Torts and Damages (For AUSL) Bar 2022 (For Reviewees)

AUSL PRE-BAR REVIEW
for November 2022 Bar Exam

CIVIL LAW: TORTS AND DAMAGES
Prof. Nico B. Valderrama, CPA, MPM, LLM
BAR SYLLABUS; COVERAGE
A. Torts
1. Elements
2. Culpa aquiliana v. culpa contractual v. culpa criminal
3. Vicarious liability
4. Res ipsa loquitur
5. Last clear chance
6. Damnum absque injuria
B. Proximate cause
C. Negligence
1. Standard of care
2. Presumptions
D. Damages
1. General provisions
2. Kinds of damages
3. In case of death
TORTS
TORTS
A. ELEMENTS
B. CULPA AQUILIANA V. CULPA CONTRACTUAL
V. CULPA CRIMINAL
C. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
D. RES IPSA LOQUITUR
E. LAST CLEAR CHANCE
F. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
Tort; Definition and elements
• Tort consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a
duty imposed by law. (Naguiat v. NLRC, GR 116123, March 13,
1997)
• The elements of an actionable conduct are: (Garcia v. Salvador,
GR 168512, March 20, 2007)
1) duty,
2) breach,
3) injury, and
4) proximate causation.
Legal injury; Concept
any harm or injury resulting from a violation of a legal

right
Elements of a legal right
1) Subject of the right (person of inheritance)
• Who has the right
2) Subject of the duty (person of incidence)
• Who must respect the right
3) Subject matter or content of legal right
• What is the right
4) Object of legal right
• Over which object the right is exercised
5) Title to the right
• How the right is vested
Violation of a legal right or legal injury
A violation of a legal right leads to a cause of action in

favor of the person whose right was violated against the
person who committed such violation.
Classes of injury
Classes Torts Involved
Malicious prosecution
Violation of personal dignity and privacy
Injury to persons Defamation
Fraud
Physical injuries
Nuisance
Injury to property
Quasi-delict
Family relations
Social relations
Injury to relations
Economic relations
Political relations
Classification of Torts
1. According to manner of commission

2. According to scope
According to manner of commission
• Negligent: voluntary acts or omissions which result in injury to
others, without intending to cause the same; the actor fails to
exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions
• Intentional: conduct where the actor desires to cause the
consequences of his act or believes the consequences are
substantially certain to result therefrom
• Strict liability: the person is made liable independent of fault or
negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts; rests not on
negligence but on intentional doing of that which a person knows or
should, in the exercise of ordinary care, know may reasonably cause
loss to another in the normal course of events
According to scope
• General
1) Negligence
2) Intentional
3) Strict liability
• Specific: particular acts and omissions
Torts related to Human Relations
1) Article 19 (abuse of rights)
2) Article 20 (acts contrary to law)
3) Article 21 (acts contrary to morals)
4) Article 22 (unjust enrichment)

Abuse of right; Elements
Article 19. 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.
• General rule which governs conduct of human relations
• Elements of abuse of right (Albenson v. CA, GR 88694,
January 11, 1993):
1) Existence of a legal right or duty
2) Which is exercised in bad faith
3) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another
Abuse of right; Cases
1) A former employee was awarded damages for failing to
get employed after its former employer informed (without
being asked) a prospective employer that the former
employee was dismissed due to dishonesty. (Globe
Mackay v. CA, GR 81262, August 25, 1989)
2) An educational institution was held liable for damages
after misleading a student into believing that the latter had
satisfied all the requirements for graduation when such is
not the case. (UE v. Jader, GR 132344, February 17, 2000)
Acts contrary to law
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.
• General sanction for all other provisions of law which do not

especially provide for their own sanction
• If there is no violation of law or pre-existing contractual
obligation, see if it falls under Article 2176.
Acts contrary to morals
Article 21. Any person who willfully (if negligent only, not
applicable) causes loss or injury to another in a manner that
is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
• Elements:
1) There is a legal act.
2) But which is contrary to morals, good customs, public
order or public policy.
3) It is done with intent to injure.
Unjust enrichment
Article 22. Every person who through an act or performance by
another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession
of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal
ground, shall return the same to him.
• Accion in rem verso

• Requisites:
1) The defendant has been enriched.
2) The plaintiff has suffered a loss.
3) The enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal ground.
4) The plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi-contract,
crime, or quasi-delict.
Unjust enrichment
Scenario: X owes Y P5,000 which is due on December 1,
2021.
• If X pays on November 1, 2021 thinking that it was really
due on November 1, 2021, X may recover the payment
under solutio indebiti.
• If X pays on December 1, 2021 and misplaces the
receipt, and in order to ensure that he has paid, pays Y
again on December 10, 2021, X may recover the
payment under accion in rem verso.
Acts contrary to morals; Cases
1) Formally setting a wedding and going through all the preparation and
publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony was about to be
solemnized. (Wassmer v. Velez, GR L-20089, December 26, 1964)
2) A married man seducing a minor collateral relative, though ingenious
scheme or trickery, to make her fall in love with him. (Pe v. Pe, GR L-
17396, May 30, 1962)
3) By openly accusing a wedding coordinator as the only person who went
out of the room before the loss of the jewelry in the presence of all the
guests therein, and ordering that she be immediately bodily searched,
virtually branding her as the thief. (Carpio v. Valmonte, GR 151866,
September 9, 2004)
Quasi-delict; Definition and elements
Also known as CULPA AQUILIANA
the fault or negligence of a person, who, by his act or

omission, connected or unconnected with, but
independent from, any contractual relations, causes
damage to another person
Quasi-delict; Definition and elements
Elements:
1) Act or omission
2) Constituting fault or negligence
3) Damage or injury caused by the said act or omission
4) Causal relation between the damage and the act or
omission
5) There is no pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties
Does Article 2176 encompass all
actionable wrongs?
St. Martin Polyclinic v. LWV Construction Corporation, GR 217426, December 4, 2017 [Per J. Perlas Bernabe, 2nd Division]
Provision Application
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the Principle of abuse of rights; does
Article 19 performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his not provide a remedy for its
due, and observe honesty and good faith. violation
Every person who, contrary to law, willfully Applies to both willful and
Article 20 or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the negligent acts; involves a violation
latter for the same. of law
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a
Article 21 manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public Applies only to willful acts
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there Applies to both willful and
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage negligent acts; does not involve a
Article 2176 done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing breach of an existing law or a pre-
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi- existing contractual obligation
delict.
CULPA AQUILIANA V. CULPA
CONTRACTUAL V. CULPA CRIMINAL
Attributes Culpa Contractual Culpa Aquiliana Culpa Criminal
Negligence is merely
incidental to the Negligence is direct, Negligence is direct,
Nature of
performance of an substantive, and substantive, and
negligence
obligation already existing independent of a contract. independent of a contract.
because of a contract.
Pre-existing
Existing None None
obligation
Proof Guilt beyond reasonable
Preponderance of evidence Preponderance of evidence
needed doubt
This is not proper defense.
Proper and complete
Defense of The employee’s guilt is
Not a proper complete defense (insofar as
“good father automatically the
defense employers or guardians are
of a family” employer’s civil guilt, if the
concerned)
former is insolvent.
CULPA AQUILIANA V. CULPA
CONTRACTUAL V. CULPA CRIMINAL
➢ Only contracting parties may be sued for culpa contractual. Hence, employees
(who acted as agents of either contracting party) cannot be sued for breach of
contract, even if said employees are the ones who committed the negligent act.
(FGU Insurance vs. Sarmiento)
➢ In culpa contractual, neither the plaintiff’s contributory negligence nor his last
clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant from liability.
Such contributory negligence or last clear chance merely serves to reduce the
recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from
his or her breach of contract. (Consolidated Bank vs. CA)
➢ The contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a public duty.
Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees, naturally, could give ground
for an action for damages based on tort. (Air France vs. Carrascoso)
The Tortfeasor
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence
1. Direct tortfeasor
a. Natural persons
b. Juridical persons
2. Persons made responsible for others
3. Joint tortfeasors
Direct tortfeasor
• Natural persons
• Juridical persons
• Close corporations: Section 99(e), RCC
• Corporations by estoppel: Section 20, RCC
• Partnerships: Articles 1822 and 1824, NCC
• State: Subject to the rules regarding waiver of immunity from
suits, the State, its political subdivisions, and GOCCs may be
defendants
Persons made responsible for others
• Persons vicariously liable: those who are not guilty of fault
or negligence but made liable for the conduct of another
• Vicarious Liability or Doctrine of Imputed Negligence: A
person is not only liable for torts committed by himself or
herself, but also for torts committed by others with whom he
or she has a certain relation or for whom he or she is
responsible.
• Nature of liability: primary and solidary
• Presumption of negligence: disputable only
Persons made responsible for others;
Article 2180
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for
one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for
the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
(TO READ (RA 6809): The parents are responsible for the damages caused by
the children below 21 years old who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons
who are under their authority and live in their company.
(TO READ (RA 6809): Guardians are liable for damages caused by the wards
below 21 years old or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and
live in their company.
Cases
• The civil liability of parents for quasi-delict of their minor
children under Art. 2180 is primary and not subsidiary. (Libi
v. IAC, GR 70890 September 18, 1992)
• The basis of parental liability for the torts of a minor child is
the relationship existing between the parents and minor
child living with them and over whom, the law presumes, the
parents exercise supervision and control. (Tamargo v. CA,
GR 85044, June 3, 1992)
Article 2180
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their
functions.
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.
Article 2180; Employers
• Nature of employer’s liability: direct and primary
• Requisites:
1) There must be an employer-employee relationship.
2) The employee was chosen by the employer.
3) The work being performed is in accordance with a valid order.
4) The illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the
functions entrusted to him or her.
• Presumption of negligence: disputable only
• Available defense: due diligence in the selection AND supervision of the
employee
Cases
• The terms "employers" and "owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise" do not include the manager of a corporation. It may be gathered from
the context of Article 2180 that the term "manager" ("director" in the Spanish
version) is used in the sense of "employer". (Phil. Rabbit v. Phil American, GR L-
25142, March 25, 1975)
• Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the Labor Code will determine the liability of
NPC in a civil suit for damages instituted by an injured person for any negligent
act of the employees of the labor-only contractor. This is consistent with the ruling
that a finding that a contractor was a labor-only contractor is equivalent to a
finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the owner
(principal contractor) and the labor-only contractor, including the latter’s workers.
(NPC v. CA, GR 119121, August 14, 1998)
Cases
• In the selection of its prospective employees, the employer is required to examine
them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records. With respect to
the supervision of its employees, the employer should formulate standard
operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary
measures for their breach. To establish compliance with these requirements,
employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence.
(Mercury Drug v. Huang, GR 172122, June 22, 2007)
• Due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is applicable where
the employer is being held responsible for the acts or omissions of others under
Article 2180. If under Article 2176, such defense is not applicable. (Child Learning
Center v. Tagario, GR150920, November 25, 2005)
Article 2180
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent;
but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall
be applicable.
Persons made responsible for others; State
• The liability of the State has two aspects, namely:
• Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts of special agents only.
• Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it becomes
liable as an ordinary employer.
• Under Art. 2180, the State has voluntarily assumed liability for acts done through special agents.
The State's agent, if a public official, must not only be specially commissioned to do a particular task
but that such task must be foreign to said official's usual governmental functions.
• If the State's agent is not a public official, and is commissioned to perform non-governmental
functions, then the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable as
such for its agent's tort. Where the government commissions a private individual for a special
governmental task, it is acting through a special agent within the meaning of the provision.
Fontanilla v. Maliaman, GR 55963, December 1, 1989; GR 55963, February 27, 1991

Article 2180
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be
liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so
long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.
Cases
• The mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a
school without more does not constitute "attending school" or
being in the "protective and supervisory custody” of the school,
as contemplated in the law. (Salvosa v. IAC, GR 70458, October
5, 1988)
• Where the negligence of the school was only a remote cause of
the accident, the school cannot be made liable. (St. Mary’s
Academy v. Carpitanos, GR 143363, February 6, 2002)
Article 2181
Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
dependents or employees may recover from the latter what
he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
Cases
• In a damage case, the responsibility of the state is limited to that
which it contracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a
definite order or commission to perform some act or charged
with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim, and
not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to
a public official charged with some administrative or technical
office who can be held to the proper responsibility in the
manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. (Meritt v.
Government, GR L-11154, March 21, 1916)
Joint tortfeasors
all the persons who command, instigate, promote,
encourage, advice, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet
the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done,
or done for their benefit, they are each liable as a principal, to
the same extent and in the same manner as if there have
performed the wrongful act themselves
• Article 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons

who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
Res ipsa loquitur
“the thing speaks for itself”
“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, GR 73998, November
14, 1988)
Res ipsa loquitur
Requisites:
1) The occurrence of an injury
2) The thing which caused the injury was under the control and
management of the defendant
3) The occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things,
would not have happened if those who had control or
management used proper care, and
4) The absence of explanation by the defendant
Last clear chance
• The proper criterion for determining the existence of negligence in a given case is this:
Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would
have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his
foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences.
• As Smith started across the bridge, he had the right to assume that the horse and the rider
would pass over to the proper side; but as he moved toward the center of the bridge it was
demonstrated to his eyes that this would not be done; and he must in a moment have
perceived that it was too late for the horse to cross with safety in front of the moving vehicle.
• Under these circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid
the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without
reference to the prior negligence of the other party.
Picart v. Smith, GR L-12219, March 15, 1918

Damnum absque injuria
a principle that involves damage without injury, therefore

no liability is incurred; there is no legal injury
Liability without fault
• In order that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, that act must be
not only hurtful, but wrongful (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
(or loss or damage without injury).
• When the owner of property makes use thereof in the general and ordinary
manner in which the property is used, such as fencing or enclosing the same as
in this case, nobody can complain of having been injured, because the
inconvenience arising from said use can be considered as a mere consequence
of community life.
Custodio v. CA, GR 116100, February 9, 1996

PROXIMATE CAUSE
PROXIMATE CAUSE
• Concept
• Cause in fact
• Efficient intervening cause
• Cause as distinguished from condition
• Last clear chance
Proximate cause; Concept
Proximate cause is that which, in natural and continuous

sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause,
produces injury, and without which, the result would not
have occurred.
Ocean Builders v. Spouses Cubacub, GR 150898, April

13, 2011
Concept; Cause
conduct that is a substantial factor in bringing about harm
Categories:
• Proximate: that adequate and efficient cause which in the natural order of events,
and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, would naturally
produce the event
• Concurrent: where several producing the 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
• Remote: that cause which some independent force merely took advantage of to
accomplish something not the natural effect thereof
• Intervening: one which comes into active operation producing the result after the
actor’s negligent act or omission has occurred
Cause in fact
• A tort must be the cause in fact of a particular injury, which means that a
specific act must actually have resulted in injury to another.
• Cause in fact is established by evidence that shows that a tortfeasor's act
or omission was a necessary antecedent to the plaintiff's injury.
• Courts analyze this issue by determining whether the plaintiff's injury would
have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct.
• If an injury would have occurred independent of the defendant's conduct,
cause in fact has not been established, and no tort has been committed.
• When multiple factors have led to a particular injury, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that the tortfeasor's action played a substantial role in causing
the injury.
Efficient intervening cause
One which destroys the causal connection between the

negligent act and the injury and thereby negatives liability
(Novus actus interviens).
Cause distinguished from condition
• Cause: conduct that is a substantial factor in bringing

about harm
• Condition: what makes the damage possible
• Cause and Condition Test: If the defendant has created

only a passive, static condition which made the damage
possible, he is said not to be liable.
Last clear chance
Under these circumstances the law is that the person
who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending
harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without reference to the prior negligence
of the other party.
Picart v. Smith, GR L-12219, March 15, 1918

NEGLIGENCE
NEGLIGENCE
1. STANDARD OF CARE
2. PRESUMPTIONS
Negligence; Concept
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, by reason of which such other
person suffers injury
It involves voluntary acts or omissions that result in injury to

others, without intending to cause the same.
Negligence; Concept
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of
the time, and of the place.
• The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case

may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in the performance of
the alleged negligent act use reasonable care and caution which
an ordinary person would have used in the same situation?
Gross negligence; Concept
Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to
exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It
evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without
exerting any effort to avoid them. It is characterized by want of
even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where
there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so
far as other persons may be affected.
Ilao-Oreta vs. Ronquillo, GR 172406, October 11, 2007

Good father of a family or reasonably
prudent person
Likewise referred to as the reasonable man, man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence, or ordinary reasonable prudent man.
Article 1163. 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.
• The prudent man is expected to act according to the circumstances

that appear to him at the time of the incident, and he is not judged
based on his knowledge or experience after the event.
Standard of care
The diligence with which the law requires the individual at

all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of
the situation in which he is placed and the importance of
the act which he is to perform.
Sicam v. Jorge, GR 159617, August 8, 2007

Standard of care; Experts and
professionals
They should exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily

skilled in the particular field that he or she is in.
Standard of care; Common carriers
Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public
policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and
for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of
each case.
Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles
1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of
the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.
Article 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they
observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733.
Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human
care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with
a due regard for all the circumstances.
Standard of care; emergency rule
• “An individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of
danger and is required to act without much time to consider the
best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger
is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what
subsequently upon reflection may appear to be a better
solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own
negligence.” (Gan v. CA, GR L-44264, September 19, 1988)
• It cannot be invoked if the person who is invoking it found
himself in danger which he himself created through his own
negligence. (Valenzuela v. CA, GR 115024, February 7, 1996)
Standard of care; Cases
• Table approval of a relocation survey is insufficient. (Corinthian
Gardens v. Spouses Tanjangco, GR 160795, June 27, 2008)
• Accordingly, while the duty of using reasonable care falls alike
on a motorist and a bicyclist, due to the inherent differences in
the two vehicles, more care is required from the motorist to fully
discharge the duty than from the bicyclist. (Heirs of Completo v.
Albayda, GR 172200, July 6, 2010)
• As a gun store owner, he is presumed to be knowledgeable
about firearms safety and should have known never to keep a
loaded weapon in his store to avoid unreasonable risk of harm
or injury to others. (Pacis v. Morales, GR 169467, February 25,
2010)
• The court applied the conclusive presumption that favors
children below 9 years old in that they are incapable of
contributory negligence. (Jarco Marketing v. CA, GR 129792,
December 21, 1999)
• The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own
protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of
the same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge, and experience under
the same or similar circumstances. (Ylarde v. Aquino, GR L-33722,
July 29, 1988)
• The profession of pharmacy, it has been said again and again, is one
demanding care and skill. The responsibility of the druggist to use
care has been variously qualified as "ordinary care," "care of a
special high degree,” “the highest degree of care known to practical
men.” The rule of caveat emptor cannot apply to the purchase and
sale of drugs. (US v. Pineda, GR L-12858, January 22, 1918)
• It is settled that a physician’s duty to his patient relates to his
exercise of the degree of care, skill, and diligence which
physicians in the same general neighborhood, and in the same
general line of practice, ordinarily possess and exercise in like
cases. There is breach of this duty when the patient is injured in
body or in health. Proof of this breach rests upon the testimony
of an expert witness that the treatment accorded to the patient
failed to meet the standard level of care, skill, and diligence.
(Dela Torre v. Imbuido, GR 192973, September 29, 2014)
Standard of care; Medical malpractice
• Because medical malpractice cases are often highly technical,
expert testimony is usually essential to establish:
1) the standard of care that the defendant was bound to observe under
the circumstances;
2) that the defendant’s conduct fell below the acceptable standard;
and
3) that the defendant’s failure to observe the industry standard caused
injury to his patient. (Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, Inc., GR
191018, January 25, 2016)
• BUT: An expert witness is not necessary as the res ipsa loquitur
doctrine is applicable. (Rosit v. Davao Doctors Hospital, GR
210445, December 2, 2015)
Unreasonable risk of harm
determined through the balancing of the foreseeability

and gravity of the harm with the burden of preventing it
Evidence
• Burden of proof: up for the plaintiff to prove
defendant’s negligence
• Exception: when the rules or the law provide for
cases when negligence is presumed
• Evidence: testimonial, documentary, or real
• Quantum: preponderance of evidence

Presumption of negligence
• As a general rule, the plaintiff has the burden to prove

negligence.
• As an exception, negligence is presumed in:
• Motor vehicle mishaps
• Possession of dangerous weapons or substances
• Common carriers
• Cases where res ipsa loquitur applies
Article 1667. The lessee is responsible for the deterioration or loss of the thing leased, unless he
proves that it took place without his fault. This burden of proof on the lessee does not apply when the
destruction is due to earthquake, flood, storm, or other natural calamity.
Article 2184. 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.
Article 2185. 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.
This does not apply to non-motorized vehicles.
Article 2188. 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.
Article 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the
goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
5) Order or act of competent public authority.
Article 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article,
if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
required in article 1733.
Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.
HOW WILL A VIOLATION OF TRAFFIC REGULATION ARISE
TO PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE?
A causal connection must exist between the injury received and

the violation of the traffic regulation. It must be proven that the
violation of the traffic regulation was the proximate or legal cause
of the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto.
Tison v. Spouses Pomasin, GR 173180, August 24, 2012

Presumption of negligence; res ipsa
loquitur
DOES THE DEFENDANT HAVE TO PROVE ITS DEFENSE TO
PREVENT THE APPLICATION OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR?
Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of all the
elements, the burden then shifts to defendant to explain.
It is not for the defendant to explain or prove its defense to

prevent the presumption or inference from arising.
DM Consunji v. CA, GR 137873, April 20, 2001

Defenses
DEATH IS NOT A DEFENSE AND CASE WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE.
• Plaintiff’s negligence
• Due diligence
• Contributory negligence
• Fortuitous event
• Damnum absque injuria
• Authority of law
• Assumption of risk
• Doctrine of last clear chance
• Prescription
• Involuntariness
• Waiver
• Proscription against double recovery
Defenses; Plaintiff’s negligence
If the cause of the injury or damage is the plaintiff’s

negligence, then the defendant must not be held liable.
Defenses; Due diligence
Persons held vicariously liable under Article 2180 may

invoke the defense of due diligence of a good father of a
family.
Defenses; Contributory negligence
Doctrine of Contributory Negligence:
If the negligence of the plaintiff cooperated with the negligence of

the defendant in bringing about the accident causing the injury
complained of, such negligence of the plaintiff would be an absolute
bar to recovery.
If merely contributory to his injury, the immediate and proximate

cause of the accident causing the injury being the defendant’s
negligence, such negligence would not be a bar to recovery, but the
amount recoverable shall be mitigated by the courts.
Defenses; Fortuitous event
an event which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen, was inevitable
Requisites:
• The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the failure of the debtor to
comply with his or her obligation, must be independent of the human will.
• It must be impossible to foresee the event or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to
avoid.
• The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his or her
obligation in a normal manner.
• The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
creditor.
There is mitigation if the injury would still have resulted in any event because of the fortuitous
event.
Defenses; Damnum absque injuria
a principle that involves damage without injury, therefore

no liability is incurred; there is no legal injury
Defenses; Authority of law
A specific provision of law negates liability arising from

certain acts or omissions.
Defenses; Assumption of risk
Volenti non fit injuria: "to a willing person, injury is not done”
Elements:
• Plaintiff must know that the risk is present.
• He or she must further understand its nature.
• His or her choice to incur it is free and voluntary.
Plaintiff is excused from the force of the rule if an emergency is found to exist or if
the life or property of another is in peril or when he or she seeks to rescue his or
her endangered property.
Article 97 (Consumer Act): using unsafe product deems assumption of risk

Defenses; Doctrine of last clear chance
The negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a

recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it
appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable
care and prudence, might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the
plaintiff’s negligence.
Defenses; Prescription
Doctrine of Relations (or Relations Back Doctrine): The doctrine should be
applied where the injury was discovered long after the accident. The offended
party should not be prejudiced in such case and the prescriptive period should
commence to run only upon discovery of the injury. (example: HIV contamination
from blood transfusion)
Prescription of an action based on quasi delict does not operate as a bar to an

action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime.
Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;
Defenses; Involuntariness
A complete defense where force is exerted on the

defendant
Example: driver forced to drive his vehicle by armed men,

and hits a bystander
Defenses; Waiver
Requisites of a valid waiver:
1) Full capacity to make the waiver
2) Waiver must be unequivocal
3) Right must exist at the time of the waiver
4) It must not be contrary to law, public morals or good customs or prejudicial to a
third person with a right recognized by law
5) When formalities are required, the same must be complied with
Exceptions:
a) Waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, moral and good customs
b) If the waiver is prejudicial to a third party with a right recognized by law
c) Alleged rights which really do not yet exist
d) If the right is a natural right
Defenses; Proscription against double
recovery
Responsibility for fault or negligence is entirely separate

and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence
under the Revised Penal Code, but the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or omission of
the defendant.
DAMAGES
DAMAGES
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
B. KINDS OF DAMAGES
C. DAMAGES IN CASE OF DEATH
General Provisions
1. Classification
2. Kinds of damages
a. Actual and Compensatory
b. Moral
c. Nominal
d. Temperate
e. Liquidated
f. Exemplary
3. When damages may be recovered
BAR TIP
• When asked: “Is X liable for damages?”
• The examiner is asking the examinee to determine if there
was a legal injury committed by the defendant to which
he/she is made liable.
• When asked: “Is X liable for actual damages?”
• The examiner is already assuming that there is legal injury
committed but is now testing the examinee if he/she can
determine whether a specific kind of damages is
recoverable.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Article 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively
applicable to all obligations mentioned in article 1157.
Article 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for 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. The underlying basis
for the award of tort damages is the premise that an
individual was injured in contemplation of law.
Custodio v. CA, GR 116100, February 9, 1996

Actual and compensatory damages
those recoverable because of pecuniary loss (in business, trade, property
profession, job or occupation)
• Purpose: to recover what was actually lost, or to compensate what was

suffered
• Requisites:
• Need to be pleaded
• Pray for the relief that claim for loss be granted
• Prove the loss
• Proof: credible evidence of actual expenses incurred and/or losses or
damages suffered
Actual and compensatory damages
Article 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss
suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain.
Article 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who
acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences
of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for
all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.
Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages
which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It
is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been
foreseen by the defendant.
Actual damages; Loss of earning capacity
HOW IS LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY DETERMINED?
• The formula for the computation of unearned income is: Net Earning Capacity =
life expectancy x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living
expenses).
• The loss is not equivalent to the entire earnings of the deceased, but only such
portion that he would have used to support his dependents or heirs. Hence, the
Court must deduct from his gross earnings the necessary expenses
supposed to be used by the deceased for his own needs.
• When there is no showing that the living expenses constituted the smaller
percentage of the gross income, the Court must fix the living expenses at half of
the gross income.
Candano v. Sugata-On, GR 163212, March 13, 2007

LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY = life expectancy x (gross
annual income - reasonable and necessary living expenses)
OR
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY = life expectancy x (gross

annual income x 50%)
______
Where: life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - age of the victim)
Age: 40
Monthly income: 50,000
Living expenses: 30,000
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY = [2/3 x (80 - age of the

victim)] x (gross annual income - reasonable and
necessary living expenses)
= [2/3 x (80 - 40)] x [(50,000 x 12) - (30,000 x 12)]

= (2/3 x 40) x (600,000 - 360,000)
= 26.67 x 240,000
= 6,400,800
Age: 40
Monthly income: 50,000
Living expenses: not proven
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY = [2/3 x (80 - age of the

victim)] x (gross annual income x 50%)
= [2/3 x (80 - 40)] x [(50,000 x 12) x 50%]

= (2/3 x 40) x (600,000 x 50%)
= 26.67 x 300,000
= 8,001,000
WHAT MAY BE AWARDED TO THE HEIRS IF THEY FAIL TO SUBSTANTIATE A
CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY?
• As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim
for loss of earning capacity.
• By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded
despite the absence of documentary evidence when:
1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current
labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's
line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or
2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage
under current labor laws.
Tan v. OMC Carriers, GR 190521, January 12, 2011

MAY LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY BE AWARDED EVEN IF THE
DECEASED WAS NOT ACTUALLY EMPLOYED AT THE TIME OF DEATH?
• Loss of earning capacity may be awarded to the heirs of a deceased non-
working victim simply because earning capacity, not necessarily actual
earning, may be lost.
• The SC has unhesitatingly allowed such recovery in respect of children,
students and other non-working or still unemployed victims.
Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames Inc., GR 164749,

March 15, 2017
MAY LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY BE AWARDED EVEN IF THE DECEASED WAS STILL
A STUDENT AT THE TIME OF DEATH?
• Damages for loss of earning capacity were granted to the heirs of a third-year high
school student of the University of the Philippines Integrated School, who had been killed
when she was hit by a passenger bus as she crossed Katipunan Avenue in Quezon City.
• Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to
earn money. Evidence must be presented that the victim, if not yet employed at the time of
death, was reasonably certain to complete training for a specific profession.
• Compensation should be allowed for loss of earning capacity resulting from the death of a
minor who has not yet commenced employment or training for a specific profession if
sufficient evidence is presented to establish the amount thereof.
Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. Court of Appeals, GR 116617, November 16, 1998
HOW IS LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY COMPUTED FOR THE HEIRS OF THE VICTIM WHO WAS
STILL A STUDENT AT THE TIME OF DEATH?
• Damages for loss of earning capacity were ordered to be paid to the heirs of the 15-year-old high
school student of Don Bosco Technical Institute killed by a moving train. The awarded damages for
loss of earning capacity were computed on the basis of the minimum wage in effect at the time of
his death.
• The SC said: “the fact that Aaron was then without a history of earnings should not be taken against
his parents and in favor of the defendants whose negligence not only cost Aaron his life and his right
to work and earn money, but also deprived his parents of their right to his presence and his
services as well.”
• Accordingly, the SC emphatically hold in favor of the indemnification for Aaron’s loss of earning
capacity despite him having been unemployed, 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.
Pereña v. Zarate, GR 157917, August 29, 2012

Actual damages; Civil indemnity
HOW IS CIVIL INDEMNITY AWARDED IN CRIMINAL
CASES DETERMINED?
• The Supreme Court summarized the rules on damages with
respect to crimes.
• Civil indemnity ranges from P20,000 to P100,000
depending on the nature and gravity of the crime
committed.
People v. Jugueta, GR 202124, April 5, 2016

WHAT CIVIL INDEMNITY IS WARRANTED IN CASES OF RAPE CONVICTION?
• Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory
damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.
• The case law also requires automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim
without need of proof because from the nature of the crime, it can be assumed
that she has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. Such award is
separate and distinct from civil indemnity.
• The reduction of civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and moral damages to P50,000.00
is proper because the crime committed by the accused is only simple rape.
People v. Astrologo, GR 169873, June 8, 2007

MAY SPECIAL QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES BE CONSIDERED IN AWARDING
DAMAGES EVEN THOUGH NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION, BUT ESTABLISHED
DURING TRIAL?
• Although it is essential to observe the requirements imposed by Sections 8 and 9 of Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, the requirements should
affect only the criminal liability of the accused, which is the State’s concern, and should
not affect the civil liability of the accused, which is for the benefit of the injured party.
• Where the special qualifying circumstances of age and relationship, although not alleged
in the information, are nonetheless established during the trial, the award of civil indemnity
and moral damages in a conviction for simple rape should equal the award of civil
indemnity and moral damages in convictions for qualified rape.
People v. Bartolini, GR 179498, August 3, 2010

Actual damages; Attorney’s fees
Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs,
cannot be recovered, except:
(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;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation
should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.
Actual damages; Attorney’s fees
WHAT ARE THE TWO CONCEPTS OF ATTORNEY’S FEES?
• In its ordinary sense, it is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for
legal services rendered.
• In its extraordinary concept, it is awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be
paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages. The award that the court may grant to
a successful party by way of attorney’s fee is an indemnity for damages sustained by him
in prosecuting or defending, through counsel, his cause in court. It may be decreed in
favor of the party, not his lawyer, in any of the instances authorized by law.
• The losing party against whom damages by way of attorney’s fees may be assessed is not
bound by, nor is his liability dependent upon, the fee arrangement of the prevailing party
with his lawyer. The amount stipulated in such fee arrangement may, however, be taken
into account by the court in fixing the amount of counsel fees as an element of damages.
Aquino v. Casabar, GR 191470, January 26, 2015

Actual damages; Attorney’s fees; Cases
• The list under Article 2208 is exclusive. (Manila Electric v. Ramoy, GR
158911, March 4, 2008)
• Where granted, the court must explicitly state in the body of the decision,
and not only in the dispositive portion thereof, the legal reason for the
award of attorney’s fees. (Briones v. Macabagdal, GR 150666, August 3,
2010)
▪ The power of the court to award attorneys' fees and litigation expenses
under Article 2208 of the NCC demands factual, legal, and equitable
justification. (Spouses Andrada v. Pilhino, GR 156448, February 23, 2011)
▪ An adverse decision does not ipso facto justify an award of attorney's fees
to the winning party. (Bank of America v. Phil. Racing, GR 150228, July 30,
2009)
Actual damages; Interest
HOW IS INTEREST ON MONETARY AWARDS IN FINAL JUDGMENTS COMPUTED?
• Monetary Board in its Resolution No. 796 dated May 16, 2013: fixed legal interest to 6%
• Guidelines in Eastern Shipping Lines are modified as follows: With regard particularly to an award of
interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the
accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:
• Loan or forbearance of money: the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated
in writing. The interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially
demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be
computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand
• Not a loan or forbearance of money: an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be
imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. Accordingly, where the
demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time
the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially, 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
the judgment of the court is made. The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in
any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
HOW IS INTEREST ON MONETARY AWARDS IN FINAL JUDGMENTS
COMPUTED?
• When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes
final and executory: 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction,
this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a
forbearance of credit.
• Judgments that have become final and executory prior to July 1, 2013,
shall not be disturbed and shall continue to be implemented applying the
rate of interest fixed therein.
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, GR 189871, August 13, 2013

Article 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the
debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the
contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of
stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum.
Article 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon
damages awarded for breach of contract.
Article 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the damages may,
in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the court.
Article 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially
demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point.
Article 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or
damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonable certainty.
Moral damages; Definition
Article 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.
Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages
may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act or omission.
Article 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the

sentimental value of property, real or personal, may be
considered.
Moral damages; Purpose and measure
• Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means,
diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she
has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable action.
• Its award is aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the spiritual status
quo ante; thus, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted.
• Since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances, there is no
hard and fast rule in determining the proper amount.
• The yardstick should be that the amount awarded should not be so palpably and
scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice
or corruption on the part of the trial judge. Neither should it be so little or so
paltry that it rubs salt to the injury already inflicted on plaintiffs.
Kierulf v. CA, GR 99301, March 13, 1997

Moral damages; Recoverability
Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309; [Disrespect of the dead]
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. [Human relations]
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral
damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order
named.
Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the
circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith.
Moral damages; Requisites
1) there is an injury whether physical, mental, or psychological
clearly sustained by the claimant;
2) there is a culpable act or omission factually established;
3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the
proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and
4) the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated
in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
Manila Electric v. Spouses Chua, GR 160422, July 5, 2010

Moral damages; Cases
▪ As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily
brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim’s family. It is inherently
human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of
a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family
of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support,
but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them.
For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation
and proof of the heirs’ emotional suffering. (Carlos Arcoma y Moban v. CA, GR 134784,
December 9, 2002)
▪ Moral damages is also automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof
other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim had
actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. (People v. Lizano, GR 174470,
April 27, 2007)
• Moral damages recovered in cases of illegal detention are predicated on victim's having
suffered serious anxiety and fright when the victim was detained for more than five
months. (People v. Madsali, GR 179570, February 4, 2010)
• Article 2219, par. (7) of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case of
libel, slander or any other form of defamation This provision of law establishes the right of
an offended party in a case for oral defamation to recover from the guilty party damages
for injury to his feelings and reputation. (Occena v. Icamina, GR 82146, January 22, 1990)
▪ In culpa criminal, moral damages could be lawfully due when the accused is found guilty
of physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention,
illegal arrest, illegal search, or defamation. Malicious prosecution can also give rise to a
claim for moral damages. The term "analogous cases," referred to in Article 2219,
following the ejusdem generis rule, must be held similar to those expressly enumerated by
the law. (Expert Travel v. C.A., GR 130030, June 25, 1999)
▪ The filing alone of a civil action should not be a ground for an award of moral damages in
the same way that a clearly unfounded civil action is not among the grounds for moral
damages. (Spouses Suntay v. Keyser Mercantile, GR 208462, December 10, 2014)
▪ Moral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of the employee was attended by
bad faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. (Triple Eight v. NLRC, GR 129584,
December 3, 1998)
▪ The violations mentioned in Arts. 26 and 2219 are not exclusive but are merely examples
and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages therefore are allowable for
actions against a person’s dignity, such as profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous, or
abusive language. (Concepcion v. CA, GR 120706, January 31, 2000)
• To recover moral damages in an action for breach of contract, the breach must be
palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. Mere allegations
of besmirched reputation, embarrassment and sleepless nights are insufficient to warrant
an award for moral damages. It must be shown that the proximate cause thereof was the
unlawful act or omission of Francisco. (Francisco v. Ferrer, GR 142029, February 28,
2001)
▪ Moral damages were awarded to a credit card holder whose card was dishonored
in a foreign country where the holder was not expected to have family members
or close friends nearby to lend him a helping hand. It was twice dishonored in
public places. Worse, the card was first dishonored during a breakfast-cum-
business meeting with respected medical colleagues based in that country. The
holder had absolutely no inkling then that there was a problem with his card.
Moreover, he had no reason to think that something was amiss since he is a
member in good standing for more than ten (10) years and had no previous bad
experience with the card. (Bankard v. Feliciano, GR 141761, July 28, 2006)
▪ Moral damages were awarded to the passenger whose seat was unjustifiably
downgraded from business to economy class in his return flight from Bangkok to
Manila. (PAL v. Lopez, GR 156654, November 20, 2008)
Moral damages; Who may recover
Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309; [Disrespect of the dead]
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. [Human
relations]
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this
article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action
mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
ARE THE SURVIVING BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF A PASSENGER OF A VESSEL THAT SANK DURING
A VOYAGE ENTITLED TO RECOVER MORAL DAMAGES FROM THE VESSEL OWNER AS COMMON
CARRIER?
• To be entitled to moral damages, the siblings must have a right based upon law.
• It is true that under Article 1003 of the Civil Code they succeeded to the entire estate of the late Dr. Curso
in the absence of the latter’s descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, and surviving spouse.
• However, they were not included among the persons entitled to recover moral damages, as enumerated in
Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
• Article 2219 circumscribes the instances in which moral damages may be awarded. The provision does
not include succession in the collateral line as a source of the right to recover moral damages. The usage
of the phrase analogous cases in the provision means simply that the situation must be held similar to
those expressly enumerated in the law in question following the ejusdem generis rule. Hence, Article 1003
of the Civil Code is not concerned with recovery of moral damages.
Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, GR 157009, March 17, 2010

Moral damages; Corporations
➢ The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because, being
an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings, no
emotions, no senses. It cannot, therefore, experience physical suffering and mental
anguish, which call be experienced only by one having a nervous system. (ABS – CBN v.
CA, GR 128690, January 21, 1999)
➢ 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 v. Ago, GR
141994, January 17, 2005)
➢ Any lawyer for the Republic who poses a claim for moral damages on behalf of the State
stands in risk of serious ridicule. (Republic v. Tuvera, GR 148246, February 16, 2007)
➢ As a rule, moral damages are not awarded to a corporation unless it enjoyed good
reputation that the offender debased and besmirched by his actuations. (San Fernando v.
Cargill, GR 178008, October 9, 2013)
When is a corporation entitled to moral
damages?
"As a general rule laid down in ABS-CBN v. CA, a corporation cannot be
entitled to moral damages since physical or mental suffering may only be
experienced by one who has a nervous system, which a corporation being
an artificial being has none. However, the said rule admits exceptions as
already laid down in Filipinas Broadcasting v. AMEC and San Fernando v.
Cargill. In the former, a corporation may recover damages if the case
involves defamation covered under Article 2219(7) of the New Civil Code;
while in the latter, if the actuations of the defendant debased or besmirched
the corporation's good reputation or a contractual breach is attended by
fraud or bad faith as provided under Article 2220 of the same Code, moral
damages may be awarded to the corporation."
Moral damages; Factors
1) Extent of humiliation
2) Degree of pain and suffering
3) Official, political, social, and financial
standing
4) Age of the plaintiff or claimant
HOW ARE SIMILARLY AFFECTED PASSENGERS DIFFER IN AN AWARD FOR MORAL DAMAGES?
• Senator Lopez was then Senate President Pro Tempore. International carriers like defendant know the
prestige of such an office. For the Senate is not only the Upper Chamber of the Philippine Congress, but
the nation's treaty-ratifying body. It may also be mentioned that in his aforesaid office Senator Lopez was
in a position to preside in impeachment cases should the Senate sit as Impeachment Tribunal. And he was
former Vice-President of the Philippines. Senator Lopez was going to the United States to attend a private
business conference of the Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Company; but his aforesaid rank and position were
by no means left behind, and in fact he had a second engagement awaiting him in the United States: a
banquet tendered by Filipino friends in his honor as Senate President Pro Tempore. For the moral
damages sustained by him, therefore, an award of P100,000.00 is appropriate.
• Considering the totality of her suffering and humiliation, an award to Mrs. Maria J. Lopez of P50,000.00
for moral damages will be reasonable.
• Mr. and Mrs. Alfredo Montelibano, Jr., were travelling as immediate members of the family of Senator
Lopez. For their social humiliation, therefore, the award to them of P25,000.00 each is reasonable.
Lopez v. Pan American, GR L-22415, March 30, 1966

Nominal damages; Definition and purpose
Article 2221. 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.
Nominal damages; Nature and
determination
• Under the law, nominal damages are awarded, so that a
plaintiff’s right, which has been invaded or violated by
defendants may be vindicated and recognized.
• The amount to be awarded as such damages should at
least be commensurate to the injury sustained by the
plaintiff considering the concept and purpose of said
damages.
Nominal damages; Recoverability
Article 2222. The court may award nominal damages in
every obligation arising from any source enumerated in
article 1157, or in every case where any property right has
been invaded.
Article 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall

preclude further contest upon the right involved and all
accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or
their respective heirs and assigns.
Nominal damages; Requisites; When
awarded
Requisites:
1. Plaintiff has a right.
2. Right of plaintiff is violated.
3. Purpose is not to indemnify but to vindicate or recognize the right
violated.
When awarded: where a legal right is technically violated and must be

vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of
any kind, or where from the nature of the case, there has been some injury
arising from the breach of contract or legal duty the amount thereof has not
been or cannot be shown
Nominal damages; Cases
• In a case of Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor the parent’s right
which was violated and invaded must be vindicated and recognized,
thereby justifying the award of nominal damages. (People v. Marquez, GR
181440, April 13, 2011)
• The right of the vendor to receive the unpaid balance to the lots sold was
violated by the buyer, and this entitles the seller at the very least to nominal
damages. (Almeda v. Carino, GR 152143, January 13, 2003)
• The termination of the COHLA (Credit-On-Hand Loan Agreement) by the
bank without prior notice and the subsequent dishonor of the check issued
by the plaintiff constitute acts of contra bonos mores under Article 21 of
the Civil Code. The grant of P50,000 as nominal damages is proper.
(Gonzales v. PCIB, GR 180257, February 23, 2011)
• Nominal damages were awarded to the plaintiff on account of his insurance
policy’s cancellation due to nonpayment of premiums but was later on
found out to be erroneous because the the premiums were paid in full but
were not remitted by the insurance company's branch manager. (Areola v.
CA, GR 95641, September 22, 1994)
• When confronted with their failure to deliver on the wedding day the
wedding cake ordered and paid for, the baker gave the lame excuse that
delivery was probably delayed because of the traffic, when in truth, no cake
could be delivered because the order slip got lost. For such prevarication,
the baker must be held liable for nominal damages for insensitivity,
inadvertence or inattention to their customer's anxiety and need of the
hour. (Francisco v. Ferrer, GR 142029, February 28, 2001)
▪ Considering that (1) technically, the excluded heir sustained injury but which, unfortunately,
was not adequately and properly proved, (2) said heir was unlawfully deprived of her legal
participation in the partition of the estate of her adoptive father, (3) other heirs had transferred
portions of the properties involved to third parties, and (4) this case has dragged on for more
than a decade, the SC found it reasonable to grant the excluded heir nominal damages in
recognition of the existence of a technical injury. (Pedrosa v. CA, GR 118680, March 5, 2001)
▪ Nominal damages were awarded to the buyer who bought the lot from the seller in May 1962,
and paid in full her installments on December 22, 1971, but it was only on March 2, 1973, that
a deed of absolute sale was executed in her favor, and notwithstanding the lapse of almost
three years since she made her last payment, the seller still failed to convey the corresponding
transfer certificate of title to the buyer who accordingly was compelled to file the instant
complaint in August of 1974. (Robes-Francisco v. CFI, GR L-41093, October 30, 1978)
• Given the relatively short duration of the child’s kidnapping, the SC found the amount of
P50,000.00 awarded as nominal damages excessive, and hereby reduce the same to
P10,000.00. (People v. Bernardo, GR 144316, March 11, 2002)
Temperate or moderate damages; When
awarded
Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are
more than nominal but less than compensatory damages,
may be recovered when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not,
from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.
Article 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable

under the circumstances.
Temperate damages; Requisites
1) There is actual damage.
2) Pecuniary amount of the damage cannot be proved.
3) Amount must be reasonable.
Temperate damages; Cases
• Temperate damages were awarded to the complainants after finding the
accused guilty of arson, but the extent of damages suffered was not
sufficiently proven in court. (Gonzales v. People, GR 159950, February 12,
2007)
• As to the loss or impairment of earning capacity, there is no doubt that the
plaintiff is an entrepreneur and the founder of his own corporation. It
appears also that he is an industrious and resourceful person with several
projects in line and were it not for the incident, might have pushed them
through. His actual income however has not been sufficiently established
so that the SC cannot award actual damages, but an award of temperate or
moderate damages may still be made on loss or impairment of earning
capacity. (Pleno v. CA, GR 56505, May 9, 1988)
Temperate damages; Cases
• Where the plaintiff suffered pecuniary loss brought about by the collapse of
the perimeter fence by reason of the Contractor’s negligence and failure to
comply with the specifications but failed to prove the exact amount of
damage with certainty as required by law, temperate damages, in lieu of
actual damages, must be awarded. (De Guzman v. Tumolva, GR 188072,
October 19, 2011)
• When no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented
in court, the amount of ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages shall be
awarded. (People v. Jugueta GR 202124, April 5, 2016)
Liquidated damages; Definition and
purpose
Article 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties
to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
Article 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a

penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or
unconscionable.
Article 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant
is not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the
liquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of damages,
and not the stipulation.
Liquidated damages; Reduction
Article 1226. In obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the indemnity for
damages and the payment of interests in case of noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to
the contrary. Nevertheless, damages shall be paid if the obligor refuses to pay the penalty or is
guilty of fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation.
The penalty may be enforced only when it is demandable in accordance with the provisions of
this Code.
Article 1227. The debtor cannot exempt himself from the performance of the obligation by
paying the penalty, save in the case where this right has been expressly reserved for him.
Neither can the creditor demand the fulfillment of the obligation and the satisfaction of the
penalty at the same time, unless this right has been clearly granted him. However, if after the
creditor has decided to require the fulfillment of the obligation, the performance thereof should
become impossible without his fault, the penalty may be enforced.
Liquidated damages; Reduction
Article 1228. Proof of actual damages suffered by the creditor is not
necessary in order that the penalty may be demanded.
Article 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the
principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the
debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be
reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.
Article 1230. The nullity of the penal clause does not carry with it that of
the principal obligation.
The nullity of the principal obligation carries with it that of the penal clause.
Liquidated damages; Rules related to
contractual breach
1. Grounds for equitable reduction of liquidated damages:
a. Iniquitous
b. Unconscionable
c. Partial or irregular performance
2. When stipulation not controlling: when the breach of contract is not the one
contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated; law shall determine
the measure of damages
3. No need to prove amount, only the fact of the breach.
4. The penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of
interests in case of breach, except:
a. When there is a stipulation to the contrary.
b. When the obligor is sued for refusal to pay the agreed penalty.
c. When the obligor is guilty of fraud.
Liquidated damages; Cases
MAY ATTORNEY’S FEES BE AWARDED IN THE NATURE OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES?
• The stipulation on attorney’s fees contained in the said Promissory Note constitutes what is known
as a penal clause. A penalty clause, expressly recognized by law, is an accessory undertaking to
assume greater liability on the part of the obligor in case of breach of an obligation.
• It functions to strengthen the coercive force of obligation and to provide, in effect, for what could be
the liquidated damages resulting from such a breach. The attorney’s fees so provided are awarded
in favor of the litigant, not his counsel.
• The SC found it improper to increase the award of attorney’s fees despite the express stipulation
contained in the said Promissory Note which the SC deemed to be proper under these
circumstances, since it is not intended to be compensation for respondent’s counsel but was rather
in the nature of a penalty or liquidated damages.
Suatengco v. Reyes, GR 162729, December 17, 2008

WHAT ARE THE FACTORS IN REDUCING A PENALTY?
• The question of whether a penalty is reasonable or iniquitous
can be partly subjective and partly objective.
• Its resolution would depend on such factors as, but not
necessarily confined to, the type, extent and purpose of the
penalty, the nature of the obligation, the mode of breach and its
consequences, the supervening realities, the standing and
relationship of the parties, and the like, the application of which,
by and large, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
Ligutan v. CA, GR 138677, February 12, 2012

WILL THE DEFENDANT’S EARLY OFFER TO PAY WARRANT THE REDUCTION OF THE
PENALTY?
• What may be iniquitous and unconscionable in one case, may be totally just and equitable
in another.
• This provision of law will have to be applied to the established facts of any given case.
• Given the circumstances under which GOYU found itself after the occurrence of the fire,
the Court rules the surcharges rates ranging anywhere from 9% to 27%, plus the penalty
charges of 36%, to be definitely iniquitous and unconscionable.
• The Court tempers these rates to 2% and 3%, respectively.
• Furthermore, in the light of GOYU’s offer to pay the amount of P116,301,992.60 to RCBC
as March 1993, which RCBC refused, the SC found it more in keeping with justice and
equity for RCBC not to charge additional interest, surcharges, and penalties from that time
onward.
RCBC v. CA, GR 128833, April 20, 1998

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF MUTUAL BREACH TO THE AWARD OF DAMAGES?
• There is no question that liquidated damages of P20,000.00 were agreed upon by the
parties in case of breach thereof.
• There is no question either that SY had violated the contract by not continuing to provide
the revolving capital.
• As provided for by Article 2227 of the Civil Code, however, liquidated damages, whether
intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or
unconscionable.
• In the present case, LUZON "had not delivered the 60 tons of ipil-ipil leaves monthly as
agreed upon”. He, therefore, neither complied faithfully with the agreement.
• Equitably, therefore, since LUZON had also violated the contract, although the violation
was not actionable, and in the exercise of the Court's discretion, the SC reduced the
liquidated damages to P10,000.00, which is adequate for the purpose intended.
Sy v. CA, GR L-39853, August 17, 1983

Exemplary or corrective damages;
Definition and purpose
Article 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example
or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated
or compensatory damages.
Article 2230. 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 and distinct from fines and shall be
paid to the offended party.
Article 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the
defendant acted with gross negligence.
Article 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary
damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
Exemplary or corrective damages;
Definition and purpose
Article 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court will
decide whether or not they should be adjudicated.
Article 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff
must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the
court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded.
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.
Article 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance shall
be null and void.
Exemplary damages; When imposable;
Requisites
1) Imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory
damages, only after the claimant’s right to it has been
established.
2) Not recoverable as a matter of right, their determination
depending upon the amount of compensatory damages
that may be awarded.
3) The act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in
wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner.
PNB v. CA, GR 108630, April 2, 1996

Exemplary damages; Cases
MAY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY THE AWARD OF EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES IF IT IS NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION BUT PROVED DURING
TRIAL?
• The retroactive application of procedural rule requiring that aggravating
circumstances must be alleged in the information in order to be validly
appreciated by the court cannot adversely affect the rights of a private offended
party that have become vested where the offense was committed prior to the
effectivity of said rules as is the case here.
• Consequently, aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the
information but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited purpose
of determining appellant’s liability for exemplary damages.
People v. Diunsay-Jalandoni, GR 174277, February 8, 2007

WHEN MAY EXEMPLARY DAMAGES BE AWARDED IN THE
ABSENCE OF AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE?
• Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can
be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating
circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case
show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the
offender.
People v. Dalisay, GR 188106, November 25, 2009

WHAT NATURE OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFIES
THE AWARD OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES?
• Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating
circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to
the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender.
• In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating
circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the
offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the
unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.
People v. Dadulla, GR 172321, February 9, 2011

MAY THE COURT RESTORE THE DELETED AWARD OF
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES WITHOUT ANY PRAYER FOR SUCH
RESTORATION?
• It is not only the demands of substantial justice but also the
compelling considerations of public policy, which impel the
Court to the conclusion that the trial court's award of exemplary
damages was erroneously deleted and must be restored and
brought more nearly to the level which public policy and
substantial justice require.
Kapalaran Bus Line v. Coronado, GR 85331, August 25, 1989

WHEN MAY OWNERS/EMPLOYERS BE HELD LIABLE FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES?
• It is not enough to say that an example should be made, or corrective measures
employed, for the public good, especially in accident cases where public carriers are
involved.
• For the causative negligence in such cases is personal to the employees actually in
charge of the vehicles, and it is they who should be made to pay this kind of damages by
way of example or correction, unless by the demonstrated tolerance or approval of the
owners they themselves can be held at fault and their fault is of the character described in
Article 2232 of the Civil Code.
• Otherwise, there would be practically no difference between their liability for exemplary
damages and their liability for compensatory damages, which needs no proof of their
negligence since the suit is predicated on breach of contract and due diligence on their
part does not constitute a defense.
Munsayac v. De Lara, GR L-21151, June 26, 1968

WHEN MAY OWNERS/EMPLOYERS BE HELD LIABLE FOR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES?
• Singapore Airlines acted in bad faith.
• The trial court concluded that this inattentiveness and rudeness of Singapore
Airlines’ personnel to Fernandez’s plight was gross enough amounting to bad
faith.
• Article 2232 of the Civil Code provides that in a contractual or quasi-contractual
relationship, exemplary damages may be awarded only if the defendant had acted
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
• In this case, Singapore Airlines’ employees acted in a wanton, oppressive or
malevolent manner. The award of exemplary damages is, therefore, warranted in
this case.
Singapore Airlines v. Fernandez, GR 142305, December 10, 2003

Miscellaneous rules
• Damages that cannot co-exist:
• NOMINAL with other damages
• ACTUAL and LIQUIDATED, unless stipulated
• Damages that must co-exist: EXEMPLARY with moral, temperate, liquidated, or
compensatory
• Damages that must stand alone: NOMINAL
• Damages that must be alleged, pleaded, and proved:
• ACTUAL
• LIQUIDATED
• MORAL
• Damages that need no specific prayer to be recoverable:
• NOMINAL
• TEMPERATE
• EXEMPLARY
Graduation of Damages
1. Duty of injured party
2. Rules
a. In crimes
b. In quasi-delicts
c. In contracts and quasi-contracts
d. Liquidated damages
e. Compromise
Duty of injured party
Article 2203. 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.
• It is the burden of defendant 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 v.
CA, GR 125817, January 16, 2002)
In crimes
Article 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated
may be respectively increased or lessened according to
the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Apportionment
Courts are used to be given a free hand in determining the apportionment of civil liability.
However, the Supreme Court, in People v. Montescarlos, held that the liability of persons
criminally liable for felonies must be commensurate with the degree of participation of the
accused in the crime committed. It added:
“In such a situation, the accomplice who just cooperated in the execution of the
offense but whose participation is not indispensable to the commission of the crime
is made to pay the same amount of civil indemnity as the principal by direct
participation who took a direct part in the execution of the criminal act. It is an
injustice when the penalty and liability imposed are not commensurate to the actual
responsibility of the offender; for criminal responsibility is individual and not
collective, and each of the participants should be liable only for the acts committed
by him. The proportion of this individual liability must be graduated not only
according to the nature of the crime committed and the circumstances attending it,
but also the degree and nature of participation of the individual offender.”
People v. Montesclaros, GR 181084, June 16, 2009 [Per C.J. Puno, First Division]
In quasi-delicts
Article 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff
shall reduce the damages that he may recover.
Article 2215. 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:
1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract;
2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract;
3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the
defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best
to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.
In contracts and quasi-contracts
Article 2215. 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:
1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the
contract;
2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the
contract;
3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the
defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his
best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.
Liquidated damages
Article 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the
penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or
irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there
has been no performance, the penalty may also be
reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or
unconscionable.
Compromise
Article 2031. The courts may mitigate the damages to
be paid by the losing party who has shown a sincere
desire for a compromise.
Article 2034. There may be a compromise upon the

civil liability arising from an offense; but such
compromise shall not extinguish the public action for
the imposition of the legal penalty.
Summary
Sources of Possible
Bases or Grounds
Obligations Adjustment
Increase or
Crimes Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
Reduce
Contributory 1) Contravention of terms
Quasi-delicts Reduce
negligence 2) Derivation of some benefit
Contributory 3) Acting upon advice of
Contracts Reduce counsel
negligence
4) Loss would have resulted
Quasi- in any event
Reduce -- 5) Doing one’s best to lessen
contracts
the loss or injury
DAMAGES IN CASE OF DEATH
Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be
at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:
1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and
the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case
be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent
physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of
his death;
2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of article 291,
the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate
or intestate succession, may demand support from the person causing the death, for a
period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court;
3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased
may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the
deceased.
• Civil indemnity: When someone dies due to someone’s
fault or negligence, there is civil liability arising from the
criminal offense
• Loss of earning capacity: When someone dies, his/her
heirs are deprived of the deceased’s income
• Actual or temperate damages: When someone dies,
there are medical, funeral, and burial expenses.
• Moral damages: When someone dies, his/her loved
ones suffer emotionally
• Exemplary damages: To correct a public wrong
• Attorney’s fees: If just and equitable
• Cost of suit: As ordinarily adjudged by the courts
• Legal interest: On the monetary judgment once it has
become final and until it is fully paid
NOTE: cannot award:
• Liquidated damages: Parties cannot agree on future
liability in case one kills the other.
• Nominal damages: Life’s value is not minimal.
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
Practice Problems; 2022 Bar
A 12-year-old seventh grade student living in the company of their
parents brought a gun owned by the father to school. With it, the
student shot a classmate who had been a bully. The bullet hit the bully,
but the wound was not fatal. The bully's parents, incensed by the
event, sued the parents of the 12-year-old seventh grade student for
damages.
The defendant parents moved to dismiss the suit, claiming that they
could never be held liable for damages since they did not shoot the
bully themselves.
Should the motion to dismiss be granted on this ground? Explain.
A 12-year-old seventh grade student living
in the company of their parents brought a STEPS:
gun owned by the father to school. With it, 1) Re-read the question.
the student shot a classmate who had been
a bully. The bullet hit the bully, but the 2) Is it asking whether the defendant
wound was not fatal. The bully's parents,
incensed by the event, sued the parents of parents are liable?
the 12-year-old seventh grade student for
damages. 3) Which law should apply?
4) Is the school the one liable?
The defendant parents moved to dismiss the
suit, claiming that they could never be held
liable for damages since they did not shoot
the bully themselves.
Should the motion to dismiss be granted
on this ground? Explain.
Suggested Answer
No, the motion to dismiss should not be granted on the ground that the
parents did not actually shoot the bully.
Under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, parents are responsible for
the damages caused by their children under 21 years old who live in their
company.
Here, the student who shot the bully is 12-year old child of the defendant
parents. Also, said child still lives in the company of his parents. The
defendant parents are still responsible for the damages caused by said child.
Hence, the motion to dismiss should not be granted on the ground that the
parents did not actually shoot the bully.
A 100-year-old tree inside a university was uprooted by strong winds caused by
a super typhoon. This was despite the university's prior efforts to maintain the
strength of the tree's roots.
The tree was blown away until it hit a nearby fast-food restaurant where a Bar
candidate was reviewing for the Bar Examinations. The Bar candidate, who was
then the only person dining inside the fast-food restaurant, suffered physical
injuries.
The super typhoon was enabled by climate change.
Can the university be held liable for the physical injuries suffered by the Bar
candidate? Explain.
A 100-year-old tree inside a university was
uprooted by strong winds caused by a super STEPS:
typhoon. This was despite the university's prior
efforts to maintain the strength of the tree's roots.
1) Re-read the question.
The tree was blown away until it hit a nearby fast-
food restaurant where a Bar candidate was 2) What is the university’s obligation?
reviewing for the Bar Examinations. The Bar
candidate, who was then the only person dining 3) Is there someone obligated to keep
inside the fast-food restaurant, suffered physical
injuries. the candidate unharmed?
The super typhoon was enabled by climate 4) Is the fast-food restaurant the one
change. liable?
Can the university be held liable for the
physical injuries suffered by the Bar
candidate? Explain.
Suggested Answer
No, the university cannot be held liable for the physical injuries suffered by
the Bar candidate.
Under Article 2191 of the Civil Code, proprietors are responsible for
damages caused by the falling of trees, if not caused by force majeure.
Here, the tree was uprooted and blown away by strong winds caused by a
super typhoon. The occurrence of the super typhoon is considered a force
majeure. Even if climate change is humanity's responsibility, it is not clear
how the university contributed to climate change.
Hence, the university cannot be held liable for the physical injuries suffered
by the Bar candidate.
A bride declined to appear on her wedding day. Instead, she sent a note to her prospective
groom, saying that she needed to be honest to herself by admitting that the institution of
marriage was not for her. The bride wrote that she came to this conclusion after
contemplating on the tweets of the #LabGuru. She also wrote that to atone for her non-
appearance, she would post a glowing recommendation of the prospective groom as a
partner on her Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok accounts.
The couple had previously dated for almost eight years. The whole time, the prospective
groom had been loyal and caring.
It was the bride who covered all the wedding expenses.
Heartbroken and embarrassed, the prospective groom sued the prospective bride for moral
damages, alleging that she had breached her promise to marry him.
Will the suit prosper? Explain.
A bride declined to appear on her wedding day. Instead,
she sent a note to her prospective groom, saying that she STEPS:
needed to be honest to herself by admitting that the
institution of marriage was not for her. The bride wrote that
she came to this conclusion after contemplating on the
tweets of the #LabGuru. She also wrote that to atone for
her non-appearance, she would post a glowing
1) Re-read the question.
recommendation of the prospective groom as a partner on 2) Does it matter who paid for the
her Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok accounts.
The couple had previously dated for almost eight years. expenses?
The whole time, the prospective groom had been loyal and
caring. 3) What was asked in the suit?
It was the bride who covered all the wedding expenses. 4) If the prospective groom asked for
Heartbroken and embarrassed, the prospective groom
sued the prospective bride for moral damages, alleging
actual damages, would your answer
that she had breached her promise to marry him. be the same?
Will the suit prosper? Explain.
Suggested Answer
Yes, the suit will prosper.
Under Article 21 of the Civil Code, any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another
in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage. Also, jurisprudence provides that mere breach of promise to marry is
not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-
described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be
solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for
which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.
Here, the couple had dated for almost 8 years. All wedding preparations were made and
paid for, only for the bride to decline to appear on the wedding day. It is contrary to good
customs.
Hence, the suit will prosper.
CASE UPDATES
De Jesus vs. Dr. Uyloan, GR 234851,
February 15, 2022
• Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure
of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care
and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar
conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances.
• In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that the
physician or surgeon either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent
physician or surgeon would have done, or that he or she did something that a
reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done, and that the
failure or action caused injury to the patient.
• There are thus four elements involved in medical negligence cases, namely: duty,
breach, injury, and proximate causation.
February 15, 2022
• Thus, where the complaint contains averments of the foregoing elements and the
defendant doctor failed to observe such degree of care which caused damage or
harm to the plaintiff patient, the cause of action is one for medical negligence
under the law on torts rather than contract.
• The above complaint indeed states a categorical declaration of the case being
brought on the basis of a "medical contract between the Plaintiffs and Defendants
Uy loan and Ojeda" under the statement of cause of action against said doctors.
However, the rest of the allegations and arguments unmistakably show that the
cause of action is premised upon the law and jurisprudence on damages in
general and medical negligence under the Civil Code provisions on quasi-delict.
There is no mention at all of any express promise on the part of the defendant
doctors to provide medical treatment or achieve a specific result. The absence of
an express agreement as basis for contractual liability is evident from a plain
invocation of an implied contract between the parties.
February 15, 2022
• The fact that the physician-patient relationship is consensual does not necessarily mean it is a
contractual relation, in the sense in which petitioner employs this term by equating it with any
other transaction involving exchange of money for services.
• Indeed, the medical profession is affected with public interest. Once a physician-patient relationship
is established, the legal duty of care follows. The doctor accordingly becomes duty-bound to use at
least the same standard of care that a reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a medical
condition under similar circumstances.
• Breach of duty occurs when the doctor fails to comply with, or improperly performs his duties under
professional standards. This determination is both factual and legal, and is specific to each individual
case.
• If the patient, as a result of the breach of duty, is injured in body or in health, actionable
malpractice is committed, entitling the patient to damages.
February 15, 2022
• In the light of the foregoing, We hold that a mere reference to an implied contract
between the physician and the patient in general is insufficient for pleading a
cause of action under the contract theory of professional malpractice.
• An action for medical malpractice based on contract must allege an express

promise to provide medical treatment or achieve a specific result.
• Clearly, the cause of action in this case is one for medical malpractice or medical
negligence premised on the "breach of [the defendant doctors’] professional
duties of skill and care, or their improper performance by physician surgeon,“
whereby the plaintiff suffered injury and damages.
February 15, 2022
• Petitioner's attempt to present a hybrid tort and contract claim arising from
the negligent acts of his physicians thus fails.
• Apparently, inclusion of the contract approach to seek damages from the

defendant physicians was an afterthought intended to revive a stale
claim.
• From the recitals of the complaint, petitioner's cause of action accrued on

September 15, 2010, the day Dr. Uyloan and Dr. Ojeda performed the
operation on his gallbladder. Clearly, the filing of the case against said
physicians on November 10, 2015, is already barred by prescription.
Guevarra vs. Banach, GR 214016,
November 24, 2021
• Guevarra and Banach met through a pastor, and the latter subsequently courted the former until
they became a couple. Both agreed to get married, with Banach giving Guevarra P500,000 to buy a
lot for their conjugal home.
• However, Guevarra broke up with Banach after she found out that he was not a divorcee, as he led
her to believe, but was actually still married to his third wife.
• This prompted Banach to sue Guevarra and her parents before the RTC.
• The RTC ruled in favor of Banach and awarded moral damages and attorney’s fee. On appeal, the
CA issued a Decision on January 29, 2007, similarly ordering Guevarra and her parents to return
the money under the principle of unjust enrichment.
• However, it deleted the awards of moral damages and attorney’s fees, as it ruled that Banach’s
actions were tainted with fraud and deceit, and that he did not have the purest intentions
in expressing his desire to marry Guevarra.
• The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court , the main issue being whether or not the Order
to return the P500,000 is proper.
November 24, 2021
• The Court agreed with the CA that Banach’s actions were tainted with fraud and deceit,
and that he did not have the purest intentions in marrying Guevarra. It noted that Banach lied
about his marital status, and even hid his true name from Guevarra.
• “These acts suffice to justify the wedding’s cancellation. Finding out that one’s betrothed is still
married to another person, and that they are not who they say they are, are reasons enough to
conclude bad faith…Since respondent himself did not act in good faith, he cannot claim
damages under the New Civil Code. The unjust enrichment principle under Article 22 only
applies if the property is acquired without legal grounds,” said the Court.
• The Court explained that Banach gave the money as a gift to help Guevarra and her
parents with their possible eviction from their home. It added that the money being a gift,
petitioner Guevarra is correct to say that she cannot be compelled to return the same.
November 24, 2021
• Wassmer did not depart from the doctrine that a mere breach of promise to marry
is not an actionable wrong. The award in Wassmer was not based on the breach
of promise to marry, but on Article 21 of the New Civil Code. Wassmer ruled that,
while a breach of promise to marry was not actionable, walking out of a wedding
two days prior, after all had been prepared, was quite different. The defendant's
act was deemed "palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs," for which
the award of damages was proper. Indeed, "the extent to which acts not contrary
to law may be perpetrated with impunit[y] is not limitless[,]" as these acts are still
subject to the human relations provisions of the New Civil Code.
• Litigation to the sorrows caused by a broken heart and a broken promise must be
discouraged.

Torts and Damages (For AUSL) Bar 2022 (For Reviewees)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts and Damages (For AUSL) Bar 2022 (For Reviewees)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUSL PRE-BAR REVIEW

for November 2022 Bar Exam

any harm or injury resulting from a violation of a legal

A violation of a legal right leads to a cause of action in

1. According to manner of commission

1) Article 19 (abuse of rights)

2) Article 20 (acts contrary to law)

3) Article 21 (acts contrary to morals)

4) Article 22 (unjust enrichment)

• General sanction for all other provisions of law which do not

• Accion in rem verso

Also known as CULPA AQUILIANA

the fault or negligence of a person, who, by his act or

Fontanilla v. Maliaman, GR 55963, December 1, 1989; GR 55963, February 27, 1991

• Article 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons

“Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the

Picart v. Smith, GR L-12219, March 15, 1918

a principle that involves damage without injury, therefore

Custodio v. CA, GR 116100, February 9, 1996

Proximate cause is that which, in natural and continuous

Ocean Builders v. Spouses Cubacub, GR 150898, April

One which destroys the causal connection between the

• Cause: conduct that is a substantial factor in bringing

• Cause and Condition Test: If the defendant has created

Picart v. Smith, GR L-12219, March 15, 1918

It involves voluntary acts or omissions that result in injury to

• The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case

Ilao-Oreta vs. Ronquillo, GR 172406, October 11, 2007

Article 1163. Every person obliged to give something is also obliged

• The prudent man is expected to act according to the circumstances

The diligence with which the law requires the individual at

Sicam v. Jorge, GR 159617, August 8, 2007

They should exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily

determined through the balancing of the foreseeability

• Evidence: testimonial, documentary, or real

• Quantum: preponderance of evidence

• As a general rule, the plaintiff has the burden to prove

A causal connection must exist between the injury received and

Tison v. Spouses Pomasin, GR 173180, August 24, 2012

It is not for the defendant to explain or prove its defense to

DM Consunji v. CA, GR 137873, April 20, 2001

If the cause of the injury or damage is the plaintiff’s

Persons held vicariously liable under Article 2180 may

If the negligence of the plaintiff cooperated with the negligence of

If merely contributory to his injury, the immediate and proximate

a principle that involves damage without injury, therefore

A specific provision of law negates liability arising from

Article 97 (Consumer Act): using unsafe product deems assumption of risk

The negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a

Prescription of an action based on quasi delict does not operate as a bar to an

A complete defense where force is exerted on the

Example: driver forced to drive his vehicle by armed men,

Responsibility for fault or negligence is entirely separate

Custodio v. CA, GR 116100, February 9, 1996

• Purpose: to recover what was actually lost, or to compensate what was

Candano v. Sugata-On, GR 163212, March 13, 2007

LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY = life expectancy x (gross

LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY = [2/3 x (80 - age of the

= [2/3 x (80 - 40)] x [(50,000 x 12) - (30,000 x 12)]

LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY = [2/3 x (80 - age of the

= [2/3 x (80 - 40)] x [(50,000 x 12) x 50%]

Tan v. OMC Carriers, GR 190521, January 12, 2011

Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames Inc., GR 164749,