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
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 2
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.
Last updated on 8 January 2013 3
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.
Last updated on 8 January 2013 4
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 5
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 6
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 7
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 8
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 9
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 10
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 11
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 12
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 13
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 14
[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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 15
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 16
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.
Last updated on 8 January 2013 17
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 18
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 19
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 20
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 21
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 22
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 23
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 24
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
Last updated on 8 January 2013 25