TORTFEASOR

1. DIRECT TORTFEASOR
2.1. Persons Exercising Parental Authority
Art. 2176, CC.Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
Parental Authority- It consists, to a large extent, of the instruction and supervision of
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
the child. May be exercised by:
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
1. Parents/Adoptive parents
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
2. Court-appointed guardians
provisions of this Chapter.
3. Substitute Parental Authorities
a. Grandparents
The direct tortfeasor is one who is made liable for a tort committed through his own acts.
b. Oldest qualified sibling over 21 years
The tortfeasor may be a natural or juridical person.
c. Child‟s actual custodian, provided he is qualified and over
21 years
a. NATURAL PERSONS
4. Special Parental Authorities
a. School
In order for one to be liable as a direct tortfeasor, the requisites of Art. 2176 must
b. Administrators
be fulfilled:
1. Act or omission c. Teachers
2. Damage to another d. Individual, entity, or institution engaged in child abuse
3. Fault or negligence
4. No pre-existing contractual relation Available Defense- Proof that the parent/guardian observed all diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent the damage.
In other words, the direct tortfeasor is liable for quasi-delict. Liability consists in the
1. Parents
payment of damages for the injury suffered.
Art. 2180 (2), CC. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
2023 NOTE: Damage under the 2nd requisite pertains to injury.
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who
live in their company.
b. JURISDICAL PERSONS
Art. 211, FC. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall
For juridical persons, the rules on vicarious liability in the next section applies.
be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or
omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and
under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided
by law.

2. Guardians
Art. 2180 (3), CC. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors
or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their
2. PERSONS MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR OTHERS(Vicarious Liability)
company.

Art. 2180, CC. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not The liability of guardians with respect to their wards is governed by the
same rule as in the liability of parents with respect to their children below
only for one‟s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible. 21 years and who live with them.

Minors or incapacitated tortfeasors without a parent or guardian(Art.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
2182)
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
Answerable with his own property in an action against him. A guardian ad
father of a family to prevent the damage.
litem shall be appointed.
Doctrine of Vicarious Liability(Art. 2180)- The obligation imposed under Art. 2176
(i.e., to pay for injury suffered) is also demandable from those persons (natural or
juridical) who are responsible for the person who has committed a quasi-delict (i.e., the
direct tortfeasor).

Under this, liability isPRIMARY AND DIRECT (solidarily liable with the direct
tortfeasor), not subsidiary. It is not conditioned upon the insolvency of or prior recourse
against the direct tortfeasor.

4BLUE 95 NOTE: Art. 2180 does not provide for automatic liability. It only gives
rise to a presumption of negligence on the part of the persons mentioned. The
2.2. Teachers and Schools
presumption is rebuttable by a showing of the person‟s exercise of the diligence
required.
Art. 2180 (7), CC. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or
Rationale- To extend liability by legal fiction to those in a position to exercise absolute
apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
or limited controlover the direct tortfeasor. These personsbecome liable for their own
omission to comply with their duty to exercise supervision over the persons for whom
Art. 218, FC.The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual,
they are responsible.
entity or institution engaged in child shall have special parental authority
and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision,
When NOT Applicable- When moral culpability can be directly imputed to the direct
instruction, or custody.
tortfeasor, as when there is actual intent to cause harm to others.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities
whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or
Persons Vicariously Liable For Damages Caused By:
institution.
Parents Minor children who live in their company
Guardians Minors or incapacitated children who are under their Art. 219, FC. Those given the authority and responsibility under the
authority and live in their company preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages
Owners and managers of an Employees in their service of the branches in which caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents,
establishment or enterprise the latter are employed or on the occasion of their judicial guardians, or the persons exercising substitute parental
functions authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
Employers Employee and household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks; even though the The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph
former are not engaged in any business or industry shall NOT apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence
State Special agents required under the particular circumstances.
Teachers or heads of Pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
establishments of arts and remain in their custody. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be
trade governed by the provisions of the CC on quasi-delicts.

4BLUE 95: Available Defense- Proof that the teacher/school observed all diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent the damage.

1
2.3. Owners, Managers of Establishments, Employers
Art. 2180 (4), FC. 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 theirfunctions.
Art. 2180 (5), FC. 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.
Nature of employer’s liability
Direct- The basis of his liability is not his employee‟s negligence, but his own
negligence in hiring and supervising the employee.
Primary- The amount from which he is liable may be pursued without having to
exhaust the employee‟s assets, as opposed to subsidiary liability under the RPC.
Solidary- He may recover full amount of the liability from his employee, as per
Art. 2182, and not merely a prorated amount, unlike in Art. 2184, CC.
What must be established for vicarious liability:
1. Existence of an employer-employee relationship between company and
tortfeasor
2. Tortious act had been committed while the tortfeasor was acting in the
normal course of employment
Basis of Liability
Employer’s negligence in:
1. The selection of their employees (culpain eligiendo)
2. The supervision over their employees(culpa in vigilando)
Presumption of Negligence (Pater familias)
The presentation of proof of the negligence of its employee gives rise to the presumption
that the defendant employer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of its employees.
Available Defense
Proof of due care and diligence in the:
1. Selection of employees- Careful examination of theapplicant for
employment as to his qualifications, experience and record of service
2. Supervision of employee-
a. Formulation of standard operating procedures, suitable rules
and regulations, and issuance of proper instructions
b. Monitoring of their implementation
c. Imposition of disciplinary measuresin case of their breach
2.4. The State
Sec. 3, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution. The State may not be sued without
its consent.
Art. 2180 (6), CC. 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.
Who may be sued under the State
1. A special agent under Art. 2180
2. Instrumentalities discharging proprietaryfunctions
3. The power to enter into contractsimplies the consent to be sued
4. The charter of the instrumentality may expressly provide that it maybe
sued
5. Those that consent to be sued
3. JOINT TORTFEASORS
Art. 2194, FC. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict
is solidary.
2
LEGAL INJURY
1. CONCEPT
In order that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, that act must be not
only hurtful, but wrongful. The damage must be damnum et injuria or legal injury.
To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be:
1. Right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant
2. Damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom
Injury v. Damage v. Damages
1. Injury: The illegal invasion of a legal right(i.e., legal injury)
2. Damage: The loss, hurt, or harm whichresults from the injury
3. Damages: The compensation awarded forthe damage suffered
Distinguished from Damnum Absque Injuria
If a person sustains actual damage (harm or loss to his person or property) that is
not considered by law as an injury (i.e., legal injury), such damage is regarded as
damnum absque injuria.
There can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm
was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the consequences
must be borne by the injured person alone.
2. ELEMENTS OF RIGHT
4BLUE 95: The legal rights of each member of society constitute the measure of the
corresponding legal duties, mainly negative in character, which the existence of those
rights imposes upon all other members of society. The breach of these general duties
whether due to willful intent or to mere inattention gives rise to an obligation to
indemnify the injured party.
3. VIOLATION OF RIGHT OR LEGAL INJURY
Under Articles 19 to 21 of the Civil Code, an act which causes injury to
another may be made the basis for an award of damages.
The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are the following:
1. There is a legal right or duty;
2. which is exercised in bad faith;
3. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not
especially provide for their own sanction. Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or
negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall
indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby.
Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements:
1. There is an act which is legal;
2. but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public
policy;
3. and it is done with intent to injure.
4. CLASSES OF INJURY
LEGAL INJURY
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, and 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. Thus, there must first be the breach of some duty and the
imposition of liability for that breach before damages may be awarded; it is not
sufficient to state that there should be tort liability merely because the plaintiff
suffered some pain and suffering.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
Under this principle, the legitimate exercise of a person's rights, even if it causes
loss toanother,does not automatically result in an actionable injury. The law
does not prescribe a remedy for the loss. This principle does NOT, however, apply
when there is an abuse of a person's right, or when the exercise of this right is
suspended or extinguished pursuant to a court order. Indeed, in the availment of
one's rights, one must act with justice, give their due, and observe honesty and
good faith.
Q: Dr. Jack, a surgeon, holds clinic at the St. Vincent's Hospital and pays rent to the
hospital. The fees of Dr. Jack are paid directly to him by the patient or through the
cashier of the hospital. The hospital publicly displays in the lobby the names and
specializations of the doctors associated or accredited by it, including that of Dr. Jack.
Marta engaged the services of Dr. Jack because of recurring stomach pain. It was
diagnosed that she is suffering from cancer and had to be operated on. Before the
operation, she was asked to sign a "consent for hospital care," which reads: "Permission
is hereby given to the medical, nursing and laboratory staff of the St. Vincent's Hospital
to perform such procedures and to administer such medications and treatments as may
be deemed necessary or advisable by the physicians of this hospital for and during the
confinement." After the surgery, the attending nurses reported that two (2) sponges were
missing. Later, Marta died due to complications brought about by the sponges that were
left in her stomach. The husband of Marta sued the hospital and Dr. Jack for damages
arising from negligence in the medical procedure. The hospital raised the defense that
Dr. Jack is not its employee as it did not hire Dr. Jack nor pay him any salary or
compensation. It has absolutely no control over the medical services and treatment being
provided by Dr. Jack. Dr. Jack even signed an agreement that he holds the hospital free
and harmless from any liability arising from his medical practice in the hospital. Is St.
Vincent's Hospital liable for the negligence of Dr. Jack? Explain your answer. (2016
Bar)
A: Yes, St. Vincent‟s Hospital is liable. In the case of Professional Services v.
Agana (513 SCRA 478 [2007]), the Supreme Court held that the hospital is liable
to the Aganas, not under the principle of respondent superior for lack of evidence
of an employer-employee relationship with Dr. Ampil but under the principle of
ostensible agency for the negligence of Dr. Ampil, pro hac vice, under the principle
of corporate negligence for its failure to perform its duties as a hospital. While it is
true that there was insufficient evidence that St. Vincent‟s Hospital exercised the
power of control or wielded such power over the means and the details of the
specific process by which Dr. Jack applied his skills in Maria‟s treatment, there is
ample evidence that St. Vincent‟s Hospital held out to the patient, Marta, that Dr.
Jack was its agent (principle of ostensible agency). The two factor that determine
apparent authority are present: (1) the hospital‟s implied manifestation to the
patient which led the latter to conclude that the doctor was the hospital‟s agent; and
(2) the patient‟s reliance upon the conduct of the hospital and the doctor, consisted
with ordinary care andprudence. The corporate negligence ascribed to St. Vincent‟s
Hospital is different from the medical negligence attributed to Dr. Jack. The duties
of the hospital are distinct from those of the doctorconsultant practicing within its
premises in relation to the patient; hence, the failure of St. Vincent‟s Hospital to
fulfill its duties as a hospital corporation gave rise to a direct liability to Marta
distinct from that ofDr. Jack.
Q: Explain the following concepts and doctrines and give an example of each: concept
of trust de son tort (constructive trust) and doctrine of discovered peril (last clear
chance). (2007 Bar)
A: A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST is a trust not created by any word or phrase,
either expressly or impliedly, evincing a direct intention to create a trust, but is one
that arises in order to satisfy the demands of justice. It does not come about by
agreement or intention but mainly operation of law and construed as a trust against
one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to
property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience to hold. (Heirs of
Lorenzo Yap v. CA, G.R. No. 133047, August 17, 1990)
The following are examples of constructive trust:
1. Art. 1455 which provides: “If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the
person obtaining it is, by force of law considered a trustee of an implied trust for
the benefit of the person for whom the property comes.
2. Art. 1451 which provides: “When land passes by succession through any person
and he causes the legal title to be put in the name of another, a trust is established
by implication of law for the benefit of the true owner.”
3. Art. 1454 which provides: “If an absolute conveyance of property is made in
order to secure the performance of an obligation of the grantor toward the grantee,
a trust by virtue of law is established. If the fulfillment of the obligation is offered
by the grantee when it becomes due, he may demand the reconveyance of the
property to him.”
4. Art. 1455 which provides: “When any trustee, guardian or any person holding a
fiduciary relationship uses trust funds for the purchase of property and causes
conveyance to be made to him or to third person, a trust us established by operation
of law in favor of the person to whom the funds belong.”
The DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE states that where the plaintiff was
guilty of prior or antecedent negligence, but the defendant, who had the ultimate
opportunity to avoid the impending harm failed to do so, it is the defendant who is
liable for all the consequences of the accident notwithstanding the prior negligence
of the plaintiff.
An example is where a person was riding a pony on a bridge and improperly pulled
the pony to the wrong side when he saw a car coming. The driver of the car did not
stop or change direction, and nearly hit the horse, and, the frightened animal
jumped to its death. The driver of the car is guilty of negligence because he had a
fair opportunity to avoid the accident and failed to avail himself of that
opportunity.
He is liable under the doctrine of last clear chance. (Picart v. Smith, G.R. No.
L12219, March 15, 1918)
Q: Explain the concept of vicarious liability in quasi-delicts. (2002 Bar)
A: The doctrine of VICARIOUS LIABILITY is that which renders a person liable
for the negligence of others for whose acts or omission the law makes him
responsible on the theory that they are under his control and supervision. LEGAL
INJURY (2004, 2005 BAR)
3
Q: Mr. and Mrs. R own a burned-out building, the firewall of which collapsed and
destroyed the shop occupied by the family of Mr and Mrs S, which resulted in injuries to
said couple and the death of their daughter. Mr and Mrs S had been warned by Mr &
Mrs R to vacate the shop in view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the former
failed to do so. Mr. & Mrs. S filed against Mr and Mrs R an action for recovery of
damages the former suffered as a result of the collapse of the firewall. In defense, Mr
and Mrs R rely on the doctrine of last clear chance alleging that Mr and Mrs S had the
last clear chance to avoid the accident if only they heeded the former‟s warning to vacate
the shop, and therefore Mr and Mrs R‟s prior negligence should be disregarded. If you
were the judge, how would you decide the case? State your reasons. (1990 Bar)
A: I would decide in favor of Mr.& Mrs. S. The proprietor of a building or
structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse,
if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. (Art. 2190) As regards the
defense of “last clear chance,” the same is not tenable because according to the SC
the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable to instances covered by Art 2190
of the Civil Code. (De Roy v. CA, G.R. L-80718, January 29, 1988) The role of the
common law "last clear chance" doctrine in relation to Art. 2179 is merely to
mitigate damages within the context of contributory negligence. (Phoenix
Construction, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987)
Q: DT and MT were prominent members of the frequent travelers‟ club of FX Airlines.
In Hongkong, the couple were assigned seats in Business Class for which they had
bought tickets. On checking in, however, they were told they were upgraded by
computer to First Class for the flight to Manila because the Business Section
wasoverbooked. Both refused to transfer despite better seats, food, beverage and other
services in First Class. They said they had guests in Business Class they should attend
to. They felt humiliated, embarrassed and vexed, however, when the stewardess
allegedly threatened to offload them if they did not avail of the upgrade. Thus, they gave
in, but during the transfer of luggage DT suffered pain in his arm and wrist. After arrival
in Manila, they demanded an apology from FX‟s management as well as indemnity
payment. When none was forthcoming, they sued the airline for a million pesos in
damages. Is the airline liable for actual and moral damages? Why or why not? Explain
briefly. (2004 Bar)
A: FX Airlines committed breach of contract when it upgraded DT and MT, over
their objections, to First Class because they had contracted for Business Class
passage. However, although there is a breach of contract, DT and MT are entitled
to actual damages only for such pecuniary losses suffered by them as a result of
such breach. There seems to be no showing that they incurred such pecuniary loss.
There is no showing that the pain in DT's arm and wrist resulted directly from the
carrier's acts complained of. Hence, they are not entitled to actual damages.
Moreover, DT could have avoided the alleged injury by requesting the airline staff
to do the luggage transfer as a matter of duty on their part. There is also no basis to
award moral damages for such breach of contract because the facts of the
problemdo not show bad faith or fraud on the part of the airline. (Cathay Pacific v.
Vazquez, G.R. No. 150843, March 14, 2003) However, they may recover moral
damages if the cause of action is based on Art. 21 for the humiliation and
embarrassment they felt when the stewardess threatened to offload them if they did
not avail of the upgrade.
Q: Dr. and Mrs. Almeda are prominent citizens of the country and are frequent travelers
abroad. In 1996, they booked round-trip business class tickets for the Manila-Hong
Kong-Manila route of the Pinoy Airlines, where they are holders of Gold Mabalos Class
Frequent Flier cards. On their return flight, Pinoy Airlines upgraded their tickets to first
class without their consent and, in spite of their protestations to be allowed to remain in
the business class so that they could be with their friends, they were told that the
business class was already fully booked, and that they were given priority in upgrading
because they are elite members/holders of Gold Mabalos Class cards. Since they were
embarrassed at the discussions with the flight attendants, they were forced to take the
flight at the first-class section apart from their friends who were in the business class.
Upon their return to Manila, they demanded a written apology from Pinoy Airlines.
When it went unheeded, the couple sued Pinoy Airlines for breach of contract claiming
moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. Will the action prosper? Give
reasons. (2004, 2005Bar)
A: Yes, the action will prosper. Art. 2201entitles the person to recover damages
which may be attributed to non-performance of an obligation. In Alitalia Airways
v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 77011, July 24, 1990), when an airline issues ticket
to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, a contract of carriage arises and the
passenger expects that he would fly on that day. When the airline deliberately
overbooked, it took the risk of having to deprive some passengers of their seat in
case all of them would show up. For the indignity and inconvenience of being
refused the confirmed seat, said passenger is entitled to moral damages. In the
given problem, spouses Almeda had a booked roundtrip business class ticket with
Pinoy Airlines. When their tickets were upgraded to first class without their
consent, Pinoy Airlines breached the contract. As ruled in Zulueta v. Pan American
(G.R. No. L28589, January 8, 1973), in case of overbooking, airline is in bad faith.
Therefore, spouses Almeda are entitled to damages.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
In order that civil liability for negligence may arise, there must be a direct causal connection
between the damage suffered by the plaintiff and the act or omission of the defendant.
4BLUE 95 NOTE: It is NOT required that it be shown that the injury would not have occurred
without the act or omission complained of. It ONLY requires some reasonable connection
between the act or omission and the injury (AKA NECESSARY LINK)
In Dela Llana v. Biong, the Court ruled that the petitioner did not present any testimonial
or documentary evidence that directly shows the causal relation between the vehicular
accident and petitioner‟s whiplash injury. Hence, the petitioner failed to overcome the
burden of proof required to establish that the negligent act of the driver is the proximate
cause of her whiplash injury. (Dela Llana vs. Biong, G.R. No. 182356, 2013)
4BLUE 95 NOTE: If plaintiff's negligence is only contributory, he is considered partly
responsible only. Plaintiff may still recover from defendant but the award may be reduced
by the courts in proportion to his own negligence. (Bank of America NT & SA vs.
Philippine Racing Club, G.R. No. 150228, 2009)
Proximate cause immediately resulting in injury:
1. That cause, which, in natural andcontinuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred.
2. Foreseen by a person of ordinary care that the injury complained of or some
similar injury would result from the cause as a natural and probable
consequence.
Proximate cause NOT immediately resulting in injury but sets in motion a chain of events,
which eventually result in injury:
1. That cause acting first and producing theinjury, by setting other events in
motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain, each having a close
causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the first
cause, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event
should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to
expect at the moment of his act that an injury might probably result therefrom.
2. Also known as the proximate legal cause
3. A cause is still proximate, although farther in time to the injury, if the happening
of it set other foreseeable events into motion resulting ultimately in the damage.
LAST CLEAR CHANCE
The test is also known as the “Doctrine of Discovered Peril” or “Doctrine of Supervening
Negligence” or “Humanitarian Doctrine.”
Effect on Plaintiff's Right to Recover
The antecedent negligence of the plaintiffdoes not preclude him from recovering damages
caused by the supervening negligence of the defendant, who had the last fair chance to
prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
Establishing the Defendant’s Liability
Where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time
than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences.
When Not Applicable
1. Where the proximate cause of the injury has been established.
2. In a case of culpa contractual, where neither the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoidthe loss, would exonerate the defendant
from liability. Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff
merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not
exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract.
3. When the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the injury
cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after peril is or should
have been discovered.
4. does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to
enforce its contractual obligations. It will be inequitable to exempt the negligent
driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was
likewise guilty of negligence.
2023 NOTE:
1. If plaintiff is the proximate cause: no recovery can be made.
2. If plaintiff is not the proximate cause: Recovery can be made but such will be
mitigated.
3. If negligence of parties is equal in degree, then each bears his own loss.
Remote Cause
That cause which some independent force merely took advantage of to accomplish
something not the natural effect thereof. It cannot be considered the legal cause of the
damage. (Aquino, Torts and Damages, p. 318, 2013)
Concurrent Cause
Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause
without which the injury would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or
any of the causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons
although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them was more
culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured person was not the same. No
actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the
negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable
as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury. (Ruks Konsult and Construction v.
Adworld Sign and Advertising Corp., G.R. No. 204886, 2015)
4
CAUSE IN FACT
Whether such negligent conduct is a cause without which the injury would not have
occurred or is the efficient cause which set in motion the chain of circumstances leading to
the injury. An act or omission is not regarded as a cause or event if the particular event
would not have occurred without it.
‘BUT FOR’ TEST
The (but for) test requires a plaintiff to establish that the act complained of probably
caused the subsequent disability. (Nelson V. Fibreboard Corporation, [912 F.2d 469])
The test applied to determine whether negligent conduct was the efficient, or proximate
cause of the injury or loss suffered by the claimant is whether such conduct is a cause
without which the injury would not have taken place (which test is frequently referred to
as the "sine qua non rule"), or is the efficient cause which set in motion the chain of
circumstances leading to the injury.
SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR
It is the rule under the substantial factor test that if the actor's conduct is a substantial
factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should
have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred does not prevent
him from being liable. (Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. IAC, G.R. 66102, 1990)
CONCURRENT CAUSES
If one suffers damage as the proximate result of the negligence of two others, and the
damage would not have occurred but for the negligence of each of such parties, both are
liable to the person so injured. (Menne v. Celotex Corporation, 861 F.2d 1453, 1988)
LEGAL CAUSE (TEST OF FORESEEABILITY)
Where the particular harm was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the defendant‟s
misconduct, his act or omission is the legal cause thereof. Foreseeability is the
fundamental test of the law of negligence. To be negligent, the defendant must have acted
or failed to act in such a way that an ordinary reasonable man would have realized that
certain interests of certain persons were unreasonably subjected to a general but definite
class of risk which made the actor‟s conduct negligent, it is obviously the consequence for
the actor must be held legally responsible. Otherwise, the legal duty is entirely defeated.
Accordingly, the generalization may be formulated that all particular consequences, that
is, consequences which occur in a manner which was reasonably foreseeable by the
defendant at the time of his misconduct are legally caused by his breach of duty.
(Achevara v. Ramos, G.R. No. 175172, 2009)
TEST OF NATURAL AND PROBABLE CAUSES
A natural consequence of an act is the consequence which ordinarily follows it. A
probable consequence is one that is more likely to follow than fail to follow its supposed
cause but it need not be one which necessarily follows such cause. (Sangco, Philippine
Law on Torts and Damages, 1994)
HINDSIGHT TEST
A party guilty of negligence or omission is responsible for all the consequences which a
prudent and experienced party, fully acquainted with all the circumstances which in fact
exist, whether they could have been ascertained by reasonable diligence, or not, would
have thought at the time of the negligent act as reasonably possible to follow, if they had
been suggested to his mind. (Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, Volume 1,
p. 113, 1993)
ORBIT TEST
If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty which the defendant breached, liability is
imposed for any resulting injury within the orbit or scope of such injury, it is not the
unusual nature of the act resulting in injury that is the test of foreseeability, but whether
the result of the act is within the ambit of the hazards covered by the duty imposed upon
defendant. (Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, Volume 1, p. 113, 1993)
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
The test of determining whether or not the intervening cause is sufficient to absolve a
prior cause of the injury is as follows:
whether the intervention of a later cause is a significant part of the risk involved in the
defendant‟s conduct or is so reasonably connected with it that the responsibility should not
be terminated. In the affirmative, such foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope of
the original risk, and hence of the defendant‟s negligence. In the negative, there exists an
efficient intervening cause that relieves the defendant of liability.
Efficient Intervening Cause
When there is an intervening cause, which is not a consequence of the first wrongful cause
(not under the control of the first wrongdoer and could not be foreseen), that eventually
leads to an injury, the first wrongful cause can no longer be considered the proximate cause.
CAUSE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM CONDITION
The distinction between cause and condition has been almost entirely discredited. So far as it
has any validity at all, it must refer to the typeof case where the forces set in operation by the
defendant have come to rest in a position of apparent safety, and some new force intervenes.
But even in such cases, it is not the distinction between “cause” and “condition” which is
important, but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause.
CLASSIFICATION OF TORTS

1. ACCORDING TO MANNER OF COMMISSION

1. Intentional Torts (SEE NEXT PAGE)

Elements of Intentional Torts- A tort is intentional when the tortfeasor:

a. Desires the consequence of their act; OR
b. They believe that the consequencesare substantially certain
to result from his act.

How is intent proved?

The defendant‟s intent is usually proved circumstantially, or is inferred
from their conduct. If the defendant‟s conduct causes injury, they are
presumed to intend the natural consequences of their act.

2. Negligent Torts

Negligence- It is the omission to do something which a reasonable man,

guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do.

Intentional Torts Negligent Torts

Harmful consequences are substantially The act or omission merely creates a
certain to occur or are intended foreseeable risk or harm, which may or
may not actually be realized

2. ACCORDING TO SCOPE

1. Human Relations Tort- Liability for personal acts or omission is founded

on that indisputable principle of justice recognized by all legislators that
when a person by his act or omission causes damage or prejudice to
another, a juridical relation is created by virtue of which the injured person
acquires a right to be indemnified and the person causing the damage is
charged with the corresponding duty of repairing the damage. The reason
for this is found in the obvious truth that man should subordinate his acts
to the precepts of prudence and if he fails to observe them and cause
damage to another, he must repair the damage.

2. Strict Liability Tort- This refers to instances where negligence is not

required to be proven to incur liability; and diligence is not a defense.

3. Independent Civil Actions- In these cases, a civil action may be filed

independently of the criminal action, even if there has been no reservation
made by the injured party; the law in itself makes such reservation. The
result of the civil action is thus independent of the result of the criminal
action.
The underlying purpose for this independent civil action is to allow the
citizen to enforce his rights in a private action brought by him, regardless
of the action of the State attorney.

5
INTENTIONAL TORTS 6. Right to personal dignity

Violation of the right to personal dignity is analogous to the American law concept of
defamation. Defamation is an invasion of a person‟s right to enjoy a reputation and
good name unimpaired by false attacks which tend to diminish the esteem in which a
person is held by men whose standard of opinion the court can properly recognize. The
reputation that is protected is the opinion of others.
a. CONCEPT

Intentional torts include conduct where the actor (1) desires to cause the consequences Is malice required?
of his act or (2) believes the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.
1. Under the Revised Penal Code: malice is required as an element of
defamation.
b. CLASSES
2. As a tort action under Art. 26, CC:
GR: malice on the part of the defendant need not be proved by the
1. Adopted from American jurisprudence(Art. 26, 32, ans 1314, CC)
plaintiff.
2. Taken from the codes of civil law jurisdictions(Articles 19, 20, 21, 23,
XPN: malice or ill will remain important where the exercise of a qualified
27, and 28, CC)
privilege is in question.

A. INTEREFERENCE WITH RIGHTS TO PERSONS AND PROPERTY

1. Abuse of right
7. Right to personal security
Art. 19, CC. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
A violation of the right to personal security is identical with the American intentional
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
torts of battery and assault.
observe honesty and good faith.
Elements
Battery is the actual and willful infliction of any unlawful or unauthorized violence on
1. There is a legal right or duty;
the person of another, irrespective of its degree.
2. Which is exercised in bad faith;
Assault is the intentional, unlawful offer of physical injury to another by force
3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
unlawfully directed toward the person of another, under such circumstances as to create
a well- founded fear of imminent battery, coupled with the apparent present ability to
effectuate the attempt if not prevented.
2. Breach of statutory duty
Art. 20, CC.Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently
causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Requirements:
1. Plaintiff must establish that he belongs to the class of persons sought to be
protected by the statute; and
2. There must be an invasion of a particular interest the law seeks to protect. 8. Right to privacy

The right of privacy has been concisely defined as “the right to be let alone.” The
With the exception of laws which especially grant civil indemnity for damages resulting
interference of the right, to be actionable, must be serious and outrageous, or beyond the
from breach thereof, Art. 20 applies to all appropriate laws, whether criminal or
limits of common ideas of decent conduct.
otherwise.
Invasion of the right of privacy involves 4 distinct types of tort:
1. intrusion upon the plaintiff's physical and mental solitude;
2. public disclosure of private facts;
3. Contra bonus mores
3. placing the plaintiff in false light in thepublic eye; and
Art. 21, CC. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in
4. the commercial appropriation of theplaintiff‟s name or likeness.
a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
4BLUE 95 NOTE: The right of privacy does not prohibit the publication of materials
Elements
which are of legitimate public or general interest.
1. There is an act which is legal;
2. But which is contrary to morals, goodcustom, public order, or public
policy;and
3. It is done with intent to injure.
Examples:
1. Breach of Promise to Marry and Moral seduction
9. Right to peace of mind
2. Malicious prosecution
3. Public humiliation
Violation of the right to peace of mind under Art. 26 is akin to the American tort of
4. Oppressive dismissal
intentional infliction of mental distress (physical illness suffered by the plaintiff as a
result of the offensive words or act). However, the view that physical illness is
immaterial in infliction of mental distress appears to be applicable in this jurisdiction
since Art. 26 itself creates a cause of action for violation of the right to “peace of mind.”
Violation of the right in itself constitutes a legal injury sufficient to support the action.
4. Damage to property
Art. 23, CC. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's
property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter
shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.
10. Dereliction of duty

Art. 27, CC. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a
public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to
perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief
5. Rights under Art. 26, CC
against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative
action that may be taken.
Art. 26, CC. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall Requisites:
1. Defendant is a public officer charged with a performance of a duty in favor
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
of the plaintiff;
1. Prying into the privacy of another‟s residence;
2. He refused or neglected without just cause to perform the duty;
2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
3. Plaintiff sustained material or moral loss as a consequence of such non-
relations of another;
performance;
3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
4. The amount of such damages, if material.
4. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious
beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect,
or other personal condition.

6
11. Violation of civil and political rights
Art. 32, CC. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual,
who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
impedes or impairs any of the following rights andliberties of another
person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
1. Freedom of religion;
2. Freedom of speech;
3. Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical
publication;
4. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
5. Freedom of suffrage;
6. The right against deprivation of property without due process
of law;
7. The right to a just compensation when private property is
taken for public use;
8. The right to the equal protection of the laws;
9. The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and
effects against unreasonablesearches and seizures;
10. The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
11. The privacy of communication and correspondence;
12. The right to become a member of associations or societies
for purposes not contrary to law;
13. The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the
Government for redress of grievances;
14. The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in any
form;
15. The right of the accused against excessive bail;
16. The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel,
to be informed of the natureand cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
17. Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's
self, or from being forced toconfess guilt, or from being
induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing becomes a
State witness;
18. Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual
punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in
accordance with astatute which has not been judicially
declared unconstitutional; and
19. Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's
act or omissionconstitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a
right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for
damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and
may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also
be adjudicated.
4BLUE 95: The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a
judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
or other penal statute.
B. INTERFERENCE WITH RELATIONS
1. Family relations
Art. 26, CC. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
relations of another;
2. Social Relations
Art. 26, CC.Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his
friends;
7
3. Economic relations
1. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
Art. 1314, CC. Any person who induces another to violate
his contract with another person shall be liable for damages
to the other contracting party.
Elements of tort interference
1. Existence of a valid contract
2. Knowledge on the part of the thirdperson of the existence of
contract; and
3. Interference of the third person iswithout legal justification
or excuse.
2. UNFAIR COMPETITION
Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor
through the use of force, intimidation, deceit. Machination or other unjust,
oppressive or highhanded method. (Art. 28)
To qualify the competition as unfair, it must have two characteristics:
1. It must involve an injury to a competitor or trade rival; and
2. It must involve acts which are characterized as “contrary to good conscience” or
“shocking to judicial sensibilities” or otherwise unlawful (these include force,
intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or high handed
method) (Willaware Products Corp. v. Jesichris Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No.
193349, 2014)
Example: A former employer‟s act of circulating a “watchlist” with the name of its
former employee with the intention of preventing the employee from obtaining
employment (Calamba Medical Center v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176484, 2008).
Interference
One becomes liable in an action for damages for a non-trespassory invasion of
another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of asset if
1. the other has property rights and privileges with respect to the use or enjoyment
interfered with,
2. the invasion is substantial,
3. the defendant's conduct is a legal cause of the invasion, and
4. the invasion is either intentional and unreasonable or unintentional and
actionable under general negligence rules.
Elements of Tortious Interference
1. Existence of a contract
2. Interferer knows that the contract exists
3. Actual knowledge is not necessary; awareness of facts which indicate the
existence of a valid contract is enough (Lagon vs. CA, G.R. No. 119107, 2005).
It is not necessary for the interferer to know who the other contracting party is.
(Gilchrist vs. Cuddy, G.R. No. L-9356, 1915)
Interference is without legal excuse or justification. Malice For damages, not for
injunction; but requirements for the issuance of an injunction must be present (So
Ping Bun vs. CA, G.R. No. 120554, 1999).
General Rule: Financial/business interest is not malice (Lagon vs. CA, G.R.
No. 119107, 2005)
Exception: When circumstances indicate bad faith or malice (Go v. Cordero,
G.R. No. 164703, 2010)
2023 NOTE: The Interferer cannot be liable for more than the contracting party
who breached his own contract (Daywalt vs. La Corporacion, G.R. No. L13505,
1919).
Violation of Rights and Liberties of a Person
Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of
the rights and liberties (under Art. 32) of another person shall be liable to the latter
for damages.
Good faith is not a defense (Lim v. De Leon, G.R. No. L-22554, 1975)
“Indirectly” may mean instigation or active involvement in the act which resulted
in the violation of civil and political rights (MHP Garments vs. CA, G.R. No.
86720, 1994).
Emotional Distress Torts
They are injuries to a person‟s emotional tranquility due to personal attacks on his
character. To recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the
plaintiff must show:
1. Conduct of the defendant was Intentional or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff;
2. Conduct was Extreme and outrageous;
3. Causal Connection between the defendant‟s conduct and the plaintiff‟s mental
distress;
4. Plaintiff‟s mental distress was extreme and Severe. (MVRS Publications, Inc., v.
Islamic Da‟Wah Council of the Philippines, G.R. No. 135306, 2003).
NEGLIGENCE

1. CONCEPT
4. UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM
Art. 1173, CC. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
Negligence, as it is commonly understood, is a conduct that creates an undue risk of
omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
harm to others.
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the
time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of
In negligence, risk means a danger which is apparent, or should be apparent, to one in
Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
the position of the actor. Such type of risk is unreasonable risk. If such unreasonable risk
results in injury to the plaintiff, the latter can recover from the defendant. (Aquino, Torts
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed
and Damages, p. 32, 2005).
in theperformance, that which is expected of a good father of a family
shall be required.
There is negligence when an act is done without exercising the competence that a
reasonable person in the position of the actor would recognize as necessary to prevent an
Negligence- It is the omission to do somethingwhich a reasonable man, guided by
unreasonable risk of harm to another. Those who undertake any work calling for special
those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do,
skills are required to exercise reasonable care in what they do. (Keppel Cebu Shipyard,
or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
Inc. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp., G.R. Nos. 180880- 81 & 180896-97, 2009)
To determine whether or not a person has been negligent requires determining 2
In Spouses Pacis v. Morales, the Court ruled that the respondent, as a gun store owner, is
things:
presumed to be knowledgeable about firearms safety and should have known not to keep
1. the diligence required of the actor under the circumstances, and
2. whether the actor has performed the diligence required. a loaded weapon in his store to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to others. He has the
duty to ensure that all the guns in his store are not loaded. Firearms should be stored
Failing the second requisite would lead to the conclusion that one has been negligent.
unloaded and separate from ammunition when the firearms are not needed for ready-
access defensive use. (Spouses Pacis v. Morales, G.R. No. 169467, 2010)

2. GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY OR REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON

Pursuant to Art. 1173, the diligence of a good father of a family is the standard of
conduct if the law or contract does not provide otherwise.
5. EVIDENCE
Test to determine the existence of negligence: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent man
Rule 131. Sec. 1, ROC. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty
would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is negligent.
of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.

Rule 131. Sec. 3, ROC. Disputable presumptions. — The following

presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted
3. STANDARD OF CARE; EMERGENCY RULE
and overcome by other evidence:
d. That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
A. STANDARD OF CARE NEEDED IN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES
Rule 133. Sec. 1, ROC. Preponderance of evidence, how determined.
— In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case
1. Operators of Motor Vehicle- In Relation to Cyclists: Because of the
by a preponderance of evidence.
inherent differences between motorists and cyclists, the former being
capable of greater speed and destruction, operators of motor vehicles have
a higher standard in his duty of car
GR: In accordance with the fundamental principle of proof that the burden thereof is
upon the plaintiff, it is the duty of him who shall claim damages to establish their
2. Banks- The law imposes on banks high standards in view of the fiduciary
existence. Negligence is not presumed, but must be proven by him who alleges it.
nature of banking.
It is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns (Rule 131, Sec. 3(d),
ROC).
3. Experts (In General)- Those who undertake any work calling for special
skills are required not only to exercise reasonable care in what they do but
also possess a standard minimum of special knowledge and ability. The quantum of proof required is a preponderance of evidence (Rule 133, Sec.1, ROC).

4. Doctors- Whether or not a physician has committed an „inexcusable lack

XPN: There are exceptional cases when the rules or the laws provide for cases when
of precaution‟ in the treatment of his patient is to be determined according
negligence is presumed.
to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in
good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced
state of the profession at the time of treatment of present state of medical
science.
5. Pharmacists- The profession of pharmacy, it has been said again and
again, is one demanding care and skill. The highest practicable degree of
prudence, thoughtfulness, and vigilance, and most exact and reliable
safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of the business.
6. Possessors of Extremely Dangerous Instrumentalities- higher degree of
care is required of someone who has in his possession or under his control
an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such as dangerous
weapons or substances.

7. Children- Take into account the specific characteristic of the child in

question
The conduct of an infant of tender years is not to be judged by the same
rule, which governs that of an adult.The care and caution required of a
child is according to his maturity and capacity only, and this is to be
determined in each case by the circumstances of the case.

B. EMERGENCY RULE

An individual who suddenly (1) finds himself in a situation of danger and is (2) 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 and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution, unless the
emergency was brought by his own negligence.

4BLUE 95 NOTE: Applicable only to situations that are sudden and unexpected such as
to deprive the actor of all opportunity for deliberation (absence of foreseeability); the
action shall still be judged by the standard of the ordinary prudent man.

8
6. PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
1. IN MOTOR VEHICLE MISHAPS
A.Liability of the owner
Art. 2184, CC. 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.
If the owner was NOT in the motor vehicle, the provisions
of Article 2180 are applicable.
Art. 2186, CC. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file
with the proper government office a bond executed by a
government-controlled corporation or office, to answer for
damages to third persons. The amount of the bond and other
terms shall be fixed by the competent public official.
B.Liability of the Driver
Art. 2184, CC. x xx 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.
Art. 2185, CC. 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.
Negligence per se
The generally accepted view is that the violation of a
statutory duty constitutes negligence per se. (Añonuevo v.
Court of Appeals, 441 SCRA 24) However, in Sanitary
Steam, it was held that to hold someone liable for negligence
per se, one must show that the violation of the statute was
the proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it
substantially contributed thereto. Negligence, consisting in
whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other
negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a
contributing cause of the injury. (Sanitary Steam Laundry v.
Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 20)
Riding a haulage truck or stealing ride thereon is not
negligence because transportation by truck is not dangerous
per se. Violation of a rule promulgated by board or
commission is not negligence per se but evidence of
negligence. (Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc., v.
Workmen‟s Compensation Commission, 99 Phil. 480)
2. POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR SUBSTANCES
Art. 2188, CC. 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.
3. COMMON CARRIERS
Art. 1734, CC. 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.
Art. 1735, CC. 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.
Art. 1752, CC. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of
the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is
disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss,
destruction or deterioration.
9
4. RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Literally, res ipsa loquitur means “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, G.R. 73998, 1998)
Elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur:
1. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone
is negligent
2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the
exclusive control of the person charged with negligence
3. Injury suffered must have not been due to any voluntary action or
contribution on the person injured (D.M. Consunji v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 137873, 2001).
4. It must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of
knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or that the party to be charged with
negligence has superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the
accident. (Malayan Insurance Co. vs. Rodelio Alberto and Enrico Reyes, G.R.
No. 194320).
4BLUE 95: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur finds no application if there is direct
proof of absence or presence of negligence. If there is sufficient proof showing the
conditions and circumstances under which the injury occurred, then the creative
reason for the said doctrine disappears. (Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers Inc., G.R.
No. 180440, 2012)
Medical Malpractice; Doctrine of Common Knowledge
The general rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies only to such
matters clearly within the domain of medical science, and not to matters of
common knowledge. Ordinarily, only experienced physicians and surgeons
are competent to testify on whether a patient has been treated with reasonable
care. However, where common knowledge and experience teach that a
resulting injury would not have occurred if due care had been exercised (e.g.
leaving gauzes inside the body of the patient after an operation, operating on
the wrong part of the body, etc.), an inference of negligence may be drawn
giving rise to an application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without
medical evidence. (Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354, 1999)
Standard of Care required from the Medical Profession
Given these safeguards, there is no need to expressly require of doctors the
observance of “extraordinary” diligence. As it is now, the practice of
medicine is already conditioned upon the highest degree of diligence. The
standard contemplated for doctors is simply the reasonable average merit
among ordinarily good physicians. That is reasonable diligence for doctors
or, the reasonable skill and competence that a physician in the same or similar
locality should apply.
Liability of Hospital in Cases of Medical Negligence
The court has applied the doctrine of agency by estoppel to hold hospitals
liable for the negligent acts of physicians based on:
1. The patient accepts the services of the physician
2. The patient believes that the physicians are agents of the hospital.
4BLUE 95: The case of PSI v. Agana pronounced that the doctrine of
corporate negligence is the judicial answer to the problem of allocating
hospital‟s liability for the negligent acts of health practitioners, absent facts to
support the application of respondeat superior or apparent authority.
4BLUE 95: The theory supporting the liability of hospital is based on the
recognition that the hospitals stand to benefit from the business of providing
services to patients and should therefore be responsible for any injury or
damage that may result under the relationship. (Professional Services, Inc. v.
Agana, G.R. No. 126297, 2007)
Doctrine of Informed Consent
The doctrine of informed consent requires a doctor to inform his patient of
the material risks associated with a medical procedure.
Elements of a malpractice claim based on the doctrine of informed consent
1. The physician had a duty to disclose material risks;
2. He failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks;
3. As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient
consented to the treatment, which he or she would otherwise not have
consented to; and 4. The patient was injured by the proposed treatment (Li v.
Soliman, G.R. No. 165279, 2011)
7. DEFENSES

1. Due Diligence to Prevent the Damage under Art. 2180, CC.
Art. 2180, CC. 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.
(8) 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.
8. Plaintiff’s Assumption of Risk/Volenti Non Fit Unjuria
4BLUE 95: The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (that to which a person assents is not
presumed in law as injury) refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which
precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed
himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so.

2. Acts of Public Officers Requisites:

1. That the plaintiff had actual knowledge ofthe danger;
A public officer is NOT liable for damages which a person may suffer arising from the 2. That he understood and appreciated therisk from the danger; and
just performance of his official duties and within the scope of his assigned tasks. 3. That he voluntarily exposed himself to suchrisk.

3. Authority of Law
Art. 5, CC. Acts executedagainst the provisions of mandatory or
prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their
validity.
Art. 11, RPC. The following do not incur any criminal liability: xxx
(5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office xxx
(8) Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose.
The doctrine of assumption of risk does not apply in the ff. cases:
1. If an emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of another is in
peril or when he seeks to rescue his endangered property.
2. Even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the
party, petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of the CC, were still under the
obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary
ridicule and shame.

4.Damnum Absque Injuria

There can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was
not the result of a violation of a legal duty.
Right to recover damages does not arise from the mere fact that the plaintiff suffered
losses. To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a (1) right of action for a
legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and (2) damage resulting to the plaintiff
therefrom. 9. Prescription

Art. 1146, CC.The following actions must be instituted within 4 years:

1. Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
2. Upon a quasi-delict;
5. Plaintiff’s Negligence is the Proximate Cause
Art. 1150, CC. The time for prescription for all kinds of actions, when
Art. 2179, CC. When the plaintiff‟s own negligence was the proximate there is no special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be counted
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. from the day they may be brought.

This defense of plaintiff‟s negligence as proximate cause is absolute, for it

bars recovery on the part of the plaintiff.
Prescription periods:

1. 4 years for quasi-delict

2. 1 year for defamation (Art. 1147, CC)

6. Contributory Negligence of the Plaintiff

Art. 2179, CC. x xx But if his negligence was only contributory, the
immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of
due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate
the damages to be awarded.

Art. 2214, CC. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the

plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.

7. Fortuitous Event
10. Waiver
Art. 1174, CC. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it
is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation Art. 6, CC. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law,
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those public order, public policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to a
events which, could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were third person with a right recognized by law.
inevitable.
Art. 1171, CC. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all
Elements of casofortuito: obligations. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void.
1. The cause of the unforeseen andunexpected occurrence, or of the failure of
the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the
human will;
2. It must be impossible to foresee the event or if it can be foreseen, it must
be impossible to avoid;
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to
fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and
4. The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of
the injury resulting to the creditor.

10