described as an inquiry whether the hospital acted in a manner which would
lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to
be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital. In this regard, the
hospital need not make express representations to the patient that the treating
physician is an employee of the hospital; rather a representation may be
general and implied.
2. The second factor focuses on the patient's reliance. It is sometimes
characterized as an inquiry on whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the
conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and
prudence.
f. Why Dr. Estrada was classified first as an independent contractor?
Because according to evidence, the CMC does not exercise control over Dr. Estrada’s
treatment and management of Corazon’s condition. CMC merely allowed Dr. Estrada
to use its facilities when Corazon was about to give birth.
The Court cited the case of Ramos vs. Court of Appeals stating that, private hospitals,
hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting "consultant" staff.
While "consultants" are not, technically employees, a point which respondent hospital
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
asserts in denying all responsibility for the patient's condition, the control exercised,
the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the important hallmarks of
an employer-employee relationship, with the exception of the payment of wages. In
assessing whether such a relationship in fact exists, the control test is determining.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, we rule that for the purpose of allocating
responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in
effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians. This being
the case, the question now arises as to whether or not respondent hospital is solidarily
liable with respondent doctors for petitioner's condition.
After a thorough examination of the voluminous records of this case, the Court finds
no single evidence pointing to CMC's exercise of control over Dr. Estrada's treatment
and management of Corazon's condition. It is undisputed that throughout Corazon's
pregnancy, she was under the exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Estrada. At the time of
Corazon's admission at CMC and during her delivery, it was Dr. Estrada, assisted by
Dr. Villaflor, who attended to Corazon. There was no showing that CMC had a part in
diagnosing Corazon's condition. While Dr. Estrada enjoyed staff privileges at CMC,
such fact alone did not make him an employee of CMC.42 CMC merely allowed Dr.
Estrada to use its facilities43 when Corazon was about to give birth, which CMC
considered an emergency. Considering these circumstances, Dr. Estrada is not an
employee of CMC, but an independent contractor.
g. 3 instances that the SC explained that CMC held Estrada out as his employee?
In the instant case, CMC impliedly held out Dr. Estrada as a member of its medical
staff. Through CMC's acts, CMC clothed Dr. Estrada with apparent authority thereby
leading the Spouses Nogales to believe that Dr. Estrada was an employee or agent of
CMC. CMC cannot now repudiate such authority.
First, CMC granted staff privileges to Dr. Estrada. CMC extended its medical staff and
facilities to Dr. Estrada. Upon Dr. Estrada's request for Corazon's admission, CMC,
through its personnel, readily accommodated Corazon and updated Dr. Estrada of her
condition.
Second, CMC made Rogelio sign consent forms printed on CMC letterhead. Prior to
Corazon's admission and supposed hysterectomy, CMC asked Rogelio to sign release
41 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
forms, the contents of which reinforced Rogelio's belief that Dr. Estrada was a member
of CMC's medical staff. Without any indication in these consent forms that Dr. Estrada
was an independent contractor-physician, the Spouses Nogales could not have known
that Dr. Estrada was an independent contractor. Significantly, no one from CMC
informed the Spouses Nogales that Dr. Estrada was an independent contractor. On the
contrary, Dr. Atencio, who was then a member of CMC Board of Directors, testified
that Dr. Estrada was part of CMC's surgical staff.
Third, Dr. Estrada's referral of Corazon's profuse vaginal bleeding to Dr. Espinola,
who was then the Head of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of CMC, gave
the impression that Dr. Estrada as a member of CMC's medical staff was collaborating
with other CMC-employed specialists in treating Corazon.
h. What are the facts that the patient relied on the conduct of CMC and Dr.
Estrada?
[see Answer in previous question]
Without any indication in these consent forms that Dr. Estrada was an independent
contractor-physician, the Spouses Nogales could not have known that Dr. Estrada was
an independent contractor. Significantly, no one from CMC informed the Spouses
Nogales that Dr. Estrada was an independent contractor. On the contrary, Dr. Atencio,
who was then a member of CMC Board of Directors, testified that Dr. Estrada was
part of CMC's surgical staff.
i. Supposing CMC did not hold Dr. Estrada out as part of its medical staff, can
the CMC be held liable?
Yes, under the Doctrine of Apparent Authority.
In the instant case, CMC impliedly held out Dr. Estrada as a member of its medical
staff. Through CMC's acts, CMC clothed Dr. Estrada with apparent authority thereby
leading the Spouses Nogales to believe that Dr. Estrada was an employee or agent of
CMC. CMC cannot now repudiate such authority.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Under an apparent, or ostensible,agency theory. Essential to the creation of apparent
authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to a third party, that
give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority to act on behalf
of the principal." Also, the third party must reasonably rely upon the appearance of
authority created by the principal. Finally, the third party must accept the services of
the agent in reliance upon the perceived relationship between the agent and the
principal.
j. Doctrine of Corporate Negligence
Corporate negligence is the legal doctrine that holds health-care facilities, such as
hospitals, nursing homes and medical clinics, responsible for the well-being of patients.
If a health-care facility fails to maintain a clean and safe environment, hire competent
and properly trained employees, oversee care and implement safety policies, it can be
held liable for any harm to patients.
k. Is that direct corporate liability
It is a vicarious liability which may be established if a plaintiff demonstrates the
hospital had an obligation to oversee the actions of its subsidiary or employee.
State the special tort duties under this doctrine imposed on hospital. Special liabilities
imposed
The hospital owes a direct duty to its patients to ensure their safety and well-being
while at the hospital. The clinic has the “duty to exercise reasonable care to protect
from harm all patients admitted into its facility for medical treatment.”
48. Madeja v Caro
49. Borjal vs. CA
a. What do you need to establish to prove that a news report is with malice?
42 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
It requires that liability for defamation of a public official or public figure may not be
imposed in the absence of proof of "actual malice" on the part of the person making
the libelous statement.
The guarantees of freedom of speech and press prohibit a public official or public
figure from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official
conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice, i.e., with
knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
b. “Reckless disregard of what is false or not” - Meaning?
Reckless disregard of what is false or not" means that the defendant entertains serious
doubt as to the truth of the publication, or that he possesses a high degree of awareness
of their probable falsity.
50. Nikko Hotel vs Reyes
a. What was the version of the staff?
Ruby Lim, for her part, admitted having asked Mr. Reyes to leave the party but
not under the ignominious circumstance painted by the latter. Ms. Lim
narrated that she was the Hotels Executive Secretary for the past twenty (20)
years. One of her functions included organizing the birthday party of the hotels
former General Manager, Mr. Tsuruoka. The year 1994 was no different. For
Mr. Tsuruokas party, Ms. Lim generated an exclusive guest list and extended
invitations accordingly. The guest list was limited to approximately sixty (60)
of Mr. Tsuruokas closest friends and some hotel employees and that Mr.
Reyes was not one of those invited. At the party, Ms. Lim first noticed Mr.
Reyes at the bar counter ordering a drink. Mindful of Mr. Tsuruokas wishes to
keep the party intimate, Ms. Lim approached Mr. Boy Miller, the captain waiter,
to inquire as to the presence of Mr. Reyes who was not invited. Mr. Miller
replied that he saw Mr. Reyes with the group of Dr. Filart. As Dr. Filart was
engaged in conversation with another guest and as Ms. Lim did not want to
interrupt, she inquired instead from the sister of Dr. Filart, Ms. Zenaida Fruto,
who told her that Dr. Filart did not invite Mr. Reyes. Ms. Lim then requested
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Ms. Fruto to tell Mr. Reyes to leave the party as he was not invited. Mr. Reyes,
however, lingered prompting Ms. Lim to inquire from Ms. Fruto who said that
Mr. Reyes did not want to leave. When Ms. Lim turned around, she saw Mr.
Reyes conversing with a Captain Batung whom she later approached. Believing
that Captain Batung and Mr. Reyes knew each other, Ms. Lim requested from
him the same favor from Ms. Fruto, i.e., for Captain Batung to tell Mr. Reyes
to leave the party as he was not invited. Still, Mr. Reyes lingered. When Ms.
Lim spotted Mr. Reyes by the buffet table, she decided to speak to him herself
as there were no other guests in the immediate vicinity. However, as Mr. Reyes
was already helping himself to the food, she decided to wait. When Mr. Reyes
went to a corner and started to eat, Ms. Lim approached him and said: alam
ninyo, hindo ho kayo dapat nandito. Pero total nakakuha na ho kayo ng
b. Ruling of RTC? CA?
The court a quo dismissed the complaint, giving more credence to the
testimony of Ms. Lim that she was discreet in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the
party. The trial court likewise ratiocinated that Mr. Reyes assumed the risk of
being thrown out of the party as he was uninvited.
the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court as it found more
commanding of belief the testimony of Mr. Reyes that Ms. Lim ordered him to
leave in a loud voice within hearing distance of several guests. Said acts of
appellee Lim are uncalled for. What should have been done by appellee Lim
was to approach appellee Mrs. Filart and together they should have told
appellant Reyes in private that the latter should leave the party as the celebrant
only wanted close friends around. It is necessary that Mrs. Filart be the one to
approach appellant because it was she who invited appellant in that occasion.
Were it not for Mrs. Filarts invitation, appellant could not have suffered such
humiliation. For that, appellee Filart is equally liable.
c. WON volenti non fit injuria is a valid defense against an action for abuse of
right? (No daw) Why?
NO. 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
43 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara

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.As formulated by petitioners,
however, this doctrine does not find application to the case at bar because even if
respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party, petitioners, under 51. UE vs. Jader
Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code, were still under obligation to treat him fairly
in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame. a. What is the subject?

For volenti non fit injuria to be a valid defense in an action, the risk must have arisen Practice Court I
in a manner consistent with good faith, and not bad faith.
b. What date was the grade of 5.00 given?
d. Requisites of Abuse of Right
May 30, 1988
(1) There is a legal right or duty;
c. What was the event after the graduation?
(2) which is exercised in bad faith;
He tendered a blow-out that evening which was attended by neighbors, friends and
(3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. relatives who wished him good luck in the forthcoming bar examination

e. How did the SC rules on the issue of WON Ruby Lim shouted on Reyes? d. When was the graduation?

In the absence of any proof of motive on the part of Ms. Lim to humiliate Mr.
Reyes and expose him to ridicule and shame, it is highly unlikely that she would
shout at him from a very close distance. Ms. Lim having been in the hotel
business for twenty years wherein being polite and discreet are virtues to
be emulated, the testimony of Mr. Reyes that she acted to the contrary does not
inspire belief and is indeed incredible. Ms. Lim, not having abused her right to
ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party to which he was not invited, cannot be made
liable to pay for damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code
f. What is the reason why there is a reason to believe that Ruby Lim cannot shout
in the party?
6th of April 1988 at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon,
e. Ground of filing the case?
Respondent sued petitioner for damages alleging that he suffered moral shock, mental
anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and sleepless
nights when he was not able to take the 1988 bar examinations arising from the latter's
negligence. He prayed for an award of moral and exemplary damages, unrealized
income, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.
f. What was the defense of UE?

Ms. Lim, mindful of the celebrants instruction to keep the party intimate, Petitioner denied liability arguing mainly that it never led respondent to believe that
would naturally want to get rid of the gate-crasher in the most hush-hush manner he completed the requirements for a Bachelor of Laws degree when his name was
in order not to call attention to a glitch in an otherwise seamless affair and, included in the tentative list of graduating students.
in the process, risk the displeasure of the celebrant, her former boss.

44 | P a g e
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
g. Ruling in UE vs Jader?
Affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and the Trial Court. Petitioner cannot pass
on its blame to the professors to justify its own negligence that led to the delayed relay
of information to respondent. When one of two innocent parties must suffer, he
through whose agency the loss occurred must bear it. However, while petitioner was
guilty of negligence and thus liable to respondent for the latter's actual damages,
Respondent should not have been awarded moral damages.
h. What is the duty of the school? Liability is based on Art 19 & 20.
As the the institution of learning involved herein is a university which is engaged in
legal education, it should have practiced what it inculcates in its students, more
specifically the principle of good dealings enshrined in Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil
Code. Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their
academic status and not wait for the latter to inquire from the former. The
conscious indifference of a person to the rights or welfare of the person/persons who
may be affected by his act or omission can support a claim for damages.Want of care
to the conscious disregard of civil obligations coupled with a conscious knowledge of
the cause naturally calculated to produce them would make the erring party liable.
i. Why was Jader not entitled to moral damages?
The Court, contrary to the ruling of the CA did not believe that herein respondent
suffered shock, trauma and pain when he was informed that he could not graduate and
will not be allowed to take the bar examinations. He had the responsibility to verify
for himself whether he has completed all necessary requirements to be eligible for the
bar examinations.
j. Does negligence presuppose absence of intent?
Negligence presupposes absence of intention. If intentionally done, it would be
punishable as a felony. (JBL Reyes)
k. How can UE be held liable under Art 20 and 19 when there is no special law
cited by the SC which regulates the conduct of educational institutions?
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Article 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal
remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human
foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. We must consider that the institution
of learning involved herein is a university which is engaged in legal education, it
should have practiced what it inculcates in its students, more specifically the principle
of good dealings enshrined in Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code. (Note that in
Garcia there is a law violated. )
l. Is the SC wrong because there is no special law which regulates causational
institution?
No, the intention of Art. 19 was to grant adequate legal remedy for or the untold
number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide
specifically in statutory law.
52. Garcia v Salvador
a. Law was not specified?
It is specified. Section 2 RA 4688 otherwise known as Clinical Laboratory Law (Refer
below)
b. Article 20
Every person who, contrary to law willfully or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same.
c. Specific violations (state 2)
Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4688, otherwise known as The Clinical
Laboratory Law, provides:
Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to be professionally in-charge of a registered
clinical laboratory unless he is a licensed physician duly qualified in laboratory
45 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
medicine and authorized by the Secretary of Health, such authorization to be renewed
annually.
No license shall be granted or renewed by the Secretary of Health for the operation
and maintenance of a clinical laboratory unless such laboratory is under the
administration, direction and supervision of an authorized physician, as provided for
in the preceding paragraph.
Sec. 9. Management of the Clinical Laboratory:
9.1 Head of the Clinical Laboratory: The head is that person who assumes technical
and administrative supervision and control of the activities in the laboratory.
For all categories of clinical laboratories, the head shall be a licensed physician
certified by the Philippine Board of Pathology in either Anatomic or Clinical
Pathology or both provided that:
(1) This shall be mandatory for all categories of free-standing clinical laboratories; all
tertiary category hospital laboratories and for all secondary category hospital
laboratories located in areas with sufficient available pathologist.
Sec. 11. Reporting: All laboratory requests shall be considered as consultations
between the requesting physician and pathologist of the laboratory. As such all
laboratory reports on various examinations of human specimens shall be construed as
consultation report and shall bear the name of the pathologist or his associate. No
person in clinical laboratory shall issue a report, orally or in writing, whole portions
thereof without a directive from the pathologist or his authorized associate and only to
the requesting physician or his authorized representative except in emergencies when
the results may be released as authorized by the pathologist.
d. Compare to UE v Jader
In both cases, there was negligence. In UE vs Jader, there was abuse of right, the
elements were present for the failure of the school to perform their contractual
obligation to timely inform and furnish sufficient notice and information of their
academic status the provisions of art 19 and 20 was the basis of liability. While in
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Garcia v Salvador, there was a specific law that was violated for the failure of the
owners and clinical laboratories to comply with the statutes, as well as rules and
regulations, purposely promulgated to protect and promote the health of the people.
The health care providers fail to do something which a reasonable health care provider
would do. Article 20 also is the basis of the liability.
Principle of abuse of rights requisites
1. There is legal right or duty
2. The legal right or duty is exercised in bad faith
3. The exercise is for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another
e. Third requisite is lacking so is SC wrong?
No. Garcia may not have intended to cause the consequences which followed after the
release of the HBsAG test result. However, his failure to comply with the laws and
rules promulgated and issued for the protection of public safety and interest is failure
to observe that care which a reasonably prudent health care provider would observe.
Thus, his act or omission constitutes a breach of duty.
Indubitably, Ranida suffered injury as a direct consequence of Garcia's failure to
comply with the mandate of the laws and rules aforequoted. She was terminated from
the service for failing the physical examination; suffered anxiety because of the
diagnosis; and was compelled to undergo several more tests. All these could have been
avoided had the proper safeguards been scrupulously followed in conducting the
clinical examination and releasing the clinical report.
f. Requisite presupposes lack of intent?
Yes. Art 19 states the elements of abuse of rights (stated above); Art. 20 speaks of
general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for
their own sanction. Thus anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise
of legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries
suffered thereby. (Aquino, page 368)
46 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
In other words whether there is an intent or not as long as it causes damage, there is
liability.
53. MVRS vs. Islamic Dwah.
a. Substance of the article
The Article reads:
"ALAM BA NINYO?
Na ang mga baboy at kahit anong uri ng hayop sa Mindanao ay hindi kinakain ng mga
Muslim? Para sa kanila ang mga ito ay isang sagradong bagay. Hindi nila ito
kailangang kainin kahit na sila pa ay magutom at mawalan ng ulam sa tuwing sila ay
kakain. Ginagawa nila itong Diyos at sinasamba pa nila ito sa tuwing araw ng kanilang
pangingilin lalung-lalo na sa araw na tinatawag nilang 'Ramadan'."
b. What is the test and how was it applied in the case? Test in determining
propriety of libel case?
A contrary view is expressed that what is involved in the present case is an intentional
tortious act causing mental distress and not an action for libel. That opinion invokes
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire where the U.S. Supreme Court held that words heaping
extreme profanity, intended merely to incite hostility, hatred or violence, have no
social value and do not enjoy constitutional protection; and Beauharnais v. Illinois
where it was also ruled that hate speech which denigrates a group of persons identified
by their religion, race or ethnic origin defames that group and the law may validly
prohibit such speech on the same ground as defamation of an individual.
We do not agree to the contrary view articulated in the immediately preceding
paragraph. Primarily, an "emotional distress" tort action is personal in nature, i.e., it is
a civil action filed by an individual to assuage the injuries to his emotional tranquility
due to personal attacks on his character. It has no application in the instant case since
no particular individual was identified in the disputed article of Bulgar. Also, the
purported damage caused by the article, assuming there was any, falls under the
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
principle of relational harm — which includes harm to social relationships in the
community in the form of defamation; as distinguished from the principle of reactive
harm — which includes injuries to individual emotional tranquility in the form of an
infliction of emotional distress. In their complaint, respondents clearly asserted an
alleged harm to the standing of Muslims in the community, especially to their activities
in propagating their faith in Metro Manila and in other non-Muslim communities in
the country. It is thus beyond cavil that the present case falls within the application of
the relational harm principle of tort actions for defamation, rather than the reactive
harm principle on which the concept of emotional distress properly belongs.
Moreover, under the Second Restatement of the Law, to recover for the intentional
infliction of emotional distress the plaintiff must show that: (a) The conduct of the
defendant was intentional or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff; (b) The conduct was
extreme and outrageous; (c) There was a causal connection between the defendant's
conduct and the plaintiff's mental distress; and, (d) The plaintiff's mental distress was
extreme and severe.
c. Example
Word “muslim”
In the instant case, the Muslim community is too vast as to readily ascertain who
among the Muslims were particularly defamed. The size of the group renders the
reference as indeterminate and generic as a similar attack on Catholics, Protestants,
Buddhists or Mormons would do. "Muslim" is descriptive of those who are believers
of Islam, a religion divided into varying sects, such as the Sunnites, the Shiites, the
Kharijites, the Sufis and others based upon political and theological distinctions.
"Muslim" is a name which describes only a general segment of the Philippine
population, comprising a heterogeneous body whose construction is not so well
defined as to render it impossible for any representative identification.
d. Ako, Si Atty Barbs? is a public figure?
No. A public figure has been defined as a person who, by his accomplishments, fame,
or mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a
legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs, and his character, has become a ‘public
47 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
personage.’ He is, in other words, a celebrity. Obviously, to be included in this
category are those who have achieved some degree of reputation by appearing before
the public, as in the case of an actor, a professional baseball player, a pugilist, or any
other entertainer. The list is, however, broader than this. It includes public officers,
famous inventors and explorers, war heroes and even ordinary soldiers, an infant
prodigy, and no less a personage than the Grand Exalted Ruler of a lodge. It includes,
in short, anyone who has arrived at a position where public attention is focused upon
him as a person. (AQUINO, 439)
e. Is Atty. Mercader a public figure?
No.
(He may be considered as a public figure depending on whether he was involved in
prominent litigation, political or public controversies, i.e. Juan Ponce Enrile’s
participation as a principal actor in the culminating events that changed the
government in February 1986)
f. Elements of commercial likeness?
I. There is violation of right of publicity under commercial likeness, if:
(1) that there be various aspects of an individual’s identity: name, likeness,
achievements, identifying characteristics, actual performances and fictitious
characters created by a performer;
(2) there is unwarranted publication of a person’s name or the unauthorized use of his
photograph;
or there is appropriation for the defendant’s advantage, of plaintiff’s likeness or name
(3) it is for commercial or exploitive purposes
(wala ako makita na elements, based lang ‘to sa definition sa book – AQUINO, 454)
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
II. A plaintiff must establish three elements to hold someone liable for unlawful use
of name or likeness:
1. Use of a Protected Attribute: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used an
aspect of his or her identity that is protected by the law. This ordinarily means a
plaintiff's name or likeness, but the law protects certain other personal attributes as
well.
2. For an Exploitative Purpose: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used his
name, likeness, or other personal attributes for commercial or other exploitative
purposes. Use of someone's name or likeness for news reporting and other expressive
purposes is not exploitative, so long as there is a reasonable relationship between the
use of the plaintiff's identity and a matter of legitimate public interest.
3. No Consent: The plaintiff must establish that he or she did not give permission for
the offending use. (Nakita ko lang sa net)
g. What if used as profile picture?
It depends. If you use the profile picture to promote and advertise products and services.
In a case of using as a profile picture of a celebrity suggesting that he or she endorses
or uses your product. Exploitative purpose depends on whether what is being dealt
with is a right of publicity or invasion of privacy through misappropriation claim. The
right of publicity is the right to control and make money from the commercial use of
his or her identity. A plaintiff that sues you for interfering with that right generally
must show that you used his or her name or likeness for a commercial purpose. This
ordinarily means using the plaintiff's name or likeness in advertising or promoting
your goods or services, or placing the plaintiff's name or likeness on or in products
or services you sell to the public You also may be held liable for some non-
commercial uses of someone's name or likeness if you exploit the plaintiff's identity
for your own benefit.
h. In tinder? (I had to search tinder, I don’t know how it works joke)
Yes, it may still be considered for exploitative purposes.
48 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara

Alternative answer: No, there is no commercial gain.

The tort of conversion is similar to the tort Under the RPC, Extends to all
i. No commercial gain?
of trespass to chattel. Both require a or Art. 451 of the cases of
defendant to interfere with another's right of NPC. However, deprivation of
j. What is a Tort of outrage?
possession in personal property. Likewise, a both require property, even in
defendant must have intended to exercise intent or bad the absence of
In determining whether the tort of outrage had been committed, a plaintiff is control over the property in a manner faith in order to criminal
necessarily expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of criticism, inconsistent with the owner's rights. It is not be liable for liability.
rough language, and to occasional acts and words that are definitely inconsiderate and required that the defendant know that the damages.
unkind; the mere fact that the actor knows that the other will regard the conduct as property belonged to another. However, for
insulting, or will have his feelings hurt, is not enough. conversion, the interference must be so
serious, in terms of duration and
k. Commercial Appropriation of likeness? extensiveness of use, that it warrants that the
defendant pay the personal property's full
A type of invasion of privacy; appropriation for the defendant’s advantage, of value.(Internet)
plaintiff’s likeness or name.

l. Tort of Conversion v. Tort of Trespass? (AQUINO, 388-390)

54. Luna vs IAC

TORT OF CONVERSION TORT OF TRESSPASS a. Will the variable not be affected if it’s not dangerous work?

The Supreme Court was not clear on this matter. However, it cited the ruling of the
Real Property Personal Court of Appeals which stated that the habit and manner of life of the person involved
Property must be taken into account. In this case, in a motion for consideration, the Court of
Appeals reduced the 30 year life expectancy of Luna to 10 years because of the fact
that he is engaged in car racing as a sport here and abroad. However, the Court ruled
that such fact lacked evidence and Luna was actually engaged in go-kart racing which
involve extremely low slung, low powered vehicles, only slightly larger than foot-
pedalled four wheeled conveyances. And so, cannot be considered a dangerous sport.

b. Doctrine of Avoidable Consequence vs Doctrine of Contributory Negligence

49 | P a g e
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Avoidable consequences doctrine is a legal principle that places the responsibility of
minimizing damages upon the person who has been injured. The plaintiff after an
injury or breach of contract should make reasonable efforts to mitigate the effects of
the injury or breach. If the defendant can show that the plaintiff failed to mitigate
damages, the plaintiff's recovery can be barred or reduced. On the other hand, the
Doctrine of Contributory Negligence as stated under Art. 2179 of the New Civil Code
is when the negligence of the plaintiff is contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
c. Collateral Source Rule?
As part of American personal injury law, the collateral source rule was originally
applied to tort cases wherein the defendant is prevented from benefiting from the
plaintiff’s receipt of money from other sources. Under this rule, if an injured person
receives compensation for his injuries from a source wholly independent of the
tortfeasor, the payment should not be deducted from the damages which he would
otherwise collect from the tortfeasor. In a recent Decision by the Illinois Supreme
Court, the rule has been described as "an established exception to the general rule that
damages in negligence actions must be compensatory." The Court went on to explain
that although the rule appears to allow a double recovery, the collateral source will
have a lien or subrogation right to prevent such a double recovery. In Mitchell v.
Haldar, the collateral source rule was rationalized by the Supreme Court of Delaware:
The collateral source rule is ‘predicated on the theory that a tortfeasor has no
interest in, and therefore no right to benefit from monies received by the
injured person from sources unconnected with the defendant’. According to
the collateral source rule, ‘a tortfeasor has no right to any mitigation of
damages because of payments or compensation received by the injured
person from an independent source.’ The rationale for the collateral source
rule is based upon the quasi-punitive nature of tort law liability. It has been
explained as follows:
The collateral source rule is designed to strike a balance between two
competing principles of tort law: (1) a plaintiff is entitled to compensation
sufficient to make him whole, but no more; and (2) a defendant is liable for
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
all damages that proximately result from his wrong. A plaintiff who receives
a double recovery for a single tort enjoys a windfall; a defendant who escapes,
in whole or in part, liability for his wrong enjoys a windfall. Because the law
must sanction one windfall and deny the other, it favors the victim of the
wrong rather than the wrongdoer.
Thus, the tortfeasor is required to bear the cost for the full value of his or her
negligent conduct even if it results in a windfall for the innocent plaintiff.
(Citations omitted)
As seen, the collateral source rule applies in order to place the responsibility for losses
on the party causing them. Its application is justified so that "'the wrongdoer should
not benefit from the expenditures made by the injured party or take advantage of
contracts or other relations that may exist between the injured party and third persons."
(Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Salaried Employees Union vs. Mitsubishi Motors
Philippines Corporation, G.R. No. 175773, June 17, 2013)
55. Fontanilla v. Hon. Maliamanan
56. Wassmer v. Velez
DAMAGES
1. What are damages?
“Damage” has been defined by Escriche as “the detriment, injury, or loss which are
occasioned by reason of fault of another in the property or person.” (Escriche,
Diccionario Razonado de Legislacion y Jurisprudencia, vol. 2, p. 597). Of whatsoever
nature the damage be, and from whatsoever cause it may proceed, the person who has
done the injury ought to repair it by an indemnity proportionate to his fault and to the
loss caused thereby. (1 Cushing, Domat’s Civil Law, p. 741, cited in Simona
Manzanares vs. Rafael Moreta, G.R. No. 12306, October 22, 1918).
50 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
The Supreme Court defined the word “damages” in one case as the pecuniary
compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury sustained, or as otherwise
expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of some
duty or violation of some rights. (People vs. Ballesteros, 285 SCRA 438, 448 [1998]).
[Aquino (2016), p. 768]
2. Damages v. Injury
There is a material distinction between damages and injury. 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. (Spouses Custodio v. CA)
3. Damage without injury v. injury without damage (Spouses Custodio v. CA)
Damage without injury
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.
Injury without damage
The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses does not give rise to a right to recover
damages. 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.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
4. What are nominal damages? Reason for the award of nominal damages?
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Nominal damages are either those damages recoverable where a legal right to be
vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind, or
where, from the nature of the case some compensable injury has been shown but the
amount thereof has not been proved. (Sangco, p. 1016)
5. Sps Custodio case. Who is the ponente? Ruling in Custudio as to WON injury
without damage may give rise to action for damages. NO daw sabi ni sir
Ponente – Justice Regalado
The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses does not give rise to a right to recover
damages. 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.
(Reproducing the relevant part of the ruling)
However, the mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses does not give rise to a right to
recover damages. 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.
There is a material distinction between damages and injury. 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.
51 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
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.
In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains,
he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant
owed to the plaintiff a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by
the person causing it. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise
that an individual was injured in contemplation of law. Thus, there must first be the
breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach before damages may
be awarded; it is not sufficient to state that there should be tort liability merely because
the plaintiff suffered some pain and suffering.
Many accidents occur and many injuries are inflicted by acts or omissions which cause
damage or loss to another but which violate no legal duty to such other person, and
consequently create no cause of action in his favor. 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.
In other words, 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.
6. Is there damage in nominal damages?
No. Under Article 2221, Nominal Damages are adjudicated in order that the right of
the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated
ir recognized and not for he purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered
by him. Nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact and are allowed
not as an equivalent of wrong inflicted but simply in recognition of the existence of a
technical injury ( Aquino, p.842)
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
7. Damage is not a requisite of nominal damages and therefore the SC is wrong
in Custodia case?
No. Under Art. 2221, Nominal Damages are adjudicated in order that the right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated ir
recognized. In the case of Sps. Custodio, there is no violation of invasion of the right
of respondent Mabasa as The act of petitioner Sps. Custodio in constructing a fence
within their lot is a valid exercise of their right as owners. 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 . Thus, Nominal Damages may not be awarded
as well in the case of Sps. Custodio v. CA (Disclaimer: ‘di ko maintindihan ‘yung line
of questioning, pero I assumed na ito ‘yung gusto iparating ni sir)
a. Can nominal damages co-exist with actual damages?
No, they have different purposes. The purpose of Nominal Damaagges is to vindicate
or recognize a right that has been violated, in order to preclude further contest thereof;
and not for the purpose of indemnifying for any loss suffered by him. An award of
compensator damages is a vindication of a right. It is in itself recognition that
plaintiff’s right was violated, hence award of nominal damages together with actual
damages is improper
8. Is breach of contract (culpa contractual) a source of tort liability?
Yes. Under art. 1170, it is provided that those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof are liable for damages. When the contract ,which is one
of the sources of obligation is breached through negligence, damages may be awarded
to the creditor.
9. Dano emergente vs. lucro cessante
Dano Emergene- loss of what a person already possesses
Lucro cesante- failure to receive as benefit that would have pertained thereto (Aquino)
52 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
10. Article 2201
Article 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who
acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or
could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible
for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the
obligation.
11. Article 2202
Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages
which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of.
It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably
been foreseen by the defendant.
12. Article 2206
Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall
be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased,
and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every
case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of
permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at
the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of article
291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of
testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the person causing the death,
for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court;
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased
may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
13. What is civil indemnity? Purpose.
Civil indemnity comes under the general provisions of the Civil Code on damages,
and refers to the award given to the heirs of the deceased as a form of monetary
restitution or compensation for the death of the victim at the hands of the accused. Its
grant is mandatory and a matter of course, and without need of proof other than the
fact of death as the result of the crime or quasi-delict, and the fact that the accused was
responsible therefor.
The mandatory character of civil indemnity in case of death from crime or quasi-delict
derives from the legal obligation of the accused or the defendant to fully compensate
the heirs of the deceased for his death as the natural consequence of the criminal or
quasi-delictual act or omission. (People v. Oandasan, GR NO. 194605)
14. Is proof of pecuniary loss required in civil indemnity?
Proof of actual loss is not necessary in cases where the law or jurisprudence allows the
award of civil indemnity. For example, civil indemnity, which is in the nature of actual
or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. (Aquino,
781)
15. Can civil indemnity be awarded on top of actual damages?
Actual damages is not necessary for the award of the civil indemnity in tort cases or
criminal cases where the victim died. However, this civil indemnity is in addition to
any actual or compensatory damages that may be awarded in favor of victim’s heirs.
16. In quasi-delict can civil indemnity be awarded?
53 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages
which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of.
It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably
been foreseen by the defendant.
The grant of quasi-delict is mandatory and a matter of course, and without need of
proof other than the fact of death as the result of the crime or quasi-delict, and the fact
that the accused was responsible therefor. (People v. Oandasan, supra)
17. Can civil indemnity be awarded in culpa contractual case?
Civil indemnity comes under the general provisions of the Civil Code on damages,
and refers to the award given to the heirs of the deceased as a form of monetary
restitution or compensation for the death of the victim at the hands of the
accused.
18. Indemnity shall be paid to whom?
Civil indemnity is given to the heirs of the deceased.
19. To whom should support be given? To his compulsory heirs? Art. 291? 3rd
instance? Moral damages?
Art. 2206 (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions
of article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by
the law of testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the person causing
the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the
court;
Moral damages are not punitive in nature, but are designed to compensate and
alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury unjustly caused to a person. Although incapable of pecuniary computation,
moral damages must, nevertheless, somehow be proportional to and in appro
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
20. Actual damages
Article 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
21. Is proof of pecuniary loss required in actual damages? In moral damages?
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be
adjudicated. The assessment of such damages is left to the discretion of the court,
according to the circumstances of the case. However, there must be proof that the
defendant caused physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury to the plaintiff. (Aquino, p. 822)
22. How about in breach of contract? (Contract of carriage) Article 1764?
This case is one for breach of contract of carriage (culpa contractual) where it is
necessary to show the existence of the contract between the parties, and the failure of
the common carrier to transport its passenger safely to his or her destination. An action
for breach of contract differs from quasi-delicts (also referred as culpa aquiliana or
culpa extra contractual) as the latter emanate from the negligence of the tortfeasor
including such instance where a person is injured in a vehicular accident by a party
other than the carrier where he is a passenger.
The principle that, in an action for breach of contract of carriage, moral damages may
be awarded only in case (1) an accident results in the death of a passenger; or (2) the
carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith, is pursuant to Article 1764, in relation to Article
2206 (3) of the Civil Code, and Article 2220 thereof, as follows:
Article 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded
in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article
54 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of
contract by a common carrier. (Emphasis supplied)
Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-
delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been
mitigating circumstances. In addition:
xxxx
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the
death of the deceased.
Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding
moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such
damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where
the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. (Emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid concepts of fraud or bad faith and negligence are basic as they are
distinctly differentiated by law. Specifically, fraud or bad faith connotes "deliberate or
wanton wrong doing" or such deliberate disregard of contractual obligations while
negligence amounts to sheer carelessness.
More particularly, fraud includes "inducement through insidious machination." In turn,
insidious machination refers to such deceitful strategy or such plan with an evil
purpose. On the other hand, bad faith does not merely pertain to bad judgment or
negligence but relates to a dishonest purpose, and a deliberate doing of a wrongful act.
Bad faith involves "breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will
that partakes of the nature of fraud."
Clearly, unless it is fully established (and not just lightly inferred) that negligence in
an action for breach of contract is so gross as to amount to malice, then the claim of
moral damages is without merit. (Darines vs. Quinones)
Damages in breach of contract:
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
• General compensatory damages- those which are the natural and necessary
result of the wrongful act or omission asserted as the foundation of the
liability and include those which follow as a conclusion of law from the
statement of the fact of the injury. (Result of injury)
• Special compensatory damages- actually, but not necessarily, result from the
injury and which arise from special circumstances of the cases. Damages (by
competent evidence) are directly traceable to the failure to discharge an
obligation. (MUST BE SPECIALLY PLEADED)
(super duper not sure)
23. What is the formula used in computing loss of net earning capacity?
The Supreme Court observed in the said case that the important variables taken into
account in determining the compensable amount of lost earnings are: (1) the number
of years for which the victim would otherwise have lived (life expectancy); and (2) the
rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the deceased (net income). The following formula
should therefore be used:
Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual Income less Necessary
Living Expenses]
NOTE: (just in case itanong ni Sir)
If no business: Net Earning Capacity = [⅔ x (80 - age of victim at the time of death)]
x (Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses)
If with business: Net Earning Capacity = [⅔ x (80 - age of victim at the time of death)]
x [(Gross Annual Income - NecessaryExpenses) - Living Expenses]
The first factor, i.e., life expectancy is computed by applying the formula (2/3 x [80
— age at death]) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the
Actuarial Combined Experience Table of Mortality.
Example 1. In a case (People v. Galvez, 355 SCRA 266 [2001] See also Pleyto v.
Lomboy, No. 14737, June 16, 2004) where it was established that the deceased was 21
55 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
years old at the time of his death and was working as a construction worker five days
a week earning P150.00 per day, the Supreme Court computed the victim’s lost earning
capacity as follows:
2/3 x [80-21 (age of the victim at time of death)] = 39.33
P150 (daily wage) x 261 (number of working days in a year) = P39,150.00 (gross
annual salary)
P39,150.00 x .50 (allocation for living expenses) = P19,575.00 (net income)
39.33 x P19,575.00 = P769,884.75 (loss of earning capacity)
Example 2. The loss of the unearned income of the victim was computed as follows in
one case: ⅔ of 80 years, minus 20 years, times P36K/ year, equals P1.44M. This is
because the victim at the time of his death, was 20 years old and was healthy and strong.
Thus, the victim had 60 more years life expectancy since he was 20 years old at the
time of his death on June 27, 1995. ⅔ of 60 years times P36K since he was earning
P3K/month of P36K/year would be P1.44M. (National Power Corporation vs. Heirs
of Noble Casionan)
(AQUINO, p. 796-797)
24. Hypo: A bumped X resulting to latter’s death. X is 65 yrs old at the time of
death. X was leasing openly a gas station. His gross annual income is 1M monthly.
Compute the loss of net earning capacity. How much can Y, spouse of X, recover?
The victim was leasing and operating a gasoline station with an annual income of P1M.
The wife presented inevidence a Certificate of Creditable Income Tax Withheld at
Source for the Year 1990, which showed that the respondent’s husband earned a gross
income of P950, 988. 43 in 1990. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that it is reasonable
to use the Certificate and respondent’s testimony as bases for fixing the gross annual
income of the deceased at P1M before the husband died. The Supreme Court likewise
ruled that in the absence of documentary evidence, it is reasonable to peg necessary
expenses for the lease and operation of the gasoline station at 80% of the gross income,
and peg living expenses at 50% of the net income. Thus the Court ruled that the correct
computation for loss of earning capacity is as follows:
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Net earning Capacity = Life Expectancy [⅔ (80-age at the time of death)] x Gross
Annual Income (GAI) - Reasonable and Necessary Expenses (80% GAI)
x= [⅔ (80 - 65)] x P1M - P800K
x= ⅔ (15) x P200K - P100K (living expenses)
x= 30/3 x P100K
x= 10 x P100K
x= P1M
(Philippine Hawk Corporation vs. Lee as cited in AQUINO, p. 796-797)
25. Rodriguez v IAC
(nasa part 2 na to ng torta yung with digests, lagay ko lang issue and ruling)
ISSUE:
Whether the award for unearned net earnings shall be increased to P1,650,000.00; and
whether the award for attorney's fees shall also be with interest at the legal rate.
HELD:
On the amount of the award.
The award of P1,650,000.00 was based on two factors, namely: (a) that the deceased
Roberto R. Luna could have lived for 30 more years; and (b) that his annual net income
was P55,000.00, computed at P75,000.00 annual gross income less P20,000.00 annual
personal expenses. RTC on Luna’s Life Expectancy: According to the American
Experience Table of Mortality, at age 33 the life expectancy of Roberto Luna was 33.4
years, and under the Commissioner Standard Ordinary, used by our domestic insurance
companies since 1968 for policies above P5,000.00 his life expectancy was 38.51 years.
Allowing for this condition, he could reasonably expect to have a life expectancy of
30 YEARS.
CA on sustaining the RTC: At the time of Luna's death, he was only 33 years old and
in the best of health. With his almost perfect physical condition and his sound mind,
the expectation that he could have lived for another 30 years is reasonable, considering
that with his educational attainment, his social and financial standing, he had the means
56 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
of staying fit and preserving his health and well-being. That he could have lived at
least until the age of 63 years is an assessment which is more on the conservative side
in view of the testimony of Dr. Vicente Campa that the general life expectancy
nowadays had gone up to seventy years.
CA on sustaining RTC’s ruling in Luna’s Annual Income and Expense: Roberto Luna
was 33 years old when he died, and was survived by his wife Felina Rodriguez-Luna,
and two children, Roberto Jr., 13 years, and Jose, 12 years. His wife was 35 years old
at the time. He declared a gross income of P16,900.00 for 1967, P29,700,000 for 1968
and P45,117.69 for 1969. He had investments in various corporations amounting to
P136,116.00 and was the president and general manager of Rodlum Inc.; general
manager of Esso Greenhills Service Center; Assistant manager of Jose Rodriguez
Lanuza Sons; director of Steadfast Investment Corporation; chairman and treasurer of
Greenhills Industrial Corporation; vice-president of Oasis, Inc.; director of Nation
Savings Association; director of Arlun Taxi; and treasurer of National Association of
Retired Civil Employees..... His income tax returns show an increase in his income in
the short period of three years. It is reasonable to expect that it would still go higher
for the next 15 years and reach a minimum of P75,000.00 a year. The potential increase
in the earning capacity of a deceased person is recognized by the Supreme Court.... the
court believes that the expected gross earnings of Roberto Luna should be fixed in the
sum of P75,000.00 a year for the period of his life expectancy of 30 years, but
deducting his personal expenses which, because of his business and social standing the
court in the amount of P20,000.00 a year, in accordance with the rulings of the
Supreme Court.
Acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by the dela Rosas, the Court of Appeals
took into account the fact "that the deceased Roberto R. Luna had been engaged in car
racing as a sport, having participated in tournaments both here and abroad;" it said that
Luna's habit and manner of life should be "one of the factors affecting the value of
mortality table in actions for damages;" and, consequently, concluded that Luna could
not have lived beyond 43 years. The result was that the 30-year life expectancy of
Luna was reduced to 10 years only. The Court of Appeals then determined the amount
of the award thus: P75,000.00 annual gross income less P30,000.00 annual personal
expenses leaves P45,000.00 multiplied by 10 years of life expectancy and the product
is P450,000.00.
SC SUSTAINED THE PETITIONERS.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
The Court of Appeals, in reducing Luna's life expectancy from 30 to 10 years said that
his habit and manner of life should be taken into account, i.e. that he had been engaged
in car racing as a sport both here and abroad - a dangerous and risky activity tending
to shorten his life expectancy. That Luna had engaged in car racing is not based on any
evidence on record. That Luna was engaged in go-kart racing is the correct statement
but then go-kart racing cannot be categorized as a dangerous sport for go-karts are
extremely low slung, low powered vehicles, only slightly larger than foot-pedalled
four wheeled conveyances. It was error on the part of the Court of Appeals to have
disturbed the determination of the trial court which it had previously affirmed.
Similarly, it was error for the Court of Appeals to reduce the net annual income of the
deceased by increasing his annual personal expenses but without at the same time
increasing his annual gross income. It stands to reason that if his annual personal
expenses should increase because of the "escalating price of gas which is a key
expenditure in Roberto R. Luna's social standing" a statement which lacks complete
basis], it would not be unreasonable to suppose that his income would also increase
considering the manifold sources thereof. In short, the Court of Appeals erred in
modifying its original decision.
26. Doctrine of Avoidable consequences v contributory negligence
(nasa part 2 na to ng torta pero may in-add lang ako rito ^^)
Avoidable consequences doctrine is a legal principle that places the responsibility of
minimizing damages upon the person who has been injured. The plaintiff after an
injury or breach of contract should make reasonable efforts to mitigate the effects of
the injury or breach. If the defendant can show that the plaintiff failed to mitigate
damages, the plaintiff's recovery can be barred or reduced. This is found on Art. 2203
of the New Civil Code. On the other hand, the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence as
stated under Art. 2179 of the New Civil Code is when the negligence of the plaintiff
is contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's
lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded.
57 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Although the result is the same, it should be differentiated from contributory
negligence because in the latter, the plaintiff’s act or omission occurs before or at the
time of the act or omission of the defendant. The acts of the plaintiff under the doctrine
of avoidable consequences occur after the act or omission of the defendant.
27. Article 2203
Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good
father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in
question.
28. Collateral Source Rule
(Nasa part 2 ng torta to)
29. Does collateral source rule apply to property insurance? Why?
NO. The Collateral Source Rule does not apply if damage consists in damage to
property that is covered by an insurance policy. The insurer shall indemnify the insured
for the loss and shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured. Art. 2207 of the New
Civil Code provides that “if the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has
received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of
the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be
subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has
violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover
the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from
the person causing the loss or injury.” Such rule gives more damages than those
actually suffered by the plaintiff, and the defendant, if also sued by the insurance
company for reimbursement, would have to pay in many cases twice the damages he
has caused. The Code Commission observed that Art. 2207 “would seem a better
adjustment of rights of the three parties concerned. (AQUINO, pp. 817-818)
30. Does collateral source rule apply to life insurance?
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
YES. No right to subrogation exists with respect to life insurance. It is believed that
the Collateral Source Rule applies. It is submitted that the amount of life insurance
received by the insurance beneficiary of the deceased victim of tort should be ignored
even if the beneficiary is the same plaintiff in the tort case. The value of the deceased
can never be quantified in any amount received as proceeds of life insurance can never
be equal to the life of the victim. (AQUINO, p. 818)
31. Article 2207
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity
from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach
of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of
the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the
amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the
aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the
loss or injury.
32. What are moral damages? Reason for the award?
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered
if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.
The award for moral damages is designed to compensate the claimants for actual injury
that is not meant to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant. They are
awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusement
that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the
defendant’s culpable action. Its aim is the restoration within the limits of the possible
the spiritual status quo ante. (AQUINO, p. 819)
33. Can damages be paid in installment?
58 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
No, damages cannot be paid in installment. Note that in the ROC, on the execution for
money, the officer shall enforce an execution of judgment for money by demanding
from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of FULL amount stated in the writ
of execution (Rule 39, Sec 9 (a) ROC). Moreover, if the judgment obligor cannot pay
all or part of the obligation in cash, certified bank check or other mode of payment
acceptable to the judgment obligee, the officer shall levy upon the properties of the
judgment obligor… (Rule 39, Sec 9 (b). Furthermore the officer may levy on debts
due to the judgment obligor and other credits, including bank deposits, financial
interests, royalties, commissions and other personal property not capable of manual
delivery in the possession or control of third parties (Rule 39, Sec 9 (c ).
To rule otherwise would clog the courts with suits/ cases for the enforcement of the
delayed installment (as the case may be) and will also defeat the purpose of damages.
(Hula)
34. Kierulf v. CA
Issue: How much damages can the spouses recover?
No moral damages for loss of consortium.
The established guideline in awarding moral damages takes into consideration several
factors, some of which are the social and financial standing of the injured parties and
their wounded moral feelings and personal pride. This Court cannot remind the bench
and the bar often enough that in order that moral damages may be awarded, there must
be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. While
no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded,
the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is nevertheless
essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis
of damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts. This is so because moral
damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award
designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a
penalty on the wrongdoer. In F r a n cis c o v s . G S I S , the Court held that there must
be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. Thus, if the
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
plaintiff falls to take the witness stand and testify as to his/her social humiliation,
wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages cannot be awarded.
Moral damages may be awarded to Lucila Kierulf for her physical sufferings, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety and wounded feelings. She sustained multiple injuries
on the scalp, limbs and ribs. She lost all her teeth. She had to undergo several corrective
operations and treatments. Despite treatment and surgery, her chin was still numb and
thick. She felt that she has not fully recovered from her injuries. She even had to
undergo a second operation on her gums for her dentures to fit. She suffered sleepless
nights and shock as a consequence of the vehicular accident. In this light and
considering further the length of time spent in prosecuting the complaint and this
appeal, we find the sum of P400,000.00 as moral damages for Petitioner Lucila to be
fair and just under the circumstances (Id)
On exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to permit the courts to mould behavior that has
socially deleterious consequences, and its imposition is required by public policy to
suppress the wanton acts of an offender. However, it cannot be recovered as a matter
of right. It is based entirely on the discretion of the court. The claim of Lucila has been
favorably considered in view of the finding of gross negligence by Respondent Court
on the part of Pantranco. This is made clear by Respondent Court in granting Lucila's
claim of exemplary damages: "(P)ublic utility operators like the defendant, have made
a mockery of our laws, rules and regulations governing operations of motor vehicles
and have ignored either deliberately or through negligent disregard of their duties to
exercise extraordinary degree of diligence for the safety of the travelling public and
their passengers . . ." To give teeth to this warning, the exemplary damages awarded
to Petitioner Lucila is increased to P200,000.00. The fact of gross negligence duly
proven, we believe that Legaspi, being also a victim of gross negligence, should also
receive exemplary damages. Under the facts proven, the Court awards him P25,000 as
exemplary damages.
35. Requisites of Moral Damages
a. Injury whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant;
59 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
b. Culpable act or omission;
c. Such act or omission is the proximate cause of the injury; and
d. Damages predicated on the cases cited in Art 2219 of the Civil Code and analogous
cases.
36. Moral damages are incapable of pecuniary estimation. In what court should
the case be filed? RTC because BP 129 uses the word “subject matter”
Moral damages is incapable of pecuniary estimation hence it must be filed in the RTC.
BP 129 uses the word “subject matter”
Section 19 BP 129. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the “subject” of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
37. Where to file complaint if action is for purely damages?
If the action is solely based on damages then it may be filed in the MTC or RTC
depending on the amount of the damages claimed (Totality of claims rule).
In an action for damages, the court which has jurisdiction is determined by the amount
of damages claimed (Pajares vs. Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning).
38. “Subject matter” vs. “cause of action” (BP129)
Subject- the object of the case or litigation. It is the nature of the case or suit. E.g.
specific performance, money claim
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another
(Section 2, Rule 1, ROC)
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
A cause of action (in damages) exists if the following elements are present: (1) right
in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is
created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate
such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the
right of the plaintiff or constituting the breach of the obligation of the defendant to the
plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages
(Manaloto vs Veloso III).
39. Can moral damages be awarded in case of culpa contractual? When?
Yes. Moral damages can be awarded in case of breach of contract when the such breach
was attended by fraud or bad faith. Basis: Art 2220 and when death of a passenger
results. (Darines vs. Quinones)
40. Is social standing material in determining moral damages?
Social standing of the offended party in the community may be among the factors that
can be considered in assessing moral damages, on the one hand, the financial capability
of the offender, upon on the other hand without being preclusive of other
circumstances even perhaps more primordial, like the gravity of the injury and the
wrong causing it, that may be attendant to each case (Former Brigido Simon Jr. vs.
Martinez).
The established guideline in awarding moral damages takes into consideration several
factors, some of which are the social and financial standing of the injured parties and
their wounded moral feelings and personal pride. The social and financial standing of
a claimant of moral damages may be considered in awarding moral damages only if
he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the offender's knowledge of
his or her social and financial standing. (Kierulf vs. CA)
41. What if contractual breach resulted in physical injuries?
60 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Then the defendant will be liable for both the breach of contract and for the physical
injuries that resulted thereto. For instance in a contract to build a house and less than
15 days, due to structural defect, the house collapsed thereby causing physical injuries,
the plaintiff may recover damages from the contractor for both the contractual breach
and for the physical injuries (e.g. hospitalization expenses) Note: Hula lang.
42. Darines v. Quiñones
Issue: Whether or not petitioners are entitled to moral and exemplary damages.
Held: No. Going now to the main issue, the Court fully agrees with the CA ruling that
in an action for breach of contract, moral damages may be recovered only when a)
death of a passenger results; or b) the carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith even if
death does not result; and that neither of these circumstances were present in the case
at bar. The CA correctly held that, since no moral damages was awarded then, there is
no basis to grant exemplary damages and attorney's fees to petitioners.
…the Court found the common carriers liable for breach of contract of carriage and
awarded moral damages to the injured passengers on the ground that the common
carrier committed g r o s s negligence, which amounted to bad faith.
There being neither allegation nor proof that respondents acted in fraud or in bad faith
in performing their duties arising from their contract of carriage, they are then not
liable for moral damages.
Since petitioners are not entitled to either moral, temperate, liquidated, or
compensatory damages, then their claim for exemplary damages is bereft of merit.
Finally, considering the absence of any of the circumstances under Article 2208 of the
Civil Code where attorney's fees may be awarded, the same cannot be granted to
petitioners.
43. Can a claim of moral damages be transmitted to the heirs?
No. It is extremely personal to the injured party.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
44. Can quasi-delict resulting to physical damages be a basis for awarding moral
damages?
First, we have to qualify to what “physical damage” pertains to.
• If physical damage means physical injury to the plaintiff:
Yes. Article 2219 (2) provides that moral damages may be recovered in the quasi-
delicts causing physical injuries.
Moral damages can be recovered in every case of “wrongful act or omission” (a
broad term which includes delict, quasi-delict, and breach of contract which is
sui generis) causing, as the proximate result thereof, ‘physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.
• If physical damage means injury to property:
No (Not sure). Quasi-delict resulting to injury to property presupposes negligence. In
cases involving negligence, the act or omission must not be intentional or willful.
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral
damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly
due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith.
It is well- settled that no moral damages may be awarded in the absence of a
wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith.
45. Can culpa contractual resulting to physical damages be a basis in awarding
moral damages?
Yes, moral damages may be awarded in culpa contractual cases. In culpa
contractual or breach of contract, moral damages may be recovered when the
61 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to bad faith)
or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation and, exceptionally, when the act
of breach of contract itself is constitutive of tort resulting in physical injuries. By
special rule in Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206, of the Civil Code, moral
damages may also be awarded in case the death of a passenger results from a breach
of carriage.
46. Article 2219
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
47. Par 3 of Article 2206
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be
at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased
may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
48. Can a brother of the deceased claim damages? What was the ruling in
Caravan case because SC allowed paternal aunt to claim?
As a general rule, a collateral relative, e.g. brother, cannot claim damages based on
Art. 2206. It provides that the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason
of the death of the deceased.
However, if the brother exercises substitute parental authority over the deceased
(Article 216, FC) then he can claim damages. The SC held in Caravan v. Abejar that:
Inasmuch as persons exercising substitute parental authority have the full range of
competencies of a child's actual parents, nothing prevents persons exercising substitute
parental authority from similarly possessing the right to be indemnified for their ward's
death.
It is particularly noticeable that Article 2176 stresses the passive subject of the
obligation to pay damages caused by his fault or negligence. The article does not limit
or specify the active subjects, much less the relation that must exist between the victim
of the culpa aquiliana and the person who may recover damages, thus warranting the
inference that, in principle, anybody who suffers any damage from culpa aquiliana,
whether a relative or not of the victim, may recover damages from the person
responsible therefor.
49. Temperate Damages
Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less
than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case,
be provided with certainty.
Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances.
Temperate damages are awarded in cases where cases from the nature of the case,
definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the court
is convinced that there has been such a loss. For instance, injury to
one’s commercial credit or to the goodwill of a business firm is often hard to
show with certainty in terms of money.
50. Nominal v Temperate Damages
62 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for
the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
On the other hand, temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered, but its amount cannot, from the nature of the
case, be proved with certainty.
51. Can temperate damages co-exist with actual damages?
Yes. Temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory
damages in instances where the injury is chronic and continuing. And because of
the unique nature of such cases, no incompatibility arises when both actual and
temperate damages are provided for.
In Rogelio E. Ramos, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. 124354, December
29, 1999), the Supreme Court sustained the award of temperate damages to answer
for the anticipated increase in future medical expenses. The Supreme Court
observed that our present laws on actual damages cannot cover such adjustments
because our rules (on actual or compensatory damages) generally assume that at
the time of litigation, the injury suffered as a consequence of an act of negligence
has been completed and that the cost can be liquidated. However, these provisions
neglect to take into account those situations, where the resulting injury might be
continuing and possible future complications directly arising from the injury, while
certain to occur, are difficult to predict. The Court concluded that
temperate damages should be awarded to meet pecuniary loss certain to be
suffered but which could not, from the nature of the case, be made with
certainty.
52. What are exemplary damages? Can it be waived?
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Also known as “punitive” or “vindictive” damages, exemplary or corrective
damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as a
vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a
punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.
No, exemplary damages cannot be waived. According to Art. 2235, a stipulation
whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance shall be null and void.
53. What are Liquidated damages?
Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid
in case of breach thereof. (Article 2226, Civil Code). Ordinarily, the court cannot
change the amount of liquidated damages agreed upon by the parties. However,
Article 2227 of the Civil Code provides that liquidated damages, whether intended
as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or
unconscionable.
In addition, Article 2228 provides that when the breach of the contract committed
by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the
liquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of damages, and not the
stipulation.
54. Can liquidated damages co-exist with actual damages?
Yes. PNB case p. 1018 aquino
55. Can actual damages co-exist with moral damages?
Yes. Under 2206, when death occurs due to a negligent act or a crime, the following
damages may be recovered: (1) Civil liability ex delicto for death of the victim: (2)
actual or compensatory damage; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5)
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; (6) interest, in proper cases. Temperate
damages may also be awarded in lieu of damages in proper cases (AQUINO, 788).
63 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
56. Can exemplary damages co-exist with liquidated damages? Yes, subject to
what conditions?
Under Article 2223, “In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no
proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered,
nevertheless, before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in
addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled
to moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for
liquidated damages.”
57. Article 2234
Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the
plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages
before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages
should be awarded. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no
proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered,
nevertheless, before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in
addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled
to moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for
liquidated damages.
58. What are attorney’s fees? Discuss its ordinary v extraordinary concepts
In the case of Traders Royal Bank v NLRC, SC explained the two concepts of
attorney’s fees (ordinary and extraordinary) in relation to the law on damages in the
Civil Code and the provisions of the Labor Code. There are two commonly accepted
concepts of attorney’s fees, the so-called ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary
concept, an attorney’s fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client
for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. The basis of this compensation is
the fact of his employment by and his agreement with the client.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
In its extraordinary concept, an attorney’s fee is an indemnity for damages ordered by
the court to be paid by the losing party in a litigation. The basis of this is any of the
cases provided by law where such award can be made, such as those authorized in
Article 2208, Civil Code, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they
have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or
as part thereof.
Attorney’s fees as a damage contemplated by such article is an amount that is due to
the plaintiff and not his counsel. Thus, the award agreed upon by the plaintiff and his
counsel does not control the amount of attorney’s fees that should be awarded.
Plaintiff’s counsel does not have a right to enforce the award of attorney’s fees.
“Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the
plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to
satisfy the plaintiff’s plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and
skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and
employer’s liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
64 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.’’
59. Can the attorney’s fees awarded by the court be lower than the amount paid
by the client? Can it be higher?
Yes. The amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded is left to the discretion of the courts.
Necessarily, the award must be reasonable under the circumstances. The plaintiff must
allege the basis of his claim for attorney’s fees in the complaint. In making such award,
the court must state in its decision the legal and factual basis for the award. Needless
to state, the basis should be one of the eleven cases specified in Article 2208 of the
Civil Code. The power of the court to award attorney’s fees under Article 2208
demands factual, legal, and equitable justification; the basis cannot be left to
speculation and conjecture.
60. What if the lawyer handled the case pro bono? So in effect, we are
compensating the amount paid to the lawyer?
No. Attorney’s fees as contemplated by Article 2208 of the Civil Code, is an amount
due to the plaintiff and not his counsel. It is damages ordered by the court to be paid
by the losing party in litigation, so it is immaterial whether the lawyer handled the case
pro bono since award is for the plaintiff and not the lawyer.
61. Elements of Tort of Privacy Complication
Court of Appeals ruled in Cordero, et al. vs. Buigasco, et al that “there would be an
actionable violation of the right of privacy if: (1) publicity is given to any private or
purely personal information about a person, (2) without the latter’s consent, (3)
regardless of whether or not such publicity constitutes a criminal offense, like libel or
defamation, the circumstance that the publication was made with intent of gain or for
commercial and business purposes invariably serves to aggravate the violation of the
right.”
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
62. Atty SB used profile pic of Atty Mercader as former’s prof fic. Can Merc sue
Barbs?
No. There is no violation as to the right of privacy of Atty M. if Atty SB uses the
former’s profile picture as his profile picture. As what is enshrined in Vivares v. St.
Therese, before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her OSN (Online
Social Network) activity (Facebook), it is necessary that said user manifests the
intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent
access thereto or to limit its visibility. Profile pictures on Facebook are public. Thus,
it fails to satisfy the first requirement under tort of privacy.
63. Use of Atty. Mercader’s hand as profile picture? Use of X-ray of the head? X-
ray of Atty Merc?
Yes. The use of Atty Mercader’s hand, X-ray of his head or, his X-ray, as profile
picture violate his right to privacy. It is actionable as long as it is without his consent
or unwarranted, even though the same does not constitute libel or any criminal offense,
violates his privacy.
64. What if SB divided pic of Merc and created one composite picture?
Yes. Sb still used the picture of Merc even if it be divided and used to create a
composite picture.
65. Is recognition a requirement to be liable for invasion of privacy?
Yes, an “invasion”/ act must be recognized as a violation of the right to privacy in
order to determine whether a cause of action in damages exists or whether it may be
protected by injunctive relief.
The four types of invasion of privacy identified by Dean Prosser as recognized in
Philippine case law: intrusion, publication of private facts, making one appear before
the public in an objectionable false light, commercial appropriation of likeness of
another.
65 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
66. Article 26
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind
of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may
not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in
life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition
67. Cyber Torts
A tort is a negligent or intentional act is done by someone that injures someone else in
some way. Cyber Torts are simply a tort done over cyberspace. Cyber torts are very
important because they are on the rise and are still crimes that can have serious effects
on society. Everyone should be exposed to the dangers and damages caused by cyber
torts because technology is an important aspect in everyone’s lives, especially now.
Some examples of cyber torts include trespass to chattels, conversion, cyber
stalking/harassment, and cyber defamation. Trespass to chattels includes all those
spyware, spam emails, and scrapers you see some of the time. Conversion involves
negligent or intentional stealing of other peoples domain names online. Cyber
stalking/harassment happens a lot in social networks like Facebook where they have
millions and millions of users. And cyber defamation also can happen a lot on social
networks and forums
68. Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
FACTS: Mylene Rheza T. Escudero (Escudero), a computer teacher at STC’s
high school department, learned from her students that some seniors at STC
posted pictures online, depicting themselves from the waist up, dressed only in
brassieres. Escudero then asked her students if they knew who the girls in the
photos are. In turn, they readily identified Julia, Julienne, and Chloe Lourdes
Taboada (Chloe), among others. • Using STC’s computers, Escudero’s students
logged in to their respective personal Facebook accounts and showed her photos
of the identified students, which include: (a) Julia and Julienne drinking hard
liquor and smoking cigarettes inside a bar; and (b) Julia and Julienne along the
streets of Cebu wearing articles of clothing that show virtually the entirety of
their black brassieres. They were barred from joining the commencement exercises.
Filed petition for writ of habeas data.
ISSUE: WON there was indeed an actual or threatened violation of the right to
privacy in the life, liberty, or security of the minors involved in this case. -
NO.
RULING: STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to privacy
• Without these privacy settings, respondents’ contention that there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy in Facebook would, in context, be correct.
However, such is not the case. It is through the availability of said privacy tools
that many OSN users are said to have a subjective expectation that only those
to whom they grant access to their profile will view the information they post
or upload thereto. • Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her
OSN activity, it is first necessary that said user, in this case the children of
petitioners, manifest the intention to keep certain posts private, through the
employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. And
this intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of the OSN’s
privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these privacy tools is
the manifestation, in cyber world, of the user’s invocation of his or her right
to informational privacy.
Without proof that they placed the photographs subject of this case within the
ambit of their protected zone of privacy, they cannot now insist that they
have an expectation of privacy with respect to the photographs in question.
66 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara

STC cannot be faulted for being steadfast in its duty of teaching its students to
be responsible in their dealings and activities in cyberspace, particularly in
OSNs, when it enforced the disciplinary actions specified in the Student
Handbook, absent a showing that, in the process, it violated the students’ rights.
Informational privacy refers to the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.
It is the latter right—the right to informational privacy—that those who oppose
government collection or recording of traffic data in real-time seek to protect (Disini
v SOJ). It is the right of individuals to control information about themselves (Vivares).

Tort of putting a person in a false
light
As to gravamen of Claim
Not the reputational harm but rather
the embarrassment of a person
being made into something he is not
Informational privacy has two aspects: the right not to have private information
Defamation disclosed, and the right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion.
• Locational or situational privacy
It is the ability of an individual to move in public space with the expectation that under
normal circumstances their location will not be systematically and secretly recorded
Reputational harm for later use
70. Requisites of Tort of Outrage

As to publication In determining whether the tort of outrage had been committed,

• a plaintiff is necessarily expected and required to be hardened to a certain
amount of criticism, rough language, and to occasional acts and words that
The statement should be actually Publication is satisfied if a letter is sent are definitely inconsiderate and unkind;
made public. to a third person.
• the mere fact that the actor knows that the other will regard the conduct as
insulting, or will have his feelings hurt, is not enough
As to defamatory character of the Statements

Defendant may still be held liable What is published lowers the esteem in 71. Torts of Putting a person in a false light v defamation
even if the statements tell something which the plaintiff is held
good about the plaintiff
69. 3 strands of right to privacy ( Vivares v St. Theresa’s College) 72. “Mabait si Sta Barbara”. Is this defamation or false light?

• Decisional privacy Neither (charot! HAHAHA).

Decisional privacy involves the right to independence in making certain important Seriously, I think neither should be the answer. The statement does NOT make him
decisions. (Disini v SOJ). appear before the public in an objectionable false position and cannot cause

• Informational privacy
67 | P a g e
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
embarrassment to him. It may be a fact that he is a kind person. It cannot also be
considered defamation since no reputational harm can arise from the statement.
73. What is the gravamen of imputing a person into false light?
Not the reputational harm but rather the embarrassment of a person being made into
something he is not.
74. Is publication required in false light? In defamation?
In false light, The statement should be actually made public. In defamation,
Publication is satisfied if a letter is sent to a third person.
75. Requisites of Alienation of Affection
a. It consists of depriving one spouse of the affection, society, companionship
and comfort of the other. (Prosser, p. 685).
b. It is not necessary that there is adultery or the spouse is deprived of
household services.
c. The gist of the tort is an interference with one spouse’s mental attitude
toward the other and the conjugal kindness of marital relations resulting
in some actual conduct which materially affects it.
d. It extends to all cases of wrongful interference in the family affairs of others
whereby one spouse is induced to leave the other spouse or to conduct
himself or herself that the comfort of married life is destroyed.
76. Sps. Hing vs. Choachuy
SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING vs. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR.
AND ALLAN CHOACHUY
G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
• On August 23, 2005, petitioner-spouses Bill and Victoria Hingfiled with the
RTC of Mandaue City a Complaint for Injunction and Damages with prayer
for issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction/TRO against
respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy.
• Petitioners alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land (Lot
1900-B) covered by TCT No. 42817 situated in Barangay Basak, City of
Mandaue, Cebu; that respondents are the owners of Aldo Development &
Resources, Inc. (Aldo) located at Lots 1901 and 1900-C, adjacent to the
property of petitioners; that respondents constructed an auto-repair shop
building(ALDO GOODYEAR SERVITEC) on Lot 1900-C; that in April
2005, Aldo filed a case against petitioners for Injunction and Damages with
Writ of Preliminary Injunction/TRO; that in that case, Aldo claimed that
petitioners were constructing a fence without a valid permit and that the said
construction would destroy the wall of its building, which is adjacent to
petitioners’ property; that the court, in that case, denied Aldo’s application
for preliminary injunction for failure to substantiate its allegations; that, in
order to get evidence to support the said case,respondents illegally set-up and
installed on the building of Aldo Goodyear Servitec two video surveillance
cameras facing petitioners’ property; that respondents, through their
employees and without the consent of petitioners, also took pictures of
petitioners’ on-going construction; and that the acts of respondents violate
petitioners’ right to privacy. Thus, petitioners prayed that respondents be
ordered to remove the video surveillance cameras and enjoined from
conducting illegal surveillance.
• In their Answer with Counterclaim, respondents claimed that they did not
install the video surveillance cameras, nor did they order their employees to
take pictures of petitioners’ construction. They also clarified that they are not
the owners of Aldo but are mere stockholders.
• RTC RULING:Granted the application for a TRO in favor ofpetitioner-
spouses. Respondents moved for reconsideration but the same was denied.
Hence, respondents appealed to the CA.
• CA RULING. In favor of respondent. The CA ruled that the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction was issued with grave abuse of discretionbecause
petitioners failed to show a clear and unmistakable right to an injunctive writ.
The CA explained that the right to privacy of residence under Article 26(1)
of the Civil Code was not violated since the property subject of the
68 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
controversy is not used as a residence. The CA also said that since
respondents are not the owners of the building, they could not have installed
video surveillance cameras. They are mere stockholders of Aldo, which has
a separate juridical personality. Hence, this Petition
ISSUE:
Whether there is a violation of petitioners’ right to privacy.
HELD: YES.
a) THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE.
The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution and in our laws. It is defined as
“the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion
into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s
ordinary sensibilities.” It is the right of an individual “to be free from unwarranted
publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters in which
the public is not necessarily concerned.” Simply put, the right to privacy is “the right
to be let alone.”
The Bill of Rights guarantees the people’s right to privacy and protects them against
the State’s abuse of power. In this regard, the State recognizes the right of the people
to be secure in their houses. No one, not even the State, except “in case of overriding
social need and then only under the stringent procedural safeguards,” can disturb them
in the privacy of their homes.
b) The right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code covers BUSINESS
OFFICES where the public are excluded therefrom, and only certain individuals are
allowed to enter.
Article 26(1) recognizes that a man’s house is his castle, where his right to privacy
cannot be denied or even restricted by others. It includes “any act of intrusion into,
peeping or peering inquisitively into the residence of another without the consent of
the latter.” The phrase “prying into the privacy of another’s residence,” however, does
not mean that only the residence is entitled to privacy.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Tolentino: Our Code specifically mentions “prying into the privacy of another’s
residence.” This does not mean, however, that only the residence is entitled to privacy,
because the law covers also “similar acts.” A business office is entitled to the same
privacy when the public is excluded therefrom and only such individuals as are
allowed to enter may come in. x x x
Thus, an individual’s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should not
be confined to his house or residence as it may extend to places where he has the right
to exclude the public or deny them access. The phrase “prying into the privacy of
another’s residence,” therefore, covers places, locations, or even situations which an
individual considers as private. And as long as his right is recognized by society, other
individuals may not infringe on his right to privacy. The CA, therefore, erred in
limiting the application of Article 26(1) of the Civil Code only to residences.
c) The “REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY” TEST is used to determine
whether there is a violation of the right to privacy.
This test determines whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and
whether the expectation has been violated. In Ople v. Torres, we enunciated that “the
reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy depends on a two-part test:
(1) whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; &
(2) this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.” Customs, community
norms, and practices may, therefore, limit or extend an individual’s “reasonable
expectation of privacy.” Hence, the reasonableness of a person’s expectation of
privacy must be determined on a case-to-case basis since it depends on the factual
circumstances surrounding the case.
In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed practically everywhere
for the protection and safety of everyone. The installation of these cameras, however,
should not cover places where there is reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the
consent of the individual, whose right to privacy would beaffected, was obtained.
Nor should these cameras be used to pry into the privacy of another’s residence
or business office as it would be no different from eavesdropping, which is a crime
under Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law.
69 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
Petitioners have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their property, whether they
use it as a business office or as a residence and that the installation of video
surveillance cameras directly facing petitioners’ property or covering a significant
portion thereof, without their consent, is a clear violation of their right to privacy. As
we see then, the issuance of a preliminary injunction was justified. We need not
belabor that the issuance of a preliminary injunction is discretionary on the part of the
court taking cognizance of the case and should not be interfered with, unless there is
grave abuse of discretion committed by the court. Here, there is no indication of any
grave abuse of discretion.
Moreover, respondents are merely using the corporate fiction of Aldo as a shield to
protect themselves from this suit. In view of the foregoing, we find that respondents
are the proper parties to this suit.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED
77. In Sps Hing, how did the SC rule on that contention that the area was not
residential?
Petitioners have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their property, whether they
use it as a business office or as a residence and that the installation of video
surveillance cameras directly facing petitioners’ property or covering a significant
portion thereof, without their consent, is a clear violation of their right to privacy
78. Who is the civil law expert?
Tolentino
79. What did Tolentino say?
Our Code specifically mentions “prying into the privacy of another’s
residence.” This does not mean, however, that only the residence is entitled
to privacy, because the law covers also “similar acts.” A business office is
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
entitled to the same privacy when the public is excluded therefrom and only
such individuals as are allowed to enter may come in. x x x5
80. 2 part test of Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. Requisites?
• whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of
privacy; &
• this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.” Customs,
community norms, and practices may, therefore, limit or extend an
individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Hence, the reasonableness
of a person’s expectation of privacy must be determined on a case-to-case
basis since it depends on the factual circumstances surrounding the case.
81. Does a corporation have a right to privacy
No, they do not have a right to privacy. The Constitution and the provision of laws
pertain to natural persons
Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not
constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention
and other relief
82. Parasitic damages
Parasitic Damages the harm produced as a byproduct of some physical injury. These
are unexpected indirect damages from expected damages. They are damages attached
to physical injury, e.g., mental suffering. Most courts say there must be physical harm
exceptions are made when negligent mishandling of corpses occurs.
83. Why is it called parasitic?
70 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
It is called parasitic because it is dependent upon some act or injury caused by a person.
It uses the physical injury caused to produce another harm which is a natural effect
thereof. (Hula)
84. Can the court award parasitic damages even if not all the requisites of
intentional/ negligent infliction of emotional distress?
No, it cannot. It must comply with all the requisites.
"Emotional distress" means any highly unpleasant mental reaction such as extreme
grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment, worry, nausea,
mental suffering and anguish, shock, fright, horror, and chagrin.29 The plaintiff is
required to show, among other things, that he or she has suffered emotional distress so
severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it; severity of the distress
is an element of the cause of action, not simply a matter of damages.31
Any party seeking recovery for mental anguish must prove more than mere worry,
anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger. Liability does not arise from mere insults,
indignities, threats, annoyances, petty expressions, or other trivialities. In determining
whether the tort of outrage had been committed, a plaintiff is necessarily expected and
required to be hardened to a certain amount of criticism, rough language, and to
occasional acts and words that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind; the mere fact
that the actor knows that the other will regard the conduct as insulting, or will have his
feelings hurt, is not enough
85. Intentional affliction of emotional distress vs. defamation (as held in MVRS
case)
Primarily, an "emotional distress" tort action is personal in nature, i.e., it is a civil
action filed by an individual to assuage the injuries to his emotional tranquility due to
personal attacks on his character. It has no application in the instant case since no
particular individual was identified in the disputed article of Bulgar. Also, the
purported damage caused by the article, assuming there was any, falls under the
principle of relational harm — which includes harm to social relationships in the
community in the form of defamation; as distinguished from the principle of reactive
harm — which includes injuries to individual emotional tranquility in the form of an
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
infliction of emotional distress. In their complaint, respondents clearly asserted an
alleged harm to the standing of Muslims in the community, especially to their activities
in propagating their faith in Metro Manila and in other non-Muslim communities in
the country. It is thus beyond cavil that the present case falls within the application of
the relational harm principle of tort actions for defamation, rather than the reactive
harm principle on which the concept of emotional distress properly belongs.
Moreover, under the Second Restatement of the Law, to recover for the intentional
infliction of emotional distress the plaintiff must show that: (a) The conduct of the
defendant was intentional or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff; (b) The conduct was
extreme and outrageous; (c) There was a causal connection between the defendant's
conduct and the plaintiff's mental distress; and, (d) The plaintiff's mental distress was
extreme and severe.2
86. Formula of net income capacity if business income owner
Net earning capacity = Life expectancy x [Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses
(50% of gross annual income)]
Where life expectancy = 2/3 (80 - the age of the deceased)
87. Art. 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.
88. What do you mean by extreme and outrageous conduct?
“Extreme and outrageous conduct” means conduct that is so outrageous in character,
and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be
regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in civilized society. The defendant’s
actions must have been so terrifying as naturally to humiliate, embarrass or frighten
71 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
the plaintiff. Generally, conduct will be found to be action- able where the recitation
of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment
against the actor, and lead him or her to exclaim, “Outrageous!” as his or her reaction.
[Aquino (2005) , pp. 513]
89. What is outrageous tort?
Tort of Outrage or intentional infliction of emotional distress. In using this legal claim,
a plaintiff alleges suffering mental harm as a result of someone's intentional,
outrageous conduct. It involves conduct beyond the bounds of decency, which is
considered atrocious and completely intolerable in a civilized society. The plaintiff
may recover damages for extreme emotional distress even without physical damage.
90. Defamation vs. outrageous tort/ tort of outrage?
As mentioned in the case of MVRS vs Islamic Daw’ah, defamation vs Intentional
infliction of emotional distress can be described as the following:
Primarily, an "emotional distress" tort action is personal in nature, i.e., it is a civil
action filed by an individual to assuage the injuries to his emotional tranquility due to
personal attacks on his character. It has no application in the instant case since no
particular individual was identified in the disputed article of Bulgar. Also, the
purported damage caused by the article, assuming there was any, falls under the
principle of relational harm which includes harm to social relationships in the
community in the form of defamation; as distinguished from the principle of reactive
harm which includes injuries to individual emotional tranquility in the form of an
infliction of emotional distress. In their complaint, respondents clearly asserted an
alleged harm to the standing of Muslims in the community, especially to their activities
in propagating their faith in Metro Manila and in other non-Muslim communities in
the country. It is thus beyond cavil that the present case falls within the application of
the relational harm principle of tort actions for defamation, rather than the reactive
harm principle on which the concept of emotional distress properly belongs.
91. MVRS vs. Islamic Daw’ah
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Brief Facts: ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., a local
federation of more than seventy (70) Muslim religious organization and other filed in
the RTC of Manila, a complaint for damages in their own behalf and as a class suit in
behalf of the Muslim members nationwide against MVRS PUBLICATIONS, INC.,
MARS C. LACONSAY, MYLA C. AGUJA and AGUSTINO G. BINEGAS, JR.,
arising from an article published in the 1 August 1992 issue of Bulgar, a daily tabloid.
The article reads:
"ALAM BA NINYO?
Na ang mga baboy at kahit anong uri ng hayop sa Mindanao ay hindi kinakain ng mga
Muslim.
Para sa kanila ang mga ito ay isang sagradong bagay. Hindi nila ito kailangang
kainin kahit na sila pa ay magutom at mawalan ng ulam sa tuwing sila ay kakain.
Ginagawa nila itong Diyos at sinasamba pa nila ito sa tuwing araw ng kanilang
pangingilin lalung-lalo na sa araw na tinatawag nilang 'Ramadan'."
The complaint alleged that the libelous statement was insulting and damaging to the
Muslims; that these words alluding to the pig as the God of the Muslims was not only
published out of sheer ignorance but with intent to hurt the feelings, cast insult and
disparage the Muslims and Islam, as a religion in this country, in violation of law,
public policy, good morals and human relations; that on account of these libelous
words Bulgar insulted not only the Muslims in the Philippines but the entire Muslim
world, especially every Muslim individual in non-Muslim countries.
Defamation, as defined in the case: Defamation, which includes libel and slander,
means the offense of injuring a person's character, fame or reputation through false
and malicious statements. It is that which tends to injure reputation or to diminish the
esteem, respect, good will or confidence in the plaintiff or to excite derogatory feelings
or opinions about the plaintiff. It is the publication of anything which is injurious to
the good name or reputation of another or tends to bring him into disrepute.
Defamation is an invasion of a relational interest since it involves the opinion which
others in the community may have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff.
It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or
slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or
72 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for
defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the
language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.
1st issue: Whether or not the present case involves a class suit:
Held: No. Where the defamation is alleged to have been directed at a group or class, it
is essential that the statement must be so sweeping or all-embracing as to apply to
every individual in that group or class, or sufficiently specific so that each individual
in the class or group can prove that the defamatory statement specifically pointed to
him, so that he can bring the action separately, if need be x x x x
The case at bar is not a class suit. It is not a case where one or more may sue for the
benefit of all, or where the representation of class interest affected by the judgment or
decree is indispensable to make each member of the class an actual party. We have
here a case where each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct reputation in the
community. They do not have a common or general interest in the subject matter of
the controversy. In the present case, there was no fairly identifiable person who was
allegedly injured by the Bulgararticle.Since the persons allegedly defamed could not
be identifiable, private respondents have no individual causes of action; hence, they
cannot sue for a class allegedly disparaged.
2nd issue: Whether or not it involves an action for defamation (libel) or an emotional
distress tort action directed towards a specific group:
Held: NO. If the group is a very large one, then the alleged libelous statement is
considered to have no application to anyone in particular, since one might as well
defame all mankind. Not only does the group as such have no action; the plaintiff does
not establish any personal reference to himself. At present, modern societal groups are
both numerous and complex. The same principle follows with these groups: as the size
of these groups increases, the chances for members of such groups to recover damages
on tortious libel become elusive. This principle is said to embrace two (2) important
public policies: first, where the group referred to is large, the courts presume that no
reasonable reader would take the statements as so literally applying to each individual
member; and second, the limitation on liability would satisfactorily safeguard freedom
of speech and expression, as well as of the press, effecting a sound compromise
between the conflicting fundamental interests involved in libel cases.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
In the instant case, the Muslim community is too vast as to readily ascertain who
among the Muslims were particularly defamed. The size of the group renders the
reference as indeterminate and generic as a similar attack on Catholics, Protestants,
Buddhists or Mormons would do. The word "Muslim" is descriptive of those who are
believers of Islam, a religion divided into varying sects, such as the Sunnites, the
Shiites, the Kharijites, the Sufis and others based upon political and theological
distinctions. "Muslim" is a name which describes only a general segment of the
Philippine population, comprising a heterogeneous body whose construction is not so
well defined as to render it impossible for any representative
identification.
Although the gist of an action for defamation is an injury to reputation, the focus of a
defamation action is upon the allegedly defamatory statement itself and its predictable
effect upon third persons. A statement is ordinarily considered defamatory if it tend[s]
to expose one to public hatred, shame, obloquy, contumely, odium, contempt, ridicule,
aversion, ostracism, degradation or disgrace. The Restatement of Torts defines a
defamatory statement as one that tends to so harm the reputation of another as to lower
him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or
dealing with him.
If the defamatory statements were directed at a small, restricted group of persons, they
applied to any member of the group, and an individual member could maintain an
action for defamation. When the defamatory language was used toward a small group
or class, including every member, it has been held that the defamatory language
referred to each member so that each could maintain an action. This small group or
class may be a jury, persons engaged in certain businesses, professions or
employments, a restricted subdivision of a particular class, a society, a football team,
a family, small groups of union officials, a board of public officers, or engineers of a
particular company. In contrast, if defamatory words are used broadly in respect to a
large class or group of persons, and there is nothing that points, or by proper
colloquium or innuendo can be made to apply, to a particular member of the class or
group, no member has a right of action for libel or slander.
Distinguishing a small group-which if defamed entitles all its members to sue from a
large group which if defamed entitles no one to sue is not always so simple. Some
authorities have noted that in cases permitting recovery, the group generally has
73 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
twenty-five (25) or fewer members. However, there is usually no articulated limit on
size. Suits have been permitted by members of fairly large groups when some
distinguishing characteristic of the individual or group increases the likelihood that the
statement could be interpreted to apply individually. A prime consideration, therefore,
is the public perception of the size of the group and whether a statement will be
interpreted to refer to every member. The more organized and cohesive a group, the
easier it is to tar all its members with the same brush and the more likely a court will
permit a suit from an individual even if the group includes more than twenty-five (25)
members. At some point, however, increasing size may be seen to dilute the harm to
individuals and any resulting injury will fall beneath the threshold for a viable lawsuit.
Statements published by petitioners in the instant case did not specifically identify nor
refer to any particular individuals who were purportedly the subject of the alleged
libelous publication. Respondents can scarcely claim to have been singled out for
social censure pointedly resulting in damages.
3rd Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff may recover on the ground of emotional distress:
Held: NO. "Emotional distress" tort action is personal in nature, i.e., it is a civil action
filed by an individual to assuage the injuries to his emotional tranquility due to
personal attacks on his character. It has no application in the instant case since no
particular individual was identified in the disputed article of Bulgar.
Also, the purported damage caused by the article, assuming there was any, falls under
the principle of relational harm - which includes harm to social relationships in the
community in the form of defamation; as distinguished from the principle of reactive
harm - which includes injuries to individual emotional tranquility in the form of an
infliction of emotional distress. In their complaint, respondents clearly asserted an
alleged harm to the standing of Muslims in the community, especially to their activities
in propagating their faith in Metro Manila and in other non-Muslim communities in
the country 
 There are two answers, ang vague kasi ng question:
To recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress the plaintiff must show
that: (a) The conduct of the defendant was intentional or in reckless disregard of the
plaintiff; (b) The conduct was extreme and outrageous; (c) There was a causal
connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's mental distress; and, (d)
The plaintiff's mental distress was extreme and severe.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
"Extreme and outrageous conduct" means conduct that is so outrageous in character,
and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be
regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in civilized society. The defendant's
actions must have been so terrifying as naturally to humiliate, embarrass or frighten
the plaintiff.
"Emotional distress" means any highly unpleasant mental reaction such as extreme
grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment, worry, nausea,
mental suffering and anguish, shock, fright, horror, and chagrin. "Severe emotional
distress," in some jurisdictions, refers to any type of severe and disabling emotional or
mental condition which may be generally recognized and diagnosed by professionals
trained to do so, including posttraumatic stress disorder, neurosis, psychosis, chronic
depression, or phobia. The plaintiff is required to show, among other things, that he or
she has suffered emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be
expected to endure it; severity of the distress is an element of the cause of action, not
simply a matter of damages.
Any party seeking recovery for mental anguish must prove more than mere worry,
anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger. Liability does not arise from mere insults,
indignities, threats, annoyances, petty expressions, or other trivialities. In determining
whether the tort of outrage had been committed, a plaintiff is necessarily expected and
required to be hardened to a certain amount of criticism, rough language, and to
occasional acts and words that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind; the mere fact
that the actor knows that the other will regard the conduct as insulting, or will have his
feelings hurt, is not enough.
92. So if a material is posted, is it no longer protected?
• No, it is no longer protected. In the context of libel, all the requisites must be
present: (1) Defamatory Imputation; (2) Publicity of subject matter; (3) The
Person libeled must be identified; (4) That there be malice on the part of the
accused.
74 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara
As regards the second requisite, this means the accused caused the libelous
material to be known or read or seen or heard by a third person, other than the
person to whom it has been written i.e. the victim. Somebody must have read,
seen or heard the libelous material due to the acts of the accused. For so long as
the malicious information has been conveyed (or posted) to a third person, then
he is no longer protected.
• No, as in the case of Vivares vs Sta. Theresa’s College, there can be no
reasonable expectation of privacy when such materials are posted. “With the
availability of numerous avenues for information gathering and data sharing
nowadays, not to mention each system’s inherent vulnerability to attacks and
intrusions, there is more reason that every individual’s right to control said
flow of information should be protected and that each individual should have
at least a reasonable expectation of privacy in cyberspace. Several
commentators regarding privacy and social networking sites, however, all
agree that given the millions of OSN users, "[i]n this [Social Networking]
environment, privacy is no longer grounded in reasonable expectations, but
rather in some theoretical protocol better known as wishful thinking”
93. Iniego case (sa 1st set siya of cases -_-)
Ineigo v. Hon. Purganan
Facts:
Private respondent Fokker Santos filed a complaint for quasi-delict and damages
against Jimmy T. Pinion, the driver of a truck involved in a traffic accident, and against
petitioner Artemio Iniego, as owner of the said truck and employer of Pinion. The
complaint stemmed from a vehicular accident that happened on 11 December 1999,
when a freight truck allegedly being driven by Pinion hit private respondents jitney
which private respondent was driving at the time of the accident.
Private respondent filed a Motion to Declare defendant in Default allegedly for failure
of the latter to file his answer within the final extended period. Petitioner filed a Motion
to Admit and a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground, among other things,
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the cause of action of the case.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta
Public respondent Judge Guillermo G. Purganan, acting as presiding judge of the RTC,
Branch 42, Manila, issued the assailed Omnibus Order denying the Motion to Dismiss
of the petitioner and the Motion to Declare Defendant in Default of the private
respondent.
Petitioner claims that actions for damages based on quasi-delict are actions that are
capable of pecuniary estimation; hence, the jurisdiction in such cases falls upon either
the municipal courts, or the Regional Trial Courts, depending on the value of the
damages claimed. Petitioner argues further that should this Court find actions for
damages capable of pecuniary estimation, then the total amount of damages claimed
by the private respondent must exceed P400,000.00 in order that it may fall under the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
Issues: 1) WON Actions for damages based on quasi-delict are actions that are capable
of pecuniary estimation, and therefore would fall under the jurisdiction of the
municipal courts if the claim does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of P400,000.00
in Metro Manila; 2) WON moral and exemplary damages claimed by the private
respondent should be excluded from the computation of the above-mentioned
jurisdictional amount because they arose from a cause of action other than the
negligent act of the defendant.
Ruling:
1) Yes. Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and effectively
actions for the recovery of a sum of money for the damages suffered because of the
defendants alleged tortious acts, and are therefore capable of pecuniary estimation.
It is crystal clear from B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, that what
must be determined to be capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation is not the cause
of action, but the subject matter of the action.[9] A cause of action is the delict or
wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights
of the plaintiff.[10] On the other hand, the subject matter of the action is the physical
facts, the thing real or personal, the money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to
which the suit is prosecuted, and not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant.
75 | P a g e
 Torts & Damages | Atty. Sta. Barbara

Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and effectively actions for
the recovery of a sum of money for the damages suffered because of the defendants
alleged tortious acts. The damages claimed in such actions represent the monetary
equivalent of the injury caused to the plaintiff by the defendant, which are thus sought
to be recovered by the plaintiff. This money claim is the principal relief sought, and is
not merely incidental thereto or a consequence thereof. It bears to point out that the
complaint filed by private respondent before the RTC actually bears the caption for
DAMAGES.
Fault or negligence, which the Court of Appeals claims is not capable of pecuniary
estimation, is not actionable by itself. For such fault or negligence to be actionable,
there must be a resulting damage to a third person. The relief available to the offended
party in such cases is for the reparation, restitution, or payment of such damage,
without which any alleged offended party has no cause of action or relief. The fault or
negligence of the defendant, therefore, is inextricably intertwined with the claim for
damages, and there can be no action based on quasi-delict without a claim for damages.
2) The amount of damages claimed is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the
claim for all kinds of damages that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of courts,
whether the claims for damages arise from the same or from different causes of action.
The total amount of damages claimed by the private respondent nevertheless still
exceeds the jurisdictional limit of P400,000.00 and remains under the jurisdiction of
the RTC.\
Hence, whether or not the different claims for damages are based on a single cause of
action or different causes of action, it is the total amount thereof which shall govern.
Jurisdiction in the case at bar remains with the RTC, considering that the total amount
claimed, inclusive of the moral and exemplary damages claimed, is P490,000.00.
In sum, actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are actions that are capable of
pecuniary estimation. As such, they fall within the jurisdiction of either the RTC or
the municipal courts, depending on the amount of damages claimed. In this case, the
amount of damages claimed is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim
for all kinds of damages that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of courts,
whether the claims for damages arise from the same or from different causes of action.

76 | P a g e
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” Bahala ka na intindihin :P – Team Torta