TYPES OF LIABILITIES

1. Direct Liability liability for ones own acts

2. Vicarious Liability- liability of a person for the acts of aother for whome
the former is responsible
Article 2180 The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case
what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. 1
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused
by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)

a. Parents and Guardians

Cases:

Name
Exconde v
Capuno

Facts
Dante Capuno went to a
boyscout parade and drove a
jeep which he lost control over
and killed 2 people.

Cuadra v
Monfort

Maria Cuadra and Maria

Monfort were classmates and
assigned to weed school
premises. Monfort played a
joke on Cuadra tossing a
headband at her which hit her
eye, caused an infection and
lost her eye sight.

Issue
1. WON the
father is liable
with regards to
the negligent
act of minor
2. WON school
is liable
WON the
father is liable?

Ruling
1. YES, necessary
consequence of parental
authority
2. No. He was not a
student of an institute of
arts and trades
NO, there was no chance
for him to prevent such
accident since he sent his
child to school and as
parent no matter how
careful may not guard
against . It should have
been under supervision of
school and teacher.

Art. 2176. 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 and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

b. Owners and Managers of Establishments

Cases:
Name

Facts

Filamer
Christian
College v CA

Soliman v
Tuazon

Issue

Kapunan Sr. whilewalking

along Roxas, was struck by
jeep owned by ilamer driven
by Funtecha. Jeep had only
one light functioning and
Futecha had only students
license having persuaded
Allan Masa to give him the
wheels.

1. WON Funtecha
is employee of
Filamer.

2. WON Filamer
is liable

Soliman Jr. was in RCC when 1. WON Judge

Solomon shot him with a gun erred in granting
in the abdomen.
Motion to Dismiss
2. WON RCC is
liable based on
Art 2108

Ruling
1. NO. Funtecha
belongs to that special
category of students
who render service to
the school in exchange
for free tuition
2. NO. Funtecha was
not engaged in the
execution of the
janitorial services for
which he was
employed, but for some
purpose of his own.
1. Yes. Should have
allowed Soliman Jr. to
prove acts constituing
breach of an obligation
ex contractu or ex lege
2. Yes but on implied
contract not 2108 there
being no employee
employer relationship.

c. Employers (not engaged in business)

d. State
Cases:
Name
Merritt v
Governme
nt

Facts
Merrit, riding on a
motorcycle, was going
toward the western part of
Calle Padre Faura, upon
crossing Taft Avenue the
General Hospital
ambulance , turned suddenly
and unexpectedly and
caused a collision. Merrit lost
his ability to perform his
work. WON Government is

Issu
e
WON
Government is
legally-liable for
the damages
resulting
therefrom since
negligence
which caused
the collision is a
tort committed
by an agent or

Ruling
NO. It was due solely to the
negligence of chauffer.
State is only liable for the
acts of its agents, officers
and employees when they
act as special , but not when
the damage should have
been caused by the official
to whom properly it
pertained to do the act
performed and that the
chauffeur of the ambulance

legally-liable for the

damages resulting therefrom
since negligence which
caused the collision is a tort
committed by an agent or
employee of the
Government

Fontanilla
v
Maliaman

Pick up owned by NIA

(National Irrigation
Administration )bumped a
bicycle ridden by Fontanilla
and resulted to his death

employee of
the
Government

Whether or not
the award of
moral
damages,
exemplary
damages and
attorney's fees
is legally proper
in a complaint
for damages
based on quasidelict which
resulted in the
death of the
son of herein
petitioners.

of the General Hospital was

not such an agent.

YES because NIA is of

proprietary function. There is
negligence in supervision of
driver.

e. Teachers or Heads of Schools

Cases:
Name

Facts

Amadora Amadora student of

v CA
Colegio de San Jose
Recolectos wasshot to
death in the schools
auditorium by his
classmate Pablito Daffon

Issue
WON respondents
are liable.

Ruling
School and teachers are not
liable. No showing of teacher in
charge.
Art 2180 applies to academic
and non academic.
Custody as long as he is
under the control ad influence
of the school and is within its
premises whether the school
semester has just begun or has
ended.

Salvosa v On 3 March 1977, at

IAC
around 8:00 p.m., in the
parking space of BCF,
Jimmy B. Abon shot

1. WON Jimmy was 1. NO. He was working in the

in attendance in
armory as instructed by his
the school when he superior and not in recess
shot Napoleon

Napoleon Castro a
student of the University
of Baguio with an
unlicensed firearm which
the former took from the
armory of the ROTC Unit
of the BCF.

Castro
2. WON Salvosa
and BCF can be
held solidarity
hable with Jimmy
B. Abon for
damages under
Article 2180 of the
Civil Code, as a
consequence of
the tortious act of
Jimmy B. Abon

2. NO.He was not in custody of

school hence school has no
liability

3. Primary Liability
a. Possessors/users of animals
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the
same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may
escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the
damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage. (1905)
NOTE: Ownership not relevant. Possession is enough.

Name

Facts

Issue

Ruling

Vestil v.
IAC

Little Theness Tan

Uy was bitten by a
dog, Andoy, in the
house of Vestil and
died thereafter.

WON they are

liable even if
they are not
owner of dog.

YES. Obligation imposed by Article 2183

of the Civil Code is not based on the
negligence or on the presumed lack of
vigilance of the possessor or user of the
animal causing the damage. It is based
on natural equity and on the principle of
social interest that he who possesses
animals for his utility, pleasure or
service must answer for the damage
which such animal may cause.

b. Owners of motor vehicles

Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could
have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the
misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or
violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.

Name

Facts

Issue

Ruling

First
Malayan
v CA

Crisostomo Vitug filed a case

against defendant First Malayan
Leasing and Finance Corporation
(FMLFC), to recover damages as a
result of a three-vehicle collision

WON FMLFC is
liable as
registered owner
of Isuzu truck
even if it has

YES. Regardless of who

the actual owner of a
motor vehicle might be,
the registered owner is
the operator of the same

on involving his car, another car,

and an Isuzu cargo truck
registered in the name of FMLFC
and driven by one Crispin Sicat.

already sold the

same to Trinidad

While Vitugs car was at a full

stop at the intersection of NY
Cubao, , the on-coming Isuzu
cargo truck bumped a Ford
Granada car behind him with
such force that the Ford car
thrown on top of Vitugs car. The
cargo truck thereafter hit Vitugs
car in the rear causing the gas
tank to explode and setting the
car ablaze.

with respect to the public

and third persons, and as
such, directly and
primarily responsible for
the consequences of its
operation. In
contemplation of law, the
registered owner or
operator of record is the
one liable for damages
caused by a vehicle
regardless of any alleged
sale or lease made
thereon.

c. Manufacturers and Processors

Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet
articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by
any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual
relation exists between them and the consumers. (n)

See RA 7394 Consumer Act of the Philippines

d. Municipal Corporations
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for
damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason
of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings,
and other public works under their control or supervision. (n)

Cases:
Name

Facts

Issue

Ruling

City of
Manila v
Teotico

Genaro N. Teotico was within a

loading and unloading zone,
he managed to hail a jeepney
that came along to stop. As he
stepped down from the curb to
board the jeepney, and took a
few steps, he fell inside an
uncovered and unlighted
manhole on P. Burgos Avenue.
He suffered eye and body
injuries. The City of Manila, on
the other hand, contended that
P. Burgos is a national highway,
which meant that it did not
belong to the City of Manila and
thus could not be held liable.

WON the present

case is governed
by Sec 4 of RA
409 (Charter of
City of Manila)

YES. even if P. Burgos

Avenue were, therefore
a national highway,
this circumstance
would not necessarily
detract from its
control or supervision
by the City of Manila,
as provided for by
Section 18 of Republic
Act 409.

WON City of
Manila is liable

In Article 2189 of the

Civil Code, it is not
necessary that the
defective road or street
belongs to the
province, city or

municipality from
which responsibility is
exacted. What said
article requires is that
the province, city or
municipality have
either control or
supervision over said
street or road
Guliatco v
City of
Dagupan

Guilatco was about to board a

motorized tricycle at a sidewalk
located at Perez Blvd. (a
National Road, under the
control and supervision of the
City of Dagupan) accidentally
fell into a manhole located on
said sidewalk, thereby causing
her right leg to be fractured.
The city contends that Perez
Boulevard, where the fatal
drainage hole is located, is a
national road that is not under
the control or supervision of the
City of Dagupan but of Ministry
of Public Highways that has
control or supervision through
the Highway Engineer who is
also City Engineer

Whether or not
control or
supervision over a
national road by
the City of
Dagupan exists in
effectbinding the
city to answer for
damages under
Art 2189

YES. The liability of

public corporations for
damages arising from
injuries suffered by
pedestrians from the
defective condition of
roads is expressed in
the Civil Code under
Art 2189. Furthemore,
it is expressly provided
in the charter of
Dagupan that the City
Engineer has care and
custody of the public
system of waterworks
and sewers and is
mandated to inspect
and regulate the use of
the same.

e. Building Proprietors
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages
resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary
repairs. (1907)
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due
diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in
a safe and adequate place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force
majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions suitable to the place. (1908)
Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible
for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. (1910)

f. Engineers/Architects/Contractors
Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of
any defect in the construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third person suffering
damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in
accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed. (1909)

NOTES:
An act of God has been defined as an accident, due directly
and exclusively to natural causes without human intervention,
which by no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to
have been expected, could have been prevented.
Name

Facts

Issue

Ruling

Nakpil & Sons

v CA

Philippine Bar
Association decided to
construct an office
building on its lot
located at Intramuros,
Manila. The
construction was
undertaken by the
United Construction,
Inc. and the plans and
specifications for the
building were prepared
by the other third-party
defendants Juan F.
Nakpil & Sons. .
Astrong earthquake hit
Manila and the front
columns of the building
buckled, causing the
building to tilt forward
dangerously. The
tenants vacated the
building in view of its
precarious condition.
As a temporary
remedial measure, the
building was shored up
by United Construction,
Inc.

Whether or not
an act of God-an
unusually strong
earthquakewhich caused the
failure of the
building,
exempts from
liability, parties
who are
otherwise liable
because of their
negligence.

NO. The applicable law

governing the rights and
liabilities of the parties
herein is Article 1723 of the
New Civil Code. To be exempt
from liability for loss because
of an act of God, he must be
free from any previous
negligence or misconduct by
which that loss or damage
may have been occasioned.

EPG Construction
Company, Inc and UP
entered into a contract
for the construction of
the UP Law Library. The
building was formally
turned over by the
petitioner to UP; the
latter issued a
Certification of
Acceptance. Sometime
later, UP complained to
the petitioner that six
air-conditioning units in
the building were not
cooling properly. The
latter agreed to
shoulder the expenses
for their repair, which

WON the
existence of
appropriations
and availability
of funds as
certified to and
verified by the
proper acctg
pfficilas are
conditions sine
quo non for the
execution of govt
contracts.

EPG
Construction v
CA

WON they are

liable

Whether or not
the petitioner is
liable under the

YES. United Construction Co.,

Inc. was found to have made
substantial deviations from
the plans and specifications.
and to have failed to observe
the requisite workmanship in
the construction as well as to
exercise the requisite degree
of supervision; while the
third-party defendants were
found to have inadequacies
or defects in the plans and
specifications prepared by
them.

NO. While implied contracts

are void in view of applicable
laws, auditing rules and lack
of legal requiremetns, court
finds right to be
compensated for addtl.
Constructions applying
principle of quantum merit.

YES. All UP certified to, when

it issued the Certificate, was
that the building constructed
by the petitioner was in good

was, however, never

undertaken. UP then
demanded
reimbursement of the
said amount plus
liquidated damages

guarantee
provision in the
contract
notwithstanding
the Certificate of
Acceptance
issued by UP?

condition at the time it was

turned over to it. It did not
thereby relieve the petitioner
of liability for any defect that
may arise or be discovered
later during the one-year
period of the guaranty. The
defects complained against
were hidden and UP was not
expected to recognize them
at the time the work was
accepted. Moreover, there
was an express reservation
by UP of its right to hold the
petitioner liable for the
defects during a period of
one year.

4. Solidary Liability
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is
solidary. (n)

Other Types of Torts

1. Abuse of Right
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.

2. Contrary to Law and Morals

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.

3. Malicious Prosecution
4. Unjust Enrichment
Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or
any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the
expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same
to him.

Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's

property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the
latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited.

Elements: (ELND)
a. Enrichment of or benefit to respondent
b. Loss or damage to plaintiff
c. No moral or legal cause for enrichment or benefit
d. Enrichment of respondent is due to loss of plaintiff
5. Judicial Vigilance
Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the
parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence,
ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap,
the courts must be vigilant for his protection.

6. Thoughtless Extravagance
Art. 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display
during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by
order of the courts at the instance of any government or private
charitable institution.

7. Disrespect for Person

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though
they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly
station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

8. Dereliction of Duty
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public
servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform
his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against
he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that
may be taken.

9. Unfair Competition
Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial
enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,

machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall

give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.

10. Violation of Civil and Political Right

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any
private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable to the
latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a
periodical publication;

speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face

to face, and to have compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a
witness against one's self, or from being forced to
confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise
of immunity or reward to make such confession,
except when the person confessing becomes a
State witness;

(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;

(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and

unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed
or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has
not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and

(5) Freedom of suffrage;

(19) Freedom of access to the courts.

(6) The right against deprivation of property

without due process of law;

In any of the cases referred to in this article,

whether or not the defendant's act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party
has a right to commence an entirely separate and
distinct civil action for damages, and for other
relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently
of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be
instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance
of evidence.

(7) The right to a just compensation when private

property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the
same;
(11) The privacy of communication and
correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of
associations or societies for purposes not contrary
to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable
assembly to petition the government for redress of
grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary
servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive
bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a

The indemnity shall include moral damages.

Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not
demandable from a judge unless his act or
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
or other penal statute

11. Interference in Contractual Relations

Elements: (CKIBD)
a. Contract
b. Knowledge of the contract
c. Inducement
d. Breach of the contract
e. Damage to the other party

REMEDIES
Types of Actions:
1. Culpa Aquiliana
2. Culpa Contractual
3. Culpa Criminal
a. GR: Actions to recover civil liability are deemed
instituted with the criminal action.
EXCEPTIONS: (WRP)
i. Waiver
ii. Reservation
iii. Prior Institution
b. GR: Criminal Actions proceed before the civil
action
EXCEPTION: When there is prejudicial question

RA 7394
CHAPTER V
LIABILITY FOR PRODUCT AND SERVICE
Article 96. Implementing Agency. The Department of Trade and
Industry shall enforce the provisions of this Chapter and its
implementing rules and regulations.
Article 97. Liability for the Defective Products. Any Filipino or
foreign manufacturer, producer, and any importer, shall be liable for
redress, independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers by
defects resulting from design, manufacture, construction, assembly
and erection, formulas and handling and making up, presentation or
packing of their products, as well as for the insufficient or inadequate
information on the use and hazards thereof.
A product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully
expected of it, taking relevant circumstances into consideration,
including but not limited to:
a) presentation of product;
b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
c) the time it was put into circulation.
A product is not considered defective because another better quality
product has been placed in the market.
The manufacturer, builder, producer or importer shall not be held liable
when it evidences:
a) that it did not place the product on the market;
b) that although it did place the product on the market such
product has no defect;
c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at fault.
Article 98. Liability of Tradesman or Seller. The tradesman/seller
is likewise liable, pursuant to the preceding article when;
a) it is not possible to identify the manufacturer, builder,
producer or importer.
b) the product is supplied, without clear identification of the
manufacturer, producer, builder or importer;

c) he does not adequately preserve perishable goods. The

party making payment to the damaged party may exercise the
right to recover a part of the whole of the payment made
against the other responsible parties, in accordance with their
part or responsibility in the cause of the damage effected.
Article 99. Liability for Defective Services. The service supplier
is liable for redress, independently of fault, for damages caused to
consumers by defects relating to the rendering of the services, as well
as for insufficient or inadequate information on the fruition and hazards
thereof.
The service is defective when it does not provide the safety the
consumer may rightfully expect of it, taking the relevant circumstances
into consideration, including but not limited to:
a) the manner in which it is provided;
b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be expected of
it;
c) the time when it was provided.
A service is not considered defective because of the use or introduction
of new techniques.
The supplier of the services shall not be held liable when it is proven:
a) that there is no defect in the service rendered;
b) that the consumer or third party is solely at fault.
Article 100. Liability for Product and Service Imperfection. The
suppliers of durable or nondurable consumer products are jointly liable
for imperfections in quality that render the products unfit or
inadequate for consumption for which they are designed or decrease
their value, and for those resulting from inconsistency with the
information provided on the container, packaging, labels or publicity
messages/advertisement, with due regard to the variations resulting
from their nature, the consumer being able to demand replacement to
the imperfect parts.
If the imperfection is not corrected within thirty (30) days, the
consumer may alternatively demand at his option:
a) the replacement of the product by another of the same kind,
in a perfect state of use;

b) the immediate reimbursement of the amount paid, with

monetary updating, without prejudice to any losses and
damages;
c) a proportionate price reduction.
The parties may agree to reduce or increase the term specified in the
immediately preceding paragraph; but such shall not be less than
seven (7) nor more than one hundred and eighty (180) days.
The consumer may make immediate use of the alternatives under the
second paragraph of this Article when by virtue of the extent of the
imperfection, the replacement of the imperfect parts may jeopardize
the product quality or characteristics, thus decreasing its value.
If the consumer opts for the alternative under sub-paragraph (a) of the
second paragraph of this Article, and replacement of the product is not
possible, it may be replaced by another of a different kind, mark or
model: Provided, That any difference in price may result thereof shall
be supplemented or reimbursed by the party which caused the
damage, without prejudice to the provisions of the second, third and
fourth paragraphs of this Article.
Article 101. Liability for Product Quantity Imperfection.
Suppliers are jointly liable for imperfections in the quantity of the
product when, in due regard for variations inherent thereto, their net
content is less than that indicated on the container, packaging,
labeling or advertisement, the consumer having powers to demand,
alternatively, at his own option:
a) the proportionate price
b) the supplementing of weight or measure differential;
c) the replacement of the product by another of the same kind,
mark or model, without said imperfections;
d) the immediate reimbursement of the amount paid, with
monetary updating without prejudice to losses and damages if
any.
The provisions of the fifth paragraph of Article 99 shall apply to this
Article.
The immediate supplier shall be liable if the instrument used for
weighing or measuring is not gauged in accordance with official
standards.
Article 102. Liability for Service Quality Imperfection. The
service supplier is liable for any quality imperfections that render the

services improper for consumption or decrease their value, and for

those resulting from inconsistency with the information contained in
the offer or advertisement, the consumer being entitled to demand
alternatively at his option:
a) the performance of the services, without any additional cost
and when applicable;
b) the immediate reimbursement of the amount paid, with
monetary updating without prejudice to losses and damages, if
any;
c) a proportionate price reduction.
Reperformance of services may be entrusted to duly qualified third
parties, at the supplier's risk and cost.
Improper services are those which prove to be inadequate for purposes
reasonably expected of them and those that fail to meet the provisions
of this Act regulating service rendering.
Article 103. Repair Service Obligation. When services are
provided for the repair of any product, the supplier shall be considered
implicitly bound to use adequate, new, original replacement parts, or
those that maintain the manufacturer's technical specifications unless,
otherwise authorized, as regards to the latter by the consumer.
Article 104. Ignorance of Quality Imperfection. The supplier's
ignorance of the quality imperfections due to inadequacy of the
products and services does not exempt him from any liability.
Article 105. Legal Guarantee of Adequacy. The legal guarantee
of product or service adequacy does not require an express instrument
or contractual exoneration of the supplier being forbidden.
Article 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. The
stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing, exonerating or
reducing the obligation to indemnify for damages effected, as provided
for in this and in the preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there is
more than one person responsible for the cause of the damage, they
shall be jointly liable for the redress established in the pertinent
provisions of this Act. However, if the damage is caused by a
component or part incorporated in the product or service, its
manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who incorporated the
component or part are jointly liable.
Article 107. Penalties. Any person who shall violate any provision
of this Chapter or its implementing rules and regulations with respect
to any consumer product which is not food, cosmetic, or hazardous
substance shall upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not less than

Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by imprisonment of not more

than one (1) year or both upon the discretion of the court.
In case of juridical persons, the penalty shall be imposed upon its
president, manager or head. If the offender is an alien, he shall, after
payment of fine and service of sentence, be deported without further
deportation proceedings.