TORTS AND

DAMAGES
Civil Law
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21 CIVIL LAW

TORTS AND DAMAGES DAMAGES

A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
TOPIC OUTLINE UNDER THE SYLLABUS
I. Classification
II. When damages may be
TORTS
recovered
A. PRINCIPLES
Abuse of right; elements B. DAMAGES IN CASE OF DEATH
Unjust enrichment
Liability without fault C. GRADUATION OF DAMAGES
Acts contrary to law I. Duty of injured party
Acts contrary to morals II. Rules
B. CLASSIFICATION OF TORTS
According to manner of commission
According to scope

C. THE TORTFEASOR
Direct Tortfeasor
Persons made responsible for others
Joint Tortfeasors

D. PROXIMATE CAUSE
Concept
Cause in fact
Efficient intervening cause
Cause as distinguished from condition
Last clear chance

E. LEGAL INJURY
Concept
Elements of right
Violation of right or legal injury
Classes of injury

F. INTENTIONAL TORTS
General
Interference with rights to persons and
property
Interference with relations

G. NEGLIGENCE

H. SPECIAL LIABILTY IN PARTICULAR

ACTIVITIES

I. STRICT LIABILITY

Page 423 of 474

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
TORTS
A. PRINCIPLES
QUASI-DELICT v. TORT
Definition of Quasi-Delict
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. (Art. 2176, New Civil Code)
Definition of Tort
Acts giving rise to civil liability but are not
necessarily the consequences of crimes or
contractual obligations. (Paras, Pre-week
Handbook in Civil Law, p. 588, 2012)
An unlawful violation of a private right, not created
by contract, and which gives rise to an action for
damages. It is a wrongful act or omission resulting
in breach of a private legal duty, as distinguished
from a mere breach of contractual duty, and
damage from said breach of duty of such a
character as to afford a right of redress at law in
favor of the injured party against the wrongdoer
(Aquino, Torts and Damages, p.1, 2013)
Elements of Quasi-Delict (DAM-FAU-CON-
NOPRE)
4. Damage suffered by plaintiff
5. Fault or Negligence of the defendant, or some
other person for whose acts he must respond
6. Connection of cause and effect between the
fault or negligence of the defendant and the
damages incurred by the plaintiff
7. No pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties (Andamo v. International Appellate
Court G.R. No. 74761, 1990)
I. ABUSE OF RIGHT; ELEMENTS
Definition of Abuse of Right
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act with
CIVIL LAW
justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith. (Art. 19)
A right, though by itself legal because recognized
or granted by law as such, may nevertheless
become the source of some illegality (Ardiente v.
Sps. Javier, G.R. No. 161921, 2013)
Elements of Abuse of Right (LEG-BAD-PREJ)
8. The existence of a legal right or duty
9. Which is exercised in bad faith
10. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another
Malice or bad faith is at the core of an abuse of
right. (Chevron Philippines, Inc. v. Mendoza, G.R.
Nos. 211533 & 212071, 2019).
Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and
intentional design to do a wrongful act for a
dishonest purpose or moral obliquity (California
Clothing Inc. v. Quiñones, G.R. No. 175822,
2013).
II. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Every person who through an act of performance
by another, or any other means, acquires or
comes into possession of something at the
expense of the latter without just or legal ground,
shall return the same to him. (Art. 22)
Even when an act or event causing damage to
another's property was not due to the fault or
negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be
liable for indemnity if through the act or event he
was benefited. (Art. 23)
Elements
There is unjust enrichment when:
1. A person is unjustly benefited;
2. Such benefit is derived at the expense of or with
damages to another; and
3. The aggrieved party has no other action based
on a contract, quasi-contract, crime, quasi-delict,
or any other provision of law. (Grandteq Industrial
Steel Products, Inc., v. Margallo, G.R. No. 181393,
July 28, 2009)
Page 424 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
III. LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT
There is strict liability if one is made liable
independent of fault, negligence or intent after
establishing certain facts specified by law. Strict
liability tort can be committed even if reasonable
care was exercised regardless of the state of mind
of the actor at that time. (AQUINO, Torts and
Damages, supra at 829).
Instances of Strict Liability:
1. Possessors and Users of Animals (Art.
2183)
General Rule: The possessor of an animal or
whoever may make use of the same is responsible
for the damages which it may cause although it
may escape or be lost.
Ownership is immaterial. What must be
determined is the possession of the dog that
admittedly was staying in the house in question,
regardless of the ownership of the dog or of the
house. It makes no distinction as to the kind of
animal. This is applicable whether the animal is
domestic or wild (Vestil v. IAC, G.R. No. 74431,
1989).
Exceptions:
a. By force majeure – Possessor or user is still
liable even if damage is caused by the
negligence of third person unless equated
with force majeure.
b. By the person who suffered the damage
c. Defendant is not the possessor of the
animal
2. Falling Objects (Art. 2193)
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.
Head of the family is not limited to the owner of the
building. It may include the lessee thereof.
(Dingcong v. Kanaan, G.R. No. L-47033, 1941).
CIVIL LAW
The head of the family may recover from the
person who caused the damage. The liability is
solidary. (Art. 2194)
3. Liability of Employers in case of Death or
Injuries of Employees (Art. 1711)
General Rule: Owners of enterprises and other
employers are liable to pay for the death of injuries
to their employees, even if the cause is purely
accidental.
Exception: If the mishap was due to the
employee’s own notorious negligence, or
voluntary act or drunkenness.
Exception to the Exception: When the
employee’s lack of due care only contributed to his
death or injury, the employer shall be liable for
compensation but the same shall be equitably
reduced.
Where he contributes to the principal occurrence
as one of its determining factors, he cannot
recover. Where, in conjunction with the
occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury,
he may recover the amount that the defendant
responsible for the event should pay for such
injury, less a sum deemed suitable equivalent for
his own imprudence (Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf and
Pacific Co., G.R. No. 1719, 1907).
Rule on Employer’s Liability for Injuries
caused by co-worker (Art. 1712)
a. If the death or injury is due to the negligence
of a fellow-workman, the latter and the
employer shall be solidarily liable for
compensation.
b. If a fellow worker’s intentional or malicious
act is the only cause of the death or injury,
the employer shall not be answerable
unless it should be shown that the latter did
not exercise due diligence in the selection of
supervision of the plaintiff’s fellow-worker.
4. Nuisances (Art. 694)
Any act, omission, establishment, business,
condition of property, or anything else which:
(ISAHO)
Page 425 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
a. Injuries or endangers the health or safety of
others;
b. Shocks, defies or disregards decency or
morality;
c. Annoys or offends the senses;
d. Hinders or impairs the user of property; or
e. Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street, or
any body of water.
General Rule: Everyone is bound to bear the
habitual or customary inconveniences that result
from the proximity of others, and so long as this
level is not surpassed, he may not complain
against them.
Exception: If the prejudice exceeds the
inconveniences that such proximity habitually
brings, the neighbor who causes such disturbance
is held responsible for the resulting damage, being
guilty of causing nuisance (Velasco v. Manila
Electric Co., G.R. No. L-18390, 1971).
Nuisance is either public or private. A public
nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or
any considerable number of persons, although the
extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon
individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is
one that is not included in the foregoing definition
(Art. 695).
Nuisance may also be considered nuisance per se
or nuisance per accidens.
a. Nuisance per se is a nuisance under any
and all circumstances
b. Nuisance per accidens becomes such
under certain conditions and circumstances
(Salao v. Santos, G.R. No. L-45519, 1939).
Liability of Successive Owner or Possessor
Every successive owner or possessor of property
who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in that
property started by a former owner or possessor is
liable therefore in the same manner as the one
who created it. (Art. 696)
An action to abate nuisance is imprescriptible.
Any person injured by a private nuisance may
abate it by removing, or if necessary, by destroying
CIVIL LAW
the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without
committing a breach of the peace or doing
unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable
that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a
public nuisance by a private person be followed.
5. Product Liability by Manufacturers (Art.
2187) 

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.
Requisites: (MUNIF)
a. The defendant is the Manufacturer or
processor of foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles
and similar goods involved;
b. Plaintiff Used or consumed such product
unaware of the injurious condition of the
product;
c. The defendant used Noxious or harmful
substances in the manufacturing or
processing of the foodstuff, drink or toilet
articles and similar goods;
d. Plaintiff’s Injury or death was caused by the
product used or consumed; and
e. The Forms or kinds of damages suffered
and the amount thereof.
Product Liability Law
This governs the liability of manufacturers and
sellers for damages resulting from defective
products.
Liability for defective products may be based on
fraud, warranty, negligence, or strict liability
(Aquino, Torts and Damages, supra at 858).
Consumer Act
A law that is meant to protect the consumers by
providing for certain safeguards when they
purchase or use consumer products (Republic Act
No. 7394, Consumer Act).
Alternative Theories or Legal Bases to Justify
Product Liability
1. Delict
Page 426 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
Basis of Liability:
a. Criminal negligence under the Revised
Penal Code; and
b. Violation of any special law, even in the
absence of intent (Aquino, Torts and
Damages, supra at 873-74).
2. Fraud or Misrepresentation
General Rule: Not all expressions of opinion
or usual exaggerations in trade are actionable
misrepresentations if they are established to
be inaccurate.
Exception: An act or practice shall be
deemed deceptive whenever the producer,
manufacturer, supplier or seller, through
concealment, false representation or
fraudulent manipulation, induces a consumer
to enter into a sale or lease transaction of any
consumer product or service (R.A. No. 7394,
Art. 50).
3. Warranties
To enforce warranty rights, a claim must be
presented. It is sufficient for the purchaser to
present to the immediate seller either the
warranty card or the official receipt along with
the product to be serviced or returned to the
immediate seller (R.A. No. 7394, Art. 68).
Subsidiary Liability of Retailer – Retailer is
subsidiarily liable under the warranty in case
of failure of both the manufacturer and
distributor to honor the warranty.
Privity of contract is not necessary in
successfully pursuing an action for breach of
warranty or in enforcing the same under the
Consumer Act.
The provisions of the Civil Code on conditions
and warranties shall govern all contracts of
sale with conditions and warranties (R.A. No.
7394, Art. 67).
Negligence
It is considered negligence per se if there is
violation of:
CIVIL LAW
a. Acts or omissions expressly prohibited by
Product Liability statutes;
b. Standards imposed by special laws, rules
and regulations of proper government
agencies with respect to Product Liability
Law (Aquino, Torts and Damages, supra at
871).
Liability attaches if due care of an ordinarily
prudent man was not exercised in manufacturing,
packaging, marketing or distributing of the product.
Warranty Under the Consumer Act
In addition to the Civil Code provisions on sale with
warranties, the following provisions shall govern
the sale of consumer products with warranty.
Any seller or manufacturer who gives an express
warranty shall:
1. set forth the terms of warranty in clear and
readily understandable language and clearly
identify himself as the warrantor;
2. identify the party to whom the warranty is
extended;
3. state the products or parts covered;
4. state what the warrantor will do in the event
of a defect, malfunction of failure to conform
to the written warranty and at whose expense;
5. state what the consumer must do to avail of
the rights which accrue to the warranty; and
stipulate the period within which, after notice
of defect, malfunction or failure to conform to
the warranty, the warrantor will perform any
obligation under the warranty (R.A. No. 7394,
Art. 68).
4. Strict Liability
It is imposed on manufacturers under the
Consumer Act and privity of contract is not
required. (Aquino, Torts and Damages, supra
at 881).
It does not preclude an action based on
negligence (quasi-delict) for the same act of
using noxious or harmful substances (Id. at
882).
Page 427 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
Manufacturer includes:
a. Any person, who manufactures,
assembles or process consumer
products; and
b. Any person who attaches his own brand
name to the consumer products
manufactures, assembled, or processed
for him.
Defective Product or Service
The product or service is defective when it does
not offer the safety that the consumer may
rightfully expect of it.
Kinds of Defective Products: (MDPA)
1. Manufacturing defect – resulting from
manufacture, assembly and erection;
2. Design defect – resulting from design;
3. Presentation defect – resulting from handling,
making up, presentation or packing of the
products; or
4. Absence of appropriate warning – resulting
from the insufficient or inadequate
information on the use and hazards of the
products (Aquino, Torts and Damages, supra
at 884).
Defect resulting from packaging and presentation
of the product can be included under
manufacturing defect or design defect.
Liability for Defective Product or Service:
1. Manufacturer – liability shall be imposed
upon manufacturers independent of fault
(R.A. No. 7394, Art. 97 and 99)
2. Tradesman or Seller – generally, not liable
for damages caused by defective products
under the Act.
Exceptions:
a. It is not possible to identify the manufacturer,
builder, producer or importer;
b. The product is supplied, without clear
identification of the manufacturer, producer,
builder or importer;
c. He does not adequately preserve perishable
goods (R.A. No. 7394, Art. 98).
Test under the Consumer Act
CIVIL LAW
To determine what is considered defective, the
Consumer Act adopts the “Consumer Expectation
Test.”
Under the consumer expectation test, a product
may be found defective in design, if the plaintiff
demonstrates that the product failed to perform as
safely as an ordinary consumer would expect
when used in an intended or reasonably
foreseeable manner (Baker v. Lull Engineering,
S.F. No. 23519, 1978).
Defenses
1. Manufacturer, builder, producer, or
importer shall not be liable when it
proves the following:
a. That it did not place the product on the
market;
b. That although it did place the product on
the market, such product has no defect;
and
c. That the consumer or a third party is
solely at fault (R.A. No. 7394, Art. 97).
2. Supplier of the services shall not be
liable when it is proven:
a. That there is no defect in the service
rendered; and
b. That the consumer or a third party is
solely at fault (R.A. No. 7394, Art. 99)
To enforce liability against the defendant, the
plaintiff should allege and prove that:
1. The product was defective;
2. The product was manufactured by the
defendant; and
3. The defective products was the cause in
fact of his injury (Aquino, Torts and
Damages, supra at 896).
Business Torts
Kinds:
1. Non-Possessory Invasion
Elements:
a. The other has property rights and
privileges with respect to the use or
enjoyment interfered with;
b. There is substantial invasion;
Page 428 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
c. The defendant’s conduct is a legal
cause of invasion; and
d. The invasion is either intentional and
unreasonable or unintentional ad
actionable under general negligence
rules. (Aquino, Torts and Damages,
supra at 899).
2. Interference of Contracts
Any third person who induces another to
violate his contract shall be liable for
damages to the other contracting party (Art.
1314).
General Rule: Only the parties to a contract
are bound by the terms of the contract and
only a party can file an action for breach of
contract or for rescission or annulment
thereof.
Exceptions:
a. Stipulation in favor of third person;
b. Contracts intended to defraud
creditors.
It is tortuous because it violates the rights
of the contracting parties to fulfill the
contract and to have it fulfilled, to reap the
profits resulting therefrom, and to compel
the performance by the other party.
Elements:
a. Existence of a valid contract;
b. Knowledge on the part of the third
person of the existence of the contract;
c. Interference of the third person without
legal justification
Note: Malice is not essential. Breach must
occur because of the alleged act of
interference (So Ping Bun v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 120554, 1999).
Privilege to Interfere
Elements:
a. The defendant’s purpose is a justifiable
one;
b. The actors do not employ means of
fraud or deception, which are regarded
CIVIL LAW
as unfair (Aquino, Torts and Damages,
supra at 906).
Rules on Liability:
a. The extent of the liability for the breach
of a contract must be determined in the
light of the situation in existence at the
time the contract is made; and the
damages ordinarily recoverable are in
all events limited to such as might be
reasonably foreseen in the light of the
facts then known to the contracting
parties (Daywalt v. La Corporacion,
G.R. No. L-13505, 1919).
b. Defendant cannot be held liable for
more than the amount for which the
contracting party was induced to break
the contract can be held liable; and
c. Rules under Article 2201 and 2202 of
the Civil Code applies.
If in good faith: Defendant is liable only
for consequences that can be foreseen.
Defendant is liable for all natural and
probable consequences of his act or
omission, whether the same is foreseen
or unforeseen (Go v. Corderdo, G.R.
No. 164747, 2010).
If in bad faith: Defendant is liable for all
natural and probable consequences of
his act or omission, whether the same
is foreseen or unforeseen (Go v.
Corderdo, G.R. No. 164747, 2010).
3. Interference with Prospective Advantage
It is a tort committed when there is no
contract yet and the defendant is only being
sued for inducing another not to enter into a
contract with the plaintiff (Aquino, Torts and
Damages, supra at 922).
4. Unfair Competition
Unfair competition in agricultural,
commercial, or industrial enterprises, or in
labor, through the use of force, intimidation,
deceit, machination or any unjust or
oppressive or highhanded method shall
Page 429 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
give rise to a right of action by a person who
thereby suffers damage (Art. 28).
It is defined as the passing off or attempting
to pass of upon the public the goods or
business of one person as the goods or
business of another, with the end goal and
probable effect of deceiving the public.
What is being sought to be prevented by
Article 28 is not competition per se but the
use of unjust, oppressive or high-handed
methods which may deprive others of a fair
chance to engage in business or to earn a
living. Plainly, what the law prohibits is
unfair competition and not competition
where the means used are fair and
legitimate (Willaware Products v. Jesichris
Manufacturing, G.R. No. 195549, 2014).
True test: Whether the acts of defendant
are such as are calculated to deceive the
ordinary buyer making his purchases under
the ordinary conditions which prevail in the
particular trade to which the controversy
relates (Alhambra Cigar v. Mojica, G.R. No.
L-8937, 1914).
Cases included:
a. Interference – Unfair competition
includes involving the tort of
interference with contractual relations
with prospective advantage;
b. Misappropriation – Unfair competition
is present if the defendant committed
fraudulent misappropriation against a
competition;
c. Monopolies and predatory pricing
Monopoly – any combination the
tendency of which is to prevent
competition in the broad and general
sense, or to control prices to the
detriment of the public (Gokongwei, Jr.
v. SEC, G.R. No. L-45911. 1979).
Predatory pricing – means selling or
offering to sell any product at a price
unreasonably below the industry
CIVIL LAW
average cost so as to attract customers
to the detriment of competitors
(Republic Act No. 8180, An Act
Deregulating the Downstream Oil
Industry, and for Other Purposes).
d. Passing off and disparagement of
products
IV. ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW
Definition of Acts Contrary to Law
Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same. (Art. 20)
Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all
other provisions of law which do not especially
provide for their own sanction. Thus, anyone who,
whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of
his legal right or duty, causes damage to another,
shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered
thereby. (Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 88694, 1993).
There is a common element under Articles 19 and
21, and that is, the act must be intentional.
However, Article 20 does not distinguish: the
act may be done either "willfully", or "negligently"
(Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. Court of Appeals,
supra).
Under Article 20, there is no requirement that the
act must be directed at a specific person, but it
suffices that a person suffers damage as a
consequence of a wrongful act of another in order
that indemnity could be demanded from the
wrongdoer. (Petrophil Corp. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 122796, 2001)
V. ACTS CONTRARY TO MORALS
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage (Art. 21).
This article is designed to fill in the countless gaps
in the statutes, which leave so many victims of
Page 430 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
moral wrongs helpless, even though they have
actually suffered material and moral injury.
Damages are recoverable even if no positive law
was violated.
Elements of Acts Contrary to Morals (LCD)
11. Act which is legal;
12. Act is contrary to morals, good customs,
public order or public policy; and
13. The act is done with intent to injure
B. CLASSIFICATION OF TORTS
I. ACCORDING TO MANNER OF COMMISSION
a. Negligent torts (Negligence)
It involves voluntary acts or omissions which
results in injury to others, without intending
to cause the same.
Negligence is defined as the omission of
that degree of diligence which is required by
the nature of the obligation and corresponds
to the circumstances of the persons, time
and place (Art. 1173).
b. Intentional torts
It is a tort or wrong perpetrated by one who
intends to do that which the law has
declared wrong. The actor desires to cause
the consequences of his act or believes the
consequences are substantially certain to
result therefrom. (Safeguard Security
Agent, Inc. v. Tangco, G.R. No. 165732,
2006).
It includes Articles 32 and 34, and culpa
aquilina under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code, or those where the injured party is
granted a right to file an action or suit
independent and distinct from the criminal
action under Article 33 of the Civil Code
(Id.).
c. Strict liability torts
The person is made liable independent of
fault or negligence upon submission of proof
of certain facts. It rests not on negligence
but on intentional doing of that which a
CIVIL LAW
person knows or should know, in the
exercise of ordinary care, may reasonably
cause loss to another in the normal course
of events (Aquino, Torts and Damages,
supra at 2).
An example of a strict liability tort is that
provided in Article 2183 of the Civil Code,
which states that “the possessor of an
animal or whoever may make use of the
same is responsible for the damage which it
may cause, although it may escape or be
lost. This responsibility shall cease only in
case the damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault of the person who
has suffered damage”.
The obligation imposed by Article 2183 is
not based on the negligence or on the
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor
or user of the animal causing the damage. It
is based on natural equity and on the
principle of social interest that he who
possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or
service must answer for the damage which
such animal may cause (Vestil v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
74431, 1989).
II. ACCORDING TO SCOPE
a. General torts – the catch‐all provisions
on torts provided for in the civil code i.e.
Articles 19, 20 and 21.
The effect is that “there is a general duty
owed to every person not to cause harm
either willfully or negligently. Articles 19,
20, and 21 are provisions on human
relations that were intended to expand
the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by
granting adequate legal remedy for the
untold number of moral wrongs which is
impossible for human foresight to
specifically provide for in the statutes.
(Aquino, 2005, citing PNB v. CA, et al.,
G.R. No. L-27155, 1978).
b. Specific torts ‐ It includes trespass,
assault and battery, negligence,
Page 431 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21 CIVIL LAW
products liability, and intentional express direction or authority from the
infliction of emotional distress. It also stockholders or members acting as a body, or,
includes the following: generally, from the directors as the governing
1. Unjust enrichment (arts. 22, 23, body. (Philippine National Bank v. Court of
2142 & 2143) Appeals, G.R. No. L-2715, 1978)
2. Violation of right of privacy and
family relations Doctrine of Corporate Negligence
3. Dereliction of official duty of public The doctrine of corporate negligence is the judicial
officers answer to the problem of allocating hospital’s
4. Unfair competition
 liability for the negligent acts of health
5. Malicious prosecution
 practitioners, absent facts to support the
6. Violation of rights and liberties of application of respondeat superior or apparent
another person authority.
7. Nuisance
The theory supporting the liability of hospital is
based on the recognition that the hospitals stand
C. THE TORTFEASOR
to benefit from the business of providing services
to patients and should therefore be responsible for
I. DIRECT TORTFEASOR any injury or damage that may result under the
relationship. (PSI v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297,
Tortfeasor 2007)
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged
II. JOINT TORTFEASORS
to pay for the damage done. (Art. 2176).
Joint tortfeasors are all the persons who
Every person legally responsible is liable for a tort
command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise,
committed by him provided it is the proximate
countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the
cause of an injury to another (DE LEON, Torts and
commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is
Damages at 16)
done, if done for their benefit. (Ruks Konsult and
Construction v. Adworld Sign and Advertising
Pursuant to a vicarious liability, a corporation may
Corp., G.R. No. 204886, 2015)
be held directly and primarily liable for tortious acts
of its officers or employees (Philippine National
Solidary Liability of Joint Tortfeasors
Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-2715, 1978).
The responsibility of two or more persons who are
liable for a quasi-delict is solidary (Art. 2194).
Corporate Tortfeasor
A corporation is civilly liable in the same manner
Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, joint
as natural persons for torts, because "generally
tortfeasors are solidarily liable for the resulting
speaking, the rules governing the liability of a
damage. In other words, joint tortfeasors are each
principal or master for a tort committed by an agent
liable as principals, to the same extend and in the
or servant are the same whether the principal or
same manner as if they had performed the
master be a natural person or a corporation, and
wrongful act themselves.
whether the servant or agent be a natural or
artificial person. All of the authorities agree that a
There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors
principal or master is liable for every tort which he
whose liability is solidary since both of them are
expressly directs or authorizes, and this is just as
liable for the total damage. Where the concurrent
true of a corporation as of a natural person. A
or successive negligent acts or omissions of two
corporation is liable, therefore, whenever a tortious
or more persons, although acting independently,
act is committed by an officer or agent under
are in combination the direct and proximate cause

Page 432 of 474

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
of a single injury to a third person, it is impossible
to determine in what proportion each contributed
to the injury and either of them is responsible for
the whole injury. (People v. Velasco, G.R. No.
195668, 2014).
In PNCC v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that
the failure of PNCC, in charge of the maintenance
of the expressway, to maintain the NLEX safe for
motorists constitutes negligence. There should
have been sufficient warning devices considering
that there were scattered sugarcane stalks still left
along the toll way. PASUDECO’s negligence in
transporting sugarcanes without proper straps and
that of PNCC in removing the emergency warning
devices were two successive negligent acts which
were the direct and proximate cause of the victim’s
injuries. As such, PASUDECO and PNCC are
jointly and severally liable.
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. It is no defense
to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the injury
would not have resulted from his negligence alone,
without the negligence or wrongful acts of the
other concurrent tortfeasors. Where several
causes producing an injury are concurrent and
each is an efficient cause without which the injury
would not have happened, the injury may be
attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery
may be had against any or all of the responsible
persons although under the circumstances of the
case, it may appear that one of them was more
culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the
injured person was not the same. No actor's
negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely
because it does not exceed the negligence of
other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for
the entire result and is liable as though his acts
were the sole cause of the injury (Philippine
National Construction Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, 2005)
CIVIL LAW
III. PERSONS MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR
OTHERS
Vicarious Liability
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 of the Civil
Code on quasi-delicts is demandable not only for
one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible (Art. 2180).
A person is liable not only for his own torts, but also
for those committed by others with whom he has a
certain relationship, or for whom he is responsible.
The basis of liability is pater familias or the failure
of the persons mentioned therein to exercise due
care and vigilance over the acts of subordinates to
prevent the damage (Filcar Transport Services v.
Espinas, G.R. No. 174156, 2012).
NOTE: Vicarious liability is not governed by the
doctrine of respondeat superior. Under the
doctrine of respondeat superior, the master is
liable in every case and unconditionally; the
negligence of the servant is conclusively
presumed to be the negligence of the master.
However, in vicarious liability, persons are made
vicariously liable not because of the negligent or
wrongful act of the person for whom they are
responsible, but because of their own negligence
(i.e. liability is imposed on the employer because
he failed to exercise due diligence in the selection
and supervision of his employees).
Whenever an employee’s negligence causes
damage or injury to another, there instantly arises
a presumption juristantum that the employer failed
to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the
selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa
in vigilando) of its employees. To avoid liability for
a quasi-delict committed by its employee, an
employer must overcome the presumption by
presenting convincing proof that he exercised the
care and diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection and supervision of his employee.
(Delsan Transport v. C&A Construction, G.R. No.
156034, 2003; Light Rail Transit Association v.
Navidad, G.R. No. 145804, 2003)
Page 433 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
Exception: The doctrine of respondeat superior is
applicable in:
1. Liability of employers under Art. 103 of the
Revised Penal Code
2. Liability of a partnership for the tort committed
by a partner.
Jurisdiction over the person
The Supreme Court held that an employee-driver
was neither an indispensable nor a necessary
party in an action for damages filed against the
employers. Thus, it was not necessary for the
court to acquire jurisdiction over the employee-
driver to hold the employers liable for damages.
(Cerezo v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141538, 2004)
Doctrine of Agency by Estoppel in the
Negligent Acts of Physicians of Hospitals
The court has applied the doctrine of agency by
estoppel to hold hospitals liable for the negligent
acts of physicians based on:
1. The patient accepts the services of the
physician
2. The patient believes that the physicians are
agents of the hospital. (PSI v. Agana, G.R.
No. 126297, 2007)
Persons Vicariously Liable
1. Father/ mother for their minor children. 
 the school and its heads and teachers
Reason: The liability is a necessary
consequence of the parental authority they
exercise over them. The liability under Article
2180 also extends to other persons
exercising parental authority like judicially
appointed guardians and adopters (AQUINO,
Torts and Damages, 730-31).
Adopters
The Court does not consider that retroactive
effect may be given to the decree of adoption
so as to impose a liability under the adopting
parents (Tamago v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 85044, 1992).
2. Guardians are liable for the minors and
incapacitated persons under their 
 employees in the service of the branches in
authority.
CIVIL LAW
Incompetent includes persons suffering the
penalty of civil interdiction or who are
hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb
who are unable to read and write, those who
are of unsound mind, even though they have
lucid intervals, and person’s not being of
unsound mind by reason of age, disease,
weak mind and other similar causes, cannot,
without outside aid, take care of themselves
and manage their property, becoming thereby
an easy prey for deceit and exploitation
(RULES OF COURT, Rule 92, Sec. 2).
3. Schools, administrators and teachers, and
individuals, entities or institutions
engaged in child care having special
parental authority over children
Extent of Special Parental Authority
It can be exercised only over minors while
under their supervision, instruction or
custody, including while in authorized
activities, whether inside or outside the
school, entity or institution (AQUINO, Torts
and Damages, 665).
Custody
The protective and supervisory custody that
exercise over the pupils and students for as
long as they are in attendance in school,
including recess time (Palisoc v. Brillantes,
G.R. No. L-29025, 1971).
As long as it can be shown that the student is
in the school premises in pursuance of a
legitimate student objective, in the exercise of
a legitimate right, and even in the enjoyment
of a legitimate student privilege, the
responsibility of the school authorities over
the student continues (Amadora v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745, 1988).
4. Owners/managers of establishment or
enterprise for their employees 

They are liable for damages caused by their
which they are employed, or on the occasion
of their functions. It does not extend to acts of
Page 434 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21 CIVIL LAW
strangers who committed unauthorized acts The solidary debtor If the person
and in doing so, caused damage to others who pays the injured vicariously liable pays
(Art. 2180, par. 4). party may recover the injured party, he
from the other debtor may recover the
Managers his corresponding entire amount he
In Article 2180, “managers” is used in the share in the amount paid from the actual
sense of an employer. A managerial paid. (Art.1217) tortfeasor (Art.2182)
employee within the contemplation of the
Labor Code is not a manager under Article
2180 because he himself may be regarded as
an employee or dependiente of the employer
(Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Phil.
American Forwarders, Inc., G.R. No. L-
25142, 1975).

Co-employees are not liabile even if they

supervise the employee.

5. Employers for their employees and

household helpers. 

Although the employer is not the actual
tortfeasor, the law makes him vicariously
liable on the basis of the civil law principle of
pater familias for failure to exercise due care
and vigilance over the acts of one’s
subordinates to prevent damage to another
(Filcar Transport Service v. Espinas, supra).

6. State for their special agents 


It is a basic constitutional rule that the State
cannot be sued without its consent. Consent
of the State to be sued can be manifested
through a special law or general law allowing
the State to be sued (AQUINO, Torts and
Damages, 718).

7. Teachers/Heads of establishment of arts

and trades for their pupils/
students/apprentices (Art. 2180, NCC).

Persons Vicariously
Joint Tortfeasors
Liable
Tortfeasor (under Art.
2176) and the person
Solidarily liable
vicariously liable
(Art. 2194)
(under Art. 2180) are
solidarily liable.

Page 435 of 474

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21 CIVIL LAW
PERSON FOR REQUIREMENTS
PERSON
WHOM FOR VICARIOUS NATURE OF
VICARIOUSLY DEFENSES
VICARIOUSLY LIABILITY TO LIABILITY
LIABLE
LIABLE ATTACH
Father and mother
Child lives in their exercise joint
company; AND is parental authority
Parent/s (joint
under their over their minor
parental
Children below 18 parental authority Diligence of a children. Their
authority based
(Art. 221, Family (Art.2180) good father of a liability is direct
on Art. 221,
Code) (Art.221, Family family to prevent and primary, not
Family Code)
Code); Tamargo v. damage subsidiary. (Art.
Father, in case of
CA, G.R. No. (Art. 2180; 211, Family Code;
death or
85044, 1992) Exconde v. Libi v. IAC, G.R.
incapacity, the
Capuno, G.R. No. No. 70890, 1992)
mother (Art.
“Child” lives in L-10134, 1957)
2180) Children 18 to 21 Direct and primary
their company
(Art. 2180, in (Art. 2180 in
(Art.2180, in
relation to Art. 236 relation to Art. 236,
relation to Art. 236,
¶ 3, Family Code) ¶ 3, Family Code)
¶ 3, Family Code)

Principal and
solidary (Art. 219,
Family Code)
GR: Parents are
Schools,
not liable; child
administrators
Child is under their was in school; not
and teachers, Exercised the
supervision, in their custody
and individuals, proper diligence
instruction or (Cuadra vs.
entities or Children below 18 required under the
custody at the time Monfort, G.R. No.
institutions (Arts. 218- 219, particular
the tort is L-24101, 1970)
engaged in child Family Code) circumstances
committed EXC: Parents,
care having (Art. 219, Family
(Art. 218, Family judicial guardians
special parental Code)
Code) or persons
authority over
exercising
children
substitute parental
authority shall be
subsidiarily liable
(Art. 219, Family
Code)
Diligence of a
Minors or Under their
good father of a
incapacitated authority and live Direct and primary
Guardians family to prevent
persons (Art. in their company (Art. 2180)
damage (Art.
2180) (Art. 2180)
2180)

Page 436 of 474

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21 CIVIL LAW
That the employee
is liable for a
QD;
EER exists;
Employee was
acting within No EER (Jayme v
the scope of his Apostol, G.R.
assigned tasks No. 136609,
Employees in the
when the tort 2008) –
service of the
was committed, municipality, not
branches in which
or that the the mayor is the
they are employed
injurious act employer of the
or on the occasion
was committed driver)
of their functions
at a time the
(Art. 2180(4))
employee was EE acted beyond
performing his the scope of
functions. authority (i.e. Direct and primary
(Dela Llana v. when the EEs (Art. 2180)
Biong, G.R. No. are on strike)
182356, 2013; (Universal NOTE: “Manager”
Castilex Industrial Aquarius v. QC means employer
Employers,
Corp. vs. Human (Philippine Rabbit
owners and
Vasquez, G.R. No. Resources Bus Lines, Inc. v.
managers
132266, 1999; Management Philippine
Martin v. CA, G.R. Corporation, American
No. 82248, 1992; G.R. No. Forwarders, Inc.,
Jayme v. Apostol, 155990, 2007) G.R. No. L-25142,
G.R. No. 136609, 1975)
Employees and
2008) Diligence of a good
household helpers
NOTE: “Acting father of a family
acting within the
within the scope of in the selection
scope of their
assigned tasks” – and supervision
assigned tasks
includes any act of employees
even though the
done in the (Mercury Drug v.
employer is not
furtherance of the Huang, G.R. No.
engaged in any
employer’s 172122, 2007;
business or
business Sanitary Steam vs.
industry
(Filamer Christian CA, G.R. No.
(Art. 2180(5))
Institute v. IAC, 119092, 1998)
G.R. No.75112
1990) (e.g., janitor
who drove vehicle
for the benefit of
the employer)
Doctors and [3 theories] Direct and primary
hospital 1. EER (Art.2180) Elements of the 3 (Casumpang v.
Hospitals employees 2. Doctrine of theories are not Cortejo, G.R. No.
(Ramos v. CA Apparent present. 171127, 171217,
G.R. No. 124354, Authority or & 17122, 2015)

Page 437 of 474

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21 CIVIL LAW
1999 and 2002; Ostensible Due diligence in
Nogales v. Capitol Agency or the selection
Medical Center “Holding out” and supervision
G.R. No. 142625, Reliance (if EER)
2006; Casumpang (Nogales vs. (Art. 2180(5);
v. Cortejo, G.R. Capitol Medical Nogales vs.
No. 171127, Center, G.R. No. Capitol Medical
171217, & 17122, 142625, 2006; Center, G.R. No.
2015) Professional 142625, 2006;
Services Inc.v. Professional
Agana G.R. No. Services Inc.v.
126297, 2007; Agana G.R. No.
G.R. No. 126467, 126297, 2007;
2008; G.R. No. G.R. No.
127590, 2010) 126467, 2008;
3. Doctrine of G.R. No.
Corporate 127590, 2010)
Negligence
(hospital is
liable for its own
negligence; not
vicariously for
the doctor’s or
medical
personnel’s
negligence)
(Professional
Services Inc.v.
Agana, supra)
Rules:
Special agent – Public official (PO)
i.e., one who performing Observed
receives a definite functions of his diligence of a good
and fixed order or office – State is father of a family to
commission, immune from prevent damage
foreign to the suit. Public (Art.2180)
exercise of the official liable Direct and primary
duties of his office under Art.2176. Observed (Art. 2180;
if he is a special PO specially diligence of a good Fontanilla v.
State
official (Art.2180; commissioned to father of a family in Maliaman, G.R.
Merritt v. GPI, perform a task the selection and Nos. 55963 &
G.R. No. L-11154, foreign to his supervision of 61045, 1991)
1916) office – State employees
liable; PO is a (Fontanilla v.
Government special agent. Maliaman, G.R.
Owned and No. L-55963,
Controlled Private individual 1989)
Corporations (PI)
(GOCCs) – When commissioned

Page 438 of 474

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21 CIVIL LAW
the government by the State to
enters into a perform non-
commercial governmental
business, it functions - State
abandons its is liable as an
sovereign capacity employer.
and is to be PI commissioned
treated like any to perform a
other private special
corporation governmental
(Manila Hotel task (special
Employees agent) – State
Association v. liable
Manila Hotel
Company, G.R. L- Employees of
48524, 1941). government
offices performing
proprietary
functions – State
liable as an
employer.
(Fontanilla v.
Maliaman, G.R.
No. L-55963,
1989)

Direct and primary

Adult pupils and Student is in the
students (for school premises in
NOTE: Applies
teachers) pursuance of a
whether the
legitimate student
institution is
Adult apprentices objective, in the
academic or not
(for heads of exercise of a
Teacher was not (Amadora v. CA,
establishments of legitimate student
negligent. supra)
arts and trades) right, and even in
(Art.2180; the enjoyment of a
NOTE: Art.2180 Basis of liability of
Teachers/Heads Amadora v. CA, legitimate student
does not apply teacher and head
of G.R. No. L-47745, privilege, the
when the tort was = close
establishments 1988) responsibility of
not committed by a supervisory
of arts and trades the school
student (Aquinas relationship; ability
If pupil, student or authorities over
School vs. Sps. to instill discipline
apprentice is a the student
Inton, G.R. No.
minor, apply Art. continues. Indeed,
184202, 2011) GR: School is not
218, Family Code even if the student
liable
should be doing
EXC: When it is
NOTE: Pupil need nothing more than
being held liable
not live or board relaxing in the
as an employer.
with the teacher campus in the
(Amadora v. CA,
(Palisoc company of his
supra)
v.Brillates, G.R. classmates and

Page 439 of 474

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21 CIVIL LAW
No. L-29025, friends and School has an
1971) enjoying the implied contractual
ambience and duty to maintain a
atmosphere of the safe environment
school, he is still conducive for
within the custody learning. If it
and subject to the breaches that duty
discipline of the through
school authorities negligence, it may
under the be held liable
provisions of Art. under Art. 2176
2180 (Amadora v. (PSBA v. CA, G.R.
CA, G.R. No. L- No. 84698, 1992,
47745, 1988) in relation to Air
France vs.
Carrascoso, G.R.
No. L-21438,
1966).

Page 440 of 474

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
D. PROXIMATE CAUSE
I. CONCEPT
Proximate Cause, Definition
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. (Vda. de
Bataclan v. Medina, G.R. No. L-10126, 1957).
The proximate cause of the injury is not
necessarily the immediate cause of, or the cause
nearest in time to, the injury. It is only when the
causes are independent of each other that the
nearest is to be charged with the disaster. So long
as there is a natural, direct and continuous
sequence between the negligent act and the
injury that it can reasonably be said that but for
the act the injury could not have occurred, such
negligent act is the proximate cause of the injury,
and whoever is responsible therefore is liable for
damages resulting therefrom. (Brinas v. People of
the Philippines, G.R. L-30309, 1983).
Proximate Cause Inapplicable in Breach of
Contract
Such doctrine only applies in actions for quasi-
delicts, not in breach of contract. It is a device for
imputing liability to a person where there is no
relation between him and another party. (Sps.
Guanio v. Makati Shangri-La Hotel, G.R. No.
190601, 2011) But note that in the case of
Bataclan v. Medina (G.R. No. L-10126, 1957), the
court used the doctrine of proximate cause in the
case breach of contract of carriage but only to
determine the extent of liability.
Necessary Link
In Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina, the Court held
that the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan
was the overturning of the bus, and not the fire
brought about by the torch of the rescuers. This
is for the reason that when the vehicle turned
completely on its back, the leaking of the gasoline
from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected;
because it was very dark in the rural area where
lanterns and flashlights are not available, the
CIVIL LAW
rescuers had to carry a torch with them; and what
was more natural than that said rescuers should
innocently approach the overturned vehicle to
extend the aid and effect the rescue requested
from them. (Vda. de Bataclan v. Medina, G.R. No.
L-10126, 1957).
In Dela Llana v. Biong, the Court ruled that the
petitioner did not present any testimonial or
documentary evidence that directly shows the
causal relation between the vehicular accident
and petitioner’s whiplash injury. Hence, the
petitioner failed to overcome the burden of proof
required to establish that the negligent act of the
driver is the proximate cause of her whiplash
injury. (Dela Llana vs. Biong, G.R. No. 182356,
2013)
NOTE: If plaintiff's negligence is only
contributory, he is considered partly responsible
only. Plaintiff may still recover from defendant but
the award may be reduced by the courts in
proportion to his own negligence. (Bank of
America NT & SA vs. Philippine Racing Club,
G.R. No. 150228, 2009)
II. EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
Immediate Cause – The cause nearest in time to
the injury.
Intervening Cause – If the intervening cause is
one which in ordinary human experience is
reasonably to be anticipated or one which the
defendant has reason to anticipate under the
particular circumstances, the defendant may be
negligent among other reasons, because of
failure to guard against it; or the defendant may
be negligent only for that reason.
One who sets a fire may be required to foresee
that an ordinary, usual and customary wind
arising later will spread it beyond the defendant's
own property, and therefore to take precautions
to prevent that event. The person who leaves the
combustible or explosive material exposed in a
public place may foresee the risk of fire from
some independent source. In all of these cases
Page 441 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
there is an intervening cause combining with the
defendant's conduct to produce the result and in
each case the defendant's negligence consists in
failure to protect the plaintiff against that very risk
(Phoenix Construction v. IAC, G.R. No. L-65295,
1987).
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 of the
injury, even though such injury would not have
happened but for such condition or occasion. If no
danger existed 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 instances, which result in injury
because of the prior defective condition, such
subsequent act or condition is the proximate
cause (Manila Electric Co. v. Remoquillo, G.R.
No. L-8328, 1956).
Remote Cause
That cause which some independent force
merely took advantage of to accomplish
something not the natural effect thereof. It cannot
be considered the legal cause of the damage.
(Aquino, Torts and Damages, p. 318, 2013)
Concurrent Cause
Where several causes producing an injury are
concurrent and each is an efficient cause without
which the injury would not have happened, the
injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes
and recovery may be had against any or all of the
responsible persons although under the
circumstances of the case, it may appear that one
of them was more culpable, and that the duty
owed by them to the injured person was not the
same. No actor's negligence ceases to be a
proximate cause merely because it does not
exceed the negligence of other actors. Each
wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and
is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of
the injury. (Ruks Konsult and Construction v.
CIVIL LAW
Adworld Sign and Advertising Corp., G.R. No.
204886, 2015)
Efficient Intervening Cause
An independent intervening cause as one which
is so distinct as to sever the connection of cause
and effect between the negligent act and the
injury. (Bartels v. City of Williston, 629 F.2d 509,
1980)
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. (Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co., G.R. No.
164749, March 15, 2017)
If an independent cause intervenes, which is of
itself sufficient to produce the result, it is regarded
as proximate cause, and the originator of the first
cause is relieved from liability. (Michael v. U.S.,
338 F.2d 219, 1964)
III. CAUSE IN FACT
Cause in Fact
‘BUT FOR’ TEST
The (but for) test requires a plaintiff to establish
that the act complained of probably caused the
subsequent disability. (Nelson V. Fibreboard
Corporation, [912 F.2d 469])
The test applied to determine whether negligent
conduct was the efficient, or proximate cause of
the injury or loss suffered by the claimant is
whether such conduct is a cause without which
the injury would not have taken place (which test
is frequently referred to as the "sine qua non
rule"), or is the efficient cause which set in motion
the chain of circumstances leading to the injury.
Page 442 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
(Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts and Damages,
1994)
Substantial Factor
It is the rule under the substantial factor test that
if the actor's conduct is a substantial factor in
bringing about harm to another, the fact that the
actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen
the extent of the harm or the manner in which it
occurred does not prevent him from being liable.
(Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. IAC, G.R. 66102,
1990)
Concurrent Causes
If one suffers damage as the proximate result of
the negligence of two others, and the damage
would not have occurred but for the negligence of
each of such parties, both are liable to the person
so injured. (Menne v. Celotex Corporation, 861
F.2d 1453, 1988)
Legal Cause
Test of Foreseeability
Where the particular harm was reasonably
foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s
misconduct, his act or omission is the legal cause
thereof. Foreseeability is the fundamental test of
the law of negligence. To be negligent, the
defendant must have acted or failed to act in such
a way that an ordinary reasonable man would
have realized that certain interests of certain
persons were unreasonably subjected to a
general but definite class of risk which made the
actor’s conduct negligent, it is obviously the
consequence for the actor must be held legally
responsible. Otherwise, the legal duty is entirely
defeated. Accordingly, the generalization may be
formulated that all particular consequences, that
is, consequences which occur in a manner which
was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at
the time of his misconduct are legally caused by
his breach of duty. (Achevara v. Ramos, G.R. No.
175172, 2009)
Test of Natural and Probable Causes
A natural consequence of an act is the
consequence which ordinarily follows it. A
probable consequence is one that is more likely
CIVIL LAW
to follow than fail to follow its supposed cause but
it need not be one which necessarily follows such
cause. (Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts and
Damages, 1994)
HINDSIGHT TEST
A party guilty of negligence or omission is
responsible for all the consequences which a
prudent and experienced party, fully acquainted
with all the circumstances which in fact exist,
whether they could have been ascertained by
reasonable diligence, or not, would have thought
at the time of the negligent act as reasonably
possible to follow, if they had been suggested to
his mind. (Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts and
Damages, Volume 1, p. 113, 1993)
ORBIT TEST
If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty
which the defendant breached, liability is imposed
for any resulting injury within the orbit or scope of
such injury, it is not the unusual nature of the act
resulting in injury that is the test of foreseeability,
but whether the result of the act is within the ambit
of the hazards covered by the duty imposed upon
defendant. (Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts and
Damages, Volume 1, p. 113, 1993)
IV. CAUSE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
CONDITION
Cause/Condition
Distinction between Cause and Condition
The distinction between cause and condition has
now been entirely discredited. In Phoenix
Construction v. IAC, the Court ruled: Many courts
have sought to distinguish between the active
"cause" of the harm and the existing "conditions"
upon which that cause operated. If the defendant
has created only a passive static condition, which
made the damage possible, the defendant is said
not to be liable. But so far as the fact of causation
is concerned, in the sense of necessary
antecedents which have played an important part
in producing the result it is quite impossible to
distinguish between active forces and passive
situations, particularly since, as is invariably the
case, the latter are the result of other active forces
Page 443 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
which have gone before. The defendant who
spills gasoline about the premises creates a
"condition," but the act may be culpable because
of the danger of fire. When a spark ignites the
gasoline, the condition has done quite as much to
bring about the fire as the spark; and since that is
the very risk, which the defendant has created,
the defendant will not escape responsibility. Even
the lapse of a considerable time during which the
"condition" remains static will not necessarily
affect liability; one who digs a trench in the
highway may still be liable to another who fans
into it a month afterward.
"Cause" and "condition" still find occasional
mention in the decisions; but the distinction is now
almost entirely discredited. So far as it has any
validity at all, it must refer to the type of case
where the forces set in operation by the
defendant have come to rest in a position of
apparent safety, and some new force intervenes.
But even in such cases, it is not the distinction
between "cause" and "condition" which is
important but the nature of the risk and the
character of the intervening cause. (Phoenix
Construction v. IAC, G.R. L-65295, 1987).
V. LAST CLEAR CHANCE
Last Clear Chance
Also known as the “Doctrine of Discovered Peril”
Even though a person’s own acts may have
placed him in a position of peril and an injury
results, the injured is entitled to recover if the
defendant thru the exercise of reasonable care
and prudence might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff.
Requisites:
1. Plaintiff was in a position of danger by his
own negligence
2. Defendant knew of such position of the
plaintiff
3. Defendant had the last clear chance to avoid
the accident by exercise of ordinary care but
failed to exercise such last clear chance and
CIVIL LAW
4. Accident occurred as proximate cause of
such failure
Who may invoke – Plaintiff
When the doctrine is not applicable
(a) Joint tortfeasors
(b) Defendants concurrently negligent
(c) As against 3rd persons
E. LEGAL INJURY
Concept of Legal Injury
It is the legal invasion of a legal right.
Elements of right
The elements of a cause of action are:
1. a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever
means and under whatever law it arises or is
created;
2. an obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate such
right; and
3. an act or omission on the part of such
defendant in violation of the right of the
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the
obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for
which the latter may maintain an action for
recovery of damages. (Samson v. Sps
Gabor, G.R. No. 182970, 2014).
Violation of right or legal injury
The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses
does not give rise to a right to recover damages.
To warrant the recovery of damages, there must
be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted
by the defendant, and damage resulting to the
plaintiff therefrom. Wrong without damage, or
damage without wrong, does not constitute a
cause of action, since damages are merely part
of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a
breach or wrong. (Custodio v. CA G.R. No.
116100, 1996)
There can be damage without injury in those
instances in which the loss or harm was not the
result of a violation of a legal duty.
Page 444 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21 CIVIL LAW

In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for F. INTENTIONAL TORTS

the injuries of which he complains, he must
establish that such injuries resulted from a breach
of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff
a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal
responsibility by the person causing it.10 The
underlying basis for the award of tort damages is
the premise that an individual was injured in
contemplation of law. Thus, there must first be the
breach of some duty and the imposition of liability
for that breach before damages may be awarded;
it is not sufficient to state that there should be tort
liability merely because the plaintiff suffered
some pain and suffering. (Id.)
Many accidents occur and many injuries are
inflicted by acts or omissions which cause
damage or loss to another but which violate no
legal duty to such other person, and consequently
create no cause of action in his favor. In such
cases, the consequences must be borne by the
injured person alone. The law affords no remedy
for damages resulting from an act which does not
amount to a legal injury or wrong.
In other words, in order that the law will give
redress for an act causing damage, that act must
be not only hurtful, but wrongful. There must
be damnum et injuria. If, as may happen in many
cases, a person sustains actual damage, that is,
harm or loss to his person or property, without
sustaining any legal injury, that is, an act or
omission which the law does not deem an injury,
the damage is regarded as damnum absque
injuria. (Id.)
Classes of Injury
INJURY DAMAGE DAMAGES
The
Legal Loss, hurt or
recompense or
invasion of harm which
compensation
a legal right results from
awarded for the
the injury
damage
(Lagon v.
suffered
CA G.R. (Custodio v.
No. CA, G.R.
(Custodio v. CA
119107, No. 116100,
G.R. No.
2005) 1996)
116100, 1996)
I. GENERAL
Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage (Art. 21).
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable (Revised Penal Code, Art. 100)
However, not all crimes give rise to civil liability
(e.g. begging in contravention of ordinances,
violation of game laws, infractions of traffic rules
where no one is injured) (Barredo v. Garcia, G.R.
No. L-48006, 1942).
NOTE: Quasi-delict includes acts done through
fault.
II. INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHTS TO
PERSONS AND PROPERTY
Breach of a promise to marry
General rule: Breach of a promise to marry by
itself is not actionable.
Exception: In cases where there is another act
independent of the breach of a promise to marry
which gives rise to liability
(a) Cases where there was financial damage
(b) Social humiliation caused to one of the
parties
(c) Where there was moral seduction
(d) If the breach was done in a manner that is
clearly contrary to good morals.
Moral seduction connotes the idea of deceit,
enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence on the part of the seducer to which the
woman has yielded for which the seducer can be
held liable for damages. (Gashem Shookat Baksh
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336, 1993)
Sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis for
recovery but damages could be awarded if the
sexual intercourse is not a product of

Page 445 of 474

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
voluntariness or mutual desire. (Constantino v.
Mendez, G.R. No. 57227, 1992)
Seduction without breach of promise to marry
Seduction by itself, is also an act contrary to
morals, good customs and public policy.
The defendant is liable if he employed deceit,
enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence in successfully having sexual
intercourse with another even if he satisfied his
lust without promising to marry the offended
party. It may not even matter that the plaintiff and
the defendant are of the same gender.
Sexual Assault
Defendant is liable for all forms of sexual assault.
He is liable even if he satisfied his lust without
promising to marry the offended party
Desertion by a Spouse
A spouse has the legal obligation to live with
his/her spouse. If a spouse does not perform
his/her duty to the other, he may be liable for
damages for such omission because the same is
contrary to law, morals, good customs and public
policy.
Trespass and Deprivation of Property
Two Kinds:
1. Trespass to and/or Deprivation of real
property
(a) Liability for damages under the Revised
Penal Code and Art. 451 of the Civil Code
requires intent or bad faith
(b) A builder in good faith who acted negligently
may be held liable under Art. 2176 of the Civil
Code.
(c) Art. 448 of the Civil Code in relation to Art.
456 does not permit action for damages
where the builder, planter or sower acted in
good faith. The landowner is limited to the
options given to him under Art. 448.
(d) This is committed when a personal unlawfully
invades the real property of another. Intent or
bad faith is required for liability for damages
under the Revised Penal Code and Civil
CIVIL LAW
Code to attach. (Aquino, Torts and Damages,
supra at 425).
2. Trespass to and/or Deprivation of private
property
In tort, trespass extends to all cases where a
person is deprived of his personal property even
in the absence of criminal liability.
Examples: theft, robbery
It may cover cases where the defendant was
deprived of personal property for the purpose of
obtaining possession of real property. The
defendant who was landlord, was held liable
because he deprived the plaintiffs, his tenants of
water in order to force them to vacate the lot they
were cultivating. (Magbanua v. IAC, G.R. Nos. L-
66870-72, 1985)
The right to disconnect and deprive the customer,
who unreasonably fails to pay his bills of
electricity should be exercised in accordance with
the law and rules. If a company disconnects the
electricity service without prior notice as required
by the rules, the company commits a tort under
Art. 21. (Manila Electric Co. v. CA, G.R. No.
132539, 2001)
Art. 1664 states that "[t]he lessor is not obliged to
answer for a mere act of trespass which a third
person may cause on the use of the thing leased;
but the lessee shall have a direct action against
the intruder." Here, BSP (lessor) is not liable for
breach of contract because it was not remiss in
its obligation to provide the Spouses M a suitable
parking space for their jeepneys as it even hired
security guards to secure the premises; hence, it
should not be held liable for the loss suffered by
the Spouses M. BSP cannot be held liable for
breach because no negligence can be imputed to
it. Neither can BSP be held vicariously liable for
the negligence of the two guards because BSP is
not their employer. (Spouses Mamaril v. Boy
Scouts of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179382,
2013)
Example: In the case of Magbanua v. IAC (G.R.
No. L-66870-72, 1985), the defendant, who was
the landlord, was held liable because he deprived
Page 446 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
his tenants of water in order to force them to
vacate the lot they were cultivating.
Abortion and Wrongful death
Liability for damages
Damages may be recovered by both spouses if:
(a) The abortion was cause through the
physician’s negligence or
(b) Done intentionally without their consent
NOTE: A doctor who performs an illegal abortion
is criminally liable under Art. 259 of the Revised
Penal Code.
The husband of a woman who voluntarily
procured her abortion may recover damages from
the physician who cause the same on account of
distress and mental anguish attendant to the loss
of the unborn child and the disappointment of his
parental expectation. (Geluz v. CA, G.R. No. L-
16439, 1961)
Illegal Dismissal
The right of the employer to dismiss an employee
should not be confused with the manner in which
the right is exercised and its effects.
If the dismissal was done anti-socially and
oppressively, the employer should be deemed to
have violated Art. 1701 of the Civil Code (which
prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or
labor against the other) and Art. 21.
An employer may be held liable for damages if
the manner of dismissing is contrary to morals,
good customs and public policy.
Malicious Prosecution
An action for damages brought by one against
another whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or
other legal proceeding has been instituted
maliciously and without probable cause, after
termination of such prosecution, suit or
proceeding in favor of the defendant therein.
The action which is terminated should be one
begun in malice, without probable cause to
believe that the charges can be sustained.
CIVIL LAW
Statutory Bases
Arts. 19-21, 2, 32, 33, 35, 2217, 2219(8)
Elements:
1. The fact of the prosecution and the further
fact that the defendant was himself the
prosecutor; and that the action was finally
terminated with an acquittal.
2. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor
acted without probable cause.
3. The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by
legal malice, which is a sinister design to vex
or humiliate
NOTE: Presence of probable cause signifies
absence of malice. Absence of malice signifies
good faith on the part of the defendant. Good faith
may even be based on mistake of law. Acquittal
presupposes that criminal information is filed in
court and final judgment rendering dismissing the
case. Nevertheless, prior acquittal may include
dismissal by the prosecutor after preliminary
investigation. (Globe Mackay and Radio Corp v.
CA, G.R. No. 81262, 1989)
There is malicious prosecution when a person
directly insinuates or imputes to an innocent
person the commission of a crime and the
accused is compelled to defend himself in court.
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 a cause of action or probable cause (Martires
v. Cokieng, G.R. No. 150192, 2005).
Public Humiliation
Such acts also constitute an offense under Art.
359 of the Revised Penal Code (Slander by
Deed)
(a) A person can be held liable for damages for
slapping another in public. (Patricio v. Hon.
Oscar Leviste, G.R. No. L-51832, 1989)
(b) A defendant may likewise be guilty of a tort
even if he acted in good faith if the action has
caused humiliation to another. (Grand Union
Supermarket v. Espino, G.R. No. L-48250,
1979)
Page 447 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
Ostentatious Display of Wealth
Thoughtless extravagance for pleasure or display
during a period of public want or emergency. (Art.
25)
Violation of Right of Privacy and Family
Relations
The following acts though they may not constitute
a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action
for damages, prevention and other relief: (PMIV)
(a) Prying into the privacy of another's residence
(b) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another
(c) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated
from his friends
(d) Vexing or humiliating another on account of
his religious beliefs, lowly station in life. Place
of birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition (Art.26)
In his opinion in Pollo v. Constantino-David
(2011), J. Bersamin, citing US authorities,
identified 4 torts that interfere with or violate a
person’s right to privacy:
1. The tort of intrusion upon the plaintiff’s
seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs
2. The public disclosure of embarrassing private
facts about the plaintiff
3. The publicity that places the plaintiff in a false
light in the public eye
4. The tort of appropriation, which is committed
when a person adopts “to his own use or
benefit the name or likeness of another.”
Dereliction of Official Duty of Public Officers
May be brought by any person suffering from
material or moral loss because a public servant
refuses or neglects, without just cause to perform
his official duty (Art. 27)
Requisites (PNMA)
1. Defendant is a Public officer charged with the
performance of a duty in favor of the plaintiff
2. Non-performance of such duty without just
cause (ministerial)
3. Plaintiff sustained Material or moral loss as
consequence of such non-performance
4. The Amount of such damages, if material.
CIVIL LAW
Inaction must be due to malice or inexcusable
negligence (Philippine Match Co., Ltd. vs. City of
Cebu, G.R. No. L-30745, 1978).
Purpose of this article is to end the "bribery
system, where the public official, for some flimsy
excuse, delays or refuses the performance of his
duty until he gets some kind of pabagsak." (Tuzon
v. CA, G.R. No. 90107, 1992)
Refers to non-feasance; not to malfeasance or
misfeasance (Torio v. Fonatanilla, G.R. No. L-
29993, 1978).
Malfeasance – performance of some act which
ought not to be done
Misfeasance – improper performance of some
act which might lawfully be done
Nonfeasance – omission of some act which
ought to be performed
Example of a public officer held liable under Art.
27 for failure or refusal to comply with a final and
executory order of the CSC (Vital-Gozon, G.R.
No. 129132, 1998).
Constitutional Protection Against Illegal
Searches and Seizures may be invoked
against private individuals
Private persons may be held liable for violating
another person’s civil and/or political rights on the
basis of Art. 32 which states that “[a]ny public
officer or employee, or any private individual, who
directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or
in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person
shall be liable to the latter for damages”. Thus,
damages may be awarded against the hotel and
its VP for violating the union officers’ right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. (Silahis v.
Soluta, G.R. No. 163087, 2006)
Page 448 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
III. INTERFERENCE WITH RELATIONS
1. Unfair Competition
Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or
industrial enterprises or in labor through the use
of force, intimidation, deceit. Machination or other
unjust, oppressive or highhanded method. (Art.
28)
To qualify the competition as unfair, it must have
two characteristics:
1. It must involve an injury to a competitor or
trade rival; and
2. It must involve acts which are characterized
as “contrary to good conscience” or
“shocking to judicial sensibilities” or
otherwise unlawful (these include force,
intimidation, deceit, machination or any other
unjust, oppressive or high handed method)
(Willaware Products Corp. v. Jesichris
Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 193349,
2014)
Example: A former employer’s act of circulating a
“watchlist” with the name of its former employee
with the intention of preventing the employee
from obtaining employment (Calamba Medical
Center v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176484, 2008).
Interference
One becomes liable in an action for damages for
a non-trespassory invasion of another's interest
in the private use and enjoyment of asset if
1. the other has property rights and privileges
with respect to the use or enjoyment
interfered with,
2. the invasion is substantial,
3. the defendant's conduct is a legal cause of
the invasion, and
4. the invasion is either intentional and
unreasonable or unintentional and actionable
under general negligence rules.
Elements of Tortious Interference
1. Existence of a contract
2. Interferer knows that the contract exists
3. Actual knowledge is not necessary;
awareness of facts which indicate the
CIVIL LAW
existence of a valid contract is enough
(Lagon vs. CA, G.R. No. 119107, 2005).
It is not necessary for the interferer to know who
the other contracting party is. (Gilchrist vs.
Cuddy, G.R. No. L-9356, 1915)
Interference is without legal excuse or
justification.
Malice
For damages, not for injunction; but requirements
for the issuance of an injunction must be present
(So Ping Bun vs. CA, G.R. No. 120554, 1999).
General Rule: Financial/business interest is not
malice (Lagon vs. CA, G.R. No. 119107, 2005)
Exception: When circumstances indicate bad
faith or malice (Go v. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703,
2010)
NOTE: The Interferer cannot be liable for more
than the contracting party who breached his own
contract (Daywalt vs. La Corporacion, G.R. No. L-
13505, 1919).
Violation of Rights and Liberties of a Person
Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or
impairs any of the rights and liberties (under Art.
32) of another person shall be liable to the latter
for damages.
Good faith is not a defense (Lim v. De Leon, G.R.
No. L-22554, 1975)
“Indirectly” may mean instigation or active
involvement in the act which resulted in the
violation of civil and political rights (MHP
Garments vs. CA, G.R. No. 86720, 1994).
Emotional Distress Torts
They are injuries to a person’s emotional
tranquility due to personal attacks on his
character. To recover for the intentional infliction
of emotional distress, the plaintiff must show:
(CESI)
Page 449 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
1. Conduct of the defendant was Intentional or
in reckless disregard of the plaintiff;
2. Conduct was Extreme and outrageous;
3. Causal Connection between the defendant’s
conduct and the plaintiff’s mental distress;
4. Plaintiff’s mental distress was extreme and
Severe. (MVRS Publications, Inc., v. Islamic
Da’Wah Council of the Philippines, G.R. No.
135306, 2003).
G. NEGLIGENCE
I. CONCEPT
The omission of that degree of diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds to the circumstances of the persons,
time and place. (Art. 1173)
The test by which to determine the existence of
negligence in a particular case may be stated as
follows: Did the defendant, in doing the alleged
negligent act, use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would
have used in the same situation? If not, then he
is guilty of negligence. (Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil.
809)
Negligence has been defined as “the failure to
observe for the protection of the interests of
another person that degree of care, precaution,
and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand, whereby such other person suffers
injury." (Cusi v. Philippine National Railways,
G.R. No. L-29889)
II. GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY OR
REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON
Every person obliged to give something is also
obliged to take care of it with the proper diligence
of a good father of a family, unless the law or the
stipulation of the parties requires another
standard of care. (Art. 1163)
Diligence of a “good father of a family" is the
standard of diligence expected of, among others,
CIVIL LAW
usufructuaries, passengers of common carriers,
agents, depositaries, pledgees, officious
managers, and persons deemed by law as
responsible for the acts of others. It requires only
that diligence which an ordinary prudent man
would exercise with regard to his own property.
(Philippine National Bank v. Santos, G.R. No.
208293 & 208295)
III. STANDARD OF CARE; EMERGENCY
RULE
There is no obligation on an engine driver to stop,
or even to slow down his engine, when he sees
an adult pedestrian standing or walking on or near
the track, unless there is something in the
appearance or conduct of the person on foot
which would cause a prudent man to anticipate
the possibility that such person could not, or
would not avoid the possibility of danger by
stepping aside. (United States v. Bonifacio, G.R.
No. L-10563)
Intoxication
Mere intoxication is not negligence, nor does the
mere fact of intoxication establish a want of
ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be
considered with the other evidence tending to
prove negligence. (Wright v. Manila Electric R.R.
& Light Co., G.R. No. 7760) 

Lawyers
A lawyer is not bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence, but only a reasonable degree of care
and skill, having reference to the character of the
business he undertakes to do. (Adarne v. Aldaba,
A.C. No. 801)

Physicians
The physician’s duty to his patient relates to his
exercise of the degree of care, skill and diligence
which physicians in the same general
neighbourhood, and in the same general line of
practice, ordinarily possess and exercise in like
cases.
Page 450 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
Banks
Similar to common carriers, banking is a business
that is impressed with public interest. Hence, the
Court has recognized the fiduciary nature of
banks’ functions and attached a special standard
of diligence for the exercise of their functions 
 position of the actor. Such type of risk is
One who is blind
One who is physically disabled is required to use
the same degree of care that a reasonably careful
person who has the same physical disability
would use. Physical handicaps and infirmities,
such as blindness or deafness, are treated as part
of the circumstances under which a reasonable
person must act. Thus, the standard of conduct
for a blind person becomes that of a reasonable
person who is blind. (Francisco v. Chemical Bulk
Carriers, Incorporated, G.R. No. 193577)
In possession of dangerous instrumentalities
A higher degree of care is required of someone
who has in his possession or under his control an
instrumentality extremely dangerous in character,
such as dangerous weapons or substances. 
 the respondent, as a gun store owner, is
(Pacis v. Morales, G.R. No. 169467)
Emergency
One who suddenly finds himself in a place of
danger and is required to act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently
and upon reflection may appear to have been a
better method, unless the emergency in which he
finds himself is brought about by his own
negligence. (Gan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
44264, 1988)
An individual will nevertheless be subject to
liability if the emergency was brought about by his
own negligence. (Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. Nos.
115024 & 117944, 1996)
NOTE: Applicable only to situations that are
sudden and unexpected such as to deprive the
actor of all opportunity for deliberation (absence
of foreseeability); the action shall still be judged
by the standard of the ordinary prudent man.
CIVIL LAW
IV. UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM
In negligence, risk means a danger which is
apparent, or should be apparent, to one in the
unreasonable risk. If such unreasonable risk
results in injury to the plaintiff, the latter can
recover from the defendant. (Aquino, Torts and
Damages, p. 32, 2005).
There is negligence when an act is done without
exercising the competence that a reasonable
person in the position of the actor would
recognize as necessary to prevent
an unreasonable risk of harm to another. Those
who undertake any work calling for special skills
are required to exercise reasonable care in what
they do. (Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. v. Pioneer
Insurance and Surety Corp., G.R. Nos. 180880-
81 & 180896-97, 2009)
In Spouses Pacis v. Morales, the Court ruled that
presumed to be knowledgeable about firearms
safety and should have known not to keep a
loaded weapon in his store to
avoid unreasonable risk of harm to others. He
has the duty to ensure that all the guns in his store
are not loaded. Firearms should be stored
unloaded and separate from ammunition when
the firearms are not needed for ready-access
defensive use. (Spouses Pacis v. Morales, G.R.
No. 169467, 2010)
V. EVIDENCE
When the action is one for damages founded on
culpable negligence, the principle to be observed
is that the person claiming damages has the
burden of proving that the damage is caused by
the fault or negligence of the person from whom
the damage is claimed. The question that arises
is: “Whether the plaintiff has established by
sufficient evidence, the existence of fault or
negligence on the part of the defendant so as to
render it liable for damages for the injury” (Ong v.
Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil. 397)
Page 451 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
VI. PRESSUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
General Rule: The burden of proof in each action
based on quasi-delict rests on the plaintiff.
Exception: There are certain exceptions when
the plaintiff need not prove the existence of
negligence as an element of quasi-delict i.e. Res
Ipsa Loquitur, Injury caused by dangerous
weapons and substances, violation of traffic rules
and regulations.
NOTE: However, the party invoking such
presumption must still establish certain
preconditions before the presumption can
operate. Thus, Article 2185 requires proof that
there was a violation of a traffic regulation while
Article 2188 requires proof of possession of
dangerous weapons or substances, such as
firearms and poison. (Aquino, Torts and
Damages, p. 137, 2005)
(a) Res Ipsa Loquitur
Where the thing which causes injury is shown to
be under the management of the defendant, and
the accident is such as in the ordinary course of
things does not happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of an
explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from want of care. (Layugan v. IAC, G.R.
73998, 1998)
Elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur:
1. The accident was of a kind which does not
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent
2. The instrumentality or agency which caused
the injury was under the exclusive control of
the person charged with negligence
3. Injury suffered must have not been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the person
injured (D.M. Consunji v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 137873, 2001).
4. It must appear that the injured party had no
knowledge or means of knowledge as to the
cause of the accident, or that the party to be
charged with negligence has superior
knowledge or opportunity for explanation of
CIVIL LAW
the accident. (Malayan Insurance Co. vs. Rodelio
Alberto and Enrico Reyes, G.R. No. 194320).
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur finds no
application if there is direct proof of absence or
presence of negligence. If there is sufficient proof
showing the conditions and circumstances under
which the injury occurred, then the creative
reason for the said doctrine disappears. (Huang
v. Philippine Hoteliers Inc., G.R. No. 180440,
2012)
Medical Malpractice; Doctrine of Common
Knowledge
The general rule on the necessity of expert
testimony applies only to such matters clearly
within the domain of medical science, and not to
matters of common knowledge. Ordinarily, only
experienced physicians and surgeons are
competent to testify on whether a patient has
been treated with reasonable care. However,
where common knowledge and experience teach
that a resulting injury would not have occurred if
due care had been exercised (e.g. leaving
gauzes inside the body of the patient after an
operation, operating on the wrong part of the
body, etc.), an inference of negligence may be
drawn giving rise to an application of the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur without medical evidence.
(Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354,
1999)
Standard of Care required from the Medical
Profession
Given these safeguards, there is no need to
expressly require of doctors the observance of
“extraordinary” diligence. As it is now, the practice
of medicine is already conditioned upon the
highest degree of diligence. The standard
contemplated for doctors is simply the reasonable
average merit among ordinarily good physicians.
That is reasonable diligence for doctors or, the
reasonable skill and competence that a physician
in the same or similar locality should apply.
Page 452 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
Liability of Hospital in Cases of Medical
Negligence
The court has applied the doctrine of agency by
estoppel to hold hospitals liable for the negligent
acts of physicians based on:
1. The patient accepts the services of the
physician
2. The patient believes that the physicians are
agents of the hospital.
The case of PSI v. Agana pronounced that the
doctrine of corporate negligence is the judicial
answer to the problem of allocating hospital’s
liability for the negligent acts of health
practitioners, absent facts to support the
application of respondeat superior or apparent
authority.
The theory supporting the liability of hospital is
based on the recognition that the hospitals stand
to benefit from the business of providing services
to patients and should therefore be responsible
for any injury or damage that may result under the
relationship. (Professional Services, Inc. v.
Agana, G.R. No. 126297, 2007)
Doctrine of Informed Consent
The doctrine of informed consent requires a
doctor to inform his patient of the material risks
associated with a medical procedure.
Elements of a malpractice claim based on the
doctrine of informed consent
1. The physician had a duty to disclose material
risks;
2. He failed to disclose or inadequately
disclosed those risks;
3. As a direct and proximate result of the failure
to disclose, the patient consented to the
treatment, which he or she would otherwise
not have consented to; and
4. The patient was injured by the proposed
treatment (Li v. Soliman, G.R. No. 165279,
2011)
CIVIL LAW
(b) Violation of statutes and rules
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the
vehicle, could have, by the use of the due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is
disputably presumed that a driver was negligent,
if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or
violating traffic regulations at least twice within
the next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
provisions of article 2180 are applicable. (Art.
2184)
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused
by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry (Art. 2180 par. 5)
Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle
has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he
was violating any traffic regulation. (Art. 2185)
Negligence per se
The generally accepted view is that the violation
of a statutory duty constitutes negligence per se.
(Añonuevo v. Court of Appeals, 441 SCRA 24)
However, in Sanitary Steam, it was held that to
hold someone liable for negligence per se, one
must show that the violation of the statute was the
proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it
substantially contributed thereto. Negligence,
consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law,
like any other negligence, is without legal
consequence unless it is a contributing cause of
the injury. (Sanitary Steam Laundry v. Court of
Appeals, 300 SCRA 20)
Riding a haulage truck or stealing ride thereon is
not negligence because transportation by truck is
not dangerous per se. Violation of a rule
promulgated by board or commission is not
negligence per se but evidence of negligence.
(Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc., v.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 99 Phil.
480)
Page 453 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
(c) Dangerous weapons and substance
There is prima facie presumption of negligence
on the part of the defendant if the death or injury
results from his possession of dangerous
weapons or substances, such as firearms and
poison, except when the possession or use
thereof is indispensable in his occupation or
business. (Art. 2188)
NOTE: Defendant may still be held liable if
negligence can be established by the plaintiff
without benefit of the presumption
Licensed possessors of firearms have a
peremptory duty to adequately safeguard such
dangerous weapons at all times, and to take all
requisite measures to prevent minors and other
unauthorized parties from having access thereto.
(Araneta v. Arreglado, 104 Phil. 529)
VII. DEFENSES
(a) Plaintiff’s negligence is the proximate
cause of the injury
When the plaintiff's own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence
was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate
the damages to be awarded. (Art. 2179.)
Test in determining if plaintiff’s negligence
was the proximate cause of his own injury
Where he contributes to the principal occurrence,
as one of its determining factors, he cannot
recover. Where, in conjunction with the
occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury,
he may recover the amount that the defendant
responsible for the event should pay for such
injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent
for his own imprudence. 
 (Taylor v. Manila
Electric Railroad and Light Co., 16 Phil. 8)
CIVIL LAW
(b) Contributory Negligence
When the plaintiff's own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence
was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate
the damages to be awarded. (Art. 2179)
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of
the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to
the harm he has suffered, which falls below the
standard which he is required to conform for his
own protection. (National Power Corporation v.
Casionan, G.R. No. 165969)
(c) Assumption of Risk
Volenti Non Fit Injuria
That to which a person assents is not deemed in
law an injury.
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.
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. (Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling
Co., G.R. No. 164749)
NOTE: Assumption of Risk Defense is
inapplicable if an emergency is found to exist, if
the life or property of another is in peril, or when
he seeks to rescue his endangered property.
(Ilocos Norte Electric Company v. Court of
Appeals, 179 SCRA 5)
(d) Last Clear Chance
Also known as "The Doctrine of Discovered Peril"
The law is that the person who has the last fair
chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to
Page 454 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
do so is chargeable with the consequences,
without reference to the prior negligence of the
other party. (Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809)
Where both parties are negligent but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later in time
than that of the other, or where it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence brought
about the occurrence of the incident, the one who
had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable
with the consequences arising therefrom.
Stated differently, the rule is that the antecedent
negligence of a person does not preclude
recovery of damages caused by the supervening
negligence of the latter, who had the last fair
chance to prevent the impending harm by the
exercise of due diligence (Canlas v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. 112160, 2000).
Requisites:
1. Plaintiff was in a position of danger by his
own negligence
2. Defendant knew of such position of the
plaintiff
3. Defendant had the last clear chance to avoid
the accident by exercise of ordinary care but
failed to exercise such last clear chance and
4. Accident occurred as proximate cause of
such failure
Who may invoke – Plaintiff
When the doctrine is not applicable
1. Absent preceding negligence on the part of
the plaintiffs, the doctrine of last clear chance
cannot be applied.
2. The doctrine does not apply where the party
charged is required to act instantaneously of
if the emergency rule applies. (Achevara v.
Ramos, G.R. No. 175172) 
 4. The obligor must be Free from any
3. The principle of last clear chance is
inapplicable in a breach of contract, as it only
applies in a suit between the owners and
drivers of two colliding vehicles. It does not
arise where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
CIVIL LAW
contractual obligations.
 (Tiu v. Arriesgado, 437
SCRA 426)
4. Joint tortfeasors
5. Defendants concurrently negligent
6. As against 3rd persons (Aquino, Torts and
Damages, p. 230, 2005)
(e) Prescription
Period commences to run from the time the cause
of action arises (i.e. at the time of the commission
of an act or omission violative of the right of the
plaintiff) (Kramer v. CA, G.R. No. L-83524, 1989)
Prescriptive Periods
Action for 10 years
damages When the right of action
accrues:
Upon a written contract;
Upon an obligation created by
law;
Upon a judgment.
Quasi-delict 4 years from the time the cause
of action arises
(f) Fortuitous Event
No person shall be responsible for those events
which cannot be foreseen, or which though
foreseen were inevitable. (Art.1174)
Requisites
1. The cause of the Unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of
the debtor to comply with his obligation, must
be independent of the human will;
2. It must be Impossible to foresee the event
which constitutes caso fortuito or if it can be
foreseen it must be impossible to avoid
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it
Impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner
participation in the aggravation of the injury
resulting to the creditor.
General Rule: Fortuitous Event is a complete
defense and a person is not liable if the cause of
the damage is a fortuitous event.
Page 455 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
Exception: It is merely a partial defense and the
courts may mitigate the damages if the loss would
have resulted in any event. (Art. 2215 [4])
NOTE: A person may still be liable for a fortuitous
event if such person made an assumption of risk.
(g) Waiver
Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is
contrary to law, public order, public policy,
morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third
person with a right recognized by law. (Art. 6)
A waiver, to be valid and effective, must in the first
place be couched in clear and unequivocal terms
which leave 
no doubt as to the intention of a
person to give up a right or benefit which legally
pertains to him. 
 (Gatchalian v. Delim, 203
SCRA 126)
Elements
1. Person making the waiver possesses that
right
2. Has capacity and power to dispose of that
right
3. Waiver must be clear and unequivocal
4. Not contrary to law, public policy
(Sanico v. Colipano, G.R. No. 209969)
Exceptions:
1. Waiver of an action for future fraud (including
gross negligence) is void (Art. 1171).
2. Exemplary damages cannot be waived in
advance (Art. 2235).
3. Waiver must not be contrary to public policy.
4. One’s consent to a waiver must not be
vitiated (Gatchalian v. Delim, G.R. No. L-
56487, 1991).
(h) Emergency
One who suddenly finds himself in a place of
danger and is required to act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently
and upon reflection may appear to have been a
better method, unless the emergency in which he
finds himself is brought about by his own
negligence. (Gan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
44264, 1988)
CIVIL LAW
An individual will nevertheless be subject to
liability if the emergency was brought about by his
own negligence. (Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. Nos.
115024 & 117944, 1996)
NOTE: Applicable only to situations that are
sudden and unexpected such as to deprive the
actor of all opportunity for deliberation (absence
of foreseeability); the action shall still be judged
by the standard of the ordinary prudent man.
(i) Damnum Absque Injuria
There can be damage without injury in those
instances in which the loss or harm was not the
results of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases,
the consequences must be borne by the injured
person alone, the law affords no remedy for
damages resulting from an act which does not
amount to a legal injury or wrong. These
situations are often called damnum absque injuria
(BPI Express Card Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 120639)
There is a material distinction between damages
and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal
right; damage is the loss, hurt or harm which
results from the injury; and damages are the
recompense or compensation awarded for the
damage suffered. (Custodio v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 116100, 1996)
Mistakes by public officers are not actionable in
the absence of malice or gross negligence
amounting to bad faith. (Farolan v. Solmac
Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 83589).
H. SPECIAL LIABILITY IN PARTICULAR
ACTIVITIES
I. IN GENERAL; CONCEPTS
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. (Art. 19)
Page 456 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same. (Art. 20)
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage. (Art. 21)
Elements of Abuse of Rights
1. The existence of a legal right or duty
2. Which is exercised in bad faith 

3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another.
Elements of Acts Contra Bonus Mores
1. There is an act which is legal

2. But which is contrary to morals, good
custom, public order, or public policy
3. It is done with intent to injure
Source of Damages
Article 19 only 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. (Cebu Country Club, Inc. vs.
Elizagaque, G.R. No. 160273, 2008).
NOTE: In Metroheights Subdivision Homeowners
Association, Inc. vs. CMS Construction (G.R. No.
209359, 2018), the Supreme Court used Article
19 as basis of awarding damages.
Difference between Article 20 and Article 2176
With respect to negligent acts or omissions,
Article 20 of the Civil Code concerns violations of
existing law as basis for an injury whereas Article
2176 applies when the negligent act causing
damage to another does not constitute a breach
of an existing law or a pre-existing contractual
obligation. (St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. v. LWV
Construction Corp., G.R. No. 217426, 2017)
Damnum Absque Injuria is inapplicable in
abuse of rights
CIVIL LAW
The principle of damnun absque injuria does not
apply when there is an abuse of a person’s right.
(Cebu Country Club, Inc., v. Elizagaque, G.R. No.
160273, 2008)
II. PRODUCTS LIABILITY; MANUFACTURERS
OR PROCESSORS
a. Manufacturers or Processors
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 (Art. 2187).
Elements:
1. Defendant is a manufacturer/processor
2. The goods involve foodstuffs, drinks, toilet
products and similar goods
3. Use of noxious or harmful substances
4. Death or injury
5. Plaintiff is a consumer, user or purchaser
The vendee's remedies against a vendor with
respect to the warranties against hidden defects
of or encumbrances upon the thing sold are not
limited to those prescribed in Article 1567. The
vendee may also ask for the annulment of the
contract upon proof of error or fraud, in which
case the ordinary rule on obligations shall be
applicable. The vendor could likewise be liable
for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code, and an action based thereon may be
brought by the vendee. While it may be true that
the pre-existing contract between the parties
may, as a general rule, bar the applicability of the
law on quasi-delict, the liability may itself be
deemed to arise from quasi-delict, i.e., the acts
which breaks the contract may also be a quasi-
delict. (Coca-Cola Bottlers v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 110295, 1993).
The following must be present before a
manufacturer or seller may be held liable for
any damage caused by the product:
1. Proof that the product in question was
defective
Page 457 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
2. The defect must be present upon the delivery
or manufacture of the product; or when the
product left the seller's or manufacturer's
control; or when the product was sold to the
purchaser
3. The product must have reached the user or
consumer without substantial change in the
condition it was sold (Pascual v. Ford Motor
Company Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 220667,
2016)
III. NUISANCE
A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment,
business, condition of property, or anything else
which:
1. Injures or endangers the health or safety of
others; or
2. Annoys or offends the senses; or
3. Shocks, defies or disregards decency or
morality; or
4. Obstructs or interferes with the free passage
of any public highway or street, or any body
of water; or
5. Hinders or impairs the use of property (Art.
694).
Kinds
a. Nuisance Per Se and Nuisance Per
Accidens
Nuisance per se is recognized as a nuisance
under any and all circumstances because it
constitutes a direct menace to public health or
safety, and, for that reason, may be abated
summarily under the undefined law of necessity.
Nuisance per accidens is that which depends
upon certain conditions and circumstances, and
its existence being a question of fact, it cannot be
abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal
authorized to decide whether such a thing does
in law constitute a nuisance. (Salao vs. Santos,
67 Phil. 550)
b. Public Nuisance and Private Nuisance
Nuisance is either public or private. A public
nuisance affects a community or neighborhood
or any considerable number of persons, although
CIVIL LAW
the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage
upon individuals may be unequal. A private
nuisance is one that is not included in the
foregoing definition (Art. 695).
Remedies against public nuisance
1. Prosecution under the RPC or any local
ordinance
2. Civil action
3. Abatement, without judicial proceeding
Remedies against private nuisances:
1. Civil Action
2. Abatement, without judicial proceedings
Who may avail of the remedies
1. Public officers
2. Private persons - if nuisance is especially
injurious to himself; the ff. must be made:
i. Demand be first made upon owner or
possessor of the property to abate
nuisance
ii. That such demand has been rejected
iii. That the abatement be approved by
the district health officer and executed
with the assistance of local police
iv. That the value of destruction does not
exceed P3,000
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character
likely to attract children in play and who fails to
exercise ordinary care to prevent children from
playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to
a child of tender years who is injured thereby,
even if the child is technically a trespasser in the
premises. (Hidalgo v. CA, G.R. No. L-342, 1952)
Attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not
applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as
natural, in the absence of some unusual condition
or artificial feature other than the mere water and
its location. Hence, when the owner of private
property creates an artificial pool on his own
property or a tank, merely duplicating the work of
nature without adding any new danger, owner is
not liable. (Hidalgo v. CA, G.R. No. L-3422, 1952)
Page 458 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
IV. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS; VIOLATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
Article 32 of the New Civil Code provides for an
independent civil action for damages for violation
of civil and political rights.
Although Article 32 normally involves intentional
acts, the tort of violation of civil and political rights
can also be committed through negligence. In
addition, the rule is that good faith on the part of
the defendant does not necessarily excuse such
violation (Aquino, Torts and Damages, p. 519,
2005)
Covers both public officers and private
individuals
The provisions in the Bill of Rights and the
recognition of the rights specified therein are
normally directed against government abuse.
Hence, the tort of violation of constitutional rights
in common law is directed against public officers
or employees. In this jurisdiction, the coverage of
this tort was expanded to cover even private
individuals. The law expressly imposes liability on
private individuals who obstruct, defeat, violate or
in any manner impede or impair the rights and
liberties of another. (Aquino, Torts and Damages,
p. 520, 2005)
Bad faith or malice is not required
The Code Commission thus deemed it necessary
to hold not only public officers but also private
individuals civilly liable for violation of rights
enumerated in Article 32 of the Civil Code. That
is why it is not even necessary that the defendant
under this Article should have acted with malice
or bad faith, otherwise, it would defeat its main
purpose, which is the effective protection of
individual rights. It suffices that there is a violation
of the constitutional right of the plaintiff. (Silahis
International Hotel V. Soluta, G.R. No. 163087,
2006)
To be liable under Article 32 of the New Civil
Code it is enough that there was a violation of the
constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and it is not
CIVIL LAW
required that defendants should have acted with
malice or bad faith. (Lim vs. de Leon, 66 SCRA
299, 1975) 

The law speaks of an officer or employee or
person "directly or indirectly" responsible for the
violation of the constitutional rights and liberties
of another. Thus, it is not the actor alone who
must answer for damages under Article 32; the
person indirectly responsible has also to answer
for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved
party (MHP Garments, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals,
236 SCRA 227, 1994).
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that
the victim be identifiable, although it is not
necessary that he be named. Where the
defamation is alleged to have been directed at a
group or class, it is essential that the statement
must be so sweeping or all-embracing as to apply
to every individual in that group or class, or
sufficiently specific so that each individual in the
class or group can prove that the defamatory
statement specifically pointed to him, so that he
can bring the action separately, if need be
(Newsweek vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 142
SCRA 141, 1986).
Emotional Distress Tort or Tort of Outrage
An "emotional distress" tort action is personal in
nature. It is a civil action filed by an individual to
assuage the injuries to his emotional tranquility
due to personal attacks on his character. To
recover for the intentional infliction of emotional
distress the plaintiff must show that:
1. The conduct of the defendant was intentional
or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff;
2. The conduct was extreme and outrageous;
3. There was a causal connection between the
defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's mental
distress; and
4. The plaintiff's mental distress was extreme
and severe. (MVRS Publications, Inc., V.
Islamic Da’wah Council, G.R. No. 135306,
2003).
NOTE: In determining whether the tort of outrage
had been committed, a plaintiff is necessarily
expected and required to be hardened to a certain
Page 459 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
amount of criticism, rough language, and to
occasional acts and words that are definitely
inconsiderate and unkind.
V. VIOLATION OF RIGHTS COMMITTED BY
PUBLIC OFFICERS
Superior Officers
Other individuals who can be held liable under
Article 32 for having indirectly violated the
constitutional right of another against
unreasonable searches and seizure are the
superior officers of the law enforcement officers
who conducted the raid. Under Article 32, it is not
the actor alone who must answer for damages.
(Aquino, Torts and Damages, p. 522, 2005
“The principles of accountability of public officials
under the Constitution acquires added meaning
and assumes a larger dimension. No longer may
a superior official relax his vigilance or abdicate
his duty to supervise his subordinates, secure in
thought that he does not have to answer the
transgressions committed by the latter against
the constitutionally protected rights and liberties
of the citizen.” (Aberca vs. Ver, 160 SCRA 590,
606, 1988).
Subordinate Officers
The persons who actually conducted the illegal
search and seizure are liable under Article 32.
(Aquino, Torts and Damages, p. 523, 2005)
However, a subordinate officer who actually
impounded the personal property of the
complainant upon the orders of his superior
officer is not liable because he was reluctant to
enforce the order; he was led to believe that there
was legal basis and authority to impound the
property and that he was faced with a possible
disciplinary action from his commander. (Delfin
Lim vs. Ponce de Leon, GR No. L-22554, 1975).
A public officer who is the defendant in a case for
damages under Article 32 cannot escape liability
under the doctrine of state immunity. The doctrine
of state immunity applies only if the acts involved
are acts done by officers in the performance of
CIVIL LAW
official duties within the ambit of their powers.
Obviously, officers do not act within the ambit of
their powers if they would violate the
constitutional rights of other persons (Aquino,
Torts and Damages, p. 524, 2005).
VI. PROVINCES, CITIES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable
for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered
by, any person by reason of the defective
condition of roads, streets, bridges, public
buildings, and other public works under their
control or supervision (Art. 2189).
Control and supervision sufficient
Under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not
necessary for the liability therein established to
attach that the defective roads or streets belong
to the province, city or municipality from which
responsibility is exacted. What said article
requires is that the province, city or municipality
have either "control or supervision" over said
street or road (City of Manila vs. Teotico, 22
SCRA 267, 1968).
VII. OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLE
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the
vehicle, could have, by the use of the due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is
disputably presumed that a driver was negligent,
if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or
violating traffic regulations at least twice within
the next preceding two months. If the owner was
not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article
2180 are applicable. (Art. 2184).
Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle
has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he
was violating any traffic regulation (Art. 2185).
Registered Owner Rule
In motor vehicle mishaps, the registered owner of
the vehicle is considered the employer of the
tortfeasor-driver, and is made primarily liable for
the tort committed by the latter. Insofar as third
Page 460 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
persons are concerned, the registered owner of
the motor vehicle is the employer of the negligent
driver, and the actual employer is considered
merely as an agent of such owner. (Filcar
Transport Services v. Espinas, G.R. No. 174156,
2012)
Defenses of Registered Owner
(a) Unauthorized use of the vehicle
(b) The vehicle was stolen from him
If Registered Owner is also the Employer
Therefore, the appropriate approach is that in
cases where both the registered-owner rule and
Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff must first establish
that the employer is the registered owner of the
vehicle in question. Once the plaintiff successfully
proves ownership, there arises a disputable
presumption that the requirements of Article 2180
have been proven. As a consequence, the
burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to
show that no liability under Article 2180 has
arisen. (Caravan Travel and Tours International,
Inc. v. Abejar, G.R. No. 170631, 2016).
VIII. PROPRIETOR OF BUILDING OR
STRUCTURE OR THING
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
1. Total or partial collapse of building or
structure if due to lack of necessary repairs
(Art. 2190)
2. Explosion of machinery which has not been
taken care of with due diligence, and the
inflammation of explosive substances which
have not been kept in a safe and adequate
place
3. By excessive smoke, which may be harmful
to persons or property
4. By falling of trees situated at or near
highways or lanes, if not caused by force
majeure
5. By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
deposits of infectious matter, constructed
without precautions suitable to the place (Art.
2191)
dc
Liability of Engineer or Architect
CIVIL LAW
The engineer or architect who drew up the plans
and specifications for a building is liable for
damages if within fifteen years from the
completion of the structure, the same should
collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and
specifications, or due to the defects in the ground.
(Art. 1723)
Liability of contractor
The contractor is likewise responsible for the
damages if the edifice falls, within fifteen years,
on account of defects in the construction or the
use of materials of inferior quality furnished by
him, or due to any violation of the terms of the
contract.
If the engineer or architect supervises the
construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the
contractor. Acceptance of the building, after
completion, does not imply waiver of any of the
causes of action by reason of any defect. (Art.
1723)
Period
The action against the engineer, architect or
contractor must be brought within ten years
following the collapse of the building. (Art. 1723)
IX. 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 (Art.
2193).
X. VIOLATIONS OF DATA PRIVACY
The data subject is entitled to be indemnified for
any damages sustained due to such inaccurate,
incomplete, outdated, false, unlawfully obtained
or unauthorized use of personal information.
(Data Privacy Act of 2012, Sec. 16 par. f)
Page 461 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
I. STRICT LIABILITY
I. ANIMALS; POSSESSOR AND USER OF AN
ANIMAL
The possessor of an animal or whoever may
make use of the same is responsible for the
damage which it may cause, although it may
escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease
only in case the damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault of the person who has
suffered damage (Art. 2183).
First Bite Rule is not applicable in the
Philippines
In English law, the owners or possessors of
domestic animals are liable only if they knew or
had reason to know that the animal had vicious
properties. On the other hand, Article 2183 by the
Civil Code, does not admit of the distinction under
English law. The Civil Code provision, is
therefore, applicable whether the animal is
domestic, domesticated or wild (Aquino, Torts
and Damages, p. 739, 2005).
II. NUISANCE
There is strict liability on the part of the owner or
possessor of the property where a nuisance is
found because he is obliged to abate the same
irrespective of the presence or absence of fault or
negligence. (Aquino, Torts and Damages, p. 747,
2005).
Moreover, the Civil Code provides that every
successive owner or possessor of property who
fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in that
property started by a former owner or possessor
is liable therefor in the same manner as the one
who created it (Art. 696).
III. PRODUCTS LIABILITY; CONSUMER ACT
a. Manufacturers or Processors
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 (Art. 2187).
CIVIL LAW
b. Consumer Act (R.A. 7394)
Prohibited contractual stipulation
The stipulation in a contract of a clause
preventing, exonerating or reducing the obligation
to indemnify for damages effected, as provided
for in this and in the preceding Articles, is hereby
prohibited, if there is more than one person
responsible for the cause of the damage, they
shall be jointly liable for the redress established in
the pertinent provisions of this Act. However, if
the damage is caused by a component or part
incorporated in the product or service, its
manufacturer, builder or importer and the person
who incorporated the component or part are
jointly liable (Consumer Act, Art. 106).
Liability for Defective Products
Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer,
and any importer, shall be liable for redress,
independently of fault, design, manufacture,
construction, assembly and erection, formulas
and handling and making up, presentation or
packing of their products, as well as for the
insufficient or inadequate information on the use
and hazards thereof. (Consumer Act, Art. 97)
Exception to the Liability for Defective
Products
The manufacturer, builder, producer or importer
shall not be held liable when it evidences:
1. that it did not place the product on the
market;
2. that although it did place the product
on the market such product has no
defect;
3. that the consumer or a third party is
solely at fault. (Consumer Act, Art.
97)
NOTE: This liability applies to tradesman/seller
when the persons named above cannot be, or are
not identified, or when the tradesman did not
preserve the goods adequately. (Consumer Act,
Art. 98)
Liability for Defective Service
The service supplier is liable for redress,
independently of fault, for damages caused to
consumers by defects relating to the rendering of
the services, as well as for insufficient or
Page 462 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21 CIVIL LAW

inadequate information on the fruition and

hazards thereof. (Consumer Act, Art. 99)

Liability for Product or Service Imperfection

The suppliers of durable or nondurable consumer
products are jointly liable for imperfections in
quality that render the products unfit or
inadequate for consumption for which they are
designed or decrease their value, and for those
resulting from inconsistency with the information
provided on the container, packaging, labels or
publicity messages/advertisement, with due
regard to the variations resulting from their
nature, the consumer being able to demand
replacement to the imperfect parts. (Consumer
Act, Art. 100)

Liability for Product Quantity Imperfection

Suppliers are jointly liable for imperfections in the
quantity of the product when, in due regard for
variations inherent thereto, their net content is
less than that indicated on the container,
packaging, labeling or advertisement. (Consumer
Act, Art. 101)

Liability for Service Quality Imperfection

The service supplier is liable for any quality
imperfections that render the services improper
for consumption or decrease their value, and for
those resulting from inconsistency with the
information contained in the offer or
advertisement. (Consumer Act, Art. 102)

\Repair Service Obligation

When services are provided for the repair of any
product, the supplier shall be considered implicitly
bound to use adequate, new, original
replacement parts, or those that maintain the
manufacturer's technical specifications unless,
otherwise authorized, as regards to the latter by
the consumer. (Consumer Act, Art. 103)

NOTE: The supplier's ignorance of the quality

imperfections due to inadequacy of the products
and services does not exempt him from any
liability. (Consumer act, Art. 104)

————- end of topic ————-

Page 463 of 474

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
DAMAGES
A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
CONCEPT
Adequate compensation for the value of loss
suffered or profits which obligee failed to obtain.
Exceptions
1. Law
2. Stipulation
Actual damages shall be construed to include all
damages that the plaintiff may show he has
suffered in respect to his property, business,
trade, profession, or occupation, and no other
damages whatever. Actual damages are
compensatory only. They simply make good or
replace the loss caused by the wrong. (Algarra v.
Sandejas, G.R. No. L-8385, 1914.).
Indemnification is meant to compensate for the
injury inflicted and not to impose a penalty. A
party is entitled to adequate compensation only
for such pecuniary loss actually suffered and duly
proved. (PNOC Shipping and Transport Corp v.
CA, G.R. No. 107518, 1998)
I. CLASSIFICATION
ACTUAL DAMAGES
Classes (I-LAV-IIT)
1. Indemnity for death
2. Lucrum Cesans (Benefits you would have
obtained
3. Attorney’s fees
4. Value of loss actually sustained (damnum
emergens)
5. Interest
6. Injury to business standing or commercial
credit
7. Temporary or permanent loss of earning
capacity


CIVIL LAW
Kinds of Actual or Compensatory Damages
1. General Damage
Natural, necessary and logical consequences of
a particular wrongful act which result in injury;
need not be specifically pleaded because the law
itself implies or presumes that they resulted from
the wrongful act
2. Special Damages
Damages which are the natural, but not the
necessary and inevitable result of the wrongful
act. (i.e., attorney’s fees)
REQUISITES
1. Alleged and Proved with Certainty
i. Must be pleaded and proved with certainty,
ii. Must pray for the relief that claim for loss
be granted and
2. Not Speculative
Plaintiff must prove the loss. For damages to be
recovered, the best evidence obtainable by the
injured party must be presented. Actual or
compensatory damages cannot be presumed but
must be proved with reasonable degree of
certainty. The Court cannot rely on speculation,
conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and
amount of damages, but must depend upon
competent proof that they have been suffered
and on evidence of the actual amount. If the proof
is flimsy and unsubstantial, no damages will be
awarded. (Consolidated Industrial Gases, Inc. vs.
Alabang Medical Center, G.R. No. 181983, 2013)
The claimant has the burden of proof. He must
establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence which means that evidence, as a whole,
adduced by one side is superior to that of the
other. It is not enough that plaintiff present an
estimated amount. But uncertainty as to the
precise amount is not necessarily fatal. Mere
difficulty in the assessment of damages is not
sufficient reason for refusing to award damages
where the right to them has been established
(PNOC Shipping and Transport Corp v. CA, G.R.
No. 107518, 1998).
Page 464 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
When loss need not be proved
1. Liquidated damages previously agreed
upon; liquidated damages take the place of
actual damages except when additional
damages are incurred
2. If damages other than actual are sought
3. Loss is presumed (ex: loss if a child or
spouse)
4. Forfeiture of bonds in favor of the
government for the purpose of promoting
public interest or policy (ex: bond for
temporary stay of alien)
5. Award of civil indemnity in tort cases or
criminal cases where the victim died. This
civil indemnity is in addition to any actual or
compensatory damages that may be
awarded in favor of the victim’s heirs.
COMPONENT ELEMENTS
1. Value of Loss; Unrealized Profit
Value of loss suffered
Destruction of things, fines or penalties, medical
& hospital bills, attorney's fees, interests, cost of
litigation
Loss of earning capacity
Variables to consider
1. Life expectancy
Formula: [2/3 x( 80 – (age at the time of death))]
The resulting amount should be used as a
multiplier even if the computed life expectancy
goes beyond the victim’s retirement age. The
presumption is that the victim could have earned
income even if he is beyond the retirement age
(Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corporation
v. Borja, G.R. No. 143008, 2002).
2. Net income/earnings – total of the earnings
less expenses necessary for the creation of such
earnings and less living or other incidental
expenses
3. Living expenses – In the absence of the
specific amount to be deducted from the gross
income, the amount of living expenses shall be
50% of the gross income. Examples of living
expenses: transportation, clothing, toiletries
CIVIL LAW
Non-working victims: Earning capacity may be
impaired even if no actual earning is lost in the
meantime. The liability under Article 2206 is for
loss of earning capacity rather than loss of actual
earnings. The minimum wage can be used in
computing the net earnings.
Pension: Loss of earning capacity covers
pension which the decedent would have received
(De Caliston v. CA, G.R. No. L-63135, 1983).
Formula for computation of loss of earning
capacity
American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the
Actuarial of Combined Experience Table of
Mortality
[2/3 x (80 – (age at the time of death))] x monthly
earnings x 12 = GROSS EARNINGS (GE)
GE – Approximate Expenses (50% of GE) = Net
Earnings
NOTE: In the absence of documentary evidence
of expenses, it is reasonable to presume that it is
50% of the gross income. (Philippine Hawk
Corporation v. Lee, G.R. No. 166869, 2010)
LEC May Be Awarded to Parents of Deceased
Child Who Had NO History of Earnings
Art. 2206(1) provides that damages for LEC shall
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”.
Damages for LEC may be awarded to a minor’s
heirs although he had no history of earnings
because compensation of this nature is awarded
not for loss of time or earnings but for loss of the
deceased’s power or ability to earn money.
(Spouses Pereña v. Spouses Zarate, G.R. No.
157917, August 29, 2012).
How to Compute LEC of Non-Earning Student
As a general rule, damages for LEC are
computed by applying the following formula:
Page 465 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
Damages for LEC = 2/3(80-X) multiplied by Net
Annual Income where:
(1) “X” is the deceased or permanently
incapacitated person’s age at the time of the
accident; and
(2) “Net Annual Income” is equivalent to a
person’s Gross Annual Income less Necessary
and Living Expenses (in the absence of evidence,
it is presumed that Necessary and Living
Expenses are equal to half of a person’s Gross
Annual Income).
The formula may be modified when a minor
who was not yet earning is involved:
(1) “X” may be fixed at 21, instead of the person’s
age at the time of his death or permanent
incapacity. Courts may presume that persons
graduate from college at the age of 21, and it is
only then that they would start earning a
livelihood.
(2) “Net Annual Income” may be computed on the
basis of the prevailing minimum wage for workers
in the non-agricultural sector at the time of the
minor’s death or permanent incapacity. (Spouses
Pereña v. Spouses Zarate, 2012; and Abrogar v.
Cosmos Bottling Co., 2017)
Loss of profits (Lucrum Cessans)
May be determined by considering the average
profit for the preceding years multiplied by the
number of years during which the business was
affected by the wrongful act or breach
The income of similar businesses or activities
may be considered (G.A. Machineries, Inc. v.
Yaptinchay, G.R. No. L-30965, 1983).
Damage to business standing/ commercial
credit
In Radio Communications v. CA, compensatory
damages were also awarded for injury to
respondent's "business reputation or business
standing", "loss of goodwill and loss of customers
or shippers who shifted their patronage to
competitors". The grant thereof is proper under
the provisions of Article 2205, which provides that
CIVIL LAW
damages may be recovered "for injury to the
plaintiff's business standing or commercial
credit." And even if not recoverable
compensatory damages, they may still be
awarded in the concept of temperate or moderate
damages.
There are cases where from the nature of the
case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be
offered, although the court is convinced that there
has been such loss. For instance, injury to one's
commercial credit or to the goodwill of the
business firm is often hard to show with certainty
in terms of money. The judge should be
empowered to calculate moderate damages in
such cases, rather than that the plaintiff should
suffer, without redress from the defendant's
wrongful act (Radio Communications of the
Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
55194, 1981).
2. Attorney’s Fees
They are actual damages due to the plaintiff and
not to counsel.
Plaintiff must allege the basis of his claim for
attorney’s fees in the complaint. The basis should
be one of the cases under Art. 2208.
In its ordinary concept, an attorney’s fee is the
reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his
client for the legal services he has rendered to the
latter. The basis of this compensation is the fact
of his employment by and his agreement with the
client.
In its extraordinary concept, an attorney’s fee is
an indemnity for damages ordered by the court to
be paid by the losing party in litigation. The basis
of this is any of the cases provided by law where
such award can be made, such as those
authorized in Article 2208, Civil Code, and is
payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless
they have agreed that the award shall pertain to
the lawyer as additional compensation or as part
thereof.
Attorney's fees are recoverable not as a matter of
right. It is the import of Article 2208 that the award
Page 466 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
of attorney's fees is an exception and that the
decision must contain an express finding of fact
to bring the case within the exception and justify
the grant of attorney's fees. "Just and equitable"
under paragraph 11, Article 2208, New Civil Code
is not a matter of feelings, but demonstration. The
reason for the award of attorney's fees must be
stated in the text of the court's decision,
otherwise, if it is stated only in the dispositive
portion of the decision, the same must be
disallowed on appeal (Abrogar v. IAC, G.R. No.
L-67970 January 15, 1988).
When attorney’s fees are recoverable
General Rule: In the absence of stipulation,
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other
than judicial costs, cannot be recovered
Exceptions:
1. When exemplary damages are awarded;
2. When the defendant's act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his
interest;
3. In criminal cases of malicious prosecution
against the plaintiff;
4. In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding against the plaintiff;
5. Where the defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable
claim;
6. In actions for legal support;
7. In actions for the recovery of wages of
household helpers, laborers and skilled
workers;
8. In actions for indemnity under workmen's
compensation and employer's liability laws;
9. In a separate civil action to recover civil
liability arising from a crime;
10. When at least double judicial costs are
awarded. (Art. 2208)
3. Interest
Two types of interest:
1. Monetary interest - compensation for the
use of money.
CIVIL LAW
Note: The legal rate at the time of perfection of
the obligation will apply. It will not be affected by
a supervening change in the legal rate of interest.
Requisites:
The collection of interest in loans or forbearance
of money is allowed only when these two
conditions concur:
1. There was an express stipulation for the
payment of interest; and
2. The agreement for the payment of the
interest was reduced in writing.
Absent any of these two conditions, the money
debtor cannot be made liable for interest.
Evidence must be presented to show that the
parties agreed on the payment of interest.
BUT SEE: S.C. Megaworld v. Parada (G.R. No.
183804, 2013) and Raymundo v. Galen Realty
(G.R. No. 191594, 2013) where the Court
awarded interest despite the absence of
stipulation.
2. Compensatory interest - it is awarded in the
concept of damages for delay in the
performance of an obligation. It is due and
demandable from the time demand is first
made, whether judicial or extrajudicial.
Note: For compensatory interest, the legal rate of
interest always applies. This means that
compensatory interest is affected by supervening
changes in legal rate of interest.
Rules in the computation of interest in the
concept of actual or compensatory damage
(a) In case of loan or forbearance of money,
goods, credits or judgments, the interest
due should be that which is stipulated by the
parties in writing, provided that it is not
excessive and unconscionable. which may
have been stipulated in writing.
1. In the absence of a stipulated reckoning
date, the interest shall be computed from
default, i.e., from extrajudicial or judicial
demand in accordance with Article 1169
of the Civil Code, UNTIL FULL
Page 467 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
PAYMENT, without compounding any
interest.
a. Unless compounded interest is
expressly stipulated by the
parties, by law or regulation.
2. Interest due on the principal amount
accruing as of judicial demand shall
separately earn legal interest at the
prevailing rate prescribed by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, from the time of
judicial demand until full payment.
(b) Obligation other than a loan or
forbearance of money, goods, credits or
judgments
1. The rate of interest on the principal
amount shall be the prevailing legal
interest prescribed by the Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas.
2. It shall be computed from extrajudicial or
judicial demand in accordance with
Article 1169 of the Civil Code, UNTIL
FULL PAYMENT, without compounding
any interest.
a. Unless compounded interest is
expressly stipulated by the
parties, by law or regulation.
3. Interest due on the principal amount
accruing as of judicial demand shall
separately earn legal interest at the
prevailing rate prescribed by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, from the time of
judicial demand until full payment.
(c) When the obligation, not constituting a loan
or forbearance of money, goods, credits or
judgments, is breached, an interest on the
amount of damages awarded may be
imposed in the discretion of the court at the
prevailing legal interest prescribed by the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, pursuant to
Articles 2210 and 2011 of the Civil Code.
(d) No interest, however, shall be adjudged on
unliquidated claims or damages until the
demand can be established with reasonable
certainty. Accordingly, where the amount of
the claim or damages is established with
reasonable certainty, the prevailing legal
interest shall begin to run from the time the
CIVIL LAW
claim is made extrajudicially or judicially (Art.
1169) until full payment, but when such
certainty cannot be so reasonably
established at the time the demand is made,
the interest shall begin to run only from the
date of the judgment of the trial court (at
which time the quantification of damages
may be deemed to have been reasonably
ascertained) until full payment.
• The actual base for the computation of
the interest shall, in any case, be on the
principal amount finally adjudged,
without compounding any interest
unless compounded interest is
expressly stipulated by law or
regulation. (Lara’s Gifts & Decors, Inc.
v. Midtown industrial Sales, Inc., G.R.
No. 225433, 2019).
NOTE: C.B. Circular No. 799, July 1, 2013,
changed the rate of interest in the absence of
stipulation in loans or forbearance of money to
6%.
When actual damages are mitigated
1. Contributory negligence
2. In contracts, Quasi-contracts and quasi-
delict
(a) Plaintiff has contravened the terms of
contract
(b) Plaintiff derived some benefit as result
of contract
(c) In case where exemplary damages are
to be awarded, that the defendant acted
upon the advice of counsel
(d) That the loss would have resulted in any
event
(e) That since the filing of the action, the
defendant has done his best to lessen
the plaintiff's loss or injury
General Rule: Insofar as actual or compensatory
damages are concerned, Article 2199 provides,
“Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one
is entitled to an adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has
duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as
actual or compensatory damages.”
Page 468 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
“Conformably with the foregoing provision, the
rule is long and well settled that there must be
pleading and proof of actual damages suffered for
the same to be recovered. In addition to the fact
that the amount of loss must be capable of proof,
it must also be actually proven with a reasonable
degree of certainty, premised upon competent
proof or the best evidence obtainable. The
burden of proof of the damage suffered is,
consequently, imposed on the party claiming the
same who should adduce the best evidence
available in support thereof, like sales and
delivery receipts, cash and check vouchers and
other pieces of documentary evidence of the
same nature. In the absence of corroborative
evidence, it has been held that self-serving
statements of account are not sufficient basis for
an award of actual damages. Corollary to the
principle that a claim for actual damages cannot
be predicated on flimsy, remote, speculative, and
insubstantial proof, courts are, likewise, required
to state the factual bases of the award.
(Oceaneering Contractors (Phils.), Inc. v. Barreto,
G.R. No. 184215, 2011)
Exceptions:
1. It should be emphasized however that
uncertainty as to the precise amount is not
necessarily fatal (Talisay-Silay Milling, Inc. v.
Associacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay,
Inc., G.R. No. 91852,1995).
Mere difficulty in the assessment of damages is
not sufficient reason for refusing to award
damages where the right to them has been
established (Ball v. Pardy CTJ Construction Co.,
63 ALR 139, 108 Conn. 549, 143 A 855).
2. Civil Indemnity:
Proof of Actual loss is also not necessary in cases
where the law or jurisprudence allows the award
of civil indemnity. As in People v. Guanzon, the
Court ruled that: Civil indemnity, which is actually
in the nature of actual or compensatory damages,
is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape
(People v. Alex Condez y Guanzon, G.R. No.
187077, 2011)
CIVIL LAW
EXTENT OR SCOPE OF ACTUAL DAMAGES
1. In Contracts and Quasi-Contracts
(a) Damages in case of Good Faith
1. Natural and probable consequences of
breach of obligations
2. Parties have foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen at the time the
obligation was created
(b) Damages in case of Bad Faith
It is sufficient that damages may be reasonably
attributed to the non-performance of the
obligation.
NOTE: Two Kinds of Foreseeability:
1. Imputed Foreseeability
Those consequences which a reasonable
person should have foreseen; the test is whether
a reasonable person would have foreseen the
damages that the purchaser encountered
(Hadley v. Baxendale, cited in Daywalt v. La
Corporacion, G.R. No. L-13505, 1919).
2. Actual Foreseeability
Actual knowledge (not just imputed) of relevant
facts is necessary where the loss in question is
of an unusual kind or of an unusually high extent.
In Mendoza v. PAL (G.R. No. L-3678, 1952), the
defendant cannot be held liable for damages
where it could not have foreseen the damages
that would be suffered by the plaintiff upon failure
to deliver the can of film for reason that the plans
of the plaintiff to exhibit that film during the town
fiesta and his preparation, specially the
announcement of said exhibition by poster and
advertisement in the newspapers were not called
to the defendant's attention. Unusual or
extraordinary damages (beyond the ordinary
course of things) must have been brought within
the contemplation of the parties as the probable
result of breach at the time of or prior to
contracting.
2. In Crimes and Quasi-Delicts
(a) Defendant is liable for all damages that are
natural and probable consequences of the
act complained of;
Page 469 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21 CIVIL LAW

(b) Not necessary that damages have been
foreseen or could have been reasonably
foreseen.
MORAL DAMAGES
9. Acts mentioned in ART. 309 of the RPC
relating to disrespect of the dead and
interference with funeral
10. Acts and actions referred to in Arts. 21, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35 (Art. 2219)

CONCEPT NOTE: Art.2219 is not an exclusive enumeration.

Include: (PBMF-MWSSS)
1. Physical suffering
2. Besmirched reputation
3. Mental anguish
4. Fright
5. Moral shock
6. Wounded feelings
7. Social humiliation
8. Serious anxiety
9. Sentimental value of real or personal
property may be considered in adjudicating
moral damages (Art. 2217)
The social and economic/financial standing of the
offender and the offended party should be taken
into consideration in the computation of moral
damages. (Kierulf v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
99343, 1997)
Moral damages is awarded only to enable the
injured party to obtain means, diversions or
amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral
suffering he has undergone, by reason of
defendant's culpable action and not intended to
enrich a complainant at the expense of
defendant. (Mayo v. People, G.R. No. 91201,
1991)
III. WHEN RECOVERABLE
Cases when Moral Damages may be
recovered
1. Criminal offense resulting in physical injuries
2. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries
3. Seduction, abduction, rape or other acts of
lasciviousness
4. Adultery and concubinage
5. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest
6. Illegal search
7. Libel, slander or other form of defamation
8. Malicious prosecution
Moral damages may also be awarded in cases of
willful injury to property or breaches of contract
where defendant acted fraudulently or in bad
faith. (Art. 2220)
In culpa contractual, only in cases of gross
negligence amounting to bad faith or in wanton
disregard of his contractual obligation. In a
breach of contract of carriage, moral damages
may also be recovered in case of death of a
passenger.
In culpa aquiliana,
(a) when the act or omission causes physical
injuries, or
(b) when the defendant is guilty of intentional
tort (in this latter case, moral damages may
be recovered even in loss of or damage to
property).
In culpa criminal, when the accused is guilty of
physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or
concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention, illegal
arrest, illegal search, defamation and malicious
prosecution. (Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. CA,
G.R. No. 130030, June 25, 1999)
Who may recover moral damages
1. The parents of the female seduced,
abducted, raped, or abused may also
recover under No. 3.
2. Spouse, descendants, ascendants and
brother and sisters for acts mentioned in Art.
309 (“Any person who shows disrespect to
the dead, or wrongfully interferes with a
funeral shall be liable to the family of the
deceased for damages, material and
moral.”)

Page 470 of 474

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
Siblings Not Entitled to Moral Damages for
Death of their Brother / Sister
Article 2206 of the Civil Code entitles the
descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children,
and surviving spouse of the deceased passenger
to demand moral damages for mental anguish by
reason of the death of the deceased. The
omission from Article 2206 (3) of the brothers and
sisters of the deceased passenger reveals the
legislative intent to exclude them from the
recovery of moral damages for mental anguish by
reason of the death of the deceased. Inclusio
unius est exclusio alterius. (Sulpicio Lines, Inc., v.
Curso, G.R. No. 157009, March 17, 2010)
General rule: The plaintiff must allege and prove
the factual basis for moral damages and its
causal relation to the defendant’s act
Exception: Moral damages may be awarded to
the victim in criminal proceedings without the
need for pleading proof of the basis hereof.
Moral damages are mandatory without need of
allegation and proof other than the death of the
victim, owing to the fact of the commission of
murder or homicide. (Espineli v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 179535, 2014)
When Moral Damages Awarded Without
Evidence of Injury.
1. Rape cases. It is assumed that the victim
has suffered moral injuries (People v. Iroy,
G.R. No. 187743, 2010);
2. Murder cases. A violent death necessarily
brings about emotional pain and anguish on
the part of the victim’s family (People v.
Rarugal, G.R. No. 188603, 2013);
3. Where a broadcast is libelous per se, the law
implies moral damages (FBNI v. AMEC,
G.R. No. 141994, 2005)
NOTE: In Filipinas Broadcasting Network v.
AMEC, the Supreme Court held:
A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral
damages because, unlike a natural person, it
cannot experience physical suffering or such
sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety,
mental anguish or moral shock.
CIVIL LAW
Nevertheless, AMEC's claim for moral damages
falls under item 7 of Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
This provision expressly authorizes the recovery
of moral damages in cases of libel, slander or any
other form of defamation. Article 2219(7) does not
qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical
person. Therefore, a juridical person such as a
corporation can validly complain for libel or any
other form of defamation and claim for moral
damages. (Filipinas Broadcasting Network v.
AMEC, G.R. No. 141994, 2005)
NOMINAL DAMAGES
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a
right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by
him
WHEN AWARDED
Elements:
1. Plaintiff has a right
2. Right of plaintiff is violated
3. Purpose is not to identify but vindicate or
recognize right violated
NOTE: The law presumes damage although
actual or compensatory damages are not proven.
They are damages in the name only and are
allowed simply in recognition of a technical injury
based on a violation of a legal right. Nominal
damages cannot coexist with actual or
compensatory damages.
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
Also called Moderate Damages.
More than nominal but less than compensatory
where some pecuniary loss has been suffered but
its amount can't be proved with certainty due to
the nature of the case.
In cases where the resulting injury might be
continuing and possible future complications
Page 471 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
directly arising from the injury, while certain to
occur are difficult to predict, temperate damages
can and should be awarded on top of actual or
compensatory damages; in such cases there is
no incompatibility between actual and temperate
damages.
WHEN AWARDED
Requisites:
1. Some pecuniary loss
2. Loss is incapable of pecuniary estimation
3. Must be reasonable
General Rule: Actual Damages cannot be
recovered with temperate damages due to the
nature of the said damages.
Exception: When the injury is chronic or
recurring such as in loss of earnings. (Ramos v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354, 1999)
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Those agreed upon by the parties to a contract,
to be paid in case of breach thereof
When liquidated damages may be equitably
reduced
(a) Iniquitous or unconscionable
(b) Partial or irregular performance
Rules governing in case of breach of contract
Penalty may be imposed by stipulation or agreed
upon by the parties in case of breach of contract.
Such penalty is in the nature of liquidated
damages.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Imposed by way of example or correction for the
public good, in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated to compensatory damages; Also called
Corrective Damage
NOTE: Exemplary damages cannot be recovered
as a matter of right; the court will decide whether
or not they should be adjudicated.
CIVIL LAW
When recovered
1. In Criminal Offenses
Exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability
may be imposed when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances.
Such damages are separate from fines and shall
be paid to the offended party.
2. In Quasi-Delicts
Exemplary damages may be granted if the
defendant acted with gross negligence.
3. In Contracts and Quasi-Contracts
The court may award exemplary damages if the
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
In case liquidated damages have been agreed
upon, although no proof of loss is necessary in
order that such liquidated damages may be
recovered, nevertheless, before the court may
consider the question of granting exemplary in
addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff
must show that he would be entitled to moral,
temperate or compensatory damages were it not
for the stipulation for liquidated damages.
B. DAMAGES IN CASE OF DEATH
(a) In Crimes and Quasi-Delicts Causing
Death
1. Medical & Hospital Bills
2. Civil Indemnity/ Damages for Death
under Art. 2206 (Automatically
awarded)
3. Loss of earning capacity unless
deceased had permanent physical
disability not caused by defendant so
that deceased had no earning capacity
at time of death
4. Support, if deceased was obliged to
give support (for period not more than 5
years)
5. Moral damages
NOTE: Civil Indemnity for death is mandatory and
a matter of course, and without need of proof
other than the fact of death as the result of the
Page 472 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
crime or quasi-delict, and the fact that the
accused was responsible therefor.
Article 2206 only imposes a minimum amount for
awards of civil indemnity, which is ₱3,000.00. The
law did not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although
the minimum amount for the award cannot be
changed, increasing the amount awarded as civil
indemnity can be validly modified and increased
when the present circumstance warrants it.
(People vs. Jugueta
G.R. No. 202124, 2016)
(b) Death Caused by Breach of Contract by a
Common Carrier
1. Indemnity for death
2. Indemnity for loss of earning capacity
3. Moral Damages
C. GRADUATION OF DAMAGES
I. DUTY OF INJURED PARTY
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences
The party suffering loss or injury must exercise
the diligence of a good father of a family to
minimize the damages resulting from the act or
omission in question. (Art.2203)
Burden of Defendants
It is the burden of the defendants to show
satisfactorily not only that the injured party could
have mitigated his damages but also the amount
thereof; failing in this regard, the amount of
damages awarded cannot be proportionately
reduced. (Lim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
125817, 2002).
Mitigation Due to Refusal to Find Work
Before defendant can take advantage of the
failure of plaintiff to obtain like employment, it
must appear:
4. That it is like employment
 action for the imposition of the legal penalty.
5. That it is in the same locality

6. That it is under substantially the same
conditions; and 

7. The wages which he could have earned. 
 1. Nominal with actual, moral or temperate
CIVIL LAW
NOTE: Contributory Negligence also mitigates
the damages recoverable by the plaintiff.
However, in the Doctrine of Avoidable
Consequences, the negligence of the plaintiff is
after the negligence of the defendant. In
Contributory Negligence, the negligence of the
plaintiff is before the negligence of the defendant.
II. RULES
1. Responsibility for fault or negligence under
the Art.2176 is entirely separate and distinct
from the civil liability arising from negligence
under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff
cannot recover damages twice for the same
act or omission of the defendant. (Art. 2177)
2. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence
of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that
he may recover. (Art. 2214)
3. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-
delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the
damages under circumstances other than
the case referred to in the preceding article,
as in the following instances:
(a) That the plaintiff himself has
contravened the terms of the contract;
(b) That the plaintiff has derived some
benefit as a result of the contract;
(c) In cases where exemplary damages
are to be awarded, that the defendant
acted upon the advice of counsel;
(d) That the loss would have resulted in any
event;
(e) That since the filing of the action, the
defendant has done his best to lessen
the plaintiff's loss or injury. (Art. 2215)
4. Liquidated damages, whether intended as
an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably
reduced if they are iniquitous or
unconscionable. (Art. 2227)
5. There may be a compromise upon the civil
liability arising from an offense; but such
compromise shall not extinguish the public
(Art. 2034)
MISCELLANEOUS RULES
Damages that Cannot Co-Exist
damages
Page 473 of 474
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2020/21
2. Actual and liquidated damages
Damages that Must Co-Exist
Exemplary with moral, temperate, liquidated
or compensatory damages
1. One must prove that he is entitled to moral,
temperate or compensatory damages before
the court may consider the award for
exemplary damages.
2. No proof of loss is necessary in order that
liquidated damages may be recovered.
However, before the court may consider the
question of granting exemplary in addition to
the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must
show that he would be entitled to moral,
temperate or compensatory damages were
if not for the stipulation for liquidated
damages
Circumstances when public officers may be
held liable for damages:
1. When a public officer acts with fraud, bad
faith, or gross negligence, in which case s/he
may be held liable for a quasi-delict under
Art. 2176
2. In cases of dereliction of duty under Art. 27,
where a public servant or employee refuses
or neglects, without just cause, to perform
his official duty;
3. In cases where a public officer or employee
directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates, or in any manner impedes or
impairs the civil and political rights and
liberties enumerated in Art. 32; and
4. In cases where a member of a city or
municipal police force refuses or fails to
render aid or protection to any person in
case of danger to life or property, as
provided in Art. 34 (in these cases, the
member of the police force shall be primarily
liable for damages, with the city or
municipality being subsidiarily liable).
When Treble Damages are Imposed
1. Scheming to prolong litigation or efforts to
avoid the imposition of a judgment.
2. Appeal made for the sole purpose of delay.
CIVIL LAW
3. Disapproval of a party’s good and honest
intentions, as well as evading a party’s claim
for a decade.
4. Defying the orders of the Court and evasion
of duties under the law thus dragging the
case for too long.
5. A counsel trying to resuscitate a client’s lost
cause.
6. Initiating another action even after obtaining
a valid and final judgment from a competent
court. (Maglana Rice and Corn Mill, Inc. v.
Tan, G.R. No. 159051, 2011).
General Rule: Negligence must be proven by the
plaintiff in an action for damages based on quasi-
delict.
Exceptions:
(a) When the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
applies. (BJDC v. Lanuzo, G.R. No. 161151,
2014)
(b) In cases involving violations of statutes,
ordinances, and/or traffic rules or
regulations, where the concept of negligence
per se applies;
(c) When death or injury results from the
defendant’s possession of dangerous
weapons or substances, except when the
defendant proves that his possession of
dangerous weapons or substances is
indispensable to his business (Art. 2188);
(d) In cases involving vicarious liability, where a
presumption of negligence arises against
parents, guardians, employers, the State,
and teachers or heads of establishments of
arts and trades in the cases enumerated in
Art. 2180.
————- end of topic ————-
Page 474 of 474