Law 104 Syllabus as of 9 January 2013

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINESCOLLEGE OF LAW

LAW 104: TORTS & DAMAGES2nd Semester 2012-2013

Class II-E

Prof. Rommel J. CasisRm. 302, Malcolm HallEmail: [email protected] hours: MTTHF 9-12 am, 3-5 pm, W 3-6 pm or by appointment

Pre-requisite:

Law 101: Obligations and Contracts

Course Description:

The law of torts, quasi-delicts, and damages based on the Civil Code and relevant special laws

Grading System:

I. Recitation - 50 pts

This is determined by multiplying average recitation grades by 10.

II. Exam - 50 pts

This is determined by dividing final exam score by 2.

1 = 96 – 100 2.0 = 76 – 80 3 = 56 – 601.25 = 91– 95 2.25 = 71 – 75 4 = 51 – 551.5 = 86 – 90 2.5 = 66 – 70 5 = 50 & below1.75 = 81– 85 2.75 = 61 – 65

Last updated on 8 January 2013 1

mailto:[email protected]

SYLLABUS

TORT AND QUASI-DELICT

I. The Conceptual Framework

A. The Concept of a Tort

1. Tort in Common Law1

a. Etymology

b. Definition

2. “Tort” under Philippine law

a. Existence of "Philippine Tort Law"

HILARION JARENCIO, TORTS AND DAMAGES IN PHILIPPINE LAW ["Jarencio"] v., p. 1 (1977)MALOLOS AND MARTIN, REPORT OF THE CODE COMMISSION (1951) [Malolos] pp. 161-163Eutiquiano Garcia, Torts Under Spanish Law 2 Phil. L. J. 27-28 (1913) ["Garcia"]Article 1902 Old Civil Code (cf Article 2176 Civil Code)

b. Scope of Philippine Tort Law

JARENCIO, p.1Antonio Carpio, Intentional Torts in Philippine Law 47 PLJ 649-651 (1973)

c. Definition of Tort Under Philippine Law

Naguiat v. NLRC G.R. No. 116123. March 13, 1997Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune G.R. No. 141309. June 19, 2007

d. Elements of Tort

Garcia v. Salvador G.R. No. 168512, March 20, 2007Ocean Builders v. Spouses Cubacub, G.R. No. 150898, April 13, 2011

3. The Purpose of Tort Law

JARENCIO, p. 6Scott Hershovitz, Harry Potter and the Trouble with Tort Theory pp. 101-102

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1687923

1 A heading in italics will be lectured


B. The Concept of Quasi-Delict

1. Historical Background

MALOLOS, p. 161Barredo v. Garcia G.R. No. 48006, July 8, 19422

2. Nature

Articles 1157 (cf. 1089 old Code)Garcia, p. 29

3. Governing Provisions

Article 1162

4. Definition

Article 2176 Civil Code (cf. 1902 old Code)

5. Scope

a. "Intentional" acts

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, G.R. No. 12191. October 14, 1918Article 2176Elcano v. Hill G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977Andamo v. IAC G.R. No. 74761, November 6, 1990Baksh v. CA G.R. No. 97336. February 19, 1993.

b. Damage to Property

Cinco v. Canonoy 90 SCRA 369

6. Elements

Article 2176Andamo v. IAC G.R. No. 74761. November 6, 1990

C. The Relationship Between Tort and Quasi-Delict

Coca-Cola Bottlers v. CA 227 SCRA 292

2 A case in italics means that only the relevant principle(s) stated in that case will be discussed and not the case in full.


1. Distinctions

Barredo v. Garcia, supra

2. Frameworks

D. Tort, Quasi-Delict & Delict

1. Distinctions

2. Intersections

Barredo v. Garcia, supraElcano v. Hill, supraAndamo v. IAC supraL.G. Foods v. Philadelfa G.R. No. 158995. September 26, 2006

E. Culpa aquiliana and Culpa Contractual

1. Distinctions

a. Source

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra

b. Burden of proof

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supraFGU Insurance v. Sarmiento G.R. No. 141910. August 6, 2002

c. Applicability of doctrine of proximate cause

Calalas v. CA G.R., supra

d. Defense of Employer for Negligence of Employee

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra

2. Intersections

Article 2176Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supraFores v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-12163. March 4, 1959Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. L-21438. September 28, 1966Far East v. CA G.R. No. 108164. February 23, 1995PSBA v. CA G.R. No. 84698. February 4, 1992.


Syquia v. CA G.R. No. 98695. January 27, 1993Light Rail Transit v. Navidad G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003Consolidated Bank v. CA G.R. No. 138569. September 11, 2003.

II. Negligence

A. Concept of Negligence

1. Under the Common Law

2. Under Philippine Law

a. Definition

Articles 1173, 2178PNR v. CA G.R. No. 157658, October 15, 2007Corinthian Gardens v. Spouses Tanjangco G.R. No. 160795. June 27, 2008PNR v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891, November 2, 2006

b. Determining the diligence required

Article 1173Jorge v. Sicam G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. October 1, 1998PNR v. CA G.R. No. 157658, October 15, 2007

B. Degrees of Negligence

Amedo v. Rio G.R. No. L-6870, May 24, 1954.Marinduque v. Workmen’s G.R. No. L-8110, June 30, 1956Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo G.R. No. 172406, October 11, 2007

C. Standard of conduct

1. Importance of a Standard of Conduct

2. The Fictitious Person

Picart v. Smith G.R. No. L-12219. March 15, 1918Sicam v. Jorge, G.R. No. 159617. August 8, 2007.Corinthian Gardens v. Spouses Tanjangco G.R. No. 160795. June 27, 2008

3. Special Circumstance

Heirs of Completo v. Albayda G.R. No. 172200. July 6, 2010Pacis v. Morales G.R. No. 169467. February 25, 2010


4. Children

Taylor v. Manila Railroad 16 Phil 8Jarco Marketing v. CA 321 SCRA 375Ylarde v. Aquino G.R. No. L-33722. July 29, 1988

5. Experts

a. In general

Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. October 1, 1998.Culion v. Philippine Motors G.R. No. 32611. November 3, 1930

b. Pharmacists

US v. Pineda G.R. No. L-12858. January 22, 1918Mercury Drug v. De Leon G.R. No. 165622. October 17, 2008

c. Medical professionals

Cruz v. CA G.R. No. 122445. November 18, 1997Professional Services v. Agana G.R. No. 126297. January 31, 2007Cayao-Lasam v. Spouses Ramolete G.R. No. 159132. December 18, 2008Lucas v. Dr. Tuano G.R. No. 178763. April 21, 2009

III. Establishing and Defending Claims of Negligence

A. Proving Negligence

1. In general

2. Presumptions

a. In motor vehicle mishaps

Article 2184-2185

b. Possession of dangerous weapons or substances

Article 2188

c. Common carriers

Article 1734-1735


d. Res ipsa loquitur

i. Definition/ Statement of the Rule

Ramos v. CA 321 SCRA 584Professional services v. Agana, supraLayugan v. IAC 167 SCRA 363

ii. Justification

DM Consunji v. CA 357 SCRA 249

iii. Nature

Ramos v. CA 321 SCRA 584Layugan v. IAC 167 SCRA 363

iv. Effect

Ramos v. CA 321 SCRA 584DM Consunji v. CA 357 SCRA 249

v. Requisites

Ramos v. CA 321 SCRA 584College Assurance v. Belfranlt G.R. No. 155604. November 22, 2007Professional services v. Agana, supra

vi. Effect of direct evidence

Layugan v. IAC 167 SCRA 363Tan v. JAM Transit G.R. No. 183198. November 25, 2009

vii. In medical negligence cases

Ramos v. CA 321 SCRA 584Cantre v. Go, G.R. No. 160889. April 27, 2007Batiquin v. CA G.R. No. 118231. July 5, 1996Professional services v. Agana, supra

B. Defenses against charge of negligence

1. Plaintiff’s negligence is proximate cause

Article 2179


Bernardo v. Legaspi G.R. No. 9308. December 23, 1914PLDT v. CA G.R. No. 57079 September 29, 1989Manila Electric v. Remoquillo G.R. No. L-8328. May 18, 1956

2. Contributory negligence of plaintiff

Article 2179, 2214NPC v. Heirs of Casionan G.R. No. 165969. November 27, 2008Genobiagon v. CA G.R. No. 40452. October 12, 1989M.H. Rakes v. The Atlantic G.R. No. L-1719. January 23, 1907Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon G.R. No. 160709. February 23, 2005PNR v. Brunty, supra

3. Fortuitous event

a. Definition

Article 1174 Sicam v. Jorge, supra (on whether robbery is a fortuitous event)

b. Defense and Exceptions

Article 1174

c. Elements

Sicam v. Jorge, supra

d. Three-Step Analysis

Article 1174Juntilla v. Fontanar G.R. No. L-45637. May 31, 1985Southeastern College v. CA G.R. No. 126389. July 10, 1998

4. Plaintiff’s assumption of risk/volenti non fit injuria

Afialda v. Hisole G.R. No. L-2075. November 29, 1949Ilocos Norte v. CA G.R. No. 53401. November 6, 1989Calalas v. CA, supraNikko Hotel v. Roberto Reyes G.R. No. 154259. February 28, 2005Pantaleon v. American Express G.R. No. 174269. August 25, 2010

[Week 1 - Jan 9, 11]

5. Prescription


Article 1146Kramer v. CA G.R. No. 83524. October 13, 1989

V. The Cause

A. Different Categories

1. Proximate

Bataclan v. Medina 102 Phil 181Mercury Drug v. Baking G.R. No. 156037. May 25, 2007Pilipinas Bank v. CA G.R. No. 105410. July 25, 1994

2. Concurrent

Far Eastern v. CA G.R. No. 130068. October 1, 1998

3. Remote

Gabeto v. Araneta 42 Phil 252

4. Intervening

Phoenix Construction v. IAC 148 SCRA 353

B. Tests to Determine Proximate Cause

1. But for/sine qua non

Bataclan v. Medina, supra

2. Sufficient link

Dy Teban v. Jose Ching, supra

3. Substantial factor

4. Mixed considerations

Dy Teban v. Jose Ching G.R. No. 161803. February 4, 2008

5. Cause v. Condition

Phoenix Construction v. IAC, supra

6. Last Clear Chance


a. History and rationale

b. Statement of the Rule

c. Application

Picart v. Smith, supraPhoenix v. IAC supraGlan v. IAC G.R. No. 70493. May 18, 1989Canlas v. CA 326 SCRA 415Lapanday v. Angala 525 SCRA 229PNR v. Brunty, supraPhil Bank of Commerce v. CA 269 SCRA 695Consolidated Bank v. CA 410 SCRA 562Bustamante v. CA 193 SCRA 603Pantrangco v. Baesa 179 SCRA 384Engada v. CA 404 SCRA 478

VI. Persons Vicariously Liable

A. Persons Exercising Parental Authority

1. Parents

Article 2180Libi v. IAC 214 SCRA 16Tamargo v. CA 209 SCRA 518

2. Guardians

Article 2180

3. Other persons exercising parental authority

Article 2180 Article 216-217, 221, Family Code

[Week 2 Jan 16, 18]

B. Teachers and Schools

Article 2180Palisoc v. Brillantes 41 SCRA 548Amadora v. CA 160 SCRA 315Salvosa v. IAC 166 SCRA 274


Article 218 Family CodeSt. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos 376 SCRA 473St. Joseph’s College v. Miranda, G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010.

C. Owners/Managers of Establishments/Employers

1. Distinguishing the 4th and 5th Paragraph

Article 2180Phil Rabbit v. Phil American 63 SCRA 231Castilex v. Vasquez 321 SCRA 393

2. When Applicable

a. Employer-Employee Relationship

Spouses Jayme v. Apostol G.R. No. 163609. November 27, 2008Professional Services v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297. January 31, 2007, G.R. No. 126297.

February 11, 2008 G.R. No. 126297. February 2, 2010

b. Within the scope of assigned tasks

Filamer v. IAC G.R. No. 75112, October 16, 1990; G.R. No. 75112, August 17, 1992NPC v. CA 294 SCRA 209Castilex v. Vasquez 321 SCRA 393Valenzuela v. CA 253 SCRA 303

3. Presumption of Negligence

Lampesa v. De Vera G.R. No. 155111. February 14, 2008

4. Rebuttal of Presumption

Lampesa v. De Vera G.R. No. 155111. February 14, 2008Mercury Drug v. Huang 525 SCRA 427

[Week 3, Jan 23, 25]

D. State

Article 2180Meritt v. Government 34 Phil 311Rosete v. Auditor General 81 Phil 453


Fontanilla v. Maliaman G.R. No. 55963. December 1, 1989; G.R. Nos. 55963 & 61045. February 27, 1991

Spouses Jayme v. Apostol supra

VII. Persons Specifically Liable

A. Possessor or User of Animals

Article 2183Vestil v. IAC 179 SCRA 47

B. Owner of motor vehicles

Article 2184Chapman v. Underwood 27 Phil 374Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai 135 Phil 399

C. Provinces, Cities, Municipalities

Article 2189Guilatco v. Dagupan 171 SCRA 382Quezon City v. Dacara G.R. No. 150304. June 15, 2005

D. Proprietors of buildings

Article 2190 – 2192

E. Engineer/Architect of Collapsed Building

Article 1723

F. Head of a family for things thrown/falling

Article 2193

G. Owners of Enterprises/other employers

Articles 1711-1712Alarcon v. Alarcon 112 Phil 389

H. Manufacturers/Producers

Article 2187


I. Persons Who Interfere with contractual relations

Article 1314Gilchrist v. Cuddy 29 Phil 542So Ping Bun v. CA G.R. No. 120554 September 21, 1999Lagon v. CA 453 SCRA 616Go v. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703. May 4, 2010

[Week 4, Jan 30, Feb 1]

VII. Independent Civil Actions

A. Violation of Civil and Political Rights

Article 32

MHP Garments v. CA 126 SCRA 227Silahis v. Soluta 482 SCRA 660Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune 525 SCRA 11Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune G.R. No. 141309. December 23, 2008

B. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries

Article 33

1. In general

Madeja v. Caro, G.R. No. L-51183. December 21, 1983.

2. Defamation

Arafiles v. Phil Journalists 426 SCRA 336MVRS v. Islamic G.R. No. 135306. January 28, 2003Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle G.R. No. 184315. November 25, 2009

3. Fraud

Heirs of Simon v. Elvin Chan G.R. No. 157547. February 23, 2011

[Week 5 Feb 6, 8]

4. Physical Injuries

Capuno v. Pepsi Cola 13 SCRA 658Corpus v. Paje 28 SCRA 1062


Madeja v. Caro, G.R. No. L-51183. December 21, 1983.Bonite v. Zosa 162 SCRA 173Jervoso v. People 189 SCRA 523Dulay v. CA 243 SCRA 220

C. Neglect of Duty

Article 34

D. “Catch-All” Independent Civil Action

Article 35

VI. Human Relations Torts

A. Abuse of Rights

Article 19Velayo v. Shell G.R. No. L-7817. October 31, 1956Globe Mackay v. CA G.R. No. 81262. August 25, 1989Albenson v. CA G.R. No. 88694. January 11, 1993Amonoy v. Gutierrez G.R. No. 140420. February 15, 2001UE v. Jader G.R. No. 132344. February 17, 2000Barons Marketing v. G.R. No. 126486. February 9, 1998Diaz v. Davao Light G.R. No. 160959. April 4, 2007Pantaleon v. American Express, supra

B. Illegal Acts

Article 20Garcia v. Salvador supra

C. Acts Contra Bonus Mores

1. In General

Article 21Velayo v. Shell, supraAlbenson v. CA, supraWassmer v. Velez G.R. No. L-20089. December 26, 1964

2. Moral Seduction

Tanjanco v. CA G.R. No. L-18630. December 17, 1966Baksh v. CA G.R. No. 97336. February 19, 1993


[Week 6, Feb 13, 15]

3. Public Humiliation

Pe v. Pe G.R. No. L-17396. May 30, 1962Grand Union v. Espino 94 SCRA 953Carpio v. Valmonte 438 SCRA 38

4. Malicious Prosecution

a. Under Common Law

b. Under Philippine Law

i. Definition

Drilon v. CA G.R. No. 107019. March 20, 1997

ii. Statutory basis

Drilon v. CA G.R. No. 107019. March 20, 1997

iii. Proof required

Que v. IAC G.R. No. 66865. January 13, 1989

iv. Elements

Que v. IAC G.R. No. 66865. January 13, 1989Drilon v. CA G.R. No. 107019. March 20, 1997Magbanua v. Junsay 515 SCRA 419

5. Oppressive dismissal

Quisaba v. Sta Ines 58 SCRA 771

D. Violation of Human Dignity

Article 26Spouses Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la G.R. No. 190601. February 7, 2011St Louis v. CA 133 SCRA 179Gregorio v. CA, G.R. No. 179799. September 11, 2009

E. Dereliction of Duty

Article 27


F. Unfair Competition

Article 28

DAMAGES

I. The Concept of Damages

A. Importance and Definition

MALOLOS P. 72People v. Ballesteros 285 SCRA 438Custodio v. CA 253 SCRA 483

B. When Allowed

Custodio v. CA, supraArticles 2195-2196, 2198

C. Law on Damages

MALOLOS P. 72Article 2195, 2198

D. Types of Damages

Article 2197

II. Actual or Compensatory

A. Definition/Purpose

Article 2199

B. Proof required

1. Pleading and proof of actual damage

2. Nature of Loss and Proof

Oceaneering Contractors v. Baretto G.R. No. 184215. February 9, 2011

C. Loss covered


a. In general

Article 2200PNOC v. CA, G.R. No. 107518. October 8, 1998Candano v. Sugata-On G.R. 163212 March 13, 2007

b. In contracts and quasi-contracts

Article 2201Spouses Zalamea v. CA, G.R. No. 104235BPI Family Bank v. Franco

c. In crimes and quasi-delicts

Article 2202, 2204Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85464, October 3, 1991People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641. September 10, 20093

d. Earning capacity, business standing

Article 2205

i. Loss or impairment of earning capacity

Gatchalian v. Delim 203 SCRA 126Mercury Drug v. Huang, G.R. No. 172122. June 22, 2007

ii. injury to business standing or commercial credit

Tanay Recreation Center v. Fausto, G.R. No. 140182, April 12, 2005

e. Death by crime or quasi-delict

Article 2206

i. Civil/Death indemnity

People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665. September 14, 2011People v. Anticamara G.R. No. 178771. June 8, 2011.People v. Villarico, G.R. No. 158362, April 4, 2011.People v. Bokingo, G.R. No. 187536, August 10, 2011.Crisostomo v. People, G.R. No. 171526. September 1, 2010.People v. Apacible, G.R. No. 189091. August 25, 2010.

3 The criminal law aspect or the details of the crime will not be discussed in all criminal cases except when relevant to the damages aspect.


ii. Loss of earning capacity

People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 188902. February 16, 2011.Philippine Hawk v. Lee G.R. No. 166869. February 16, 2010Pleyto v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 148737. June 16, 2004

f. In rape cases

People v. Astrologo G.R. 169873 June 8 2007People v. Apattad G.R. No. 193188. August 10, 2011People v. Bañago, G.R. No. 128384. June 29, 1999.People v. Bartolini G.R. No. 179498. August 3, 2010People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771. June 8, 2011

D. Attorney’s Fees

Article 2208Quirante v. IAC G.R. No. 73886. January 31, 198Manila Electric Company v. Ramoy G.R. No. 158911. March 4, 2008Briones v. Macabagdal G.R. No. 150666. August 3, 2010Bank of America v. Philippine Racing Club G.R. No. 150228. July 30, 2009Spouses Andrada v. Pilhino Sales G.R. No. 156448. February 23, 2011

E. Interest

Article 2209-2213Frias v. San Diego-Sison G.R. No. 155223. April 3, 2007Soriamont v. Sprint G.R. No. 174610. July 14, 2009Pan Pacific v. Equitable G.R. No. 169975. March 18, 2010

F. Duty to minimize

Article 2203Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 125817. January 16, 2002Mackay Radio v. Rich, G.R. No. L-22608. June 30, 1969

G. Mitigation of damages

Articles 2214-2215Sweet Lines v. CA, G.R. No. L-46340. April 28, 1983.Ong v. Bogñabal, G.R. No. 149140, September 12, 2006

III. Moral Damages

A. Purpose


ABS-CBN v. CA G.R. No. G.R. No. 128690. January 21, 1999B.F. Metal v. Lomotan G.R. No. 170813. April 16, 2008Expert Travel v. CA G.R. No. 130030. June 25, 1999Kierulf v. CA 269 SCRA 433Sulpicio Lines v. Curso G.R. No. 157009. March 17, 2010

B. When recoverable

1. Moral suffering is the proximate result

Article 2217

2. Within Specific Cases

Articles 2219 -2220

a. A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries

People v. Villaver, G.R. No. 133381, November 27, 2001.People v. Cleopas and Pirame G.R. No. 121998. March 9, 2000Carlos Arcona y Moban v. CA G.R. No. 134784. December 9, 2002People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011

b. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries

B.F. Metal v. Lomotan, supra

c. Seduction, Abduction, Rape or other lascivious acts

People v. Lizano G.R. No. 174470 April 27 2007People v. Tayag, G.R. No. 132053, March 31, 2000People v. Bañago, G.R. No. 128384, June 29, 1999People v. Bartolini, G.R. No. 179498, August 3, 2010People v. Abadies, G.R. Nos. 139346-50, July 11, 2002

d. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest

People v. Madsali, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 144316, March 11, 2002

e. Illegal Search

Silahis v. Soluta, G.R. No. 163087, February 20, 2006


f. Libel, slander or any other form of defamation

Occena v. Icamina, G.R. No. 82146, January 22, 1990

g. Malicious Prosecution

Expert Travel v. CA, supraIndustrial Insurance v. Bondad G.R. No. 136722. April 12, 2000

h. Violation of human dignity

Concepcion v. CA, G.R. No. 120706, January 31, 2000

i. Refusal or Neglect of Duty

Vital-Gozon v. CA, G.R. No. 129132. July 8, 1998

j. Unfair Competition

Calamba Medical Center v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176484, November 25, 2008.

k. Separate civil action

Manantan v. CA, G.R. No. 107125, January 29, 2001.

l. Violation of Civil and Political Rights

Manila Electric v. Spouses Chua, G.R. No. 160422, July 5, 2010Cojuangco v. CA, G.R. No. 119398, July 2, 1999

m. Willful injury to property

Article 2220Regala v. Carin G.R. No. 188715. April 6, 2011

n. Breach of contract in bad faith

Article 2220Bankard, Inc. v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 141761, July 28, 2006Philippine Airlines v. Vicente Lopez, G.R. No. 156654, November 20, 2008Triple Eight v. NLRC G.R. No. 129584. December 3, 1998Francisco v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 142029, February 28, 2001Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, G.R. No. 157009, March 17, 2010Spouses Valenzuela v. Spouses Mano, G.R. No. 172611, July 9, 2010Manila Electric v. Ramoy, supra


3. Who may Recover

Relatives of Injured person

Article 2219Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, supra

Juridical persons

ABS-CBN v. CA, G.R. No. 128690, January 21, 1999Republic v. Tuvera G.R. No. 148246. February 16, 2007Filipinas Broadcasting v. Ago, G.R. No. 141994, January 17, 2005Crystal v. BPI, G.R. No. 172428, November 28, 2008.

C. Factors considered in determining amount

Lopez v. Pan American G.R. No. L-22415, March 30, 1966Kierulf v. CA, supraValenzuela v. CA, supra

IV. Nominal Damages

A. Purpose and When Recoverable

1. Violation of a Right

Article 2221People v. Marquez G.R. No. 181440. April 13, 2011.Conjuangco v. CA, G.R. No. 119398, July 2, 1999Almeda v. Cariño, G.R. No. 152143, January 13, 2003Gonzales v. PCIB, G.R. No. 180257, February 23, 2011

2. No actual loss caused or proven

Areola v. CA, G.R. No. 95641, September 22, 1994PNOC Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 107518, October 8, 1998Francisco v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 142029. February 28, 2001Twin Ace v. Rufina, G.R. No. 160191, June 8, 2006China Airlines, Ltd., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129988, 14 July 2003

3. Under Considerations of Equity

Spouses Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la, G.R. No. 190601, February 7, 2011

B. Nature and Determination of Amount


Gonzales v. People, G.R. No. 159950, February 12, 2007Pedrosa v. CA, G.R. No. 118680, March 5, 2001Robes-Francisco v. CFI, G.R. No. L-41093. October 30, 1978.People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 144316, March 11, 2002

C. Effect of Award

Article 2223

V. Temperate damages

A. When awarded

1. Nature of case prevents determination of actual loss

Article 2224

2. Cases where amount of loss not proven

Republic v. Tuvera, supraPleno v. CA G.R. No. G.R. No. 56505. May 9, 1988Tan v. OMC Carriers G.R. No. 190521. January 12, 2011Ventanilla v. Centeno, G.R. No. L-14333, January 28, 1961

3. In addition to actual damages

a. Chronic and continuing injury

Ramos v. CA, supra

b. In addition to civil indemnity

People v. Yrat, G.R. No. 130415, October 11, 2001

c. In addition to other actual damages proven

People v. Magalona, G.R. No. 143294, July 17, 2003.

B. Factors in determining amount

1. In general

Article 2224De Guzman v. Tumolva, G.R. No. 188072, October 19, 2011

2. Receipts amounting to less than P25,000


Serrano v. People G.R. No. 175023. July 5, 2010People v. Murcia G.R. No. 182460. March 9, 2010People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 179044, December 6, 2010

3. No receipts provided

People v. Surongon, G.R. No. 173478, July 12, 2007People v. Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003People v. Almedilla, G.R. No. 150590, August 21, 2003People v. Gidoc, G.R. No. 185162. April 24, 2009

VI. Liquidated damages

A. Definition and Purpose

1. Definition

Article 2226Suatengco v. Reyes, G.R. No. 162729, December 17, 2008Article 2228

2. Purpose

Article 2227H.L. Carlos Construction v. Marina Properties, G.R. No. 147614, January 29, 2004Titan v. Uni-Field, G.R. No. 153874, March 1, 2007Azcuna v. CA, G.R. No. 116665, March 20, 1996

B. Reducing the amount

1. When iniquitous or unconscionable

Article 2227Radiowealth Finance v. Spouses Del Rosario, G.R. No. 138739, July 6, 2000Pentacapital v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 171736, July 5, 2010

2. Possible tests

a. Apply rules on penalty clauses

Ligutan v. CA, G.R. No. 138677, February 12, 2002Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128833, April 20, 1998.

b. “Attorney’s fees” test


Polytrade v. Blanco, G.R. No. L-27033. October 31, 1969

c. Applying precedent

Polytrade v. Blanco, supraSocial Security v. Almeda, G.R. No. 75428, December 14, 1988

d. Necessity test

Henry Dela Rama Co v. Admiral United Savings Bank, G.R. No. 154740, April 16, 2008.

e. Consider actual damages

Domel Trading v. CA, G.R. No. 84813, September 22, 1999

3. When in pari delicto

Sy v. CA, G.R. No. L-39853, August 17, 1983

VII. Exemplary/Corrective damages

A. Purpose

Article 2229People v. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001Republic v. Tuvera, supra

B. When imposed

1. In general

Article 2229, 2233-2235Canada v. All Commodities Marketing G.R. No. 146141, October 17, 2008.PNB v. CA G.R. No. 108630. April 2, 1996

2. In crimes

Article 2230People v. Catubig, supraPeople v. Diunsay-Jalandoni G.R. No. 174277. February 8, 2007People v. Dalisay G.R. No. 188106. November 25, 2009People v. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010People v. Dadulla G.R. No. 172321. February 9, 2011.

3. quasi-delicts


Article 2231Kapalaran Bus Line v. Coronado, G.R. No. 85331, August 25, 1989Baliwag Transit v. CA, G.R. No. 116624, September 20, 1996Philtranco v. CA, G.R. No. 120553, June 17, 1997Globe Mackay v. CA G.R. No. 81262, August 25, 1989

4. In contracts and quasi-contracts

Article 2232Munsayac v. De Lara, G.R. No. L-21151, June 26, 1968Singapore Airlines v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 142305, December 10, 2003Francisco v. Ferrer, supra


Documents

Law 104 Syllabus as of 9 January 2013