QUASI-DELICT/ TORTS

SOURCES OF OBLIGATIONS

1. LAW- obligations arise when imposed by the law itself and cannot be
presumed. Example of an obligation arising from law is the payment of
taxes.

2. CONTRACTS- arise from the stipulation of the parties; it has the force and
effect of law and should be complied with in good faith.

3. QUASI-CONTRACT- Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise

to the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be
unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. For example, X
owed Y Php1,000.00. By Mistake, X paid the amount of Php5,000.00. Y
now has the obligation to return the excess payment because there was a
mistake in the payment. This is called solution indebiti.

4. CRIMINAL OFFENSES. Penalties for the commission of crimes.

5. QUASI-OFFENSE. Quasi-delict is used to designate those obligation which

do not arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or criminal offenses.

The basic provision on quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana or extracontractual

culpa, is Article 2176 of the Civil Code which provides.

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to

another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to
pay for the damage done.

CONDITIONS FOR QUASI DELICTS TO EXITS

(1) An unlawful act or omission amounting to a fault or negligence, imputable

to the defendant;
(2) Damage or injury to the plaintiff;
(3) Such damage or injury being the natural and probable, or direct and
immediate consequence of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission; and
(4) There being no pre-existing contractual relation between the plaintiff and
defendant.

Article 1173 of the Civil Code defines negligence as the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds
with the circumstance of the persons, of the time and of the place. If the
law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a “good father of a family” (the
degree of care) shall be required. However, the degree of care and diligence
required of a common carrier is extraordinary diligence.

1
 As a basis for liability, the negligent act or omission must be the proximate
cause of the damage suffered by the Plaintiff. Thus, negligence is a relative
term whose application depends upon the situation of the parties and the
degree of case and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require
and so where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and
the failure to observe is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances.
Where the concurrent or successive negligence acts or omissions of two
or more persons, although acting independently of each other are, in
combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third
person, and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each
contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even
though his act done might not have caused the entire injury, it has been
held that the owners of two vehicles are liable solidarily for the death of
the passenger.

Negligence on the part of the plaintiff will not defeat a claim for damages
in quasi-delict, if it was not the proximate and primary cause of the injury
but only contributed his harm, the court shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded. However, if the plaintiff’s own negligence is the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.

TEST OF NEGLIGENCE:

Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person
would have used in the same situation, if not, then he is guilty of
negligence.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

ARTICLE 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 whom
one is responsible for. This liability is popularly known as vicarious or
imputed liability.

This principle of vicarious liability is based on the civil law principle of

PATER FAMILIAS for failure to exercise due care and diligence over the
acts of one’s subordinates to prevent damage to another.

A. VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF PERSONS EXERCISING PARENTAL

AUTHORITY

1. 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.
(vicarious liability of persons exercising Parental Authority)

2. Guardians are liable for the damages caused by minors or incapacitated

persons who are under their authority and live in their company.

2
 B. VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS

3. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise

responsible for 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.

4. Employers are 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;

Requisites:
a. Existence of an employer-employee relationship
b. The employee acted within the scope of his or her assigned tasks
c. (for drivers and /or operators) the registered owner of a motor vehicle is
liable for death or injuries caused by the operation of the vehicle.

C. VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE STATE

d. 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 or to whom the
task done properly pertains;

D. VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF SCHOOLS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND

TEACHERS

e. Teachers and heads of establishments of arts and trade shall be liable for
damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as
they remained in their custody;
Enrollment Contract Rule: Under the enrollment contract, institutions of
learning have the “built-in” obligation of providing a conducive atmosphere
for learning, an atmosphere where there are no constant threats to life and
limb, and one where peace and order are maintained.

However, if it shown by the court that they observed hall the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage, their responsibility ceases.

DOCTRINES:

1. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE- a person who has the last clear
chance of opportunity of avoiding an incident notwithstanding the act of his
opponent of a third person, which is imputed to his opponent is considered
in law solely responsible for the consequences of the incident.

2. ASSUMPTION OF RISK- the party knowing the dangers involved, had

voluntarily assumed the risk of injury and therefore foresee an impending
harm that will result if he continues.

3
3. PRESCRIPTION. A motion may be filed on the ground that the action on
quasi-delict has already prescribed if such action has been filed after four
years from the day the quasi- delict was committed. The prescriptive period
is not interrupted by the filing of a criminal complaint as the civil action is
entirely independent from the criminal action.

4. DOCTRINE OF APPARENT AUTHORITY OR HOLDING OUT THEORY OR

DOCTRINE OF OSTENSIBLE AGENCY OR AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL

This doctrine imposes liability upon hospitals because of the hospital’s

actions as principals or as employer in somehow misleading the public into
believing that the relationship or the authority exists. The hospital is now
estopped from passing all the blame to the physicians whose names it
proudly paraded in the public directory leading the public to believe that it
vouched for their skill and competence. Under the doctrine of corporate
negligence, hospitals now have the duty to make reasonable effort to
monitor and oversee the treatment prescribed and administered by
physicians practicing in its premises. Accordingly, it has the duty to exercise
reasonable care to protect from harm all patients admitted into its facility
for medical treatment. Physicians guilty of malpractice

5. RES IPSA LOQUITUR (THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF)

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor establishes a presumption of negligence in
the absence of any statement by the person who has control of the object
causing the injury, where the thing which caused the injury, without fault
of the injured persons, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and
the injury is such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur if having
such control use proper case, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence
of the explanation, that the injury arose from the defendant’s want of care.

LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT:

A) POSSESSORS OR USERS OF ANIMALS:

The possessors 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

Exception to the rule:

1. force majeure
2. Fault of the person who suffered damage

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

C) LIABILITY OF LOCAL GOV’T UNITS (LGUs).

Provinces, cities, and municipalities shall be liable for the damages for the
death of, or injuries suffered by any person by reason of the defective

4
 condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works
under their control and supervision.

D) LIABILITY OF PROPRIETORS
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.

If the building, wall, column or any other construction is in danger of falling,

the owner shall be obliged to demolish it or to execute the necessary work
in order to prevent it from falling.

INSTANCES WHEN NEGLIGENCE IS PRESUMED:

1. If previously found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations

at least twice within the next preceding month;

2. If at the time of the mishap, he was violating traffic regulation;

3. If the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or

substances