TORTS AND DAMAGES REVIEWER
Articles 2176 to 2184 – Civil Code of the Philippines
I. CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS (Arts. 2176–2184)
Article 2176 – Quasi-delict (Culpa Aquiliana)
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict.
Elements: (1) Act or omission; (2) Damage to another; (3) Fault or negligence; (4) No pre-
existing contract; (5) Causal connection between act and damage.
Article 2177 – Independence from Civil Liability Arising from Crime
Liability for quasi-delict is separate from civil liability in criminal negligence.
Case: Elcano v. Hill (G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977)
Acquittal in a criminal case does not bar civil action based on quasi-delict.
Article 2180 – Vicarious Liability
Employers, parents, teachers, and guardians are liable for the acts of those under their
control unless they prove diligence in selection and supervision.
Case: Caravan Travel v. Abejar (G.R. No. 170631, Feb. 10, 2016)
Company liable for employee-driver’s negligence under registered owner rule.
II. CONCEPTS AND DOCTRINES
Definition: Quasi-delict is a wrongful act causing injury without contractual relation.
Vicarious Liability – One is liable for acts of another due to control or authority (e.g.,
employer-employee).
Presumptions – Employers presumed negligent in selection/supervision unless proved
otherwise.
Negligence – Omission of care a reasonably prudent person would use (Picart v. Smith, G.R.
No. L-12219).
Res Ipsa Loquitur – “The thing speaks for itself.” Presumption of negligence when injury
unlikely without fault (Cantre v. Spouses Go, G.R. No. 160889).
Distinction: Culpa Contractual vs. Culpa Aquiliana – breach of contract vs. negligent act
independent of contract.
Civil Liability in Crimes – Civil action may exist despite acquittal (Elcano v. Hill).
III. CASES AND SUMMARIES
1. Elcano v. Hill – Civil action for quasi-delict independent from crime.
2. Cebu Shipyard v. William Lines – Employer liable for negligence; must prove diligence.
3. Picart v. Smith – Test of negligence: “reasonably prudent man.”
4. Cantre v. Spouses Go – Res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence.
5. Caravan Travel v. Abejar – Registered owner rule with vicarious liability.
6. Air France v. Carrascoso – Bad faith, abuse of right (Arts. 19–21).
Civil Code Arts. 19–21 – Human Relations
Art. 19: Act with justice, give everyone his due, observe good faith.
Art. 20: Liability for acts contrary to law.
Art. 21: Liability for acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.