STRICT LIABILITY

TORTS AND DAMAGES

(BY RONALD ARVIN C. CUSI)
 What is a Strict Liability?

Strict liability is a liability without fault. It is

“when neither care nor negligence, neither good nor
bad faith, neither knowledge nor ignorance will save
the defendant.” A person could be made liable with
strict liability if one is made liable independent of
fault, negligence or intent after establishing certain
facts specified by law. Strict liability tort can be
committed even if reasonable care was exercised and
regardless of the state of mind of the actor at that
time.
APPLICATION
STRICT LIABILITY INVOLVING ANIMALS

Governing Provision:

Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever

may make use of the same is responsible for the
damage which it may cause, although it may escape
or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case
the damage should come from force majeure or from
the fault of the person who has suffered the damage.
STRICT LIABILITY INVOLVING ANIMALS

The provision’s intent is to make the possessor or

whoever makes use of an animal liable to civil
damages independent of fault.

The only exception is force majeure.

The possessor of the whoever makes use of an

animal is still liable although the damage was done
by the animal, even when the same was caused by a
third person.
 JURISPRUDENCE

In Vestil v. Intermediate Appelate Court, a child

died after she was bitten by a dog while she was
playing with a child of the petitioners in the house of
the later Vicente Miranda, the father of Purita Vestil,
at F Ramos Street in Cebu City. Vestil was made
liable although she was not the owner but a
possessor.
STRICT LIABILITY INVOLVING FALLING OBJECTS

Governing Provision:

Article 2193. The head of a family that lives in a

building or part thereof, is responsible for damages
caused by things thrown or falling from the same.
STRICT LIABILITY INVOLVING FALLING OBJECTS

The liability under the provision is absolute. It does

not actually need a presumption of proof of care.

The provision does not exempt force majeure.

The term head of the family as stated in the

aforementioned provision is not limited to the owner
of the building, it may even include the lessee
thereof.
 JURISPRUDENCE

The petitioner in Dingcong v. Karaan, was a co-

lessee of the property. He was made liable for the act
of a guest who left the faucet upon causing water to
fall from the second floor and to damage the goods of
Kanaan in the floor below.
 STRICT LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS

Governing Provision:

Article 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to

pay compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers,
workmen, mechanics or other employees, even though the event may
have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the
death or personal injury arose out of and in the course of the
employment. The employer is also liable for compensation if the
employee contracts any illness or disease caused by such employment
or as the result of the nature of the employment. If the mishap was
due to the employee's own notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or
drunkenness, the employer shall not be liable for compensation. When
the employee's lack of due care contributed to his death or injury, the
compensation shall be equitably reduced.
 STRICT LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS

It should be noted, however, that if the death or

injury is due to the negligence of a fellow-worker, the
latter and the employer shall be solidarily liable for
compensation. If a fellow-worker’s intentional or
malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury,
the employer shall not be answerable, unless it
should be shown that the latter did not exercise due
diligence in the selection or supervision of the
plaintiff’s fellow-worker.
 STRICT LIABILITY AS TO NUISANCE

Governing Provisions:

Definition under Article 694. A nuisance is any act, omission,

establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public
highway or street, or any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
Note: the Civil Code itself provides protection against nuisance by
means of legal easements as the latter is a proper limitation upon
ownership, as easements of distances, light and view.
 STRICT LIABILITY AS TO NUISANCE

Governing Provisions:
Definition under Code of Sanitation

 Presidential Decree 856 otherwise known as Code on Sanitation of the Philippines,

defines nuisance as anything that injures health, endangers life, offends the senses or
produces discomfort to the community.

 Section 85 of the same statute likewise considers the following as nuisance:

a) Public or private premises maintained and used in manner injurious to health
b) Breeding places and haborages of vermin
c) Animals and their carcasses which are injurious to health
d) Accumulation of refuse
e) Noxious matter or waste water discharged improperly in streets
f) Animals stockage maintained in a manner injurious to health
g) Excessive noise
h) Illegal shanties in public or private properties
 STRICT LIABILITY AS TO NUISANCE

Article 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A

public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood
or any considerable number of persons, although the
extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon
individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one
that is not included in the foregoing definition.

Nuisance can be considered as nuisance per se or

nuisance per accidens; the former as under any and all
circumstances while the latter only becomes such under
certain condition or circumstances.
 PER SE v. PER ACCIDENS

Nuisance per se – example is a construction without

provision for accumulation or disposal of waste matters and
constructed without building permits contiguously to and
therefore liable to pollute one of the main water pipelines
which supplies potable water to the Greater Manila Area.

Nuisance per accidens – example are certain business

establishments which are lawful in themselves but may
become nuisances if ther are so offensive to the senses that
thy render the enjoyment of life and property
uncomfortable.
 Who are liable for NUISANCE

There is strict liability on the part of the owner or

possessor of the property where a nuisance is found
because he is obliged to abate the same irrespective of
the presence or absence of fault or negligence.
Moreover, the Civil Code provides that every
successive owner or possessor of property who fails or
refuses to abate a nuisance in that property started by
a former owner or possessor is liable therefore in the
same manner as the one who created it.
 ABATEMENT AS DEFENSE

The Civil Code provides for abatement of nuisance

because nuisance, whether public or private, is
considered one of the most serious hindrances to the
enjoyment of life and property. The provisions for its
abatement, both judicial and extrajudicial, was
herefore considered indispensable in a well-rounded
Civil Code.
 ABATEMENT AS DEFENSE

Against Public Nuisance

Art. 699 of the Civil Code states that the remedies

against a public nuisance are prosecution under the
Penal Code or any local ordinance, or a civil action or
abatement, without judicial proceedings. Abatement
without judicial proceedings is justified by the
exerciseof the police power of the State.
 ABATEMENT AS DEFENSE

Against Private Nuisance

The remedies against a private nuisance are a civil action and

abatement, without judicial proceedings. (Art. 705, Civil
Code). Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it
by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which
constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the
peace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is
indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement
of a public nuisance by a private person be followed.
 ABATEMENT AS DEFENSE

Against Fire Code of the Philippines

Section 10 of Presidential Decree No. 1185 otherwise known as the “Fire Code
of the Philippines” declares that fire hazards shall be abated immediately. For
such purpose, the Director General of the Bureau of Fire Protection or his duly
authorized representative may issue an order for such abatement.

The Fire Code likewise provides that if the owner, administrator or occupant of
buildings, structure and their premises or facilities does not abate the same
within the period fixed in said order, the occupancy permit or permit to
operate shall be cancelled. Any building or structure declared as a firetrap or is
causing clear and present fire danger to adjoining establishments and
habitations shall be declared a public nuisance, as defined in the Civil Code of
the Philippines.
 LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES

A private person or a public official extrajudicially

abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages in two
cases, to wit:

(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or

(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the
courts to be not a real nuisance. (Article 707, Civil
Code).
 STRICT LIABILITY AS TO UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Governing Provision

Article 22. Every person who through an act of

performance by another, or any other means,
acquires or comes into possession of something at
the expense of the latter without just or legal ground,
shall return the same to him.
 STRICT LIABILITY AS TO UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Governing Provision

Article 22. Every person who through an act of

performance by another, or any other means,
acquires or comes into possession of something at
the expense of the latter without just or legal ground,
shall return the same to him.
 STRICT LIABILITY AS TO UNJUST ENRICHMENT

NOT A QUASI-CONTRACT

The action under Article 22 is independent of quasi-

contract of Solutio Indebiti. There is no undue payment
by mistake under Article 22 while in Solutio Indebiti,
there is payment by mistake.

There is unjust enrichment under Article 22 when a

person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another
against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and
good conscience.
 STRICT LIABILITY AS TO UNJUST ENRICHMENT

ACCION IN REM VERSO

Accion in rem verso is considered merely an auxillary action,
available only when there is no other remedy on contract,
quasi-contract, crime and quasi-delict.

REQUISITES:
1) That the defendant has been enriched
2) That the plaintiff has suffered loss
3) That the enrichment of the defendant is without legal ground
4) That the plaintiff has no other action based on contract,
quasi-contract, crime or quasi-delict
 STRICT LIABILITY AS TO UNJUST ENRICHMENT

ACCION IN REM VERSO

Accion in rem verso is considered merely an auxillary action,
available only when there is no other remedy on contract,
quasi-contract, crime and quasi-delict.

REQUISITES:
1) That the defendant has been enriched
2) That the plaintiff has suffered loss
3) That the enrichment of the defendant is without legal ground
4) That the plaintiff has no other action based on contract,
quasi-contract, crime or quasi-delict
END