TORTSANDDAMAGES–CAS TORTSANDDAMAGES–CASEDOCTRINES EDOCTRINES II.COVERAGEANDCLASSIFICATION 1.INTENTIONALTORTS
Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Article 1822. Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership or with the authority of his co-partners, loss or injury is caused to any person, not being a partner in the partnership, or any penalty is incurred, the partnership is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act. (n) Article 1823. The partnership is bound to make good the loss:
(1) Where one partner acting within the scope of his apparent authority receives money or property of a third person and misapplies it; and (2) Where the partnership in the course of its business receives money or property of a third person and the money or property so received is misapplied by any partner while it is in the custody of the partnership. (n) Article 1824. All partners are liable solidarily with the partnership for everything chargeable to the partnership under articles 1822 and 1823. (n) Article 1911. Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers. (n) Article 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. (n) #01 #01 PATR PATROC OCIN INIA IA RAVI RAVINA NA AN AND D WILF WILFRE REDO DO RAVI RAVINA NA,, Peti Petiti tion oner ers, s, vs. vs. MARY ANN P. VILLA ABRILLE,for ABRILLE, for herselfand herself andin in behalfof behalf ofINGRID INGRIDD'LYN D'LYNP. P.VILLA VILLAABRILLE, ABRILLE,INGREMARKD'WIGHT INGREMARKD'WIGHT VILL VILLA A AB ABRI RILL LLE, E, INGR INGRES ESOL OLL L DIEL DIELS S VILL VILLA A AB ABRI RILL LLE E AN AND D INGR INGREL ELYN YN DYAN DYAN VILL VILLA A AB ABRI RILL LLE, E, Respondents.G.R.No.160708,October16,2009 Respondents.G.R.No.160708,October16,2009 Firmly Firmly establ establish ished ed in our civil civil law is the doctri doctrine ne that: that: "Every "Every person person must, must, in the exerci exercise se of his righ rights ts and and in the the perf perfor orma manc nce e of his his duti duties, es, act act with with just justic ice, e, give give ever everyo yone ne his his due, due, and and obse observ rve e honest honesty y and good good faith. faith." " When When a right right is exerci exercised sed in a manner manner that that does does not confor conform m with with such such normsandresultsindamagestoanother,alegalwrongistherebycommittedforwhichthewrong Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 1 of 16
doermustbeheldresponsible.Similarly,anypersonwhowillfullycauseslossorinjurytoanotherin amannerthatiscontrarytomorals,goodcustomsorpublicpolicyshallcompensatethelatterforthe damagescaused.Itispatentinthiscasethatpetitioners’allegedactsfallshortoftheseestablished civillawstandards.
#02 #02 CONR CONRAD ADO O BU BUNA NAG, G, JR., JR., petiti petitione oner, r, vs. vs.HO HON. N. COUR COURT T OF APPE APPEA ALS, LS, Firs Firstt Divis ivisio ion, n, and ZENAIDAB.CIRILO,respondents. ZENAIDAB.CIRILO,respondents.G.R.No.101749,July10,1992 G.R.No.101749,July10,1992 Itis true true that that inthis jurisd jurisdict iction ion,, weadhere tothe to the time-ho time-honor nored edrul rule e that that anaction for breach breach of promisetomarryhasnostandinginthecivillaw,apartfromtherighttorecovermoneyorproperty advancedbytheplaint advancedbytheplaintiffuponthefai iffuponthefaithofsuchpromis thofsuchpromise.Gen e.Generally erally,therefor ,therefore,abreachofpromi e,abreachofpromiseto seto marrype marryper r se seis is not not acti action onab able le,, exce except pt wher where e the the plai plaint ntif iff f has has actu actual ally ly incu incurr rred ed expe expens nses es for for the the weddingandthenecessaryincidentsthereof. However,theawardofmoraldamagesisallowedincasesspecifiedinoranalogoustothoseprovided inArticle2219oftheCivilCode.Correlatively,underArticle21ofsaidCode,inrelationtoparagraph 10ofsaidArticle2219,anypersonwhowilfullycauseslossorinjurytoanotherinamannerthatis contra contrary ry to morals morals,, good good custom customs s orpub or public lic policy policy shall shall compen compensat sate e the latter latter for moral moral damage damages. s. Article21wasadoptedtoremedythecountlessgapsinthestatuteswhichleavesomanyvictimsof moral moral wrongs wrongs helples helpless s even even though though they they have have actual actually ly suffer suffered ed materi material al and moral moral injury injury,, and is inte intend nded ed to vouc vouchs hsaf afe e adeq adequa uate te lega legal l reme remedy dy for for that that unto untold ld numb number er of mora moral l wron wrongs gs whic which h is impossibleforhumanforesighttospecificallyprovideforinthestatutes. Under Under the circum circumsta stance nces s obtain obtaining ing in the case case at bar, bar, the acts acts of petitio petitioner ner in forcib forcibly ly abduct abducting ing privaterespondentandhavingcarnalknowledgewithheragainstherwill,andthereafterpromising tomar to marry ry her inorder toesc to escapecrimi apecriminal nal liabil liability ity,, only only tothe to therea reafte fter r renege renege onsuc on such h promis promise e after after cohabi cohabitin ting g with with her for twenty twenty-on -one e days, days, irremi irremissi ssibly bly consti constitut tute e acts acts contra contrary ry to morals morals and good good customs. customs. These aregrosslyinsensateand reprehensi reprehensibletransgress bletransgressions ions which indisputab indisputably lywarra warrant nt andabundantlyjustifytheawardofmoralandexemplarydamages,pursuanttoArticle21inrelation toparagraphs3and10,Article2219,andArticle2229and2234ofCivilCode.
#03ALFREDOM.VELAYO,INHISCAPAC #03ALFREDOM.VELAYO,INHISCAPACITYASASSIGNEEOFT ITYASASSIGNEEOFTHEINSOLVENTCOMM HEINSOLVENTCOMMERCIALAM ERCIALAM LINE LINES, S, INC. INC. (CAL (CALI) I), , PL PLAI AINT NTIF IFF F AND AND APPEL APPELLA LANT NT,, vs. vs. SHEL SHELL L COMP COMPAN ANY Y OF THE THE PHIL PHILIP IPPI PINE NE ISLANDS, LTD., DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE, ALFONSO SYCIP, YEK HUA TRADING CORPORATION,PAULSYCIPANDMABASA&CO., INTERVENORS.G.R.No.L-7817,October31, INTERVENORS.G.R.No.L-7817,October31, 1956 TheCodeCommissioncommentingonthisarti TheCodeCommissioncom mentingonthisarticle(19vis-à-vis21),saysthefollowi cle(19vis-à-vis21),saysthefollowing: ng:
Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 2 of 16
Thus Thus at one one stro stroke ke,, the the legis legisla lato tor, r, if the the forg forgoi oing ng rule rule is appr approv oved ed (as (as it was was appro approve ved) d),, woul would d vouchsafeadequatelegalremedyforthatuntoldnumbersofmoralwrongswhichisimpossiblefor humanforesighttoprovideforspecificallyinthestatutes. But, But, it may be asked asked would would this this propos proposed ed articl article e oblite obliterat rate e the bounda boundary ry line line betwee between n morali morality ty andlaw?Theansweristhat,inthelastanalysi andlaw?Theansweristhat,inthelastanalysis,everygoodlawdrawsitsb s,everygoodlawdrawsitsbreathoflifefrommorals, reathoflifefrommorals, fromthoseprincipleswhicharewrittenwithwords fromthoseprincipleswhich arewrittenwithwordsoffireintheconscien offireintheconscienceofman.Ifthispremisesis ceofman.Ifthispremisesis admitt admitted, ed, then then the propos proposed ed rule rule is a pruden prudent t earnes earnest t ofjus of justic tice e in the face face ofthe of the imposs impossibi ibilit lity y of enumerating,onebyone,allwrongswhichcausedamages.Whenitisreflectedthatwhilecodesof law law and and stat statut utes es have have chan change ged d from from age age to age, age, the the cons consci cien ence ce of man man has has rema remain ined ed fixe fixed d to its its ancientmoorings,onecannotbutfeelthatitissafeandsalutarytotransmute,asfarasmaybe,moral normsintolegalrules,thusimpart normsintolegalrules,thusimpartingtoeverylegalsystem ingtoeverylegalsystemthatenduringquali thatenduringqualitywhichoughttobe tywhichoughttobe oneofitssuperlativeattributes. Furthermore,thereisnobeliefofmorebanefulconsequenceuponthesocialorderthanthataperson maywithimpunitycausedamagetohisfellow-mensolongashedoesnotbreakanylawoftheState, thoughhemaybedefyingthemostsacredpostulatesofmorality.Whatismore,thevictimlosesfaith intheabilityofthegovernmenttoaffordh intheabilityofthegovernmenttoaffordhimprotectionorrelief. improtectionorrelief.
#04 ERNESTO RAMAS UYPITCHING and RAMAS UYPITCHING SONS, INC., peti petiti tion oner ers, s, vs.ERNESTOQUIAMCO, vs.ERNESTOQUIAMCO,respondent. respondent.G.R.No.146322,December6,2006 G.R.No.146322,December6,2006 Article19,alsoknownasthe"principleofabuseofright,"prescribesthatapersonshouldnotusehis rightunjustlyorcontrarytohonestyandgoodfaith,otherwiseheopenshimselftoliability. Itseeksto precludetheuseof,orthetendencytouse,alegalright(ordu precludetheuseof,orthetendency touse,alegalright(orduty)asameanstounjust ty)asameanstounjustends. ends. Thereisanabuseofright Thereisanabuseofrightwhenitisexerc whenitisexercisedsole isedsolelytoprejud lytoprejudiceorinju iceorinjureanoth reanother.Theexer er.Theexerciseofa ciseofa rightmustbeinaccordancewiththepurposeforwhichitwasestablishedandmustnotbeexcessive orundulyharsh;theremust orundulyharsh;theremustbeno benointen intentiontoharmanot tiontoharmanother.Other her.Otherwise, wise,liabilit liabilityfordamagestothe yfordamagestothe injuredpartywillattach.
2.NEGLIGENCE
Article 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 does 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. (1104a)
Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 3 of 16
Article 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 preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a) Article 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.
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. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. 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 former are not engaged in any business or industry. 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 properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by 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) Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (1905) Article 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 of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are applicable. (n) Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 4 of 16
firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (n) Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. (n) Family Code Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsib responsibility ility shall apply to all authorize authorized d 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 or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. All other cases not covered covered by this and the preceding articles shall shall be governed by the provisions provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n) Art. 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. (2180(2)a and (4)a )
petiti tion oner ers, s, vs. vs.THE #01 PHOENI ENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ARMANDO U. CARBONEL, peti THE INTERMEDIA INTERMEDIATE TE APPELLATE APPELLATE COURT andLEONARDO DIONISIO, DIONISIO, respondents.G.R.No.L-65295, respondents.G.R.No.L-65295, March10,1987 Weholdthatpriva Weholdthat privateresponden terespondentDionisio tDionisio'snegligen 'snegligencewas cewas"only "onlycontribut contributory," ory,"that that the"immediate the"immediate and and pro proxim ximate ate caus cause" e" of the the inju injurry rem remain ained the the tru truck dri driver' ver's s "lac "lack k of due due care care" " and and that that cons conseq eque uent ntly ly resp respon onde dent nt Dion Dionis isio io may may reco recove ver r dama damage ges s thou though gh such such dama damage ges s are are subj subjec ect t to mitigationbythecourts(Article2179,CivilCodeofthePhilippines). Peti Petiti tion oner er Carb Carbon onel el's 's prov proven en negl neglig igen ence ce crea creates tes a pres presum umpt ptio ion n of negl neglig igen ence ce on the the part part of his his employerPhoenixinsupervisingitsemployeesproperlyandadequately.Therespondentappellate cour court t in effe effect ct found ound, , cor correct rectly ly in our our opi opinion nion, , that that Phoe Phoeni nix x was was not able able to over overco com me this this presumptionofnegligence.ThecircumstancethatPhoenixhadalloweditstruckdrivertobringthe Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 5 of 16
dump dump truck truck tohis to his home home whenev whenever erthe there rewas was work work tobe to be done done early early the follow following ing mornin morning, g,whe when n coupledwiththefailuretoshowanyeffortonthepartofPhoenixtosupervi coupledwiththefailuretoshowanyeffortonthepartofPhoenixtosupervisethemannerinwhich sethemannerinwhich thedumptruckisparkedwhenawayfromcompanypremises,isanaffirmativeshowingof culpain vigilandoonthepartofPhoenix. vigilandoonthepartofPhoenix.
#02 #02 AIR FRA FRANCE, CE, peti petiti tion oner er, , vs. RAFAE AFAEL L CA CAR RRASC RASCOS OSO O an and d the HON HONORAB ORABL LE COUR COURT T OF APPEALS,respondents. APPEALS,respondents.G.R.No.L-21438,September28,1966 G.R.No.L-21438,September28,1966 Theresponsib Theresponsibility ilityofanemployerfor ofanemployerforthetortiou thetortiousactofitsemployee sactofitsemployeesneednotbeessaye sneednotbeessayed.Itiswell d.Itiswell settledinlaw.Forthewillfulmalevolentactofpetitioner'smanager,petitioner,hisemployer,must answer. Thecontractofaircarriage Thecontractofaircarriagegenerates generatesa a relationattende relationattendedwithapublicduty.Neglect dwithapublicduty.Neglector ormalfea malfeasance sance ofthecarrier’semplo ofthecarrier’semployees,nat yees,naturally urally,couldgivegrou ,couldgivegroundforanaction ndforanactionfordamages.Pass fordamages.Passenger engersdonot sdonot contractmerelyfortransportation.Theyhavearighttobetreatedbythecarrier'semployeeswith kindness,respect,courtesyanddueconsideration.Theyareentitledtobeprotectedagainstpersonal misconduct,injuriouslanguage,indignitiesandabusesfromsuchemployees.Soitis,thatanyruleor discou discourte rteous ous conduc conduct t onthe on the part part of employ employees ees toward towards s a passen passenger ger gives gives the latter latter an action action for damagesagainstthecarrier. Petiti Petitione oner's r's contra contract ct with with Carras Carrascos coso o is one attend attended ed with with public public duty. duty. The stress stress of Carras Carrascos coso's o's actionaswehavesaid,isplaceduponhiswrongfulexpulsion.Thisisaviolationofpublicdutybythe petitioneraircarrier—acaseofquasi-delict.Damagesareproper.
Petitioner,vs. THECOURTOFAPPEALSandNATIVIDAD #03.1 #03.1 PROFESSIO PROFESSIONALSERVICES NALSERVICES, , INC., INC., Petitioner,vs.THECOURTOFAPPEALSandNATIVIDAD andENRIQUEAGANA,Respondents. andENRIQUEAGANA, Respondents.G.R.No.126297,February2,2010 G.R.No.126297,February2,2010 Ingeneral,ahospitalisnotliableforthenegligenceofanindependentphysicians-consultan Ingeneral,ahospitalisnotliableforthenegligenceof anindependentphysicians-consultantsallowed tsallowed to practi practice ce in its premis premises. es. There There is, howeve however, r, an except exception ion to this this princi principle ple.. The hospit hospital al may be liableifthephysicianisthe"ostensible"agentofthehospital. Whereanemploymentrelationshipexists,thehospitalmaybeheldvicariouslyliableunderArticle 2176inrelationtoArticle2180 oftheCivilCodeortheprincipleof oftheCivilCodeortheprincipleofrespondeatsuperior. respondeatsuperior.Evenwhenno Evenwhenno employ employmen ment t relati relations onship hip exists exists but it is shown shown that that the hospit hospital al holds holds out to the patien patient t that that the doctorisitsagent,thehospitalmaystillbevicariouslyliableunderArticle2176inrelationtoArticle 1431 andArticle1869oftheCivilCodeortheprincipleofapparentauthority. Moreover,regardlessof its relati relations onship hip with with the doctor doctor,, the hospit hospital al may be held held directl directly y liable liable to the patien patient t for its own negl neglig igen ence ce or fail failur ure e to foll follow ow esta establ blis ishe hed d stan standa dard rd of cond conduc uct t to whic which h it shou should ld conf confor orm m as a corporation.
Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 6 of 16
#03.2MARITERMENDOZA, Petitioner,vs. ADRIANOCASUMPANG,JENNIFERADRIANEandJOHN #03.2MARITERMENDOZA,Petitioner,vs. ADRIANOCASUMPANG,JENNIFERADRIANEandJOHN ANDRE,allsurnamedCASUMPANG ANDRE,allsurnamedCASUMPANG,,Respondents. Respondents.G.R.No.197987,March19,2012 G.R.No.197987,March19,2012 Asurgicaloperationisthe Asurgicaloperationistherespon responsibi sibilityofthesurgeonperform lityofthesurgeonperformingit.He ingit.Hemustperson mustpersonallyascert allyascertain ain thatthecountsofinstrumentsandmaterialsusedbeforethesurgeryandpriortosewingthepatient uphavebeencorrectlydone.Toprovideanexampletothemedicalprofessionandtostresstheneed forconstantvig forconstantvigilance ilanceinattendi inattendingtoapatient’ ngtoapatient’shealth,theawa shealth,theawardofexempla rdofexemplarydamage rydamagesinthiscase sinthiscase isinorder.
#04 LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. GLOD GLODEL EL BROK BROKER ERAG AGE E CORPORATIONandR&BINSURANCECORPORATION,Respondents. CORPORATIONandR&BINSURANCECORPORATION, Respondents.G.R.No.179446,January10, G.R.No.179446,January10, 2011 LoadmastersandGlodel,beingbothcommoncarriers,aremandatedfromthenatureoftheirbusiness andforreasonsofpublicpolicy,toobservetheextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoods transportedbythemaccordingtoallthecircumstancesofsuchcase,asrequiredbyArticle1733of theCivilCode.Incaseoflossofthegoods,thecommoncarrierispresumedtohavebeenatfaultorto haveactednegligently.Thispresumptionoffaultornegligence,however,mayberebuttedbyproof thatthecommoncarrierhasobservedextraordinarydiligenceoverthegoods. Prem Premis ises es cons consid ider ered, ed, the the Cour Court t is of the the view view that that both both Load Loadma mast ster ers s and and Glod Glodel el are are join jointl tly y and and severa severally lly liable liable toR &B Insura Insurance nce for the lossof lossof the subjec subjectcargo tcargo.Under .Under Articl Article2194of e2194of the New CivilCode,"theresponsibilityoftwoormore CivilCode,"theresponsibi lityoftwoormorepersonswhoareliablefor personswhoareliableforaquasi-delictissolidary." aquasi-delictissolidary." Aliabilityfortortmayariseevenunderacontract,wheretortisthatwhichbreachesthecontract.In the presen present t case, case, Phoeni Phoenix x and McGee McGee are not suing suing for damage damages s for injuri injuries es arisin arising g from from the bywhichMindanao breach breach of the contra contract ct of servic service e but from from the allege alleged d neglig negligent ent manner mannerbywhichMindanao Terminal Terminal handled handled the cargoes cargoes belonging belonging to Del Monte Produce. Produce. Despite Despite the absence absence of contractual contractual relationshipbetweenDelMonteProduceandMindanaoTerminal,theallegationofnegligenceonthe partofthedefendantshouldbesufficienttoestablishacauseof partofthedefendantshouldbe sufficienttoestablishacauseofactionarisingfrom actionarisingfromquasi-delict. quasi-delict. Whenev Whenever er an employ employee’ ee’s s neglig negligenc ence e causes causes damage damage or injury injury to anothe another, r, there there instan instantly tly arises arises a presum presumpti ption on juris juris tantum tantum that that the employ employer er failed failed to exerci exercise se diligenti diligentissimi ssimi patris patris families families in the the selection(culpaineligiendo)orsupervision(culpainvigilando)ofitsemployees.Toavoidliability for for a quas quasii-de deli lict ct comm commit itte ted d by its its empl employ oyee ee,, an empl employ oyer er must must over overco come me the the pres presum umpt ptio ion n by presentingconvincingproofthatheexercisedthecareanddiligenceofagoodfatherofafamilyinthe selectionandsupervisionofhisemployee.Inthisregard,Loadmastersfailed.
Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 7 of 16
#05ALFREDOP.PACISandCLEOPATRAD.PACIS, Petitioners,vs. JEROMEJOVANNEMORALES, Respondent.G.R.No.169467,February25,2010 Respondent.G.R.No.169467,February25,2010 Unli Unlike ke the the subs subsid idia iary ry liab liabil ilit ity y of the the empl employ oyer er unde under r Arti Articl cle e 103 103 of the the Revi Revise sed d Pena Penal l Code Code,, the the liabilityoftheemployer,oranypersonforthatmatter,underArticle2176oftheCivilCodeisprimary anddirect,basedonaperson’sownnegligence. Clearly,respondentdidnotexercisethedegreeofcareanddiligencerequiredofagoodfatherofa family,muchlessthedegreeofcarerequiredofsomeonedealingwithdangerousweapons,aswould exempthimfromliabilityinthiscase.
#06 FILIPINAS FILIPINAS SYNTHETIC SYNTHETIC FIBER CORPORAT CORPORATION, ION, Petitioner, Petitioner, vs.WIL vs.WILFRE FREDO DO DE LOS SANTOS SANTOS, , BENI BENITO TO JOSE JOSE DE LOS LOS SANT SANTOS OS, , MARI MARIA A ELEN ELENA A DE LOS LOS SANT SANTOS OS an and d CA CARM RMIN INA A VDA. VDA. DE LOS LOS SANTOS,Respondents. SANTOS, Respondents.G.R.No.152033,March16,2011 G.R.No.152033,March16,2011 In the the sele select ctio ion n of pros prospe pect ctiv ive e emplo employe yees es,, emplo employe yers rs are are requ requir ired ed to exam examin ine e them them as to thei their r qualifications,experienceandservicerecords.Inthesupervisionofemployees,theemployermust formul formulate ate standar standard d operati operating ng proced procedure ures, s, monito monitor r their their implem implement entati ation on and impose impose discip disciplin linary ary measur measures es for the breach breach thereo thereof. f. To fend fend off vicari vicarious ous liabil liability ity,, employ employers ers must must submit submit concre concrete te proof,includingdocumentaryevidence,thattheycompliedwitheverythingthatwasincumbenton them. In orde order r that that the the defen defense se of due due dili dilige genc nce e in the the sele select ctio ion n and and supe superv rvis isio ion n of emplo employe yees es may may be deemed deemed suffic sufficien ient t and plausi plausible ble,, it is not enough enough toemp to emptil tily y invoke invoke the existe existence nce ofsai of said d compan company y guidelinesandpoliciesonhiringandsupervision.Asthenegligenceoftheemployeegivesrisetothe presumptionofnegligenceonthepartoftheemployer,thelatterhastheburdenofprovingthatithas beendiligentnotonlyintheselectionofemployeesbutalsointheactualsupervisionoftheirwork. Themereallegationoftheexistenceofhiringproceduresandsupervisorypolicies,withoutanything more,isdecidedlynotsufficienttoovercomesuchpresumption.
#07 #07 DR. DR. RUBI RUBI LI, LI,Petitioner,vs. SPOUS SPOUSES ES REYNAL REYNALDO DO and LINA LINA SOLIMA SOLIMAN, N, as parent parents/h s/heir eirs s of Respondents.G.R.No.165279,June7,2011 deceasedAngelicaSoliman,Respondents. deceasedAngelicaSoliman, G.R.No.165279,June7,2011 The The type type of laws lawsui uit t whic which h has has been been call called ed medi medical cal malp malpra ract ctic ice e or, or, more more appr approp opri riat atel ely, y, medi medical cal negl neglig igen ence ce,, is that that type type of clai claim m whic which h a vict victim im has has avai availa labl ble e to him him or her her to redr redres ess s a wron wrong g committedbya committedbya medicalprofessio medicalprofessionalwhichhascausedbodilyharm.Inorderto nalwhichhascausedbodilyharm.Inorderto successfully successfullypursue pursue suchaclaim,apatientmustprovethatahealthcareprovider,inmostcasesaphysician,eitherfailed todosomethingwhichareasonablyprudenthealthcareproviderwouldhavedone,orthatheorshe did someth something ing that that a reason reasonabl ably y pruden prudent t provid provider er would would not have have done; done; and that that that that failur failure e or actioncausedinjurytothepatient. Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 8 of 16
Everyhumanbeingofadultyearsandsoundmindhasarighttodeterminewhatshallbedonewith hisownbody;andasurgeonwhoperformsanoperationwithouthispatient’sconsent,commitsan assault,forwhichheisliableindamages. Ther There e are are four four essen essenti tial al elem elemen ents ts a plai plaint ntif iff f must must prov prove e in a malpr malprac acti tice ce acti action on base based d upon upon the the doctrineofinformedconsent:"(1)thephysicianhadadutytodisclosematerialrisks;(2)hefailedto discloseorinadequatelydisclosedthoserisks;(3)asadirectandproximateresultofthefailureto disclo disclose, se, the patien patient t consen consented ted to treatm treatment ent she otherw otherwise ise would would not have have consen consented ted to; and (4) plaintiffwasinjuredbytheproposedtreatment."Thegravameninaninformedconsentcaserequires theplaintiffto"pointtosignificantundisclosedinformationrelatingtothetreatmentwhichwould havealteredherdecisiontoundergoit.
#08EQUITABLEPCIBANK,Petitioner,vs. ARCELITOB.TAN,Respondent. #08EQUITABLEPCIBANK,Petitioner,vs. ARCELITOB.TAN,Respondent.G.R.No.165339,August G.R.No.165339,August 23,2010 Evid Eviden entl tly, y, the the bank bank's 's negl neglig igen ence ce was was the the resu result lt of lack lack of due due care care requ requir ired ed of its its mana manage gers rs and and empl employ oyees ees in hand handli ling ng the the acco accoun unts ts of its its clie client nts. s. Petit Petitio ione ner r was was negl neglig igen ent t in the the sele select ctio ion n and and supervisionofitsemployees.InCitibank,N.A.v.Cabamongan, supervisionofitsemployees.In Citibank,N.A.v.Cabamongan,theCourtruled: theCourtruled: Banks Banks handle handle daily daily transa transacti ctions ons involv involving ing millio millions ns ofpesos. Bythe By the very very nature nature ofthe of theirworks irworks the degree degree of respon responsib sibili ility, ty, care care and trustw trustwort orthin hiness ess expect expected ed of their their employ employees ees and off offici icials als is far greate greater r than than those those of ordina ordinary ry clerks clerks and employ employees. ees. Banks Banks are expect expected ed to exerci exercise se the highes highest t degreeofdiligenceintheselectionandsupervisionoftheiremployees.
Petitioner, vs.SPO vs.SPOUSE #09 PHILIP PHILIPPIN PINE E NATION NATIONAL AL BAN BANK, K, Petitioner, USES S CHEAH CHEAH CHEE CHEE CHONG CHONG and OFELIA OFELIA CAMACHOCHEAH,Respondents. CAMACHOCHEAH,Respondents.G.R.No. G.R.No.170865,April2 170865,April25,2012 5,2012 Itbearsstressingthat"thediligencerequiredofbanksismorethanthatofaRomanpaterfamiliasor agoodfatherofafamily.Thehighestdegreeofdilig agoodfatherofafamily.Thehigh estdegreeofdiligenceisexpecte enceisexpected."PNBmiserab d."PNBmiserablyfailedtodoits lyfailedtodoits duty duty of exerci exercisin sing g extrao extraordi rdinar nary y dilige diligence nce and reason reasonabl able e busine business ss pruden prudence. ce. The disreg disregard ard of its ownbankingpolicyamountstogrossnegligence,whichthelawdefinesas"negligencecharacterized bythewantofevenslightcare, bythewantofevenslightcare,actingoromitt actingoromittingtoactinasituati ingtoactinasituationwhere onwherethereisdutytoact,not thereisdutytoact,not inadvertentlybutwillfullyandintentionallywithaconsci inadvertentlybutwillfullyan dintentionallywithaconsciousindifferencetoconsequencesin ousindifferencetoconsequencesinsofaras sofaras otherpersonsmaybeaffected." Inanycase,thecomplaintagainstthespousesCheahcouldnotbedismissed.AsPNB’sclient,Ofelia wastheonewhodealtwithPNBandnegotiatedthechecksuchthatitsvaluewascreditedinherand her her husb husban and’ d’s s acco accoun unt. t. Being Being the the ones ones in priv privit ity y with with PNB, PNB, the the spous spouses es Chea Cheah h are are ther theref efor ore e the the personswhoshouldreturntoPNBthemoneyreleasedtothem. All told,theCourt told,theCourt concur concurswiththefindi swiththefindings ngs oftheCA thatPNB thatPNB and the spouse spouses sChe Cheahareequal ahareequally ly Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 9 of 16
negligentandshouldthereforeequallysuffertheloss.Thetwomustbothbeartheconsequencesof theirmistakes.
#10 MERCUR MERCURY Y DRUG DRUG CORPOR CORPORATI ATION ON and ROLAND ROLANDO O J. DEL ROSARI ROSARIO, O,petitioners,vs. petitioners,vs. SPOUSES RICHAR RICHARD D HUANG HUANGand and CARMEN CARMEN HUANG HUANG, , and STEPHE STEPHEN N HUANG HUANG,, respondents. G.R. G.R. No No. . 17212 172122, 2, June22,2007 Employe Emplo yer’ r’s s liab liabil ilit ity y unde under r Art. Art. 2180 2180 is dire direct ct or imme immedi diat ate e and and also also join joint t and and soli solida dary ry with with the the employee.Itisnotconditionedonapriorrecourseagainstthenegligentemployee,orapriorshowing ofinsolvencyofsuchemployee.Toberelieved,petitionershouldshowthatitexerciseddiligenceofa goodfatherofafamilybothintheselectionoftheemployeeandsupervisionoftheperformanceof thelatter’sduties. MercuryDrugfailedtoexerci MercuryDrugfailedtoexercisedduediligen sedduediligenceonthesupervisi ceonthesupervisionanddiscipl onanddisciplineoveritsemploy ineoveritsemployees. ees. Infact,on the day ofthe of the acciden accident, t,Del Del Rosari Rosario o was drivin driving g withou without t a licens license. e. Hetestified Hetestified that that he reportedtheincidentonhispriorapprehensiontohissuperior,butnothingwasdoneaboutit.He wasnotsuspendedorreprimandedandnodisciplinaryacti wasnotsuspendedorrepriman dedandnodisciplinaryactionwastakenagainsthi onwastakenagainsthim. m.
#11 PAULITA PAULITA "EDITH" "EDITH" SERRA, SERRA,Petitioner,vs. NELFA NELFA T. MUMAR, MUMAR, Respondent. Respondent. G.R. G.R. No No. . 19386 193861, 1, March14,2012 UnderArticle2180oftheCivilCode,employersareliableforthedamagescausedbytheiremployees actingwithinthescopeoftheirassignedtasks.Wheneveranemployee’snegligencecausesdamageor injurytoanother,thereinstantlyarisesapresumptionthattheemployerfailedtoexercisethedue diligenceofagoodfather diligenceofagoodfatherofthefamilyintheselec ofthefamilyintheselectionorsuper tionorsupervisio visionofitsemploye nofitsemployees. es.Theliability Theliability of the the empl employ oyer er is dire direct ct or imme immedi diat ate e. It is not not cond condit itio ione ned d upon upon prio prior r reco recour urse se agai agains nst t the the negligentemployeeandapriorshowingofinsolvencyofsuchemployee. Moreover,underArticle2184oftheCivilCode,ifthecausativefactorwasthedriver’snegligence,the ownerofthevehiclewhowaspresentislikewiseheldliableifhecouldhavepreventedthemishapby theexerciseofduediligence.
Petitione oner, r, vs. JOSE #12 FILCAR FILCAR TRANSP TRANSPORT ORT SERVIC SERVICES, ES, Petiti JOSE A. ESPI ESPINA NAS, S, Respondent. G.R. No. 174156,June20,2012 Unde Under r Arti Articl cle e 2176 2176,, in rela relati tion on with with Arti Articl cle e 2180 2180,, of the the Civi Civil l Code, Code, an acti action on pred predic icate ated d on an employee’sactoromissionmaybeinstitutedagainsttheemployerwhoisheldliableforthenegligent actoromissioncommittedbyhisemployee. Whetherthedriverofthemotorvehicle,Floresca,isanemployeeofFilcarisirrelevantinarrivingat Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 10 of 16
theconclusionthatFilcarisprimarilyanddirectlyliableforthedamagessustainedbyEspinas.While RepublicActNo.4136ortheLandTransportationandTrafficCodedoesnotcontainanyprovisionon the liabil liability ity of regist registere ered d owners owners in case case of motor motor vehicl vehicle e mishap mishaps, s, Articl Article e 2176, 2176, in relati relation on with with Article2180,ofthe Article2180,ofthe CivilCodeimposesanobligati CivilCodeimposesanobligationuponFilcar, onuponFilcar,as as registeredowner registeredowner,to ,to answerfor answerfor thedamagescausedtoEspinas’ thedamagescausedtoEspinas’car.Thisinterpr car.Thisinterpretati etationisconsiste onisconsistentwiththestron ntwiththestrongpublicpolic gpublicpolicyof yof main mainta tain inin ing g road road safe safety ty, , ther thereb eby y rein reinfo forc rcin ing g the the aim aim of the the Stat State e to prom promot ote e the the resp respon onsi sibl ble e operationofmotorvehiclesbyitscitizens. Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatFilcarisleftwithoutanyrecourseagainsttheactualemployerof thedriverandthedriverhimself.Underthecivillawprincipleofunjustenrichment,theregistered ownerofthemotorvehiclehasarighttobeindemnifiedbytheactualemployerofthedriverofthe amountthathemayberequiredtopayasdamagesforthe amountthathemayber equiredtopayasdamagesfortheinjurycausedtoanother. injurycausedtoanother.
3.STRICTLIABILITYTORT
Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (1905) Article 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. (1910) #01 PURITA MIRANDA VESTIL and AGUSTIN VESTIL, peti petiti tion oner ers, s, vs. vs.INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, DAVID UY and TERESITA UY, respondents. G.R. G.R. No No. . 7443 74431 1 No Nove vemb mber er 6, 1989 Article2183.Thepossessorofanani Article2183.Thepossessorofananimalorwhoevermaymak malorwhoevermaymakeuseofthesameisresponsi euseofthesameisresponsibleforthe bleforthe damagewhichitmaycause,althoug damagewhichitmaycause,althoughitmayescapeorbe hitmayescapeorbe lost.Thisresponsib lost.Thisresponsibility ilityshallceaseonlyin shallceaseonlyin case case the damage damages s should should come come from from force force majeure from from the the faul fault t of the the pers person on who who has has suff suffer ered ed damage. Article2183oftheCivi Article2183oftheCivilCodeholdstheposs lCodeholdsthepossessor essorliableeven liableeveniftheanimalsho iftheanimalshould"escap uld"escapeorbelost" eorbelost" and and so be remo remove ved d from from his his cont contro rol. l. And And it does does not not matt matter er eith either er that that,, as the the peti petiti tion oner ers s also also contend,thedogwastameandwasmerelyprovokedbythechildintobitingher.Thelawdoesnot spea speak k only only of vici viciou ous s anim animal als s but but cove covers rs even even tame tame ones ones as long long as they they caus cause e inju injury ry.. As for for the the allegedprovoca allegedprovocation, tion,thepetition thepetitionersforge ersforgetthatThene tthatThenesswasonlythr sswasonlythreeyearsoldatthetim eeyearsoldatthetimeshewas eshewas attackedandcanhardlybefaultedforwhatevershemighth attackedandcanhardlybefaulted forwhatevershemighthavedonetotheanimal. avedonetotheanimal. Accord Accordin ing gtoManre toManresathe sathe obliga obligatio tionimpos nimposedby edby Articl Article e218 2183 3oftheCivil oftheCivil Code Codeisnotbased isnotbased onthe neglig negligenc ence eoron oron the presum presumedlackof edlackof vigila vigilance nce ofthepossessor ofthepossessor oruserof the animal animal causin causing gthe the damage damage..Itis Itis basedon basedon natura natural l equity equity and ontheprincipl ontheprinciple eofsocia ofsocial l inter interest est that thathewhoposses hewhopossesses ses Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 11 of 16
animalsforhisutility,pleasureorservicemustanswer animalsforhisutility,pleasureorservicemustanswerforthedamagewhichsuch forthedamagewhichsuchanimalmaycause. animalmaycause.
#02 #02 JOSE JOSE DING DINGCO CONG NG,, recurr recurrent ente-a e-apela pelante nte,, vs. vs.HA HALI LIM M KA KANA NAAN AN, , NA NASR SRI I KA KANA NAAN AN, , y MICH MICHAE AEL L KANAAN,dedicadosalcomerciobajolarazonsocialde"AmericanBazar," recurridos-apelados. G.R.No.L-47033,April25,1941 AsJoseDingcongisajointtenantandmanagerofthehotel,withfullpossessionofthetopfloor,he mustthenanswerfordamagescausedbythingsthatwerethrownorfellfromit(Article1910Civil Code).FranciscoEchevarria,aguestofthehotel,wastheonewhodirectlybyhisneglect,leftopenthe tap, tap, let the water waterpip pipe e pull pull back back onthe ground ground and seep seep into into the lower lowerflo floors ors,, drippi drippingonto ngonto the articlesandgoodsoftheplaintiffsandisthusliable.DingcongJose,on articlesandgoodsoftheplaintiffsandi sthusliable.DingcongJose,ontheotherhand,didnotpractice theotherhand,didnotpractice thediligenceofagoodfathertopreventthisdamage,becauseheknewthepipeswerebrokenand didnotrepairthepipes,Echavarriacouldusethetapifhewasprovidedsomecontainertocatchthe dripbyJose.
#03 MARGAR MARGARITA ITA AFIALD AFIALDA, A, plainti plaintiffff-appe appella llant, nt, vs. vs.BA BASI SILI LIO O HISO HISOLE LE an and d FRAN FRANCI CISC SCO O HISO HISOLE LE,, defendants-appellees.G.R.No.L-2075,November29,1949 defendants-appellees. G.R.No.L-2075,November29,1949 The ownerof ownerof ananimalis ananimalis answer answerabl able eonl onlyfor yfor damage damagescaused scaused toa strang stranger, er, and thatfor thatfor damage damage causedtothecaretakeroftheanimaltheownerwouldbeliableonlyifhehadbeennegligentorat faultunderarticle1902ofthesamecode. Inthepresentcase,theanimalwasincustodyandunderthecontrolofthecaretaker,whowaspaid for his work work as such. such.Obv Obviou iously sly,, itwas it was the caretak caretaker' er's s busine business ss totry to try topre to preven vent t the animal animal from from causinginjury causinginjuryor or damageto damagetoanyon anyone,includi e,includinghimself nghimself.Andbeinginjure .Andbeinginjuredbythe dbythe animalunderthose animalunderthose circum circumstan stances ces,, was one of the risks risks of the occupa occupatio tion n which which he had volunt voluntari arily ly assumed assumed and for whichhemusttaketheconsequences.
4.LIABILITYOFEMPLOYERS
Article 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 employment. 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. Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 12 of 16
Article 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 or 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.
5.NUISANCE
Article 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property. Article 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition. Article 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in that property started by a former owner or possessor is liable therefor in the same manner as the one who created it. Article 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence. Article 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether public or private. Article 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or (2) A civil action; or (3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings. Article 700. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against a public nuisance are availed of. Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 13 of 16
Article 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public nuisance, such action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor. Article 702. The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance. Article 703. A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance, if it is specially injurious to himself. Article 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is necessary:
(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance; (2) That such demand has been rejected; (3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police; and (4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos. Article 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are:
(1) A civil action; or (2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings. Article 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be followed. Article 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages:
(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or (2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.
IV.PARTIESINTORTSCASES
Article 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article. (29a) Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 14 of 16
Article 41. For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the foetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb. (30a) Article 1822. Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership or with the authority of his co-partners, loss or injury is caused to any person, not being a partner in the partnership, or any penalty is incurred, the partnership is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act. (n) Article 1823. The partnership is bound to make good the loss:
(1) Where one partner acting within the scope of his apparent authority receives money or property of a third person and misapplies it; and (2) Where the partnership in the course of its business receives money or property of a third person and the money or property so received is misapplied by any partner while it is in the custody of the partnership. (n) Article 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, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. (n) Article 1911. Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers. (n) petiti tion oner er, , vs. vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and OSCAR LAZO, #01 #01 AN ANTO TONI NIO O GELU GELUZ, Z, peti respondents.G.R.No.L-16439,July20,1961 respondents.G.R.No.L-16439,July20,1961 Sinceanactionforpecuniarydamagesonaccountofpersonalinjuryordeathpertainsprimarilyto theoneinjured,itiseasytoseethatifnoactionforsuchdamagescouldbeinstitutedonbehalfofthe unbornchildonaccountoftheinjuriesitreceived,nosuchrightofactioncouldderivativelyaccrueto itsparentsorheirs.Infact,evenifacauseofactiondidaccrueonbehalfoftheunbornchild,thesame wasextinguishedbyitspre-nataldeath,sincenotransmissiontoanyonecantakeplacefromonthat lack lacked ed juri juridi dica cal l perso persona nali lity ty (or (or juri juridi dica cal l capac capacit ity y as dist distin ingu guis ishe hed d from from capac capacit ity y to act). act). It is no answertoinvoketheprovisionalpersonalityofaconceivedchild(conceptuspronatohabetur)under Article40oftheCivilCode,becausethatsamearticleexpresslylimitssuchprovisionalpersonalityby imposingtheconditionthatthechildshouldbesubsequentlybornalive:"provideditbebornlater withthecondition withtheconditionspecified specifiedinthefollowing inthefollowingarticle" article".Inthepresentcase,there .Inthepresentcase,thereisno isnodisput disputethatthe ethatthe childwasdeadwhenseparatedfromitsmother'swomb. Thisis Thisis not tosaythatthe parent parentsare sare not entitl entitledto edto collec collect tany any damage damages satall.Butsuchdamag atall.Butsuchdamages es mustbethoseinflicteddirectlyuponthem,asdistinguishedfromtheinjuryorviolationoftherights ofthedeceased,hisrighttolifeandphysicalintegrity.Buttheimmoralityorillegalityoftheactdoes notjustifyanawardofdamagethat,underthecircum notjustifyanawardofdamagethat,underthecircumstancesonrecord,havenofactual stancesonrecord,havenofactualorlegalbasis. orlegalbasis. Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 15 of 16
Prepared By: Paul Vincent T. Cunanan
Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines Page 16 of 16
