Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer

8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer

1/25

TORTS AND DAMAGES REVIEWER

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Sources of Obligations under Philippine Law

Article 1156. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do, or not to do.

1157. Obligations arise from:

(1)

Law;(2) Contracts;

(3) Quasi-contracts;

(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and

(5) Quasi-delicts.

1158. Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly

determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and shall be

regulated by the precepts of the law, which establishes them; and as to what

has not been foreseen, by the provisions of this Book.

1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the

contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.

1160. Obligations derived from quasi-contracts shall be subject to the

provisions of Chapter 1, Title XVII, of this Book.

1161. Civil obligations derived from criminal offenses shall be governed by

the penal laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent

provisions on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book, regulating

damages.

1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the

provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws.

2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damages to another, there being

fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damages 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 this Chapter.

Report of the Code Commission: what is contemplated by the Civil Code

in Article 2176 is not a TORT as used in the context of American

jurisprudence, but a quasi-delict. However, jurisprudence has made a tort

synonymous with a quasi-delict under Philippine jurisprudence.

Causes of actionanswer any of the sources of obligations: law, contract,

quasi-contract, delict, quasi-delict.

THE THREE MAIN CAUSES OF THE COURSE:

1. Quasi-delict

2. Contract

3. Quasi-delict

B. Quasi-delict distinguished form other sources of obligations

Quasi-delict v. Br each of Contract:

Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.:

There is a difference between culpa, substantive and independent, which of

itself constitutes the source of an obligation between persons not formerlyconnected by any legal tie and culpa considered as an accident in the

performance of an obligation already existing.

The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a

voluntary act or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere

negligence or inattention, has caused damage to another.

Two things are apparent: (1) That when an injury is caused by the

negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of

law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either

in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him, after

the selection, or both; and (2) that that presumption is juris tantum and not

juris et de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily

that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selectionand supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of

a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.

This theory bases the responsibility of the master ultimately on his own

negligence and not on that of his servant.

Every legal obligation must of necessity be extracontractual or contractual.

Extracontractual obligation has its source in the breach or omission of

those mutual duties which civilized society imposes upon its members, or

which arise from these relations, other than contractual, of certain members

of society to others, generally embraced in the concept of status. The legal

rights of each member of society constitute the measure of the

corresponding legal duties, mainly negative in character, which the

existence of those rights imposes upon all other members of society. Thebreach of these general duties whether due to willful intent or to mere

inattention, if productive of injury, gives rise to an obligation to indemnify

the injured party. The fundamental distinction between obligations of this

character and those which arise from contract, rests upon the fact that in

cases of non-contractual obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or

omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas in contractual

relations the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary

duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation.

Extra-contractual liability is limited to cases in which moral culpability can

be directly imputed to the persons to be charged. This moral responsibility

may consist in having failed to exercise due care in one's own acts, or in

having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one's


2/25

agents or servants, or in the control of persons who, by reason of their

status, occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person made

liable for their conduct.

The position of a person who undertakes by contract to render service to

another is wholly different from a person charged with liability for the

violation of an extra-contractual obligation.

When the source of the obligation upon which plaintiff's cause of action

depends is a negligent act or omission, the burden of proof rests upon

plaintiff to prove the negligence. If he does not, his action fails. But whenthe facts averred show a contractual undertaking by defendant for the

benefit of plaintiff, and it is alleged that plaintiff has failed or refused to

perform the contract, it is not necessary for plaintiff to specify in his

pleadings whether the breach of the contract is due to willful fault or to

negligence on the part of the defendant, or of his servants or agents. Proof

of the contract and of its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to

warrant a recovery.

In case of extracontractual culpa, a suing creditor should assume the

burden of proof of its existence, as the only fact upon which his action is

based; while on the contrary, in a case of negligence which presupposes the

existence of a contractual obligation, if the creditor shows that it exists and

that it has been broken, it is not necessary for him to prove the negligence. If the negligence of servants or agents could be invoked as a means of

discharging the liability arising from contract, the anomalous result would

be that persons acting through the medium of agents or servants in the

performance of their contracts, would be in a better position than those

acting in person. If such a theory could be accepted, juridical persons

would enjoy practically complete immunity from damages arising from the

breach of their contracts if caused by negligent acts of omission or

commission on the part of their servants, as such juridical persons can of

necessity only act through agents or servants, and it would no doubt be true

in most instances that reasonable care had been taken in the selection and

direction of such servants.

Culpa contractual are not cases of injury caused, without any preexistingobligation, by fault or negligence, but of damages caused by the defendant's

failure to carry out the undertakings imposed by the contracts.

Whether negligence occurs as an incident in the course of the performance

of a contractual undertaking or is itself the source of an extra-contractual

obligation, its essential characteristics are identical. There is always an act

or omission productive of damage due to carelessness or inattention on the

part of the defendant. Consequently, when the court holds that a defendant

is liable in damages for having failed to exercise due care, either directly, or

in failing to exercise proper care in the selection and direction of his

servants, the practical result is identical in either case.

The field of noncontractual obligation is much broader than that of

contractual obligation, comprising, as it does, the whole extent of juridical

human relations. These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is

to say, the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not

relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. When such a

contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such

conditions that the same act which constitutes a breach of the contract

would have constituted the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no

contract existed between the parties.

A duty that is contractual is direct and immediate, and its non-performance

cannot be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable todefendant's servants.

The doctrine of comparative negligence: if the accident was caused by

plaintiff's own negligence, no liability is imposed upon defendant,

whereas if the accident was caused by defendant's negligence and

plaintiff's negligence merely contributed to his injury, the damages

should be apportioned.

Air France v. Carrascoso

"Bad faith" contemplates a "state of mind affirmatively operating with

furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior

purpose"

The responsibility of an employer for the tortious act of its employees neednot be essayed. It is well settled in law.

Article 21 of the Civil Code says: Any person who willfully causes loss or

injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or

public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage."

A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from

any other contractual relation. And this, because of the relation that an air-

carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with the travelling

public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers.

The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a

public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees, naturally,

could give ground for an action for damages.

Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to

be treated by the carriers employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and

due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal

misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such

employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of

employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages

against the carrier.

Although the relation of passenger and carrier is "contractual both in

origin and nature" nevertheless "the act that breaks the contract may

be also a tort".

The stress of Carrascoso's action as we have said, is placed upon his

wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the petitioner air

carriera case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.


3/25

Singson v. BPI

The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the

commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent

recovery of damages therefor

Citing Air France: although the relation between a passenger and a carrier

is contractual both in origin and nature x x x the act that breaks thecontract may also be a tort.

PSBA v. CA A perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasidelicts

or tort, also known as extracontractual obligations, arise only between

parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied.However, this impression has not prevented this Court from determining

the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract. In Air France vs.

Carrascoso (124 Phil. 722), the private respondent was awarded damages

for his unwarranted expulsion from a firstclass seat aboard the petitioner

airline. It is noted, however, that the Court referred to the

petitionerairline's liability as one arising from tort, not one arising from a

contract of carriage. In effect, Air France is authority for the view that

liability from tort may exist even if there is a contract, for the act that

breaks the contract may be also a tort. A contractual relation is a condition sine qua non to the school's liability.

The negligence of the school cannot exist independently on the contract,

unless the negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in Article 21

of the Civil Code.

A school, like a common carrier , cannot be an insurer of its students against

all risks. This is especially true in the populous student communities of the

socalled "university belt" in Manila where there have been reported several

incidents ranging from gang wars to other forms of hooliganism. It would

not be equitable to expect of schools to anticipate all types of violent

trespass upon their premises, for notwithstanding the security measures

installed, the same may still fail against an individual or group determined

to carry out a nefarious deed inside school premises and environs. Shouldthis be the case, the school may still avoid liability by proving that the

breach of its contractual obligation to the students was not due to its

negligence, here statutorily defined to be the omission of that degree of

diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and

corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time and place.

Fabre v. CA

It is unnecessary for our purpose to determine whether to decide this case

on the theory that petitioners are liable for breach of contract of carriage or

culpa contractual or on the theory of quasi delict or culpa aquiliana as both

the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals held, for although the

relation of passenger and carrier is contractual both in origin and nature,

nevertheless the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort. In either

case, the question is whether the bus driver, petitioner Porfirio Cabil, was

negligent.

Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations

engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or

both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the

public.

The above article makes no distinction between one whose principal

business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one whodoes such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a

sideline). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction

between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular

or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic

or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a

carrier offering its services to the general public, i.e., the general

community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business

only from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that

Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.

Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers

through the negligence or wilful acts of the formers employees, although

such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or inviolation of the orders of the common carriers.

This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they

exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and

supervision of their employees.

Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad

Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature

of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of

exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers.

The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or

injury to passengers a) through the negligence or willful acts of its

employees or b) on account of willful acts or negligence of otherpassengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees through the

exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or

omission.

In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or

been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of

the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its

employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is

due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.

In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the carrier on how the

accident occurred, the presumption would be that it has been at fault, an

exception from the general rule that negligence must be proved.


4/25

The premise, however, for the employers liability is negligence or fault on

the part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can

then be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the

employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection

and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be

negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the

employee, a factual matter that has not been shown. Absent such a

showing, one might ask further, how then must the liability of the common

carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand,be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be

breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one

resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194

of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even

under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated

differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have

itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract

existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached

by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.

Quasi-delict v. Delicts

Revised Penal Code

100. Civil liability of persons guilty of felony. Every persons criminally liable

for a felony is also civilly liable.

365. Imprudence and negligence. Any person who by reckless imprudence,

shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave

felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to

prision correccional in its minimum period; if it would have constituted a less

grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods

shall be imposed.

Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act

which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer a penalty of

arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would haveconstituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum

period shall be imposed.

When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in

damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine

ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such

value, but which shall in no case be less than 25 pesos.

A fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person

who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if dne

maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

In the imposition of these penalties, the courts shall exercise their discretion,

without regard to the rules prescribed in article 62.

The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:

1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or greater than

those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case

the courts shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that

which should be imposed, in the period which they may deem proper to

apply.

2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the

Automobile Law, the death of a person shall be caused, in which case

the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium

and maximum periods.Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or

failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of

inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing

to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation,

degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding

persons, time, and place.

Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in

which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger

clearly manifest.

Barredo v. Garcia

A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under theCivil Code, with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely

apart and independent from a delict or crime.

The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising

from a crime punishable by the Revised Penal Code or create an action for

quasi-delict under the Civil Code.

Under the Revised Penal Code, an employers liability is subsidiary to the

employees, while under the Civil Code, responsibility is not only for

personal acts or omissions but also for those for whom another is

responsible: includes the subordinates and employees (children, even)

Crime Quasi-delict

Affect public interests Of private concern

Purpose to punish Purpose to repair

Not as broad, punish only when

there is a specific law punishing

Covers any kind of fault or

negligence

Quantum of proof: beyondreasonable doubt

Quantum of proof: preponderance ofevidence

Possibility of compromise: NO Possibility of compromise: YES

Not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility, such as

being in contravention of ordinances, violation of game laws, infraction of

the laws of traffic, WHEN NOBODY IS HURT

The title upon which action for reparation is based cannot be confused with

civil responsibility born of a crime because there exists in the latter,

whatever each nature a culpa surrounded with aggravating aspects which

give rise to penal measures which are more or less severe.


5/25

Such civil actions in the case (without referring to contractual faults, which

are not pertinent and belong to another scope) are derived from every act or

omission causing losses and damages in which culpa or negligence

intervenes

Actions arising from quasi-delict can be brought directly against he who

may be held responsible, even without impleading the author it is thenegligence of the person responsible in allowing the incident to happen

When there is an injury by the servant, there arises a rebuttable

presumption that there was negligence in the selection and/or supervisionof said servant (employee)

Basis: pater familias

Elcano v. Hill

A prior acquittal for a crime will not be a bar for liability for quasi-delict

A quasi-delict contemplates responsibility arising from fault or negligence

and covers acts not punishable by law AS WELL AS acts criminal in nature

whether intentional or negligent

While emancipation terminates parental authority, the same is not absolute,

for example, an emancipated minor cannot encumber or alienate property,

or borrow money, without the consent of his guardian, neither can he sue or

be sued without the assistance of his guardian

A father can still be held liable for the tort of his son under the principles of

2180

2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones

own acts or omission 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 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.

II. QUASI-DELICT

A. Elements

1. Damage to the plaintiff

2. Fault or negligence of the defendant or of some other person for whom the

defendant must respond

3.

Causal connection between the first two elements

Andamo v. IAC

Elements of a quasi-delict:

1. Damages suffered by plaintiff

2. Fault or negligence of the defendant (and persons the defendant is

responsible for)

3. Connections of cause and effect

4. No pre-existing contractual obligation

Limitations on the use of property, cannot injure the rights of a third person

A separate civil action lies whether or not the person criminally prosecuted

is guilty or acquitted provided that the offended cannot recover damages on

both scores

Acquittal or conviction is entirely irrelevant

Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers Inc.

Under quasi-delict, there is no negligence presumed, and this means that

the negligence complained of must be proven

Under breach of contract, negligence is presumed for so long as the injured

can show a breach

The requisites of quasi-delict:

1. Damage

2. Fault, clearly established

3. Causal connection

It is upon he who alleges the tort that the burden of proof must rest

The person injured cannot claim damages for an injury caused by his or her

own negligence

Res ipsa Loquitor:

1. Accident wouldnt happen without negligence of the defendant

2. Accident caused by a thing under the agency of the defendant (under

his control

3. Accident not contributed to by the person injured

Lucas v. Tuao

In a medical negligence suit, prove:

1.

The physician failed to exercise that degree of skill, care, and learningpossessed by persons in the same profession (neighborhood doctrine)


6/25

2. That this was the proximate result of the injury, which led to damage

Four essential elements:

1. Duty

2. Breach

3. Injury

4. Proximate Causation

Proof of breach: through expert testimony, whether a person in the same

profession would have acted the same way or followed the same procedures

or not Proximate cause: that cause 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

Expert testimony is needed to establish:

1. Standard of care

2. Failure of dutyinjury

3. That the injury was a result of the doctors failure

B. No Double Recovery Rule

1161. Civil obligations derived from criminal offenses shall be governed by the

penal laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent

provisions on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book, regulating

damages.

2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damages to another, there being fault

or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damages 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 this Chapter.

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.

Joseph v. Bautista

A cause of action is understood to be a delict or wrongful act or omission

committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the

plaintiff. A single act or omission can violate various rights at the same

time, resulting in several separate and distinct legal obligations.

When there is only one delict and wrong, there is ONE single cause of

action regardless of the number of rights violated. Similarly, if only ONE

injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only ONE cause of action arises.

Well-settled in the jurisprudence is the proscription against double

recovery, wherein the recovery by the petitioner under one remedy bars

recovery under the other.

Fundamental rule against unjust enrichment.

Padua v. Robles

Civil liability coexists with criminal responsibility

Therefore, a person has two choices, to hold someone responsible for:

1. Civil liability based on crime under the Revised Penal Code, or

2. Civil liability based on culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code

2177 precludes recovery twice for the same act/omission

It is immaterial which one is chosen first and its subsequent denial will not

bar the other one so long as there is no double recovery

Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila v. CA

It is, therefore, clearly apparent that petitioner was guilty of two culpable

transgressions on the property rights of private respondents, that is, for the ruination

of the agricultural fertility or utility of the soil of their property and, further, for the

unauthorized use of said property as a dump site or depot for petitioners heavy

equipment and trucks. Consequently, albeit with differing amounts, both courts

correctly awarded damages both for the destruction of the land and for the unpaid

rentals, or more correctly denominated, for the reasonable value of its use and

occupation of the premises. There is consequently no merit in said objection of

petitioner.

Lim v. Ping

A single act or omission that causes damage to another may give rise to two

separate civil liabilities:

1. Civil liability ex delicto- Article 100 of the RPC

2. Independent Civil Action as provided in Art. 31 (breach of

contract/tort) Art 33 (cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries)

Since both cases arose from different causes of action which, under the law,

are considered separate, distinct and independent, both cases can proceed to

their final adjudication subject to the prohibition on double recovery under

Articl 2177 of the Civil Code.

C. Person/s liable; nature of liability

2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict

is solidary.

Worcester v. Ocampo

Each joint tortfeasor is not only individually liable for the tort in which he

participates, but is also jointly liable with his tortfeasors.

If several persons jointly commit a tort, the plaintiff or person injured, has

his election to sue all or some of the parties jointly, or one of themseparately, because the tort is in its nature a separate act of each individual.

It is not necessary that the cooperation should be a direct, corporeal act, for

all are principals.


7/25

He who aided or assisted or counseled, in any way, the commission of a

crime, was as much a principal as he who inflicted or committed the actual

tort.

Joint tortfeasors: all the persons who command, instigate, promote,

encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the

commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for

their benefit.

Joint tortfeasors are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the

same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. The damages cannot be apportioned

among them, except among themselves. They cannot insist upon an

apportionment, for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part. They are

jointly and severally liable for the full amount.

Philippine National Construction Corporation v. CA

Negligence refers to the conduct which creates undue risk of harm to

another, the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance

that the circumstance justly demand, whereby that other person suffers

injury. The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an

act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is

this: could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligenceis attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable

consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty

on the actor to refrain from that course or to take precautions to guard

against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes

negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the

admonition born of this provision, is always necessary before negligence

can be held to exist.

Where 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, either is responsible for the whole injury, eventhough his act alone might not have caused the entire injury.

Chan, Jr. v. Iglesia Ni Cristo, Inc.

Requisites of quasi-delict:

1. Act or omission

2. Damage from such act or omission

3. Act or omission through fault or negligence

4. No pre-existing contractual relation

Solidary responsibility

Joint tortfeasors: all who command, instigate, promote, encourage,

advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid, or abet the commission of the

tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit.

Cerezo v. Tuazon

It is elementary that a single negligent act in the case at bar, may produce

civil liability arising from delict (RPC Art. 103 on subsidiary liability) or

action for quasi delict under Art. 2180. The aggrieved party may choose

between the two remedies. Moreover, the action on quasi delict may

proceed independently from the criminal action. Choosing which remedy

would also affect the procedural and jurisdictional issues of the action.

The liability of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict issolidary.

An employers liability based on quasi delict is primary and direct, while

on the other hand, the employee based on delict is subsidiary. This refers tothe remedy provided by law and not the character and limits of the

obligation. While the employer is civilly liable in a subsidiary capacity for

the employees criminal negligence, the employer is also civilly liable

directly and separately for his own civil negligence in failing to exercise

due diligence in selecting and supervising his employees.

To hold an employer subsidiarily liable in a criminal action, the

complainant must initiate a criminal action where the employees delict and

corresponding primary liability are established. This necessarily implies

that jurisdiction over the person accused must be acquired.

Spouses Perea v. Spouses Zarate

A common carrier is expected to observe extraordinary diligence

A carrier is considered common carrier if it holds itself out as ready

transportation indiscriminately even to just limited clientele, in this case,

the students of Don Bosco, Makati.

The moment an accident occurs, negligence is presumed for the common

carrier

If the burden of proving extraordinary diligence has not been discharged by

the common carrier, it must be held liable

In this case, the operators of the common carrier were held solidarily liable

as joint tortfeasors with the train company for the death of the student

III. NEGLIGENCE

A. Concept

2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-

delict.

1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind

of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the

courts.

1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that

diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds


8/25

with the circumstances of the persons, of the time, and of the place. When

negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201 paragraph

2 shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the

performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be

required.

1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any waiver

of an action for future fraud is void.

2201, par. 2.XXX

In case of fraud, bad faith, malice, or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be

responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-

performance of the obligation.

1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise

declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the

assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could

not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.

1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of

public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance

over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them,

according to all the circumstances of each case.Such extraordinary diligence in vigilance over the goods is further expressed in

Articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary

diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in Articles 1755

and 1756.

Picart v. Smith

The control of the situation was passed to Smith when he saw that the rider

would not go to the proper side of the road: either stop or take the other

side

When Smith exposed Picart and his horse to this danger, he was negligent

Test: Did he use reasonable care which an ordinarily prudent man would

have used?

Imaginary conduct, pater familiasgood father of a family

Problem: discover who is immediately, directly responsible

The person with the last fair chance to avoid impending harm and fails is

chargeable without reference to the negligence of the other party

Corliss v. Manila Railroad Company

Determine: damage + fault = indemnity

Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances

There must be observance of that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance

which the situation demands

Corliss was so sufficiently warned in advance of the oncoming train tha t it

was incumbent upon him to avoid a possible accident.

US v. Bonifacio

No obligation to do anything unless there was something that would cause

a prudent man to anticipate the possibility of danger

Before that, it is safe to assume that all persons know of danger involved

and will take reasonable steps to avoid accidents

Injury, to be penalized, must have resulted from imprudence or negligence:no proof, no criminal liability

The presumption of negligence arises only out of violation of a regulation

Cusi v. PNR

Negligence is that failure to observe for the interests of another

There must be observance of that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance

which the situation demands

Wright v. Manila Electric

Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of intoxication

establish a want of ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be considered

with other evidence tending to prove negligence

GR: it is immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary

care or diligence can be imputed to him and no greater degree of care is

required to be exercised by an intoxicated man for his own protection than

by a sober one

If ones conduct is characterized by a proper degree of care and prudence,

sobriety is immaterial

To conclude that a sober man wouldnt have fallen while a drunken man

did is to draw a conclusion in the realm of speculations and guesswork

People v. de los Santos

In the face of two conflicting theories, pick the one consistent withinnocence and lesser liability

TEST OF NEGLIGENCE: Could a prudent man, in the position of a person

to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to a person injured as a

reasonable consequence of the course of action? If so, there is a duty of the

actor to refrain or take precautions

Reasonable foresight of harm + ignoring the admonition born of the

prevision = negligence

Jarco v. CA

Accident: an unforeseen event where no fault or negligence attaches to

the defendant. It is a fortuitous circumstance, event, happening. It is an

event happening without human agency, or wholly or partially with


9/25

human agency, that which under the circumstances is unusual or

unexpected by the person to whom it happens.

Negligence: the omission to do something which a reasonable man,

guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct

of human affairs would do, or the doing of something which a prudent

and reasonable man would not do. It is that failure to observe, for the

protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care,

precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,

whereby such other person suffers injury. Test of negligence: Did the defendant in so doing the alleged negligent acts

use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent mad

would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of

negligence

Conclusive presumption that children below 9 years old are incapable of

contributory negligence

Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan

Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance: one who maintains on his premises

dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to

attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to

prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liableto a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is

technically a trespasser in the premises

The doctrine of attractive nuisance is generally not applicable to bodies of

water, artificial or natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or

artificial feature other than mere water and its location.

Sarmiento v. Cabrido

Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the

contracting parties.

Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,

negligence or delay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor

thereof, are liable for damages.

The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that

diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds

with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place.

GR: Moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages for breach

of contract.

Exception: When there is proof that the defendant acted in bad faith or was

guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith or in wanton disregard of

his contractual obligation.

Francisco v. Chemical Bulk Carriers

Standard of conduct: the level of expected conduct that is required by

the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of

the person, the time and the place

Most common: Good father of a family

In this case, Francisco failed to exercise the standard of conduct expected

of a responsible person who is blind

Pacis v. MoralesA HIGHER DEGREE OF CARE is required of someone who has in his possession

an instrumentality which is extremely dangerous in character. He had the duty to

take EXCEPTIONAL PRECAUTION. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life andbusiness which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous weapons

requires the exercise of a higher degree of care.

Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Harper

Negligence is that omission to do something which a reasonable man,

guided by those consideration which ordinarily regulate the conduct of

human affairs would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and

reasonable man would not do.

Negligence is relative, comparative, and not an absolute: where the dangeris great, a higher degree of care is necessary

Imaginary conduct: pater familias

Measure with perspective as that of an ordinary reasonable person similarly

situated

Liability is based on the fact of who was in a better position to foresee and

prevent injurious occurrences

Premises liability rule: it is enough that guests are injured while inside

the hotel premises to make the hotel keeper liable

CBTC v. CA

The relationship with regard to bank deposits: debtor-creditor, governed by

the provisions on simple loan

The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a degree of

diligence higher than pater familias

1172

When a passbook is left in the possession of tellers, there is a higher degree

of diligence in the keeping thereof: tellers must insure the return of the

passbook only to the depositor or his authorized representatives because

they know that possession of the passbook is enough to raise the

presumption of ownership thereofto give the same to the wrong person is

giving that wrong person presumptive ownership


10/25

Proximate cause: that cause which in natural and continuous sequence

unbroken by any efficient intervening cause produces the injury and

without which the result would not have occurred

Proximate cause is determined by the facts, by logic, by common sense, by

policy, and by precedent

Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio

Medical malpractice/medical negligence: that claim available to a

victim to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional whichcaused bodily harm

Prove: that the failure to do something that a reasonably prudent health care

professional would have or would not have done is what caused the injury

Duty, Breach, Injury, Proximate Causation

Prove that the doctors presented themselves as having the needed training

and skill and would employ the same

Duty: use the same level of care any other reasonable and prudent health

care professional would under the circumstances (neighborhood doctrine)

A breach leading to injury becomes actionable malpractice

Negligence = injury from want of due care or skill

2-pronged evidence for res ipsa loquitur:

1.

Standard

2. Departure from that standard

Causation:

1. Did the doctor cause harm?

2. Were his actions the proximate cause of the injury?

Li v. Soliman

Doctrine of informed consent: a physician has a duty to disclose what a

reasonably prudent physician in the medical community in the exercise

of reasonable care would disclose to his patient as to whatever grave

risks of injury might be incurred from a proposed course of treatment,

so that a patient, exercising ordinary care for his own welfare, andfaced with a choice of undergoing the proposed treatment, or

alternative treatment, or none at all, may intelligently exercise his

judgment by reasonably balancing the probable risks against the

probable benefits.

The disclosure rule only requires of the physician a reasonable explanation,

which means generally informing the patient in nontechnical terms as to

what is at stake; the therapy alternatives open to him, the goals expectably

to be achieved, and the risks that may ensue from particular treatment or no

treatment.

The scope of the physicians communications to the patient must be

measured by the patients need, and that need is whatever information is

material to the decision. The test therefore for determining whether a

potential peril must be divulged is its materiality to the patients decision.

There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice

action based upon the doctrine of informed consent:

1. The physician had a duty to disclose material risks;

2. He failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks;

3. As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient

consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to;

and4. Plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment.

The gravamen in an informed consent case requires the plaintiff to point to

significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment that would

have altered her decision to undergo it.

Adarne v. Aldaba

An attorney is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence but only a

reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the character of the

business he undertakes to do

Humans are prone to err

An attorney is not answerable for every error or mistake

He is protected as long as he acted in honesty and good faith

Isaac v. A.L. Ammen

Principles governing the liability of the common carrier:

1. Contractual: arises out of breach of obligation

2. Utmost diligence: of a very cautious person

3. Rebuttable presumption: of fault or negligence (prove extraordinary

diligence)

4. Not an insurer of all risks

The driver did what a prudent man would have done

Calvo v. UCPB

Common carriers: persons engaged in the business of

carrying/transporting passengers, good, both, by land, water, air, for

compensation, offering services to the public

There is no distinction whether the business need be the principal or

ancillary activity; neither a distinction as to clientele

A common carrier is expected to observe extraordinary diligence in the

vigilance over goods: requires the common carrier to follow or know

the required precaution for avoiding damage to, destruction of goods,

and render skills with greatest skill and foresight and use all

reasonable means to ascertain the nature/characteristics of good and

exercise due care in handling and storage


11/25

The common carrier must prove that it used all reasonable means to

ascertain the nature and characteristics of goods tendered for transport and

that it exercised due care in the handling thereof

Ridjo Tape v. CA

Public utilities have a duty to make reasonable and proper inspection oftheir apparatuses and equipment and ensure no malfunction. Their due

diligence consists in the discovery and repair of defects. Failure, therefore,

is negligence. Notice of the defect need not be direct and express. It is enough that the

same existed for such a length of time wherein it would be reasonable to

presume that it had been detected the presence of a conspicuous defect

which existed for a considerable length of time creates a presumption

of constructive notice thereof

If the personnel inspected the meters regularly to find out the payment,

why were the defects not reported on time? Failure to discover the defect

amounts to inexcusable negligence

Public utilities run the risk of forfeiting amounts originally due from

customers if they completely disregard the duty of keeping their meters in

serviceable condition by reason of their own negligence

Those who do not exercise such prudence in the discharge of its dutiesshall be made to bear the consequences of their oversight

B. Negligence as proximate cause

Bataclan v. Medina

Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the

injury and without which the result would not have occurred.

Remember the fire and the overturned bus

Urbano v. IAC

The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and

logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. And

since we are dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused

caused the victims death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable

doubt. The wound, for failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus

may have been the proximate cause of Javiers death with which the

petitioner had nothing to do.

A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such

remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the

occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened

between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive,

unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would

not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed

in the condition except because of the independent cause, such condition

was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or

defective condition sets into operation the circumstances, which result in

injury because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or

condition is the proximate cause.

Gabeto v. Araneta

The stopping of the rig by Agaton Araneta in the middle of the street was too

remote from the accident that presently ensued to be considered the legal orproximate cause thereof. Moreover, by getting out and taking his post at the head of

the horse, the driver was the person primarily responsible for the control of the

animal, and the defendant cannot be charged with liability for the accident resulting

from the action of the horse thereafter.

Phoenix Construction v. IAC

When the dump truck parked askew without EWDs or lights, the collision was no

more than a foreseeable consequences of risk created by negligent parking. a man

must respond to the foreseeable consequences of his own acts.

Austria v. CA

That he had no opportunity to avoid the collision is of his own making and [this]should not relieve him of his liability.

Umali v. Bacani

Though the parents of the victim MAY have been negligent in allowing their child

to roam around after the storm that caused the electric wire to fall, ANYBODY

could have met the same fate that befell the victim. The real proximate cause was

the live wire. The negligence of the employees in failing to remedy the situation is

equal to the negligence of the employer due to his failure to supervise.

Calalas v. CA

For breach of contract, simply prove:

1.

Existence of a contract2. Breach

In case of injury, a common carrier is presumed to be at fault unless he

proves extraordinary diligence

The doctrine of proximate cause applies only to quasi-delict and not to

breach of contract the doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a

person where there is no relation between parties

Question: Did the carrier carry the passenger safely, as far as human care

and foresight could provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious

persons with due regard for all circumstances?


12/25

C. Proof of negligence

Rules of Court

Rule 131

Section 1. Burden of proof.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.

Section 2. Conclusive presumptions.The following are instances of

conclusive presumptions:(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,

intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular

thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation

arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify

it;

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time

of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.

Section 3. Disputable presumptions.The following presumptions are

satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other

evidence:

XXX

(d)

That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;XXX

Ong v. Metropolitan Water District

Owners of resorts are bound to exercise ordinary care and prudence in

management of resorts, to keep them reasonably safe for visitors

Although the proprietor of a natatorium is liable for injuries for lack of

ordinary care, he is not deemed an insurer of safety

They cannot be held liable when there is sufficient evidence to show that all

the necessary precautions were taken to avoid danger to patrons lives

D. Presumption of Negligence

(i) Res ipsa loquitu r

Africa v. Caltex

Fire cannot be considered a fortuitous event as it arises invariable from

some act of man

Where the thing which caused the injury is shown to be under the

management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such that in

the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its

management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in

the absence of an explanation by the defendant that the accident arose from

want of care

The intervention of an unforeseen or unexpected cause is not sufficient to

relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of negligence, if such negligence

directly and proximately cooperates with the independent cause in the

resulting injury

DM Consunji v. CA

Res ipsa loquitur warrants the presumption that the fall was a result of the

perso having control og the instrumentality being negligent

Prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof, furnishes asubstitute for specific proof of negligence

Facts and circumstances accompanying the injury raise the presumption or

permit an inference on the part of the person charged with negligence

Theoretical base: the necessary evidence is absent or unavailable

Once the elements of res ipsa loquitur are established, the burden shifts to

the defendants to explain

National Power Corporation v. CA

Res ipsa loquitur: where the thing that causes injury is shown to be

under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in

the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the

management use proper care, it afford reasonable evidence, in the

absence of an explanation bu the defendant, that the accident arose

from want of care

What if there was a fortuitous event (in this case, the heavy rains)?

Negligence or imprudence is a human factor which makes the whole

occurrence humanized as it were and removed from the rules applicable to

acts of God

In a quasi-delict, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the

natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of

Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works Inc. v. William Lines Inc.

In res ipsa loquitur, prove:

1.

Accident does not ordinarily occur unless someone was negligent

2. What caused the incident was under the exclusive control of the person

charged with negligence

In any case, the court found direct evidence of negligence which trumps res

ipsa loquitur

Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Spouses Sarangaya

Res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself, relates to the fact of an

injury that sets out an inference to the cause thereof or establishes the

plaintiffs prima facie case

The facts of the case warrant the supposition of negligence and they furnish

the circumstantial evidence of negligence when direct evidence is lacking


13/25

The doctrine provides a means by which a plaintiff can pin liability on a

defendant who, if innocent, should be able to explain the care he exercised

to prevent the incident complained of

Requisites of res ipsa loquitur:

1. The accident does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent

2. The cause of injury was under the exclusive control of the person incharge

3. The injury suffered was not due to any voluntary action or contribution

of injured Requisites of caso fortuito:

1. A cause independent of human will

2. Impossible to foresee, or, if foreseen, impossible to avoid3. Event renders the obligation impossible to perform in a normal manner

4. The person tasked with performance had no participation in any cause

to aggravate the accident

The employer may be held liable base on his or her lack of supervision over

the erring employee

2180 does not only apply to the transportation business

Batiquin v. CA

The primary objective of the medical profession: preservation of life andmaintenance of the health of the people

When a physician strays from his sacred duty and endangers instead the life

of his patients, he must be made to answer therefor

Remember the requisities of res ipsa loquitur

The proceedings were entirely under Dr. Batiquins control, nobody knows

whose fault it was but the injury wouldnt occur without negligence

No other operation, this could have been a by-product of Batiquins

procedure

There was here failure to overcome the presumption of negligence in res

ipsa loquitur

Cantre v. Go

Physicians are not the guarantors of care and never set out to intentionally

cause injury

Once negligence is proven, intent is immaterial and a right to reparation

arises

Requisites of res ipsa loquitur evidenced by:

1. The gaping wound, which is not normal

2. Instruments, whether the BP cuff or the droplight, was in Dr. Can tresexclusive control

3. The patient, Nora, had nothing to do with the wound

Captain of the ship doctrine: a surgeon is in charge of the operation

and is therefore liable for the negligence of his or her assistants

Professional Services Inc. v. Agana

All the major circumstances taken together makes Dr. Ampil the negligent

party:

o Gauzes used to control the bleeding

o The nurses announcement of lack of sponges and, though Ampil

searched, none were found, therefore he closed the incision

o Gauzes were found where the surgery was performed

Leaving sponges constitutes prima facie negligence

o

So inconsistent with due care as to raise an inference of negligenceo Even negligence per se

o Exception: leave the sponge when delay is detrimental to the

patients life BUT INFORM IN DUE TIME so they can explore

possible remedies thereto

No such information was given to Agana, who was even misled to believe

that the pains were a necessary consequence of the operationthe original

negligence then became a deliberate wrongful act

Clear case of medical malpractice or medical negligence; only prove:

1. That the health care provider failed to do something a reasonably

prudent health care provider would do or did something a reasonably

prudent health care provder wouldnt

2.

An injury was caused by the failing/doing Dutyto remove all the objects. Breach: failure to remove the same, leading

to the Injury the Proximate Causeof which was Ampils negligence in

closing the incision despite knowledge of the lacking sponges which was

further aggravated by the deliberate concealment

Captain of the ship doctrine: the operation surgeon is incomplete

charge of the surgery room and all personnel whose only duty is to

obey the surgeon

Res ipsa loquitur does not dispense with the requirement to prove the

negligence of a person

2180 in relation to 2176: respondeat superior, apparent authority, ostensible

authority, agency by estoppel

For purposes of apportioning responsibility in medical negligence cases, an

employer-employee relationship on effect exists between hospitals and

attending/visiting physicians

Hospitals hire, fire, exercise real control

Holding out theory: liability will attach because of acts of the principal

in misleading the public into believing such a relationship exists

1869: agency can be implied from the acts of the principal

If corporations can be lauded for providing quality health care when it does

a job well, why shouldnt it be held liable for a fuck up, too?

Doctrine of corporate negligence or corporate responsibility: the

judicial answer to the allocation of a hospitals liability for negligent

acts of health professionals


14/25

Hospitals have the duty to meet the standards of responsibilities for patient

care including proper supervision of medical staff

To escape liability, the physician must prove that he has that reasonable

degree of skill, learning, and experience required by the profession, and

reasonable care and diligence in the exercise of skill and application of

knowledge and exert best judgment

Ramos v. CA

Where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting injurywould not have occurred to the patient if due care had been exercised, an

inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an application of the

doctrine res ipsa loquitur without medical evidence, which is ordinarilyrequired to show not only what occurred but how and why it occurred.

The real question is whether or not in the process of the operation any

extraordinary incident or unusual event outside of the routine performance

occurred which is beyond the regular scope of professional activity in such

operations, which, if unexplained would themselves reasonably speak to the

average man ad the negligent cause or causes of the untoward consequence.

Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital

Res ipsa loquitur is generally restricted to situations in malpractice caseswhere a layman is able to say, as a matter of common knowledge and

observation, that the consequences of professional care were not as such as

would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised...It must be

conceded that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have no application in a

suit against a physician or a surgeon which involves the merits of a

diagnosis or of a scientific treatment. The physician or surgeon is not

required at his peril to explain why any particular diagnosis was not correct,

or why any particular scientific treatment did not produce the desired result

NOTE: Expert testimony may be dispensed with if res ipsa loquitur is

applicable. Hence, in cases where the res ipsa loquitur is applicable, the

court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of injury

to the patient, without the aid of expert testimony, where the court from itsfund of common knowledge can determine the proper standard of care.

The standard contemplated is not what is actually the average merit among

all known practitioners from the best to the worst and from the most to the

least experienced, but the reasonable average merit among the ordinarily

good physicians

The medical profession is one, which, like the business of a common

carrier, is affected with public interest. Moreover, since the law imposes

upon common carriers the duty of observing extraordinary diligence in the

vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers, physicians

and surgeons should have the same duty toward their patients. There is no

need to expressly require of doctors the observance of extraordinary

diligence. As it is now, the practice of medicine is already conditioned

upon the highest degree of diligence. The standard contemplated for

doctors is simply the reasonable average merit among ordinarily good

physicians

Medical negligence: particular form of negligence consisting in failure

of the physician or surgeon to apply that degree of care and skill

ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar

conditions, in like surrounding circumstances.

(ii ) Vi olation of rul es and statutes

a. Traff ic Rules

2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if

the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence,

prevented the misfortune. It is disputable presumed that a drvier was negligent,

if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations ar

least twice within the next preceding two months.

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are

applicable.

2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving

a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violatingany traffic regulation

b. Republic Act N o. 10586: A n Act penalizing persons driving u nder the inf luence

of al cohol, dangerous drugs, and simi lar substances, and for other pur poses.

Section 13. The owner and/or operator of the motor vehicle driven by the

offender shall be directly and principally held liable together with the offender

for the fine and the award against the offender for civil damages unless he/she

is able to convincingly prove that he/she has exercised extraordinary diligence

in the selection and supervision of his/her drivers in general and the offending

driver in particular.

This section shall principally apply to the owners and/or operators of publicutility vehicles and commercial vehicles such as delivery vans, cargo trucks,

container trucks, school and company buses, hotel transports, cars or vans for

rent, taxi cabs, and the like.

United States v. Juanillo

Generally, pedestrians and vehicles have equal rights on the highway but

the automobiles use cannot be countenanced unless accompanied by

prudence in management and consideration for the rights of others

consistent with safety

Where danger is great and there is a high degree of care necessary, failure

to observe it is want of ordinary care under the circumstances


15/25

Though the best course of action is to let the vehicle pass, the occurrence of

an accident will lead to the accountability of the driver

Negligence is that failure to recognize the great injury that would accrue to

the victim from the collision

Great care is due from the deadliness of the machine

Chapman v. Underwood

The owner will not be responsible for his driver when the latter commits a sudden

act of negligence for which the owner would have no reasonable opportunity toprevent it

Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai

An owner would be held liable if he could have prevented the accident on

the basis not of respondeat superior but rather of pater familias

A presumption arises: the negligence of the driver is ultimately the

negligence of the owner

Test under 2184: The omission to do that whichthe evidence of his own

senses tells him he should do to avoid the accident

The standard is subjective

Serra v. Mumar

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for the damages

caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.

Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to another,

there instantly arises a presumption that the employer failed to exercise the

due diligence of a good father of the family in the selection or supervision

of its employees.

The liability of the employer is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned

upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of

insolvency of such employee.

Moreover, under Article 2184 of the Civil Code, if the causative factor was

the drivers negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was present is

likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap by the exercise

of due diligence.

Mallari v. CA

The rule is settled that a driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose

of overtaking another vehicle in an ordinary situation has the duty to see to

it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do so in safety.

When a motor vehicle is approaching or rounding a curve, there is special

necessity for keeping to the right side of the road and the driver does not

have the right to drive on the left hand side relying upon having time to turn

to the right if a car approaching from the opposite direction comes into

view.

Under Art. 2185 of the Civil Code, unless there is proof to the contrary, it is

presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the

time of the mishap he was violating a traffic regulation.

In an action based on contract of carriage, the court need not make an

express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to

hold it responsible for the payment of damages sought by the passenger.

By the contract of carriage, a common carrier assumes the express

obligation to transport the passengers to their destination safely and to

observe extraordinary diligence with due regard for all the circumstances,and any injury or death that might be suffered by its passengers is right

away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier.

FGU Insurance Corporation v. CA

The liability imposed by Art. 2180 arises by virtue of a presumption juris

tantum of negligence on the part of the persons made responsible

thereunder, derived from their failure to exercise due care and vigilance

over the acts of subordinates to prevent them from causing damage.

Yet, as correctly observed by respondent court, Art. 2180 is hardly

applicable because none of the circumstances mentioned therein obtains in

the case under consideration.

Respondent FILCAR being engaged in a rent-a-car business was only theowner of the car leased to Dahl-Jensen. As such, there was no vinculum

juris between them as employer and employee. Respondent FILCAR

cannot in any way be responsible for the negligent act of Dahl-Jensen, the

former not being an employer of the latter.

Neither is Art. 2184 applicable because of the absence of master-driver

relationship between respondent FILCAR and Dahl-Jensen.

Clearly, petitioner has no cause of action against respondent FILCAR on

the basis of quasi-delict; logically, its claim against respondent FORTUNEcan neither prosper.

Petitioner's insistence on MYC-Agro-Industrial Corporation is rooted in a

misapprehension of our ruling therein. There, the true nature of the alleged

lease contract was nothing more than a disguise effected by the corporationto relieve itself of the burdens and responsibilities of an employer.

PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.

The registered owner of the vehicle driven by a negligent driver may still

be held liable under laws on compulsory motor vehicle registration and the

liabilities of employers for quasi-delicts under the Civil Code.

For damage or injuries arising out of negligence in the operation of a motor

vehicle, the registered owner may be held civilly liable with the negligent

driver either

1. Subsidiarily, if the aggrieved party seeks relief based on a delict or

crime under Articles 100 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code; or


16/25

2. Solidarily, if the complainant seeks relief based on a quasi-delict

under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.

It is the option of the plaintiff whether to waive completely the filing of the

civil action, or institute it with the criminal action, or file it separately or

independently of a criminal action; his only limitation is that he cannot

recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

In case a separate civil action is filed, the long-standing principle is that the

registered owner of a motor vehicle is primarily and directly responsible for

the consequences of its operation, including the negligence of the driver,with respect to the public and all third persons.

In contemplation of law, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is the

employer of its driver, with the actual operator and employer, such as alessee, being considered as merely the owner's agent. This being the case,

even if a sale has been executed before a tortious incident, the sale, if

unregistered, has no effect as to the right of the public and third persons to

recover from the registered owner. The public has the right to conclusively

presume that the registered owner is the real owner, and may sue

accordingly.

Since a lease, unlike a sale, does not even involve a transfer of title or

ownership, but the mere use or enjoyment of property, there is more reason,

therefore, in this instance to uphold the policy behind the law, which is toprotect the unwitting public and provide it with a definite person to make

accountable for losses or injuries suffered in vehicular accidents. Such

principles apply to all vehicles in general, not just those offered for public

service or utility.

The rule remains the same: a sale, lease, or financial lease, for that matter,

that is not registered with the Land Transportation Office, does not bind

third persons who are aggrieved in tortious incidents, for the latter need

only to rely on the public registration of a motor vehicle as conclusive

evidence of ownership.

Aonuevo v. CA

The rule on negligence per se must admit qualifications that may arise fromthe logical consequences of the facts leading to the mishap.

A driver of an automobile, is required to use a greater degree of care than

drivers of animals, for the reason that the machine is capable of greater

destruction, and furthermore, it is absolutely under the power and control of

the driver; whereas, a horse or other animal can and does to some extent aid

in averting an accident. An automobile driver must at all times use all the

care and caution which a careful and prudent driver would have exercised

under the circumstances. Simply put, the standards applicable to motor

vehicle are not on equal footing with other types of vehicles.

NEGLIGENCE PER SE, DOES NOT BAR RECOVERY. Negligence per

se, arising from the mere violation of a traffic statute, need NOT be

sufficient in itself in establishing liability for damages.

Negligence consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other

negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of

the injury.

To determine if Villagracia was negligent, it is not sufficient to rely solely

on the violations of the municipal ordinance, but imperative to examine

Villagracias behavior in relation to the contemporaneous circumstances ofthe accident.

The violation of a traffic statute must be shown as the proximate cause of

the injury, or that it substantially contributed thereto. Negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the

injury, and not simply a condition for its occurrence.

c. Statutes and ordi nances/admin istrati ve ru les

Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. v. Workmens Compensation Commission

Mere riding on haulage truck or stealing a ride thereon is not negligence,

ordinarily. It couldnt be, because transportation by truck is not dangerous

per se. It is argued that there was notorious negligence in this particular

instance because there was the employers prohibition. Does violation of

this order constitute negligence? Many courts hold that violation of a

statute or ordinance constitutes negligence per se. Others consider thecircumstances.

Violation of a rule promulgated by a Commission or board is not

negligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence.

This order of the employer (prohibition rather) couldnt be of a greater

obligation than the rule of a Commission or board. And the referee

correctly considered this violation as possible evidence of negligence; but it

declared that under the circumstance, the laborer could not be declared to

have acted with negligence. Correctly, it is believed, since the prohibition

had nothing to do with personal safety of the riders.

Nevertheless, even granting there was negligence, it surely was not

notorious or gross negligence implying conscious indifference to

consequences pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally andprobably result in injury utter disregard of consequences.

Getting or accepting a free ride on the companys haulage truck couldnt be

gross negligence, because as the referee found, no dan ger or risk was

apparent.

FF Cruz and Co., Inc. v. CA

Res ipsa loquitur: where the thing which caused the injury complained

of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his

servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things

does not happen if those who have its management or control use

proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of


17/25

explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of

care

The failure to comply with an ordinance providing for safety regulations

[is] an act of negligence

Cipriano v. CA

The violation of a statutory duty amounts to negligence per se

The person is thus liable for destruction for failure to comply with the

ordinances Where the very injury intended to be prevented by the ordinance happened,

non-compliance shall constitute negligence

A contract does not bar negligence from a quasi-delict when the negligence

led to a breach

Sanitary Steam Laundry v. CA

The petitioner has the burden of showing a causal connection between the

violation of the law and the injury received

One must show that the statutory violation was the proximate or legal cause

of injury or substantially contributed thereto

Negligence consisting of violation of law, like any other negligence, is

without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of the injury

(ii i) Dangerous weapons and substances

2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the

defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous

weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the

possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business.

Araneta v. Arreglado

Licensed possessors of firearms have the peremptory duty to adequately safeguard

weapons at all times and to take required measures to prevent unauthorized parties

access thereto.

IV. DEFENSES

A. Plaintiffs negligence is the proximate cause of the injury

2179. When the plaintiffs 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

defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts

shall mitigate the damage to be awarded

Taylor v. Meralco

Doctrine of implied invitation to visit premises of another: children are

actuated by childish instincts and impulses

Owners must calculate upon this and take precautions accordingly The

owner cannot be heard to say that because a child was trespassing, the

owner owes him no duty or obligation

The owner knows or ought to know the nature of a child and failure to take

measures to guard the child against injury is a breach of duty or a negligent

omission for which he should be he

Documents

Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer