Scribd
Upload
17 views24 pages

REPORTING

Chapter Fifteen discusses the liability of defendants in tort cases, particularly under quasi-delict as outlined in the Civil Code. It explains the concept of concurrent negligence, joint tortfeasors, and the rules regarding reimbursement and apportionment of liability among them. The chapter emphasizes that all joint tortfeasors can be held liable for the total damages, and reimbursement rights are governed by specific articles of the Civil Code.

Uploaded by

Katreena Dulay
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
17 views24 pages

REPORTING

Chapter Fifteen discusses the liability of defendants in tort cases, particularly under quasi-delict as outlined in the Civil Code. It explains the concept of concurrent negligence, joint tortfeasors, and the rules regarding reimbursement and apportionment of liability among them. The chapter emphasizes that all joint tortfeasors can be held liable for the total damages, and reimbursement rights are governed by specific articles of the Civil Code.

Uploaded by

Katreena Dulay
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
CHAPTER FIFTEEN ‘THE DEFENDANTS ‘This chapter deals with persons who may be sued for tr, particularly thoes who nny be held hinble for uct deet ats Article 2176 of the Civil Code. ‘ Pretiminarly, i in well to reiterate that oth natural juridical persons may be held liable for quastdelct, With reaps to juridical persons, the liability is, im © sense, always impute because artificial beings act only through ther officers, employees, and agents. Ben the State and ite political subdivisions tay, Droper eases, be subject to civil abit. |. CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE. 4. som ToRTFEASORS. Article 2184 provides for tho rule when two or more acta oF ‘omission of different persone are the proximate causes of an injury. ‘Article 2194 states! Art2184, The responsibilty of two or more persons who a able for quasi-delict le wolldary.(n) Uta A194 rhe a een beg be aos attain eae een Sas tp yay er Bie anes ne ai eta ye ar akg tb ee Se rir cet eed ns moe ma Srikteeytronis es pence sete cha ee Serer ane ake Soe Sh ‘turan meres ‘emerson responsible forthe tire raul anal as though hie act were The cole cause of the injury i Tewas further plained that "where no contribution between, jeinttortfensors whore litt fe wsidery sine both of theese able for the total damage. Where the concurrent or sucresive negligent acts oF ooisstns of to or more persona. although acting Independently, are in combination the fect nnd prosimate caine ‘ta single injry to third person, te imposible to determine in ‘Worcester v. Ocampo? that Ube joint trteasors may be sued by the fended party, all or some of the parties jal, or one of therm separately, beemane the tot i in ite mature n mparate et ofeach {naividual “Tein not necemary that the coperation should be direct, corporeal act fr, to give an example a a new oa oy ao erate Genre ees ipo oe Soe 204866, January 21, 2018 - Se prance teenaine water corteeran anaes eae eee certian mee eon tama erence mamaria Sohn, 34 Cal 268, = ” ~ me ‘TORTS AND DAMAGRS 101, WHO CAN BE CONSIDERED, ‘TORTFEASORS, sony i Morr np! te See Cn eee et Sm co a Sipe nearer Sirsa ee: ene se done, if done for their benefit, They are each lable as prince strc eyes egos cero fsascon ‘8. Joint Tortfeasor by Cooperation. Defendants may be considered joint tortfeasore if they ‘woperated in bringing about a result. Such cooperation may 8 virtue ofa writen agreement. Thu, in Chan, dr Iglesia Ce, ine," the petitioner, the owner of @ gasoline sation, entered ing ‘4 written agreement with Mr. Dioscoro Yoro purportedly for the debtors if euch payment is ade afar the clipe Sak rected ox become egal ‘The Supreme Cour explain’ in Navid ea: v. ios, drs hatin sida obignions ike the eoldary ction under Rs 2104, the paying debtors right of veimbrsement i ovded ot Under Article 1217 of the Cail Code The Fight of reimburses tte paying debtor, and the responding ably of the o ebay {o rember, will only arise, however, if easy door whe ‘made to answer for an cligationacsally delivers payment ote treditor Is paymont, which means not aly the delivery of money tit albo the performance, in eny oer maser, of the tllgsten, that i the operative fact which wil enide ether of he enidary debtors fo ovo reimaburemant fr the share which ctreoponds © ach ofthe other debtors, Tus, thre ino ight of eabrsenent ifthere ian peyment to speak af an Yet b. Comparative Negligence Rule among Defendants, In the enforcement of the right of reimbursement of oo@ tortfeasor againat another, ean one tortfeasor claim thatthe other should be made responsible for a bger portion ofthe amount pid {o the plaintif or injured party? The question is for purpomes of reimbarvement, whether or not the comparative neglgents the joint tortfeusors wll be determined in order to establish their reapective share inthe ability ‘One area of law whore the comparative negligence rule among partie who are made able has been judicially sanctioned i with Fespect tothe linblty of banks for forged signatures in checks, Fer fnaanee, if the indorsr’ signature i forged and the drawoe ‘lonred the check containing the forged indorsement, the dr TT a i074, Bay 3022 uarran mee ms Tie bers Inve the right to claim the amount debited fom hi or her checking sccoun by the drawee bank Generally, tthe aleting bank that must bear the lous beause of ita waranty ofthe penuinenca ofthe fignatre ofthe indorser. The drrra bank will not be ible fo ot share in the reepunibility ofthe allcting bank One exception is in cae the draweo bank wns likewise negligent. in wach a cae, the drawee bank i able together with the cllacting bank. Liability was imposed on two bask on 60:40 ratio in Allied Banking Corporation Lim So Wan al nthe ald cse, Lita So ‘Wan deposited with Allod Benk a money market placement, Later, 1 pergn flely representing haf to be Lim So Wan ealled fin cr of Allied and instructed the later to pre-erminate Lim ‘io Wan's money market placement, to irae n managers check representing the proceeds of the placment, and to give the eheck {ono Deborah Deo Santos who would pick up th check Sanne twee sble to obtain the managers check ‘So Wan arindoreer. The Alledehark wae deposited with Metrobank in the ecsunt of FOC ac Producers Hank's payment oft eligation {to POC. The check was sent to Aled though the PCH. Upon the Dresontment ofthe chek, Allied funded the check even without ‘hesking the suthentcty of Lim So Was purported indersement. ‘Thus, theamounton theface ofthe check was credited tothe account of FCC. Later, Lim Sio Wan fled an action to recover the amount {fthe placement agait Aled Bank Allied Bank, in turn, fled * third party complaint ngsinat Metrobank. Later, the complaint ft Lim Sio Wan war amended to chide Metron ae defendant ‘while the third party complait was converted into a croueaim, ‘The Supreme Cour nisnined the lability ofboth banks to Lim io ‘Wan explaining tat. “ve aii Aid, ower cncuzet with that of Motrbank Seca need the cok

You might also like