Torts: Notes

Concept/ Definition

The term “Tort” is of Anglo-American law-common law which is broader in scope than the Spanish-Phil concept which is limited to negligence while the former includes international or criminal acts. Torts in Philippine law is the blending of common-law and civil law system.

Quasi Delict refers to acts or omissions which cause damage to another, there being fault or negligence on the part of the defendant, who is obliged by law to pay for the damages done.

Elements of Quasi Delict:

1. Damages suffered by the plaintiff
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant
3. Causal connection between the fault or negligence of the defendant’s act and the damages incurred by the plaintiff (Andamo vs IAC, 191 SCRA 426, ’96)

ELEMENTS OF QUASI DELICT/TORTS

1. act or omission
2. damage or injury is caused to another
3. fault or negligence is present
4. there is no pre-existing contractual relations between the parties
5. causal connection between damage done and act/omission

DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER SOURCES OF OBLIGATION

	CONTRACT (1170-1174 NCC)	QUASI DELICT (2176 NCC)	DELICT (365 RPC)
Vinculum Juris	Contract	Negligent act/ omission (culpa, imprudence)	Act/omission committed by means of dolo (deliberate, malicious, in bad faith)
Proof Needed	Preponderance of evidence	Preponderance of evidence	Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Defense available	Exercise of extraordinary diligence (in contract of carriage), Force Majeure	Exercise of diligence of good father of a family in the selection and supervision of employees
Pre-existing contract	There is pre-existing contract	No pre-existing contract	No pre-existing contract
Burden of proof	Contractual party. Prove the ff.: existence of a contract breach	Victim. Prove the ff.: damage negligence causal connection between negligence and damage done	Prosecution. Accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CRIME & CUPLA AQUILIANA

Crimes:	Culpa Aquiliana:	Culpa Contractual:
1. Crimes affected the public interest.	1. Only private concern.	(i) Pre-existing obligation between the parties (ii) Fault or negligence is incidental to the performance of the obligation (iii) Defense of having exercised diligence of a good father of a family is not available, just like in criminal action. Applied doctrine of Respondent Superior, or Master and Servant Rule.
2. Penal law punishes/ corrects the criminal act.	2. Repairs the damage by indemnification.
3. Only acts covered by Penal Law are punished (Barredo vs Garcia, 73 Phil 607; J. Bocobo, 1940 : Taxi c lied with Carretela)	3. Covers all acts that are faulty or negligent.
4. Guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.	4. Preponderance of evidence.
5. Reservation to file separate civil action. No reservation, civil action is impliedly instituted in the criminal action.	5. No reservation – it’s independent from crime.
6. Employer’s liability is subsidiary.	6. Employer’s liability is solidary (Fabre Jr. vs CA, 259 SCRA 426)

CIVIL LIABILITY IN QUASI-DELICT vs. DELICT

DIFFERENCE	QUASI-DELICT	DELICT
Liability of Employer	Solidary	Subsidiary
Reservation Requirement	Civil aspect of the quasi-delict is impliedly instituted with criminal action, but under 2000 Crimpro Rules it is independent and separate	Civil aspect is Impliedly instituted with criminal action
Effect of judgement of acquittal in a criminal case involving same act/omission	Not a bar to recover civil damages EXCEPT when judgement pronounces that the negligence from which damage arise is non-existent	Not a bar to recover civil damages

DISTINCTIONS

FAULT signifies voluntary act or omission causing damages to the right of another giving rise to an obligation of the actor to repair such damage.

Fault is of two (2) kinds:

1. Substantive and independent fault in that there is no pre-existing relation. This is the one referred to Art. 2176 NCC and source of an obligation. It is also known as culpa extra contractual or culpa aquiliana covered by Art. 2176 NCC.
2. Fault as an incident in the performance of an obligation existing – is known as contractual fault or culpa contractual governed by Art. 1170-73 of NCC.

NEGLIGENCE consist in the omission to do certain acts which result to the damage to another.

As to Intent to cause damage to another through an act or omission:

1. It is culpa absence such intent, the actor’s liability is civil governed by the Civil Code.
2. It is dolo presence of such intent and the act or omission becomes crime and the actor’s civil liability is governed by the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

Distinctions – Importance of knowing these distinctions lies in filing the proper cause of action against the tortfeasors. The same act or omission which is faulty or negligent causing damage produces civil liability arising from a crime under the Revised Penal Code or create an action for quasi delict or culpa contractual under the Civil Code.

NEGLIGENCE

The omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of the persons, time and place. (Art. 1173, NCC)

KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE

1. Quasi delict (Art. 2176 NCC)
2. Criminal negligence (Art. 356 RPC)
3. Contractual negligence (NCC provisions on contracts particularly Arts. 1170 to 1174)

TESTS OF NEGLIGENCE

• Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence

• Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course pursued? If so, it as the needed to see of picture. actor to take duty this the are precautions to guard against harm

CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER

• Time
• Place
• Personal circumstances of the Actors

WHAT MUST BE PROVED

1. Negligence - In action for Quasi Delict, plaintiff must prove negligence of defendant
   
   
   Exception:

1. In cases where negligence is presumed or imputed by law - this is only rebuttable/presumption juris tantum
2. Principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) - grounded on the difficulty in proving thru competent evidence, public policy considerations

2. Damage/injury
3. Causal connection between negligence and damage (to be actionable) -Defendant’s negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the plaintiff to enable plaintiff to recover. Thus, if plaintiff’s own conduct is the cause of the injury there can be no recovery.

If plaintiff's negligence is only contributory – he is considered partly responsible only, may still recover from defendant but must be reduced by the courts in proportion to his own negligence

Concept of proximate cause – the adequate and efficient cause which in the natural order of events and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, would naturally produce the event

DEFENSES:

1. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - the theory here is that the plaintiff was also negligent together with the defendant; to constitute a defense, proximate cause of injury/damage must be the negligence of defendant
2. CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE - the theory here is that both parties are equally negligent; the courts will leave them as they are; there can be no recovery
3. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE - even though a person’s own acts may have placed him in a position of peril and an injury results, the injured is entitled to recover if the defendant through the exercise of reasonable care and prudence might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff.

This defense is available only in an action by the driver or owner of one vehicle against the driver or owner of the other vehicle involved.

Elements:

1. plaintiff was in a position of danger by his own negligence
2. defendant knew of such position of the plaintiff
3. defendant had the least clear chance to avoid the accident by exercise of ordinary care but failed to exercise such last clear chance and
4. accident occurred as proximate cause of such failure

Who may invoke: plaintiff

Inapplicable to:

1. joint tortfeasors
2. defendants concurrently negligent
3. as against 3^rd persons

4. EMERGENCY RULE – a person is not expected to exercise the same degree of care when he is compelled to act instinctively under a sudden peril because a person confronted with a sudden emergency may be left with no time for thought and must make a speedy decision upon impulse or instinct

• Applicable only to situations that are sudden and unexpected such as to deprive actor of all opportunity for deliberation
• But action must still be judged by the standard of the ordinary prudent man
• Absence of forseeability

5. DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK – Volenti non fit injuria

• Intentional exposure to a known danger
• One who voluntarily assumed the risk of an injury from a known danger cannot recover in an action for negligence or an injury is incurred
• Plaintiff’s acceptance of risk (by law/contract/nature of obligation) has erased defendant’s duty so that his negligence is not a legal wrong
• Applies to all known danger

6. DUE DILIGENCE – diligence required by law/contract/depends on circumstances of persons, places, things
7. FORTUITOUS EVENT - no person shall be responsible for those events which cannot be forseen, or which through forseen were inevitable

Exception: assumption of risk

8. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA – a principle that involves damage without injury, therefore no liability is incurred; there is no legal injury
9. LAW – specific provision of law
10. EXERCISE OF DILIGENCE OF GOOD FATHER OF FAMILY IN SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES
11. PRESCRIPTION

Injury to right of plaintiff/quasi delict - 4 years

Defamation - 1 year

When no specific provision, must be counted from the day they may be brought

12. PROSCRIPTION AGAINST DOUBLE RECOVERY - Responsibility for fault or negligence under quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from civil action arising from the RPC but plaintiff cannot recover damages 2x for same act or omission of the defendant
13. ACT OR OMISSION IS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE
14. OTHER GROUNDS – MOTION TO DISMISS

1. lack of jurisdiction over person of defendant
2. lack of jurisdiction over subject matter
3. venue improperly laid
4. plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue
5. there is another action pending between same parties for same cause
6. cause of action is barred by prior judgement /statute of limitations
7. pleading asserting claim states no cause of action
8. claim set forth in pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, extinguished
9. claim is unenforceable under the provision of statute of fraud
10. condition precedent for filing claim has not been complied with

PERSONS LIABLE FOR QUASI DELICT

1. TORTFEASOR - Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being no fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done (art 2176).
2. PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE – the obligation imposed in 2176 is demandable not only
3. VICARIOUS LIABILITY – law on imputed negligence; a person who himself is not guilty of negligence is made liable for conduct of another

Reason:

1. public policy – deeper pocket/capacity to pay
2. violation of duty on account of relationship – he is negligent

• PARENTS - The father, and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother are responsible for damage caused by:

1. minor children
2. who live in their company

Note: Father and Mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over common children. In case of disagreement, father's decision shall prevail (art 211).

• GUARDIANS - Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minor or incapacitated persons who are

1. under their authority &
2. live in their company

• OWNERS & MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENT/ENTERPRISE - Owners & managers of establishment or enterprise are responsible for damages caused by their employees

1. in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed OR
2. in occasion of their function

• EMPLOYERS - Employers shall be liable for damages caused by their employees & household helpers

1. acting w/in the scope of their assigned task
2. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry (unlike in RPC – subsidiary liability of employer attaches in case of insolvency of employer for as long as the employer is engaged in business/industry)

Defenses available to employers:

1. exercise of due diligence ins election and supervision of employees
2. act/omission was made outside working hours and in violation of company's rules and regulations

• STATE - The state is responsible when it acts through a special agent, but not when the same is caused by an official to whom task done properly pertains in which case art 2176 is applicable
• SCHOOLS, ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER - Teachers or heads of establishments of arts & trades shall be liable for damages caused by their

1. pupils, students & apprentices
2. as long as they remain in their custody

Note:

Family Code, art 218 - The school, its administration & teachers or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental authority & responsibility over the minor child under their supervision, instruction or custody (authority & responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises or the school, entity or institution).

Family Code, art 219 - those given the authority & responsibility shall be solidarily & principally liable for damages caused by act/omission of the unemancipated minor; parents, judicial guardian or person exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARTICLES 218 & 2180

Art 218	Art 2180
School, admin, teachers engaged in child care are made expressly liable	Teachers, head of establishment in Arts and trades are made expressly liable
Liability of school, admin, teachers is solidary and parents are made subsidiary liable	No such express solidary nor subsidiary liability is stated
Students involved must be minor	Students involved not necessarily minor

Issues:

Whether or not schools are liable?

GR: schools are not liable as party defendants

exception:

1. FC 218 – schools are expressly made liable
2. St. Francis case ruling – school’s liability as employer
3. PSBA case ruling – school has liability based on contract

So that –

1. if culprit is a teacher, follow St. Francis ruling (sue school as employer)
2. if culprit is a stranger, follow PSBA ruling (sue school based on contract)
3. if culprit is a student - apply 2180

Does 2180 apply to school of arts & trades only?

No. applies to all including academic institution per weight of jurisprudence based on obiter of Justice JBL Reyes in the Exconde case

Basis of liability of teacher – principle of loco parentis (stand in place of parents)

so long as they remain in their custody

• not literal anymore; before: boarding & living with teacher due to peculiar characteristic of trade & arts school
• as long as they are in the protective, supervisory capacity of teacher – special parental authority

PERSONS EXPRESSLY MADE LIABLE BY LAW (even without fault)

1. POSSESSOR OF AN ANIMAL OR WHOEVER MAKES USE OF THEM EVEN IF THE ANIMAL IS LOST OR ESCAPED

Except:

1. Force majeure
2. Fault of the injured/damaged person

2. OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLE - In motor vehicle mishap, the owner is solidarily

liable with the driver if:

1. he was in the vehicle, and
2. could have through due diligence prevented the misfortune

3. MANUFACTURERS & PROCESSORS OF FOODSTUFFS, DRINKS, TOILET ARTICLES & SIMILAR GOODS

• they are liable for death and injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers

4. DEFENDANT IN POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR SUBSTANCES, SUCH AS FIREARMS AND POISON

• there is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of defendant if death or injury results from such possession

Exception: The possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business

5. PROVINCES, CITIES & MUNICIPALITIES

• shall be liable for damages for the death or injuries suffered by any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision

6. PROPRIETOR OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURE

• responsible for the damages resulting from any of the ff.:

1. total or partial collapse of building or structure if due to lack of necessary repairs
2. explosion of machinery which has not been taken cared of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place
3. by excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property
4. by falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure
5. by emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place

7. ENGINEER, ARCHITECT OR CONTRACTOR

• if damage of building or structure is caused by defect in construction which happens within 15 years from construction; action must be brought within 10 years from collapse

8. HEAD OF FAMILY THAT LIVES IN A BUILDING OR PART THEREOF

• liable for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same