TORTS What is the remedy available to the
offended party when there is an abuse of
Abuse of Rights
- The doctrine of abuse of right is
embodied in Article 19 of the Civil
Code which states "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."
- Pursuant to this exhortation, each
person is called upon to act with
justice, give everyone his due and
observe honesty and good faith, either
in the exercise of a right or in the
performance of a duty."
- In other words, a person must not use
his right unjustly or violate the norms
of honesty and good faith. Doing so
will expose him to liability.
- Under the abuse of rights principle
found in Article 19 of the Civil Code, a
person must, in the exercise of
legal right or duty, act in good faith.
He would be liable if he instead
acted in bad faith, with intent to
prejudice another.
What are the requisites of abuse of right?
The elements of abuse of rights are as
follows:
(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.
right?
- 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.
- But while Article 19 lays down a rule of
conduct for the government of human
relations and for the maintenance of
social order, it does not provide a
remedy for its violation. Generally, an
action for damages under either
Article 20 or Article 21 would be
proper.
Question:
Tuyan, the owner of TSD, filed an action for
damages anchored on Articles 19, 20 and 21,
all of the Civil Code, alleging bad faith on the
part of Alimo, Oding and Cabeb, and Atty.
Alex for their unfounded complaint and
attempt to destroy its good name with the
concerned offices and clients. Can Tuyan
recover damages? Explain
Answer:
In the absence of proof that there was malice
or bad faith on the part of the respondents, no
damages can be awarded.
Question:
Rosa was leasing an apartment in the City.
Because of the Rent Control Law, her landlord
could not increase the rental as much as he
wanted to, nor terminate her lease as long as
she was paying her rent.
In order to force her to leave the premises, the
landlord stopped making repairs on the
apartment, and caused the water and
electricity services to be disconnected. The
difficulty of living without electricity and
running water resulted in Rosa's suffering a
nervous breakdown.
She sued the landlord for actual and moral
damages. Will the action prosper? Explain.
[1996 Bar Question in Civil Law]
Answer:
- YES, the action will prosper on the
ground that the act of the lessor
violates the rules on human relations.
Article 19 calls upon each person to
act with justice, give everyone his due
and observe honesty and good faith,
not only in the exercise of one's rights
but also in the performance of duties.
- In the case, it is clear that the lessor
acted with bad faith when he stopped
doing repairs on the apartment in
order to force Rosa to leave the
premises. Said bad faith on the part of
the lessor also resulted in Rosa's
nervous breakdown.
- Lessor can also be held accountable
on the basis of breach of contract. It is
submitted that such breach was
tainted with bad faith since it was
motivated by a desire to force Rosa
out.
Unjust Enrichment
When is there unjust enrichment?
- Unjust enrichment exists "when a
person unjustly 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."
- There is unjust enrichment under Art.
22 of the Civil Code when (1) a person
is unjustly benefited, and (2) such
benefit is derived at the expense of or
with damages to another.
- Moreover, to substantiate a claim for
unjust enrichment, the claimant must
unequivocally prove that another
party knowingly received
something of value to which he was
not entitled and that the state of
affairs are such that it would be
unjust for the person to keep the
benefit.
- Unjust enrichment is a term used to
depict result or effect of failure to
make remuneration of or for property
or benefits received under
circumstances that give rise to legal or
equitable obligation to account for
them; to be entitled to remuneration,
one must confer benefit by mistake,
fraud, coercion, or request. Unjust
enrichment is not itself a theory of
reconvey. Rather, it is a prerequisite
for the enforcement of the doctrine of
restitution.
What is an "accion in rem verso"?
- Accion in rem verso refers to an
action for recovery of what has
been paid without just cause
- In order that the accion in rem verso
may prosper, the following conditions
must concur:
(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 contruct, quasi-contract,
crime, or quasi-delict
Should “accion in rem verso” be resorted
to when there are other available
remedies?
- An accion in rem verso is considered
merely an auxiliary action, available
only when there is no other remedy
on contract, quasi-contract, crime, and
quasi-delict. If there is an obtainable
action under any other institution of
positive law, that action must be
resorted to, and the principle of accion
in rem verso will not lie.
Question:
Pet and Res executed an agreement whereby
the latter will perform some works and supply
certain materials in one of Pet's projects, for
the total amount of Php 25, 000, 000. Due to
financial difficulties, Res was not able to finish
the entire works and demanded from Pet
payment of the amount of Php 5, 000, 000 as
the latter's unpaid obligation. Pet refused to
pay the entire amount, claiming that Res must
deduct from his billing the cost of using some
of Pet's machineries, Albeit not mentioned in
their contract, Pet invoked unjust
enrichment as basis for charging Res the
cost of using the facility, Is unjust
enrichment applicable? Explain.
Answer:
- NO, unjust enrichment is not
applicable since there is an action
available based on contract.
- In order that accion in rem verso may
prosper, the essential elements must
be present: (1) that the defendant has
been enriched, (2) that the plaintiff has
suflored 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,
quasi-contract, crime or quasi-delict.
- An accion in rom verso is considered
merely an auxiliary action, available
only when there is no other remedy on
contruct, quasi-contract, crime, and
quasi-delict. If there is on obtainable
action under any other institution of
positive law, that action must be
resorted to, and the principle of accion
in rem verso will not lie.
Question:
John, an Australian citizen, married Laila, a
Filipina. After five (5) years of cobabitation,
Laila filed an action for mullity of marriage
based on the psychological incapacity of
John. The spouses do not have issue but
during their cohabitation, they were able to
purchase a parcel of land consisting of 3,
0000 square meters. John provided the
purchase price and made it appear that only
Laila was the buyer, knowing that as a foreign
national, he cannot own lands in the
Philippines. The trial court rendered judgment
declaring their marriage mull and void and
ruled that the spouses co-own the parcel of
land. But since John cannot own even half of
the land, on reasons of equity, the court
required Laila to reimburse John half of the
purchase price. Was the court correct in
requiring Lalla to reimburse John balf of
the purchase price? Explain.
Answer:
- NO, the court was not correct since
equity will not apply to John. John is
not entitled to get reimbursement even
on the ground of equity.
- In Elena Buenaventura Muller v.
Helmut Muller, the Court held that the
foreign spouse was aware of the
constitutional prohibition and
expressly admitted his knowledge
thereof to the court, hence his attempt
at subsequently asserting or claiming
a right on the said property cannot be
sustained.
- The Court further clarified that
"invoking the principle that a court is
not only a court of law but also a court
of equity, is likewise misplaced. It has
been held that equity as a rule will
follow the law and will not permit that
to be done indirectly which, because
of public policy, cannot be done
directly. He who seeks equity must
do equity, and he who comes into
equity must come with clean hands.
The latter is a frequently stated maxim
which is also expressed in the
principle that he who has done
inequity shall not have equity.
- It signifies that a litigant may be
denied relief by a court of equity on
the ground that his conduct has
been inequitable, unfair and
dishonest, or fraudulent, or
deceitful as to the controversy in
issue.
Liability Without Fault
What is the doctrine of strict liability?
- In both tort and criminal law, strict
liability exists when a defendant is
liable for committing an action,
regardless of what his/her intent or
mental state was when committing
the action.
- Strict liability is a legal term
referring to the holding of an
individual or entity liable for
damages or losses, without having
to prove carelessness or mistake.
- The doctrine of strict liability is
commonly applied to cases
involving defective products.
- Such a claim relies, not on
wrongdoing, but on the inherent
hazards of the situation or product.
Activities for which a plaintiff may be held
strictly liable for possession of certain animals
and abnormally dangerous activities:
Strict Liability
Possessors or Users of Animals
- The possessors 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. However, the foregoing
responsibility shall cease only in case
the damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage.
Product Liability
- 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.
Requisites:
(1) the defendant is a manufacturer or
processor of foodstuft, drinks, toilet articles,
and similar goods;
(2) he used noxious or harmful substances in
the manufacture or processing of the
foodstuff, drink, or toilet articles consumed or
used by the plaintiff:
(3) the plaintiffs death or injury was caused by
the products so consumed or used; and
(4) the damages sustained and claimed by the
plaintif and the amount thereof
Liability of Head of Family
- 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.
Question:
ART. 2187 of the Civil Code states that
"Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall
be liable for death or injuries caused by any
noxious or harmful substances used, although
no contractual relation exists between them
and the consumers." Is it required that
offended party resorts first to the Bureau
of Food and Drugs prior to the filing of an
action for quasi-delict?
Answer:
NO, prior resort to BFD is not necessary for a
suit for damages under Article 2187 of the
Civil Code to prosper. Since the cause of
action is quasi-delict, the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
applicable. Such is not a condition precedent
required in a complaint for damages with
respect to obligations arising from quasi-
delicts under Chapter 2, Title XVII on Extra-
Contractual Obligations, Article 2176 of the
Civil Code which includes Article 2187.
Question: Carding bought a bottle of soft
drink from a cafeteria owned and operated by
Almer. The waitress gave Carding a bottle of
Sprat Royal manufactured by People's Soft
drink Inc. (PSI).
Carding, feeling thirsty, drank from the bottle
of Sprat Royal through a drinking straw when
he noticed that the soft drink has a different
taste and it smelled kerosene. Feeling
nausea, Carding went to a nearby hospital
where he vomited. The hospital confirmed that
the bottle contains pure kerosene. Evidently,
however, Carding did not suffer physical
injuries.
Carding asks you if he can file an action for
quasi-delict and recover moral and exemplary
damages from PSI, the manufacturer of Sprat
Royal. What will you tell Carding?
Answer:
- I will tell Carding that there will be no
basis to file an action for quasi-delict
to recover moral and exemplary
damages from PSI.
- Moral damages are recoverable under
the circumstances enumerated by
Article 2219.
- The only circumstance that will seem
to apply to Carding is paragraph 2 of
the said provision on quasi-delict
which causes injury in relation to
Article 2187. However, both of these
instances require physical injuries to
justify an award for moral damages.
- But since Carding did not incur
physical injuries, there is therefore no
basis to claim moral damages
Note:
- In Coca-cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v.
Meñez, the Court reiterated the rule
that in quasi-delict cases, recovery for
exemplary damages is grounded on
gross negligence. In the absence of
gross neglect, there is no basis for an
award of exemplary damages. Here,
Carding does not have basis to
 attribute gross negligence on the part
of PSI.
- As held in the above-said case, an
opened soft drink containing kerosene
alone is not sufficient to prove gross
neglect. Hence, exemplary damages
cannot as well be recovered.
Acts Contrary to Law
- "Tort" in Anglo-American
jurisprudence includes not only
negligence, but also intentional
criminal acts, such as assault and
battery, false imprisonment and
deceit.
Naguiat v. National Labor Relations
Commission
- Tort consists in the violation of a right
given or the omission of a duty
imposed by law. Simply stated, tort is
a breach of a legal duty.
Elcano v. Hill
- Article 2176 where it refers to "fault or
negligence covers not only acts "not
punishable by law" but also acts
criminal in character, whether
intentional and voluntary or negligent.
With this declaration of the Court, it is
understood that our concept of quasi-
delict has broadened and is not only
confined with purely negligent acts.
Lipata v. People of the Philippines
- A civil suit for quasi-delict arising from
murder maybe instituted separately by
the heirs of the victim.
Coca-cola Bottiers Philippines, Inc. v. CA
- Quasi-delict, as defined in Article 2176
of the Civil Code, is homologous but
not identical to tort under the common
law, which includes not only
negligence, but also intentional
criminal acts, such as assault and
battery, false imprisonment, and
deceit.
Article 20 of the Civil Code states:
Every person who, contrary to law,
willingly or negligently causes damage to
another shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
Requisites:
1. The act must be a violation of a
specific provision of the law
2. The act must either be willfully or
negligently done
3. Damage sustained by another person
4. Causal connection between the
unlawful act and the damage
sustained by the other person
Acts Contrary to Morals
- Any person who willfully causes loss
or miury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage. (Article 21)
Requisites:
The act referred to by Article 21 is known as
act contra bonos mores and has the
following as its requisites:
1. an act which is legal
2. but which is contrary to morals,
good custom, public order or public
policy is done with intent to injure.
 What is malicious prosecution?
Agustin-Se vs. Office of the President
- 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.
- While generally associated with
unfounded criminal actions, the term
has been expanded to include
unfounded civil suits instituted just
to vex and humiliate the defendant
despite the absence of cause of
action or probable cause.
- Further, to constitute malicious
prosecution, 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.
Concededly, the mere act of
submitting a case to the authorities for
prosecution does not make one liable
for malicious prosecution.
Is a breach of promise to marry
actionable?
General Rule: Breach of promise to marry is
not actionable.
Exceptions:
1. For moral damages, when defendant
was able to access carnal
knowledge with plaintiff through
criminal or moral seduction
2. For actual damages, when
expenses were already incurred in
preparation of the wedding
Question:
Mary, a 23-year old woman, charged Jay
before the City Prosecutor's Office for forcible
abduction with rape. The City Prosecutor,
after conducting the preliminary investigation,
dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack
of probable cause. Thereafter, Mary filed a
civil action for damages against Jay.
Jay moved to dismiss on the ground that his
civil liability was extinguished after Mary's
criminal complaint was dismissed by the
Prosecutor's Office. Is Jay correct? Explain.
Answer:
NO, Jay is not correct.
In the instant case, the dismissal of the
complaint for forcible abduction with rape was
at the preliminary investigation stage. There is
no declaration in a final judgment that the fact
from which the civil case might arise did not
exist. Consequently, the dismissal did not in
any way afoot the right of herein private
respondent to institute a civil action arising
from the offense because such preliminary
dismissal of the penal action did not carry
with it the extinction of the civil case.
Question:
"X", an Iranian medical student, met and
courted a 22-year old beautiful Filipina. "X"
professed his love to "Y" and promised her
marriage. The promise of marriage was
however a mere device and a machination for
him to gain carnal knowledge. Because of his
persistence and promise of marriage, "y"
relented and gave "X* carnal entrance. This
was "Y's" first intimate relationship. Also,
because of the promise of marriage, the
parents of "Y" started to make preparations.
They invited friends and relatives and
contracted sponsors. But "X” reneged on his
promise. Upon learning of "X's" lack of
intention to enter into marriage, "Y" left him
and thereafter sued for damages on the
premise of breach of promise to marry under
Article 21 of the Civil Code. Will the action
prosper? Explain
Question:
"X" charges "Y" for damages anchored on the
alleged breach of promise so marry by way of
moral seduction. "Y" is ten (10) years younger
than "X", the latter being already 36 years old
and a former teacher and life insurance agent.
“Y" is an apprentice pilot. "X" had carnal
knowledge with "Y" as proof of the beauty of
their relationship. When "Y" refused to marry
her, “X" sued on the ground the she was
morally seduced by "Y". Is there moral
seduction?
Answer:
YES.
In Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals, the
Court held that petitioner is morally guilty of
seduction, not only because he is
approximately ten (10) years younger than the
complainant - who was around thirty-six (36)
years of age, and as highly enlightened as a
former high school teacher and a life
insurance agent are supposed to be - when
she became intimate with petitioner, then a
mere apprentice pilot, but, also, because the
court of first instance found that, complainant
"Surrendered herself” to petitioner because,
"overwhelmed by her love" for him, she
"wanted to bind" him "having a fruit of their
engagement even before they had the benefit
of marriage."
Question:
Is the plaintiff who was himself at fault entitled
to recover damage under Article 21 of the Civil
Code? Explain.
Answer:
NO, a plaintiff who was himself at fault is not
entitled to recover under Article 21.
In Garciano v. Court of Appeals, the Court
states that "the right to recover [moral
damages] under Article 21 is based on equity,
and he who comes to court to demand equity,
must come with clean hands. Article 21 should
be construed as granting the right to recover
damages to injured persons who are not
themselves at fault."
Classifications of Tort
1. Intentional - Art, 20
2. Negligent - Art. z0
3. Strict Liability (slide z1)
The Tortfeasor
1. Joint
2. Direct
Who are deemed joint tortfeasors and what
is the extent of their liability?
- Joint tortfeasors are those who
command, instigate, promote,
encourage, advise, countenance,
cooperate in, aid or abet the
commission of a tort, or approve of it
after it is done, if done for their benefit.
- They are also referred to as those who
act together in committing wrong or
whose acts, if independent of each
other, unite in causing a single injury.
Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code,
 Joint _tortfeasors are solidarily liable
for the resulting damage.
- In other words, joint tortfeasors are
each liable as principals, to the
same extent and in the same manner
as if they had performed the wrongful
act themselves.
Solidary Liability of Employer and
Employee Under Quasi-delict:
1. For Negligent Act of Employee-
Employer May be Sued Alone
2. If Sued with the Employee- Employer
is Solidarily Liable
3. Solidary Liability Attaches Even If
Driver is Sued Under Quasi- delict and
Employer Under Culpa Contractual
Concurring Negligence of Two or More
Persons Resulting in Damage to Third
Party
General Rule:
- 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
plaintiffs, is the proximate cause of
the injury.
- Accordingly, where several causes
combine to produce injuries, a person
is not relieved from liability because
he is responsible for only one of them,
it being sufficient that the negligence
of the person charged with injury is an
efficient cause without which the injury
would not have resulted to as great an
extent, and that such cause is not
attributable to the person injured.
Liability of Common Carrier and
Independent Contractor
Transit Authority v. Navidad
But in that case, the employer of the security
guard was an independent contractor
(Prudent Security Agency). So, it was asked in
that case if Prudent could likewise be held
liable for the death of the commuter?
• LRTA, as a common carrier and whose
liability is based on breach of contract.
-Prudent, as independent contractor and
employer of the security guard who
committed the quasi-delict and whose
liability is based on the vicarious liability
of the employer under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code, may be considered joint
tortfeasors under Article 2194 of the Civil
Code.
Solidarity Liability of Operators and
Drivers of Colliding Vehicles
- The rule of solidary liability was
applied in situations where the
negligence of the driver of the bus on
which the plaintiff was riding
concurred with the negligence of a
third party who was the driver of
another vehicle, thus causing an
accident
Quasi-Delict vs. Culpa Contractual vs.
Culpa Criminal
Batal v. San Pedro
- Culpa or negligence, may be
understood in two different senses:
either as culpa aquiliana, which 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, or as
 culpa contractual, which 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.
- Culpa Aquiliana is governed by
Article 2176 of the Civil Code and the
immediately following Articles; while
Culpa Contractual is governed by
Articles 1170 to 1174 of the same
Code."
Castillo v. CA
CULPA CRIMINAL VS. CULPA AQUILIANA
- That the same negligence causing
damages may produce civil liability
arising from a crime under the Penal
Code, or create an action for quasi
delicts or culpa extra-contractual unde
the Civil Code.
OD VS. CULPA CONNTRACTUAL
- 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
pre-existing 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 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.
Diana vs. Batangas Transportation
- Crimes affect public interest, while
quasi-delicts are only of private
concern.
- The Penal Code punishes or corrects
the criminal act, while the Civil Code,
by means of indemnification, merely
repairs the damage.
- Delicts are not as broad as quasi-
delicts, because the former are
punished only if there is a penal law
clearly covering them, while the latter,
quasi-delict, include all acts in which
any kind of fault or negligence
intervenes.
- The negligent act of the accused in
crime would result to two kinds of
liability: criminal and civil. In quasi-
delict, a finding against the defendant
gives rise to civil obligations.
- In crimes, the criminal liability of the
accused is established by proof
beyond reasonable doubt, although
his civil obligations may only be shown
 by preponderance of evidence. In
quesi-delict, the only evidence
required is preponderance of
evidence.
- In crimes, the liability of the person
who has the responsibility over the
accused is only subsidiary. In quasi-
delict, the person who is responsible
for the negligent act of the defendant
is jointly and severally liable.
RES IPSA LOQUITOR
What are the requisites for the application
of res ipsa loquitur?
The following requirements must concur:
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
defendant or defendants; and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct
which would make the plaintiff
responsible is eliminated.
Is res ipsa loquitur a ground for liability?
- NO, res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of
substantive law and does not
constitute as independent or
separate ground for liability.
Instead, it is considered as merely
evidentiary, a mode of proof, or a
mere procedural convenience, since
it furnishes a substitute for, and
relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of
producing a specific proof of
negligence.
- In other words, mere invocation and
application of the doctrine do not
dispense with the requirement of proof
of negligence. It is simply a step in the
process of such proof, permitting
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
thereby placing on defendant the
burden of going forward with the proof.
Question:
Dr. G, an orthopedic surgeon, conducted an
open reduction surgery repair a displacement
of the bone fragments at the fractured right
wrist of an 8-year old boy. The family of "A"
chose Dr. J as the anesthesiologist. During
the operation, Dr. J failed to intubate the
patient after five (5) attempts was
administered through a gas mask. Dr. G
asked Dr. J if there is a need to postpone the
operation given the failure to intubate the
patient, but Dr it was alright to proceed.
The operation was already concluded and
alreadv about to write down his post-operation
notes in the adjacent room where he was
informed that "A" experienced difficulty in
breathing. Dr. G then asked for assistance
from other doctors to help in reviving "A" but
unfortunate due to asphyxia or cardiac arrest.
The parents of "A" sued Drs. G and J, alleging
negligence on the part of the attending
physicians based on "res ipsa loquitur." Does
the said rule apply to Dr.G? Explain.
Answer:
 - NO, the rule on res ipsa loquitur will
not apply to Dr. G. To give application
to this rule, there must be showing
that defendant was control of the
agency or instrumentality which
caused the injury. This is not true in
the case of Dr. G. It must be stressed
that the instrument which caused the
damage or injury to "A" was under the
exclusive management and control
anesthesiologist.
- In Bontilao vs. Gerona, the Court held
that the parents of the victim failed to
present substantial evidence of any
specific act of negligence on
respondent's (Dr. G in our case) part
of the undergoing facts and
circumstances which would lead to the
reasonable inference that the outward
consequence was caused by
respondent's negligence. In fact, Dr. G
was found to have exercised the
required diligence when he inquired
from Dr. J whether or not to proceed
with the operation. Dr. G cannot also
be faulted for his reliance on the
expert judgement of the Dr. J on
matters relating to the administration
of anesthesia.
Question:
A fire broke out at a gasoline station while
gasoline was being transferred from a tank
truck into the underground storage. The fire
occurred at the op receiving tank. Because of
the nature of gasoline and the absence
firewall, the fire spread to and destroyed a
neighbor's house. Mike, the owner of the
gutted house, sued Mickey, the owner and
operator of the gasoline station for damages.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of
Mike, the Defendant filed a motion for
reconsideration alleging that plaintiff fail any
negligence on the part of defendant. How will
you resolve the reconsideration? Explain.
Answer:
- I will deny the motion for
reconsideration by applying the rule
on res ipsa loquito. In Africa v. Caltex
(Phil.), Inc., the Court held that "the
gasoline station, with all its appliance
equipment and employees, was under
the control of appellees. A fire
occurred therein and burned the
neighboring houses. The persons who
knew or could have known how the
fire started were appellees and their
employees, but they gave no
explanation whatsoever. It is a fair and
reasonable inference that the incident
happened because of want of care."
- The court also faulted the owner of the
gasoline station for its failure to
provide a concrete wall high enough to
prevent the flames from leaping o was
the concrete wall was only 2-1/2
meters high, and beyond that height
merely of galvanized iron sheets,
which would predictably crumple and
subjected to intense heat. Defendants'
negligence, therefore, was not only
with respect to the cause of the fire
but also with respect to the spread
thereof to the neighboring houses.
SCHOOL
May a school be held to account for its
vicarious liability under Article 2180 if
offending party is not a student of the
school? Explain.
Answer:
- NO, the school cannot be made to
account for its vicarious liability if the
offending party is not its student. The
Court has, time and again, stressed
that in this jurisdiction on Article 2180
"plainly provides that the damage
should have been caused or inflicted
pupils or students of the educational
institution sought to be held liable for
 the acts of its pupils or students while
in its custody."
- In other words, even if the incident
happened inside the school premises
and the victim is one of the students of
school, but the offending person is not
a member of the academic
community, a cause of actin bared on
substitute parental authority under
Article 2180 will not lie. The school
may however be held liable for quasi-
delict under Article 21 of the Civil
Code or for its bad faith in the
performance of its contractual
obligations to the victim-student.
What is the liability of the teacher for the
negligent acts of his pupil?
- Under Article 2180, paragraph 7 of the
Civil Code and Article 218 in relation
to Article 219 of the Family Code,
the liability of the teacher is joint
and solidary.
- However, Article 103 of the Revised
Penal Code, the liability of the teach
arising from the damages caused
by the criminal act of the student is
only subsidiary.
Article 2180 states that teachers or heads
of establishments of arts and trades shall
be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentice they
remain in their custody, does this mean
that the student must live and board in the
school?
- NO, it is not necessary that the
student lives or boards in the school.
The Court held that there is nothing in
the law that requires that for such
liability to attach the pupil or student
who commits the tortious act must live
and school.
When is a student deemed under the
custody of the school?
- In Amadora, the Court ruled that the
student is in the custody of the
school authorities as long as he is
under the control and influence of
the school and within its premises
whether the semester has not yet
begun or has already ended. In
short, the student should be within
the control and under the influence
of the school authorities of the
occurrence of the injury.
- The Court further ruled that custody is
not co-terminous with the semester,
beginning with the start of classes and
ending upon the close thereof, and
excluding the time before or after such
period, such as the period of
registration, and in the case of
graduating students, the period before
the commencement exercises.
Needless to say as long as the
student is under the control and
influence of the school and within
its premises in pursuance of a
legitimate student objective, in the
exercise of legitimate student right,
and even in the enjoyment of a
legitimate student privilege,
whether the semester has not yet
begun or has already ended, he is
deemed to be in the school’s
custody to the mind of the Court,
custody does not connote immediate
and actual physical control but refers
more to the influence exerted on the
child and the discipline.
In an academic institution, who is the
teacher-in-charge referred to by Article
2180?
- ln Amadora, the teacher-in-charge is
the one designated by the dean,
principal or other al administrative
superior to exercise supervision
 over the pupils in the specific
classes or sections to which they
are assigned. It is not necessary that
at the time of the injury, the teacher be
physically preset and, in a position, to
proven it.
Question:
Erwin enrolled as a Grade 11 student at lligan
Institute. After the dismissal of his class in
History, Erwin waited for Rene, a classmate
and a rival, to come out of the classroom.
Upon seeing Rene and Maya, their love
interest, Erwin punched him and caused Rene
injuries. Who could be held civilly liable for the
damage caused by Erwin to Rene? Explain.
Answer:
Erwin, the school and its administrators as
well as his teacher can be held solidarily
liable. Erwin's parents can also be held
subsidiarily liable.
Article 218 of the Family Code states that the
school, its administrators and teachers, or the
individual, entity or institution engaged in child
care shall have special parental authority and
responsibility over the minor child while under
their supervision, instruction or custody.
Under Article 219 of the Family Code, the
persons and entities mentioned in Article
218 shall be principally and solidarily liable
for damages caused by the acts omissions
of the unemancipated minor while the
parents, judicial guardians or the persons
exercising substitute parental authority
over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
Moreover, under Article 2180 of the Family
Code, the teacher-in charge can also be held
liable.
In order to hold the head of the school of
arts and trade or the teacher-in-char liable,
is it necessary that the offending student
be a minor?
- NO, there is no requirement of
minority as far as the vicarious liability
of the head of the school of arts and
trade or the teacher is concerned. In
other words, vicarious liabily attaches
regardless of the age of the offending
student.
- In this, the teacher will be held liable
not on when he is acting in loco
parents for the law does not require
that the offending student be of
minority age.
- In connection, it should be observed
that Unlike the parent, who wig be
liable only if his child is still a minor,
the teacher is held answerable by
the law for the act of the student
under him regardless of the
student's age.
- Thus, in the Palisoc Case, liability
attached to the teacher and it head
of the technical school although the
wrongdoer was already of age. In
this sense, Article 2180 treats the
parent more favorably than the
teacher.
- However, under Article 218 in
relation to Article 219 of the Family
Code, in order to hold the school,
its administrators and teachers
liable, the offending child must be
minor.
How do you distinguish the liability of the
head of the school of arts and trade and
teacher-in-charge under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code and Article 218 to Article 219 of
the Family Code?
- Under Article 2180, the head of the
school of arts and trade and the
 teacher-in-charge are liable only when
the student was within their custody
and the offense inside the school
premises.
- But under Article 218 in relation to
Article 219, such liability extends to all
authorized activities whether inside or
outside the premises of the school
entity or institution.
- Moreover, under Article 2180, there is
no requirement of minority in order to
attach liability, unlike in Article 218 in
relation to Article 219 of the Family
Code.
Under Article 2180, may the school be held
liable for the negligent act of its students?
- Under Paragraph 7 of Article 2180,
only the teachers or heads of
establishment of arts and trades are to
be held liable for damages caused by
their pupils and student or
apprentices, so long as they remain in
their custody.
- However, the school can be held
solidarily liable when the damage was
caused by its employee under
paragraph 5 of Article 2180. But
notwithstanding Article 2180, the
school, its administrators and teachers
can be held solidarily liable pursuant
to Article 218 in relation to Article 219
of the Family Code.
Question:
Alfred, 17 years of age and a graduating high
school student of Colegio de San Jose-
Recoletos in Cebu City, was shot to death by
his classmate, Pablo. At the time of the
incident, Alfred was inside the school
auditorium. Jo, father of Alfred, instituted a
civil suit for damages under Article 21 of the
Civil Code against the school, its high school
principal, the dead, and the physics teacher.
In his complaint, Jo alleged that his son went
to school that day in order to submit his
physics experiment which is a prerequisite to
his graduation. In other words, when he was
shot by Pablo, Alfred was the custody of the
school. The school and its co-defendants
maintained that Alfred was no longer in the
custody of the school since he was inside the
school premises only for the purpose of
submitting his physics experiment. Will the
action prosper? Explain.
Answer:
NO, the action will not prosper.
Article 2180, among others, states that
teachers or heads of establishment of arts
and trades shall be liable for damages caused
by their pupils and students or apprentice so
long as they remain in their custody. The
parties liable under this rule is the teacher-in-
charge of the offending student if the school is
an academic institution; if it is a vocational
school or a school of arts and trades, the party
liable is its head.
Under this particular rule on "imputed
negligence" or vicarious liability, the
school cannot be held liable, except when
there is a finding that the teacher or the
head of the establishment is liable. In which
case, pursuant to the rule in respondeat
superior, the school is liable as well.
There is no denying that Colegio de San
Jose-Recoletos is an academic institution.
Pursuant to the above rule, only the teacher-
in-charge of Pablo is liable. The case
against the school and the high school
principal, being not the teacher-in-charge,
will thus have to be dismissed.
 GOVERNMENT
Question:
When a government agency's mandate is to
perform actions which performed by the
government in the exercise of its sovereignty,
is the agency concerned liable for the
negligent act of its regular employee? Explain.
Answer:
No, the government agency is not liable for
the negligent act of its regular employee.
In NIA v. Fontanilla, the Court reiterated the
long-held view that the liability of the State has
two aspects, namely:
1.) Its public or govermental aspects where it
is liable for the tortious acts of special agents
only;
2.) Its private or business aspect: when it
engages in private enterprises) where it
becomes liable as an ordinary employer.
In the case above, the agency is performing
purely governmental functions, and it can only
be held liable for the negligent acts of its
special agents.
Question:
Suppose "X" is appointed as regular driver at
the Department of Energy (DOE), and through
his reckless driving, he sideswiped a
pedestrian. May the DOE be held answerable
for "X's" negligence? Explain.
Answer:
No, the DOE cannot be held answerable for
"X's" negligence.
There is no denying that the DOE is a
government instrumentality performing
purely governmental functions. Hence, it
can only be held accountable for the
negligent act of its special agents. In the
case above, "X" is a regular employee
performing tasks and is thus not considered a
special agent.
Question:
Paragraph 6, Article 2180 of the Civil Code
provides that "the State is responsible in-like
manner when it acts through a special agent;
but not when the damage has been caused by
the official to whom the task done properly
pertains, in which case what is provided in
Art. 2176 shall be applicable." When should
a person considered a special agent of the
state?
Answer:
- In NIA v. Fontanilla, the Court held
that the "State's agent, if a public
official, must not only be specially
commissioned to do a particular
task, but that such task must be
foreign to said official's usual
governmental functions.
- If the tasked agent is not a public
official, and is commissioned to
perform non-governmental functions,
then the State assumes the role of an
ordinary employer and will be held
liable as such for its agent's tort.
Where the government
commissions a private individual or
special governmental task, it is
acting through a special agent
within the meaning of the provision.
REGISTERED OWNER RULE
If the vehicle was used by the employee
outside of his assigned task, is the
employer who is also the registered owner
of the vehicle liable?
- Yes, the employer is liable but not
under Article 2180. The employer's
liability is based on the registered-
owner rule.
In Aguilar Sr. v. Commercial Savings Bank,
the High Court ruled that the registered
owner of any vehicle, even if not for public
service, is primarily responsible to third
persons for deaths, injuries and damages
it caused. This is true even if the vehicle is
leased to third persons. Thus, in the Finance
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals case, the
registered owner was held principally
liable even if he had no employer-
employee relationship with the driver.
He may however demand reimbursement
from the lessee of the vehicle as per their
lease agreement.
What is the so-called registered-owner-of-
the-vehicle rule in vehicular mishaps?
- The registered owner of the vehicle
rule means that registered owner of
any vehicle, even if not used for
public service, would primarily be
responsible to the public or third
persons for injuries caused by the
latter while the vehicle was being
driven on the highways or streets.
- In Erezo v. Jepte., the Court advised
that "the main aim of motor vehicle
registration is to identify the owner so
that if any accident happens, or that
any damage or injury caused by the
vehicle on the public highways,
responsibility therefor can be fixed in a
definite individual, the registered
owner.
Question:
Transport Corporation v. Yu
A passenger bus driven by Tino and operated
by ACS Transport bumped Tuyan, resulting in
the latter's death. At the time of the incident,
Tuyan had alighted from another bus. A suit
for damages was filed by Dette, wife of Tuyan
against Tino, ACS Transport and JBC
Corporation, the registered owner of the bus.
JBC Corporation denied liability and averred
that it purchased the bus and sold it to ACS
Transport while remaining the registered
owner. ACS Trans on other hand is trying to
relieve itself of any liability by saying that
under the jurisprudence, liability attaches only
to the registered owner and not the actual
owner.
Is ACS Transport correct? Who among the
parties are liable to Dette?
Answer:
No, ACS Transport is not correct.
In action for quasi-delict, the rule is that the
registered owner and the actual owner of
the offending vehicle are solidarily liable to
the victim, without prejudice to the right of
the registered owner to seek
reimbursement from the actual owner of
the vehicle.
Indeed, this Court has consistently been of
the view that it is for the better protection of
the public for both the owner of record and the
actual operator to be adjudged jointly of and
severally liable with the driver.
As aptly stated by the appellate court, the
principle of holding the registered owner liable
for damages notwithstanding the ownership of
the offending vehicle has already been
transferred to another is designed to protect
the public, and not as a shield on the part of
unscrupulous transferees of the vehicle to
take refuge in, in order to free itself from
liability arising from its own negligent act.

Question:

"E" was driving his car along Leon Guinto

Street in Manila when another car suddenly
hit and bumped him. "E's" car turned
clockwise and sustained damage, but the
other car escaped from the scene of the
incident.

"E" however was able to get its plate number

and traced it to F Transport as the registered
owner. Despite several demands for
reimbursement of expense incurred, F
Transport refused prompting "E” to file a case
for damages under Article 2176 in relation to
Article 2180 of the Civil Code. F Transport
admitted that it is the registered owner of the
car, but denied liability arguing that the driver
of the car at the time of the incident was not
its employee but a private driver of the
personnel to whom the car was assigned. Is F
Transport correct?

Aswer:

NO, F-Transport is not correct since as

registered owner of the vehicle, it is similarly
liable to E.

In Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas, the

registered owner of a motor vehicle tried to
escape liability by pointing the absence of
employer-employee relationship with the
offending driver. The Court not persuaded and
ruled otherwise. It held that in case of motor
vehicle mishaps, the registered owner of the
motor vehicle is considered as the employer
of the tortfeasor-driver, and is made primarily
liable for the tort committed by the Article
2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil
Code."