TORTS AND DAMAGES c.

Connection of cause and effect between such

ST. MARY’S COLLEGE negligence and damage.
College of Law
CASE: Philippine National Construction Corp. vs. CA GR.
Atty. Alfie Luzana Omega No. 159270, August 22, 2005
2nd Semester SY 2019-2020  What are the Elements of Quasi Delict?
 Whether or not PASUDECO should be liable alone
1. What is TORT? for the mishap since it had assumed such
responsibility based on the MOA and PNCC
 Taken from the French word and is derivation of the exculpated from any liability?
Latin word “torquere” meaning “to twist”. o No. PNCC cannot escape liability under the
 Note: The word “tort” does not appear in the New MOA between PASUDECO and TRB, since
Civil Code because the Code Commission believed respondent Latagan was not a party thereto.
that such use would not be accurate because “tort” in o PNCC, incharge of the maintenance of the
Anglo-American law is much broader than Spanish- expressway, has been negligent in the
Philippine concept. performance of its duties. The obligation of
PNCC should not be relegated to, by virtues of a
 It is an unlawful violation of a private right, not
private agreement to other parties.
created by contract and which gives rise to an action
 What is contributory negligence? Did the court
for damages. applied contributory negligence?
 It is a private or civil wrong or injury other than  Who is liable for the mishap?
breach of contract. o PASUDECO and PNCC are jointly and severally
liable (solidary).
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
o PASUDECOs negligence in transporting sugar
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
canes without proper harness/straps, and that of
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
PNCC in removing the emergency warning
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a devices,, were two successive negligent acts
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this which were the direct and proximate cause of
Chapter.  Latagan's injuries. As such, PASUDECO and
PNCC are jointly and severally liable.
2. Kinds/Classification of Tort
o As a general rule, that negligence in order to
render a person liable need not be the sole cause
 Intentional Tort
of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence,
o Where the actor desires to cause the consequences
concurring with one or more efficient causes other
of his act or believe the consequences are than plaintiff’s, is the proximate cause of the
substantially certain to result from it. (Ex. Assault, injury. Therefore, PASUDECO should not be held
Defamation). liable alone.
 Negligence Tort
o Negligence is the omission of that degree of Coverage of negligence:
diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponding to the circumstances Covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but also
of the persons, time and place. (NCC, Art. 1173) acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or
o An actionable negligence may either be culpa negligent.
contractrual, acquilana, and criminal negligence.
Thus, an action for damages for negligent act of the CASE: Andamo vs. IAC November 6, 1990
defendant may be based on contract, quasi-delict, or  Issue: Whether Missionaries of Our Lady of La
delict. The bases for liability are separate and Salette, Inc., can be held civilly liable for damages
distinct from each other even if only one act is under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on
involved. (Aquino, 2017) quasi-delicts such that the resulting civil case can
 Strict Liability proceed independently of the criminal case?
o Where the person is made liable independent of 5. Damage vs. Damages
fault or negligence upon submission of proof of
certain facts.  Damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results from
o The conduct is generally not wrongful in itself but injury
the wrong consists in causing harm by engaging in
certain types of risky activities.  Damages refers to the recompense or compensation
awarded for the damage suffered
3. What are the sources of obligation?
6. Fault vs. Negligence
 Law
 Contract
 Quasi contract  Fault is that condition where a person acts in a way or
 Acts or Omission Punished By Law (Delict) manner contrary to what normally should have been done
 Quasi-delict (Tort/Culpa Aquiliana)
 Fault consists in the execution of a positive act but the
4. WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES/ELEMENTS OF act was done contrary to the normal way of doing it and
QUASI-DELICT? ultimately causing damage or injury to another

a. Damage to plaintiff;  Negligence consists in the omission to do acts required

b. Negligence, by act or omission, of which under the attendant circumstances resulting to damage or
defendant, or some person for whose act he must injury to another
respond, was guilty; and
Page 1 of 50
 knowledge of general and local regulations and physical
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists conditions affecting the vessel in his charge and the waters for
in the omission of that diligence which is required by the which he is licensed, such as a particular harbor or river. He is
nature of the obligation and corresponds with the not held to the highest possible degree of skill and care, but
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the must have and exercise the ordinary skill and care demanded
place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions by the circumstances, and usually shown by an expert in his
profession. Under extraordinary circumstances, a pilot must
of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
exercise extraordinary care.
 
 United States vs. Pineda 37 Phil 456
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to
be observed in the performance, that which is expected DRUGGISTS; RESPONSIBILITY.—The profession of
of a good father of a family shall be required. pharmacy is one demanding care and skill. The responsibility
of the druggist to use care can be qualified as the highest
degree of care known to practical men. The skill required of
7. Can the Hospital be held liable for the fault or negligence the druggist can be qualified as high or ample. In other words,
of the physician in the treatment or operation of patients? the care required must be commensurate with the danger
involved, and the skill employed must correspond with the
For purposes of apportioning responsibility in superior knowledge of the business which the law demands.
medical negligence cases, an employer-employee
relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their
ID.; ID.—The rule of caveat emptor cannot be applied to the
attending and visiting physicians.
purchase and sale of drugs. An imperative duty is on the
druggist to take precautions to prevent death or serious injury
Moreover, the hospital’s liability is also anchored
to any one who relies on his absolute honesty and peculiar
upon the agency principle of apparent authority or agency
learning. The nature of drugs is such that examination will not
by estoppels and the doctrine of corporate negligence
avail the purchaser anything. Consequently, it must be that the
which have gained acceptance in the determination of a
druggist warrants that he will deliver the drug called for.
hospital’s liability for negligent acts of health
professionals.
ID.; ID.—In civil cases, the druggist is made liable for any
 Professional Services Inc. vs. Agana 513 SCRA 478 injury approximately resulting from his negligence.
"Pharmacists or apothecaries who compound or sell
What is the degree of diligence required in the practice of medicines, if they carelessly label a poison as a harmless
medicine? medicine, and send it so 'labelled into the market are liable to
all persons, who, without fault on their part, are injured by
What is “Captain of the Ship Doctrine”? using it as such medicine, in consequence of the false label;
Captain-of-the-Ship Doctrine is a principle of medical- -the rule being that the. liability in such a case arises, not out
malpractice law, holding a surgeon liable for the actions of of any contract or direct privity between the wrongdoer and
assistants who are under the surgeon's control but who are the person injured, but out of the duty which the law imposes
employees of the hospital, not the surgeon. The surgeon as on him to avoid acts in their nature dangerous to the lives of
"the captain of the ship," is directly responsible for an alleged others." (Nat. Savings Bank vs. Ward [1879], 100 U. S., 195,
error or act of alleged negligence because he or she controls following Thomas vs. Winchester [1852], 2 Seld. [N. Y.],
and directs the actions of those in assistance. This common 397.)
law doctrine is often used in operating room situations.

What is Corporate Negligence or Responsibility in Medical  Sofia Fernando vs. CA 208 SCRA 714 (1992)
Malpractice?
Corporate negligence is the legal doctrine that holds health- Same; Same; To be entitled to damages for an injury
care facilities, such as hospitals, nursing homes and medical resulting from the negligence of another, a claimant must
clinics, responsible for the well-being of patients. If a health- establish the relation between the omission and the damage;
care facility fails to maintain a clean and safe environment, Definition of Proximate cause.—To be entitled to damages for
hire competent and properly trained employees, oversee care an injury resulting from the negligence of another, a claimant
and implement safety policies, it can be held liable for any must establish the relation between the omission and the
harm to patients. Any small health-care business could damage. He must prove under Article 2179 of the New Civil
theoretically be sued under the doctrine of corporate Code that the defendant’s negligence was the immediate and
negligence for the actions of its employees. proximate cause of his injury. Proximate cause has been
defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous
8. Liability of Experts and Professionals sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
 Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. CA G.R. No. produces the injury, and without which the result would not
130068, October 1, 1998, 297 SCRA 30, 64. have occurred (Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina, 102 Phil.
181, 186). Proof of such relation of cause and effect is not an
Same; Same; Same; Same; A pilot should have a thorough arduous one if the claimant did not in any way contribute to
knowledge of general and local regulations and physical the negligence of the defendant. However, where the resulting
conditions affecting the vessel in his charge and the waters for injury was the product of the negligence of both parties, there
which he is licensed, such as a particular harbor or river.— exists a difficulty to discern which acts shall be considered the
Pursuant thereto, Capt. Gavino was assigned to pilot MV proximate cause of the accident.
Pavlodar into Berth 4 of the Manila International Port. Upon
assuming such office as compulsory pilot, Capt. Gavino is  Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corp vs.
held to the universally accepted high standards of care and Catalino Borja G.R. No. 143008, June 10, 2002
diligence required of a pilot, whereby he assumes to have skill
and knowledge in respect to navigation in the particular waters Negligence is conduct that creates undue risk of harm to
over which his license extends superior to and more to be another. It is the failure to observe that degree of care,
trusted than that of the master. A pilot should have a thorough precaution and vigilance that the circumstances justly demand,
Page 2 of 50
whereby that other person suffers injury. Petitioner’s vessel Damages; Quasi-Delicts; Employer is liable for the acts
was carrying chemical cargo—alkyl benzene and methyl of its employees; An action based on quasi-delict may be
methacrylate monomer. While knowing that their vessel was instituted against the employer for an employee’s act or
carrying dangerous inflammable chemicals, its officers and omission—the liability for the negligent conduct of the
crew failed to take all the necessary precautions to prevent an subordinate is direct and primary, but is subject to the
accident. Petitioner was, therefore, negligent. defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision
of the employee.—The case filed by respondents against
9. Can there be a tort in Malpractice in Law? petitioner is an action for culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict
 Vetanilla vs. Centeno 1 SCRA 215 under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. In this regard,
Attorneys; Damages; Effect of lawyer's failure to perfect Article 2180 provides that the obligation imposed by
appeal.—The claim of a client for damages against a lawyer, Article 2176 is demandable for the acts or omissions of
who failed to perfect the client's appeal from a judgment, was those persons for whom one is responsible.
considered highly speculative. The claim was based on the Consequently, an action based on quasi-delict may be
theory that, because the appeal was not perfected, the client instituted against the employer for an employee’s act or
was not able to recover on appeal moral and actual damages omission. The liability for the negligent conduct of the
"from the adverse party. subordinate is direct and primary, but is subject to the
defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision
 Adrimisin va. Javier 501 SCRA 192 of the employee. In the instant case, the trial court found
Same; Same; Negligence; Respondent lawyer, in failing to that petitioner failed to prove that it exercised the
immediately secure a bail bond, clearly neglected to exercise diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill supervision of Payunan, Jr.
required by the circumstances.—Respondent claims that on 12
July 1983, he called up Alberto for the issuance of the bail 13. Can the Court order the payment of civil damages in the
bond but it took 8 days before the bail bond was prepared. In same case even if the accused was acquitted due to lack
failing to immediately secure the bail bond, respondent clearly or absence of reasonable doubt?
neglected to exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable  Yadao vs. People (503 SCRA 496)
degree of care and skill required by the circumstances.  Pag sumbag ni Yadao na igo ang ulo sa salog wag gi
tuyo. Gi acquit siya crime nga Homicide.
 Issue: Can the Court order the payment of civil
10. Article 2177 damages?
Criminal negligence vs. Civil negligence  YES.
 Rafael Reyes Trucking Corp. vs People (329 SCRA Same; Same; Damages; Settled in jurisprudence is the
600) principle that a court may acquit an accused on
reasonable doubt and still order payment of civil
But even under Arts. 2176 and 2180, the employer is liable for damages in the same case.—The heirs of the victim,
the same amount the employee is liable, as the only difference however, have not completely lost their case. Settled in
between its liability ex delicto and its liability based on quasi jurisprudence is the principle that a court may acquit an
delict is that the former is subsidiary or secondary to that of accused on reasonable doubt and still order payment of
the driver while its liability for quasi delict is primary. civil damages in the same case. In this case, though
petitioner Yadao is acquitted, nonetheless, his liability for
11. Actions available to victims of Negligence damages is not considered extinguished since the
 Enforce civil liability arising from culpa criminal of judgment of acquittal is not based on a pronouncement
the RPC (Art. 100); that the facts from which civil claims might arise did not
exist. Accordingly, this Court awards P50,000.00 as civil
 Action for Quasi Delict under Articles 2176-2194 of damages to the heirs of the victim.
the Civil Code.
14. Effect of acquittal of the accused on his civil liability
 NOTE: Under Article 2180, NCC, the liability of the  BLTB vs. CA, 64 SCRA 427
employer direct or immediate. Civil law; Quasi-delict; Appeals; A question of law, save
in very exceptional circumstances, cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal.—The principal reliance of
“EMPLOYERS SHALL BE LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGES petitioners is on that portion of the opinion of Justice
CAUSED BY THEIR EMPLOYEES AND HOUSEHOLD Capistrano in Corpus v. Paje which reads thus: “As
HELPERS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR reckless imprudence or criminal negligence is not one of
ASSIGNED TASKS, EVEN THOUGH THE FORMER ARE the three crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil
NOT ENGAGED IN ANY BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY.” Code, there is no independent civil action for damages
that may be instituted in connection with said offense.
Hence, homicide through reckless imprudence or
Options in Pursuing the Civil Liability of the Employer for the criminal negligence comes under the general rule that the
Acts of his Employee acquittal of the defendant in the criminal action is a bar
1. Quasi-Delict (Art. 2180, NCC) to his civil liability based upon the same criminal act
 Liability of employer is primary, direct and solidary. notwithstanding that the injured party reserved his right
 It is not conditioned on the insolvency of the to institute a separate civil action. . . .” From which, they
employee. would infer that “the criminal action against petitioner
2. Criminal Case (Art. 103, RPC) Ilagan must first be resolved by respondent Court of
 Civil liability of the employer is subsidiary. Appeals and, until final resolution thereon, it is
 The employer cannot use as defense the exercise of premature to proceed in the two civil cases.” That is to
the Diligence of a Good Father of a Family. rely on a frail reed, to clutch at straws. As pointed out in
the brief for private respondents, such an objection was
12. Defense of Employer under Article 2180 never raised in the lower court as well as in the Court of
 Construction Development vs. Estrella (501 SCRA Appeals and therefore came too late. Moreover, the facts
228) are dissimilar and therefore its ruling cannot control. x x

Page 3 of 50
 x It is well-settled that for an error to be imputed to a Sanction and Reparation or Punishment is the
lower court or to the Court of Appeals, there must be a Penalty indemnification of imprisonment, fine
showing that there was a disregard by it of a rule or the injury or or both sometimes
principle of law seasonably raised. x x x There is no damage other accessory
reason why this Court should depart from its constant penalties are
holding that a question of law save in very exceptional imposed.
circumstances cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal. Explain the rule and rationale of the proscription against
double recovery.
NOTE: The civil action was entirely independent of the  Elcano vs Hill (G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977,
criminal case according to Article 33 and 2177 of the 77 SCRA 98)
NCC. According to the Code Commission: “The foregoing provision
(Article 2177) through at first sight startling, is not so novel or
In People vs. Ligon, GR No. 74041, we held: However, extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal
it does not follow that a person who is not criminally and civil negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal
liable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt of law, while the latter is a ‘culpa aquilian’ or quasi-delict, of
the accused in a criminal prosecution must be established ancient origin, having always had its own foundation and
beyond reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of individuality, separate from criminal negligence. Such
evidence is required in a civil action for damages (Art. distinction between criminal negligence and ‘culpa extra-
29, NCC). The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the contractual’ or ‘cuasi-delito’ has been sustained by decision of
civil liability of the accused only when it includes a the Supreme Court of Spain and maintained as clear, sound
declaration that the facts on which the civil liability and perfectly tenable by Maura, an outstanding Spanish jurist.
might arise did not exist (Padilla vs. CA). Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an
accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable
 Azucena vs. Potenciano, 115 Phil. 465 doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not
for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for
15. The judgment of acquittal does not necessarily damages due to a quasi-delict or ‘culpa aquiliana’ But said
extinguish the civil liability of the accused, except: article forestalls a double recovery.” 
a. Bermudez vs Judge Melencio-Herrera 158 SCRA
168) 17. Civil Liability When Extinguished by Death of Accused
b. Albornoz vs. Albornoz (98 Phil. 785)- When it declares  Mansion Biscuit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,
that the accused is not the author of the crime. 250 SCRA 195)
c. Sapiera vs. CA (314 SCRA 370)- When the civil liability Criminal Procedure; Civil Liability; Rules with respect to
is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the recovery of civil liability arising from crime and other sources
accused was acquitted. summarized in People vs. Bayotas.—As a sidelight, we would
d. When the judgment expressly declares that the liability is like to reiterate our ruling inPeople v. Bayotas, where we
only civil in nature; summarized the rules with respect to recovery of civil liability
e. Where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt; arising from crime and other sourses, to wit: 1. Death of the
f. Where the civil action has prescribed. accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely
16. Article 2177 thereon. 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
“Responsibility for fault on negligence under the notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article
the civil liability arising from negligence under the RPC. 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of
But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result
same act or omission of the defendant.” of the same act or omission: a) Law; b) Contracts; c)
Quasicontracts; d) x x x x x x x x x; e) Quasi-delicts. 3. Where
Culpa Aquiliana Culpa the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an
Contractual action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way
Nature of As the source of Mere incident to of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule
Negligence an obligation the performance of 111 of the 1984 Rules on Criminal Procedures as amended.
(direct, substantive a contract. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the
and independent) executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending
Defense of a Goof Complete and Not complete and on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as
Father of a proper defense proper defense to explained above. 4. Finally, the private offended party need
Family the selection and not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action
supervision of by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the
employees criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended
Presumption of No presumption There is party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such
negligence presumption of case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed
negligence interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case,
Criminal Intent Criminal intent is Criminal intent as conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil
not necessary for a rule (mala inse) Code, that should thereby avoid and apprehension on a
quasi delict to is essential for the possible privation of right by prescription.
exist. Fault or criminal liability
negligence without to exist, with Same; Same; Acquittal of Ty Teck Suan and Siy Gui
intent will suffice. exception for mala extinguished both their criminal and civil liability.—In the
prohibta. case at bench, the acquittal of Ty Teck Suan and Siy Gui
Liability for Every quasi delict Some crimes do extinguished both their criminal and civil liability as it is clear
Damages gives rise to not give rise to from the order acquitting them that the issuance of the checks
liability for liability in question did not constitute a violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
damages
Page 4 of 50
Consequently, no civil liability arising from the alleged delict  Philippine National Construction Corporation
may be awarded. (PNCC) vs CA( G.R. Nol 159270, Aug. 22,
2005
18. Article 2178  Philippine Hawk Corporation vs. Lee (February 16,
19. Standard Conduct/ Required Degree of Diligence 2010)
 Pater Familias
 Good Father of the Family 21. What are the tests to determine existence of proximate
 Article 2178 NCC cause? (F.N.S.C)
 Article 1173 NCC  Foreseeability test
 Where the particular harm was reasonably
Are the provisions applicable to culpa contractual foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s
likewise applicable to quasi-delict? misconduct, his act or omission is the legal
 United States vs. Garces cause thereof.
 The defendant was a municipal treasurer for the town  Natural and probable consequence test
of Misamis. An opium pipe and other prescribed  Where the defendant’s liability is recognized
articles were found by the authorities and delivered to only if the harm or injury suffered is the natural
him for safe keeping. The defendant placed these and probable consequence of his act or omission
articles in a drawer or an aparador in his office to be complained of.
held until called for by the courts. Subsequently,  Sine Qua Non Test
same opium pipe was found in possession of Primo  Where the defendant’s conduct will not be
Valconcha, a half brother of Lucas Medina, who was considered as proximate cause of the event if the
a trusted employee and clerk in the court of the event just the same would have occurred
defendant. without it.
 OFFICERS; CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; ACT NO.  Illustration: If Pedro has not left the keys in the
1740. — Act No. 1740 is designed to punish bonded ignition, his 10-year old son could not have
public officers for the crime of misuse of started the car and hit a person causing injuries.
Government funds or property intrusted to their care,  Cause and Conditions Test
whether such officers profit thereby themselves or  This is the test where a distinction is made
whether third persons reap the benefit through the between the active cause of the harm or injury
abandonment, fault, or neglect of the officer. and the existing “conditions” upon which that
cause operated.
ID.; ID.; ID.; WHAT CONSTITUTES FAULT OR  Illustration: A, the owner is not liable. He
NEGLIGENCE. — To constitute fault or negligence merely provided the passive condition in
within the meaning of this Act, it is necessary to making the accident possible. The principle of
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the attractive nuisance is not applicable. The pool is
defendant failed to take reasonable care of the funds not provided with an enticing or alluring device
or property lost, in view of all the attendant which attracts children of tender years.
circumstances. In this case, Held: That such fault or
negligence has not been proved. 22. What is proximate cause?
How about imprudence in the Revised Penal Code and  Is the cause, which in natural and continuous
negligence arising from quasi-delict? sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause,
 Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. October 14, 1918 produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred.
20. Article 2179
What is Negligence?  Vda de Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil. 181
o Negligence is the omission of that degree of  Teague vs. Fernandez (51 SCRA 181)
diligence which is required by the nature of the  Bank of the Philippine ISlands vs. Casa Montessori
obligation and corresponding to the circumstances Internationale 430 SCRA 261
of the persons, time and place. (NCC, Art. 1173)

 Pereña vs. zarate, AUgust 29, 2012

 Corliss v. MAnila Railroad Company 27 SCRA 674
1969 and US vs. Juanillo
 Cang et. al vs. CUllen Nov. 15, 2009

Test of Negligence

The test is would a prudent man, in the position of

the tortfeasor, foresee harm to the person injured as
a reasonable consequence of the course about to be
pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor
to take precaution against its mischievous results,
and failure to do so constitutes negligence (Picart v.
Smith, G.R. No.L-12219, March 15, 1918citing Picart v. [MIDTERM EXAM COVERAGE]
Smith, Jr., G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918).
23. CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER IN
NOTE: The determination of negligence is a question DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE: (T.P.G.S.G.P) or
of foresight on the part of the actor (Phil. Hawk Corp. (T.S.2P.2G)
v. Vivian Tan Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010). 1. Time;
2. Place;
 Picart vs. Smith March 15, 1918 3. Gravity of Harm to be Avoided
4. Social Value or Utility of Activity
Page 5 of 50
 5. Person Exposed to the Risk The place of the incident is also material. A man who should
have occasion to discharge a gun on an open and extensive
[Link] marsh, or in a forest would be required to use less
circumspection and care, than if he were to do the same thing
 People vs. Ramirez November 3, 1925 in an inhabited town, village, or city. (Brown vs. Kendall, 60
The night being dark like that when the event took place, the Mass. 292 [1850]; see also People vs. Cusi, CA 68 O.G.
hunter in the midst of a forest without paths is likely to get 2777). Travelling on a slippery road likewise requires a higher
confused as to his relative situation; and after walking around, degree of diligence than driving in a dry road.
he may think having gone very far, when in fact he has not,
from the point of departure. and so, judging the case from [Link] of Harm to be Avoided
what the two witnesses Menor and Ramirez have testified to,
and taking into account that there existed no motive whatever  Junio v. Manila Railroad Company 58 Phil 176
(1933)
for resentment on the part of the defendant against the
offended party, we are compelled to conclude that the act (based on the book of Aquino)
complained of constitutes homicide through reckless
imprudence. The defendant, who was carrying a firearm to Even if the odds that an injury will result are not high, harm
hunt at nighttime with the aid of a lantern, knowing that he may still be considered foreseeable if the gravity of harm to be
had two companions, should have exercised all the necessary avoided is great. Thus, in one case (Consolacion Junio vs.
diligence to avoid every undesirable accident, such as the one Manila Railroad Company, 58 Phil. 176 [1933]), the
that unfortunately occurred on the person of Ranga. respondent operated a gate in an intersection even at night; it
closed the gate if a train passed. Under such circumstances,
 Xerxes Adzuara vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA although the driver of a motor vehicle can expect that the
657 (1999) railway company will perform its self-imposed obligation and
the chances of being hit by a train is remote if the gate is open,
What degree of care and vigilance then did the the driver is likewise negligent if he fails to exercise due care
circumstances require?  At half past 1:00 o'clock in the in crossing the railway. Life is much too precious so much so
morning along an almost deserted avenue, ordinary care and that disregard of danger, even if the odds that it will result is
vigilance would suffice.  This may consist of keeping a not great, is negligence. When human life is at stake, due care
watchful eye on the road ahead and observing the traffic rules under the circumstances requires everything that gives
on speed, right of way and traffic light.  The claim of reasonable promise of preserving life to be done regardless of
petitioner that Martinez made a swift U-turn which caused the the difficulties.
collision is not credible since a U-turn is done at a much
slower speed to avoid skidding and overturning, compared to
running straight ahead.  Nonetheless, no evidence was [Link] Value or Utility of Activity
presented showing skid marks caused by the car driven by
Martinez if only to demonstrate that he was driving at a fast  Manila Electric Co. vs. Remoquillo
clip in negotiating the U-turn.  On the other hand, the speed at
which petitioner drove his car appears to be the prime cause “The electric wire in question was an exposed, uninsulated
for his inability to stop his car and avoid the collision.  His primary wire stretched between poles on the street and
assertion that he drove at the  speed of 40 kph. is belied by carrying a charge of 3,600 volts. It was installed there some
Martinez who testified that when he looked at the opposite two years before Peñaloza’s house was constructed. The
lane for any oncoming cars, he saw none; then a few seconds record shows that during the construction of said house a
later, he was hit by Adzuara's car. [17] The extent of the damage similar incident took place, although fortunate]y with much
on the car of Martinez and the position of the cars after the less tragic consequences. A piece of wood which a carpenter
impact further confirm the finding that petitioner went beyond was holding happened to come in contact with the same wire,
the speed limit required by law and by the circumstances. [18] producing some sparks. The owner of the house forthwith
complained to Defendant about the danger which the wire
It is a rule that a motorist crossing a thru-stop street has the presented, and as a result Defendant moved one end of the
right of way over the one making a U-turn.  But if the person wire farther from the house by means of a brace, but left the
making a U-turn has already negotiated half of the turn and is other end where it was.
almost on the other side so that he is already visible to the
person on the thru-street, the latter must give way to the (based on the book of Aquino)
former.  Petitioner was on the thru-street and had already seen Thus, in Manila Electric Co. vs. Remoquillo, it was evident
the Martinez car.[19] He should have stopped to allow Martinez that the danger of using uninsulated high voltage wires was
to complete the U-turn having, as it were, the last clear chance disregarded because of the social value of providing electricity
to avoid the accident which he ignored.  In fact, he never to the public.
stopped.  Rather, he claimed that on the assumption that he
was negligent, the other party was also guilty of contributory  National Irrigation Administration vs IAC (214
negligence since his car had no lights on. [20] The negligence of SCRA 35, 39 (1992)
Martinez however has not been satisfactorily shown.
(based on the book of Aquino)
Petitioner insists that the traffic light facing him at the In National Irrigation Administration (NIA for short) vs. In-
intersection was green which only indicated that he had the termediate Appellate Court (214 SCRA 35, 39 [1992]), the
right of way.  But the findings of the court a quo on the matter Supreme Court adopted the finding that the petitioner NIA
countervail this stance, hence, we see no reason to disturb was negligent in installing an irrigation canal. It appears that
them. NIA constructed irrigation canals on the landholding of the
plaintiffs by scrapping away the surface of the said
landholdings to raise the embankment of the canal. As a result
[Link] of such construction, the landholding of the plaintiffs was
inundated with water. The Supreme Court sustained the
 PEOPLE vs. Cusi, CA 68 O.G. 2777 finding of the trial court that there was negligence because “al-
(based on the book of Aquino)
Page 6 of 50
though it cannot be denied that the irrigation canal of the NIA
(was) a boon to the plaintiffs, the delay of almost 7 years in Is mere intoxication tantamount to negligence?
installing the safety measures such as check gates, drainage(s), Intoxication not negligence per se. Mere intoxication is not
ditches, and paddy drains has caused substantial damage to the negligence per se nor establishes want of ordinary care. But it
annual harvest of the plaintiffs.” may be one of the circumstances to be considered to prove
negligence (Wright v. MERALCO, G.R. No. L-7760, October
[Link] Exposed to the Risk 1, 1914).

 United States vs. Clemente G.R. No. L-8142,  Wright vs. Manila Electric Co. 28 Phil122 (1914)
January 25, 1913 (based on the book of Aquino)
(based on the book of Aquino) Mere intoxication is not negligence, nor does the mere fact of
The character of the person exposed to the risk is also a cir- intoxication establish want of ordinary care. It is but a
cumstance which should be considered in determining circumstance to be considered with the other evidence tending
negligence. Consistent with this rule, a higher degree of to prove negligence. It is a general rule that it is immaterial
diligence is required if the person involved is a child. In whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary care or
United States vs. Clemente (24 Phil. 178), for instance, the prudence can be imputed to him, and no greater degree of care
Supreme Court explained that greater degree of care in driving is required to be exercised by an intoxicated man for his own
is owed to children in the streets. protection than a sober one. If one’s conduct is characterized
by a proper degree of care and prudence, it is immaterial
In some cases, the law imposes a duty of care towards children
whether he is drunk or sober. (Wright vs. Manila Electric Co.,
even if ordinarily there is no duty under the same
28 Phil. 122 [1914]).
circumstances if the person involved is an adult with sufficient
discretion. Thus, ordinarily no duty is owned by the owner of
 U.S vs. Crame 30 Phil 2 (1915)
a tenement to trespassers except to refrain from willfully or
(based on the book of Aquino)
wantonly injuring him. A trespasser is a person who enters the
In other words, intoxication is of little consequence in
property of another without any right, or lawful authority, or
negligence cases if it was not shown that such drunkenness
express or implied license. (67 C.J.S. 659, 662). However,
contributed to the accident or that the accident would have
with respect to children, such duty of care is present even if
been avoided had he been sober. (U.S. vs. Crame, 30 Phil. 2
they are trespassers because entry of children in a vacant lot
[1915]).
may be foreseeable, as provided in the case of Taylor vs.
Manila Electric.
 Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals
(based on the book of Aquino)
 Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad 16 Phil 8 (1910)
However, as pointed out earlier, intoxication may be one of
the circumstances to be considered to prove negligence. For
“In typical cases, the question involved has been
instance, intoxication may be considered to prove negligence
whether a railroad company is liable for an injury
in driving a motor vehicle. As explained by the Supreme
received by an infant of tender years, who from mere
Court, driving exacts a more than usual toll on the senses.
idle curiosity, or for purposes of amusement, enters
While driving, the body releases catecholamines in response to
upon the railroad company premises, at a place where
‘alerting’ or threatening conditions (called ‘fight’ or ‘flight’
the railroad company knew or had reason to suppose,
conditions by physiologists) rendering the individual, through
children would likely to come, and there found
his reflexes, senses and other alerting mechanisms responsive
explosive signal torpedoes left exposed by the railroad
to these conditions. Alcohol dulls these normal bodily
company’s employees, one of which when carried away
responses. (Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, supra, p. 77,
by the visitor, exploded and injured him; or where such
citing Best and Taylor, Physiological Basis of Medical
infant found upon the premises a dangerous machine,
Practice, 81 [1993]).
such as a turntable left in such condition as to make it
probable that children, in playing with it would be
Contributory Negligence
exposed to accident or injury therefrom and where the
It is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a
infant did in fact suffer injury in playing with such
legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the
machine.
standard to which he is required to conform for his own
In these, and in a great variety of similar cases, the great protection (Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. No. 115024, February 7,
weight of authority holds the owner of the premises liable. 1996).

NOTE: Torpedoe or Turntable Effect. (Gi balik2x jud ni ni Article 2179 of the New Civil Code is also clear that if the
Ma’am) plaintiff’s negligence is merely contributory, the plaintiff is
not barred from recovering from the defendant. This statutory
DOCTRINE OF THE TURNTABLE: rule is reiterated in Article 2214 which states that “in quasi-
Doctrine of the Turntable cased, especially that laid down in delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce
Railroad Company vs. Stout, in a very able decision wherein it the damages that he may recover.”
held, in the language of the syllabus:
1. That the owner of land is not liable to trespassers Contributory negligence of the creditor
thereon for injuries sustained by them, not due to his GR: It reduces or mitigates the damages which he can
wanton or willful acts; recover.
2. That no exception to this rule exists in favor of children XPN: If the negligent act or omission of the creditor is the
who are injured by dangerous machinery naturally proximate cause of the event which led to the damage or
calculated to attract them to the premises; injury complained of, he cannot recover.
3. that an invitation of license to cross the premises of
another cannot be predicated on the mere fact that no  Ma-ao Sugar Central CO. Inc. vs. CA
steps have been taken to interfere with such practice;
4. That there is no difference between children and adults FACTS:
of an invitation or a license to enter upon another’s  Famoso, an employee of Ma-ao, along with another co-
premises. employee was riding a CABOOSE or CARBONERA

Page 7 of 50
 when it was suddenly derailed. Because of this they that he could not fix it but will seek the help of the
jumped of the said vehicle to escape injury. However, the lineman.
train fell on its side and caught Famoso’s legs by its  Shortly thereafter, a boy, 3y/o, went near the said place
wheels and pinned him down causing his untimely death. and was electrocuted. Records also show that it was only
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE has been defined an hour after the barrio notified the laborer that the
as the act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care broken line was fixed
on the part of the person injured, which, concurring with  The CA held Umali, the owner of Alcala Electric liable
the defendant’s negligence, is the proximate cause of the for fault or negligence but was mitigated due to the
injury. negligence of the parents of the boy in not providing for
 It has been held that to hold a person as having the proper and delegate supervision and control over
contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he their son
performed an act that brought about his injuries in
disregard of warnings or signs of an impending danger to ISSUE:
health and body. WON the parents of the child contributed to the
death of the child?
 MMTC vs CA, August 1, 2002
RULING: No, they did not because the proximate cause of
 Mother and daughter Florentina and Maria Zenia the child’s death was the fallen live wire which posed a threat
Sabalburo were on their way to baclaran to buy to life and property and might have killed any other person
foodstuffs for their Noche Buena. who might by accident get into contact with it.
 Seeing that the light turned red and the vehicle stopped,
Florentina and Maria, among other passerby, crossed the  Even if the child was allowed to leave the house
pedestrian lane when suddenly, the bus owned by unattended due to parents’ negligence, he would not have
MMTC and driven by its driver Ajoc, hit Florentina on died that morning where it not for the cut live wire he
the right side of the head accidentally touched
 The impact caused the victim’s right ear to be slashed off  It was also noted by the court how the employees acted
and leaving her unconscious on the street negligently:
 Thereafter, the driver brought Florentina to the hospital 1. The bananas grew higher than the electric post
who ended up dead. supporting the electric line. Still, ee’s who, with
 According to a witness who among the passersby’s, she ordinary foresight could’ve easily seen that even
saw the bus moving at a fast speed. in moderate winds, the electric line would be
 SC Rule that there was NO contributory negligence on endangered by the banana plants being blown
the part of Florentina. down
 After careful perusal of the records of the case, the SC 2. Even if the ee’s knew the effect of the storm and
found no evidence to support MMTC’s claim that the possible damage to life and property, they did
Florentina was so engrossed in thinking about noche not cut off the flow of the electricity along the
Buena while crossing a busy street. Such statement is lines from the plant
non sequitur. (a conclusion or statement that does not 3. Even though the laborer was made aware, he did
logically follow from the previous argument or not even exerted effort to take precaution to
statement.) prevent anyone from approaching the live wire.
 It simply does not follow that the one who is run over by He left the premises to look for the lineman
a vehicle on Christmas Eve is negligent because his without leaving any warning of its lethal
thoughts were on the holiday festivities character.
 Instead, there was enough evidence to support that
MMTC bus was being driven carelessly Are children below Nine (9) years capable of contributory
negligence?
 Clearly, the victim and her companions were standing on
A child under nine years of age is conclusively presumed
the island waiting for the traffic light to change so they
incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law (Jarco
could cross. Upon seeing the red light, the victim and her
Marketing Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 129792, December 21,
companions started to cross. It was then when Ajoc, who
1999). Since the negligence may be a felony and a quasidelict,
was trying to BEAT THE RED LIGHT, hit the victim
and required discernment as a condition of liability, either
 Ajoc failed to see the victim and her companions proving
criminal or civil, a child under 9 years of age is conclusively
his recklessness and lack of caution in driving his vehicle
presumed to have acted without discernment (Ibid.).
 Umali vs. Bacani, 69 SCRA 263
 Jarco Marketing Corporation vs CA G.R. No.
129792 December 21, 1999
FACTS:
 A storm with strong rain hit the municipality of Alcala, FACTS:
Pangasinan. During the storm, the banana plants standing
 Criselda went to the Supermarket of Jarco along with her
on an elevated ground along the barrio road of the said
child Zhieneth (6 years old)
municipality and near the TRANSMISSION LINE of the
 Criselda released Zhieneth’s hand for a moment inorder
Alcala Electric Plant were blown down and fell on the
to sign her credit card slip
electric wire.
 Suddenly, she felt a sudden gust of wind and heard a
 As a result, the live wire was cut, one end of which was
loud thud. There, she saw Zhieneth on the floor pinned
left hanging on the electric post and the other fell to the
by the bulk of the store’s gift wrapping counter
ground under the fallen banana plants.
 Zhieneth was then rushed to the hospital for treatment.
 On the following morning, the barrio captain who was
When asked by the doctor what she did, Zhieneth
passing by saw the broken electric wire. He then warned
replied, “nothing, I did not come near the counter. The
the people not to go near the wire for they might get hurt
counter just fell on me”
 He also saw a laborer of the said electric plant and
 Jarco’s employee assigned in the gift-wrapping section
notified him about the broken line. The laborer told him
testified that he told his employer and manager about it

Page 8 of 50
 but the employer only replied “why are you teaching me? Plaintiff David Taylor was 15 years old at the time he received
You are just my subordinate and you are teaching me? the injuries that gave rise to this complaint. On September 30,
 The same employee also asserted that the counter was 1905, plaintiff and Manuel Claparols, about 12 years of age,
not nailed before the incident. After the incident, the went to the power plant owned by the defendant to visit one
employer nailed the counter. Murphy, an employee. Not being able to find Murphy on
inquiry, the boys for curiosity wandered around the premises
ISSUE: and reached the place where the company dumped in the
WON Criselda contributed to the death of her cinders and ashes from its furnaces.
daughter when she let go of the grip of Zhieneth’s hand?
NO. There they found some 20-30 fulminating caps scattered on
the ground. The caps are intended for explosion of dynamites,
RULING: and have in themselves explosive power. The boys picked up
 Criselda asserted that ZHIENETH should be entitled to the caps and carried them home. Along the way they met
the conclusive presumption that a child below nine (9) Jessie Adrian, a 9-year old girl. The 3 went to Manuel’s house
years is incapable of contributory negligence. and performed a little experiment. They opened the caps and
 Even if ZHIENETH, at six (6) years old, was already found yellowish substance. They lighted a match and applied
capable of contributory negligence, still it was physically it on the contents. The girl became frightened and ran away.
impossible for her to have propped herself on the The substance exploded, causing a slight cut on Jessie’s neck,
counter. She had a small frame (four feet high and burns on Manuel, and loss of David’s eyesight. Plaintiff sued
seventy pounds) and the counter was much higher and the company for damages.
heavier than she was.
 Also, the testimony of one of the store's former ISSUE:
employees, Gerardo Gonzales, who accompanied Whether the company could be faulted for the allowing the
ZHIENETH when she was brought to the emergency children to be exposed to the harmful substances?
room of the Makati Medical Center belied petitioners'
theory that ZHIENETH climbed the counter. HELD:
 Even if we attribute contributory negligence to Fulminating caps or detonators for the discharge by electricity
ZHIENETH and assume that she climbed over the of blasting charges by dynamite are not articles in common
counter, no injury should have occurred if we accept use by the average citizen, and under all the circumstances,
petitioners' theory that the counter was stable and sturdy. and in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, we think
For if that was the truth, a frail six-year old could not that the discovery of twenty or thirty of these caps at the place
have caused the counter to collapse. where they were found by the plaintiff on defendant's
 CRISELDA too, should be absolved from any premises fairly justifies the inference that the defendant
contributory negligence. Initially, ZHIENETH held on to company was either the owner of the caps in question or had
CRISELDA's waist, later to the latter's hand. CRISELDA the caps under its possession and control.
momentarily released the child's hand from her clutch
when she signed her credit card slip. At this precise As was said in case of Railroad Co. vs. Stout, "While it is the
moment, it was reasonable and usual for CRISELDA to general rule in regard to an adult that to entitle him to
let go of her child. recover damages for an injury resulting from the fault or
 Further, at the time ZHIENETH was pinned down by the negligence of another he must himself have been free from
counter, she was just a foot away from her mother; and fault, such is not the rule in regard to an infant of tender
the gift-wrapping counter was just four meters away years. The care and caution required of a child is according
from CRISELDA. The time and distance were both to his maturity and capacity only, and this is to be determined
significant. ZHIENETH was near her mother and did not in each case by the circumstances of the case."
loiter as petitioners would want to impress upon us. She
even admitted to the doctor who treated her at the In the case at bar, plaintiff at the time of the accident was a
hospital that she did not do anything; the counter just fell well-grown youth of 15, more mature both mentally and
on her. physically than the average boy of his age. The evidence of
record leaves no room for doubt that, despite his denials on the
 WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant
witness stand, he well knew the explosive character of the cap
petition is DENIED
with which he was amusing himself. The series of experiments
made by him in his attempt to produce an explosion admit of
What is “Doctrine of comparative negligence”?
no other explanation. His attempt to discharge the cap by the
The negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendant are
use of electricity, followed by his efforts to explode it with a
compared for the purpose of reaching an equitable
stone or a hammer, and the final success of his endeavors
apportionment of their respective liabilities for the damages
brought about by the application of a match to the contents of
caused and suffered by the plaintiff (Pineda, 2009).
the caps, show clearly that he knew what he was about.
The relative degree of negligence of the parties is considered
We are satisfied that the plaintiff in this case had sufficient
in determining whether, and to what degree, either should be
capacity and understanding to be sensible of the danger to
responsible for his negligence (apportionment of damages).
which he exposed himself when he put the match to the
contents of the cap; that he was sui juris in the sense that his
NOTE: Under the modified form, the plaintiff can recover
age and his experience qualified him to understand and
only if his negligence is less than or equals that of the
appreciate the necessity for the exercise of that degree of
defendant. Expressed in terms of percentages, a plaintiff who
caution which would have avoided the injury which resulted
is charged with 80% of the total negligence can recover only
from his own deliberate act; and that the injury incurred by
20% of his damages (De Leon, 2012).
him must be held to have been the direct and immediate result
of his own willful and reckless act, so that while it may be true
 Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co.
that these injuries would not have been incurred but for the
(16 Phil. 8)
negligence act of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on
its premises, nevertheless plaintiff's own act was the
FACTS:

Page 9 of 50
proximate and principal cause of the accident which inflicted Here, assuming that private respondent RMC was negligent in
the injury. entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, thus providing the
latter with the opportunity to defraud the company, as
 PBC (PH Bank of Commerce) vs. CA, (296 SCRA advanced by the petitioner, yet it cannot be denied that the
711) petitioner bank, thru its teller, had the last clear opportunity to
avert the injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully
FACTS: observing their self-imposed validation procedure.
 A complaint was filed by RMC (Rommel’s Mktg. Corp.)
to recover from PBC the sum of money it allegedly In the case of banks, however, the degree of diligence required
deposited but was in fact deposited to the account of is more than that of a good father of a family. Considering the
Bienvenido Cotas fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors,
 Accordingly, Romeo Lipana, the president of RMC banks are duty bound to treat the accounts of their clients with
authorized his secretary to Irene Yabut to deposit several the highest degree of care.
amounts to its bank account in PBC and never bothered
to check the deposit slips The point is that as a business affected with public interest and
 However, through fraud, deposited it to her husband’s because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under
bank account in PBC by leaving the portion for “account obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with
name” blank and only to fill the space up after depositing meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of
the amount to her husband their relationship. In the case before us, it is apparent that the
 Upon RMC’s discovery about these, he demanded PBC petitioner bank was remiss in that duty and violated that
to credit the amount to their account instead of Yabut’s relationship.
husband
 PBC denied the demand of RMC because it was LIABILITY OF RMC:
impossible for the bank to know that the money The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that,
deposited by Ms. Irene Yabut belong to RMC; indeed, private respondent was likewise negligent in not
 neither was the bank forewarned by RMC that Yabut will checking its monthly statements of account. Had it done so,
be depositing cash to its account. the company would have been alerted to the series of frauds
 Thus, it was impossible for the bank to know the being committed against RMC by its secretary. The damage
fraudulent design of Yabut considering that her husband, would definitely not have ballooned to such an amount of
Bienvenido Cotas, also maintained an account with the P304,979.74 if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had
bank. exercised even a little vigilance in their financial affairs. This
omission by RMC amounts to contributory negligence which
 on the other hand, RMC maintains that the proximate
shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the private
cause of the loss was the negligent act of the bank, thru
respondent.
its teller Ms. Azucena Mabayad, in validating the deposit
slips, both original and duplicate, presented by Ms.
Yabut to Ms. Mabayad, notwithstanding the fact that one
24. When Emergency Rule not applicable
of the deposit slips was not completely accomplished.
GR: One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and
ISSUE:
is required to act without time to consider the best means that
WON Doctrine of comparative negligence can apply?
may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon
RULING: YES
reflection may have been a better method, unless the
emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his
LIABILITY OF PBC:
own negligence (Mc Kee v. IAC, G.R. No. 68102-3, July 16,
It was this negligence of Ms. Azucena Mabayad, coupled by
1992).
the negligence of the petitioner bank in the selection and
XPN: The emergency was brought about by the individual’s
supervision of its bank teller, which was the proximate cause
own negligence (Valenzuaela v. CA, G.R. No. 115024,
of the loss suffered by the private respondent.
Febuary 7, 1996).
NOTE: While the emergency rule applies to those cases in
Proximate cause is determined on the facts of each case upon
which reflective thought, or the opportunity to adequately
mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and
weigh a threatening situation is absent, the conduct which is
precedent.
required of an individual in such cases is dictated not
exclusively by the suddenness of the event which absolutely
Furthermore, under the doctrine of “last clear chance” (also
negates thoroughful care, but by the over-all nature of the
referred to, at times as “supervening negligence” or as
circumstances (Ibid.).
“discovered peril”), petitioner bank was indeed the culpable
party. This doctrine, in essence, states that where both parties
 William Addenbrook vs. People June 29, 1967 G.R.
are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later
No. L-22995
in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to
Facts:
the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to
avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable
. . . about 3:15 in the afternoon of 9 January 1960, the front
with the consequences thereof.
bumper of the Stanvac Service Truck with Plate No. 2740,
Manila, 960, while travelling southward along Marquez de
Stated differently, the rule would also mean that an antecedent
Comillas being driven then by accused William Addenbrook,
negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of
and in front of House No. 1010, came into contact with the
damages for the supervening negligence of, or bar a defense
body of a pedestrian Wenceslao Risaldo with the result that
against liability sought by another, if the latter, who had the
the latter fell and was taken to the Philippine General Hospital
last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by
by accused and his helper in the truck named Amando
the exercise of due diligence.
Valeriano, but was dead on arrival, it having been found that
he had received abrasions on the left forehead, and contusions

Page 10 of 50
with lacerations on the face, left arm, right thigh, knee joints, No. Hidalgo Enterprises Inc.’s water tanks are not
and right buttocks and waist and fracture of the skull, Exh. B, classified as attractive nuisance. Other issues such as whether
so that the Fiscal filed the present criminal case for homicide it exercised reasonable precautions, and if the parents were
thru reckless imprudence against accused resulting in his guilty of contributory negligence are immaterial. Appealed
conviction.  decision reversed. Hidalgo Enterprises is absolved from
liability.
The Court of Appeals gave no credence to the claim that the
deceased suddenly darted from behind the parked car. Neither One who maintains on his premises dangerous
did the trial court do so, considering the lack of corroboration instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract
of petitioner's version, and the circumstance that the victim, children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to
being a grown-up man, and not a child, would not have prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is
ignored the noise of the oncoming vehicle, there being no liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if
reason shown for his disregarding the obvious danger. the child is technically a trespasser in the premises. This is the
doctrine of attractive nuisance. The principal reason for the
At any rate, that the accident could not be avoided because the doctrine is that the condition or appliance in question although
victim was so close to the truck when he, as alleged by its danger is apparent to those of age, is so enticing or alluring
appellant, suddenly darted across the street, does not exculpate to children of tender years as to induce them to approach, get
the accused, since the latter was driving at excessive speed. on or use it, and this' attractiveness is an implied invitation to
such children.
The fact that a pedestrian came into the path of the The majority of American jurisprudence posits that
car suddenly and so close that the driver could not the doctrine of attractive nuisance is generally not applicable
stop and avoid striking him will not excuse the to bodies of water, whether artificial or natural. The exception
driver, where the car was being driven at an to this is if there is some unusual condition or artificial feature
unreasonable rate of speed under the circumstances. other than mere water and its location. Furthermore, in
(5 Am. Jur. p. 612, sec. 195). Anderson v. Reith-Riley Const. Co., the Indiana Appellate
Court explained why bodies of water are not considered as
Issue: attractive nuisance. It ruled that children have been instructed
WON the Emergency Rule applies? early on to exercise caution around bodies of water and are
presumed to know the danger.
Ruling:
Attractive Nuisance – One who maintains on his premises
No. While the general rule is that a driver is not held dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely
accountable just because he failed to take the wisest choice in to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary
a sudden emergency, the rule does not apply where the care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting
emergency is of the driver's own creation or devising. thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured
thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the
We, therefore, find no error in the appealed decision, and the premises.
same is hereby affirmed. Costs against appellant, William
Addenbrook y Barker. So ordered. 26. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
 PNR (PH Nat’l. Railways) vs. Brunty, 506 SCRA
685

Facts:
25. Attractive Nuisance
 Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. vs. Balandan
Rhonda Brunty, daughter of respondent Ethel Brunty and an
Facts: American citizen, came to the Philippines for a visit sometime
in January 1980. Prior to her departure, she, together with her
Hidalgo Enterprises was the owner of an ice-plant factory Filipino host Juan Manuel M. Garcia, traveled to Baguio City
in San Pablo, Laguna. In the factory, there were two tanks full on board a Mercedes Benz sedan with plate number FU 799,
of water, both 9-ft deep, for cooling purposes of its engine. driven by Rodolfo L. Mercelita. It was about 12:00 midnight,
There was no fence or top cover; the edges of the tanks were January 25, 1980. By then, PNR Train No. T-71, driven by
barely a foot high from the surface of the ground. The factory Alfonso Reyes, was on its way to Tutuban, Metro Manila4 as it
itself was surrounded with a fence. However, the wide gate had left the La Union station at 11:00 p.m., January 24, 1980.
entrance was continually open, and anyone could easily enter
the factory. There was no guard assigned on the gate. By 2:00 a.m., Rhonda Brunty, Garcia and Mercelita were
already approaching the railroad crossing at Barangay Rizal,
Around noon on April 16, 1948, Mario Balandan, a boy Moncada, Tarlac. Mercelita, driving at approximately 70
barely 3 years old, was playing with other boys his age when km/hr, drove past a vehicle, unaware of the railroad track up
he entered the factory premises through the gate. Mario ahead and that they were about to collide with PNR Train No.
Balandan then took a bath in one of the tanks of water and, T-71. Mercelita was instantly killed when the Mercedes Benz
later on, sank to the bottom of the tank. He died of “asphyxia smashed into the train; the two other passengers suffered
secondary to drowning.” The CFI and CA ruled that Hidalgo serious physical injuries.5 A certain James Harrow6 brought
Enterprises maintained an attractive nuisance and neglected to Rhonda Brunty to the Central Luzon Doctor’s Hospital in
adopt the necessary precautions to avoid accident to person Tarlac, where she was pronounced dead after ten minutes from
entering its premises. arrival. Garcia, who had suffered severe head injuries, was
brought via ambulance to the same hospital. He was
Issue: Whether or not a water tank is an attractive transferred to the Manila Doctor’s Hospital, and later to the
nuisance. Makati Medical Center for further treatment.7

Held: On July 28, 1981, Ethel Brunty sent a demand letter 8 to the
PNR demanding payment of actual, compensatory, and moral
Page 11 of 50
damages, as a result of her daughter’s death. When PNR did owned by Michael Raymond Angala and driven by Bernulfo
not respond, Ethel Brunty and Garcia, filed a complaint9 for Borres. Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation
damages against the PNR before the RTC of Manila. The case owned the crew cab, which was assigned to its manager
was raffled to Branch 20 and was docketed as Civil Case No. Manuel Mendez. De Ocampo was the driver and bodyguard of
83-18645. They alleged that the death of Mercelita and Mendez. Both vehicles were running along Rafael Castillo St.,
Rhonda Brunty, as well as the physical injuries suffered by Agdao, Davao City heading north towards Lanang, Davao
Garcia, were the direct and proximate result of the gross and City.
reckless negligence of PNR in not providing the necessary
equipment at the railroad crossing in Barangay Rizal, The left door, front left fender, and part of the front bumper of
Municipality of Moncada, Tarlac. They pointed out that there the pick-up were damaged. Respondent Angala filed an action
was no flagbar or red light signal to warn motorists who were for Quasi-Delict, Damages, and Attorney’s fees against
about to cross the railroad track, and that the flagman or LADECO, its administrative officer Henry Berenguel and De
switchman was only equipped with a hand Ocampo. Respondent alleged that his pick-up was slowing
flashlight.10 Plaintiffs likewise averred that PNR failed to down to about five to ten kilometers per hour and was making
supervise its employees in the performance of their respective a left turn preparatory to turning south when it was bumped
tasks and duties, more particularly the pilot and operator of the from behind by the crew cab, which was running at around 60
train to 70 kph. The crew cab stopped twenty-one meters from the
point of impact. Respondent alleged that he heard a screeching
ISSUE: sound before the impact. Respondent was seated beside the
WON the doctrine of last clear chance applies? driver and was looking at the speedo meter when the accident
took place.
RULING:
NO. The proximate cause of the injury having been Respondent testified that Borres made a signal because he
established to be the negligence of PNR, the doctrine finds noticed a blinking light while looking at the speedometer,
no application in the instant case. Respondent sent a demand letter to LADEDO for the payment
of the damages he incurred because of the accident but he did
PNR was negligent because of its failure to provide the not receive any reply, thus respondent filed the case against
necessary safety device to ensure the safety of motorists in LADECO, Berenguel, and De Ocampo. The Regional Trial
crossing the railroad track: Court of Davao City ruled in favor of defendant and ordered
LADECO and De Ocampo to solidarily pay the damages. The
(1.) absence of flagbars or safety railroad bars; trial court found that Berenguel was not liable because he was
(2.) inadequacy of the installed warning signals; and not the owner of the crew cab. LADECO and De Ocampo
(3.) lack of proper lighting within the area. filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied on
June13, 1995. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of
Thus, even if there was a flagman stationed at the site as Appeals, however the appellate court affirmed in toto the trial
claimed by PNR, it would still be impossible to know or see court’s decision, Petitioners’ filed a motion for
that there is a railroad crossing/tracks ahead, or that there is an reconsideration. In its Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied
approaching train from the Moncada side of the road since the motion for lack of merit. Hence, the present petition was
one’s view would be blocked by a cockpit arena. A vehicle filed before the Supreme Court.
coming from the Moncada side would have difficulty in
knowing that there is an approaching train because of the ISSUE:
slight curve, more so, at an unholy hour as 2:00 a.m. Thus, it Whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance applies in the
is imperative on the part of the PNR to provide adequate case at bar?
safety equipment in the area
HELD:
This Court has previously determined the liability of the PNR Yes. Since both parties are at fault in this case, the doctrine of
for damages for its failure to put a cross bar, or signal light, last clear chance applies. The doctrine of last clear chance
flagman or switchman, or semaphores. Such failure is states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent
evidence of negligence and disregard of the safety of the act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where
public, even if there is no law or ordinance requiring it it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused
because public safety demands that said device or equipment the loss, the one who has the last clear opportunity to avoid the
be installed. loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the loss.

There was a contributory negligence on the part driver of the In this case, De Ocampo had the last clear chance to avoid the
Mercedez Benz, Mercelita, as the place was not properly collision. Since De Ocampo was driving the rear vehicle, he
illuminated; one’s view was blocked by a cockpit arena; and had full control of the situation since he was in a position to
Mercelita was unfamiliar with the place, yet he drove at observe the vehicle in front of him. De Ocampo had the
70km/hr and had overtaken a vehicle before arriving at the responsibility of avoiding from bumping the vehicle in front of
railroad track. him. A U-turn is done at a much slower speed to avoid
skidding and overturning, compared to running straight ahead.
However, the effect of contributory negligence on the De Ocampo could have avoided the vehicle if he was not
mitigation of liability does not apply here. Both before the driving very fast while following the pick-up. De Ocampo was
lower courts, no damages were awarded to Mercelita and he not only driving fast, he also admitted that he did not step on
did not appeal. There is neither proof as to the relationship the brakes even upon seeing the pick-up. He only stepped on
between Mercelita and Rhonda Brunty. the brakes after the collision.

 Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corp. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

(LADECO) vs. Angala, 525 SCRA 229) This is also called as the “Humanitarian Negligence Doctrine.”
Where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one
FACTS: succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of time,
On May 4, 1993, at about 2:45 p.m., Apolonio De Ocampo the one who has the last reasonable opportunity to avoid the
driving the crew cab bumped into a 1958 Chevy pick-up impending harm and fails to do so, is chargeable with the

Page 12 of 50
consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the FACTS: A Gravel and Sand truck and a Mazda passenger bus
other party (Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, sideswept each other, causing the deaths of the passengers of
1918). the bus. This is the way the collision happened:

The doctrine of last clear chance is a theory adopted to The bus, driven by Susulin, was traversing an inclined road
mitigate the harshness of the contributory negligence of the when the driver saw from 30 meters away an approaching
plaintiff (Phoenix Construction Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. L-65295, truck (driven by Montesiano), going very fast and the front
March 10, 1987). wheels wiggling. The bus driver also observed that the truck
was heading towards his lane. Not minding this circumstance
 Elements of Last Clear Chance due to his belief that the truck driver was merely joking,
Susulin shifted from 4th to 3rd gear in order to give more power
1. Plaintiff is placed in danger by his own negligent acts and and speed to the bus, which was ascending the inclined part of
he is unable to get out from such situation by any means; the road, in order to overtake a Kubota hand tractor being
pushed by a person along the shoulder of the highway. While
2. Defendant knows that the plaintiff is in danger and knows the bus was in the process of overtaking or passing the hand
or should have known that the plaintiff was unable to extricate tractor and the truck was approaching the bus, the two vehicles
himself therefrom; and sideswiped each other at each other's left side.

3. Defendant had the last clear chance or opportunity to avoid ISSUES:

the accident through the exercise of ordinary care but failed to WON the CA was correct in absolving the driver and owner of
do so, and the accident occurred as a proximate result of such the truck (answered by WON CA correctly applied the
failure (Pineda, 2009). doctrine of last clear chance)

27. When Doctrine of Last Clear Chance not applicable HELD:

1. NO. The doctrine of last clear chance applies only between
1. When the injury or accident cannot be avoided by the the negligent parties. It does not apply in a case wherein a
application of all means at hand after the peril has been victim (who is an outsider to the cause of the accident)
discovered (Pantranco North Expressway v. Baesa, G.R. Nos. demands liability from the negligent parties.
79050-51, November 14, 1989);
Reasoning: The doctrine of last clear chance, stated broadly,
2. If the defendant’s negligence is a concurrent cause and is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a
which was still in operation up to the time the injury was recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears
inflicted; that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and
prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to the
3. Where the plaintiff, a passenger, filed an action against a plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence. In other
carrier based on contract (Bustamante v. CA, G.R. No. 89880, words, the doctrine of last clear chance means that even
February 6, 1991); though a person's own acts may have placed him in a position
of peril, and an injury results, the injured person is entitled to
4. If the actor, though negligent, was not aware of the danger recovery. As the doctrine is usually stated, a person who has
or risk brought about by the prior fraud or negligent act; the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident,
notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or that of a
5. In case of a collapse of a building or structure (De Roy v. third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law
CA, G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988); solely responsible for the consequences of the accident
(Sangco).
6. Where both parties are negligent (Philippine National
Railways v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891, November 2, 2006); and Furthermore, "as between defendants: The doctrine cannot be
extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether
7. In case of collision, it applies in a suit between the owners only one of them should be held liable to the injured person by
and drivers of colliding vehicles and not where a passenger reason of his discovery of the latter's peril, and it cannot be
demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent. As
contractual obligations (Tiu v. Arriesgado, G.R. No. 138060, against third persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by
September 1, 2004). pleading that another had negligently failed to take action
which could have avoided the injury." (57 Am. Jur. 2d, pp.
 De Roy vs. CA 157 SCRA 757 806-807).

 The facts of the case are undisputed. The firewall of a A negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff, or
burned-out building owned by petitioners collapsed and even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing
destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff's peril, or
private respondents, resulting in injuries to private according to some authorities, should have been aware of it in
respondents and the death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter. the reasonable exercise of due care, had in fact an opportunity
 There was no error in rejecting petitioners argument that later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident (Am. Jur).
private respondents had the "last clear chance" to avoid
the accident if only they heeded the. warning to vacate As against 3rd persons, a negligent actor can’t defend by
the tailoring shop and , therefore, petitioners prior saying that another had negligently failed to take action which
negligence should be disregarded, since the doctrine of would have avoided injury.
"last clear chance," which has been applied to vehicular
accidents, is inapplicable to this case.
28. Concept of Res Ipsa Loquitur
 Bustamante vs CA 193 SCRA 603
It means “the thing speaks for itself”.It is a rebuttable
presumption or inference that defendant was negligent, which
arises upon proof that instrumentality causing injury was in

Page 13 of 50
defendant’s exclusive control, and that the accident was one It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened
which ordinarily does not happen in absence of negligence because of want of care.
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 2004).
Flores was the driver of the gasoline tank wagon who, alone
However, res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive law and, and without assistance, was transferring the contents thereof
as such, does not create nor constitute an independent or into the underground storage when the fire broke out. He said:
separate ground of liability. Instead, it is considered as merely "Before loading the underground tank there were no people,
evidentiary or in the nature of a procedural rule (Professional but while the loading was going on, there were people who
Services v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297, January 31, 2007). went to drink coca-cola (at the coca-cola stand) which is about
a meter from the hole leading to the underground tank." He
 Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd vs. CA, 342 SCRA added that when the tank was almost filled he went to the tank
214 truck to close the valve, and while he had his back turned to
the "manhole" he, heard someone shout "fire."
(based on the book of Aquino)
In Wildvalley Shipping Co. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. Even then the fire possibly would not have spread to the
119602, October 6, 2000, 342 SCRA 213, 228), a vessel of the neighboring houses were it not for another negligent omission
petitioner ran aground in the center of a channel blocking on the part of defendants, namely, their failure to provide a
ingress and egress of other vessels. The allegation that the concrete wall high enough to prevent the flames from leaping
negligence of the master of the vessel is presumed because of over it. As it was the concrete wall was only 2-1/2 meters
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was rejected because it was high, and beyond that height it consisted merely of galvanized
not established that the vessel was in his control at that time. It iron sheets, which would predictably crumple and melt when
was established that there was temporary shift from the master subjected to intense heat.
to a pilot on a compulsory pilotage. Hence, the second
requisite — that the instrumentality that caused the damage "The intention of an unforeseen and unexpected cause, is not
was within the exclusive control of the defendant — was not sufficient to relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of
established. negligence, if such negligence directly and proximately
cooperates with the independent cause in the resulting injury."
 Africa vs. Caltex, 123 Phil. 272

FACTS:  Capili vs. Cardaña 506 SCRA 569

in the afternoon of March 18, 1948 a fire broke out at the
Caltex service station at the corner of Antipolo street and On February 1, 1993, Jasmin Cardaña was walking along the
Rizal Avenue, Manila. It started while gasoline was being perimeter fence of the San Roque Elementary School when a
hosed from a tank truck into the underground storage, right at branch of a caimito tree located within the school premises fell
the opening of the receiving tank where the nozzle of the hose on her, causing her instantaneous death. Thus, her parents -
was inserted. The fire spread to and burned several Dominador and Rosalita Cardaña - filed a case for damages
neighboring houses, including the personal properties and before the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte against
effects inside them. Their owners, among them petitioners petitioner.
here, sued respondents Caltex (Phil.), Inc. and Mateo
Boquiren, the first as alleged owner of the station and the The fact, however, that respondents’ daughter, Jasmin, died as
second as its agent in charge of operation. Negligence on the a result of the dead and rotting tree within the school’s
part of both of them was attributed as the cause of the fire. premises shows that the tree was indeed an obvious danger to
anyone passing by and calls for application of the principle
The premises was (sic) subleased for the installation of a coca- of res ipsa loquitur.
cola and cigarette stand, the complainants furnished this
Office a copy of a photograph taken during the fire and which The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where (1) the
is submitted herewith. it appears in this picture that there are accident was of such character as to warrant an inference that
in the premises a coca-cola cooler and a rack which according it would not have happened except for the defendant’s
to information gathered in the neighborhood contained negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an
cigarettes and matches, installed between the gasoline pumps agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or
and the underground tanks. control of the person charged with the negligence complained
of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any
ISSUE: voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person
WON, without proof as to the cause and origin of the fire, the injured.14
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should apply so as to presume
negligence on the part of appellees.
The effect of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is to warrant a
RULING: presumption or inference that the mere falling of the branch of
(1) Yes, the doctrine applies. the dead and rotting tree which caused the death of
respondents’ daughter was a result of petitioner’s negligence,
Gasoline is a highly combustible material, in the storage and being in charge of the school.
sale of which extreme care must be taken. On the other hand,
fire is not considered a fortuitous event, as it arises almost
invariably from some act of man. 29. Principal Defenses in Actions Based on Negligence

The principle enunciated in the aforequoted case applies with 1. Emergency Rule
equal force here. The gasoline station, with all its appliances, 2. Assumption of Risk
equipment and employees, was under the control of appellees. 3. Contributory Negligence
A fire occurred therein and spread to and burned the 4. Volenti Non Fit Injuria
neighboring houses. The persons who knew or could have
known how the fire started were appellees and their
employees, but they gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. a. Emergency Rule

Page 14 of 50
GR: One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and 849. Suelto, its employee, was assigned as the regular driver
is required to act without time to consider the best means that of the bus.2
may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon At around 2:00 p.m. on October 3, 1992, Suelto was driving
reflection may have been a better method, unless the the aforementioned passenger bus along Kamias Road,
emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his Kamuning, Quezon City, going towards Epifanio de los
own negligence (Mc Kee v. IAC, G.R. No. 68102-3, July 16, Santos Avenue (EDSA). The bus suddenly swerved to the
1992). right and struck the terrace of the commercial apartment
owned by Valdellon located along Kamuning Road. 3 Upon
XPN: The emergency was brought about by the individual’s Valdellon’s request, the court ordered Sergio Pontiveros, the
own negligence (Valenzuaela v. CA, G.R. No. 115024, Senior Building Inspection Officer of the City Engineer’s
Febuary 7, 1996). Office, to inspect the damaged terrace. Pontiveros submitted a
report enumerating and describing the damages.
 Gan vs. Court of Appeals Sept. 19, 1988
We have reviewed the evidence on record and find that, as
Gan was driving his car where two vehicles, a truck and ruled by the trial court and the appellate court, petitioners
jeepney, were parked on one side. While Gan was failed to prove that petitioner acted on an emergency caused
approaching, another car was heading his way and to avoid by the sudden intrusion of a passenger jeepney into the lane of
such he swerved to the right which, in consequence, he hit an the bus he was driving.
old man pinning the said old man to the rear of the parked
jeepney and, because of the impact, the jeepney hot the rear
part of the truck. It was the burden of petitioners herein to prove petitioner
Suelto’s defense that he acted on an emergency, that is, he had
to swerve the bus to the right to avoid colliding with a
passenger jeep coming from EDSA that had overtaken another
The test for determining whether or not a person is negligent vehicle and intruded into the lane of the bus. The sudden
in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person emergency rule was enunciated by this Court in Gan v. Court
or property of another is this: Would a prudent man in the of Appeals,23 thus:
position of the person to whom negligence is attributed foresee
harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the
course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes the duty oil [O]ne who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is
the doer to take precaution against its mischievous results and required to act without time to consider the best means that
the failure to do so constitutes negligence. 5 may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to have been a better method unless the
A corollary rule is what is known in the law as the emergency emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his
rule. "Under that rule, one who suddenly finds himself in a own negligence.
place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider
the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a
better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself  McKee vs. IAC 211 SCRA 517 (1992)
is brought about by his own negligence." 6
An example of the case where the “emergency rule” was
Applying the above test to the case at bar, we find the applied is McKee vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (211
petitioner not guilty of the crime of Simple Imprudence SCRA 517 [1992]). One of the plaintiffs therein swerved his
resulting in Homicide. vehicle in order to avoid hitting two (2) children. The Supreme
Court explained that “any reasonable and ordinary prudent
man would have tried to avoid running over two boys by
Thus, Gan is to convicted of Homicide thru Simple swerving the car away from where they were even if this
Imprudence rather than Simple Imprudence resulting to would mean entering the opposite lane. Avoiding such
Homicide. immediate peril would be the natural course to take
particularly where the vehicle in the opposite lane would be
 Valenzuela vs. CA Feb. 7, 1996 several meters away and could very well slow down, move to
the other side of the road and give way to the oncoming car.
The requirement that the employee must be performing his Moreover, under the emergency rule ‘one who suddenly finds
functions is due to the fact that the employer is not expected to himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without
exercise supervision over their employee’s private activity or time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid
during the performance of tasks either unsanctioned by the the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to
former or unrelated to the employee’s task. adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to
have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he
As the law merely imposes the standard of a good father of a finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.’”
family, no particular acts are required for the employer to
establish that he exercised proper diligence. Supervision b. Assumption of Risk
depends on the circumstances of employment.
The doctrine assumes that a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes
 Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation vs. a risk of harm from the negligent conduct of the defendant
People March 31, 2006 cannot recover from such harm (De Leon, 2012).

Elements
Erlinda V. Valdellon is the owner of a two-door commercial 1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
apartment located at No. 31 Kamias Road, Quezon City. The 2. He must further understand its nature; and
Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation (MALTC) is the 3. His choice to incur it is free and voluntary.
owner-operator of a passenger bus with Plate Number NCV-

Page 15 of 50
  Afialda vs. Hisole, 85 Phil 67 The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother,
are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children
Afialda vs. Hisole (85 Phil. 67 [1949]) is an example of a case who live in their company.
where there was assumption of risk. The plaintiff’s deceased
brother, upon whom she depended for support, was hired by Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
the defendants as caretaker of their carabaos at a fixed incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live
compensation. While tending the animals, the caretaker was in their company.
gored by one of them and he died as a consequence. There was
assumption of risk in the case because it was the caretaker’s The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
business to try to prevent the animals from causing injury or are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by employees in the service of the branches in which the latter
the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for
which he must take the consequences. The Supreme Court Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
relied on the decision of the Spanish Supreme Court (cited in employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
Manresa, Commentaries Vol. 12, p. 578) where it was held their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged
that the death of an employee who was bitten by a feline in any business or industry.
which his master had asked him to take to his establishment
was declared to be a veritable accident of labor. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a
special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by
 Calalas vs. CA, 332 SCRA 357 the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which
case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
The fact that Sunga was seated in an "extension seat" placed
her in a peril greater than that to which the other passengers Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
were exposed. Therefore, not only was petitioner unable to shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and
overcome the presumption of negligence imposed on him for students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their
the injury sustained by Sunga, but also, the evidence shows he custody.
was actually negligent in transporting passengers.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when
We find it hard to give serious thought to petitioner's the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the
contention that Sunga's taking an "extension seat" amounted to diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
an implied assumption of risk. It is akin to arguing that the (1903a)”
injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should
not be compensated merely because those passengers assumed Basis: Nature of Responsibility (of Vicarious Obligor)
a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry.
This is also true of petitioner's contention that the jeepney  De Leon Brokerage vs. CA, 4 SCRA 517
being bumped while it was improperly parked constitutes caso
fortuito. A caso fortuito is an event which could not be His liability is primary and direct, not subsidiary. He is
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable.3 This solidarily liable with the tortfeasor. His responsibility is not
requires that the following requirements be present: (a) the conditioned upon the insolvency of or prior recourse against
cause of the breach is independent of the debtor's will; (b) the the negligent tortfeasor.
event is unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event is such as
to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in In other words, “the vicarious liability attaches only when the
a normal manner, and (d) the debtor did not take part in tortious conduct of the employee relates to, or is in the course
causing the injury to the of his employment. The question to ask should be whether, at
creditor.4 Petitioner should have foreseen the danger of the time of the damage or injury, the employer is engaged in
parking his jeepney with its body protruding two meters into the affairs or concerns of the employer, or, independently, in
the highway. that of his own. While the employer incurs no liability when
an employee’s conduct, act or omission is beyond the range of
employment, a minor deviation from the assigned task of an
c. Contributory negligence employee, however, does not affect the liability of an
employer.”
It is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a
legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the  Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Huang, 525 SCRA
standard to which he is required to conform for his own 427
protection (Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. No. 115024, February 7, Petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation (Mercury Drug) is the
1996). registered owner of a six-wheeler truck with. It has in its
 Ilusorio vs Court of Appeals 393 SCRA 89 employ petitioner Rolando J. del Rosario as driver.
Respondent spouses Richard and Carmen Huang are the
d. Volenti Non Fit Injuria parents of respondent Stephen Huang and own the red 1991
Toyota Corolla GLI Sedan.
It refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury These two vehicles figured in a road accident on December
which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has 20, 1996 at around 10:30 p.m. within the municipality of
knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if Taguig, Metro Manila. Both were traversing the C-5 Highway,
he is not negligent in doing so (Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, north bound, coming from the general direction of Alabang
et al. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 154259, February 28, 2005). going to Pasig City.
The car was on the left innermost lane while the truck was on
30. Article 2180 the next lane to its right. When the truck suddenly swerved to
“Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is its left and slammed into the front right side of the car. The
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also collision hurled the car over the island where it hit a lamppost,
for those of persons for whom one is responsible. spun around and landed on the opposite lane.

Page 16 of 50
At the time of the accident, petitioner Del Rosario only had a theoretical and actual driving tests, and psychological
Traffic Violation Receipt (TVR). His driver’s license had been examination. In the case of petitioner Del Rosario, however,
confiscated because he had been previously apprehended for Mrs. Caamic admitted that he took the driving tests and
reckless driving. psychological examination when he applied for the position of
Delivery Man, but not when he applied for the position of
The car, valued at P300,000.00, was a total wreck. Respondent
Truck Man. Mrs. Caamic also admitted that petitioner Del
Stephen Huang sustained massive injuries to his spinal cord,
Rosario used a Galant which is a light vehicle, instead of a
head, face, and lung. Despite a series of operations, respondent
truck during the driving tests. Further, no tests were conducted
Stephen Huang is paralyzed for life from his chest down and
on the motor skills development, perceptual speed, visual
requires continuous medical and rehabilitation treatment.
attention, depth visualization, eye and hand coordination and
Respondents fault petitioner Del Rosario for committing gross steadiness of petitioner Del Rosario. No NBI and police
negligence and reckless imprudence while driving, and clearances were also presented. Lastly, petitioner Del Rosario
petitioner Mercury Drug for failing to exercise the diligence of attended only three driving seminars – on June 30, 2001,
a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its February 5, 2000 and July 7, 1984. In effect, the only seminar
driver. he attended before the accident which occurred in 1996 was
held twelve years ago in 1984.
In contrast, petitioners allege that the immediate and
proximate cause of the accident was respondent Stephen It also appears that petitioner Mercury Drug does not provide
Huang’s recklessness. According to petitioner Del Rosario, he for a back-up driver for long trips. At the time of the accident,
was driving on the left innermost lane when the car bumped petitioner Del Rosario has been out on the road for more than
the truck’s front right tire. thirteen hours, without any alternate. Mrs. Caamic testified
that she does not know of any company policy requiring back-
The trial court found for petitioners and held PLDT and Del
up drivers for long trips.
Rosario jointly and severally liable for actual, compensatory,
moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation Petitioner Mercury Drug likewise failed to show that it
expenses. exercised due diligence on the supervision and discipline over
its employees. In fact, on the day of the accident, petitioner
Issue: Del Rosario was driving without a license. He was holding a
Whether or not the persumption of negligence was properly TVR for reckless driving. He testified that he reported the
rebutted by Mercury Drug? NO. incident to his superior, but nothing was done about it. He was
not suspended or reprimanded. No disciplinary action
We now come to the liability of petitioner Mercury Drug as whatsoever was taken against petitioner Del Rosario. We
employer of Del Rosario. Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil therefore affirm the finding that petitioner Mercury Drug has
Code provide: failed to discharge its burden of proving that it exercised due
diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee,
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
petitioner Del Rosario.
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
31. Article 2180 2nd paragraph
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
“The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is children who live in their company.”
demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also
for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Requisites:
 People vs. Darilay, 421 SCRA 45
xxx
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise Facts:
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are Appellant Noel Darilay, who was then 15 years old, was found
employed or on the occasion of their functions. guilty for the rape and murder of minor Marilyn Arganda, and
the attempted murder of Ailyn Arganda. Ailyn testified that
xxx she and Marilyn were on their way home when they met
The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the Civil appellant who suddenly struck them with a piece of wood
Code is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned on a prior which left them unconscious. Appellant left Ailyn under such
recourse against the negligent employee, or a prior showing of state but he carried Marilyn to a grassy place where he
insolvency of such employee. It is also joint and solidary with repeatedly raped and eventually killed her. The appellant
the employee. contends that the prosecution failed to prove that he raped and
killed the victim because only Ailyn’s testimony was relied
To be relieved of liability, petitioner Mercury Drug should upon and there was no direct evidence presented.
show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a
family, both in the selection of the employee and in the Issue:
supervision of the performance of his duties. Thus, in the Whether or not the absence of direct evidence to prove the
selection of its prospective employees, the employer is guilt of the accused warrants his acquittal thereof.
required to examine them as to their qualifications,
experience, and service records. With respect to the Ruling:
supervision of its employees, the employer should formulate
standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, No. The Court agrees with the appellant that the prosecution
and impose disciplinary measures for their breach. To failed to adduce direct evidence to prove that he raped and
establish compliance with these requirements, employers must killed Marilyn on the occasion or by reason of the said crime.
submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence. However, direct evidence is not indispensable to prove the
guilt of the accused for the crime charged; it may be proved by
In the instant case, petitioner Mercury Drug presented circumstantial evidence. Based on the evidence on record and
testimonial evidence on its hiring procedure. According to as declared by the trial court in its decision, the prosecution
Mrs. Merlie Caamic, the Recruitment and Training Manager adduced circumstantial evidence to prove beyond cavil that it
of petitioner Mercury Drug, applicants are required to take was the appellant who raped and killed Marilyn on the

Page 17 of 50
occasion or by reason of the rape. Hence, he is guilty beyond 3. The child Lives in the company of the parent concerned
reasonable doubt of rape with homicide, a special complex whether single or married (Pineda, 2009).
crime.
32. Article 2180 3rd paragraph
First. The appellant alone waylaid Ailyn and Marilyn while
the two were walking home after buying tinapa. The “Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
appellant hit Ailyn twice with a piece of wood on her back and incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live
boxed the left side of her face, rendering her unconscious. in their company.”
The appellant also struck Marilyn with a piece of wood on the
back. After dragging Ailyn to a grassy area, he left her there. 33. Article 2180 4th paragraph
Second. When Ailyn regained consciousness, Marilyn and the
appellant were nowhere to be found. Third. The torn dress, “The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
the pair of panties, and a slipper were found about 15 meters are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
away from where the two young girls were waylaid by the employees in the service of the branches in which the latter
appellant. Fourth. The appellant testified that he himself are employed or on the occasion of their functions.”
accompanied the policemen and pointed to the place where
Marilyn’s body was dumped, completely naked, with blood
Requisites:
oozing from her nose and vagina. Considering all of these, the
1. That the employee was chosen by the employer or
court is convinced that the appellant raped Marilyn about 15
through another;
meters from where he had earlier waylaid Ailyn. He then
2. That the service is to be rendered in accordance with
carried Marilyn across the river where he killed her to prevent
orders which the employer has the authority to give at
her from revealing to the authorities that she was raped. The
all times;
appellant hid her body under the bushes and trees to prevent
3. That the illicit act of the employee was on the
police authorities from discovering that he killed Marilyn.
occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to
Same; Same; Parent and Child; Where, at the time of the him.
commission of the crime, the accused was minor under the
parental authority of his parents, the latter are primarily and Jayme vs. Apostol, 572 SCRA 43
directly liable for the damages sustained by the heirs of the
victim.—Considering that at the time of the commission of the FACTS:
crime, the appellant was a minor under the parental
authority of his parents, the Spouses Manuel and Julieta On February 5, 1989, Mayor Miguel of Koronadal, South
Darilay are primarily and directly liable for the damages Cotabato was on board the Isuzu pick-up truck driven by Fidel
sustained by the heirs of the victims Marilyn and Ailyn Lozano, an employee of the Municipality of Koronadal. The
Arganda. Consequently, the Spouses Manuel and Julieta pick-up truck was registered under the name of Rodrigo
Darilay are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, in Criminal Apostol, but it was then in the possession of Ernesto
Case No. RTC97-201, to pay to the heirs of the victim Marilyn Simbulan. Lozano borrowed the pick-up truck from Simbulan
Arganda, the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; to bring Miguel to Buayan Airport at General Santos City to
P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P28,000.00 as exemplary catch his Manila flight.
damages. The prosecution failed to adduce evidence in support The pick-up truck accidentally hit Marvin C. Jayme, a minor,
of actual damages; hence, the heirs of the victim are not who was then crossing the National Highway in South
entitled thereto. They are, however, entitled to temperate Cotabato. The intensity of the collision sent Marvin some 50
damages in the amount of P25,000.00. In Criminal Case No. meters away from the point of impact, a clear indication that
RTC’97-202, the Spouses Manuel and Julieta Darilay are Lozano was driving at a very high speed at the time of the
hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, to Ailyn Arganda, accident. Marvin sustained severe head injuries. Despite
the amount of P25,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 medical attention, Marvin expired six (6) days after the
as exemplary damages. accident.
Reason for vicarious liability of parents
ISSUE:
This liability is made natural as a logical consequence of the
duties and responsibilities of parents exercising parental MAY a municipal mayor be held solidarily liable for the
authority which includes controlling, disciplining and negligent acts of the driver assigned to him?
instructing their children. In this jurisdiction the parent’s MAY an LGU be held liable for the tortuous act of a
liability is vested by law which assumes that when a minor or government employee?
unemancipated child living with their parent, commits a
tortious act, the parents are presumed negligent in the RULING:
performance of their duty to supervise the children under their
custody (Tamagro v. CA G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992). 1. It is uncontested that Lozano was employed as a driver by
the municipality. That he was subsequently assigned to Mayor
Scope of Liability Miguel during the time of the accident is of no moment. The
The liability of parents and guardians under Art.2180 for the Municipality of Koronadal remains to be Lozano’s employer
acts of their children or ward extends to both negligent acts notwithstanding Lozano’s assignment to Mayor Miguel. Even
and intentional acts. The same rule applies under Art. 221 of assuming arguendo that Mayor Miguel had authority to give
the Family Code, which even covers civil liability arising from instructions or directions to Lozano, he still cannot be held
delict(A.M. No. 02-1018-SC, Rules on Juvenile in Conflict liable. In Benson v. Sorrell, the New England Supreme Court
with Law, Sec. 5). ruled that mere giving of directions to the driver does not
establish that the passenger has control over the vehicle.
Requisites of vicarious liability of the parents Neither does it render one the employer of the driver.
(21-CL) Mayor Miguel was neither Lozano’s employer nor the
1. The child is below 21 years of age; vehicle’s registered owner. There existed
2. The child Committed a tortious act to the damage and no causal relationship between him and Lozano or the vehicle
prejudice of another person; and used that will make him accountable for Marvin’s death.
Page 18 of 50
Mayor Miguel was a mere passenger at the time of the subsidiary liability. While they may assist their employees to
accident. the extent of supplying the latter’s lawyers, as in the present
2. The municipality may not be sued because it is an agency of case, the former cannot act independently on their own behalf,
the State engaged in governmental functions and, hence, but can only defend the accused.
immune from suit. This immunity is illustrated in Municipality
of San Fernando, La Union v. Firme, where the Court held Same; Same; Same; Requisites.—Before the employers’
that municipal corporations are suable because their charters subsidiary liability is exacted, however, there must be
grant them the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, adequate evidence establishing that (1) they are indeed the
they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the employers of the convicted employees; (2) that the former are
discharge of governmental functions and can only be held engaged in some kind of industry; (3) that the crime was
answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties;
proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the and (4) that the execution against the latter has not been
State merely gives the claimant the right to show that the satisfied due to insolvency. The resolution of these issues need
defendant was not acting in governmental capacity when the not be done in a separate civil action. But the determination
injury was committed or that the case comes under the must be based on the evidence that the offended party and the
exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimant employer may fully and freely present. Such determination
cannot recover. may be done in the same criminal action in which the
Liability attaches to the registered owner, the negligent driver employee’s liability, criminal and civil, has been pronounced;
and his direct employer. Settled is the rule that and in a hearing set for that precise purpose, with due notice to
the registered owner of a vehicle is jointly and severally liable the employer, as part of the proceedings for the execution of
with the driver for damages incurred by passengers and third the judgment.
persons as a consequence of injuries or death sustained in the
operation of said vehicles. Regardless of who the actual owner Vicarious Liability of Owners and Managers
of the vehicle is, the operator of record continues to be the The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
operator of the vehicle as regards the public and third persons, are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
and as such is directly and primarily responsible for the employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
consequences incident to its operation. employed or on the occasion of their functions [NCC, Art.
The petition is DENIED. 2180(4)].

Civil Law; Vicarious Liability; To make the employee liable Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180, it must be employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
established that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged
the time the employee was performing his functions.—Article in any business or industry [NCC, Art. 2180 (5)](2005 Bar)
2180 of the Civil Code provides that a person is not only liable .
for one’s own quasi-delictual acts, but also for those persons  Air France vs. Carrascoso, (124 Phil. 722)
for whom one is responsible for. This liability is popularly FACTS:
known as vicarious or imputed liability. To sustain claims Plaintiff, a civil engineer, was a member of a group of 48
against employers for the acts of their employees, the Filipino pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on March 30,
following requisites must be established: (1) That the 1958.
employee was chosen by the employer personally or through
another; (2) That the service to be rendered in accordance with The defendant, Air France, through its authorized agent,
orders which the employer has the authority to give at all Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a ‘first class’
times; and (3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila
occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him. to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in ‘first class’, but at Bangkok,
Significantly, to make the employee liable under paragraphs 5 the Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate
and 6 of Article 2180, it must be established that the injurious the ‘first class’ seat that he was occupying because, in the
or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was words of the witness Ernesto G. Cuento, there was a ‘white
performing his functions. man’, who, the Manager alleged, had a ‘better right’ to the
seat. When asked to vacate his ‘first class’ seat, the plaintiff,
as was to be expected, refused, and told defendant’s Manager
 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc vs. People, 427 that his seat would be taken over his dead body; a commotion
SCRA 456 ensued, and, according to said Cuento, ‘many of the Filipino
passengers got nervous in the tourist class; when they found
Same; Same; Subsidiary Civil Liability; Parties; The cases out that Mr. Carrascoso was having a hot discussion with the
dealing with the subsidiary liability of employers uniformly manager, they came all across to Mr. Carrascoso and pacified
declare that, strictly speaking, the employers are not parties Mr. Carrascoso to give his seat to the white man’  and plaintiff
to the criminal cases instituted against their employees; While reluctantly gave his ‘first class’ seat in the plane.
employers may assist their employees to the extent of  
supplying the latter’s lawyers, the former cannot act A common carrier’s liability may arise ex contractu and at the
independently on their own behalf, but can only defend the same time quasi ex-delicto even if there is only a single act or
accused.—In its Memorandum, petitioner cited a omission. The Supreme Court explained in Air France vs.
comprehensive list of cases dealing with the subsidiary Carrascoso (L-21438, September 28, 1966):
liability of employers. Thereafter, it noted that none can be “A contract to transport passengers is quite
applied to it, because “in all th[o]se cases, the accused’s different in kind and degree from any other
employer did not interpose an appeal.” Indeed, petitioner contractual relation. And this, because of the
cannot cite any single case in which the employer appealed, relation which an air-carrier sustains with the
precisely because an appeal in such circumstances is not public. Its business is mainly with the travelling
possible. The cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of public. It invites people to avail of the comforts
employers uniformly declare that, strictly speaking, they are and advantages it offers. The contract of air
not parties to the criminal cases instituted against their carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended
employees. Although in substance and in effect, they have an with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the
interest therein, this fact should be viewed in the light of their
Page 19 of 50
 carrier’s employees, naturally, could give ground respondent to verify for himself whether he has completed all
for an action for damages. necessary requirements to be eligible for the bar examinations.
As a senior law student, respondent should have been
Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They
responsible enough to ensure that all his affairs, specifically
have a right to be treated by the carrier’s employees with kind-
those pertaining to his academic achievement, are in order.
ness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are
Given these considerations, we fail to see how respondent
entitled to be protected against personal misconduct, injurious
could have suffered untold embarrassment in attending the
language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it
graduation rites, enrolling in the bar review classes and not
is, that any rude or discourteous conduct on the part of
being able to take the bar exams. If respondent was indeed
employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for
humiliated by his failure to take the bar, he brought this upon
damages against the carrier.
himself by not verifying if he has satisfied all the requirements
including his school records, before preparing himself for the
Common carriers; Contracts; First class tickets.—A written
bar examination.
document speaks a uniform language; the spoken word could
be notoriously unreliable. If only to achieve stability in the
35. Liability of Employers Under paragraph 5 of Article
relations between passenger and air carrier, adherence to the
2180
terms of a ticket is desirable.
“Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
34. Negligence of Professor is Negligence of the School
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged
in any business or industry.”
Teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any
damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are
36. Distinctions Between Paragraphs 4 and 5
under their custody.
OWNERS/MANAGERS EMPLOYERS (PAR 5,
In the case of Ylarde v. Aquino, G.R. L-33722, July 29, 1988,
(PAR 4, ART. 2180, ART. 2180, NCC)
the teacher Edgardo Aquino, after bringing his pupils to an
NCC)
excavation site dug by them, left them all by themselves, and
one of the pupils fell into the pit. The teacher acted with fault Requires engagement in The employers need not be
and gross negligence because a teacher who stands in loco business on the part of the engaged in business or
parentis to his pupils would have made sure that the children employers as the law speaks industry.
are protected from all harm in his company. of
“establishment or enterprise.”
 University of the East vs. Jader (325 SCRA 804) Covers negligent acts of Covers negligent acts of
FACTS: employees committed either employees acting within the
in the service of the branches scope of their assigned tasks.
Romeo Jader graduated at UE College of law from 1984-88.  or in the occasion of their
During his last year, 1 st semester, he failed to take the regular functions.
final examination in Practical Court 1where he was given an
incomplete grade remarks.  He filed an application for NOTE: Respodeat Superior is an American Doctrine which
removal of the incomplete grade given by Prof. Carlos Ortega is almost similar to Article 2180 (4) and (5): it means “LET
on February 1, 1988 which was approved by Dean Celedonio THE MASTER ANSWER”.
Tiongson after the payment of required fees.  He took the
exam on March 28 and on May 30, the professor gave him a  Castilex Industries Corp. vs. Vasquez, Jr. 321
grade of 5. SCRA 401

The commencement exercise of UE College of law was held It should also be noted that it is not necessary that the
April 16, 1988, 3PM.  In the invitation, his name appeared.  In employer is engaged in some kind of industry or work. The
preparation for the bar exam, he took a leave of absence from Supreme Court explained in Castilex Industrial Corporation
work from April 20- Sept 30, 1988.  He had his pre-bar class vs. Vicente Vasquez, Jr., et al. (G.R. No. 132266, December
review in FEU.  Upon learning of such deficiency, he dropped 21, 1999):
his review classes and was not able to take the bar exam.  “The negligence of ABAD is not an issue at this
instance. Petitioner CASTILEX presumes said
Jader sued UE for damages resulting to moral shock, mental negligence but claims that it is not vicariously
anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded liable for the injuries and subsequent death caused
feelings, sleepless nights due to UE’s negligence. by ABAD.

ISSUE: Whether UE should be held liable for misleading a Petitioner contends that the fifth paragraph of
student into believing JADER satisfied all the requirements Article 2180 of the Civil Code should only apply
for graduation when such is not the case.  Can he claim moral to instances where the employer is not engaged in
damages? business or industry. Since it is engaged in the
business of manufacturing and selling furniture it
HELD: is therefore not covered by said provision. Instead,
the fourth paragraph should apply.
Same; Same; While petitioner was guilty of negligence Petitioner’s interpretation of the fifth paragraph is not
and thus liable to respondent for the latter’s actual damages, accurate. The phrase “even though the former are not engaged
Court holds that respondent should not have been awarded in any business or industry” found in the fifth paragraph
moral damages.—While petitioner was guilty of negligence should be interpreted to mean that it is not necessary for the
and thus liable to respondent for the latter’s actual damages, employer to be engaged in any business or industry to be
we hold that respondent should not have been awarded moral liable for the negligence of his employee who is acting within
damages. We do not agree with the Court of Appeals’ findings the scope of his assigned task.
that respondent suffered shock, trauma and pain when he was
informed that he could not graduate and will not be allowed to Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5
take the bar examinations. At the very least, it behooved on BOTH APPLY TO EMPLOYERS
Page 20 of 50
Apply to owners and Employers in general, It appears that on August 21, 1976 at about 6:30 P.M., a
managers of an establishment whether or not engaged in pickup owned and operated by respondent National Irrigation
or enterprise. any business or industry. Administration, a government agency bearing Plate No. IN-
Covers negligent acts of Encompasses negligent acts 651, then driven officially by Hugo Garcia, an employee of
employees committed either of employees acting within said agency as its regular driver, bumped a bicycle ridden by
in the service of the branches the scope of their assigned Francisco Fontanilla, son of herein petitioners, and Restituto
or on occasion of their task. Deligo, at Maasin, San Jose City along the Maharlika
functions. Highway. As a result of the impact, Francisco Fontanilla and
Narrower in scope. The expansion of Par. 4. Restituto Deligo were injured and brought to the San Jose City
Emergency Hospital for treatment. Fontanilla was later
transferred to the Cabanatuan Provincial Hospital where he
37. Respondent Superior Is an American Doctrine Which died.
is Almost Similar to Article 2180 (4) and (5): “LET
THE MASTER ANSWER”. The liability of the State has two aspects. namely:

LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER: 1. Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for

QUASI-DELICTS (ncc) RPC the tortious acts of special agents only.
Liability Is direct, primary, Liability is subsidiary.
and solidary – the employer 2. Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in
may be sued even without private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary
suing the employee. employer. (p. 961, Civil Code of the Philippines; Annotated,
Diligence of a good father of Not a defense. Paras; 1986 Ed. ).
a family is a defense.
Employer is liable even if not Petitioner must prove that the
In this jurisdiction, the State assumes a limited liability for the
engaged in business. employer is engaged in
damage caused by the tortious acts or conduct of its special
business.
agent.
Proof of negligence is by Proof beyond reasonable
mere preponderance of doubt is required.
evidence. Under the aforequoted paragrah 6 of Art. 2180, the State has
voluntarily assumed liability for acts done through special
agents. The State's agent, if a public official, must not only be
38. Article 2180 6th paragraph specially commissioned to do a particular task but that such
task must be foreign to said official's usual governmental
functions. If the State's agent is not a public official, and is
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts commissioned to perform non-governmental functions, then
through a special agent; but not when the damage has the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be
been caused by the official to whom the task done properly held liable as such for its agent's tort. Where the government
pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 commissions a private individual for a special governmental
shall be applicable. task, it is acting through a special agent within the meaning of
the provision. (Torts and Damages, Sangco, p. 347, 1984 Ed.)
 Meritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands, (34
Phil. 311) Certain functions and activities, which can be performed only
by the government, are more or less generally agreed to be
The liability under the above-quoted provision is limited to "governmental" in character, and so the State is immune from
acts of special agents. A special agent is one who receives tort liability. On the other hand, a service which might as well
definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise be provided by a private corporation, and particularly when it
of the duties of his office if he is a special official. (Merrit vs. collects revenues from it, the function is considered a
Government of Philippine Islands, 34 Phil. 311; Rosete vs. "proprietary" one, as to which there may be liability for the
Auditor General, 81 Phil. 454 [1948]). torts of agents within the scope of their employment.

It is, therefore, evidence that the State (the Government of the The National Irrigation Administration is an agency of the
Philippine Islands) is only liable, according to the above government exercising proprietary functions, by express
quoted decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, for the acts provision of Rep. Act No. 3601.
of its agents, officers and employees when they act as special
agents within the meaning of paragraph 5 of article 1903,
supra, and that the chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Indubitably, the NIA is a government corporation with
Hospital was not such an agent. juridical personality and not a mere agency of the government.
Since it is a corporate body performing non-governmental
 Rosete vs. Auditor General (81 Phil. 453) functions, it now becomes liable for the damage caused by the
accident resulting from the tortious act of its driver-employee.
There being no showing that whatever negligence may be In this particular case, the NIA assumes the responsibility of
imputed to the Emergency Control Administration or its an ordinary employer and as such, it becomes answerable for
officers, was done by an special agent, because the officers of damages.
the Emergency Control Administration did not act as special
agents of the government within the above defined meaning of
that word in article 1903 of the Civil Code in storing gasoline 39. Article 2180 7th paragraph
in warehouse of the ECA, the government is not responsible
for the damages caused through such negligence. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils
 NIA vs. Fontanilla (179 SCRA 685) and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their
custody.

Page 21 of 50
  Palisoc vs. Brillantes (41 SCRA 548) student be of minority age. Unlike the parent, who will be
liable only if his child is still a minor, the teacher is held
In Palisoc vs. Brillantes, decided on October 4, 1971, a 16- answerable by the law for the act of the student under him
year old student was killed by a classmate with fist blows in regardless of the student’s age. Thus, in the Palisoc Case,
the laboratory of the Manila Technical Institute. Although the liability was attached to the teacher and the head of the
wrongdoer — who was already of age — was not boarding in technical school although the wrongdoer was already of age.
the school, the head thereof and the teacher in charge were In this sense, Article 2180 treats the parent more favorably
held solidarily liable with him. The Court declared through than the teacher.””
Justice Teehankee:
40. Article 2180 8th (last) paragraph
“The phrase used in the cited article — ‘so long as (the
students) remain in their custody’ — means the protective and
supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when
exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all
attendance in the school, including recess time. There is the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
nothing in the law that requires that for such liability to attach, damage. (1903a)
the pupil or student who commits the tortious act must live
and board in the school, as erroneously held by the lower 41. Defense in Article 2180; Diligence of a Good Father of
court, and the dicta in Mercado (as well as in Exconde) on a Family
which it relied, must now be deemed to have been set aside by  Wildvalley Shipping Co. Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals,
the present decision.” (342 SCRA 213)
In Wildvalley Shipping Co. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
 Amadora vs. CA, 160 SCRA 315 119602, October 6, 2000, 342 SCRA 213, 228), a vessel of the
petitioner ran aground in the center of a channel blocking
Like any prospective graduate, Alfredo Amadora was looking ingress and egress of other vessels.
forward to the commencement exercises where he would
ascend the stage and in the presence of his relatives and There being no contractual obligation, the private respondent
friends receive his high school diploma. These ceremonies is obliged to give only the diligence required of a good father
were scheduled on April 16, 1972. As it turned out, though, of a family in accordance with the provisions of Article 1173
fate would intervene and deny him that awaited experience. of the New Civil Code, thus:
On April 13, 1972, while they were in the auditorium of their
school, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, a classmate,
"Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in
Pablito Daffon, fired a gun that mortally hit Alfredo, ending
the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature
all his expectations and his life as well. The victim was only
of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of
seventeen years old.
the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence
Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201,
paragraph 2, shall apply.
In the case of Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, where it
interpreted Article 2180 and discussed previous cases dealing "If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to
with the same provision. Such rules may be summarized in be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a
this wise: good father of a family shall be required."
a) Article 2180 makes teachers and heads liable for
acts of students and apprentices whether the latter The diligence of a good father of a family requires only that
are minors or not. diligence which an ordinary prudent man would exercise with
regard to his own property. This we have found private
b) The teacher-in-charge is liable for the acts of his respondent to have exercised when the vessel sailed only after
students. The school and administrators are not the "main engine, machineries, and other auxiliaries" were
liable. checked and found to be in good running condition; 41 when the
c) By way of exception, it is only the head of the master left a competent officer, the officer on watch on the
school, not the teacher, who is held liable where bridge with a pilot who is experienced in navigating the
the injury is caused in a school of arts and trade. Orinoco River; when the master ordered the inspection of the
vessel's double bottom tanks when the vibrations occurred
d) The liability of the teacher subsists whether the anew
school is academic or non-academic.
e) Liability is imposed only if the pupil is already in  Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs.
the custody of the teacher or head. The student is in Verchez, 520 SCRA 384)
the custody of the school authorities as long as he
is under the control and influence of the school and Same; Same; Negligence; Liability of Employers; Liability of
within its premises, whether the semester has not an employer for acts of its employees could of course be
yet begun or has already ended. avoided if it could be proved that it observed the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage.—RCPI’s liability
as an employer could of course be avoided if it could prove
NOTE: Connection of Palisoc vs. Brillanes and Amadora vs.
that it observed the diligence of a good father of a family to
CA;
prevent damage. Article 2180 of the Civil Code so provides:
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not
“However, the application of Article 2180 is not limited to
only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of
pupils, students and apprentices who are minors. Its force
persons for whom one is responsible. x x x x The owners and
extends to acts or omissions of students who are already
managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise
beyond the majority age. The rule is unaffected by Article 219
responsible for damages caused by their employees in the
of the Family Code. Justice Cruz observed in Amadora, that
service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on
“the teacher will be held liable not only when he is acting in
the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for
loco parentis for the law does not require that the offending
the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
Page 22 of 50
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though  With the DIZONS the next day, June 12, 1971, were their
the former are not engaged in any business or industry. x x x x four children Cecilia, Bernardita, Merceditas and Emerito.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when  The M/V Edisco, owned and operated by MENDOZA, is
the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the an oversized motorized banca with outriggers, a steel hull,
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. a canvas awning and rattan chairs on the deck. It was not
(Italics supplied) RCPI failed, however, to prove that it registered to ferry passengers, nor was it licensed to
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to operate as a watercraft. On that trip, it had 146 passengers
prevent damage. on board and was overloaded and lacked adequate
lifesaving equipment.
 Upon reaching Corregidor, the excursionists went on a
guided tour conducted by petitioner’s representative.
 On the return trip to Manila, the weather was practically
the same as when they left but with intermittent rains
(Folio, p. 77). Around 2:00 P.M., disaster struck after
about thirty minutes of cruising. The boat leaned towards
starboard (front right side of the boat) and the chairs slid
into the water in that direction. In a matter of seconds, the
boat capsized (tuwang or balintong besh). Private
respondents and their two children, Bernardita and
Emerito, managed to clamber up the hull of the boat and
were rescued by a passing yacht. Another daughter,
Cecilia, was picked up by one of the other watercrafts that
came to succor. Private respondents lost cash and personal
belongings. Merceditas, their six-year old daughter was
missing and could not be located even after they reached
Manila around 7:00 P.M. of that day. After six days of
fruitless and heart-rending inquiries, private respondents
were summoned to Funeraria Quiogue were they identified
a lifeless body as that of their daughter, Merceditas. There
were other fatalities.
 For damages based on the drowning of MERCEDITAS,
the DIZONS filed a complaint against SARKIES and
MENDOZA before the then Court of First Instance of
Manila. Answering,
 SARKIES alleged that it was not the owner nor charterer
of M/V Edisco; that it is only a booking agent and not a
carrier; and that it had acted with due diligence and care in
relying on MENDOZA’s representations that his vessel
was duly authorized to operate and was sea-worthy.
 MENDOZA denied liability claiming that he was not the
registered owner but merely a passenger of the capsized
[FINAL EXAM COVERAGE] vessel together with his son who also perished in the
tragedy; that the contract of carriage was between
SARKIES and private respondents, and that the marine
42. ARTICLE 2181 accident was due to force majeure. MENDOZA was
Obligation of the Tortfeasor to Reimbursement declared in default for failure to appear during the pre-trial.
 RTC: After trial on the merits, the Trial Court exonerated
“Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
SARKIES from liability on the ground that it was "neither
dependents or employees may recover from the latter what
an agent nor the operator of M/V Edisco" ; that it had
he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)”
merely booked private respondents with M/V Edisco, one
of the three private carriers, in addition to a Philippine
Navy boat, plying the route from Manila to Corregidor,
and attributed sole responsibility to MENDOZA, whom it
 Sarkies Tour Phil. vs. IAC 124 SCRA 588
found to be the owner-operator of M/V Edisco, for
Facts:
negligence consisting of "unscrupulous conversion of a
Parties:
fishing boat into a ferry boat without first securing a
Sarkies Tours Phils. – The agency who sold the tickets.
license to operate as such."
DIzon Family – One of the victims who lost their six year old
 CA: Appellate Tribunal reversed and held both SARKIES
daughter Merceditas.
and MENDOZA jointly and severally liable for the
Mendoza – Operator of M/V Edisco.
damages for the reason that the relationship between
SARKIES and the excursionists was "a single
 A few weeks before June 12, 1971, petitioner Sarkies
operation . . . which in effect guaranteed them safe passage
Tours Phils., Inc. (SARKIES, for short) advertised in the
all throughout" (Rollo, p. 98).
newspapers its tour to Corregidor on Independence Day,
for a fee of "P10.00 per person including: a) boat fare -
Issue: Whether or not Sarkies can claim from Mendoza? YES.
Manila-Corregidor-Manila b) shrine fee and c) tour of
Corregidor Island by bus."
 In the case at bar, there is no showing that SARKIES acted
 A day before the scheduled tour, private respondent
"in a wanton (cruel or violent action) . . . or malevolent
spouses (the DIZONS, for short), purchased six round-trip
(wish to do evil to others) manner" (Art. 2232, Civil Code).
tickets from SARKIES. They were issued an official
 In its Answer to the Complaint of the DIZONS, SARKIES
receipt under the SARKIES letterhead.
included a cross-claim against MENDOZA as the
owner/operator of the EDISCO. Considering that actual
Page 23 of 50
 negligence for the drowning of MERCEDITAS was the  Since the employer's liability is primary, direct and
responsibility of MENDOZA, it is but fair that SARKIES solidary, its only recourse if the judgment for damages is
should have a right of action against MENDOZA for satisfied by it is to recover what it has paid from its
reimbursement. Although Article 2181 of the Civil Code is employee who committed the fault or negligence which
not technically invocable, its principle should be applied in gave rise to the action based on quasi-delict. Article 2181
favor of SARKIES. The provision of the Civil Code on of the Civil Code provides:
common carriers is based on Anglo-American Law  Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by
(Maranan v. Perez, 20 SCRA 412 [1967]). In regards to his dependents or employees may recover from the
Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Latham, 63 Me. 177, the following latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of
was said: the claim.

"Where a railroad company had been compelled to pay a 43. ARTICLE 2182
judgment for damages for injuries sustained by a passenger
as a result of the maltreatment and misconduct of the Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage
conductor . . . the Court (held) that the servant was liable has no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person
to his master for all loss and damage sustained by it." (110 shall be answerable with his own property in an action
A.L.R. 836). against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed.
(n)
Same; Same; Same; Right of reimbursement of company held
liable for damages against the owner/operator of ferry boat Jurisdiction:
for actual negligence for drowning of passengers; Article  If minor or insane person = Family Court.
2181, Civil Code, not technically invocable, but applied in
 If a person of legal age = RTC.
favor of company; Provision of Civil Code on common
carriers based on Anglo-American Law.—In its Answer to the
“Guardian ad litem” – A guardian appointed by the Court.
Complaint of the DIZONS, SARKIES included a cross-claim
against MENDOZA as the owner/operator of the EDISCO.
 U.S vs. Baggay 20 Phil 142
Considering that actual negligence for the drowning of
MERCEDITAS was the responsibility of MENDOZA, it is but
FACTS:
fair that SARKIES should have a right of action against
 October 14, 1909: During the holding a song service
MENDOZA for reimbursement. Although Article 2181 of the
called "buni", the non-Christian Baggay Jr. attacked
Civil Code is not technically invocable, its principle should be
a woman Bil-liingan with a bolo inflicting a serious wound
applied in favor of SARKIES. The provision of the Civil Code
on her head causing her to die immediately.
on common carriers is based on Anglo-American Law
 He inflicted the same to the women named
(Maranan v. Perez, 20 SCRA 412 [1967]).
Calabayan, Agueng, Quisamay, Calapini, and on his own
mother, named Dioalan.
NOTE: Article 2181 is applied in the case by ANALOGY.
 Provincial fiscal filed a complaint for
murder
 This cause was instituted separately
 PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC.
from the other for lesiones
vs. CA (G.R. No. 120553. June 17, 1997)
 RTC: Baggay was suffering from mental aberration
and was exempt from criminal liability but obliged to
 The victim Ramon A. Acuesta was riding in his easy rider indemnify the heirs if the murdered woman, Bil-liingan, in
bicycle. the sum of P1,000, to pay the costs in the case and to be
 Philtranco Bus No. 4025 with plate No. EVA-725 driven confined in an institution for the insane until further order
by defendant Rogasiones Manilhig y Dolira was being of the court. Court declared said appeal out of order and
pushed by some persons in order to start its engine. dismissed it.
 As the bus was pushed, its engine started thereby the bus  Counsel for Baggay resorted to this court with a
continued on its running motion and it occurred at the time petition praying that a writ be issued directing judge
when Ramon A. Acuesta who was still riding on his Chanco, to admit the appeal and forward it, at the same
bicycle was directly in front of the said bus. As the engine time annulling all action taken for execution of the
of the Philtranco bus started abruptly and suddenly, its judgments rendered in the causes for murder and
running motion was also enhanced by the said functioning for lesions.
engine, thereby the subject bus bumped on the victim  Attorney-General: writ inappropriate and that it
Ramon A. Acuesta who, as a result thereof fell and, should be remedy of mandamus.
thereafter, was run over by the said bus.  ISSUE: W/N Baggay was exempt from criminal liability
 For their part, the petitioners filed an Answer 5 wherein making him exempt from civil liability as well?
they alleged that petitioner Philtranco exercised the HELD: NO.
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and  Article 17 of the Penal Code states:
supervision of its employees, including petitioner Manilhig Every person criminally liable for a crime or misdemeanor is
who had excellent record as a driver and had undergone also civilly liable
months of rigid training before he was hired. Petitioner  Article 18 of the same code says:
Manilhig had always been a prudent professional driver, The exemption from criminal liability declared in Nos. 1, 2, 3,
religiously observing traffic rules and regulations. In 7, and 10 of article 8 does not include exemption from civil
driving Philtranco's buses, he exercised the diligence of a liability, which shall be enforced, subject to the following:
very cautious person. (1) In cases 1, 2, and 3, the persons who are civilly liable for
 TC- Ordering the petitioners to jointly and severally pay acts committed by a lunatic or imbecile, or a person under
the private respondents the damages due. 9 years of age, or over this age and under 15, who has not
 CA- Affirmed. acted with the exercise of judgment, are those who have
them under their authority, legal guardianship or power,
Issue: Whether or no Philtranco, Inc. can claim from its driver unless they prove that there was no blame or negligence on
Rogasiones Manilhig? YES. their part.

Page 24 of 50
Should there be no person having them under his authority, Discussion. In this case, the court applied an objective
legal guardian, or power, if such person be insolvent, the standard of care to Defendant, an insane person. To avoid
said lunatics, imbeciles, or minors shall answer with liability under this statute, there must be an absence of
their own property, excepting that part which is exempted forewarning to the defendant that he or she would be subject
for their support in accordance with the civil law. to a debilitating mental illness. This court also held that
 Even when they hold the accused exempt from persons who suffer from sudden mental incapacity due to
criminal liability, must fix the civil liability of the persons sudden heart attack, epileptic seizure, stroke, or fainting
charged with watching over and caring for him or the should not be judged under the same objective test as those
liability of the demented person himself with his property who are insane.
for reparation of the damage and indemnification for the
harm done 44. ARTICLE 2183
 UNLESS: the offended party or the heirs of Damage or Injury Caused By Animals
the person murdered expressly renounce such reparation or
indemnification. Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make
use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may
 Breunig vs. American Family Insurance 1970 cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility
shall cease only in case the damage should come from force
Brief Fact Summary. Erma Veith, an insured of American majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered
Family Insurance Company (Defendant), became involved in damage.
an automobile accident with (Plaintiff) when she was suddenly
seized with a mental delusion. The jury awarded Defendant  Wild Beast Theory – The true rule of law is that the person
$7,000 in damages. who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects
and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes,
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Not all types of insanity are a must keep it at his peril, and if he does not do so is prima
defense to a charge of negligence. facie answerable for all the damages which is the natural
consequence of its escape. This is the liability of the
Facts. Veith, an insured of Defendant, was driving her car insurer; it is therefore unnecessary for a plaintiff to prove
when it struck a car driven by Plaintiff. Veith’s car veered negligence, and it is no defense for a defendant to prove
across the center of the road and into Plaintiff’s lane. that he has taken all possible precautions to prevent
Defendant claimed Veith was not negligent because just prior damage. (Ryland vs. Fletcher)
to the collision she suddenly and without warning was seized  The law uses the word “possessor”, thus, the possessor
with a mental delusion which rendered her unable to operate need not be the owner of the animal.
the car with her conscious mind. Veith told her psychiatrist
that she was driving when she believed that God was taking a  Vestil vs. IAC 179 SCRA 48
hold of the steering wheel and was directing her car. She saw Facts:
the truck coming and stepped on the gas in order to become air  Little Theness Tan Uy was dead at the age of three. Her
borne because she knew she could fly because she thought she parents said she died because she was bitten by a dog of
could fly like Batman. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff the petitioners, but the latter denied this, claiming they had
because they found that Veith had knowledge and forewarning nothing to do with the dog. The Uys sued the Vestils, who
of her mental delusions. More specifically, the court, despite were sustained by the trial court. On appeal, the decision of
the testimony of the psychiatrist, found that Veith had the court a quo was reversed in favor of the Uys. The
knowledge of her condition due to her past conduct. Vestils are now before us. They ask us to set aside the
Therefore, the question was properly left for the jury. judgment of the respondent court and to reinstate that of
Defendant, insurance company, appealed. the trial court.
 Purita Vestil insists that she is not the owner of the house
Issue. Did Veith have foreknowledge of her susceptibility to a or of the dog left by her father as his estate has not yet
mental delusion as to make her negligent in driving a car? been partitioned and there are other heirs to the property.
Pursuing the logic of the Uys, she claims, even her sister
Held. Yes. Judgment for Plaintiff affirmed. living in Canada would be held responsible for the acts of
* The general policy for holding an insane person liable for his the dog simply because she is one of Miranda's heirs.
torts is stated as follows: However, that is hardly the point. What must be
i. When one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss it determined is the possession of the dog that admittedly
should be borne by the one who occasioned it; was staying in the house in question, regardless of the
ii. To induce those interested in the estate of the insane person ownership of the dog or of the house. Stating Article 2183
to restrain and control him; and of the NCC.
iii. To stop false claims of insanity to avoid liability  Thus, in Afialda v. Hisole, 6 a person hired as caretaker of a
* However, not all types of insanity vitiate responsibility for a carabao gored him to death and his heirs thereupon sued
negligent tort. The effect of the mental illness or mental the owner of the animal for damages. The complaint was
disorder must be such as to affect the person’s ability to dismissed on the ground that it was the caretaker's duty to
understand and appreciate the duty, which rests upon him to prevent the carabao from causing injury to any one,
drive his car with ordinary care. In addition, there must be an including himself.
absence of notice or forewarning to the insane person that he  While it is true that she is not really the owner of the
may suddenly be unable to drive his car. house, which was still part of Vicente Miranda's estate,
* All we hold is that a sudden mental incapacity equivalent in there is no doubt that she and her husband were its
its effect to such physical causes as a sudden heart attack, possessors at the time of the incident in question. 
epileptic seizure, stroke, or fainting should be treated alike and  According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article
not under the general rule of insanity. 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on
* In this case, the jury could infer that Veith had knowledge of the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of
her condition and the likelihood of her condition, just as one the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural
who has knowledge of a heart condition knows the possibility equity and on the principle of social interest that he who
of an attack. possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must
answer for the damage which such animal may cause.

Page 25 of 50
 any special state of alert. He had reason to rely on the skill
Exceptions to the Rule of Liability of the Possessor and experience of his driver. He became aware of the
1. Force Majeure; or presence of the carretela when his car was only twelve
2. Fault of the person who suffered the damage; or meters behind it, but then his failure to see it earlier did not
3. When the damage is caused by a third person. constitute negligence, for he was not himself at the wheel.
And even when he did see it at that distance, he could not
51. ARTICLE 2184 have anticipated his driver’s sudden decision to pass the
carretela on its left side in spite of the fact that another car
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily was approaching from the opposite direction. The
liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, time element was such that there was no reasonable
could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the opportunity for Yu Khe Thai to assess the risks involved
misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was and warn the driver accordingly. The thought that entered
negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or his mind, he said, was that if he sounded a sudden warning
it might only make the other man nervous and make the
violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
situation worse. It was a thought that, wise or not, connotes
preceding two months.
no absence of that due diligence required by law to prevent
the misfortune. Under the facts the owner of the car was
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of not liable.
Article 2180 are applicable.
 Carticiano vs. Nuval (341 SCRA 264)

 Caedo vs. Yu Khe Thai (26 SCRA 410) FACTS:

FACTS:  Plaintiff Zacarias Carticiano was on his way home to Imus,
 Plaintiff Caedo was driving his Mercury car at about 5:30 Cavite. He was driving his father’s Ford Laser car. On the
in the morning of March 24, 1958 along E. de los Santos same date and time, defendant Nuval’s owner-type Jeep,
Ave., in the vicinity of San LorenzoVillage bound for the then driven by defendant Darwin was traveling on the
airport. Several members of his family were in the car. opposite direction going to Parañaque. When the two cars
Coming from the opposite direction was the Cadillac car of were about to pass one another, Darwin veered his vehicle
defendant Yu Khe Thai driven by his driver Rafael to his left going to the center island of the highway an
Bernardo. The two cars were traveling at a moderate speed occupied the lane which plaintiff Zacarias was traversing.
with their headlights on. Ahead of the Cadillac was a Zacarias’ Ford Laser collided head-on with Nuval’s Jeep.
caretela. Defendant’s driver did not notice it until he was Darwin immediately fled from the scene. Zacarias suffered
about eight (8) meters away. Instead of slowing down multiple fracture. He underwent a leg operation and
behind the caretela defendant’s driver veered to the left physical therapy. Nuval offered P100,000.00 as
with the intention of passing by the caretela but in doing so compensation for the injuries caused. Plaintiffs refused to
its rear bumper caught the ream of thecaretela’s left wheel accept it. Plaintiffs filed a criminal suit against Darwin and
wrenching it off. Defendant’s car skidded obliquely to the a civil suit against defendants for damages. Trial court
other end and collided with the on-coming vehicle of the ruled infavor of plaintiffs. CA reversed the decision.
plaintiff. The plaintiff on his part, slackened his speed and ISSUE:
tried to avoid the collision by veering to the right but
the collision occurred just the same injuring the plaintiff
 Whether or not employer Nuval can be held liable?
and members of his family. Plaintiff brought an action for
RULING: Petition granted.
damages against both the driver and owner of
the Cadillac car. There was no question that defendant’s  Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that employers
driver was negligent and liable. shall be liable for damages caused by their employees
ISSUE: acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The facts
 Whether or not defendant Yu Khe Thai, owner of the car, established in the case at bar show that Darwin was acting
within the scope of the authority given him when the
who was in the car, was solidarily liable with the driver
collision occurred. That he had been hired only to bring
under Art. 2184, of the Civil Code.
respondent’s children to and from school must be rejected.
RULING:
True, this may have been one of his assigned tasks, but no
Liability of the Car Owner:
convincing proof was presented showing that it was his
 The applicable law is Article 2184 of the Civil Code. only task. His authority was to drive Nuval’s vehicle.
Under the said provision, if the causative factor was the
driver’s negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was
 Effect when the driver is found negligent - Once a driver is
proven negligent in causing damages, the law presumes the
present is likewise held liable if he could have prevented
vehicle owner equally negligent and imposes upon the
the mishap by the exercise of due diligence. The basis of
latter the burden of proving proper selection of employee
the master’s liability in civil law is not respondent superior
as a defense. Respondent failed to show that he had
but rather the relationship of paterfamilias. The theory is
satisfactorily discharged this burden.
that ultimately the negligence of the servant, if known to
the master and susceptible of timely correction by him,
 Thermo chem Inc. vs. Naval (244 SCRA 76)
reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order
FACTS:
to prevent injury or damage.
 Negligence on the part of the owner, if any, must be sought
 At around 12:00 o'clock midnight, Eduardo Edem was
driving a "Luring Taxi” along Ortigas Avenue, near
in the immediate setting and circumstances of the accident,
Rosario, Pasig, going towards Cainta. Prior to the collision,
that is, in his failure to detain the driver from pursuing a
the taxicab was parked along the right side of Ortigas
course which not only gave him clear notice of the danger
Avenue, not far from the Rosario Bridge, to unload a
but also sufficient time to act upon it. We do not see that
passenger. Thereafter, the driver executed a U-turn to
such negligence may be imputed. The car, as has been
traverse the same road, going to the direction of EDSA. At
stated, was not running at an unreasonable speed. The road
this point, the Nissan Pathfinder traveling along the same
was wide and open, and devoid of traffic that early
road going to the direction of Cainta collided with the
morning. There was no reason for the car owner to be in
Page 26 of 50
 taxicab. The point of impact was so great that the taxicab P23,925.00 as actual damages. All other awards are
was hit in the middle portion and was pushed sideward, DELETED.
causing the driver to lose control of the vehicle. The
taxicab was then dragged into the nearby Question
Tailoring Shop, thus, causing damage to the said tailoring  Serra vs. Mumar (G.R. No. 193861, March 14,
shop, and its driver, Eduardo Eden, sustained injuries as a 2012)
result of the incident. FACTS:
 Private respondent, as owner of the taxi, filed a damage  A vehicular accident along the National Highway in
suit against petitioner, Thermochem Incorporated, as the Barangay Apopong, General Santos City, which resulted in
owner of the Nissan Pathfinder, and its driver, petitioner the death of Armando Mumar (Mumar), husband of
Jerome Castro. respondent Nelfa T. Mumar (respondent).
 Based on the evidence, one Armando Tenerife (Tenerife)
 SC: The driver of the oncoming Nissan Pathfinder vehicle was driving his Toyota Corolla sedan on the National
was liable and the driver of the U-turning taxicab was Highway heading in the direction of Polomolok, South
contributorily liable. Contrary to petitioners' contention, Cotabato. Tenerife noticed the van owned by petitioner
the fact that a party had no opportunity to avoid the Paulita "Edith" Serra (petitioner) coming from the opposite
collision is of his own making and this should not relieve direction, which was trying to overtake a passenger jeep,
him of liability. and in the process encroached on his lane. The left side of
 From petitioner Castro's testimonial admissions, it is the sedan was hit by the van, causing the sedan to swerve
established that he was driving at a speed faster than 50 to the left and end up on the other side of the road. The van
kilometers per hour because it was a downhill slope collided head on with the motorcycle, which was about 12
coming from the Rosario bridge. But as he allegedly meters behind the sedan on the outer lane, causing injuries
stepped on the brake, it locked causing his Nissan to Mumar, which eventually led to his death.
Pathfinder to skid to the left and consequently hit the  On the other hand, petitioner denied that her van was
taxicab. The sudden malfunction of the vehicle's brake overtaking the jeepney at the time of the incident. She
system is the usual excuse of drivers involved in collisions claimed that the left tire of Tenerife’s sedan burst, causing
which are the result of speedy driving, particularly when it to sideswipe her van. Consequently, the left front tire of
the road is downhill. the van also burst and the van’s driver, Marciano de Castro
(de Castro), lost control of the vehicle. The van swerved to
 Malfunction or loss of brake is not a fortuitous event.
the left towards Mumar’s motorcycle. The impact resulted
(REMEMBER!!!)
in the death of Mumar.
 Between the owner and his driver, on the one hand, and  Subsequently, respondent filed a complaint against
third parties such as commuters, drivers and pedestrians, petitioner for Damages by Reason of Reckless Imprudence
on the other, the former is presumed to know about the resulting to Homicide and Attachment before the General
conditions of his vehicle and is duty bound to take care Santos City RTC.
thereof with the diligence of a good father of the family.
A mechanically defective vehicle should avoid the streets.  Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable
As petitioner's vehicle was moving downhill, the driver for the damages caused by their employees acting within
should have slowed down since a downhill drive would the scope of their assigned tasks. Whenever an employee’s
naturally cause the vehicle to accelerate. Moreover, the negligence causes damage or injury to another, there
record shows that the Nissan Pathfinder was on the wrong instantly arises a presumption that the employer failed to
lane when the collision occurred. This was a disregard of exercise the due diligence of a good father of the family in
traffic safety rules. The law considers what would be the selection or supervision of its employees.  The liability
reckless, blameworthy or negligent in a man of ordinary of the employer is direct or immediate. It is not
diligence and prudence and determines liability by that. conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent
 Even assuming arguendo that loss of brakes is an act of employee and a prior showing of insolvency of such
God, by reason of their negligence, the fortuitous event employee.
became humanized, rendering the Nissan driver liable for
the ensuing damages.  Moreover, under Article 2184 of the Civil Code,  if the
 As mentioned earlier, the driver of the taxi is contributorily causative factor was the driver’s negligence, the owner of
liable. U-turns are not generally advisable particularly on the vehicle who was present is likewise held liable if he
major streets. The taxi was hit on its side which means that could have prevented the mishap by the exercise of due
it had not yet fully made a turn to the other lane. The driver diligence.
of the taxi ought to have known that vehicles coming from
the Rosario bridge are on a downhill slope. Obviously,  Petitioner failed to show that she exercised the level of
there was lack of foresight on his part, making him diligence required in supervising her driver in order to
contributorily liable. Most public utility drivers disregard prevent the accident. She admitted that de Castro had only
signs and traffic rules especially during the night when been her driver for one year and she had no knowledge of
traffic enforcers manning the streets disappear with the his driving experience or record of previous accidents. She
light. In driving vehicles, the primary concern should be also admitted that it was de Castro who maintained the
the safety not only of the driver or his passengers, but also vehicle and would even remind her "to pay the installment
his fellow motorists. of the car."
 Considering the contributory negligence of the driver of
private respondent's taxi, the award of P47,850.00, for the  Petitioner also admitted that, at the time of the accident,
repair of the taxi, should be reduced in half. All other she did not know what was happening and only knew they
awards for damages are deleted for lack of merit. bumped into another vehicle when the driver shouted. She
then closed her eyes and a moment later felt something
 WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the assailed heavy fall on the roof of the car. When the vehicle stopped,
decision is MODIFIED. Petitioners are ordered to pay, petitioner left the scene purportedly to ask help from her
jointly and severally, to private respondent the amount of brother, leaving the other passengers to come to the aid of
her injured driver.
Page 27 of 50
52. Is a Violation of statutory duty establishes a coverage. Such failure to comply with the statute and
presumption of negligence? administrative regulation was considered negligence per
 In several cases, the Supreme Court consistently held that se.
violation of statutory duty is negligence per se. (Cipriano
vs. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 711, 717 [1996]) 53. ARTICLE 2185
 “The reason for this rule is that the statute or ordinance Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
becomes the standard of care or conduct to which the presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been
reasonably prudent person is held. Failure to follow the negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any
statute involved constitutes a breach of the legal duty traffic regulation.
imposed and fixed by the statute. Since negligence is a
breach of legal duty, the violator of a statute is then  Commonly violated Traffic Rules of R.A. 4136 Land
negligent as a matter of law.” Transportation and Traffic Code:
 Violation of statute may be treated either as: a) Section 32 (a) – Exceeding Registered Capacity;
1. A circumstance which establishes a presumption of b) Section 54 – Obstruction of Traffic.
negligence;
2. Negligence per se; or  Guillang vs. Bedania (G.R. No. 162987, May 21,
3. A circumstance which should be considered together 2009)
with other circumstances as evidence of negligence. FACTS:
Thus, it is up to the legislature or the Court to select which  Petitioner Genaro M. Guillang (Genaro) was driving his
competing theory should be applied in a particular jurisdiction. brand new Toyota Corolla GLI sedan with conduction
sticker no. 54-DFT (car) along Emilio Aguinaldo Highway
 Cipriano v. CA 263 SCRA 711 (1996) (highway) in Cavite. Genaro, Antero Guillang (Antero),
FACTS: Felipe Jurilla, Jose Dignadice (Dignadice), and Alvin
 Petitioner Elias S. Cipriano is the owner of E.S. Cipriano Llanillo (Llanillo) had all just left from Golden City,
Enterprises, which is engaged in the rustproofing of Dasmariñas, Cavite, and were on their way to Manila. At
vehicles, under the style Motobilkote. On April 30, 1991, the other side of the highway, respondent Rodolfo A.
private respondent Maclin Electronics, Inc., through an Bedania (Bedania) was driving a ten-wheeler Isuzu cargo
employee, brought a 1990 model Kia Pride Peoples car to truck with plate no. CAC-923 (truck) towards Tagaytay
petitioners shop for rustproofing. City. The truck was owned by respondent Rodolfo de Silva
(de Silva).
 Fire broke out at the Lambat restaurant, which petitioner  Along the highway and the road leading to the Orchard
also owned, adjoining his Mobilkote rustproofing shop. Golf Course, Bedania negotiated a U-turn. When the truck
The fire destroyed both the shop and the restaurant, entered the opposite lane of the highway, Genaro’s car hit
including private respondents Kia Pride. The car had been the right portion of the truck. The truck dragged Genaro’s
kept inside the building, allegedly to protect it from theft. car some five meters to the right of the road.
Petitioner claimed that despite efforts to save the vehicle,  As a consequence, all the passengers of the car were
there was simply not enough time to get it out of the rushed to the De La Salle University Medical Center in
building, unlike three other cars which had been saved Dasmariñas, Cavite for treatment. Because of severe
because they were parked near the entrance of the garage. injuries, Antero was later transferred to the Philippine
 Private respondent sent a letter to petitioner, demanding General Hospital. However, on 3 November 1994, Antero
reimbursement for the value of the Kia Pride. In reply, died due to the injuries he sustained from the collision. The
petitioner denied liability on the ground that the fire was a car was a total wreck while the truck sustained minor
fortuitous event. This prompted private respondent to bring damage.
this suit for the value of its vehicle and for damages  Petitioners Genaro, Llanillo, Dignadice, and the heirs of
against petitioner. Private respondent alleged that its Antero instituted a complaint for damages based on quasi-
vehicle was lost due to the negligence and imprudence of delict against respondents Bedania and de Silva.
the petitioner, citing petitioners failure to register his
business with the Department of Trade and Industry under  Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, unless there is
P.D. No. 1572 and to insure it as required in the rules proof to the contrary, a person driving a vehicle is
implementing the Decree. presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
ISSUE: violating any traffic regulation.
 Is a violation of statutory duty establishes a presumption of
negligence?  In this case, the report   showed that the truck, while
making the U-turn, failed to signal, a violation of traffic
 The issue in this case is whether petitioner was required to
rules. The police records also stated that, after the
insure his business and the vehicles received by him in the collision, Bedania escaped and abandoned the petitioners
course of his business and, if so, whether his failure to do and his truck. This is another violation of a traffic
so constituted negligence, rendering him liable for loss due regulation. Therefore, the presumption arises that Bedania
to the risk required to be insured against? YES. was negligent at the time of the mishap.
 Supreme Court considered violation of a Ministry
(Department) Order which was issued pursuant to and to  Mallari, Sr. vs. CA (324 SCRA 147)
implement a statute as negligence per se. Petitioner in FACTS:
said case was the owner of an establishment engaged in  The passenger jeepney driven by Mallari Jr. and owned by
rustproofing of vehicles. Private respondent’s car that was Mallari Sr. collided with the delivery van of Bulletinalong
brought to the petitioner’s shop for rustproofing was the National Highway in Brgy. San Pablo, Dinalupihan,
burned when fire destroyed the same shop. It was Bataan. Mallari Jr. testified that he went to the leftlane of
established later that petitioner failed to comply with the the highway and overtook a Fiera which had stopped on
requirement of Presidential Decree No. 1572 to register the right lane. Before he passed by the Fiera, hesaw the
with the Department of Trade and Industry as well as van of Bulletin coming from the opposite direction. It was
Ministry Order No. 32 issued by the same Department driven by one Felix Angeles. The collisionoccurred after
requiring all covered enterprises to secure insurance Mallari Jr. overtook the Fiera while negotiating a curve in

Page 28 of 50
 the highway. The impact caused thejeepney to turn around
and fall on its left side resulting in injuries to its passengers
 Suddenly, a green Mitsubishi Lancer driven by Renato
Dela Cruz Ocfemia darted directly into the path of NDW
one of whom was Israel Reyeswho eventually died due to
781 '91 thereby hitting and bumping its left front portion.
the gravity of his injuries.
Renato dela Cruz Ocfemia was driving with expired
 Claudia Reyes, the widow of Israel Reyes, filed a license and positive for alcoholic breath.
complaint for damages against Mallari Sr. and Mallari Jr.,
andalso against Bulletin, its driver Felix Angeles, and the  Nostradamus Villanueva claimed that he was no longer the
N.V. Netherlands Insurance Co. The complaint alleged owner of the car at the time of the mishap because it was
thatthe collision which resulted in the death of Israel was swapped with a Pajero owned by Albert Jaucian/Auto
caused by the fault and negligence of both drivers of Palace Car Exchange. Auto Palace Car Exchange
thepassenger jeepney and the Bulletin Isuzu delivery van. represented by Albert Jaucian claimed that he was not the
ISSUE: registered owner of the car.  Moreover, it could not be held
 WON Mallari Jr. and Mallari Sr. are liable for the death of subsidiary liable as employer of Ocfemia because the latter
Israel? was off-duty as utility employee at the time of the incident.
HELD: Issue:
 Yes. The collision occurred immediately after Mallari Jr.  MAY THE REGISTERED OWNER OF A MOTOR
overtook a vehicle in front of it while traversing a curve on VEHICLE    BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES
the highway. This act of overtaking was in clear violation ARISING FROM A VEHICULAR ACCIDENT
of Sec. 41, pars. (a) and (b), of RA 4136 as amended, INVOLVING HIS MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE BEING
otherwise known as The Land Transportation and Traffic OPERATED BY THE EMPLOYEE OF ITS BUYER
Code. A driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose WITHOUT THE LATTER'S CONSENT AND
of overtaking another vehicle in an ordinary situation has KNOWLEDGE?
the duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to proceed Ruling:
if he cannot do so in safety. When a motor vehicle is
approaching or rounding a curve, there is special necessity  Yes. We have consistently ruled that the registered owner
for keeping to the right side of the road and the driver does of any vehicle is directly and primarily responsible to the
not have the right to drive on the left hand side relying public and third persons while it is being operated.[6] The
upon having time to turn to the right if a car approaching rationale behind such doctrine was explained way back in
from the opposite direction comes into view. 1957 in
 Mallari Jr. already saw that the Bulletin delivery van was  Erezo vs. Jepte: The principle upon which this doctrine is
coming from the opposite direction and failing to consider based is that in dealing with vehicles registered under the
the speed thereof since it was still dark at 5:00 o’clock in Public Service Law, the public has the right to assume or
the morning mindlessly occupied the left lane and overtook presume that the registered owner is the actual owner
2 vehicles in front of it at a curve in the highway. Clearly, thereof, for it would be difficult for the public to... enforce
the proximate cause of the collision resulting in the death the actions that they may have for injuries caused to them
of Israel was the sole negligence of the driver of the by the vehicles being negligently operated if the public
passenger jeepney, Mallari Jr., who recklessly operated should be required to prove who the actual owner is.
and drove his jeepney in a lane where overtaking was not
allowed by traffic rules. Under Art.2185 of the Civil Code,  We do not imply by his doctrine, however, that the
unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a registered owner may not recover whatever amount he had
person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at paid by virtue of his liability to third persons from the
the time of the mishap he was violating a traffic person to whom he had actually sold, assigned or conveyed
regulation. Mallar is failed to present satisfactory the vehicle.
evidence to overcome this legal presumption.  Under the same principle the registered owner of any
 The negligence and recklessness of the driver of the vehicle, even if not used for a public service, should
passenger jeepney is binding against Mallari Sr., who primarily be responsible to the public or to third persons
admittedly was the owner of the passenger jeepney for injuries caused the latter while the vehicle is being
engaged as a common carrier, considering the fact that in driven on the highways or streets.
an action based on contract of carriage, the court need not
make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part
 The Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3992, as
of the carrier in order to hold it responsible for the amended) provides that no vehicle may be used or
payment of damages sought by the passenger. operated upon any public highway unless the same is
property registered.
54. Article 2186  Registration is required not to make said registration the
operative act by which ownership in vehicles is
Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the transferred... but to permit the use and operation of the
proper government office a bond executed by a government- vehicle upon any public highway
controlled corporation or office, to answer for damages to  The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify
third persons. The amount of the bond and other terms shall the owner so... that if any accident happens, or that any
be fixed by the competent public official. damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public
highways, responsibility therefore can be fixed on a
 Villanueva vs. Domingo, 438 SCRA 485 definite individual, the registered owner.
FACTS:  Whether the driver is authorized or not by the actual owner
 Priscilla R. Domingo is the registered owner of a silver is irrelevant to determining the liability of the registered
Mitsubishi Lancer Car with Leandro Luis R. Domingo as owner who the law holds primarily and directly
authorized driver. responsible for any accident, injury or death caused by the
operation of the... vehicle in the streets and highways. To
 Nostradamus Villanueva was then the registered "owner"
require the driver of the vehicle to be authorized by the
of a green Mitsubishi Lancer following a green traffic
actual owner before the registered owner can be held
light. Priscilla Domingo's silver Lancer car then driven by
accountable is to defeat the very purpose why motor
[co-respondent] Leandro Luis R. Domingo was cruising at
vehicle legislations are enacted in the first place.
moderate speed.
Page 29 of 50
 Supreme Court rejected the defense that the registered concrete flower pot and left a wide open hole about 2 ft. long
by 1.5 feet wide. Defendant government official TANGCO,
owner is not liable for damages since the driver of the
who took on the DUAL role of being (1) City Engineer of
vehicle at the time of the accident was not an authorized
Dagupan City (LOCAL govt capacity) and (2) Ex-officio
driver of the new (actual) owner of the vehicle. The Court
Highway Engineer of Bureau of Public Works (NATIONAL
explained that whether the driver is authorized or not by
govt capacity), admitted the existence of said manhole.
the actual owner is irrelevant to determining the liability of
the registered owner who the law holds primarily and
CITY’S CONTENTION: that Perez Boulevard is a national
direct liability responsible for any accident, injury or death
road that is not under the control or supervision of the City of
caused by the operation of the vehicle. The Court ruled
Dagupan. Hence, no liability should attach to the city. It is the
that it is only the new owner who could have raised the
Ministry of Public Highways that has control or supervision
defense of theft to prove that he is not liable.
through the Highway Engineer which, by mere coincidence, is
held concurrently by the same person who is also the City
55. Article 2187
Engineer of Dagupan.
Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for ISSUE: WON the City of Dagupan exercises control or
death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful supervision over a national road in effect binding the city to
substances used, although no contractual relation exists answer for damages in accordance with article 2189? YES.
between them and the consumers. City of Dagupan is Liable.

 Principle of Strict Liability in Tort – Proof of negligence Article 2189 of the Civil Code requires only that either control
is not necessary. It applies even if the defendant or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. It
manufacturer or processor has exercised all the possible is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong
care in the preparation and sale of his product. to (or be owned by) the province, city, or municipality for
 Contractual relationship between the Manufacturer or liability to attach. The article only requires that either control
Processor and Consumers is not necessary, based on or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street.
Principle of Strict Liability in Tort.
 If there is a contractual relationship, the plaintiff is not The charter of Dagupan clearly indicates that the city indeed
precluded from filing a suit based on breach of warranty has supervision and control over the sidewalk where the open
whether expressed or implied. The Principle of Strict drainage hole is located. In the case at bar, this control or
Liability in Tort still applies. supervision is provided for in the charter of Dagupan and is
 Requisites of the Principle of Strict Liability in Tort: exercised through the City Engineer. The same charter of
Dagupan also provides that the laying out, construction and
1) The defendant is the manufacturer or processor of improvement of streets, avenues and alleys and sidewalks, and
foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods regulation of the use thereof, may be legislated by the
involved; Municipal Board. Thus the charter clearly indicates that the
2) The defendant used noxious or harmful substances in city indeed has supervision and control over the sidewalk
where the open drainage hole is located. Liability of the city to
the manufacture or processing of the foodstuff, drink or
the petitioner under Article 2189 of the Civil Code is clear.
toilet articles and similar goods;
There is, therefore, no doubt that the City Engineer exercises
3) Plaintiff used or consumed such product unaware of the
control or supervision over the public works in question.
injurious condition of the product; Hence, the liability of the city to the petitioner under article
4) Plaintiff’s injury or death was caused by the product 2189 of the Civil Code is clear.
used or consumed; and
5) The forms or kinds of damages suffered and the Public Corporations; Damages; Liability of public
amount thereof. corporations for damages arising from injuries suffered by
pedestrians from defective condition of roads expressed in
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence Article 2189 of the Civil Code; The article requires only that
on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results either control or supervision is exercised over the defective
from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, road or street.___The liability of public corporations for
such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or damages arising from injuries suffered by pedestrians from the
use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. defective condition of roads is expressed in the Civil Code. It
56. Article 2189 is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong
to the province, city, or municipality for liability to attach. The
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable article only requires that either control or supervision is
for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any exercised over the defective road or street.
person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their Same; Same; Same; Same; Liability of the city to the
control or supervision. petitioner under Article 2189 of the Civil Code is
clear.___There is, therefore, no doubt that the City Engineer
exercises control or supervision over the public works in
 Guilatico vs. City of Dagupan question. Hence, the liability of the city to the petitioner under
article 2189 of the Civil Code is clear.
FACTS:
GUILATCO was a Court Interpreter of CFI-Dagupan. While  City of Manila,[Link] (G.R. No. L-23052,
she was about to board a motorized tricycle at the sidewalk of January 29, 1968)
Perez Blvd., she accidentally fell into a manhole, thus causing FACTS:
her right leg to be fractured. She was confined in 2 hospitals
for a period of more than 16 days. She suffered excruciating  At about 8:00 in the evening, private respondent Genaro
pain; incurred hospitalization and medication expenses; had Teotico was at the corner of the Old Luneta and P. Burgos
difficulty in locomotion; has not been able to report for duty as Avenue, Manila, within a loading and unloading zone,
court interpreter, hence deprived of income. The manhole on waiting for a jeepney when one came along to stop. As he
the sidewalk along Perez Blvd was partially covered by a stepped down from the curb to board the jeepney and took
Page 30 of 50
 a few steps, he fell inside an uncovered and unlighted
manhole. The fall caused Teotico’s head to hit the rim and
 Respondent City of Manila maintains that it cannot be held
liable for the injuries sustained by the petitioner because
break his eyeglasses and the broken pieces thereof to
under the Management and Operating Contract, Asiatic
pierce his left eyelid. Respondent was then brought to PGH
Integrated Corporation assumed all responsibility for
to be treated of his injuries. Respondent suffered
damages which may be suffered by third persons for any
contusions in various parts of his body and allergic
cause attributable to it.
eruptions caused by the anti-tetanus injections
administered to him required further medical treatment and  It has also been argued that the City of Manila cannot be
payment of these charges. Thus, respondent filed a held liable under Article I, Section 4 of Republic Act No.
complaint for damages against the City of Manila, its 409
mayor, city engineer, city health officer, city treasurer and  Upon the other hand, Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the
chief of police. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On
Philippines which provides that:
appeal, the City of Manila was sentenced to pay the
damages.  Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for
damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by any
ISSUE: person by reason of defective conditions of roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings and other public works under
 Whether or not the City of Manila is liable for damages?
their control or... supervision."
YES.
 In other words, Art. 1, sec. 4, R.A. No. 409 refers to
RULING: liability arising from negligence, in general, regardless of
the object, thereof, while Article 2189 of the Civil Code
 Article 2189 of the Civil Code constitutes a particular
governs liability due to "defective streets, public buildings
prescription making “provinces, cities and
and other public works" in particular and is therefore
municipalities . . . liable for damages for the death of, or
decisive on this specific case.
injury suffered by any person by reason” — specifically —
“of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,  What said article requires is that the province, city or
public buildings, and other-public works under their municipality has either "control or supervision" over the
control or supervision.” In other words, Article 2189 public building in question.
governs liability due to “defective streets,” in particular.  In the case at bar, there is no question that the Sta. Ana
Since the present action is based upon the alleged defective Public Market, despite the Management and Operating
condition of a road, said Article 2189 is decisive thereon. Contract between respondent City and Asiatic Integrated
 In its answer to the amended complaint, the City, in turn, Corporation remained under the control of the former.
alleged that “the streets aforementioned were and have  The contention of respondent City of Manila that petitioner
been constantly kept in good condition and regularly should not have ventured to go to Sta. Ana Public Market
inspected and the storm drains and manholes thereof during a stormy weather is indeed untenable
covered by the defendant City and the officers concerned”
who “have been ever vigilant and zealous in the  There is no argument that it is the duty of the City of
performance of their respective functions and duties as Manila to exercise reasonable care to keep the public
imposed upon them by law.” Thus, the City had, in effect, market reasonably safe for people frequenting the place for
admitted that P. Burgos Avenue was and their marketing needs.
is under its control and supervision. At any rate, under Principles:
Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary for the  Petitioner had the right to assume that there were no
liability therein established to attach that the defective openings in the middle of the passageways and if any, that
roads or streets belong to the province, city or municipality they were adequately covered. Had the opening been
from which responsibility is exacted. What said article covered, petitioner could not have fallen into it. Thus the
requires is that the province, city or municipality have negligence of the City of Manila is the proximate cause of
either “control or supervision” over said street or road. the injury suffered; the City is therefore liable for the
injury suffered by the petitioner.
 Jimenez [Link] of Manila (G.R. No. 71049, May
29, 1987)  Municipality of San Juan vs. CA (466 SCRA 78)
FACTS: FACTS:
 The evidence of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) shows that  Under a "Contract For Water Service
in the morning of August 15, 1974 he, together with his Connections"2 entered into by and between the
neighbors, went to Sta. Ana public market to buy Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS)
"bagoong" at the time when the public market was flooded and Kwok Cheung as sole proprietor of K.C. Waterworks
with ankle deep rainwater. System Construction (KC, for short), the former engaged
 After purchasing the "bagoong" he turned around to return the services of the latter to install water service
home but he stepped on an uncovered opening which could connections.
not be seen because of the dirty rainwater, causing a dirty  KC was given a Job Order by the South Sector Office of
and rusty four-inch nail, stuck inside the uncovered MWSS to conduct and effect excavations at the corner of
opening, to pierce the left leg of plaintiff-petitioner M. Paterno and Santolan Road, San Juan, Metro Manila, a
penetrating to... a depth of about one and a half inches. national road, for the laying of water pipes and tapping of
Issue: water to the respective houses of water concessionaires.
 The lone assignment of error raised in this petition is on  Meanwhile, between 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock in the
whether or not the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in evening of 31 May 1988, Priscilla Chan was driving her
not ruling that respondent City of Manila should be jointly Toyota Crown car with Plate No. PDK 991 at a speed of
and severally liable with Asiatic Integrated Corporation for thirty (30) kilometers per hour on the right side of Santolan
the injuries petitioner suffered. Road towards the direction of Pinaglabanan, San Juan,
Ruling: Metro Manila. With her on board the car and seated on the
right front seat was Assistant City Prosecutor Laura

Page 31 of 50
 Biglang-awa. The road was flooded as it was then raining
hard. Suddenly, the left front wheel of the car fell on a
 The LGU cannot be relieved of liability based on its
purported lack of knowledge of the excavation and the
manhole where the workers of KC had earlier made
condition of the road when the accident occurred. Its
excavations. According to this police officer, he did not
obligation to maintain the safe condition of the road
see any barricades at the scene when he arrived less than
within its territory is a continuing one which is not
an hour later. Biglang-awa filed before the Regional Trial
suspended while a street is being repaired.
Court at Pasig, Metro Manila a complaint for damages
against MWSS, the Municipality of San Juan and a number
57. Article 2190
of San Juan municipal officials. Later, Biglang-awa
amended her complaint twice. In her second amended
complaint, she included KC as one of the defendants. After Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is
due proceedings, the trial court rendered judgment in favor responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial
of Biglang-awa adjudging MWSS and the Municipality of collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
San Juan jointly and severally liable to her. Unable to
accept the judgment, both Biglang-awa and the Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages
Municipality of San Juan went to the Court of Appeals via caused:
ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court the
appellate court, in a decision dated 08 September 1995, (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not
affirmed with modification that of the trial court. been taken care of with due diligence, and the
Therefrom, petitioner Municipality of San Juan came to inflammation of explosive substances which have
this Court thru the present recourse.
not been kept in a safe and adequate place;
Issues:
 WON the Court shall limit itself to the liability or non- (2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to
liability of petitioner municipality for the injury sustained persons or property;
by Biglang-awa?
Ruling:
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near
 In denying liability for the subject accident, petitioner highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure;
essentially anchored its defense on two provisions of laws,
namely: (1) Section 149, [1][z] of Batas Pambansa Blg. (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
337, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of deposits of infectious matter, constructed without
1983; and (2) Section 8, Ordinance 82-01, of the precautions suitable to the place. (1908)
Metropolitan Manila Commission.
 Petitioner maintains that under Section 149, [1][z] of the Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles
Local Government Code,[6] it is obliged to provide for the should be the result of any defect in the construction
construction, improvement, repair and maintenance of only mentioned in Article 1723, the third person suffering
municipal streets, avenues, alleys, sidewalks, bridges, damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect
parks and other public places. Ergo, since Santolan Road is or contractor in accordance with said article, within the
concededly a national and not a municipal road, it cannot period therein fixed.
be held liable for the injuries suffered by Biglang-awa on
account of the accident that occurred on said road. Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a
Additionally, petitioner contends that under Section 8, part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things
Ordinance No. 82-01, of the Metropolitan Manila
thrown or falling from the same.
Commission, which reads: only the Project Engineer of
KC and MWSS can be held liable for the same accident. It
is argued, however, that under Section 149, [1][z] of the
Local Government Code, petitioner has control or  De Roy vs. CA 157 SCRA 757
supervision only over municipal and not national roads, Facts:
like Santolan Road. The firewall of a burned-out building owned by petitioners
 While it may be true that the Department of Public Works collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the
and Highways may have issued the requisite permit to the family of private respondents, resulting in injuries to private
Appellee KC and/or concessionaires for the excavation on respondents and the death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter.
said road, the Appellant San Juan is not thereby relieved of
Private respondents had been warned by petitioners to vacate
its liability to [Biglang-awa] for its own gross negligence.
their shop in view of its proximity to the weakened wall but
Indeed, Evangeline Alfonso, the witness for the Appellant
the former failed to do so.
San Juan unabashedly [sic] admitted, when she testified in
the Court a quo, that even if the Department of Public On appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto
Works and Highways failed to effect the requisite refilling, by the Court of Appeals in a decision promulgated on August
the Appellant San Juan was mandated to undertake the 17, 1987, copy of... which was received by petitioners on
necessary precautionary measures to avert accidents and August 25, 1987. On September 9, 1987, the last day of the
insure the safety of pedestrians and commuters. It must be fifteen-day period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion
borne in mind that the obligation of the [petitioner] to for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration,
maintain the safe condition of the road within its territory which was eventually denied by the appellate court in the
is a continuing one which is not suspended while a street is
being repaired nowhere can it be found in said Ordinance Resolution of September 30, 1987. Petitioners filed their
any provision exempting municipalities in Metro Manila motion for reconsideration on September 24, 1987, but this
from liabilities caused by their own negligent acts. was denied in the Resolution of October 27, 1987.
 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the Issues:
assailed decision of the appellate court AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioner. Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion in
affirming the trial court's decision

Page 32 of 50
Ruling:  RA 409 refers to liability arising from negligence;
whereas, Art. 2189 governs liability due to “defective
This Court likewise finds that the Court of Appeals committed streets” in particular.
no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court's  Article 2189 does not necessary imply that liability therein
decision holding petitioner liable under Article 2190 of the
established to attach that the defective roads or streets
Civil Code, which provides that "the proprietor of a building belong to the province, city, or municipality is exacted.
or structure is responsible for... the damage resulting from its
What said article requires is that the province, city or
total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of municipality has either “control or supervision” over said
necessary repairs."
street or road.
Nor was there error in rejecting petitioners' argument that  Thus the said Mayor, Municipal Boar or other officers are
private respondents had the "last clear chance" to avoid the not solidarily liable with the City of Manila.
accident if only they heeded the warning to vacate the  Petition denied and cost against City of Manila.
tailoring shop and, therefore, petitioners' prior negligence
should be disregarded, since the doctrine... of "last clear  Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. CA, 298
chance", which has been applied to vehicular accidents, is SCRA 495)
inapplicable to this case. FACTS:
 About 6am on August 28, 1979, Custodio boarded a
jeepney driven by Calebag and owned by Lamayo bound
Civil Law; Damages; Petitioner is liable under Article 2190 to Dynetics, Inc.(her workplace) in Taguig. While the
of the Civil Code for damages resulting from the total or jeepney was travelling a fast clip along DBP Ave, Bicutan,
partial collapse of a building if it should be due to the lack of another fast moving vehicle, Metro Manila Transit Corp.
necessary repairs.—This Court likewise finds that the Court (MMTC) driven by Leonardo and was negotiating
of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion in Honeydew Rd in Bicutan bound for its terminal at Bicutan.
affirming the trial court’s decision holding petitioner liable As both vehicles approached the intersection of DBP
under Article 2190 of the Civil Code, which provides that Avenue and Honeydew Road they failed to slow down and
“the proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for slacken their speed; neither did they blow their horns to
the damage resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it warn approaching vehicles. As a consequence, a collision
between them occurred, the jeepney ramming the left side
should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.”
portion of the MMTC bus. The collision impact caused
Custodio to hit the front windshield of the jeepney was
58. Article 2194 thrown out therefrom, falling onto the pavement
unconscious with serious physical injuries. She was
brought to the Medical City Hospital where she regained
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are
consciousness only after one (1) week. Thereat, she was
liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
confined for 24 days, and as a consequence, she was
unable to work for three and one half months.
 CITY OF MANILA,[Link] N. TEOTICO  A complaint for damages was filed subsequently by the
and COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. L-23052, January respondent who was a minor, assisted by her parents
29, 1968 following their refusal to pay the expenses incurred by
FACTS: (REPEATED CASE UNDER 2189) MMTC as a result of the collision.
 At about 8:00 in the evening, private respondent Genaro  At the RTC, MMTC presented its training officer and its
Teotico was at the corner of the Old Luneta and P. Burgos transport supervisor who respectively testified that it was
Avenue, Manila, within a loading and unloading zone, not only careful and diligent in choosing and
waiting for a jeepney when one came along to stop. As he screening applicants for job openings, but was
stepped down from the curb to board the jeepney and took also strict and diligent in supervising its
a few steps, he fell inside an uncovered and unlighted employees by seeing to it that its employees were
manhole. The fall caused Teotico’s head to hit the rim and in proper uniforms, briefed in traffic rules and
break his eyeglasses and the broken pieces thereof to regulations before the start of du ty, and that it
pierce his left eyelid. Respondent was then brought to PGH checked its employees to determine whether they
to be treated of his injuries. Respondent suffered were positive for alcohol and that they followed
contusions in various parts of his body and allergic other rules and regulations of the Bur eau of Land
eruptions caused by the anti-tetanus injections Transportation and of the company. RTC found both
administered to him required further medical treatment and drivers concurrently negligent. As joint tortfeasors, both
payment of these charges. Thus, respondent filed a drivers, as well as Lamayo(owner of the jeepney) were
complaint for damages against the City of Manila, its held solidarily liable for damages sustained by Custodio.
mayor, city engineer, city health officer, city treasurer and MMTC was absolved on the ground that it exercised
chief of police. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and
appeal, the City of Manila was sentenced to pay the supervising its employees.
damages.  The CA modified the RTC's decision by holding MMTC
solidarily liable with the other defendants for the damages
ISSUE: awarded by the trial court because of their concurrent
 Whether or not RA 409 of the Charter of Manila shall negligence, concluding that while there is no hard and fast
apply which provides that "to enforce the provisions of" rule as to what constitutes sufficient evidence to prove that
said Act "or any other law or ordinance, or from an employer has exercised the due diligence required of it
negligence" of the city "Mayor, Municipal Board, or other in the selection and supervision of its employees, based on
officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said the quantum of evidence adduced the said appellate court
provisions." or Article 2189 of NCC shall apply? was not disposed to say that MMTC had exercised the
diligence required of a good father of a family in the
RULING: selection and supervision of its driver. 
 Art. 2189 shall apply.
ISSUE:
 WON MMTC exercise due diligence?
Page 33 of 50
 Should it be held solidarily liable with the other  In the case of De Leon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Court of
defendants. Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-15247, February 28, 1962, it
was held that in quasi-delict, the bus operator is solidarily
RULING: liable with the bus driver in view of article 2194 of the
 No. Petitioner's attempt to prove its diligentissimi patris Civil Code which provides:
familias(diligence of a good father of the family) in the "The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable
selection and supervision of employees through oral for a quasi-delict is solidary.”
evidence must fail as it was unable to buttress the same  This article (drafted by Code Commissioner Capistrano)
with any other evidence, object or documentary, which merely restates the basic rule in American law that joint
might obviate the apparent biased nature of the testimony. tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort. In
 Yes. It is within Article 2176 and 2177, in relation to the case of a quasi-delict committed by a bus driver, he
Article 2180, of the Civil Code provisions on quasi- alone is the tort-feasor; the bus operator is not a joint tort-
delicts as all the elements thereof are present, to wit: (1) feasor. For this reason the liability of the bus operator is
damages suffered by the plaintiff, (2) fault or negligence of not governed by Article 2194 but by Article 2180.
the defendant or some other person for whose act he must  Joint tort-feasors in American law are the same as co-
respond, and (3) the connection of cause and effect authors or co-principals of a quasi-delict in the civil law,
between fault or negligence of the defendant and the and it is only to them that Article 2194 is applicable. A bus
damages incurred by plaintiff.  operator is not a co-author or co-principal of the tort
[from the book of Aquino] committed by its bus driver; hence, it cannot be made
 Thus, in Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of solidarily liable with the bus driver under Article 2194. Its
Appeals (298 SCRA495, 515 [1998]) the Supreme Court liability is that of an employer under Article 2180, with
reversed the ruling of the trial court in so far as it made the right to full reimbursement under Article 2181.
employer primarily liable and the employee secondarily  To make the bus operator solidarily liable with the driver
liable. The Court explained: would diminish its right to full reimbursement from the
“As already stated, MMTC is primarily liable for damages driver because in passive solidarity, the solidary debtors
for the negligence of its employee in view of Art. 2180. share equally in the obligation (Article 1208, Civil Code).
Pursuant to Art. 2181, it can recover from its employee Consequently, if the bus operator's liability were solidary,
what it may pay. This does not make the employee’s in the event of full payment by it of the obligation, its right
liability subsidiary. It only means that if the judgment for to reimbursement from the bus driver would only be of
damages is satisfied by the common carrier, the latter has a one-half of the obligation because its share of the solidary
right to recover what it has paid from its employee who obligation would be one-half. This would result in
committed the fault or negligence which gave rise to the reducing by one-half its right to full reimbursement under
action based on quasi-delict. [See Philtranco Service En- Article 2181.
terprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 562 (1997)]  The prayer for solidary liability in the complaint against
Hence, the spouses Rosales have the option of enforcing the defendants Felardo Paje and the Victory Liner
the judgment against either MMTC or Musa. Transportation Co. Inc., considering the complaint as
 “From another point of view, Art. 2194 provides that “the based upon criminal negligence, is likewise not in the
responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a accordance with law. In crime committed by an employee
quasi-delict is solidary.” within the scope of his duties, the employer's liability is
subsidiary, not solidary, in accordance with Article 103 of
 Corpus vs. Paje, 28 SCRA 1062 the Revised Penal Code which provides:.
FACTS:  ART. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. —
 December 23, 1956 in Lubao, Pampanga, the passenger The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding
bus driven by Felardo Paje collided with the jeep driven by article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and
Clemente Marcia resulting to Clemente’s death and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
physical injuries to two other persons.  committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices,
 A case was filed against Paje in the CFI of Pampanga for or employees in the discharge of their duties.
homicide and double serious physical injuries through
reckless imprudence.   Lafarge Cement Philippines, Inc. vs. Continental
 On November 7, 1960, Paje was found guilty but he Cement Corporation, 443 SCRA 522)
appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of FACTS:
Appeals (CA). —On November 21, 1961, while Paje’s
appeal was pending decision in the CA, Corpus instituted  Letter of Intent (LOI) executed by both parties on August
in the CFI of Rizal a separate civil action (Civil Case No. 11, 1998, whereby Petitioner Lafarge Cement Philippines,
6880) for damages based upon the criminal act of reckless Inc. (Lafarge) -- on behalf of its affiliates and other
imprudence against Paje & Victory Liner Transportation qualified entities, including Petitioner Luzon Continental
Co., Inc.  Land Corporation (LCLC) -- agreed to purchase the
 Corpus was claiming that the defendants be ordered to pay cement business of Respondent Continental Cement
jointly and separately the amounts of damages.  Corporation (CCC). On October 21, 1998, both parties
 On November 9, 1962, CA promulgated its decision in the entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). At the
appeal of Paje reversing the appealed judgement and time of the foregoing transactions, petitioners were well
acquitting him after finding that the reckless imprudence aware that CCC had a case pending with the Supreme
charged against him did not exist, and that the collision Court. The case was docketed as GR No. 119712, entitled
was a case of pure accident.  Asset Privatization Trust (APT) v. Court of Appeals and
 On December 29, 1962, Paje & Victory Liner filed in the Continental Cement Corporation.
civil action a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
action was barred by the acquittal by the CA but the  In anticipation of the liability that the High Tribunal might
motion was denied. adjudge against CCC, the parties, under Clause 2 (c) of the
ISSUE: SPA, allegedly agreed to retain from the purchase price a
 WON Victory Liner be held solidarily liable with Paje as portion of the contract price in the amount of
to the Criminal Complaint? NO. P117,020,846.84 -- the equivalent of US$2,799,140. This
RULING: amount was to be deposited in an interest-bearing account
Page 34 of 50
 in the First National City Bank of New York (Citibank) for  The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable
payment to APT, the petitioner in GR No. 119712 for quasi-delict is solidary (NCC, Art. 2194). Each are
liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same
 However, petitioners allegedly refused to apply the sum to manner as if they had performed the wrongful act
the payment to APT, despite the subsequent finality of the themselves (Ruks Konsult and Construction v. Adworld
Decision in GR No. 119712 in favor of the latter and the Sign and Advertising Corp., G.R. No. 204866, January 21,
repeated instructions of Respondent CCC. Fearful that 2015).
non-payment to APT would result in the foreclosure, not
just of its properties covered by the SPA with Lafarge but  Example: A bus operator is not a co-author or co-principal
of several other properties as well, CCC filed before the of the tort committed by its bus driver; hence, it cannot be
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on June 20, 2000, a made solidarily liable with the bus driver under Article
"Complaint with Application for Preliminary Attachment" 2194. Its liability is that of an employer under Article
against petitioners. Docketed as Civil Case No. Q-00- 2180, with right to full reimbursement under Article 2181.
41103, the Complaint prayed, among others, that
petitioners be directed to pay the "APT Retained Amount"  Filipinas Broadcasting Network Inc. vs. Ago
referred to in Clause 2 (c) of the SPA. Medical and Educational Center- Bicol Christian College of
 Petitioners alleged that CCC, through Lim and Mariano, Medicine (448 SCRA 413)
had filed the "baseless" Complaint in Civil Case No. Q-00- FACTS:
41103 and procured the Writ of Attachment in bad faith.  “Exposé” is a radio documentary program hosted by
Relying on this Court's pronouncement in Sapugay v. Carmelo ‘Mel’ Rima (“Rima”) and Hermogenes ‘Jun’
CA,5 petitioners prayed that both Lim and Mariano be held Alegre (“Alegre”). Exposé is aired every morning over
"jointly and solidarily" liable with Respondent CCC. DZRC-AM which is owned by Filipinas Broadcasting
Issue: Network, Inc. (“FBNI”). “Exposé” is heard over Legazpi
 WON CCC, Lim and Mariano are solidarily liable? City, the Albay municipalities and other Bicol areas. In the
RULING: morning of 14 and 15 December 1989, Rima and Alegre
 Yes. exposed various alleged complaints from students, teachers
 Obligations may be classified as either joint or solidary. and parents against Ago Medical and Educational Center-
"Joint" or "jointly" or "conjoint" means mancum or Bicol Christian College of Medicine (“AMEC”) and its
mancomunada or pro rata obligation; on the other hand, administrators. Claiming that the broadcasts were
"solidary obligations" may be used interchangeably with defamatory, AMEC and Angelita Ago (“Ago”), as Dean of
"joint and several" or "several." Thus, petitioners' usage of AMEC’s College of Medicine, filed a complaint for
the term "joint and solidary" is confusing and ambiguous. damages against FBNI, Rima and Alegre on 27 February
 The ambiguity in petitioners' counterclaims 1990.
notwithstanding, respondents' liability, if proven, is  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment
solidary. This characterization finds basis in Article 1207 with modification. The appellate court made Rima
of the Civil Code, which provides that obligations are solidarily liable with FBNI and Alegre. The appellate court
generally considered joint, except when otherwise denied Ago’s claim for damages and attorney’s fees
expressly stated or when the law or the nature of the because the broadcasts were directed against AMEC, and
obligation requires solidarity. However, obligations arising not against her. FBNI, Rima and Alegre filed a motion for
from tort are, by their nature, always solidary. reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied in its
 The solidary character of respondents' alleged liability is 26 January 2000 Resolution. Hence, FBNI filed the
precisely why credence cannot be given to petitioners' petition for review.
assertion. According to such assertion, Respondent CCC Issue:
cannot move to dismiss the counterclaims on grounds that   WON FBNI is solidarily liable with Rima and Alegre?
pertain solely to its individual [Link] cases filed by YES.
the creditor, a solidary debtor may invoke defenses arising Ruling:
from the nature of the obligation, from circumstances  The basis of the present action is a tort. Joint tort feasors
personal to it, or even from those personal to its co- are jointly and severally liable for the tort which they
debtors. commit. Joint tort feasors are all the persons who
 Therefore, respondent CCC or any of the three solidary command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise,
debtors (CCC, Lim or Mariano) may include, in a Motion countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a
to Dismiss, defenses available to their co-defendants; tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their
nevertheless, the same Motion cannot be deemed to have benefit. Thus, AMEC correctly anchored its cause of
been filed on behalf of the said co-defendants. Petition action against FBNI on Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil
granted. Code.1a\^/[Link]
 As operator of DZRC-AM and employer of Rima and
59. What is “Joint Tortfeasors”? Alegre, FBNI is solidarily liable to pay for damages arising
 Joint tort-feasors in American law are the same as co- from the libelous broadcasts. As stated by the Court of
authors or co-principals of a quasi-delict in the civil law, Appeals, "recovery for defamatory statements published by
and it is only to them that Article 2194 is applicable. radio or television may be had from the owner of the
 Two or more persons who act together in committing a station, a licensee, the operator of the station, or a
wrong, or contribute to its commission, or assist or person who procures, or participates in, the making of the
participate therein actively and with common intent, so defamatory statements." An employer and employee are
that injury results to a third person from the joint wrongful solidarily liable for a defamatory statement by the
act of the wrongdoers (De Leon, 2012). employee within the course and scope of his or her
employment, at least when the employer authorizes or
Test for Joint Tortfeasors ratifies the defamation. In this case, Rima and Alegre were
clearly performing their official duties as hosts of FBNI’s
 Whether the plaintiff has a single cause of action against
radio program Exposé when they aired the broadcasts.
such tortfeasors, or whether he has only several causes of
FBNI neither alleged nor proved that Rima and Alegre
action against each of them.
went beyond the scope of their work at that time. There
Liability of Joint Tortfeasors
Page 35 of 50
 was likewise no showing that FBNI did not authorize and  [O]bligations arising from tort are, by their nature, always
ratify the defamatory broadcasts. solidary. We have assiduously maintained this legal
 Moreover, there is insufficient evidence on record that principle as early as 1912 in Worcester v. Ocampo, in
FBNI exercised due diligence in which we held:
the selection and supervision of its employees,  x x x The difficulty in the contention of the appellants is
particularly Rima and Alegre. FBNI merely showed that it that they fail to recognize that the basis of the present
exercised diligence in the selection of its broadcasters action is tort. They fail to recognize the universal doctrine
without introducing any evidence to prove that it observed that each joint tort feasor is not only individually liable for
the same diligence in the supervision of Rima and Alegre. the tort in which he participates, but is also jointly liable
FBNI did not show how it exercised diligence in with his tort feasors. x x x
supervising its broadcasters.  It may be stated as a general rule that joint tort feasors are
all the persons who command, instigate, promote,
 Ngo Sin Sing vs. Li Seng Giap & Sons, Inc. 572 encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet
SCRA 625) the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is
FACTS: done, if done for their benefit. They are each liable as
 Petitioner spouses Ngo Sin Sing and Ticia Dy Ngo owned principals, to the same extent and in the same manner as if
a lot. They decided to construct a 5-storeyconcrete they had performed the wrongful act themselves. x x x
building thereon, the NSS Building, and for this project,  Joint tort feasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort
they contracted the services of Contech Construction which they commit. The persons injured may sue all of
Technology Development Corporation (Contech) as their them or any number less than all. Each is liable for the
General Contractor. Adjacent to their lot is a semi- whole damages caused by all, and all together are jointly
concrete building known as the Li Seng Giap liable for the whole damage. It is no defense for one sued
Building(LSG Building), owned by Li Seng Giap & Sons, alone, that the others who participated in the wrongful act
Inc. (respondent). During the construction of the NSS are not joined with him as defendants; nor is it any excuse
Building, the respondent, through its general manager, for him that his participation in the tort was insignificant as
John T. Lee, received complaints from their tenants about compared to that of the others. x x x
defects in the building. There were cracks appearing on the  Joint tort feasors are not liable pro rata. The damages can
floors, the steel door was bent, and concrete slabs of the not be apportioned among them, except among themselves.
walls were falling apart. They cannot insist upon an apportionment, for the purpose
 An inspection of the premises revealed that the excavation of each paying an aliquot part. They are jointly and
made by Contech on petitioners' land was close to the severally liable for the whole amount. x x x
common boundary, exposing the foundation of the LSG  A payment in full for the damage done, by one of the joint
Building. As a gesture of goodwill to their neighbors, the tort feasors, of course satisfies any claim which might exist
petitioners assured the respondent that repairs would be against the others. There can be but satisfaction. The
undertaken by their contractor. In December 1979, release of one of the joint tort feasors by agreement
Contech announced that it had completed repairs on the generally operates to discharge all. x x x
LSG Building.  Of course, the court during trial may find that some of the
 Notwithstanding this assurance, more defects in the LSG alleged tort feasors are liable and that others are not liable.
Building appeared, i.e., tilted floors, cracks in the columns The courts may release some for lack of evidence while
and beams, distorted window frames. Apparently, the LSG condemning others of the alleged tort feasors. And this is
Building was continuously sagging and the respondent felt true even though they are charged jointly and severally.31
that it was no longer safe to occupy the building.
Respondents as owner of LSG Building demanded that  Prescinding from the above, there is basis to re-examine
petitioner should handle the cost of rebuilding the said the court's disposition in this case as to the liability of the
building. the latter refused hence a case was filed. It was petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered (1) holding
decided against the petitioner. On appeal petitioner, the petitioner and Contech jointly and severally liable, and
pleaded that its liability be tempered since the owner of (2) giving the right to the petitioner to be reimbursed for
LSG was also contributorily negligent. whatever amount it shall pay the respondent.32
 CA ruled that the respondent had a proven cause of action  In Citytrust Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,33 the
against the petitioners; that respondent's right to property Court stated that a judgment may determine the ultimate
was invaded or disturbed when excavation was done rights of the parties on the same side as between
without sufficient lateral or subjacent support. As such, the themselves, such that questions of primary and secondary
petitioners' liability as project owner should be shared with liability between joint tort-feasors may be determined.
the contractor, applying the provisions of Article 2194 of Such judgment does not make the "co-defendants"
the Civil Code which states that "the responsibility of two adversaries. It permits only the determination of questions
or more persons for a quasi-delict is solidary."10 The CA of primary and secondary liability between joint tort-
refuted the findings of the trial court imputing contributory feasors.34
negligence to the respondents Li Seng Giap & Sons, Inc.,  Petition granted.
and ruled that the spouses Ngo Sin Sing and Ticia Dy Ngo
together with Contech, were solidarily liable for the whole  Tiu vs. Arriesgado (437 SCRA 426)
amount. FACTS:
Issue:  At about 10:00 p.m. of March 15, 1987, the cargo truck
 WON Ngo Sin Sing, et al. and Contech are jointly liable? marked "Condor Hollow Blocks and General
Ruling: Merchandise" bearing plate number GBP-675 was loaded
 For the damage caused to the respondent, petitioners and with firewood in Bogo, Cebu and left for Cebu City. Upon
Contech are jointly liable as they are joint tort-feasors. reaching Sitio Aggies, Poblacion, Compostela, Cebu, just
Conformably with Article 2194, the responsibility of two as the truck passed over a bridge, one of its rear tires
or more persons who are liable for the quasi-delict is exploded. The driver, Sergio Pedrano, then parked along
solidary.29 In Lafarge Cement Philippines, Inc. v. the right side of the national highway and removed the
Continental Cement Corporation,30 the Court had the damaged tire to have it vulcanized at a nearby shop, about
occasion to explain: 700 meters away. Pedrano left his helper, Jose Mitante, Jr.
to keep watch over the stalled vehicle, and instructed the

Page 36 of 50
 latter to place a spare tire six fathoms away behind the
stalled truck to serve as a warning for oncoming vehicles.
The trucks tail lights were also left on. It was about 12:00
a.m., March 16, 1987. 
 At about 4:45 a.m., D Rough Riders passenger bus with
plate number PBP-724 driven by Virgilio Te Laspiñas was
cruising along the national highway of Sitio Aggies,
Poblacion, Compostela, Cebu. The passenger bus was also
bound for Cebu City, and had come from Maya,
Daanbantayan, Cebu. Among its passengers were the
Spouses Pedro A. Arriesgado and Felisa Pepito
Arriesgado, who were seated at the right side of the bus,
about three (3) or four (4) places from the front seat. 
 As the bus was approaching the bridge, Laspiñas saw the
stalled truck, which was then about 25 meters away. He
applied the breaks and tried to swerve to the left to avoid
hitting the truck. But it was too late; the bus rammed into
the trucks left rear. The impact damaged the right side of
the bus and left several passengers injured. Pedro
Arriesgado lost consciousness and suffered a fracture in his
right colles. His wife, Felisa, was brought to the Danao
City Hospital. She was later transferred to the Southern
Island Medical Center where she died shortly thereafter. 
 Respondent Pedro A. Arriesgado then filed a complaint for
breach of contract of carriage, damages and attorneys fees
before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 20,
against the petitioners, D Rough Riders bus operator
William Tiu and his driver, Virgilio Te Laspiñas on May
27, 1987. The respondent alleged that the passenger bus in
question was cruising at a fast and high speed along the
national road, and that petitioner Laspiñas did not take
precautionary measures to avoid the accident. 
Issue:
 WON the third party defendants are jointly and severally
liable directly to plaintiff-appellee or to defendants-
appellants for whatever liability that may be adjudged to
the said defendants-appellants?
Ruling:
 The petitioners, as well as the respondents Benjamin
Condor and Sergio Pedrano are jointly and severally liable
for said amount, conformably with the following
pronouncement of the Court in Fabre, Jr. vs. Court of
Appeals:
 The same rule of liability was applied in situations where
the negligence of the driver of the bus on which plaintiff
was riding concurred with the negligence of a third party
who was the driver of another vehicle, thus causing an
accident. In Anuran v. Buño, Batangas Laguna Tayabas
Bus Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, and Metro
Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the bus
company, its driver, the operator of the other vehicle and
the driver of the vehicle were jointly and severally held
liable to the injured passenger or the latter’s heirs. The
basis of this allocation of liability was explained in Viluan
v. Court of Appeals, thus:
 "Nor should it make difference that the liability of
petitioner [bus owner] springs from contract while that of
respondents [owner and driver of other vehicle] arises from
quasi-delict. As early as 1913, we already ruled in
Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, 56 Phil. 177, that in case of injury
to a passenger due to the negligence of the driver of the
bus on which he was riding and of the driver of another
vehicle, the drivers as well as the owners of the two
vehicles are jointly and severally liable for damages. Some
members of the Court, though, are of the view that under
the circumstances they are liable on quasi-delict."

Page 37 of 50
  Where the case is one of damnum absque injuria, the
conjunction of damages and wrong is absent there can be
no actionable wrong if either one or the other is wanting.
Thus, if the damage resulted because a person exercised
his legal rights (like the filing of a Complaint in good
faith) it is damnum absque injura.
 In Custodio vs. Court of Appeals, Justice Florenz D.
Regalado explained the difference between damage and
injury. He explained that mere damage without injury does
not result in liability.
 Related to such rule is the maxim qui jure suo utitur
nullum damnum facit — one who exercises a right does
no injury. This maxim is often applied to cases where the
Court rejects claims for damages of the winning defendant
in a case. The Court often reiterates the rule that the
adverse result of an action does not per se make the action
wrongful and subject the actor to payment of damages.
(Saba vs. Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 50 [1990]).

Art. 2196. The rules under this Title are without prejudice
to special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in
this Code. Compensation for workmen and other
employees in case of death, injury or illness is regulated by
[DAMAGES] special laws. Rules governing damages laid down in other
laws shall be observed insofar as they are not in conflict
Title XVIII. - DAMAGES with this Code.
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS Art. 2197. Damages may be: (AMNTLE) or (MANTEL)

Art. 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively (1) Actual or compensatory;
applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article 1157. (2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
 “Damage” has been defined by Escriche as “the detriment, (4) Temperate or moderate;
injury, or loss which are occasioned by reason of fault of (5) Liquidated; or
another in the property or person.” (Escriche, Diccionario (6) Exemplary or corrective.
Razonado de Legislacion y Jurisprudencia, vol. 2, p. 597).
Of whatsoever nature the damage be, and from whatsoever Art. 2198. The principles of the general law on damages
cause it may proceed, the person who has done the injury are hereby adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent
ought to repair it by an indemnity proportionate to his fault with this Code.
and to the loss caused thereby. (1 Cushing, Domat’s Civil  
Law, p. 741, cited in Simona Manzanares vs. Rafael CHAPTER 2
Moreta, G.R. No. 12306, October 22, 1918). ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

 The Supreme Court defined the word “damages” in one Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one
case as the pecuniary compensation, recompense, or is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such
satisfaction for an injury sustained, or as otherwise pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such
expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory
imposes for the breach of some duty or violation of some damages.
rights. (People vs. Ballesteros, 285 SCRA 438, 448
[1998]). NOTE:
 A complaint for damages is a personal action and may be  “The purpose of the law in awarding actual damages is to
commenced and tried where the defendant or any of the repair the wrong that has been done, to compensate for the
defendant resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff injury inflicted, and not to impose a penalty. Actual
or any of the plaintiffs resides at the election of the damages are not dependent on nor graded by the intent
plaintiff. (Baritua vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 331 with which the wrongful act is done.” (Field vs. Munster,
[1997]). 11 Tex. Civ. Appl., 341, 32 S. W., 417).
 “The words ‘actual damages’ shall be construed to include
 In actions for damages, courts should award an amount to all damages that the plaintiff may show he has suffered in
the winning party and not its equivalent in property. The respect to his property, business, trade, profession, or
damages that should be awarded should be the money occupation, and no other damages whatever.”
value of such damages. In one case, the plaintiffs were  ‘Compensatory damages’ as indicated by the word
ordered “jointly and solidarily liable to defendants the employed to characterize them, simply make good or
quantity of one hundred (100) cavans of palay every year replace the loss caused by the wrong. They proceed from a
from 1972.” The Supreme Court deleted such award sense of natural justice, and are designed to repair that of
explaining that one hundred (100) cavans of palay as a which one has been deprived by the wrong of another.”
form of damages cannot be sustained because palay is not  “‘Compensatory damages’ are such as are awarded to
legal currency in the Philippines (Heirs of Simeon Borlado compensate the injured party for injury caused by the
v. Court of Damages, 363 SCRA 753, 757). wrong, and must be only such as make just and fair
compensation, and are due when the wrong is established,
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA whether it was committed maliciously — that is, with evil
 “There is no liability even if there is damage because there intention — or not.” (Wimer vs. Allbaugh)
was no injury” Or “Loss or damage without injury”.
Page 38 of 50
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend PERSONAL INJURY AND DEATH
not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the  If the plaintiff is asking for damages for his own injury or
profits which the obligee failed to obtain. (1106) for the death of his relative, said plaintiff is entitled to the
amount of medical expenses as well as other reasonable
TWO (2) CLASSIFICATIONS OF ACTUAL OR expenses that he incurred to treat his or his relative’s
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES: injuries. Courts may also award monthly payments to the
1) The loss fo what a person already possesses (daño person who was injured to answer for his future medical
emergente); and expenses.
2) The failure to receive as a benefit that would have  Thus, in Rogelio E. Ramos, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et
pertained to him (lucro cesante). al. (G.R. No. 124354, December 29, 1999) the Court
sustained the award of monthly compensation of P8,000.00
NOTE: LUCRO CESANTE includes those mentioned in to answer for the medical expenses that will be incurred by
Article 2205, NCC. a comatose victim of the negligent act of the defendants.
The Court even awarded temper ate damages to
EXTENT AND MEASURE OF DAMAGES compensate for the increase in cost of such medical
 The Civil Code expressly provides for the rule regarding expenses through time.
the limit of liability in cases involving quasi-delicts. (See  In proper cases, the award of damages may likewise
Chapter 5). The extent of recovery is likewise expressly include the amount spent for the plastic surgery of the
provided for in case of contractual breach. Thus, Articles plaintiff or any procedure to restore the part of the body
2201 and 2202 provide: that was affected. (Gatchalian vs. Delim, 203 SCRA 126;
Spouses Renato Ong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages 117103, January 21, 1999).
for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall  In case of death, the plaintiff is entitled to the amount that
be those that are the natural and probable consequences of he spent during the wake and funeral of the deceased.
the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have However, it has been ruled that expenses after the burial
foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the are not compensable. The heirs are not entitled to an award
obligation was constituted. of damages for the expenses incurred relating to the 9th
day, 40th day and 1st year death anniversaries (Victory
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the Liner, Inc. v. Heirs of Andres Malecdan, No. 154278,
obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be December 27, 2002; People v. Mangahas, 311 SCRA 384
reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the [1999]).
obligation. (1107a)
NOTE: The damages that may be awarded for death caused
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall by a crime or quasi-delict include the following, as provided
be liable for all damages which are the natural and under Art. 2206, NCC:
probable consequences of the act or omission complained
of. It is not necessary that such damages have been Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a
foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos,
defendant. even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:
NOTE:
 It should be emphasized that the rule in crimes and quasi- (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the
delicts is the same as the rule in breach of contracts and earning capacity of the deceased, and the
quasi-contracts where the breach was accompanied by indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter;
fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude on the part of such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and
the obligor. awarded by the court, unless the deceased on
 The basic principle for the measure of damages in tort is account of permanent physical disability not
that there should be RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM or caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity
RESTORATION TO ORIGINAL CONDITION. The at the time of his death;
amount to be awarded to the plaintiff should be that sum of
money which will put the party who has been injured or (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support
who has suffered in the same position as he would have according to the provisions of Article 291, the
been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is recipient who is not an heir called to the
now getting his compensation or reparation. (Winfield and decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
Jolowich, p. 757). intestate succession, may demand support from
the person causing the death, for a period not
Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed
the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the by the court;
damages resulting from the act or omission in question.
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may descendants and ascendants of the deceased may
be respectively increased or lessened according to the demand moral damages for mental anguish by
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. reason of the death of the deceased.

Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered: Fixed Damages

 The law also requires payment of the amount of P3,000.00
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in to the heirs of the deceased. The fixed amount of three
cases of temporary or permanent personal injury; thousand pesos (P3,000) is in addition to any damage that
may have resulted because the act or omission of the
(2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing defendant including medical expenses and loss of earning
or commercial credit. capacity. It should be noted, however that the Supreme

Page 39 of 50
 Court had repeatedly increased the amount of indemnity  Mere testimonies unsupported by documentary evidence
from three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) in order to reflect were accepted in some cases because of the nature of the
the current value of currency and prevailing inflation. The work of the deceased. Thus, testimonial evidence was
current amount of fixed damages as increased by the Court deemed sufficient in People v. Pedro Perreras (G.R. No.
is P50,000.00. (Gregorio Pestano et al. v. Spouses Paz, 139622, July 31, 2001)
G.R. No. 139875, December 4, 2000, 346 SCRA 870).  A self-employed tricycle driver cannot likewise be
expected to present documentary evidence and proof of his
Loss of Earning Capacity. income must necessarily be testimonial (People v. Leonilo
 The Supreme Court observed in the said case that the Villarba, G.R. No. 132784, October 30, 2000).
important variables taken into account in determining the  Therefore, the heirs can recover despite the non-
compensable amount of lost earnings are: availability of documentary evidence if there is testimony
1. The number of years for which the victim would that: (a) the victim was self-employed earning less than the
otherwise have lived (life expectancy); and minimum wage under the current labor laws and judicial
2. The rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the deceased notice was taken of the fact that in the victim’s line of
(net income). work, no documentary evidence is available; and (b) the
 Formula to be used: victim was employed as a daily wage worker earning less
than the minimum wage under the current labor laws
Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual (People v. Muyco, 331 SCRA 192 [1999]; People v. Dindo
Income – Necessary Living Expenses] Pajotal, et al, G.R. No. 142870, November 14, 2001).

Living Expenses
Life Expectancy  The amount of the living expenses must also be established
 Life Expectancy is computed by applying the formula (2/3 to determine the net earnings. However, the Supreme
x [80 — age at death]) adopted in the American Court has consistently ruled that, the amount thereof is
Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial Combined fixed at fifty percent (50%) of the gross income in the
Experience Table of Mortality. absence of proof of the amount of living expenses to be
 For example, in a case (People v. Galvez, 355 SCRA 266 deducted from the gross income.
[2001] See also Pleyto v. Lomboy, No. 14737, June 16,  While an amount less than fifty percent (50%) of the gross
2004) where it was established that the deceased was 21 income may indeed be the actual living expenses of the
years old at the time of his death and was working as a deceased, courts cannot use a lesser amount in the absence
construction worker five days a week earning P150.00 per of proof thereof or in the absence of other circumstances
day, the Supreme Court computed the victim’s lost earning that would justify the reduction of the living expenses
capacity as follows: (Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corporation v.
Catalino Borja, et al., ibid.).
2/3 x [80-21 (age of the victim at time of death)] = 39.33 Non-Working Victims
 In a number of cases, the Supreme Court recognized the
P150 (daily wage) x 261 (number of working days in a year)
entitlement of the heirs of the deceased for loss of earning
= P39,150.00 (gross annual salary)
capacity of the deceased even if the said deceased was not
working at the time of the accident. What is important is
P39,150.00 x .50 (allocation for living expenses) =
that there is proof of loss of earning capacity and not
P19,575.00 (net income)
necessarily actual loss of income.
 Thus, the heirs of the deceased may still be entitled to
39.33 x P19,575.00 = P769,884.75 (loss of earning capacity)
damages even if the actual income of the latter as a farmer
was not duly established so long as there is indication that
the said deceased had earning capacity at the time of his
Net Earnings
death (People of the Philippines v. Elger Guzman, G.R.
 It has been explained by the Supreme Court in cases that it No. 132750, December 14, 2001).
is not the net monthly income that is actually received by
 In Metro Manila Transit Corporation et al. v. Court of
the deceased that will serve as basis of the computation.
Appeals et al. (G.R. Nos. 116617/126395, November 16,
The proper computation should be based on the gross
1998), the Supreme Court awarded damages in favor of the
income of the victim minus the necessary and incidental
plaintiffs for the death of their non-working minor child
living expenses which the victim would have incurred if he
who was killed because of the negligent driving of a bus
were alive (People v. Arnel Mataro, et al., G.R. No.
driver. The Supreme Court used the minimum wage for
130378, March 8, 2001, 354 SCRA 27, 38-39; People v.
non-agricultural workers in computing the net earnings.
Nullan, 305 SCRA 679, 706-707 [1999]).
 Needless to state, sufficient evidence should be presented The Court explained:
by the plaintiff to establish the net earnings of the
deceased. In this connection, it was ruled that the payroll  Compensation for Loss of Earning Capacity. Art. 2206 of
of companies and the Income Tax Returns constitute the the Civil Code provides that in addition to the indemnity
best evidence of the salary of the deceased (Phil. Airlines, for death caused by a crime or quasi delict, the “defendant
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 110 [1990]). shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the
 There were instances when proof of income of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of
deceased was an issue that the Supreme Court required the latter; . . . .” Compensation of this nature is awarded
unbiased proof of the average income of the deceased not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to earn
(People v. Agapito Listerio, G.R. No. 122099, July 5, money. [People v. Teehankee, 249 SCRA 54, 118 (1995)]
2000; People v. Sanchez, 313 SCRA 694 [1999]. Evidence must be presented that the victim, if not yet
 The Court rejects mere estimates and bare testimonies as employed at the time of death, was reasonably certain to
proof of such income even if the testimony was given by complete training for a specific profession. [E.g., Cariaga
the widow (See: People v. Efren Mindanao, G.R. No. v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, 110 Phil. 346 (1960)] In
123095, July 6, 2000). People v. Teehankee, [249 SCRA 54, 118-119 (1995)] no
award of compensation for loss of earning capacity was

Page 40 of 50
 granted to the heirs of a college freshman because there life expectancy based on the 1980 Commissioner’s
was no sufficient evidence on record to show that the Standard Ord. Mortality Table. The formula states:
victim would eventually become a professional pilot.
[Supra note 35, at 119.] But compensation should be Σ (Lx + 1, Lx + 2, . . . Lx + n), where
allowed for loss of earning capacity resulting from the n = 100 – x
death of a minor who has not yet commenced employment
or training for a specific profession if sufficient evidence is x = age upon death
presented to establish the amount thereof. L = number of people surviving after number of years
 The case cited by the Supreme Court in the above-quoted
case, Edgardo Cariaga et al. v. Laguna Tayabas Bus  Justice Feliciano explained that the formula adopted in
Company (G.R. No. L-11037, December 29, 1960), Villa-Rey is already obsolete because it was based on the
involved a victim who was a student studying medicine. prevailing situation in the 1970s.
The negligence of the bus driver caused physical injuries  However, the proposed formula of Justice Feliciano did
to the student, and as a result, he became virtually invalid not gain acceptance in subsequent cases and the Supreme
physically and mentally. The Supreme Court sustained the Court reverted to the Villa-Rey formula in the cases that it
award of compensatory damages explaining that the decided after People vs. Guercindo Quilaton was
income which the student could earn if he should finish the promulgated.
medical course and pass the corresponding board
examinations must be deemed to be within the same Inflation and Reduction to Present Worth
category as the actual damages for medical expenses and
 A basic rule in American law is that the award in favor of
the like because they could have reasonably been foreseen
the plaintiff should be reduced to its present worth. Thus,
by the parties at the time he boarded the bus owned and
the total amount of actual income of the deceased up to the
operated by the respondent bus company. The Court
time of his death will not be all given to the plaintiff.
explained: “At that time he was already a fourth-year
 The aim is to provide a lump sum sufficient, if invested, to
student in medicine in a reputable university. While his
produce an income equal to the lost income when the
scholastic record may not be first rate (Exhibits 4, 4-A to
interest is supplemented by withdrawal of capital.
4-C), it is, nevertheless, sufficient to justify the assumption
that he could have finished the course and would have  It was also observed that the object of discounting lost
passed the board test in due time. As regards the income future wages to present value is to give the plaintiff an
that he could possibly earn as a medical practitioner, it amount of money which, invested safely, will grow to a
appears that, according to Dr. Amado Doria, a witness for sum equal to wages. (O’Shea vs. Riverway Towing Co.,
the LTB, the amount of P300.00 could easily be expected 677 F. 2d 1194, 7th Circuit, [1982]).
as the minimum monthly income of Edgardo had he
finished his studies.” Permanent Incapacity
 In People of the Philippines v. Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez  The plaintiff is also entitled to damages for loss of earning
et al. (G.R. Nos. 121039-45, October 18, 2001), the capacity when the defendant’s act or omission resulted in
Supreme Court rejected the argument that proof of the his permanent incapacity. Thus, in Borromeo vs. Manila
actual income of the victims is necessary holding that it is Electric Railroad & Light Co. (44 Phil. 165, 167 [1922])
well-settled that to be compensated for loss of earning  The Supreme Court awarded in favor of the plaintiff an
capacity, it is not necessary the victims was gainfully amount for his loss of earning capacity because he lost his
employed at the time of his or her death. left foot. The Court observed that because of such loss, the
plaintiff could no longer be employed as a marine engineer
Life Expectancy on any vessel as evidenced by the fact that the Collector of
 The formula used in Villa Rey Transit shows that life Customs has refused to grant him a license to follow his
expectancy of the deceased is not only relevant but also an profession as a marine engineer.
important element in fixing the amount recoverable. It is
important to emphasize in this connection that it is the life Loss of Profits
of the deceased or victim that is the element of the formula  The right to recover lost profits is now expressly
for computing loss of earning capacity and not that of the recognized under the New Civil Code. This may take the
heirs (Gregorio Pestano et al. v. Spouses Teotimo & Paz form of commissions that were lost by reason of the acts or
C. Sumayang, G.R. No. 139875, December 4, 2000). omissions of the defendant. (General Enterprises, Inc. vs.
 In this jurisdiction, the multiplier that corresponds to the Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc.).
life expectancy of the victim may be reduced depending on  This may also take the form of income that was stipulated
the circumstances. The reduction is usually made for two in the contract that was terminated in a wanton and
(2) reasons: fraudulent manner. (Consolidated Dairy Products, et al.
1. First, some allowance must be made for the general vs. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 810, 822 [1992]).
vicissitudes of life, that is to say, damaging events like  The Supreme Court explained in Consolidated Dairy
early death or unemployment which might have Products (ibid.) that the amount of lost profits may be
affected the plaintiff even if the defendant had not determined by considering the average profit for the
injured him. preceding years multiplied by the number of years during
2. Second, account must also be taken of the fact that the which the business is affected by the wrongful act or
lump sum of damage will itself produce an investment breach. In the said case, the Supreme Court ruled that it
income. The theoretical aim of the process is to was reasonable to award as lost profit the average of the
provide a lump sum sufficient, if invested, to produce yearly profit for five (5) years preceding the closure of the
an income equal to the lost income when the interest is business multiplied by the number of remaining year of the
supplemented by withdrawal of capital. (Winfield and contract.
Jolowich, p. 769).
Loss Profit= Average Profit of the Preceding Five (5) Year x
Alternative Formula for Life Expectancy No. of Years the business is affected or remaining years of the
 In People vs. Gumercindo Quilaton y Ebarola (205 SCRA contract.
279 [1992]), Justice Feliciano proposed a new formula for

Page 41 of 50
 In G.A. Machineries, Inc. vs. Yaptinchay (126 SCRA 78, (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution
88 [1983]), the Supreme Court ruled that the income of against the plaintiff;
similar businesses or activities may be considered. Thus, if
the question is loss of profit of a freight truck, the average (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
income of other trucks can be considered. proceeding against the plaintiff;
 However, it is basic that unrealized profit cannot be
awarded if the basis is too speculative and conjectural to (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and
show actual damages for a future period. The plaintiff must evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
therefore present reports and documents that may show the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable
average actual profits earned by the business as well as claim;
other evidence of profitability which are necessary to
prove plaintiff’s claim for said amount. (BA Finance Corp.
(6) In actions for legal support;
vs. Court of Appeals, 161 SCRA 608, 622; Gaw vs. IAC,
220 SCRA 405, 418 [1993]).
 In Pedro Velasco vs. Manila Electric Co. (42 SCRA 556, (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of
559-560 [1971]), the Supreme Court ruled that lost profit household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
was not sufficiently established where the plaintiff merely
showed that he lost a chance to sell his house for a certain (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's
price. The Court explained that there was no adequate compensation and employer's liability laws;
proof of loss since there was no evidence of the
depreciation in the market value of the house in question (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil
caused by the acts of the defendant. liability arising from a crime;

Attorney’s Fees (10) When at least double judicial costs are

 Article 2208 enumerates all the cases when the award of awarded;
attorney’s fees in the concept of damages is justified. The
damages contemplated by such article is an amount that is
(11) In any other case where the court deems it
due to the plaintiff and not to his counsel. (Quirante vs.
just and equitable that attorney's fees and
The Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73886,
expenses of litigation should be recovered.
January 31, 1989).
 Consequently, the amount agreed upon by the plaintiff and
his counsel does not control the amount of attorney’s fees In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation
that should be awarded. In the same vein, the plaintiff’s must be reasonable.
counsel does not have a right to enforce the award of
attorney’s fees because, as stated earlier, the same is due to INTERESTS (Articles 2209-2213)
the plaintiff and not to his counsel.
 The amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded is left to the  The Code Commission included provisions in the Civil
discretion of the courts. Necessarily, the award must be Code allowing interest on damages because they believed
reasonable under the circumstances. (Tongoy vs. Court of that “such interest is in fact a part of the loss suffered.”
Appeals, June 28, 1983).
Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a
 The plaintiff must allege the basis of his claim for
sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the
attorney’s fees in the complaint. In making such award, the
indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the
court must state in its decision the legal and factual basis
contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon,
for the award. Needless to state, the basis should be one of
and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which
the eleven cases specified in Article 2208 of the Civil
is six per cent per annum. (1108)
Code. (Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, June 6, 1990;
Bicarme vs. Court of Appeals, June 6, 1990; People v.
Bergante, 286 SCRA 629 [1998]). Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be
allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract.
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and
he has received indemnity from the insurance company for Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of
the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of the damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the
contract complained of, the insurance company shall be discretion of the court.
subrogated to the rights of the insured against the
wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the
the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully time it is judicially demanded, although the obligation may
cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be be silent upon this point. (1109a)
entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing
the loss or injury. Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated
claims or damages, except when the demand can be
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and established with reasonably certainty.
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be
recovered, except:
 The rules on the award of interest on damages was
explained in Crismina Garments, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded; (G.R. No. 128721, March 9, 1999) by the Supreme Court,
which reads as follows:
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third “x x x In Reformina vs. Tomol Jr., this Court stressed that the
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest rate under CB Circular No. 416 applies to (1) loans;
interest; (2) forbearance of money, goods or credits; or (3) a judgment
involving a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits.

Page 42 of 50
Cases beyond the scope of the said circular are governed by or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due and payable.”
Article 2209 of the Civil Code, which considers interest a Using this standard, the obligation in this case was
form of indemnity for the delay in the performance of an obviously not a forbearance of money, goods or credit.
obligation.
Mitigation of Liability
In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of  Chapter 6 of this work discusses the different partial
Appeals, the Court gave the following guidelines defenses that result in mitigation of liability of the
for the application of the proper interest rates: defendant. The Title on Damages likewise contains
“I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, provisions allowing mitigation of liability. (Articles 2203,
i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or 2204, 2214 and 2215.)
quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be
held liable for damages. The provisions under Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of
Title XVIII on ‘Damages’ of the Civil Code the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.
govern in determining the measure of recoverable
damages. Art. 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts,
II. With regard particularly to an award of interest the court may equitably mitigate the damages under
in the concept of actual and compensatory circumstances other than the case referred to in the
damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual preceding article, as in the following instances:
thereof, is imposed, as follows:
(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists terms of the contract;
in the payment of a sum of money, the interest due
should be that which may have been stipulated in
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a
writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself
result of the contract;
earn legal interest from the time it is judicially
demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate
of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be
from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice
demand under and subject to the provisions of of counsel;
Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
“2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or
forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on
the amount of damages awarded may be imposed (5) That since the filing of the action, the
at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's
annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on loss or injury.
unliquidated claims or damages except when or
until the demand can be established with Avoidable Consequences
reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the  Article 2203 of the Civil Code embodies what is known as
demand is established with reasonable certainty, the doctrine of avoidable consequences.
the interest shall begin to run from the time the  DOCTRINE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCE - The
claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. principle is that a party cannot recover damages flowing
1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot from consequences which the party could reasonably have
be so reasonably established at the time the avoided. It has a reasonable corollary, that is, a person who
demand is made, the interest shall begin to run reasonably attempts to minimize his damages can recover
only from the date the judgment of the court is the expenses that he incurred.
made (at which time the quantification of damages  The principle is that a party cannot recover damages
may be deemed to have been reasonably flowing from consequences which the party could
ascertained). The actual base for the computation reasonably have avoided. It has a reasonable corollary, that
of legal interest shall, in any case, be . . . the is, a person who reasonably attempts to minimize his
amount finally adjudged. damages can recover the expenses that he incurred.
 In Lina vs. Purisima (82 SCRA 344, 359), the Supreme
“3. When the judgment of the court awarding a Court explained that the law on damages imposes upon the
sum of money becomes final and executory, the claimant, regardless of the unquestionability of his or her
rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under entitlement thereto, the obligation to minimize the same as
paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% much as possible. Such indeed is the demand of equity, for
per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, the juridical concept of damages is nothing more than to
this interim period being deemed to be by then an trespass what has been lost materially and morally. It may
equivalent to a forbearance of credit.” not be taken advantage of to allow unjust enrichment. Any
 In Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. vs. CA, we also relevant act of unfairness on the part of the claimant
ruled that the monetary award shall earn interest at twelve correspondingly writes off the moral wrong involved in the
percent (12%) per annum from the date of the finality of juridical injury inflicted upon him or her.
the judgment until its satisfaction, regardless of whether or  The test that should be applied in determining if mitigation
not the case involves a loan or forbearance of money. The should result is the TEST OF A REASONABLE MAN - it
interim period is deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance is the duty of one injured by the unlawful act of another to
of credit. Private respondent maintains that the twelve take such measures as prudent man usually takes under
percent (12%) interest should be imposed, because the such circumstances to reduce the damages as much as
obligation arose from a forbearance of money. This is possible. The burden of proof rests upon the defendant to
erroneous. In Eastern Shipping, the Court observed that a show that the plaintiff might have reduced the damages.
“forbearance” in the context of the usury law is a (Cerrano vs. Tan Chuco, 38 Phil. 392, 399 [1918]).
“contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain,  It does not mean that the injured party must make
during a given period of time, from requiring the borrower extraordinary efforts or do what is unreasonable or

Page 43 of 50
 impracticable in his efforts to minimize damages; reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
reasonable diligence and ordinary care are all that is humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
required to allow full recovery of all damages caused by pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered
the defendant’s wrongful activity. (22 Am. Jur. 2d 53). It if they are the proximate result of the defendant's
does not include yielding to a wrongful demand of wrongful act for omission.
wrongdoer to save the wrongdoer himself. (ibid., p. 55).
 In Lasam vs. Smith (45 Phil. 657, 663 [1924]), one of the Concept
plaintiffs claimed damages resulting from the fracture of a  The award of moral damages is designed to compensate
bone of a wrist and from her objections to having a the claimants for actual injury and is not meant to enrich
decaying splinter of the bone removed by a surgical the complainant at the expense of the defendant. They are
operation. As a consequence of her refusal to submit to awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means,
such operation, a series of infections ensued which diversions or amusement that will serve to alleviate the
required constant and expensive medical treatment for moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the
several years. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant defendant’s culpable action. (Kierulf vs. Court of Appeals,
should not be charged with those expenses. It sustained the 269 SCRA 433 [1997]; Zenith Insurance Corporation vs.
discretionary power of the courts to moderate the liability Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 308 [1990]).
of the defendant according to the circumstances.  Its aim is the restoration within the limits of the possible
 In the case of PEDRO J. VELASCO vs. MANILA the spiritual status quo ante. (Visayan Sawmil Co., Inc. vs.
ELECTRIC CO, [Defendant corporation was found to have Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 378 [1993]).
maintained nuisance in the form of a sub-station that  It must be understood to be in the concept of grants not
emitted noise at unreasonable levels to the detriment of the punitive or corrective in nature, calculated to compensate
plaintiff. There are, moreover, several factors that mitigate the claimant for the injury suffered. In other words, moral
defendant’s liability in damages. The first is that the noise damages are not awarded to punish the defendant but to
from the substation does not appear to be an exclusive compensate the victim. (People vs. Aringue, 283 SCRA
causative factor of plaintiff-appellant’s illnesses. This is 291 [1997]
proved by the circumstance that no other person in  The Code Commission observed that moral damages were
Velasco’s own household nor in his immediate not expressly recognized in the Old Civil Code, although it
neighborhood was shown to have become sick despite the was observed in one case — involving injury to reputation
noise complained of. There is also evidence that at the time — that “such damages have been allowed by the Supreme
the plaintiff-appellant appears to have been largely Court of Spain, and some Spanish jurists believe that moral
indebted to various credit institutions, as a result of his damages are allowable.” Likewise, the Supreme Court of
unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign, and this court can the Philippines has awarded moral damages in a few cases
take judicial cognizance of the fact that financial worries decided prior to the adoption of the New Civil Code.
can affect unfavorably the debtor’s disposition and
mentality. The other factor militating against full recovery Proof of Proximate Cause
by the petitioner Velasco in his passivity in the face of the  No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral
damage caused to him by the noise of the substation. damages may be adjudicated. The assessment of such
Realizing as a physician that the latter was disturbing or damages is left to the discretion of the court, according to
depriving him of sleep and affecting both his physical and the circumstances of each case. (Article 2216, Civil Code).
mental well-being, he did not take any steps to bring action  However, there must be proof that the defendant caused
to abate the nuisance or remove himself from the affected physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
area as soon as the deleterious effects became noticeable. besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
To evade them, appellant did not even have to sell his social humiliation, and similar injury to the plaintiff.
house; he could have leased it and rented other premises Without allegation and proof of such sufferings, no moral
for sleeping and maintaining his office and thus preserve damages can be awarded. (Compania Maritima vs. Allied
his health as ordinary prudence demanded. Instead, he Free Worker’s Union, 77 SCRA 24).
obstinately stayed until his health became gravely affected,  Nevertheless, the language of the law need not be used to
apparently hoping that he would thereby saddle appellee warrant the award of moral damages. (Mirana-Ribaya vs.
with large damages. The law in this jurisdiction is clear. Carbonell, 95 SCRA 672).
Article 2203 prescribes that “The party suffering loss or  So long as there is satisfactory proof of the psychological
injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a and mental trauma actually suffered by a party, the grant to
family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or him of moral damages is warranted. (Del Rosario vs.
omission in question.” This codal rule, which embodies the Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 58 [1997]).
previous jurisprudence on the point, clearly obligates the  Aside from the fact that there is a need for the claimant to
injured party to undertake measures that will alleviate and satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis of the
not aggravate his condition after the infliction of the injury, damages, it is also necessary to prove its causal relation to
and places upon him the burden of explaining why he the defendant’s act. (Raagas vs. Traya, 22 SCRA 839
could not do so. This was not done. [1968]).
 While moral damages is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
CHAPTER 3
they are recoverable if they are the proximate cause of the
OTHER KINDS OF DAMAGES
defendant’s wrongful act or omission. (Enervida vs. De la
Torre, 55 SCRA 339; Yutuk vs. Manila Electric Co., 2
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order
SCRA 337 [1961]).
that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary
 The exception to the rule that the factual basis for moral
damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such
damages must be alleged are criminal cases. Moral
damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of
damages may be awarded to the victim in criminal
the court, according to the circumstances of each case.
proceedings in such amount as the court deems just
 
without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.
SECTION 1. - Moral Damages
(People vs. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998).
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched

Page 44 of 50
Art. 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the injuries because of the carrier’s negligence. (Mercado vs.
sentimental value of property, real or personal, may be Lira, 3 SCRA 124 [1961]).
considered.
Justice Vitug summarized the rules regarding the award of
Cases when Moral Damages are allowed moral damages in Expert Travel & Tours, Inc. vs. The Hon.
 Articles 2219 and 2220 of the NCC enumerate the cases Court of Appeals and Ricardo Lo (G.R. No. 130030, June 25,
when Moral Damages may be awarded by the Courts. 1999):

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the  “Moral damages are not punitive in nature but are designed
following and analogous cases: to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
injuries; social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused to a
person. Although incapable of pecuniary computation,
moral damages, nevertheless, must somehow be
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; proportional to and in approximation of the suffering
inflicted. Such damages, to be recoverable, must be the
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious proximate result of a wrongful act or omission the factual
acts; basis for which is satisfactorily established by the
aggrieved party. An award of moral damages would
(4) Adultery or concubinage; require certain conditions to be met, to wit:

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; 1. First, there must be an injury, whether physical,
mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the
claimant;
(6) Illegal search;
2. Second, there must be a culpable act or omission
factually established;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of 3. Third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant
defamation; is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the
claimant; and
(8) Malicious prosecution; 4. Fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of
the cases stated in Article 2219.
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
 Under the provisions of this law, in culpa contractual or
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, breach of contract, moral damages may be recovered when
27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. the defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross
negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton disregard
of his contractual obligation and, exceptionally, when the
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or
act of breach of contract itself is constitutive of tort
abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also
resulting in physical injuries. By special rule in Article
recover moral damages.
1764, in relation to Article 2206, of the Civil Code, moral
damages may also be awarded in case the death of a
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and passenger results from a breach of carriage.
sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this  In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, (a) when an act or
article, in the order named. omission causes physical injuries, or (b) where the
defendant is guilty of intentional tort, moral damages may
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal aptly be recovered. This rule also applies, as aforestated, to
ground for awarding moral damages if the court should contracts when breached by tort.
find that, under the circumstances, such damages are  In culpa criminal, moral damages could be lawfully due
justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract when the accused is found guilty of physical injuries,
where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. lascivious acts, adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary
  detention, illegal arrest, illegal search, or defamation.
 The different cases identified by law when moral damages Malicious prosecution can also give rise to a claim for
may be awarded are discussed elsewhere in this work. It is moral damages. The term “analogous cases,” referred to in
well to point out however certain basic rules on the award Article 2219, following the ejusdem generis rule, must be
of moral damages. For instance, it is well settled that no held similar to those expressly enumerated by the law.’’
moral damages may be awarded in the absence of a
wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith. (Ong Yui Unfounded Suits
vs. Court of Appeals, 91 SCRA 223; Castillo vs. Castillo,  It is also well settled that moral damages (and attorney’s
95 SCRA 40; St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Cleofas, 92 fees under paragraph [4] of Article 2208 of the Civil Code)
SCRA 389). cannot be assessed against the plaintiff by the mere fact
 The same rule applies to cases involving breach of that he filed a case against the defendant so long as the
contract, that is, no moral damages may be awarded where same was done in good faith. (Grapilon vs. Mun. Council
the breach of contract is not malicious. (Francisco vs. of Carigara, 2 SCRA 103 [1961])
GSIS, 7 SCRA 577 [1963]; Mercado vs. Lira, 3 SCRA 124  The rule applies even if the plaintiff’s case is declared to
[1961]; Martinez vs. Gonzales, 6 SCRA 331 [1962]). be unfounded. (De la Pena vs. Court of Appeals, 231
 The presence of contractual negligence is insufficient for SCRA 456 [1994]).
such award. (Phil. National Railways vs. Court of Appeals,  No damages can be charged on those who may exercise the
139 SCRA87). right to litigate in good faith even if done erroneously (“J”
 Although the enumeration in Article 2119 is not exclusive, Marketing Corporation v. Sia, Jr., 285 SCRA 580 [1998]).
the “analogous cases” mentioned in the said Article does  Nevertheless, there are instances when award of moral
not include a case where a passenger suffered physical damages (as well as attorney’s fees) is justified if there is
Page 45 of 50
 clear abuse of court processes. There can be no blanket  The Court should take into consideration the circumstances
clearance against the filing of all types of cases (Cometa v. obtaining in the case and assess damages according to its
Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 459 [1999]). discretion (Fule v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 698
 Although no person should be penalized for the exercise of [1998]).
the right to litigate, this right must be exercised in good  There are, however, factors specified by law and
faith. Absence of good faith is established if the plaintiff established by jurisprudence that could affect the amount
clearly has no cause of action against the defendant but he to be recovered. An example of these is Article 2218 of the
recklessly filed the suit anyway and wantonly pursued Civil Code which provides that in the adjudication of
pointless appeals, thereby causing the defendant to spend moral damages, the sentimental value of property, real or
valuable time, money and effort in unnecessarily defending personal, may be considered.
himself, incurring damages in the process (Industrial
Insurance Co. v. Pablo Bondad, G.R. No. 136722, April
12, 2000, 330 SCRA 706, 707). Extent of Humiliation
 The extent of humiliation may also determine the amount
Labor Cases of moral damages that can be awarded. Thus, in one case,
 Moral damages may be recovered where the dismissal of moral damages was awarded and fixed because of the
the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud or humiliation caused by the dicriminatory acts of an airline
constitute an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a company. (Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 275
manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. SCRA 621 [1997]).
(Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 299  In another, moral damages was awarded because the
SCRA 608, 620-621 [1998]) plaintiff was slapped in the face. (Ford vs. Court of
 In the case of Panay Electric Co., Inc. vs. NLRC, 248 Appeals, 186 SCRA 21 [1990]).
SCRA 688, the SC ruled that, “According to the facts of the
case as stated by public respondent, Osdana was made to Pain and Suffering
perform such menial chores, as dishwashing and janitorial  The extent of pain and suffering likewise determines the
work, among others, contrary to her job designation as award (Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, supra at p. 37).
waitress. She was also made to work long hours without For instance, an increase in the amount of moral damages
overtime pay. Because of such arduous working condi- was justified in an attempted homicide case where the
tions, she developed Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Her illness accused bit the ear of the complainant causing mutilation.
was such that she had to undergo surgery twice. Since her  The nature of the injuries and the degree of physical
employer determined itself that she was no longer fit to suffering endured by the complainant warrants an increase.
continue working, they sent her home posthaste without as The tragic incident left indelible marks on the
much as separation pay or compensation for the months complainant’s body and will serve as a constant reminder
when she was unable to work because of her illness.” of his traumatic experience. (Sumaplong vs. Court of
Thus, moral damages was warranted. Appeals, 268 SCRA 764, 776 [1997]).
 The award was also justified in another case because of the
Criminal Taking of Life pain and disfigurement suffered by the respondent, a pretty
 In a number of cases, the Supreme Court upheld the rule girl of 16 whose left arm was scraped of flesh from
that in the present stage of our case law involving criminal shoulder to elbow (De Leon Brokerage Co. v. Court of
taking of human life, evidence must be adduced by the Appeals, No. L-15247, February 28, 1962).
offended party to warrant an award of moral damages  In Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals (supra), the Supreme
(See: People v. Acaya, 327 SCRA 269 [2000];People v. Court was confronted with a situation where the injury
Pirame, 327 SCRA 552 [2000]). suffered by the plaintiff would have led to expenses which
 However, the rule was clarified by stating that no such were difficult to estimate because while they would have
proof is necessary in case of violent death. The Supreme been a direct result of the injury (amputation), and though
Court explained in Carlos Arcona y Moban v. The Court certain to be incurred by the plaintiff, they were likely to
of Appeals and the People of the Philippines (G.R. No. arise only in the future.
134784, December 9, 2002) that “as borne out by human  In Ramos vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 124354, Dec. 29,
nature and experience, a violent death invariably and 1999), the victim, petitioner Erlinda Ramos, was in her
necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the mid-forties when the incident occurred. She has been in a
part of the victim’s family. It is inherently human to suffer comatose state for over fourteen years at the time the
sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one Supreme Court promulgated its decision in December
becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such 1999. In the meantime, the burden of care has been
violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the heroically shouldered by her husband and children, who, in
family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them the intervening years have been deprived of the love of a
forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves wife and a mother.
them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been
done to them. For this reason, moral damages must be Official, Political, Social and Financial Standing
awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of  Official, political, social and financial standing of the
the heirs’ emotional suffering.” offended party and the business and financial position of
the offender affect the amount of damages. (Lopez vs. Pan
Factors to Consider in Determining Amount (E.P.O) American World Airways, 16 SCRA 431).
1. Extent of Humiliation;  In another case, the Supreme Court ruled that the age of
2. Pain and Suffering; and the claimant is material in the determination of the amount
3. Official, Political, Social and Financial Standing. of moral damages due to the plaintiff. (Zamboanga Trans
Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 30 SCRA 717 [1969]).
 There is no hard and fast rule in the determination of what  The Court considered the credit standing of the plaintiff in
would be a fair amount of moral damages, since each case awarding moral damages in Producer’s Bank of the
must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances. Philippines v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 111584,
(Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA September 17, 2001, 365 SCRA 326).
136).  The wrongful dishonor of a check that was issued by the
plaintiff affected his credit standing. The plaintiff was a
Page 46 of 50
 businessman engaged in several businesses and his NOTE: While the court may allow the grant of moral
suppliers discontinued the credit line that they extended damages to corporation, it is not automatically granted;
causing his businesses to collapse. there must still be proof of the existence of the factual
 The Court quoted Leopoldo Araneta v. Bank of America basis of the damage and its causal relation to the
(40 SCRA 144 [1971]) where it was explained that: “The defendant’s acts. Moral damages is designed to
financial credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and
asset, it being a significant part of the foundation of his not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer (Crystal vs.
business. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some BPI, G.R. No. 172428, November 28, 2008)
financial loss to him.”
 There are those who believe that financial standing of the SECTION 2. - Nominal Damages
offended party does not affect the amount of recoverable
moral damages (Layda vs. Court of Appeals, 90 SCRA  The allowance of nominal damages is generally based on
724). the ground that every injury from its very nature legally
 The theory is that moral suffering of a rich person is the imports damage, or that the injury complained of would in
same as the intensity of suffering of a poor litigant. Hence, the future be evidence in favor of the wrongdoer,
the pain and suffering of a person who lost his limb is the especially where, if continued for a sufficient length of
same whether the victim is rich or poor. However, time, the invasion of the plaintiff’s rights would ripen into
Supreme Court continues to consider financial standing in a prescriptive right in favor of the defendant. (22 Am. Jur.
a number of cases that it decided. 2d 20).
 In this jurisdiction, the award of nominal damages was
Persons who may Recover justified by the Code Commission by stating that there are
 GENERAL RULE: Generally, the person who endured instances when the vindication or recognition of the
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, plaintiff’s right is of the utmost importance to him, as in
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, the case of trespass upon real property. The Commission
social humiliation, and similar injury is the person who can observed that in those instances, the awarding of nominal
recover moral damages. If the basis of the claim is physical damages does not run counter to the maxim, “De minimis
suffering, only the one who suffered and not his or her non curate lex.”
spouse may recover. (Sobereno vs. Manila Railroad Co.,  DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX - Judges will not sit in
Nov. 23, 1966). In the same manner, a person who judgment of extremely minor transgressions of the law. It
symphatized with an injured relative is not entitled to has been restated as: the law does not concern itself with
recover for the physical suffering of another. (Strebel vs. trifles. (In other words, the law ignores insignificant
Figueros, 96 Phil. 321). details.)
 EXEMPTION: The exception to said rule (where only the
victim can recover) is found in the last two paragraphs of Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that
Article 2219: “The parents of the female seduced, a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded
abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and
article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse, not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any
descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may loss suffered by him.
bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the
order named.’’ Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every
 It should be noted however that in those cases, the relatives obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article
have also suffered although they are not the victims of the 1157, or in every case where any property right has been
assault. They must also have suffered mental anguish, invaded.
serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock and other
similar injuries. Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall
preclude further contest upon the right involved and all
Corporations accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or
 GR: A corporation is not entitled to moral damages their respective heirs and assigns.
because it has no feelings, no emotions, no senses (ABS-  
CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 128690 January  The assessment of nominal damages is left to the
21, 1999). discretion of the court according to the circumstances of
 XPNs: the case. (Ventanilla vs. Centeno, 1 SCRA 215 [1961]).
1. The corporation may recover moral damages under  Generally, nominal damages by their nature are small sums
item 7 of Article 2219 of the New Civil Code because fixed by the court without regard to the extent of the harm
said provision expressly authorizes the recovery of done to the injured party.
moral damages in cases of libel, slander, or any other  However, it is generally held that a nominal damage is a
form of defamation. substantial claim, if based upon the violation of a legal
right; in such case, the law presumes damage although
NOTE: Article 2219(7) does not qualify whether the actual or compensatory damages are not proven.
injured party is a natural or juridical person. Therefore,  In truth, nominal damages are damages in name only and
a corporation, as a juridical person, can validly not in fact, and are allowed, not as an equivalent of wrong
complain for libel or any other form of defamation and inflicted, but simply in recognition of the existence of a
claim for moral damages (Filipinas Broadcasting technical injury. (Robes-Francisco Realty and
Network, Inc. v. AMEC-BCCM, G.R. No. 141994, Development Corporation vs. Court of First Instance, 86
January 17, 2005). SCRA 59).
 The view is that for every actionable injury, there is a
2. When the corporation has a reputation that is debased, corresponding right to damages and such injury arises
resulting in its humiliation in the business realm whenever a legal right of the plaintiff is violated; if there is
(MERALCO v. T.E.A.M. Electronics Corp., et. al., G.R. no injury as to actual damages or none appears on inquiry,
No. 131723, December 13, 2007). the legal implication of damages remains and nominal
damages are given. (Wente vs. Shaver, 145 ALR 1176, 350
Mo 1143, 169 SW 2d 947).
Page 47 of 50
 For instance, only nominal damages can be recovered by a The defendant initially gave the lame excuse that delivery
manufacturer that was injured by a conspiracy to prevent was probably delayed because of traffic when in truth
use of his product, where the actual damages cannot be defendant knew that no cake would be delivered because
determined and whatever he suffered was also suffered by the order slip got lost.
others in the same line of business so that he suffered no
special damages whatsoever. (A.T. Stearns Lumber Co. vs. SECTION 3. - Temperate or Moderate Damages
Howlett, 25 ALR 1125, 260 Mass 45, 157 NE 82).
 The award of nominal damages is also justified in the Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are
absence of competent proof of the specific amounts of more than nominal but less than compensatory damages,
actual damages suffered. (People vs. Dianos, 297 SCRA may be recovered when the court finds that some
191; Sumaplong vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 764 pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot,
[1997]; People v. Gopio, 346 SCRA 408 [2000]). from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.
 Thus, nominal damages were awarded in Sumaplong vs.
Court of Appeals (268 SCRA 764, 775-776 [1997]), an Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under
attempted homicide case where the victim’s left ear was the circumstances.
mutilated and a permanent scar remained in the latter’s
forearm. In the said case, the Supreme Court observed that  The Supreme Court explained in Pleno vs. Court of
nominal damages is proper “whenever there has been a Appeals that: “Temperate damages are included within the
violation of an ascertained legal right, although no actual context of compensatory damages. In arriving at a
damages resulted or none are shown.” The Court observed reasonable level of temperate damages to be awarded,
further that “there is no room to doubt that some species of courts are guided by the ruling that x x x there are cases
injury was caused to the complainant because of the where from the nature of the case, definite proof of
medical expenses he incurred in having his wounds pecuniary loss can not be offered, although the court is
treated, and the loss of income due to his failure to work convinced that there has been such loss. For instance,
during his hospitalization.” However, only nominal injury to one’s commercial credit or to the goodwill of a
damages were awarded because there was absence of business firm is often hard to show certainly in terms of
competent proof of the same actual damages. money. Should damages be denied for that reason? The
 Nominal damages were also awarded in Japan Airlines vs. judge should be empowered to calculate moderate
Court of Appeals (294 SCRA 19, 25-26 [1998]) where the damages in such case, rather than the plaintiff should
plaintiffs sued the airline because the latter failed to suffer, without redress from the defendant’s wrongful act.”
transport them to Manila. The Supreme Court  Thus, temperate damages to the heirs of the victim under
acknowledged that the Mount Pinatubo eruption prevented Article 2224 of the Civil Code where it has been shown
JAL from proceeding to Manila on schedule. However, the that they suffered pecuniary loss but the amount thereof
award was justified because JAL failed to make necessary cannot be proved with certainty (People v. Singh, et al.,
arrangement to transport the plaintiffs on the first available 360 SCRA 404, 408 [2001])
connecting flight to Manila. It even declassified the  In Rogelio E. Ramos, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
plaintiffs from “transit passengers” to “new passengers” as (G.R. No. 124354, December 29, 1999), the Supreme
a result of which plaintiffs were obliged to make the Court sustained the award of temperate damages to answer
necessary arrangements themselves. However, only for the anticipated increase in future medical expenses.
nominal damages were awarded in the absence of proof of The Supreme Court observed that our present laws on
actual damages. actual damages cannot cover such adjustments because our
 Similarly, nominal damages were awarded in Northwest rules (on actual or compensatory damages) generally
Airlines, Inc. vs. Nicolas L. Cuenca (14 SCRA 1063, 1066 assume that at the time of litigation, the injury suffered as a
[1965]). The plaintiff was the holder of a first class ticket consequence of an act of negligence has been completed
from Manila to Tokyo who was rudely compelled by an and that the cost can be liquidated.
agent of the airlines to move to the tourist class  (NOTE: Hi classmates. Please read the case digest of
notwithstanding the agent’s knowledge that the plaintiff Rogelio Ramos vs. CA and Araneta vs. Bank of America
was a Commissioner of Public Highways of the Republic in the book of Aquino. Taas kaayo kung I copy-paste.
of the Philippines who was travelling in his official Thank you!)
capacity as a delegate of the country to a conference in
Tokyo. There was also no proof of actual damages in the SECTION 4. - Liquidated Damages
said case.
 It follows however that nominal damages cannot co-exist Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by
with actual or compensatory damages. (Armovit vs. Court the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach
of Appeals, 184 SCRA 476 [1990]). thereof.
 The purpose of nominal damages is to vindicate or
recognize a right that has been violated, in order to  Ordinarily, the court cannot change the amount of
preclude further contest thereof; and not for the purpose of liquidated damages agreed upon by the parties.
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. An
award of compensatory damages is a vindication of a right. Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an
It is in itself a recognition that plaintiff’s right was indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they
violated, hence, the award of nominal damages is are iniquitous or unconscionable.
unnecessary and improper. (Vda. De Medina vs.
Cresencia, 99 SCRA 506, 510 [1956]). Art. 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by
 In Erlinda Francisco v. Ricardo Ferrer, Jr. (G.R. No. the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in
142029, February 28, 2001), nominal damages was agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law shall
imposed for the insensitivity, inadvertence and inattention determine the measure of damages, and not the
of the defendant to the plaintiffs’ anxiety and need of the stipulation.
hour. The defendant was sued because she failed to deliver  
the wedding cake of the plaintiffs on time for the re-
ception. The delivery was not only late but the cake that SECTION 5. - Exemplary or Corrective Damages
was delivered was different from what was agreed upon.
Page 48 of 50
 circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
by way of example or correction for the public good, in
addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be
compensatory damages. granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.

 Corrective damages are called exemplary or “punitive” Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may
damages in American law. The Code Commission used the award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a
term “corrective,” in lieu of “punitive,” in harmony with wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent
the modern theory of penology. (Report of the Code manner.
Commission). The Commission further explained that
exemplary damages are required by public policy to
suppress wanton acts. They are antidotes so that the poison Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a
of wickedness may not run through the body politic. matter of right; the court will decide whether or not they
(ibid.). should be adjudicated.
 Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of
example or correction for the public good, in addition to Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages
the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is
(Article 2229, Civil Code; Zenith Insurance Corporation entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages
vs. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 398 [1990]; Del Rosario before the court may consider the question of whether or
vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 158 [1997]). They are not exemplary damages should be awarded. In case
designed to reshape behavior that is socially deleterious in liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no
its consequence. (Mevenas vs. Court of Appeals). proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated
 Also known as “punitive” or “vindictive” damages, damages may be recovered, nevertheless, before the court
exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a may consider the question of granting exemplary in
deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as a vindication of addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show
undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an that he would be entitled to moral, temperate or
injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for
conduct. These terms are generally, but not always, used liquidated damages.
interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the
use of exemplary damages when the award is to account Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are
for injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and renounced in advance shall be null and void.
humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury
that has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the
theory being that there should be compensation for the hurt  Consistent with the above-stated statutory and juris-
caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the prudential rules, the Supreme Court sustained the award
defendant – associated with such circumstances as of exemplary damages where there was gross carelessness
willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or or negligence amounting to wanton misconduct. (Radio
recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraud — Communications of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,
that intensifies the injury. 195 SCRA 147 [1991]). It was also awarded due to the
 The terms punitive or vindictive damages are often used to presence of a fraudulent conduct. (Geraldez vs. Court of
refer to those species of damages that may be awarded Appeals, 230 SCRA 320 [1994]). In a case involving
against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. contract of carriage of passengers, the Court justified the
In either case, these damages are intended in good measure award of exemplary damages to deter the airlines from the
to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar commission of acts of discourtesy to passengers.
conduct in the future (People v. Catubig, No. 137842, (Northwest Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 440
August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 621, 634). [1990]).
 In Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals (256
SCRA 44 [1996], citing Octot vs. Ybanez, 111 SCRA 79 Criminal Cases
[1982]; De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 166
 The Civil Code authorizes the imposition of exemplary
[1988]), the Supreme Court enumerated the following
damages in criminal cases where there is an aggravating
requisites for the award of exemplary damages:
circumstance. The term “aggravating circumstances” used
by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise,
1. They may be imposed by way of example in is to be understood in its broad or generic sense.
addition to compensatory damages, and only after  The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect,
the claimant’s right to them has been established; one on the public as it breaches the social order and the
2. They cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their other upon the private victim as it causes personal
determination depending upon the amount of sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the
compensatory damages that may be awarded to the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by
claimant; an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase
of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the
3. The act must be accompanied by bad faith or done exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravat-
in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent ing circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its
manner.’’ commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basi-
 The award of exemplary damages is governed by Articles cally a State concern, the award of damages, however, is
2230 to 2235. likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party
who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an
award of exemplary damages to be due the private
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a
offended party when the aggravating circumstance is
part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime
ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal,
was committed with one or more aggravating
the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating
circumstance is a distinction that should only be of
Page 49 of 50
 consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil,
liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect
of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary
or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award
of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of
Article 2230 of the Civil Code (People v. Catubig, supra.).
 Nevertheless, the award of exemplary damages is also
justified, not only due to the presence of aggravating
circumstance, but also if the circumstances show the
depravity of the mind of the accused. Hence, exemplary
damages was awarded against an accused who assaulted a
pregnant woman. By sexually assaulting a pregnant
woman, the accused has shown moral corruption, perver-
sity and wickedness. (People vs. Cristobal, 252 SCRA 507
[1996]). It was also imposed to deter fathers with perverse
tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from abusing their
own daughters. (People vs. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613
[1992]).

Page 50 of 50