1
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
Tort – Anglo-American / common law
concept which pertains to acts giving rights
to civil liability but are not necessarily or
exclusively consequences of crimes or
contractual obligations
Quasi-delict/culpa acquillana (Art 1157)
/extra contractual culpa (Art 2176)
Tort vs quasi-delict
Tort
- common law concept
- includes intentional and malicious acts
that are governed by the revised penal code
and the new civil code under the chapter of
human relations
Quasi-delict
- civil law concept Art 2176
- acts arising from fault or negligence
Elements of quasi delict: (D-N-P-NO)
a. damage suffered by the plaintiff
b. negligence or fault of the defendant
c. proximate cause or connection of the
cause and effect between the negligence
and the damage
d. no pre existing contractual obligations
between the parties
People vs Alfeche – fault vs negligence
Fault – voluntary act or omission which
causes damage to the right of another
giving rise to an obligation on the part of
another
Negligence – failure or omission to observe
for the protection of interest of another
person the degree of care, precaution and
vigilance which the circumstances justly
demands
Legal basis of the principle of abuse of
rights – Article 19 of the New Civil Code
(correlate Article 21)
Every person must in the exercise of his
rights and the performance of his duty must
act with justice, give everyone his due and
observe honesty and good faith (A-G-O)
Requisites (Ex-Bf-Injure)
a. existence of a legal right
b. such right or duty was exercised in bad
faith
c. for the sole intent of prejudice or injuring
another
bad faith – does not simply connote bad
judgment or simply negligence, it involves
dishonest purpose and conscious doing of a
wrong
malice – ill will or spite and speaks not in
response in duty??
Legal basis of the principle of unjust
enrichment (accion in rem verso) – Article
22 of the New Civil Code (correlate Art 2142
and Art 2143)
Every person who through an act or
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
Requisites: (En-Lo-WIthoutG-Last)
a. defendant has been unjustly enriched
b. plaintiff suffered a loss
c. enrichment of the defendant is without
just cause or legal ground
d. plaintiff has no other action based on a
contract, quasi-contract, crime, or any
provision of law
2
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
solution in debiti (Art 2142 and 2143) vs
accion in rem verso (Art 22) – payment by
mistake is not an essential element in an
accion in rem verso; it suffices that payment
was made without just cause or legal
ground
A person may be held liable even without
faut or negligence under Article 23
Basis of a cause of action if the law declares
an act as illegal but does not provide for a
relief to the injured party: Article 20 – every
person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another shall
indemnify the latter for the same
Requisites: (Worn-Law-Dam)
a. act must be willful or negligent
b. contrary to law
c. damage must be suffered by the plaintiff
A person can incur liability even without
specific violation of law under Art 21 – acts
contrary to morals/acts contra bonos mores
Any person who willfully causes losses or
injury to another in a manner which is
contrary to law, morals, good conducts or
public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damage
Requisites: (Le-Moral-Intent)
a. an act which is legal
b. contrary to law, morals, good conducts or
public policy
c. with intent to injure
Requites for action based on malicious
prosecution: (Prosec-Dis-Pro-Mal)
a. prosecution did occur and the defendant
was himself the prosecutor/instigated its
commencement
b. legal proceeding finally ended with
acquittal or dismissal
c. prosecutor acted without probable cause
d. prosecutor was impelled by legal malice
or improper motive
Classification of torts according to manner
of commission:
a. intentional tort – intends to do what the
law declared wrong
b. negligent tort
c. strict liability tort – equivalent of doctrine
of absolute criminal liability in criminal law
(criminal intent is not required)
classification of torts according to scope:
a. general – catch all provision
b. specific
direct tortfeasor – one who is made liable
for tort committed through its own act
under Art 2176
Doctrine of corporate negligence or
corporate responsibility
PSI vs Agana – for this occasion only
Circumstances:
a. admission on the part of the hospital that
it has the power to review what may have
irregularly transcribe within its walls
b. laid down their standard of care or
responsibility
joint tortfeasors – command, promote,
encourage, advice or aid the commission of
a tort; acts are independent to one another
causing an injury
liability: solidarily liable
basis of vicarious liability or imputed
negligence – principle of pater familias
(good father of the family) Article 2180
3
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
Art 2180 does not provide for automatic
liability – may be rebutted with evidence
Who may be held vicariously liable: Art
2180
a. parents – basis: parental authority
b. guardians
c. teachers/heads of establishments/
schools – those under their supervision,
instruction or custody – special parental
authority
d. owners or manages of an
establishment/enterprise – for their
employees – primary, direct and solidary
e. state
f. hospitals
Art 2182 – if the minor or insane person
who does not have parents or guardian may
be held liable for his/her tortious conducts
= guardian ad litem
Requisites for owners to become liable:
a. existence of employer-employee
relationship
b. tortious conduct was done while the
employee was acting within the scope of his
assigned tasks
c. employer failed to exercise the diligence
of a good father of the family in the
selection and supervision of his employee
Universal Acquarius vs QC Human
Resources – employers are not vicariously
liable for the injuries caused by their
employees during a strike
Who may be held liable if the employer is
not the registered owner of the vehicle
driven by the employee – registered owner
with respect to the public and 3rd persons –
directly and primarily responsible for the
consequences of its operations
Remedy of the registered owner – right to
be indemnified by the real or actual owner
on the amount that he may be required to
pay as damage for the injury
Medical negligence
Elements: (D-B-I-P)
a. duty which requires the existence of
physician-patient relationship
b. breach of such duty
c. injury caused
d. proximate cause between the breach and
injury
Proximate cause – that which, in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces injury,
and without which the result would not
have occurred
GR in determining proximate cause –
determining the character or natural
connection between the original act and the
injurious consequence
GR: violation of statute or ordinance is not a
sufficient basis that such violation is to be
considered as proximate cause
EX:
a. very injury has happened which was
intended to be prevented by the statute
cause in fact or actual cause – timeline
component of the defendant’s action that
led to the plaintiff’s injuries
proximate cause vs cause in fact or actual
cause
a. legal cause, need not be the first or last
event before the injury; straight forward,
involves the first event
4
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
b. legal and fairness components of
negligence; timeline element and physical
connection of the cause and injury
The distinction between cause and
condition have already been entirely
discredited in the Philippine legal system.
What is controlling is not their distinction
but the nature of the risk and the character
of the intervening cause
Doctrine of last clear chance / Doctrine of
discovered peril / Doctrine of supervening
negligence / Humanitarian doctrine
Philippine National Railways Corporation vs
Vizcara – when both parties are negligent,
the one who had the last clear opportunity
to avoid the impeding harm but failed to do
so, is chargeable with the consequences
arising therefrom
Requisites:
a. plaintiff was placed in danger by his own
negligent act and he is unable to get out of
that situation by any means
b. defendant knows that the plaintiff was in
danger and the plaintiff cannot extricate
himself therefrom
c. defendant has the last clear chance to
avoid the danger through the exercise of
ordinary care but failed to do so
d. the supervening negligence of the
defendant was the proximate cause of the
plaintiff’s injury
when applicable? Quasi delict cases or suits
between the negligent parties
Not applicable:
a. culpa contractual / breach of contract
b. when a victim who is an outsider to the
cause of the accident, demands liability
from the two negligent parties
Injury – illegal invasion of a right
Damage – loss, hurt, harm that resulted
from the injury
Damages – remedy/compensation for the
damage
Legal injury = right or cause of action (R-O-
B)
a. right in favor of plaintiff
b. obligation on the part of the defendant
to respect or not violate such right
c. there is a breach of the obligation of the
defendant to the plaintiff
Intentional tort – wrong made by someone
who intends to do what the law declares as
wrong
General classes:
a. abuse of right (Art 19)
b. acts contrary to law (Art 20)
c. acts contrabonos moris (Art 21)
d. disrespect to person (Art 26)
e. dereliction of a duty of a public officer
(Art 27)
f. violation of civil and constitutional rights/
torts based on constitutional rights (Art 32)
g. unfair competition (Art 28)
h. tort interference (Art 1314)
An action for damages cannot be instituted
by parents on behalf of an unborn child on
account of the injuries received by the latter
because in contemplation of law, such child
is not yet treated as a person
What makes competition unfair under
Article 28 of the New Civil Code?
1. must involve an injury to a
competitor/trade rival
2. must involve acts which are characterized
as contrary to good conscience
Tort interference (Art 1314)
5
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
Requisites:
1. existence of a valid contract
2. knowledge on the part of the 3rd person
of the existence of a contract
3. interference of the 3rd person is without
legal justification or excuse

Negligence – failure to behave with the

level of care that someone of ordinary
prudence would have exercised under the
same circumstances
6
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
Culpa acquillana
Art 2176, 32, 33, 34
Wrong full act/omission
which creates a juridical
relation and gives rise to an
obligation of two persons
not formally bound by any
preexisting contractual
relation
Good father of a family is a
defense
Negligence is not presumed
Preponderance of evidence
Liability of the employer is
direct, primary and solidary
Culpa contractual
Art 1170-1174
There exists a preexisting
contractual relation
GFOAF is not a defense
Negligence is presumed if
there is a breach of contract
Preponderance of evidence
Liability of the employer
depends on the contractual
provision
Culpa criminal
Art 365 of the Revised Penal
Code
Execution of a negligent act
if done intentionally may
amount to a felony
GFOAF is not a defense
Negligence is not presumed
Proof beyond reasonable
doubt
Liability of the employer is
subsidiary
7
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
Test in determining negligence in quasi-
delict: Did the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act used what a
reasonable prudent person who have done
in the same situation?
Default degree of diligence required: good
father of the family – Art 1173
Standard of care/conduct – level of
expected conduct that is required by the
nature of the obligation
Common carrier – extraordinary diligence
Operation of motor vehicles in relation to
cyclists – higher standard of duty of care
required to a motorist as compared to a
cyclists
Banks – extraordinary diligence
Experts – degree of skill commonly
possessed by others in the same
employment
Physicians – standard of care observed by
others in the profession of good standing
under similar circumstances
Owners of extremely dangerous
instrumentalities – higher degree of care;
exceptional precautions to prevent any
injury
Minor children – ordinary exercise by
children of the same age, capacity,
maturity, ability under the same
circumstances
There is no presumption of negligence on
the part of a cyclist (Art 2185)
Children under 9 years of age are incapable
of contributory negligence
Requisites that must be established to
recover damages in slip-and-fall case or trip-
and-fall case:
1. actual or constructive knowledge of some
conditions on the premises of the owner or
operator
2. condition post an unreasonable risk or
harm
3. owner/operator did not exercise
reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the
risk
4. owner/operator failure to exercise such
care is the proximate cause of the injuries
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – the thing
speaks for itself
Requisites:
a. accident was a kind which does not
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent
b. instrumentality or agency which caused
the injury was under the exclusive control
of the person charged with negligence
c. injury suffered must not have been due to
any voluntary action or contribution on the
part of the person injured
defenses for quasi-delict:
1. prescription: quasi-delict = 4 years from
the date of the quasi-delict was committed
2. plaintiff’s own negligence as the
proximate cause
3. contributory negligence as partial
defense (Art 2179)
4. due diligence (Art 2180)
5. concurrent negligence of parties
6. damnum absque injuria – causes damage
or loss to another but does not injure them
7. fortuitous event/force majure (Art 1174)
8. emergency rule
9. doctrine of last clear chance
10. assumption of risk
What damages may be recovered for death
caused by crime or quasi-delict:
1. actual
2. moral
3. exemplary
8
Human Relations and Torts & Damages –
4. nominal
5. temperate
6. liquidated

Formula in computing loss of earning

capacity:
1. 2/3 times 80 minus age of the deceased
times 1/2 of the annual gross income
2. 2/3 times 80 minus age of the deceased
times gross annual income minus necessary
expenses equivalent to 50% of the gross
annual income