ObliCon Lecture on Obligations Part 2
Transcribed by Group 2 (Amores, Antonio, Apino, Balanay)
ARTICLE 1161
Civil obligation arising from criminal offenses shall be
governed by the penal laws, subject to the provisions of
article 2176, and of the pertinent provisions of Chapter 2,
Preliminary Title, on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII
of this Book, regulating damages.
*Article 1161 talks obligation arising from delicts, quasi-
delicts, or acts or omissions punished by law. When we say
punished by law, we refer here to acts or omissions punished
by the Revised Penal Code or Special Laws. By delicts we
mean acts which are criminal in character.
Now under our jurisdiction, every person who is criminally
liable is also civilly liable – Art 100 of RPC
When a person is found to have committed a crime, he may
be imprisoned, fined, and there are accessory penalties like
civil interdiction, suspension and disqualification which are
criminal in character. In addition to that he may also be held
liable to pay indemnity or damages pursuant to article 100 of
the Revised Penal Code.
Now what would be included in the civil liability? For this
we have to refer to the Revised Penal Code, specifically
Articles 104, 105, 106 and 107.
ARTICLE 104: What is included in the civil liability. – the
civil liability established in Article 100, 101, 102, and 103
of this Code includes:
1) Restitution
2) Reparation of the damage caused
3) Indemnification for consequential damages.
Article 105. RESTITUTION; How made. – the restitution
of the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with
allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of value as
determined by the court. The thing itself shall be restored,
even though it be found in the possession of a third person
who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his
action against the proper person, who may be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing
had been acquired by the third person in the manner and
under the requirements which, by law, bar any action for its
recovery.
ARTICLE 106. REPARATION; How made. – the court
shall determine the amount of damage, taking into
consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible, and
its special sentimental value to the injured party, and
reparation shall be made accordingly.
ARTICLE 107. INDEMNIFICATION; What is included.
– Indemnification for consequential damages shall include
not only those caused the injured party, but those also
suffered by his family or a third person by reason of the
crime.
So for example; someone broke into your house and stole
your computer. That person was eventually found in charged
with robbery because he broke into your house by
destroying a window. Now you develop trauma and your
grandmother had a heart attacked and had to be hospitalized
as a result of the robbery. So aside from the value of the
window and the computer, your sleepless nights, anxiety,
will have to be compensated and may be even the hospital
bills of your grandmother if can be shown that the incident
was the proximate cause. So that’s the demonstration of
what are the civil liabilities included whenever they institute
a criminal action.
Civil Aspect Deemed Instituted in Criminal Case
Generally, the civil aspect is deemed instituted in the
criminal action this is because of your Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure, Rule 111, Section 1) which states “even
a criminal action is instituted, the civil action, for the
recovery of civil liability, arising from the offense charge
shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless:
EXCEPTIONS:
- When the offended party waives the civil action
- When the offended party reserves the right to institute it
separately
- When the offended party institutes the civil action prior
to the criminal action.
This is actually more or less a review already of your
persons because if you recall under your persons you have a
chapter on human relations which also discusses
independent civil actions. But very quickly, lets discuss
what is the effect of the acquittal of the criminal case on the
civil liability. And you have to remember when we talk
about civil liability, this refers to civil liability arising from
the crime. This is not refer to any other kind of civil liability.
Effect of Acquittal in Criminal Case.
1) If the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, the
civil liability may be pursued.
2) If the acquittal is based on the innocence of the
accused, there can never be a civil liability because
an acquittal based on innocence means the person
 never committed the act, thus there can be no basis
for the civil or criminal liability.
REASONABLE DOUBT INNOCENCE
- There is NO MORAL - The accused really did
CERTAINTY that the not commit a crime.
accused committed the
crime. - He cannot be made to
answer crime whether
- The burden of proof criminally or civilly.
was not met for
criminal conviction
- Civil liability may be
pursued.
3) If the acquittal is based on a declaration that no
negligence can be attributed to the accused and that
the act from which the civil action might arise did
not exist, there also cannot be any civil liability
even though pursued separately.
- So pag sinabi nating no negligence, it means that there
again was no crime, or that if the act which a civil action
might arise did not exist then there can also be no civil
liability.
4) If the acquittal is based on exempting circumstance
like insanity, it will also result to the acquittal of the accused
but the civil liability remains.
- We can pursue the civil liability even if the accused is
exempt from being held criminally liable. When we speak of
civil liabilities rising from the crime itself, there has to be
conviction. Although it doesn't mean that once a criminal
action is dismissed, the aggrieved party has no other relief.
If he can predicate his case on any other source of obligation
aside from the delict, then there can still be recovery.
Reason: Because delict or crime is not the only source of
obligations. One act can produce different causes of action
or one incident can actually produce different causes of
action which are source from different obligations.
Quasi-Delicts:
- the concept of Quasi-Delicts is founded on the principle of
equity. The consequences of fault or negligence of a victim
shall not be borne by the victim who is without fault.
Note:
If you are the one who is negligent, then you should be
liable for the damages of your act even if you did not intend
to that act, or you did not intend the consequences of that
particular act.
ART. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be
governed by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this
Book, and by special laws.
How do we define a quasi-delict?
A contract is defined under Art. 2176:
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
this Chapter.
Elements:
1. Fault or negligence
2. Damage or injury suffered by the other person.
3. Direct casual relation between the fault or negligence and
the resulting damage or injury.
Note:
* When we say fault or negligence this is the omission of the
due diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the
person of the time and of the place.
Varying kinds of obligations require varying levels of
diligence. Some obligations require extra-ordinary diligence,
some ordinary, others like there must be a logical connection
between the negligent act committed by a person and the
subsequent damage or injury resulting from the negligent
act.
Dela Cruz vs. Octaviano
Facts:
Captain Renato Octaviano, a military dentist assigned to the
AFP in Camp Aguinaldo, together with his family, rode a
tricycle driven by Padilla. When they arrived at their
destination, the tricycle was hit by a car driven by Dela Cruz
causing Renato to be thrown into the gutter 2 meters away.
The severity of Renato's injuries caused him to have legs
amputated and he had to spend approximately 620,000 pesos
for his medical bills and prosthetics. So, he ends his mother
filed a civil case for damages against Dela Cruz.
Issue: WON there is negligence resulting to a corresponding
liability.
Ruling: Yes, in this case, the SC had the occasion to
enumerate the elements of a Quasi-Delicts.
After reviewing the records of the case, this Court affirms
the findings of the CA. In ruling that petitioner was
negligent, the CA correctly appreciated the pieces of
evidence presented by the respondents, thus:
First, with regard to the damage or injury, there is no
question that the plaintiffs suffered damage due to the
incident on April 1, 1999. Plaintiff Renato Octaviano's right
leg was crushed by the impact of the Honda Civic driven by
defendant Dela Cruz against the tricycle where the
Octavianos were riding and as a result thereof, Renato's
right leg was amputated. Plaintiff Wilma Octaviano suffered
traumatic injuries/hematoma on different parts of her body
as borne by the evidence submitted to the trial court. The
damages or injuries were duly proved by preponderant
evidence.
Second, with regard to the wrongful act or omission
imputable to the negligence of defendant Al Dela Cruz, we
hold that the trial court missed the glaring fact that
defendant Dela Cruz was guilty of negligence.
With regard to the third requisite, that there be a direct
relation of cause and effect between the damage or injury
and the fault or negligence is clearly present in the case at
bar. Had defendant Dela Cruz exercised caution, his Honda
Civic would not have collided with the tricycle and
plaintiffs’ leg would not be crushed necessitating its
amputation. The cause of the injury or damage to the
plaintiff’s leg is the negligent act of defendant Dela Cruz.
The last requisite is that there be no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties. It is undeniable
that the defendants and plaintiffs has no prior contractual
relation, that they were strangers to each other before the
incident happened. Thus, the four requisites that must
concur under Article 2176 are clearly established in the
present case. Plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages.
*So applying the requisites earlier discussed, the SC said
that there was in fact negligence in this case.
VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO., INC VS ALFECHE.
FACTS:
Here you have a fire which broke out in población San
Fernando, Cebu which burn down the house and store of
Alfeche among others. It was alleged that the cause of the
fire was the constant abrasion of VECO’s electric wire with
M. Lhuillier sign board. VECO asserts however, that the
source of the fire was Lhuillier’s sign board as it was the one
that touched the wires of VECO. As before Lhuillier and
VECO, who should be found liable? (This is actually very
funny, you accused the bill board moving to touch the wires
but anyway. The SC went back to the elements of a Quasi-
delict and it applied these elements to the case at bar.)
RULING:
Thus, the CA was correct in ruling that VECO’s negligence
was the proximate cause of the injury suffered by
respondents Emilio, Gilbert and Manugas. All elements for
liability for a quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code has been shown to be attendant on VECO’s part.
The elements of a quasi-delicts are:
1) The damages suffered by the plaintiffs
2) The fault or negligence of the defendant or some
other persons whose acts he must respond
3) The connection of cause and effect between the
fault or negligence and the damages incured
As to the first element it said that there was clearly damage
that the Alfeches and Manugas suffered damage because of
the fire. What has hitherto remained unresolved which is
between VECO and M. Lhuillier is liable to indemnify
them.
Fault is “a voluntary act or omission which causes damage
to the right of another giving rise to an obligation on the part
of [another]. On the other hand, negligence is the failure to
observe for the protection of the interest of another person
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand.”
Between VECO and M. Lhuillier, it is VECO which the
court finds to have been negligent.
M. Lhuillier is not negligent in installing its signage. It
installed its signage in 1995 well before the road widening
and drainage project commenced and ahead of VECO’s
relocation of its posts. (*meaning it was VECO that had the
opportunity to in fact avoid the signages of M. Lhuillier).
Solon and Camuta both emphasized that the signage free of
any obstacle. Other than VECO’s evasive accusations, there
is no proof to the contrary.
It was VECO that was negligent. It is apparent that it
transferred its posts and wires without regard for the hazards
that the transferred entailed, particularly with respect to the
installation which had previously been distant from the
wires and posts but which had since come into close
proximity. (So ultimately, the SC said that it was VECO’s
negligence was the proximate cause of the injury or damage
suffered by the Alfeches and Manugas.)
VECO is a public utility tasked with distributing electricity
to consumers. It is its duty to ensure that it’s posts are
properly and safely installed. As the holder of a public
franchise, it is to be presumed that it has the necessary
recourses and expertise to enable a safe and effective
installation of its facilities. By installing its posts and wires
haphazardly, without regard to how its wires could come in
contact with a previously installed signage, VECO failed to
act in keeping with the diligence required of it.
Proximate cause is defined as “that cause which, in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury and without which
the result would not have occurred. {root cause}
(*So in this case, VECO was found to have been negligent
and was made to pay the consequences of its negligence.)
IMPERIAL VS HEIRS OF BAYABAN
This involves a vehicular accident between Laraga and
Mercado. Laraga was driving a van owned by Imperial
while mercado was driving a tricycle. On board of the
tricycle were the Bayaban spouses who sustained injuries.
The Bayaban spouses demanded that Imperial, Laraga, and
Mercado pay for their hospital bills and lost of income but
none of them listened. So the Spouses Bayaban brought an
action for damages before the trial court.
Imperial denied liability saying that he has employed Laraga
as a family drivier but contended that he had exercise due
diligence in the selection in supervision of Laraga and even
sponsoring Laraga’s formal driving lesson. Furthermore, he
alleged that Laraga was acting outside of his call of duties
when the accident happened considering it was in fact dapat
Laraga’s rest day.
So the question is if Imperial can be held liable for
negligence? So baka napaisip kayo, “Ma’am bakit siya yong
liable na hindi naman siya ang nagmaneho ng sasakyan?
Because in quasi-delict, there is such a thing as the carriers
liability whereby the employer can be held liable for the
negligence of his employee if it is found that the employee
was performing his functions at the time of the negligent act.
So in this case Imperial was held liable for the negligence of
Laraga for the following reasons:
There’s no question that Laraga was Imperial’s driver, hence
his employee as this facts was admitted by Imperial.
This court likewise finds that Laraga was acting within the
scope of his task at the time of the incident.
It was 3PM and Laraga was driving in Antipolo City, where,
as alleged by petitioner, his greenhouse and garden were
located. It is worth noting that according to the petitioner, he
loaned the van to Pascua for the maintenance of his
greenhouse and the repair of the water line pipes in his
garden. The logical conclusion is that Laraga was driving
the van in connection with the upkeep of petitioner’s
Antipolo greenhouse and garden. Laraga was driving the
van in furtherance of the interests of petitioner at the time of
the account. Xxx
Considering that petitioner failed to dispute the presumption
of negligence on his part, he was correctly deemed liable for
the damages incurred by the Bayaban Spouses when the
tricycle they were riding collided with the van driven by
petitioner’s employee, Laraga. It must be noted that the
accident happened because Laraga tried to overtake another
vehicle and, in doing so, drove to the opposite lane when the
van collided with the approaching tricycle. Laraga was
negligent in operating the van.
*So if you look at the circumstance of the case, Laraga was
on his way, in fact, to the business place of Imperial. So
Imperial cannot claim that he acted beyond the scope of his
duties and this was correctly upheld by the Supreme Court.
VDM Trading and Spouses Domingo vs. Carungcong
Here there was an issue in the unit being occupied by the
Spouses Domingo because allegedly the unit above them
which is owned by Carungcong had gaslighting and pipe
line work to be done in their unit which resulted to soapy
water leaking into the Spouses Domingo’s unit. So the
Spouses Domingo filed a complaint for damages against
Carungcong and Wack Wack Twin Towers Condominium
Association, Inc., the owner of the condominium.
So here the the SC said the requisites of a quasi-delict were
not met and, therefore, Carungcong could not be held
liable. This is a unique case because it involves a
condominium unit and it’s one of the first case samples
where there is no finding of negligence so we should look at
how the elements of quasi-delict are applied here and how
the SC said that there was insufficient proof to show that
there was, in fact, negligence on the part of Carungcong.
To constitute quasi-delict, the alleged fault or negligence
committed by the defendant must be the proximate cause of
the damage or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury and without which the result
would not have occurred.
State in simple terms, it must be proven that the supposed
fault or negligence committed by the respondents, i.e., the
undertaking of plumbing works on unit 2308B-1, was the
cause of the damage to the Unit. Such was not proven by the
petitioners.
First, as correctly observed by the CA, the claim that a
supposed leak in the plumbing works located in the balcony
of Unit 2308B-1 caused the leakage of soapy water in
various parts of the Unit, including the various bedrooms
inside the unit, is highly doubtful and illogical. As noted by
the CA, the subject plumbing works are isolated in the
balcony area of Unit 2308B-1. The petitioners do not dispute
that the said area is separated from the other areas of the unit
and sealed off by a wall and beam. Hence, if a leakage in the
plumbing works on the balcony of Unit 2308B-1 indeed
occurred, is is highly improbable that suck leak would
spread to a wide area of the unit.
Second, aside from the unsubstantiated self-serving
testimony of Atty. Villareal, there was no evidence
presented to show that the supposed widespread leak of
soapy water in the various parts of the unit was caused by
plumbing works on the balcony of the said balcony. No
witness or document establishing a causal link between the
plumbing works and the damage to the unit was offered. The
petitioners could have utilized assessors or technical experts
on building and plumbing works to personally examine and
assess the damage caused to the unit to provide some
substantiation to the claim of proximate cause. However, no
such witness was presented. The petitioners relied solely on
the testimony of their own counsel, Atty. Villareal.
Proximate cause cannot be established by the mere say-so of
a self-serving witness.
ES Trucking was not only negligent in hiring Timtim but
even in supervising the latter. They permitted Timtim to
drive the subject vehicle to transport goods of its customers
knowing that the vehicle is not duly registered with the
LTFRB. So, Timtim was not actually qualified to drive the
truck because his license was not qualified to drive the truck
assigned to him.

Lastly, the fact that the plumbing works done in Unit

2308B-1 was not the cause of the damage suffered by the
petitioners’ unit is further supported by the factual finding of
the CA that a case before the HLURB was previously filed
by the petitioners against Golden Dragon. In this complaint,
which was offered evidence by the petitioners themselves,
the latter alleged that in 1998, way before the installation of
the subject plumbing works in Unit 2308B-1, they had
already discovered water leaks in the unit which damaged
the interiors thereof. It was the petitioners’ allegation that
the water leakage in the unit was made possible due to the
Golden Dragon’s delivery of a “defective and/or standard
unit”. In fact, the CA noted that the HLURB issued a
Decision dated July 9, 2009 holding Golden Dragon liable
for the water leakage suffered by the petitioners. It is of no
coincidence that the award for actual damages granted to the
petitioners is similar to the award for the actual damages
sought by the petitioners in the instant case.

Heirs of Mendoza vs. ES Trucking Forwarders

The heirs of Catalina who sued ES Trucking over a

vehicular accident, claiming that ES Trucking did not
exercise due diligence of a good the father of family in the
selection of their driver because it hired a driver who did
not have the necessary training for driving a trailer truck.
They argued that because ES Trucking is a common carrier,
there’s a presumption of negligence that may only be
defeated if evidence of the observance of diligence required
by law is presented.

In this case, it has been proven by the preponderant evidence

that Timtim recklessly drove the prime mover truck which
caused the death of Catalina. Although the employer is not
the actual torfeasor, the law makes the employer vicariously
liable on the basis of the civil law principle of paterfamilias
for failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of
one’s subordinates to prevent damage to another. When the
employee caused damage due to his own negligence while
performing his own duties, there arises a presumption that
the employer is negligent. This may be rebutted only by
proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a
family. The “diligence of a good father” referred to in the
last paragraph of Article 2180 means diligence in the
selection and supervision of employees.

In the selection of its prospective employees, the employer

is required to examine them as to their qualifications,
experience, and service records. ES Trucking did not require
Timtim to present any document other than this professional
driver’s license and job application form.