CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW & JURISPRUDENCE Makati City TORTS AND DAMAGES (1st Semester SY 2012-2013) PROF. RITA LINDA V. JIMENO COURSE OUTLINE I. CONCEPT OF TORTS; HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF PHILIPPINE LAW ON TORTS Sangco, pp. XXXI to XLV, pp. 1 to 10 Aquino, pp. 1 to 10 II. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT A. Elements Article 2176, CC Barredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil 607 Elcano vs. Hill, 77 SCRA 98 Cinco vs. Canonoy, 90 SCRA 369 Baksh vs. CA, 219 SCRA 115 Dulay vs. CA, 243 SCRA 220 (1995) Garcia vs. Florido, 52 SCRA 420 Andamo vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 195 Taylor vs. Manila Electric Company, 16 Phil 8 Tayag vs. Alcantara, 98 SCRA 723 B. Distinctions 1. Quasi-delict v. Delict Article 2177, CC Article 365, RPC Barredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil 607 Padilla vs. CA, 129 SCRA 558 Cruz vs. CA, 282 SCRA Philippine Rabbit vs. People, GR No. 147703 (2004) People vs. Ligon, 152 SCRA 419 (1987) Aquino, pp 24-26 I Sangco, pp. 115-120 2. Quasi-delict v. Breach of contract Articles 1170-1174, CC Article 1174, CC Article 2178, CC Cangco vs. Manila Railroad, 38 Phil 768 Fores vs. Miranda, 105 Phil 266 Far East vs. CA, 241 SCRA 671 Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 PSBA vs. CA, 205 SCRA 729 Syquia vs. CA, 217 SCRA 624 Calalas vs. Sunga, 332 SCRA 356 (2000) Aquino, pp. 25-26 III. A. NEGLIGENCE Concept of Negligence 1. Definition; Elements Article 20, CC Article 1173 CC Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil 809 V. Tolentino, pp. 506-507 2. Standard of Conduct 2.1. Ordinary prudent person I Sangco, pp. 7-8 2.2 Special Cases Children Article 12, RPC & Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Law Taylor vs. Manila Railroad, 16 Phil 8 Jarco Marketing vs. CA, GR No. 129792 Del Rosario vs. Manila, 57 Phil 478 Ylarde vs. Aquino, 163 SCRA 697 II Sangco, pp. 7-8 Experts/Professionals Article 2187,CC Culion vs. Philippine, GR No. 32611 US vs. Pineda, 37 Phil 456 BPI vs. CA, 216 SCRA 51 Intoxication Wright vs. Manila Electric, 28 Phil 122 Insanity Articles 2180, 2182, CC US vs. Baggay, 20 Phil 142 B. Degrees of Negligence Article 2231, CC Marinduqe vs. Workmen’s, 99 Phil 48 C. Proof of Negligence 1. Burden of proof Rule 131, Rules of Court (“ROC”) 2. Presumption Articles 2184-2185, 2188, 1734-1735, CC 3. Res ipsa loquitur Layugan vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 363 Ramos vs. CA, 321 SCRA 584 Batiquin vs. CA, 258 SCRA 334 DM Consunji vs. CA, 357 SCRA 249 D. Defenses 1. Plaintiff’s Negligence Article 2179, CC Manila Electric vs. Remonquillo, 99 Phil 117 GR No. L-8328 (1956) Bernardo vs. Legaspi, 29 Phil 12 Bernal vs. House, 54 Phil 327 PLDT vs. CA, GR No 57079, 178 SCRA 94 (September 29, 1989) 2. Contributory Negligence Articles 2179, 2214, CC Genobiagon vs. CA, 178 SCRA 422 Rakes vs. Atlantic, GR No 1719 (1907) Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA, 269 SCRA 695 3. Fortuitous Event Article 1174, CC Juntilla vs. Funtanar, 136 SCRA 624 Hernandez vs. COA, 179 SCRA 39 Gotesco Investment vs. Chatto, 210 SCRA 18 Servando vs. Phil Steam, 117 SCRA 832 National Power vs. CA, GR Nos. 103442-45 (1993) Southeastern College vs. CA, GR No. 126389, 292 SCRA 422 (July 10, 1998) 4. Assumption of Risk Afialda vs. Hisole, 85 Phil 67 Ilocos Norte vs. CA, 179 SCRA 5 5. Due diligence Ramos vs. Pepsi, 19 SCRA 289 Metro Manila vs. CA, 223 SCRA 521 6. Prescription Kramer vs. CA, 178 SCRA 518 Allied Banking vs. CA, 178 SCRA 526 7. Double recovery Article 2177, CC IV. CAUSATION A. Proximate Cause 1. Definition Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil 181(L-10126) (1957) Fernando vs. CA, 208 SCRA 714 (92087) (1992) Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988) Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, 148 SCA 353 (L-652095) (1987) Pilipinas Bank vs. CA, 234 SCRA 435 (105410) (1994) Quezon City vs. Dacara, (150304) (June 15, 2005) 2. Distinguished from other kinds Remote Gabeto vs. Araneta, 42 Phil 252 (15674) (1921) Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988) Concurrent Far East Shipping vs. CA, 297 SCRA 30 (130068) (1998) Sabido vs. Custodio, L-21512 (Aug 31, 1966) 3. Tests “But for” Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil 181 Substantial Factor Philippine Rabbit vs. IAC, 189 SCRA 158 (66102-04) (1990) Cause v. Condition Phoenix vs. IAC, supra Manila Electric vs. Remoquillo, 99 Phil 117 (L-8328) (1956) Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad, (15688) (November 19, 1921) B. Efficient Intervening Cause McKee vs. IAC, 211 SCRA 517 (68102) (1992) Manila Electric vs. Remoquillo, 99 Phil 117 (L-8328) (1956 Teague vs. Fernandez, 51 SCRA 181 (L-29745) (1973) Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988) C. Last Clear Chance Aquino, pp. 311-329 Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil 809 Bustamante vs. CA, 193 SCRA 603 (89880) (1991) Phoenix vs. IAC, 148 SCA 353 (L-652095) (1987) Glan vs. IAC, GR No. 70493 (May 18, 1989) Pantranco vs. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384 (79050-51) (1989) Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA, 269 SCRA 695 (97626) (1997) Ong vs. Metropolitan, 104 Phil 397 (L-7664) (1958) Anuran vs. Buno, (L-21353) (May 20, 1966) Raynera vs. Hiceta, 306 SCRA 102 (April 21, 1999) Canlas vs. CA, GR No 112160 (February 28 2000) Consolidated Bank vs. CA, GR No 138569 (September 11, 2003) Engada vs. CA, GR No. 140698 (June 20, 2003) V. LIABILITY A. Possessor of Animals Article 2183, CC Vestil vs. IAC, 179 SCRA 47 B. Things thrown or falling from a building Article 2193, CC Dingcong vs. Kanaan, 72 Phil 14 C. Death/Injuries in the course of employment Article 1711, CC cf 1712 Afable vs. Singer Sewing Machine, 58 Phil 39 D. Strict Liability/Product Liability Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p. 142 Article 2187, CC Articles 50 –52, 97, 99, 106-107, Consumer Act Sec. 11 RA 3720 Coca-cola vs. CA, 227 SCRA 293 II Sangco, pp. 714-734 E. Interference With Contractual Relations Article 1314, CC Gilchrist vs. Cuddy, 29 Phil 542 So Ping Bun vs. CA, (120554) (September 21, 1999) Aquino, pp. 795-801 F. Liability of Local Government Units Article 2189, CC Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan, (61516) 171 SCRA 382 G. Presumption of Negligence Articles 2185, 2188, 2190 to 2193, Civil Code VI. PERSONS LIABLE A. The Tortfeasor Articles 2176, 2181, 2194, CC Worcester vs. Ocampo, (5932) 22 Phil 42 (1912) Article 2184, CC Chapman vs. Underwood, (9010) 27 Phil 374 (1914) Caedo vs. Yu Khe Thai, G.R. No. L-20392 (Dec 18 1968) Rodriguez Luna vs. IAC, 135 SCRA 242 (1995) B. Vicarious Liability Quasi-tort – Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p.1489 Article 58 PD No. 603 Articles 216, 218- 219, 221, 236, FC Articles 101-103, RPC Sec. 6, RA 9344 Articles 2180 – 2182, CC 1. Parents Exconde vs. Capuno, (L-10134) 101 Phil 843 (1957) Salen vs. Balce, (L-14414) 107 Phil 748 (1960) Fuellas vs. Cadano, (L-14409) 3 SCRA 361 (1961) Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, (34840) 56 Phil 177 (1931) Rodriguez-Luna vs. IAC, (L-62988) 135 SCRA 242 (1985) Libi vs. IAC, (70890) 214 SCRA 16 (1990) Tamargo vs. CA, (85044) 209 SCRA 518 (1992) Cuadra vs. Monfort, 35 SCRA 160 (1970) 2. Guardians Articles 216 and 218, Family Code Articles 2180-2181, CC 3. Teachers and Heads of Institutions Articles 218-219, FC Article 2180, CC Mercado vs. CA, (L-14342) 108 Phil 414 (1960) Palisoc vs. Brillantes, (L-29025) 41 SCRA 548 (1971) Amadora vs. CA, L-47745 (April 15, 1988) Pasco vs.CFI, (L-54357) 160 SCRA 785 (1988) Ylarde vs. Aquino, (L-33722) 163 SCRA 697 (1988) Salvosa vs. IAC, (L-70458) 166 SCRA 274 (1988) St Francis vs. CA, (82465) 194 SCRA 340 (1991) PSBA vs. CA, 205 (84698) 205 SCRA 729 (1992) Soliman vs. Tuazon, (66207) 209 SCRA 47 (1992) St. Mary’s Academy vs. Carpitanos, (143363) (Feb 6 2002) 4. Owners and Managers of Establishments Philippine Rabbit vs. Phil American, (L-25142) 63 SCRA 231 (1975) 5. Employers Philtranco vs. CA, (120553) 273 SCRA 562 (1997) Castilex vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 132266 (Dec 211999) Filamer vs. IAC, (75112) 212 SCRA 637 (1992) NPC vs. CA, (119121) 294 SCRA 209 (1998) Light Rail Transit vs. Navidad, (145804) 397 SCRA 75(2003) Mckee vs. IAC, (68102) 211 SCRA 517 (1992) Valenzuela vs. CA, (115024) 253 SCRA 303 (1996) 6. State Merrit vs. Government, (11154) 34 Phil 311 (1916) Rosete vs. Auditor General, (L-1120) 81 Phil 453 (1948) Mendoza vs. De Leon, (9596) 33 Phil 508 (1916) Fontanilla vs. Maliaman, (55963) 194 SCRA 486 (1991) Article 2189, CC City of Manila vs. Teotico, (L-23052) 22 SCRA 267 (1968) Republic vs. Palacio, 23 SCRA 899 C. Others Article 1723, CC 1. Proprietors of Buildings Articles 2190- 2192, CC 2. Employees Araneta vs. Joya, (L-25172) 57 SCRA 59 (1974) 3. Engineer/Architect D. Nature of Liability: Joint or Solidary? Lanuzo vs. Ping and Mendoza, 100 SCRA 205 (1980) Malipol vs. Tan, 55 SCRA 202 (1974) Viluan vs. CA, 17 SCRA 742 VII. TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION A. Violation of Civil and Political Rights Article 32, CC 1 Sangco, pp. 228-255 (1993) Delfin Lim vs. Ponce de Leon, G.R. No. L-22554 (1975) Aberca vs. Ver, G.R. No. L-69866 (1988) MHP Garments vs. CA, 236 SCRA 227 B. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries Article 33, CC Articles 353-359, RPC Marcia vs. CA, 205 Phil 147 Madeja vs. Caro, 211 Phil 469 Arafiles vs. Phil Journalists, GR No 135306 (2004) 1. Defamation MVRS vs. Islamic, GR No 135306, 396 SCRA 210 (January 28, 2003) 2. Fraud Salta vs. De Veyra, 202 Phil 527 3. Physical Injuries Capuno vs. Pepsi Cola, G.R. No. L-19331 (1965) Corpus vs. Paje, G.R. No. L-26737 (1969) Madeja vs. Caro, supra Dulay vs. CA, GR No 108017 (1995) C. Neglect of Duty Article 34, CC D. Action for damages where no in independent civil action is provided Article 35, CC VIII. INTENTIONAL TORTS A. Abuse of Rights Article 19, CC Velayo vs. Shell, 100 Phil 186 Saudi Arabia vs. CA, 297 SCRA 469 Globe Mackay vs. CA, 176 SCRA 778 Albenson vs. CA, G.R. No. 88694. January 11, 1993. Amonoy vs. Gutierrez, 351 SCRA 731 UE vs. Jader, 325 SCRA 804 GR No 132344 (2000) Garciano vs. CA, 212 SCRA 436 Barons Marketing vs.CA, 286 SCRA 96 BPI vs. CA, 296 SCRA 260 B. Acts contra bonus mores Article 21, CC 1. Elements Ruiz vs. Secretary, GR No. L-15526 (1963) 2. Examples a. Breach of promise to marry, Seduction and Sexual Assault Wassmer vs. Velez, 12 SCRA 648 Tanjanco vs. Santos, GR No L-18630 (1966) Bunag vs. CA, 211 SCRA 441 Constantino vs. Medez, GR No 5722 (1992) Quimiguing vs. Icao, 34 SCRA 132 Pe vs. Pe, GR No. L-17396 (1962) b. Malicious prosecution Article 2219, CC Aquino, pp. 384-391 Lao vs. CA, 325 SCRA 694 Que vs. IAC, 169 SCRA 137 Drilon vs. CA, 270 SCRA 211 c. Public Humiliation Patricio vs. Leviste, G.R. No. 51832 (1989) Grand Union vs. Espino, G.R. No. L-48250 (1979) d. Unjust Dismissal Singapore Airlines vs. Paño, 122 SCRA 671 (1983) Medina vs. Castro-Bartolome, G.R. No. L-59825 (1982) 116 SCRA 597 IX. OTHER TORTS A. Dereliction of Duty Article 27, CC Amaro vs. Samanguit, L-14986 July 31, 1962 B. Unfair Competition Article 28, CC C. Violation of Human Dignity and Privacy Article 26, CC St Louis vs. CA, GR No. L-46061 (1984), 133 SCRA 179 (November 14, 1984) Concepcion vs. CA, GR No. 120706 (2000), 324 SCRA 85 (January 31, 2000) X. DAMAGES A. Definition and Concept Aquino, pp. 842-843 People vs. Ballesteros, 285 SCRA 438 Custodio vs. CA, 253 SCRA 483 Articles 2195, 2197, CC Heirs of Borlado vs. CA, G.R. 114118 (2001), 363 SCRA 753 Lazatin vs. Twano, 2 SCRA 842 (1961) Damnum Absque Injuria Aquino, pp. 843-845 Board of Liquidators vs. Heirs of Kalaw, 20 SCRA 987 Custodio vs. CA, supra B. Kinds of Damages 1. Actual or Compensatory Articles 2216, 2199, 2200, 205, CC Algarra vs. Sandejas, 27 Phil 284 a. Kinds PNOC vs. CA, 297 SCRA 402 Integrated Packing vs. CA, 333 SCRA 170 b. Extent Articles 2201-2202, CC c. Certainty DBP vs. CA, GR No. 118367 (1998) Fuentes vs.CA, 323 Phil 508 (1996) d. Damage to property PNOC vs.CA, supra e. Personal Injury and Death Article 2206, CC Ramos vs. CA, G.R. No. 124354 (1999), 380 SCRA 467 (April 11, 2002) Gatchalian vs. Delim, 203 SCRA 126 f. Attorney’s Fees Article 2208, CC Quirante vs. IAC, G.R. No. 73886, 169 SCRA 769 (January 31, 1989) g. Interest Articles 2209-2213, CC Crismina Garments vs. CA, G.R. No. 128721, 304 SCRA 356 (March 9, 1999) h. Mitigation of Liability Articles 2203-2204, 2214, 2215 Cerrano vs. Tan, 38 Phil 392 2. Moral a. Concept Article 2217, CC Kierulf vs. CA, 269 SCRA 433 b. Proof and Proximate Cause Miranda-Ribaya vs. Carbonell, 95 SCRA 672 Del Rosario vs. CA, 267 SCRA 58 Raagas vs. Traya, 22 SCRA 839 Enervida vs. dela Torre, 55 SCRA 339 People vs. Bagayong, GR. No 126518, 299 SCRA 528 (Dec. 2, 1998) c. Cases where allowed Articles 2219-2220, CC Francisco vs. GSIS, 7 SCRA 577 Expert Travel vs. CA, G.R. No. 130030 (1999) i. Unfounded Suits Mijares vs. CA, 271 SCRA 558 De la Pena vs. CA, 231 SCRA 456 J Marketing vs. Sia, 285 SCRA 580 Cometa vs. CA, 301 SCRA 459 ii. Labor Cases Triple Eight vs. NLRC, 299 SCRA 608 iii. Taking of Life People vs. Pirame, 327 SCRA (2000) Carlos Arcona y Moban vs. CA, GR No 134784, 393 SCRA 524 (Dec. 9, 2002) d. Factors in determining amount PNB vs. CA, 266 SCRA 136 Fule vs. CA, 286 SCRA 698 Philippine Airlines vs. CA, 275 SCRA 621 Valenzuela vs. CA, supra Sumalpong vs. CA, 268 SCRA 764 Lopez vs. Pan American, 16 SCRA 431 Producer’s Bank vs. CA, GR No 111584, 365 SCRA 326 (Sept.17, 2001) e. Who may recover Strebel vs. Figueros, 96 Phil 321 ABS-CBN vs. CA, G.R. No. 128690, 301 SCRA 572 (Jan. 21, 1999) National Power vs. Philipp Brothers, G.R. No 126204, 369 SCRA 629 (Nov. 20, 2001) 3. Nominal Articles 2221-2223, CC Ventanilla vs. Centeno, 1 SCRA 215 Robes-Francisco vs. CFI, 86 SCRA 59 People vs. Gopio, 346 SCRA 408 Armovit vs. CA, 184 SCRA 476 4. Temperate Articles 2224-2225, CC Pleno vs. CA, G.R. No. 56505 (1988) People vs. Singh, 360 SCRA 404 People vs. Plazo, 350 SCRA 433, 161 SCRA 208 (May 9, 1988) 5. Liquidated Articles 2226-2228, CC 6. Exemplary or Corrective Articles 2229-2235, CC PNB vs. CA, 256 SCRA 44 Del Rosario vs. CA, 267 SCRA 158 TEXTBOOKS AND REFERENCES AQUINO, T.A., Torts And Damages 2nd Edition, 2005. SANGCO, CESAR J. Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, Rev. Ed., Quezon City, JMC Press Vol. 1 (1993), Vol. II (1994) TOLENTINO, ARTURO Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines Vols. I, IV and V, Quezon City CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (CC) FAMILY CODE (FC) REVISED PENAL CODE (RPC)