torts

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY MANILACOLLEGE OF LAW

TORTS AND DAMAGES2ND TERM, SY 2012-2013

Atty. Katrina Legarda

PART I – TORTS

1. The Concept of Tort

a. Tort in common law

Prosser and Keeton on Torts86 C.J.S. Torts 74 Am. Jur. 2nd Torts

b. “Tort” under Philippine law

Jarencio, Hilarion – Torts and Damages in Philippine Law (1977)

Report of the Code Commission (1948)Aquino, Torts and Damages (2005)Article 2176, New Civil Code

c. Definition of Tort under Philippine Law

Naguiat v NLRC, GR 116123, March 13, 1997Vinzons-Chato v Fortune, 525 SCRA 11

d. Elements of tortProsser and Keeton, pp. 164-165Garcia v Salvador, 518 SCRA 568Ocean Builders v Spouses Cubacub, GR 150898, April 13, 2011

1

e. Purpose of Tort LawJarencio, p. 6Prosser, pp. 5-674 Am Jur 2nd Torts

2. Concept of Quasi-Delict

a. Historical BackgroundBarredo v. Garcia, 73 Phil. 607

b. NatureArt. 1157

c. Governing ProvisionsArt. 1162

d. DefinitionArt. 2176

e, Scope

(i) “Intentional” ActsCangco v Manila Railroad, 38 Phil 768Art. 2176Elcano v Hill, 77 SCRA 98Andamo v IAC, GR 74761, Nov. 6, 1990Baksh v CA, 219 SCRA 115

(ii) Damage to propertyCinco v Canonoy, 90 SCRA 369

2

f. ElementsArt. 2176Andamo v IAC, GR 74761, Nov. 6, 1990

3. Relationship between Tort and Quasi-DelictCoca Cola Bottlers v CA, 227 SCRA 292

4. Tort, Quasi-Delict and Delict

a. DistinctionsProsser, pp. 7-9Barredo v. Garcia, 73 Phil. 607

b. IntersectionsBarredo v. Garcia, 73 Phil. 607Elcano v Hill, 77 SCRA 98Andamo v IAC, GR 74761, Nov. 6, 1990L.G. Foods v. Pagapong-Agraviador, GR No. 158995,

September 26, 2006

5. Culpa Aquiliana and Culpa Contractual

a. DistinctionsCangco v Manila Railroad, 38 Phil 768

b. Burden of proofCangco v Manila Railroad, 38 Phil 768FGU Insurance v Sarmiento, GR No. 141910, Aug. 6, 2002

c. Doctrine of Proximate CauseCalalas v CA, GR No. 122039, May 31, 2009

d. Defense of Employer for negligence of employeeCangco v Manila Railroad, 38 Phil 768

3

e. IntersectionsArt. 2176Cangco v Manila Railroad, 38 Phil 768Fores v Miranda, 105 Phil 266Far East c CA, 241 SCRA 671Air France v Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155Light Rail Transit v Natividad, 397 SCRA 75PSBA v CA, GR 84698, Feb. 4, 1992Syquia v CA, GR 98695, Jan.27, 1993Consolidated Bank v CA, 410 SCRA 562

6. Negligence

a. ConceptArt. 1173, 2178Sangco, Torts and Damages [Vol. 1], pp. 5-7PNR v Brunty, 506 SCRA 685PNR v CA, GR No. 157658, October 15, 2007Prosser and Keeton, pp. 169-173

b. Degrees of NegligenceSangco, Torts and Damages [Vol. 1], pp. 10-12Amedo v Rio, 95 Phil 33Marinduque v Workmen’s, 99 Phil 480Ilao-Oretav Ronquillo, 535 SCRA 633Prosser and Keeton, pp. 208-214

c. Standard of Conduct

(i) In generalArt. 1173Sangco, Torts and Damages [Vol. 1], pp. 7-8Picart v Smith, 37Phil 809Sicam v Jorge, GR No. 159617, August 8, 2007Corinthian Gardens v Spouses Tanjangco, GR 160795, June 27, 2008Prosser and Keeton, pp. 173-179, 182-185

4

(ii) Special CircumstanceHeirs of Completo v Albayda, GR 172200, July 6, 2010Pacis v Morales, GR 169467, Feb. 25, 2010

(iii) ChildrenTaylor v Manila Railroad, 16 Phil 8Jarco Marketing v CA, 321 SCRA 375Ylarde v Aquino, 163 SCRA 697Sangco, Torts and Damages [Vol. 1], pp. 70-74Prosser and Keeton, pp. 179- 182, 399-411

(iv) Experts

(a) In generalCulion v Philippines, 55 Phil 129Prosser and Keeton, pp. 185-186

(b) PharmacistsUS v Pineda. 37 Phil 456Mercury Drug v De Leon, GR No. 165622, October 17, 2008

© Medical professionalaCruz v CA, 282 SCRA 188Professional Services v Agana, 513 SCRA 478Cantre v Go, 522 SCRA 547Cayao-Lasam v Spouses Ramolete, GR 159132, Dec. 18, 2008

7. Proving negligence

1. In general

Rule 131 Section 1, Rules of Court

2. Presumptions

a. In motor vehicle mishapsArticle 2184-2185

5

b. Possession of dangerous weapons or substancesArticle 2188

c. Common carriersArticle 1734-1735

d. Res Ipsa LoquiturLayugan v IAC, 167 SCRA 363Ramos v CA, 321 SCRA 584Tan v JAM Transit, GR No. 183198, November 25, 2009Cantre v Go, supraBatiquin v CA, 258 SCRA 249DM Consunji v CA, 357 SCRA 249Professional Services v Agana, 513 SCRA 478CAP v Belfrantl, 538 SCRA 27Prosser and Keeton, pp. 242-262

8. Defenses against charge of negligence

a. Plaintiff’s negligence is proximate causeArticle 2179Bernardo v Legaspi, 29 Phil 12PLDT v CA, GR No. 57079, September 29, 1989Manila Electric v Remoquillo, 99 Phil 117

b. Contributory negligence of plaintiffArticle 2179, 2214NPC v Heirs of Casionan, GR No. 165969, November 27, 2008M.H. Rakes v The Atlantic, 7 Phil 359Lambert v Heirs of Ray, 452 SCRA 285Genobiagan v CA, GR 40452, Oct. 12 1989

c. Fortuitous eventArticle 1174Hernandez v COA, GR 71871, Nov. 6, 1989GOTESCO v Chatto, GR L-87584, June 16, 1992Southeastern College v CA, 292 SCRA 422Sicam v Jorge, supra

6

d. Plaintiff’s assumption of risk/volenti non fit injuriaIlocos Norte v CA, 179 SCRA 5Afiada v Hisole, GR L-2075, Nov. 29, 1949Calalas v CA, GR No. 122039, May 31, 2009Nikko Hotel v Roberto Reyes, GR 154259, Feb. 28, 2005Pantaleon v American Express, GR 174269, Aug. 25, 2010Prosser v Keeton, pp. 480-498

e. PrescriptionArticle 1146Kramer v CA, 178 SCRA 526

9. The Cause

a. ProximateProsser v Keeton, pp. 263-265, 272-277Bataclan v Medina, 102 Phil 181Mercury Drug v Baking, GR No. 156037, May 25, 2007Pilipinas Bank v CA, GR 105410, July 25, 1994

b. ConcurrentFar Eastern v CA, GR 130068, October 1, 1998

c. RemoteGabeto v Araneta, 42 Phil 252Manila Electric v Remoquillo, 99 Phil 117

d. InterveningPhoenix Construction v IAC, 148 SCRA 353Prosser v Keeton, pp. 301-319

10. Tests to determine proximate cause

Prosser v Keeton, pp. 265 – 269, 277-280Dy Teban v Jose Ching, GR No. 161803, February 4, 2008Phoenix Construction v IAC, 148 SCRA 353Picart v Smith, 37Phil 809

7

Bustamante v CA, 193 SCRA 603Glan v IAC, GR 70493, May 18, 1989Phil Bank of Commerce v CA, 269 SCRA 695Pantrangco v Baesa, 179 SCRA 384Canlas v CA, 326 SCRA 415Engada v CA, 404 SCRA 478Lapanday v Angala, 525 SCRA 229PNR v Brundy, supraConsolidated Bank v CA, 410 SCRA 562SANGCO, Vol. 1, pp. 74-81Prosser v Keeton, pp. 462-468

11. Vicarious Liability

a. Parents/GuardiansArticles 2180-2181Articles 216-217, 221, 236 Family CodeArticle 101, Revised Penal CodeSec. 6, RA 9344Libi v IAC, 214 SCRA 16Tamargo v CA, 209 SCRA 518

b. TeachersArticle 2180Article 281 Family CodeArticle 102-103, Revised Penal CodePalisoc v Brillantes, 41 SCRA 548Amadora v CA, 160 SCRA 315Salvosa v IAC, 166 SCRA 274St. Mary’s Academy v Carpitanos, 376 SCRA 473St. Joseph’s College v Jayson Miranda, GR 182353, June 29, 2010Aquinas School v Inton, GR 184202, Jan. 26, 2011

c. Owners/Managers of Establishments/ EmployersArticle 2180Cangco v Manila Railroad, 38 Phil 768Philippine Rabbit v Phil American, 63 SCRA 231Mercury Drug v Huang, 525 SCRA 427

8

Filamer v IAC, 212 SCRA 637Castilex v Vasquez, 321 SCRA 393Professional Services v Agana: GR No. 126297, January 31, 2007; GR No. 126297, Feb. 11, 2008; and GR No. 126297, Feb. 2, 2010Lampesa v De Vera, GR No. 155111, February 14, 2008Spouses Jayme v Apostol, GR No. 163609, Nov. 27, 2008NPC v CA, 294 SCRA 209

d. StateArticle 2180Meritt v Government, 34Phil 311Rosete v Auditor General, 81 Phil 453Mendoza v De leon, 33 Phil 508Fontanilla v Maliaman, GR 55963, Dec. 1, 1989; and Feb. 27, 1991

12. Strict Liability

a. Possessor or user of AnimalsArticle 2183Vestil v IAC, 179 SCRA 47

b. Owner of motor vehiclesArticle 2184Chapman v Underwood, 27 Phil 374Caedo v Yu Khe Thai, 135 Phil 399

c. Liability of local government unitsArticle 2189Guilatco v Dagupan, 171 SCRA 382Quezon City v Decara, GR 150304, June 15, 2005

d. Proprietors of buildingsArticles 2190-2192

e. Engineer/Architect of collapsed building

9

Article 1723

f. Head of a family for things thrown/falling from a buildingArticle 2193Dingcong v Kanaan, 72 Phil 14

g. Owners of enterprises/other employersArticles 1711-1712Afable v Singer Sewing Machine, 58 Phil 39Alarcon v Alarcon, 112 Phil 389

h. Product LiabilityArticle 2187, 1170-1172Secs. 97, 99, 106 – Consumer Act, RA 9803

i. Interference with contractual relationsGilchrist v Cuddy, 29 Phil 542So Ping Bun v CA, GR No. 120554, Sept. 21, 1999Lagon v CA, 453 SCRA 616Go v Cordero, GR 164703, May 4, 2010Prosser v Keeton, pp. 978-1004

PART II – INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS

a. Violation of Civil and Political RightsArticle 32Silahis v Soluta, 482 SCRA 660Vinzons-Chato v Fortune, 525 SCRA 11Vinzons-Chato v Fortune, GR 141309, Dec. 23, 2008

b. Defamation, Fraud, Physical InjuriesArticle 33Joaquin v Aniceto, GR L-18719, Oct. 31, 1964Madeja v Caro, 211 Phil 469Arafiles v Phil. Journalists, 426 SCRA 336

10

MVRS v Islamic, GR No. 135306, January 28, 2003Prosser and Keeton, pp. 771-785Heirs of Simon v Elvin Chan, GR 157547, Feb. 23, 2011Corpus v Paje, 28 SCRA 1062Bonite v Zosa, 162 SCRA 173Dulay v CA, 243 SCRA 220Jervoso v People, 189 SCRA 523

c. Neglect of DutyArticles 34SANGCO Vol. 1 1334-1335

d. “Catch-All” Independent Civil ActionArticle 35

PART III- HUMAN RELATIONS

a. Abuse of RightsArticle 19Velayo v Shell, 100 Phil 186Globe Mackay v CA, 176 SCRA 778Albenson v CA, 217 SCRA 16Amonoy v Gutierrez, 351 SCRA 731UE v Jader, 325 SCRA 804Barons Marketing v CA, GR 126486, Feb. 9, 1998Diaz v Davao Light, GR 160959, April 4, 2007Pantaleon v American Express, supra.

b. Illegal ActsArticle 20Garcia v Salvador, 518 SCRA 568

c. Acts Contra Bonus MoresArticle 21Velayo v Shell, supraAlbenson v CA, supraWassmer v Velez, 12 SCRA 648

11

Tanjangco v CA, 18 SCRA 994Baksh v CA, 219 SCRA 115Pe v Pe, 5 SCRA 200Que v IAC, GR 66865, Jan. 13, 1989Drilon v CA, 270 SCRA 211Grand Union v Espino, 94 SCRA 953Prosser and Keeton, pp. 870-896Carpio v Valmonte, 438 SCRA 38Quisaba v Sta. Ines, 58 SCRA 771

d. Violation of Human Dignity Article 26St. Louis v CA, 133 SCRA 179Gregorio v CA, GR 179799, September 11, 2009Sps Guanio v Makati Shangri-La, GR 190601, Feb. 7, 2011

e. Dereliction of DutyArticle 27

f. Unfair CompetitionArticle 28

g. Acquittal on reasonable doubtArticle 29Mendoza v Arietta, L-32499, June 21, 1979

PART IV- DAMAGES

a. ConceptPeople v Ballesteros, 285 SCRA 438Custodio v CA, 235 SCRA 483Articles 2195-2196, 2198

b. Types of Damages

12

(i) Actual or compensatory

(A) Definition/ PurposeArticle 2199Oceaneering Contractors v Baretto, GR 184215, Feb. 9, 2011

(B) Proof requiredPNOC v CA, 297 SCRA 402Oceaneering Contractors v Baretto, supra

( C) Loss covered

(1) In generalArticle 2200PNOC v CA, 297 SCRA 402

(2) In contracts and quasi-contractsArticle 2201

(3) In crimes and quasi-delictsArticles 2202, 2204

(d) Earning capacity, business standingArticle 2205Gatchalian v Delim, 203 SCRA 126

(e) Death by crime or quasi-delictArticle 2206People v Buban, GR 170471, Nay 11, 2007People v Apacible, GR 189091, Aug. 25, 2010Crisostomo v People, GR 171526, Sept. 1, 2010Philippine Hawk v Lee, GR 166869, Feb. 16, 2010

(f) In rape casesPeople v Astrologo, GR 169873, June 8, 2007

(g) Attorney’s feesArticle 2208

13

Quirante v IAC, GR No. 73886, Jan. 31, 1989Manila Electric Company v Ramoy, GR 158911, March

4, 2008Briones v Macabagdal, GR 150666, Aug. 3, 2010Bank of America v Philippine Racing Club, GR 150228,

July 30, 2009Sps Andrada v Pilhino Sales, GR 156448, Feb. 23, 2011

(h) Interest Articles 2209-2213Frias v San-Diego Sison, GR 155223, April 3, 2007Soriamont v Sprint, GR 174610, July 14, 2009Pan Pacific v Equitable, GR 169975, March 18, 2010

(i) Duty to minimizeArticles 2203, 22214-2215

(ii) Moral Damages

(A) PurposeKierulf v CA, 269 SCRA 433Sulpicio Lines v Curso, GR No. 157009, March 17, 2010ABS-CBN v CA, GR No. 128690, Jan. 21, 1999PNR v Brunty, supraB.F. Metal v Lomotan, GR 170813, April 16, 2008Expert Travel v CA, GR 130030, June 25, 1999Sps Valenzuela v Sps Mano, GR 17266, July 9, 2010

(B) When recoverableArticles 2217, 2219-2220Sulpicio Lines v Curso, GR No. 157009, March 17, 2010B.F. Metal v Lomotan, GR 170813, April 16, 2008Expert Travel v CA, GR 130030, June 25, 1999Industrial Insurance v Bondad, GR 136722, April 12,

2000Triple Eight v NLRC, GR 129584, Dec. 3, 1998

14

People v Pirame, GR 121998, March 9, 2008Carlos Arcona y Moban v CA, GR 134784, Dec. 9, 2002Heirs of Completo v Albayda, GR 172200, July 6, 2010Sps Valenzuela v Sps Mano, GR 17266, July 9, 2012Regala v Carin, GR 188715, April 6, 2011ABS-CBN, supraRepublic v Tuvera, GR No. 148246, February 16, 2007

(C ) Factors considered in determining amountKierulf v CA, 269 SCRA 433Lopez v Pan American, 16 SCRA 431B.F. Metal v Lomotan, GR 170813, April 16, 2008Expert Travel v CA, GR 130030, June 25, 1999Sps Valenzuela v Sps Mano, GR 17266, July 9, 2012PNR v Brunty, supraPeople v Lizano, GR 174470, April 27, 2007

(iii) Nominal Damages

(A) Nature and purposeArticle 2221Robes-Francisco v CFI, 86 SCRA 59Gonzales v People, GR No. 159950, Feb. 12, 2007

(B) When awardedArticle 2222Francisco v Ferrer, GR No. 142029, Feb. 28, 2001

Sps Guanio v Makati Shnagri-La, GR 190601, Feb. 7, 2011People v Marquez, GR 181440, April 13, 2011

(C ) Effect of awardArticle 2223

(iv) Temperate damages

(A) When recoverable

15

Articles 2224-2225Pleno v CA, GR No. 56505 (1988)Ramos v CA, supraRepublic v Tuvera, supraTan v OMC Carriers, GR 190521, Jan. 12, 2011

(B) Factors in determining amountSerrano v People, GR 1752021, July 5, 2010People v Murcia, GR 182460, March 9, 2010

(v) Liquidated damages

(A) DefinitionArticle 2226Pentacapital v Mahinay, GR 171736, July 5, 2010

(B) Determining the amountArticle 2227-2228Titan v Uni-Field, GR No. 153874, March 1, 2007

(v) Exemplary/Corrective damages

(A) PurposeArticle 2229Republic v Tuvera, supra

(B) When imposed

(1) In generalArticle 2229, 2233-2235PNB v CA, 256 SCRA 44Republic v Tuvera, supra

(2) In crimesArticle 2230

People v Dalisay, GR No. 188106, November 25, 2009

16

People v Diunsay-Jalandoni, GR No. 174277, February 8, 2007People v Capanas, GR 172321, Feb. 9, 2011

(3) Quasi-delictsArticle 2231

(4) In contracts and quasi-contractsArticle 2232

17