Torts and

Damages
Quasi-delict is used to designate those obligations which do not arise from law,
contracts, quasi-contracts or criminal offences. The concept of liability in quasi-
delictual cases is embodied in Chapter 2, Title XVII of the Civil Code.

Article 2176 of the Civil Code which provides: 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 Chapter 2, Title XVII.

Liability for quasi-delict under this article requires the following conditions:
1. an unlawful act or omission amounting to a fault or negligence, imputable to the
defendant;
2. damage or injury to the plaintiff;
3. such damage or injury being the natural and probable, or direct and immediate
consequence of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission;
4. and there being no pre-existing contractual relation between the plaintiff and
defendant
 Civil Code
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding
article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

Article 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to

a quasi-delict.

Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of
the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
 Civil Code
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding
article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

Article 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to

a quasi-delict.

Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of
the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
 Civil Code
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who
live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their
company.

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.
Proximate Cause
Proximate cause is defined as that which, in the natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred
(Lambert v. Heirs of Castillon, G.R. No. 160709, February 23, 2005)

More comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, 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 cause
which first acted, 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 or default that an injury to
some person might probably result therefrom.
(McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68102, July 16, 1992; Vda. de Bataclan vs. Medina,
G.R. No. L-10126, October 22, 1957) 
Fault Distinguished From Negligence

Fault, in general, signifies a voluntary act or omission which causes damage to

the right of another giving rise to an obligation on the part of the actor to repair
such damage. Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the
interest of another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which
the circumstances justly demand.

Fault requires the execution of a positive act which causes damage to another
while negligence consists of the omission to do acts which result in damage to
another.

[Child Learning Center, Inc. vs. Tagario, G.R. No. 150920 | 2005-11-25]
 Negligence
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct to human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do.

The whole theory of negligence presuppose some uniform standard of behavior which must be an external
and objective one, rather than the individual judgment good or bad, of the particular actor; it must be, as far
as possible, the same for all persons; and at the same time make proper allowance for the risk apparent to
the actor for his capacity to meet it, and for the circumstances under which he must act.

Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
injury.32 [see St. Martin Polyclinic Inc. vs. LWV Construction Corp., G.R. No. 217426, December 4, 2017]

Under Article 1173 of the Civil Code, it consists of the "omission of that diligence which is required by the
nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the person, of the time and of the
place."33 The Civil Code makes liability for negligence clear under Article 2176, 34 and Article 20.35
 Negligence
To determine the existence of negligence, the following time-honored test has been set in Picart v. Smith:3
6

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows:
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The
law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the
discreet pater familias of the Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by
reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would
be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines
liability by that.

Pater Familias

This theory bases the liability of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his
servant.

(Bahia vs. Litonjua, 30 Phil., 624; Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. [1918], 38 Phil., 768)
 Negligence
Burden of proving negligence
 
Under our Rules of Evidence, it is disputably presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his
concerns and that private transactions have been fair and regular. In effect, negligence cannot
be presumed, and thus, must be proven by him who alleges it.
 
The negligence or fault should be clearly established as it is the basis of her action. The burden
of proof is upon [the plaintiff]. Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that "burden of
proof is the duty 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." It is then up for the plaintiff to
establish his cause of action or the defendant to establish his defense. Therefore, if the plaintiff
alleged in his complaint that he was damaged because of the negligent acts of the defendant, he
has the burden of proving such negligence. It is even presumed that a person takes ordinary
care of his concerns. The quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence. 
 
[see St. Martin Polyclinic Inc. vs. LWV Construction Corp., G.R. No. 217426, December 4, 2017
citing Huang vs. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., G.R. No. 180440, December 5, 2012]
Simple Negligence, Elements

The elements of simple negligence are: (1) that there is lack of

precaution on the part of the offender, and (2) that the damage
impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not
clearly manifest. 

[Jarcia and Bastan vs. People, G.R. No. 187926, February 15,
2012]
Gross Negligence Or Gross Neglect Of Duty

Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to “negligence

characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences, insofar as
other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even
inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property. In
cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of
duty is flagrant and palpable.”

[Civil Service Commission v. Rabang, G.R. No. 167763, March 14, 2008;
see also LBC Express vs Mateo, G.R. No. 168215, June 9, 2009]
Simple neglect of duty vs Gross neglect of duty

[Simple] neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give one’s

attention to a task expected of him. Gross neglect, on the other hand, is
such neglect from the gravity of the case, or the frequency of instances,
becomes so serious in its character as to endanger or threaten the public
welfare. The term does not necessarily include willful neglect or
intentional official wrongdoing.”

[Report on the Alleged Spurious Bailbonds and Release Orders Issued by the
RTC, Branch 27, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, A.M. No. 04-6-332-RTC, April 5, 2006]
Concurring Negligence
There is concurrent negligence when the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
omission of two or more persons, although acting independently of each other, are, in
combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person and it is
impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury. (Philippine
National Construction Corp v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005)

Doctrine Of Comparative Negligence

The doctrine of comparative negligence allows a recovery by a plaintiff whose own act
contributed to his injury, provided his negligence was slight as compared with that of
the defendant. Some others have accepted the theory of proportional damages,
reducing the award to a plaintiff in proportion to his responsibility for the accident. (
M.H. Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company, G.R. No. 1719, January23, 1907)

The effect of the doctrine of comparative negligence is to diminish the damages

recoverable in proportion to the negligence of the injured person. ( Cerezo
vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company, G.R. No. 10107, February 4, 1916)
Damages
Damages

-the pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury sustained,

or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for
the breach of some duty or the violation of some right.

[PEOPLE vs. Felipe Ballesteros, et al. G.R. No. 120921 | 1998-01-29]

Distinction between damages and injury.

Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt or harm
which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation
awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, 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; the law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which
does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. These situations are often called
damnum absque injuria.

[Antonio Diaz vs. Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., et al

G.R. No. 160959 | 2007-04-03]
Kinds of Damages (Article 2197 Civil Code)
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
Actual or compensatory damage
Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as
he has duly proved.

Purpose
Actual or compensatory damages simply make good or replace the loss
caused by the wrong.

Manner of Determination
Claimant must produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable
such as receipts to justify an award therefore. Actual or compensatory
damages cannot be presumed but must be proved with reasonable
certainty. (People v. Ereno, Feb. 22, 2000)
 Moral Damage
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act
for omission
Purpose
Awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or amusement that will alleviate the
moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of defendants culpable action. (Robleza v. CA, 174 SCRA
354)

Manner of Determination
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary. The assessment is left to the discretion of the court according to
the circumstances of each case. However, there must be proof that the defendant caused physical suffering
etc. (Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Worker’s Union, G.R. No. L-31379, Aug. 29, 1988). GR:

Factual basis must be alleged. Aside from the need for the claimant to satisfactorily prove the existence of
the factual basis of the damages, it is also necessary to prove its causal relation to the defendant’s act
(Raagas v. Trava, G.R. No. L-20081, Feb. 27,1968; People v. Manero, G.R. Nos. 86883-85, Jan. 29, 1993).
Exception: Criminal cases. Moral damages may be awarded to the victim in criminal proceedings in
such amount as the court deems just without need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof (People v.
Paredes, July 30, 1998).
 Nominal Damage
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for
the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

Purpose
Vindicating or recognizing the injured party’s right to a property that has been violated
or invaded. (Tan v. Bantegui, 473 SCRA 663)

 
Manner of Determination
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary. Proof that a legal right has been violated is
what is only required. Usually awarded in the absence of proof of actual damages.
 Temperate or moderate damages
Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than
compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary
loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be
provided with certainty.

Purpose
When the court is convinced that there has been such a loss, the judge is empowered
to calculate moderate damages rather than let the complainant suffer without redress.
(GSIS v. Labung-Deang, 365 SCRA 341)

Manner of Determination
May be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but
its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. No proof of
pecuniary loss is necessary.
 Liquidated damages
Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be
paid in case of breach thereof.

Purpose
Liquidated damages are frequently agreed upon by the parties, either by way of
penalty or in order to avoid controversy on the amount of damages.

Manner of Determination
If intended as a penalty in obligations with a penal cause, proof of actual damages
suffered by the creditor is not necessary in order that the penalty may be demanded
(Art. 1228, NCC). No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary.
 Exemplary or corrective damages
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public
good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages

Purpose
Exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings.
(People v. Orilla, 422 SCRA 620)

 
Manner of Determination
1. That the claimant is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages; and

2. That the crime was committed with 1 or more aggravating circumstances, or the quasi-­delict
‐
was committed with gross negligence, or in contracts and quasi-contracts the act must be
accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. No
proof of pecuniary loss is necessary.