QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
QUASI DELICT (QD)
Distinction from other sources of
obligation
The obligation is by reason of a private
act which is unlawful and unilateral
In law, there is no need for a
private act
In contracts, the act is lawful
and bilateral
In quasi contracts, the act,
while unilateral, is lawful
In delict, while the act is an
unlawful and unilateral private
act, there must be a law
punishing it
QD v. delict
In delict, there are two liabilities:
1. Criminal; and
2. Civil
On the other hand, in QD, it is purely
civil in character, and thus, NO
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Q: Is it correct to say that QD covers
ONLY those NOT covered by delict? Or,
in the alternative, is QD limited to those
acts NOT punishable by law, as delict
covers those acts punishable by law?
No, if QD is limited to those acts NOT
punishable by law, it would defeat the
purpose of the law.
It is broad enough to cover acts or
omissions which are punished by law as
crimes. (Barredo v. Garcia)
PJA
Q: X, a passenger of a karitela operated by
operated by Y, died by reason of an
accident while he is riding the karitela.
Instead of filing a crime for reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide (a crime
committed by culpa), the family of X opted
to recover by QD.
Y opposed the same, considering that it is
a crime punishable by law, then the proper
remedy is within the scope of delict. Is Y
correct?
No, as QD is broad enough to include
acts and omissions punishable by law.
An interpretation to the contrary
would defeat the very intention of the
framers of the law.
Thus, an act or omission punishable by
law gives rise to two distinct and
separate sources of obligation:
1. Delict; and
2. QD (Barredo v. Garcia)
(NOTE: The ruling in the above cited
case was made in 1940s.
Thus, even prior to the enactment of
the Civil Code, the ruling is already is a
precedent)
Q: Considering that a crime punishable by
law gives rise to two (2) distinct sources of
obligation, is it correct to say that there
would be recovery from both sources?
No, as double recovery is prohibited
under our laws, to wit:
“Art. 2177. Responsibility for
fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from
1|Page
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
negligence under the Penal
Code. But the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the
defendant.”
The above cited article rooted from the
ruling in Barredo v. Garcia
Q: In the case of Barredo v. Garcia, the
crime committed was a crime committed
by culpa (negligence).
Will the ruling that a crime gives rise to
obligations from delict and QD still hold
true, if the crime is intentional (dolo)?
Yes (Elcano v. Hill)
Q: May recovery based on QD be made if
the crime committed is homicide?
Yes, the scope of QD is broad enough
to include acts or omissions committed
intentionally (dolo) (Elcano v. Hill)
QD defined
Art. 2176; Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is so
pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter.
Thus, the requirements are as follows:
1. Injury suffered by the:
a. Plaintiff; or
b. Creditor
2. The debtor/defendant committed
an act or omission (unlawful act)
characterized by fault or
negligence;
PJA
3. There must be a causal connection
(cause and effect) between the act
or omission and the injury
Proximate cause
The injury suffered by the
plaintiff/creditor must have been
proximately cause by the act or
omission of the defendant/debtor
Fault or negligence
Art. 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. When negligence shows bad faith,
the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201,
paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the
diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a good
father of a family shall be required.
Negligence (culpa) under this
provision, carries the same meaning as
fault, and thus, one and the same
Q: In relation to Art. 2176, is negligence
and fault the same, considering Art. 1173?
No, in the case of Elcano v. Hill the
court held that fault refers to those
committed intentionally (dolo)
(NOTE: In the case of Gashem
Shookat Baksh v. CA, the SC,
through then Associate Justice (AJ)
Davide, stated that QD is limited only
to cases of negligence.
However, the statement is
merely an obiter dictum, as the
2|Page
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
issue in the case is a breach of
promise to marry
Atty. Rabuya said that it is an erroneous
ruling. Take note, however, that it is a
mere obiter)
Scope of QD
To summarize, QD covers the
following acts or omissions
1. NOT punishable by law;
2. Punishable by law, whether
committed through
a. Negligence/culpa (Barredo
v. Garcia); or
b. Fault/intentionally/dolo
(Elcano v. Hill)
Q: X has been convicted for the crime of
rape, and thus a judgment holding him
guilty criminally and civilly has been
promulgated.
X appealed the case. During the pendency
of appeal, X died.
What is the status of X’s civil and criminal
liability?
Both the civil and criminal liability are
extinguished.
As to the criminal liability,
death extinguishes the liability,
considering that there is still no
final judgment against the
accused.
On the other hand, as to the
civil liability, there can be no
more criminal liability upon
which the civil liability may
attach to. (People v. Bayotas)
Q: Considering that the civil liability has
been extinguished by reason of the death of
PJA
the accused, is it correct to say that NO
CIVIL LIABILITY may be recovered?
No, as recovery may still be made from
other sources of obligations.
What is extinguished is merely the civil
liability arising from the crime (civil
liability ex delicto).
Thus, in line with the cases of Barredo
and Elcano, civil liability arising from
quasi-delict, based on the same act or
omission may still be had
Prescriptive period to recover civil liability
based on QD
It is 4 years from the accrual of the
right of action/commission of the
act
Q: Assume, from the time X’s case for rape
has been filed up to the time of his death,
ten (10) years has already elapsed.
May the family of the victim still recover
civil liability from other sources,
considering that it has already been ten (10)
years from the accrual of the right of
action/commission of the act?
Yes, as the prescriptive period for filing
civil liability based on sources of
obligation other than delict shall be
interrupted during the pendency of the
criminal action. (People v. Bayotas)
Concept of QD under Spanish v. American
law
Under Spanish law, QD is designated
as culpa aquiliana.
Under this concept, it is limited
to acts or omissions caused by
negligence (culpa)
3|Page
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
Thus, under the Old Civil Code
based on Spanish laws, the
obiter dictum in Baksh v. CA as
held by AJ Davide holds true.
On the other hand, under American
law, QD is designated as tort
Under this concept, it includes
“battery” or
intentional/deliberate acts
(dolo)
Thus, under the New Civil
Code enacted under 1950s, it
included the concept of tort
Concept of QD under New Civil Code
Considering the above stated
influences, our QD under the civil code
includes the following acts or
omissions committed by:
1. Negligence (culpa aquiliana);
AND
2. Battery/intentional/deliberate
(tort)
PJA
performance, that which is expected of a good
father of a family shall be required.
Thus, negligence, in general, is the
failure to observe the required degree
of diligence
Diligence required
It is relative, depending on:
1. Kind of obligation;
2. Time;
3. Place; and
4. Person bound to render obligation
However, ordinarily, negligence
consists in the failure to observe the
diligence of a good father of a family
Diligence of a good father of a family
It is a diligence expected from a
reasonable and prudent person
Rule as to diligence required
GR: Good father of a family

(NOTE: Thus, under the curriculum, ER: If a different diligence is

it must be called QD, rather than torts) required by:

NEGLIGENCE 1. Law;
2. Parties; or
In general 3. Situation confronted with

Art. 1173; The fault or negligence of the Concepts affecting diligence

obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the The following concepts affect diligence
obligation and corresponds with the required:
circumstances of the persons, of the time and
of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, 1. Emergency rule;
the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, 2. Unforeseeability;
paragraph 2, shall apply. 3. Both parties negligent;
a. Contributory negligence;
If the law or contract does not state the and
diligence which is to be observed in the b. Last clear chance;

4|Page
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
4. Res ipsa loquitur
Emergency rule
If there is an urgency, or shortage of
time, which would likely affect the
person’s decision making as to choose
the best possible course of action, the
person cannot be held as negligent
Q: X, while driving, lost his car brakes,
which caused his inability to slow down
during a “stop” signal as pedestrians are
crossing.
To save the lives of the passengers, X
shifted his steering wheel to the right, to
crash into a mansion instead.
Can X be held negligent by his act, if it
appears that he would have caused no
damage if he turned left, as there is a river
on that side without any person or property
to be destroyed?
No, in line with the emergency rule,
X is without the luxury of time to think
of the best option possible
Effect of foreseeability
If the event can be foreseen, the
person may be held negligent
If, however, the act is unforeseeable,
the person CANNOT be held as
negligent
Effect if both parties are negligent
It would depend on who caused the
proximate cause of the injury suffered
by the plaintiff.
If the proximate cause of the
injury is the plaintiff’s
negligence, then, no recovery
can be made.
PJA
On the other hand, if the
proximate cause of the injury is
the defendant’s negligence,
then, recovery may still be had,
but the courts may temper into
the liability considering the
plaintiff’s contributory
negligence
Last clear chance
While both the plaintiff and defendant
are negligent, the defendant had the
last opportunity to avoid the injury by
observing the diligence required
In such a case, the entire liability shall
be upon the defendant.
Q: X is suing Y, as the latter caused injuries
by his being involved in a car crash with
another driver Z.
Y claims that if it had not been for Z, X
would not have been injured. Is Y’s defense
valid?
No, as the defendant cannot use last
clear chance by pointing to another in
order for his being absolved from
liability
Q: Still on the same case, but instead, Z
sued Y.
Y argued that he is on his lane, and thus
protected his lane, but Z insisted on
overtaking while on the opposite lane.
Can Y be absolved from liability?
Yes, it is a proper invocation of last
clear chance, considering that Y is in
the correct lane, while Z is on the
wrong lane in such a way that Z could
have prevented the incident if only he
returned to his lane right away.
5|Page
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya PJA
Res ipsa loquitur No, as the burden is shifted to Dr. Jan
to deny the negligence and prove
It means that “the thing speaks for diligence, as res ipsa loquitur applies,
itself”. considering the following facts:

It refers a rule on evidence, as an 1. Atty. Jen could not have any

exception on who has the burden of
proving negligence, to wit:
GR: Plaintiff must prove
negligence
ER: Defendant must prove
diligence, as he is
presumed negligent, as
in res ipsa loquitur,
Requisites for res ipsa loquitur to apply
The requisites are as follows:
contributory negligence,
considering she has been sedated;
2. The gauze would not be left if not
for Dr. Jan’s negligence;
3. It is only through Dr. Jan’s
negligence may the injury occur,
considering that he administered
the surgery
Q: Is it true that as long as it is a negligent
act, QD shall apply?
No, as there are different kinds of
negligence

1. The incident could not have Kinds of negligence

happened if not for the defendant’s
negligence; The following are the kinds:
2. Contributory negligence of
plaintiff must be excluded: 1. One which arises during the
a. Thus, the plaintiff must not performance of a contractual
have had a share in the obligations (culpa contractual);
negligence; and 2. One which arises by negligence and
3. The instrumentality which causes there is no pre-existing contractual
injury is totally within the obligation (culpa extra-
defendant’s control contractual);
3. Negligence which is a breach of an
Q: Dr. Jan conducted the surgery of Atty. existing law (Art. 20, NCC);
Jen. 4. Arising from crime (culpa
criminal)
Atty. Jen was sedated during the surgery.
CC CEC Art. 20
Source Contract Negligence
A week has passed and Atty. Jen suffered Existence of There is a
stomach pains, and thus consulted Dra. Contract contract NONE
Jun, and the latter found that gauze has
been left in the former’s stomach. Negligence During the NOT a Violation
performance breach of a of an
of the contractual existing
If Atty. Jen filed a case against Dr. Jan, is contractual obligation; law
Atty. Jen bound to prove Dr. Jan’s obligation and
negligence? NOT a
violation of

6|Page
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
an existing
law
Culpa contractual (CC)
Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of
their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence,
or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for
damages.
Thus, the negligence occurred from the
performance of the contract
Culpa extra-contractual
Title XVII. - EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS
CHAPTER 1
QUASI-CONTRACTS
Art. 2142; Certain lawful, voluntary and
unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation
of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall
be unjustly enriched or benefited at the
expense of another.
xxx
CHAPTER 2
QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2176; Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter.
Thus, the following are deemed as
extra-contractual obligations,
considering that it arose without ANY
PRE-EXISTING CONTRACTUAL
RELATION:
PJA
1. Quasi-contract; and
2. Quasi-delicts
In effect, quasi-delict is alternatively
known as a culpa extra-contractual
Negligence under Art. 20, NCC
Art. 20; Every person who, contrary to law,
wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Under Art. 20, NCC, the negligence is
as follows:
1. There is an injury caused to
another;
2. The injury is caused by a negligent
act or omission;
3. The act or omission is in breach of
a law
Art. 20 v. Art. 2176, NCC
“Article 20 concerns violations of
existing law as basis for an injury.
It allows recovery should the
act have been willful or
negligent.
Willful may refer to the
intention to do the act and the
desire to achieve the outcome
which is considered by the
plaintiff in tort action as
injurious.
Negligence may refer to a
situation where the act was
consciously done but without
intending the result which the
plaintiff considers as injurious.
xxx
7|Page
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
Article 2176 covers situations where an
injury happens through an act or
omission of the defendant.
When it involves a positive act,
the intention to commit the
outcome is irrelevant.
The act itself must not be a
breach of an existing law or a
pre-existing contractual
obligation.
What will be considered is
whether there is "fault or
negligence” attending the
commission of the act which
necessarily leads to the
outcome considered as
injurious by the plaintiff.
The required degree of
diligence will then be assessed
in relation to the circumstances
of each and every case.
Thus, with respect to negligent acts or
omissions, it should therefore be
discerned that Article 20 of the Civil
Code concerns "violations of existing
law as basis for an injury", whereas
Article 2176 applies when the negligent
act causing damage to another does not
constitute "a breach of an existing law
or a pre-existing contractual
obligation.” (St. Martin Polyclinic,
Inc. v. LWV Construction
Corporation, citing the separate
opinion of Justice Leonen in the
case of Alano v. Magud-Logmao)
Q: What then is QD?
In line with the above cited provisions,
there is QD if:
1. There are no contractual relations;
and
PJA
2. There is no violation of an existing
law
Rule as to existence of contractual relations
GR: Can recover from CC ONLY,
but NOT QD
ER: Can recover from BOTH QD
and CC, if the negligence which
breaks the contract is also a tort
(or negligence itself is the
reason for the breach of
contract) (Air France v.
Carascoso)
Liability in case of recovery based on QD
committed by two or more persons
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more
persons who are liable for quasi-delict is
solidary.
Q: Due to an accident, an action was filed
against a driver and his employer.
The driver was sued based on QD. On the
other hand, the driver’s employer was sued
based on contract.
Can the employer and the driver be held
solidarily liable?
Yes, as the negligence in this case also
amounts to tort, then recovery can be
made based on QD despite a contract
of common carriage.
While it is true that solidarily liability of
the employer and his employee can
only be made based on a QD, this case,
while involving a contract, can be
deemed as a QD, based on the ruling in
Air France v. Carascoso
Q: While waiting for the train in the
premises of the LRT station, X, a supposed
8|Page
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
passenger, engaged in a fist fight with Y, a
security guard under ABC Security Agency.
By reason of such fist fight, X fell on the
railroad and was struck by the train.
Can LRTA, X, and ABC Security Agency
be held solidarily liable?
Yes, based on the ruling of Air France
v. Carascoso, recovery may be had
from QD if the negligence amounts to
tort itself.
That it is QD, the parties may be held
solidarily liable, despite the basis of
liabilities of the following are as
follows:
LRTA: Contract
X: QD (Art. 2176)
ABC: Vicarious
liability (Art.
2180)
That the act of X amounts to a tort,
recovery may be had from QD, and
thus, may be held solidarily liable.
(LRTA v. Navidad)
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Art. 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.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.
PJA
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.
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.
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.
A person may be held liable NOT only
for his own negligence, but also for the
negligence of another, by reason of a
special relationship existing between
them, such as:
1. Parents, as to their children;
2. Those exercising special parental
authority, over children of
another:
a. Teachers;
b. Principals
c. School Administrators;
3. Employer, as to their employees
Parental authority
9|Page
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya PJA
Laws governing parental authority is living with the parent’s
company as to enable them to
The following laws govern: exercise supervision. (Art. 236,
FCP). Thus, the rule is as
1. Family Code of the Philippines (FCP); follows:
and
2. Art. 2180, NCC GR: The parents of
a person of
When FCP or Art. 2180, NCC applicable legal age
cannot be
FCP shall apply if the child is still a held
minor. (17 and below) vicariously
liable
If the QD was committed by
the child while in the actual ER: Despite a
supervision, instruction, or person being of
custody of those persons legal age, the
exercising special parental parents of a
authority (e.g. school), the person may be
liabilities are as follows: held vicariously
liable if:
Those persons
exercising special 1. 18 years
parental authority shall old, but less
be primarily liable; or than 21
years old;
Parents or those and
exercising substitute 2. The person
parental authority shall of legal age
be subsidiarily liable lives under
the parent’s
As to the parents’ liability, company
the father and the mother are
simultaneously liable As to school’s liability, it is as
follows:
On the other hand, Art. 2180, NCC,
shall apply if the child is already at the Academic: Teacher
age of majority/emancipation. (18 and in
above) charge

As s general rule, a person 18 Non-

years of age may be held liable academic: Head
for any acts of civil life of the
instituti
However, as an exception, on
parents of a person already 18
years of age, but below 21 years Take note, however,
of age, provided that the child that the one causing
10 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
injury, and the one who
suffered injury, must
belong to the same
school
As to the parents’ liability, it
is as follows:
GR: Father
ER: Mother, in the
absence of the
father
Q: X, a minor child, committed a QD while
in the school premises.
Who is liable for the act of X?
Only the school personnel, as the
persons exercising special parental
authority
Q: Assume that the school is insolvent, who
is liable?
It may be the parents or those
exercising substitute parental authority,
as they are liable subsidiarily
(NOTE: Thus, in case of subsidiary
liability, there is only one party who
may be liable, either the one:
1. Primarily liable (special parental
authority) who must be solvent; or
2. Subsidiarily liable (parents or
substitute parental authority) if the
above is insolvent
Defense available to one primarily or
subsidiarily liable in case of QD committed
by a minor child
If they can prove that they exercised
due diligence to prevent damage
PJA
Q: Can a school be made liable ONLY for
QD committed by a minor child whilst in
school premises?
No, as the school may still be made
liable if the child is engaged in an
extracurricular activity authorized
by the school (e.g. fieldtrips)
Q: ABC Montessori of Nueva Ecija
required students to accomplish a waiver
for their fieldtrip to Baguio City. In the said
waiver, it is stated that:
“ABC shall not be liable for any
mishap, and will not be deemed
under special parental authority
during the field trip”
Is the waiver valid?
No, as special parental authority cannot
be waived, considering that it is given
to them by law, thus:
Art. 210; Parental authority and
responsibility may not be
renounced or transferred
except in the cases authorized
by law.
In effect, no parental authority, in
whatever form (including substitute
or special) may be waived.
Q: Forced by the situation that the grades
of their children might be affected if they
do not sign the waiver, the parents of the
children signed the waiver.
In case of an accident, can the parents
recover damages from ABC?
Yes, as the waiver is void, and thus
their signatures thereon have no effect.
11 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
That it has no effect, the parents may
recover against the school exercising
special parental authority
Q: X, a student of UST, came to the school
during the semestral break to inquire on
the requirements for the incoming
semester.
If X suffered damages during such visit,
can UST be held liable under Art. 2180?
Yes, as the SC held that it does not
matter whether the injury occurred
during the semester or not, so long as
the purpose is for a legitimate
student objective
Q: Assume, that after X completed the
purpose of his visit in UST, X made
“tambay” in Lovers Lane.
During his “tambay”, a fight ensues with
his rival and classmate, Y, as the two are
suitors of Ms. Z.
By reason of such fight, X suffered
damages. May UST be held liable under
Art. 2180?
Yes, as it remains, that the purpose of
his visit is a legitimate student objective
Q: Assume, that Y, is a student of UE. Can
UST still be held liable if the brawl
occurred in its premises?
No longer, as the one causing an injury
is an outsider to the school.
Art. 2180, NCC is applicable only in
cases committed by one student,
against another student, of the same
school
Q: Does it mean, then, that UST cannot be
held liable for any kind of damage caused
by the brawl within its premises?
PJA
No, as an enrollment contract has a
built-in obligation, whether stated or
not, that the student shall be provided
with an environment which is
conducive to learning.
To be conducive to learning, there
must be no threat to a student’s right
or limb while within the premises
(PSBA v. CA)
Q: Is the above rule absolute?
No, as the school may claim that it
exercised due diligence in preventing
the injury. (e.g. turnstiles, security
guards)
Q: X, is a 2nd year law student of FEU. One
day, X had an argument with Y, a security
guard of FEU.
Due to the argument, and Y being stressed
out from his 72-hour straight duties, Y fired
a gun against X, which ultimately led to his
death.
Can FEU be held liable?
Yes, based on the enrollment
contract rule.
Art. 2180, NCC cannot apply,
considering that it can only apply if it is
between and among the students of the
same school.
The injury was committed by a security
guard, and thus, there is a failure to
provide a conducive environment for
learning (Saludaga v. FEU)
Q: St. Luke’s Medical College (SLMC)
requires their 4th year medical students to
undergo internship for a period of three (3)
months.
12 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
As there are numerous students, and
SLMC’s facility is not able to cater all
interns, SLMC collaborated with
municipalities for the creation of municipal
clinics, by a memorandum of agreement
(MOA).
In one of the municipalities which SLMC
collaborated with in the northern part of
Luzon, several students were taking their
internship therein.
To save money, the interns requested
SLMC to allow them to stay at the 2nd floor
of the municipal clinic during the
internship period, which SLMC allowed.
One day, a fire occurred which caused the
death of some of the interns. May SLMC be
held liable for damages?
Yes, under the enrollment contract
rule.
While NOT strictly within school
premises, the municipal clinic became
an extension of its own premises
considering the requirement of the
curriculum and the MOA. (St. Luke’s
Medical College v. Sps. Perez)
Q: Assume, that the windows are solidly
built, and the whole building is without any
sprinklers nor fire exits, can SLMC raise
the defense of due diligence?
No, as they failed to provide the
students a conducive area for learning.
Non-academic schools
They are those schools teaching arts
and trades
Employer
Presumption of negligence
PJA
If the employee (EE) committed QD,
it creates a presumption of negligence
on the part of the employer (ER)
The ER’s negligence consists in the
EE’s:
1. Selection; and
2. Supervision
Requisites for presumption of negligence
to attach
The plaintiff must prove:
1. Existence of ER-EE relationship;
and
2. That EE, at the time of the injury,
was pursuing an assigned:
a. Task; or
b. Duty
Effect if presumption proved
The burden of proof shall be shifted to
the ER to rebut the presumption of
liability
Defense of ER against presumption
That the ER exercised due diligence in
selecting and supervising his EE
Negligence of EE v. ER
EE: Own negligence (Art. 2176)
ER: Presumed negligence in the
selection and supervision of his
EE (Art. 2180)
Q: If a victim suffered an injury by reason
of the EE’s negligence, is it correct to say
that the proximate cause is due to the EE’s
negligence as he is the one who directly
caused the injury, and NOT the ER?
No, both are considered as proximate
cause
13 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
Upon whom may recovery be made in case
of injury caused by EE’s negligence
Recovery may be made against:
1. EE;
2. ER; or
3. Both EE and ER, solidarily
(NOTE: Thus, in QD, liability may be
solidary)
Q: X rode a taxi driven by EE, which is
owned by ER.
In case of an accident, what are the
possible sources of obligation?
It may be:
1. Contract, as there is a breach in the
contract of carriage;
2. QD; and
3. Delict
Q: If X opted to sue based on contract, to
whom should it be filed against?
Against the ER, as it is a contract
between passenger X and ER as the
owner of the taxi
Q: If X opted to sue based on contract
against EE, what is the effect?
The case shall be dismissed, for lack of
cause of action, considering that EE is
a stranger to the contract.
EE is merely and employee of ER
Q: If X opted to sue based on contract
against ER, what would be the effect of
EE’s negligence?
ER shall be held liable for additional
damages
PJA
Q: If X opted to sue based on contract
against ER, and the EE is negligent, is
there a need to prove such negligence?
No, as it is sufficient that breach of the
contract is proved
Q: If X opted to sue based on contract
against ER, may he raise the defense that
he exercised diligence in the supervision
and selection of EE?
No, as the issue is the breach of
contract.
Thus, despite diligence in the selection
of an EE, the fact remains that the
contract is breached
Q: If X opted to sue based on delict, to
whom should it be filed against?
Against EE, as one primarily liable
Q: If X opted to sue based on delict, can
both the ER and EE be BOTH liable?
No, only one of them can be made
liable
Q: If X opted to sue based on delict, as only
one can be made liable, how can ER be
made liable?
As the ER is only
secondarily/subsidiarily liable, he
can ONLY be made liable if the EE is:
1. Insolvent; AND
2. Convicted (Art. 102, RPC)
Q: If X opted to sue based on delict, and
eventually, EE was acquitted due non-
authorship of the crime, but held that EE
was civilly liable, may ER be held
subsidiarily liable if EE is insolvent?
14 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya PJA
No, as there is no conviction, but Summary of liabilities of ER and EE
rather an acquittal
CONTRACT QD DELICT
Who? ER ER; EE;
Q: If X opted to sue based on delict, and EE; or primarily
eventually, EE was convicted, but EE is Both
solidarily ER;
insolvent, may ER raise the defense that he subsidiarily
exercised due diligence in the selection
Ratio As the EE and ER’s As EE
and supervision of EE? contract is negligence committed
between the are different the act.
injured party from each
No, as the law provides that ER’s and the ER other (Arts. ER is
liability is automatic upon a 2176 and subsidiarily
2180) liable only
conviction and insolvency of EE upon EE’s
If both are insolvency
sued, they are and
Q: What could be the possible defense of deemed as conviction
ER? joint
tortfeasors, ONLY ONE
as each has OF THEM
The he is NOT an ER of EE different MAY BE
negligence MADE
which LIABLE
Q: If X opted to sue based on QD against contributed
to the injury
both ER and EE, can the liability of one be (Art. 2194)
separated from the other?
Solidary NOT available Available NOT
liability available
No, as their respective negligent acts between ER
and EE
contributed to the injury suffered.
Effect of Additional
EE’s damages to
In case of multiple tortfeasors, they are negligence ER’s liability Negligence
deemed as solidarily liable must be Every
Necessity to NOT proven, as it criminal
prove necessary, as is the very action has
Q: If X, in one case, opted to sue based on negligence mere proving basis of the negligence
of breach is obligation
QD against EE, and contract against ER, sufficient
can they be held solidarily liable?
Defense of NOT available Available NOT
diligence in available
Yes, as an exception, if the negligence selection
and
causing the injury amounts to tort, supervision
solidarily liability may still attach of EE
considering that the provisions of QD
shall apply, despite the existence of a Registered owner rule
pre-existing contractual relation.
In case of injury caused by motor
Thus, if the reason for the breach of vehicle operations (e.g. taxis, buses,
contract is QD itself (negligence), then jeeps), the registered owner shall be
the existence of the contract cannot liable
prevent the recovery of civil liability
under QD. (Air France v. Carascoso; Q: Junk Trans (Junk) and Pul-Pol Trans
see also LRTA v. Navidad where (PP) entered into an agreement, where the
there are three joint tortfeasors former shall sell to the latter all of its buses,
based on contract, Art. 2170, and subject to a condition.
Art. 2180)
15 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
There is also an agreement to the effect
that, PP is allowed to use the buses and
operate them whilst the condition has yet
to be fulfilled, but any liability caused by
such operation shall be on the account of
PP.
One day, PP, while operating Junk’s buses,
an accident occurred. Junk claims that he
is not liable, considering that as per the
contract, he cannot be held liable for the
use during the time that it is used while the
condition is not yet fulfilled. Is Junk
correct?
No, considering that insofar as the
public is concerned, the registered
owner rule shall apply.
That the registered owner is still Junk,
he is liable for the accident.
The agreement cannot be held valid
against the public.
Q: Is Junk left with no remedy?
No, as he may file a third-party
complaint against PP, considering that
PP is the actual operator.
It is allowed, considering that PP will
be unjustly enriched if Junk would
NOT be allowed to recover.
Q: If the victims sue Junk based on QD,
specifically vicarious liability as ER, may
Junk raise the defense that he is NOT the
ER, as the drivers operating the buses are
EEs of PP?
No, as the registered owner rule
operates despite the actual employees
are NOT his own
Requisites of proving ER’s vicarious
liability v. Registered owner rule (ROR)
PJA
Under the ER’s vicarious liability,
the following requisites must be
proved:
1. Existence of ER-EE relationship;
and
2. That the EE was doing an assigned
task or duty during the time of
injury
On the other hand, under the ROR, it
is sufficient that the ownership be
proven
When to use ROR
ROR is to be used, if the ER is also the
registered owner (Caravan Travel
and Tours v. Abejar)
Effect of proving ownership in case of ER
who is also the registered owner
It will create a presumption that:
1. There exists and ER-EE
relationship; and
2. The EE was pursuing an assigned
task or duty during the injury
Thus, the plaintiff is no longer
required to prove such, and the ER is
now burdened to deny the
presumption
(NOTE: Thus, the role is reversed as
compared to Art. 2180, as it is now the
defendant who must disprove the
same)
Defenses available in case of ER who is
also the registered owner
The following defenses are available to
the ER:
1. That there is NO existing ER-EE
relationship;
16 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
2. That at the time of the injury, the
EE was NOT doing an assigned
task or duty; or
3. That he exercised due diligence in
the selection and supervision of his
EE
State
When applicable
The State/LGU shall be liable is
performing:
1. Governmental function; or
2. Non-governmental (propriety)
function (e.g. private, commercial,
GOCCs)
When State liable while performing
government function
If he is acting through a special agent
Special agent
He may be a:
1. Private individual given an
assignment by the State; or
2. Public official/employee given an
assignment which is NOT his
official function
Q: X, a public employee, committed a QD
while doing his official function. May the
State be held vicariously liable for the QD
of its public employee X?
No, as X is NOT deemed as a special
agent, considering the performance of
his official functions.
Thus, only X is liable for the QD
Effect if State/LGU is doing a proprietary
function
PJA
It is as if, the State/LGU is a private
person
Nature of liability if doing a proprietary
function
The State/LGU is liable as if it is a
private ER
(NOTE: Thus, the applicable
paragraphs under Art. 2180 are
paragraphs four (pertaining to the
State) and five (ER’s vicarious liability).
It follows, that the requisites shall
apply, to wit:
1. That there is an existing ER-EE
relationship; and
2. The EE is, at the time of the injury,
doing an assigned task or duty)
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
Q: Are all injuries actionable?
No, as there may an injury where there
is no negligence or bad faith
Q: X, while in the Philippines, withdrew
from his foreign deposit account with ABC
Bank an amount of $1,000, which is
denominated into $100.
While X was in Thailand, he used one of
the $100. The store owner noticed that it
was fake and thus did not accept the $100.
As he suffered embarrassment, X sued
ABC.
Experts observed that even upon checking,
it cannot be readily detected as fake. Can
ABC bank be held liable?
17 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya PJA
No, even if there was injury, by the
observations of the experts, it appears
that ABC had no:

1. Negligence; and
2. Bad faith

It is a case of damnum absque

injuria, where despite the presence of
damage or loss, there is no injury

18 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya PJA
DAMAGES Exemplary/ corrective Imposed by way of
example or correction
for the public good
Kinds
Liquidated Agreed upon by the
The kinds are as follows: parties, paid in case of
breach of a contract
1. Actual/compensatory; Attorney’s fees Payable to the client, as
2. Moral; an indemnity for
3. Nominal; damages (for the trouble
4. Temperate/moderate; of seeking assistance of a
5. Exemplary/corrective; lawyer)
6. Liquidated;
7. Attorney’s fees ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY

KIND DEFINITION Basis

Actual/ compensatory Those awarded to
compensate a party for Natural justice, as to repair the wrong
suffering: done
1. Loss; or
2. Injury Components

Moral Compensation for any: Damnum

emergens: Value of loss suffered
1. Physical (actual damage)
suffering;
2. Mental anguish;
3. Fright; Lucrum
4. Serious anxiety; cessans: Profits which the
5. Besmirched creditor failed to obtain
reputation; (compensatory
6. Wounded
feelings; damages)
7. Moral shock;
8. Social Q: That it consists of two components, can
humiliation; reward be only be made based on one
and component?
9. Similar injuries
unjustly caused
No, as both may be awarded. (MD
It is awarded to achieve a Transit & Taxi Co., Inc. v. CA)
“spiritual status quo”.
Purpose
Nominal For vindication or
recognition of a violated
or invaded right It is intended to put the injured in the
position prior to his injury
Temperate/ moderate Awarded when there is
pecuniary loss, but the Rule as to requirement of proof
amount cannot be
proved with certainty
GR: There must be proof (capable
of proof) before damages may

19 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya PJA
be awarded, thus, there must GR: SOA is self-serving,
be: and thus insufficient to
prove damages
1. Pleading; and
2. Proof of actual damages ER: Despite a SOA being
suffered self-serving, it may be
given probative weight
ER: NO proof required, if if it is with other
provided by: corroborative
evidence
1. Law; or
2. Stipulation (Art. 2199, Requirement as to court’s order of
NCC) damages

Standard required as to proof The court must state the factual bases
of the award
It must be proven with reasonable
certainty, based on: It is so, as actual damages cannot be
predicated proof which are:
1. Competent proof; or
2. Best evidence obtainable 1. Flimsy;
2. Remote;
Thus, the following are considered as 3. Speculative; and
best evidence available in support of 4. Insubstantial
damages:
Effect if loss cannot be proved with
1. Receipts: certainty (due to absence of competent
a. Sales; and proof)
b. Delivery;
2. Vouchers; Temperate/moderate damages may
a. Cash; and be awarded, so long as:
b. Check; and
3. Other pieces of documentary 1. Court found pecuniary loss;
evidence of the same nature 2. But the amount cannot be proved
with certainty; and
(NOTE: However, as an exception, 3. The amount should be reasonable,
loss of earning capacity may be proved bearing in mind that such kind of
by testimonial evidence in specific damages must be:
circumstances) a. More than nominal;
b. But less than compensatory
Q: To prove damages, the plaintiff showed
as sole proof of such, a statement of Measure of damages
account (SOA). Can the court give
probative weight to the SOA for the Generally Contract QC Delict QD
purpose of damages? Damnum Good faith: Natural and
emergens; Natural and probable probable
consequences, consequences,
No, as the rule is as follows: and whether foreseen or whether

20 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya PJA
Lucrum reasonably foreseen foreseen or Loss of earning capacity
cessans at the time the reasonable
contract was foreseen
perfected
Purpose
Aggravating
Bad faith: circumstance: It is to compensate the heirs for the
ALL damages Increase income their decedent would have
attributable to non- received if not for his death
performance of the Mitigating
obligation circumstance:
Decrease Rule as to measure

DAMAGES RECOVERABLE IN CASE GR: As proved by statistics and

OF DEATH CAUSED BY DELICT OR actuarial presented by the
QD plaintiff

The following damages are recoverable ER: In case of absence of the

in case of death caused by delict or QD: above, the presumption is as
follows:
1. Death indemnity;
2. Loss of earning capacity; 2/3 x (80 – ATD) x (GAI – RNLE)
3. Support;
4. Moral damages; Where:
5. Injury to plaintiff’s business
standing ATD: Age at the time
of death
Death indemnity
GAI: Gross annual
It is at the fixed rate of Php50,000 income

(NOTE: It was initially fixed at RNLE: Reasonable and

Php3,000) necessary living
expenses
Nature
Rule as to requirement of proof
Its nature is as follows:
GR: Documentary evidence
1. Separate and distinct from other
indemnity for damages; and ER: Despite no documentary
2. Automatically awarded evidence, the court may still
award if:
What need be proved
1. Deceased is a minimum
In order for death indemnity be wage earner under current
automatically awarded, the following labor laws:
must be proved: a. Self-employed, that
in the line of work
1. Fact of death; and there is no
2. Responsibility of accused documentary

21 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya PJA
evidence available; Q: Who determines the length of time to
or give support?
b. Daily worker;
2. Proved by testimonial The court shall determine, which in no
evidence of: case shall exceed five (5) years
a. Employer; or
b. Co-worker Moral damages

Support Basis

Art. 195. Subject to the provisions of the Mental anguish caused by the death
succeeding articles, the following are obliged to
support each other to the whole extent set To whom available
forth in the preceding article:
It is available to:
1. The spouses;
2. Legitimate ascendants and 1. Surviving spouse;
descendants; 2. Legitimate and illegitimate:
3. Parents and their legitimate children a. Descendants and
and the legitimate and illegitimate ascendants
children of the latter;
4. Parents and their illegitimate children Rule as to availability in relation to brothers
and the legitimate and illegitimate and/or sisters (collateral blood relatives)
children of the latter; and
5. Legitimate brothers and sisters, GR: NOT entitled to moral
whether of full or half-blood damages caused by the death

ER: Entitled, if exercising

Art. 196. Brothers and sisters not legitimately substitute parental
related, whether of the full or half-blood, are authority, as they are
likewise bound to support each other to the full considered as ascendants in
extent set forth in Article 194, except only such a case
when the need for support of the brother or
sister, being of age, is due to a cause imputable Injury to Plaintiff’s Business Standing or
to the claimant's fault or negligence.
Commercial Credit
Requisites Basis
The requisites are as follows: It is a prized and valuable asset,
considering it is a part of the
1. The person: foundation of his business (Art. 2205,
a. Is entitled to support from NCC)
the deceased;
b. Is NOT an heir called to Effect if definite proof of pecuniary loss
succeed the decedent; and unavailable
2. The support must NOT exceed
five (5) years

22 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya PJA
As long as there is indeed a pecuniary i. Detention or
loss, temperate/moderate damages arrest:
must still be awarded 1. Illegal; or
2. Arbitrary;
MORAL ii. Illegal search
e. Defamatory crimes:
Purpose i. Libel
ii. Slander; or
It is awarded to alleviate the moral iii. Any other form of
suffering caused by the defendant’s defamation
culpable action. The award, in relation f. Any person who:
to alleviation, shall serve as: i. Shows disrespect
to the dead; or
1. Means; ii. Wrongfully
2. Diversions; or interferes with a
3. Amusements funeral (Art. 309);
iii. Causes loss or
Requisites injury, contrary to:
1. Morals;
The requisites are as follows: 2. Good
customs; or
1. Evidence of claimant’s: Public
a. Besmirched reputation; or policy (Art.
b. Suffering: 21)
i. Physical; iv. Violates privacy of
ii. Mental; or another (Art. 26)
iii. Psychological; v. Refuses to do
2. Culpable act or omission; official duties as a
3. The above is the proximate cause public servant (Art.
of the damages sustained; and 27)
4. It falls under the following: vi. Engages in unfair
a. Physical injuries, caused by competition,
i. Criminal offense; through:
or 1. Force;
ii. QD 2. Intimidatio
b. Lascivious acts: n;
i. Seduction; 3. Deceit;
ii. Abduction; 4. Machinatio
iii. Rape; n;
iv. Other lascivious 5. Other
acts; similar
c. Crimes relating to married methods
persons: (Art. 28)
i. Adultery; or vii. Acquitted based on
ii. Concubinage; reasonable doubt
d. Crimes relating to (Art. 29)
deprivation of liberty: viii. Separate civil
action (Art. 30)
23 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya PJA
ix. Obstruction of Governed by its own peculiar facts,
constitutional with a limitation that it should NOT
rights (Art. 32); be excessive:
x. Peace officer
refusing to give aid 1. Palpably; or
in case of threat to 2. Scandalously
life of another (Art.
34) Thus, it must be commensurate to the
xi. Refusal to file loss or injury suffered
criminal action
(Art. 35) NOMINAL
5. Willful injury to property which are
justly due; and Purpose
6. Breach of contract, if in:
a. Bad faith; or For a right to be vindicated or
b. Fraudulent recognized

Recoverability in case of breach of contract It is NOT for actual present loss or

substantial injury
GR: NOT recoverable, as NOT
enumerated To which cannot exist concurrently

ER: Recoverable, if: Nominal damages cannot exist with the

following:
1. Death of a passenger;
2. Carrier guilty of: 1. Compensatory;
a. Bad faith; or a. As there is an actual injury
b. Fraud; 2. Temperate/Moderate:
3. Act of breach constitutes a. Likewise, there is a
tort pecuniary loss, but cannot
be determined
Rule as to juridical persons (includes the
State) Measure of damages

GR: Cannot recover moral damages It is left with the discretion of the court

ER: In cases of: TEMPERATE/NOMINAL

1. Libel; Q: Plaintiff submitted proof of actual

2. Slander; or damages, however, it was held as
3. Any other form of insufficient and incompetent. Is it correct
defamation (Art. 2219(7), to say that no damages may be awarded AT
NCC) ALL?

Measure of damages No, as the court may award temperate

damages, even if there is a proof which
is insufficient.

24 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya PJA
Thus, temperate damages may still be entitled to moral, compensatory, or
awarded if there is: temperate damages

1. No proof; or When awarded

2. Proof, but it is insufficient
Contracts QC Delict QD
Measure of damages Defendant acted in a If one or Defendant
manner which is: more acted with
aggravating gross
It is left to the discretion of the court, 1. Wanton; circumstance negligence
which must be more than nominal, but 2. Fraudulent is/are
less than compensatory 3. Reckless; present
4. Oppressive;
or
EXEMPLARY/CORRECTIVE 5. Malevolent

Purpose Amount
To permit the courts to reshape Dependent on the other damages
behavior that is socially deletirious by awarded, with a limitation that it
negative: should not:
1. Incentives; or 1. Enrich one party; or
2. Deterrents 2. Impoverish another
Q: Is it a matter of right? LIQUIDATED
No, as it is discretionary upon the court
When distinction must be made between
between penalty for breach v. for damages
Effect of being discretionary
AS AS DAMAGE
It need not be pleaded in the complaint PENALTY
THERE IS
Requisite partial/ NO distinction
irregular
There must first be a showing that the compliance
plaintiff is entitled to:
NO partial/ Serves as Serves as
1. Moral; irregular penalty for indemnification
2. Compensatory; or compliance breach of the for damages
3. Temperate contract

Q: Can it exist if there is an agreement as Limitation

to liquidated damages?
It should NOT be:
It on its own, it cannot.
1. Iniquitous; or
Thus, despite liquidated damages, the 2. Unconsionable
plaintiff must still show that he is

25 | P a g e
QUASI-DELICT AND DAMAGES (2020-2021, 2nd Sem)
Atty. Elmer Rabuya
It is limited, considering the legal
maxim contra bonos mores. Such a
penalty shall be deemed as immoral.
ATTORNEY’S FEES
Ordinary v. extraordinary concept
In its ordinary concept, it is the
compensation received by a lawyer for
his services.
On the other hand, it is in its
extraordinary concept if it is:
PJA
a. Workmen’s compensation;
and
b. Employer’s liability laws;
10. Separate civil action;
11. At least double judicial costs are
awarded; and
12. Other cases where the court deems
it just and equitable
Nature of damage
Actual
Consequence if it is actual

1. Paid by the losing party; Proof is necessary, and must be

2. To the winning party-litigant (client specifically prayed, not merely a general
of the lawyer) prayer

Q: May a lawyer, nevertheless, be given Q: Under the contract, there is a stipulation

attorney’s fees? that in case of an action between the
parties, the attorney’s fees shall be paid at
Yes, if it has been agreed upon by the the amount of Php500,000. What is the
lawyer and the client, as additional nature of the stipulation?
compensation
It is a liquidated damage, which
When available should be awarded to the litigant (not
his lawyer)
It is available in the following cases:
That it is a liquidated damage, it must
1. There is stipulation to that effect; NOT be iniquitous or unconscionable
2. Exemplary damages are awarded;
3. When the defendant’s act or
omission caused the plaintiff to:
a. Litigate with third persons;
or
b. Incur expenses to protect
his interest;
4. Malicious prosecution;
5. Clearly unfounded civil action;
6. Defendant refused the plaintiff’s
valid, just, and demandable claim,
acting with bad faith which is:
a. Gross; and
b. Evident;
7. Legal support;
8. Recovery of wages;
9. Indemnity under:
26 | P a g e