2019 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW

TORTS AND DAMAGES Handout No. 37

HUMAN RELATIONS

Article 19 of the Civil Code contains what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of
rights which requires that everyone must act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.

The law recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human
conduct must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because it is recognized or granted by
law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in
a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage
to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held
responsible. Jose Tan, et al. v. Romeo Valeriano, G.R. No. 185559, August 2, 2017

Abuse of right under Article 19 exists when the following elements are present: (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 19 of the Civil Code “prescribes a ‘primordial limitation on all rights’ by setting certain
standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof.”

Malice or bad faith is at the core of Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith refers to the state of
mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to
abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. It is presumed.
Thus, he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. Bad faith does not simply connote
bad judgment or simple negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and
conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill will
that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response
to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad
motive. Elizabeth L. Diaz v. Georgina R. Encanto, et al., G.R. No. 171303, January 20, 2016

The law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal
wrong.

Situations like this have been appropriately denominated damnum absque injuria.

In this case, the Court cannot grant petitioner Diaz’s claim for attorney’s fees as no premium
should be placed on the right to litigate. “Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate or to incur

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES Handout No. 37

expenses to protect his rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where there is no
sufficient showing of bad faith in a party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous
conviction of the righteousness of his cause”. Elizabeth L. Diaz v. Georgina R. Encanto, et al.,
G.R. No. 171303, January 20, 2016

In order that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, there must be damnum et
injuria that act must be not only hurtful, but wrongful.

In this jurisdiction, we adhere to the principle that injury alone does not give respondent the right
to recover damages, but it must also have a right of action for the legal wrong inflicted by
petitioners. The City of Bacolod, et al. v. Phuture Visions Co., Inc., G.R. No. 190289, January 17,
2018

Under Article 19 of the Civil Code, “(e)very 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.” Under Article 26, “(e)very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of his neighbors.”

A party cannot be allowed to influence and manipulate the courts’ decisions by performing acts
upon the disputed property — during the pendency of the case — which would allow it to achieve
the objectives it desires.

In this case, petitioner Naga Centrum, Inc.’s action betrays a perverse and deliberate intention to
hurt and punish respondents for legally demanding a right-of-way which it nevertheless knew
was forthcoming, and which, considering the size of its land, it may give without the least
prejudice to its own rights. Naga Centrum, Inc. v. Spouses Ramon and Nenita Orzales, G.R. No.
203576, September 14, 2016

The principle of abuse of rights departs from the classical theory that 'he who uses a right
injures no one.' The modern tendency is to depart from the classical and traditional theory, and
to grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is an abuse of rights, even when the act
is not illicit.

Article 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the
untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide, specifically

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES Handout No. 37

in statutory law. If mere fault or negligence in one's acts can make him liable for damages for
injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad faith make him liable.

While Article 19 may have been intended as a mere declaration of principle, the 'cardinal law on
human conduct' expressed in said article has given rise to certain rules, e.g. that where a person
exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is
not in keeping with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to liability. The elements of an
abuse of rights under Article 19 are: (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 . Metroheights Subdivision
Homeowners Association, Inc. v. CMS Construction and Development Corp., et al., G.R. No.
209359, October 17, 2018

Waiver of Rights

The concept of waiver has been defined by the Supreme Court as: a voluntary and intentional
relinquishment or abandonment of a known existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or
privilege, which except for such waiver the party would have enjoyed; the voluntary
abandonment or surrender, by a capable person, of a right known by him to exist, with the intent
that such right shall be surrendered and such person forever deprived of its benefit; or such
conduct as warrants an inference of the relinquishment of such right; or the intentional doing of
an act inconsistent with claiming it.

The doctrine of waiver extends to rights and privileges of any character, and, since the word
‘waiver’ covers every conceivable right, it is the general rule that a person may waive any matter
which affects his property, and any alienable right or privilege of which he is the owner or which
belongs to him or to which he is legally entitled, whether secured by contract, conferred with
statute, or guaranteed by constitution, provided such rights and privileges rest in the individual,
are intended for his sole benefit, do not infringe on the rights of others, and further provided the
waiver of the right or privilege is not forbidden by law, and does not contravene public policy; and
the principle is recognized that everyone has a right to waive, and agree to waive, the advantage
of a law or rule made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity,
if it can be dispensed with and relinquished without infringing on any public right, and without
detriment to the community at large. Edna Mabugay-Otamias, et al. v. Republic, et al., G.R. No.
189516, June 8, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES Handout No. 37

The principle of unjust enrichment essentially contemplates payment when there is no duty to
pay, and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it.

Unjust enrichment exists when a person unfairly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when
a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice,
equity, and good conscience. Georgia Osmeña-Jalandoni v. Carmen Encomienda, G.R. No.
205578, March 1, 2017

Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he
paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar as the
payment has been beneficial to the debtor.

In this case, petitioner Jalandoni greatly benefited from the purportedly unauthorized payments
made by respondent. Thus, even if she asseverates that Encomienda’s payment of her household
bills was without her knowledge or against her will, she cannot deny the fact that the same still
inured to her benefit and Encomienda must therefore be consequently reimbursed for it. Also,
when Jalandoni learned about the payments, she did nothing to express her objection to or
repudiation of the same, within a reasonable time. Even when she claimed that she was prepared
with her own money, she still accepted the financial assistance and actually made use of it.

The debtor who knows that another has paid his obligation for him and who does not repudiate
it at any time, must corollarily pay the amount advanced by such third person . Georgia Osmeña-
Jalandoni v. Carmen Encomienda, G.R. No. 205578, March 1, 2017

The principle of unjust enrichment has two (2) conditions. First, a person must have been
benefited without a real or valid basis or justification. Second, the benefit was derived at
another person’s expense or damage.

In this case, when respondent Uniwide paid taxes to it [Cainta], Cainta was benefited without
real or valid basis, which benefit was derived at the expense of both Uniwide and Pasig.

Cainta, then, is obligated to return the taxes erroneously paid to it by Uniwide pursuant to the
principle against unjust enrichment. Municipality of Cainta v. City of Pasig and Uniwide Sales
Warehouse Club, Inc., G.R. Nos. 176703 and 176721, June 28, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES Handout No. 37

It is a doctrine well-entrenched in jurisprudence that the mere act of submitting a case to the
authorities for prosecution, of and by itself, does not make one liable for malicious prosecution,
for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.

In this case, respondent Valeriano failed to prove that the subject complaints against him were
motivated purely by a sinister design. It is an elementary rule that good faith is presumed and
that the burden of proving bad faith rests upon a party alleging the same. Absent such,
petitioners cannot be held liable for damages. Jose Tan, et al. v. Romeo Valeriano, G.R. No.
185559, August 2, 2017

TORTS

Negligence may either result in culpa aquiliana or culpa contractual.

Culpa aquiliana is “the wrongful or negligent act or omission which creates a vinculum juris and
gives rise to an obligation between two persons not formally bound by any other obligation,” and
is governed by Article 2176 of the Civil Code.

Negligence in culpa contractual, on the other hand, is “the fault or negligence incident in the
performance of an obligation which already existed, and which increases the liability from such
already existing obligation.” This is governed by Articles 1170 to 1174 of the Civil Code . Orient
Freight International, Inc. v. Keihin-Everett Forwarding Company, Inc., G.R. No. 191937, August
9, 2017

Actions based on contractual negligence and actions based on quasi-delicts differ in terms of
conditions, defenses, and proof. They generally cannot coexist.

Once a breach of contract is proved, the defendant is presumed negligent and must prove not
being at fault. In a quasi-delict, however, the complaining party has the burden of proving the
other party’s negligence.

In quasi-delict, negligence is direct, substantive and independent, while in breach of contract,

negligence is merely incidental to the performance of the contractual obligation; there is a
preexisting contract or obligation. In quasi-delict, the defense of “good father of a family” is a
complete and proper defense insofar as parents, guardians and employers are concerned, while
in breach of contract, such is not a complete and proper defense in the selection and supervision
of employees. In quasi-delict, there is no presumption of negligence and it is incumbent upon the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES Handout No. 37

injured party to prove the negligence of the defendant, otherwise, the former’s complaint will be
dismissed, while in breach of contract, negligence is presumed so long as it can be proved that
there was breach of the contract and the burden is on the defendant to prove that there was no
negligence in the carrying out of the terms of the contract; the rule of respondeat superior is
followed. Orient Freight International, Inc. v. Keihin-Everett Forwarding Company, Inc., G.R. No.
191937, August 9, 2017

There are instances, however, when Article 2176 may apply even when there is a preexisting
contractual relation. A party may still commit a tort or quasi-delict against another, despite the
existence of a contract between them.

The field of noncontractual obligation is much broader [sic] than that of contractual obligation,
comprising, as it does, the whole extent of juridical human relations. These two fields, figuratively
speaking, concentric; that is to say, the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract
does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. When such a contractual
relation exists, the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which
constitutes a breach of the contract would have constituted the source of an extra-contractual
obligation had no contract existed between the parties.

If a contracting party’s act that breaches the contract would have given rise to an extra-
contractual liability had there been no contract, the contract would be deemed breached by a
tort, and the party may be held liable under Article 2176 and its related provisions . Orient Freight
International, Inc. v. Keihin-Everett Forwarding Company, Inc., G.R. No. 191937, August 9, 2017

In order for liability from negligence to arise, there must be not only proof of damage and
negligence, but also proof that the damage was the consequence of the negligence.

Negligence as a source of obligation both under the civil law and in American cases was carefully
considered and it was held: “[W]e agree with counsel for appellant that under the Civil Code, as
under the generally accepted doctrine in the United States, the plaintiff in an action such as that
under consideration, in order to establish his right to a recovery, must establish by competent
evidence: (1) Damages to the plaintiff. (2) Negligence by act or omission of which defendant
personally or some person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty. (3) The connection of cause
and effect between the negligence and the damage.

In order that a person may be held guilty for damage through negligence, it is necessary that
there be an act or omission on the part of the person who is to be charged with the liability and

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES Handout No. 37

that damage is produced by the said act or omission . Romulo Abrogar, et al. v. Cosmos Bottling
Company, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017

To be considered the proximate cause of the injury, the negligence need not be the event closest
in time to the injury; a cause is still proximate, although farther in time in relation to the injury,
if the happening of it set other foreseeable events into motion resulting ultimately in the
damage.

A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action, if such remote cause did nothing
more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made
possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct,
successive, unrelated and efficient cause (efficient intervening cause), even though such injury
would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no damage exists in the condition
except because of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an
independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the circumstances which
result in injury because of the prior defective condition, such act or condition is the proximate
cause. Romulo Abrogar, et al. v. Cosmos Bottling Company, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 164749, March
15, 2017

An intervening cause, to be considered efficient, must be “one not produced by a wrongful act
or omission, but independent of it, and adequate to bring the injurious results.”

Any cause intervening between the first wrongful cause and the final injury which might
reasonably have been foreseen or anticipated by the original wrongdoer is not such an efficient
intervening cause as will relieve the original wrong of its character as the proximate cause of the
final injury. Romulo Abrogar, et al. v. Cosmos Bottling Company, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 164749,
March 15, 2017

In order to successfully pursue a claim in a medical negligence case, the plaintiff must prove
that a health professional either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health
professional would have or have not done; and that the action or omission caused injury to the
patient.

The plaintiff must show the following elements by a preponderance of evidence: duty of the
health professional, breach of that duty, injury of the patient, and proximate causation between

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES Handout No. 37

the breach and the injury. Meanwhile, in fixing a standard by which a court may determine
whether the physician properly performed the requisite duty toward the patient, expert medical
testimonies from both plaintiff and defense are resorted to. In this case, the expert testimony of
witness for the respondent Dr. Godfrey Robeniol, a neurosurgeon, provided that the best time
to treat hypoxic encephalopathy is at the time of its occurrence; i.e., when the patient is
experiencing difficulty in breathing and showing signs of cardiac arrest. Our Lady of Lourdes
Hospital v. Spouses Romeo and Regina Capanzana, G.R. No. 189218, March 22, 2017

Under Article 2180, an employer may be held liable for the negligence of its employees based
on its responsibility under a relationship of patria potestas.

For the negligence of its nurses, petitioner is thus liable under Article 2180 in relation to Article
2176 of the Civil Code.

The liability of the employer under this provision is “direct and immediate; it is not conditioned
upon a prior recourse against the negligent employee or a prior showing of the insolvency of that
employee.” The employer may only be relieved of responsibility upon a showing that it exercised
the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. The
rule is that once negligence of the employee is shown, the burden is on the employer to
overcome the presumption of negligence on the latter’s part by proving observance of the
required diligence. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital v. Spouses Romeo and Regina Capanzana, G.R.
No. 189218, March 22, 2017

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a condition precedent required in

a complaint for damages with respect to obligations arising from quasi-delicts.

In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that prior resort to Bureau of Food and Drugs
(BFD) is not necessary for a suit for damages under Article 2187 of the Civil Code to prosper.
Article 2187 unambiguously provides: Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet
articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers.

Quasi-delict being the source of obligation upon which respondent Meñez bases his cause of
action for damages against CCBPI, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
applicable. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Ernani Guingona Meñez, G.R. No. 209906,
November 22, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES Handout No. 37

As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act or omission as laid down in Article
2176 of the Civil Code. The law, however, provides for exceptions when it makes certain persons
liable for the act or omission of another.

One exception is an employer who is made vicariously liable for the tort committed by his
employee under paragraph 5 of Article 2180. The law makes him 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 anothe r. John E.R. Reyes, et al. v. Orico Doctolero,
et al., G.R. No. 185597, August 2, 2017

However, the above rule is applicable only if there is an employer-employee relationship.

This employer-employee relationship cannot be presumed but must be sufficiently proven by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff must also show that the employee was acting within the scope of his
assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. It is only then that the defendant, as
employer, may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of employees. John E.R. Reyes, et al. v. Orico Doctolero, et al., G.R. No. 185597,
August 2, 2017

The doctrine of assumption of risk means that one who voluntarily exposes himself to an
obvious, known and appreciated danger assumes the risk of injury that may result therefrom.

It rests on the fact that the person injured has consented to relieve the defendant of an obligation
of conduct toward him and to take his chance of injury from a known risk, and whether the
former has exercised proper caution or not is immaterial.

In other words, it is based on voluntary consent, express or implied, to accept danger of a known
and appreciated risk; it may sometimes include acceptance of risk arising from the defendant’s
negligence, but one does not ordinarily assume risk of any negligence which he does not know
and appreciate. As a defense in negligence cases, therefore, the doctrine requires the
concurrence of three elements, namely: (1) the plaintiff must know that the risk is present; (2)
he must further understand its nature; and (3) his choice to incur it must be free and voluntary .
Romulo Abrogar, et al. v. Cosmos Bottling Company, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 164749, March 15,
2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES Handout No. 37

DAMAGES

The matter of attorney’s fees cannot be mentioned only in the dispositive portion of the
decision. They must be clearly explained and justified by the trial court in the body of its
decision.

The award of attorney’s fees is improper because the RTC-Pasig automatically awarded the same
in the dispositive portion of its decision without stating the factual or legal basis therefor in the
body of the decision. The award of attorney’s fees is the exception rather than the general rule.
As such, it is necessary for the trial court to make findings of fact and law that would bring the
case within the exception and justify the grant of such award . Municipality of Cainta v. City of
Pasig and Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc., G.R. Nos. 176703 and 176721, June 28, 2017

Unless the case falls under the enumeration as provided in Article 2219, which is exclusive, and
Article 2220 of the Civil Code, moral damages may not be awarded.

ART. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal
offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction,
abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary
detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8)
Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in
Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

Article 2220 provides the following additional legal grounds for awarding moral damages: (1)
willful injury to property if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are
justly due; and (2) breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

In this case, unfortunately, respondent Meñez has not presented competent, credible and
preponderant evidence to prove that he suffered physical injuries when he allegedly ingested
kerosene from the “Sprite” bottle in question . Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Ernani Guingona
Meñez, G.R. No. 209906, November 22, 2017

Article 2231 of the Civil Code stipulates that exemplary damages are to be awarded in cases of
quasi-delict if the defendant acted with gross negligence.

Gross negligence is the absence of care or diligence as to amount to a reckless disregard of the
safety of persons or property; it evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES Handout No. 37

exerting any effort to avoid them. Indeed, the failure of Intergames to adopt the basic
precautionary measures for the safety of the minor participants like Rommel was in reckless
disregard of their safety. Conduct is reckless when it is an extreme departure from ordinary care,
in a situation in which a high degree of danger is apparent; it must be more than any mere
mistake resulting from inexperience, excitement, or confusion, and more than mere
thoughtlessness or inadvertence, or simple inattention. Romulo Abrogar, et al. v. Cosmos
Bottling Company, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017

Damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded to the heirs of a deceased non-working
victim simply because earning capacity, not necessarily actual earning, may be lost.

The legal basis for doing so is Article 2206 (1) of the Civil Code, which stipulates that the
defendant “shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity
shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded
by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the
defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death.”

In this case, the RTC did not recognize the right of the petitioners to recover the loss of earning
capacity of Rommel. It should have, for doing so would have conformed to jurisprudence
whereby the Court has unhesitatingly allowed such recovery in respect of children, students and
other nonworking or still unemployed victims.

The basis for the computation of earning capacity is not what he would have become or what he
would have wanted to be if not for his untimely death, but the minimum wage in effect at the
time of his death. Romulo Abrogar, et al. v. Cosmos Bottling Company, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
164749, March 15, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 11