MILAN, FELINE V.

TORTS AND DAMAGES

19-00366 PROFESSOR: Atty. Greg Joseph SJ Tiongco

1. What is Quasi delict? (6pts)

The following are the elements of quasi delicts:

● Negligent act or omission of the defendant
● Damages to the plaintiff
● The connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damages
● No pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties

Bonus: Differentiate from the concept of torts

Quasi delict otherwise known as culpa aquiliana is a civil law concept while torts is an
Anglo-American or common law concept. Quasi-delict is limited to negligent acts while
torts include negligent and intentional criminal acts and assault and battery, false
imprisonment or deceit.

2. What is the defense for the employer in an action for quasi delict committed by the
employee in the course of his duties? Please explain (5pts)

In an action for quasi delict, the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision
of employees may be invoked. Case law provides that in the selection of prospective
employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications,
experience and service records. In the supervision of employees, the employer must
formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation and impose
disciplinary measures for the breach thereof. To fend off vicarious liability, employers
must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence, that they complied with
everything that was incumbent on them.

a. Is this defense available in a case against a common carrier who fails to bring a
passenger safely to his destination? Explain (5pts)

No. The defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not
available in case of common carriers. The law provides that common carriers are bound
to exercise extraordinary diligence which means that common carriers are bound to
carry the passenger safely as far as human care and foresight can provide using the
utmost diligence of a very cautious person with due regard to all circumstances.

Extraordinary diligence is an extreme measure of case and caution which a person of

unusual prudence use in securing and preserving their property.

3. What is a prejudicial question? (6pts)

It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately
connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to
suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts

1
MILAN, FELINE V. TORTS AND DAMAGES
19-00366 PROFESSOR: Atty. Greg Joseph SJ Tiongco
intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also
that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence
of the accused would necessarily be determined.

4. Explain the difference as to what happens to the civil action when the criminal case is
dismissed because the accused is not the author of the act complained of vs. acquittal based on
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. (6pts)

When an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or
omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who
has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be
held liable for such act or omission.

The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily
established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance
of evidence only.

5. Please provide 3 examples when an independent civil action may be instituted? (4pts
each)

● Article 32 - Violation of rights and liberties

● Article 33 - Defamation, Fraud, Physical injuries
● Article 34 - Refusal or failure of city or municipal forcer to a person in case of
danger

These civil actions can be executed even if there is acquittal, as it is not dependent
whether the accused is guilty or not. However, the rule is you cannot claim or recover
damages twice for the same act or omission. The reason is obvious and it is intended to
prevent unjust enrichment.
In cases of examples mentioned above, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.

6. What is Tortious Interference?

The elements of tort interference are: (1) existence of a valid contract; (2) knowledge on
the part of the third person of the existence of contract; and (3) interference of the third
person is without legal justification or excuse.

a. What are the remedies in case there is one? (4pts)

● Punitive damages;
● Lost wages;

2
MILAN, FELINE V. TORTS AND DAMAGES
19-00366 PROFESSOR: Atty. Greg Joseph SJ Tiongco
● Expectation damages; and.
● Restitutionary damages in order to prevent unjust enrichment of the defendant.

7. Please explain the abuse of right doctrine. When may it be invoked (provide the
elements)? (8pts)

Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.
The elements of abuse of rights are as follows: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which
is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.

The abuse of right may be invoked (a) When the party claiming damages must have
sustained loss (b). The party against whom they are claimed must be chargeable or
guilty of the wrong complained of © The loss must be the natural and proximate
consequence of the wrong (d) The wrong complained of must be contrary to law and the
act or omission causing the damage should either be or a direct of proximate result of
negligence

In the absence of compliance with the above requirements, it would result in no right of
recovery for damages of what is known damage without injury.

8. What is judicial vigilance? (5pts)

In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a

disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental
weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.

9. Explain the doctrine of last clear chance (6pts)

The principle of "the last clear" chance is applicable in a suit between the owners and
drivers of the two colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be
inequitable to exempt the negligent driver and its owners on the ground that the other
driver was likewise guilty of negligence.

The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are guilty of
negligence, but the negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by and appreciable
interval of time, the one who has the last reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending
harm and fails to do so, is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the
prior negligence of the other party.

​The principle of last clear chance is a doctrine in the law of torts which states that the
contributory negligence of the injured party will not defeat the claim for damages, if it is
shown that the defendant might have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the

3
MILAN, FELINE V. TORTS AND DAMAGES
19-00366 PROFESSOR: Atty. Greg Joseph SJ Tiongco
injured party. In such cases, the one who had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap
is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences thereof.

Case law provides that this doctrine applies only in a situation where the plaintiff was
guilty of prior negligence but the defendant who had the last fair chance to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so, is made liable for all the consequences of the
accident notwithstanding the prior consequences of the negligence of the plaintiff.

10. Please explain vicariously liability. What is the nature of liability for those vicariously liable?
(4pts) )In case there is vicarious liability, is the person responsible for the tortious act an
indispensable party in a case for quasi delict? (4pts)

Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that a person is not only liable for one’s own
quasi-delictual acts, but also for those person for whom one is responsible for. This
liability is popularly known as vicarious liability . This Article provides for the solidary
liability of an employer for the quasi-delict committed by an employee. The responsibility
of employers for the negligence of their employees in the performance of their duties is
primary and therefore, the injured party may recover from the employers directly,
regardless of the solvency of their employees.

Pursuant to a vicarious liability, a corporation may be held directly and primarily liable for
tortious acts of its officers or employees

11. Explain the emergency doctrine (5pts)

The theory behind the common law "emergency doctrine" is that a person in such a
situation cannot reasonably be held to the same accuracy of judgment or conduct as
someone who has an opportunity to reflect, even if the decision turns out to be wrong.

Under the emergency rule, one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger and is
required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and
upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in
which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.

If such person was confronted with a danger that is imminent and real, threatening her
very existence that she had no more opportunity for rational thinking, but only enough
time to heed the very powerful instinct of self-preservation she is not negligent.

12. In the case of an escaped animal who bit a third party, who between the owner (who is
abroad) and the caretaker-possessor is liable? Explain (6pts)

4
MILAN, FELINE V. TORTS AND DAMAGES
19-00366 PROFESSOR: Atty. Greg Joseph SJ Tiongco
The civil code provides that the possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the
same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be
lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.

As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vestil and in the case of Afialda, two
separate distinct cases, the one who possess the loose animal is the one liable for
damages caused by it, and not the owner, provided that the latter is not negligent.

13. Please explain the liability of joint tortfeasors (6pts)

Joint tortfeasors are two or more persons whose collective negligence in a single
accident or event causes damage to another person. Joint tortfeasors are liable jointly
and severally liable for the tort which they have committed as held by the Supreme Court
in various jurisprudence. The injured person may sue all of them or any number less
than all of the tortfeasors. Each tortfeasor is liable for the whole damage caused by all,
and altogether are jointly liable for the whole damage.

14. What is malicious prosecution? (4pts)

Malicious prosecution occurs when one party has knowingly and with malicious intent
initiated a baseless allegation or suit against another party. An action for damages may
arise from malicious prosecution and it is anchored on the provisions of Article 21, 2217
and 2219 of the New Civil Code.

In order, for the malicious prosecution suit to prosper, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the fact
of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor,
and that the action finally terminated with an acquittal; (2) that in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (3) that the prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive. Malice and want of
probable cause must both exist in order to justify the action.

15. What is unjust enrichment? (4pts)

There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of
another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental
principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The principle of unjust enrichment
under Article 22 of the Civil Code requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited
without a valid basis or justification, and, (2) that such benefit is derived at another’s
expense or damage.