U.P.

LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

TORTS AND DAMAGES

Civil Law

Page 457 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

XII. Torts/Quasi-Delicts Art. 2177, CC. Responsibility for fault or

negligence under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising
Preliminary from negligence under the Penal Code. But the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
Considerations same act or omission of the defendant.

1. Definition of Tort Art. 100, RPC. Every person criminally liable for
a felony is also civilly liable.
Tort
A private or civil wrong violating a right for which the An act or omission causing damage to another may
law provides a remedy in the form of damages give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of
the offender—for civil liability ex delicto, and
Elements independent civil liabilities. The choice is with the
a. Duty plaintiff who makes known his cause of action in his
b. Breach initiatory pleading or complaint [LG Foods v. Philadelfa,
c. Injury; and G.R. No. 158995 (2006)]
d. Proximate Causation [Garcia v. Salvador, G.R. No.
168512 (2007)] DELICT QUASI-DELICT
Affects public interest Only of private concern
2. Definition of Quasi-Delict The law merely repairs
The law punishes or
the damages through
Art. 2176, CC. Whoever by act or omission causes corrects the criminal act
indemnification
damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault Covers only acts punished Any kind of fault or
or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual by the law negligence
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. 4. Culpa Aquiliana vs. Culpa
Quasi-delict
Contractual
Also known as culpa aquiliana
a. As to Source
Elements
a. Act/omission committed through In culpa aquiliana, it is the wrongful or negligent act or
fault/negligence omission itself which creates the vinculum juris,
b. Damage/injury is caused by such act/omission whereas in contractual relations, the vinculum exists
c. Does not arise under a pre-existing contractual independently of the breach of voluntary duty
obligation assumed by the parties when entering into the
contractual relation [Cangco v. Manila Railroad, G.R.
Note: Jurisprudence replaces the third element with No. L-12191 (1918).
causal connection [PNR v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891
(2006); Andamo v. IAC, G.R. No. 74761 (1990)]. b. As to Applicability of the
Doctrine of Proximate Cause
3. Quasi-Delict vs.Crime
The doctrine of proximate cause [to establish the fault
A quasi-delict is a separate source of obligation under or negligence of the defendant] is applicable only in
Art. 1157, CC. actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving
breach of contract [Calalas v. CA, G.R. No. 122039
(2000)].

Page 458 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

c. As to the Defense of an
Employer for the Negligence of CULPA CULPA
AQUILIANA CONTRACTUAL
an Employee
Negligence
As it is not necessary for the plaintiff in an action for becomes source
A breach in the
breach of contract to show that the breach was due to of obligation
Vinculum performance of an
the negligent conduct of the defendant or his between persons
juris obligation already
servants, proof on the part of the defendant that the not formerly
existing
negligence or omission of his servants or agents connected by a
caused the breach of contract would not constitute a legal tie
defense to the action [Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra] Presence of It is the
Merely incidental
negligence vinculum juris
QUASI- A lack of the Existence of
EX DELICTU What must
DELICT diligence contract and breach
(Under Art. 100, be proven
(Under Art. required thereof
RPC)
2176, CC)
Diligence in
Cause of selection and Rebuttal of the
Delict Quasi-delict Defense
action supervision of breach
Deemed instituted Separate legal employee
Need for with criminal case; institution; no Direct and
Direct liability of
reservation must be reserved to need to be Liability immediate, as
the employer
proceed separately reserved contracting party
[Cangco v. Manila Railroad, supra]
Preponderance of evidence (only
Quantum of
criminal action needs proof beyond
evidence Presence of Contractual Relations
reasonable doubt)
The Supreme Court held there may instances where
During pendency Proceeds there can be a quasi-delict even when there is a
Suspension of prosecution of independent of contract between the parties. The test (whether a
criminal case criminal case quasi-delict can be deemed to underlie the breach of
a contract) can be stated thusly: Where, without a pre-
No effect, unless existing contract between two parties, an act or
acquittal is because omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable
Effect of the act does not tort by itself, the fact that the parties are contractually
No effect
acquittal exist or accused is
not the author of The fact that the parties are contractually bound is no
the act bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the
case. [Far East v. CA, G.R. No. 108164 (1995)].
Before
arraignment: May be
May still be recovered from
Effect of recovered from the estate of the
death of estate of the accused,
accused* accused regardless of the
After stage the case is
arraignment: in
Extinguished
*Sec. 4, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Page 459 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Negligence 2. Default Standard of Care:

Good Father of a Family
1. Negligence
Test: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent
Art. 1173, CC. The fault or negligence of the act use that reasonable care and caution which an
obligor consists in the omission of that diligence ordinarily prudent man would have used in the same
which is required by the nature of the obligation situation? If not, then he is negligent. Negligence in a
and corresponds with the circumstances of the given case is not determined by reference to the
persons, of the time and of the place. When personal judgment of the actor in the situation before
negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of him, but is determined in the light of human
Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply. experience and the facts involved in the particular
case. Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent
If the law or contract does not state the diligence man in the position of the tortfeasor would have
which is to be observed in the performance, that foreseen that an effect harmful to another was
which is expected of a good father of a family shall sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the
be required. conduct or guarding against its consequences [Picart v.
Smith, G.R. No. L-12219 (1918)].
Negligence
It is the omission to do something which a reasonable 3. Standard of Care Needed in
man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily
regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or
Specific Circumstances
the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do [Layugan v. IAC, G.R. a. Operators of Motor Vehicles
No. 73998 (1988)]. In Relation to Cyclists
Because of inherent differences between
The diligence with which the law requires the motorists and cyclists, the former being capable
individual to at all times govern his conduct varies of greater speed and destruction, operators of
with the nature of the situation in which he is placed motor vehicles have a higher standard in his duty
and the importance of the act which he is to perform of care [Anonuevo v. CA, G.R. No. 130003 (2004)].
[Jorge v. Sicam, G.R. No. 159617 (2007)].
b. Banks
To determine whether there has been negligence by The law imposes on banks high standards in view
the defendant, this 2-step analysis may be used: of the fiduciary nature of banking. Section 2 of
a. Determine the diligence required of the actor Republic Act No. 8791 (RA 8791), which took
under the circumstances, and effect on 13 June 2000, declares that the State
b. Determine whether the actor has performed the recognizes the ‘fiduciary nature of banking that
diligence required. Failing the second step would requires high standards of integrity and
lead to the conclusion that the defendant has performance.’ This fiduciary relationship means
been negligent. that the bank’s obligation to observe high
standards of integrity and performance is deemed
By jumping into the sea, the employee failed to written into every deposit agreement between a
exercise even slight care and diligence and displayed a bank and its depositor. The fiduciary nature of
reckless disregard of the safety of his person. His banking requires banks to assume a degree of
death was caused by his notorious negligence. diligence higher than that of a good father of a
Notorious negligence has been held to be tantamount family [Consolidated Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 138569
to gross negligence which is want of even slight care (2003)].
and diligence [Ameda v. Rio, G.R. No. L-6870 (1954)].
c. Experts (In General)
Those who undertake any work calling for special
skills are required not only to exercise reasonable
care in what they do but also possess a standard
minimum of special knowledge and ability. In all
employments where peculiar skill is requisite, one

Page 460 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

who offers his services is understood as holding person in possession or control of dangerous
himself out to the public as possessing the degree instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional
of skill commonly possessed by others in the precautions to prevent any injury being done
same employment [Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or
G.R. No. 130068 (1998)]. business which involve little or no risk, a business
dealing with dangerous weapons requires the
When a person holds himself out as being exercise of a higher degree of care [Pacis v. Morales,
competent to do things requiring professional G.R. No. 169467 (2010)].
skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails
to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily g. Children
skilled in the particular work which he attempts The conduct of an infant of tender years is not to
to do [Culion v. Philippine Motors, G.R. No 32611 be judged by the same rule, which governs that
(1930)]. of an adult. …The care and caution required of a
child is according to his maturity and capacity
d. Doctors only, and this is to be determined in each case by
Whether or not a physician has committed an the circumstances of the case [Taylor v. Manila
‘inexcusable lack of precaution’ in the treatment Railroad, G.R. No. 4977 (1910)].
of his patient is to be determined according to the
standard of care observed by other members of No contributory negligence can be imputed to
the profession in good standing under similar children below 9 years old [Jarco Marketing v. CA,
circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state G.R. No. 129792 (1999)].
of the profession at the time of treatment of
present state of medical science. It is in this The degree of care required to be exercised must
aspect of medical malpractice that expert vary with the capacity of the person endangered
testimony is essential to establish not only the to care for himself. …The standard of conduct to
standard of care of the profession but also that which a child must conform for his own
the physician’s conduct in the treatment and care protection is that degree of care ordinarily
falls below such standard [Cruz v. CA, GR. No. exercised by children of the same age, capacity,
122445 (1997)] discretion, knowledge and experience under the
same or similar circumstances [Ylarde v. Aquino,
e. Pharmacists G.R. No. L-33722 (1988)].
The profession of pharmacy, it has been said
again and again, is one demanding care and skill. 4. Presumptions of Negligence
Even under the first conservative expression,
"ordinary care" with reference to the business of
a druggist…must be held to signify "the highest a. In Motor Vehicle Mishaps
practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness,
and vigilance, and most exact and reliable Liability of the owner
safeguards consistent with the reasonable
conduct of the business in order that human life Art. 2184, CC. In motor vehicle mishaps, the
may not constantly be exposed to the danger owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the
flowing from the substitution of deadly poisons former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the
for harmless medicine [US v. Pineda, G.R. No. L- use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune.
12858 (1918)].” xxx
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
Mistake is negligence and care is no defense provisions of article 2180 are applicable.
[Mercury Drug v. de Leon, G.R. No. 165622 (2008)].
Art. 2186, CC. Every owner of a motor vehicle
f. Possessor of Extremely Dangerous shall file with the proper government office a bond
Instrumentalities executed by a government-controlled corporation
[A] higher degree of care is required of someone or office, to answer for damages to third persons.
who has in his possession or under his control an The amount of the bond and other terms shall be
instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, fixed by the competent public official.
such as dangerous weapons or substances. Such

Page 461 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

professional drivers by car owners who, by their very

The owner is solidarily liable with the driver for motor inadequacies, have real need of drivers' services,
vehicle mishaps when: would be effectively proscribed [Caedo v. Yu Khe Tai,
a. The owner was IN the vehicle at the time, AND G.R. No. L-20392 (1968)].
b. The owner could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. The owner of the motor vehicle is not liable for the
misfortune unless the negligent acts of the driver are
Note: If the owner was NOT inside the vehicle, Art. continued for such a length of time as to give the
2180 applies. owner a reasonable opportunity to observe them and
to direct his driver to desist therefrom. The act
The presumption is against the owner of the motor complained of must be continued in the presence of
vehicle. He has the burden of proving due diligence. the owner for such a length of time that the owner,
Thus, once a driver is proven negligent in causing by his acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own
damage, the law presumes the vehicle owner equally [Chapman v. Underwood, G.R. No. L-9010 (1914)].
negligent and imposes upon the latter the burden of
proving proper selection and supervision of employee Liability of the driver
as a defense.
Art. 2184, CC. xxx It is disputably presumed that
As held in Vargas v. Langcay [G.R. No. 17459 (1962)], a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty
“the registered owner/operator of a passenger vehicle of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at
is jointly and severally liable with the driver for least twice within the next preceding two months.
damages incurred by passengers or third persons as a
consequence of injuries or death sustained in the
Art. 2185, CC. Unless there is proof to the
operation of said vehicles. Regardless of who the
contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a
actual owner of a vehicle is, the operator of record
motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of
continues to be the operator of the vehicle as regards
the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
the public and third persons and as such is directly
and primarily responsible for the consequences
incident to its operation, so that in contemplation of Article 2184 establishes a presumption of negligence
law, such owner/operator of record is the employer on the part of the driver based on previous violations
of the driver, the actual operator and employer being of traffic regulations. Article 2185 establishes a
considered merely as his agent.” presumption of negligence on the basis of
simultaneous violations.
The registered owner of a motor vehicle is primarily
liable for the damage or injury caused to another, but Despite the presumption of negligence arising from
he has a right to be indemnified by the real owner of the traffic regulation violation, the claimant must still
the amount he was required to pay. This rule applies prove that such negligence was the proximate cause
both to private and to common carriers with respect in order to successfully claim for damages [Sanitary
to their passengers [Tamayo v. Aquino, G.R. No. L- Steam v CA, G.R. No. 119092 (1998)].
12634 (1959)].
Article 2185 was not formulated to compel or ensure
The law does not require that a person must possess obeisance by all to traffic rules and regulations. It does
a certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the not apply to non-motorized vehicles, in recognition
mechanics of driving or in the observance of traffic of the unequal footing of standards applicable to
rules before he may own a motor vehicle. The test of motor vehicles as opposed to other types of vehicles
his negligence, within the meaning of Article 2184, is [Añonuevo v. CA, supra].
his omission to do that which the evidence of his own
senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the
accident. And as far as perception is concerned,
absent a minimum level imposed by law, a maneuver
that appears to be fraught with danger to one
passenger may appear to be entirely safe and
commonplace to another. Were the law to require a
uniform standard of perceptiveness, employment of

Page 462 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the

b. Possession of Dangerous exclusive control of the defendant or defendants;
and
Weapons or Substances 3. The possibility of contributing conduct, which
would make the plaintiff responsible, is
Art. 2188, CC. There is prima facie presumption eliminated.
of negligence if the death or injury results from his
possession of dangerous weapons or substances, Note: Professional Services v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297
such as firearms and poison, except when the use (2007) added the absence of an explanation by the
or possession thereof is indispensable in his defendant as the fourth element.
occupation or business.
Basis
The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is based in part upon the
c. Common Carriers theory that the defendant in charge of the
instrumentality which causes the injury either knows
Art. 1735, CC. In all cases other than those the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity
mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding of ascertaining it and that the plaintiff has no such
article (calamity, act of public enemy in war, act of knowledge, and therefore is compelled to allege
owner of the goods, character of the goods, order negligence in general terms and to rely upon the proof
of competent public authority), if the goods are of the happening of the accident in order to establish
lost destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers negligence [DM Consunji v. CA, G.R. No. 137873
are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted (2001)].
negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as required under Art. Effect of the Rule
1733. The fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the
surrounding circumstances, raise a presumption of
Art. 1752, CC. Even when there is an agreement negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case,
limiting the liability of the common carrier in the and present a question of fact for defendant to meet
vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is with an explanation.
disputably presumed to have been negligent in case
of their loss, destruction or deterioration. The rule does not dispense with the requirement of
proof of negligence but simply a step in the process
d. Res Ipsa Loquitur of such proof [Ramos v CA, supra].

Effect of Direct Evidence

The rule of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing or the
It has generally been held that the presumption of
transaction speaks for itself”) is a rule of evidence (not
inference arising from the doctrine cannot be availed
of substantive law) peculiar to the law of negligence.
of, or is overcome, where plaintiff has knowledge and
The rule states that where the thing which causes testifies or presents evidence as to the specific act of
injury is shown to be under the management of the negligence which is the cause of the injury complained
defendant (or his servants), and the accident is such of or where there is direct evidence as to the precise
cause of the accident and all the facts and
as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if
circumstances attendant on the occurrence clearly
those who have the management (or control) used
appear [Layugan v. IAC, G.R. No. 73998 (1988)]
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the
accident arose from (or was caused by the defendants) Res Ipsa Loquitur vs. Expert Testimony in
want of care [Tan v. JAM Transit, G.R. No. 183198 Medical Negligence Cases
(2009)]
It is apparent that medical negligence cases are best
proved by opinions of expert witnesses belonging in
Elements: [Ramos v. CA, G.R. No. 124354 (1999)]
the same general neighborhood and in the same
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does
general line of practice as defendant physician or
not occur in the absence of someone’s
surgeon [Lucas v. Tuaño, G.R. No. 178763 (2009)].
negligence;

Page 463 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

When the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by scope of his authority, are no longer protected by the
the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is mantle of immunity for official actions. [Vinzons-
dispensed with because the injury itself provides the Chato v Fortun, G.R. No. 141309 (2008)].
proof of negligence. The reason is that the general
rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies only c. Authority of Law
to such matters clearly within the domain of medical
science, and not to matters that are within the
Art. 5, CC. Acts executed against the provisions
common knowledge of mankind which may be
of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void,
testified to by anyone familiar with the facts [Ramos v.
except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
CA, supra].
Art. 11, CC. The following do not incur any
5. Defenses criminal liability: xxx
(5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a
a. Due Diligence to Prevent the duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
Damage under Art. 2180, CC office
xxx
(8) Any person who acts in obedience to an order
Art. 2180, CC. The obligation imposed by Article issued by a superior for some lawful purpose
2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible. d. Damnum Absque Injuria
xxx There can be damage without injury in those instances
in which the loss or harm was not the result of a
(8) The responsibility treated of in this article shall violation of a legal duty.
cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the diligence of a good father Right to recover damages does not arise from the
of a family to prevent damage. mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses. To warrant
the recovery of damages, there must be both a right
The presumption of negligence on the part of the of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant,
master or employer, either in the selection of and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom.
servant/employee or in the supervision, when an Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong,
injury is caused by the negligence of a does not constitute a cause of action, since damages
servant/employee may be rebutted if the employer are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury
shows to the satisfaction of the court that in the caused by a breach or wrong [Custodio v. CA, G.R. No.
selection and supervision, he has exercised the care 116100 (1996)].
and diligence of a good father of a family [Ramos v.
PEPSI, G.R. No. L-22533 (1967)]. INJURY DAMAGE DAMAGES
Loss, hurt, harm Recompense or
b. Acts of Public Officers Illegal invasion
resulting from compensation
of a legal right
the injury awarded
A public officer is not liable for damages which a
person may suffer arising from the just performance One who made use of his own legal right does no
of his official duties and within the scope of his injury, thus, whatever damages are caused to another
assigned tasks. An officer who acts within his should be borne solely by him under the principle of
authority to administer the affairs of the office which damnum absque injuria. This principle, however, does
he/she heads is not liable for damages that may have not apply when there is an abuse in the exercise of a
been caused to another, as it would virtually be a person’s right. [Amonoy v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 140420
charge against the Republic, which is not amenable to (2001)]
judgment for monetary claims without its
consent. However, a public officer is by law not
immune from damages in his/her personal capacity
for acts done in bad faith which, being outside the

Page 464 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own

e. Plaintiff’s Negligence is the imprudence [MH Rakes v. Atlantic, G.R. No. L-1719
(1907)].
Proximate Cause
The defense of contributory negligence does not
Art. 2179, CC. When the plaintiff’s own apply in criminal cases committed through reckless
negligence was the proximate cause of his injury, imprudence, since one cannot allege the negligence of
he cannot recover damages. Xxx another to evade the effects of his own negligence
[Genobiagon v. CA, G.R. No. 40452 (1989)].
This defense of plaintiff’s negligence as proximate
cause is absolute, for it bars recovery on the part of g. Fortuitous Event
the plaintiff. In Manila Electric v. Remoquillo, supra, the
Court did not allow recovery by Magno, ruling that
his death was primarily caused by his own negligence
Art. 1174, CC. Except in cases expressly specified
by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
and in some measure by the too close proximity of
stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation
the “media agua” to the electric wire.
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which, could not be
If the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his own
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
carelessness contributed to the principal occurrence,
inevitable.
that is, to the accident, as one of the determining
causes thereof, he cannot recover [Bernardo v. Legaspi,
G.R. No. 9308 (1914)]. Elements of caso fortuito [Juntilla v. Fontanar, G.R.
No. L-45637 (1985)]:
1. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
f. Contributory Negligence of the occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to
Plaintiff comply with his obligation, must be independent
of the human will;
Art. 2179, CC. xxx But if his negligence was only 2. It must be impossible to foresee the event or if it
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid;
of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, 3. The occurrence must be such as to render it
the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. in a normal manner; and
4. The obligor must be free from any participation
in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
Art. 2214, CC. In quasi-delicts, the contributory creditor.
negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages
that he may recover.
h. Plaintiff’s assumption of risk
Contributory negligence is defined as conduct on the /Volenti Non Fit Injuria
part of the injured party, which contributed as a legal
cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (that to which a
the standard to which he is required to conform for person assents is not presumed in law as injury) refers
his own protection [Valenzuela v. CA, GR. No. to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury
115024 (1996)]. which precludes the recovery of damages by one who
has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to
Contributory negligence does not defeat an action if danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so. This is
it can be shown that the defendant might, by the so because, in theory, the plaintiff’s acceptance of the
exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have risk has wiped out the defendant’s duty, and as to the
avoided the consequences of the injured party's plaintiff the defendant’s negligence is not a legal
negligence. Where the plaintiff contributes to the wrong.
principal occurrence as one of its determining factors,
he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with the Requisites:
occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he 1. That the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the
may recover the amount that the defendant danger;
responsible for the event should pay for such injury,

Page 465 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

2. That he understood and appreciated the risk j. Waiver

from the danger; and
3. That he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk
Art. 6, CC. Rights may be waived, unless the
waiver is contrary to law, public order, public
The defense is not applicable in the following
policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to a
cases:
third person with a right recognized by law.
A person is excused from the force of the rule (volenti
non fit injuria), that when he voluntarily assents to a
known danger he must abide by the consequences, if Art. 1171, CC. Responsibility arising from fraud is
an emergency is found to exist or if the life or demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an
property of another is in peril or when he seeks to action for future fraud is void.
rescue his endangered property [Ilocos Norte v. CA,
G.R. No. 53401 (1989)]. k. Emergency Rule or Sudden Peril
The doctrine does not find application to the case
Doctrine
because even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of
An individual, who suddenly finds himself in a
being asked to leave the party, petitioners, under
situation of danger and is required to act without
Articles 19 and 21 of the CC, were still under the
much time to consider the best means that may be
obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose
adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty
him to unnecessary ridicule and shame [Nikko Hotel v.
of negligence if he fails to undertake what
Roberto Reyes, G.R. No. 154259 (2005)].
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a
better solution, unless the emergency was brought by
i. Prescription his own negligence [Gan v. CA, G.R. No. L-44264
(1988)].
Art. 1146, CC. The following actions must be
instituted within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;

However, when the action arises from or out of

any act, activity, or conduct of any public officer
involving the exercise of powers or authority
arising from Martial Law including the arrest,
detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same
must be brought within one (1) year.

Art. 1150, CC. The time for prescription for all

kinds of actions, when there is no special provision
which ordains otherwise, shall be counted from
the day they may be brought.

Prescription periods:
• 4 years for QD
• 1 year for defamation

It is clear that the prescriptive period must be counted

when the last element occurs or takes place, the time
of the commission of an act or omission violative of
the right of the plaintiff, which is the time when the
cause of action arises. Thus, the prescription period
begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed
[Kramer v. CA, G.R. No. 83524 (1989)].

Page 466 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Cause Note: Here, 3 days have elapsed from the time of the
negligent act determined by the Court as the
1. Concept of Proximate Cause proximate cause; thus, the Court did not consider the
time element in determining proximate cause but the
In order that civil liability for negligence may arise, nature and gravity of the injury.
there must be a direct causal connection between the
damage suffered by the plaintiff and the act or Differentiated from:
omission of the defendant. a. Concurrent Cause – Several causes producing
the injury, and each is an efficient cause without
Where the particular harm sustained was reasonably which the injury would not have happened. The
foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s misconduct, injury is attributed to any or all the causes, and
his act or omission is the legal cause thereof. recovery may be had against any or all of those
Foreseeability is the fundamental basis of the law of responsible.
negligence. To be negligent, the defendant must have
acted or failed to act in such a way that an ordinary Note: They’re the same thing from the point of
reasonable man would have realized that certain view of solidarity.
interests of certain persons were reasonably subjected
to a general but definite class of risks. [Jarencio] As a general rule, that negligence in order to
render a person liable need not be the sole cause
Two definitions of proximate cause: of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence,
a. Proximate cause immediately resulting in concurring with one or more efficient causes
injury: defined as “that cause, which, in natural other than the plaintiff’s, is the proximate cause
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any of the injury.
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,
and without which the result would not have b. Remote Cause – a cause which would have been
occurred” [Bataclan v. Medina, G.R. No. 10126 a proximate cause, had there been no efficient
(1957)]. intervening cause after it and prior to the injury.
b. Proximate cause not immediately resulting
in injury but sets in motion a chain of events, A prior and remote cause cannot be made the
also known as Proximate Legal Cause: that basis of an action if such remote cause did
acting first and producing the injury, either nothing more than furnish the condition or give
immediately or by setting other events in motion, rise to the occasion by which the injury was made
all constituting a natural and continuous chain of possible, if there intervened between such prior
events, each having a close causal connection or remote cause and the injury a distinct,
with its immediate predecessor, the final event in successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the
the chain immediately effecting the injury as a injury, even though such injury would not have
natural and probable result of the cause which happened but for such condition or occasion
first acted, under such circumstances that the [Manila Electric v. Remonquillo, G.R. No. L-8328
person responsible for the first event should, as (1956)].
an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his c. Intervening Cause
act or default that an injury to some person might The test of determining whether or not the
probably result therefrom [Bataclan v. Medina, intervening cause is sufficient to absolve a prior
supra]. cause of the injury is as follows: whether the
intervention of a later cause is a significant part
Respondent was mistakenly given Dormicum, a of the risk involved in the defendant’s conduct or
potent sleeping tablet, instead of medication for his is so reasonable connected with it that the
blood sugar. He took a pill for 3 consecutive days and responsibility should not be terminated. In the
on the third day, he fell asleep on the wheel and affirmative, such foreseeable intervening forces
figured in a vehicular accident. The Court found that are within the scope of the original risk, and
the proximate cause of the accident was the Mercury hence of the defendant’s negligence. In the
Drug employee’s mistake in reading the prescription negative, there exists an efficient intervening
[Mercury Drug v. Baking, G.R. No. 156037 (2007)]. cause that relieves the defendant of liability.

Page 467 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

apparent safety, and some new force intervenes.

If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary But even in such cases, it is not the distinction
human experience is reasonably to be anticipated, between “cause” and “condition” which is
or one which the defendant has reason to important, but the nature of the risk and the
anticipate under the particular circumstances, the character of the intervening cause [Phoenix
defendant may be negligent, among other Construction v. IAC, supra].
reasons, because of failure to guard against it.
There is an intervening cause combining with the f. Last clear chance
defendant’s conduct to produce the result, and
the defendant’s negligence consists in failure to The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
protect the plaintiff against that very risk [Phoenix Also known as: "doctrine of discovered peril” or
Construction v. IAC, G.R. No. L-65295 (1987)]. “doctrine of supervening negligence” or
“humanitarian doctrine”.
2. Tests to Determine
The antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does
Proximate Cause not preclude him from recovering damages
caused by the supervening negligence of the
a. But for / Sine qua non rule defendant, who had the last fair chance to
Whether such negligent conduct is a cause prevent the impending harm by the exercise of
without which the injury would not have due diligence [PNR v. Brunty, supra].
occurred or is the efficient cause which set in
motion the chain of circumstances leading to the If both parties are found to be negligent; but,
injury. [Bataclan v. Medina, supra] their negligence are not contemporaneous, the
person who has the last fair chance to avoid the
b. Sufficient link impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable
Plaintiff, however, must establish a sufficient link with the consequences, without reference to the
between the act or omission and the damage or prior negligence of the other party [Picart v. Smith,
injury. That link must not be remote or far- supra].
fetched; otherwise, no liability will attach. The
damage or injury must be a natural and probable The doctrine of last clear chance finds no
result of the act or omission. [Dy Teban Trading, application in a case where the proximate cause
Inc. v. Ching, G.R. No. 161803 (2008)] of the injury has been established [PNR v Brunty,
supra].
c. Substantial factor
If the actor’s conduct is a substantial factor in The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply
bringing about harm to another, the fact that the in a case of culpa contractual, where neither the
actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen contributory negligence of the plaintiff nor his
the extent of the harm or the manner in which it last clear chance to avoid the loss, would
occurred does not prevent him from being liable exonerate the defendant from liability. Such
[Philippine Rabbit v. IAC, G.R. No. 66102-04 contributory negligence or last clear chance by
(1990)] the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery
of damages by the plaintiff but does not
d. Mixed considerations exculpate the defendant from his breach of
There is no exact formula to determine probable contract [Consolidated Bank v. CA, G.R. No.
cause. It is based upon mixed considerations of 138569 (2003)].
logic, common sense, policy and precedent [Dy
Teban v. Jose Ching, supra]. Last clear chance applies only if the person who
allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the
e. Cause v. condition accident was aware of the existence of peril or
The distinction between cause and condition has should, with exercise of due care, have been
already been almost entirely discredited. So far as aware of it. The doctrine can never apply where
it has any validity at all, it must refer to the type the party charged is required to act
of case where the forces set in operation by the instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be
defendant have come to rest in a position of avoided by application of all means at hand after

Page 468 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

the peril is or should have been discovered control over the direct tortfeasor. The doctrine does
[Pantranco v. Baesa, G.R. No. 79051-51(1989)]. not apply where moral culpability can be imputed
directly, as when there is actual intent to cause harm
The doctrine of last clear chance, as enunciated to others.
in Anuran v. Buno, applies in a suit between the
owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. It does The liability of the vicarious obligor is primary and
not arise where a passenger demands direct (solidarily liable with the tortfesor), not
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its subsidiary. His responsibility is not conditioned upon
contractual obligations. It will be inequitable to the insolvency of or prior recourse against the
exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its negligent tortfeasor.
owners on the ground that the other driver was
likewise guilty of negligence [Bustamante v. CA, PERSONS
G.R. No. 89880 (1991)]. VICARIOUSLY ACTORS
LIABLE
Note:
Father and, in case
• If plaintiff is the proximate cause: no recovery
of his death or Minor children who live in
can be made.
incapacity, the their company
• If plaintiff is not the proximate cause: Recovery mother
can be made but such will be mitigated.
• If negligence of parties is equal in degree, then Minors or incapacitated
each bears his own loss. persons who are under their
Guardians
authority and live in their
company
3. Persons Liable
Owners and Employees in the service of
managers of an the branches in which the
a. The direct tortfeasor, for his own establishment or latter are employed or on the
acts enterprise occasion of their functions
Employees and household
Art. 2176, CC. Whoever by act or omission causes helpers acting within the
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, scope of their assigned tasks,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. xxx Employers
even though the former are
not engaged in any business or
The tortfeasor may be a natural or juridical person. industry
For natural persons, apply requisites of Art. 2176 and State Special agent
for juridical persons, apply vicarious liability
provisions. Teachers or heads Pupils and students or
of establishments apprentices, so long as they
b. Persons vicariously liable of arts and trades remain in their custody

Art. 2180, CC. The obligation imposed by Article c. Persons exercising parental
2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or authority
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible. Art. 2180 (2), CC. The father and, in case of his
death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for
xxx the damages caused by the minor children who live
in their company.
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 Art. 211, FC Parents and other persons exercising
of a family to prevent the damage. parental authority shall be civilly liable for the
injuries and damages caused by the acts or
omissions of their unemancipated children living
The rationale is to extend liability by legal fiction to
in their company and under their parental
those in a position to exercise absolute or limited

Page 469 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

authority subject to the appropriate defenses Parental liability is anchored upon parental authority
provided by law. coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the
discharge of the duties accompanying such authority.
Art. 216, FC. In default of parents or a judicially The parental dereliction is, of course, only presumed
appointed guardian, the following person shall and the presumption can be overturned under Article
exercise substitute parental authority over the child 2180 of the CC by proof that the parents had
in the order indicated: exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family
(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. to prevent the damage [Tamargo v. CA, G.R. No.
214; 85044 (1992)].
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one
years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and Meaning of “Minority”
(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one Par. 2 and 3 of Art. 2180 speak of minors. Minors here
years of age, unless unfit or disqualified. refer to those who are below 21 years of age, not
Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian below 18 years. The law reducing the majority age
over the property of the child becomes necessary, from 21 to 18 years old did not amend these
the same order of preference shall be observed. paragraphs. Basis is FC, Art. 236 (3), as amended by
RA 6809, provides, “Nothing in this Code shall be
construed to derogate from the duty or responsibility
Art. 217, FC. In case of foundlings, abandoned of parents and guardians for children and wards
neglected or abused children and other children below 21 years of age mentioned in the second and
similarly situated, parental authority shall be third paragraphs of 2180 of the CC.”
entrusted in summary judicial proceedings to
heads of children's homes, orphanages and similar
Art. 2180 (3), CC. Guardians are liable for
institutions duly accredited by the proper
damages caused by the minors or incapacitated
government agency.
persons who are under their authority and live in
their company.
Art. 221 FC provides that persons exercising
parental authority shall be civilly liable for the torts
The liability of guardians with respect to their wards
of the children in their care. Art. 211 FC then states
is governed by the same rule as in the liability of
that parental authority is exercised by both the father
parents with respect to their children below 21 years
and the mother. Thus, the distinction in Art. 2180
and who live with them
where the father is liable before the mother no longer
applies.
“Incompetent” includes (Rule 92, ROC):
1. Those suffering the penalty of civil interdiction,
Who are liable for minors?
2. Prodigals,
1. Parents/Adoptive parents
3. Deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write
2. Court-appointed guardians
4. Unsound mind, even though they have lucid
3. Substitute Parental Authorities
intervals
a. Grandparents
5. Being of sound mind, but by reason of age,
b. Oldest qualified sibling over 21 years old
disease, weak mind, and other similar causes,
c. Child’s actual custodian, provided he is
cannot take care of themselves or manage their
qualified and over 21 years old.
property
4. Special Parental Authorities
a. School
Liability of minor or insane tortfeasor without a
b. Administrators
parent or guardian
c. Teachers
He shall be answerable with his own property in an
d. Individual, entity, or institution engaged in
action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be
child care
appointed. [Art. 2182]
Illegitimate children
Responsibility is with the mother whom the law vests
with parental authority.

Basis of liability of parents and adopters

Page 470 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

are not in close be liable for the

d. Teachers and schools proximity to tort by the
them. apprentice/student.
Art. 2180 (7), CC. Lastly, teachers or heads of Diligence of a good father of a family
establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for Defense
to prevent damage
damages caused by their pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they remain in their
custody. RESPONSIBILITY FOR MINOR
CHILDREN IN SCHOOL (FC REGIME)
Art. 218, FC. The school, its administrators and SCHOOL,
PARENTS,
teachers, or the individual, entity or institution ADMINISTRATOR
GUARDIAN
engaged in child are shall have special parental S, TEACHERS,
S, ETC.
authority and responsibility over the minor child ETC.
while under their supervision, instruction or Provided
custody. Art. 218 Art. 219
by
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all Parental
authorized activities whether inside or outside the Kind of authority or
Special parental
premises of the school, entity or institution. authority substitute
authority
required parental
authority
Art. 219, FC. Those given the authority and
responsibility under the preceding Article shall be Liability
principally and solidarily liable for damages caused if tort is
by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated committe Principal and solidary Subsidiary
minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the d in
persons exercising substitute parental authority school
over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
Under Article 2180, the teacher is liable for the acts
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the or omissions of the pupils and students, and so is the
preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved head of establishment of arts and trades for the
that they exercised the proper diligence required apprentices, so long as they remain in custody,
under the particular circumstances. regardless of age. Under the Family Code, liability
attaches to the school, its administrators and teachers,
All other cases not covered by this and the or the individual or entity engaged in child care, so
preceding articles shall be governed by the long as the child is under their supervision,
provisions of the CC on quasi-delicts. instruction, or custody, and the child is below 18 years
old.
“TEACHERS” “HEADS”
Basis of liability of teachers and heads of
Academic Arts and trades, establishments of arts and trades
Institution
institutions establishments They stand, to a certain extent, in loco parentis and are
Teacher in called upon to exercise reasonable supervision over
Persons Head of the conduct of the child.
charge; not
liable establishment itself
administrator
“Custody” means the protective and supervisory
Custody Required custody that the school, its head and teachers exercise
Heads of Heads of over the pupils, for as long as they are in attendance
academic establishments of in school, which includes recess time [Palisoc v.
institutions arts and trades Brillantes, G.R. No. L-29025 (1971)].
Rationale exercise only have apprentices,
administrative who they are in As long as it is shown that the student is in the school
authority over close proximity to. premises pursuant to a legitimate student objective, in
the students, and Therefore they can the exercise of a legitimate right, or the enjoyment of

Page 471 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the BASIS OF LIABILITY: NOT RESPONDEAT
school authorities over the student continues SUPERIOR, BUT PATER FAMILIAS
[Amadora v CA, G.R. No. L-47745 (1988)].
RESPONDEAT
PATER FAMILIAS
SUPERIOR
STUDENTS COVERED
There is only a
ARTS. 218-219 ART. 2180 Master is absolutely liable
presumption of
to servant’s act or
All students, even those no negligence on the part
omission
longer minors, as long as they of the employer
Minor students only
remain in the custody of the Defense of negligence
persons responsible No defense of negligence
available
Embodied in the
e. Owners/managers of subsidiary liability under
Embodied in primary
liability under Art. 2180,
establishments/employers RPC – no defense of
where the defense of
diligence; only lack of
diligence is available
Art. 2180 (4), FC. The owners and managers of criminal liability
an establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their employees “Owners and managers of an establishment or
in the service of the branches in which the latter enterprise” does not include a manager of a
are employed or on the occasion of their functions. corporation. (Spanish term “directores” connotes
“employer.” But manager of a corporation is not an
Art. 2180 (5), FC. Employers shall be liable for the employer, but rather merely an employee of the
damages caused by their employees and household owner.) [Philippine Rabbit v. Philam Forwarders, G.R. No.
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned L-25142 (1975)].
tasks, even though the former are not engaged in
any business or industry. The liability imposed upon employers with respect to
damages occasioned by the negligence of their
employees to whom they are not bound by contract
NATURE OF EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY is based on the employer’s own negligence, such as
The basis of his liability is not his when he places a powerful automobile in the hands of
employee’s negligence, but his own a servant whom he knows to be ignorant of the
Direct
negligence in hiring and supervising method of managing such vehicle [Cangco v. Manila
the employee. Railroad, supra].
The amount for which he is liable
may be pursued without having to This Court still employs the "control test" to
Primary exhaust the employee’s assets, as determine the existence of an employer-employee
opposed to subsidiary liability under relationship between hospital and doctor. Under the
the RPC. "control test", an employment relationship exists
between a physician and a hospital if the hospital
He may recover the full amount of controls both the means and the details of the process
the liability from his employee, as by which the physician is to accomplish his task. The
Solidary per Art. 2181, and not merely a Court earlier ruled that there was employer-employee
prorated amount, unlike in Art. relationship between the doctor and employee but
2184, CC. reversed itself upon motion for reconsideration. They
still held the hospital liable on the basis of agency and
What must be established for vicarious liability corporate responsibility [Professional Services v. CA and
1. Existence of an employer-employee relationship Agana, G.R. No. 126297 (2010)].
between company and tortfeasor
2. Tortious act had been committed while the “Within the scope of their assigned task” in Art. 2180
tortfeasor was acting in the normal course of includes any act done by an employee in furtherance
employment of the interests, or for the account of the employer at
the time of the infliction of the injury or damage
[Filamer v. CA, G.R. No. 75112 (1990)].

Page 472 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

and the imposition of necessary disciplinary measures

Basis of liability upon employees in case of breach or as may be
Employer’s negligence in warranted to ensure performance of acts as
1. The selection of their employees (culpa in eligiendo) indispensable to the business of and beneficial to their
2. The supervision over their employees (culpa in employee [Metro Manila Transit v. CA, G.R. No.
vigilando) 104408 (1993)].

Presumption of Negligence Due diligence in the selection of employees require

The presentation of proof of the negligence of its that the employer carefully examined the applicant for
employee gives rise to the presumption that the employment as to his qualifications, his experience
defendant employer did not exercise the diligence of and record of service.
a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of its employees [Lampesa v. De Vera, G.R. Criminal Negligence
No. 155111 (2008)]. The vicarious liability of the employer for criminal
negligence of his employee is governed by RPC 103.
Distinction between the 4th and 5th paragraphs of Conviction of the employee conclusively binds the
Article 2180 employer. Defense of due diligence in the selection
A distinction must be made between the two and supervision of the employee is not available. The
provisions to determine what is applicable. employer cannot appeal the conviction [Fernando v.
1. Both provisions apply to employers: Franco (1971)].
a. the fourth paragraph, to owners and managers
of an establishment or enterprise; and Note: The liability of the employer under Art. 103 RPC
b. the fifth paragraph, to employers in general, is subsidiary.
whether or not engaged in any business or
industry. Registered Owner Rule
2. The fourth paragraph covers negligent acts of The registered owner of the vehicle is primarily
employees committed either in the service of the responsible to the public for whatever damage or
branches or on the occasion of their functions, injury the vehicle may have caused, even if he had
while the fifth paragraph encompasses negligent already sold the same to someone else. The policy is
acts of employees acting within the scope of their the easy identification of the owner who can be held
assigned task. responsible so as not to inconvenience or prejudice
a. The latter is an expansion of the former in the third party injured [Cadiente v. Macas (2008)]. The
both employer coverage and acts included. registered owner, however, has the right to be
b. Negligent acts of employees, whether or not indemnified by the real or actual owner of the amount
the employer is engaged in a business or that he may be required to pay as damages for the
industry, are covered so long as they were injury caused to the plaintiff [Orix Metro Leasing v.
acting within the scope of their assigned task, Mangalinan (2012)]. This rule applies even if the
even though committed neither in the service vehicle is leased to third persons. The liability of the
of the branches nor on the occasion of their registered owner is subject to his right of recourse
functions. against the transferee or buyer.
c. For, admittedly, employees oftentimes wear
different hats. They perform functions which f. The State
are beyond their office, title or designation but
which, nevertheless, are still within the call of
Sec. 3, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution. The State
duty [Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Vasquez, G.R.
may not be sued without its consent.
No. (1999)].

Defense of diligence in selection and supervision Art. 2180 (3), CC. The State is responsible in like
Due diligence in the supervision of employees manner when it acts through a special agent; but
includes the formulation of suitable rules and not when the damage has been caused by the
regulations for the guidance of employees and the official to whom the task done properly pertains,
issuance of proper instructions intended for the in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall
protection of the public and persons with whom the be applicable.
employer has relations through his or her employees

Page 473 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Who may be sued under the State g. Joint tortfeasors

1. A special agent under Art. 2180
2. Instrumentalities discharging proprietary
Art. 2194, FC. The responsibility of two or more
functions
persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
• The power to enter into contracts implies the
consent to be sued
Definition of “Joint Tortfeasors”
• The charter of the instrumentality may They are all persons who command, instigate,
expressly provide that it may be sued promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate
3. Those that consent to be sued in, aid or abet in the commission of a tort, or who
approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit
Instances where the State gives its consent to be [Filipinas Broadcasting Network v. AMEC-BCCM, G.R.
sued No. 141994 (2005)].
1. Art. 2180 (6) is an example of an express
legislative consent. Here, the State assumes a Applicability of the provision
limited liability for the acts of its special agents. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
2. Art. 2189 provides for state liability for damages omissions of two or more persons, although acting
caused by defective condition of public works. independently, are in combination the direct and
3. Local Government Code provides for the liability proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, it
of local government units for wrongful exercise is impossible to determine in what proportion each
of its proprietary (as opposed to its contributed to the injury and either of them is
governmental) functions. The latter is the same responsible for the whole injury. Where their
as that of a private corporation or individual. concurring negligence resulted in injury or damage to
[Mendoza v. de Leon, G.R. No. L-9596 (1916)] a third party, they become joint tortfeasors and are
solidarily liable for the resulting damage [Far Eastern
Special Agent Shipping v. CA, supra].
One who receives a definite and fixed order or
commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of
his office if he is a special official. This concept does
not apply to any executive agent who is an employee
of the active administration and who on his own
responsibility performs the functions which are
inherent in and naturally pertain to his office [Merritt
v. Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 11154
(1960)].

A corporate body performing non-governmental

functions becomes liable for the damage caused by
the accident resulting from the tortious act of its
driver-employee. Such corporate body assumes the
responsibility of an ordinary employer and as such,
becomes answerable for damages [Fontanilla v.
Maliaman, G.R. No. 55963 (1991)].

Why the State cannot be sued

1. Neither fault nor negligence can be presumed on
the part of the State in the organization of
branches of public service and in the
appointment of its agents.
2. Suing the State will divert its focus from the
delivery of necessary public services.

Page 474 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Liability Attached to b. Provinces, Cities, and

Specific Persons Municipalities
1. Strict Liability Art. 2189, CC. Provinces, cities and municipalities
shall be liable for damages for the death of, or
a. Possessor or User of Animals injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the
defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under
Art. 2183, CC. The possessor of an animal or their control or supervision.
whoever may make use of the same is responsible
for the damage which it may cause, although it may
It is not even necessary that the defective roads or
escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease
streets belong to the province, city or municipality for
only in case the damage should come from force
liability to attach. The article only requires that either
majeure or from the fault of the person who has
control or supervision be exercised over said street or
suffered damage.
road [Guilatco v. Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516 (1989)].
The law makes no distinction as to what kind of
animal is used or possessed. Hence, it may be c. Proprietor of Building or
construed as applicable generally to all animals, Structure
whether domestic, domesticated, or wild. It would
seem that birds are covered since they can also cause Art. 2190, CC. The proprietor of a building or
damage. [de Leon] structure is responsible for the damages resulting
from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due
Possession of the animal, not ownership, is to the lack of necessary repairs.
determinative of liability under Art. 2183. The
obligation imposed by said article is not based on the Art. 2191, CC. Proprietors shall also be
negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the responsible for damages caused:
possessor or user of the animal causing damage. It is
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not
based on natural equity and on the principle of social
been taken care of with due diligence, and the
interest that he who possesses animals for his utility,
inflammation of explosive substances which
pleasure, or service, must answer for any damage
have not been kept in a safe and adequate
which such animal may cause. The contention that the
place;
defendant could not be expected to exercise remote
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to
control of the animal is not acceptable. In fact, Art.
persons or property;
2183 holds the possessor liable even if the animal
should “escape or be lost” and so be removed from
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near
highways or lanes, if not caused by force
his control. It is likewise immaterial that the animal
majeure;
was tame and was merely provoked by the victim. The
law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
even tame ones as long as they cause injury [Vestil v. deposits of infectious matter, constructed
IAC, G.R. No. 74431 (1989)]. without precautions suitable to the place.

Possible defenses against this liability Art. 2192, CC. If damage referred to in the two
1. Force Majeure preceding articles should be the result of any defect
2. Fault of person suffering damage in the construction mentioned in article 1723, the
3. Act of third persons third person suffering damages may proceed only
against the engineer or architect or contractor in
accordance with said article, within the period
therein fixed.

Ownership of a building imposes on the proprietor

thereof the duty to maintain it in good condition at all

Page 475 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

times to the end that it may not collapse either totally contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the
or partially as to cause damage or injury to another’s construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the
person or property. This duty obtains whether the contractor.
building is leased or held in usufruct. Considering,
however, that the lessee or usufructuary has direct and Acceptance of the building, after completion, does
immediate control of the building, the law imposes on not imply waiver of any of the cause of action by
him the duty to notify the proprietor of such urgent reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding
or extraordinary repairs. And where the proprietor’s paragraph.
failure to make the necessary repairs was due to the
failure of the lessee or usufructuary to notify him, the The action must be brought within ten years
proprietor is entitled to indemnification for damages following the collapse of the building.
he may have been required to pay to the parties.
Liability does not attach to the proprietor if the Engineer or architect who drew up the plans and
damage was caused by any defect in the construction specifications is liable if the building collapses within
mentioned in Article 1723, in which case the action 15 years due to:
should be against the engineer or architect. 1. A defect in those plans and specifications; or
2. Due to the defects in the ground.
Under Article 2190, the plaintiff is required to prove:
1. The total or partial collapse of a building or Contractor is liable if the edifice falls within 15 years
structure due to:
2. That the defendant is the proprietor 1. Defects in the construction;
3. That the collapse was due to the lack of necessary 2. The use of materials of inferior quality furnished
repairs by the contractor; or
3. Due to any violation of the terms of the contract.
Note: There is no requirement to prove negligence.
Here, the plaintiff need only prove that such
Under Article 2191, with the exception of No. 1, conditions (defects) exist, and need not prove that
negligence is also not an issue. negligence of the defendant be the cause of the
conditions.
The owner or proprietor of a place of public
amusement impliedly warrants that the premises,
appliances and amusement devices are safe for the
e. Owners of Enterprises or Other
purpose for which they are designed, the doctrine Employers
being subject to no other exception or qualification
than that he does not contract against unknown Art. 1711, CC. Owners of enterprises and other
defects not discoverable by ordinary or reasonable employers are obliged to pay compensation for the
means [Gotesco Investment Corp. v. Chatto, G.R. No. death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen,
87584 (1992)]. mechanics or other employees, even though the
event may have been purely accidental or entirely
d. Engineer or Architect of due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or personal
injury arose out of and in the course of the
Collapsed Building employment. The employer is also liable for
compensation if the employee contracts any illness
Art. 1723, CC. The engineer or architect who drew or disease caused by such employment or as the
up the plans and specifications for a building is result of the nature of the employment. If the
liable for damages if within fifteen years from the mishap was due to the employee's own notorious
completion of the structure, the same should negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the
collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and employer shall not be liable for compensation.
specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. When the employee's lack of due care contributed
The contractor is likewise responsible for the to his death or injury, the compensation shall be
damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, equitably reduced.
on account of defects in the construction or the
use of materials of inferior quality furnished by
him, or due to any violation of the terms of the

Page 476 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Art. 1712, CC. If the death or injury is due to the f. Head of a Family for Things
negligence of a fellow worker, the latter and the
employer shall be solidarily liable for
Thrown or Falling
compensation. If a fellow worker's intentional
malicious act is the only cause of the death or Art 2193, CC. The head of a family that lives in a
injury, the employer shall not be answerable, unless building or a part thereof, is responsible for
it should be shown that the latter did not exercise damages caused by things thrown or falling from
due diligence in the selection or supervision of the the same.
plaintiff's fellow worker.
The purpose of the law is to relieve the injured party
Alarcon, a teacher, hired Urzino and Azaña to dig a of the difficulty of determining and proving who
well on his land; in the course of which Urzino died threw the thing or what caused it to fall, or that either
of asphyxia. The Court found that under the principle was due to the fault or negligence of any particular
of ejusdem generis, said “other employers” mentioned in individual.
Article 1711 must be construed to refer to persons
who belong to a class analogous to “owners of Lessee is considered as the head of the family. It is
enterprises”, such as those operating a business or enough that he lives in and has control over it
engaged in a particular industry or trade, requiring its [Dingcong v. Kanaan, G.R. No. L-47033 (1941)].
managers to contract the services of laborers, workers
and/or employees. Alarcon, not owning any 2. Products Liability
enterprise, did not fall under the category of “other
employers” [Alarcon v. Alarcon, G.R. No. L-15692 a. Manufacturers/Processors of
(1961)].
Foodstuffs
Situations covered:
1. Death or injury arising out of or in the course Art. 2187, CC. Manufacturers and processors of
of employment – here, the employer is liable foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
even if the event which caused the death or injury shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any
was purely accidental or due to a fortuitous event noxious or harmful substances used, although no
2. Illness or disease caused by their contractual relation exists between them and the
employment or as the result of the nature of consumers.
the employment
Under the foregoing provision, liability is not made to
Defenses available to the employer: depend upon fault or negligence of the manufacturer
1. When death or injury is not caused by a fellow or processor. The provision likewise dispensed with
worker any contractual relation between the manufacturer
The mishap due to the employee’s own notorious and the consumer, thereby clearly implying that
negligence or voluntary act, or drunkenness liability is imposed by law as a matter of public policy.
2. When death or injury is caused by a fellow worker
Proof of negligence under this provision is not
General rule: The employer is solidarily liable with necessary; as such, traditional contract and warranty
the fellow worker causing the death or injury defenses as (1) lack of privity; (2) lack of reliance on a
warranty; (3) lack of notice to the defendant of the
Exception: If the only cause of the death or injury breach of warranty; and (4) disclaimer of implied
was the fellow worker’s intentional or malicious warranties are inapplicable.
act
Requisites of liability
Exception to the exception: If it is shown that the 1. Defendant is a manufacturer or possessor of
employer did not exercise due diligence in the foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods;
selection and supervision of the fellow worker 2. He used noxious or harmful substances in the
causing the death or injury manufacture or processing of the foodstuff,
drinks or toilet articles consumed or used by the
plaintiff;

Page 477 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

3. Plaintiff’s death or injury was caused by the producer, and any importer, shall be liable for
product so consumed or used; and redress, independently of fault, for damages caused
4. The damages sustained and claimed by the to consumers by defects resulting from design,
plaintiff and the amount thereof. manufacture, construction, assembly and erection,
formulas and handling and making up,
Burden of proof presentation or packing of their products, as well
The burden of proof that the product was in a as for the insufficient or inadequate information
defective condition at the time it left the hands of the on the use and hazards thereof.
manufacturer and particular seller is upon the injured
plaintiff. A product is defective when it does not offer the
safety rightfully expected of it, taking relevant
Who may recover circumstances into consideration, including but not
Although the article used the term “consumer”, such limited to:
term includes a “user” and “purchaser” of the (a) presentation of product
injuriously defective food product or toilet article. (b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
The person who may recover need not be the (c) the time it was put into circulation.
purchaser of the foodstuff or toilet article.
A product is not considered defective because
CONSUMER ACT another better quality product has been placed in the
RA 7394, Secs. 92-107 (Ch. 1) market. The manufacturer, builder, producer or
importer shall not be held liable when it
Article 4. Definition of Terms. evidences:
(n) "Consumer" means a natural person who is a (a) that it did not place the product on the market;
purchaser, lessee, recipient or prospective (b) that although it did place the product on the
purchaser, lessor or recipient of consumer market such product has no defect;
products, services or credit. (c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at
fault.
(as) "Manufacturer" means any person who
manufactures, assembles or processes consumer Article 98. Liability of Tradesman or Seller. – The
products, except that if the goods are tradesman/seller is likewise liable, pursuant to
manufactured, assembled or processed for another the preceding article when:
person who attaches his own brand name to the (a) it is not possible to identify the manufacturer,
consumer products, the latter shall be deemed the builder, producer or importer;
manufacturer. In case of imported products, the (b) the product is supplied, without clear
manufacturer's representatives or, in his absence, identification of the manufacturer, producer,
the importer, shall be deemed the manufacturer. builder or importer;
(c) he does not adequately preserve perishable
Article 92. Exemptions. – If the concerned goods. The party making payment to the
department finds that for good or sufficient damaged party may exercise the right to
reasons, full compliance with the labeling recover a part of the whole of the payment
requirements otherwise applicable under this Act made against the other responsible parties, in
is impracticable or is not necessary for the accordance with their part or responsibility in
adequate protection of public health and safety, it the cause of the damage effected.
shall promulgate regulations exempting such
substances from these requirements to the extent Article 99. Liability for Defective Services. – The
it deems consistent with the objective of service supplier is liable for redress,
adequately safeguarding public health and safety, independently of fault, for damages caused to
and any hazardous substance which does not bear consumers by defects relating to the rendering
a label in accordance with such regulations shall be of the services, as well as for insufficient or
deemed mislabeled hazardous substance. inadequate information on the fruition and
hazards thereof.
Article 97. Liability for the Defective Products. –
Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer,

Page 478 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

The service is defective when it does not If the consumer opts for the alternative under sub-
provide the safety the consumer may rightfully paragraph (a) of the second paragraph of this
expect of it, taking the relevant circumstances into Article, and replacement of the product is not
consideration, including but not limited to: possible, it may be replaced by another of a
4. the manner in which it is provided; different kind, mark or model: Provided, That any
5. the result of hazards which may reasonably be difference in price may result thereof shall be
expected of it; supplemented or reimbursed by the party which
6. the time when it was provided. caused the damage, without prejudice to the
provisions of the second, third and fourth
A service is not considered defective because of the use or paragraphs of this Article.
introduction of new techniques.
Article 101. Liability for Product Quantity
The supplier of the services shall not be held liable Imperfection. – Suppliers are jointly liable for
when it is proven: imperfections in the quantity of the product when,
(a) that there is no defect in the service rendered; in due regard for variations inherent thereto, their
that the consumer or third party is solely at fault. net content is less than that indicated on the
container, packaging, labeling or advertisement,
Article 100. Liability for Product and Service the consumer having powers to demand,
Imperfection. – The suppliers of durable or alternatively, at his own option:
nondurable consumer products are jointly liable (a) the proportionate price
for imperfections in quality that render the (b) the supplementing of weight or measure
products unfit or inadequate for consumption for differential;
which they are designed or decrease their value, (c) the replacement of the product by another of
and for those resulting from inconsistency with the the same kind, mark or model, without said
information provided on the container, packaging, imperfections;
labels or publicity messages/advertisement, with (d) the immediate reimbursement of the amount
due regard to the variations resulting from their paid, with monetary updating without
nature, the consumer being able to demand prejudice to losses and damages if any.
replacement to the imperfect parts.
The provisions of the fifth paragraph of Article 99
If the imperfection is not corrected within shall apply to this Article.
thirty (30) days, the consumer may alternatively
demand at his option: The immediate supplier shall be liable if the
(a) the replacement of the product by another of instrument used for weighing or measuring is not
the same kind, in a perfect state of use; gauged in accordance with official standards.
(b) the immediate reimbursement of the amount
paid, with monetary updating, without Article 102. Liability for Service Quality
prejudice to any losses and damages; Imperfection. – The service supplier is liable for
(c) a proportionate price reduction. any quality imperfections that render the services
improper for consumption or decrease their value,
The parties may agree to reduce or increase the and for those resulting from inconsistency with the
term specified in the immediately preceding information contained in the offer or
paragraph; but such shall not be less than seven (7) advertisement, the consumer being entitled to
nor more than one hundred and eighty (180) days. demand alternatively at his option:
(a) the performance of the services, without any
The consumer may make immediate use of the additional cost and when applicable;
alternatives under the second paragraph of this (b) the immediate reimbursement of the amount
Article when by virtue of the extent of the paid, with monetary updating without
imperfection, the replacement of the imperfect prejudice to losses and damages, if any;
parts may jeopardize the product quality or (c) a proportionate price reduction.
characteristics, thus decreasing its value.

Page 479 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Reperformance of services may be entrusted to

duly qualified third parties, at the supplier's risk and Article 105. Legal Guarantee of Adequacy. – The
cost. legal guarantee of product or service adequacy
does not require an express instrument or
Improper services are those which prove to be contractual exoneration of the supplier being
inadequate for purposes reasonably expected of forbidden.
them and those that fail to meet the provisions of
this Act regulating service rendering.
Article 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation.
– The stipulation in a contract of a clause
Article 103. Repair Service Obligation. – When preventing, exonerating or reducing the obligation to
services are provided for the repair of any product, indemnify for damages effected, as provided for in this
the supplier shall be considered implicitly bound and in the preceding Articles, is hereby
to use adequate, new, original replacement parts, prohibited, if there is more than one person
or those that maintain the manufacturer's technical responsible for the cause of the damage, they shall
specifications unless, otherwise authorized, as be jointly liable for the redress established in the
regards to the latter by the consumer. pertinent provisions of this Act. However, if the
damage is caused by a component or part
Article 104. Ignorance of Quality Imperfection. – incorporated in the product or service, its
The supplier's ignorance of the quality manufacturer, builder or importer and the person
imperfections due to inadequacy of the products who incorporated the component or part are
and services does not exempt him from any jointly liable.
liability.

SUMMARY OF STRICT LIABILITY

PERSON STRICTLY
FOR WHAT DEFENSES OR EXCEPTIONS
LIABLE
Possessor of an animal or
• Force majeure
whoever makes use of them
For the damage the animal may cause • Fault of the person who suffered
even if the animal is lost or
escaped damage

• Solidary liability only if the owner

was in the vehicle and if he could
Owner of Motor Vehicle Motor vehicle mishaps have prevented it thru due diligence
• If not in vehicle, apply Art. 2180 for
his liability as employer
Manufacturers and
processors of foodstuffs, Death and injuries caused by any noxious Absence of contractual relation not a
drinks, toilet articles and or harmful substances used defense
similar goods
Defendant in possession of
Possession or use thereof is
dangerous weapons/ Death or injury results from such
indispensable in his occupation or
substances such as firearms possession
business
and poison
The death or injuries suffered by any
Provinces, Cities and person by reason of the defective condition The defective public work is not under
Municipalities of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, the LGU’s control or supervision
and other public works
a. Total or partial collapse of building or
Proprietor of building/ Responsibility for collapse should be
structure if due to lack of necessary
structure due to the lack of necessary repairs
repairs

Page 480 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

PERSON STRICTLY
FOR WHAT DEFENSES OR EXCEPTIONS
LIABLE
b. Explosion of machinery which has not
been taken cared of with due diligence,
and the inflammation of explosive
substances which have not been kept in
a safe and adequate place
c. By excessive smoke, which may be
harmful to persons or property
d. By falling of trees situated at or near
highways or lanes, if not caused by
force majeure
e. By emanations from tubes, canals,
sewers or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions
suitable to the place
If within 15 years from completion of the
structure, the same should collapse by
reason of:
a. Defects in the plans or specifications;
or
b. Defects in the ground.
Action not brought within 10 years
Engineer or Architect
If within the same period, the edifice falls from collapse
on account of:
a. Defects in the construction;
b. Used of materials of inferior quality
furnished by him; or
c. Violation of the terms of the contract
and he supervised the construction.
If within 15 years from the completion of
the structure, the edifice falls on account
of:
Action not brought within 10 years
Contractor a. Defects in the construction;
from collapse
b. Used of materials of inferior quality
furnished by him; or
c. Violation of the terms of the contract
Head of the Family that
Liable for damages caused by things
lives in a building or any
thrown or falling from the same
part thereof

Page 481 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Intentional Torts CASE

LEGAL RIGHT
AND INJURY
DOCTRINE

Liability for personal acts or omission is founded on Right to transfer

that indisputable principle of justice recognized by all credit.
legislators that when a person by his act or omission The transfer of
causes damage or prejudice to another, a juridical credit from Shell
relation is created by virtue of which the injured Philippines to
person acquires a right to be indemnified and the Shell USA was The standards in
person causing the damage is charged with the Velayo v.
deemed a violation NCC 19 are
corresponding duty of repairing the damage. The Shell
implemented by
reason for this is found in the obvious truth that man (1959) of NCC 21 as it
allowed Shell to NCC 21.
should subordinate his acts to the precepts of attach properties
prudence and if he fails to observe them and cause of their creditor
damage to another, he must repair the damage CALI to the
[Manresa]. prejudice of its
other creditors.
INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENT
Right to dismiss an When a right is
TORTS TORTS
employee. exercised in a
The act or omission manner which
merely creates a The dismissal itself does not conform
Harmful consequences are
foreseeable risk or was not illegal but with the norms in
substantially certain to
harm, which may or it was the manner NCC 19, and
occur or are intended
may not actually be Globe v. of dismissal which results in damage
realized CA was deemed in to another, a legal
(1989) violation of Article wrong is thereby
1. Human Relations Torts 19, as such was committed. The
based on law, therefore,
unfounded recognizes a
a. Abuse of Right accusations of primordial
dishonesty. limitation on all
Art. 19, CC. Every person must, in the exercise of rights.
his rights and in the performance of his duties, act The conscious The conscious
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe indifference of the indifference of a
honesty and good faith. school in not person to the
University
informing its rights or welfare
Generally, the exercise of any right must be in of the East
student that he of the others who
accordance with the purpose for which it was v. Jader
could not graduate may be affected by
established. It must not be excessive or unduly harsh; (2000)
formed the basis his act or omission
there must be no intention to injure another. for the award of can support a
damages. claim for damages.
There is abuse of right when:
1. The right is exercised for the only purpose of Right to demolish The principle of
prejudicing or injuring another another’s house on damnum absque
2. The objective of the act is illegitimate his own property. injuria does not
3. There is an absence of good faith apply when the
Amonoy v. Amonoy obtained exercise of the
Elements [Albenson v. CA, G.R. No. 88694 (1993)]: Gutierrez a judgment in his legal right is
1. There is a legal right or duty; (2001) favor for suspended or
Gutierrez to extinguished
2. Which is exercised in bad faith; vacate. A pursuant to a
3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring demolition order court order. The
another. was issued but the exercise of a right

Page 482 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

court suspended it ends when the Philippine Medical Technology Act of 1969. The
with a TRO. right disappears, Court held that violation of a statutory duty is
Amonoy and it disappears negligence, and that Article 20 provides the legal basis
proceeded with when it is abused, for award of damages to a party who suffers damage
the demolition. In especially to the whenever one commits an act in violation of some
a complaint for prejudice of legal provision [Garcia v. Salvador, G.R. No. 168512
damages, he claims others. (2007)].
the principle of
damnum absque c. Acts Contrary to Morals
injuria.
Right to forbid Article 19, known Art. 21, CC. Any person who willfully causes loss
uninvited guests to contain what is or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
from entering the commonly morals, good customs or public policy shall
party. referred to as the compensate the latter for the damage.
principle of abuse
Ruby Lim’s of rights, is not a This article is designed “to expand the concept of
throwing out of panacea for all torts and quasi-delict in this jurisdiction by granting
Nikko complainant Reyes,
human hurts and adequate legal remedy for the untold number of
Hotel as a gatecrasher in a
social grievances. moral wrongs which is impossible for human
Manila private party, was
The object of this foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in
Garden v. merely in exercise
article is to set statute books” [Baksh v. CA, supra].
Reyes of her duties as
certain standards
(2005) Executive
which must be Elements: [Albenson v. CA, supra].
Secretary of the observed not only 1. There is an act which is legal;
hotel where the in the exercise of 2. But which is contrary to morals, good customs,
party was held, and one’s rights but and public policy; and
did not constitute a also in the 3. It is done with intent to injure.
violation of Article performance of
19. one’s duties. Examples of acts contrary to morals:
1. Breach of Promise to Marry and Moral
Seduction
b. Acts Contrary to Law Mere breach of promise to marry is not an
actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding
Art. 20, CC. Every person who, contrary to law, and go through all the above-described
willfully or negligently causes damage to another, preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it
shall indemnify the latter for the same. when the matrimony is about to be solemnized,
is quite different. This is palpably and
The provision is intended to provide a remedy in unjustifiably contrary to good customs xxx
cases where the law declares an act illegal but fails to [Wassmer v. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089 (1964)].
provide for a relief to the party injured. [Jarencio]
Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the
Art. 20 does not distinguish, and the act may be done proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by
willfully or negligently. a woman and his representation to fulfill that
promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause
Requisites of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual
1. The act must be willful or negligent; congress, proof that he had, in reality, no
2. It must be contrary to law; and intention of marrying her and that the promise
3. Damages must be suffered by the injured party. was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to
entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain
Salvador was misdiagnosed with Hepatitis, as a result her consent to the sexual act, could justify the
of which she lost her job. During trial, it was proven award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not
that the clinic was operating under substandard because of such promise to marry but because of
conditions, in violation of the Clinical Laboratory the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful
Law, DOH Administrative Order No. 49-B, and the injury to her honor and reputation. It is essential,

Page 483 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

however, that such injury should have been public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the
committed in a manner contrary to morals, good new CC [Pe v. Pe, G.R. No. L-17396 (1962)].
customs or public policy [Baksh v. CA, supra].
It is against morals, good customs and public
However, when for one whole year, the plaintiff, policy to humiliate, embarrass and degrade the
a woman of legal age, maintained sexual relations dignity of a person. Everyone must respect the
with the defendant, with repeated acts of dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of
intercourse, there is here voluntariness. No case his neighbors and other persons (Article 26, CC)
under Article 21 is made [Tanjanco v. CA, G.R. [Grand Union v. Espino, G.R. No. L-48250 (1979)].
No. L-18630 (1966)].
4. Oppressive Dismissal
2. Malicious Prosecution The right of an employer to dismiss an employee
Malicious prosecution is the institution of any is not to be confused with the manner in which
action or proceeding, either civil or criminal, this right is to be exercised and the effects
maliciously and without probable cause. flowing therefrom. If the dismissal was done
antisocially or oppressively, then there is a
Elements: [Magbanua v. Junsay, G.R. No.132659 violation of Article 1701, which prohibits acts of
(2007)] oppression by either capital or labor against the
a. The fact of the prosecution or that the other, and Article 21, which makes a person
prosecution did occur and that the liable for damages if he willfully causes loss or
defendant was himself the prosecutor or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
that he instigated its commencement; morals, good customs, or public policy. When
b. That the action finally terminated with an the manner in which the company exercised its
acquittal; right to dismiss was abusive, oppressive and
c. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor malicious, it is liable for damages [Quisaba v. Sta.
acted without probable cause Ines, G.R. No. L-38000 (1974)].
d. That the prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice, that is, by improper d. Unjust Enrichment
or sinister motive.
Art. 22, CC. Every person who through an act of
The mere dismissal of the criminal complaint by
performance by another, or any other means,
the fiscal’s office did not create a cause of action
acquires or comes into possession of something at
for malicious prosecution, because the
the expense of the latter without just or legal
proceedings therein did not involve an
ground, shall return the same to him.
exhaustive examination of the elements of
malicious prosecution. To constitute such, there
must be proof that the prosecution was Art. 23, CC. Even when an act or event causing
prompted by a sinister design to vex and damage to another’s property was not due to the
humiliate a person and that it was initiated fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall
deliberately by the defendant knowing that his be liable for indemnity if through the act or event
charges were false and groundless [Que v. IAC, he was benefited.
G.R. No. 66865 (1989)].
Art. 2142, CC. Certain lawful, voluntary and
Malicious prosecution involves not only criminal unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of
but civil and administrative suits as well quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be
[Magbanua v. Junsay, supra]. unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of
another.
3. Public Humiliation
Lolita’s family filed a case against Alfonse Pe, a Art. 2143, CC. The provisions for quasi contracts
married man, for allegedly seducing Lolita and in this Chapter do not exclude other quasi-
causing great damage to the name of her parents, contracts which may come within the purview of
brothers, and sisters. The Court sustained the the preceding article.
claim, finding an injury to Lolita’s family in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs and

Page 484 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

One person should not be permitted to unjustly Under Article 26, the person responsible for such act
enrich himself at the expense of another, but should becomes liable for "damages, prevention and other
be required to make restitution of, or for property or relief." In short, to preserve peace and harmony in
benefits received, retained, or appropriated where it the family and in the community, Article 26 seeks to
is just and equitable that such restitution be made, eliminate cases of damnum absque injuria in human
and where such action involves no violation or relations [MVRS Publications v. Islamic Da'wah Council,
frustration of law or opposition to public policy, G.R. No. 135306 (2003)].
either directly or indirectly.
The principal rights protected under this provision
Enrichment at the expense of another is not per se are the following:
forbidden. It is such enrichment without just or legal 1. The right to personal dignity
cause that is contemplated here. Just and legal cause 2. The right to personal security
is always presumed, and the plaintiff has the burden 3. The right to family relations
of proving its absence. 4. The right to social intercourse
5. The right to privacy
The restitution must cover the loss suffered by the 6. The right to peace of mind
plaintiff but it can never exceed the amount of unjust
enrichment of the defendant if it is less than the loss Note: Coverage of Art. 26 is not limited to those
of the plaintiff. enumerated therein, the enumeration being merely
examples of acts violative of a person’s rights to
Requisites: dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind. Other
1. That the defendant has been enriched; “similar acts” are also covered within the scope of the
2. That the plaintiff has suffered a loss; article.
3. That the enrichment of the defendant is without
just or legal ground; and Violation of personal dignity
4. That the plaintiff has no other action based on
contract, crime or quasi-delict. In order to be actionable it is not necessary that the
act constitutes a criminal offense. The remedy
e. Violation of Human Dignity afforded by the law is not only the recovery of
damages. “Prevention and other relief” is also
Art. 26, CC. Every person shall respect the available. In other words, injunction and other
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of appropriate reliefs may also be obtained by the
his neighbors and other persons. The following aggrieved party.
and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action Violation of privacy
for damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence; Privacy is the right to be let alone, or to be free from
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted
family relations of another; interference by the public in matters in which the
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated public is not necessarily concerned. This right is
from his friends; purely personal in nature, such that it can be invoked
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of only by the person actually injured, it is subject to a
his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place proper waiver, and it ceases upon death. However,
of birth, physical defect, or other personal the privilege may be given to heirs of a deceased to
condition. protect his memory, to protect the feelings of the
living heirs.
Article 26 specifically applies to intentional acts
Reasonableness of Expectation of Privacy Test:
which fall short of being criminal offenses. It itself
[Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 (1998)]
expressly refers to tortious conduct which "may not
a. Whether by one’s conduct, the individual has
constitute criminal offenses." The purpose is
exhibited an expectation of privacy
precisely to fill a gap or lacuna in the law where a
b. Whether this expectation is one that society
person who suffers injury because of a wrongful act
recognizes and accepts as reasonable
not constituting a crime is left without any redress.

Page 485 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

The general rule is that the right to privacy may only decisions be respected. Her parents, in so doing,
be invoked by natural persons. Juridical persons certainly cannot be charged with alienation of
cannot invoke this because the basis to this right is an affections in the absence of malice or unworthy
injury to the feelings and sensibilities of the injured motives, which have not been shown, good faith
party, and a corporation has none of those. The being always presumed until the contrary is
exception is where the right to privacy is invoked proved [Tenchavez v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671
along with the right against unreasonable searches (1965)].
and seizures. “An individual’s right to privacy under
Article 26(1) of the CC should not be confined to his Liability of Parents, Guardians or Kin
house or residence as it may extend to places where The law distinguishes between the right of a
he has the right to exclude the public or deny them parent to interest himself in the marital affairs of
access” [Sps. Hing v. Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736 his child and the absence of rights in a stranger
(2013)]. to intermeddle in such affairs.
a. Such distinction between the liability of
Interference with relations parents and that of strangers is only in
regard to what will justify interference.
An interference with the continuance of unimpaired b. A parent is liable for alienation of
interests founded upon the relation in which the affections resulting from his own malicious
plaintiff stands toward one or more third persons conduct, as where he wrongfully entices his
[Prosser and Keeton]. son or daughter to leave his or her spouse,
but he is not liable unless he acts maliciously,
Kinds without justification and from unworthy
a. Family relations motives.
b. Social relations c. He is not liable where he acts and advises
c. Economic relations his child in good faith with respect to his
d. Political relations child's marital relations in the interest of
his child as he sees it…
a. Family Relations d. He may in good faith take his child into his
Alienation of affection home and afford him or her protection and
This is a cause of action in favor of a husband support, so long as he has not maliciously
against one who wrongfully alienates the enticed his child away, or does not
affection of his wife, depriving him of his maliciously entice or cause him or her to stay
conjugal rights to her consortium, that is, her away, from his or her spouse. This rule has
society, affection, and assistance. more frequently been applied in the case of
Note: This cause of action was mentioned in the advice given to a married daughter, but it is
case of Tenchavez v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671 equally applicable in the case of advice given
(1965). to a son. [Tenchavez v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-
19671 (1965)].
Elements:
1. Wrongful conduct of the defendant: b. Social Relations
intentional and malicious enticing of a Meddling with or disturbing family relations
spouse away from the other spouse
2. Loss of affection or consortium Art. 26, CC. Every person shall respect the
Note: Complete absence of affection dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of
between the spouses is not a defense. his neighbors and other persons. The following
3. Causal connection between such conduct and similar acts, though they may not constitute
and loss a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action
for damages, prevention and other relief;
There is no evidence that the parents of Vicenta, xxx
out of improper motives, aided and abetted her (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
original suit for annulment, or her subsequent family relations of another;
divorce; she appears to have acted
independently, and being of age, she was entitled
to judge what was best for her and ask that her

Page 486 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

c. Economic Relations Dereliction of Duty

1. Interference with contractual relations Art. 27, CC. Any person suffering material or
moral loss because a public servant or employee
Art. 1314, CC. Any person who induces refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform
another to violate his contract with another his official duty may file an action for damages and
person shall be liable for damages to the other other relief against the latter, without prejudice to
contracting party. any disciplinary administrative action that may be
taken.
Elements of tort interference: [So Ping Bun v.
CA, G.R. No. 120554 (1999)] This applies only to acts of nonfeasance or the
a. Existence of a valid contract nonperformance of some acts which a person is
b. Knowledge on the part of the third person obliged or has responsibility to perform. The duty of
of the existence of contract; and the public servant must be ministerial in character. If
c. Interference of the third person is without the duty is discretionary, he is not liable unless he
legal justification or excuse. acted in a notoriously arbitrary manner.

Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and The defense of good faith is not available because an
advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill officer is under constant obligation to discharge the
and credit. He has no right to be protected duties of his office, and it is not necessary to show
against competition; but he has a right to be free that his failure to act was due to malice or willfulness.
from malicious and wanton interference,
disturbance or annoyance. If disturbance or loss Requisites: [Amaro v. Sumanguit, G.R. No. L-14986
comes as a result of competition, or the exercise (1962)]
of like rights by others, it is damnum absque injuria, a. Defendant is a public officer charged with a
unless some superior right by contract or performance of a duty in favor of the plaintiff;
otherwise is interfered with. Thus, a plaintiff b. He refused or neglected without just cause to
loses his cause of action if the defendant perform the duty;
provides a sufficient justification for such c. Plaintiff sustained material or moral loss as a
interference, which must be an equal or superior consequence of such non-performance;
right in themselves. The defendant may not d. The amount of such damages, if material.
legally excuse himself on the ground that he
acted on a wrong understanding of his own
rights, or without malice, or bona fide, or in the
best interests of himself [Gilchrist v. Cuddy, G.R.
No. 9356 (1915)].

Bad faith/Malice is required to make the

defendant liable for damages in cases of tortuous
interference [So Ping Bun v. CA, supra].

2. Unfair Competition

Art. 28, CC. 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.

Page 487 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

16. The right of the accused to be heard by

Independent Civil himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and the cause of the accusation against
Actions him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, to have compulsory
Sec. 3, Rule 111, ROC. In the cases provided for process to secure the attendance of witnesses
in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the CC of the on is behalf;
Philippines, the independent civil action may be 17. Freedom from being compelled to be a
brought by the offended party. It shall proceed witness against one’s self, or from being
independently of the criminal action and shall forced to confess his guilt, or from being
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no induced by a promise of immunity or reward
case, however, may the offended party recover to make such confession, except when the
damages twice for the same act or omission person confessing becomes a State witness.
charged in the criminal action. 18. Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and
unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a
1. Violation of Civil and statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional;
Political Rights 19. Freedom of access to the courts

Art. 32, CC. Any public officer or employee, or In any of the cases referred to in this article,
any private individual, who directly or indirectly whether or not the defendant’s act or omission
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and has a right to commence an entirely separate and
liberties of another person shall be liable to the distinct civil action for damages, and for other
latter for damages: relief. Such civil action shall proceed
1. Freedom of religion independently of any criminal prosecution (if the
2. Freedom of speech latter be instituted) and may be proved by a
3. Freedom to write for the press or to maintain preponderance of evidence.
a periodical publication
4. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention The indemnity shall include moral damages.
5. Freedom of suffrage Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
6. The right against deprivation of property
without due process of law The responsibility herein set forth is not
7. The right to just compensation when demandable from a judge unless his act or
property is taken for public use omission constitutes a violation of the Penal code
8. The right to equal protection of the laws or any other penal statute.
9. The right to be secure in one’s person, house,
papers and effects against unreasonable Art.32, CC
searches and seizures a. Speaks of a particular specie of an “act” that may
10. The liberty of abode and of changing the give rise to an action for damages against a public
same officer, and that is, a tort for impairment of rights
11. The right to privacy of communication and and liberties. [Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, supra]
correspondence
12. The right to become a member of b. Not only public officers but also private
associations and societies for purposes not individuals can incur civil liability for violation of
contrary to law rights enumerated therein. Because the provision
13. The right to take part in a peaceable assembly speaks of an officer, employee or person
and petition the government for redress of “directly or indirectly” responsible for the
grievances violation of the constitutional rights and liberties
14. The right to be free from involuntary of another, it is not the actor alone who must
servitude in any form answer for damages under Article 32. It is not
15. The right of the accused against excessive bail even necessary that the defendant should have
acted with malice or bad faith, otherwise, it

Page 488 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

would defeat its main purpose, which is the 4. Existence of malice

effective protection of individual rights. [Silahis v.
Soluta, G.R. No. 163087 (2006)] Where the defamation is alleged to have been
directed at a group or class, it is essential that the
c. It is obvious that the purpose of Art. 32 is to statement must be so sweeping or all-embracing
provide a sanction to the deeply cherished rights as to apply to every individual in that group or
and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. class, or sufficiently specific so that each
individual in the class or group can prove that the
Its message is clear; no man may seek to defamatory statement was specifically pointed to
violate those sacred rights with impunity. In him [MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic, supra].
times of great upheaval or of social and
political stress, when the temptation is In determining whether certain utterances are
strongest to yield. [Aberca, et al. v. Ver, et al., defamatory, the words used are to be construed
G.R. No. 69866(1988)]. in their entirety and taken in their plain, natural
and ordinary meaning, as they would naturally be
2. Defamation, Fraud, Physical understood by persons hearing or reading them,
unless it appears that they were used and
Injuries understood in another sense. When malice in
fact is proven, assertions and proofs that the
Art. 33, CC. In cases of defamation, fraud, and libelous articles are qualifiedly privileged
physical injuries, a civil action for damages, communications are futile, since being
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal qualifiedly privileged communications merely
action, may be brought by the injured party. Such prevents the presumption of malice from
civil action shall proceed independently of the attaching in a defamatory imputation [Yuchengco
criminal prosecution, and shall require only a v. Manila Chronicle, G.R. No. 184315 (2009)].
preponderance of evidence.
b. Fraud – Estafa under Art. 315, RPC; violations
The civil action for damages that Article 33 allows to of B.P. 22 are not covered
be instituted is ex-delicto. This is manifest from the
provision which uses the expressions “criminal c. Physical Injuries
action” and “criminal prosecution”. Quoting Defamation and fraud (in Art. 33) are used in
Tolentino, the Court ruled that this provision is an their ordinary sense because there are no specific
exception to the general rule that the civil action for provisions in the Revised Penal Code using these
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense terms as names of offenses defined therein, so
charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal that these two terms defamation and fraud must
action. Where the offense is defamation, fraud, or have been used not to impart to them any
physical injuries, a civil action may be filed technical meaning in the laws of the Philippines,
independently of the criminal action, even though no but in their generic sense. With these apparent
reservation is made [Madeja v. Caro, G.R. No. 51183 circumstances in mind, it is evident that the
(1983)]. term “physical injuries” could not have been
used in its specific sense as a crime defined
a. Defamation – the offense of injuring a person’s in the Revised Penal Code, for it is difficult to
character, fame or reputation through false or believe that the Code Commission would have
malicious statements. Defamation is an invasion used terms in same article—some in this general
of a relational interest since it involves the and others in its technical sense. In other words,
opinion which others in the community may the term “physical injuries” should be
have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff. understood to mean bodily injury, not the crime
of physical injuries, because the terms used with
Elements of libel pursuant to Art. 353, RPC: the latter are general terms [Carandang v. Santiago
1. An allegation or imputation of a and Valenton, G.R. No. L-8238 (1955)].
discreditable act or condition concerning
another Paje was acquitted of the charge of homicide and
2. Publication of the imputation double serious physical injuries through reckless
3. Identity of the person defamed imprudence on the ground that the collision was

Page 489 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

a pure accident and the negligence charged justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds
against him did not exist. In a separate civil to believe that a crime has been committed, or the
action to enforce civil liability filed by the heirs prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute
of the deceased, the Court ruled that criminal criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a
negligence is not one of the three crimes civil action for damages against the alleged
mentioned in Article 33, which authorizes the offender. Such civil action may be supported by a
institution of an independent civil action. preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's
Although in the case of Dyogi v. Yatco, the Court motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file
held that the term “physical injuries” includes a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the
homicide, it is borne in mind that the charge complaint should be found to be malicious.
against Paje was for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide, and the law penalizes the If during the pendency of the civil action, an
negligent or careless act, not the result thereof information should be presented by the
[Corpus v. Paje, G.R. No. L-26737 (1969)]. prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be
suspended until the termination of the criminal
3. Neglect of Duty proceedings.

Art. 34, CC. When a member of a city or

municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid
or protection to any person in case of danger to
life or property, such peace officer shall be
primarily liable for damages, and the city or
municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible
therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall
be independent of any criminal proceedings, and
a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to
support such action.

Art. 34 covers a situation where:

a. There is danger to the life or property of a
person;
b. A member of a city or municipal police force
who is present in the scene refused or failed to
render aid or protection to the person; and
c. Damages are caused whether to the person
and/or property of the victim.

Nature of liability
a. Of the police officer – Primary
b. City or municipality – Subsidiary

The defense of having observed the diligence of a

good father of a family to prevent the damage is not
available to the city/municipality.

4. Catch-All Independent Civil

Action
Art. 35, CC. When a person, claiming to be
injured by a criminal offense, charges another with
the same, for which no independent civil action is
granted in this Code or any special law, but the

Page 490 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

c. Nominal;
DAMAGES d.
e.
Temperate or moderate;
Liquidated; or
f. Exemplary or corrective.
1. Definition
According to Purpose
Damages may be defined as the pecuniary
compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an a. For adequate reparation of the injury
injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the 1. Compensatory damages
pecuniary consequences, which the law imposes for (reparation of pecuniary losses)
the breach of some duty or the violation of some 2. Moral (reparation for non-pecuniary losses:
right [People v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. 120921 (1998)]. injury to feelings; physical suffering, etc.)
b. For vindication of the right violated:
It is the recompense or compensation awarded for 1. Nominal damages
the damage suffered [Custodio v. CA, G.R. No. 116100 c. For less than adequate reparation:
(1996)]. 1. Moderate
d. For deterring future violations:
a. When Allowed 1. Exemplary or corrective

The obligation to repair the damages exists whether According to Manner of Determination
done intentionally or negligently and whether or
not punishable by law [Occena v. Icamina, G.R. No. a. Conventional (or liquidated)
82146 (1990)] b. Non-conventional, which may either be:
1. Statutory (fixed by law, as in moratory
The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses does interest)
not give rise to a right to recover damages. To 2. Judicial (determined by the courts)
warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both
a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the General Damages
defendant, and damage resulting to the plaintiff Those which are the natural and necessary result of
therefrom. Wrong without damage, or damage the wrongful act or omission asserted as the
without wrong, does not constitute a cause of action, foundation of liability, and include those which
since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed follow as a conclusion of law from the statement of
for the injury caused by a breach or wrong [Custodio the facts of the injury.
v. CA, supra].
Special Damages
Injury vs. Damage vs. Damages [from Custodio] Damages that arise from the special circumstance of
INJURY DAMAGE DAMAGES the case, which, if properly pleaded, may be added to
the general damages which the law presumes or
The loss, hurt, The recompense implies from the mere invasion of the plaintiff’s
The illegal
or harm, which or compensation rights. Special damages are the natural, but NOT the
invasion of a
results from the awarded for the necessary result of an injury. These are not implied by
legal right
injury damage suffered law.

Elements for recovery of damages a. Actual and Compensatory

1. Right of action
2. For a wrong inflicted by the defendant Damages
3. Damage resulting to the plaintiff
Compensatory damages
Damages in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss
2. Types of Damages or injury sustained. The phrase “actual damages” is
sometimes used as synonymous with compensatory
Art. 2197, CC. Damages may be: damages.
a. Actual or compensatory;
b. Moral;

Page 491 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Damages must be proved with reasonable accuracy,

Requisites even when not denied [Valencia vs. Tantoco, G.R. No.
To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to L-7267 (1956)].
prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable
degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof Components
and on the best evidence obtainable [Asilo, Jr. v. People
and Sps. Bombasi, G.R. No. 159017-18 (2011)]. Actual damage covers the following: [LIPA]
1. Value of loss; unrealized profit
When is a person entitled? [PeLo-Re-PLS] 2. Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation
1. When there is a pecuniary loss suffered by him; 3. Interest
2. When he has alleged and prayed for such relief
[Manchester Dev’t Corp v. CA, G.R. No. L-75919 Loss Covered
(1987)];
3. When he has duly proved it; IN GENERAL
4. When provided by law or by stipulation.
Art. 2200, CC. Indemnification for damages shall
comprehend not only the value of the loss
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary for: suffered, but also that of the profits which the
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or obligee failed to obtain.
exemplary damages. The assessment of such
damages is discretionary upon the court, except
liquidated ones. [Art. 2216, CC] Indemnification for damages is not limited to damnum
emergens (actual loss) but extends to lucrum cessans (a
Alleged and proved with certainty cession of gain or amount of profit lost). This rule is
important when the thing lost or damaged either
Art. 2199, CC. Except as provided by law or by earns income or is used for business.
stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss
The award of damages for loss of earning capacity is
suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such
concerned with the determination of losses or
compensation is referred to as actual or
damages sustained by the [plaintiffs], as dependents
compensatory damages.
and intestate heirs of the deceased, and that said
damages consist, not of the full amount of his
The damages must be proven by competent evidence earnings, but of the support they received or would
(admissible or probative). have received from him had he not died in
consequence of negligence of [defendant’s] agent…
There must be pleading and proof of actual damages Only net earnings, and not gross earnings are to be
suffered for the same to be recovered. In addition to considered. That is, the total of the earnings less
the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings
proof, it must also be actually proven with a or income and less living and other incidental
reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon expenses [Candano Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Sugata-on, G.R.
competent proof or the best evidence obtainable. No. 163212 (2007)].
The burden of proof of the damage suffered is,
consequently, imposed on the party claiming the Extent or scope of actual damages
same, who should adduce the best evidence available EXTENT OF
in support thereof… In the absence of corroborative SOURCE
LIABILITY
evidence, it has been held that self-serving statements
• If the obligor acted in
of account are not sufficient basis for an award of
GOOD FAITH, he shall
actual damages [Oceaneering Contractors v Baretto, G.R.
be liable for natural and
No. 184215 (2011)].
Contracts probable consequences of
Art.
and Quasi- the breach, which the
Actual or compensatory damages cannot be 2201
contracts parties have foreseen or could
presumed, but must be proven with a reasonable
have reasonably foreseen at the
degree of certainty [MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v
time the obligation was
Ssangyong Corp., G.R. No. 170633 (2007)].
constituted.

Page 492 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

EXTENT OF 5. That since the filing of the action, the

SOURCE
LIABILITY defendant has done his best to lessen the
• If the obligor acted with plaintiff's loss or injury.
FRAUD, BAD FAITH,
MALICE or WANTON The damages recoverable upon breach of contract
ATTITUDE, he shall be are, primarily, the ordinary, natural and in a sense the
responsible for all damages necessary damages resulting from the breach. Other
which may be reasonably damages, known as special damages, are recoverable
attributed to the breach or where it appears that the particular conditions which
non-performance. made such damages a probable consequence of the
• Liability extends to all breach were known to the delinquent party at the
damages which are the time the contract was made [Daywalt vs. Recoletos et al.,
natural and probable G.R. No. L-13505 (1919)].
consequence of the act or
Art. Crimes and omission complained of Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
2202 Quasi-delicts • WON the damage was negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some
foreseen or could have moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it
been reasonably foreseen partakes of the nature of fraud…BPI-FB acted out of
by the defendant is the impetus of self-protection and not out of
irrelevant malevolence or ill will. BPI-FB was not in the corrupt
state of mind contemplated in Article 2201 and
IN CONTRACTS AND QUASI- should not be held liable for all damages now being
CONTRACTS imputed to it for its breach of obligation [BPI Family
Bank v. Franco, G.R. No. 123498 (2007)].
Art. 2201, CC. In contracts and quasi-contracts,
the damages for which the obligor who acted in
That there was fraud or bad faith on the part of
good faith is liable shall be those that are the
respondent airline when it did not allow petitioners
natural and probable consequences of the breach
to board their flight in spite of confirmed tickets
of the obligation, and which the parties have
cannot be disputed. Overbooking amounts to bad
foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the
faith, entitling the passengers concerned to an award
time the obligation was constituted.
of moral damages [Spouses Zalamea v. CA, G.R. No.
104235 (1993)].
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton
attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all
IN CRIMES AND QUASI-DELICTS
damages which may be reasonably attributed to
the non-performance of the obligation. Art. 2202, CC. In crimes and quasi delicts, the
defendant shall be liable for all damages which are
the natural and probable consequences of the act
Art. 2214, CC. In quasi-delicts, the contributory or omission complained of. It is not necessary that
negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the such damages have been foreseen or could have
damages that he may recover. reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.

Art. 2215, CC. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and In case of crimes, damages are to be increased or
quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the decreased according to aggravating or mitigating
damages under circumstances other than the case circumstances present.
referred to in the preceding article, as in the
following instances: Interest, as part of damages, may be adjudicated in a
1. That the plaintiff himself has contravened the
proper case, in the Court’s discretion.
terms of the contract;
2. That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as
Contributory negligence of the plaintiff, in case of
a result of the contract; quasi-delicts, shall reduce the damages to which he
3. In cases where exemplary damages are to be
may be entitled. However, in case of crimes, there is
awarded, that the defendant acted upon the no mitigation for contributory negligence of the
advice of counsel; plaintiff.
4. That the loss would have resulted in any event;

Page 493 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Formula for the net earning capacity

The principal consideration for the award of damages Net earning capacity = Life Expectancy × (Gross
is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the annual income –Reasonable living expenses)
offense because of its heinousness, not the public [People vs. Aringue, G.R. No. 116487 (1997)].
penalty actually imposed on the offender… The fact
of minority of the offender at the time of the Where:
commission of the offense has no bearing on the Life expectancy = 2⁄3 × (80 – age of victim at the
gravity and extent of injury caused to the victim and time of death)
her family… Hence, notwithstanding the fact that the
imposable public penalty against the offender should As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented
be lowered due to his minority, there is no justifiable to substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity
ground to depart from the jurisprudential trend in the [Tan, et al. vs. OMC Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 190521
award of damages in the case of qualified rape, (2011)].
considering the compensatory nature of the award of
civil indemnity and moral damages. [People v. Sarcia, By way of exception, damages for loss of earning
G.R. No. 169641 (2009)]. capacity may be awarded despite the absence of
documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-
Earning capacity, business standing employed and earning less than the minimum wage
under current labor laws, in which case, judicial
Art. 2205, CC. Damages may be recovered: notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's
1. For loss or impairment of earning capacity in
line of work, no documentary evidence is available;
cases of temporary or permanent personal
or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage
injury;
worker earning less than the minimum wage under
2. For injury to the plaintiff's business standing
current labor laws.
or commercial credit.
Death by Crime or Quasi-Delict
Loss or impairment of earning capacity
The Court did not award actual damages because it
was found that plaintiff’s employment was lost even Art. 2206, CC. The amount of damages for death
before the injury upon which she was suing. The caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least
Court equated loss of employment with loss of three thousand pesos, even though there may have
earning capacity [Gatchalian v. Delim, G.R. No. 56487 been mitigating circumstances.
(1991)].
In addition:
The plaintiff need not be actually engaged in gainful 1. The defendant shall be liable for the loss of
employment to recover damages due to loss or the earning capacity of the deceased, and the
impairment of earning capacity. In determining the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the
amount of damages to be awarded, the Supreme latter; such indemnity shall in every case be
Court considered the plaintiff’s age, probable life assessed and awarded by the court, unless the
expectancy, the state of his health, and his mental and deceased on account of permanent physical
physical condition before the accident… Taking into disability not caused by the defendant, had no
account [the plaintiff’s] outstanding abilities, he earning capacity at the time of his death;
would have enjoyed a successful professional career 2. If the deceased was obliged to give support
in banking [Mercury Drug v Huang, G.R. No. 172122 according to the provisions of article 291, the
(2007)]. recipient who is not an heir called to the
decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
Injury to business standing or commercial credit intestate succession, may demand support
Loss of goodwill should be proven with the same from the person causing the death, for a
standard of proof as other compensatory damages period not exceeding five years, the exact
[Tanay Recreation Center v. Fausto, G.R. No. 140182 duration to be fixed by the court;
(2005)]. 3. The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
descendants and ascendants of the deceased
may demand moral damages for mental

Page 494 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

anguish by reason of the death of the The SC held that it could not be proven that the age
deceased. of the victim was such that it would support a penalty
of death. Thus, it imposed reclusion perpetua instead.
Civil/death indemnity But SC said that this should not affect the civil
liability to be imposed, and maintained the same at
Mere commission of the crime shall entitle the heirs Php. 75,000 [People v. Bartolini, G.R. No. 179498
of the deceased to such damages. (2010)].

But there has been inconsistency as to whether In cases of rape with homicide, civil indemnity in the
indemnity is 50,000 or 75,000. The Court awarded amount of Php. 100,000 should be awarded to the
75,000 if the imposable penalty for the crime should heirs of the victim [People vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 172326
have been death, and 50,000 if reclusion perpetua. In (2009)].
cases of robbery with homicide, 50,000 is granted
automatically in the absence of any qualifying Attorney’s fees and expenses of
aggravating circumstances. [Casis.] litigation

As to the loss of earning capacity Art. 2208, CC. In the absence of stipulation,
General Rule: Shall be awarded in every case, and that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other
claimant shall present documentary evidence to than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
substantiate claim for damages. [See formula for net [ExLiMpUca-BF-LeWaComSeDO]
earning capacity.] 1. When exemplary damages are awarded;
2. When the defendant's act or omission has
Exceptions: compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
1. If the deceased was self-employed and earning persons or to incur expenses to protect his
less than the minimum wage; or interest;
2. The deceased was a daily wage worker earning 3. In criminal cases of malicious prosecution
less than the minimum wage under current labor against the plaintiff;
laws. [Philippine Hawk v. Lee, G.R. No. 166869 4. In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
(2010)]. proceeding against the plaintiff;
5. Where the defendant acted in gross and
Additional Exception: Testimonial evidence suffices to evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
establish a basis for which the court can make a fair plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable
and reasonable estimate of the loss of earning claim;
capacity [Pleyto v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 148737 (2004)] 6. In actions for legal support;
7. In actions for the recovery of wages of
Note: Such an exception to documentary proof household helpers, laborers and skilled
requirement only exists as to the loss of earning workers;
capacity. 8. In actions for indemnity under workmen's
compensation and employer's liability laws;
In Rape Cases 9. In a separate civil action to recover civil
No statutory basis but in several cases the court liability arising from a crime;
awards compensatory damages to victims of rape. 10. When at least double judicial costs are
awarded;
Civil indemnity, in the nature of actual and 11. In any other case where the court deems it
compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the just and equitable that attorney's fees and
finding of the fact of rape. Awarded Php. 50,000 for expenses of litigation should be recovered.
simple rape [People v. Astrologo, G.R. No. 169873
(2007)]. In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation must be reasonable.
When imposable penalty is death, then the civil
indemnity must be Php. 75,000 [People vs. Apattad, General Rule: Attorney’s fees and costs of litigation are
G.R. No. 193188 (2011)]. recoverable IF stipulated.

Page 495 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where

Exceptions: no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected
If there is no stipulation, they are recoverable only in in a party’s persistence in a case other than an
the following cases: erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his
1. By reason of malice or bad faith cause [Bank of America v. Philippine Racing Club, G.R.
a. When exemplary damages are awarded No. 150228 (2009)].
b. In case of a clearly unfounded civil action
c. Where defendant acted in gross and evident Interest
bad faith
d. When at least double judicial costs are Art. 2209, CC. If the obligation consists in the
awarded payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs
2. By reason of plaintiff’s indigence in in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being
a. Actions for legal support no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the
b. Actions for recovery of wages of laborers, payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the
etc. absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is
c. Actions for workmen’s compensation six per cent per annum.
3. By reason of crimes in
a. Criminal cases of malicious prosecution
Art. 2210, CC. Interest may, in the discretion of
b. Separate actions to recover civil liability
the court, be allowed upon damages awarded for
arising from crime
breach of contract.
4. By reason of equity
a. Where the defendant’s act compelled
plaintiff to litigate with third persons Art. 2211, CC. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest
b. Where the Court deems it just and as a part of the damages may, in a proper case, be
equitable adjudicated in the discretion of the court.

Note: In all cases, attorney’s fees and costs of litigation Art. 2212, CC. Interest due shall earn legal interest
must be reasonable. from the time it is judicially demanded, although
the obligation may be silent upon this point.
Even if expressly stipulated, attorney’s fees are
subject to control by the Courts. Art. 2213, CC. Interest cannot be recovered upon
Attorney’s fees in CC 2208 is an award made in favor unliquidated claims or damages, except when the
of the litigant, not of his counsel, and the litigant, not demand can be established with reasonable
his counsel, is the judgment creditor who may certainty.
enforce the judgment for attorney's fees by execution
[Quirante v. IAC, G.R. No. 73886 (1989)]. Interest accrues in the concept of damages
when:
Attorney's fees cannot be recovered except in cases 1. The obligation consists in the payment of a sum
provided for in CC 2208 [MERALCO v. Ramoy, G.R. of money;
No. 158911 (2008)]. 2. Debtor incurs in delay; and
3. There being no stipulation to the contrary
Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation are
recoverable only in the concept of actual damages, No interest may be recovered on unliquidated (not
not as moral damages nor judicial costs. Hence, such fixed in amount) claims or damages, except when the
must be specifically prayed for…and may not be demand can be established with reasonable certainty
deemed incorporated within a general prayer for at the Court’s discretion.
"such other relief and remedy as this court may deem
just and equitable [Briones v Macabagdal, G.R. No. Compounding of interest
150666 (2010)]. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it
is judicially demanded, although the obligation may
For Art. 2208 (2), an adverse decision does not ipso be silent on the point.
facto justify an award of attorney’s fees to the winning
party. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate Note that interest due can earn only at 6%, whether
with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his the rate of interest of the principal is greater than 6%.

Page 496 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

computation interest shall

Determination of legal interest of legal begin to run
1. When an obligation, regardless of its source (i.e., interest shall only FROM
law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi- be on the THE DATE
delicts) is breached, the contravenor can be held amount finally THE
liable for damages. adjudged. JUDGMENT
2. With regard particularly to an AWARD OF OF THE
INTEREST in the concept of actual and COURT IS
compensatory damages, the RATE of interest, as MADE (at
well as the ACCRUAL thereof, is imposed, as which time the
follows [Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA, G.R. No. quantification
97412 (1994) as modified by Nacar v. Gallery of damages
Frames, G.R. No. 189871 (2013)]: may be deemed
to have been
BASE RATE ACCRUAL reasonably
a. That ascertained).
When the which may When the
To be From
obligation is have been JUDGMENT
computed FINALITY
breached, and stipulated of the court
from default, UNTIL ITS
it consists in in writing. awarding a
i.e., from SATISFACTI
the b. In the sum of money
JUDICIAL or ON, this
PAYMENT absence of becomes final 6% per
EXTRAJUDI period being
OF A SUM stipulation, and executory, annum
CIAL demand deemed to be
OF MONEY, the rate of whether or not
under and an equivalent
i.e., a loan or interest the case
subject to the to a
forbearance of shall be consists in the
provisions of forbearance of
money, the 6% per payment of a
Article 1169 of credit.
interest due annum sum of money
the CC.
should be- (legal
interest) Note: The new rate of legal interest (6%) in Nacar does
Furthermore, not apply to judgments that have become final and
From the time
the executory prior to July 1, 2013.
it is
INTEREST Legal interest
JUDICIALLY
DUE shall Start of Delay
demanded.
itself earn 1. Extrajudicial: Demand letter
When an If claim or 2. Judicial: Filing of complaint
obligation, damages are 3. Award
NOT LIQUIDATE
constituting a D, from Duty to Minimize
loan or default, i.e., Art. 2203, CC. The party suffering loss or injury
forbearance of from judicial or must exercise the diligence of a good father of a
money, is extrajudicial family to minimize the damages resulting from the
breached, an demand. (Art. act or omission in question.
interest on the 1169, CC)
6% per
AMOUNT Article 2203 of the CC exhorts parties suffering from
annum
OF If loss or injury to exercise the diligence of a good father
DAMAGES UNLIQUIDA of a family to minimize the damages resulting from
awarded may TED, from the the act or omission in question. One who is injured
be imposed at time the then by the wrongful or negligent act of another
the discretion demand can be should exercise reasonable care and diligence to
of the court. established minimize the resulting damage. Anyway, he can
with reasonable recover from the wrongdoer money lost in
The actual certainty. reasonable efforts to preserve the property injured
base for the Hence, the and for injuries incurred in attempting to prevent

Page 497 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

damage to it [Lim and Gunnaban vs. CA, G.R. No. 4. Fright

125817 (2002)]. 5. Moral shock
6. Wounded feelings
Burden of Proof 7. Social humiliation
The DEFENDANT has the burden of proof to 8. Serious anxiety
establish that the victim, by the exercise of the 9. Similar injury
diligence of a good father of a family, could have
mitigated the damages. In the absence of such proof, Requisites for awarding moral damages
the amount of damages cannot be reduced. The conditions for awarding moral damages are
[Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, G.R. No. 157009 (2010)]:
Note: [InAoProx-2219]
The victim is required only to take such steps as an 1. There must be an injury, whether physical,
ordinary prudent man would reasonably adopt for his mental, or psychological, clearly substantiated by
own interest. the claimant;
2. There must be a culpable act or omission
b. Moral Damages factually established;
3. The wrongful act or omission of the defendant
must be the proximate cause of the injury
Art. 2217, CC. Moral damages include physical
sustained by the claimant; and
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
4. The award of damages is predicated on any of
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
the cases stated in Article 2219 of the CC.
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.
Though incapable of pecuniary computation,
General Principles of Recovery:
moral damages may be recovered if they are the
1. Moral damages must somehow be proportional
proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act
to the suffering inflicted.
or omission.
2. In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral
Art. 2218, CC. In the adjudication of moral damages may be recovered when the defendant
damages, the sentimental value of property, real or acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross
personal, may be considered. negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton
disregard of his contractual obligation and,
Moral damages are emphatically not intended to exceptionally, when the act of breach of contract
enrich a complainant at the expense of the defendant. itself is constitutive of tort resulting in physical
Its award is aimed at the restoration, within the limits injuries.
of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante, and it
must be proportional to the suffering inflicted 3. By special rule in Article 1764, in relation to
[Visayan Sawmill v. CA, G.R. No. 83851 (1993)]. Article 2206, moral damages may also be
awarded in case the death of a passenger results
Mental suffering means distress or serious pain as from a breach of carriage.
distinguished from annoyance, regret or vexation
[Bagumbayan Corp. v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66274 (1984)]. 4. In culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict,
a. when an act or omission causes physical
Mental anguish is intense mental suffering. Generally, injuries, or
damages for mental anguish are limited to cases in b. where the defendant is guilty of intentional
which there has been a personal physical injury or tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered.
where the defendant willfully, wantonly, recklessly, or This rule also applies to contracts when
intentionally caused the mental anguish. breached by tort.

When awarded 5. In culpa criminal, moral damages could be

lawfully due when the accused is found guilty of
Awarded when injury consists of: physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or
1. Physical suffering concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention, illegal
2. Besmirched reputation arrest, illegal search, or defamation.
3. Mental anguish

Page 498 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

6. Malicious prosecution can also give rise to a may recover moral damages if it "has a good
claim for moral damages. The term "analogous reputation that is debased, resulting in social
cases," referred to in Article 2219, following the humiliation" is an obiter dictum [ABS-CBN v. CA,
ejusdem generis rule, must be held similar to G.R. No. 128690 (1999)].
those expressly enumerated by the law.
While it is true that besmirched reputation is included
7. Although the institution of a clearly unfounded in moral damages, it cannot cause mental anguish to
civil suit can at times be a legal justification for a corporation, unlike in the case of a natural person,
an award of attorney's fees, such filing, however, for a corporation has no reputation in the sense that
has almost invariably been held not to be a an individual has, and besides, it is inherently
ground for an award of moral damages. impossible for a corporation to suffer mental anguish
[Expertravel & Tours vs. CA., G.R. No. 130030 [NAPOCOR v. Philipp Brothers, G.R. Ni, 126204
(1999)]. (2001)].

8. The burden rests on the person claiming moral When Recoverable

damages to show convincing evidence for good
faith is presumed. In a case involving simple Art. 2219, CC. Moral damages may be recovered
negligence, moral damages cannot be recovered. in the following and analogous cases: [PiQ-SarA-
[Villanueva v. Salvador, G.R. No. 139436 (2006)]. DeSe-LiMp]
1. A criminal offense resulting in physical
9. Failure to use the precise legal terms or injuries;
"sacramental phrases" of "mental anguish, fright, 2. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
serious anxiety, wounded feelings or moral 3. Seduction, abduction, rape, or other
shock" does not justify the denial of the claim for lascivious acts;
damages. It is sufficient that these exact terms 4. Adultery or concubinage;
have been pleaded in the complaint and evidence 5. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
has been adduced [Miranda-Ribaya v. Bautista, 6. Illegal search;
G.R. No. L-49390 (1980)]. 7. Libel, slander or any other form of
defamation;
10. Even if the allegations regarding the amount of 8. Malicious prosecution;
damages in the complaint are not specifically 9. Acts mentioned in article 309;
denied in the answer, such damages are not 10. Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26,
deemed admitted. [Raagas, et al. v. Traya et al, G.R. 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
No. L-20081 (1968)].
The parents of the female seduced, abducted,
11. An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this
case for review and this 'includes the review of article, may also recover moral damages.
the penalty, indemnity and damages’. Even if the
offended party had not appealed from said The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and
award, and the only party who sought a review brothers and sisters may bring the action
of the decision of said court was the accused, the mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order
court can increase damages awarded. [Sumalpong named.
v. CA, G.R. No. 123404 (1997)].
IN CRIMINAL OFFENSE RESULTING IN
12. It can only be awarded to natural persons. The
PHYSICAL INJURIES
award of moral damages cannot be granted in
Under paragraph (1), Article 2219 of the CC, moral
favor of a corporation because, being an artificial
damages may be recovered in a criminal offense
person and having existence only in legal
resulting in physical injuries. In its generic sense,
contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions,
"physical injuries" includes death [People v. Villaver,
no senses, It cannot, therefore, experience
G.R. No. 133381 (2001)].
physical suffering and mental anguish, which can
be experienced only by one having a nervous
In a case where the father of a family was stabbed to
system. The statement in People vs. Manero and
death, the SC said that “a violent death invariably and
Mambulao Lumber Co. vs. PNB that a corporation
necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish

Page 499 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

on the part of the victim’s family… For this reason, illegal and arbitrary detention or arrest, thereby
moral damages must be awarded even in the absence justifying the award of moral damages [People v.
of any allegation and proof of the heirs’ emotional Bernardo, G.R. No. 144316 (2002)].
suffering [Arcona v CA, G.R. No. 134784 (2002)].”
IN CASE OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
IN QUASI-DELICTS CAUSING PHYSICAL As a rule, no moral damages is imposed for litigation,
INJURIES because the law could not have meant to impose a
In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, moral damages may penalty on the right to litigate. A person's right to
be recovered (a) when an act or omission causes litigate, as a rule, should not be penalized. This right,
physical injuries, or (b) where the defendant is guilty however, must be exercised in good faith. Absence
of intentional tort. The SC held that an employer that of good faith in the present case is shown by the fact
is vicariously liable with its employee-driver may also that petitioner clearly has no cause of action against
be held liable for moral damages to the injured respondents but it recklessly filed suit anyway and
plaintiff [B.F. Metal v. Lomotan, G.R. No. 170813 wantonly pursued pointless appeals, thereby causing
(2008)]. the latter to spend valuable time, money and effort in
unnecessarily defending themselves, incurring
IN SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION, RAPE damages in the process [Industrial Insurance v. Bondad,
AND OTHER LASCIVIOUS ACTS G.R. No. 136722 (2000)].
Anent the award of damages, civil indemnity ex
delicto is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape Moral damages cannot be recovered from a person
while moral damages is awarded upon such finding who has filed a complaint against another in good
without need of further proof because it is assumed faith, or without malice or bad faith. If damage results
that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries from the filing of the complaint, it is damnum absque
entitling the victim to such award. If without factual injuria [Mijares v. CA, G.R. No. 113558(1997)].
and legal bases, no award of exemplary damages
should be allowed [People v. Calongui, G.R. No. The adverse result of an action does not per se make
170566(2006)]. the act wrongful and subject the actor to the payment
of moral damages. The law could not have meant to
In a case where the offender-father was convicted of impose a penalty on the right to litigate; such right is
simple rape instead of qualified rape due to the so precious that moral damages may not be charged
prosecution’s failure to specifically allege the age and on those who may exercise it erroneously [Barreto v.
minority of the victim-daughter, but such was Arevalo, G.R. No. L-7748 (1956)].
nonetheless established during the trial, the award of
civil indemnity and moral damages in a conviction for IN ACTS REFERRED TO IN ARTS. 21, 26,
simple rape should equal the award of civil indemnity 27, 28, 29, 32, 34 AND 35, CC
and moral damages in convictions for qualified rape. Art. 21, CC. Any person who wilfully causes loss
Truly, [the victim’s] moral suffering is just as great as or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
when her father who raped her is convicted for morals, good customs or public policy shall
qualified rape as when he is convicted only for simple compensate the latter for the damage.
rape due to a technicality [People v. Bartolini, supra].
Art. 26, CC. Every person shall respect the
Where there are multiple counts of rape and other dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of
lascivious acts, the SC awarded moral damages for his neighbors and other persons. The following
each count of lascivious acts and each count of rape and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
[People v. Abadies, G.R. Nos. 13946-50 (2002)]. criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action
for damages, prevention and other relief:
Note: Recovery may be had by the offended party and 1. Prying into the privacy of another's residence:
also by her parents. 2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another;
IN ILLEGAL OR ARBITRARY 3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated
DETENTION OR ARREST from his friends;
Since the crime committed in this case is kidnapping 4. Vexing or humiliating another on account of
and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place
Revised Penal Code, the same is clearly analogous to

Page 500 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

of birth, physical defect, or other personal Art. 29, CC. When the accused in a criminal
condition. prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his
guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
Violation of Human Dignity doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act
The law seeks to protect a person from being unjustly or omission may be instituted. Such action
humiliated. Using this provision, the SC awarded requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon
moral damages to the plaintiff, a married man, against motion of the defendant, the court may require
the defendant, who confronted the plaintiff face-to- the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages
face, invading the latter’s privacy, to hurl defamatory in case the complaint should be found to be
words at him in the presence of his wife and children, malicious.
neighbors and friends, accusing him of having an
adulterous relationship with another woman If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is
[Concepcion v. CA, G.R. No. 120706 (2000)]. based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so
declare. In the absence of any declaration to that
Art. 27, CC. Any person suffering material or effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
moral loss because a public servant or employee decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that
refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform ground.
his official duty may file an action for damages and
other relief against the latter, without prejudice to Art. 32, CC. Any public officer or employee, or
any disciplinary administrative action that may be any private individual, who directly or indirectly
taken. obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
Refusal or Neglect of Duty liberties of another person shall be liable to the
Under Art. 27, in relation to Arts. 2219 and 2217, a latter for damages:
public officer may be liable for moral damages for as 1. Freedom of religion;
long as the moral damages suffered by [the plaintiff] 2. Freedom of speech;
were the proximate result of [defendant’s] refusal to 3. Freedom to write for the press or to maintain
perform an official duty or neglect in the a periodical publication;
performance thereof. In fact, under Articles 19 and 4. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
27 of the CC, a public official may be made to pay 5. Freedom of suffrage;
damages for performing a perfectly legal act, albeit 6. The right against deprivation of property
with bad faith or in violation of the "abuse of right" without due process of law;
doctrine [Concepcion v. CA, supra]. 7. The right to a just compensation when
private property is taken for public use;
Art. 28, CC. Unfair competition in agricultural, 8. The right to the equal protection of the laws;
commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor 9. The right to be secure in one's person, house,
through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, papers, and effects against unreasonable
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or searches and seizures;
highhanded method shall give rise to a right of 10. The liberty of abode and of changing the
action by the person who thereby suffers damage. 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

Page 501 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

nature and cause of the accusation against Art. 34, CC. When a member of a city or
him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid
the witnesses face to face, and to have or protection to any person in case of danger to
compulsory process to secure the attendance life or property, such peace officer shall be
of witness in his behalf; primarily liable for damages, and the city or
17. Freedom from being compelled to be a municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible
witness against one's self, or from being therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall
forced to confess guilt, or from being induced be independent of any criminal proceedings, and
by a promise of immunity or reward to make a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to
such confession, except when the person support such action.
confessing becomes a State witness;
18. Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and Art. 35, CC. When a person, claiming to be
unusual punishment, unless the same is injured by a criminal offense, charges another with
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a the same, for which no independent civil action is
statute which has not been judicially declared granted in this Code or any special law, but the
unconstitutional; and justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds
19. Freedom of access to the courts. to believe that a crime has been committed, or the
prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute
In any of the cases referred to in this article, criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a
whether or not the defendant's act or omission civil action for damages against the alleged
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party offender. Such civil action may be supported by a
has a right to commence an entirely separate and preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's
distinct civil action for damages, and for other motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file
relief. Such civil action shall proceed a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the
independently of any criminal prosecution (if the complaint should be found to be malicious.
latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a
preponderance of evidence. If during the pendency of the civil action, an
information should be presented by the
The indemnity shall include moral damages. prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. suspended until the termination of the criminal
proceedings.
The responsibility herein set forth is not
demandable from a judge unless his act or
Art. 2220, CC. Willful injury to property may be a
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
legal ground for awarding moral damages if the
or other penal statute.
court should find that, under the circumstances,
such damages are justly due. The same rule applies
Violation of Civil and Political Rights to breaches of contract where the defendant acted
The purpose of [CC 32] is to provide a sanction to fraudulently or in bad faith.
the deeply cherished rights and freedoms enshrined
in the Constitution. Under [CC 32], it is not necessary
In Willful Injury to Property
that the public officer acted with malice or bad
To sustain an award of damages, the damage inflicted
faith. To be liable, it is enough that there was a
upon [plaintiff’s] property must be malicious or
violation of the constitutional rights of petitioner,
willful, an element crucial to merit an award of
even on the pretext of justifiable motives or good
moral damages under Article 2220 of the CC [Regala
faith in the performance of one's duties [Cojuangco v.
v. Carin, G.R. No. 188715 (2011)].
CA, G.R. No. 119398 (1999)].

Article 32 of the CC provides that moral damages are

In Breach of Contract in Bad Faith
Moral damages may be recovered in culpa
proper when the rights of individuals, including the
right against deprivation of property without due contractual where the defendant acted in bad faith or
process of law, are violated [Meralco v Spouses Chua, with malice in the breach of the contract. However, a
G.R. No. 160422 (2010)]. conscious or intentional design need not always be
present since negligence may occasionally be so gross
as to amount to malice or bad faith. Bad faith, in the

Page 502 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

context of Art. 2220 of the CC, Juridical Persons

includes gross negligence. Thus, we have held in a The award of moral damages cannot be granted in
number of cases that moral damages may be awarded favor of a corporation because, being an artificial
in culpa contractual or breach of contract when the person and having existence only in legal
defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no
guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or senses, It cannot, therefore, experience physical
in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations suffering and mental anguish, which can be
[Bankard, Inc. v. Feliciano, G.R. No 141761 (2006)]. experienced only by one having a nervous system.
The statement in People vs. Manero and Mambulao
As an exception [to the requirement of bad faith], Lumber Co. vs. PNB that a corporation may recover
moral damages may be awarded in case of breach of moral damages if it "has a good reputation that is
contract of carriage that results in the death of a debased, resulting in social humiliation" is an obiter
passenger [Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, supra]. dictum [ABS-CBN v. CA, supra].

Who may Recover Moral Damages Factors Considered in Determining Amount

The amount of damages awarded in this appeal has
Art. 2219, CC. Moral damages may be recovered been determined by adequately considering the
in the following and analogous cases: [PiQ-SarA- official, political, social, and financial standing of the
DeSe-LiMp] offended parties on one hand, and the business and
1. A criminal offense resulting in physical financial position of the offender on the other. The
injuries; SC further considered the present rate of exchange
2. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; and the terms at which the amount of damages
3. Seduction, abduction, rape, or other awarded would approximately be in U.S. dollars, the
lascivious acts; defendant being an international airline [Lopez v. Pan
4. Adultery or concubinage; American, G.R. No. L-22415 (1966)].
5. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
6. Illegal search; c. Nominal Damages
7. Libel, slander or any other form of
defamation; Nominal damages consist in damages awarded, not
8. Malicious prosecution; for purposes of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
9. Acts mentioned in article 309; suffered, but for the vindication or recognition of a
10. Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, right violated by the defendant.
27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
Requisites and characteristics
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, 1. Invasion or violation of any legal or property
raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this right.
article, may also recover moral damages. 2. No proof of loss is required.
3. The award is to vindicate the right violated.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and
brothers and sisters may bring the action When awarded
mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order
named. Art. 2221, CC. Nominal damages are adjudicated
in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
Relatives of Injured Persons violated or invaded by the defendant, may be
Article 2219 circumscribes the instances in which vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose
moral damages may be awarded. The provision does of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered
not include succession in the collateral line as a source by him.
of the right to recover moral damages. The usage of
the phrase analogous cases in the provision means
Art. 2222, CC. The court may award nominal
simply that the situation must be held similar to those
damages in every obligation arising from any
expressly enumerated in the law in question [Sulpicio
source enumerated in article 1157, or in every case
Lines v Curso, supra].
where any property right has been invaded.

Page 503 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Art. 2223, CC. The adjudication of nominal the discomfiture that the plaintiffs were subjected to
damages shall preclude further contest upon the during the event, averring that the hotel could have
right involved and all accessory questions, as managed the "situation" better, it being held in high
between the parties to the suit, or their respective esteem in the hotel and service industry. Given
heirs and assigns. respondent’s vast experience, it is safe to presume
that this is not its first encounter with booked events
One does not ask for nominal damages, and it is in exceeding the guaranteed cover [Spouses Guanio v.
lieu of the actual, moral, temperate, or liquidated Makati Shangri-la, G.R. No. 190601 (2011)].
damages.
Nature and determination of amount
Nominal damages are incompatible with actual, The assessment of nominal damages is left to the
temperate and exemplary damages. discretion of the trial court according to the
circumstances of the case. Generally, nominal
Nominal damages cannot co-exist with actual or damages by their nature are small sums fixed by the
compensatory damages [Armovit v. CA, G.R. No. court without regard to the extent of the harm done
88561 (1990)]. to the injured party. However, it is generally held that
a nominal damage is a substantial claim, if based upon
No moral or exemplary damages was awarded. the violation of a legal right; in such a case, the law
Nevertheless, when confronted with their failure to presumes damage although actual or compensatory
deliver on the wedding day the wedding cake ordered damages are not proven [Gonzales v. People, G.R. No.
and paid for, petitioners gave the lame excuse that 159950 (2007)].
delivery was probably delayed because of the traffic,
when in truth, no cake could be delivered because the d. Temperate Damages
order slip got lost. For such prevarication, petitioners
must be held liable for nominal damages for Art. 2224, CC. Temperate or moderate damages,
insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their which are more than nominal but less than
customer's anxiety and need of the hour [Francisco v. compensatory damages, may be recovered when
Ferrer, supra]. the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of
Nominal damages "are recoverable where a legal right the case, be provided with certainty.
is technically violated and must be vindicated against
an invasion that has produced no actual present loss
of any kind.” Its award is thus not for the purpose of Art. 2225, CC. Temperate damages must be
indemnification for a loss but for the recognition and reasonable under the circumstances.
vindication of a right. When granted by the courts,
they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong These damages are awarded for pecuniary loss, in an
inflicted but simply a recognition of the existence of amount that, from the nature of the case, cannot be
a technical injury. A violation of the plaintiff’s right, proved with certainty.
even if only technical, is sufficient to support an
award of nominal damages. Conversely, so long as Requisites [PL-Ex-MoNLeC-CoRe]
there is a showing of a violation of the right of the 1. Actual existence of pecuniary loss
plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper 2. The nature and circumstances of the loss
[Gonzales v. PCIB, G.R. No. 180257 (2011)]. prevents proof of the exact amount
3. They are more than nominal and less than
The plaintiffs sought to recover damages from the compensatory.
hotel due to its breach of contract as regards food 4. Causal connection between the loss and the
service for the plaintiff’s guests. The SC did not defendant’s act or omission.
award actual and moral damages because it found 5. Amount must be reasonable.
that the plaintiff’s failure to inform the hotel
regarding the increase of guests (from 350 expected In cases where the resulting injury might be
guests, at maximum capacity of 380, the number of continuing and possible future complications directly
guests reached 470) was the proximate cause of the arising from the injury, while certain to occur are
plaintiff’s injury. Nevertheless, the SC awarded difficult to predict, temperate damages can and
nominal damages under considerations of equity, for should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory

Page 504 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

damages; in such cases there is no incompatibility Where there are receipts provided amounting to
between actual and temperate damages as they cover less than P25,000
two distinct phases [Ramos v. CA, supra]. Anent the actual damages, we note that the CA
awarded P3,000.00 representing the amount spent
Temperate damages are incompatible with nominal for the embalming as shown by the receipt. However,
damages hence, cannot be granted concurrently the prosecution also presented a list of expenses such
[Citytrust Bank v. IAC , G.R. No. 84281(1994)]. as those spent for the coffin, etc., which were not
duly covered by receipt. If the actual damages,
Temperate damages are included within the context proven by receipts during the trial, amount to less
of compensatory damages. [Tan v. OMC Carriers, than P25,000.00, the victim shall be entitled to
supra]. temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, in
lieu of actual damages. In this case, the victim is
The SC awarded temperate damages in lieu of actual entitled to the award ofP25,000.00 as temperate
damages for loss of earning capacity where earning damages considering that the amount of actual
capacity is plainly established but no evidence was damages is only P3,858.50. The amount of actual
presented to support the allegation of the injured damages shall be deleted [People v. Lucero, G.R. No.
party’s actual income [Pleno v. CA, G.R. No. 56505 179044 (2010)].
(1988)].
Where no receipts were provided
Courts are authorized to award temperate damages The award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in
even in cases where the amount of pecuniary loss homicide or murder cases is proper when no
could have been proven with certainty, if no such evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented
adequate proof was presented. The allowance of in the trial court [People v. Gidoc, G.R. No. 185162
temperate damages when actual damages were not (2009)].
adequately proven is ultimately a rule drawn from
equity, the principle affording relief to those Where the amount of actual damages cannot be
definitely injured who are unable to prove how determined because no receipts were presented to
definite the injury [Republic v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 148246 prove the same but it is shown that the heirs are
(2007)]. entitled thereto, temperate damages may be awarded,
fixed at P25,000. Considering that funeral expenses
There are cases where from the nature of the case, definite were obviously incurred by the victim’s heirs, an
proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the court is award of P25,000 as temperate damages is proper
convinced that there has been such loss. For instance, injury [People v. Surongon, G.R. No. 173478 (2007)].
to one's commercial credit or to the goodwill of a
business firm is often hard to show certainty in terms e. Liquidated Damages
of money. Note: In this case actual and temperate
damages were awarded. It is postulated that the actual
Art. 2226, CC. Liquidated damages are those
damages is for the car while the temperate damages
agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid
is for the lost actual income not sufficiently proved.)
in case of breach thereof.
Factors in determining amount
The SC awarded temperate damages where from the Art. 2227, CC. Liquidated damages, whether
nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be
cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or
that the plaintiff suffered some pecuniary loss. The unconscionable.
SC also increased the award of temperate damages
from P100,000 to P150,000, taking into account the Liquidated damages are those damages agreed upon
cost of rebuilding the damaged portions of the by the parties to a contract to be paid in case of
perimeter fence [De Guzman v. Tumolva, G.R. No. breach thereof.
188072 (2011)].
It differs from a penal clause in that in the latter case
the amount agreed to be paid may bear no relation to
the probable damages resulting from the breach.

Page 505 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

Basically, a penalty is “ad terrorem,” while liquidated the public good, in addition to the moral,
damages are “ad reparationem.” temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

Requisites and characteristics In common law, these damages were termed

1. Liquidated damages must be validly stipulated. “punitive.”
2. There is no need to prove the amount of actual
damages. The grant of temperate damages paves the way for
3. Breach of the principal contract must be proved. the award of exemplary damages. Under Article 2234
of the CC, a showing that the plaintiff is entitled to
Rules Governing Breach of Contract temperate damages allows the award of exemplary
damages [Canada v All Commodities Marketing (2008)].
Art. 2228, CC. When the breach of the contract
committed by the defendant is not the one However, the award of P1,000,000 exemplary
contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the damages is also far too excessive and should likewise
liquidated damages, the law shall determine the be reduced to an equitable level. Exemplary damages
measure of damages, and not the stipulation. are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish
another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a
Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions
parties to a contract to be paid in case of breach [PNB v. CA, G.R. No. 116181 (1996)].
thereof. The stipulation on attorney’s fees contained
in the said Promissory Note constitutes what is When Recoverable
known as a penal clause. A penalty clause, expressly
recognized by law, is an accessory undertaking to In criminal offenses
assume greater liability on the part of the obligor in Art. 2230, CC. In criminal offenses, exemplary
case of breach of an obligation. It functions to damages as a part of the civil liability may be
strengthen the coercive force of obligation and to imposed when the crime was committed with one
provide, in effect, for what could be the liquidated or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages
damages resulting from such a breach. The obligor are separate and distinct from fines and shall be
would then be bound to pay the stipulated indemnity paid to the offended party.
without the necessity of proof on the existence and
on the measure of damages caused by the breach
[Suatengco v. Reyes, G.R. No. 162729 (2008)]. Award of exemplary damages is part of the civil
liability, not of the penalty.
General Rule: The penalty shall substitute the
indemnity for damages and the payment of the Damages are paid to the offended party separately
interests in case of breach. from the fines.

Exceptions Although an aggravating circumstance not

1. When there is a stipulation to the contrary. specifically alleged in the information, albeit
2. When the obligor is sued for refusal to pay the established at trial, cannot be appreciated to increase
agreed penalty. the criminal liability of the accused, the established
3. When the obligor is guilty of fraud. presence of one or two aggravating circumstances of
any kind or nature entitles the offended party to
The amount can be reduced if: exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the CC
1. it is unconscionable as determined by the court because the requirement of specificity in the
2. there is partial or irregular performance. information affected only the criminal liability of the
accused, not his civil liability [People v. Dadulla, G.R.
No. 172321 (2011)].
f. Exemplary or Corrective
Damages Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages,
therefore, can be awarded, not only in the presence
Art. 2229, CC. Exemplary or corrective damages of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the
are imposed, by way of example or correction for circumstances of the case show the highly
reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the

Page 506 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

offender. As in this case, where the offender sexually exemplary damages should be awarded. In case
assaulted a pregnant married woman, the offender liquidated damages have been agreed upon,
has shown moral corruption, perversity, and although no proof of loss is necessary in order that
wickedness. He has grievously wronged the such liquidated damages may be recovered,
institution of marriage. The imposition then of nevertheless, before the court may consider the
exemplary damages by way of example to deter question of granting exemplary in addition to the
others from committing similar acts or for correction liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that
for the public good is warranted in quasi-delicts he would be entitled to moral, temperate or
[People v. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560 (2010)]. compensatory damages were it not for the
stipulation for liquidated damages.
Art. 2231, CC. In quasi-delicts, exemplary
damages may be granted if the defendant acted Art. 2235, CC. A stipulation whereby exemplary
with gross negligence. damages are renounced in advance shall be null
and void.
In this case, the defendant, the previous employer of
the plaintiff, wrote a letter to the company where the Requisites to recover exemplary damages and
plaintiff subsequently applied for employment, liquidated damages agreed upon
stating that the plaintiff was dismissed by the The plaintiff must show that he/she is entitled to
defendant from work due to dishonesty, accusing moral, temperate or compensatory damages:
plaintiff of malversation of defendant’s funds.
Previous police investigations revealed that the IF WHEN EXEMPLARY
defendant’s accusations against the plaintiff were ARISING DAMAGES ARE
unfounded, and cleared the plaintiff of such FROM GRANTED
‘anomalies’. Here, the lower court awarded exemplary The crime was committed
damages to the plaintiff, which the defendant Art.
Crimes with an aggravating
questioned, averring that CC 2231 may be awarded 2230
circumstance/s
only for grossly negligent acts, not for willful or Art. Defendant acted with
intentional acts. The SC upheld the grant of Quasi-delicts
2231 gross negligence
exemplary damages, stating that while CC 2231 Defendant acted in a
provides that for quasi-delicts, exemplary damages Contracts and
Art. wanton, fraudulent,
may be granted if the defendant acted with gross Quasi-
2232 reckless, oppressive, or
negligence, with more reason is its imposition contracts
malevolent manner
justified when the act performed is deliberate,
malicious and tainted with bad faith [Globe Mackay v.
General Principles
CA, G.R. No. 81262 (1989)].
1. Exemplary damages cannot be awarded alone:
they must be awarded IN ADDITION to moral,
In contracts and quasi-contracts temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
Art. 2232, CC. In contracts and quasi-contracts, 2. The purpose of the award is to deter the
the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant (and others in a similar condition)
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, from a repetition of the acts for which exemplary
oppressive, or malevolent manner. damages were awarded; hence, they are not
recoverable as a matter of right.
Requisites 3. The defendant must be guilty of other malice or
else negligence above the ordinary.
Art. 2233, CC. Exemplary damages cannot be 4. Plaintiff is not required to prove the amount of
recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide exemplary damages.
whether or not they should be adjudicated. a. But plaintiff must show that he is entitled to
moral, temperate, or compensatory damage;
Art. 2234, CC. While the amount of the that is, substantial damages, not purely
exemplary damages need not be proved, the nominal ones. This requirement applies
plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, even if the contract stipulates liquidated
temperate or compensatory damages before the damages.
court may consider the question of whether or not

Page 507 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

b. The amount of exemplary damage need not permanent disability not caused by the accused.
be pleaded in the complaint because the If the deceased was obliged to give support,
same cannot be proved. It is merely under Art. 291, CC, the recipient who is not an
incidental or dependent upon what the court heir, may demand support from the accused for
may award as compensatory damages. not more than five years, the exact duration to
be fixed by the court.
3. Damages in Case of Death c. As moral damages for mental anguish, — an
amount to be fixed by the court. This may be
recovered even by the illegitimate descendants
Re. Crimes and quasi-delicts
and ascendants of the deceased.
Art. 2206, CC. The amount of damages for death d. As exemplary damages, when the crime is
caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least attended by one or more aggravating
three thousand pesos, even though there may have circumstances, — an amount to be fixed in the
been mitigating circumstances. In addition: discretion of the court, the same to be
1. The defendant shall be liable for the loss of considered separate from fines.
the earning capacity of the deceased, and the e. As attorney's fees and expresses of litigation, —
indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the the actual amount thereof, (but only when a
latter; such indemnity shall in every case be separate civil action to recover civil liability has
assessed and awarded by the court, unless the been filed or when exemplary damages are
deceased on account of permanent physical awarded).
disability not caused by the defendant, had no f. Interests in the proper cases.
earning capacity at the time of his death; g. It must be emphasized that the indemnities for
2. If the deceased was obliged to give support loss of earning capacity of the deceased and for
according to the provisions of article 291, the moral damages are recoverable separately from
recipient who is not an heir called to the and in addition to the fixed sum of P12,000.00
decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or corresponding to the indemnity for the sole fact
intestate succession, may demand support of death, and that these damages may, however,
from the person causing the death, for a be respectively increased or lessened according
period not exceeding five years, the exact to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances,
duration to be fixed by the court; except items 1 and 4 above, for obvious reasons
3. The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate [Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos, G.R. No. L-
descendants and ascendants of the deceased 25913 (1969)].
may demand moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the At present, the SC allows civil indemnity of P50,000
deceased. in cases of homicide [De Villa v. People, G.R. No.
151258 (2012)] and P75,000 in cases of murder [People
In death caused by breach of conduct by a v. Camat, G.R. No. 188612 (2012)].
common crime
When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of The omission from Article 2206 (3) of the brothers
the deceased are entitled to the following items of and sisters of the deceased passenger reveals the
damages: legislative intent to exclude them from the recovery
a. As indemnity for the death of the victim of the of moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the
offense — P12,000.00, without the need of any death of the deceased. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius
evidence or proof of damages, and even though [Sulpicio Lines v. Curso, supra].
there may have been mitigating circumstances
attending the commission of the offense.
b. As indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the 4. Graduation of Damages
deceased — an amount to be fixed by the Court
according to the circumstances of the deceased In crimes
related to his actual income at the time of death Art. 2204, CC. In crimes, the damages to be
and his probable life expectancy, the said adjudicated may be respectively increased or
indemnity to be assessed and awarded by the lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating
court as a matter of duty, unless the deceased had circumstances.
no earning capacity at said time on account of

Page 508 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

In quasi-delicts 3. In cases where exemplary damages are to be

Art. 2214, CC. In quasi-delicts, the contributory awarded, that the defendant acted upon the
negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the advice of counsel;
damages that he may recover. 4. That the loss would have resulted in any
event;
Contributory negligence 5. That since the filing of the action, the
The alleged contributory negligence of the victim, if defendant has done his best to lessen the
any, does not exonerate the accused in criminal cases plaintiff's loss or injury.
committed through reckless imprudence, since one
cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the Grounds for mitigation of damages
effects of his own negligence [Genobiagon v. CA,
supra]. For contracts:
1. Violation of terms of the contract by the plaintiff
If so, the disobedience of the plaintiff in placing himself;
himself in danger contributed in some degree to the 2. Obtention or enjoyment of benefit under the
injury as a proximate, although not as its primary contract by the plaintiff himself;
cause [Rakes v. Atlantic, G.R. No. L-1719 (1907)]. 3. Defendant acted upon advice of counsel in cases
where exemplary damages are to be awarded
(Supreme Court in this case cited numerous foreign such as under Articles 2230, 2231, and 2232;
precedents, mostly leaning towards the doctrine that 4. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff plaintiff’s injury or loss.
did not exonerate defendant from liability, but it led
to the reduction of damages awarded to the plaintiff.) For quasi-contracts:
1. In cases where exemplary damages are to be
In determining the question of contributory awarded such as in Art. 2232;
negligence in performing such act — that is to say, 2. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly plaintiff’s injury or loss.
— the age, sex, and physical condition of the
passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the For quasi-delicts:
safety of the passenger, and should be considered 1. That the loss would have resulted in any event
[Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co., supra]. because of the negligence or omission of
another, and where such negligence or omission
Plaintiff’s negligence is the immediate and proximate cause of the
Even if Manila Electric is negligent, in order that it damage or injury;
may be held liable, its negligence must be the 2. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
proximate and direct cause of the accident [Manila plaintiff’s injury or loss.
Electric v. Remonquillo, supra].
The SC deemed CC 2215(2) inapplicable where the
Both of the parties contributed to the proximate harm done to private respondents outweighs any
cause; hence, they cannot recover from one another benefits the plaintiffs may have derived from being
[Bernardo v. Legaspi, supra]. transported to Tacloban instead of being taken to
Catbalogan, their destination and the vessel's first
In contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts port of call, pursuant to its normal schedule [Sweet
Art. 2215, CC. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and Lines v. CA, G.R. No. L-46340(1983)].
quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the
damages under circumstances other than the case Rule when contracting parties are in pari delicto
referred to in the preceding article, as in the Generally, parties to a void agreement cannot expect
following instances: the aid of the law; the courts leave them as they are,
1. That the plaintiff himself has contravened because they are deemed in pari delicto or "in equal
the terms of the contract; fault." In pari delicto is "a universal doctrine which
2. That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as holds that no action arises, in equity or at law, from
a result of the contract; an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its
specific performance, or to recover the property
agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed

Page 509 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

to be paid, or damages for its violation; and where the damages is untenable as a matter of law, since
parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of any nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory
kind will be given to one against the other." damages [Vda. De Medina v. Cresencia, G.R. No. L-
8194 (1956)].
This rule, however, is subject to exceptions that
permit the return of that which may have been given The purpose of nominal damages is to vindicate or
under a void contract to: recognize a right that has been violated, in order to
1. the innocent party (Arts. 1411-1412, CC); preclude further contest thereon; “and not for the
2. the debtor who pays usurious interest (Art. 1413, purpose of indemnifying the Plaintiff for any loss
CC); suffered by him” (Arts 2221 and 2223, CC)
3. the party repudiating the void contract before the
illegal purpose is accomplished or before damage Since the court below has already awarded
is caused to a third person and if public interest compensatory and exemplary damages that are in
is subserved by allowing recovery (Art. 1414, themselves a judicial recognition that Plaintiff’s right
CC); was violated, the award of nominal damages is
4. the incapacitated party if the interest of justice so unnecessary and improper. Anyway, ten thousand
demands (Art. 1415, CC); pesos cannot, in common sense, be deemed
5. the party for whose protection the prohibition by “nominal”.
law is intended if the agreement is not illegal per
se but merely prohibited and if public policy Actual and liquidated
would be enhanced by permitting recovery (Art.
1416, CC); and Art. 2226, CC. Liquidated damages are those
6. the party for whose benefit the law has been agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid
intended such as in price ceiling laws (Art. 1417, in case of breach thereof.
CC) and labor laws (Arts. 1418-1419, CC).

Liquidated damages b. Damages that must co-exist:

Art. 2227, CC. Liquidated damages, whether
intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be Exemplary with moral, temperate,
equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or liquidated or compensatory
unconscionable.
There is no basis for awarding exemplary damages
Compromise either, because this species of damages is only
Art. 2031, CC. The courts may mitigate the allowed in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated,
damages to be paid by the losing party who has or compensatory damages, none of which have been
shown a sincere desire for a compromise. allowed in this case, for reasons herein before
discussed [Francisco v. GSIS, G.R. Nos. L-18287 and
18155 (1963)].
5. Miscellaneous Rules
There was, therefore, no legal basis for the award of
a. Damages that cannot co-exist exemplary damages since the private respondent was
not entitled to moral, temperate, or compensatory
damages and there was no agreement on stipulated
Nominal with other damages
damages [Scott Consultants & Resource Development Corp.
v. CA, G.R. No. 112916 (1995)].
Art. 2223, CC. The adjudication of nominal
damages shall preclude further contest upon the
right involved and all accessory questions, as c. Damages that must stand alone:
between the parties to the suit, or their respective
heirs and assigns. Nominal damages

The propriety of the damages awarded has not been Art. 2223, CC. The adjudication of nominal
questioned, Nevertheless, it is patent upon the record damages shall preclude further contest upon the
that the award of P10,000 by way of nominal right involved and all accessory questions, as

Page 510 of 511

U.P. LAW BOC TORTS AND DAMAGES CIVIL LAW

between the parties to the suit, or their respective

heirs and assigns.

Page 511 of 511