Torts Magic Notes

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 PRELIMINARY MATTERS: *Those in SMALL C APS (and underlined) were highlighted by Sir Casis during the class. If none are found, just refer to those in bold letters and those in the Notes. Notes. Good luck classmates! –torts magic notes notes team

VI. PERSONS LIABLE A. The Tortfeasor Art. 2176. 2176. Whoever Whoever by act or omission omission causes causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a) Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the the latte latterr what what he has has paid paid or deli delive vere red d in satisfaction of the claim. (1904) Art. 2194. 2194. The The respon responsib sibili ility ty of two or more more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n)

 C L AS S  



N O TE S

There can be more than one tortfeasor and they are called JOINT TORTFEASORS Are you suppose to sue all of them? NO because you can get relief from one of them. Do they have to act in concert? NO

Worcester v. Ocampo February 27, 1912 FACTS: Dean Dean Worceste Worcesterr filed filed an action action to recover recover damages resulting from an alleged libelous publication against against Martin Martin Ocampo, Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, Kalaw, Lope K. Santos, Fidel A. Reyes, Faustino Aguilar, et al, as the owners, directors, writers, editors and administrators of the daily daily newsp newspape aperr “El Renac Renacimi imient ento” o” (Span (Spanish ish version) version) and “Muling “Muling Pagsila Pagsilang” ng” (tagalong (tagalong version). version). Worces Worcester ter alleg alleged ed that that the defen defendan dants ts have have been been malici malicious ously ly perse persecut cuting ing and and attack attacking ing him in the newspape newspapers rs for a long time and they published published an editorial entitled “Birds of Prey” with the malicious intent

of injuring Worcester, both as a private person and as a government official as the editorial obviously referred t o him. Worcester alleged that he was likened to “birds of prey” in the following manner: “Such are the characteristics of the the man man who who is at the same same time time an eagl eagle e who who surprises and devours, a vulture who gorges himself on the dead and putrid putrid meats, meats, an owl who who affec affects ts a petulant omniscience and a vampire who silently sucks the blood of the victim until he leaves it bloodless.” TC: In favor of Worceste Worcester; r; Defendan Defendants ts jointly and severally liable for the P60k total damages. ISSUE: WON the defendants’ individual properties can be made jointly jointly and severall severally y liable liable for the damages under the civil and commercial codes, HELD: Yes. TC modified. Damages reduced, Santos absolved. The present action is a tort. Universal doctrine: each joint tortfeasor is not only individually liable for the tort in which he participates, but is also jointly liable with his tortfeasors. If several persons commit a tort, the plaintiff or person injured, has his election to sue all or some of the parties jointly, or one of them separately, because the TORT IS IN ITS NATURE A SEPARATE ACT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL . It is not necessary that cooperation should be a direct, corporal corporal act- e.g. assault assault and battery committed committed by various persons, under the common law, they are all principals. Under common law, he who aided or counseled, in any way, way, the commiss commission ion of a crime, crime, was as much much a principa principall as he who inflicted inflicted or committed committed the actual actual tort. General Rule: Joint tortfeasors are all the persons who command, command, instigate instigate,, promote, promote, encourag encourage, e, advise, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to the

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-

1

same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort which they commit. Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. rata. The damages can not be apportioned apportioned among them, except except among among themselves. They cannot insist upon an apportionment, for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part. They are jointly and severally liable for for the full amount. A payment in full of the damage done by one tortfeasor satisfies any claim which might exist against t he others. The release of one of the joint tortfeasors by agreement generally operates to discharge all. The court however may make findings as to which of the alleged joint tortfeasors are liable and which are not, even if they are charged jointly and severally. Art. 2184*. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, 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. *this was drafted with Chapman v. Underwood in mind.

 C L AS S 

N O TE S

Sir highlighted that “Tort is in its nature a separate act of each individual” – so no need to sue all of the tortfeasors!

Chapman v. Underwood March 28, 1914 FACTS: J.H. Chapman Chapman was trying to board board a “San Marcelino” car trough the rear platform when he was struck by Mr. James Underwoord’s automobile, which was at that time driven by his chauffer. Underwood’s Underwood’s driver was guilty of negligence negligence because he was passing an oncoming car upon the wrong side when he ran over Chapman. Chapman, was not obliged for his own protection to observe whether a car was coming upon him from where he was because according to the law, no automobile or other vehicle

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.













Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 coming from his left should pass upon his side of the car. TC: In favor of Underwood ISSUE: WON WON Under Underwoo wood d is respon responsib sible le for the negligence of his driver. HELD: No. TC affirmed. The interval between unlawful act and the accident was so small as not to be sufficient to charge Underwood with the negligence of the driver. The driver does not fall within the list of persons in Art. 1903 (now 2180) for whose acts Underwood would be responsible. This This rule rule applie applies s even even if the owner owner of the vehicle was present at the time of the accident, unless THE NEGLIGENT ACTS OF THE DRIVER ARE CONTINUED FOR SUCH A LENGTH OF TIME AS TO GIVE THE OWNER A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE AND TO DIRECT HIS DRIVER TO DESIST THEREFROM .

When will the owner be liable?- An owner who sits in his vehicle, vehicle, and permits permits his driver driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of his negligent acts, after he had A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THEM AND TO DIRECT THAT THE DRIVER CEASE THEREFROM , BECOMES HIMSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH ACTS. When will the owner be NOT liable?-if liable?-if the driver by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having reason reasonabl able e opport opportuni unity ty to preven preventt the act or its continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the vehicle, present therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible, etiher civilly

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007December 18, 1968

FACTS: Marcial Caedo, with his family, was driving his Mercury car on EDSA. On the opposite direction was the Cadillac of Yu Khe Thai, driven by Rafael Bernardo. They were both traveling at moderate speeds and the headlights were mutually noticeable from a distance. Ahead of the Cadillac was a carretela. Bernardo testified testified that he saw the carretela carretela only when when it was already only 8 meters away from him (This is the 1st sign of negligence because the carretela was lightedhence hence should’v should’ve e given given him sufficien sufficientt warning warning). ). But Bernardo, instead of slowing down or stopping, tried to overtake the carretela carretela by veering to the left. The car’s right rear bumper caught the wheel of the carretela and collided with the Mercury. Caedo Caedo in the meantime, meantime, slowed slowed down, down, and though thoughtt that that the Cadil Cadilla lac c would would wait wait behind behind the carretela carretela.. He tried to avoid avoid the collision collision at the last mome moment nt by goin going g farth farther er to the the righ rightt but but was was unsuccessful. TC: Bernardo and Thai jointly and severally liable for damages ISSUE: WON WON Yu Khe Thai Thai,, as the the owne ownerr of the the Cadillac, Cadillac, is solidarily liable with his driver. HELD: No. TC modified. Thai not solidarily liable with Bernardo. Art. 2184 applies: In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former,

2

that ultimately, the negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage. Bernardo was a pretty good driver and had no record. No negli negligen gence ce for havin having g employ employed ed him may be impute imputed d to Thai. Thai. The only negli neglige gence nce that that can be imputed to Bernardo was when he tried to overtake the carretela instead of stopping or waiting-and this cannot be imputed to Thai because there were no signs for him to be in any special special state of alert. He could not not have anticipate anticipated d his driver’s sudden decision decision to pass the carretela. The time element was such that there was no reasonable opportunity for Thai to assess the risks involved and warn the driver accordingly. Test of imputed negligence under 2184: -to a great degree, necessarily subjective. subjective. Car owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional drivers. The law does not require that a person must possess a certain certain measure measure of skill skill or proficiency proficiency either in the mechanic of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before they can own a motor vehicle. Test of negligence within the meaning of 2184: -his omission omission to do that which the evidence evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident. RULE: negligen negligence ce must be sought sought in the immediate immediate setting setting and circ nce of the accide i.e. in his















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008

 C L AS S

N O TE S

The standard set in this case is still REASONABLE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. Difference between respondeat superior vs. paterfamilias Respondeat superior: acts under orders (1 negligent – the one who gave the orders) Paterfamilias: acts under guidance (2 negligent – both the owner and the driver) TEST of imputed negligence: SUBJECTIVE *not all owners are learned/professional learned/professional drivers – t hat’s why they hire drivers for them! VICARIOUS VICARIOUS LIABILITY: found in Article 2180 (but use the term “tortfeasors” instead of “one” -a tortfeasor would be liable not only for his own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom he is responsible Take note of difference between NCC and FC: under the NCC: NCC: the father , and in cases of his death or incapacity, the mother, will be responsible for the damages caused by their minor their minor children who live in their company under the FC: parents FC: parents and other persons persons exercising parental authority shall authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority

 C LA S S 


N OT E

In this section, a person is held liable for acts not his own but because of the existence of a relationship.

Presidential Decree No. 603 December 10, 1974 THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE Chapter 4-Liabilities Of Parents Art. Art. 58. 58. Tort Torts. s. - Parents Parents and guardian guardians s are responsible for the damage caused by the child under under their their parental parental authority authority in accordan accordance ce with the Civil Code. Family Code Art. Art. 218. 218. The school school,, its admini administr strato ators rs and and teachers, teachers, or the individu individual, al, entity entity or institutio institution n engaged engaged in child child are shall have special special parental authority authority and responsibili responsibility ty over the minor minor child child while while under under their their superv supervisi ision, on, instruc instructio tion n or custody. Authority and responsibility responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a) Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians guardians or the persons exercising exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily

3

appropriate defenses provided by law. (2180(2)a and (4)a ) Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life. (412a)

Revised Penal Code Title Five-Civil Liability Chapter One-Person Civilly Liable for Felonies Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Art. 101. Rules Rules regarding regarding civil liability liability in certain certain cases. — The exemp exemptio tion n from from crimin criminal al liabil liability ity established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, age, who who has acted acted witho without ut disce discernm rnment ent,, shall shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship guardianship or control, or if such person be















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 When When the respectiv respective e shares shares cannot cannot be equitabl equitably y determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or t o the majority of the inhabit inhabitan ants ts of the town, and, in all all events events,, whenever the damages have been caused with the cons consen entt of the the autho uthori riti ties es or the their agen agents ts,, inde indemn mnif ific icat atio ion n shal shalll be made made in the the mann manner er prescribed by special laws or regulations. Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons persons using violence violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. Art. 102. Subsidia Subsidiary ry civil liability of innkeepe innkeepers, rs, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. — In defa defaul ultt of the the pers person ons s crim crimin inal ally ly liab liable le,, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corp corpor orat atio ions ns shal shalll be civi civill lly y liab liable le for for crim crimes es committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or spec specia iall poli police ce regu regula lati tion on shal shalll have have been been committed by them or their employees. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or t heft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for t he payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such


The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done done proper properly ly perta pertains ins,, in which which case case what what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. applicable.

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 April 23, 2006 Sec. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal responsibility - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from crimin criminal al liabili liability. ty. Howev However, er, the child child shall shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Sec. 20 of this Act.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable liable for damages damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

A child above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case such child will be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a) Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)

The Exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.

Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)

Civil Code Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of person persons s for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsib responsible le for the damages damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

4

 C L AS S

N O TE

Basis: parental authority Are the parents still liable for if above 18 but below 21? Yes. Legal basis: PD 603

 

1. Parents (see table after cases)















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 going to attend a parade. He only found out after the accident when Dante told him about it. Criminal case: TC: Dante Dante was convicted convicted for Double Double homicide homicide through reckless imprudence. imprudence. CA: affirmed Civil Civil case: case: again against st Delfi Delfin n and Dante Dante Capu Capuno no (reserved by Sabina Exconde, mother of one of the deceased): TC: Convicted ONLY Dante to pay t he damages. CA: certified to SC ISSUE ISSUE:: WON WON Delfin Delfin Capun Capuno o can be held held civilly civilly liabl liable, e, join jointl tly y and and seve severa rally lly with with his his son son for for damages. HELD: Yes. TC Modified. Delfin and Dante are jointly and severally liable for the damages. Art. 19031 applies: applies: “The obligation imposed by the next preceding preceding articles articles is enforcea enforceable ble not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those persons for whom another is responsible. The father, and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, mother, are liable for any damages damages caused caused by the minor children minor children who live with them. Xxx Finally, Finally, teachers teachers or directors of arts and trades trades are liable liable for any any damag damages es caused caused by their their pupils pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody. 1. School is NOT liable

Even if Dante was on the jeep pursuant to the city school’ supervisor’s instruction, neither the head of the school nor the city school’s supervisor could be held liable because Dante was not a student of an institution of arts and trades. 2. Delfin, as the father IS liable. He failed to prove that he exercised all the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the damage. The civil liability which the law impose upon the father, or the mother as the case may be is a necessary conseque consequence nce of the parental parental authority authority they exercise exercise over them. This parental authority imposes upon the paren parents ts the duty to suppor supportt and instruct instruct them in proportion to their means and gives them the right to correct and punish them in moderation.

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007RULES: Majority: Liab Liabil ilit ity y of teac teache hers rs or dire direct ctor ors s institutions of arts and trades.

are are

5

limi limite ted d

to

Dissent: 1. Art. 1903 interpretation too limited. Teacher, master, or in the absence of, school authorities should be liable for the negligence. negligence. 2. Once Once the paren parentt entru entrusts sts custod custody y to the school school authorities, presumption is rebutted and burden of proof is shifted to claimant to show actual negligence on the part of the parent in order to render him liable. NOTES: This case is cited as basis of liability arising from parental authority.

How to avoid liability: prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage,

Salen and Salbanera v. Balce April 27, 27, 1960.

DISSENT: Reyes He wants TC affirmed (relieving Delfin of liability): There is no sound reason for limiting Art. 1903 to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic institutions. The phrase “teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades” does not qualify “teachers” but only “heads of establishments.” establishments.”

FACTS: Carlos Carlos Salen Salen (single) (single) died due to wounds wounds caused by Gumersindo Balce, 18, single and living with Jose Balce, his father. Gumersindo was convicted of homicide and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay Carlos’ Carlos’ heirs heirs indemnity indemnity.. But Gumersin Gumersindo do was insolvent, hence Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera (Salens), the parents (and heirs) of Carlos, demanded from Jose to pay but he refused. Hence the suit. suit.

If the basis of presumption of negligence negligence in Art. 1903 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents, teachers, etc. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority authority,, hence, hence, when when the parent places places the child child under the effective authority of t he teacher, the teacher,

TC: dismissed. Sustained Jose’s Jose’s theory that the civil liability of Gumersindo arises from his criminal liability and therefore must be determined under the RPC, and not under under Art. 2180 of the Civil Civil Code, which which only















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 to the general law which is the Civil Code. And Art. 2180 is the law that applies. To hold that Art. 2180 applies only to QDs will result in an absu absurd rdity ity that that whil while e for for an act act wher where e mere mere negligen negligence ce intervene intervenes, s, the father or mother mother may be held subsidiarily liable, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent. The void that apparently exists in the RPC is subserved by 2180 of the Civil Code as may be gleaned from some recent SC decisions: Exconde v. CapunoCapuno-where the father was held solidarily liable for the crime his son committed.

Up to the last day of the hearing of the case, Pepito’s forearm was seen to be shorter than his left and cannot be fully used. 2 separate actions were instituted: 1. Criminal case against Rico for Serious Physical Injuries 2. Civil case for damages against Agapito Fuellas, Rico’s father.

Criminal case: TC: Rico guilty. Civil liability to be determined in the civil case

Araneta Araneta v. Arreglado Arreglado-(where -(where Arreglado fired at Araneta because he resented the remarks Araneta made about his leaving leaving Ateneo and enrollin enrolling g in La Salle. The court convicted Arreglado but suspended his sentence because he was only 14.) The court held the father, father, the mother and the son to pay the Aranetas Aranetas damages.

Civil case: TC: Agapito TC: Agapito liable under 2180 f or medicine, MD, ED and atty’s fees. CA: Reduced MD

 C L AS S

HELD: Yes. Agapito is liable for damages. CA affirmed 1. Agapito Agapito contends contends that he cannot cannot be liable liable under 2180 in connection connection with 2176 there being no “fault “fault or negligence” negligence” but deliberate intent to cause injury.



N O TE

In this case, the liability of father was deemed to be subsidiary.

Fuellas v. Cadano October 31, 1961 FACTS: Pepito Pepito Cadano Cadano and Rico Fuellas, Fuellas, both 13, were classmates classmates at St. Mary’s Mary’s High High School. School. While Pepito Pepito was studying Rico took classmate classmate’s ’s il

ISSUE: WON Agapito Fuellas, Rico’s father is liable for damages.

SC: Jurisprude nce proves him wrong. Araneta v. Arreglado-(the Arreglado-(the Arreglados-father, mother and son were held liable for damages) civil law liability under 2180 is not respondeat superior but pater familias, familias, which which bases bases the liabili liability ty of the father ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his minor son, and that if an injury is caused by the


6

consequences of their abandonment or negligence by repairing the damage caused. 2. Agapito claims that he could only be liable if the action action was based on the subsidiary subsidiary liability liability of the parents parents under the RPC. And since Rico acted with discernment, the provisions do not cover the case. SC: Case law is against against him again. Salen and Salbarena v. BalceBalce- (where father was made to pay the indemnity his 18 year old son was sentenced to pay because his son was insolvent) Since the RPC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of a minor over 9 but under 15 who acted with discernment, resort should be made to the general law which is the Civil Code, specifically specifically 2180. 2180. 3. CA decid decided ed the case based based on the evidence evidence submitted by both parties, independently of t he criminal case. Responsibility for fault or negligence under 2176 (upon which this action is instituted) is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from fault or negligence under the RPC, hence, any discussion of Rico’s criminal intent is of no moment.

 C L AS S 

N O TE S

In this case, parental liability was primary.

















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 2. WON the truck owner and driver are liable for damages. (yes) HELD: Manuel Gutierrez, the owner and the driver of the truck are jointly and severally liable for damages. 1. Anent Manuel Gutierrez’s liability: The guaranty given by the father at the time the son was granted a license to operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for the acts of his son. Bonifacio was an incompetent driver, was speeding and lost his head when he approached the bridge and the truck. Based on these facts, and pursuant to 1903 (now 2180) the father alone, alone, and and not not the the mino minorr or the mother, would be held liable for the damages caused

only only 13 and had had no driver’s driver’s license license.. The The heirs heirs of Roberto Roberto (will be referred referred to as the Lunas) Lunas) sued for damages. TC: Jose dela Rosa (father) and Luis dela Rosa are jointly and severally severally liable. liable. 1st CA: affirmed in toto 2nd CA: reduced unearned earnings award The dela Rosas failed failed to pay because because they had no cash. cash. The writ of execution execution yielded yielded only a nominal nominal amount. Present status of Luis: married with 2 kids, living with uncle in Madrid, earnings hardly enough to support his family, has no assets of his own.


7

3. SC granted award of atty’s fees plus interest from date of TC’s decision. NOTES: technically, the son should pay because he is of age already

Libi v. IAC September 18, 1992 FACTS: Julie Julie and Wendell Wendell were sweethearts sweethearts for 2 years when Julie broke it off due to Wendell’s sadistic and irresponsible nature. A month after their break-up, Julie Julie and Wendell Wendell died each from a single single gunshot wound wound traced traced to the gun licen licensed sed in the name of Cresenci Cresencio o Libi, Libi, the father of Wendell Wendell.. There There were 2 versions of the story: Libis: another man shot the 2

















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 defense that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. But if the liability liability is direct direct and primary, primary, the diligenc diligence e would would constitute constitute a valid valid and substanti substantial al defense.

Unde Underr 2180, 2180, the liabil liability ity shall shall be effect effected ed agai agains nstt the the fath father er,, and and in case case of his his deat death h or incapacity the mother-which rule was amplified by the Youth and Welfare Code.

Hence, the liability of parents for QDs of their minor kids as contemplated in 2180 is PRIMARY and not subsidiary. subsidiary.

BUT, BUT, under the Family Code, this civil liability is now, now, withou withoutt such such alter alterna nativ tive e quali qualific ficati ation, on, the responsi responsibili bility ty of the parents and those who exercise exercise parental authority over the minor offender.

In fact fact,, appl applyi ying ng 2194 2194 (sol (solid idar ary y liab liabil ilit ity y of join join tortfeasors) the parent is also solidarily liable with the child.

3. For civil liability arising from QDs committed by minors: same rules in accordance with 2180 and 2182, as so modified.

The liabil liability ity of paren parents ts for for felon felonies ies is likew likewise ise PRIMARY & not subsidiary. Art. 101, RPC says so. For both QDs and crimes, the parents primarily respond for such damages is buttressed by the corresponding

NOTES: This case cleared up the issue on whether the parent’s liability is primary or subsidiary.




8

The Tamargos filed: 1. criminal complaint for homicide through through reckless reckless impruden imprudence ce but Adelberto Adelberto was acquitted acquitted and exempted from criminal criminal liabil liability ity on the ground ground that that he had acted acted without discernment. 2. c iv iv ilil co co mp mp la lain t ag ag ai ain st st t he he Bu Bu nd nd oc oc s, s, the natural parents of Adelberto. The Bundocs claimed claimed that the Rapisuras Rapisuras should should be held liable instead, that they are indispensable parties because parental authority had already shifter to them the moment the successful petition for adoption was filed. TC: dismisse dismissed d the complain complaint. t. The Bundocs are not indispensable indispensable parties to the action.

















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Thus, Thus, parental parental liability liability is made a natural natural or logical logical conseque consequence nce of the duties duties and responsibili responsibilities ties of parents—their parental authority—which includes the instructing, controlling and disciplining of the child. The basis for the doctrine of vicarious liability was explained in Cangco v. Manila Raildroad : With respect to extra contractual contractual obligati obligations ons arising from negligence, whether of act or omission, the legislature has elected to limit such liability to cases in which which the person upon whom such an obligation obligation is imposed imposed is morally morally culpable, culpable, or on the contrary, contrary, for reasons of public policy, to extend that liability, without regard to the lack of moral culpability, so as to include responsib responsibility ility for the negligen negligence ce of those persons whose acts or omissions are imputable, by legal fiction, to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute

Art. 221, FC: child (tortfeasor) must be in t he actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007breaking classmate’s arm!)

Civil action vs Agapito (the father) only

Guitierrez vs. Guitierrez (bus collision, family except pa in the car driven by minor) Rodriguez-

Civil action vs. Manuel Guitierrez (the father) only (+ only (+ bus driver and owner)

SC: The father, bus driver and owner jointly and severally liable

Civil action

SC: Pa made

Anent the retroactivity of parental authority to the time of filing of the petition for adoption: Retroactive effect may perhaps be given where such is essen essentia tiall to permit permit the accrual accrual of some some benef benefit it or advantage in favor of the child. Here, Here, no presumpti presumption on of parental parental dereliction dereliction on the Rapisuras could have arisen since Adelberto was not in fact subject subject to their control control at the time the tort was committed. RULE: Parents must have actual or physical custody over the minor to be held liable.

9

intent (and not merely negligence) -note: not subsidiary liable as mentioned under Libi vs. IAC A2180, common law, master and servant (not paterfamilias) – paterfamilias) – ma not liable even if present during time of incident A2180, strict


















Tamargo vs. CA (adopted child still with parents at time of incident)

Criminal complaint Civil complaint vs. Natural parents of child

SC: Bundocs (natural parents) are indispensable parties -the adopting parents had no actual custody yet

subsidiary under A101 of RPC: RPC: minor only liable if parents are insolvent (A101 par3) Art. 2176, parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of duties accompanying such authority, doctrine of vicarious liability as


Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes necessary, necessary, the same order of preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a, 354a)

Art. 217. In case of foundlings, abandoned 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. (314a)

 C LA S S

N OT E

What is a foundling? A baby deserted by unknown

10

their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a) Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)

3. Teachers and Heads of Institutions Family Code Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers,

















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

The doctor who testified did not declare the amount he collected as fees and Manuel Jr. was not hospitalized. hospitalized.

Guardia Guardians ns are liable for damages damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company.

TC: dismissed the complaint filed by Manuel Jr. and his father CA: Ordered Ciriaco Mercado (the father) to pay for the medical expenses expenses and MD, but no MD for the parents.

The owners and managers managers of an establishment establishment or enterpris enterprise e are likewise likewise responsi responsible ble for damages damages cause caused d by their their employ employee ees s in the service service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

ISSUE: WON the teacher or head of the school should be held responsib responsible le (instead of the father) since the fight happened during recess time in school (Lourdes Catholic School).

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the

HELD: No. The pupils were not in the “custody” of the school. CA Reversed as to MD but affirme affirmed d the award of medical expenses.


11

Hence, Hence, the claim of Mercado Mercado that responsibilit responsibility y should should pass to the school, school, must be held held to be without merit. Anent the MD: MD: Only Only possib possible le circum circumsta stance nce in which which MD may may be granted is if a f elony or QD has been committed. 1. no crimin criminal al action action for physi physica call injurie injuries s has been presented 2. even if this is a QD within the meaning of Art. Art. 2219, par 26, the facts show that Augusto’s act was occasioned by the fact that Manuel Jr. tired to intervene or interfere with Augusto’s attempt to recover his pitogo. Hence, the proximate cause of Manuel Jr’s injury is his own fault or negligence negligence for having interfered. Hence, no MD coz the cases in Art. 2219 were not



















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 The The TC erred erred in absol absolvin ving g the defen defendan dants ts on the


12

teacher while the child is under instruction. instruction. If there is



















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Physics Physics experiment experiment or to submit submit a Physics Physics report.

b.

if non-acad non-academic emic-- head head is liable for the


13

If at all, the school, whatever its nature may be held



















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Answer to that issue: NO! the provision provision


14

the kids jumped on the concrete block causing it to fall



















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 b. the negligent act of Aquino in leaving the

IAC: Affirmed but modified modified award




15



















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 sancti sanctione oned d school school activ activity ity nor an extraextra-cur curric ricul ular ar

and its officers filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007

16

A2180 applies applies to schools only if student if student liable









































































































































































































Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 ISSUE: WON respondents were liable for damages. NO HELD: Whatever loss Garciano may have incurred in the form of lost earnings was self-inflicted. self-inflicted. (Volenti non fit injuria). injuria). Garciano failed to report back in time, indefinite indefinite LOA, refused refused to sign written employment employment contact, contact, did not report report for work. work. Her claim for moral damages under Art 21 also fails. The provision, being base based d on equi equity ty,, it may may only only be invo invoke ked d by someone who comes to court with clean hands. In this case, case, Garciano Garciano was was also at fault. fault. She did not not comply with the order to return to work.

 C L AS S   

N O TE

Responde Respondents nts did not physical physically ly prevent prevent her from working Teachers Teachers were simply exercisi exercising ng Right Right to speech, right to dissent from board’s decision Board ordered her to report to work!

Barons Marketing Corp. v. CA February 9, 1998 FACTS: Phelps Dodge appointed Barons as one of its dealer dealers s of electri electrica call wires wires and cables. cables. Baron Barons s purchased items on credit, which it sold to MERALCO. Barons asked if it can pay its outstanding account in monthly installments installments but Phelps declined. declined. Phelps filed a complaint complaint to recover recover the amount. amount. In its answer, answer, Barons admitted purchasing the items but denied the amount. amount. It also stated stated that it suffered suffered injury injury to its reputatio reputation. n. (damages (damages as result result of “creditor’ “creditor’s s abuse”; abuse”;


Art. 19 prescribes a primordial limitation on all rights by setting certain standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof.

Citing Tolentino: Test of Abuse of Right: modern jurisprudence does not permit an act although lawful is anti-social. An abuse of right exists when it is exercised for the ONLY PURPOSE of prejudicing or injuring another Acts which without without legitima legitimate te purpose purpose cause cause damag damage e to anothe anotherr viola violate te the concep conceptt of social social solidarity which considers law as rational and just. Every abnormal exercise of a right, contrary to its socio-economic socio-economic purpose is an abuse which will give rise to liability. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it has established, and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be NO INTENTION TO INJURE ANOTHER ANOTHER.

 C LA S S  

N OT E

Violate concept of social solidarity BF not proven proven (that Phelps Phelps just wanted wanted to directly deal with Meralco); Rejection of offer of payment is not an abuse of r ight

BPI v. CA

32

ISSUE: WON BPI abused its right to suspend the card. HELD: No. 1. The The terms terms and conditions conditions of the contrac contractt were clear =automatic =automatic suspension for failure to pay outstanding balance after 30 days from original bill. =automatic cancellation after 60 days 2. Marasig Marasigan an was not able able to comply comply with their their agreement. He issued a postdated check. check. Settled doctrine: check is not a substitute for money. 3. Elements of Art. 19: 19: 1. there is a legal right or duty 2. which is exercised in bad faith 3. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another BF (on BPI’s part) was not proven. GF presumed. BPI did not not capri capricio cious usly ly and and arbit arbitrar rarily ily canceled the use of the card. It gave Marasigan Marasigan a chance to settle his account. There is no need for BPI to notify Marasigan of the suspen suspension sion or cancel cancellati lation. on. Their Their contrac contractt provides for automatic suspension or cancellation. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise premise that an individual individual was injured injured in contemplation of the law
















 C L AS S

2. B ut ut wh whi ch ch is is co co nt nt ra rar y t o mo ra rals , g oo oo d custom, public order, or public policy 3. And itit is is do don e wi th th in in te ten t t o in ju ju re re

N O TE



Art. 21 is the actual catch-all catch-all provision according to Sangco.

1.

Eleme ements

Ruiz v. Secretary of National Defense December 28, 1963

2. Examples a. Breach of of Pr Promise to to Marry, Seduction, and Sexual Assault

 C LA S S 

FACTS: A contract contract was executed executed between between Allied Technolo Technologies gies and the Republi Republic c of the Philippines Philippines to build the Veterans Memorial Memorial Hospital. The construction of the hospital hospital was terminate terminated. d. Ruiz and and Herrera, Herrera, together with Panlillo, were the architects of the building but only Panlillo Panlillo was recognized. recognized. Ruiz and Herrera Herrera citing Article 21, sued to be recognized as the architects of the hospital. ISSUE: WON Article 21 was applicable. NO HELD: Article 21 contemplates a situation where a person has a legal right and such right is violated by another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. It presupposes losses losses or injury, material or otherwise, which one may suffer as a result of said violation. A judicial declaration of professional prestige is unnecessary because a brilliant prof profes essi sion onal al is resp respec ecte ted d even even with withou outt a cour courtt declaration. Art. 21-“ 21-“injury injury”” refers refers not only to any indetermina indeterminate te


 

N OT E S

Who is Agonciila? Unmarried woman of chaste character Seduction of Agoncilla- actionable under A 21, crime if under 18 years old, moral wrong No seduction if promise came after Agoncilla became pregnant

Wassmer v. Velez December 26, 1964

Santo Santos s until Dec. Dec. 1959. 1959. As a result result,, Santo Santos s got pregnant. To avoid embarrassment, embarrassment, Santos Santos resigned from her job. Santos then sued Tanjanco Tanjanco for damages. damages. ISSUE: WON Tanjanco was liable for damages. NO HELD: To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some some suffic sufficien ientt promis promise e or induce inducemen mentt and and the woman woman must yield because because of the promise promise or other other inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse is from mutual desire, desire, there is no seduction. seduction. In this case, case, Santos was of age of age.. Also, she maintaine maintained d sexual sexual relations relations with each other for one year. Such conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction.

 C L AS S 

FACTS: Wassm Wassmer er and and Velez Velez were about about to get married. However, two days before the wedding, wedding, Velez wrote a note stating that they would have to postpone the wedding because because his mother was opposed opposed to it. A day before the wedding wedding,, he wired Wassmer Wassmer a note saying that he would return soon. soon. He never showed up again. Wassmer sued for damages. ISSUE: WON Velez can be held liable for damages. HELD: YES. YES. This is not a case of mere breach breach of promise to marry. MERE BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY IS NOT AN ACTIONABLE WRONG But to formally set a wedding and

33









N O TE S

Issue of deceit: Deceit can come in many forms and can result in attraction (so there is no moral seduction.) Critique of Tanjanco: “Seduction” in this case only covers the initial sexual contact. Rule in Buenaventura: Buenaventura: For seduction to be actionable, there must be deception and the woman must have yielded because of the inducement. There is no seduction when there is mutual desire and the opportunity was merely afforded to the woman. Code commission  damages for seduction















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 forced her to live live with him. He beat her. her. Gonzales later later found out that Baksh Baksh was already already married. Gonzales sued for damages. ISSUE: WON Baksh was was liable for damages. damages. YES HELD: If a man's promise to marry is the proximate cause of the giving giving of herself herself unto him in a sexual sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a ploy to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages damages pursuant to Article Article 21. This is not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation that followed. It is essential that such such injur injury y should should have have been been commit committed ted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. In this case, Gonzales was a victim of moral seduction. On Art. 21: 21: designed to expand the concept of torts or QD in this this jurisd jurisdict iction ion by granti granting ng adequa adequate te legal legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impo imposs ssib ible le for for huma human n fore foresi sigh ghtt to spec specif ific ical ally ly enumerate and punish in the statue of t orts.

 C L AS S

N O TE S



Judicial notice that the cherished possession possession of every single Filipina is her virginity



If the man never intended to marry the woman BUT STILL promised to marry her, it would be equivalent to inducement and he would be


HELD: A breach of promise to marry per se is not actionab actionable, le, except except where where the plaintiff plaintiff has actually actually incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary incidents thereof. Howe However ver,, the award award of moral moral dama damage ges s is allo allowe wed d in case cases s spec specif ifie ied d in or analo analogou gous s to those those provid provided ed in Articl Article e 2219. 2219. Correlat Correlatively ively,, under under Article Article 21, any person who willfu willfully lly causes causes loss or injury injury to anothe anotherr in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy policy shall shall compensa compensate te the latter for moral damages.

34

MENDEZ. Their repeated repeated sexual sexual intercourse intercourse indicates that passion, and not the alleged promise of marriage, was the moving force that made her submit herself to Mendez.

ATTRACTED ATTRACTED TO

 C L AS S  

N O TE

This case is similar to say Tanjanco. Even if there is deceit but the deceit resulted in attraction of the woman to the man, then there will be no more seduction.

In this case, Bunag’s actions constitute acts contrary to morals and good customs. RULE: Generally, a breach of promise to marry is NOT ACTUALLY PER SE actionable EXCEPT WHERE PLAINTIFF HAS ACTUALLY INCURRED

EXPENSES

FOR

THE

WEDDING

AND

THE

Quimiguing v. Icao July 31, 1970

NECESSARY

INCIDENTS THEREOF

 C LA S S  

N OT E

Compare this case with Tanjanco In this case, Bunag just wanted to marry Cirilo to ESCAPE LIABILITY (so promise to marry BUT NO INTENT TO MARRY so actionable)

Constantino v. Mendez May 14, 1992 FACTS: Consta Constanti ntino no and and Mende Mendez z met at Tony’s Tony’s Resta Restaura urant, nt, where where she was a waitr waitres ess. s. Mende Mendez z

FACTS: Quimiguing and Icao, a married man, were neighbors. Icao succeeded in having carnal carnal intercourse with with Quimig Quimiguin uing g severa severall times times throug through h force force and and intimidation. She became became pregnant. pregnant. Quimiguing sued for damages and support. ISSUE: WON Quimiguing Quimiguing had cause of action. action. YES HELD: Independently of the right to support the child she was carrying, Quimiguing herself had a cause of action for damages. A victim of rape may recover moral damages under under Article 21 of the Civil Civil Code. It is also supported by Article 2219.

















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 other. Lolita left left the house and disappeared. disappeared. Lolita’s relatives filed an action for damages. ISSUE: WON Alfonso was was liable for damages. damages. YES HELD: Alfonso, a married man, seduced Lolita through trickery trickery to the extent that she fell in love with him. Alfonso Alfonso committed committed an INJURY TO LOLITA'S FAMILY IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO MORALS, GOOD CUSTOMS AND PUBLIC POLICY AS CONTEMPLATED IN ARTICLE 21 of the new Civil Code.

 C L AS S  

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007*MEMORIZE *MEMORIZE!! MALICIOUS PROSECUTION : AN

General Rule: one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciou maliciously sly institutin instituting g a prosecutio prosecution n where where he acted acted with Probable Cause. Cause. In other words, a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause.

The lower court presented a more romantic version of the love story Both Alfonso and Lolita were of age

b. Malicious Prosecution Que v. IAC January 13, 1989 FACTS: Que filed a complai complaint nt for estafa against Nicolas Nicolas because because of the checks the latter latter issued issued as payment for canvass strollers were dishonored. Nicolas allegedl allegedly y did not continue continue payment because of the defective canvass strollers which he never returned to Que. The charge was dismisse dismissed d in the fiscal fiscal level. level. Nicolas filed a complaint for malicious prosecution. ISSUE: WON Que was guilty of malicious prosecution. NO.

ACTION

FOR

DAMAGES BROUGHT BY ONE AGAINST AGAINST WHOM A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION , CIVIL SUIT, OR OTHER

LEGAL

PROCEEDING

HAS BEEN INSTITUTED

MALICIOUSLY AND WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, AFTER THE TERMINATION OF SUCH PROSECUTION , SUIT OR OTHER PROCEEDING IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT THEREIN .

THE

GIST OF THE ACTION OF THE PULLING OF

LEGAL PROCESS IN FORCE, REGULARLY, FOR THE MERE PURPOSE OF

If the charge, although false, was made with an honest belief in its truth and justice, justice, and there were reasonable grounds on which such a belief could be founded, the accusation could not be held to have been false in the legal sense.

VEXATION OR INJURY.

TO

To constitute MP, MP, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. Concededly, Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for MP.

 C LA S S 



MP,

CONSTITUTE

THERE MUST BE PROOF THAT THE

PROSECUTION WAS PROMPTED BY A SINISTER DESIGN TO VEX AND HUMILIATE A PERSON, AND THAT IT WAS INITIATED DELIBERATELY BY THE DEFENDANT

N O TE

35

KNOWING

GROUNDLESS .

THAT

HIS

CHARGES

WERE

FALSE

AND

CONCEDEDLY, THE MERE ACT OF SUBMITTING A CASE

TO

THE AUTHORITIES AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR

MP. 3 ELEMENTS OF MP: 1. THE FACT OF THE

PROSECUTION AND THE FURTHER FACT THAT

THE DEFENDANT WAS HIMSELF THE PROSECUTOR AND THAT THE ACTION FINALLY TERMINATED WITH AN ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL.

N OT E

Dismissal of the case does not automatically give rise to a cause of action for malicious prosecution If there is probable cause, there is no malice

Drilon v. CA April 20, 20, 2001 FACTS: FACTS: A letter complaint complaint sent to Drilon resulted in an order order to investiga investigate te several several individu individuals, als, includin including g

2.

THAT

IN

BRINGING

THE ACTION,

THE

PROSECUTOR ACTED

WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE

3. THAT

THE PROSECUTOR WAS ACTUATED ACTUATED OR IMPELLED BY A LEGAL

MALICE THAT IS BY IMPROPER OR SINISTER MOTIVE

Once cannot be held liable for maliciously instituting a prosecution where one has acted with probable cause. WHY? coz it would be a very great discouragement to public justice, if prosecutors, who had tolerable ground of suspicion, were liable to be sued at law when their indictment miscarried.















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008  



If there is probable cause, there is no malice. Take note of the statutory basis of malicious prosecution. Hernandez case Hernandez case ruling: - If doubtful or difficult question of law is applied – the law always accords to public officials the presumption of good faith - This is not applicable if the doctrine is clear enough.

Globe Mackay v. CA, supra FACTS: Tobias was alleged to be the #1 suspect for the fraudulent transactions he allegedly uncovered. He was illegally dismissed and Hendry filed 6 criminal complaints against him although the findings of the Police Chief Document Examiner absolved him from guilt. All the complaints were dismissed in the fiscal level.



However, in this case, there was a malicious intent as shown by the facts: 1.

The complaints were filed during the pendency of the illegal dismissal case (2 of which were

Cited Manila Gas definition of Malicious prosecution

Albenson v. CA, supra FACTS: the 3 Baltao case where funds for check was demanded by the company from the father Baltao… ISSUE: WON there was was malicious prosecution. prosecution. NO HELD: The MERE ACT SUBMITTING a case to the authorities for prosecution (only fiscal level) DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION . The elements of malicious prosecution are: 1. The fact that the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action was finally terminated with an acquittal 2. That in in bringing the action, the prosecut prosecutor or acted without probable probable cause 3. The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice.

ISSUE: WON there was malicious malicious prosecution. prosecution. YES HELD: The The mere mere dismis dismissal sal by the fiscal fiscal of the criminal complaint is not a ground for an award of damages damages for malicious malicious prosecution prosecution if there there is no competent evidence to show that the complainant acted in bad faith. (Even if still in the fiscal level, if acted with BF then liable for damages)


 C LA S S  



N OT E

Gross negligence can prove bad faith. Bad faith = gross negligence. No gross negligence in this case. It was an innocent mistake. Cited Manila Gas definition of malicious

36

theft was filed against Ongsip but it was later dismissed. Ongsip then filed a complaint for damages ISSUE: WON there was malicious malicious prosecution. prosecution. YES HELD: To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof proof that that the prosecut prosecution ion was prompt prompted ed by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges charges were false false and groundle groundless. ss. THE MERE ACT OF SUBMITTING A CASE TO THE AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION .

However, in this case, the circumstances of the case showed that there was malicious intent in the filing of the complaint for qualified theft.

 C L AS S 

N O TE

Dismissal of qualified theft case in fiscal level only  still possible to file MP. If the case only r eached fiscal level… GEN RULE: no MP EXCEPTION: if BF, with Malicious intent



c. Public Humiliation Patricio v. Leviste April 26, 26, 1989 FACTS:

Leviste smashed a beer bottle on the table

















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 MD may be awarded in appropriate cases referred to in the chapter on human relations of the CC (Arts. 19-36), without need of proof that the wrongful act complained of has has caus caused ed any any phys physic ical al inju injury ry upon upon the the complainant.


IN OTHER RESTORATION

WORDS:

THE AWARD OF

MD

IS AIMED AT

WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE POSSIBLE , OF THE

THE REASON

UNDERLYING THE AWARD OF DAMAGES UNDER

ART. 21, 21,

CAUSED UPON HIS PERSON.

 C L AS S 

(from (from report of the code)

N O TE

Art 21 applies to even even a slap in the face

Grand Union v. Espino December 28, 1979

Arts. 20 & 21 provide the legal bedrock for the award of damages.

SPIRITUAL STATUS QUO ANTE, AND IT MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE SUFFERING INFLICTED .

PURPOSE

OF

ED

OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES : IMPOSED BY WAY OF

EXAMPLE OR CORRECTION FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, IN ADDITION ADDITION TO THE

IS TO COMPENSATE THE INJURED PARTY FOR THE MORAL INJURY

37

MORAL, TEMPERATE , LIQUIDATED OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES (ART. 2229). C ANNOT BE RECOVERED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT; THE COURT WILL DECIDE WON THEY COULD BE ADJUDICATED ADJUDICATED. AWARDED FOR WANTON ACTS, THAT CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE AWARDED THEY

ARE

PENAL

IN

CHARACTER

GRANTED

NOT

BY

WAY

OF

COMPENSATION BUT AS A PUNISHMENT TO THE OFFENDER AND AS A WARNING TO OTHERS AS A SORT OF DETERRENT .

Carpio vs. Valmonte September 9, 2004

MD not awarded awarded to penalize penalize defendant defendant or to enrich complainant, but to enable the latter to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral moral suffer suffering ing he has underg undergone one,, by reason reason of defendant’s culpable action. In any case, award of MD must be proportionate to the sufferings inflicted.

 C L AS S 

N O TE

Manner of attacking without any amount of proof- contrary to morals and good customs.

d. Unjustified Dismissal

















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Medina v. Castro-Bartolome September 11, 1982 FACTS: Cosme Cosme de Aboitiz, President President and CEO of Pepsi, shouted and cursed at the plaintiffs in front of their subordin subordinate ate employees employees.. The petitioner petitioners s filed a case of oral defamati defamation on against against de Aboitiz. Aboitiz. It was dism dismis isse sed d sinc since e the the juri jurisd sdic icti tion on of clai claims ms was was transferred from the CFI to the Labor Arbiters. ISSUE: WON the Labor Code applies. NO HELD: The plaintiffs plaintiffs did not allege allege any unfair labor practice. It was an action for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by the defendants. Such being the case, the governing statute is the Civil Code and not the Labor Code.

Amaro v. Sumaguit July 31, 1962 FACTS: Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot near the city government building. building. The following day, day, he along with his father and witnesses, witnesses, went to the Chief of Polic Police e to seek seek assist assistan ance ce but but were were not render rendered ed assis assistan tance. ce. The city attorn attorney ey was was about about to file file an information for illegal discharge of firearms against the assai assaila lant. nt. Howe However ver,, the Chief Chief of Police Police starte started d to harass the Amaros, coercing them to sign an affidavit absolving the police officers of any liability. The Amaros then filed a suit for damages. ISSUE: WON the Amaros’ Amaros’ action under Article 21 and/or 27 would would prosper. YES


38

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

St. Louis v. CA November 14, 1984 FACTS: FACTS: St. Louis Realty caused to be published an ad depicting depicting the Arcadio Arcadio Family in front of Dr. Aramil’s Aramil’s residence, making it appear that the house was owned by the Arcadios Arcadios.. Aramil Aramil protested. protested. Plaintiff Plaintiff stopped stopped publicati publication, on, but did not rectify. rectify. Aramil Aramil extra judicially judicially demanded demanded damages. damages. This is when when St Louis Louis Realty Realty

















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 FACTS: FACTS: Florence Florence Concepcion Concepcion,, lessor lessor of the Nicolas Nicolas spouses, spouses, joined joined Nestor Nestor Nicolas’ Nicolas’ business business venture venture by contributing capital. Rodrigo, Florence’s brother-in-law, angrily accosted Nestor at the latter’s apartment and accused him of conducting an adulterous relationship with with Flor Floren ence ce.. As a resu result lt,, Nesto Nestorr felt felt extre extreme me embarr embarrass assmen ment. t. He could could not face face his neighb neighbors ors anymore. Florence also backed out of the venture, so that the business business declined. declined. Nestor’s wife started to doubt his fidelity and even threatened to leave him. The spouses filed a civil suit against Rodrigo for damages. ISSUE: ISSUE: WON spouses can recover damages HELD: HELD: Yes. Examples mentioned in Art. 2219 and 26 are not exclusive but are merely examples and do not preclude preclude other similar similar or analogo analogous us acts. Damages Damages therefore are allowable for actions against a person’s

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007

(1) Actual or compensatory; (2) Moral; (3) Nominal; (4) Temperate or moderate; (5) Liquidated; or (6) Exemplary or corrective.

 

39

Important for t he distinction between damage, injury and damages Mere fact that plaintiffs suffer damage doesn’t mean that there’s right of action To warrant recovery of damages: -Legal right on the part of plaintiff -Injury caused to plaintiff

People v. Ballesteros FACTS: Murder, Murder, through through gunshot gunshot wounds, wounds, question question amt of damages awarded *DAMAGES may b e d ef ef in in ed ed as COMPENSATION , RECOMPENSE , OR SATISFACTION SUSTAINED , OR AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSED ,

THE

PECUNIARY

FOR AN THE

INJURY

PECUNIARY

CONSEQUENCES WHICH THE LAW IMPOSES FOR THE BREACH OF SOME DUTY OR THE VIOLATION OF SOME RIGHT.

II. Kinds of Damages A. Actual or compensatory Art. 2216. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order order that moral, moral, nominal, nominal, temperate, temperate, liquida liquidated ted or exempl exemplary ary damage damages, s, may be adjudi adjudicat cated. ed. The assessmen assessmentt of such damages, damages, except except liquidate liquidated d ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.

















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 FACTS: Plaintiff Algarra received personal injuries from a collision with the defendant Saldejas’ automobile due to the negligence of the defendant, who was driving the car. car. Plain Plaintiff tiff sold the products products of a distil distiller lery y as a commis commissio sion n agent agent and and had had about about twenty twenty regula regular r cust custom omer ers, s, who who purc purcha hase sed d his his ware wares s in smal smalll quantities, necessitating regular and frequent deliveries. Being unable to attend to their wants during their wants during the two months he was incapacitated due to the accident, accident, his regular regular customers customers turned their trade to other competing agents. HELD: Unde Underr both both the Spani Spanish sh Civil Civil Code Code and and American law of damages, actual damages for a negligent act or omission are confined to those which “were foreseen or might have been foreseen” or those which were “the natural and probable consequences” consequences” or


equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply in recognition of the existence of a technical injury.

1. Kinds PNOC v. CA FACTS: The The M/V M/V Ma. Ma. Efig Efige enia nia XV, XV, owne owned d by respondent Ma. Efigenia Fishing Corp. collided with the vessel Petroparcel which at the time was owned by the Luzon Luzon Stevedor Stevedoring ing Co. The Board of Marine Marine Inquiry Inquiry rendered a decision finding the Petroparcel at fault and thus the respondent filed an action for damages against Luzon Luzon Stevedor Stevedoring ing and the Petroparc Petroparcel’s el’s captain. captain. During During the pendency pendency of the case, petitione petitionerr PNOC PNOC acquired the Petroparcel Petroparcel and was substituted substituted in place of Luzon Stevedoring in the complaint. HELD: ACTUAL

40

OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE THOSE AWARDED

The amount to be awarded as ND shall be equal or at leas leastt comm commen ensu sura rate te to the the inju injury ry susta sustain ined ed considering the concept and purpose of such damages.

 C L AS S 

 

N O TE S

The basic rule in recovering AD: it is sufficient that damages are capable of proof in order to recover (AD) There should be a record to serve as proof presented before the Court There are cases which say that providing a list of expenses is not enough—there has to be receipts, etc.—PROOF SHOULD BE VERY FACTUAL

















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Beca Becaus use e IPC IPC also also not not able able to full fully y sett settle le it’s it’s indebtedness to Fil-Anchor, the latter filed a collection suit against against it. In its counterclai counterclaim, m, IPC alleged alleged that because because Fil-Anchor Fil-Anchor was only able to deliver deliver 1097 reams of paper it was unable to fulfill its contract with Philacor and thus failed to realize expected profits. Indemnification for damages comprehends not only the loss loss suff suffer ered ed,, that that is to say say actu actual al dama damage ges s (damnum emergens), emergens), but but also also profits profits which which the obligee failed to obtain (lucrum cessans).

 C L AS S  

N O TE S

The Court here gave the two kinds CD—dano emergente and lucro cesante Problem with the evidence presented—mere estimates



 

 


Art. 2201 lays down the distinction between between good faith and bad faith (in bad faith— whatever damage happens) Last sentence of Art. 2202 problematic—some cases use forseeability as an element of QD Forseeability: In elements: may be required In damages: not required Reasonable Reasonable certainty required: allege specific facts, Present best evidence Quantum of evidence required: preponderance preponderance of evidence

3. Certainty -possible that the exact value (peso) is not known.

PNOC v. CA



41

you should also prove your allegations though not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt

DBP v. CA Lydia Lydia Cuba Cuba was was the grantee grantee of a fishpo fishpond nd lease lease agreement with the government, the rights t o which she assign assigned ed to DBP DBP as securi security ty for loans loans the latte latter r extended to her. After Cuba failed to meet the terms of payment payment on the loans, the DBP, DBP, without without foreclos foreclosure ure proceedings of any kind, appropriated Cuba’s leasehold rights over the fishpond. Subsequently, Subsequently, DBP executed a deed of conditional sale in favor of Cuba over the same fishpond. fishpond. However, However, Cuba once again was unable to meet the amortizations stipulate stipulated d which which led to DBP rescinding rescinding the deed of



















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 was done after the filing of the complaint and that they should have made an inventory




42

HELD: Yes. Yes. The rule is that damages damages consisting consisting of




















Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007CA: reversed, Ramos pay for hospital bills

43



















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 October 21, 1991

•

This case is always cited to support that plastic surgery can be the subject of AD.


44

After trial, Mangahas was found guilty sentenced to



















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 HELD: No, No, it is not. not. To justify justify an award award for actua actuall damages, there should be proof of t he actual amount of

(5) Where the defendan defendantt acted acted in gross and


45

Quirante v. Intermediate Appellate Court January 31, 1989



















Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 judgment creditor who may enforce the judgment for attorney’s fees by execution.

of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:


46

regardless of whether or not the case involves a loan or forbearance of money. The interim period is deemed deemed



























































































































































































Torts Magic Notes

Recommend Documents