BUTALID
LAW
104
JAVELLANA
LOPEZ, C.
VILLARAMA
Some tips for the exam from Prof. Casis himself: 1. Pay attention to how the question is phrased. Make sure you answer the right question, not the one that you imagine, or the one that you hope is being asked. 2. Answer directly. Most of the questions are answered by yes/no. 3. Start with the law. You need not state the article number or the case title, but you have to know the rule. 4. Apply the rules to the facts. 5. Lead with your strongest argument. 6. Good penmanship creates a presumption of brilliance. "YOU WILL NEVER BE HAPPY UNLESS YOU GIVE 100%." (CASIS, 2014)
PART
A.
Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune (2007) VC was then Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Was faulted for issuing an invalid Memorandum Circular reclassifying Champion, Hope, More (Fortune brands) as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand with 55% ad valorem tax, deliberately after the legislature passed a law classifying them as local brands with only 20-45% ad valorem tax.
ONE
THE CONCEPT OF A TORT
a.
Etymology – Latin tortus, tortus, meaning “twisted” or “crooked”
b.
Existence of “Philippine Tort Law” Code Commission chose the term “quasi-delict” and rejected “tort” ! because they wanted exclude intentional and malicious acts from the coverage of the concept because these are to be governed by the RPC ! However, the Civil Code doesn’t reject the concept of tort because some provisions seem to correspond with common law torts Human Relations Torts – Arts. 19, 20, 21, 26 Strict Liability Torts – Arts. 1711, 1723, 2183, 2187, 2189-2193 Independent Civil Actions – Arts. 32 to 35
Fortune sued for being demanded P9M, citing constitutional right against deprivation of property. VC defense: No cause of action because no citation of malice or bad faith.
• • •
c.
Definition of Tort Under Philippine Law
Naguiat v. NLRC (1997) Clark Field Taxi FTI held a concessionaire’s contract with Army Air Force Exchange Services. AAFES dissolved due to phaseout of US military bases; drivers and officers terminated. The Union refused the P500/yr severance pay filed a complaint against Pres. Sergio and VP Antionio for separation pay. Issue was whether they can be held solidarily held liable with the company.
Held Court recognized no jusriprudential definition for corporate tort. Instead, they provided definition for tort: “Essentially, tort consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law. Simply stated, a tort is a breach of a legal duty.” Art. 283 of Labor Code mandates separation pay. Failure to do so makes the stockholder personally liable. Sergio solidarily liable.
Casis Critiques This definition not binding because mere obiter dictum in the case. Sergio Naguiat already found liable as employer under Ransom Labor Union v. NLRC , prior to discussion of corporate torts.
Held
Casis Critiques
SC granted damages based on Art. 32 (6). It is not necessary that VC should have acted with malice or bad faith; it suffices that there is a violation of the constitutional right of Fortune. A tort is a wrong , a tortious act which has been defined as the commission or omission of an act by one, without right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property or reputation.
Court’s characterization of Art. 32 as a tort was important. Thus, Court seems to be saying that intent is not an element of tort.
Failure to specifically allege bad faith and malice will not amount to “failure to state cause of action.”
Elements of Tort Garcia v. Salvador (2007) Ranida Salvador was required a medical exam for regular employment. She was found “reactive” to a liver disease test by Community Diagnostic Center. Her father had a heart attack upon finding out. She took 2 more tests and found she was actually “non-reactive.” Complaint for damages against Garcia (the examiner in CDC) and Castro (the pathologist who only goes to CDC when there’s a problem)
Arguably, Vinzons-Chato definition not binding also for being part of obiterdictum. Several cases decided prior ruled that bad faith not requirement for action based on Art 32. Hypothetical: Can Kim Henares, authorizing TV ads showing documents of delinquent tax payers, be liable for tort? May answer in terms of VinzonsChato definition •
d.
Hypothetical: Can company president guilty of illegal termination under the Labor Code be liable for Tort? If yes – use Naguiat If no – also use Naguiat and say it was obiter
Held Garcia liable for gross negligence. All the elements of actionable conduct under Art. 20 were present: Duty – Violation of statutory duty is negligence. RA 4688 “The Clinical Laboratory Law” mandates lab must have supervision of pathologist. Castro not counted. Breach - Garcia failed to comply for conducting a test w/o supervision of pathologist Injury – the anxiety, loss of job, mental trauma Proximate Causation •
•
•
•
2
Lucas v. Tuaño (2009) What started out as sore eyes turned into steroid-induced glaucoma. The issue was whether the Dr. Tuaño could be held liable, after prescribing Maxitrol for prolonged periods of time.
Ocean Builders v. Sps. Cubacub (2011) Bladimir was foreman at construction company; had chickenpox; was told to rest by employer for 3 days. When he resumed work, he asked to be brought home. Employer Hao gave P1k to another employee to accompany him to nearest hospital, Bladimir died 2 days later of pneumonia. His parents filed complaint for damages for Hao’s negligence leading to his death.
B.
Held Dr. Tuaño not liable. Since no specific law on medical negligence, can anchor claim for damages on Art 2176, with 4 essential elements: 1) Duty 2) Breach 3) Injury 4) Proximate Causation All 4 elements must co-exist. Negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. Breach must constitute actionable malpractice and proof of breach must be established by expert witnesses. Held
Casis Critiques
Hao not liable, no negligence. To successfully prosecute an action anchored on torts, 3 elements must be present: (1) Duty (2) Breach (3) Injury and Proximate Causation.
Court characterized the action as based on tort but in the end stated Hao and company not guilty of negligence. It’s “interesting” (aka “stupid”?) because negligence doesn’t appear to be relevant in the context of elements identified by the Court.
THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT
1. Historical Background •
•
Also referred to as "culpa-aquiliana", “culpa-extracontractual” or “cuasidelitos” In Barredo v. Garcia: A “culpa-aquiliana” is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code, with a substantivity of its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime” o This case shows that concept of “quasi-delict” existed even under the old Civil Code
2. Nature Art 1157. Obligations arise from: (1) Law; (2) Contracts; (3) Quasi-contracts; (4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and (5) Quasi-delicts
3. Governing Provisions Art. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of the Civil Code, and by special laws. (aka Arts. 2176-2194)
4. Definition Art 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is c alled a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter
5. Scope 3. The Purpose of Tort Law Compensation of individuals for losses which they have suffered within the scope of their legally recognized interests o In a nutshell: C ompensation for harm
a. “Intentional” Acts Included? GENERALLY, NO. Art. 2176 clear that cause of action based on QD requires that act/omission be committed with negligence. This means there must have been NO INTENT on the part of the defendant to harm the plaintiff. The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention , has caused damage to another. (Cangco v. Manila Railroad) Note: Voluntary =/= willful o
•
•
•
3
Divergent Rulings on whether QD includes “intentional acts”:
6. Elements
YES IT CAN: Elcano v. Hill (1977) Reginald Hill, son of Marvin Hill, was killed by Agapito Elcano. In the criminal trial, Elcano was aquitted due to “lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake” Is the present civil action for damages barred by the acquittal of Reginald?
Held No. Concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in character OR in violation of the penal law, whether voluntary or negligent. An action against offender in criminal act can lie as long as offended party doesn’t recover twice.
Andamo v. IAC (1990) Sps. Andamo own parcel of land adjacent to that of Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salle. The Missionaries’ land constructed an artificial lake; damaged Andamo’s crops, created flooding, inundated their land. A criminal action (destruction by means of inundation) and a civil action (damages) were filed.
Held Lower court ordered to proceed with civil action. Acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless there is an acquittal declaring the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist.
Art. 2176: Act or omission Damage to another Fault or negligence; and No pre-existing contractual relation • • • •
Jurisprudence ( PNR v. Brunty; Andamo v. IAC ): Damage (should be: injury – Casis) to the plaintiff Negligence, by act or omission, of the defendant, or by some other person for whose act the defendant must respond; and Connection of cause and effect between the fault/negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff • •
•
C. 1.
NO IT CAN’T: Baksh v. CA (1993) Mariolou, 21, was courted and talked into living with Baksh, an Iranian, to whom she surrendered her virginity to. Then he started maltreating her, and during a confrontation with Brgy. Officer, he repudiated his promise to marry.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TORT AND QUASI-DELICT
Distinct Concepts Torts is a classification of several causes of action, while quasi-delict is a single cause of action Framework They can overlap; it is possible that the same act or omission may be considered either as a tort or as a quasi-delict One way of looking at it: a quasi-delict is a tort committed via negligence or a quasi-delict is a “negligence tort”. •
Held Baksh liable under Art. 21, but Court mentioned the scope of Art. 2176 in explaining nature of Torts (that Art. 21 was between spectrum between RPC and 2176). Art 2176 is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of willfulness or intent.
Casis Critiques It is more in accord with sound doctrine to rule that a quasi-delict is committed by negligence and without willful intent to injure although the act may be voluntary.
2.
•
•
D.
b. Damage to Property Cinco v. Canonoy (1979) Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of damages re: vehicular accident involving his automobile and a jeepney.
1.
Held The concept of QD under 2176 is broad enough to include not only injuries to persons but also damage to property. “Damage” is used in 2 concepts: the “harm” done and the “reparation” for the harm done. “Harm” includes both injuries to person and property since “harm” is not limited to personal but also to property injuries.
QUASI-DELICT & DELICT
Distinguishing quasi-delict from delict - The success of the quasi-delictual action does not depend on the success of the criminal action.
Differences between crimes and cuasi-delitos (Barredo v. Garcia) 1. Crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-delitos are only of private concern. 2. The RPC punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code merely repairs the damage 3. Delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts; because the latter includes all acts in which “any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.”
4
2.
Overlap between quasi-delict and delict
Barredo v. Garcia (1942) Collision between taxi and carretela. Carretela passenger died. Barredo, as employer of taxi driver, defended himself from liability by saying he was only subsidiarily liable, under the RPC. Issue: Can the parents of deceased bring separate civil action against the employer of the taxi driver, making him primarily and directly responsible?
Held YES. Art. 2177 supports the view that the same act, which was the basis of a criminal action, can be the basis for a civil action for damages. Art 1903 (now 2176) provides a more expeditious remedy, rather than the cumbersome method of exhausting the driver’s property first. Just remember Art 2177 forestalls a double recovery.
LG Foods v. Philadelfa (2006) A 7-yr old boy was hit by a van owned by LG Foods and driven by their employee. An info for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide was filed against the driver, but he committed suicide so the case was dismissed. Employers denied liability because insisted a conviction for driver before their subsidiary liability.
Held Art 2177 provides alternative remedies. An act/omission causing damage can give rise to 2 separate civil liabilities: 1) Civil Liability ex delicto 2) Independent civil liabilities If, as here, the action chosen is for quasi-delict, the P may hold the ER liable for the negligent EE’s act, subject to defense of exercise of diligence of a good father of the family. If action chosen is for culpa criminal, the P can hold the ER subsidiarily liable only upon prior conviction of its EE.
Can a case be dismissed because of failure to reserve civil action? No.
E.
b. Burden of Proof Source of Obligation Upon which Plaintiff’s Action Depends Negligent act/omission
Contractual undertaking between plaintiff and defendant
Burden rests upon plaintiff to prove the negligence Proof of the contract and its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to warrant a recovery. Not necessary to specify in pleadings whether the breach of the contract is due to willful fault or to negligence. Once the plaintiff proves breach of contract, there is a presumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent. Burden is placed on the defendant to prove that it was due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.
•
Cangco v. Manila Railroad
FGU Insurance v. Sarmiento (2002) GPS trucking company undertook to transport cargoes to CII but it collided with another truck. FGU, the insurer of the shipment, paid the value of the covered cargo and, as subrogee of CII, sued GPS and its driver for reimbursement. GPS’ defense was that it was not a common carrier.
CULPA AQUILIANA AND CULPA CONTRACTUAL
1. Distinguishing culpa aquiliana from culpa contractual Differences in source, burden of proof, applicability of doctrine of proximate cause, and defenses available a. Source: Culpa aquiliana has its source in the breach or omission of those mutual duties which civil society imposes upon its members, or which arise from these relations, other than contractual, of certain members of society to others. (Cangco v. Manila Railroad) Cangco v. Manila Railroad (1918) Cangco was an employee at the Manila Railroad and gets a free pass to ride the train. One day, upon stepping off the platform, he stepped on a sack of watermelons, fell on the platform, and his arm was crushed. Cangco sued MR based on the negligence of its employees in leaving the watermelons on the platform.
Burden of Proof
Held Even though GPS not a common carrier, it was still liable. The mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. HOWEVER, driver is not liable because it wasn’t a party to the contract of carriage. Thus, FGU’s civil action against the driver can only be based on culpa aquiliana, which, unlike culpa contractual, would require the claimant for damages to prove negligence or fault on the part of the defendant.
c. Applicability of doctrine of proximate cause only applicable for quasi-delicts, not breach of contract
Held The negligence of the employees constituted an effective legal cause of the injuries sustained by Cangco. Foundation of MR’s liability was the contract of carriage , and obligation to respond for the damage arose from breach of failing to exercise due care in its performance. Because of this, the liability of Manila Road was direct and immediate, and can be rebutted by proof of its exercise of due care in their selection and supervision.
Calalas v. CA (2000) Eliza Sunga rode a passenger jeep operated by Calalas; it was filled to capacity so she was given an extension seat at the rear end of the vehicle. When she gave way to an outgoing passenger, a truck owned by Salva bumped the rear portion of the jeepney and injured Sunga. Sunga filed a complaint for damages against Calalas under contract of carriage. 5
Held Calalas liable. It is immaterial that the proximate was negligence of the truck driver. The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasidelict, not in actions involving breach of contract. The Doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party. Contracts already have established obligation.
d.
Defense of Employer for Negligence of Employee Source of Obligation Defense Available Culpa Aquiliana Defense of due diligence in the - ER can be made liable on the basis selection and supervision of his of his own negligence employees Culpa Contractual - Force Majeure - Fact of breach of contract may - Proof of exercise extraordinary give rise to liability. diligence in the case of common carriers ( Art. 1756)
Air France v. Carrascoso (1966) Carrascoso bought a 1 s class ticket on Air France, bound for Rome, but upon the BKK stopover was told by the stewardess that a white man had a better right to it. Issue was whether Carrascoso was entitled to moral damages.
Note: In either case, ER cannot raise defense that breach was caused by EE’s negligence
2. Is there an intersection? Casis: If you want to give a simple answer, you can cite Art. 2176, which says “no pre-existing contractual relation.” But if a Bar question mentions familiar names, you can cite the ruling of that case.
Far East Bank v. CA (1995) FEBTC issued a credit card to Luis Luna and issued a supplemental card to Clarita Luna. Clarita lost her card and informed FEBTC. When Luis hosted a lunch at the InterCon hotel, his card was dishonored and he had to pay in cash and was embarrassed. Were moral damages to be awarded?
Art 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the dam age done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter •
•
An intersection is possible if the ACT (which breaches the contract) is under such conditions (ex: duty, breach, injury, proximate causation) that would constitute CULPA EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL, had no contract existed between the parties . (Cangco v. Manila Railroad ) However, Cangco was decided under the Old Code. New Code is explicit.
Fores v. Miranda (1959) Driver was charged serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence; he pleaded guilty. The issue now was whether moral damages ought to be awarded. Art 2219 provides a list of instances where moral damages can be awarded. It cites “(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries” and “analogous cases.” Was a breach of contract analogous to a quasi-delict? Consolidated Bank v. CA (2003) Case of the messenger of LC Diaz Accounting Firm who left the passbook with the teller of Consolidated Bank. It went into someone else’s hands and the LC Diaz lost P300k. SC held bank liable (culpa contractual).
Held No. Culpa contractual is excluded by definition of quasi-delicts under 2176. Court cited differences in “conditions, defenses and proof” between quasidelict and breach of contract. Thus, while moral damages are automatic if QD with injury, there has to be bad faith in the breach of contract to recover moral damages. Held
Casis Critiques
Lower courts differed bec. considered rules on quasi-delict, but this is culpa contractual. The law on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is generally applicable when there is no pre-existing contractual relationship.
No basis for this general rule without an exception.
6
Held
Casis Critiques
There was bad faith in compelling him to move after he was already seated, causing wounded feelings etc. Although the relation of passenger and carrier is contractual, nevertheless the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.
The issue was the award of moral damages. Thus, the statement is obiter dictum and not binding. At best, this case can be cited for the rule that an act that breaches a contract can also be a violation of Art. 21.
Held
Casis Critiques
No; only awarded P5k nominal damages. In culpa contractual, moral damages may be recovered where the defendant is shown to have acted in bad faith or with malice in the breach of contract and that bad faith, in this context, includes gross but not simple negligence. The claim was predicated on contractual relationship, thus moral damages not awarded because no proven bad faith from FEBTC. The test on whether QD can be deemed to underlie breach is: where, without pre-existing contract, the act/omission nonetheless amounts to an actionable tort by itself .
To reconcile: Under this test, the 2 nd sentence of Art. 2176 is interpreted not as a rule of preclusion (i.e. the existences of a contract precludes the existence of a quasidelict) but merely a rule requiring independence. This means a quasi-delict can exist between parties IF the cause of action exists without a contract. Applying to this case: Luna’s damage claim was predicated solely on contract. Without the agreement, the act/omission complained of can’t by itself stand as a separate cause of action because no obligation on the part of FEBTC to give credit to Luna outside their contract.
PSBA v. CA (1992) Case of Carlitos Bautista who was stabbed by an outsider on the 2 nd floor of PSBA. PSBA held liable. There is a contract between the student and school, and schools have a built-in obligation to provide atmosphere conducive for learning.
Held Because the circumstances of the case evince a contractual relation between PSBA and Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern . The negligence of the school cannot exist independently of the contract, unless the negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in Art. 21 of the Civil Code.
Casis Critiques - Ambiguous use of the word “really” - Court says that an action under Art. 21 is still possible even without the contract, but it forgets that Art. 21 requires the act complained of to be “wilfull” and not merely negligent.
absence of the diligence required Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place . When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply. If the law or contract doe s not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.
A. CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE
Based on Art. 1173 (1), a determination of negligence requires determining: Diligence required under the circumstances Whether the actor has performed it Nevertheless, the Court provides for other definitions. • •
Held Memorial park was absolved. No breach of contract because Absolute Deed of Sale didn’t guarantee it to be waterproof. There was no culpa aquiliana because internment foreman was diligent in choosing to drill the holes. SC said “although a pre-existing contract does not preclude the existence of culpa aquiliana, we find no reason to disregard respondent Court’s finding that there was no negligence. ” This case is No. 1 on Sir’s Most Hated Cases haha Syquia v. CA (1993) Case of the flooded vault of the late Juan Syquia. His family found that there was a hole in the vault, and so water collected, the coffin was damaged and the remains of the deceased were damaged.
Light Rail Transit v. Natividad (2003) Natividad was drunk upon entering the LRT premises. He was told off by the Security Guard, and they had an altercation that caused him to fall into the platform, where he was struck by the train and killed. LRT and Prudent, the security agency, were both charged but only LRT was liable.
1. Determining the Diligence Required Factors are the nature of the obligation , and the circumstances of the persons, time, and place (Art. 1173) Varies with nature of the situation, importance of the act ( Sicam v. Jorge) Greater danger = greater degree of care required ( Far Eastern v. CA) •
• •
Held The foundation of LRTA’s liability was the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arose from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence of the common carrier. Prudent not liable because the guard’s negligence was not duly proven . A contractual obligation may be breached by tort when the same act causes injury, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
PNR v. Brunty (2006) Car running at 70kph overtook another car, then collided with a PNR train. PNR's safety measures were inadequate: - no of flagbars/ safety railroad bars - inadequacy of installed warning signals - lack of proper lighting in the area
Held Due diligence required of railroad companies: reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to persons and property, both in the operation of trains and in the maintenance of crossings, including a large sign to indicate the proximity of the railway
Casis Critiques This due diligence is different from the extraordinary diligence standard applicable to its contract of carriage with passengers.
PNR v. CA (2007) Driver stopped for a while before crossing the railroad track but still collided with PNR train. "Listen" sign was missing; "Look" sign was bent. PNR invokes right of way.
Held - Failure to keep the signal devices in working order would be an indication of negligence. - Obligation to come to a full stop before traversing a "through street" only accrues from the time the said crossing is so designated and signposted.
Casis Critiques It may be said that a higher diligence (full stop) is required of motorists when they cross railroad tracks properly sign posted. Still, driver made a full stop in this case.
2. Default Standard of Diligence: that of a good father of a family (Art. 1173(2)) 7
B. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
C. STANDARD OF CONDUCT 1. Importance of a Standard of Conduct The standard of conduct corresponds to the level of diligence required. Without a standard, it cannot be determined W/N a person is negligent.
Slight - failure to use great care (which a person of extraordinary prudence and foresight would use) Ordinary - failure to use ordinary care Gross - failure to use even slight care (which a careless person would use) These reflect how close/far the conduct complied with the standard of diligence. In reality it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure a person's negligence. •
•
• •
2. The Fictitious Person a. Common Law's Reasonable Person (reasonable man of ordinary prudence) Personification of community ideal of reasonable behavior
One rule in jurisprudence to establish gross negligence in committing an act: determine whether the act was dangerous per se . Amedo v. Rio (1954) Seaman drowned while retrieving his 2peso bill. To claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the accident must (1) arise out of and (2) in the course of the employment, (3) not be caused by employee's notorious (gross) negligence. Marinduque Iron Mines v. Workmen's Compensation Commission (1956) Laborers boarded a truck which turned over and hit a coconut tree after overtaking another truck on the company road.
Note: Sir said this decision should be taken with a grain of salt.
Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo (2007) Doctor did not arrive at the scheduled time for a laparoscopic procedure. She not consider time difference between the Philippines and Hawaii.
•
b. Civil Law's Good Father of a Family (bonus (bonus paterfamilias) paterfamilias ) Default standard if the law or contract does not provide otherwise Personal circumstances of the actor must be taken into account (Art. 1173) The standard does not require that the actor act according to facts known to the judge at the time of adjudication but by the circumstances before them or known to them ( Picart v. Smith) Smith )
Held Jumping into the sea, 1.5 miles away from the shore, is a failure to exercise "even slight care and diligence". The danger it entails being clear, potent and obvious , it is distinguishable from other acts not being dangerous per se and se and the employee being legally justified to perform in the course of his employment.
• • •
Picart v. Smith (1918) "Perturbed by the novelty of the apparition or the rapidity of the approach" of the car running at 1012mph, Picart thought he did not have enough time to direct his pony to the correct side of the bridge. Seeing the horse was quiet, Smith did not slow down and change lanes while he was still far away. The pony was struck and Picart was thrown off. Court held Smith's decision to stay on his course at the same speed was negligent, even though he was on the proper side of the road.
Held Mere riding on a haulage truck or stealing a ride thereon is not negligence, ordinarily. Transportation by truck is not dangerous per dangerous per se . Violation of a rule promulgated by a Commission/ board is not negligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence. Even granting there was negligence, it could not be gross negligence. Held
Casis Critiques
She was negligent, but not grossly. Negligence could have been caused by human frailty (honeymoon preparations). Also, the procedure was elective, not life-threatening.
Thus, the Court took into account two factors in determining the degree of negligence: - nature of the operation - personal circumstances of the doctor
Held As he approached the center, he should have perceived that it was too late for the horse to cross with safety. The control of the situation had then passed entirely to Smith. - The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor but by what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence. - Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring the suggestion, is needed before negligence can be held to exist.
Sicam v. Jorge (2007) Pawnshop was allegedly robbed. The vault was open at the time of the robbery and there was no clear showing that there was even a security guard.
If the first factor corresponds to the nature of the obligation, then these correspond to factors determining the diligence required.
8
Casis Critiques - Under Art. 1173 of the current Civil Code, the personal circumstances of the actor must be taken into account. - In this case, the Court appears to require that the actor be able to foresee the danger caused by his action in order to be negligent. It seems the Court applied this test rather than the standard of the "ordinary prudent person". - The Court equated common law's "ordinary prudent person" with civil law's "bonus paterfamilias".
Held - Quoting Cruz v. Gangan: Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do ; or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not to . - Sicam failed to exercise reasonable care and caution required by circumstances/ operation of his pawnshop business.
Corinthian Gardens v. Tanjangco (2008) Cuasos' perimeter fence encroached on the Tanjangcos' lot by 87 sqm. Cuasos ascribe negligence to the builder, the engineer who conducted the relocation survey, and to the village association for approving their relocation survey and building plans without verifying their accuracy.
Held
Casis Critiques
- A negligent act is one from which an ordinary prudent person in the actor's position, in the same or similar circumstances , would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others. - Failure to prevent the encroachment, despite the inspection conducted, constitutes negligence, and at the very least, contributed to the injury.
Based on this case, it may be said that if one is given authority to approve/ disapprove plans or designs, then the requisite diligence is one which makes sure the said plans are compliant.
4. Children
Under Art. 2180, parents or guardians may be held responsible for the negligent acts of their children. Thus, the law recognizes that even children can be negligent. The issue re: diligence required of children has given rise to many views/ methods: 1. "Age brackets" standard : children have absolute immunity at a certain age. The problem is determining the age when it applies. Sangco's age brackets: applies rules on criminal liability by analogy; hence, a child under 9 years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence. 2. Take into account the specific characteristic of the child Subjective standard; uses the maturity and capacity of the child 3. Measure the acts of the child against " average conduct of persons his age and experience" (same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge, and experience under the same or similar circumstances) Both objective (child will be compared to others of similar age and experience) and subjective (age and experience of the child himself) This is similar to the fictitious person standard. The child's actions are measured against "average conduct" and the fictitious person is also the average conduct expected by the community. • •
•
•
•
3. Special Circumstances Añonuevo v. CA (2004) Bicycle collided with a car that was making a left turn.
Heirs of Completo v. Albayda (2010) Speeding car bumped and sideswiped a bicycle.
Pacis v. Morales (2010) Gun shop sales agent was shot in the head while handling a defective gun that (still loaded) was left on the table.
Held A driver of an automobile is required to use a greater degree of care because the machine is capable of greater destruction.
Casis Critiques Court recognized a greater degree of diligence on the part of drivers of motor vehicles in case of collision with bicycles.
Held
Casis Critiques
More will be required of a motorist than a bicyclist in discharging his duty of care because of the physical advantages the automobile has over the bicycle.
-The special circumstance here is the inherent differences in the vehicles. - The role here of special circumstance is unclear; the case was decided on preponderance of evidence, not by a higher degree of diligence.
Held A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession/ under his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character. Such person has the duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury being done thereby.
Taylor v. Manila Railroad (1910) 15y/o boy and 12y/o boy picked up fulminating camps from Manila Electric. After a series of experiments, they opened a cap with a knife and put a match to it. The ensuing explosion injured them and a 9 y/o girl.
Casis Critiques Interestingly, the Court initially characterized the cause of action as one based on Art. 2180 in rel. to Art 2176 (vicarious liability), but it seems the gun shop owner was held accountable for his own negligence, not that of his employee. 9
Held The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity, determined by the circumstances of the case. Here, the 15 y/o boy had worked as a cabin boy and was able to work as a draftsman after the injury.
Casis Critiques This case makes use of the subjective standard (see #2, above).
Jarco Marketing v. CA (1999) 6y/o girl was pinned by the store's gift-wrapping counter while her mother was at the payment and verification counter.
The rule is: A child under 9 y/o must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The Court in this case adopted the "age brackets" proposed by Sangco (see #1, above).
Ylarde v. Aquino (1988) Pupils aged 10-11 played in an excavation pit while their teacher was away. One boy jumped on a concrete block, which slid into the pit and pinned his classmate, killing him.
Held He did only what any other 10 y/o child would do in the same situation. His conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his age and experience.
Casis Critiques This test is both subjective and objective (see #3, above)
Held
Casis Critiques
5. Experts a. In General If one offers his services he is understood as holding himself out to the public as possessing the degree of skill commonly possessed by others in the same employment ; if his pretensions are unfounded, he commits a series of fraud on every man who employs him ( Far Eastern Shipping v. CA )
General rule: the person who alleges negligence has the burden of proving it (Sec. 1, Rule 131), but law and jurisprudence provide for certain presumptions.
•
Culion v. Philippine Motors (1930) Schooner engine to be changed from gasoline to crude oil. New carburetor started flooding, with the fuel trickling, but this was ignored by PM's manager. The schooner was engulfed in flames during the trial run.
A. IN MOTOR VEHICLE MISHAPS 1. Previous Violation
Held When a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring professional skill, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work.
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is s olidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent , if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. If the owner was not in t he motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable.
2. Simultaneous Violations
b. Pharmacists Jurisprudence places a high standard of diligence for pharmacists. o Highest degree of care and diligence ( Mercury Drug v. De Leon ) Caveat emptor cannot cannot apply to purchase and sale of drugs ( US v. Pineda) Pineda )
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to t he contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the m ishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
•
•
US v. Pineda (1918) Santos purchased potassium chlorate. He was given barium chlorate, which poisoned some of his sick horses.
Held Delivery of a poisonous drug by mistake is prima is prima facie negligence. Caveat emptor cannot apply; it should be caveat venditor.
Mercury Drug v. De Leon (2008) Judge De Leon showed his prescription for "Cortisporin Opthalmic" (eye drops) but was given "Cortisporin Otic Solution". The pharmacist did not apologize. She said she was unable to fully read the prescription and she gave the only Cortisporin Solution available in the PH.
Tison v. Sps. Pomasin (2011) Tractor-trailer driver's license restriction was violated at the time the vehicle collided with a jitney from opposite direction. Court found negligence on jitney driver's part (zigzagging downhill, overloaded).
Casis Critiques It is unreasonable to apply this rule if the packaging of the medicine dispensed makes it clear that it is not the one requested.
Held Diligence required of a pharmacist (US jurisp.): highest degree of care known to practical men. His mistake is negligence. Such mistake cannot be tolerated. Mercury Drug was grossly negligence in dispensing ear drops. Worse, they tried to blame the victim.
Held
Casis Critiques
A causal connection must exist between the injury received and the violation of the traffic regulation. It must be proven that the traffic regulation was the proximate/ legal cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed.
This doesn't mean that the presumption arises only when the traffic violation was the proximate cause. It means that despite the presumption of negligence in 2185, the claimant must still prove that such negligence was the proximate cause.
Held
Casis Critiques
c. Medical Professionals Medical malpractice/negligence: failure of a physician/ surgeon to apply to his practice that degree of care and skill ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances (Cayao ( Cayao Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete )
Sanitary Steam v. CA (1998) To avoid hitting jeepney that made sudden stop in front, a truck swerved to other lane, hitting a Cimarron (which had only 1 working headlight, overloaded front seat).
Cruz v. CA (2008) Hysterectomy in clinic that lacked the necessary blood bags and oxygen tanks. The patient died but Dr. Ninevetch was acquitted because the standard of care (and failure to comply with it) was not established by expert testimony.
Añonuevo v. CA (2004) Bicycle collided with a car that was making a left turn. The bicycle was not registered and had no safety gadgets installed in violation of a 1948 municipal ordinance. Car driver invokes Art. 2185 against the bicycle rider.
•
Held Doctors have a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances . It is in this aspect that expert testimony is essential. 10
Petitioner must show that the violation of the statute was the proximate/legal cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto.
This supports the view stated above.
Held Art. 2185 should not apply to nonmotorized vehicles, even by analogy. Moreover, Añonuevo did not attempt to establish a causal connection between the safety violations and the accident itself. His speeding was the prox cause.
B. POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR SUBSTANCES
a. Nature of the Accident In light of ordinary experience, gives rise to an inference that someone must have been negligent (e.g. a fire not caused by spontaneous natural event) •
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on t he part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances , such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business.
b. Control over the Cause Fundamental element Usually required to be "exclusive control", but Professional Services v. Agana indicates that "control and management" is sufficient • •
C. COMMON CARRIERS Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamit y; (2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; (3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers; (5) Order or act of competent public authority .
Professional Services v. Agana (2007) 2 pieces of gauze were left in the patient's body after an operation. Patient sued the lead surgeon (Dr. Ampil) and the surgeon who was asked to perform the hysterectomy only (Dr. Fuentes). The latter was exculpated.
Art. 1735. In all cases other t han those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently , unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.
Held The element of control and management was lacking. Dr. Fuentes was no longer in the hospital when the incision was closed. Even if he stayed in the OR, RIL would remain inapplicable under the "Captain of the Ship" rule.
c. No Contribution to the Injury from the Injured Not necessary that the plaintiff be completely inactive, but merely that there be evidence removing inference of his own responsibility (Prosser&Keaton) Prime example: medical negligence cases (patient is usually incapable of acting), provided it does not involve a question requiring expert testimony •
Art. 1752. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration .
•
4. Effect of Direct Evidence RIL can only be invoked when under the circumstances, direct evidence of negligence or direct cause of the injury is absent and not readily available
D. RES IPSA LOQUITUR
•
1. Definition: "the thing or the transaction speaks of itself" 2. Statement of the Rule (N.B. Prof. Casis said we should memorize this. ) Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant (or his servants), and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management (or control) used 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) want of care. ( Tan v. Jam Transit ) Where the thing which caused the injury, without the fault of the injured, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such that it should not have occurred if he, having such control used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation that the injury arose from the defendant's want of care, and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish that he has observed due care and diligence. (Professional Services v. Agana )
Layugan v. IAC (1988) Layugan parked his cargo truck along the National Hwy to repair a tire. Isidro's truck bumped him. Isidro argues Layugan must show he put an EWD or else he is presumed negligent based on RIL.
•
•
(Unusual: It was the defendant who invoked RIL as a defense.)
3. Elements of RIL, based on Ramos v. CA ( RIL N I C E ) : Ordinarily does not occur unless someone is negligent Caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control (or control and management) of the person sought to be liable Possibility of contributing conduct, which would make the plaintiff responsible, is eliminated No explanation by the defendant (added by Professional Services v. Agana ) • •
•
•
11
Held RIL should not apply because truck driver's negligence was shown by clear and convincing evidence. A kerosene lamp (EWD) was placed 3-4 m from the rear of the parked cargo truck.
Casis Critiques The doctrine here does not mean RIL can only be invoked in the complete absence of evidence. In Ramos v. CA, the Court said RIL can be used along with other proof. Defendant should not invoke RIL. He doesn't have to; if plaintiff presents evidence, he must respond with evidence also. If no evidence, defendant should move to dismiss.
Tan v. Jam Transit (2009) Jitney loaded with salted eggs, balot , and quail eggs turned turtle. Jitney driver argues the Jam bus tried to overtake despite the double yellow center lines.
TC, applying RIL, found the Jam bus driver at fault because it was violating a traffic regulation when the collision took place. CA reversed because Tan had access to direct evidence. College Assurance v. Belfranlt (2007) Overheated coffee percolator in CAP's storeroom caused a fire which destroyed several portions of Belfranlt's building.
Held RIL applies because based on the evidence presented, all the requisites are present. There was no direct evidence of negligence but the evidence presented can establish "how the incident happened". By overtaking on the left lane, the driver was violating the double yellow center line regulation and the ban on overtaking on hwy intersections. Held Even w/o the testimony of the fireman and the documents he presented, finding of negligence could not be overturned by bare denial. Under RIL, expert testimony may be dispensed with to sustain an allegation of negligence if the elements obtain .
BJDC Construction v. Lanuzo (2014) Motorcycle rider sideswiped a concrete barrier at a road re-blocking site. His heirs allege the site's inadequate lighting was the proximate cause of the accident. At the time of the accident, the reblocking had been going on for over a month. He passed the site daily.
6. Effect of the Rule Creates a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant Does not dispense with requirement of proof of culpable negligence Merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence Bridge by which plaintiff reaches over to defendant for an explanation But in Ramos v. CA, Court applied RIL to allow non-expert testimony o Hence it can be said that the secondary effect of RIL is to allow certain types of evidence to be admissible
Casis Critiques It is not clear if the Court is considering that if the violation of a traffic regulation is negligence per se or merely raises a presumption of negligence under Art. 2185. Needless to say, a presumption arising from a violation of a traffic regulation simultaneous with the mishap is different from RIL. Certainly, RIL does not arise simply because an actor is violating a traffic regulation.
• • • • •
7. Justification for the Rule Jurisprudence provides at least 2 reasons: 1. Doctrine of common knowledge - certain occurrences, based on common knowledge, will not occur without negligence 2. Person in charge of the instrumentality ordinarily knows the cause of the injury, while the plaintiff does not DM Consunji v. CA (2001) Platform carrying a construction worker fell from 14th floor of the Renaissance Tower. RIL became an issue in relation to police officer's testimony as to the cause of the fall (mere opinion, generally inadmissible).
Casis Critiques Thus, the Court applied RIL even if there were documents from the Bureau of Fire Protection that were presented as evidence as to the cause of the fire.
Held This contention loses relevance in the face of CA's application of RIL. The effect of RIL is to warrant a presumption/ inference that the mere fall of the elevator was a result of the person having charge of the instrumentality being negligent. It furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. One of the theoretical bases for the doctrine is necessity; necessary evidence is absent/ not available (bridge).
8. Res Ipsa Loquitur versus Expert Testimony in Medical Negligence Cases Expert testimony is essential to establish: o Standard of care of the profession o Physician's conduct falls below such standard Failure to observe the standard is the proximate cause of the injury o Usually necessary to support to conclusion as to causation •
Held RIL has no application here. The fatal accident was not caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the construction company. In contrast, the rider had the exclusive control of how he operated and managed his motorcycle. He was speeding and had no helmet or headlights.
•
Cruz v. CA (1997) Hysterectomy in 'untidy' clinic that lacked the necessary blood bags and oxygen tanks. The patient died but Dr. Ninevetch was acquitted because the standard of care (and failure to comply with it) was not established by expert testimony.
5. Nature of the Rule Procedural ; a rule of evidence and not of substantive law Does not create or constitute an independent/separate ground of liability Mode of proof/ mere procedural convenience Peculiar to the law of negligence that recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof, and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence Relieves plaintiff of burden of producing specific proof of negligence • • • •
•
12
Held W/N there was reckless imprudence was a conclusion best arrived at by the unquestionable knowledge of expert witnesses, not through the uneducated surmises of laymen, including judges. Expert testimony should have been offered to prove that the circumstances (inadequate facilities) are constitutive of conduct falling below the standard of care employed by other physicians in good standing when performing the same operation.
Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete (2008) Despite a dilatation and curettage (D&C) procedure, a dead fetus was left in the patient's womb. She eventually had to undergo a hysterectomy because of intra-abdominal bleeding and a ruptured uterus. Sps. did not present expert testimony, while the doctor did.
Held The doctor presented an expert (OBGYN/UP Prof) who testified that the D&C did not cause the rupture of patient's uterus. In addition, the proximate cause of the injury was patient's actions. She did not return for the follow-up evaluation.
Lucas v. Tuaño (2009) Doctor prescribed different kinds of medicine for a patient with sore eyes. The latter developed steroid-induced glaucoma. He was not able to celebrate the Christmas holidays. He alleges the doctor was negligent in not checking if patient was a steroid responder before prescribing meds.
Held Medical negligence cases are best proved by opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the same general line of practice as the defendant physician. There was a failure to present expert testimony to establish: (1) Standard of care to be implemented (2) Doctor failed to observe the standard (3) Failure to do so caused the injury
Ramos v. CA (1999) Patient sustained brain damage following intubation problems when she was being prepped for a gall bladder operation. Her sister who witnessed the events was allowed to testify despite being a non-expert on intubation/ anesthesiology.
Voss v. Bridwell guidelines for applying RIL: - Plaintiff submitted himself to the care, custody, and control of Dr - Dr had complete and exclusive control over him - At time of submission, he was fit in mind and body, but he suffered irreparable damage and injury rendering him deceberate and totally incapacitated - Injury ordinarily does not occur in the process of the operation or in the absence of negligence
Held RIL applies here, based on the Voss v. Bridwell guidelines. Though generally, expert testimony is relied upon, when RIL is availed of by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. Need for expert testimony applies only to matters clearly within the domain of medical science, not to those within the common knowledge of mankind.
A. PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate a nd proximate cause of his Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the i mmediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate injury, he cannot recover damages. But i fthe hisdefendant's negligence lack was of only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being due care, t he plaintiff may and proximate cause the injuryshall being the defendant's lack to of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, butof the courts mitigate the damages be awarded. recover damages, but the courts s hall mitigate the damages to be awarded. Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.
•
•
If the proximate cause consists of the plaintiff’s negligence concurring with the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover Bernardo v. Legaspi : If the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his own carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence, that is, to the accident, as one of the determining causes thereof, he cannot recover.
PLDT v. CA (1989) Sps. ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open excavation undertaken by PLDT, failing to notice the uncovered open trench because of the darkness and lack of any warning light or signs.
Casis Critiques Interestingly, the Court did not allow the testimony of a pulmonologist because he was not an expert in anesthesiology. This illustrates that it is possible to require expert testimony in a case covered by RIL.
Held The accident was due to the lack of diligence of the driver. His negligence was contributory to his injuries and went to the very cause of the accident thus precluding him from recovering damages. The sps knew of the presence of the excavation so the presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident. Omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of warning signs on the site of excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act would have prevented the injury.
Manila Electric v. Remoquillo (1956) Repair of a media agua caused a person’s death by electrocution. The galvanized iron sheet came into contact with the electric wire of Meralco which was parallel and 2 ! feet from the media agua. Widow and children filed suit to recover damages.
RIL is to be cautiously applied. It has no application in a suit involving the merits of a diagnosis/ treatment, or if only the desired result was not accomplished.
13
Held Death was primarily caused by his own negligence. It was presumed that due to his age and experience that he was qualified to repair the media agua. Unfortunately, forgetting where he was standing, holding the iron sheet, evidently without looking, and throwing all prudence and discretion to the winds, he caused his own electrocution.
B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF •
•
Municipal Treasurer.
The defendant may raise the defense that the plaintiff himself had contributory negligence. o Not a complete defense because even with contributory negligence, the plaintiff can still recover from the defendant. Proximate cause of injury to plaintiff must be the negligence of the defendant. If the proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of a third party, the plaintiff cannot recover from the defendant. NPC v. Heirs of Casionan (2008) Pocket miner was carrying a long bamboo pole while walking under hightension electrical transmission lines which were already sagging 8-10 feet from the ground. The tip of the pole touched a wire which caused his death by electrocution. The heirs filed a claim for damages from the electric company.
1. Definition of Contributory Negligence Contributory negligence is one that merely contributes to the plaintiff’s injury but not to the principal occurrence. •
M.H. Rakes v. The Atlantic (1907) Laborer walked alongside 2 hand cars which carried rails. The track sagged, the tie broke, and the rails slid off, breaking his leg which needed to be amputated.
Held The laborer was negligent for noticing the depression in the track yet continuing work and for walking alongside the car instead of along the boards. Contributory negligence is one that merely contributes to the plaintiff’s injury but not to the principal occurrence. Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its determining factors, he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may recover.
to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings or signs of an impending danger to health and body. To prove contributory negligence, it is necessary to establish a causal link , although not proximate between the negligence of the party succeeding injury. Held There was no contributory negligence on the pocket miner’s part. The accident would not have happened if the wires were properly maintained. Sagging high tension wires were an accident waiting to happen. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection. There is contributory negligence when the party’s act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause harm or put his life in danger.
2. Distinguishing Contributory Negligence from Proximate Cause Contributory negligence is negligence that is not the proximate cause of the injury and fails the applicable test for proximate cause. The guiding principle is still the Rakes distinction: Negligence is only contributory and not the proximate cause if it o contributes to the victim’s injuries and not to the principal occurrence or the cause of his injuries. •
Ma-Ao Sugar v. CA (1990) The carbonera of a sugar central’s cargo train suddenly derailed causing its employee onboard to jump off to escape injury. The train fell on its side which pinned him down and killed him.
Añonuevo v. CA (2004) Collision between a car and bicycle. The bicycle had no foot brakes, safety gadgets or headlights as required by a municipal ordinance. Nor was it registered with the Office of the
Held There was negligence on the part of the sugar central. The employee was not guilty of contributory negligence from the mere fact that he was not at his assigned station when the carbonera derailed. It was pure speculation to suppose that he would not have been injured if he stayed in the front car rather that at the back and that he was killed because he chose to ride in the carbonera.
•
3. Effect of Contributory Negligence Contributory negligence will not prevent plaintiff from recovering from defendant whose negligence was the proximate cause of the injury but the plaintiff’s award of damages would be mitigated. Underlying precept: A plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence and that the defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence •
•
Held The cyclist was not guilty of contributory negligence and the driver of the car was solely responsible for the accident. To hold a person as having contributed 14
Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon (2005) A motorcycle was tailgating a jeepney when the jeepney made a sudden left turn, causing a collision and the death of the motorcycle driver.
C. FORTUITOUS EVENT 1. Definition Something which could not be foreseen; or foreseen but inevitable
Held The proximate cause of the collision was the abrupt and sudden left turn of the jeepney however the motorcycle driver was guilty of contributory negligence for driving at a high speed, tailgating, intoxicated, and was not wearing a protective helmet. He can only recover damages up to 50%.
•
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
Sicam v. Jorge (2007) A pawnshop was robbed of cash and jewelry from the pawnshop vault. The owner of jewelry pawned to the shop sued the pawnshop owner for failing to return the jewelry upon demand.
Contributory negligence is one that merely contributes to the plaintiff’s injury but not to the principal occurrence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. PNR v. Brunty (2006) A collision occurred between a car and a train causing the death of a passenger of the car. The car was overtaking another car, with a blind curve ahead, when it hit the train.
Held The Court found that while the acts of the driver of the car contributed to the collision, they do not negate the railroad company’s liability. To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link, although not proximate , between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury.
Genobiagon v. CA (1989) A rig was going fast and trying to overtake the rig in front of him causing it to bump an old woman who was trying to cross the street, which caused her death.
The driver of the rig attributes contributory negligence on the old woman’s part.
Casis Critiques Implies that there are at least two types or degrees of causality – one being proximate and the other not proximate. Perhaps the not proximate causal link is a remote cause.
Owner of the pawnshop testified that there was a security guard and that he tried opening a vault with a bank for safekeeping the valuables.
Held The Court convicted him of homicide through reckless imprudence.
Held The Court found that the very measures the pawnshop owner took show that the possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable but actually foreseen and anticipated. His testimony contradicted his defense of fortuitous event.
Casis Critiques Reasoning is erroneous because 1. Definition of fortuitous event in Art. 1174 is not limited to unforeseeable events 2. Act of taking measures against and event should no bar one from arguing that the event was fortuitous. 3. A diligent person who undertakes measures to guard against the effects of a fortuitous event is barred from using it as a defense while a negligent person who does not undertake measures can claim the event is fortuitous. Court confused existence of fortuitous event and availability of fortuitous event defense.
Defense of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is not available in criminal cases committed through reckless imprudence.
2. Defense and Exceptions • •
15
General Rule: No one is responsible for fortuitous events. Exceptions ( L-SAR): In cases specified by law; when it is otherwise declared by stipulation ; when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk
3. Elements HIRO •
•
Independent of human will Impossible to foresee or if foreseen, impossible to avoid Renders it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a o normal manner Obligor must be free from any participation o In order for a fortuitous event to exempt one from liability, it is necessary that one has committed no negligence or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss o
•
o
•
4. Three-Step Analysis (t) I D E o Fortuitous event must be identified o It must be determined if the circumstance falls within any of the three exceptions under Art. 1174 o It must be established that all the essential requisites of a fortuitous event are present
D. PLAINTIFF’S ASSUMPTION OF RISK (VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA) One who has assumed the risk of such an event cannot raise the defense of fortuitous event. Philippine Jurisprudence appears to have adopted the common law concept of assumption of risk or volenti non fit injuria on the part of the plaintiff, which the defendant may use in his defense.
Afialda v. Hisole (1949) Carabao caretaker was gored by one of the animals which caused his death as a consequence of the injuries.
Held The animal was in the custody and under the control of the caretaker. It was his duty to try to prevent the animal form causing injury or damage to anyone. Being injured by the animal under those circumstances was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences.
Ilocos Norte v. CA (1989) Early morning after a typhoon, a woman ventured into the waist-deep flood to look after the merchandise that might have been damaged in her store. As she was wading through, she suddenly screamed and sank. An electric wire was seen dangling from a post, moving in a snake-like fashion. The electric company raised the defense of volenti non fit injuria.
Held Volenti non fit injuria was not applicable. The Court noted that she was merely exercising her right to protect her property from the floods. An emergency was at hand as the deceased’s property, a source of her livelihood, was faced with and impending loss.
•
Juntilla v. Fontanar (1985) The right rear tire of a jeepney, exploded causing the vehicle to turn turtle. A passenger sitting at the front seat was thrown out of the vehicle. He suffered injuries and lost his Omega watch. Southeastern College v. CA (1998) A typhoon blew the roof of a college’s building on a house, destroying portions of their roofing. The owners of the house filed a complaint for damages. The college claims that the accident was a fortuitous event.
Held Common carrier is liable for an injury caused by a mechanical defect if the flaws were discoverable.
Held
Casis Critiques
The defense of fortuitous event was available because no negligence on its part was proven. The original plans and design of the school building were approved prior to construction. For a fortuitous event to exempt a person from liability, it is necessary that he be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been occasioned. When the effect is found to be partly the result of the participation of man, the whole occurrence is hereby humanized.
Negligence which “humanizes” the event need not be an antecedent negligence but may be simultaneous.
The doctrine of assumption of risk does not apply when: An emergency exists The life or property of another is in peril When a person seeks to rescue his endangered property • •
•
Negligence need not be “gross” to bar the application of the doctrine.
Calalas v. CA (2000) A passenger was sitting on an extension seat in a jeepney. A truck bumped the jeepney, injuring passenger. The truck driver and owner were held liable. The passenger filed a case for breach of contract against the jeep owner, with the truck owner as third party defendant.
Why is the Court making the plaintiff prove negligence?
16
Held The Court did not agree with the contention that taking an extension seat amounted to an implied assumption of risk. It is akin to arguing that the injuries to victims of tragedies of the seas should not be compensated merely because those passengers assumed a greater risk by boarding an overloaded ferry.
Casis Critiques No assumption of risk in taking an extension seat or boarding an overloaded ferry, but the Court does not provide a reason.
Nikko Hotel v. Roberto Reyes (2005) An actor allegedly gatecrashed a hotel’s private party. He claimed that he was told by the executive secretary, in a loud voice and with the other guests able to hear, to leave for he was not invited. He filed a complaint based on the human relations provision. The hotel invoked volenti non fit injuria.
Held
Casis Critiques
Volenti non fit injuria was not applicable because even if respondent assumed the risk, under Arts. 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, the hotel was still under the obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule.
It seems the Court made a counter-defense: defense of assumption of risk not available when the cause of action is based on Arts. 19 and 21.
Pantaleon v. American Express (2010) While on a European tour, a rich man and his family attempted to purchase diamond pieces using their American Express, 10 minutes before their tour group had to leave for Amsterdam. The purchases were approved by only after 45 minutes. The trip to Amsterdam had to be cancelled. The tour group was annoyed and irritated with them. They filed an action for damages against the credit card company.
A. DIFFERENT CATEGORIES 1. Proximate •
•
Held The Court ruled volenti non fit injuria to be applicable. When they pushed through with the purchase, they must have known that the group would naturally become annoyed and irritated with him. This was the natural, foreseeable consequence of their decision to make the tour group wait. At any time they could have cancelled the sale but did not. •
E. PRESCRIPTION Art. 1146. 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, ac tivity, or conduct of any public officer involving the exercise of powers or authority a rising from Martial Law including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same must be brought within one (1) year.
Kramer v. CA (1989) On Apr. 8, 1976, a fishing boat collided with an inter-island vessel. The Board of Marine Inquiry conducted an investigation. On Oct. 19, 1981, more than 4 years after the incident, the BMI concluded that the negligence of the inter-island vessel’s employees caused the collision. On May 30, 1985, the owners of the fishing boat instituted a complaint for damages. The owners of the inter-island vessel moved to dismiss on the ground of prescription.
Art. 2176 requires that it be proven that the act or omission of the defendant be the cause of the injury o Jurisprudence requires that the injured party proves a connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and injury to the plaintiff. Based on jurisprudence, a proximate cause is defined as: o A cause without which the injury would not have occurred; and o Results in the injury as a foreseeable and natural and probable consequence o Bataclan v. Medina: the cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred Mercury Drug v. Baking : any cause that produces injury in a o natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred otherwise Pilipinas Bank v. CA: foreseen or reasonably anticipated by a o person of ordinary case that the injury complained of or some similar injury, would result therefrom as a natural and probable consequence Requirements (C U!) o Each event must have a causal connection with its immediate predecessor or is part of a natural and continuous sequence o The chain must be unbroken by an efficient intervening cause
Bataclan v. Medina (1957) One of the tires of a bus burst and it began to zigzag until it fell into a canal or ditch on the side of the road and turned turtle. Men came with one of them carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a wick on the end, fueled with petroleum. As they approached the bus, a fire started burning and consuming the bus and the passengers left inside.
Held The Court held that the action is barred by prescription, to be reckoned from when the cause of action accrued. The aggrieved party need not wait for the determination of an administrative body.
17
Held The Court held the bus company liable for the death of the passengers. The proximate cause of the death was the overturning of the bus. Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
Casis Critiques The Court characterized the action as anchored on the breach of contract of carriage thus the discussion on proximate cause was irrelevant as to the liability of the carrier.
Mercury Drug v. Baking (2007) Pharmacist misread the prescription for Diamicron and instead sold Domicum, a potent sleeping tablet. The purchaser took the medicine for three consecutive days which caused him to fall asleep while driving which caused a vehicular accident. Pilipinas Bank v. CA (1994) The deposit slip had the wrong account number but with the correct name. The bookkeeper of the bank did not notice that the surname of the owner of the wrong account was different from that on the deposit slip, so the deposit was credited to him. Checks were dishonored because of this.
Held The Court found the pharmacist negligent in selling the wrong medication, which was the proximate cause of the collision.
Held The proximate cause of the dishonored checks was the bank employee’s negligence in erroneously posting the cash deposit in the name of another depositor who had a similar first name. The Court quoted the trial court that the employee should have continuously gone beyond mere assumption and proceeded with clear certainty.
2. Concurrent
Casis Critiques Around three days had already lapsed from the time of the negligent act determined by the Court as the proximate cause.
•
•
The negligence in order to render a person liable need not be the sole cause of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring with one or more efficient causes other than plaintiff’s is the proximate cause. o There is only one proximate cause, but it may consist of two negligent acts concurring with each other. The existence of another efficient cause does not make a cause less proximate
Far Eastern v. CA (1998) Supervising captain and master of vessel both on board for the safe berthing of the vessel. Bow of the vessel rammed into the pier causing considerable damage to both the pier and the vessel.
Casis Critiques The paragraph quoted from the trial court only explains why the bank employee was negligent but not why the negligence was the proximate cause.
Owner of vessel argues that vessel was under compulsory pilotage of the supervising captain and therefore solely responsible.
•
Held The Court found that both Captains were negligent. The liability of one actor is not affected by the negligence of another actor if both acts comprise the proximate cause of the injury.
Casis Critiques Implication that each concurring cause must by itself be a proximate cause. Inconsistent with earlier statement of the Court that each concurrent cause is a component of one proximate cause. In order to be a concurrent cause, is it sufficient that it combines with another cause to form a proximate cause or must it independently be a proximate cause by itself?
Casis Critiques: Arguing a person’s negligence is merely a concurring cause does not absolve one of liability. Exception is when the defendant argues that his negligence concurs with that of the plaintiff.
3. Remote •
Def. A cause which would have been a proximate cause, had there been no efficient intervening cause after it and prior to the injury.
Manila Electric v. Remoquillo (1956) Media agua + galvanized iron sheet
18
Held What determines the existence of a remote cause is not the nature of such cause itself but whether or not there is an efficient intervening cause.
Gabeto v. Araneta (1921) Argument about who called the carromata first. Angry guy grabbed the reins to stop the horse. Driver tried to pull the reins to free the horse and the bit came out of the horse’s mouth. The driver got out to fix the bridle but the horse became disturbed and eventually ran at full speed. Original passenger jumped or fell from the rig causing his death.
Held The Court ruled that the mere fact that the angry guy interfered with the carromata by stopping the horse would not make him liable for the death of the original passenger.
B. TESTS TO DETERMINE PROXIMATE CAUSE
Casis Critiques The Court looked at the timing element in deciding that a cause is not proximate but remote.
1. But for/sine qua non An act or omission is not regarded as a cause of an event if the particular event would have occurred without it. Casis Critiques: Courts have not rigorously required the but for test in cases involving multiple defendants or professional misconduct because requiring definite proof would immunize culpable defendants because of the difficulty of proving causation •
•
Time and control over the vehicle was determinative as to whether a particular act was considered a proximate cause.
ANECO v. Balen (2009) Death and injuries caused by the TV antenna touching an electric company’s main distribution line. Electric company denies liability claiming that the victims were negligent in allowing the antenna to touch the wires.
2. Sufficient Link Requires only some reasonable connection between the act or omission and the injury Not required that it be shown that the injury would not have occurred without the act or omission complained of •
•
Dy Teban v. Jose Ching (2008) Prime move’s tire exploded, causing it to be parked askew, occupying a substantial portion of the highway. No early warning device. Pa ssenger bus swerved to avoid the parked prime mover but instead hit another van.
Held Applying the foreseeability test, the electric company should have reasonably foreseen that, even if it complied with the clearance requirements installing the high-tension wires, a potential risk still existed that people would get electrocuted, considering that the wires were not insulated.
4. Intervening
Held The Court found that the driver of the prime mover was negligent in parking askew on the right side of the national highway. Plaintiff must establish a sufficient link between the act or omission and the damage or injury. That link must not be remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no liability will attach.
3. Substantial Factor The defendant’s conduct is a cause of the event if it was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing it about Casis Critiques: The problem with this test is that negligence is not a substance that can be measured •
•
•
Test to determine if the defendant is still liable despite an intervening cause o Whether the intervention of the later cause is a significant party of the risk involved in the defendant’s conduct or is so reasonably connected with it that the responsibility should not be terminated. Foreseeable Intervening Causes: If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated, or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances o The defendant is responsible because such cause is within the scope of the original risk, and hence of the defendant’s negligence.
Phoenix Construction v. IAC (1987) Volkswagen was on its way home and turned off its headlights because it did not have a curfew pass. A dump truck was earlier left parked askew, sticking out onto the street and blocking oncoming traffic. The car smashed into the dump truck.
•
4. Mixed Consideration Dy Teban v. Ching : There is no exact mathematical formula to determine proximate cause. It is based upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy, and precedent. Casis Critiques: It may be an admission that there really is not test to determine proximate cause and the Court can base its determination on anything is sees fit. •
•
Held The Court found that the driver of the car was negligent but ruled that the proximate cause was the wrongful or negligent manner in which the dump truck was parked. The collision of the car with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck driver’s negligence.
5. Cause vs. Condition Phoenix v. IAC : “Cause” and “condition” still find occasional mention in the decisions; but the distinction is now almost entirely discredited. So far as it has any validity at all, it must refer to the type of case where the forces set in operation by the defendant have come to rest in a position of apparent safety, and some new force intervenes. •
19
6. Last Clear Chance •
Casis Critiques: It is, at best, a test for proximate cause.
a. History and Rationale •
•
•
Common law origin; first stated in 1842 in the English case of Davies v. Mann Doctrine allows for recovery by a negligent plaintiff If the defendant could have, by employing proper care, avoided the injury Real explanation: Fundamental dislike for the harshness of the contributory negligence defense
Phoenix v. IAC (1987) Volkswagen collided with parked truck. Truck owner argued that while its driver was negligent in parking the truck askew, the Volkswagen had the “last clear chance” of avoiding the accident, hence the injuries.
Held The Court pointed out that the determination of proximate cause is not a question of determining which happened last but the nature of the negligent act and the character and gravity of the risks created.
Casis Critiques The Court was saying that if the reason for the rule did not exist in this jurisdiction, then there is no reason to apply the rule here.
Glan v. IAC (1989) Collision between jeep and cargo truck approaching each other on a bridge, which resulted in the death of one of the passengers of the jeep.
Held The Court found the driver of the jeep guilty of negligence. Truck was already at full stop when the jeep plowed into it thus the driver of the jeep had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
Casis Critiques Despite the Court’s misgivings in Phoenix , the Court continues to apply the doctrine in subsequent cases.
b. Statement of the Rule •
•
Effect on the plaintiff’s right to recover o The antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence of the defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. Manner of establishing the liability of the defendant Picart v. Smith : The person who has the last fair chance to avoid o the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.
The doctrine of last clear chance provides a valid and complete defense to accident liability as it did in Picart v. Smith. (Court ruled that last clear chance was still valid)
C. APPLICATION TO THIS JURISDICTION Picart v. Smith (1918) Car hit horseman, who was on the wrong side of the road. The horseman thought he did not have time to get to the other side so it stayed on its side. The car assumed that the horse would move so he didn’t reduce speed. When it came too close it suddenly moved to avoid hitting the horse. The horse was frightened and turned, causing the car to hit him, breaking its leg. The horse died. "
Held After determining that the car was negligent, the Court pointed out that the horse was not free from fault for he was guilty of antecedent negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of the road. The Court noted that the negligent acts of the 2 parties were not contemporaneous because the negligence of the car succeeded the negligent pony by an appreciable interval.
Casis Critiques Doctrine of last clear chance was used as a means to determine which negligent act was the proximate cause of the injury. Not employed to allow the negligent plaintiff to recover but to point the blame to the defendant. Common law doctrine imported as early as this case.
Canlas v. CA (2000) Through impostors, bank granted loan secured by a mortgage over the lots belonging to another. When the lots were foreclosed, true owner of lots sued to annul the mortgage.
20
Held The bank was negligent in verifying the real identity of the impostors who had no IDs. Bank had the last clear chance to prevent the fraud by faithfully complying with the requirements for banks to ascertain the identity of the persons transacting with them.
It is perhaps in cases where the gravity of the negligent acts are relatively equal where the doctrine of last clear chance applies.
Test: If both plaintiff and defendant were negligent, the actor who had the last fair chance of avoiding the harm would be deemed to have been responsible for the proximate cause of the injury.
Casis Critiques Applied last clear chance as a means to determine whether the negligent act of the plaintiff or that of the defendant was the proximate cause.
Lapanday v. Angala (2007) Volkswagen was on its way home and turned off its headlights because it did not have a curfew pass. A dump truck was earlier left parked askew, sticking out onto the street and blocking oncoming traffic. The car smashed into the dump truck. Phil. Bank of Commerce v. CA (1997) President of company, entrusted funds to his secretary to be deposited in their bank account. The secretary instead deposited the funds to her husband's account. The President filed a collection suit to demand the return of the money from the bank.
Bank teller validated, stamped, and signed the deposit slips despite the glaring fact that the duplicate copy was not completely accomplished and contrary to the bank’s procedure.
Bustamante v. CA (1991) Collision between truck and passenger bus coming from opposite directions of the highway. Bus driver saw the front wheels of vehicle and that the truck was heading towards his lane but he thought it was a joke. Several passengers of the bus were thrown out and died. Heirs of deceased filed a complaint.
Held The Court ruled that the crewcab had the last clear chance to avoid the collision because it was the rear vehicle. He had full control of the situation because he was in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him.
Held
Casis Critiques
Under the doctrine of the last clear chance, the bank was the culpable party. It had the last clear opportunity to avert the injury incurred by its client, by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation procedure.
Despite the determination of proximate cause, the Court still applied the doctrine of last clear chance.
Pantranco v. Baesa (1989) Bus encroached on jeepney’s lane while negotiating a curve and collided with it. Passengers of the jeepney died.
Bus argued that driver of the passenger jeepney had the last clear chance to avoid the collision and was therefore negligent.
Where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences.
Consolidated Bank v. CA (2003) Teller gave passbook to another person then an unauthorized withdrawal was made. True owner of the passbook sued to recover the amount withdrawn. Lower Courts found the bank liable by using the doctrine of last clear chance.
Held The appellate court erred in applying the doctrine of last clear chance as between the defendants because this case was not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles . Held
Casis Critiques
There was nothing to show that the jeepney driver knew of the impending danger.
The last clear chance doctrine does not apply if the defendant had not opportunity to avoid the injury.
For the doctrine to be applicable, it is necessary to show that the person who allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the existence of the peril or should, with exercise of due care, have been aware of it. The last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously , and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after peril is or should have been discovered.
Engada v. CA (2003) Collision between a Tamaraw and a pick-up. Criminal case was filed against the pick-up for serious physical injuries and damage to property.
Held Doctrine of last clear chance inapplicable because it is not available in cases of culpa contractual , where neither the contributory negligence of the plaintiff not his last clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant from liability.
21
Held The Court found no convincing evidence to support the invocation of the doctrine and instead found the presence of an emergency and the proper application of the emergency rule.
Casis Critiques A significance is the fact that the Court found no problem applying the doctrine of last clear chance to a criminal case.
3. Other Persons Exercising Parental Authority FC 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following person shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated: (1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214; (2) The oldest brother or sister , over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and (3) The child's actual custodian , over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified. Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes necessary, the same order of preference shall be observed.
Vicarious liability: liability of certain persons who are responsible for the negligence of others Rationale: they are morally culpable for those under their absolute/limited control Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Person Vicariously Liable Father, but in case of death/ incapacity, mother (FC 221: both parents liable) Guardians Owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise Employers
FC 217. In case of foundlings, abandoned neglected or abused children and other children similarly situated, parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial proceedings to heads of children's homes, orphanages and similar institutions duly accredited by the proper government agency.
For the Damages Caused By Minor children who live in their company (FC 221: "unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority") Minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company Employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of t heir functions Employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry Special agent
FC 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.
B. TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS
State Teachers or heads of Pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain establishments of arts and in their custody trades The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
1. Under the Civil Code Basis: They stand in loco parentis and are called upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child Does not require that the student be of minority age o (JBL Reyes' separate opinion in Amadora: a student over the age of 21 places himself under custodial supervision and disciplinary authority of the school, which is the basis of its liability in torts) Not required that the student/pupil must live and board in school Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him •
•
A. PERSONS EXERCISING PARENTAL AUTHORITY
•
1. Parents Parental liability is a natural/ logical consequence of parental authority Consists, to a large extent, of the instruction and supervision of the child • •
Libi v. IAC (1992) Teenager shot his ex-girlfriend and himself using his dad's gun. It was only afterwards that his parents the gun was missing and that he was a CANU agent.
Held Sps were gravely remiss in their duties as parents in not diligently supervising the activities of their son, despite his minority and immaturity. Civil liability of parents for quasi-delicts committed by their minor kids is primary and solidary.
Tamargo v. IAC (1992) Pending adoption, 10y/o boy shot a girl. Petition for adoption was granted. His natural parents claim that the adoptive parents were the indispensable parties since parental authority had shifted from the moment of filing of the petition.
Held Shooting occurred when parental authority was still lodged in natural parents who had actual physical custody (adoptive parents were then in the US). Retroactive effect may be given to the adoption only if essential to permit some benefit to accrue to the child.
Palisoc v. Brillantes (1971) Through fist blows, an automotive mechanics student killed his classmate during recess. Court held the head of the school and the teacher liable. The school itself could not be held liable because it was not properly impleaded.
Held In the law of torts, protective custody of the school heads and teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, hence it is their responsibility to supervise the students the whole time they are in school, including recess time . Nothing in the law requires that for liability to attach, the pupil/student must live and board in the school.
2. Guardians - see Art. 2180, supra 22
Casis Critiques Interestingly, the Court held both "head" and "teacher" liable.
Amadora v. CA (1988) After the sem had ended, Daffon shot his classmate Amadora in the school auditorium.
Court ruled that Amadora was still in the custody of the school at the time of the shooting. However, none of the respondents were liable because none of them was the teacherin-charge..
Held 2180 should apply to all schools, academic or not. If academic, teacher-incharge is liable. If nonacademic, head is liable. Not required that the student be boarding in school, but required that he be under the control and influence of the school and within its premises , whether the semr has not yet begun or has already ended.
2. Under the Family Code
Casis Critiques This focus on Amadora was misplaced as what matters under 2180 is whether the offending pupil was still in the custody of the school.
FC 218. The school, its administrators and teachers , or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody . Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.
Also, it is not required that the claimant prove that the teacher-in-charge was negligent. Under 2180, the person vicariously liable is presumed negligent and it is up to him to prove that he exercised due diligence to prevent the damage.
St. Mary's Academy v. Carpitanos (2002) A student participating in an enrollment drive was killed when the jeep they were riding turned turtle. At the time, it was driven by a fellow student, and the steering wheel guide got detached.
The Court is disposed not to expect from the teacher the same measure of responsibility imposed on the parent for their influence on the child is not equal in degree. Salvosa v. IAC (1988) After dismissal and in BCF's parking space, ROTC armorer/ commerce student Abon shot a student of the University of Baguio.
Court ruled that BCF could not be held liable under 2180 because Abon could not be considered to be "at attendance in the school" or in the custody of BCF when he shot Castro.
Held A "recess" contemplates a situation of temporary adjournment of school activities where the student still remains within call of his mentor and his not permitted to leave the school premises, or the area within which the school activity is conducted. Recess by its nature does not include dismissal. Likewise, the mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a school without more does not constitute "attending school" or being in the "protective and supervisory custody" of the school.
Held
Casis Critiques
There must be a finding that the negligent act/omission was the proximate cause of the injury. Here, the proximate cause was a mechanical defect. Also, there was no evidence that the school allowed the minor student to drive the jeep. It was the grandson of the jeep owner, who did so.
Thus, the Court considered the liability of parents under Art. 219 as a quasi-delict, which required a finding that the negligence of the school was the proximate cause of the injury.
St. Joseph's College v. Miranda (2010) Teacher left her class while doing a science experiment. A grade 6 student was looking into a test tube when its contents spurted out, chemically burning his eyes. Court held the teacher and the school liable despite teacher's specific instructions not to look directly into the heated compound.
Casis Critiques It appears that the application of 2180 here was erroneous as the Court used a provision regarding the vicarious liability of teachers to determine liability of a school. It could have used Art. 218 of the Family Code. .
However, the Court affirmed the finding of contributory negligence on the part of the student.
23
Held The proximate cause of the injury was the concurrent failure of the school and the teacher to prevent the foreseeable mishap. They failed to exercise the higher degree incumbent upon them, as shown by: - not taking affirmative steps to avert damage and injury, knowing the dangerous nature of science experiments - not installing safety measures to protect the students who conduct experiments in class - not providing protective gears and devices (goggles) - teacher's not being in the classroom the whole time her class conducted the experiment
C. OWNERS/ MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS/ EMPLOYERS
b. Within the Scope of Assigned Tasks Includes any act done by an employee in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage ( Filamer v. IAC ) The employer need not prove that his employee was not acting within the scope of his assigned tasks; denial is enough •
•
The employers' liability is not based on the principle of respondeat superior. In this jurisdiction, he is liable because of his own negligence.
•
1. Distinguishing the 4th and 5th Paragraphs Par. 4: Owner/manager of establishment/enterprise - injuries caused by employees in the service of the branches/ on the occasion of their functions o The term "manager" (Spanish, " director ") is used in the sense of "employer". The manager of a corporation is not included; he himself is only an employee ( Phil Rabbit v. Phil. American ) o Injury must have been caused while employee was doing his job. Par. 5: Employers - injuries caused by employees/household helpers within the scope of assigned tasks, though not engaged in business/ industry o In Castilex v. Vasquez, Court said Par. 5 is an expansion of Par. 4. However, this interpretation renders Par. 4 redundant and useless. •
Filamer v. IAC (1990, 92) School's jeep with only one working headlight hit an 82y/o teacher. It was not driven by the school's driver but by a working scholar who only had a student driver's permit. The latter worked parttime as a janitor for the school/ houseboy for the school president in exchange for free tuition. His task was to sweep the school passages for 2 hours every morning. Victim sued the school and the student. Court initially exculpated the school, but reversed itself on MR.
•
2. When Applicable a. Employer-Employee Relationship Cannot be assumed; incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove by preponderant evidence. Defendant is under no obligation to prove the negative averment. •
Sps. Jayme v. Apostol (2008) Speeding pickup truck taking mayor to the airport and driven by an employee of the municipality ran over a minor. Parents sued owner, possessor, driver, and mayor. Court applied the four-fold test to determine the existence of an employeremployee relationship b/w mayor and driver.
Held The municipality is the lawful employer. Mere giving of directions does not establish that the passenger has control over the vehicle. Neither does it make one the employer of the driver. A fellow employee with a right to control the injuring employee incurs no vicarious liability.
Professional Services Inc. v. Agana 2007- 2 gauze pads left in patient's body. 2008 - 1st MR
(same doctrine, more or less) 2010 - 2nd MR Applying the control test, PSI is not Dr. Ampil's employer. But PSI still solidarily liable not under respondeat superior but under the principle of ostensible agency .
Casis Critiques Explaining 2180 through common law authorities is not proper bec the latter is not based on respondeat superior. Also, it isn't clear what the Court means by "causal relationship" between the mayor and the driver. It is certainly not required that the mayor be responsible for the existence of the driver.
Held Under Sec. 14, Rule X, Bk. III of the Labor Code's Omnibus Rules, there is no employer-employee relationship between the working scholar and the school. Even if there were, the school still would not be liable because driving the school vehicle was not within the ambit of his assigned tasks. MR: Rule X is merely a guide to the enforcement of the substantive law on labor. It is not decisive in a civil suit for damages and cannot be used by an employer to void liability under the substantive provisions of the CC The student's act of driving the vehicle to and from the house of the school president was an act in furtherance of the interest of the school. He need not have an official appointment as a driver . It is sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident was for the benefit of the school.
Held For purposes of apportioning liability in medical negligence cases, an employeremployee relationship exists between hospitals and their visiting physicians. Employer-employee relationship exists if hospital controls both means and details of the process by which physician is to accomplish his task . Here, there is insufficient evidence that PSI exercised the power of control, but ample evidence that PSI held out Dr. Ampil as its agent.
The school did not set forth rules prohibiting any one of its employees from taking control over its vehicles if one is not the official driver. 24
Casis Critiques
It seems that the Court ruled that the school was an employer simply because the Omnibus Rules did not apply. It did not explain why the student was an employee based on applicable rules. The control test was not applied here. The Court also noted that the school failed to prove that it had imposed sanctions/ warned its employees against the use of its vehicles by persons other than the driver. But in hindsight, the school could not possibly offered such evidence because it would have contradicted its position that the student was not its employee.
NPC v. CA (1998) NPC-owned dump truck that was part of a convoy collided head-on with a Toyota Tamaraw. The truck driver was employed by a labor-only contractor, hence an employeremployee relationship was established between him and NPC by statute. NPC argued its liability should only be limited to violations of the Labor Code, not quasi-delicts.
Held Quoting Filamer, the Court ruled that Art. 2180, not the Labor Code, will determine the liability of NPC in a civil suit for damages resulting from any negligent act of the employees of the laboronly contractor . NPC could have disclaimed liability had it raised the defense of due diligence in the selection/ supervision of the driver/ contractor.
Castilex v. Vasquez (2008) After OT, Castilex's Production Manager drove a company car to a "lively" restaurant. When he was leaving, he made a shortcut against the flow of traffic and hit a motorcycle (a woman in his car shouted "Daddy, Daddy!" despite his being only 29 y/o). The motorcycle rider died. His parents sued the manager and Castilex.
In absolving Castilex, the Court discussed principles from American Jurisprudence. These principles are applicable in the PH albeit based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, because whether or not the fault/negligence of the employee is conclusive on his employer merely gives rise to the presumption juris tantum of negligence on the employer's part. Abad was carrying out a personal purpose not in line with his duties.
Valenzuela v. CA Alexander Commercial, Inc.'s Asst. Manager bumped a woman who was standing at the rear of her car, trying to have her tire fixed. She was pulled out from under the car. Her leg was severed. The Court held the employer solidarily liable with the employee.
Casis Critiques The Court used a Labor Code provision to establish an employeremployer relationship but also said that Civil Code provisions should govern. One distinction that can be made is that here, the provisions on labor-only contracting are in the substantive law on labor (Arts. 106-109, Labor Code) while in Filamer, it was an implementing rule.
Held Principles in American Jurisprudence on employer's liability for negligence of an employee in the use of a company car:
Held The provision for the unlimited use of a company car principally serves the business and goodwill of a company and only incidentally the private purposes of the individual. In providing a company car for business use/ to further the company's image, a company owes a responsibility to the public to see to it that the employees are able to use the car capably and responsibly. ACI did not demonstrate that it exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family in entrusting its company car to the employee. It did not ascertain his driving proficiency and history.
1. Going to and from meals - Not ordinarily acting within scope of employment in the absence of evidence of some special benefit to the employer 2. Going to and from the place of work - Same as in #1 - "Special errand"/ "roving commission" rule: employee's duties require him to go to and from home to various outside places of work/ circulate in a general area with no fixed place/ hours of work - Employer not liable if employee left the direct route to his work/ home and is pursuing a personal errand 3. Employer loans vehicle for employee's personal use outside working hours - Employer is generally not liable for the employee's negligent use of the car
25
Casis Critiques
The Court appears to be ruling that if a case involves injuries caused by the use of a company car, evidence of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees on the part of the employer would not be enough.
The employee's claim that he came from a social visit was a bare allegation.
But is the employee required to prove that he came from an employment-related appointment? Should not this be the job of the claimant?
Even if he did come from officemate's place, this could give rise to speculation that they came from a work-related function or were discussing sales or other work strategies.
This ruling suggests that when co-workers meet outside of the workplace, the presumption is that the meeting is workrelated. It must be pointed out that although Asst. Manager had no regular office hours, his co-worker may have had a different arrangement.
3. Presumption of Negligence Once the employee is found liable for a quasi-delict while acting within the scope of his assigned tasks, his employer is immediately disputably presumed to be negligent in the selection/supervision of his employee •
•
Merritt v. Government (1916) General Hospital's ambulance made a sudden turn and hit a motorcycle rider. Court held that the chauffeur of the ambulance was not a special agent for which it could be held vicariously liable. Special agent: "one who receives a definite and fixed order/ commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official "
4. Rebuttal of Presumption Employer must present adequate and convincing proof that he exercised due care and diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees. •
a. Selection - Employer is required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records b. Supervision - Essentially requires that the employer: Formulate standard operating procedures, suitable rules and o regulations, issuance of proper instructions; Monitor their implementation ; and o Impose disciplinary measures for their breach o Lampesa v. De Vera (2008) Truck slid back down towards a jeepney. Jeepney's front passenger "noticed" his left middle finger was cut off. The Court found no proof that the truck owner did his legal duty as an employer in the selection and supervision of his driver.
Held Employer should not have been satisfied by the mere possession of a professional driver's license. He was duty-bound to do more. He should have carefully examined the driver's qualifications, experiences, and record of service, if any.
Mercury Drug v. Huang (2007) Mercury Drug truck collided with a car driven by a 16y/o. Truck driver only had a Traffic Violation Receipt because his license had been confiscated (previously apprehended for reckless driving; note: this prior incident was reported, but Mercury Drug did not suspend or reprimand him). Mercury Drug testified on its hiring procedure, saying applicants are required to take theoretical and actual driving tests, and a psych exam.
Held As regards the driver, it was proven that: - He took the tests for a different position - He used a light vehicle during the tests - Tests conducted were inadequate - NBI and police clearances not shown - Last seminar attended was 12 yrs. ago - No backup driver for long trips Mercury drug failed to show that it exercised due diligence in the supervision and discipline over its employees.
Child Learning Center v. Limon (2005) A grade 4 student found himself locked inside the CR. He tried to open the window to call for help, but he fell right through and landed 3 floors below. He was hospitalized and treated for multiple injuries. His parents filed an action under Art. 2176 against the Board of Directors and the Administrative Officer of the school.
Held The defense of due diligence in the selection/supervision of employees does not apply. It only applies where the employer is held responsible for acts/omissions of its employees under Art. 2180. This case was based on Art. 2176, pertaining to the school's own negligence in not ensuring that all its doors were maintained.
D. THE STATE Vicariously liable only when it acts through a special agent
Rosete v. Auditor General (1948) A fire from the warehouse of ECA, a government agency, destroyed other buildings. An owner of some of the buildings filed for damages. Court held that there was no showing that the act was caused by a special agent. Fontanilla v. Maliaman 1989 case: NIA's pickup bumped a bicycle. Rider's parents sued for damages. Court held that NIA was a gov't agency exercising proprietary functions.
1991 MR: NIA: Based on the Angat River Irrigation System case, NIA is an agency with gov't functions. Court here upheld the dissent in the said case. Sps. Jayme v. Apostol Speeding pickup truck taking mayor to the airport and driven by an employee of the municipality ran over a minor.
26
Held Neither fault nor even negligence can be presumed on the part of the state in the organization of branches of the public service and in the appointment of its agents. State is only liable for acts of a special, not executive, agent because in such a case, the fault/ negligence must be presumed to lie with the State.
Dissent of Perfecto, J.
Casis Critiques
ECA is a special agent. It was not a branch/office of the government. It was an agency set up for specific purposes which were ordinarily ungovernmental in character and were not attainable through official functions.
It seems that in Justice Perfecto's opinion, a special agent is one performing nongovernmental functions.
Held 2 aspects of State liability: 1. Public/ governmental can be performed only by gov't; State is liable only for special agents 2. Private/proprietary collects revenue; liable as ordinary employer Irrigation districts conduct business only for the private benefit of the lands within their limits. Fe c ano separate: Base on Admin Code, "State" means the GRP. All other entities are special agents.
Casis Critiques What can/cannot be handled by the private sector = highly debatable. Another question is whether a particular service should only be done by gov't. This test would make the State's liability uncertain, and is nearly impossible to apply if the gov't agency does both governmental and non-governmental tasks.
Held A municipality may not be sued because it is an agency of the State engaged in governmental functions and hence, immune from suit.
Casis Critiques It is unclear from the facts how the Court determined that the driver was performing governmental functions and why a private vehicle was used.
Simpler test: consider only whether agent is "special".
B. OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLES •
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune . It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the ne xt preceding two months. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are a pplicable.
It is arguable that although these provisions are found in the chapter on quasidelicts, they are torts (otherwise redundant because each case would fall under Art. 2176 anyway), hence no need to comply with quasi-delict requisites
•
A. POSSESSOR OR USER OF ANIMALS Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the s ame 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. • • •
•
•
Possessor's responsibility arises from fact that the animal is within his control. User's responsibility arises from the fact that he benefits from the animal. Due diligence defense not provided; liability based on policy considerations
Afialda v. Hisole (1949) Carabao caretaker was gored.
Held Art. 1905 (now 2183 did not apply where the caretaker of the animal himself was injured.
Vestil v. IAC (1989) A 3y/o girl was bitten by a dog that was in the neighbors' possession. Neighbors argue that the dog was not theirs, that they could not be expected to exercise remote control, and that the dog was tame.
•
Not based on respondeat superior but by the relationship of pater familias. The negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it. It may be extremely difficult to prove that the owner who was in the car could have prevented the mishap. The only persons who can testify as to this would be the owner himself/ his driver/ other passengers. Would they? Car owners are not held to a uniform standard of diligence as professional drivers. The Court would have to look at the personal circumstances of the owner. (Caedo v. Yu Khe Tai ) The test of W/N owner was negligent within the meaning of Art. 2184: his omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident (Caedo v. Yu Khe Tai )
Chapman v. Underwood (1914) Underwood's driver took a sudden right turn and struck Chapman who was trying to board a streetcar. Court found the chauffeur negligent, but Underwood was not responsible for him under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Casis Critiques Based on this case, the possessor of the animal cannot invoke Art. 2183 against the owner.
Held What must be determined is possession, regardless of ownership. Note that the possessor is liable even if the animal escapes or is lost (removed from control). The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers tame ones as well.
Caedo v. Yu Khe Tai (1968) Hwy. 54/EDSA. Instead of slowing down or stopping, a Cadillac tried to overtake a rig (carretela) but bumped the rig's left wheel, wrenching it off and dragging it along as it skidded to the opposite lane and hit a Mercury car. The family in the Mercury car sued the Cadillac driver and the owner. Cadillac driver was found to be negligent.
27
Held If the act is sudden, without the owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or to stop its continuance, the latter is not responsible, either civilly or criminally.
Held
Casis Critiques
The negligence on the part of the owner, if any, must be sought in the immediate setting and circumstances of the accident; i.e. in his failure to detain the driver from pursuing a course which not only gave him clear notice of the danger but also sufficient time to act upon it. There was no reason for the car owner to be in any special state of alert. Court must look at personal circumstances of the owner in each case.
These statements by the Court imply that car owners are required a certain degree of diligence in supervising their drivers (cannot absolve themselves by saying that they were not paying attention to driver's acts). The degree would depend on their circumstances, e.g. car owner with poor eyesight and cannot drive will not be held to same diligence required of healthy car owner who is also a capable driver.
C. PROVINCES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES
D. PROPRIETORS OF BUILDINGS Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse , if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, br idges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision . •
•
Strict liability tort; defenses of due diligence and force majeure are absent
Guilatco v. Dagupan (1989) Boarding a tricycle, a lady accidentally fell into a manhole on the sidewalk and fractured her leg. TC found City liable but CA reversed because it was a national road. Court pointed out that it was not necessary for the road to belong to the province/city/municipality . Either control/supervision can make liability attach.
QC v. Dacara (2005) Minor drove into a pile of earth along Matahimik St. Dad sought indemnity for son's injuries and damage to the car. He sued QC and the City Engineer.
Held
Casis Critiques
Control/supervision of the road was provided for in the City Charter and exercised through the City Engineer. The Charter provision holding the city not liable for damages due to the failure of an officer to enforce its provisions cannot be used to exempt the City. The Charter lays down general rules for the City's liability while Art. 2189 applies in particular to liability from defective public works.
Based on this case, the basis of the liability of the LGU is the fact that it has control and supervision over the defective public works. If that is the case, then W/N the LGU was negligent is irrelevant.
Held Negligence of QC gov't was the prox cause of the injury. In determining the award of damages, the Court applied rules on quasidelict.
Casis Critiques - Court implied that a finding of negligence is necessary in Art. 2189. - This plus finding of prox cause implies that Art. 2189 is a quasi-delict - Like Cinco v. Canonoy, this can be basis to sue for damage to property
Jimenez v. City of Manila (1987) Sta. Ana Market was flooded ankle-deep. Jimenez stepped on a rusty 4"nail and had to be hospitalized for 20 days for high fever, pain. He just wanted bagoong.
City claims that under the Management & Operating Contract and the Revised Charter of Manila, it could not be held liable. It pointed to the private administrator of the market. Court held them solidarily liable.
•
Strict liability tort; not required that the disrepair result from negligence Except #1, Art. 2191 appears to contemplate a strict liability tort.
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused: (ExSTreEm) (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken ca re of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place; (2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property; (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure; (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place. •
Arts. 2190-91 hold liable those who benefit from the building/ structure.
Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of any defect in the construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third person suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed.
E. ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT OF COLLAPSED BUILDING Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans a nd specifications for a building is liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure, the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications , or due to the defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, 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 contract . If the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor. Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply wa iver of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. •
Held Negligence of Manila City was the proximate cause of the injury. Despite MOC, the fact of control and supervision was admitted by the Mayor in a letter to the Sec. of Finance. The city even hired a Market Master to supervise. The Charter gives general rules on the liability of the City for the negligence of its officer, while Art. 2189 is a particular provision on defective structures. Jimenez had the right to assume that the openings, if any, would be safely covered.
Strict liability tort; negligence not required to be proven. Although defects may imply negligence, the existence of such conditions despite due diligence would still trigger the application of the provisions. F. HEAD OF A FAMILY FOR THINGS THROWN OR FALLING
Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. • •
•
28
Strict liability tort; negligence not required and due diligence not a defense. Force majeure also not a defense. o Would a head of a family be liable if their roof was torn off by a typhoon and caused injury to someone? Yes. Article suggests that it covers places of residence of a long-term nature. Thus, it may not cover situations where family rents/ leases on a shortterm basis (e.g. hotel room).
G. OWNERS OF ENTERPRISES/ OTHER EMPLOYERS
I. PERSONS WHO INTERFERE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
Art. 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other employees, even though the event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause , if the death or personal injury arose out of and in the course of the e mployment . The employer is also liable for compensation if the employee contracts any illness or disease caused by such employment or as the result of the nature of the employment . If the mishap was due to the employee's own notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness , the employer shall not be liable for compensation. When the employee's lack of due care contributed to his death or injury, the compensation shall be equitably reduced .
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
1. The Common Law Doctrine
Tort liability may be imposed upon defendant if he intentionally and improperly interferes with plantiff's rights under a contract with another, if the interference causes plaintiff to lose a right under the contract or makes the contract rights more costly/ less valuable. Liability will attach if: Defendant acts with knowledge that interference will result o Basis for liability is intent; negligent interference is not actionable He acts with improper purpose o Malice/ spite not required o May not be liable if he had an impersonal/ disinterested motive of a laudable character (e.g. protecting the public interest)
Art. 1712. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow worker, the latter and the employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow worker's intentional malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury, the employer shall not be answerable , unless it should be shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff's fellow worker.
•
•
Requirement for illness/disease is stricter than for death/injury Defenses available: o If death/ injury is NOT caused by fellow worker: Mishap was due to employee's own notorious negligence, ! voluntary act, or drunkenness This defense may not be available for illness/ injury. "Mishap" ordinarily refers to events that cause death/ injury. ! Contributory negligence; employee's lack of due care. Compensation shall be equitably reduced o When death/ injury caused by fellow worker: If due to negligence, employer is solidarily liable ! If due to intentional/ malicious act, employer not liable ! Exception to exception: if it be shown that the employer did not exercise due diligence in selection/supervision of the fellow worker Alarcon v. Alarcon (1961) Held A teacher hired men to dig a well. When The teacher did not own any enterprise. one was lowered into the hole, he said Under the principle of ejusdem generis, he he was not feeling well and slumped into did not fall under the category of other a sitting position. It took some time for employers in Art 1711. Code Commission him to be pulled out. He was later used terms like "capital", "management", declared to have died of asphyxia. His "industrialist", etc. They contemplate those engaged in business/ industry. mother sued the teacher under Art 1711. • •
2. Under Philippine Jurisprudence Gilchrist v. Cuddy (1915) Cuddy owned the film Zigomar . He rented it to Gilchrist for a week. Days before delivery, Cuddy returned Gilchrist's money because Espejo and Zaldarriaga (E&Z) rented it for the same week at twice the price.
•
•
Gilchrist filed action for an ex parte mandatory injunction which was issued, restraining E&Z from receiving and exhibiting the film. E&Z moved to dissolve the injunction...denied. By way of cross-complaint, they asked for damages for the wrongful issuance of the injunction. Gilchrist moved to dismiss, which was granted as to Cuddy but denied as to E&Z to give them an opportunity to prove the wrongful issuance.
H. MANUFACTURERS/ PRODUCERS OF PRODUCTS Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, dr inks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers. • •
Products contemplated are manufactured/processed Provides remedy to consumer regardless of how he came into possession 29
Held - E received a letter from his agents saying he could not get the film for about 6 weeks. Thus they must have known at the time they made their offer that Cuddy had contracted the film to other parties. - Did not know Gilchrist was the other party, but identity is not a condition precedent to liability bec action would have been based on culpa aquiliana - Mere right to compete could not justify interference with an existing contract. - Competition is not interference, provided that no superior right by contract/otherwise is interfered with. They must have an equal/ superior right in themselves. - No malice (only wanted to make a profit), but this does not relieve them of legal liability
Casis Critiques This case did not involve an action for damages filed against another who breached his contract. In fact, it was the alleged interferers who were seeking damages against the victim. Nevertheless, the Court in succeeding cases has used this as basis for the rules on actions referred to as "tort interference". In class, emphasized that: Court said the case was somewhat novel (apparatus known as the cinematograph). Gilchrist faced the immediate prospect of diminished profits, thus he was justified in asking for injunction. Injunction is also the proper remedy to prevent a wrongful interference with contracts.
So Ping Bun v. CA (1999) A partnership entered into 1yr lease agreements with a warehouse owner to store its textiles. When the contracts expired, the parties did not renew but the partnership continued to occupy the premises. Partnership was dissolved but its original members formed a corporation.
When the former managing partner died, his grandson occupied the warehouse for his own business. Lessor sent notices of increased rent which the corporation did not reply to. Grandson, as occupant, requested formal contracts of lease, which the lessor granted. Corporation filed suits for injunction, asking for the nullification of the leases.
Held The elements of tort interference are: (1) Valid contract existing (2) Knowledge of the 3rd person of such contract (3) Interference of the 3rd person is without legal justification/exc use - Econ. interest defense: Court interpreted Gilchrist as holding that where there was no malice in the interference of a contract, and the impulse lies in a proper business interest rather than wrongful motives, a party cannot be a malicious interferer.
Was there a valid contract in this case? Hadn't the lease agreements expired? Moreover, partnership got dissolved already.
This is inaccurate. Gilchrist ruled that malice is not required for liability. Economic interest was also not a defense. Only defense in Gilchrist was an equal/ superior right.
- TC awarded no damages because citing Gilchrist , it's difficult/impossible to determine the extent of damage; not quantifiable.
Inaccurate again. In Gilchrist, damages not awarded because claimants (E&Z) were not entitled.
- Lack of malice precludes damages but does not relieve interferer from legal liability (injunction).
In this case, damages were not awarded because TC did not award any (see above).
Lagon v. CA (2005) Lapuz accused Lagon of inducing the heirs of Bai Tonina Sepi to sell property to him, violating Lapuz's leasehold rights.
Court applied the elements and principles in So Ping Bun v. CA: (1) Valid contract? Yes! - Notarized copy of lease (2) Knowledge of alleged interferer? No. - Examination of title bore no indication of leasehold interest. Even the Registry of Property had no record. (3) Interference? No. - Lagon did not induce (persuade/ intimidate) the heirs; they sold the lots completely of their own volition.
Go v. Cordero (2010) Robinson appointed Cordero as exclusive distributor of AFFA ferries. Cordero began negotiations with Go and his lawyers for the sale of the SEACAT 25. Eventually, Cordero discovered that Go et al. were already dealing directly with Robinsons, in violation of his exclusive distributorship.
Casis Critiques
Court went to great lengths to justify the award of damages despite the ruling of So Ping Bun. Inocencio v. Hospicio de San Jose (2013) Inocencio subleased 2 bldgs on land he leased from HDSJ. When he died, his son Ramon collected rentals. HDSJ informed Ramon that the leases would not be renewed. It posted a Patalastas stating its willingness to work out an amicable settlement directly with the sublessees, after which some sublessees refused to pay rentals to Ramon.
Held Lagon's purchase was merely an advancement of his financial/economic interests, absent any proof of improper motive. Quoting Gilchrist v. Cuddy: A person is not a malicious interferer if his conduct is impelled by a proper business interest. In other words, a financial/ profit motivation will not necessarily make a person an officious interferer liable for damages as long as there is no malice/bad faith.
•
Because not all elements are present, Lagon cannot be made to answer for Lapuz's losses. 30
Held 1st and 2nd elements are present. As to the 3rd, the economic interest defense cannot apply because Go et al. transgressed the bounds of permissible financial interest to benefit themselves at the expense of Cordero . They furtively went to Robinson after Cordero worked hard to close the deal for them. As they continued to deal directly with Robinson, they continued to demand and receive from Cordero their "cut" from the latter's commission.
Casis Critiques Court clearly had to go to great lengths to justify the argument that there was malice on the part of Go et al. In fact, the Court added another basis for the liability by characterizing it as a violation of Art. 19.
Held
Casis Critiques
HDSJ did not commit tortious interference. 1st and 2nd elements are present but 3rd element is lacking. HDSJ entered into agreements with the sublessees for purely economic reasons (to ensure payment of rentals); it had a right to collect the rentals upon termination of the lease. No proof of spite/ill will.
But in So Ping Bun, the grandson's interest was also purely economic yet he was still considered a tort interferer (hence injunction was properly issued against him).
Casis question: What is an example of an equal or superior right that will justify interfering with a contract?
A.
Abuse of Rights
Art 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Effects of Art 19 (Principle of Abuse of Rights): A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. It precludes the defense of damnum absque injuria It must be implemented by Art. 20 and 21; Art. 19 is a mere declaration of principle. •
• •
Elements (according to Albenson v. CA ) : 1) A legal right or duty; 2) Exercised in bad faith; 3) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another
• • •
Damnum absque injuria 1) Under this principle, the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights, even if it causes loss to another, does not automatically result in an actionable injury. Held Globe Mackay liable because they failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, who now has the right to recover damages under Art. 19 in rel. to Art. 21. The application of damnum absque injuria can’t apply in this case, because even with the right to dismiss Tobias, the abusive manner in how they exercised their right amounted to a legal wrong.
Albenson v. CA (1993) Case of the 3 Baltaos. Albenson delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Industries. They were given a check but it was dishonored. Albenson found that
Held No abuse of rights here. What prompted Albenson to file a BP 22 against Baltao I was their failure to collect the P2k due on a bounced check which they honestly
believed was issued by him. No 2 n and 3rd element. Damnum absque injuria applies here.
Amonoy v. Gutierrez (2001) Amonoy obtained a judgment in his favor over lots under litigaton. TC issued a Notice to Vacate and issued for demolition. However, a TRO was filed with the SC. By the time SC issued the order setting aside the Writ of Possession, the Gutierrezes' house had been demolished. A complaint for damages was filed against Amonoy. He invoked damnum absque injuria.
Held Damnum absque injuria does not apply when there is an abuse of a person’s right, or when the exercise is suspended or extinguished pursuant to a court order. Although acts of the petitioner were initially justified, it amounted to abuse of right when he continued after the issuance of the TRO. Damnum absque injuria is a principle premised on a valid exercise of a right.
UE v. Jader (2000) Case of the law student who was "incomplete” in 1 subject and only found out about his failing grade after he had already graduated and started preparing for the Bar. Jader sued UE for damages. UE’s defense was Jader’s own negligence.
“Bad faith” (according to Andrade v. CA ) Not simply bad judgment or negligence; Dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong Through some motive or intent of ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud
Globe Mackay v. CA (1989) Tobias was called a swindler and a crook by his employer, after he had reported anomalies within the company. Tobias was told to get a lie detector test and was charged for Estafa. The test yielded negative and the complaint was dismissed. When Tobias tried applying elsewhere, Globe wrote them stating Tobias was dismissed due to dishonesty.
Baltao I was the President of Guaranteed. Albenson filed a case against Baltao I, not knowing that there was a Baltao III, the issuer of the check. Baltao I filed a case for malicious prosecution against Albenson based on Arts. 19, 20 and 21.
31
Held Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their academic status. School should have practiced principle of good dealings enshrined in Art. 19 and 20 of the Civil Code.
Casis Critiques It was not an abuse of right on the part of UE, but a performance of duty. No bad faith here, just negligence.
Pantaleon v. American Express (2010) Case of the cancelled tour because Pantaleon was taking too long with his purchases. He blames American Express for the delays and sued for damages.
Held Art. 19 sets the standards for the conduct of all persons, whether artificial or natural. However, AMEX not liable because acted in good faith.
California Clothing v. Quiñones (2013) Case of the unpaid jeans at Robinsons Cebu; the shouting in the Cebu Pac office; and the demand letter sent to the accused’s employer.
Held They went overboard in sending a demand letter to respondent’s employer; they not only informed but imputed illegal acts on the part of respondent; they sought to tarnish her reputation. Art. 19 requires “good faith”, which is a state of mind, manifested by acts of the individual concerned.
CASIS QUESTIONS: 1) In both Jader and Pantaleon, there was delay by the defendants. However, the professor in UE was held liable while AMEX wasn’t. What was the difference? # The delay constituted bad faith in Jader , while the delay in Pantaleon was adequately justified by the bank.
Carpio, Intentional Torts in Philippine Law Art 20: Breach of Statutory Duty: Intenti onal and Negligent Tort from Civil Law Jurisdiction 1) A breach of statutory duty, recognized in other jurisdictions as a tort, was transplanted in our jurisdiction in Art. 20. 2) As it is worded, the willful or negligent act causing damage must be contrary to law.
2) In the case of California Clothing, what if it was proven that she really didn’t pay? # It shouldn’t change the liability if the action was based on abuse of right. •
Requirements under Art 20 1.) Person must establish that he belongs to the class of persons sought to be protected by the statute 2.) There must be an invasion of a particular interest the law seeks to protect a. Ex: An ordinance requires all apartment builings to be equipped with strong fire escape ladders. A tenant can recover if he sustains injuries while using the ladder during a fire. A robber can’t recover if he sustained injuries while using the defective ladder as a secret entrance.
Illegal Acts
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary t o law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
1)
Includes negligence – “a violation of a statutory duty is negligence.” (Garcia v. Salvador)
Comsavings v. Sps. Capistrano (2013) Sps. are owners of a residential lot. They availed of a loan under a program implemented by the Nat’l Home Mortgage Finance Corp. Sps. executed a construction contract with GCB Builders, who facilitated the application of the loan with Comsavings Bank, an NHMCaccredited originator. Comsavings informed the Sps. that they would have to sign various documents as part of the requirements for the release of the loan; included in the documents was a certificate of house completion and acceptance. After the loan was released to GBB, construction started by GBB but it took way longer than promised. NHMFC started demanding for amortizations from the Sps, because NHMFC had already released the loan proceeds to Comsavings, on the basis of the alleged completion of the house. However, house was still unfinished. The Sps. sued GBB and Comsavings for breach of contract and damages.
Held GBB is liable for breach and ComSavings is equally liable under Art. 20. A requirement for the release of the loan by Comsavings to GBB was a submission of pictures of a fully-constructed house bearing signatures of the Sps. Comsavings accepted these unsigned pictures, released the loan to BB Builders, and turned over the pictures to NHMFC for reimbursement of the loan. This constituted gross negligence. For a bank is obliged to exercise the highest degree of diligence in all its transactions. Furthermore, as a banking institution serving as originator under the UHLP and being the maker of the cert. of acceptance, it should have desisted from presenting the certificate to the Sps. for their signature without affirming that the house had been completely constructed according to plan. The act of making the Sps. sign the certificate despite the construction of the house not yet starting was irregular because it contravened the purpose of the certificate. This pre-signing was also fraudulent because it enabled them to gain P17k in the form of several deduction from the proceeds of the loan, as benefit of an originator bank.
Rules governing Article 20 3) Art. 20 should not apply to all violations of law, especially if they have their own civil indemnity a. Only to special criminal laws that don’t specially provide for recovery of civil liability b. The requirement for the violation of law here – it must be “unlawful”. Consider that a violation may not be “unlawful” if it falls under justified or exempting circumstances.
CASIS QUESTIONS: The Anti-Camcording law punishes the unauthorized recording o of movies. The penalty is a fine of P50, 000. Can movie producers sue for violations on the basis of Art. 20? # YES. Statute exempts those with civil liability; otherwise, Art. 20 applies to all laws. (Carpio)
2.) QC passed an ordinance setting aside 5 lanes for bikes along QC Memorial Circle for cyclists. Celso, a cy clist, parked his bicycle and did some stretching. As he was, a car swerving into the bike lane hit and killed him. Does Art. 20 cover this? In other words, does Art. 20 apply even if the law was intended for the protection of cyclists and Celso wasn’t riding a bike at that moment? # Sir didn’t give a categorical answer but was leaning toward yes.
32
C. ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES 1.
CASIS QUESTIONS:
In General
1.) Wendell, not knowing Bea was engaged, courted her, causing her to ditch her supposed wedding in 2 days. Can Wendell be liable under Art. 21? # NO. There is no malice in t his situation; which, according to Carpio, is required for an action under Art. 21.
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for damages.
Purpose: It is intended to prevent a situation where a person suffers damage or loss at the hands of another but has no legal remedy because the situation is not covered by any law.
2.) What if same facts as Wassmer, but there was no financial injury? What If the notice was 3 months before? What if there was no public humiliation? # No answer from Sir. “This just goes to show it’s hard to actually hard to apply Wassmer in the future.”
Plaintiff required to prove: A. Existence of intent B. The manner by which the defendant carries out such intent
Wassmer v. Velez (1964) Beatriz and Francisco had their wedding all set, but 2 days prior, Francisco left with a note saying he will return soon. He never did; Beatriz sued for damages and won.
Elements: a. There is an act which is legal; b. But which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; c. And it is done with intent to injure Carpio, Intentional Torts in Philippine Law Art. 21: The willful a cts contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
4) 5)
6) 7) 8)
•
•
• • •
Art. 21 comes closest to prescribing moral norms as a legal standard of conduct. Code Commission on whether this article obliterate the line between morality and the law: “Every good law draws its breadth of life from morals…” Under this article, acts or omissions which are perfectly legitimate may still give rise to liability if they are contrary to morals, good customs or policy. Element of Malice = Carpio believes the phrase “willfully causes loss or injury to another” requires malice or deceit. Concept of Morals and Good Customs a. Customs are easier to objectify than morals; pertains to usages practices of people, which, by common adoption & acquiescence and by long unvarying habit, became compulsory with respect to place or subject. b. The Code qualifies the term with “good”. This must refer to those customs which are not contrary to law, public order or public policy. c. According to jurisprudence, the ff. requisites must be satisfied for a custom to exist: Plurality of acts, or various resolutions of a judicial question raised repeatedly on life; Uniformity or identity of the acts or various solutions to the judicial question; General practice by the great mass of social group Continued performance of these acts for a long period of time General conviction that the practice corresponds to judicial necessity or that its obligatory
2.
33
Held It was not a mere breach of promise to marry; it was palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs, considering the preparations and last-minute absconding. Though no law was violated in abandoning a fiancée, it was contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Moral Seduction
Tanjanco v. CA (1966) Araceli acceded to Apolonio’s pleas for sex, in consideration of his promise of marriage. He succeeded in having regular sex with her; she got pregnant, and had to resign and sue him for damages.
Held Action under Art. 21 unsuccessful. Petitioner’s conduct of repeated sex over a year is incompatible with the idea of seduction.
Baksh v. CA (1993) After Baksh forced Marilou to live with him, he maltreated and threatened to kill her. He repudiated their marriage agreement and married someone else.
Held Breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. To be able to claim damages, plaintiff must prove: 1) that the promise was the proximate cause, and 2) lack of intent to fulfill the promise on the part of the defendant.
Casis Critiques There was still seduction on the 1 st carnal knowledge; the succeeding trysts shouldn’t ratify the initial deceit. Otherwise, there would be a perverse incentive to increase frequency of enticement. Casis Critiques Why did they require proximate cause to application of Art. 21, when it is not a quasidelict?
3.
Public Humiliation
•
Pe v. Pe (1962) Alfonso Pe, a married man, courted Lolita. They were collateral relatives. Alfonso frequented Lolita’s house because “he wanted her to him the rosary.” They subsequently eloped and and Lolita’s family sued for damages.
Held The illicit affair caused great damage to the name and reputation of the plaintiffs (parents, brothers and sisters). Not a case of seduction because in absence of proof, court may not presume that defendant deliberately induced the relationship. Use of Art. 21 for the betrayal of trust and shame on family.
Grand Union v. Espino (1979) Case of the Engineer who put a “rat tail” file in is shirt pocket but forgot to pay for it on the way out of the grocery. He tried to pay for it when his attention was called, but branded as a thief and the guards embarrassed him in front of a crowd and threatened to call police.
Held Court considered totality of facts and circumstances + personal circumstances of the accused. The false accusation + threats + cause of humiliation willfully caused loss or injury to plaintiff in a manner that was contrary to morals, good customs and public policy.
Carpio v. Valmonte (2004) Valmonte was a coordinator for a wedding. While at the suit in Manila Hotel, she was suddenly accused for the loss of P1M worth of jewelry that were placed in the comfort room. She was bodily searched, interrogated, and trailed by security. Her car was also searched.
Held Carpio transgressed provisions of Art. 19 in relation to Art. 21. Court found sufficient evidence on record that Carpio’s imputations against Valmonete were made with bad faith and malice. The verbal reproach was uncalled forl the attack was not merely inquisitive but accusatory.
4.
ELEMENTS 1) 2) 3) 4)
Statutory Basis o Art 2219 (8) – MP is one case where moral damages may be awarded Arts 19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 2217, 2219(8) o ! “such action only requires a preponderance of evidence” o 2176 CANNOT be a statutory basis because it is impossible to commit this negligently (DAAM) Prosecution of the plaintiff by defendant Termination of prosecution in acquittal Absence of probable cause Prosecution motivated by malice; that is improper or sinister motive
Que v. IAC (1989) Que and Nicolas were business partners. For 1 transaction, payments to Que were stopped by Nicolas because of defects in the delivered goods. Que filed an Estafa case against Nicolas; Nicolas filed a malicious prosecution case against Que.
Held No MP when Que filed the estafa case. He had reason to believe he had been deceived because the checks couldn’t be encashed. He was not motivated by ill feeling but mere desire to protect his rights. The presence of probable cause in filing a suit means the absence of the legal malice element.
Drilon v. CA (1997) Information was filed against Adaza for rebellion w/ Murder and Frustrated Murder. Adaza filed complaint for damages, charging malicious prosecution, because of the non-existent crime.
Held No MP. 3 elements for MP suit to prosper: 1) Prosecution and acquittal, 2) Prosecutor acted without probable cause, 3) Prosecutor impelled by legal malice. All 3 must concur . None of these alleged herein. Case was not terminated because of discharge on bail; no showing of acting without probable cause because of honest belief that crime existed; petitioners had wellfounded belief to filed the case.
Magbanua v. Junsay (2007) Rosemarie the housemaid was charged for robbery of jewelry. She was maltreated for an extrajudicial confession. Rosemarie sought damages for violations and maltreatment, but was actually seeking damages for malicious prosecution.
Held MP case will not prosper. Two out of the four elements missing – there is no showing that the prosecutor acted withou probable cause; her admission gave rise to probable cause (the fact that it was inadmissible is evidentiary matter). The prosecutor was not impelled by legal malice because the mere act of submitting a case to authorities for prosecution doesn’t make one immediately liable; the stat doesn’t put impose a penalty on right to litigate.
Malicious Prosecution
Under Philippine Law Malicious prosecution as denuncia falsa – persecution through misuse or abuse of judicial processes; institution of legal proceedings for the purpose of harassing, annoying, vexing, or injuring an innocent person (Villanueva v. Coconut Planters) “An action for damages against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after termination of such prosecution, suit or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein” (more often used definition; Magbanua v. Junsay) o Includes: disbarment proceedings Gravamen of MP – deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the charges were false and groundless; not the filing of a complaint based on wrong provision •
•
•
34
5.
Quisaba v. Sta. Ines (1974) Quisaba filed a complaint for moral and exemplary damages because he was temporarily relieved as internal auditor of Sta. Ines on the ground of his refusal to purchase logs because it was “inconsistent with his work as internal auditor.”
Defamation: an invasion of a person’s right to enjoy a reputation and good name unimpaired by false attacks which tend to diminish the esteem in which a person is held by men whose standard of opinion the court can properly recognize. o The reputation protected is the opinion of others Libel consists of the publication of defamatory ! matter by written or printed words. Slander – all other defamation ! Both libel and slander are crimes in the Philippines. Malice Requirement: o As a crime: Malice is required As an action Art. 26: o Generally: not essential. ! Exception: Malice or ill will remains important ! where there exercise of a qualified privilege is in question. o
Oppressive Dismissal
Held This is a case of oppressive dismissal because of the MANNER of dismissal and the consequent effects. If the dismissal was done anti-socially or oppressively, as the complaint alleges, then the respondents violated Art 1701 which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the other, and Art. 21, which makes a person liable for damages if he willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.
• •
CASIS QUESTIONS: Does peeking into someone’s bag for magic notes constitute o an action under Art. 26? # YES, under Carpio’s 6 rights o Alyzza, a model, posted a photo on Instagram with police officer’s calling card with the note “Please assist my EA Alyzza” and her post caption was “Thanks Hon, saved me from traffic violation today.” Can the police officer file an action against her under Art. 26? # YES. It can be either defamation, or alienation of family relations (if he was married), or violation of privacy (because the calling card note was not meant to be public)
D. VIOLATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY Art 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, through they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief: B. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence; C. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; D. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends ; E. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition .
2) The Right to Personal Security Such action is identical with: battery and assault – unlawful touching or striking of the person of another done with intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or apprehension Interest protected: Freedom from apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with the person, as distinguished from the contact itself. “Thus, it is an assault to shake, in a threatening manner, one’s fist under another’s nose, or to chase him in a belligerent manner” Defendant must have intended to interfere with the plaintiff’s personal dignity o Assault can’t be committed through negligence.
Carpio, Intentional Torts in Philippine Law “Although up to the present it has remained sorely neglected, perhaps one of the most fertile sources of tort action in the Civil Code is Art. 26.” ART 26’s enumeration is not exclusive; merely illustrative. o Thus, Art. 26(1) is not limited to invasion of the privacy of residence; encroachment on one’s personal privacy is included. The following principal rights are covered by the protective mantle of this provision: o Right to personal dignity o Right to personal security o Right to family relations o Right to social intercourse Right to privacy o Right to peace of mind o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3) The Right to Social Relations No parallel in American law Liability for intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends Malice requirement: “Intrigue” implies malice or ill will • •
1) The Right to Personal Dignity Violation of the right to personal dignity is analogous to the American law concept of defamation.
•
•
35
4.) The Right to Family Relations d. Husband and wife a. The law expressly recognizes the right of either spouse to sue the other without any limitations as to the subject matter of litigation. b. Carpio believes that a personal tort action, like battery, can be maintained by a wife against her husband, or vise versa. e. Interferences by Third Persons The right to family relations includes the right to consortium and to recover damages for breach thereof. i. Consortium – bundle of legal rights namely: services, society, sexual intercourse, conjugal affection ii. The gist of a husband’s cause of action for loss of his wife’s consortium is a loss sustained by him and not the damage sustained by her. Examples of forms of interferences o Adultery – husband may maintain an action against the 2rd party, whether or not the wife consented to it o Alienation of affection – Required to prove that: ( 1) The defendant, the 3 rd party, acted for the purpose of affecting the relation, and (2) The defendant was a substantial factor in causing the alienation. The attempt to alienate must be successful to be ! actionable. Wife may recover even if husband did not desert the family home. No defense that husband was seducer, as long as there was encouragement on the other woman’s part. o Can a meddling-mother-in-law be liable for alienation of affection? NO. Tenchavez v. Escaño adopted the view that parents enjoy a qualified privilege to interest themselves in the marital affairs of their child. f. Parent and Child o Nowhere in our law is there a prohibition against a child suing the parent. Carpio believes a child has the right to sue a parent for excessive punishment. o Parents must also be allowed to institute a personal tort action against the child under Art. 26, like an action for assault or battery. g. Enticement o Under Art. 26, a parent may institute a tort action against a person who entices a child away from home. o Can a child sue his mother’s paramour for enticing her to leave the conjugal home? Carpio believes YES; the child can sue on the basis of interference of family relations. Family relations include those between ascendants and descendants. Child also has a right to an undisturbed family right.
5.) The Right of Privacy “The right to be let alone.” Invasion of the right of privacy involves 4 distinct types of tort: 5) Intrusion upon the plaintiff’s physical and mental solitude 6) Public disclosure of private facts 7) Placing the plaintiff in false light in the public eye 8) Commercial appropriation of the plaintiff’s name or likeness RE: public figure – even those who unwillingly court public attention, through association with crime or other interesting events, become reluctant public figures. Examples in American Jurisprudence: use of plaintiff’s picture for an advertisement in a newspaper, use of plaintiff’s name in the title of a corporation, unauthorized prying into the plaintiff’s private bank account, peeping into plaintiff’s windows • •
•
•
•
6.) Right to Peace of Mind Parallel to American tort of intentional infliction of mental distress (referring to physical illness suffered by plaintiff as a result of offensive words or acts)
•
•
Sps. Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la (2011) Case where Makati Shang mishandled their wedding – wrong food, lacked wine, etc.
St. Louis v. CA (1984) Dr. Aramil’s house was twice published in Manila Times for the publicity of St. Louis Realty, falsely depicting his house as the Arcadio Family’s, and how they had to scrimp up to be able to afford it, etc. No rectification because no apologies even after they had stopped publication.
Held Court cited the essence of Art. 26 – every person is entitled to respect of his dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind – to justify award of nominal damages. Held There was a violation of Aramil’s right to privacy under Art. 26. His private life was unnecessarily and mistakenly exposed.
CASIS QUESTION: What if the subdivision had houses that all looked the same anyway? # The result would still be th e same if you can show t he house was identifiable as Dr. Aramil’s.
36
Gregorio v. CA (2009) Gregorio was arrested by armed men in her QC residence, in front of her husband and children, for allegedly violating BP 22. She was taken to the DILG office and was fingerprinted and mugshot. The case was later dismissed upon motion because of insufficiency of evidence against her; the signatures on the checks were not even hers. She filed an action for damages. The SC granted her petition.
Held Article 26 grants a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief for cases not necessarily constituting a criminal offense – the 6 rights. Citing Art. 26, the Court said incalculable damages has been inflicted on the plaintiff on account of the defendant’s wanton, callous, and reckless disregard of the fundamental legal precept that “Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.”
Sps. Hing v. Choachuy (2013) Respondent owners of Aldo Development & Resources, constructing an auto-repair shop, claimed that the adjacent lot, Sps. Hing, were constructing a fence that was destroying the wall of its building. They installed on their building 2 surveillance cameras facing petitioner’s property, without their consent.
Held Art. 26 (1) – “Prying into the privacy of another’s residence” includes business office also. The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test is used to determine whether there is a violation of the right to privacy: (1) Whether, by his conduct, the individual exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.
•
A.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16)
Dereliction of Duty 17)
Art 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty, may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be t aken.
18) •
VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Unfair Competition
Art 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor thru 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.
19)
Fre edom of religion Fre edom of speech Freedom to write for the press or to maintain periodical publication Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention Fre edom of suffrage The right against deprivation of property without due process of law T he ri ght to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use T he ri ght to equal protection of the laws The right to be secured in one’s person, house, papers, and effect s against unreasonable searches and seizures T he liberty of abode and changing the same T he privacy of communication and correspondence The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law The right to take part in a peacable assembly to petition the Government for redress of grievances The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form The right of the accused against excessive bail T he right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of t he accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one’s self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statut e which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional, and Freedom of access to courts
1. Persons Responsible - Public officers or public individuals - Generally: “Directly or indirectly” # not actor alone who must answer for damages Exception: If the defendant is a judge, responsibility is not demandable unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
37
MHP Garments v. CA (1994) MHP Garments was awarded an exclusive franchise to sell and distribute official Boy Scout uniforms. Upon receiving info that Gonzales was selling the same without authority, MHP instigated a raid with the help of the police to seize without warrant Gonzales’ premises. The unfair competition charge against Gonzales was dismissed and MHP was ordered to return the goods, but they only returned the “inferior quality” ones.
Held MHP was liable even if it was the police who conducted the raid, and MHP’s participation was only to report the alleged illegal activity. MHP was indirectly involved in transgressing the right agsainst unreasonable search and seizure. Larry de Guzman, an employee who stood by the raid, is also liable for apparently assenting thereto.
action against a public officer without a particular injury, or a particular right. “Financial and business difficulties” in Fortune’s complaint is not a “particular injury”. The SC impliedly ruled that allegation of bad faith was needed for suit to prosper.
3. Nature of Acts Covered - NECESSARY that there is a violation of the constitutional right of the plaintiff, AND that such right must be listed in Art. 32
2. Malice or Bad Faith - NOT NECESSARY, in either (otherwise, subject to justifiable motives of good faith in the performance of their duties) Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune (2007) VC was the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The problem was how, after RA 7654 already considered the brands Champion, Hope and More as “local brands” (subject to 20-45% tax), she reclassified as “locally manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brand”, subject to 55% ad valorem tax. After not giving due notice, she demanded collection of around P9M. In response to the suits against her, she claims that no showing of bad faith, malice or gross negligence . Vinzons- Chato v. Fortune (2008) VC moved for recon. She was acquitted.
- Aggrieved has a right to proceed on an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, whether or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal offense. This civil action will proceed independently and be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
Held Malice need not be proven in an action under Art. 32, precisely because torts don’t require malice. Very few public officials would openly abuse individual rights of citizens. To require malice would be to limit the scope of this article. VC liable; failure to allege malice or bad faith will not amount to failure of state of a cause of action.
Held
Casis Critiques
There are 2 kinds of duties exercised by public officers: 1) Duty owing to the public collectively – whether wholly or partially 2) Duty owing to the public individuals – in his official capacity, under a particular obligation.
Art. 32 does not distinguish types of officers nor types of duties of public officers. Court had no legal basis in first determining which of the 2 classes of duties is involved.
General Rule: An individual cannot have a particular
NOT REQUIRED” is not reversed though; they merely held that in this case an allegation of bad faith was essential to substantiate their claim.
Silahis v. Soluta (2006) Marijuana was allegedly found in the office of the Silahis Employee’s union. A complaint was filed against the union officers for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. Petitioners barged into and the office without a warrant and searched the premises. Court held the search to be illegal.
B.
Held Waiver by implication can’t be presumed. There must be clear and convincing evidence of an actual intention to constitute a waiver thereof. It is required that: 1) the right exists, 2) the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of existence of such right, and 3) the person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHYSICAL INJURIES
Art. 33. In cases of de famation, fraud, and physical injuries, 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.
1. !
The “liability depending on duty” is even worse than the good faith defense.
!
The rule that “MALICE 38
Defamation It is the publication of anything which is injurious to the good name or reputation of another or tends to bring him in disrepute. Defamation is an invasion of a relational interest since it involves the opinion which others in the community may have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff. ( MVRS v. Islamic Da’wah) Words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se; the fact that language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.
Libel !
!
Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle (2009) Yuchengco was imputed twice as a “Marcos crony” of unsound and immoral business practices, in articles published by the Manila Chronicle.
RPC: A public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Although “libel” is defined in the RPC, it can be instituted as a purely civil action under Art 33. (Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle)
Elements of Libel (A PIE) Allegation or imputation of a discreditable act or condition concerning ! another; Publication of the imputation ! o not only when widely circulated, but also when it is made known or brought to the attention or notice of another person other than its author and the offended party Identity of the person defamed; and ! Existence of malice ! Arafiles v. Phil Journalists (1988) Morales, a reporter of People’s Journal Tonight published a story “GOVT EXEC RAPES COED” based on a complaint filed with the police district headquarters for Forcible Abduction with Rape and Forcible Abduction with Attempted Rape. Court held that Morales was not liable for libel.
MVRS Publications Inc. v. Islamic (2003) Islamic Da’wah filed a complaint for libel against MVRS publications for an article in Bulgar containing a statement about the pig as the god of Muslims.
Held The allegation of the “overly sensationalized reporting” does not stand; the article must be construed as an entirety including the headlines, as they may enlarge, explain, or restrict or be enlarged, explained or strengthened or restricted by the context. Whether or not it is libelous, depends upon the scope, spirit and motive of the publication taken in entirety.
Held 2. !
Suit will not prosper as class suit without circumstances specifically alluding to a particular member of a class. Requirement for defamation against a group is that the statement must be so sweeping or all-embracing to apply to every individual in the group, or so specific that each member can prove the defamatory statement specifically pointed to him. Court noted that members of Muslim community each have separate and distinct reputation with varying views on the matter.
Fraud estafa falls under fraud in Art. 33
Heirs of Simon v. Elvin Chan (2011) Case for BP 22 was filed against Eduardo Simon. Three years later, civil action for the collection of the principal amount of P336,000 was commenced.
39
Held Although “libel” is defined in the RPC, it can be instituted as a purely civil action under Art 33. The elements of libel were adopted in purely civil action for damages (A PIE). For the existence of malice, Court said it does not necessarily have to be proven. In the PH, there is a presumption of malice in a defamatory imputation when there is no showing of good faith, except in qualifiedly privileged communications: 1.Private communication by a person made to another in the performance of legal, moral, social duty; 2. Fair and true report, without comment; 3. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest Need: Public figure (libel suit ! actionable if actual malice – knowledge of publication’s falsity or reckless disregard for whether the contents of the publication were false - proven) Applying the 3 rd type - because Yuchengco neither public officer nor public figure, articles are not qualified privileged communications even if they dealt with matters of public concern. The Court ruled that the failure to present evidence showing that they verified the truth of any of the subject articles was fatal to their cause.
Held There is no independent civil action to recover the civil liability arising from the issuance of an unfunded check prohibited and punished under BP 22. The issuance of a bouncing check may result in 2 separate and distinct crimes: estafa and BP22. But recovery for civil liabilities are distinct. While a party may opt to reserve civil action for estafa, Court prohibits reservation of a separate civil action to claim civil liability arising from issuance of the bouncing check.
Consing v. People (2013) Consing had various loans from Unicapital totaling P18M. Unicapital later learned that the mortgaged property had spurious TCTs. Consing filed for injunctive relief at Pasig RTC, saying he acted as a mere agent of his mother. Unicapital initiated criminal complaint of Estada thru Falsification of public document at Makati RTC, then filed for recovery of money and damages with application for writ of preliminary attachment. The prosecutor filed an info for estafa thru falsification of public docs with Makati RTC. Upon motion by Consing, Makati RTC suspended proceedings on ground of existence of prejudicial question (with the injunctive relief daw).
3. ! !
through Reckless Imprudence was filed against bus driver. Heirs of Marcia reserved their right to institute separate civil action for damages. Paje acquitted, finding reckess imprudence didn’t exist.
Held There is no prejudicial question when the civil action and criminal action can proceed independently of each other. The Civil Case for Damages and Attachment on account of the alleged fraud committed by Consing and his mother in selling the mortgaged property to a 3 rd party is an independent civil action under Article 33 . As such, it will not operate as a prejudicial question that will justify the suspension of the criminal case at bar.
Physical Injuries Includes physical injuries causing death ( Capuno v. Pepsi) It does not cover acts committed via negligence
Capuno v. Pepsi Cola (1965) Pepsi Cola truck collided with car driven by Capuno. Truck driver was charged triple Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence, which included claims for damages of the heirs. While the crim case was pending, a civil case for damages was filed by the Intestate Estate of the Buan spouses
Corpus v. Paje (1969) Collision between Victory Liner bus and jeep driven by Marcia, resulting in his death and physical injuries. An information for Homicide and double Serious Physical Injuries
Held Heirs of Capuno correctly considered it as entirely independent of the criminal action, pursuant to Art. 31 and Art. 33. Court explained the term “physical injuries” in Art 33 includes bodily injuries causing death… so the civil action for damages could have been commenced by Capuno immediately upon the death of their decedent, and the same would not have been stayed by the filing of the criminal action for homicide thru reckless imprudence. (altho case dismissed bec. prescribed)
Held Civil action dismissed. Since it was based upon the same criminal negligence of which Paje was acquitted in the criminal action, the acquittal thus constituted
Casis Critiques Casis emphasized the footnote of Justice Capistrano, who thinks physicial injuries shouldn’t include death because the reason for the law was to give 40
a bar to the civil action for damages. Even if “physical injuries” includes homicide, the charge to the bus driver was reckless imprudence (criminal negligence resulting in homicide), which is not included in the 3 crimes under Art. 33. Therefore, no independent civil action for damages in connection with reckless imprudence.
injured party the initiative to personally demand damages by independent civil action; not meant for his lawyer to institute.
Madeja v. Caro (1983) Doctor was accused of Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence for the death of patient after an surgery for removal of appendix. Heir of patient reserved right to file separate civil action. While criminal case pending, heir sued doctor for damages.
Held Court ruled that civil action against doctor may proceed independently of the criminal action because covered under Art. 33. “Physical injuries” covers attempted, frustrated and consummated homicide. (this was
Bonite v. Zosa (1988) Bonite was working as a “caminero” when he was hit by a truck, resulting in his death. Heirs of Bonite filed a criminal complaint for Homicdie thru Reckless Imprudence against driver. He was acquitted for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Held Civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal of the accused where acquittal is based on reasonable doubt – civil action for the same act or omission may be instituted and requires only a preponderance of evidence.
Dulay v. CA (1995) Security guard and lawyer had an altercation at the Big Bang sa Alabang carnival; lawyer was shot and killed. Heirs of lawyer filed action for damages against guard and his employers. During pendency of case, an information for Homicide was filed (aka nauna yung civ case).
Held Although in Corpus v. Paje it was held that no independent civil action may be filed under Art. 33 where the crime is the result of criminal negligence, it must be noted the accused in the case at bar is charged with homicide, not with reckless imprudence, whereas the defendant in Corpus was charged with reckless imprudence. Therefore, in this case, a civil action based on Article 33 lies.
C. NEGLECT OF DUTY
PART
TWO
Art. 34. 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.
A.
D. CATCH-ALL INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
Importance and Definition The pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury sustained or “he pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or violation of some right. (People v. Ballesteros ) The recompense or compensation awarded for damages suffered. (Custodio v. CA) ONLY WITH MONEY •
Art. 35. 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 justice of the peace finds no reasonable ground s to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender . Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
•
•
B.
When Allowed There must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendants AND damage resulting therefrom. Damnum absque injuria is not a cause of action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong o Injury – illegal invasion of a legal right Damage – the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the o injury o Damages – the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered Basis: breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach •
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.
•
Custodio v. CA (1996) Pacifico owned a property surrounded by immovable; he had 2 possible passageways to access the main street. One neighbor blocked 1 passageway with his adobe fence and its extension, justifying it with the inconveniences of having drunk people pass by their house and steal their stuff. Pacifico filed for grant of easement of right of way against that neighbor. Lower courts granted permanent access + damages. Court held the award of damages was WRONG if based solely on losses from unrealized rentals from the tenants who left bec. of the closure of the passageway.
Held The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses does not give rise to a right to recover damages. To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. There must be damnum et injuria. The law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act with does not amount to a legal injury or wrong.
Casis Question: What are examples of damage absque injuria ?
41
C.
Law on Damages Art 2196 – rules under the title are without prejudice to special provisions o damages formulated elsewhere in the Code Art 2198 – principles of general law on damages are adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Civil Code Art 2195 – DAMAGES not limited to torts or QD – applicable to all obligations in 1157 (law, contracts, quasi-contracts and crimes) •
A. DEFINITION/ PURPOSE
•
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he ha s duly proved. Such
•
D.
E.
2 Possible Interpretations of "except as provided for by law or by stipulation": Actual damages may be awarded even if pecuniary loss is not proven, provided it is allowed by law/ stipulation (takes form of liquidated damages) Even if pecuniary loss is proven, actual damages may not be awarded if this is provided for by law/ stipulation (in effect, a stipulation on liquidated damages) •
Types of Damages (MENTAL) $ Art 2197 Moral o Exemplary or corrective o o Nominal o Temperate or moderate o Actual or compensatory o Liquidated
•
B. PROOF REQUIRED 1. Pleading and proof of actual damage The award must be based on the evidence presented Judges cannot make estimates based on their knowledge of the cost (but see Gatchalian v. Delim, infra) Claimant is duty-bound to point out specific facts that afford a basis for measuring the award •
Apportionment of Damages
People v. Halil Gambao (2013)
Conviction for kidnapping for ransom of Chan, a fish dealer. Conspiracy between 10 people was established beyond reasonable doubt; the act on 1 is the act of all.
•
Held Each principal accusedappellant should shoulder a greater share in the total amount of indemnity and damages than Perpenian who was adjudged as only an accomplice.
Casis Critiques
•
Court did not provide a formula at all.
2. Nature of loss and proof Losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of (pecuniary) measurement in market value Reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable Court is required to state the factual bases of the award in decision •
•
•
Taking into account the difference in the degrees of their participation, all of them shall be liable for the total amount of P300,000.00 divided among the principals who shall be liable for P288,000.00 (or P32,000.00 each) and Perpenian who shall be liable for P12,000.00.
Gatchalian v. Delim (1991) Woman suffered a wound on her forehead because the bus she was riding got involved in an accident. She filed a suit for breach of contract of carriage and prayed for damages including P10k for the cost of plastic surgery. Court noted the lapse of time (increase in cost, difficulty of removal).
42
Held A scar, especially one on the face of the woman, resulting from the infliction of injury upon her, is a violation of bodily integrity, giving rise to a legitimate claim for restoration to her conditio ante. In Araneta, et al. vs. Areglado, et al., this Court awarded actual or compensatory damages for, among other things, the surgical removal of the scar on the face of a young boy.
Casis Critiques Court appears to have merely estimated the amount. Also, Araneta involved restorative surgery while here, the surgery is purely cosmetic.
Oceaneering v. Baretto (2011) Oceaneering transported construction materials on Baretto's barge under a Time Charter Agreement. The barge capsized. Oceaneering sued Baretto for the unexpired portion of the agreement plus the value of the lost cargo.
Held
Casis Critiques
Oceaneering is entitled to unexpired portion AND actual damages for the portions duly pleaded and proved by vouchers and receipts in its Answer (minus the value of the materials salvaged). Actual/compensatory damages "are those damages which an injured party is entitled to recover for the wrong done and injuries received when none were intended".
The cited definition is inaccurate as actual damages may also be awarded based on intentional acts. This case is instructive on how to plead and prove actual damages.
Candano v. Sugata-on (2007) Sugata-on went missing when employer's vessel sank. His wife claimed indemnity from his employer based on Art. 1711. Court adopted the Villa Rey formula "in order to give breath to the provisions on damages".
Held 50%rule: In computing the necessary living expense, jurisprudence shows the Court pegged it at 50% of the gross annual income (in the absence of evidence).
Casis Critiques Because Art. 1711 covers neither a crime/quasidelict, Art. 2206(1) could not be the basis of the award for loss of earning capacity. True enough, the Court cited Arts. 2199 and 2200.
2. In contracts and quasi-contracts Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts , the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted . In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude , the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.
C. LOSS COVERED
•
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered , but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain . • •
Sps. Zalamea v. CA (1993) Sps. and daughter bought tickets from NY to LA. While in NY, they received confirmation from TransWorld Airlines. They arrived an hour before boarding but were placed on the waitlist because other passengers had taken all the seats. Next flight was also full. Mom and daughter had to buy tickets from American Airlines. They sued TWA. TWA alleged that under US law, overbooking was an accepted practice.
Daño emergente - loss of what a person already possesses Lucro cesante - failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him
1. In General PNOC v. CA (1998) Vessels owned by MEFC and Luzon Stevedoring collided. MEFC prayed for the value of the equipment and unrealized profits and lost business opportunities. Actual damages were proven though the sole testimony of MEFC's GM and certain documents. Court held that while plaintiff would have been entitled to the value at the time of destruction, the price quotations submitted partook of the nature of hearsay evidence because the authors were not made to testify. Hence, actual damages were not sufficiently proven. Only nominal damages were awarded.
Thus, in the absence of good faith, foreseeability is not a requirement and the link between damage and breach need not be natural and probable.
Held Where goods are destroyed by the wrongful act of the defendant the plaintiff is entitled to their value at the time of destruction, that is, normally, the sum of money which he would have to pay in the market for identical or essentially similar goods, plus in a proper case damages for the loss of use during the period before replacement. In other words, in the case of profit!earning chattels, what has to be assessed is the value of the chattel to its owner at the time and place of the loss.
BPI Family v. Franco (2007) BPI unilaterally froze Franco's accounts, suspecting funds were transferred to him emanating from a forged Authority to Debit. Checks he issued were dishonored because his account was under garnishment.
43
Held Overbooking amounts to bad faith. The US law allowing it was not proven. Even if proven, it would not apply because PH follows lex loci contractus; PH law applies. In accordance with Art. 2201, TWA should be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the breach. Instead of being refunded, Zalameas should be reimbursed for actual cost of the American Airlines tickets.
Held
Casis Critiques
No bad faith on the part of BPI. It acted out of the impetus of self-protection and not out of malevolence or ill-will. Bad faith imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it partakes of the nature of fraud.
BPI still could have been liable for damages if it were proven that the injury to Franco (dishonor of checks) was a foreseeable consequence of its breach (freezing of accounts). However, the Court did not discuss this.
3. In crimes and quasi-delicts
4. Earning capacity, business standing
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts , the defendant shall be liable for all dam ages which are the natural and probable c onsequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered: (1) For loss or impairment of e arning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury; (2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.
Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages t o be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances .
a. Loss or impairment of earning capacity
•
Gatchalian v. Delim (1991) Woman suffered a wound on her forehead because the bus she was riding got involved in an accident. She claims she was on the way to confer with the district supervisor for a job as a substitute public teacher's job.
In crimes and quasi-delicts, foreseeability and good faith are irrelevant.
Llorente v. Sandiganbayan (1991) Llorente was charged with violation of RA3019 for refusing to issue a certificate of clearance to one PCA employee. He was acquitted because there was no evidence that he acted with evident bad faith (element of the offense) but he was made to pay compensatory damages because he was guilty of abuse of right (he acted with bad faith nevertheless). PNOC v. CA (1998) Case where 2 vessels collided.
Held
Casis Critiques
Llorente was guilty of abuse or right. Because of his actions, the employee was not able to land jobs that he applied for. Either job would have given him a salary of P150k in 5 yrs. Deducting his expenses, actual damages amount to P90k. The award of P90k was justified under Art. 2202 which holds the defendant liable for all "natural and probable" damages.
Thus, while Art. 2202 specifically applies to crimes and quasi-delicts, the Court held it to ba applicable to Art. 19 which is neither a crime nor a quasi-delict. If Art. 19 is considered a tort, it may be said that Art. 2202 applies to torts as well. It seems that as far as Art. 2202 is concerned, "quasi-delict" is held to be equivalent to "tort".
Held "In actions based on torts or quasi-delicts, actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of."
Casis Critiques Assuming that the Court is not using torts as a synonym of quasi-delict but as referring to tort-like provisions, then the Court holds Art. 2202 applicable to such tort provisions.
People v. Sarcia (2009) Sarcia was convicted of rape. Because of lack of proof of his age and the date of the commission, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority was appreciated with respect to the penalty but not as regards his civil liability. Starting with this case, if rape is qualified by any circumstance under which the death penalty is authorized, the indemnity shall be increased to not less than P75k.
Held
Casis Critiques
In view of her employment status (casual, episodic) CA held she could not be said to have lost any employment. She has not submitted any basis and she may not be awarded damages on the basis of speculation or conjecture.
This is correct if what is claimed is loss of earnings. But if what is meant is loss of earning capacity , a person's earning capacity is not necessarily shown by his employment status.
Mercury Drug v. Huang (2007) Mercury Drug truck collided with a car driven by a (very promising) 16y/o.
Held Court affirmed award of P23.4M for the life care cost based on average monthly expense and the remaining years that he is expected to live, PLUS a "conservative amount of P10M" for the loss or impairment of his earning capacity considering his age, probable life expectancy, and his mental and physical condition before the accident.
Considering that Art. 2206(1) makes the defendant liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, it may be suggested that Art. 2205(1) applies to loss or impairment of earning capacity of a person injured but not killed. This may be supported by the fact that Art. 2205(1) covers both temporary and permanent injury. But the Court used Art. 2205(1) in a case where the injured person died (Magbanua v. Tabusares Jr. ). •
Held Civil liability ex delicto is equivalent to actual damages. The minority of the offender has no bearing on the gravity and extent of injury caused to the victim and her family . More so in this case when the circumstance was appreciated for lack of proof rather than moral/evidentiary certainty.
b. Injury to business standing or commercial credit Tanay Recreation Center v. Fausto (2005) *not a required case Plaintiff claimed P1.1M as compensation for lost goodwill or reputation, alleging that because of the unjust and wrongful conduct of the defendants, it stood to lose its goodwill and reputation established for 20 years. Court found the claim unsupported.
No justifiable ground to depart from the jurisprudential trend in the award of damages for qualified rape. 44
Held An award of damages for lost goodwill or reputation falls under actual or compensatory damages as provided in Art. 2205. Even if it is not awarded in the concept of damages, it may still be awarded in the concept of temperate or moderate damages.
D. DEATH BY CRIME OR QUASI-DELICT Art. 2206. The amount of dama ges for death caused by a c rime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos , even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased , and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death; (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the person causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court; (3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
1. Civil/ death indemnity In crimes resulting in death, there seems to be inconsistency on whether the award is P50k or P75k. The Court awarded P75k if the imposable penalty was death had it not been for RA 9346. But if the imposable penalty was only reclusion perpetua, the Court awarded P50k . In robbery with homicide , civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of P50k each is granted automatically in the absence of any qualifying aggravating circumstances. These awards are mandatory without need of allegation and evidence other than the death of the victim owing to the fact of the commission of the offense. ( Crisostomo v. People) •
•
People v. Halil Gambao (2013) Kidnapping for ransom of a woman who was the proprietor of a market stall.
•
•
Held Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court. Thus, the victim's net earning capacity can be derived from 2 sources: salary, and honorarium and transpo allowance. Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses
Philippine Hawk v. Lee (2010) Phil. Hawk's vehicle hit a motorcycle. Motorcycle driver died. His widow was injured. The latter filed an action for damages based on quasi-delict. She testified her husband earned an annual income of P1M from leasing and operating a gas station, and she presented a tax certificate showing her husband earned a gross income of P950,988. However, no documentary evidence was presented re: copra business, hence her testimony as to that could not be considered.
Held As to the computation of loss of earning capacity, only net earnings, not gross earnings, are to be considered. In the absence of documentary evidence, it is reasonable to peg necessary expenses for the lease and operation of the gas station at 80% of the gross income, and peg the living expenses at 50% of the net income (gross income less necessary expenses). Using this formula, the Court determined that the net earning capacity of the victim was P1M.
Pleyto v. Lomboy (2004) PH Rabbit bus collided with a car. Damages were awarded to the heirs of a car passenger. The bus company and driver argued that there was no substantial proof to prove the victim's gross income. Widow's testimony as to husband's income was used as a basis.
Held The Court took the opportunity to increase the amounts of indemnity and damages whrere, as in this case, the penalty for the crime comitted is death which cannot be imposed because of RA 9346. It awarded P100k each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
2. Loss of earning capacity •
People v. Lopez (2011) Lopez was found guilty of murder and sentenced to RP. Victim's wife presented 2 certifications from his office showing his salary range plus his honorarium and transpo allowance. Defense did not object when the prosecution presented these docs.
Not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to earn money General rule: Documentary evidence should be presented . Exceptions: o Deceased was self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage (judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work, no documentary evidence is available) o Deceased was employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage o (Another possible exception provided in Pleyto v. Lomboy ) Testimonial evidence suffices to establish a basis for which the court can make a fair and reasonable estimate The Court has used the Villa Rey formula to determine the loss of earning capacity under Art. 2206. Note that Villa Rey did not involve a crime or quasi-delict. The Court has also applied the same for cases not under 2206.
Held Failure to present documentary evidence to support a claim for loss of earning capacity of the deceased need not be fatal to its cause. Testimonial evidence suffices to establish a basis for which the court can make a fair and reasonable estimate for the loss of earning capacity.
People v. Ibañez (2013) 2 accused were convicted of murder and sentenced to RP. SC deleted the award of loss of earning capacity because no documentary evidence was presented except for the "bare assertions" of his widow. He did not fall under either of the 2 exceptions because his widow testified that he earned P400-P500.
45
Casis Critiques Tracing the roots of the rule, there is a sufficient body of jurisprudence to justify it as a principle to be applied in future cases. The problem is when to apply it. Perhaps it should only be applied to cases where the testimony is highly credible and there is no reason to suspect that the witness is inflating the amount.
Leonen Concurring & Dissenting Opinion The widow's estimate does not vary too far from the regional min wage of P400. Evidence presented, if seen as credible by the RTC, should stand in the absence of clear basis to refute it. In any event, the Court has awarded temperate damages in lieu of an award for unearned income. The P25k awarded here was too meager.
E. IN RAPE CASES People v. Astrologo (2007) Accused was convicted of raping his daughter by means of force and intimidation. He was sentenced to RP and to pay P75k as civil indemnity.
Held Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. Court reduced the award to P50k because the crime committed was only simple rape.
People v. Apattad (2011) The accused was convicted of 3 counts of qualified rape (raped his daughter). The imposable penalty would have been death were it not for RA 9346.
Held When the circumstances surrounding the crime would justify the imposition of the penalty of death were it not for RA 9346, the award of civil indemnity should be P75k . The reason for this rule was given in People v. Victor: - reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time - expression of the Court's displeasure over the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity
F. ATTORNEY'S FEES Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (ELMUR'S WISe DJ must be reasonable.) (1) When Exemplary damages are awarded; (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to Litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; (3) In criminal cases of Malicious prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of a clearly Unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in Refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim; (6) In actions for legal Support; (7) In actions for the recovery of Wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for Indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws; (9) In a Separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime; (10) When at least Double judicial costs are awarded; (11) In any other case where the court deems it Just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable .
•
People v. Bañago (1999) Accused was found guilty of rape and sentenced to RP. Only P50k moral damages was awarded.
People v. Bartolini (2010) Lower courts found the accused guilty of 3 counts of incestuous rape against his 2 daughters. The Court modified the judgment because of certain facts not being alleged in the information. It found him guilty of 2 counts of qualified rape and sentenced him to RP in lieu of death, and guilty of 1 count of simple rape, sentencing him to RP. It also increased the civil indemnity from P50k to P75k.
Held While the award of moral damages is discretionary on the part of the court, the civil indemnity, which is in the nature of actual damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. Hence, in addition to the moral damages awarded, the accused should pay P75k by way of civil indemnity.
•
The attorney's fees in Art. 2208 is not payment for services rendered by a lawyer but an award in favor of the litigant, who is the judgment creditor who may enforce the judgment ( Quirante v. IAC ). Atty's fees must be specifically prayed for. This demands factual, legal, and equitable justification. The Court must state explicitly in the body of the decision the legal reason for the award.
Quirante v. IAC Dr. Casasola obtained favorable judgment in a case. Atty. Quirante filed a motion for confirmation of his atty's fees, which TC granted, but IAC reversed because the motion was premature, considering the main case was still pending before the SC.
Held Where the special qualifying circumstances of age and relationship, although not alleged in the information, are nonetheless established during the trial, the award of civil indemnity and moral damages in a conviction for simple rape should equal the award for qualified rape.
46
Held Counsel's claim for atty's fees may be asserted either in the same or in a separate action. However, what is claimed here is different from the atty's fees as an item for damages in Art. 2208 wherein the award is made in favor of the litigant, not his counsel (litigant is the judgment creditor who may enforce by execution). Here, the petitioner's claims are based on an alleged contract for professional services. Still, SC agrees with IAC that the motion is premature because the main case has not reached finality. The remedy for recovering attorney's fees as an incident of the main action may be availed of only when something is due to the client.
Manila Electric v. Ramoy (2008) NPC won in an ejectment case. It requested Meralco to disconnect the power supply to the defendants in the said case. It was later found out that the Ramoys' property was outside the NPC property. TC ordered reconnection but dismissed the claim for damages and atty's fees. CA granted all claims.
Held
Casis Critiques
Meralco willfully caused injury to Ramoy, hence the latter is entitled to CA's award of moral damages. However, exemplary damages should not be awarded because Meralco did not act in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. Since the Court does not deem it proper to award exemplary damages in this case, then the CA's award for atty's fees should likewise be deleted, as Article 2208 states that in the absence of stipulation, atty's fees can't be recovered except in cases provided for.
SC's statement should only be taken to mean that atty's fees could not be awarded because the basis of the CA's award was its grant of exemplary damages. Since the Court deleted the exemplary damages, it follows that atty's fees are also deleted.
Briones v. Macabagdal (2010) Sps. Briones mistakenly constructed a house on the Macabagdals' lot. The latter won in an action for recovery of possession of the parcel of land, and TC awarded P30k in atty's fees.
Bank of America v. Phil. Racing (2009) A John Doe encashed (stolen) checks presigned by PRCI officers. PRCI filed a complaint against the bank and was awarded P20k atty's fees, among others. CA affirmed but SC found contributory negligence.
Sps. Andrada v. Pilhino (2011) Pilhino caused the levy on execution of a Hino truck previously owned by Jose Andrada Jr. when it had already been sold to Moises Andrada. Moises sued Pilhino based on Arts. 19 and 21, and sought Atty's fees based on Art. 2208(4).
Held The Court deletes the award to Vergon of compensatory damages and attorney’s fees as such amounts were not specifically prayed for in its Answer. Atty's fees must be specifically prayed for—as was not done in this case—and may not be deemed incorporated within a general prayer for “such other relief and remedy as this court may deem just and equitable.” The body of the TC’s decision was devoid of any statement regarding attorney’s fees. The power of the court to award atty’s fees under Art. 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation or conjecture. The court must explicitly state in the body of the decision, and not only in the dispositive portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of atty’s fees.
Held
Casis Critiques
An adverse decision does not ipso facto justify an award of attorney’s fees to the winning party. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.
By this ruling, the Court is requiring bad faith on the part of the losing party if the basis of the award is Art. 2208 (2).
Held
Casis Critiques
Not entitled to atty's fees. Pilhino's bad faith, necessary to predicate the grant of attorney’s fees based on Art. 2208(4), was not established. No premium should be placed on the right to litigate and that not every winning party is entitled to an automatic grant of attorney’s fees.
If an unfounded civil suit is by definition one instituted in bad faith, stating that bad faith was not established is the same as saying that an unfounded civil suit did not exist.
PNCC v. APAC (2013) APAC sued PNCC for collection of sum of money. TC granted and awarded P50k atty's fees + P3k per appearance because "plaintiff was compelled to hire the services of a counsel, to litigate and to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party". CA affirmed.
47
Bad faith requirement here is more palatable since it's already required in an unfounded civil suit.
Held There is an obvious lack of a compelling legal reason to consider the present case as one that falls within the exception provided under Art. 2208. Due to the special nature of the award of attorney’s fees, a rigid standard is imposed on the courts before these fees could be granted. Hence, it is imperative that they clearly and distinctly set forth in their decisions the basis for the award thereof . It is not enough that they merely state the amount in the dispositive.
G. INTEREST Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum. Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the c ourt. Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point. Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonably certainty.
Rules provided in Eastern Shipping v. CA (1994): 1. Breach involving payment of a sum of money (loans/ forbearances of money), the interest due should be: 1) that which may have been stipulated in writing, (plus the interest shall itself earn legal interest from judicial demand); OR 2) if no stipulation, then 12% p.a. to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial/ extrajudicial demand under and subject to Art. 1169. 2. Breach not involving a loan/forbearance of money , an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at 6% p.a. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. If so established, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially/ extrajudicially) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at time of demand, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court. The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged. 3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory , the rate of legal interest, whether under par. 1 or par. 2, above, shall be 12% p.a. from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. Rules provided in Pan Pacific v. Equitable (2010):
1.
In discharging an obligation involving a sum of money, the appropriate measure for damages in cases of delay is the payment of penalty interest agreed upon by the parties.
2.
In the absence of stipulation, payment of additional interest at a rate equal to the regular monetary interest becomes due and payable.
3.
If no regular interest had been agreed upon, then damages payable will consist of payment of legal interest which is 6%, or in cases of loans/forbearances of money, 12%p.a.
Frias v. San Diego-Sison (2007) On 12/07/90, Frias and Dr. San DiegoSison entered into a MOA for which the latter paid P2M in cash (option money to be considered a loan payable in 6 mos. in case of decision not to buy). Dr. SDS decided not to buy the property and upon Frias' failure to pay, filed a collection suit. RTC ordered Frias to pay P2M at 32%p.a. from 12/07/91 until fully paid. CA reduced rate to 25% from 06/07/91. Frias alleges the agreement provides that if respondent would decide not to buy, petitioner has the period of another 6 mos. to pay the loan with compounded bank interest for the last 6 mos. only.
Held While the CA’s conclusion, that a loan always bears interest otherwise it is not a loan, is flawed since a simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay interest, we find no error committed by the CA in awarding a 25% interest p.a. on the P2M loan even beyond the second six months stipulated period. The Court adopted the CA's interpretation of the period. This means that no interest will be charged for the first 6-mo. period while appellee was making up her mind W/N to buy. Certainly, there is nothing in their agreement that suggests that interest will be charged for 6 mos. only even if it takes Frias an eternity to pay the loan . Certification from Prudential Bank showed interest in 1991 ranged from 25-32%. The rate of 25%p.a. is fair and reasonable.
Nacar v. Gallery Frames (2013) Nacar obtained favorable judgment in an illegal dismissal case. He asked for recomputation of backwages in LA's decision from dismissal until finality of SC resolution.
Held The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected, and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments. Anent the computation of interest, BSP Monetary Board issued Circular No. 799, effective July 1, 2013. Eastern Shipping v. CA rules are amended so that: In the absence of an express stipulation as to the rate of interest, the rate of legal interest for loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments shall be 6% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., applied prospectively. Prior to July 1, 2013, 12% p.a. applies. Re: judgments that have become final and executory prior to July 1, they shall not be disturbed. Hence in this case, interest is to be set at 12%p.a. from finality of the resolution (May 27, 2002) to June 30, 2013, and at 6% from July 1, 2013, until their full satisfaction. LA ordered to make another recomputation.
48
H. DUTY TO MINIMIZE
I. MITIGATION OF DAMAGES
Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the ac t or omission in question.
Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.
While the provision does not state the consequences of not complying with this rule, we find the answer in jurisprudence: If the party at fault sufficiently proves that the injured party was remiss in preventing further injury, the damages awarded may be reduced Note: Costs undertaken by the injured party will be recovered from the party at fault
Art. 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quas i-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the ca se referred to in the preceding article, as in the following instances: CBA LossLess (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract; (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract; (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel; (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event; (5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.
•
Lim v. CA (2002) Jeepney involved in a collision was left by the roadside to corrode and decay. The owner refused all proposals to repair it and filed a complaint against those responsible for the accident. TC granted. CA and SC affirmed.
Mackay Radio v. Rich (1969) Among others, Rich wanted reimbursement for transpo expenses in returning to San Francisco after he was wrongfully discharged from employment by Mackay.
Held One who is injured then by the wrongful or negligent act of another should exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage. Anyway, he can recover from the wrongdoer money lost in reasonable efforts to preserve the property injured and for injuries incurred in attempting to prevent damage to it. However, it is the burden of petitioners to show satisfactorily not only that the injured party could have mitigated his damages but also the amount thereof ; failing in this regard, the amount of damages awarded cannot be reduced. Held Under Art. 2203, the party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damage resulting from the act/ omission of another. In the instant case, We consider it reasonable that whatever measure the discharged employee had taken to minimize the damage he suffered should be at the cost of the person liable to pay the damage , being an indirect consequence of the act of the latter, and an integral part of the injury caused. It is but just that an employee wrongfully discharged by his employer should be entitled to recover from his employer the necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by him in seeking or in obtaining other employment.
Sweet Lines v. CA (1983) Suit for breach of contract of carriage wherein the passenger was brought to a different port because the ship developed engine trouble.
Held Article 2215(2 is inapplicable herein. The harm done to private respondents outweighs any benefits they may have derived from being transported to Tacloban instead of being taken to Catbalogan, their destination and the vessel's first port of call, pursuant to its normal schedule.
Ong v. Bogñabal (2006) Construction of a boutique in EDSA Shang. Owner and contractor both breached their obligations.
Held Under Art. 1192, the 2nd infractor is not liable for damages at all; the damages which would have been payable to the 1st infractor is compensated instead by the mitigation of the 1st infractor's liability.
Court reconciled Arts. 1192 and 2215; they are not irreconcilably conflicting. The plaintiff referred to in Art. 2215(1) should be deemed to be the 2nd infractor, while the one whose liability for damages may be mitigated is the 1st infractor.
The 1st infractor, on the other hand, is liable for damages, but the same shall be equitably tempered by the courts, since the 2nd infractor also derived or thought he would derive some advantage by his own act or neglect. The directions to equitably temper the liability of the 1st infractor in Arts. 1192 and 2215 are both subject to the discretion of the court, despite the word "shall" in Art. 1192.
49
2. Within Specific Cases
To compensate claimant for actual injury suffered
(CQ / SarlAc / IdIs / Lsd / MA309 / 21,26-30,32,34,35)
A. PURPOSE
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other for m of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
Code Commission – predicated on the idea that physical suffering, mental anguish, and sumilar injury are incapable of pecuniary estimatio. But it is unquestionable that the loss or injury is just as real as in other cases. Jurisprudence: 1. To compensate the morally injured 2. To alleviate his suffering *Compensatory NOT punitive; aimed at restoration of the spiritual status quo ante. Intended to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements to alleviate the moral suffering Kierulf v. CA (1997) Bus bumped truck. Truck passenger suffered: - Injuries requiring major surgeries. - Disfigured face hence loss of marital consortium (MC)
Held In order that moral damages be awarded, there must be pleading and proof. Husband of victim did not testify on how his right to MC was affected, not supported by evidence. Court awarded damages to victim for the multiple injuries.
Casis Critiques Take note of cited case Rodriguez (invalid husband) re: MC - “The loss is immediate and consequential, rather than remote and unforeseeable.” - claim must be factual in origin; must find basis in evidence and findings of Court
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such da mages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith
a. A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries i. Includes crimes resulting to death Art. 2206 (3). The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and descendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased
ii. Need for testimony on moral suffering
B. WHEN RECOVERABLE
Conditions to be met: Clearly substantiated physical , mental , or psychological injury Factually established culpable act/omission Act/om is proximate cause of injury Award of damages predicated on Art 2219 or 2220 Simplified: Moral suffering is proximate result of act/omission Act/omission falls within specfied cases of Art 2219/2220
General rule: there must be a testimony of moral suffering before moral damages can be awarded. (Basis: Art. 2217)
• • •
In some cases of violent death or brutal killing, Court held that allegation and proof of moral suffering not required.
•
•
People v. Cleopas & Pirame (2000) Victim struck with iron pipe and piece of wood. Respondents guilty of murder.
•
1. Moral Suffering is the proximate result Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering , mental anguish , fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation , wounded feelings, moral shock , social humiliation , and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation , moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.
•
Claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of factual basis of damage and its causal connection to defendant’s act 50
Held
Casis Critiques
Moral and exemplary damages unsupported because widow of victim did not testify on any mental anguish or emotional distress due to husband’s death.
Court did not characterize death as violent but it was no less violent than stabbing. Being clubbed is actually more violent since death is not as immediate.
Arcona v. CA (2002) Victim 1 hit with piece of bamboo. Victim 2 stabbed. Accused only convicted of murder of Victim 2.
People v. Villarmea (2013) Victim stabbed. Accused guilty of murder
Held A violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional painand anguish on victim’s family. Moral damages must be awarded even in absence of allegation and proof.
Casis Critiques Conflict between Cleopas and Arcona. Court characterized death by stabbing as violent.
Held Award of moral damages increased from P10k to P50k even without proof of mental or emotional suffering as violent death necessarily brings about emotional pain
Casis Critiques What started out as “violent death” exception to the rule requiring testimony of moral suffering ( Arcona) has now become a general rule not requiring testimony of moral suffering.
* Parents of female seduced, abducted, raped or abused also entitled to moral damages because they also suffer besmirched reputation, social humiliation, mental anguish, and wounded feelings. d. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest e. Illegal Search Although separate item in Art. 2219(6), it could also fall under Art. 32; which is also included in Art. 2219(10) •
f. Libel, Slander or any other form of Defamation May also fall under Art. 33; which is also included in Art. 2219 (10) * Art. 33 is not part of the enumeration but Prof Casis says so in his book •
Occena v. Icamina (1990) “Gago, ikaw nga Barangay Captain, Montisco, traidor, malugus, hudas ” = convicted of slight oral defamation
Held Victim is entitled to P5k moral damages because the offense was one where there is an offended party. Art 2219 (7) allows recover of moral dam for injury to feelings and reputation.
g. Malicious Prosecution b. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries Jurisprudence provides moral damages may be awarded: a) When an act/om causes physical injuries b) Where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort c) Breaches of contract by tort
•
Not limited to criminal action, includes civil and administrative suits also according to Drilon v. CA
Elements from Magbanua v. Junsay (PAPL) Fact of the prosecution and the defendant was prosecutor or he instigated its commencement Action terminated with an acquittal In bringing the action, prosecutor acted without probable cause Prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice •
B.F. Metal v. Lomotan (2008) BF Metal’s truck driven by Rivera hit jeep driven by Umuyon, owned by Sps. Lomotan. Jeep was a total wreck, Umuyon sustained injuries rendering him unable to drive.
Held BF Metal (negligence in supervision) and Rivera (negligence) liable for moral dam to Umuyon. No basis to award moral dam to Lomotan bec accident was not willful (Art 2220) nor did it cause them phys injuries (Art 2219)
• • •
Expertravel v. CA (1999) Expertravel filed a complaint for recovery of the amount for 4 plane tickets even though they were already paid.
c. Seduction, Abduction, Rape or Other Lascivious Acts People v. Lizano (2007) 11 y.o. raped by husband of aunt.
Held Moral damages are automatically granted in rape without need of further proof other than the comission of the crime because it is assumed that victim suffered moral injuries.
Casis Critiques Cited People v. Bartolini: where special qualifying circ are not alleged but proven during trial, the award of civil indemnity and moral dam in simple rape should equal the award if convicted for qualified rape
51
Held This was an unfounded civil suit. It can be justification for atty’s fees but not for moral damages. The rationale for the rule is: the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on right to litigate.
Casis Critiques Same rationale can be said for malicious prosecution suits. Court did not explain why moral damages can't be awarded for unfounded civil suits. Maybe because imprisonment is only possible for criminal suits. BUT there is anxiety either way. At best, there is only a question of degree which should only affect amount not w/n it should be awarded.
People v. Madsali (2010) Victim was detained for 5 months in a forest, restrained from going home.
Held Entitled to P50k moral damages having suffered serious anxiety and fright.
Article 26 – Viola tion of Human Dignity Concepcion v. CA (2000) “Kabit ka ni Bing!”; wrongfully accused of adultery; wife doubted fidelity; husband felt extreme embarrassment and shame
Casis Critiques Cited case of People v. Bernardo where they reduced moral damages because kidnapping only lasted a few minutes.
Reasons why no moral damages in unfounded civil suits from Malonzo v. Galang: Not one of the cases included in Art 2219, but included in 2208 Casis comment: intention of CC to limit award of atty’s fees and o moral damages to specific cases BUT neither 2208 nor 2219 are exhaustive. Does not fall within “analogous cases” o If all analogous cases required to be expressly mentioned in 2219 then there would be no such thing as an analogous case. 2219 excludes quasi-delicts not resulting in physical injuries unfounded civil actions are not limited to quasi-delictual actions. It o may be based on Art 21. •
Held Awarded moral damages for the mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and social humiliation as proximate result of abusive, scandalous and insulting language
Article 27 – Refusa l or Neglect of Duty A public officer may be liable for moral damages for as long as the moral damages suffered were the proximate result of the public officer’s wrongful act/omission. A public official may be made to pay damages for performing a perfectly legal act, albeit with bad faith or in violation of the “abuse of right doctrine.” (Vital-Gozon v. CA)
•
•
A claimant’s failure to state the monetary award of moral damages suffered presents no legal obstacle to the court’s determination as long as there is factual basis such as testimony as to his sufferings.
o
Industrial Insurance v. Bondad (2000) Bus hit a jeep parked at the side of the road, jeep hit car. Insurance company sued jeep driver, knowing they were not at fault.
Held
Article 28 – Unfair Compe tition
Casis Critiques
Court awarded moral damages to jeep driver.
This case awarded moral damages for an unfounded civil suit. Court did not identify any other basis for the award other than 2219.
Calamba Medical Center v. NLRC (not assigned, in book only) Doctor-spouses illegally dismissed, awarded moral damages Illegal dismissal + circulation of “watch out list” intended to prevent employment = unfair labor practice; gives right to damages • •
Article 32 – Viola tion of Civil and Politica l Rights Manila Electric v. Sps. Held Chua (2010) Electricity bill = P180k; Court awarded moral MERALCO disconnected damages because of after non-payment; deprivation of property “Power thieves. w/o due process. Manner of disconnection wreaked havoc on the lives of Sps. Chua. Also caused social humiliation
h. Acts mentioned in Article 309 Spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring action in the order stated. Article 309. Any person who shows disrespect to the dead, or wrongfully interferes in a funeral shall be liable to the famil of the deceases material and moral
i. Acts and actions referred to in Article 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35 Article 21 – Acts Contra B onos Mores Intended to provide legal remedy for untold number of moral wrongs. Applicable for: moral seduction, public humiliation, malicious prosecution and oppressive dismissal. • •
Triple Eight v NLRC (1998) Recruitment Agency sent employee to Saudi Arabia (supposed to be as waitress but ended up as janitor), treated to unfair working conditions, unpaid salaries, dismissed due to “illness” (carpal tunnel directly caused by work)
Cojuangco v. CA (1999) Racehorse winnings withheld by PCSO pursuant to instructions of PCGG
Held Moral damages awarded because dismissal of employee was attended bad faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor
52
Held Awarded nominal NOT moral because no BF. Liable under Art 32, violation of right to use property (winnings)
Casis Critiques When public utility charges unjustly is considered as taking thus violation of Art 32. It would be easier to prove this through Art 19 or 21 but art. 19 is not part of Art 2219 (10) enumeration. Casis Critiques There was no taking in this case; merely a withholding of prize so it’s not really a deprivation of property. And BF is not necessary to award moral damages under Art 32.
j. Willful Injury to Property Manila Electric v. Ramoy (2008) MERALCO disconnected power supply upon request of NPC without checking if those to get cut off were truly illegal occupants
Regala v. Carin (2011) Renovation of residence caused dirt and dust to land on adjoining house; demolished shared wall
•
Held MERALCO breached contract by its negligence. They willfully caused injury by withholding electricity. Public utilities are subject to strict regulation and failure to comply = BF/ abuse of right. Moral damages awarded.
Held No moral damages because Carin failed to establish that injuries was caused by Regala’s act/om. Regala was engaged in lawful exercise of property rights and no BF
C. WHO MAY RECOVER
Casis Critiques Gave alternative requirements for proving proximate cause because it required looking into the manner by which petitioner carried out renovation. Requires that the wrongful/illegal act precedes the injury
Art 2219. (par. 2) The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article in the order named
1. Relative of Injured Person Sulpicio Lines v. Curso (2010) Dr. Curso did on board a vessel. Bros and sis tried to claim damages based on breach of contract of carriage; negliegent in transporting passengers
k. Breach of Contract in Bad Faith Gross negligence = bad faith (Expertravel v. CA) Francisco v. Ferrer (1999) Wedding cake – late, lost order slip, 2 layers instead of 3
Held No moral damages because breach of contract was not palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in BF, oppressive or abusive. Nominal damages only.
Bankard Inc v. Feliciano (2006) Dishonored credit card, bank’s attempts to inform card fell short of degree of diligence required.
Held Moral damages awarded because there was gross negligence, which amounted to BF. Meaning: conscious or intentional design not necessary to be present.
PAL v. Lopez (2008) Downgraded from business class to economy Sps. Valenzuela v. Sps. Mano (2010) Land dispute; Valenzuela constructed fence, prevented by Mano alleging it was on his land; Mano actually fraudulently obtained TCT with larger area.
Held Moral damages awarded because inattention and lack of care on part of common carrier was BF Held Moral damages awarded because there was fraud in obtaining title.
General Rule: Moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on breach of contract Exception: Breach of contract in bad faith or fraud o Exception to exception: Moral damages recoverable in breaches of o contract of carriage that results in death of passenger in accordance with Art 1764, in relation to Art 2206(3)
Held No moral damages awarded because Art 2206 (3) only allows spouse, ascendants and descendants to recover. Legislative intent is to exclude siblings (inclusio unius est exclusio alterius)
Casis Critiques Provision excludes succession collaterally so it should only be recoverable when a) death results; b) carrier was guilty of fraud. But siblings cannot recover anyway.
2. Juridical Persons ABS-CBN v. CA (1999) Film exhibtion agreement between ABS and Viva. No perfected contract so Viva signed agreement with RBS. ABS CBN filed complaint against RBS.
Casis Critiques “The SC hates airlines”
Casis Critiques Ponente did not apply the principle to facts of case. Mere findng of fraud is not sufficient to award moral damages without compliance with 2217 and identification of case under 2219/2220. 53
Held RBS won but no moral damages. Claim against ABSCBN was not based on contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasidelict so only Art 19, 20 or 21. No BF on part of ABSCBN because it was honestly convinced of the merits of the case. Also, corporations are not entitled to moral damages because it is artificial person and has no feelings, emotions or senses.
Filipinas Broadcasting v. Ago (2005) School sued radio show for libel
Held
Casis Critiques
Moral damages awarded to school. General rule: juridical entities not entitled to moral damages because they cannot experience physical suffering. BUT school’s claim falls under Art 2219 (7) which authorizes moral damages in case of libel. Provision does not qualify whether person is natural or juridical.
There is no provision that qualifies whether a person should be natural or juridical. Just because it is not qualified does not change the fact that corporations cannot experience wounded feelings.
Republic v. Tuvera (2007) Wealth acquired fraudulently during Marcos period to be sequestered by PCGG. Republic asked for moral damages.
Held No moral damages. Nothing in 2219 allows the award of damages in this case. “Any lawyer for the Republic who poses a claim for moral damages in behalf of the State stands in risk of serious ridicule.”
Crystal v. BPI (2008) Sps. Crystal unable to pay loan to BPI so bank foreclosed mortgaged properties. Crystal said foreclosure was illegal because they are not allowed to go after conjugal property.
Held BPI won but no moral damages. Lower courts awarded moral damages citing Manero and Mambulao. The statements in the cited cases are mere obiter dicta.
San Fernando v. Cargill (2013) Both companies cane molasses traders. Cargill delivered an insufficient amount. San Fernando refused to accept.
Held San Fernando won but no moral damages because it cannot be awarded to a corporation unless it enjoyed a good rep that the offender besmirched. Also cannot award based on culpa contractual because no BF.
D. FACTORS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING AMOUNT General Principles: 1. “Goldilocks” Principle – Not too much or too little No hard and fast rule in determining proper amount. Not be so palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice or corruption Not be so little or paltry that it rubs salt to the injury already inflicted (Kierulf v. CA) 2. Proportional to and in approximation of suffering inflicted Award should be commensurate to suffering inflicted (Valenzuela v. CA) • •
•
•
Factors: a) Social and financial standing of injured parties b) Wounded moral feelings and personal pride Lopez v. PanAm (1966) Senator and companions got bumped to tourist from First Class.
Held Proximate result of breach of contract in BF caused social humiliation, wounded feelings, serious anxiety and mental anguish. Sen. Lopez was Senate President and former VP of Phils. His wife, daughter and daughter’s husband all shared prestige and humiliation. P100k to Lopez, P50k to wife, P25k to daughter and husband
Casis Critiques Applying a person’s political, social, or economic standing as a factor in determining the amount may not be proper because suffering is universally experienced. A powerful status may create sense of entitlement but not sufficient to give favorable treatment. Reference to social status is relevant only to the extent that it sheds more light on the depth of the suffering inflicted *A person’s moral suffering is not determined by relationship. Moral damages should be determined by degree and gravity of injury. Kierulf v. CA Social and financial standing of injured person could not be considered in awarding moral damages because there was no rude and rough perception. Standing may only be considered only if subjected to contemptuous conduct despite offender’s knowledge of social/financial standing. Valenzuela v. CA Traumatic amputation means that reduction of moral damages is unjustified The gravity of injury, physical and psychological, merits a higher award. •
•
•
•
54
2. No actual loss caused or proven Nominal damages recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind, or breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown.
For the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157, or in every case where a ny property right has been invaded. • •
Damages in name only, not in fact. Not as an equivalent of wrong inflicted but simply in recognition of the existence of a technical injury.
Areola v. CA (1994) Personal accident policy was unilaterally cancelled because premiums were not remitted. Fault of branch manager. Insured filed complaint for breach of contract.
Held Areola won and was awarded nominal even though there was no actual present loss. But no actual, moral or exemplary because insurance company took steps to rectify the wrong within reasonable time.
Casis Critiques The rule that the court stated, “nominal damages are recoverable where some injury has been done, the amount of which fails to show” makes it similar to temperate.
PNOC v. CA (1998) Vessel collided with Petroparcel with Petroparcel at fault.
Held No proof of actual damage suffered, so nominal damages awarded. P2M awarded bec 1) injury was sustained 2) case dragged on for 2 decades
Casis Critiques P2M is hardly nominal, it is fairly substantial. Most likely it was an approximation of the value of the lost ship not the valuation of the right to be vindicated.
Francisco v. Ferrer (2001) Late cake, ordered 3layered cake but only 2layered delivered
Held Nominal damages awarded because they lied about the lost order slip and gave the lame excuse of traffic. Liable due to their insensitivity, inadvertence, inattention.
Casis Critiques Weddings only happen once in a lifetime. Maybe they deserve more than just nominal.
Twin Ace v. Rufina (2006) Rufina used Tanduay bottles, which they bought, for their patis. Twin Ace (Tanduay manufacturers) filed for recovery of possession and sheriff seized bottles.
Held Nominal damages awarded to Rufina (since their property was taken). When the plaintiff suffers some species of injury not enough to warrant actual damages, nominal is proper.
Casis Critiques This statement is different from previous rule that nominal damages may be awarded if injury is caused but not proven. Language of Court implies that injury must reach a certain threshold so actual damages may be awarded, otherwise nominal only.
A. PURPOSE AND WHEN RECOVERABLE 1. Violation of a Right • • •
Not intended for indemnification of loss but vindication of right violated. Punitive in nature Violation of right, even if only technical, is sufficient to award nominal damages.
People v. Marquez (2011) Kidnapping and failure to return minor. Baby was returned almost a year after kidnapping.
Held Merano’s right as a parent was violated and recognized thus she is entitled to nominal damages
Casis Critiques Merano’s right as a parent was violated and recognized thus she is entitled to nominal damages
Almeda v. Cariño (2003) Cariño sold lots to Almeda and despite repeated demands Almeda refused to pay even though they already sold property to third parties.
Held Cariño entitled to nominal damages because it was a violation of right of the vendor to receive unpaid balance to the lots sold.
Gonzales v. PCIB (2011) Gonzales as accommodation party only of Sps. Panlilio. Gonzales’ check dishonoured and accounts frozen because of Panlilio’s default.
Held Termination of the loan agreement by PCIB without prior notice and dishonour of check was acts contra bonus mores. Such acts warranted indemnity thru nominal damages even though there was no actual present loss of any kind. Gonzales had the right to be informed of the accrued interest and suspension of loan agreement.
55
China Airlines Ltd. v. CA (2003) Passengers were prevented from boarding because of confusion with travel agencies.
Held
Casis Critiques
Nominal damages awarded to passengers because passengers were injured due to reckless confirmation of reservation. Plaintiff suffered some specie of injury not enough to warrant actual damages. But no moral or exemplary because no BF. No actual because replacement tickets cost less than original tickets.
Court did not award actual not bec injury did not reach certain threshold but bec there was no pecuniary loss. The Court may consider the degree of injury in awarding nom dam but it should not be basis of w/n it should be awarded at all. Temperate damages would be more proper.
B. NATURE AND DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT
“Assessment of amount is left to the discretion of the TC acc to circumstances of case” (Gonzales v. People) In determining amount, courts may be guided by jurisprudence. 1. Small but Substantial Nominal damages are by their nature “small sums” Should not be based on extent of harm to injured party Substantial claim law presumes a damage, although actual or compensatory damages not proven 2. Commensurate to injury suffered Amount should not be equivalent of a wrong inflicted but merely recognition of the existence of a technical injury.
*cited Lufthansa German Airlines v. CA (1995) Court denied actual damages for lack of evidence Nominal awarded because “ in the absence of competent proof of actual damages suffered, private resp is entitled to nominal ” Casis comment: Curious how abovementioned rule transformed in China Airlines and later Twin Ace. Rule: Nominal damages may take the place of actual damages which is not proven Consistent with: nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory. Makes nominal damages similar to temperate.
Magnitude of wrong or damage inflicted should not affect amount awarded because the right remains the same regardless of amount of damage caused. If at all, amount of nominal damages considering gravity of right violated. Example: damages for violation of right to life > violation of right to property.
• •
BUT there is body of jurisprudence that provides award must be commensurate to injury sustained.
• •
Considering that temperate damages performs similar function – awarding damages in lieu of unproven actual damages, it may be best to limit award of nominal damages to “small sums” and temperate for more substantial amounts.
Gonzales v. People (2007) Gonzales convicted of arson
Held Temperate and exemplary awarded. As to nominal: “nominal damages are by their nature small sums fixed by the court w/o regard to extent of harm done to injured party.” It is also a substantial claim if based upon violation of legal right.
Casis Critiques Court did not mention an award for nominal though.
Pedrosa v. CA (2001) In the partition of property, the adopted child of one of the heirs was excluded.
Held Partition invalid but no substantiated claims for damages. Adopted child still entitled to nominal damages which should be commensurate to injury sustained (violation of legal participation)
Casis Critiques Gonzales, PNOC, China Airlines, and Pedrosa all ruled that nominal damages should be commensurate to injury suffered. The amount of nominal damages should not be based on amount of damage. However nature of injury may be considered.
3. Under Considerations of Equity Equity – ruling not based on law Sps. Guania v. Makati Shangri-la (2011) Delay in service during wedding reception; rude waiters; guests forced to pay for own drinks
Held Delay in service might have been avoided if Shangri-la exercised prescience in scheduling. Nominal damages awarded because ever person is entitled to respect of his dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind (Art 26) and Shang’s lack of prudence was an affront to this right.
Casis Critiques Basis of award was equity which implies that, techinically, they were not entitled to nominal damages. At best, the negligence was an affront, not necessarily a violation.
56
3. Special reasons extant in the case Robes-Francisco v. CFI (1978) Developer failed to issue TCT despite full payment because title was still with GSIS by virtue of a forecolsed mortgage.
People v. Bernardo (2002) Kidnapped minor for short duration of time; was returned right away.
Held
Casis Critiques
Developer guilty of delay amounting to nonperformance of obligation. Nominal damages awarded because right to acquire title was violated. ND are recoverable where some injury has been done the amount of which the evidence fails to show, the assessment of damages will be left to the court. Absence of BF means a reduction of ND.
“Circumstances of a particular case will determine w/n the amount assessed as nominal damages is within the scope or intent of law” – Northwest Airlines Inc. v. Cuenca. The special reason extant in Robes-Francisco is the absence of BF.
Held ND awarded but reduced given the relatively short duration of kidnapping.
Casis Critiques Period of time should not be considered in determining amount because it does not alter the fact that a right was violated. The length of time goes in the amount of moral suffering which should be considered in moral damages, if ever.
More than Nominal, but less than Compensatory; pecuniary loss cannot be proved with certainty Within the context of compensatory damages A. WHEN AWARDED 1. Nature of case prevents determination of actual loss Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.
Examples in class: damage to environment, besmirched reputation 2. Cases where amount of loss not proved Jurisprudence allows temperate damages where the actual amount of loss was not proven with certainty, even if nature of case allows for possibility of pecuniary loss being proven with certainty.
“In criminal cases, Court has awarded temperate damages to heirs of victim where amount of actual damages was not proven due to inadequacy of evidence.” Republic v. Tuvera Pleno v. CA ( 1988) Delivery truck sideswiped van causing van to hit parked truck. Van driver suffered injuries affecting brain.
C. EFFECT OF AWARD Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.
Tan v. OMC Carriers (2011) Truck lost brakes, driver jumped out. Truck rammed into tailoring shop; killed owner.
*similar to res judicata – bar to question issue ever again.
57
Held Temperate and moral damages awarded. Lower court’s reduction of termperate unjustified because it did not show sufficient reasons for doing so. Temperate damages were awarded for loss of earning capacity because his actual income was not sufficiently established.
Casis Critiques This could be another exception to the rule requiring documentary evidence for the award of LEC. Court also granted actual damages for medical expenses.
Held
Casis Critiques
Temperate damages awarded: P200k for destroyed property (evidenced by photos; amount cannot be proven) and P300k for LEC because earning capacity is plainly established but no evidence to support allegation of actual income
Because the incomeearning capacity loss was clearly established, TD was awarded. Although TD have been awarded for actual damages not provem, it may no longer be awarded if nominal damages have been awarded for same purpose.
3. In addition to actual damages Ventanilla v. Centeno (1961) Attorney neglected to perfect appeal of his lient within reglementary period.
B. FACTORS IN DETERMINING AMOUNT
Held Nominal damages awarded so it precludes temperate damages because both are substitutes for actual.
a. Chronic and continuing injury Ramos v. CA (1999) Held Patient became comatose Temperate damages due to appendectomy awarded in addition to actual damages because damages cover two distinct phases. The amount of temperate, though to a certain extent speculative, should take into account the cost of proper care.
1. In general
Casis Critiques
•
A claim for actual and temperate damages is inconsistent BUT possible if TD has a basis separate from actual damages.
•
More than nominal but less than compensatory Reasonable under the circumstances
De Guzman v. Tumolva (2011) Constructor made deviations from the plan regarding the fence. It was destroyed during typhoon.
Casis Critiques Award of temperate damages should allow petitioners to provide for optimal care; anything less would be grossly inadequate.
Held Temperate damages increased taking into account the cost of rebuilding the damaged fence. Court arrived amount by estimating cost of rebuilding.
2. Receipts amounting to less than P25,000 Some cases provide that if amount of actual damages proven by receipts is less than P25k, the award of temperate damages for P25k is justified. BUT if actual damages are proven to be more than P25k, then TD will no longer be awarded (Villanueva Rule)
Aggrieved party awarded P600k as actual damages and P1M for LEC by TC but SC only awarded P25k in lieu of actual damages LEC which was not proven.
b. In addition to civil indemnity Civil indemnity for death is a type of actual damages provided for in Art 2206. However, temperate damages may be awarded in addition.
People v. Lucero (2010) Murder, receipt for embalming was P3k, other expenses like coffin were not evidenced by receipt
Held Award of P25k as TD in murder cases is proper when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in TC. P3k as actual damages was deleted. Cited People v. Gidoc
Casis Critiques The Court treated amount for embalming like an expense not covered by a receipt. Cited case of Gidoc had no evidence presented which is different from this case which presented embalming expenses.
Serrano v. People (2010) Attempted homicide (stabbed victim) because two UP-D rival groups fought. Prayed for P19k as actual damages
Held Actual damages was only P3858 which is less than P25k so Court awarded P25k as TD
Casis Critiques The amount covered by receipts (P15k medical expenses, P4k LEC) was the amount prayed for and did not exceed P25k. No one died hence to funeral or burial. No indication that the total amount would have exceeded P25k in any case.
“In lieu of actual damages because funeral expenses lacked evidentiary basis, temperate damages were awarded. Civil indemnity also awarded.” ( People v. Yrat ) c. In addition to other actual damages proven
Funeral, burial and other expenses lacked evidentiary basis so Court awarded TD because it was shown that family suffered pecuniary loss but amount cannot be certain. (People v. Magalona)
58
People v. Andres (2003) Murder, actual damages proven by competent documents was P24,363
Held P25k was awarded as TD, actual damages no longer awarded.
Casis Critiques No indication that the amount of actual damages exceeded P25, similar to Serrano
A. DEFINITION AND PURPOSE 1. Definition Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a c ontract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
3. No Receipts Provided Some cases provide for an award of TD of P25k even where no receipts are presented in evidence
People v. Gidoc (2009) Two counts of murder
People v. Abrazaldo (2003) Murdered man who tried to help him. Receipts to prove claim of expenses from heirs of victim = P13,100 only. No receipts for burial or funeral.
Held Awarded P25k/count of murder as TD since it is proper in homicide or murder cases when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented. It cannot be denied that heir suffered pecuniary loss although exact amount can’t be proven.
• •
Suatengco v. Reyes (2008) Sps. borrowed money to pay an obligation and executed a promissory note binding them jointly and severally to pay in monthly installments. Only one installment was paid so the creditor filed an action for collection of a sum of money.
Casis Critiques
Held
Casis Critiques
Heirs did incur funeral expenses so awarded P25k for TD. Why P25k? bec ! of death indemnity (P50k). TD equal to award for exemplary.
The problem with pegging the amount to P25k as half of P50k does not look into the future when there might be inflation of prices.
Can only exist if there is a contract or an agreement between the partners Common for liquidated damages to be referred to as “attorney’s fees”
Sps. argue that the award of attorney’s fees of 20% by the lower courts was illegal or erroneous because the promissory note provided for an unqualified rate of 5%. •
*Effect of P25k award in lieu of actual damages not proven/ actual damages of lesser amount: Amount of actual damages always > P25k. Rule: Award of Actual Damages – never less than P25k.
Held The Court ruled that attorney’s fees were in the nature of liquidated damages and not the attorney’s fees recoverable as between attorney and client. A penalty clause, expressly recognized by law, is an accessory undertaking to assume greater liability on the part of the obligor in case of breach of an obligation.
Casis Critiques A provision on liquidated damages will not necessarily apply in a case of breach of contract because liquidated damages do not necessarily answer for all types of breach but only those contemplated by the parties .
Liquidated damages do not necessarily answer for all types of breach but only those contemplated by the parties.
Art. 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon t he liquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of damages, and not the stipulation.
Original rule: only funeral expenses (People v. Abrazaldo) Evolved to cover also medical and loss of income.
2. Purpose Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. • •
•
59
Sum of money stipulated can either be intended to: Compensate the non-breaching party for the injury caused by the other party’s breach (indemnity) Punish the breaching party (penalty)
H.L. Carlos v. Marina (2004) Real estate developer entered into a contract with a construction company to construct a condominium complex. The construction company instituted a case for sum of money seeking payment of various sums.
Titan v. Uni-Field (2007) Construction supplies company filed complaint against construction company for failing to pay balance of construction supplies and materials.
The lower courts ruled in favor of the supplies company and ordered liquidated damages to be paid plus attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of whatever amount is due and payable.
Held
Casis Critiques
The Court ruled that the construction company was liable for liquidated damages as provided in its contract. It abandoned the project prior to its completion and as a result the real estate developer contracted out the work to another entity. The contract had stipulated payment of liquidated damages for each calendar day of delay. Amount agreed upon in the contract answers for damages suffered by the owner due to delays in the completion of the project. Under Philippine laws, these damages “take the nature of penalties”.
Characterization of the liquidated damages in this case as a penalty was incorrect . Liquidated damages in this case were in the concept of indemnity rather that penalty. Amount agreed upon answers for damages suffered Provision of the contract states that the amount is “not by way of penalty” and that the party claiming liquidated damages was not required to prove that he has incurred actual damages to be entitled to liquidated damages.
Held The award of attorney’s fees of “25% of whatever amount due and payable” was too much because it included the principal, interest, and liquidated damages. Court reduced the attorney’s fees to 25% of the principal only. The supplies company more than adequately protected itself from a possible breach of contract because of the stipulations on the payment of interest, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees are in the nature of liquidated damages because the intention is that it is a penal clause.
Casis Critiques It is possible to receive liquidated damages and attorney’s fees even if both are in the nature of penal clauses.
B. REDUCING THE AMOUNT 1. When Iniquitous or Unconscionable 2. Possible Tests a. Apply rules on penalty clauses Ligutan v. CA (2002) Promissory note binding themselves jointly and severally to pay a bank loan with a penalty of 5% every month on the outstanding principal and interest in case of default plus 10% of the total amount due by way of attorney’s fees if the matter was indorsed to a lawyer for collection or if a suit was instituted to enforce payment. Bank filed complaint for recovery of the amount.
•
•
Held The Court reduced the stipulated penalty from 5% to 3% for being unconscionable. Question of whether a penalty is reasonable or iniquitous can be partly subjective and partly objective. Resolution would depend of such factors, but not necessarily confined to: type, extent, and purpose of penalty nature of the obligation mode of breach and its consequences supervening realities standing and relationship of the parties The stipulated penalty might likewise be reduced when a partial or irregular performance is made by the debtor. •
• •
• •
Stipulated penalty may be deleted: when there has been substantial performance in good faith by the obligor when the penalty clause itself suffers from the fatal infirmity, or when exceptional circumstances so exist as to warrant it. •
•
60
Casis Critiques It would seem that there are a number of factors that may be considered by the Court to determine if the stipulated penalty is iniquitous.
b. “Attorney’s Fees” Test •
contract. It also stipulated that the distributor would extend a revolving capital to the distributor.
Polytrade v. Blanco : Amount and character of the services rendered, the nature and importance of the litigation, and the professional character and the social standing of the attorney may be an aid in the determination of the iniquity or unconscionableness of attorney’s fees.
c. Applying Precedent •
In Polytrade v. Blanco the Court reviewed recent jurisprudence to determine whether the award of liquidated damages was iniquitous or unconscionable.
d. “Proportionality to Purpose” Test •
•
•
•
If the purpose is to compensate : amount must correspond to the actual injury suffered Test: Is the stipulated amount justified by the injury suffered by the innocent party? If the purpose is punitive : becomes a policy decision and injury suffered by the innocent part need not be taken into consideration Test: What is the proper penalty for this kind of breach?
•
Held The Court sustained the interest rate of 18% per annum but reduced the awarded liquidated damages due to the claimant being “adequately protected” by the payment of interest, service fee, liquidated, damages, and attorney’s fees. Test: Given the other stipulations in the contract, is the amount stipulated as liquidated damages necessary as indemnity or penalty?
f. When in pari delicto Sy v. CA (1983) Producer agreed to supply distributor with ipil-ipil leaves. The agreement provided that the aggrieved party had the right to collect liquidated damages for violation of any provision in the
Held The Court ruled that there was no question that liquidated damages were agreed upon by the parties in case of breach and that the distributor breached the contract by failing to provide the
However the producer also failed to deliver the leaves as agreed upon. Since they also violated the contract, although the violation was not actionable, the Court reduced the liquidated damages in the exercise of its discretion.
argued that both are entitled to liquidated damages, which would mean that neither should receive the stipulated amount not unless the amount stipulated may be reduced in proportion to the nature of the breach. In this case, because the stipulated damages awarded to one party was reduced by half, it means that his breach was not as grave as the breach of the other party.
g. Consider Actual Damages
e. Necessity Test Henry Dela Rama Co. v. Admiral United Savings Bank (2008) Loan from bank was evidenced by promissory note with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, service charge at 10% per annum, and liquidated damages at 3% per annum in the event of nonpayment. The loan was not paid so the bank filed a collection case.
revolving capital.
Casis Critiques The Court reduced the liquidated damages in half because the other party was also guilty of a breach. If both parties were guilty of breach then it may be 61
Domel Trading v. CA : A court may very well take into account the actual damages sustained by a creditor who was compelled to sue the defaulting debtor, which actual damages would include the interest and penalties the creditor may have had to pay on its own from its funding source.
PNB v. CA (1996) Court ordered PNB to release Php32,480 as payment for government expropriation proceedings. PNB delivered it to someone who allegedly had a special power of attorney. PNB refused to deliver the amount to the right person because they already released it.
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to t he moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
• •
•
A. PURPOSE Imposed by way of example or correction for the public good Rationale: Identification of obnoxious behavior and the expression that such behavior must not be tolerated People v. Catubig: Intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct
Complaint against PNB to recover the amount for expropriation.
B. WHEN IMPOSED Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to t he moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
1. In General •
Cannot be recovered as a matter of right
2. In Addition to Other Types •
•
Exemplary damages cannot be awarded if moral, temperate, or compensatory damages are not awarded In liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages
Canada v. All Commodities (2008) Agreement to deliver sacks of sugar but the trucks disappeared along with their drivers.
Complaint against trucking company to recover the value of the lost sugar.
Held Trucking company was liable. Exemplary damages were awarded because temperate damages were awarded.
Casis Critiques
Held PNB was held liable but exemplary damages were not awarded. Under Art. 2232 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded if a party acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner, However, they cannot be recovered as a matter of right. Requirements for Exemplary Damages: 1. Imposed by way of example only after claimant’s right to them has been established 2. Cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending on the amount of compensatory damages 3. Act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, or malevolent manner
Casis Critiques The Court left out the part that states that the provision pertains to actions based on contracts and quasicontracts. The rule cited does not apply to all cases. Application of the rule is of doubtful validity because the obligation of PNB was not based on a contract or quasicontract. The enumeration of requirements mentioned should not be interpreted to refer to all cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded.
Art. 2234 cannot be interpreted to mean that compensatory damages must be awarded before exemplary damages are awarded.
3. Renunciation in Advance
Action was based on a contract however the ponencia was silent on the wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent act required. It simply relied on the award of temperate damages to justify the award of exemplary damages.
•
Because the award is meant to serve as a deterrent to similar acts, there is a public interest element to the award, which therefore cannot be stipulated away by parties to a contract.
4. In Crimes •
•
62
Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party. People v. Catubig: “aggravating circumstances” in Art. 2230 should be interpreted in its broad or generic sense
People v. Catubig (2001) Court convicted accused of rape but ruled that the information failed to state the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender.
Held The court awarded exemplary damages.
People v. Diunsay-Jalandoni (2007) Court convicted accused of qualified rape proving during the trial that he knew of the victim’s mental disability.
Held Pursuant to People v. Catubig, exemplary damages were awarded. The crime was committed prior to the enactment of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure thus the retroactive application of the rules could not adversely affect the right of a private offended party. Aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the information but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited purpose of determining appellant’s liability for exemplary damages.
People v. Dalisay (2009) Accused was convicted of simple rape because the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were not sufficiently alleged in the information.
People v. Dadulla (2011) Accused was convicted of rape and acts of lasciviousness. The qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority were not alleged in the information.
The rule in the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requiring qualifying or aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the complaint or information is inapplicable to offenses committed prior to the effectivity of the new rules (December 1, 2000).
Held Award of exemplary damages sustained to discourage and deter such aberrant behavior and reprehensible conduct but based the award of damages on Art. 2229 not 2230. Two sets of jurisprudence exist: one awarding exemplary damages even if aggravating circumstances have not been alleged and another awarding such damages only if aggravating circumstances have both been alleged and proven. The difference rests on when the criminal case was instituted ; either before or after the effectivity of the Revised Rules.
Held The Court awarded exemplary damages despite failure to allege the aggravating circumstances. The established presence of one or two aggravating circumstances of any kind or nature entitles the offended party to exemplary damages under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code because the requirements of specificity in the information affects only the criminal liability and not the civil liability of the accused.
5. In Quasi-Delicts Kapalaran Bus Line v. Coronado (1989) Collision between a bus and jeep. Owner of the bus filed a complaint for damage to property and injuries sustained. A 3 rd party complaint was filed by one of the jeepney’s passengers.
Casis Critiques In Catubig, the Court ruled that the Revised Rule did not apply to crimes committed before and not instituted before the Revised Rules.
Baliwag Transit v. CA (1996) Driver brought the bus to the terminal to repair its faulty brakes. It ran over the mechanic, sandwiching him with another bus. The heirs of the victim filed a complaint for damages.
Court used Art. 2229 as basis rather then Art. 2230. But this opens the door to the award of exemplary damages despite non-compliance with specific requirements of the Civil Code.
Held The Court found the bus driver grossly and very probably criminally negligent and awarded exemplary damages to the jeepney passenger.
The Court did not fully explain why the driver’s negligence in this case amounted to gross negligence. It is the duty of the claimant to prove that there was gross negligence on the part of the defendant in order to be entitled to exemplary damages.
Held
Casis Critiques
The Court held that the driver acted with gross negligence when he moved the bus without first ascertaining if the brakes were already repaired. Exemplary damages were awarded to the heirs.
The Court also did not explain fully why the negligence amounted to gross negligence. Neither did it explain why the award for exemplary damages was reduced.
Philtranco v. CA (1997) Bus was being pushed to jumpstart the engine. As the engine started, it hit and ran over a biker, promptly killing him. The heirs of the victim filed a complaint against the bus company and driver. 63
Casis Critiques
Held The Court held the bus company liable finding that the driver was grossly negligent in attempting to jumpstart the bus at such a place. Exemplary damages were awarded.
