U.P.

LAW BOC PROPERTY CIVIL LAW

6. By the redemption agreed upon

between the owners of the dominant
and servient estates.
I. NUISANCE
Other Causes Not Mentioned in Art. 631, CC
1. Annulment and rescission of the title 1. Nuisance per se
constituting the voluntary easement;
2. Termination of the right of grantor of the
2. Nuisance per accidens
voluntary easement;
3. Abandonment of the servient estate;
“Nuisances have been divided into two
Owner of the servient estate gives up
classes: Nuisances per se, and nuisances per
ownership of the easement (e.g. the strip of
accidens” [Iloilo Cold Storage v. Municipal
land where the right of way is constituted)
Council, 24 Phil 471]
in favor of the dominant estate. The
easement is extinguished because
Definition
ownership is transferred to the dominant
A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment,
owner, who now owns both properties.
condition of property, or anything else which:
4. Eminent domain;
(1) Injures or endangers the health or
The government’s power to expropriate
safety of others; or others (Ex. House
property for public use, subject to the
in danger of falling, fireworks or
payment of just compensation.
explosives factory, houses without
5. Special cause for extinction of legal
building permits and without provisions
rights of way: if right of way no longer
for disposal of waste matter [Ayala v.
necessary. [Art. 655, CC]
Baretto, 33 Phil. 538]); or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; (Ex.
Right of way ceases to be necessary [Art. 655,
leather factory, garbage cans, pumping
CC]:
station with a high chimney, smoke,
• Owner of the dominant estate has joined to
noise [Bengzon v. Prov. of
another abutting on a public road.
Pangasinan, 62 Phil. 816]; or
• A new road is opened giving access to the
(3) Shocks, defies, or disregards decency
isolated estate. or morality; (Ex. Movie actress strips
• Owner of the servient estate must return nude in the lobby of a movie house for
indemnity he received (value of the land) sake of publicity for a movie, citing
with interest deemed as rent. Paras, p. 748); or
• Requisite: the public highway must (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free
substantially meet the needs of the passage of any public highway or
dominant estate. street, or any body of water; (Ex.
Houses or flea market stalls
Note: The Owner of the servient estate constructed in public streets); or
burdened by the right of way may demand that (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property
the easement be extinguished when it is shown [Art. 694, CC] (Ex. Illegal constructions
that the easement ceases to be necessary [Art. or activities on another person or
655, CC] entity’s land).

Differentiate Nuisance from Negligence:

Negligence is penalized because of lack of
proper care but a nuisance is wrong not
because of the presence or absence of care,
but because of the injury caused. [Paras
quoting 39 AmJur 282]

Page 188 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC PROPERTY
Nuisance Nuisance per se
Definition ● Those which are
unquestionably and under all
circumstances nuisances,
such as gambling houses,
houses of ill fame, etc. [Iloilo
Cold Storage v. Municipal
Council, 24 Phil 471]
● Generally defined as an act,
occupation, or structure,
which is a nuisance at all
times and under any
circumstances, regardless of
location or surrounding.
[Aquino v. Municipality of
Malay, GR 211356, 29
September 2014]
Abatement Since they affect the immediate
safety of persons and property,
they may be summarily abated
under the undefined law of
necessity. [Monteverde v.
Generoso, 52 Phil 123]
a. Public v. Private Nuisance
Public Nuisance
Nuisance that affects a community or
neighborhood or any considerable number of
persons [Art. 695, CC]. (Ex. A noisy or
dangerous factory in a residential district; a
karaoke bar inside a subdivision)
Private Nuisance
One that is not included in the foregoing (Public
nuisance) definition. [Art. 695, CC]
One which violates only private rights and
produces damages to but one or a few specific
persons.
b. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character
likely to attract children at play, and who fails to
Page 189 of 532
CIVIL LAW
Nuisance per accidens
● Those that are nuisances because of
particular facts and circumstances
surrounding the otherwise harmless cause
of the nuisance [Iloilo Cold Storage v.
Municipal Council, 24 Phil 471]
● Generally a question of fact, to be
determined in the first instance before the
term nuisance can be applied to it. [Ibid.]
● That which depends upon certain conditions
and circumstances, and its existence being
a question of fact, it cannot be abated
without due hearing thereon in a tribunal
authorized to decide whether such a thing
does in law constitute a nuisance. [Aquino v.
Municipality of Malay, GR 211356, 29
September 2014]
No authority has the right to compel the
abatement of a particular thing or act as a
nuisance without reasonable notice to the
person alleged to be maintaining or doing the
same of the time and place of hearing before a
tribunal authorized to decide whether such a
thing or act does in law constitute a nuisance.
[Monteverde v. Generoso, 52 Phil 123]
exercise ordinary care to prevent children from
playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable
to a child of tender years who is injured
thereby, even if the child is technically a
trespasser in the premises. [Jarco Marketing
Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 129792 (1999)]
Reason for doctrine: Although the danger is
apparent to those of age, it is so enticing or
alluring to children of tender years as to induce
them to approach [Ibid].
Note: The attractive nuisance doctrine is
generally not applicable to bodies of water in
the absence of some unusual condition or
artificial feature. A swimming pool is not an
attractive nuisance, for while it is attractive, it is
merely a duplication of a work of nature
[Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan, G.R. L-3422,
(1952)]
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

TORTS
CIVIL LAW

Page 451 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

2. Which is exercised in bad faith;

A. PRINCIPLES 3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another.

Tort Test of abuse of rights

A private or civil wrong violating a right for No hard and fast rule; depends on the
which the law provides a remedy in the form of circumstances of each case. The exercise of a
damages right must be in accordance with the purpose
for which it was established, and must not be
Elements excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no
1. Duty intention to injure another.
2. Breach
3. Injury; and Generally, the exercise of any right must be in
4. Proximate Causation [Garcia v. Salvador, accordance with the purpose for which it was
G.R. No. 168512 (2007)] established. It must not be excessive or unduly
harsh; there must be no intention to injure
Definition of Quasi-Delict (also known as another.
culpa aquiliana)
There is abuse of right when:
Art. 2176, CC. Whoever by act or omission 1. The right is exercised for the only purpose
causes damage to another, there being fault of prejudicing or injuring another
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the 2. The objective of the act is illegitimate
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if 3. There is an absence of good faith
there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict Effects of the application of Art. 19:
and is governed by the provisions of this a. “A right, though by itself legal because
Chapter. recognized or granted by law as such, may
nevertheless become the source of some
Elements of quasi-delict illegality” [Globe Mackay v. CA, G.R. No.
1. Act/omission committed through 81262 (1989)];
fault/negligence b. It precludes the defense of damnum
2. Damage/injury is caused by such absque injuria. Damnum absque injuria
act/omission does not apply when there is an abuse of a
3. Does not arise under a pre-existing person’s right [Amonoy v. Gutierrez, G.R.
contractual obligation No. 140420 (2001)].

Note: Jurisprudence replaces the third element

with causal connection [PNR v. Brunty, G.R.
No. 169891 (2006); Andamo v. IAC, G.R. No.
74761 (1990)].

1. Abuse of Right; elements

Art. 19, CC. 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
Elements [Albenson v. CA, G.R. No. 88694
(1993)]:
1. There is a legal right or duty;

Page 452 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

CASE LEGAL RIGHT AND INJURY DOCTRINE

Velayo v. Shell Right to transfer credit. The standards in NCC 19 are

(1959) implemented by NCC 21.
The transfer of credit from Shell
Philippines to Shell USA was deemed a
violation of NCC 21 as it allowed Shell
to attach properties of their creditor
CALI to the prejudice of its other
creditors.

Globe v. CA Right to dismiss an employee. When a right is exercised in a manner

(1989) which does not conform with the norms
The dismissal itself was not illegal but it in NCC 19, and results in damage to
was the manner of dismissal which was another, a legal wrong is thereby
deemed in violation of Article 19, as committed. The law, therefore,
such was based on unfounded recognizes a primordial limitation on all
accusations of dishonesty. rights.

University of the The conscious indifference of the school The conscious indifference of a person
East v. Jader in not informing its student that he could to the rights or welfare of the others who
(2000) not graduate formed the basis for the may be affected by his act or omission
award of damages. can support a claim for damages.

Amonoy v. Right to demolish another’s house on
Gutierrez (2001) his own property.
Amonoy obtained a judgment in his
favor for Gutierrez to vacate. A
demolition order was issued but the
court suspended it with a TRO. Amonoy abused, especially to the prejudice of
proceeded with the demolition. In a
complaint for damages, he claims the
principle of damnum absque injuria.
The principle of damnum absque injuria
does not apply when the exercise of the
legal right is suspended or extinguished
pursuant to a court order. The exercise
of a right ends when the right
disappears, and it disappears when it is
others.

Right to forbid uninvited guests from Article 19, known to contain what is
entering the party. commonly referred to as the principle of

Page 453 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Nikko Hotel Ruby Lim’s throwing out of complainant
Manila Garden Reyes, as a gatecrasher in a private
v. Reyes (2005) party, was merely in exercise of her
duties as Executive Secretary of the
hotel where the party was held, and did
not constitute a violation of Article 19.
2. Unjust Enrichment
Art. 22, CC. 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.
Art. 23, CC. Even when an act or event
causing damage to another’s property was
not due to the fault or negligence of the
defendant, the latter shall be liable for
indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited.
Art. 2142, CC. Certain lawful, voluntary and
unilateral acts give rise to the juridical
relation of quasi-contract to the end that no
one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at
the expense of another.
Art. 2143, CC. The provisions for quasi
contracts in this Chapter do not exclude
other quasi-contracts which may come within
the purview of the preceding article.
One person should not be permitted to unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of another, but
should be required to make restitution of, or for
property or benefits received, retained, or
appropriated where it is just and equitable that
such restitution be made, and where such
action involves no violation or frustration of law
or opposition to public policy, either directly or
indirectly.
Page 454 of 532
CIVIL LAW
abuse of rights, is not a panacea for all
human hurts and social grievances. The
object of this article is to set certain
standards which must be observed not
only in the exercise of one’s rights but
also in the performance of one’s duties.
Enrichment at the expense of another is not per
se forbidden. It is such enrichment without just
or legal cause that is contemplated here. Just
and legal cause is always presumed, and the
plaintiff has the burden of proving its absence.
The restitution must cover the loss suffered by
the plaintiff but it can never exceed the amount
of unjust enrichment of the defendant if it is less
than the loss of the plaintiff.
Requisites
1. That the defendant has been enriched;
2. That the plaintiff has suffered a loss;
3. That the enrichment of the defendant is
without just or legal ground; and
4. That the plaintiff has no other action
based on contract, crime or quasi-
delict.
“Under the civil law principle of unjust
enrichment, the registered owner of the motor
vehicle has a right to be indemnified by the
actual employer of the driver; and under Article
2181 of the Civil Code, 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.” [Mendoza v. Sps Gomez, G.R No.
160110 (2014)]
3. Liability without fault
Art. 23, CC. Even when an act or event
causing damage to another’s property was
not due to the fault or negligence of the
defendant, the latter shall be liable for
indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
This provision imposes liability even without
fault, as long as the injurious act or event
benefited the defendant.
This article is based on equity, An involuntary
act, because of its character cannot generally
create an obligation; but when by such act its
author has been enriched, it is only just that he
should indemnify for the damages caused, to
the extent of his enrichment. The indemnity
does not include unrealized profits of the
injured party, because defendant’s enrichment
is the limit of his liability. The plaintiff has the
burden of proving the extent of the benefit or
enrichment of the defendant.
4. Acts Contrary to Law
Art. 20, CC. Every person who, contrary to
law, willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same
The provision is intended to provide a remedy
in cases where the law declares an act illegal
but fails to provide for a relief to the party
injured. [Jarencio]
Art. 20 does not distinguish, and the act may
be done willfully or negligently.
Requisites
1. The act must be willful or negligent;
2. It must be contrary to law; and
3. Damages must be suffered by the
injured party.
Salvador was misdiagnosed with Hepatitis, as
a result of which she lost her job. During trial, it
was proven that the clinic was operating under
substandard conditions, in violation of the
Clinical Laboratory Law, DOH Administrative
Order No. 49-B, and the Philippine Medical
Technology Act of 1969. The Court held that
violation of a statutory duty is negligence, and
that Article 20 provides the legal basis for
award of damages to a party who suffers
damage whenever one commits an act in
Page 455 of 532
CIVIL LAW
violation of some legal provision [Garcia v.
Salvador, G.R. No. 168512 (2007)].
5. Acts Contrary to Morals
Art. 21, CC. Any person who willfully causes
loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.
Elements [Albenson v. CA, supra].
1. There is an act which is legal;
2. But which is contrary to morals, good
customs, and public policy; and
3. It is done with intent to injure.
This article is designed “to expand the concept
of torts and quasi-delict in this jurisdiction by
granting adequate legal remedy for the untold
number of moral wrongs which is impossible
for human foresight to specifically enumerate
and punish in statute books” [Baksh v. CA,
supra].
The injury suffered by the plaintiff may refer to
any determinate right or property, whether
material or not.
The doctrine of proximate cause must apply,
because the defendant must have caused the
injury through their act or omission. If through
the plaintiff’s own fault or negligence, they
sustained injury, they cannot recover.
Does a “willful” act require malice or
deceit?
Yes. The Code uses the motive-laden word
“willfully” rather than the comparatively weaker
word “intentionally.” An act which is “willful”
connotes an evil or malicious motive, while an
act which is merely intentional has ordinarily no
such implication [Carpio, Antonio T., Intentional
Torts in Philippine Law, supra].
a. Acts contrary to morals, in
general
Article 21 is the result of adopting moral norms
into actual legal rules, which the Court found as
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
acceptable, as it notes that the “conscience of
man has remained fixed to ancient moorings”
and that this will impart an “enduring quality” to
our laws, which is a desirable thing from the
Court’s perspective.[Velayo v. Shell, G.R. No.
L-7817. (1956)]
A reading of the provision may provide an
inference of three requisites for a cause of
action under Article 21:
1. that one willfully causes injury or loss to
another;
2. that it was done in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs, or
public policy
3. That the act done to cause injury or
loss must be legal
The complaint must ask for damages because
it presupposes losses or injuries material or
otherwise; if complaint doesn’t ask for
damages, Art. 21 cannot be invoked.
[Albenson v. CA, G.R. No. 88694, (1993)]
b. Breach of Promise to Marry and
Moral Seduction
Mere breach of promise to marry is not an
actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding
and go through all the above-described
preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it
when the matrimony is about to be solemnized,
is quite different. This is palpably and
unjustifiably contrary to good customs xxx
[Wassmer v. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089 (1964)].
Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the
proximate cause of the acceptance of his love
by a woman and his representation to fulfill that
promise thereafter becomes the proximate
cause of the giving of herself unto him in a
sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality,
no intention of marrying her and that the
promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive
device to entice or inveigle her to accept him
and to obtain her consent to the sexual act,
could justify the award of damages pursuant to
Article 21 not because of such promise to
marry but because of the fraud and deceit
behind it and the willful injury to her honor and
reputation. It is essential, however, that such
Page 456 of 532
CIVIL LAW
injury should have been committed in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy [Baksh v. CA, supra].
(Note on Baksh: The test, however, is
problematic, in that it employs the concept of
proximate cause even if Article 21 cases do not
require the application of proximate cause.)
However, when for one whole year, the
plaintiff, a woman of legal age, maintained
sexual relations with the defendant, with
repeated acts of intercourse, there is here
voluntariness. No case under Article 21 is
made [Tanjanco v. CA, G.R. No. L-18630
(1966)].
In an action by the woman, the enticement,
persuasion or deception is the essence of the
injury; mere proof of intercourse is insufficient
to warrant a recovery. It is not seduction where
the willingness arises out of sexual desire or
curiosity of the female, and the defendant
merely affords her the needed opportunity for
the commission of the act [Tanjanco v. CA,
G.R. No. L-18630 (1966)].
c. Malicious Prosecution
Malicious prosecution is the institution of any
action or proceeding, either civil or criminal,
maliciously and without probable cause.
Malicious prosecution is an action for
damages brought by one against whom a
criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal
proceeding has been instituted maliciously and
without probable cause, after the termination of
such prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in
favor of the defendant therein [Magbanua v.
Junsay, G.R. No. 132659 (2007)].
Elements [Magbanua v. Junsay, G.R.
No.132659 (2007)]
1. The fact of the prosecution or that the
prosecution did occur and that the
defendant was himself the prosecutor
or that he instigated its
commencement;
2. That the action finally terminated with
an acquittal;
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
3. That in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable
cause
4. That the prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice, that is, by
improper or sinister motive.
The mere dismissal of the criminal complaint
by the fiscal’s office did not create a cause of
action for malicious prosecution, because the
proceedings therein did not involve an
exhaustive examination of the elements of
malicious prosecution. To constitute such,
there must be proof that the prosecution was
prompted by a sinister design to vex and
humiliate a person and that it was initiated
deliberately by the defendant knowing that his
charges were false and groundless [Que v.
IAC, G.R. No. 66865 (1989)].
Malicious prosecution involves not only
criminal but civil and administrative suits as
well [Magbanua v. Junsay, supra].
The presence of probable cause signifies as a
legal consequence the absence of malice [Que
v. IAC, G.R. No. 66865 (1989].
d. Public Humiliation
The circumstances under which the defendant
tried to win Lolita’s affection cannot lead to any
other conclusion than that it was he who,
through an ingenious scheme or trickery,
seduced the latter to the extent of making her
fall in love with him. The wrong he has caused
her and her family is indeed immeasurable
considering the fact that he is a married man.
Verily, he has committed an injury to Lolita's
family in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy as contemplated in
Article 21 of the new Civil Code [Pe v. Pe, G.R.
No. L-17396 (1962)].
It is against morals, good customs and public
policy to humiliate, embarrass and degrade the
dignity of a person. Everyone must respect the
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind
of his neighbors and other persons (Article 26,
CC) [Grand Union v. Espino, G.R. No. L-48250
(1979)].
Page 457 of 532
CIVIL LAW
A person may be held liable under Article 21 if
they make an accusation against another and
acts to prejudice such person, without proof
substantiating her accusation
e. Oppressive Dismissal
The right of an employer to dismiss an
employee is not to be confused with the
manner in which this right is to be exercised
and the effects flowing therefrom. If the
dismissal was done antisocially or
oppressively, then there is a violation of Article
1701, which prohibits acts of oppression by
either capital or labor against the other, and
Article 21, which makes a person liable for
damages if he willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs, or public policy. When the
manner in which the company exercised its
right to dismiss was abusive, oppressive and
malicious, it is liable for damages [Quisaba v.
Sta. Ines, G.R. No. L-38000 (1974)].
B. CLASSIFICATION OF
TORTS
1. According to Manner of
Commission
a. Intentional Torts
Liability for personal acts or omission is
founded on that indisputable principle of justice
recognized by all legislators that when a
person by his act or omission causes damage
or prejudice to another, a juridical relation is
created by virtue of which the injured person
acquires a right to be indemnified and the
person causing the damage is charged with the
corresponding duty of repairing the damage.
The reason for this is found in the obvious truth
that man should subordinate his acts to the
precepts of prudence and if he fails to observe
them and cause damage to another, he must
repair the damage [Manresa].
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Elements of Intentional Torts
A tort is intentional when the tortfeasor:
1. Desires the consequence of their act;
or
2. They believe that the consequences
are substantially certain to result from
his act.
How is intent proved?
The defendant’s intent is usually proved
circumstantially, or is inferred from their
conduct. If the defendant’s conduct causes
injury, they are presumed to intend the natural
consequences of their act.
b. Negligent Torts
Negligence
It is the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do [Layugan v. IAC,
G.R. No. 73998 (1988)].
The diligence with which the law requires the
individual to at all times govern his conduct
varies with the nature of the situation in which
he is placed and the importance of the act
which he is to perform [Jorge v. Sicam, G.R.
No. 159617 (2007)].
INTENTIONAL TORTS NEGLIGENT
TORTS
Harmful consequences The act or omission
are substantially certain merely creates a
to occur or are intended foreseeable risk or
harm, which may or
may not actually be
realized
The difference lies in the certainty of the
harmful consequences. Where in intentional
torts there is substantial certainty of harmful
consequences, in negligence, the conduct of
the defendant creates a risk or harm which may
or may not result. This comparison is
consistent with the definition of negligence,
Page 458 of 532
CIVIL LAW
which consists in a failure to observe the
requisite due care given circumstance.
Will Motive Be Material? Generally, motive is
immaterial. But it may be used to aggravate or
mitigate the harmful consequences resulting
from an intentional tort
2. According to Scope
a. Human Relations Tort
Liability for personal acts or omission is
founded on that indisputable principle of justice
recognized by all legislators that when a
person by his act or omission causes damage
or prejudice to another, a juridical relation is
created by virtue of which the injured person
acquires a right to be indemnified and the
person causing the damage is charged with the
corresponding duty of repairing the damage.
The reason for this is found in the obvious truth
that man should subordinate his acts to the
precepts of prudence and if he fails to observe
them and cause damage to another, he must
repair the damage [Manresa].
Human Relations provisions in the Civil Code
include Art. 19 (Abuse of Rights) , Art. 20 (Acts
Contrary to Law), Art. 21 (Acts contrary to
morals), and Art. 26 (Violation of Human
Dignity).
b. Strict Liability Tort
This refers to instances where negligence is
not required to be proven to incur liability; and
diligence is not a defense.
This includes Articles 1711, 1723, 2183, 2187,
2189-2193
[See H. Special Liability in Particular Activities;
I. Strict Liability.]
c. Independent Civil Actions
Civil Code provisions on independent civil
actions include Articles 32-35.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
In these cases, a civil action may be filed
independently of the criminal action, even if
there has been no reservation made by the
injured party; the law in itself makes such
reservation. The result of the civil action is thus
independent of the result of the criminal action.
The underlying purpose for this independent
civil action is to allow the citizen to enforce his
rights in a private action brought by him,
regardless of the action of the State attorney.
[Tolentino]
C. THE TORTFEASOR
1. Direct Tortfeasor
Art. 2176, CC. 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.
The direct tortfeasor is one who is made liable
for a tort committed through his own acts. The
tortfeasor may be a natural or juridical
person.
a. Natural Persons
In order for one to be liable as a direct
tortfeasor, the requisites of Art. 2176 must be
fulfilled:
1. Act or omission
2. Damage to another
3. Fault or negligence
4. No pre-existing contractual relation
In other words, the direct tortfeasor is liable for
quasi-delict. Liability consists in the payment
of damages for the injury suffered.
Page 459 of 532
CIVIL LAW
Note: Damage under the 2nd requisite pertains
to injury. [PNR v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891 (2006)]
b. Juridical Persons
For juridical persons, the rules on vicarious
liability in the next section applies.
2. Persons made responsible for
others
Art. 2180, CC. 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.
xxx
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 the damage.
Doctrine of Vicarious Liability (Art. 2180)
The obligation imposed under Art. 2176 (i.e., to
pay for injury suffered) is also demandable
from those persons (natural or juridical) who
are responsible for the person who has
committed a quasi-delict (i.e., the direct
tortfeasor).
Under this, liability is primary and direct
(solidarily liable with the direct tortfeasor), not
subsidiary. It is not conditioned upon the
insolvency of or prior recourse against the
direct tortfeasor.
Note: Art. 2180 does not provide for automatic
liability. It only gives rise to a presumption of
negligence on the part of the persons
mentioned. The presumption is rebuttable by a
showing of the person’s exercise of the
diligence required (See ‘Available Defense’ in
the following sections).
Rationale
To extend liability by legal fiction to those in a
position to exercise absolute or limited control
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

over the direct tortfeasor. These persons b. Oldest qualified sibling over 21
become liable for their own omission to years
comply with their duty to exercise c. Child’s actual custodian, provided
supervision over the persons for whom they he is qualified and over 21 years
are responsible. 4. Special Parental Authorities
a. School
When Not Applicable b. Administrators
When moral culpability can be directly imputed c. Teachers
to the direct tortfeasor, as when there is actual d. Individual, entity, or institution
intent to cause harm to others. engaged in child care

Persons Available Defense

For Damages Caused
Vicariously Proof that the parent/guardian observed all
By:
Liable: diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
Parents Minor children who live in the damage.
their company
Guardians Minors or incapacitated 1. Parents
children who are under Art. 2180 (2), CC. The father and, in case of
their authority and live in his death or incapacity, the mother, are
their company responsible for the damages caused by the
Owners and Employees in the service minor children who live in their company.
managers of an of the branches in which
establishment the latter are employed or
or enterprise on the occasion of their Art. 211, FC. Parents and other persons
functions exercising parental authority shall be civilly
Employers Employees and liable for the injuries and damages caused
household helpers acting by the acts or omissions of their
within the scope of their unemancipated children living in their
assigned tasks; even company and under their parental authority
though the former are not subject to the appropriate defenses provided
engaged in any business by law.
or industry
State Special agents
Parents are responsible for their minor
Teachers of Pupils and students or
children who live in their company.
heads of apprentices, so long as
establishments they remain in their
“Minors” Defined
of arts and custody
Minors refer to those who are below 21 years
trade
old, not below 18 years. The law reducing
majority age did not amend Art. 2180. The
a. Persons Exercising Parental basis is the Art. 236(3) of the Family Code, as
Authority
amended by RA 6809, which provides that
nothing in the Family Code shall be construed
Parental Authority to derogate from the duty or responsibility of
It consists, to a large extent, of the instruction
parents and guardians for children and wards
and supervision of the child. May be exercised
below 21 years of age mentioned in Art. 2180,
by:
CC.
1. Parents/Adoptive parents
2. Court-appointed guardians
3. Substitute Parental Authorities
a. Grandparents

Page 460 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Death/Incapacity of Father Irrelevant
The provision in Art. 2180, which makes the
mother liable only upon the death/incapacity of
the father is no longer operative due to Family
Code provisions:
• Art. 221 states that persons exercising
parental authority shall be civilly liable
for the torts of the children in their care.
• Art. 211 states that both the father and
the mother exercise parental authority.
Note: Even if the complaint for damages is filed
when parental authority is already lodged with
the adoptive parents, the parents who shall
be made vicariously liable are those who
exercised parental authority at the time the
quasi-delict was committed. In this case, it
was the biological parents. [Tamargo v. IAC,
G.R. No. 85044 (1992)]
Basis of liability of parents and adopters
Parental liability is anchored upon parental
authority coupled with presumed parental
dereliction in the discharge of the duties
accompanying such authority. The parental
dereliction is, of course, only presumed and the
presumption can be overturned under Article
2180 CC, by proof that the parents had
exercised all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage [Tamargo v. CA,
supra].
Illegitimate children
Responsibility is with the mother whom the law
vests with parental authority.
2. Guardians
Art. 2180 (3), CC. Guardians are liable for
damages caused by the minors or
incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.
The liability of guardians with respect to their
wards is governed by the same rule as in the
liability of parents with respect to their children
below 21 years and who live with them.
Page 461 of 532
CIVIL LAW
“Incapacitated” Defined (Rule 92, Rules of
Court)
Also known as those who are “incompetent:”
1. Those suffering penalty of civil interdiction
2. Prodigals
3. Deaf and dumb unable to read and write
4. Unsound mind, even though they have
lucid intervals
5. Being of sound mind, but by reason of age,
disease, weak mind, and other similar
causes, cannot take care of themselves or
manage their property
Minors or incapacitated tortfeasors without
a parent or guardian (Art. 2182)
Answerable with his own property in an action
against him. A guardian ad litem shall be
appointed.
b. Teachers and Schools
Art. 2180 (7), CC. 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.
Art. 218, FC. The school, its administrators
and teachers, or the individual, entity or
institution engaged in child shall have special
parental authority and responsibility over the
minor child while under their supervision,
instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or
outside the premises of the school, entity or
institution.
Art. 219, FC. 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.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Available Defense
The respective liabilities of those referred to
Proof that the teacher/school observed all
in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
it is proved that they exercised the proper
the damage.
diligence required under the particular
circumstances.
Under the Civil Code (Art. 2180)
Teachers Heads
All other cases not covered by this and the
Arts and
preceding articles shall be governed by the Institu- Academic
trades,
provisions of the CC on quasi-delicts. tion institutions
establishments
Teacher in
Under Art. 2180, teachers or heads of Head of
Liable charge; not
establishments of arts and trades are establishment
administrator
responsible for their pupils and students or Custody Required
apprentices, so long as they remain in the Heads of
former’s custody, regardless of age. academic Heads of
institutions establishments
Under the Family Code, liability attaches to the exercise only of arts and
school, its administrators and teachers, or the administrative trades have
individual or entity engaged in child care, so Rationale
authority over apprentices,
long as the child is under their supervision, the students, who they are in
instruction, or custody, and the child is below and are not in close proximity
18 years old. close proximity to.
to them.
Basis of liability
The persons vicariously liable stand in loco Under the Family Code
parentis and are called upon to exercise School, Parents,
reasonable supervision over the conduct of the Administrators, Guardians,
students. Teachers, etc. etc.
Provided
Art. 218 Art. 219
“Custody” Defined by
“Custody” means the protective and Parental
supervisory custody that the school, its head Kind of authority or
Special parental
and teachers exercise over the pupils, for as authority substitute
authority
long as they are in attendance in school, which required parental
includes recess time. It is not required that the authority
student must live and board in the school. Liability if
tort is Principal and
Custody does not connote immediate and Subsidiary
committed solidary
actual physical control. It refers more to the
in school
influence exerted on the student and the
discipline instilled in him. [Palisoc v. Brillantes,
G.R. No. L-29025 (1971)] Students covered

ARTS. 218-219 ART. 2180

As long as it is shown that the student is in the
school premises pursuant to a legitimate All students, even those no
student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate Minor students longer minors, as long as they
right, or the enjoyment of a legitimate student only remain in the custody of the
privilege, the responsibility of the school persons responsible
authorities over the student continues.
[Amadora v CA, G.R. No. L-47745 (1988)]

Page 462 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

c. Owners, Managers of Respondeat

Establishments, Employers Pater familias
superior
There is only a
Art. 2180 (4), FC. The owners and Master is absolutely
presumption of
managers of an es ablis
t h
ment or enterpris e liable to servant’s act
negligence on the part
are lik w e is e res p
onsible for damages or omission
of the employer
c u
as d e by their employ es in the s rev ci eof
the branches in whic h the latter are No defense of Defense of negligence
employ d e or on the oc cs aon i of their negligence available
func ions
t .
Embodied in the
Embodied in primary
subsidiary liability
liability under Art.
under RPC – no
Art. 2180 (5), FC. Employers shall be liable 2180, where the
defense of diligence;
for the damages caused by their employees defense of diligence is
only lack of criminal
and household helpers acting within the available
liability
scope of their assigned tasks, even though
the former are not engaged in any business
or industry. Basis of liability
Employer’s negligence in:
1. The selection of their employees (culpa
Nature of employers’ liability in eligiendo)
2. The supervision over their employees
The basis of his liability is not his (culpa in vigilando)
employee’s negligence, but his
Direct
own negligence in hiring and The liability imposed upon employers with
supervising the employee. respect to damages occasioned by the
The amount for which he is liable negligence of their employees to whom they
may be pursued without having to are not bound by contract is based on the
Primary exhaust the employee’s assets, as employer’s own negligence, such as when he
opposed to subsidiary liability places a powerful automobile in the hands of a
under the RPC. servant whom he knows to be ignorant of the
method of managing such vehicle [Cangco v.
He may recover the full amount of Manila Railroad, supra].
the liability from his employee, as
Solidary per Art. 2181, and not merely a Presumption of Negligence
prorated amount, unlike in Art. The presentation of proof of the negligence of
2184, CC. its employee gives rise to the presumption that
the defendant employer did not exercise the
What must be established for vicarious diligence of a good father of a family in the
liability: selection and supervision of its employees
1. Existence of an employer-employee [Lampesa v. De Vera, G.R. No. 155111
relationship between company and (2008)].
tortfeasor
2. Tortious act had been committed while Available Defense
the tortfeasor was acting in the normal Proof of due care and diligence in the:
course of employment 1. Selection of employees
a. Careful examination of the
Basis for liability is not respondeat superior, but applicant for employment as to his
pater familias. qualifications, experience and
record of service
2. Supervision of employees

Page 463 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
a. Formulation of standard operating
procedures, suitable rules and
regulations, and issuance of proper
instructions
b. Monitoring of their implementation
c. Imposition of disciplinary measures
in case of their breach
When Applicable
Vicarious liability arises when there is an
employer-employee relationship. To determine
its existence, the “control test” is used. Under
this, a relationship exists if the “employer”
controls both the means and the details of the
process by which the “employee” is to
accomplish his task. [Professional Services v.
CA and Agana, G.R. No. 126297 (2010)].
Criminal Negligence
The vicarious liability of the employer for
criminal negligence of his employee is
governed by RPC 103. Conviction of the
employee conclusively binds the employer.
Defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of the employee is not available.
The employer cannot appeal the conviction
[Fernando v. Franco (1971)].
Note: The liability of the employer under Art.
103 RPC is subsidiary.
Registered Owner Rule
The registered owner of the vehicle is primarily
responsible to the public for whatever damage
or injury the vehicle may have caused, even if
he had already sold the same to someone else.
The policy is the easy identification of the
owner who can be held responsible so as not
to inconvenience or prejudice the third party
injured [Cadiente v. Macas (2008)]. The
registered owner, however, has the right to be
indemnified by the real or actual owner of the
amount that he may be required to pay as
damages for the injury caused to the plaintiff
[Orix Metro Leasing v. Mangalinan (2012)].
This rule applies even if the vehicle is leased to
third persons. The liability of the registered
owner is subject to his right of recourse against
the transferee or buyer.
Page 464 of 532
CIVIL LAW
1. Owners and Managers of an
Establishment or Enterprise (Art.
2180(4))
They are responsible for employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
“Manager” Defined
This does not include a manager of a
corporation, as such is not an employer, but
merely an employee of the corporation.
[Philippine Rabbit v. Philam Forwarders, G.R.
No. L-25142 (1975)].
2. Employers (Art. 2180(5))
They are responsible for employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of
their assigned tasks; even though the former
are not engaged in any business or industry.
“Within the scope of their assigned task” in Art.
2180 includes any act done by an employee in
furtherance of the interests, or for the account
of the employer at the time of the infliction of
the injury or damage [Filamer v. CA, G.R. No.
75112 (1990)].
Distinguishing Par. 4 and Par. 5
The distinction is necessary to determine which
paragraph is applicable:
1. Kind of employer made liable:
a. Par. 4: To owners and managers of
an establishment or enterprise
b. Par. 5: To employers in general,
whether or not engaged in any
business or industry
2. Acts of employees responsible for:
a. Par. 4: Negligent acts committed
either in the service of the branches
or on the occasion of their functions
b. Par. 5: Negligent acts done within
the scope of their assigned task
However, essentially, there is no distinction
between the two. It can be said that Par. 5 is
merely an expansion of what has been
provided for under Par. 4. [Castilex v. Vasquez,
G.R. No. 132266 (1999)]
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

d. The State pertain to his office [Merritt v. Government of

the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 11154 (1960)].
Sec. 3, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution. The
A corporate body (e.g., GOCCs) performing
State may not be sued without its consent.
non-governmental functions becomes liable for
the damage resulting from the tortious act of its
Art. 2180 (6), CC. The State is responsible employee. Liability will be that of an ordinary
in like manner when it acts through a special employer under Par. 4 or 5, Art. 2180.
agent; but not when the damage has been [Fontanilla v. Maliaman, G.R. No. 55963
caused by the official to whom the task done (1991)].
properly pertains, in which case what is
provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. Why the State Cannot be Sued
Neither fault nor negligence can be presumed
on the part of the State in the organization of
Who may be sued under the State branches of public service and in the
1. A special agent under Art. 2180 appointment of its agents. Also, suing the
2. Instrumentalities discharging proprietary State will divert its focus from the delivery of
functions necessary public services.
a. The power to enter into contracts
implies the consent to be sued
b. The charter of the instrumentality
3. Joint tortfeasors
may expressly provide that it may
be sued Art. 2194, FC. The responsibility of two or
3. Those that consent to be sued more persons who are liable for quasi-delict
is solidary.
Instances where the State gives its consent
to be sued
Joint tortfeasors are all persons responsible
1. Art. 2180 (6) is an example of an express
for a quasi-delict. They are all persons who
legislative consent. Here, the State
command, instigate, promote, encourage,
assumes a limited liability for the acts of its
advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet
special agents.
in the commission of a tort, or who approve of
2. Art. 2189 provides for state liability for
it after it is done, if done for their benefit. Under
damages caused by defective condition of
Art. 2194, their responsibility is solidary.
public works.
3. Local Government Code provides for the
When Applicable
liability of local government units for
When the concurrent or successive negligent
wrongful exercise of its proprietary (as
acts or omissions of two or more persons,
opposed to its governmental) functions.
although acting independently, are together the
The latter is the same as that of a private
direct and proximate cause of a single injury to
corporation or individual. [Mendoza v. de
a third person, and it is impossible to determine
Leon, G.R. No. L-9596 (1916)]
in what proportion each contributed to the
injury and either of them is responsible for the
“Special Agent” Defined
whole injury. Where their concurring
One who receives a definite and fixed order or
negligence resulted in injury or damage to a
commission, foreign to the exercise of the
third party, they become joint tortfeasors and
duties of his office (if he is a special official).
are solidarily liable for the resulting damage.
Does not pertain to any executive agent who is
[Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 130068
an employee of the active administration and
(1998)]
who on his own responsibility performs
functions which are inherent and naturally

Page 465 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
D. PROXIMATE CAUSE
1. Concept
In order that civil liability for negligence may
arise, there must be a direct causal connection
between the damage suffered by the plaintiff
and the act or omission of the defendant.
Plaintiff, however, must establish a sufficient
link between the act or omission and the
damage or injury. That 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. [Dy
Teban Trading, Inc. v. Ching, G.R. No. 161803
(2008)]
Note: It is not required that it be shown that the
injury would not have occurred without the act
or omission complained of. It only requires
some reasonable connection between the act
or omission and the injury.
If the actor’s conduct is a material element and
a substantial factor in bringing about harm to
another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw
nor should have foreseen the extent of the
harm or the manner in which it occurred does
not prevent him from being liable [Philippine
Rabbit v. IAC, G.R. No. 66102-04 (1990)]
There is no exact formula to determine
proximate cause. It is based upon mixed
considerations of logic, common sense, policy
and precedent. [Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v.
Ching, G.R. No. 161803 (2008)]
Two Definitions
Proximate cause immediately resulting in
injury:
1. 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. [Bataclan v. Medina,
G.R. No. 10126 (1957)]
Page 466 of 532
CIVIL LAW
2. Foreseen by a person of ordinary care that
the injury complained of or some similar
injury would result from the cause as a
natural and probable consequence.
[Pilipinas Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 105410
(1994)]
Proximate cause not immediately resulting
in injury but sets in motion a chain of
events, which eventually result in injury:
a. That cause acting first and producing the
injury, by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous
chain, each having a close causal
connection with its immediate predecessor,
the final event in the chain immediately
effecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the first cause, under
such circumstances that the person
responsible for the first event should, as an
ordinary prudent and intelligent person,
have reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act that an injury might
probably result therefrom.
b. Also known as the proximate legal cause
c. A cause is still proximate, although farther
in time to the injury, if the happening of it
set other foreseeable events into motion
resulting ultimately in the damage.
[Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co., G.R. No.
164749 (2017)]
Respondent was mistakenly given Dormicum,
a potent sleeping tablet, instead of medication
for his blood sugar. He took a pill for 3
consecutive days and on the third day, he fell
asleep on the wheel and figured in a vehicular
accident. The Court found that the proximate
cause of the accident was the Mercury Drug
employee’s mistake in reading the prescription
[Mercury Drug v. Baking, G.R. No. 156037
(2007)].
Note: Here, 3 days have elapsed from the time
of the negligent act determined by the Court as
the proximate cause; thus, the Court did not
consider the time element in determining
proximate cause but the nature and gravity of
the injury.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Differentiated from other
causes
Concurrent Cause
A concurrent cause is one, which along with
other causes, produces the injury. Each cause
is an efficient cause without which the injury
would not have happened. Injury is attributed
to any or all the causes, and recovery may be
had against any or all of those responsible.
Note: They’re the same thing from the point of
view of solidarity.
As a general rule, that negligence in order to
render a person liable need not be the sole
cause of an injury. It is sufficient that his
negligence, concurring with one or more
efficient causes other than the plaintiff’s, is the
proximate cause of the injury.
Remote Cause
A remote cause is one, which would have been
a proximate cause, had there been no efficient
intervening cause after it and prior to the injury.
It cannot be made the basis of an action if such
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 [Manila Electric v.
Remonquillo, G.R. No. L-8328 (1956)].
Intervening Cause
An intervening cause is an event that takes
place after the first cause and before the injury.
(See Efficient Intervening Cause)
2. Cause in Fact
Whether such negligent conduct is a cause
without which the injury would not have
occurred or is the efficient cause which set in
motion the chain of circumstances leading to
the injury. [Bataclan v. Medina, G.R. No. 10126
(1957)] An act or omission is not regarded as a
Page 467 of 532
CIVIL LAW
cause of an event if the particular event would
not have occurred without it.
3. Efficient Intervening Cause
The test of determining whether or not the
intervening cause is sufficient to absolve a prior
cause of the injury is as follows: whether the
intervention of a later cause is a significant part
of the risk involved in the defendant’s conduct
or is so reasonably connected with it that the
responsibility should not be terminated. In the
affirmative, such foreseeable intervening
forces are within the scope of the original risk,
and hence of the defendant’s negligence. In
the negative, there exists an efficient
intervening cause that relieves the defendant
of liability.
Foreseeable Intervening Cause
If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary
human experience is reasonably to be
anticipated, or one which the defendant has
reason to anticipate under the particular
circumstances, the defendant may be
negligent, among other reasons, because of
failure to guard against it. There is an
intervening cause combining with the
defendant’s conduct to produce the result, and
the defendant’s negligence consists in failure
to protect the plaintiff against that very risk
[Phoenix Construction v. IAC, G.R. No. L-
65295 (1987)].
Efficient Intervening Cause
When there is an intervening cause, which is
not a consequence of the first wrongful cause
(not under the control of the first wrongdoer and
could not be foreseen), that eventually leads to
an injury, the first wrongful cause can no longer
be considered the proximate cause. [Abrogar
v. Cosmos Bottling Co., G.R. No. 164749
(2017)]
4. Cause as distinguished from
condition
The distinction between cause and condition
has been almost entirely discredited. So far as
it has any validity at all, it must refer to the type
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
of case where the forces set in operation by the
defendant have come to rest in a position of
apparent safety, and some new force
intervenes. But even in such cases, it is not the
distinction between “cause” and “condition”
which is important, but the nature of the risk
and the character of the intervening cause.
[Phoenix Construction v. IAC, G.R. No. L-
65295 (1987)].
5. Last Clear Chance
The test is also known as the “Doctrine of
Discovered Peril” or “Doctrine of Supervening
Negligence” or “Humanitarian Doctrine.”
Effect on Plaintiff's Right to Recover
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. [PNR v. Brunty, G.R. No.
169891 (2006)]
Establishing the Defendant’s Liability
Where both parties are negligent, but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later in time
than that of the other, or when it is impossible
to determine whose fault or negligence should
be attributed to the incident, the one who had
the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so is
chargeable with the consequences. [Philippine
Bank of Commerce v. CA, G.R. No. 97626
(1997)]
It is necessary to show that the person who
allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the
accident was aware of the existence of the
peril, or should, with exercise of due care, have
been aware of it. [Pantranco v. Baesa, G.R. No.
79050-51 (1989)]
When Not Applicable
a. Where the proximate cause of the injury
has been established [PNR v. Brunty, G.R.
No. 169891 (2006)]
b. In a case of culpa contractual, where
neither the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid
Page 468 of 532
CIVIL LAW
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
[Consolidated Bank v. CA, G.R. No.
138569 (2003)]
c. When the party charged is required to act
instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be
avoided by the application of all means at
hand after peril is or should have been
discovered [Pantranco v. Baesa, G.R. No.
79050-51 (1989)]
d. The doctrine of last clear chance, as
enunciated in Anuran v. Buno, applies in a
suit between the owners and drivers of
colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a
passenger demands responsibility from the
carrier to enforce its contractual
obligations. It will be inequitable to exempt
the negligent driver of the jeepney and its
owners on the ground that the other driver
was likewise guilty of negligence
[Bustamante v. CA, G.R. No. 89880
(1991)].
Note:
• If plaintiff is the proximate cause: no
recovery can be made.
• If plaintiff is not the proximate cause:
Recovery can be made but such will be
mitigated.
• If negligence of parties is equal in degree,
then each bears his own loss.
E. LEGAL INJURY
1. Concept
In order that the law will give redress for an act
causing damage, that act must be not only
hurtful, but wrongful. The damage must be
damnum et injuria or legal injury.
To warrant the recovery of damages, there
must be:
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
1. Right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by
the defendant
2. Damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom
Injury v. Damage v. Damages [Custodio v.
CA, supra]
• Injury: The illegal invasion of a legal right
(i.e., legal injury)
• Damage: The loss, hurt, or harm which
results from the injury
• Damages: The compensation awarded for
the damage suffered
Distinguished from Damnum Absque
Injuria
If a person sustains actual damage (harm or
loss to his person or property) that is not
considered by law as an injury (i.e., legal
injury), such damage is regarded as damnum
absque injuria. [Custodio v. CA, G.R. No.
116100 (1996)]
The proper exercise of a lawful right cannot
constitute a legal wrong for which an action will
lie, although the act may result in damage to
another, for no legal right has been invaded.
[Custodio v. CA, supra]
There can be damage without injury in those
instances in which the loss or harm was not the
result of a violation of a legal duty. In such
cases, the consequences must be borne by the
injured person alone.
2. Elements of right
The legal rights of each member of society
constitute the measure of the corresponding
legal duties, mainly negative in character,
which the existence of those rights imposes
upon all other members of society. The breach
of these general duties whether due to willful
intent or to mere inattention gives rise to an
obligation to indemnify the injured party.
[Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No.
12191 (1918)]
Page 469 of 532
CIVIL LAW
3. Violation of right or legal
injury
Under Articles 19 to 21 of the Civil Code, an act
which causes injury to another may be made
the basis for an award of damages.
The elements of an abuse of right under Article
19 are the following: (1) There is a legal right or
duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for
the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another. Article 20 speaks of the 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 his legal right or
duty, causes damage to another, shall
indemnify his victim for injuries suffered
thereby.
Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores,
and has the following elements: 1) There is an
act which is legal; 2) but which is contrary to
morals, good custom, public order, or public
policy; 3) and it is done with intent to injure.
[Albenson v. CA, G.R. No. 88694 (1993)]
4. Classes of injury
Legal Injury
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, and 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. [Custodio v. CA,
supra]
Damnum absque injuria
Under this principle, the legitimate exercise of
a person's rights, even if it causes loss to
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
another, does not automatically result in an
actionable injury. The law does not prescribe a
remedy for the loss. This principle does not,
however, apply when there is an abuse of a
person's right, or when the exercise of this right
is suspended or extinguished pursuant to a
court order. Indeed, in the availment of one's
rights, one must act with justice, give their due,
and observe honesty and good faith. [Amonoy
v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 140420 (2001)].
The proper exercise of a lawful right cannot
constitute a legal wrong for which an action will
lie, although the act may result in damage to
another, for no legal right has been invaded.
One may use any lawful means to accomplish
a lawful purpose and though the means
adopted may cause damage to another, no
cause of action arises in the latter's favor. An
injury or damage occasioned thereby is
damnum absque injuria. The courts can give
no redress for hardship to an individual
resulting from action reasonably calculated to
achieve a lawful means. [Custodio v. CA,
supra]
F. INTENTIONAL TORTS
1. General
Concept
Intentional torts include conduct where the
actor desires to cause the consequences of his
act or believes the consequences are
substantially certain to result from it [Aquino].
[See also B. Classification of Torts.]
Classes
1. Adopted from American
jurisprudence (Articles 26, 32, and
1314, CC)
2. Taken from the codes of civil law
jurisdictions (Articles 19, 20, 21, 23,
27, and 28, CC)
Page 470 of 532
CIVIL LAW
2. Interference with rights to
persons and property
a. Abuse of right
Art. 19, CC. 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.
Elements [Albenson v. CA, G.R. No. 88694
(1993)]:
1. There is a legal right or duty;
2. Which is exercised in bad faith;
3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another.
[See A.1. Abuse of Right]
b. Breach of statutory duty
Art. 20, CC. Every person who, contrary to
law, willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
Violation of a statutory duty is negligence
[Garcia v. Salvador, G.R. No. 168512 (2007)].
Requirements [Carpio, Antonio T., Intentional
Torts in Philippine Law, 47 PHIL L. J. 649, 651-
662 (1972)]:
1. Plaintiff must establish that he belongs
to the class of persons sought to be
protected by the statute; and
2. There must be an invasion of a
particular interest the law seeks to
protect.
With the exception of laws which especially
grant civil indemnity for damages resulting
from breach thereof, Art. 20 applies to all
appropriate laws, whether criminal or
otherwise.
[See A.4. Acts Contrary to Law.]
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
c. Contra bonus mores
Art. 21, CC. Any person who willfully causes
loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.
Elements [Albenson v. CA, supra]
1. There is an act which is legal;
2. But which is contrary to morals, good
custom, public order, or public policy;
and
3. It is done with intent to injure.
Examples of acts contra bonus mores
• Breach of Promise to Marry and Moral
seduction
• Malicious prosecution
• Public humiliation
• Oppressive dismissal
[See A.5. Acts contrary to morals]
d. Damage to property
Art. 23, CC. Even when an act or event
causing damage to another's property was
not due to the fault or negligence of the
defendant, the latter shall be liable for
indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited.
This article is based on equity. An involuntary
act, because of its character, cannot generally
create an obligation; but when by such act its
author has been enriched, it is only just that he
should indemnify for the damages caused, to
the extent of his enrichment. The indemnity
does not include unrealized profits of the
injured party, because defendant’s enrichment
is the limit of his liability. The plaintiff has the
burden of proving the extent of the benefit or
enrichment of the defendant. [Tolentino]
Page 471 of 532
CIVIL LAW
e. Rights under Art. 26, CC
Art. 26, CC. 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.
Note: The enumeration under Art. 26 is merely
illustrative. It extends to “similar acts,”
regardless of whether they constitute a
criminal·offense or not. Thus, the prohibition in
No. 1 is not limited to invasion of the privacy of
residence; encroachment on one’s personal
privacy is included.
f. Right to personal dignity
Violation of the right to personal dignity is
analogous to the American law concept of
defamation. Defamation is an invasion of a
person’s right to enjoy a reputation and good
name unimpaired by false attacks which tend
to diminish the esteem in which a person is
held by men whose standard of opinion the
court can properly recognize. The reputation
that is protected is the opinion of others
[Carpio, Antonio T., Intentional Torts in
Philippine Law, supra].
Is malice required?
a. Under the Revised Penal Code: malice
is required as an element of
defamation.
b. As a tort action under Art. 26, CC:
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
i. General rule: malice on the
part of the defendant need not
be proved by the plaintiff.
ii. Exception: malice or ill will
remain important where the
exercise of a qualified privilege
is in question.
g. Right to personal security
A violation of the right to personal security is
identical with the American intentional torts of
battery and assault.
Battery is the actual and willful infliction of
any unlawful or unauthorized violence on the
person of another, irrespective of its degree.
The interest protected by this action is the
freedom from intentional and unpermitted
contacts with the plaintiff’s person. The term
“person” includes any part of the body, or
anything attached to it and practically identified
with it. Accordingly, the slightest contact with
the plaintiff's clothes or anything attached to his
person constitutes battery. No harm or actual
damage of any kind is required.
Assault is the intentional, unlawful offer of
physical injury to another by force unlawfully
directed toward the person of another, under
such circumstances as to create a well-
founded fear of imminent battery, coupled with
the apparent present ability to effectuate the
attempt if not prevented. The interest protected
by this action is the freedom from
apprehension of a harmful or offensive
contact with the person, as distinguished from
the contact itself. No actual contact is
necessary, and the plaintiff is protected against
a purely mental disturbance of his personal
integrity.
The defendant must have intended to
interfere with the plaintiff's personal integrity to
hold him liable for assault. In short, he must
have intended to bring about an assault or a
battery. Assault, therefore, cannot be
committed through negligence. But the intent
need not be to inflict physical harm, it being
sufficient that there is an intent to arouse
Page 472 of 532
CIVIL LAW
apprehension [Carpio, Antonio T., Intentional
Torts in Philippine Law, supra].
h. Right to privacy
The right of privacy has been concisely defined
as “the right to be let alone.” The
interference of the right, to be actionable, must
be serious and outrageous, or beyond the
limits of common ideas of decent conduct.
Invasion of the right of privacy involves four
distinct types of tort:
1. intrusion upon the plaintiff's physical
and mental solitude;
2. public disclosure of private facts;
3. placing the plaintiff in false light in the
public eye; and
4. the commercial appropriation of the
plaintiff’s name or likeness.
Note: The right of privacy does not prohibit the
publication of materials which are of legitimate
public or general interest.
It has been frequently held that those who
unwillingly court public attention become
reluctant public figures and “until they have
reverted to the lawful and unexciting life led by
the great bulk of the community, they are
subject to the privileges which publishers have
to satisfy the curiosity of the public as to their
leaders, heroes, villains and victims.” [Carpio,
Antonio T., Intentional Torts in Philippine Law,
supra].
i. Right to peace of mind
Violation of the right to peace of mind under Art.
26 is akin to the American tort of intentional
infliction of mental distress (physical illness
suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the
offensive words or act). However, the view that
physical illness is immaterial in infliction of
mental distress appears to be applicable in this
jurisdiction since Art. 26 itself creates a cause
of action for violation of the right to “peace of
mind.” Violation of the right in itself constitutes
a legal injury sufficient to support the action
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
[Carpio, Antonio T., Intentional Torts in
Philippine Law, supra].
j. Dereliction of duty
Art. 27, CC. Any person suffering material or
moral loss because a public servant or
employee refuses or neglects, without just
cause, to perform his official duty may file an
action for damages and other relief against
the latter, without prejudice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may be
taken.
This applies only to acts of nonfeasance or the
nonperformance of some acts which a person
is obliged or has responsibility to perform. The
duty of the public servant must be ministerial in
character. If the duty is discretionary, he is not
liable unless he acted in a notoriously arbitrary
manner.
The defense of good faith is not available
because an officer is under constant obligation
to discharge the duties of his office, and it is not
necessary to show that his failure to act was
due to malice or willfulness.
Requisites: [Amaro v. Sumanguit, G.R. No. L-
14986 (1962)]
1. Defendant is a public officer charged
with a performance of a duty in favor of
the plaintiff;
2. He refused or neglected without just
cause to perform the duty;
3. Plaintiff sustained material or moral
loss as a consequence of such non-
performance;
4. The amount of such damages, if
material.
k. Violation of civil and political rights
Art. 32, CC. Any public officer or employee,
or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in
any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable to
the latter for damages:
Page 473 of 532
CIVIL LAW
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to
maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal
detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property
without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when
private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the
laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person,
house, papers, and effects against
unreasonable
searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the
same;
(11) The privacy of communication and
correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of
associations or societies for purposes not
contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable
assembly to petition the Government for
redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be a free from involuntary
servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against
excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to
have a speedy and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a
witness against one's self, or from being
forced to
confess guilt, or from being induced by a
promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person
confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel
and unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

statute which has not been judicially 3. Interference with relations

declared unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts. An interference with the continuance of
unimpaired interests founded upon the relation
In any of the cases referred to in this article, in which the plaintiff stands toward one or more
whether or not the defendant's act or third persons [Prosser and Keeton].
omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved a. Family relations
party has a right to commence an entirely
separate and distinct civil action for
Art. 26, CC. Every person shall respect the
damages, and for other relief. Such civil
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
action shall proceed independently of any
mind of his neighbors and other persons.
criminal prosecution (if the latter be
The following and similar acts, though they
instituted), and may be proved by a
may not constitute a criminal offense, shall
preponderance of evidence.
produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief: x x x
The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the
adjudicated.
private life or family relations of
another; x x x
The responsibility herein set forth is not
demandable from a judge unless his act or
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal 1. Husband and wife
Code or other penal statute.
The law expressly recognizes the right of either
spouse to sue the other without any limitations
Article 32 speaks of an officer or employee or
as to the subject matter of litigation. Litigations
person “directly or indirectly” responsible
between members of the same family are
for the violation of the constitutional rights and
expressly allowed by the Code as long as
liberties of another. Thus, it is not the actor
earnest efforts towards a compromise have
alone (i.e., the one directly responsible) who
been made. Moreover, the Code defines family
must answer for damages under Article 32; the
relations as including those between husband
person indirectly responsible has also to
and wife. It is therefore our belief that in this
answer for the damages or injury caused to the
jurisdiction, a personal tort action, like battery,
aggrieved party. Article 32 makes the persons
can be maintained by a wife against her
who are directly, as well as indirectly,
husband, or vice versa [Carpio, Antonio T.,
responsible for the transgression, joint
Intentional Torts in Philippine Law, supra].
tortfeasors [MHP Garments v. CA, G.R. No.
86720 (1994)].
2. Interferences by third persons
It is not necessary that the defendant under
The right to family relations includes the right to
Article 32 should have acted with malice or bad
consortium and to recover damages in case of
faith, otherwise, it would defeat its main
breach thereof. A spouse’s interest in his
purpose, which is the effective protection of
relationship with the other spouse is known as
individual rights. It suffices that there is a
consortium. The gist of a husband’s cause of
violation of the constitutional right of the plaintiff
action for loss of his wife’s consortium is a loss
[Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, G.R. No. 141309
sustained by him and not the damage
(2007)].
sustained by her [Carpio, Antonio T.,
Intentional Torts in Philippine Law, supra].

Page 474 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Forms of interference
1. Adultery with the wife: the husband may
maintain an action not only where the
intercourse is the result of rape, but also
where the wife consents to it, or where she
herself seduces the defendant.
2. Alienation of affection: interference with
the wife’s affection and mental attitude
toward the husband. In the same manner,
the wife has a cause of action for the
alienation of her husband’s affection. The
attempt to alienate must be successful to
be actionable. Affirmative action on the part
of the defendant is required in order that he
may be liable for interference with the
marriage relation. Although the defendant
need not be motivated by spite or ill will
toward the plaintiff, the tort must
nevertheless be an intentional one,
directed at the relation itself.
a. Requisites:
i. that the defendant acted for the
purpose of effecting the relation;
and
ii. that he was a substantial factor in
causing the alienation.
b. Elements:
i. Wrongful conduct of the
defendant: intentional and
malicious enticing of a spouse
away from the other spouse
ii. Loss of affection or consortium
iii. Causal connection between such
conduct and loss
c. Can a meddling mother-in-law be
liable for alienation of affection? No.
Parents enjoy a qualified privilege to
interest themselves in the marital
affairs of their child. “An action for
alienation of affections against the
parents of one consort does not lie in
the absence of proof of malice or
unworthy motives on their part”
[Tenchavez v. Escano, G.R. No. L-
19671(1965)].
d. Liability of Parents, Guardians or
Kin. The law distinguishes between the
right of a parent to interest himself in
the marital affairs of his child and the
absence of rights in a stranger to
intermeddle in such affairs.
Page 475 of 532
CIVIL LAW
i. Such distinction between the
liability of parents and that of
strangers is only with regard to
what will justify interference.
ii. A parent is liable for alienation
of affections resulting from his
own malicious conduct, as where
he wrongfully entices his son or
daughter to leave his or her
spouse, but he is not liable
unless he acts maliciously,
without justification and from
unworthy motives.
iii. He is not liable where he acts
and advises his child in good
faith with respect to his child's
marital relations in the interest
of his child as he sees it…
iv. He may in good faith take his
child into his home and afford him
or her protection and support, so
long as he has not maliciously
enticed his child away, or does
not maliciously entice or cause
him or her to stay away from his
or her spouse. This rule has more
frequently been applied in the
case of advice given to a married
daughter, but it is equally
applicable in the case of advice
given to a son. [Tenchavez v.
Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671
(1965)].
3. Parent and child
Nowhere in the law is there a prohibition
against a child suing the parent. A child can
bring a tort action for injuries inflicted on him by
the parent through excessive punishment.
By parity of reasoning, a parent can also
institute a personal tort action against the child
under Art. 26, like an action for assault or
battery. There is no law which prohibits a
parent from suing his own child on a personal
tort [Carpio, Antonio T., Intentional Torts in
Philippine Law, supra].
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
4. Enticement
Under Art. 26, a parent may institute a tort
action against a person who entices a child
away from home. The right to family relations
is quite broad, and includes within its embrace
the right of parents to the custody of the child.
Hence, intruding upon the parents’ right to the
child's custody is an actionable tort under Art.
26.
Can a child sue his mother’s paramour for
enticing her to leave the conjugal home
under Art. 26? Yes. The child can sue on the
basis of interference with family relations.
Family relations include those between
ascendants and descendants. Moreover, a
child has a right to an undisturbed family life.
He has an interest in the family honor and
reputation for after all he is part of the family
and he will carry the family honor and
reputation as he grows up. When the mother is
enticed away from the family home, the child is
deprived of the right to be educated by the
parent, which includes the moral and spiritual
upbringing of the child, such as the guidance of
his conscience, the development of family
affection and formation of his character
[Carpio, Antonio T., Intentional Torts in
Philippine Law, supra].
b. Social relations
Art. 26, CC. 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: x x x
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be
alienated from his friends; x x x
The right to social relations embodied in Art. 26
imposes liability for intriguing to cause another
to be alienated from his friends. The word
intrigue implies malice or ill will, coupled with
some scheme or secret plot to bring about the
desired purpose, that is, to alienate one from
Page 476 of 532
CIVIL LAW
his friends [Carpio, Antonio T., Intentional Torts
in Philippine Law, supra].
c. Economic relations
1. Interference with contractual relations
Art. 1314, CC. Any person who induces
another to violate his contract with another
person shall be liable for damages to the
other contracting party.
Elements of tort interference [So Ping Bun v.
CA, G.R. No. 120554 (1999)]:
1. Existence of a valid contract
2. Knowledge on the part of the third
person of the existence of contract; and
3. Interference of the third person is
without legal justification or excuse.
Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and
advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill
and credit. He has no right to be protected
against competition; but he has a right to be
free from malicious and wanton interference,
disturbance or annoyance. If disturbance or
loss comes as a result of competition, or the
exercise of like rights by others, it is damnum
absque injuria, unless some superior right by
contract or otherwise is interfered with. Thus, a
plaintiff loses his cause of action if the
defendant provides a sufficient justification for
such interference, which must be an equal or
superior right in themselves. The defendant
may not legally excuse himself on the ground
that he acted on a wrong understanding of his
own rights, or without malice, or bona fide, or
in the best interests of himself [Gilchrist v.
Cuddy, G.R. No. 9356 (1915)].
Bad faith/Malice is required to make the
defendant liable for damages in cases of
tortuous interference [So Ping Bun v. CA,
supra].
2. Unfair Competition
Art. 28, CC. Unfair competition in
agricultural, commercial or industrial
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
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.
In order to qualify the competition as “unfair,” it
must have two characteristics [Willaware
Products v. Jesichris Manufacturing, G.R. No.
195549 (2014)].
1. It must involve an injury to a competitor or
trade rival; and
2. It must involve acts which are
characterized as “contrary to good
conscience,” or “shocking to judicial
sensibilities,” or otherwise unlawful. In the
language of our law, these include force,
intimidation, deceit, machination or any
other unjust, oppressive or high-handed
method.
When a person starts an opposing place of
business, not for the sake of profit to himself,
but regardless of loss and for the sole purpose
of driving his competitor out of business so that
later on he can take advantage of the effects of
his malevolent purpose, he is guilty of wanton
wrong [Willaware Products v. Jesichris
Manufacturing, supra].
G. NEGLIGENCE
1. Concept
Art. 1173, CC. The fault or negligence of the
obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of
the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time
and of the place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and
2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the
diligence which is to be observed in the
Page 477 of 532
CIVIL LAW
performance, that which is expected of a
good father of a family shall be required.
Negligence
It is the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do [Layugan v. IAC,
G.R. No. 73998 (1988)].
To determine whether or not a person has been
negligent requires determining 2 things:
1) the diligence required of the actor
under the circumstances, and
2) whether the actor has performed the
diligence required.
Failing the second requisite would lead to the
conclusion that one has been negligent.
By jumping into the sea, the employee failed to
exercise even slight care and diligence and
displayed a reckless disregard of the safety of
his person. His death was caused by his
notorious negligence. Notorious negligence
has been held to be tantamount to gross
negligence which is want of even slight care
and diligence [Ameda v. Rio, G.R. No. L-6870
(1954)].
2. Good father of a family or
reasonably prudent person
Pursuant to Art. 1173, the diligence of a good
father of a family is the standard of conduct if
the law or contract does not provide otherwise.
Test to determine the existence of
negligence: Did the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act use that reasonable care
and caution which an ordinarily prudent man
would have used in the same situation? If not,
then he is negligent. Negligence in a given
case is not determined by reference to the
personal judgment of the actor in the situation
before him, but is determined in the light of
human experience and the facts involved in the
particular case. Conduct is said to be negligent
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
when a prudent man in the position of the
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect
harmful to another was sufficiently probable to
warrant his foregoing the conduct or guarding
against its consequences [Picart v. Smith, G.R.
No. L-12219 (1918)].
3. Standard of care; emergency
rule
a. Standard of care needed in specific
circumstances
Operators of Motor Vehicles
In Relation to Cyclists
Because of the inherent differences between
motorists and cyclists, the former being
capable of greater speed and destruction,
operators of motor vehicles have a higher
standard in his duty of care [Anonuevo v. CA,
G.R. No. 130003 (2004)].
Banks
The law imposes on banks high standards in
view of the fiduciary nature of banking. Section
2 of Republic Act No. 8791 (R.A. 8791), which
took effect on 13 June 2000, declares that the
State recognizes the ‘fiduciary nature of
banking that requires high standards of
integrity and performance.’ 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 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
[Consolidated Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 138569
(2003)].
Experts (In General)
Those who undertake any work calling for
special skills are required not only to exercise
reasonable care in what they do but also
possess a standard minimum of special
knowledge and ability. In all employments
where peculiar skill is requisite, one who offers
his services is understood as holding himself
out to the public as possessing the degree of
skill commonly possessed by others in the
Page 478 of 532
CIVIL LAW
same employment [Far Eastern Shipping v.
CA, G.R. No. 130068 (1998)].
When a person holds himself out as being
competent to do things requiring professional
skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he
fails to exhibit the care and skill of one
ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he
attempts to do [Culion v. Philippine Motors,
G.R. No 32611 (1930)].
Doctors
Whether or not a physician has committed an
‘inexcusable lack of precaution’ in the
treatment of his patient is to be determined
according to the standard of care observed
by other members of the profession in good
standing under similar circumstances
bearing in mind the advanced state of the
profession at the time of treatment of present
state of medical science. It is in this aspect of
medical malpractice that expert testimony is
essential to establish not only the standard of
care of the profession but also that the
physician’s conduct in the treatment and care
falls below such standard [Cruz v. CA, GR. No.
122445 (1997)].
Although resident physicians are subject to the
same standard of care applicable to attending
physicians, a finding of negligence should also
depend on several competing factors, among
them, the resident physician’s authority to
make his or her own diagnosis, the degree of
supervision of the attending physician over him
or her, and the shared responsibility between
him or her and the attending physicians
[Casumpang v. Cortejo, G.R. Nos. 171127,
171217 & 17122 (2015)].
Pharmacists
The profession of pharmacy, it has been said
again and again, is one demanding care and
skill. Even under the first conservative
expression, “ordinary care” with reference to
the business of a druggist…must be held to
signify “the highest practicable degree of
prudence, thoughtfulness, and vigilance, and
most exact and reliable safeguards consistent
with the reasonable conduct of the business in
order that human life may not constantly be
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
exposed to the danger flowing from the
substitution of deadly poisons for harmless
medicine” [US v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-12858
(1918)].
Mistake is negligence and care is no defense
[Mercury Drug v. de Leon, G.R. No. 165622
(2008)].
Possessors of Extremely Dangerous
Instrumentalities
[A] higher degree of care is required of
someone who has in his possession or under
his control an instrumentality extremely
dangerous in character, such as dangerous
weapons or substances. Such person in
possession or control of dangerous
instrumentalities has the duty to take
exceptional precautions to prevent any injury
being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs
of life or business which involve little or no risk,
a business dealing with dangerous weapons
requires the exercise of a higher degree of care
[Pacis v. Morales, G.R. No. 169467 (2010)].
Children
Take into account the specific characteristic of
the child in question
The conduct of an infant of tender years is not
to be judged by the same rule, which governs
that of an adult. …The care and caution
required of a child is according to his maturity
and capacity only, and this is to be determined
in each case by the circumstances of the case
[Taylor v. Manila Railroad, G.R. No. 4977
(1910)].
“Age brackets” standard
No contributory negligence can be imputed to
children below 9 years old [Jarco Marketing v.
CA, G.R. No. 129792 (1999)].
Measure the acts of the child against “average
conduct of persons his age and experience”
The degree of care required to be exercised
must vary with the capacity of the person
endangered to care for himself. …The
standard of conduct to which a child must
conform for his own protection is that degree of
care ordinarily exercised by children of the
same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge
Page 479 of 532
CIVIL LAW
and experience under the same or similar
circumstances [Ylarde v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-
33722 (1988)].
b. Emergency rule
An individual who suddenly finds himself in a
situation of danger and is required to act
without much time to consider the best means
that may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to
undertake what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to be a better solution,
unless the emergency was brought by his own
negligence [Gan v. CA, GR. No. 44264 (1988)].
4. Unreasonable risk of harm
Negligence, as it is commonly understood, is a
conduct that creates an undue risk of harm to
others. [Valenzuela v. CA, 253 SCRA 303
(1996)].
However, in negligence, risk means a danger
which is apparent, or should be apparent, to
one in the position of the actor. [Prosser and
Keeton, pp. 169-170]. Such type of risk is
unreasonable risk. If such unreasonable risk
results in injury to the plaintiff, the latter can
recover from the defendant. [Phoenix
Construction vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-65295
(1987)].
5. Evidence
Rule 131. Sec. 1, ROC. Burden of proof. —
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense
by the amount of evidence required by law.
Rule 131. Sec. 3, ROC. Disputable
presumptions. — The following
presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence: x x x
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his
concerns; x x x
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Rule 133. Sec. 1, ROC. Preponderance of
evidence, how determined. — In civil cases,
the party having burden of proof must
establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence. x x x
General rule
In accordance with the fundamental principle of
proof that the burden thereof is upon the
plaintiff, it is the duty of him who shall claim
damages to establish their existence.
Negligence is not presumed, but must be
proven by him who alleges it. [Taylor v. Manila
Electric Railroad, G.R. No. L-4977 (1910),
citing Scaevola, Jurisprudencia del Codigo
Civil, vol. 6, pp. 551, 552].
It is presumed that a person takes ordinary
care of his concerns [Rule 131, Sec. 3(d),
Rules of Court].
The quantum of proof required is a
preponderance of evidence [Rule 133, Sec.1,
Rules of Court].
Exception
There are exceptional cases when the rules or
the laws provide for cases when negligence is
presumed [See G.6. Presumption of
Negligence].
6. Presumption of negligence
a. In motor vehicle mishaps
1. Liability of the owner
Art. 2184, CC. 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. x x x
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
provisions of Article 2180 are applicable.
Page 480 of 532
CIVIL LAW
Art. 2186, CC. Every owner of a motor
vehicle shall file with the proper government
office a bond executed by a government-
controlled corporation or office, to answer for
damages to third persons. The amount of the
bond and other terms shall be fixed by the
competent public official.
The owner is solidarily liable with the driver for
motor vehicle mishaps when:
a. The owner was inside the vehicle at
the time; and
b. The owner could have, by the use of
due diligence, prevented the misfortune.
If the owner was not inside the vehicle, he may
be held liable under Art. 2180.
The presumption is against the owner of the
motor vehicle. He has the burden of proving
due diligence. Thus, once a driver is proven
negligent in causing damage, the law
presumes the vehicle owner equally negligent
and imposes upon the latter the burden of
proving proper selection and supervision of the
employee as a defense [Carticiano v. Nuval,
G.R. No. 138054 (2000), citing Sangco,
Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, Vol. II,
1994 ed., pp. 555-556].
The registered owner/operator of a passenger
vehicle is jointly and severally liable with the
driver for damages incurred by passengers or
third persons as a consequence of injuries or
death sustained in the operation of said
vehicles. Regardless of who the actual owner
of a vehicle is, the operator of record continues
to be the operator of the vehicle as regards the
public and third persons and as such is directly
and primarily responsible for the
consequences incident to its operation, so that
in contemplation of law, such owner/operator of
record is the employer of the driver, the actual
operator and employer being considered
merely as his agent [Vargas v. Langcay, G.R.
No. 17459 (1962)].
The registered owner of a motor vehicle is
primarily liable for the damage or injury caused
to another, but he has a right to be indemnified
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
by the real owner of the amount he was
required to pay. This rule applies both to private
and to common carriers with respect to their
passengers [Tamayo v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-
12634 (1959)].
The law does not require that a person must
possess a certain measure of skill or
proficiency either in the mechanics of driving or
in the observance of traffic rules before he may
own a motor vehicle. The test of his negligence,
within the meaning of Article 2184, is his
omission to do that which the evidence of his
own senses tells him he should do in order to
avoid the accident. And as far as perception is
concerned, absent a minimum level imposed
by law, a maneuver that appears to be fraught
with danger to one passenger may appear to
be entirely safe and commonplace to another.
Were the law to require a uniform standard of
perceptiveness, employment of professional
drivers by car owners who, by their very
inadequacies, have real need of drivers’
services, would be effectively proscribed
[Caedo v. Yu Khe Tai, G.R. No. L-20392
(1968)].
The owner of the motor vehicle is not liable for
the misfortune unless the negligent acts of the
driver are continued for such a length of time
as to give the owner a reasonable opportunity
to observe them and to direct his driver to
desist therefrom. The act complained of must
be continued in the presence of the owner for
such a length of time that the owner, by his
acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own
[Chapman v. Underwood, G.R. No. L-9010
(1914)].
2. Liability of the driver
Art. 2184, CC. x x x It is disputably presumed
that a driver was negligent, if he had been
found guilty of reckless driving or violating
traffic regulations at least twice within the
next preceding two months.
Page 481 of 532
CIVIL LAW
Art. 2185, CC. Unless there is proof to the
contrary, it is presumed that a person driving
a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the
time of the mishap, he was violating any
traffic regulation.
Art. 2184 establishes a presumption of
negligence on the part of the driver based on
previous violations of traffic regulations.
Art. 2185 establishes a presumption of
negligence on the basis of simultaneous
violations.
Under Article 2185, a legal presumption of
negligence arises if at the time of the mishap,
a person was violating any traffic regulation.
However, a causal connection must exist
between the injury received and the violation of
the traffic regulation. It must be proven that the
violation of the traffic regulation was the
proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it
substantially contributed thereto [Tison v. Sps.
Tomasin, G.R. No. 173180 (2011)].
Despite the presumption of negligence arising
from the traffic regulation violation, the claimant
must still prove that such negligence was the
proximate cause in order to successfully claim
for damages [Sanitary Steam v. CA, G.R. No.
119092 (1998)].
Article 2185 was not formulated to compel or
ensure obeisance by all to traffic rules and
regulations. It does not apply to non-motorized
vehicles, in recognition of the unequal footing
of standards applicable to motor vehicles as
opposed to other types of vehicles [Añonuevo
v. CA, supra].
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
b. Possession of dangerous
weapons or substances
Art. 2188, CC. There is prima facie
presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant if the death or injury results from
his possession of dangerous weapons or
substances, such as firearms and poison,
except when the possession or use thereof
is indispensable in his occupation or
business.
c. Common carriers
Art. 1734, CC. Common carriers are
responsible for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods, unless the same
is due to any of the following causes only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or
other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether
international or civil;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of
the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in
the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public
authority.
Art. 1735, CC. In all cases other than those
mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
preceding article, if the goods are lost,
destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers
are presumed to have been at fault or to
have acted negligently, unless they prove
that they observed extraordinary diligence as
required in Article 1733.
Art. 1752, CC. Even when there is an
agreement limiting the liability of the
common carrier in the vigilance over the
goods, the common carrier is disputably
presumed to have been negligent in case of
their loss, destruction or deterioration.
Page 482 of 532
CIVIL LAW
d. Res ipsa loquitur
Definition
Literally, res ipsa loquitur means “the thing
speaks for itself” [Professional Services, Inc. v.
Agana, G.R. No. 126297(2007)].
Statement of the Rule
Where the thing which causes injury is shown
to be under the management of the defendant
(or his servants), and the accident is such as in
the ordinary course of things does not happen
if those who have the management (or control)
used proper care, it affords reasonable
evidence, in the absence of an explanation by
the defendant, that the accident arose from (or
was caused by the defendants) want of care
[Tan v. JAM Transit, G.R. No. 183198 (2009)].
Where the thing which caused the injury,
without the fault of the injured, is under the
exclusive control of the defendant and the
injury is such that it should not have occurred if
he, having such control used proper care, it
affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation that the injury arose from the
defendant’s want of care, and the burden of
proof is shifted to him to establish that he has
observed due care and diligence [Professional
Services v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297(2007)].
Elements [Ramos v. CA, G.R. No. 124354
(1999)]
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily
does not occur in the absence of
someone’s negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the
exclusive control of the defendant or
defendants; and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct,
which would make the plaintiff responsible,
is eliminated.
Note: In Professional Services v. Agana, supra,
the Court added “the absence of explanation
by the defendant” as a fourth element.
1st element: Nature of the accident
As a matter of common knowledge and
experience, the very nature of certain types of
occurrences may justify an inference of
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
negligence on the part of the person who
controls the instrumentality causing the injury
in the absence of some explanation by the
defendant who is charged with negligence
[Ramos v. CA, supra].
2nd element: Control over the cause
Of the three elements, the fundamental
element is the “control of instrumentality”
which caused the damage. Such element of
control must be shown to be within the
dominion of the defendant [Ramos v. CA,
supra].
General rule: The instrumentality causing the
injury must be under the exclusive control of
the person sought liable.
Exception: “Control and management” is
sufficient [Professional Services v. Agana,
supra].
3rd element: No contribution to the injury
from the injured
It is not necessary that the plaintiff be
completely inactive, but merely that there be
evidence removing the inference of the
plaintiff’s own responsibility [Prosser and
Keeton, supra at 254].
Effect of direct evidence
Res ipsa loquitur can only be invoked when
under the circumstances involved, direct
evidence of negligence or direct cause of the
injury is absent and not readily available.
It has generally been held that the presumption
of inference arising from the doctrine cannot be
availed of, or is overcome, where plaintiff has
knowledge and testifies or presents evidence
as to the specific act of negligence which is the
cause of the injury complained of or where
there is direct evidence as to the precise cause
of the accident and all the facts and
circumstances attendant on the occurrence
clearly appear [Layugan v. IAC, G.R. No.
73998 (1988)]
However, notwithstanding the doctrine in
Layugan, it does not mean that res ipsa loquitur
can only be invoked in the complete absence
of other evidence. The rule allows the plaintiff
Page 483 of 532
CIVIL LAW
to present enough of the attending
circumstances to invoke the doctrine, “along
with the proof of the accident” [Ramos v. CA,
supra].
Nature of the rule
Res ipsa loquitur is in the nature of a
procedural rule, a rule of evidence and not a
rule of substantive law; thus, it does not create
or constitute an independent or separate
ground of liability. It is merely a mode of proof
or a mere procedural convenience. It is a rule
peculiar to the law of negligence that
recognizes that prima facie negligence may be
established without direct proof and furnishes
a substitute for specific proof of negligence and
relieves a plaintiff of the burden of producing
specific proof of negligence [Ramos v. CA,
supra].
Effect of the rule
Mere invocation and application of the doctrine
does not dispense with the requirement of
proof of negligence. It is simply a step in the
process of such proof, permitting the plaintiff to
present along with the proof of the accident,
enough of the attending circumstances to
invoke the doctrine, creating an inference or
presumption of negligence, and to thereby
place on the defendant the burden of going
forward with the proof [Ramos v. CA, supra].
Res Ipsa Loquitur vs. expert testimony in
medical negligence cases
It is apparent that medical negligence cases
are best proved by opinions of expert
witnesses belonging in the same general
neighborhood and in the same general line of
practice as defendant physician or surgeon
[Lucas v. Tuaño, G.R. No. 178763 (2009)].
Expert testimony is essential to establish the
standard of care of the profession and whether
or not the physician’s conduct in the treatment
and care falls below such standard. Inasmuch
as the causes of the injuries involved in
malpractice actions are determinable only in
the light of scientific knowledge, expert
testimony is usually necessary to support the
conclusion as to causation [Cruz v. CA, supra].
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
When the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed
by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical
testimony is dispensed with because the injury
itself provides the proof of negligence. The
reason is that the general rule on the necessity
of expert testimony applies only to such
matters clearly within the domain of medical
science, and not to matters that are within the
common knowledge of mankind which may be
testified to by anyone familiar with the facts
[Ramos v. CA, supra].
7. Defenses
a. Due Diligence to Prevent the
Damage under Art. 2180, CC.
Art. 2180, CC. 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.
xxx
(8) 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.
The presumption of negligence on the part of
the master or employer, either in the selection
of servant/employee or in the supervision,
when an injury is caused by the negligence of
a servant/employee may be rebutted if the
employer shows to the satisfaction of the court
that in the selection and supervision, he has
exercised the care and diligence of a good
father of a family [Ramos v. PEPSI, G.R. No.
L-22533 (1967)].
b. Acts of Public Officers
A public officer is not liable for damages which
a person may suffer arising from the just
performance of his official duties and within the
scope of his assigned tasks. An officer who
acts within his authority to administer the affairs
of the office which he/she heads is not liable for
damages that may have been caused to
another, as it would virtually be a charge
Page 484 of 532
CIVIL LAW
against the Republic, which is not amenable to
judgment for monetary claims without its
consent. However, a public officer is by law not
immune from damages in his/her personal
capacity for acts done in bad faith which, being
outside the scope of his authority, are no longer
protected by the mantle of immunity for official
actions. [Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, G.R. No.
141309 (2008)].
c. Authority of Law
Art. 5, CC. Acts executed against the
provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws
shall be void, except when the law itself
authorizes their validity.
Art. 11, RPC. The following do not incur any
criminal liability: xxx
(5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
xxx
(8) Any person who acts in obedience to an
order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
d. Damnum Absque Injuria
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.
Right to recover damages does not arise from
the mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses.
To warrant the recovery of damages, there
must be both a right of action for a legal wrong
inflicted by the defendant, and damage
resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. Wrong
without damage, or damage without wrong,
does not constitute a cause of action, since
damages are merely part of the remedy
allowed for the injury caused by a breach or
wrong [Custodio v. CA, G.R. No. 116100
(1996)].
One who made use of his own legal right does
no injury, thus, whatever damages are caused
to another should be borne solely by him under
the principle of damnum absque injuria. This
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
principle, however, does not apply when there
is an abuse in the exercise of a person’s right.
[Amonoy v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 140420 (2001)]
e. Plaintiff’s Negligence is the
Proximate Cause
Art. 2179, CC. When the plaintiff’s own
negligence was the proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages. x x x
This defense of plaintiff’s negligence as
proximate cause is absolute, for it bars
recovery on the part of the plaintiff. In Manila
Electric v. Remoquillo, supra, the Court did not
allow recovery by Magno, ruling that his death
was primarily caused by his own negligence
and in some measure by the too close
proximity of the “media agua” to the electric
wire.
If the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his own
carelessness contributed to the principal
occurrence, that is, to the accident, as one of
the determining causes thereof, he cannot
recover [Bernardo v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 9308
(1914)].
f. Contributory Negligence of the
Plaintiff
Art. 2179, CC. x x x 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.
Art. 2214, CC. In quasi-delicts, the
contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall
reduce the damages that he may recover.
Definition
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 which he is required to
conform for his own protection. There is
Page 485 of 532
CIVIL LAW
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 [NPC v. Heirs of Casionan, G.R. No.
165969 (2008)].
Contributory negligence does not defeat an
action if it can be shown that the defendant
might, by the exercise of reasonable care and
prudence, have avoided the consequences of
the injured party's negligence. Where the
plaintiff 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 a suitable
equivalent for his own imprudence [MH Rakes
v. Atlantic, G.R. No. L-1719 (1907)].
The defense of contributory negligence does
not apply in criminal cases committed through
reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege
the negligence of another to evade the effects
of his own negligence [Genobiagon v. CA, G.R.
No. 40452 (1989)].
g. Fortuitous Event
Art. 1174, CC. Except in cases expressly
specified by the law, or when it is otherwise
declared by stipulation, or when the nature of
the obligation requires the assumption of
risk, no person shall be responsible for those
events which, could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
Elements of caso fortuito [Juntilla v.
Fontanar, G.R. No. L-45637 (1985)]:
1. The cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of
the debtor to comply with his obligation,
must be independent of the human will;
2. It must be impossible to foresee the event
or if it can be foreseen, it must be
impossible to avoid;
3. The occurrence must be such as to render
it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner; and
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

4. The obligor must be free from any

participation in the aggravation of the
injury resulting to the creditor.
h. Plaintiff’s Assumption of
Risk/Volenti Non Fit Unjuria
The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (that to
which a person assents is not presumed in law
as injury) refers to self-inflicted injury or to the
consent to injury which precludes the recovery
of damages by one who has knowingly and
voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if
he is not negligent in doing so [Nikko Hotel v.
Reyes, G.R. No. 154259, (2005)].
Requisites [Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling, G.R.
No. 164749 (2017)]:
1. That the plaintiff had actual knowledge of
the danger;
2. That he understood and appreciated the
risk from the danger; and
3. That he voluntarily exposed himself to such
risk.
The doctrine of assumption of risk does not
apply in the ff. cases:
1. If an emergency is found to exist or if
the life or property of another is in
peril or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property [Ilocos Norte v.
CA, G.R. No. 53401 (1989)].
2. Even if respondent Reyes assumed the
risk of being asked to leave the party,
petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21
of the CC, were still under the
obligation to treat him fairly in order not
to expose him to unnecessary ridicule
and shame [Nikko Hotel v. Roberto
Reyes, supra].
However, when the action arises from or out
of any act, activity, or conduct of any public
officer involving the exercise of powers or
authority arising from Martial Law including
the arrest, detention and/or trial of the
plaintiff, the same must be brought within
one (1) year.
Art. 1150, CC. The time for prescription for
all kinds of actions, when there is no special
provision which ordains otherwise, shall be
counted from the day they may be brought.
Prescription periods:
" 4 years for quasi-delict
! 1 year for defamation [Art. 1147, CC]
It is clear that the prescriptive period must be
counted when the last element occurs or takes
place, the time of the commission of an act or
omission violative of the right of the plaintiff,
which is the time when the cause of action
arises. Thus, the prescription period begins
from the day the quasi-delict is committed
[Kramer v. CA, G.R. No. 83524 (1989)].
j. Waiver
Art. 6, CC. Rights may be waived, unless the
waiver is contrary to law, public order, public
policy, morals, or good customs or
prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law.
Art. 1171, CC. Responsibility arising from
fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any
waiver of an action for future fraud is void.

i. Prescription k. Emergency Rule or Sudden Peril

Art. 1146, CC. The following actions must be [See G.3.b. Emergency Rule.]
instituted within four years:

(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the

plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;

Page 486 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Who may recover

H. SPECIAL LIABILITY IN Although the article used the term “consumer”,
PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES such term includes a “user” and “purchaser” of
the injuriously defective food product or toilet
article. The person who may recover need not
1. In general; concept be the purchaser of the foodstuff or toilet
article.
While any person may be liable for a quasi-
delict or tort, the law has also identified specific
individuals as being liable for particular types of
3. Nuisance
injuries under certain conditions.
Art. 694, CC. A nuisance is any act,
omission, establishment, business,
2. Products liability; condition of property, or anything else which:
manufacturers or processors (1) Injures or endangers the health or
safety of others; or
Art. 2187, CC. Manufacturers and (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet (3) Shocks, defies or disregards
articles and similar goods shall be liable for decency or morality; or
death or injuries caused by any noxious or (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free
harmful substances used, although no passage of any public highway or street, or
contractual relation exists between them and any body of water; or
the consumers. (5) Hinders or impairs the use of
property.
Under the foregoing provision, liability is not
made to depend upon fault or negligence of the Definition of a Nuisance
manufacturer or processor. The provision A nuisance is that which unlawfully annoys or
likewise dispensed with any contractual does damage to another, or anything that
relation between the manufacturer and the works an injury, harm or prejudice to an
consumer, thereby clearly implying that liability individual or the public. The term “nuisance” is
is imposed by law as a matter of public policy. applied to that class of wrongs which arises
from the unreasonable, unwarrantable, or
Requisites of Liability unlawful use by a person of his own property,
1. Defendant is a manufacturer or possessor and which produces such material annoyance,
of foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles and inconvenience, discomfort or hurt, that the law
similar goods; will presume a consequent damage.
2. He used noxious or harmful substances in
the manufacture or processing of the NUISANCE NEGLIGENCE
foodstuff, drinks or toilet articles consumed Whether the
Whether it was
or used by the plaintiff; defendant’s use of
unreasonable for the
3. Plaintiff’s death or injury was caused by the his property was
defendant to act as he
product so consumed or used; and unreasonable as to
did in view of the
4. The damages sustained and claimed by the plaintiff, without
threatened danger or
the plaintiff and the amount thereof. regard to
harm to one in
foreseeability of
plaintiff’s position.
Burden of proof injury.
The burden of proof that the product was in a Liability is for the
Liability is based on
defective condition at the time it left the hands resulting injury to
a want of proper
of the manufacturer and particular seller is others regardless of
care
upon the injured plaintiff. the degree of care or

Page 487 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

skill exercised to at all times the free use by the public of the said
avoid such injury properties.
Principles ordinarily
apply where the Private
Principles ordinarily This nuisance is one which violates only private
cause of action is for
apply where the
continuing harm rights and produces damage to but one or a
cause of action is
caused by continuing few persons.
for harm resulting
or recurrent acts
from one act which
which cause Mixed
created an
discomfort or It may be a public nuisance because it violates
unreasonable risk
annoyance to plaintiff public rights to the injury of many persons, and
of injury.
in the use of his it may also be private in character in that it
property. produces special injury to private rights to any
extent beyond the injury to the public.
Art. 695, CC. Nuisance is either public or
private. A public nuisance affects a Art. 696, CC. Every successive owner or
community or neighborhood or any possessor of property who fails or refuses to
considerable number of persons, although abate a nuisance in that property started by
the extent of the annoyance, danger or a former owner or possessor is liable
damage upon individuals may be unequal. A therefor in the same manner as the one who
private nuisance is one that is not included created it.
in the foregoing definition.
Art. 697, CC. The abatement of a nuisance
Classification of Nuisances does not preclude the right of any person
injured to recover damages for its past
1. According to Nature existence.

Nuisance per se or at law Art. 699, CC. The remedies against a public
This is an act, occupation or structure which is nuisance are:
a nuisance at all times and under any (1) A prosecution under the Penal Code
circumstances, regardless of location or or any local ordinance; or
surroundings. Examples include gambling (2) A civil action; or
houses, houses of ill fame, etc. (3) Abatement, without judicial
proceedings.
Nuisance per accidens or in fact
This becomes a nuisance by reason of Criminal prosecution is only for a public
particular facts and circumstances surrounding nuisance, not a private one. Public
the otherwise harmless cause of the nuisance. nuisances are offenses against the State.

2. According to Scope of Injurious Effects
Public
This nuisance is a direct encroachment upon
public rights or property. It is the doing of or
failure to do something that injuriously affects
the safety, health or morals of the public, or
works some substantial annoyance,
inconvenience, or injury to the public. An
example would be a house constructed on a
public street or a river bed, since this obstructs
Art. 703, CC. A private person may file an
action on account of a public nuisance, if it is
specially injurious to himself.
An individual has no right of action against a
public nuisance. However, an individual who
has suffered some special damage different
from that sustained by the general public,
may maintain a suit in equity for an injunction
to abate it, or an action for damages which
he has sustained. If an individual has
suffered a particular harm, the action

Page 488 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
becomes a tort, in which case the nuisance
is treated as a private nuisance with respect
to such person.
Art. 704, CC. Any private person may abate
a public nuisance which is specially injurious
to him by removing, or if necessary, by
destroying the thing which constitutes the
same, without committing a breach of the
peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is
necessary:
(1) That demand be first made upon the
owner or possessor of the property to abate
the nuisance;
(2) That such demand has been
rejected;
(3) That the abatement be approved by
the district health officer and executed with
the assistance of the local police; and
(4) That the value of the destruction
does not exceed three thousand pesos.
Art. 705, CC. The remedies against a private
nuisance are:
(1) A civil action; or
(2) Abatement, without judicial
proceedings.
Art. 706, CC. Any person injured by a private
nuisance may abate it by removing, or if
necessary, by destroying the thing which
constitutes the nuisance, without committing
a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary
injury. However, it is indispensable that the
procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a
public nuisance by a private person be
followed.
Art. 707, CC. A private person or a public
official extrajudicially abating a nuisance
shall be liable for damages:
(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or
(2) If an alleged nuisance is later
declared by the courts to be not a real
nuisance.
Page 489 of 532
CIVIL LAW
b. Extrajudicial Abatement
The remedy of extrajudicial abatement is
available:
1. When there is a public nuisance; or
2. When there is a private nuisance, but the
destruction of the thing must not exceed
P3,000.
Requisite for the exercise of the right to
extrajudicially abate nuisances:
1. The right must be exercised only in cases
of urgent or extreme necessity, and if such
nuisance is especially injurious to him. The
summary abatement should be resorted to
within a reasonable time after knowledge of
the nuisance.
2. Demand to abate the nuisance must be
made on the owner of the property
originating the nuisance, and such demand
must have been rejected.
3. Notice of the intention to abate must be
given to the one causing the nuisance,
within a reasonable time.
4. The abatement must be approved by the
District Health Officer.
5. The local police must assist in the exercise
of the right to abate extrajudicially.
6. The means employed must be reasonable,
without causing any breach of peace or
unnecessary injury. The property must not
be destroyed, unless it is absolutely
necessary to do so.
c. Defenses to action on
nuisances
1. Public necessity
Private interest must yield to the public good.
The creation of a nuisance amounts to taking
of property; therefore, just compensation must
be made.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

2. Estoppel 4. Violation of constitutional

One who voluntarily places himself in a
situation whereby he suffers an injury will not rights; violation of civil
be heard to say that his damage is due to a liberties
nuisance maintained by another.
Persons who violate constitutional rights and
3. Non-existence of the nuisance civil liberties are liable for damages, regardless
of whether the act or omission which lead to
4. Impossibility of abatement impairment of such rights constitutes a criminal
offense.
PUBLIC PRIVATE
NUISANCE NUISANCE Art. 32, CC. Any public officer or employee,
Affects a or any private individual, who directly or
community or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in
neighborhood any manner impedes or impairs any of the
or any following rights and liberties of another
considerable person shall be liable to the latter for
Affects the
number of damages:
individual or
persons, 1. Freedom of religion
Definition a number of
although the 2. Freedom of speech
individuals
extent of the 3. Freedom to write for the press or to
only
annoyance, maintain a periodical publication
danger, or 4. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal
damage upon detention
individuals may 5. Freedom of suffrage
be unequal 6. The right against deprivation of
Criminal property without due process of law
prosecution, Civil action 7. The right to just compensation when
civil action (abatement, property is taken for public use
(abatement, damages, 8. The right to equal protection of the
Remedies
damages, injunction), laws
injunction), extrajudicial 9. The right to be secure in one’s
extrajudicial abatement person, house, papers and effects against
abatement unreasonable searches and seizures
City or 10. The liberty of abode and of changing
municipal the same
Who may mayor, private Any private 11. The right to privacy of
institute person (only if person communication and correspondence
the the nuisance is injured by 12. The right to become a member of
complaint especially the nuisance associations and societies for purposes not
injurious to contrary to law
him) 13. The right to take part in a peaceable
assembly and petition the government for
redress of grievances
14. The right to be free from involuntary
servitude in any form
15. The right of the accused against
excessive bail
16. The right of the accused to be heard
by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and the cause of the accusation

Page 490 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
against him, to have a speedy and public
trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, to
have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses on is behalf;
17. Freedom from being compelled to be
a witness against one’s self, or from being
forced to confess his guilt, or from being
induced by a promise of immunity or reward
to make such confession, except when the
person confessing becomes a State witness.
18. Freedom from excessive fines, or
cruel and unusual punishment, unless the
same is imposed or inflicted in accordance
with a statute which has not been judicially
declared unconstitutional;
19. Freedom of access to the courts
In any of the cases referred to in this article,
whether or not the defendant’s act or
omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an
entirely separate and distinct civil action for
damages, and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any
criminal prosecution (if the latter be
instituted) and may be proved by a
preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be
adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not
demandable from a judge unless his act or
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal
code or any other penal statute.
Art. 32, CC
Speaks of a particular specie of an “act” that
may give rise to an action for damages against
a public officer, and that is, a tort for impairment
of rights and liberties. [Vinzons-Chato v.
Fortune, supra]
Not only public officers but also private
individuals can incur civil liability for violation of
rights enumerated therein. Because the
provision speaks of an officer, employee or
person “directly or indirectly” responsible for
the violation of the constitutional rights and
liberties of another, it is not the actor alone who
Page 491 of 532
CIVIL LAW
must answer for damages under Article 32. It is
not even necessary that the defendant should
have acted with malice or bad faith, otherwise,
it would defeat its main purpose, which is the
effective protection of individual rights. [Silahis
v. Soluta, G.R. No. 163087 (2006)]
It is obvious that the purpose of Art. 32 is to
provide a sanction to the deeply cherished
rights and freedoms enshrined in the
Constitution.
Its message is clear; no man may seek to
violate those sacred rights with impunity. In
times of great upheaval or of social and political
stress, when the temptation is strongest to
yield. [Aberca, et al. v. Ver, et al., G.R. No.
69866(1988)].
5. Violation of rights committed
by public officers
Art. 34, CC. 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 criminal proceedings,
and a preponderance of evidence shall
suffice to support such action.
Art. 34 covers a situation where
a. There is danger to the life or property
of a person;
b. A member of a city or municipal police
force who is present in the scene
refused or failed to render aid or
protection to the person; and
c. Damages are caused whether to the
person and/or property of the victim.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Nature of liability
a. Of the police officer – Primary
b. City or municipality – Subsidiary
The defense of having observed the diligence
of a good father of a family to prevent the
damage is not available to the city/municipality.
6. Provinces, cities and
municipalities
Art. 2189, CC. Provinces, cities and
municipalities shall be liable for damages for
the death of, or injuries suffered by, any
person by reason of the defective condition
of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings,
and other public works under their control or
supervision.
It is not even necessary that the defective
roads or streets belong to the province, city or
municipality for liability to attach. The article
only requires that either control or supervision
be exercised over said street or road [Guilatco
v. Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516 (1989)].
7. Owner of motor vehicle
Art. 2184, CC. 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.
Art. 2180 (5), CC. 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.
Art. 2186, CC. Every owner of a motor
vehicle shall file with the proper government
Page 492 of 532
CIVIL LAW
office a bond executed by a government-
controlled corporation or office, to answer for
damages to third persons. The amount of the
bond and other terms shall be fixed by the
competent public official.
The owner is solidarily liable with the driver
for motor vehicle mishaps when:
a. The owner was IN the vehicle at the time,
AND
b. The owner could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the misfortune.
Note: If the owner was NOT inside the vehicle,
Art. 2180 applies.
The presumption is against the owner of the
motor vehicle. He has the burden of proving
due diligence. Thus, once a driver is proven
negligent in causing damage, the law
presumes the vehicle owner equally negligent
and imposes upon the latter the burden of
proving proper selection and supervision of
employee as a defense.
As held in Vargas v. Langcay [G.R. No. 17459
(1962)], “the registered owner/operator of a
passenger vehicle is jointly and severally liable
with the driver for damages incurred by
passengers or third persons as a consequence
of injuries or death sustained in the operation
of said vehicles. Regardless of who the actual
owner of a vehicle is, the operator of record
continues to be the operator of the vehicle as
regards the public and third persons and as
such is directly and primarily responsible for
the consequences incident to its operation, so
that in contemplation of law, such
owner/operator of record is the employer of the
driver, the actual operator and employer being
considered merely as his agent.”
The registered owner of a motor vehicle is
primarily liable for the damage or injury caused
to another, but he has a right to be indemnified
by the real owner of the amount he was
required to pay. This rule applies both to private
and to common carriers with respect to their
passengers [Tamayo v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-
12634 (1959)].
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

The law does not require that a person must driving/violatin

possess a certain measure of skill or g
proficiency either in the mechanics of driving or traffic
in the observance of traffic rules before he may violations at
own a motor vehicle. The test of his negligence, least twice
within the meaning of Article 2184, is his within
omission to do that which the evidence of his the next
own senses tells him he should do in order to preceding
avoid the accident. And as far as perception is 2 months
concerned, absent a minimum level imposed Due diligence
Good father
by law, a maneuver that appears to be fraught to
of a
with danger to one passenger may appear to prevent
be entirely safe and commonplace to another. family in
Defense mishap
employment
Were the law to require a uniform standard of (greatly
and
perceptiveness, employment of professional subjective)
supervision
drivers by car owners who, by their very
inadequacies, have real need of drivers' Solidary—The
services, would be effectively proscribed full
[Caedo v. Yu Khe Tai, G.R. No. L-20392 amount may
(1968)]. Primary—He be
may pursued
The owner of the motor vehicle is not liable for recover the against
the misfortune unless the negligent acts of the full him,
driver are continued for such a length of time Owner’s
amount from but he may
as to give the owner a reasonable opportunity liability
the only
to observe them and to direct his driver to driver, as per recover the pro
desist therefrom. The act complained of must Art. rata
be continued in the presence of the owner for 2181 share as to the
such a length of time that the owner, by his amount for
acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own which
[Chapman v. Underwood, G.R. No. L-9010 he is liable
(1914)].
8. Proprietor of building or
ART. 2180
ART. 2184 structure or thing
(5)
Need not
Relations Art. 2190, CC. The proprietor of a building or
Employer- establish
hip of structure is responsible for the damages
employee Employer-
Owner & resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it
employee
Driver should be due to the lack of necessary
relationship
Not required Required at the repairs.
Car
at the time of the
owner’s Art. 2191, CC. Proprietors shall also be
time of the mishap
presence responsible for damages caused:
mishap.
On owner’s On driver’s
Presumpt part, part, (1) By the explosion of machinery which
ion of when his when he has has not been taken care of with due
negligenc driver is been diligence, and the inflammation of explosive
e negligent found guilty of substances which have not been kept in a
reckless safe and adequate place;

Page 493 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be
harmful to persons or property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or
near highways or lanes, if not caused by
force majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals,
sewers or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions suitable to
the place.
Art. 2192, CC. 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.
Ownership of a building imposes on the
proprietor thereof the duty to maintain it in good
condition at all times to the end that it may not
collapse either totally or partially as to cause
damage or injury to another’s person or
property. This duty obtains whether the
building is leased or held in usufruct.
Considering, however, that the lessee or
usufructuary has direct and immediate control
of the building, the law imposes on him the duty
to notify the proprietor of such urgent or
extraordinary repairs. And where the
proprietor’s failure to make the necessary
repairs was due to the failure of the lessee or
usufructuary to notify him, the proprietor is
entitled to indemnification for damages he may
have been required to pay to the parties.
Liability does not attach to the proprietor if the
damage was caused by any defect in the
construction mentioned in Article 1723, in
which case the action should be against the
engineer or architect.
Under Article 2190, the plaintiff is required
to prove
1. The total or partial collapse of a
building or structure
2. That the defendant is the proprietor
3. That the collapse was due to the lack
of necessary repairs
Page 494 of 532
CIVIL LAW
Note: There is no requirement to prove
negligence.
Under Article 2191, with the exception of No. 1,
negligence is also not an issue.
The owner or proprietor of a place of public
amusement impliedly warrants that the
premises, appliances and amusement devices
are safe for the purpose for which they are
designed, the doctrine being subject to no
other exception or qualification than that he
does not contract against unknown defects not
discoverable by ordinary or reasonable means
[Gotesco Investment Corp. v. Chatto, G.R. No.
87584 (1992)].
Liability of Engineer or architect of
collapsed building
Art. 1723, CC. 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. The contractor is likewise
responsible for the damages if the edifice
falls, within the same period, on account of
defects in the construction or the use of
materials of inferior quality furnished by him,
or due to any violation of the terms of the
contract. If the engineer or architect
supervises the construction, he shall be
solidarily liable with the contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion,
does not imply waiver of any of the cause of
action by reason of any defect mentioned in
the preceding paragraph.
The action must be brought within ten years
following the collapse of the building.
Engineer or architect who drew up the plans
and specifications is liable if the building
collapses within 15 years due to:
1. A defect in those plans and specifications; or
2. Due to the defects in the ground.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Contractor is liable if the edifice falls within 15
years due to:
1. Defects in the construction;
2. The use of materials of inferior quality
furnished by the contractor; or
3. Due to any violation of the terms of the
contract.
Here, the plaintiff need only prove that such
conditions (defects) exist and need not prove
that negligence of the defendant be the cause
of the conditions.
9. Head of family
Art 2193, CC. The head of a family that lives
in a building or a part thereof, is responsible
for damages caused by things thrown or
falling from the same.
The purpose of the law is to relieve the injured
party of the difficulty of determining and proving
who threw the thing or what caused it to fall, or
that either was due to the fault or negligence of
any particular individual.
Lessee is considered as the head of the family.
It is enough that he lives in and has control over
it [Dingcong v. Kanaan, G.R. No. L-47033
(1941)].
10. Violations of data privacy
The right to data privacy is the right of an
individual not to have private information about
himself disclosed, and to live freely from
surveillance and intrusion.
RA 10173, or the Data Privacy Act, protects
individuals from unauthorized processing of
personal information that is (1) private, not
publicly available; and (2) identifiable, where
the identity of the individual is apparent either
through direct attribution or when put together
with other available information.
Page 495 of 532
CIVIL LAW
DATA PRIVACY ACT OF 2012
RA 10173
Section 3. Definition of Terms.
(g) Personal information refers to any
information whether recorded in a material
form or not, from which the identity of an
individual is apparent or can be reasonably
and directly ascertained by the entity holding
the information, or when put together with
other information would directly and certainly
identify an individual.
(h) Personal information controller refers to
a person or organization who controls the
collection, holding, processing or use of
personal information, including a person or
organization who instructs another person or
organization to collect, hold, process, use,
transfer or disclose personal information on
his or her behalf. The term excludes:
(1) A person or organization who
performs such functions as instructed by
another person or organization; and
(2) An individual who collects, holds,
processes or uses personal information in
connection with the individual’s personal,
family or household affairs.
(k) Privileged information refers to any and
all forms of data which under the Rules of
Court and other pertinent laws constitute
privileged communication.
(l) Sensitive personal information refers to
personal information:
(1) About an individual’s race, ethnic
origin, marital status, age, color, and
religious, philosophical or political
affiliations;
(2) About an individual’s health,
education, genetic or sexual life of a person,
or to any proceeding for any offense
committed or alleged to have been
committed by such person, the disposal of
such proceedings, or the sentence of any
court in such proceedings;
(3) Issued by government agencies
peculiar to an individual which includes, but
not limited to, social security numbers,
previous or current health records, licenses
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
or its denials, suspension or revocation, and
tax returns; and
(4) Specifically established by an
executive order or an act of Congress to be
kept classified.
Section 4. Scope. – This Act applies to the
processing of all types of personal
information and to any natural and juridical
person involved in personal information
processing including those personal
information controllers and processors who,
although not found or established in the
Philippines, use equipment that are located
in the Philippines, or those who maintain an
office, branch or agency in the Philippines
subject to the immediately succeeding
paragraph: Provided, That the requirements
of Section 5 are complied with.
This Act does not apply to the following:
(a) Information about any individual who
is or was an officer or employee of a
government institution that relates to the
position or functions of the individual,
including:
(1) The fact that the individual is or was an
officer or employee of the government
institution;
(2) The title, business address and office
telephone number of the individual;
(3) The classification, salary range and
responsibilities of the position held by the
individual; and
(4) The name of the individual on a
document prepared by the individual in the
course of employment with the government;
(b) Information about an individual who
is or was performing service under contract
for a government institution that relates to
the services performed, including the terms
of the contract, and the name of the
individual given in the course of the
performance of those services;
(c) Information relating to any
discretionary benefit of a financial nature
such as the granting of a license or permit
given by the government to an individual,
including the name of the individual and the
exact nature of the benefit;
Page 496 of 532
CIVIL LAW
(d) Personal information processed for
journalistic, artistic, literary or research
purposes;
(e) Information necessary in order to
carry out the functions of public authority
which includes the processing of personal
data for the performance by the
independent, central monetary authority and
law enforcement and regulatory agencies of
their constitutionally and statutorily
mandated functions. Nothing in this Act shall
be construed as to have amended or
repealed Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise
known as the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act;
Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as
the Foreign Currency Deposit Act; and
Republic Act No. 9510, otherwise known as
the Credit Information System Act (CISA);
(f) Information necessary for banks and
other financial institutions under the
jurisdiction of the independent, central
monetary authority or Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas to comply with Republic Act No.
9510, and Republic Act No. 9160, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-
Money Laundering Act and other applicable
laws; and
(g) Personal information originally
collected from residents of foreign
jurisdictions in accordance with the laws of
those foreign jurisdictions, including any
applicable data privacy laws, which is being
processed in the Philippines.
Section 11. General Data Privacy
Principles. – The processing of personal
information shall be allowed, subject to
compliance with the requirements of this Act
and other laws allowing disclosure of
information to the public and adherence to
the principles of transparency, legitimate
purpose and proportionality.
Personal information must be:
(a) Collected for specified and legitimate
purposes determined and declared before,
or as soon as reasonably practicable after
collection, and later processed in a way
compatible with such declared, specified
and legitimate purposes only;
(b) Processed fairly and lawfully;
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
(c) Accurate, relevant and, where
necessary for purposes for which it is to be
used the processing of personal information,
kept up to date; inaccurate or incomplete
data must be rectified, supplemented,
destroyed or their further processing
restricted;
(d) Adequate and not excessive in
relation to the purposes for which they are
collected and processed;
(e) Retained only for as long as
necessary for the fulfillment of the purposes
for which the data was obtained or for the
establishment, exercise or defense of legal
claims, or for legitimate business purposes,
or as provided by law; and
(f) Kept in a form which permits
identification of data subjects for no longer
than is necessary for the purposes for which
the data were collected and processed:
Provided, That personal information
collected for other purposes may lie
processed for historical, statistical or
scientific purposes, and in cases laid down
in law may be stored for longer periods:
Provided, further, That adequate safeguards
are guaranteed by said laws authorizing their
processing.
The personal information controller must
ensure implementation of personal
information processing principles set out
herein.
SEC. 21. Principle of Accountability. – Each
personal information controller is
responsible for personal information under
its control or custody, including information
that have been transferred to a third party for
processing, whether domestically or
internationally, subject to cross-border
arrangement and cooperation.
(a) The personal information controller
is accountable for complying with the
requirements of this Act and shall use
contractual or other reasonable means to
provide a comparable level of protection
while the information are being processed by
a third party.
(b) The personal information controller
shall designate an individual or individuals
Page 497 of 532
CIVIL LAW
who are accountable for the organization’s
compliance with this Act. The identity of the
individual(s) so designated shall be made
known to any data subject upon request.
SEC. 34. Extent of Liability. – If the offender
is a corporation, partnership or any juridical
person, the penalty shall be imposed upon
the responsible officers, as the case may be,
who participated in, or by their gross
negligence, allowed the commission of the
crime. If the offender is a juridical person, the
court may suspend or revoke any of its rights
under this Act. If the offender is an alien, he
or she shall, in addition to the penalties
herein prescribed, be deported without
further proceedings after serving the
penalties prescribed. If the offender is a
public official or employee and lie or she is
found guilty of acts penalized under Sections
27 and 28 of this Act, he or she shall, in
addition to the penalties prescribed herein,
suffer perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification from office, as the case may
be.
SEC. 36. Offense Committed by Public
Officer. – When the offender or the person
responsible for the offense is a public officer
as defined in the Administrative Code of the
Philippines in the exercise of his or her
duties, an accessory penalty consisting in
the disqualification to occupy public office for
a term double the term of criminal penalty
imposed shall he applied.
Data Privacy Rights
1. Right to be informed
Personal data should never be collected,
processed and stored by any organization
without the individual’s explicit consent, unless
otherwise provided by law. Aside from
protecting against unfair means of personal
data collection, this right also requires personal
information controllers (PICs) to notify
individuals if their data have been
compromised, in a timely manner.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
2. Right to access
This is the individual’s right to find out whether
an organization holds any personal data about
them and if so, gain “reasonable access” to
them. Through this right, organizations may
also be asked to provide a written description
of the kind of information they have about the
individual as well as their purpose/s for holding
them.
3. Right to object
This right can be exercised if the personal data
processing involved is based on consent or on
legitimate interest. When the individual objects
or withholds consent, the PIC should no longer
process the personal data, unless the
processing is pursuant to a subpoena, for
obvious purposes (contract, employer-
employee relationship, etc.) or a result of a
legal obligation.
4. Right to erasure or blocking
This is the right to suspend, withdraw or order
the blocking, removal or destruction of
personal data. This right can be exercised
upon discovery and substantial proof of the
following:
a. Personal data is incomplete, outdated,
false, or unlawfully obtained.
b. It is being used for purposes the
individual did not authorize.
c. The data is no longer necessary for the
purposes for which they were
collected.
d. The individual has decided to withdraw
consent or object to its processing, and
there is no overriding legal ground for
its processing.
e. The data concerns information
prejudicial to the data subject — unless
justified by freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press; or
otherwise authorized (by court of law)
f. The processing is unlawful.
g. The personal information controller, or
the personal information processor,
violated the rights of the data subject.
5. Right to damages
The individual may claim compensation if they
suffered damages due to inaccurate,
Page 498 of 532
CIVIL LAW
incomplete, outdated, false, unlawfully
obtained or unauthorized use of personal data,
considering any violation of their rights and
freedoms as data subject.
6. Right to file a complaint
If individuals feel that their personal information
has been misused, maliciously disclosed, or
improperly disposed, or that any of their data
privacy rights have been violated, they have a
right to file a complaint with the NPC.
7. Right to rectify
This refers to the right to dispute and have
corrected any inaccuracy or error in the data a
personal information controller (PIC) holds
about the individual. The PIC should act on it
immediately and accordingly, unless the
request is vexatious or unreasonable. Once
corrected, the PIC should ensure that access
and receipt of both new and retracted
information. PICs should also furnish third
parties with said information, should it be
requested by the data subject.
8. Right to data portability
This right assures that individuals remain in full
control of their data. Data portability allows
data subjects to obtain and electronically
move, copy or transfer their data in a secure
manner, for further use. It enables the free flow
of their personal information across the internet
and organizations, according to their
preference. This is important especially now
that several organizations and services can
reuse the same data.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

PERSONS WITH
LIABLE FOR DEFENSES OR EXCEPTIONS
SPECIAL LIABILITY
Manufacturers and
processors of Death and injuries caused by any
Absence of contractual relation not
foodstuffs, drinks, noxious or harmful substances
a defense
toilet articles and used
similar goods
Owner/creator of and
Resulting injury to another Liability attaches regardless of the
successive
(material annoyance, degree of care or skill exercised to
owner/possessor who
inconvenience, discomfort or hurt) avoid such injury
fails or refuses to
because of the nuisance
abate a nuisance
Public officer or
employee or private
Damages for impairment of rights
individual who violates
and liberties
rights under
Art. 32, CC
The death or injuries suffered by
any person by reason of the The defective public work is not
Provinces, Cities and
defective condition of roads, under the LGU’s control or
Municipalities
streets, bridges, public buildings, supervision
and other public works
! Solidary liability only if the
owner was in the vehicle
and if he could have
Owner of Motor prevented it thru due
Motor vehicle mishaps
Vehicle diligence
! If not in vehicle, apply Art.
2180 for his liability as
employer
a. Total or partial collapse of
building or structure if due
to lack of necessary
repairs
b. Explosion of machinery
which has not been taken
cared of with due
diligence, and the Responsibility for collapse should
Proprietor of building/
inflammation of explosive be due to the lack of necessary
structure
substances which have repairs
not been kept in a safe
and adequate place
c. By excessive smoke,
which may be harmful to
persons or property
d. By falling of trees situated
at or near highways or

Page 499 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

lanes, if not caused by

force majeure
e. By emanations from
tubes, canals, sewers or
deposits of infectious
matter, constructed
without precautions
suitable to the place
If within 15 years from completion
of the structure, the same should
collapse by reason of:
a. Defects in the plans or
specifications; or
b. Defects in the ground.
If within the same period, the
edifice falls on account of:
Action not brought within 10 years
Engineer or Architect a. Defects in the
from collapse
construction;
b. Used of materials of
inferior quality furnished
by him; or
c. Violation of the terms of
the contract and he
supervised the
construction.
If within 15 years from the
completion of the structure, the
edifice falls on account of:

a. Defects in the
Action not brought within 10 years
Contractor construction;
from collapse
b. Used of materials of
inferior quality furnished
by him; or
c. Violation of the terms of
the contract
Head of the Family that Liable for damages caused by
lives in a building or things thrown or falling from the
any part thereof same
Collection, processing and
storage of personal information
and sensitive personal
Violators of data information. Specifically:
privacy a. Unauthorized Processing
b. Accessing due to
Negligence
c. Improper Disposal

Page 500 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

d. Processing for
Unauthorized Purposes
e. Unauthorized Access or
Intentional Breach
f. Concealment of Security
Breaches Involving
Sensitive Personal
Information
g. Malicious Disclosure
h. Unauthorized Disclosure.

“escape or be lost” and so be removed from his

I. STRICT LIABILITY control. It is likewise immaterial that the animal
was tame and was merely provoked by the
victim. The law does not speak only of vicious
animals but covers even tame ones as long as
1. Animals; possessor and user they cause injury [Vestil v. IAC, G.R. No. 74431
of an animal (1989)].

Art. 2183, CC. The possessor of an animal or
whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage which it may
cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the
damage should come from force majeure or
from the fault of the person who has suffered
damage.
The law makes no distinction as to what kind of
animal is used or possessed. Hence, it may be
construed as applicable generally to all
animals, whether domestic, domesticated, or
wild. It would seem that birds are covered since
they can also cause damage. [de Leon]
Possession of the animal, not ownership, is
determinative of liability under Art. 2183. The
obligation imposed by said article is not based
on the negligence or on the presumed lack of
vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal
causing damage. It is based on natural equity
and on the principle of social interest that he
who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure,
or service, must answer for any damage which
such animal may cause. The contention that
the defendant could not be expected to
exercise remote control of the animal is not
acceptable. In fact, Art. 2183 holds the
possessor liable even if the animal should
Possible defenses against this liability
1. Force Majeure
2. Fault of person suffering damage
3. Act of third persons
2. Attractive Nuisance
Art 2193, CC. A nuisance is any act,
omission, establishment, business,
condition of property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or
safety of others; xxx
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character
likely to attract children in play, and who fails to
exercise ordinary care to prevent children from
playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable
to a child of tender years who is injured
thereby, even if the child is technically a
trespasser in the premises [Hidalgo
Enterprises v. Balandan, G.R. No. L-3422
(1952)].
The owner's failure to take reasonable
precautions to prevent the child from entering
his premises at a place where he knows or
ought to know that children are accustomed to
roam about or to which their childish instincts

Page 501 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
and impulses are likely to attract them is a
breach of duty, a negligent omission, for which
he may and should be held responsible, if the
child is actually injured, without other fault on
its part than that it had entered on the premises
of a stranger without his express invitation or
permission. [Taylor v. MERALCO, G.R. No. L-
4977 (1910)].
The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is
not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as
well as natural, in the absence of some unusual
condition or artificial feature other than the
mere water and its location [Hidalgo
Enterprises v. Balandan, G.R. No. L-3422
(1952)].
3. Products liability; Consumer
Act
Coverage of the Consumer Act
The law covers consumer products and
services which are defined in Art. 4(q) as
“goods, services and credits, debts or
obligations which are primarily for personal,
family, household or agricultural purposes,
which shall include but not limited to, food,
drugs, cosmetics and devices.”
Bases of Liability to Consumers
1. Fraud/misrepresentation (based on Art.
33, CC)
Art. 50 of RA 7394 prohibits against deceptive
sales acts or practices, while Art. 51 prohibits
unfair or unconscionable sales acts of
practices. However, not all expressions of
opinion constitute misrepresentation; usual
exaggerations of trade under Art. 1340, CC or
mere expressions of an opinion not made by an
expert under Art. 1341, CC are strictly not
actionable.
2. Warranty
A representation made by a seller is a warranty
if he is an expert, and the buyer is induced to
part with his money on the basis of this
representation. The law on sales provides for
implied warranties against hidden defects.
Page 502 of 532
CIVIL LAW
3. Negligence
Failure to meet safety and quality standards for
consumer products [Art. 5 to 46 of RA 7394]
creates liability based on negligence. It is the
failure to observe the requisite due care
considering the circumstances, governed by
the provisions on quasi-delict.
4. Strict Liability
For instances under Art. 97-99 (defective
products and services), the primarily liability for
death or injury is on the manufacturer and
processor, instead of the seller. There is no
requirement that they act negligently.
CONSUMER ACT
RA 7394, Secs. 92-107 (Ch. 1)
Article 4. Definition of Terms.
(n) "Consumer" means a natural person who
is a purchaser, lessee, recipient or
prospective purchaser, lessor or recipient of
consumer products, services or credit.
(as) "Manufacturer" means any person who
manufactures, assembles or processes
consumer products, except that if the goods
are manufactured, assembled or processed
for another person who attaches his own
brand name to the consumer products, the
latter shall be deemed the manufacturer. In
case of imported products, the
manufacturer's representatives or, in his
absence, the importer, shall be deemed the
manufacturer.
Article 92. Exemptions. – If the concerned
department finds that for good or sufficient
reasons, full compliance with the labeling
requirements otherwise applicable under
this Act is impracticable or is not necessary
for the adequate protection of public health
and safety, it shall promulgate regulations
exempting such substances from these
requirements to the extent it deems
consistent with the objective of adequately
safeguarding public health and safety, and
any hazardous substance which does not
bear a label in accordance with such
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
regulations shall be deemed mislabeled
hazardous substance.
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 98. Liability of Tradesman or Seller.
– The tradesman/seller is likewise liable,
pursuant to the preceding article when:
(a) it is not possible to identify the
manufacturer, builder, producer or importer;
(b) the product is supplied, without clear
identification of the manufacturer, producer,
builder or importer;
(c) he does not adequately preserve
perishable goods. The party making
payment to the damaged party may exercise
the right to recover a part of the whole of the
payment made against the other responsible
parties, in accordance with their part or
Page 503 of 532
CIVIL LAW
responsibility in the cause of the damage
effected.
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:
1. the manner in which it is provided;
2. the result of hazards which may
reasonably be expected of it;
3. 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.
Article 100. Liability for Product and Service
Imperfection. – The suppliers of durable or
nondurable consumer products are jointly
liable for imperfections in quality that render
the products unfit or inadequate for
consumption for which they are designed or
decrease their value, and for those resulting
from inconsistency with the information
provided on the container, packaging, labels
or publicity messages/advertisement, with
due regard to the variations resulting from
their nature, the consumer being able to
demand replacement to the imperfect parts.
If the imperfection is not corrected within
thirty (30) days, the consumer may
alternatively demand at his option:
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
(a) the replacement of the product by
another of the same kind, in a perfect state
of use;
(b) the immediate reimbursement of the
amount paid, with monetary updating,
without prejudice to any losses and
damages;
(c) a proportionate price reduction.
The parties may agree to reduce or increase
the term specified in the immediately
preceding paragraph; but such shall not be
less than seven (7) nor more than one
hundred and eighty (180) days.
The consumer may make immediate use of
the alternatives under the second paragraph
of this Article when by virtue of the extent of
the imperfection, the replacement of the
imperfect parts may jeopardize the product
quality or characteristics, thus decreasing its
value.
If the consumer opts for the alternative under
sub-paragraph (a) of the second paragraph
of this Article, and replacement of the
product is not possible, it may be replaced
by another of a different kind, mark or model:
Provided, That any difference in price may
result thereof shall be supplemented or
reimbursed by the party which caused the
damage, without prejudice to the provisions
of the second, third and fourth paragraphs of
this Article.
Article 101. Liability for Product Quantity
Imperfection. – Suppliers are jointly liable for
imperfections in the quantity of the product
when, in due regard for variations inherent
thereto, their net content is less than that
indicated on the container, packaging,
labeling or advertisement, the consumer
having powers to demand, alternatively, at
his own option:
(a) the proportionate price
(b) the supplementing of weight or
measure differential;
(c) the replacement of the product by
another of the same kind, mark or model,
without said imperfections;
Page 504 of 532
CIVIL LAW
(d) the immediate reimbursement of the
amount paid, with monetary updating
without prejudice to losses and damages if
any.
The provisions of the fifth paragraph of
Article 99 shall apply to this Article.
The immediate supplier shall be liable if the
instrument used for weighing or measuring
is not gauged in accordance with official
standards.
Article 102. Liability for Service Quality
Imperfection. – The service supplier is liable
for any quality imperfections that render the
services improper for consumption or
decrease their value, and for those resulting
from inconsistency with the information
contained in the offer or advertisement, the
consumer being entitled to demand
alternatively at his option:
(b) the performance of the services,
without any additional cost and when
applicable;
(c) the immediate reimbursement of the
amount paid, with monetary updating
without prejudice to losses and damages, if
any;
(d) a proportionate price reduction.
Reperformance of services may be
entrusted to duly qualified third parties, at the
supplier's risk and cost.
Improper services are those which prove to
be inadequate for purposes reasonably
expected of them and those that fail to meet
the provisions of this Act regulating service
rendering.
Article 103. Repair Service Obligation. –
When services are provided for the repair of
any product, the supplier shall be considered
implicitly bound to use adequate, new,
original replacement parts, or those that
maintain the manufacturer's technical
specifications unless, otherwise authorized,
as regards to the latter by the consumer.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Article 104. Ignorance of Quality 1. Classification

Imperfection. – The supplier's ignorance of
the quality imperfections due to inadequacy According to Purpose:
of the products and services does not
exempt him from any liability. a. For adequate reparation of the injury
1. Compensatory damages
Article 105. Legal Guarantee of Adequacy. – (reparation of pecuniary losses)
The legal guarantee of product or service 2. Moral (reparation for non-pecuniary
adequacy does not require an express losses: injury to feelings; physical
instrument or contractual exoneration of the suffering, etc.)
supplier being forbidden.
b. For vindication of the right violated:
Article 106. Prohibition in Contractual Nominal damages
Stipulation. – The stipulation in a contract of
a clause preventing, exonerating or reducing c. For less than adequate reparation:
the obligation to indemnify for damages Moderate damages
effected, as provided for in this and in the
preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if d. For deterring future violations:
there is more than one person responsible Exemplary or corrective
for the cause of the damage, they shall be
jointly liable for the redress established in the According to Manner of Determination
pertinent provisions of this Act. However, if
the damage is caused by a component or a. Conventional (or liquidated)
part incorporated in the product or service, b. Non-conventional, which may either be:
its manufacturer, builder or importer and the (i) Statutory (fixed by law, as in
person who incorporated the component or moratory interest)
part are jointly liable. (ii) Judicial (determined by the courts)

General Damages
DAMAGES Those which are the natural and necessary
result of the wrongful act or omission asserted
as the foundation of liability. It includes those
A. GENERAL which follow as a conclusion of law from the
CONSIDERATIONS statement of the facts of the injury.

Special Damages
Damages may be defined as the pecuniary
Damages that arise from the special
compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for
circumstance of the case, which, if properly
an injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed,
pleaded, may be added to the general
the pecuniary consequences, which the law
damages which the law presumes or implies
imposes for the breach of some duty or the
from the mere invasion of the plaintiff’s rights.
violation of some right [People v. Ballesteros,
Special damages are the natural, but NOT the
G.R. No. 120921 (1998)].
necessary result of an injury. These are not
implied by law.
It is the recompense or compensation awarded
for the damage suffered [Custodio v. CA, G.R.
No. 116100 (1996)]. 2. Kinds of Damages
Art. 2197, CC. Damages may be:
a. Actual or compensatory;
b. Moral;

Page 505 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
c. Nominal;
d. Temperate or moderate;
e. Liquidated; or
f. Exemplary or corrective.
Actual and Compensatory
Damages
Compensatory damages
Damages in satisfaction of, or in recompense
for, loss or injury sustained. The phrase “actual
damages” is sometimes used as a synonym of
compensatory damages.
Requisites:
To seek recovery of actual damages, it is
necessary to prove the actual amount of loss
with a reasonable degree of certainty,
premised upon competent proof and on the
best evidence obtainable [Asilo, Jr. v. People
and Sps. Bombasi, G.R. No. 159017-18
(2011); ICTSI v. Chua, G.R. No. 195031
(2014)].
Alleged and proved with certainty
Art. 2199, CC. 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.
The damages must be proven by competent
evidence (admissible or probative).
There must be pleading and proof of actual
damages suffered for the same to be
recovered. In addition to the fact that the
amount of loss must be capable of proof, it
must also be actually proven with a reasonable
degree of certainty, premised upon competent
proof or the best evidence obtainable such as
receipts, cash and check vouchers, and other
documentary evidence of the same nature. The
burden of proof of the damage suffered is
imposed on the party claiming the same. Self-
serving statements are not sufficient basis for
an award of actual damages [Oceaneering
Contractors v. Baretto, G.R. No. 184215
(2011)].
Page 506 of 532
CIVIL LAW
Actual or compensatory damages cannot be
presumed, but must be proven with a
reasonable degree of certainty [MCC Industrial
Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp., G.R. No.
170633 (2007)].
Damages must be proved with reasonable
accuracy, even when not denied [Valencia v.
Tantoco, G.R. No. L-7267 (1956)].
When is a person entitled? [PeLoRePLS]
1. When there is a pecuniary loss suffered by
him;
2. When he has alleged and prayed for such
relief [Manchester Dev’t Corp v. CA, G.R.
No. L-75919 (1987)];
3. When he has duly proved it;
4. When provided by law or by stipulation.
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary for:
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or
exemplary damages. The assessment of such
damages is discretionary upon the court,
except liquidated ones. [Art. 2216, CC].
If the physical integrity of a person’s body is
violated or diminished, actual injury is suffered
for which actual or compensatory damages are
due and assessable. Such violation entitles a
person to actual or compensatory damages. A
scar, especially on a woman’s face, is a
violation of bodily integrity, giving rise to a
legitimate claim for restoration to her condition
ante. [Gatchalian v. Delim, G.R. No. 56487
(1991)].
Components:
Actual damage covers the following: [LIPA]
1. Value of loss; unrealized profit
2. Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation
3. Interest
1. Loss Covered
IN GENERAL
Art. 2200, CC. Indemnification for damages
shall comprehend not only the value of the
loss suffered, but also that of the profits
which the obligee failed to obtain.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Two kinds of actual damages [PNOC v. CA, ATTITUDE, he shall

G.R. No. 107518, (1998)]: be responsible for all
1. Damnum emergens/ dano emergente - damages which may
actual loss or loss of what a person already be reasonably
possesses attributed to the
2. Lucrum cessans/lucro cesante - a breach or non-
cession of gain or amount of profit lost or performance.
loss of which would have pertained to a ● Liability extends to all
person damages which are
the natural and
Indemnification for damages is not limited to probable
damnum emergens but extends to lucrum consequence of the
Crimes
cessans. This rule is important when the thing Art. act or omission
and
lost or damaged either earns income or is used 2202 complained of.
Quasi-
for business. ● WON the damage
delicts
was foreseen or could
The award of damages for loss of earning have been
capacity is concerned with the determination of reasonably foreseen
losses or damages sustained by the [plaintiffs] by the defendant is
as dependents and intestate heirs of the irrelevant.
deceased. Such damages consist, not only of
the full amount of his earnings, but also of the IN CONTRACTS AND QUASI-CONTRACTS
support they received or would have received Art. 2201, CC. In contracts and quasi-
from him had he not died as a consequence of contracts, the damages for which the obligor
the negligence of [defendant’s] agent. Only net who acted in good faith is liable shall be
earnings, and not gross earnings are to be those that are the natural and probable
considered, that is, the total of the earnings consequences of the breach of the
less expenses necessary in the creation of obligation, and which the parties have
such earnings or income and less living and foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen
other incidental expenses [Candano Shipping at the time the obligation was constituted.
Lines, Inc. v. Sugata-on, G.R. No. 163212
(2007)]. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton
attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for
Extent or scope of actual damages all damages which may be reasonably
SOURCE EXTENT OF LIABILITY attributed to the non-performance of the
● If the obligor acted in obligation.
GOOD FAITH, he
shall be liable for all Art. 2214, CC. In quasi-delicts, the
natural and probable contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall
consequences of the reduce the damages that he may recover.
breach, which the
Contracts parties have foreseen Art. 2215, CC. In c notrac st , quas - i
Art. and or could have c notrac st ,and quas -delic
i st ,the c uort may
2201 Quasi- reasonably foreseen equitably mitigate the damages under
contracts at the time the c rcums
i anc
t se other than the c sa ereferred
obligation was to in the prec deing artic e,l as in the following
constituted. ins anc
t se:
● If the obligor acted 1. That the plaintiff himself has
with FRAUD, BAD contravened the terms of the contract;
FAITH, MALICE or 2. That the plaintiff has derived some
WANTON benefit as a result of the contract;

Page 507 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
3. In cases where exemplary damages
are to be awarded, that the defendant
acted upon the advice of counsel;
4. That the loss would have resulted in
any event;
5. That since the filing of the action, the
defendant has done his best to lessen
the plaintiff's loss or injury.
The damages recoverable upon breach of
contract are, primarily, the ordinary, natural
and necessary damages resulting from the
breach.
Other damages, known as special damages,
are recoverable where it appears that the
particular conditions which made such
damages a probable consequence of the
breach were known to the delinquent party at
the time the contract was made [Daywalt v.
Recoletos et al., G.R. No. L-13505 (1919)].
Bad faith does not simply connote bad
judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing of wrong; it partakes of the nature of
fraud. In this case, BPI-FB acted out of the
impetus of self-protection and not out of
malevolence or ill will. BPI-FB was not in the
corrupt state of mind contemplated in Art. 2201
and should not be held liable for all damages
being imputed to it for its breach of obligation
[BPI Family Bank v. Franco, G.R. No. 123498
(2007)].
Overbooking amounts to bad faith, entitling the
passengers to an award of moral damages
when the airline did not allow passengers to
board their flight despite having confirmed their
tickets. Hence, in accordance with Art. 2201,
TransWorld was held responsible for all the
damages which may be reasonably attributed
to the non-performance of its obligation
[Spouses Zalamea v. CA, G.R. No. 104235
(1993)].
Page 508 of 532
CIVIL LAW
IN CRIMES AND QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2202, CC. 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.
In cases of crimes, damages are to be
increased or decreased according to
aggravating or mitigating circumstances
present.
Contributory negligence of the plaintiff, in case
of quasi-delicts, shall reduce the damages to
which he may be entitled. However, in cases of
crimes, there is no mitigation for contributory
negligence of the plaintiff.
The principal consideration for the award of
damages is the penalty provided by law or
imposable for the offense because of its
heinousness, and not the public penalty
actually imposed on the offender. The fact of
minority of the offender at the time of the
commission of the offense has no bearing on
the gravity and extent of injury caused to the
victim and her family. Hence, notwithstanding
the fact that the imposable public penalty
against the offender should be lowered due to
his minority, there is no justifiable ground to
depart from the jurisprudential trend in the
award of damages in the case of qualified rape,
considering the compensatory nature of the
award of civil indemnity and moral damages.
[People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641 (2009)].
2. Earning Capacity; Business Standing
Art. 2205, CC. Damages may be recovered:
1. For loss or impairment of earning
capacity in cases of temporary or
permanent personal injury;
2. For injury to the plaintiff's business
standing or commercial credit.
Loss or impairment of earning capacity
The Court did not award actual damages
because it was found that plaintiff’s
employment was lost even before the injury
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
upon which she was suing. The Court equated
loss of employment with loss of earning
capacity [Gatchalian v. Delim, supra].
The plaintiff need not be actually engaged in
gainful employment to recover damages due to
loss or impairment of earning capacity. In
determining the amount of damages to be
awarded, the Supreme Court considered the
plaintiff’s age, probable life expectancy, the
state of his health, and his mental and physical
condition before the accident. The court took
into account [the plaintiff’s] outstanding
abilities, and the possibility that he would have
enjoyed a successful professional career in
banking [Mercury Drug v. Huang, G.R. No.
172122 (2007)].
Injury to business standing or commercial
credit
Loss of goodwill should be proven with the
same standard of proof as other compensatory
damages [Tanay Recreation Center v. Fausto,
G.R. No. 140182 (2005)].
Formula for the net earning capacity
Net earning capacity = Life Expectancy ×
(Gross annual income – Reasonable living
expenses)
[People v. Aringue, G.R. No. 116487 (1997);
Candano v. Sugata-On, G.R. 163212, (2007)].
Where: Life expectancy = × (80 – age of
victim at the time of death)
General Rule: Damages for loss of earning
capacity shall be awarded in every case, and
that claimant shall present documentary
evidence to substantiate claim for damages.
[Tan, et al. v. OMC Carriers, Inc., G.R. No.
190521 (2011)].
Exceptions:
1. If the deceased was self-employed and
earning less than the minimum wage; or
2. The deceased was a daily wage worker
earning less than the minimum wage under
current labor laws. [Philippine Hawk v. Lee,
G.R. No. 166869 (2010)].
Page 509 of 532
CIVIL LAW
Additional Exception: Testimonial evidence
suffices to establish a basis for which the court
can make a fair and reasonable estimate of the
loss of earning capacity [Pleyto v. Lomboy,
G.R. No. 148737 (2004)]
Note: Such an exception to documentary proof
requirement only exists as to the loss of
earning capacity.
3. Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation
Art. 2208, CC. 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.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation must be reasonable.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
General Rule: Attorney’s fees and costs of
litigation are recoverable IF stipulated.
Exceptions:
If there is no stipulation, they are recoverable
only in the following cases:
1. By reason of malice or bad faith
a. When exemplary damages are
awarded
b. In case of a clearly unfounded civil
action
c. Where defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith
d. When at least double judicial costs are
awarded
2. By reason of plaintiff’s indigence in
a. Actions for legal support
b. Actions for recovery of wages of
laborers, etc.
c. Actions for workmen’s compensation
3. By reason of crimes in
a. Criminal cases of malicious
prosecution
b. Separate actions to recover civil liability
arising from crime
4. By reason of equity
a. Where the defendant’s act compelled
plaintiff to litigate with third persons
b. Where the Court deems it just and
equitable
Note: In all cases, attorney’s fees and costs of
litigation must be reasonable.
Even if expressly stipulated, attorney’s fees are
subject to control by the Courts.
Two kinds of attorney’s fees:
1. Ordinary - reasonable compensation paid
to a lawyer for his services
2. Extraordinary - awarded to a successful
litigant; to be paid by the losing party as
indemnity for damages. [Aquino v.
Casabar, G.R. No. 191470, (2015)].
Attorney’s fees in CC 2208 is an award made
in favor of the litigant, not of his counsel, and
the litigant is the judgment creditor who may
enforce the judgment for attorney's fees by
execution [Quirante v. IAC, G.R. No. 73886
(1989)].
Page 510 of 532
CIVIL LAW
Attorney's fees cannot be recovered except in
cases provided for in CC 2208 [MERALCO v.
Ramoy, G.R. No. 158911 (2008)].
Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation are
recoverable only in the concept of actual
damages, not as moral damages nor judicial
costs. Hence, such must be specifically prayed
for and may not be deemed incorporated within
a general prayer for "such other relief and
remedy as this court may deem just and
equitable” [Briones v. Macabagdal, G.R. No.
150666 (2010)].
For Art. 2208 (2), an adverse decision does
not ipso facto justify an award of attorney’s
fees to the winning party. Even when a
claimant is compelled to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his
rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded
where no sufficient showing of bad faith could
be reflected in a party’s persistence in a case
other than an erroneous conviction of the
righteousness of his cause [Bank of America v.
Philippine Racing Club, G.R. No. 150228
(2009)].
4. Interest
Art. 2209, CC. If the obligation consists in
the payment of a sum of money, and the
debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for
damages, there being no stipulation to the
contrary, shall be the payment of the
interest agreed upon, and in the absence of
stipulation, the legal interest, which is six
per cent per annum.
Art. 2210, CC. Interest may, in the
discretion of the court, be allowed upon
damages awarded for breach of contract.
Art. 2211, CC. In crimes and quasi-delicts,
interest as a part of the damages may, in a
proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion
of the court.
Art. 2212, CC. Interest due shall earn legal
interest from the time it is judicially
demanded, although the obligation may be
silent upon this point.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

may have reckoning date,

Art. 2213, CC. Interest cannot be recovered been shall be
upon unliquidated claims or damages, stipulated computed from
except when the demand can be in writing, default, (i.e., from
established with reasonable certainty. provided EXTRAJUDICIAL
it is not OR JUDICIAL
Interest accrues in the concept of damages excessiv DEMAND in
when: e or accordance with
1. The obligation consists in the payment of a unconsci Art. 1169) until
sum of money; onable FULL PAYMENT
2. Debtor incurs in delay; and without
3. There being no stipulation to the contrary. compounding any
interest unless
Interest on the amount of damages awarded Compounded
may be imposed at the discretion of the court interest is
and in the prevailing legal interest. No interest, expressly
however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated stipulated by the
claims or damages until the demand can be parties, by law or
established with reasonable certainty [Lara’s regulation
Gifts & Decors, Inc., v. Midtown Industrial
Sales Inc., G.R. No. 225433 (2019)]. b. In the From
absence EXTRAJUDICIAL
Compounding of interest of OR JUDICIAL
Interest due shall earn legal interest from the stipulatio DEMAND in
time it is judicially demanded, although the n, the rate accordance with
obligation may be silent on the point. of Art. 1169 of the
interest, it Civil Code, UNTIL
Note that interest due can earn only at 6%, shall be FULL PAYMENT,
whether the rate of interest of the principal is 6% per without
greater than 6%. annum compounding
(legal any interest
Determination of legal interest interest) unless
1. When an obligation, regardless of its compounded
source (i.e., law, contracts, quasi- interest is
contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts) is expressly
breached, the contravenor can be held stipulated by law
liable for damages. or regulation.
2. With regard to an award of in the concept Interest Legal From the time of
of actual and compensatory damages, the due on the interest JUDICIAL
rate of interest, as well as the accrual principal (6%) DEMAND
thereof, is imposed, as follows [Lara’s Gifts amount UNTIL FULL
& Decors, Inc., v. Midtown Industrial Sales accruing PAYMENT
Inc., supra]: as of
judicial
BASE RATE ACCRUAL demand
When the obligation is breached and it shall
consists in the PAYMENT OF SUM OF SEPARAT
MONEY (i.e, a loan or forbearance of ELY earn
money, goods, credits or judgments): LEGAL
Interest a. That In the absence of INTEREST
due which a stipulated

Page 511 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

No legal interest will be added after the Art. 2203 exhorts parties suffering from loss or
judgement becomes final and executory injury to exercise the diligence of a good father
unlike in Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA, G.R. of a family to minimize the damages resulting
No. 97412 (1994) and Nacar v. Gallery from the act or omission in question. The one
Frames G.R. No. 189871, (2013) who is injured then by the wrongful or negligent
When an obligation, NOT constituting a loan act of another should exercise reasonable care
or forbearance of money, is breached: and diligence to minimize the resulting
When Legal From the time the damage. [Lim and Gunnaban v. CA, G.R. No.
demand is interest claim is made 125817 (2002)].
establishe (6%) EXTRAJUDICIAL
d with LY OR Burden of Proof
reasonable JUDICIALLY until The DEFENDANT has the burden of proof to
certainty FULL PAYMENT establish that the victim, by the exercise of the
When Legal From the date of diligence of a good father of a family, could
demand is interest the have mitigated the damages. In the absence of
NOT (6%) JUDGMENT OF such proof, the amount of damages cannot be
establishe THE TRIAL reduced. [Lim and Gunnaban v. CA, G.R. No.
d with COURT (at which 125817 (2002)].
reasonable time the
certainty) quantification Note:
of damages may The victim is required only to take such steps
be deemed to as an ordinary prudent man would reasonably
have been adopt for his own interest.
reasonably
ascertained) Moral Damages
UNTIL FULL
PAYMENT Art. 2217, CC. Moral damages include
No legal interest will be added after the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
judgement becomes final and executory serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
unlike in Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA, G.R. wounded feelings, moral shock, social
No. 97412 (1994) andNacar v. Gallery humiliation, and similar injury. Though
Frames incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are the
Note: The new rate of legal interest (6%) in proximate result of the defendant's wrongful
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871 act or omission.
(2013), does not apply to judgments that have
become final and executory prior to July 1, Art. 2218, CC. In the adjudication of moral
2013. damages, the sentimental value of property,
real or personal, may be considered.
Start of Delay
1. Extrajudicial: Demand letter Moral damages are emphatically not intended
2. Judicial: Filing of complaint to enrich a complainant at the expense of the
defendant. Its award is aimed at the
Duty to Minimize restoration, within the limits of the possible, of
Art. 2203, CC. The party suffering loss or the spiritual status quo ante, and it must be
injury must exercise the diligence of a good proportional to the suffering inflicted [Visayan
father of a family to minimize the damages Sawmill v. CA, G.R. No. 83851 (1993)].
resulting from the act or omission in
question. Mental suffering means distress or serious pain
as distinguished from annoyance, regret or

Page 512 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
vexation [Bagumbayan Corp. v. IAC, G.R. No.
L-66274 (1984)].
When awarded (Art. 2217)
Awarded when injury consists of:
1. Physical suffering
2. Besmirched reputation
3. Mental anguish
4. Fright
5. Moral shock
6. Wounded feelings
7. Social humiliation
8. Serious anxiety
9. Similar injury
Requisites for awarding moral damages
The conditions for awarding moral damages
are [InAP-2219]
1. There must be an injury, whether physical,
mental, or psychological, clearly
substantiated by the claimant;
2. There must be a culpable act or omission
factually established;
3. The wrongful act or omission of the
defendant must be the proximate cause of
the injury sustained by the claimant; and
4. The award of damages is predicated on
any of the cases stated in Art. 2219 of the
CC. [Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, G.R. No.
157009 (2010)]:
General Principles of Recovery:
1. Moral damages must somehow be
proportional to the suffering inflicted.
2. In culpa contractual or breach of contract,
moral damages may be recovered when
the 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.
3. By special rule in Art. 1764, in relation to
Art. 2206, moral damages may also be
awarded in case the death of a passenger
results from a breach of carriage.
4. In culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict,
a. when an act or omission causes
physical injuries, or
Page 513 of 532
CIVIL LAW
b. where the defendant is guilty of
intentional tort, moral damages may
aptly be recovered. This rule also
applies to contracts when breached by
tort.
5. In culpa criminal, moral damages could be
lawfully due when the accused is found
guilty of physical injuries, lascivious acts,
adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary
detention, illegal arrest, illegal search, or
defamation.
6. Malicious prosecution can also give rise to
a claim for moral damages. The term
"analogous cases," referred to in Art. 2219,
following the ejusdem generis rule, must be
held similar to those expressly enumerated
by the law.
7. Although the institution of a clearly
unfounded civil suit can at times be a legal
justification for an award of attorney's fees,
such filing, however, has almost invariably
been held not to be a ground for an award
of moral damages. [Expertravel & Tours v.
CA., G.R. No. 130030 (1999)].
8. The burden rests on the person claiming
moral damages to show convincing
evidence for good faith is presumed. In a
case involving simple negligence, moral
damages cannot be recovered. [Villanueva
v. Salvador, G.R. No. 139436 (2006)].
9. Failure to use the precise legal terms or
"sacramental phrases" of "mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings or
moral shock" does not justify the denial of
the claim for damages. It is sufficient that
these exact terms have been pleaded in
the complaint and evidence has been
adduced [Miranda-Ribaya v. Bautista, G.R.
No. L-49390 (1980)].
10. Even if the allegations regarding the
amount of damages in the complaint are
not specifically denied in the answer, such
damages are not deemed admitted.
[Raagas, et al. v. Traya et al, G.R. No. L-
20081 (1968)]
11. An appeal in a criminal case opens the
whole case for review and this 'includes the
review of the penalty, indemnity and
damages’. Even if the offended party had
not appealed from said award, and the only
party who sought a review of the decision
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
of said court was the accused, the court
can increase damages awarded.
[Sumalpong v. CA, G.R. No. 123404
(1997)].
12. It can only be awarded to natural persons.
The award of moral damages cannot be
granted in favor of a corporation because,
being an artificial person and having
existence only in legal contemplation, it has
no feelings, no emotions, no senses, It
cannot, therefore, experience physical
suffering and mental anguish, which can be
experienced only by one having a nervous
system. [ABS-CBN v. CA, G.R. No. 128690
(1999)].
13. While it is true that besmirched reputation
is included in moral damages, it cannot
cause mental anguish to a corporation,
unlike in the case of a natural person, for a
corporation has no reputation in the sense
that an individual has, and besides, it is
inherently impossible for a corporation to
suffer mental anguish [NAPOCOR v.
Philipp Brothers, G.R. Ni, 126204 (2001)].
i. When moral damages are recoverable
Art. 2219, CC. 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.
The parents of the female seduced,
abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in
No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral
damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and
brothers and sisters may bring the action
Page 514 of 532
CIVIL LAW
mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the
order named.
1. In Criminal Offense resulting in physical
injuries and death
Under paragraph (1), Art. 2219 of the CC,
moral damages may be recovered in a criminal
offense resulting in physical injuries. In its
generic sense, "physical injuries" includes
death [People v. Villaver, G.R. No. 133381
(2001)].
Moral damages are awarded despite the
absence of proof of mental and emotional
suffering of the victim’s heirs since a violent
death necessarily brings about emotional pain
and anguish on the part of the victim’s family.
[People v. Vilarmea, G.R. No. 200029,
November 13, (2013)].
2. In Quasi-delicts resulting in physical
injuries
In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, moral
damages may be recovered (a) when an act or
omission causes physical injuries, or (b) where
the defendant is guilty of intentional tort. The
SC held that an employer that is vicariously
liable with its employee-driver may also be held
liable for moral damages to the injured plaintiff
[B.F. Metal v. Lomotan, G.R. No. 170813
(2008)].
In Laconsay v. Berog G.R. No. 188686 (2014),
the court awarded ₱1,000,000.00 as moral
damages which is commensurate to the
suffering inflicted to Fidel. This is in accord with
the extent and nature of the physical and
psychological injuries suffered by Fidel. The
damage which caused the loss of his right leg
is not only permanent and lasting but would
likewise permanently alter and adjust the
physiological changes that his body would
normally undergo as he matures.
3. In seduction, abduction, rape, and other
lascivious acts
Anent the award of damages, civil indemnity ex
delicto is mandatory upon finding of the fact of
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
rape while moral damages is awarded upon
such finding without need of further proof
because it is assumed that a rape victim has
actually suffered moral injuries entitling the
victim to such award. [People v. Calongui, G.R.
No. 170566(2006); People v. Lizano G.R. No.
174470, (2007)]
The award of moral damages in a conviction for
simple rape should equal the award of moral
damages in convictions for qualified rape.
Truly, [the victim’s] moral suffering is just as
great as when her father who raped her is
convicted for qualified rape as when he is
convicted only for simple rape due to a
technicality [People v. Bartolini, supra].
Where there are multiple counts of rape and
other lascivious acts, the court awarded moral
damages for each count of lascivious acts and
each count of rape [People v. Abadies, G.R.
Nos. 13946-50 (2002)].
Note: Recovery may be had by the offended
party and also by her parents.
4. In illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest
Since the crime committed in this case is
kidnapping and failure to return a minor under
Art. 270 of the RPC, the crime was clearly
analogous to illegal and arbitrary detention or
arrest. Therefore, the award of moral damages
is justified [People v. Bernardo, G.R. No.
144316 (2002)].
In People v. Madsali G.R. No. 179570 (2010),
two separate informations were filed: 1) for
abduction with rape and 2) for serious illegal
detention. The court awarded moral damages
predicated on AAA having suffered serious
anxiety and fright when she was detained for
more than 5 months. Such award is different
from the award of moral damages based on the
rape case since the court granted it based on
the odious act or rape.
Page 515 of 532
CIVIL LAW
5. In case of libel, slander, or any other
form of defamation
The court ruled that the commission of Slight
Oral Defamation caused injury to the
petitioner’s feelings and reputation as a
barangay captain. Hence, the petitioner is
entitled to moral damages in the sum of
₱5,000.00 [Occena v. Icamina, supra].
6. In case of malicious prosecution
A person's right to litigate, as a rule, should not
be penalized. This right, however, must be
exercised in good faith. Absence of good faith
in the present case is shown by the fact that
petitioner clearly has no cause of action
against respondents, but it recklessly filed a
suit anyway and wantonly pursued pointless
appeals, thereby causing the latter to spend
valuable time, money and effort in
unnecessarily defending themselves, incurring
damages in the process [Industrial Insurance v.
Bondad, G.R. No. 136722 (2000)].
Moral damages cannot be recovered from a
person who has filed a complaint against
another in good faith, or without malice or bad
faith. If damage results from the filing of the
complaint, it is damnum absque injuria [Mijares
v. CA, G.R. No. 113558(1997)].
7. In acts referred to in Arts. 21, 26, 27, 28,
29, 32, 34 and 35, CC
Art. 21, CC. Any person who wilfully causes
loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.
Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Moral damages are recoverable where the
dismissal of the employee was attended by bad
faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive
to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs, or public policy [Triple
Eight v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129584, (1998)].
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Art. 26, CC. 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.
Violation of Human Dignity
The law seeks to protect a person from being
unjustly humiliated so the court awarded moral
damages to the plaintiff who was accused by
the respondent of having an adulterous
relationship with another woman in the
presence of his wife, children, neighbors and
friends [Concepcion v. CA, G.R. No. 120706
(2000)].
Art. 27, CC. Any person suffering material
or moral loss because a public servant or
employee refuses or neglects, without just
cause, to perform his official duty may file an
action for damages and other relief against
the latter, without prejudice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may
be taken.
Refusal or Neglect of Duty
Under Art. 27, in relation to Arts. 2219 and
2217, a public officer may be liable for moral
damages for as long as the moral damages
suffered by [the plaintiff] were the proximate
result of [defendant’s] refusal to perform an
official duty or neglect in the performance
thereof. In fact, under Arts. 19 and 27 of the
CC, a public official may be made to pay
damages for performing a perfectly legal act,
Page 516 of 532
CIVIL LAW
albeit done in bad faith or in violation of the
"abuse of right" doctrine.
Art. 28, CC. 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.
Art. 29, CC. When the accused in a criminal
prosecution is acquitted on the ground that
his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages
for the same act or omission may be
instituted. Such action requires only a
preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of
the defendant, the court may require the
plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages
in case the complaint should be found to be
malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal
is based upon reasonable doubt, the court
shall so declare. In the absence of any
declaration to that effect, it may be inferred
from the text of the decision whether or not
the acquittal is due to that ground.
Art. 32, CC. Any public officer or employee,
or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in
any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another
person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to
maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal
detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property
without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when
private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the
laws;
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
(9) The right to be secure in one's person,
house, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing
the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and
correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of
associations or societies for purposes
not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable
assembly to petition the government for
redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary
servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against
excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of
witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a
witness against one's self, or from
being forced to confess guilt, or from
being induced by a promise of immunity
or reward to make such confession,
except when the person confessing
becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel
and unusual punishment, unless the
same is imposed or inflicted in
accordance with a statute which has not
been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article,
whether or not the defendant's act or
omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an
entirely separate and distinct civil action for
damages, and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any
criminal prosecution (if the latter be
instituted), and mat be proved by a
preponderance of evidence.
Page 517 of 532
CIVIL LAW
The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be
adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not
demandable from a judge unless his act or
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal
Code or other penal statute.
Violation of Civil and Political Rights
The purpose of [CC 32] is to provide a sanction
to the deeply cherished rights and freedoms
enshrined in the Constitution. Under [CC 32], it
is not necessary that the public officer acted
with malice or bad faith. To be liable, it is
enough that there was a violation of the
constitutional rights of the petitioner, even on
the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in
the performance of one's duties [Cojuangco v.
CA, G.R. No. 119398 (1999)].
Art. 32 of the CC provides that moral damages
are proper when the rights of individuals,
including the right against deprivation of
property without due process of law, are
violated [Meralco v. Spouses Chua, G.R. No.
160422 (2010)].
Art. 34, CC. 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 criminal proceedings,
and a preponderance of evidence shall
suffice to support such action.
Art. 35, CC. When a person, claiming to be
injured by a criminal offense, charges
another with the same, for which no
independent civil action is granted in this
Code or any special law, but the justice of
the peace finds no reasonable grounds to
believe that a crime has been committed, or
the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to
institute criminal proceedings, the complaint
may bring a civil action for damages against
the alleged offender. Such civil action may
be supported by a preponderance of
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
evidence. Upon the defendant's motion, the
court may require the plaintiff to file a bond
to indemnify the defendant in case the
complaint should be found to be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an
information should be presented by the
prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be
suspended until the termination of the
criminal proceedings.
Art. 2220, CC. 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.
In Willful Injury to Property
To sustain an award of damages, the damage
inflicted upon [plaintiff’s] property must be
malicious or willful, an element crucial to merit
an award of moral damages under Art. 2220 of
the CC [Regala v. Carin, G.R. No. 188715
(2011)].
In Breach of Contract in Bad Faith
To recover moral damages in an action for
breach of contract, the breach must be
palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad
faith, oppressive, or abusive. Bad faith imports
a dishonest purpose and conscious doing of a
wrong and the person claiming moral damages
must prove bad faith by clear and convincing
evidence because good faith is always
presumed. The Court held that there was no
bad faith on the part of the petitioners. Hence,
the award for moral damages was not proper
[Francisco v. Ferrer G.R. No. 130030, (1999)].
It is not enough that one merely suffered
sleepless nights, mental anguish, and serious
anxiety as a result of the actuations of the other
party. The action must have been willfully done
in bad faith or with ill motive [Spouses
Valenzuela v. Spouses Mano, G.R. No.
172611, July 9, (2010)].
A conscious or intentional design need not
always be present to award moral damages
since negligence may occasionally be so gross
as to amount to malice or bad faith. Bad faith,
Page 518 of 532
CIVIL LAW
in the context of Art. 2220 of the CC,
includes gross negligence. Thus, we have held
in a number of cases that moral damages may
be awarded in culpa contractual or breach of
contract when the defendant acted fraudulently
or in bad faith, or is guilty of gross negligence
amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard
of his contractual obligations [Bankard, Inc. v.
Feliciano, G.R. No 141761 (2006)].
ii. Who may Recover Moral Damages
Relatives of Injured Persons
The omission of brothers and sisters of the
deceased passenger in Art. 2206(3) reveals
the legislative intent to exclude them from the
persons authorized to recover moral damages
for mental anguish by reason of the death of
the deceased (inclusion unius est exclusion
alterius). The usage of the phrase analogous
cases in the provision means simply that the
situation must be held similar to those
expressly enumerated in the law in question
[Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, supra].
Art. 233 of the Family Code states that the
person exercising substitute parental authority
shall have the same authority over the child as
the parents. Persons exercising substitute
parental authority are to be considered
ascendants for the purpose of awarding moral
damages. [Caravan Travel and Tours
International, Inc. v. Abejar, G.R. No. 170631,
(2016)].
Juridical Persons
The award of moral damages cannot be
granted in favor of a corporation because,
being an artificial person and having existence
only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings,
no emotions, no senses. It cannot, therefore,
experience physical suffering and mental
anguish, which can be experienced only by one
having a nervous system. The statement in
People vs. Manero and Mambulao Lumber Co.
vs. PNB that a corporation may recover moral
damages if it "has a good reputation that is
debased, resulting in social humiliation" is an
obiter dictum [ABS-CBN v. CA, supra].
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Although the general rule is that a juridical
person is not entitled to moral damages since
it cannot experience the same suffering that a
natural person does, Art. 2219(7) expressly
authorizes the recovery of moral damages in
cases of libel, slander, or any other form of
defamation. Art. 2219(7) does not qualify
whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical
person. Therefore, a corporation can validly file
a complaint for libel or any other form of
defamation and claim for moral damages
[Filipinas Broadcasting v. Ago, G.R. No.
141994, (2005)].
Factors Considered in Determining Amount
The amount of damages awarded in this
appeal has been determined by adequately
considering the official, political, social, and
financial standing of the offended parties on
one hand, and the business and financial
position of the offender on the other. The SC
further considered the present rate of
exchange and the terms at which the amount
of damages awarded would approximately be
in U.S. dollars, the defendant being an
international airline [Lopez v. Pan American,
G.R. No. L-22415 (1966)].
Nominal Damages
Nominal damages consist of damages
awarded not for the purposes of indemnifying
the plaintiff for any loss suffered, but for the
vindication or recognition of a right violated by
the defendant. Nominal damages are awarded
in every obligation arising from law, contracts,
quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by
law, and quasi-delicts [PNOC v. CA, G.R. No.
107518, (1998)].
Requisites and characteristics
1. Invasion or violation of any legal or
property right.
2. No proof of loss is required.
3. The award is to vindicate the right violated.
i. When Nominal Damages are
Recoverable
Art. 2221, CC. Nominal damages are
adjudicated in order that a right of the
Page 519 of 532
CIVIL LAW
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.
Art. 2222, CC. The court may award
nominal damages in every obligation arising
from any source enumerated in article 1157,
or in every case where any property right
has been invaded.
Art. 2223, CC. The adjudication of nominal
damages shall preclude further contest
upon the right involved and all accessory
questions, as between the parties to the
suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.
1. Violation of a right
Nominal damages "are recoverable where a
legal right is technically violated and must be
vindicated against an invasion that has
produced no actual present loss of any kind.”
Its award is thus not for the purpose of
indemnification for a loss but for the recognition
and vindication of a right. When granted by the
courts, they are not treated as an equivalent of
a wrong inflicted but simply a recognition of the
existence of a technical injury [Gonzales v.
PCIB, G.R. No. 180257 (2011)].
Nominal damages may also be awarded in
cases where a property right has been
invaded. [Twin Ace v. Rufina, G.R. No. 160191,
(2006)].
2. No actual loss caused or proven
When the plaintiff suffers injury not enough to
warrant an award of actual damages, then
nominal damages may be given. [Twin Ace v.
Rufina, supra].
Nominal damages may also be awarded where
there has been a breach of contract and no
substantial injury or actual damages
whatsoever have been or can be shown
[Areola v. CA, G.R. No. 95641, (1994)].
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
The amount to be awarded shall be equal to or
at least commensurate to the injury sustained
considering the concept and purpose of such
damages. [Lufthansa v. CA as cited in PNOC
v. CA, supra].
3. Under conditions of equity
The plaintiffs sought to recover damages from
the hotel due to its breach of contract as
regards food service for the plaintiff’s guests.
The SC did not award actual and moral
damages because it found that the plaintiff’s
failure to inform the hotel of the increase of
guests was the proximate cause of the
plaintiff’s injury. Nevertheless, the SC awarded
nominal damages under considerations of
equity, for the discomfiture that the plaintiffs
were subjected to during the event, averring
that the hotel could have managed the
"situation" better, it being held in high esteem
in the hotel and service industry. [Spouses
Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la, G.R. No. 190601
(2011)].
Nature and determination of amount
The assessment of nominal damages is left to
the discretion of the trial court according to the
circumstances of the case.
Small but substantial
Generally, nominal damages, by their nature,
are small sums fixed by the court without
regard to the extent of the harm done to the
injured party. However, it is generally held that
nominal damages is a substantial claim, if
based upon the violation of a legal right; in such
a case, the law presumes damage although
actual or compensatory damages are not
proven [Gonzales v. People, G.R. No. 159950
(2007)].
Commensurate to the injury suffered
Even if there was no documentary evidence to
justify Maria’s claim for actual damages, she
was still awarded nominal damages to
vindicate her right and its value was
commensurate to the injury she suffered
[Pedrosa v. CA, G.R. No. 118680, (2001)].
Page 520 of 532
CIVIL LAW
Special reasons extant in the case
Since the assessment of damages are being
left to the discretion of the court, the
circumstances of a particular case will
determine whether the amount assessed as
nominal damage is within the scope or intent of
the law [Robes-Francisco v. CFI, G.R. No. L-
41093, (1978)].
For instance, in the case of People v. Bernardo,
supra, given the relatively short duration of the
child’s kidnapping, the court found the amount
of ₱50,000.00 awarded as nominal damages
excessive, so it was reduced to ₱10,000.00.
Temperate Damages
Art. 2224, CC. 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 cannot, from the nature of the case,
be provided with certainty.
Art. 2225, CC. Temperate damages must
be reasonable under the circumstances.
These damages are awarded for pecuniary
loss, in an amount that, from the nature of the
case, cannot be proved with certainty.
Temperate damages are more than nominal
but less than compensatory damages. [Tan v.
OMC Carriers, 2011 supra].
Temperate damages are incompatible with
nominal damages hence, cannot be granted
concurrently [Citytrust Bank v. IAC, G.R. No.
84281(1994)].
Requisites
1. Actual existence of pecuniary loss;
2. The nature and circumstances of the loss
prevents proof of the exact amount;
3. They are more than nominal and less than
compensatory;
4. Causal connection between the loss and
the defendant’s act or omission;
5. Amount must be reasonable.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
i. When Temperate Damages are
Recoverable
1. Nature of the case prevents
determination of actual loss
There are cases where from the nature of the
case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be
offered, although the court is convinced that
there has been such loss. For instance, injury
to one's commercial credit or to the goodwill of
a business firm is often hard to show certainty
in terms of money.
2. In addition to civil indemnity
3. Cases where amount of loss is not
proven
Temperate damages are included in the
context of compensatory damages. In cases
where definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot
be offered, temperate damages can be granted
if the court is convinced that there has been
such loss. The court awarded temperate
damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of
earning capacity where earning capacity is
plainly established but no evidence was
presented to support the allegation of the
injured party’s actual income [Pleno v. CA,
G.R. No. 56505 (1988)].
The allowance of temperate damages when
actual damages were not adequately proven is
ultimately a rule drawn from equity, the
principle affording relief to those definitely
injured who are unable to prove how definite
the injury is [Republic v. Tuvera, G.R. No.
148246 (2007)].
4. In addition to other actual damages
proven when there is a chronic and
continuing injury involved
In cases where the resulting injury might be
continuing and possible future complications
directly arising from the injury, while certain to
occur are difficult to predict, temperate
damages can and should be awarded on top of
actual or compensatory damages; in such
cases, there is no incompatibility between
Page 521 of 532
CIVIL LAW
actual and temperate damages as they cover
two distinct phases [Ramos v. CA, G.R. No.
124354 (1999)].
ii. Factors in determining amount
In general
The court awarded temperate damages where
from the nature of the case, definite proof of
pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although
the court is convinced that the plaintiff suffered
some pecuniary loss. The court also increased
the award of temperate damages from
₱100,000 to ₱150,000, taking into account the
cost of rebuilding the damaged portions of the
perimeter fence [De Guzman v. Tumolva, G.R.
No. 188072 (2011)].
Receipts amounting to less than P25,000
If the actual damages, proven by receipts
during the trial, amount to less
than ₱25,000.00, the victim shall be entitled to
temperate damages in the amount
of ₱25,000.00, in lieu of actual damages. In
this case, the victim is entitled to the award of
₱25,000.00 as temperate damages
considering that the amount of actual damages
proven by receipts is only ₱3,858.50. Hence,
the actual damages shall be deleted.
Conversely, if the amount of actual damages
proven exceeds ₱25,000, then temperate
damages may no longer be awarded; actual
damages based on the receipts presented
during trial should instead be granted. [People
v. Lucero, G.R. No. 179044 (2010)].
Where no receipts were provided
When no documentary evidence of burial or
funeral expenses is presented in court, the
amount of ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages
shall be awarded [People v. Jugueta, G.R. No.
202124, (2016)].
Liquidated Damages
Art. 2226, CC. Liquidated damages are
those agreed upon by the parties to a
contract, to be paid in case of breach
thereof.
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Art. 2227, CC. Liquidated damages,
whether intended as an indemnity or a
penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they
are iniquitous or unconscionable.
Requisites and characteristics
1. Liquidated damages must be validly
stipulated.
2. There is no need to prove the amount of
actual damages.
3. Breach of the principal contract must be
proved.
Rules Governing Breach of Contract
Art. 2228, CC. 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.
The stipulation on attorney’s fees contained in
the promissory note constitutes what is known
as a penalty clause. A penalty clause,
expressly recognized by law, is an accessory
undertaking to assume greater liability on the
part of the obligor in case of breach of an
obligation. It functions to strengthen the
coercive force of obligation and to provide, in
effect, the liquidated damages resulting from
such a breach. The obligor would then be
bound to pay the stipulated indemnity without
the necessity of proof on the existence and on
the measure of damages caused by the breach
[Suatengco v. Reyes, G.R. No. 162729
(2008)].
General Rule: The penalty shall substitute the
indemnity for damages and the payment of the
interests in case of breach.
Exceptions:
1. When there is a stipulation to the contrary.
2. When the obligor is sued for refusal to pay
the agreed penalty.
3. When the obligor is guilty of fraud.
The amount can be reduced if:
1. It is unconscionable as determined by the
court;
2. There is partial or irregular performance.
Page 522 of 532
CIVIL LAW
In Titan v Unifield, G.R. No. 153874 (2007), the
Supreme Court found that the attorney’s fees
stipulated were too high. Since Uni-Field was
adequately protected by separate stipulations
on the balance, liquidated damages, and
attorney’s fees in case of breach, the Court
reduced the attorney’s fees to 25% of the
principal amount instead of the whole claim. It
also allowed the recovery of both liquidated
damages and attorney’s fees even if both were
in the nature of penalty clauses.
In Ligutan v. CA, G.R. No. 138677 (2002) the
court reduced the penalty from 5% to 3% for
being unconscionable. The question of
whether a penalty is reasonable or iniquitous
can be partly subjective and partly objective. Its
resolution would depend on such factors as,
but not necessarily confined to, the type, extent
and purpose of the penalty, the nature of the
obligation, the mode of breach and its
consequences, the supervening realities, the
standing and relationship of the parties, and
the like, the application of which, by and large,
is addressed to the sound discretion of the
court.
A penalty may be deleted if there is substantial
performance or if the penalty has a fatal
infirmity [RCBC v. CA, G.R. No. 128833
(1998)].
Exemplary or Corrective
Damages
Art. 2229, CC. 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.
General Principles
1. Exemplary damages cannot be awarded
alone: they must be awarded IN ADDITION
to moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages.
2. The purpose of the award is to deter the
defendant (and others in a similar
condition) from a repetition of the acts for
which exemplary damages were awarded;
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

hence, they are not recoverable as a In criminal offenses

matter of right.
3. The defendant must be guilty of malice or
negligence above the ordinary.
4. Plaintiff is not required to prove the amount
of exemplary damages.
(a) But plaintiff must show that he is
entitled to moral, temperate, or
compensatory damage; that is,
substantial damages, not purely
nominal ones. This requirement
applies even if the contract stipulates
liquidated damages [PNB v. CA, G.R.
No. 116181 (1996)].
(b) The amount of exemplary damage
need not be pleaded in the complaint
because the same cannot be proved. It
is merely incidental or dependent upon
what the court may award as
compensatory damages.
Under Art. 2234 of the CC, a showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to temperate damages
allows the award of exemplary damages
[Canada v. All Commodities Marketing (2008)].
Exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich
one party or impoverish another but to serve as
a deterrent against or as a negative incentive
to curb socially deleterious actions. [PNB v.
CA, supra].
Art. 2230, CC. In criminal offenses,
exemplary damages as a part of the civil
liability may be imposed when the crime
was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances. Such damages
are separate and distinct from fines and
shall be paid to the offended party.
Award of exemplary damages is part of the civil
liability, not of the penalty. Damages are paid
to the offended party separately from the fines.
Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a
state concern, the award of damages is
primarily intended for the offended party who
suffers thereby. It would make little sense for
an award of exemplary damages to be due the
private offended party when the aggravating
circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld
when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or
qualifying nature of an aggravating
circumstance is a distinction that should only
be of consequence to the criminal, rather than
to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine,
relative to the civil aspect of the case, an
aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or
qualifying, should entitle the offended party to
an award of exemplary damages within the
unbridled meaning of Art. 2230 [People v.
Dadulla, G.R. No. 172321 (2011)].

i. When Exemplary Damages are In Rape Cases

Recoverable The retroactive application of these procedural
rules cannot adversely affect the rights of a
WHEN EXEMPLARY private offended party that have become
ARISING
DAMAGES ARE vested, where the offense was committed prior
FROM
GRANTED to the effectivity of said rules. Consequently,
The crime was aggravating circumstances which were not
Art. committed with an alleged in the information but proved during the
Crimes
2230 aggravating trial may be appreciated for the limited purpose
circumstance/s of determining appellant’s liability for
Art. Quasi- Defendant acted with exemplary damages. The presence of the
2231 delicts gross negligence qualifying circumstance of knowledge by the
Defendant acted in a offender of the offended party’s mental
Contracts
Art. wanton, fraudulent, disability, although not alleged in the
and Quasi- information, was proved during trial, which
2232 reckless, oppressive,
contracts
or malevolent manner justifies the award of exemplary damages
[People v. Diunsay-Jalandoni, G.R. No.
174277 (2007)].

Page 523 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Being corrective in nature, exemplary
damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only
in the presence of an aggravating
circumstance, but also where the
circumstances of the case show the highly
reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the
offender. As in this case, where the offender
sexually assaulted a pregnant married woman,
the offender has shown moral corruption,
perversity, and wickedness. He has grievously
wronged the institution of marriage. The
imposition then of exemplary damages by way
of example to deter others from committing
similar acts or for correction for the public good
is warranted [People v. Alfredo, G.R. No.
188560 (2010)].
In quasi-delicts
Art. 2231, CC. In quasi-delicts, exemplary
damages may be granted if the defendant
acted with gross negligence.
In Globe Mackay v. CA, G.R. No. 81262 (1989)
the previous employer of the plaintiff, wrote a
letter to the company where the plaintiff
subsequently applied for employment, stating
that the plaintiff was dismissed by the
defendant from work due to dishonesty and
malversation of the defendant’s funds.
Previous police investigations revealed that the
defendant’s accusations against the plaintiff
were unfounded, and they cleared the plaintiff
of such ‘anomalies’. Here, the lower court
awarded exemplary damages to the plaintiff,
which the defendant questioned, averring that
CC 2231 may be awarded only for grossly
negligent acts, not for willful or intentional acts.
The SC upheld the grant of exemplary
damages, stating that while CC 2231 provides
that for quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may
be granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence, with more reason is its imposition
justified when the act performed is deliberate,
malicious and tainted with bad faith.
In contracts and quasi-contracts
Art. 2232, CC. In contracts and quasi-
contracts, the court may award exemplary
damages if the defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
Page 524 of 532
CIVIL LAW
The Court held that the airline’s disrespectful
and unhelpful treatment of Andion amounted to
bad faith. Andion was awarded exemplary
damages under Art. 2232 [Singapore Airlines
v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 142305 (2003)].
Exemplary damages may be awarded to serve
as a deterrent to those who, like Arco, use
fraudulent means to evade their liabilities [Arco
Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. v. Lim, G.R. No.
206806 (2014)].
ii. Requisites
Art. 2233, CC. Exemplary damages cannot
be recovered as a matter of right; the court
will decide whether or not they should be
adjudicated.
Art. 2234, CC. 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.
Art. 2235, CC. A stipulation whereby
exemplary damages are renounced in
advance shall be null and void.
Requirements for an award of exemplary
damages [Francisco v. Ferrer, supra]:
1. They may be imposed by way of example
in addition to compensatory damages, and
only after the claimant's right to them has
been established;
2. They can not be recovered as a matter of
right; their determination depends upon
the amount of compensatory damages that
may be awarded to the claimant;
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

3. The act must be accompanied by bad faith accomplice [People v. Halil Gambao, G.R. No.
or done in a wanton, fraudulent, 172707 (2013)].
oppressive or malevolent manner.
Miscellaneous Rules
3. When damages may be
i. Damages that cannot co-
recovered exist

When Allowed Nominal with other damages

The obligation to repair the damages exists Art. 2223, CC. The adjudication of nominal
whether done intentionally or negligently damages shall preclude further contest
and whether or not punishable by law upon the right involved and all accessory
[Occena v. Icamina, G.R. No. 82146 (1990)]. questions, as between the parties to the
suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.
The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses
does not give rise to a right to recover Nominal damages are incompatible with
damages. To warrant the recovery of temperate and exemplary damages.
damages, there must be both a right of action
for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, Nominal damages cannot co-exist with actual
and damage resulting to the plaintiff or compensatory damages [Armovit v. CA,
therefrom. Wrong without damage, or damage G.R. No. 88561 (1990)].
without wrong, does not constitute a cause of
action, since damages are merely part of the Actual and liquidated
remedy allowed for the injury caused by a
Art. 2226, CC. Liquidated damages are
breach or wrong [Custodio v. CA, supra]. those agreed upon by the parties to a
contract, to be paid in case of breach
Injury vs. Damage vs. Damages [from
thereof.
Custodio]
INJURY DAMAGE DAMAGES ii. Damages that must co-exist
The
The loss,
The illegal recompense or Exemplary with moral, temperate,
hurt, or harm,
invasion compensation liquidated or compensatory
which results
of a legal awarded for There was no legal basis for the award of
from the
right the damage exemplary damages since the private
injury
suffered respondent was not entitled to moral,
temperate, or compensatory damages and
Elements for recovery of damages there was no agreement on stipulated
1. Right of action damages [Scott Consultants & Resource
2. For a wrong inflicted by the defendant Development Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 112916
3. Damage resulting to the plaintiff (1995)].
Apportionment of Damages iii. Damages that must stand
The entire amount of the civil liabilities should alone
be apportioned among all those who
cooperated in the commission of the crime Nominal damages
according to the degrees of their liability, Art. 2223, CC. The adjudication of nominal
respective responsibilities and actual damages shall preclude further contest
participation. Hence, each principal accused- upon the right involved and all accessory
appellant should shoulder a greater share in questions, as between the parties to the
the total amount of indemnity and damages suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.
than someone who was adjudged as only an

Page 525 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

deceased had no earning capacity at said

B. DAMAGES IN CASE OF time on account of permanent disability not
DEATH caused by the accused. If the deceased
was obliged to give support, under Art. 291,
CC, the recipient who is not an heir, may
1. Death by Crime or Quasi-Delict
demand support from the accused for not
more than five years, the exact duration to
Art. 2206, CC. The amount of damages for be fixed by the court;
death caused by a crime or quasi-delict
b. Moral damages for mental anguish, — an
shall be at least three thousand pesos, even
amount to be fixed by the court. This may
though there may have been mitigating
be recovered even by the illegitimate
circumstances. In addition:
descendants and ascendants of the
1. The defendant shall be liable for the
deceased;
loss of the earning capacity of the
c. Exemplary damages, when the crime is
deceased, and the indemnity shall be
attended by one or more aggravating
paid to the heirs of the latter; such
circumstances, — an amount to be fixed in
indemnity shall in every case be
the discretion of the court, the same to be
assessed and awarded by the court,
considered separate from fines.
unless the deceased on account of
d. Attorney's fees and expenses of litigation,
permanent physical disability not
— the actual amount thereof, (but only
caused by the defendant, had no
when a separate civil action to recover civil
earning capacity at the time of his
liability has been filed or when exemplary
death;
damages are awarded);
2. If the deceased was obliged to give
e. Interests in the proper cases.
support according to the provisions of
[Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos, G.R. No.
Article 291, the recipient who is not an
L-25913 (1969)].
heir called to the decedent's inheritance
by the law of testate or intestate
succession, may demand support from
2. Civil or Death indemnity
the person causing the death, for a
Mere commission of the crime shall entitle the
period not exceeding five years, the
heirs of the deceased to such damages.
exact duration to be fixed by the court;
3. The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
In Rape Cases
descendants and ascendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages Civil indemnity, in the nature of actual and
for mental anguish by reason of the compensatory damages, is mandatory upon
the finding of the fact of rape. [People v.
death of the deceased.
Astrologo, G.R. No. 169873 (2007)].
In death caused by breach of conduct by a
The Court explained that the principal
common crime
consideration for the award of damages is not
When death occurs as a result of a crime, the
the public penalty imposed upon the offender,
heirs of the deceased are entitled to the
but based on the heinousness of the offense
following items of damages:
of a crime against chastity [People vs. Apattad,
a. Indemnity for the loss of earning capacity
G.R. No. 193188 (2011)].
of the deceased — an amount to be fixed
by the Court according to the
Even though the qualifying circumstance of
circumstances of the deceased related to
minority was not alleged in the information for
his actual income at the time of death and
rape, the court may still award civil indemnity.
his probable life expectancy, the said
The Court held that the designation of the
indemnity to be assessed and awarded by
offense only affects criminal liability, and not
the court as a matter of duty, unless the
civil liability because civil liability is for the

Page 526 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
benefit of the injured party. [People v.
Bartolini, G.R. No. 179498 (2010)].
C. GRADUATION OF
DAMAGES
1. Duty of Injured Party
Art. 2203, CC. 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.
This clearly obligates the injured party to
undertake measures that will alleviate and not
aggravate his condition after the infliction of the
injury, and places upon him the burden of
explaining why he could not do so [Chua v.
Colorite Marketing Corporation, G.R. No.
193969-193970 (2017)].
The plaintiffs maintain that the evidence clearly
establishes that they are entitled to damages in
the sum of P7,832.80 instead of P1,254.10 as
found by the trial court. There can be no doubt
that the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs as
a result of the accident greatly exceeded the
amount of the damages awarded. But bearing
in mind that in determining the extent of the
liability for losses or damages resulting from
negligence in the fulfillment of a contractual
obligation, the courts have "a discretionary
power to moderate the liability according to the
circumstances", we do not think that the
evidence is such as to justify us in interfering
with the discretion of the court below in this
respect. As pointed out by that court in its well-
reasoned and well-considered decision, by far
the greater part of the damages claimed by the
plaintiffs resulted from the fracture of a bone in
the left wrist of Joaquina Sanchez and from her
objections to having a decaying splinter of the
bone removed by a surgical operation. As a
consequence of her refusal to submit such an
operation, a series of infections ensued and
which required constant and expensive
medical treatment for several years. We agree
with the court below that the defendant should
Page 527 of 532
CIVIL LAW
not be charged with these expenses. [Lasam v.
Smith, G.R. No. L-19495 (1924)]
Principle: A party cannot recover damages
flowing from consequences which the party
could have reasonably avoided.
2. Rules
In Crimes
Art. 2204, CC. In crimes, the damages to be
adjudicated may be respectively increased
or lessened according to the aggravating or
mitigating circumstances.
Generally, in criminal cases, there are three
kinds of damages awarded by the Court,
namely: civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary
damages. Actual damages or temperate
damages may be awarded in some instances.
These are the damages that are usually
increased or decreased by the court depending
on the attendant circumstances according to
[People v. Jugueta, supra.].
1. Civil Indemnity
It is the indemnity authorized in criminal law for
the offended party, in the amount authorized by
the prevailing judicial policy and is set apart
from other proven actual damages.
This award stems from Art. 100 of the RPC
which states that "Every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.”
It is technically, not a penalty or a fine; hence,
it can be increased by the Court when
appropriate.
2. Moral Damages
Compensatory damages awarded for mental
pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting
from a wrong.
They may also be considered and allowed "for
resulting pain and suffering, and for
humiliation, indignity, and vexation suffered by
the plaintiff as result of his or her assailant's
conduct, as well as the factors of provocation,
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

the reasonableness of the force used, the

attendant humiliating circumstances, the sex of
the victim, [and] mental distress.”
The rationale for awarding moral damages has
been explained in Lambert v. Heirs of Rey
Castillon: "[T]he award of moral damages is
aimed at a restoration, within the limits
possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and
therefore, it must be proportionate to the
suffering inflicted."
Art. 2220 does not fix the amount of damages
that can be awarded. It is discretionary upon
the court, depending on the mental anguish or
the suffering of the private offended party so
long as it does not exceed the award of civil
indemnity.
3. Exemplary damages
Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive"
damages, exemplary or corrective damages
are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious
wrong doings, 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.
It is based on the theory that there should be
compensation for the pain caused by the highly
reprehensible conduct of the defendant
associated with such circumstances as
willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross
negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult
or fraud or gross fraud that intensifies the
injury.
Even without any aggravating circumstances,
can be awarded where the circumstances of
the case show the highly reprehensible or
outrageous conduct of the offender.
4. Temperate Damages
Under Art. 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate
damages may be recovered, as it cannot be
denied that the heirs of the victims suffered
pecuniary loss although the exact amount was
not proved.
When no documentary evidence of burial or
funeral expenses is presented in court, the
amount of ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages
shall be awarded

Amount of Civil Indemnity, Moral Damages, and Exemplary Damages to be paid for the
commission of certain crimes based on People v. Jugueta (2019):
(e.g. Civil indemnity= 100,000; Moral damages=100,000; Exemplary Damages=100,000)
Crime Degree of Consummation of Crime
Consummat Frustrated Attempted
ed
I. For those crimes like Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other
crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1. Where the penalty imposed is death but was ₱100,000.00 ₱75,000.00 ₱50,000.00
reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA
9346
2. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion ₱75,000.00 ₱50,000.00 ₱25,000.00
perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:
1. Where the penalty imposed is Death but was ₱100,000.00 ----------------- ₱50,000.00
reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA
9346
2. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion ₱75,000.00 ----------------- ₱25,000.00
perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
III. For Complex crimes under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code where death, injuries, or sexual
abuse results, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages will depend on the

Page 528 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

penalty, extent of violence and sexual abuse; and the number of victims where the penalty consists
of indivisible penalties:*
1. Where the penalty imposed is Death but was ₱100,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA
9346
2. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion ₱75,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
perpetua, other than the above-mentioned
*The above Rules apply to every victim who dies as a result of the crime committed. In other complex
crimes where death does not result, like in Forcible Abduction with Rape, the civil indemnity, moral
and exemplary damages depend on the prescribed penalty and the penalty imposed, as the case
may be.
IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with Homicide Robbery with Rape, Robbery with
@Intentional Mutilation, Robbery with Arson, Rape with Homicide, Kidnapping with Murder,
Carnapping with Homicide or Carnapping with Rape, Highway Robbery with Homicide, Qualified
Piracy, Arson with Homicide, Hazing with Death, Rape, Sodomy or Mutilation and other crimes with
death, injuries, and sexual abuse as the composite crimes, where the penalty consists of indivisible
penalties**
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but was ₱100,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA
9346
● In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation if the ₱100,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
penalty imposed is Death but was reduced to
reclusion perpetua although death did not
occur
1.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal ₱75,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
wounds and could have died if not for a timely
medical intervention
1.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non- ₱50,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
fatal injuries
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion ₱75,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
perpetua, other than the above-mentioned
● In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, if the ₱75,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.
2.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal ₱50,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
wounds and could have died if not for a timely
medical intervention
2.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non- ₱25,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
fatal injuries:
**1. In Robbery with Physical Injuries, the amount of damages shall likewise be dependent on the
nature/severity of the wounds sustained, whether fatal or non-fatal.
2. The above rules do not apply if in the crime of Robbery with Homicide, the robber/s or
perpetrator/s are themselves killed or injured in the incident.
3. Where the component crime is rape, the above rules shall likewise apply, and that for every
additional rape committed, whether against the same victim or other victims, the victims shall be
entitled to the same damages unless the other crimes of rape are treated as separate crimes, in
which case, the damages awarded to simple rape/qualified rape shall apply.
V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of divisible penalties

Page 529 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

1. Homicide, Infanticide to conceal the dishonor ₱50,000.00 ₱30,000.00 ₱20,000.00

of the offender, Duel, Intentional Abortion and
Unintentional Abortion, etc.
Note: The amount indicated here is for the
payment of civil indemnity and moral damages
only. No exemplary damages are awarded in
these cases.
2. Crimes where there are no stages such as ₱50,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
Reckless Imprudence and Death under
tumultuous affray
3. If an aggravating circumstance was proven ₱50,000.00 ₱30,000.00 ₱20,000.00
during the trial, even if not alleged in the
Information, exemplary damages are to be
awarded in the following manner, in addition to
civil indemnity and moral damages in V.1.:
VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion
1. Where the imposable penalty is reclusion ₱100,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
perpetua and death occurs in the course of
the rebellion, the amount the heirs of those
who died are entitled
1.1 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal ₱75,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
wounds in the course of the rebellion and could
have died if not for a timely medical intervention
1.2 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non- ₱50,000.00 ----------------- -----------------
fatal injuries
VII. In all of the above instances, when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is
presented in court, the amount of ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages shall be awarded.

In Quasi-delicts event should pay for the injury less a sum

Art. 2214, CC. In quasi-delicts, the
contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall
reduce the damages that he may recover.
Contributory negligence
The alleged contributory negligence of the
victim, if any, does not exonerate the accused
in criminal cases committed through reckless
imprudence, since one cannot allege the
negligence of another to evade the effects of
his own negligence [Genobiagon v. CA, supra].
If the act of the injured contributed to the
principal occurrence of the event causing the
injury, he cannot recover. However, where in
conjunction of the occurrence, he contributes
only to his own injury, he may recover the
amount that the defendant responsible for the
deemed a suitable equivalent for his own
imprudence. [Rakes v. Atlantic, G.R. No. L-
1719 (1907)].
In determining whether the passenger is guilty
of contributory negligence, the age, sex, and
his or her physical condition should be
considered [Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.,
supra].
Plaintiff’s negligence
Even if Manila Electric is negligent, its
negligence must be proven to be the proximate
and direct cause of the accident [Manila
Electric v. Remonquillo, supra].
If both the parties contributed to the proximate
cause, they cannot recover from one another
[Bernardo v. Legaspi, supra].

Page 530 of 532

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES
Grounds for mitigation of damages for
quasi-delicts:
1. That the loss would have resulted in any
event because of the negligence or
omission of another, and where such
negligence or omission is the immediate
and proximate cause of the damage or
injury;
2. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s injury or loss.
In Contracts and Quasi-
contracts
Art. 2215, CC. In contracts, quasi-contracts,
and quasi-delicts, the court may equitably
mitigate the damages under circumstances
other than the case referred to in the
preceding article, as in the following
instances:
1. That the plaintiff himself has
contravened the terms of the contract;
2. That the plaintiff has derived some
benefit as a result of the contract;
3. In cases where exemplary damages are
to be awarded, that the defendant acted
upon the advice of counsel;
4. That the loss would have resulted in any
event;
5. That since the filing of the action, the
defendant has done his best to lessen
the plaintiff's loss or injury.
1. Grounds for mitigation of damages
For contracts:
1. Violation of terms of the contract by the
plaintiff himself;
2. Obtention or enjoyment of benefits under
the contract by the plaintiff himself;
3. Defendant acted upon advice of counsel in
cases where exemplary damages are to be
awarded such as under Arts. 2230, 2231,
and 2232;
4. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s injury or loss.
For quasi-contracts:
1. In cases where exemplary damages are to
be awarded such as in Art. 2232;
Page 531 of 532
CIVIL LAW
2. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s injury or loss.
The SC deemed CC 2215(2) inapplicable
where the harm done to private respondents
outweighs any benefits the plaintiffs may have
derived from being transported to Tacloban
instead of being taken to Catbalogan, their
destination and the vessel's first port of call,
pursuant to its normal schedule [Sweet Lines v.
CA, G.R. No. L-46340(1983)].
Rule when contracting parties are in pari
delicto
Generally, parties to a void agreement cannot
expect the aid of the law; the courts leave them
as they are, because they are deemed in pari
delicto or "in equal fault." In pari delicto is "a
universal doctrine which holds that no action
arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal
contract; no suit can be maintained for its
specific performance, or to recover the
property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the
money agreed to be paid, or damages for its
violation; and where the parties are in pari
delicto, no affirmative relief of any kind will be
given to one against the other."
This rule, however, is subject to exceptions that
permit the return of that which may have been
given under a void contract to:
1. the innocent party [Arts. 1411-1412, CC];
2. the debtor who pays usurious interest [Art.
1413, CC];
3. the party repudiating the void contract
before the illegal purpose is accomplished
or before damage is caused to a third
person and if public interest is subserved
by allowing recovery [Art. 1414, CC];
4. the incapacitated party if the interest of
justice so demands [Art. 1415, CC];
5. the party for whose protection the
prohibition by law is intended if the
agreement is not illegal per se but merely
prohibited, and if public policy would be
enhanced by permitting recovery [Art.
1416, CC]; and
6. the party for whose benefit the law has
been intended such as in price ceiling laws
[Art. 1417, CC] and labor laws [Arts. 1418-
1419, CC].
U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

General and Construction Services, G.R. No.

Art. 1192 provides that in case both parties 188027 (2017)]
have committed a breach of the obligation, the
liability of the first infractor shall be equitably Compromise
tempered by the courts. Art. 2215(1), on the
other hand, warrants equitable mitigation of Art. 2031, CC. The courts may mitigate the
damages in case the plaintiff himself has damages to be paid by the losing party who
contravened the terms of the contract. The has shown a sincere desire for a
plaintiff referred to in Art 2215(1) should be compromise.
deemed to be the 2nd infractor, while the one
whose liability for damages may be mitigated is
the 1st infractor. In this case, Ong was the 1st
infractor while Bogñalbal is the 2nd infractor.
Hence, Ong should first pay the value of the
accomplished work before the damage
scheme under Art 1192 is applied [Ong v.
Bogñabal, G.R. No. 149140, (2006)].

Liquidated Damages

Art. 2227, CC. Liquidated damages,

whether intended as an indemnity or a
penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they
are iniquitous or unconscionable.

Pursuant to settled jurisprudence and Article

1229, in relation to Article 2227, of the New Civil
Code, the Court deems it proper to reduce the
penalty involved.

The respondents are obligated under the

Agreement to complete the waterproofing
works on April 6, 1997, but failed. The
remaining work to be done had to be performed
by Esicor, who accomplished the same on April
5, 1998. In light of these, the respondents are
then liable for delay for a period of 365 days,
which corresponds to the amount of Php
3,650,000.00 as penalty under the Agreement.
Without doubt, taking into consideration that
the respondents have completed 90% of the
project and the absence of any showing of bad
faith on their part, as well as the fact that the
waterproofing works have already been
completed at the respondents' expense, the
amount of Php 3,650,000.00 as penalty is
exorbitant under the premises. Therefore, the
Court reduces the same and imposes the
amount of Php 200,000.00 as liquidated
damages, by way of penalty. [Swire Realty
Development Corp v. Specialty Contracts

Page 532 of 532