Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • San Beda 2009 Civil Law (Torts and Damages) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Sam Fajardo
    64 views24 pages

    Original Title

    San Beda 2009 Civil Law (Torts and Damages).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    64 views24 pages

    San Beda 2009 Civil Law (Torts and Damages) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Sam Fajardo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24
    San Beds College TORT « An unlawful ete nde Cf orivete right, not created by contract, and which givse rise 0 an | action for damages, : ‘©. Essentially consists in the violation of a right given or the omission Of a duty Imposed hy law. Simply stated tort fs a breach of a legal duty (Naguiat'v. MLRC, G.R No, 116123, March 13, 1997). Classes of toris 4 Negligent Torts (Negiigence} Voluntary acts or omissions which result in Injury tc others, w/ lout intending to enuse the same. The actor fils to exercise due care In performing such irs or omissions, 2: Intentional Torte Conduct whero the actor dobires to cause the consequences of his act or beleves the consequences ars substantially certain to Festit therefrom, 3. Strict Liabitty in tort ‘The person is made. liable independent of fault or negligence upon submission 2} proct of certain facts.” Major purposes of Test Law 4. To provide for @ pixcafil means for : dusting the rights of parties who might otherwise take the law into their oxn hands: To deter wrongful nanduct To encourage socially responsible behavier; To restore injures parting to their otginal condition by coninensating them for thelr injury. erect emelin i reenter i EXECUTIVE COMMATTCE: HERDERT CALVIN ABUGAN Chalrfor operations, JUAN ENE. DE MUEETAC sic cao We ha for tance, ER cma: a a eal od ete aeaceies up ster, tAANOLD ABEL SANTOS: ot AR ANSEUE TANG veh aera IVETE ABNADELAEE INOS ENHACOSIA eer ep fk 10 CONLSPCIC ve ates MEMORY. ALD IN CIVIL LAW! 257 These purposes maw he achieved in the pursuit of the fellowing fundantenital prineiptos: 4, Equly anc justice » Porsens damaged by the wrongtul or neglgant conduct of anather cre compensated, Dertocracy . «Code. includes provisos implementing civé fiberties. guaranteed by the Constitution because, Sf" concern, for democratic way of ff, 3. Pespect tor haman dignity = The touchstone of every system of faws, of the culture and Giviizstion of ary country, is how far It dignifies «nan, Lege Wea it jana KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE 1. Culpa Aquiliana (quaalsdollet) (Art, 2176, wec} Regisiter. ging a. ak ot ladon bing faut or negliadaca”* Damaye: went bythe ‘said, Hlgenve. fe to be hotel wperalions, GACY SARA IRA ves FRANCESCA LOURDES JENGA sect ul, SHEENA MAR AGCLL?aeectnt sleet shir, ACE AVIN GANDO a, FRANCESCA LOUROES SLA ‘usta 1 amily relate, CXISCELYM EAAAYUCAN property, AIA. PELISK CORAZGH PAIIGO en L2AWY WEAVE RALANG ws gad sivers0, MARIA DANAFLOR BERANO p>4 COLLEEN NFANTE ablations and contact, MARY VY ANNE CALANE se and lous, EVA CHAITINE SAPAIAS “patra, agency and (Unt: FATIERINE AN ASLO eet {Wes deed JAN MANUENE REVS oe of wens: i ‘ren Aig, oy lens geld Aran Jona action, SHEENA MAAIE ABELL 1" INN PEERY PORTUGAS fad et, Paul sar Boru, Bator ens Sauda, Alene Bo, Leura asco Kath Franch ones, Angelta alain, Uelah Cegeo, keting Pols Cho, Peraaet Cor Haat Dice, Clara Ersro-Caenan, Can Exar, Divs flr, Le sowie dats Wamu! ia, Toy “Nowa, Roo son, Ince Loe, oceing Laren, Feronse Nau, Herbert Matlento, Chae hs, ‘Menor, Kastl Caneepcion Dr, Josnas Mr Papul, Pate: Sion, Cwtine Somos, Hla Rose Sant, JeroeCaad Taps, Horenet Tolentino, Philp Tore, ca vison, ov Grice Wion Joe era, Diane Tharate Dave, Hover: Davi, Ayah Clana ise Stor, Ms Mls Sua, ul Canon, Dante Nabil 288 | 2009 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 1 755 + Concept of guasi-delist In Art, 2476 is broad it includes injuries to persans and damage to property. (Cinco v, Canonoy, GR No. L-39171 May 31, 1975). Culpa Criminat (criminal nugligence) (Are 908 of the RPC) Elements: 2. That the offender does or fails to do un act; ‘8. That the doing or the falure to do the act is voluntary, © Thet it be without malice; 4d. That materis! damage ‘results fiom ihe reckless imprudence @ That there is inexcusatie lack of brecaution on the part of the offender, considering his "employment or Occupation, degree of intelligence, Physical" condition and orhat Ciroumstanves regarding persons, time ‘nd place. (Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122445 November 18, 1997) Culpa Contractual ~——_ (contractual negligence) (CC provisions on Obligations and Contracts, particularly Arts, 1170 (0 1174 of the Civil Code) Those whe, in the performance of their obligations are yuity of fraud, negligence of delay are liable for damages (Art. 1170) Note: + The field of non- contractual obligations is broader then that of coniraciual obligations; it comprises the whele extent of juridical’ numan relations. (Canyco v. Manila Rairoad Go, GR. No. 12197, Ociober 14,.71918), + This settied that in-eulpa contractual, the mete proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justiy, prima facie, a corresponding nght of ‘relief. (Saludaga v. FEU, GR No. 179337, Aprit 30, 2008) + When petitioner wae shot inside the campus by no less the security guare. who was hired to maintain peace and Secure the premises, there Is a. prima faciy chowing that respunttents falled to comply with its obligation to provide a sale and secure environment tu ils uidents. Respondents, howover, caanol be held liable for damages under Art 2180 of the Civil Cade because they are ol the employers of eald security guard. (Suludaga v. FEU, supra) It is @ separate source} obtigation| Habit of the defendant [is the contract Pendent of contract Ip ‘breach of contractlin quasi-delict the lcommitted by thelpresumptive ‘negligence cf employea,|responsiblity for the| the employer cannot|negiigence of hie! avoid ‘nis primary and/servants can bel |eirect ability by) ‘ebutted by proof of the invoking exercise _ofjexercise of due care in [oligence cf @ gcod|hneir selection and Htathor of a family in the| supervision. selection an [supervision of ‘hel d Crime Distinguished LPS involves ~ privato Affect te public interest Chilis Revsea Aan ears farce Sede enya? MS jer apne cae Eee ba indude a asc hae Panne oy The sop lnd' oF ina aa yen a ee revere tense ° vet atdy of opglaysloasiy of re uov ner aie “2160s ore et ener rock tre ines pa Sa [sastec CONCURRENCE-GE GA. )F ACTION cing act SES ae ges to two oF hye caseabioruclen erase bay :: San Beda College of Lay San Woda College of Bay Negligence Is coniuut which creates en undue risk of harin w others. itis the faire to observe that degre: of cure, preceution, and vigilance which I “circumstances justly demand, whereby sci other person suis Injury (Valenzuola 1; CA, 'G.R, No. 115024 February 7, 1996). Note: The dufinition of repiiganes, its teste und standard of conduct asay to jobigelions wining from contract (Arts 2173, NCC), Tae sama test ‘and definition also apply to eitfinal negliganes, ats of Hepligence 4. Did the, defendont in. doltg the atieged negligent set use, 10 redamabie care and ‘caution which an erdioarly crudent 2rson ‘Wout have used in tne same situetion? 4+ IC mot, then he fs guity ef negigence. 2. Could a’ prudent man, ia the case under consideration, foresee harm as a resuit of the course pursued? + If 80, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against harm. + Reasonahle forcsight oF harm, follovied by the Ignoring of the suggestion bom of this provision, i: aways necessary belure "negligence can ke held to exist “Diligence botore the fect” The conduct that should be examined in negigence cases Is priot canduct of conduct prioe to the injury that rasuited or in proper cases, the aggravation thereof Note: + The state of mind of she actor ig nc! iniportant; good falth, of use of sound judyment is Immteriat. (Picart ". Smit, GR No, 112219, Marcia 18, 1918), > Only juridical faut Is subject to llabitty and not ‘moral fault, Such diligence. bere” tha’ fact does not ces:arily. mear-that conduct which, the "atest way of dong tings. Risi¢ « danger whieh it apy parent ‘of sheulrt be ‘apparent to the actor. Such is unreasonable risk. Wit results In Injury to. tie plaintiff, the latter can recover from. “the |» defendant. (Phoonix Construction v. IAG, G., Na, L-88296 Namah 10, > determing, negligence. “court will place itself In: actor's position to seei/itoa Lprudent__mian could | egigence if ‘buen man the [potion of ne fiorteator woud have {foresgen__that_ te | MEMORY. AIO IN CIVIL LAW| 259. Tiave “foreseen” He | Ranta afeel” Wa} resulting harm { (he | sufficlenly probabie to | conduct is purubs| warrant his condurt or Even if tury we fol | uctding™ against tej foresnenble, rai ‘8 sti | consequence, (Picatv | foreseeable it] Smith, GR No. L possibilty of injury Ie | 72249, March 15, ores 7 1973) + Foresocabilly Is not the same as probability Evan ifthoco is 2 laaser dagree of probablity that damage wil resuit (he damage may stil be considered fsreveeable. Calculation of Fink Rish-flonefit Analysia + Balancing the rick, in Aight of the sociel value of the lnterast threatened! ‘and the probability anc! #xtent of the harm agains! the value of the interest which the actor is seeking fo protect, and the expedience of the course pursued /Prossor and Kvaton, Lew of Torts, p. 173) Ciroumstancos to be considered: 4. Gravity of the harm (o bu avolded: 2. Utlity of condust or tne social value It sovks to advance; 3, Alternative’ course of uction, dangers and advantages (o the person ot property of the actor hirnsolf and to others. + Courts do ot uso aay formula in determining ifthe defenzanl entmitted a regligent actor omission + Negligence Is @ relative or comparative concept. Its appiiation depenos upon the situation the purties are In and the degree of are and viglanee “which the prevaling Sreumstancos reasonebly tequie (Bulian v COA, ie 20064 mpeeen nor 22, 1908) umotai Ads siicatatde pests SAP) son Erbe ie mis righer sare ont align nls tf ans oe o Niatoe Fy am rok of ne ‘ A ant iy o 59 260 |2009 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS I ETS ED BAR OPERATIONS undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear (o be a better solution, Excepiion: When the emergency was brought by “tho individual's own negigense (Valenzuela v. CA, GR. No. 115024. February 7, 1996). In McKee’. Intermediate Appetiaty Court GR No. L-68102 July 16, 1992 one of the Dlaintfs therein swerved is vehicle in order to avoid hitting two (2} children, $C held tal any reasonable ana ordinery prudent man would have tried swerving the car away rom Where they were even if this would niean entering tna opposite lane. 3. Seciai Value or Utiliy of Action + Any act subjecting an inriocent person to unnecessary risk is @ negligent act ifthe Tisk outweighs the advantage accruing to the actor arid even to the innocent person himsett 4. The time of the day may affect the diligence. requifed of the actor, (Art. 1173, NCC) (@.g. a river is required to exercise more arti wien driving at night) 5. Gravity of the Hann to be Avoided + Even if the odds that en injury will eacult are not high, harm may stil he eonsidered foreseeable if the gravity of harm to be avoided is great, 6. Alternative Courses of Action Ifthe alternative presente: to the actor is too castly, the harm that may result may still be considered unforeseeable to a reasonable man. More so if there is aa akemative tnereto, 7. Place +A man who should have oveasion to discharge a gun on an open and extensive marsh, or in a forest would be required to use lees cicurspection and care, than i he were to do the same thing in an inhabited town, vilago or city. + Travelling on a siippery road requires higher degree of diligence than driving in a dry raze, GOOD FATHER OF & FAMILY (PATER FAMILIAS) The standard of conduct used in the Philippines is, that of petsrfamilas: or good father of a family. What should be determined in: negligence cases is what's foreseeable to a good father of a family + Agood father uf a family is likewise referred 10 as the reasenable man, man of ordinary Sau Beds Coltege of Lao Intelligence and prudence, or ordinary reasonable prudent man, (Art 1173, 2178) ‘+A reasonable man is deemed’ to have Knowledge of tho facie that a man should be ‘apected to know tased on crainary human experience (PNR v IAC. GR No. 7084, January 22, 1393), +The (aw requires @ man to possess ordinary capacity te avoid harming Ns neighbors Unless “a clear ard manifest incapacity is shawn; but it does not generelly hold him Idol" for unintentional injury unless, Possessing such copacity, he might and ‘cught to have foreseen the dangar. (Corliss v. ‘Mania Reiroad Co., G.R,.No. L-21294 Marchi 26, 1969} + The knowiedge and experience ofthe actor is considered in determining whether he observed cue diligence (Corliss vs. Manila Railroad Co, supra) SPECIAL RULES 1. Children + Applying the rovisions of thy RPO, Judge Sangco lakes the view that a child whois Y oF below Is. conclusively presumed to ba Incapable of negigence Sh the ethar hand, ths avid above 6 years but bulow "6, thee Is @ dispulablo prosumtion of abeene> of negigence “his opinion was. adopted "in voroo ‘Marketing’ Corpeation ot ayy. Court of Appeals, et a. (GR. No. 129792, Deceraber 21, 1988) which modi the tule laid down te Taylor v. Mera (6. No. L-4977, Marsh 22, 1940) tat tne aw fixes no arbitrary age at which @ minor can be sald by have the necessary eapaciy 10 understand avi appreciate the pplureidid tateeque ge of his acts i ee ee vna Revues Pete Code ee bea ly ren by RA. D944 RSAENe knoned Jduveniiondystciryang 20) Se 2 ne ate “a sl spoedubel co Fst Disgalt goan Bern College of Zaw Exception: If {va axtect amounts to a real disability, the otesard of conduct is that of a reasonable persct under like clsabiity Intoxteation General rule: dese intoxication isnot negligenve nor «Hablishes Went of ordinary core, But it may 26 che of the exveumstances to be conskfured ‘0 prove nagllaence (i \, Manila Electric al obd & Light Co. SR No, 1:7760. October 1, 1044), Exception: It Is presumed that @ person driving @ motor \ichite has been negligent if at the time of tte mishap, he was viorating any tafe regulei!n, (Ar. 2468) . Insanity + Under tho NG, an insane perion i« exempt from srifrinal labity. But there may be cli liability even when the perpetratoy. tt exempted trom oriminal “Tebilty..“An fisene person io el! liabie ‘with his propu-ty for the consequonces of his acts,"-ihnugh. they be performed unvitingly, ('S v, Beggay, Jn GR, No 5708, Septeribor 1, 1911). + Tho'same rue’ Is applicable uidor the Chill Code, The insanity of a person does not excuse, tim. of. his guardian from liability bated on quasidelict (Arts, 2160 ‘and 2482, NCC) 8. Women ee Valanzuaia’y. “CA: GR No, 116024, bruary 7, 1996. appenrs to require @ ferent staidand of care for women counder the . circumstances indicated therein. It: Vs elleved It can alto bo argued thet st sarhe cénclusior can bo reached if & vag a nian who was In the position of tH: acter,.(Aquino, Terts and Damages, p. ;00) + Dean Guido * atabrasi bellows that there should be. 8 uniform standsrd bowaen men and worst, __MEMOIY AIO IN-CIVIL LAV] 262. VGA. GR No, L-68478, August 29, 1988). Exesptions: 8. Wher: urlisua! coneitions occur and stot obcorvance may defeat tho puipase nf the rule and may ovei inn ty nuvorst reavts, b. When the sfafute provides thal the viotation merely astabiches a prnaumptien of negigerce. b. Admvnisiatio Rules Viowetion of a rule “promulgated by acminichative agancies 'a net negligence per se out may bo EVIDENCE OF NECUGENGS ©. Privito Rule +f Conduct Violation ot nuté& iniposed by private Individuals (0.4: employers) te moraly a POSSIBLE. © EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, Burton of Pcof \ General rule; Pidintitt must pressnt proot that the proximate eatise of his -Injury "is the negigence-e! the davenciint’ and that there was cnusal” sorifestion ‘between the negigerce of Violation of the statute and the injury. (Vda, 09 Grigorto, et al’v. Go Chong Bing, ’G.R. No. 7763, December 2, 1957) Exception? Proof of violation of statute and damage {6 the’ plein may Itcelf establish preximnaié etude where the camage to plaintiff 18 the damage’ sought to be preverited. (Teayle w Farendez, GR No. L- 29745. Juito 4, 1979) Fractlco ond Custoin * Compliance witlt the prdvtion and custom inv a community “wil ‘fot eutomaticaly result in a findleig that the actor is mot guilty of fegligence. Non-compliance with the g essnotnecessarlly mean that ne ist i. fo} tite Fe yele yore wi ‘Other Factors 40 Su asidor In Determining the: Presence of Negligi tice 4. Violation of Rul and Statutes .. Statutes Generaf'ruie; Violation ‘of a stalutiry duly fe NEGLIGENCE PER. SE. (Cipriano v. CA. GRN8.107968 October 39, 1991) When: the Leglsiature has spoken, the \ standard. of care required is no longer what a reasorably prudent inan would do under the .cicuristances but what the ‘Legislature haa commanded. Petitionor's fullire to conetruct a firewall In avcoréance wih cy ordinances is an act of neglignnoe (FF Gruz and Co, [ic finance, cl 4 driving >" want of even Iyence and implies aa w-782.12009 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS, indifference - to consequences; 9 course of conduct which would naturally and probably result to inj; utter disregard of the consequences. + In quasi-delicis, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted witn gross negligence. (Art. 2234) Proof of negligence Burden of Proof: The quantum of proof required 's preponderance of evidence. (See. 1, Rule +33, Rules of Court) General rule: W plaintif alleged in his complaint that he was damaged bocause of the negligent acts of the delendant, plaintiff hes the burden of proving such negligence (Taylor v. iMERALCO, ‘supra Exoeotior's: When the rules or the lew provide for ‘cases when negligence is presumed: 1. Presumptions of Nogligence Fault or negligence Is presumed under the following circurnstances: a In motor vehicle mishaps, it is disputably presumed that a drivar wae negligent if hs had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating tratic regulations st least twice within the preceding two months (Art. 2184, par. 1 second sentence) b. Unless there is proof to the contrary, itis Presumed that @ person driving @ motor Vehicle was negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was. viclating any traffe regulation. (Art. 2488) © There is prima facie presumption of negigence: on the part of the defendant i the death or injury’ results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such es frearms and poison, excep! when the possession o: tise thereof is indispensable in his occupation orbusiness. (Art. 2198) 4. In case of death or injurivs to passergers, common carriers ore presumed 9 hav ‘ocen at fault or acted negligently, unlass they prove that they observed sxircordinary dligenco proseribad in Attcles 1733 and 1758. (Ar. 1756) (Sangco, Torts end Damages, p. 18) Res Ipsa Loquiur The thing or transaction speaks for tself ‘+ Is function is to ald the plalatit in proving elements of negligence by sircumstantiai evidence. (Epstein, p. 294) +The dootrine is nt a ruie of substantive lew but merely a mods of proof or @ mere pincedutal convenience. (Layugan v. San Beda College of Law Intormadiate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73993 Noveniber 14, 1988) Requistos: a, The occurrence of an Injury; b. The thing which caused the inlury was ‘under the contfol and manayement of the defendant; © The occurrence was such that In the ordinary course: of things, would not Have happened if these who had conticl or management used proper rare; and d, The absence of explaneiion by the defendant. (Professional Services, ine. v. Agena, GR No. 126297, January 31, 2607) Elements: , the “apparatus? must be cuch that in codinary etate of affairs no injury would resut unless: from a careless construction, insoertion or user 'b. both inspection and user must have been, at the tine of the injury was undar the ‘exclusive contra! of the person charged with negligence ete injurious condition or occurance must not have beon'due to eny voluntary action on tie part of the injured peison. Inapelicabilty of doctrine a. If there Is dirert proof of absence or presence of negligence (Martinez v. Buskirk, ®.R. No. L-5691, December 27, 1910). b. When an unexpiained accident may be altibutable to-cne of several causes, for some of which ‘defendant could not be eid response. « (FGU Insurance Comoration ¥. G.P. Sarmionto Trucking Corporation, G.R No. 141910, August 6, 2002) ative a ri On, vents “4 Sige oruxs Ye without c@figerto Hidxseit aggre ene ccc a anna te San Bed Colleg? of Zain b. To hulp or reiclur aesistance to another whom one 4118 uedldentally wounded or fajured ¥ = er fo" dellver‘in. abdidoned child under sevon yearu.of-ape {0 the authorities or his tamity of sike inh to @ safe glaco No driver of # ister Vahicle eoncemed in a vvohicula, aceldert’ shall leave thn scene of the ‘accident without hiding the vistim unless he i * excused from dcing 80 (Sua. 85 RA: 4196 {Land Transportetion arid Traffic Cudo)) 3. In tha caseof InNiduale required by tw to take sare of. arithor person: Farents swith + respect to thel’ chiicren or. guardians. with Fespect to their ers. OWNERS, PROPRI OF PROPERTY. * Damnum cbsque injuria » Damage to ary persci: reeuiting from the rxercise ‘of any rights of ow.ership Is damage without Injury. : General ruie: The dimer hes no duty to take reatonabio care tuvlitds a trespasser for his Protection or even to protect him from concealed Sanger. fORS AND POSSESSORS: Exceptions. 4. Vietors ‘Owners of buildinrs or premises ave a duty of care 10 visitors (Cablgao vs. University of the East, CA G.R. No. 33554-R, August 24, 1973). _ 2 Tolerated possession ‘The ower Is st table Ifthe plaintt Is inside this _property by: tolerance er by implied permission. Common carrlera. may be Held fabio for negligence to. ersons who stay in thelr premises even iftt ay mie not passangers. 3. Doctnne of Attraciiva Nuisance ‘One who malitalns: on his premises dangerous instrurt entalties or applicncos of a character likely tc’ attract children in pray, and fails to prevant ctid’en from playing therewith for resorting thersto, 14 llablo io @ child of tender years wh: Is inlured thereby, even. it tho child ls’ te¢t’ Joally 2 trespnsrer in the premises. .(Hideloo éntengiises, Inc. v. Balencian, G.R. Ne\.L-3422, Juno 13, 1782) # This doctrine ‘generally not appicabie {o bodies of ‘vater, artificial as well as naturel, i te absence of some unusal condition of srtficlal faatu.e other than the mere wate and its location, (De Leon, Comments end Cases cn Torts and Damages, p16) 4. State of Necessity (Art432) LNIEMONY AID IN CIVIL LAW] 263, A situation of’ praseht “dangor 16° legally protected interests, in which thore fa 16 othor remedy tan th, uring. of another’. aiso logelly. protected Interest. (Abort, dusty and Exemnptng Choumsiances. ‘under 0 Penal Code, roprintod In Ayuino, “forty and Domayos, p. 167) Use of propeitiss that injures another + An owner-cennat use his property In such a manner 8 to injure the rights of others (Art 491, C0). + Third persons who. suffered damages nay proceed only against the engineer or aruiitect ‘or contractor if the damage referred to in ‘Articles 2180 aid 2101. should be a rasull of ‘any defect In, csnetuction, (Art, 2182, Civil Code) " EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES Employers + In quasidellctual’ Betions against tho employer, tke employee may use Lator Code provisions imposing upen the empioyer duties for proper malntenence of the work place or adequate facities to ensure the selely of the empinyees, + Fallure of the employer to comply with sald mandatory. provisions thay be considered negligencs per se Femployoos * + Employees ain bound to exercise ave cara in the. performance ‘of their functions for the employers, .iablity may be baeed on negigenics “committed while inthe performance of the dutles of the employne (Aranata v, Do Joya, GR No. L-25172, May 24, 1974, Ma-09 Sugar Control v. CA, GR No. Jae ea TAIRA: rt when ho FES caro Nfavvothiness Vrdinary clerks and expected to exercise 265 264 12009 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS the highest degree of dligonca in the selection and supervision of thair employees, (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, GR. No, 102383, Novamoer 26, 1992) COMMON CARRIERS + They are requed to exercise extraordinay diligence in the vigilance over their Passengers and transported goods (Arl. 1733 Civil Code. + contract to transport passengers is diferent |n kind and degree from any olher contractual relation bosause of the relation which an air carrie sustains with the public, ts business 's ‘mainly with the traveling public. It invites People to avail of the comferts and advantages it offers. The contract of air narriage generates a relation attended with a Public duty, Neglect or malfeasance of the cartier's employees is @ ground for an action for damages. (Air Franco v. Carrascoso, 3.R. No. L-21428 September 28, 1966) bocTors General Praotitioner-- The standard of care demanded Is ordinary care and iligence in tne application of his knowiedge end skill in his practice of the profession Specialist - The legal duty te the catient is Generally considered to be that of an average Specialist, not. that of an avefage ohysician (Pocto P: Solis, Medial Juvisprucenie, 1989 Ed, 225) Captain of the Ship Doctrine + The operating surgeon is the person ie Complete charge of the surgery room and all Personnel connected with the operation, iheir duty is to obey his orders, (Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, GR. No. 126297, Januaty 31, 2066) * The head surgeon Is made liable for everything that goes wrong whhin the four comers of the operating room. + The senior consultant in charge durig the olivery of respondent's baby, exsrcisod contrat over the assistants assigned to bath tho use ot the droplight and the taking of respondent's blood pressure; (Cantre vs. Sps. Go, G.R. No, 160889, April 27, 20C7) Eloments of Madical Nogtigenee (OBIP!: 1, Duty to use at least the same level of care that any reasonably prudent doctor would use to treat_a condition under the seme circumstances 6a Hin Beda Col 2, Breach of suen professional duty of improper performance thereof 3. Injury Is caused: to the patient; constituting sctionatle malpractice 4. The doctor’ actions in fact caused the harm {o the patient or were the proximate cause of the patients igjury ‘Two pronged evidenée: 1. Evidence as lo the rucognized standards of the medical earimuntty in the particular kind ofcase; and. : 2. A showing that the physician departed from this standard in his treatment. + Itis a matter of export opinion whether a Physicianor surgeon ‘tae exercised the foquisite degree of skil and care In the ‘veatment of his patient + In cases involving medical negligence, the doctrine of res jose foguitur allows the ‘mere exiglence of an injury to justly ‘a presumption of negligence on the part of {on person who controls the instrument causing the injury, provided the folowing concur a, ‘The accident is of a kind Which ordinary does not occur in. the absence of scmeone’s negligence; bt Ie. caused by. an instrumentally valthin the exclusive control of the defendant; and ©. The possibilty of contributing conduct whlch. would make the plaintf responsibie is eliminated. (Carte vs. $9.0; G.R, No. 160868, April 27, 2007} + Mecical -rialprectica can. also be established by the: docirine of res ipsa Joquilur. Is tilted to caces where the Gof paymont of REGNa™ whether such control test is wages, San Hed Col ge of aw determining. (Nuybiles’ vs, Capitol Meuiou! Gonter, GA. No: 142622, December 13, 2006)" + The hospitar’ lletilty 19 also anchored uron the agency prirelple of apparent authority or agency by wslopps! and, the dociine of corporate ne(ligence whith haw. gelned acceptance fi the deleimination of a hosoital’slabity far negligent acts of health protessionais.. (Professional Servizes, Inc. v. Agane, supra) ‘Apparent Authority © Where it Is town that 2 hospital, oy its actions, has héld out a particular prysician as 4's agent and’n: employee and that @ patient fas accepted tleatment from that physician in tne reasonable belief that itis belng rendored In behalf of the hospital, the hospital will be liable for tte paysician’s negiigence. (Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, supra) Doctriné of Corporate Responsibility ‘© A hospital has the duty to see thar it meets the standards of responsibiltios for tho care «of patients, Such ditty Includes. the proper supervision of ‘the members of its :nedice! stall. (Profossic nal Sorvices, Inc v. Agana, supra) 1 + Ifa hospital brsached its ditivs to eversee or superviss all persone. practicing medicine within its. wails and algo tailed to take an active step In fix ng the negligence commited, will be vicariously lable for the negligence cf the doctor-uncer ait 2180, and directly liable for its owt: negligence under Art. 2176 (Professional Services, Inc. v. Agane, supra) ‘Ownars and Oparn-ota of Ciinical Laboratories Test of Existene’ of Neglyencu: Did the hesith ‘care providers fc 4. Fail to do. 86+iéthing. whic’ a reasonably prudent “healtl’Gate provider would have done, or did: #Zinetthing which reasonably yrudent healla, (ate provider wou'd not have Sdoneyand et 2.The Talliré: or action caused Inlury to the palent.(Garcle, Jr. vs Salvador, GR. No. 138512, Merch 0, 2007) Duty: Ownérd” 4Ad ‘operators | of cin'cal laboratories have tha duty to comply wth status, tutes, and regulations, promulgated to protect and promote the hesith of the seople by preventing “the operation, ol” ‘substandard, | improperly menaged. ard ‘Inacequatély supported clinical laboratories inproving ,’the quality of performance of dlinlcal laboratory examinations, (oid) oP Gaia evnnand MORY AID IN CIVIL LAW| 265, Stondard of Dutys.‘Theit business is. pressed with public ingrest, High standards cf pertormance tre expected from then. (ibk!) DRUGGISTS/DRUGSTORF BUSINESS + AS active players in the field of dispensing medicines to the sublc, the highest degree of wie and dligence is expacted of them, Drugglsts must exercise tho highest practicable degree 2f prudenow end vigiianice, ‘and the tnost exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of the business, so that human life may not constantly 2¢ expoted to the danger flowing from the substitution of deadly poisons for harmless, medicines. (Meromy Drugs Corporation’ v. De Leon, GR No.1056%'. October 17 2008). + In the purshane and sale of drugs, the buyer and sellor do not etand at arms length. Thar exists. an imperative duty on the selior of the druggist to take precaution to prevont dant cr injury te any person who relies on one's absolute honesty and. peculier learning (Mercury Dru) Comporation v Da Leon, supr) + In Mercury Brug Conoration v. Baking (GR No. 156027, Moy 25, 2007), Baking wis given e polant sleeping tablet, instead of madicinas 'o stablize-his blood sugar. On the third day of taking the wrong medicine, Baking figured in vehicular accident.. He fell asleep while driving. ‘The Court held that the provimate ceuso of the accident was the gross negligence of the pharmacist viho gave the wrong mediine tc Baking. LAWYERS: GRd. |. 4014, (Qemfaniia vs. EVonuory 26, ed to perfoct demagos), 266 |2009 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS. EXPERTS 71 + An expert should exhibit the care and skill of ‘one ordinarily skied in the particular feld that he Is in, (Cullon Ico, Fish & Eloctric Co ¥, Philpping Motars, GR No, L-3264. November 3,1930). + The rule applies to professionals, lke dectors, pilots and others, wiio hava undergone formal ‘education. (Fernanda v.:CA. GR No. 9208, May 8, 1992), 1. Complete completely bars tecovery 2. Partial ~ mitinates liablity PLAINTIFF'S CONDUCT AND GONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 1. Plaintf?’s own negligence as the proxiinate cause + He cannot recover damages (Art. 2178 Chil Cod), % Contributory neglgenes (art, 2179 Cv Code) Tk is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause fo the harm he has suffered, which falls below the sterdard {o which he Is required to conform “for his own protection (Valenzuela v. CA. GR No. 115024. February 7, 1996) + The defense of contrlauiory noglgence does not apply in criminal cases Committed thraugh rackless imprudence, since one cannot allege the nagigenco of another i evade the effects of nis own negligence. (Manzanares vs. People, GAR. Nos. 189760-61, October 12, 2006) + Iisa paral defense, Distingulshad from Emorgency Rulo ‘An artor wha is confronted with en emergency is Not to be held up.to the standard of conduct normally applied to an Individual who 1s in no such situatlon (Valanzuela v.'CA, GR No. 115026. Fobruary 7, 1996). DOCTRINE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ‘The relative degrae of negligence of the partes is considered in determining whether, and to what degree, elther. should be responsible for his negligence (apportionment of damages). IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Negligance Ie imputed Ifthe actor is different from {he persan who is being made liaule, + Since a master may be held for his servant’s wrongful act, the law imputes to the master the act of the servant, and if that sc is Soon feds College of Law negligent or wrongful etd proxirnately results in lnlury to 0 third pe-tion, the negligence or ‘wrongful conduct fr the negligence or ‘wrongful conduct of tha master, for which he {is table, (Phi, Commencal Inti Bank v. CA, GAR, No, 121413, vaniary 26, 2001) Effect: The defendant iyill he’ subject to mitigated iabiliy even if the’ piainiif’ was’ not himself personally negtigent becali.e the negligence of ‘nother is imputed to the plinti Applicubility: ifthe negilgehice was on the part of the person for whom the plalntif is responsible, and especialy, by negligenca of an associate in the «ransaction whera he wap Injured. (Rayes and Puno, Outing of Philppiné Chil Law, Vol. 6, p. 169) FORTUITOUS EVENT / ‘An event which could not ¢@ foreseen, or which though foreseen, was inaviteble Gonaral rule: It Is a éorplete'de‘ense and a person fs not dable if ta eause of the damage ‘was @ fortuitous evant, ; : Exzeption: It Is merely « artial defense and the ‘courts may mitigate the da veges if the loss would heve resulted In any evant (Art. 2215/4) Civil Code), Essential chatacteriatics:: + 4. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected oscurtence, of of the “alure of the debtor to comply wih his spligation, must be independent of the hurtin wil 2, Ik must be impossible to foresee the event which canatitutes the “eso fortulto* or Hit can be foresen sible to avo'd; 3, The o | to fencer t Sala kneos pligaton are Uegegligent or reckless conduct of the defendant cannot recover for We Sun eda Colley: of Lavy such harm, (Sai Torts and Oamagas, pp. 61-82) - VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA - One Is not is Injured if he has contaniad to the act complai of or was willing that I! shouid cour, Elements: i 4, The plaintit myst xuw that the risk Is present, 2, Ho must understard its nature; 3. His choice to incut It Is free and voluntary, (Prosser and Kacton, p. 487), HOW:VER, plaintiff s excused it: A. Anemergency Is found to exist ‘o,f the ivfe oF property-of another Is in perl ‘when he seeks to rescue his encangered property (iiaeu8 None Eluctri: Cov. CA, GR No, 1463401, Novemhor 6, 1989) it's a complete defense, It doos NOT apply: Where one parson ctented! a danger end another pern, with knowledge and appreciation of its existence, voluntarily assumes the rlek of such danger but is not infused by it “even though he fs Injurod tt, some othor way in “attempting to withdrew from the suene alter the ‘degree of danger inerdases, (Sungco, Torts and “Damages,p. 82) Kinds: 4. Express walver of the right to recover Art. 6, Neo) . There Is assumption of risk If the plaintiff, in advance has expiesely walved his right’ to recover damages’ oF the negligant act of the defendant * Before commision of negligent act, the waiver c* the Vight to recover is prohibited. © After cause of" action accrued, waiver mate's, volld and: construed oe ‘cor donation t4 the, Sbligation implied Assumptions: 22° a.” Dangerous Cunditions: A person who, knowing’ that he Is. exposed to a verok © dangerous &8.dNon, voluntarily aesumes, ty lak of aul dangerous condition moy = ‘not’ jeeovar! irom the defendant who . $ nailed Hu dangerous conditlons. 4 5) Kinds of Dang erous Conditions 4 Those tha Ste Inherently dangerous “Those whire, a perso’ places a thing «whieh Js hut dangerous Jn Ttee'f, in es dangerous pubition. I Those baling products and other things which are dangerous because they ard dotective, b. Contractual” Rolations!. There may be Implied asslimption of risk if the plaintif’ pn ore MEMORY Al IN civil Lay] 267 entered Ino ti eontzactutl refation with the celendant, Examples, ‘Tho ahiployers assume the ordinary visks fnherent tn the industry In which ho is employed. re waporrval "risks arising from tunustl coneftions, It is @ question of fact nd there mile" ve cogent and convincing evidence of such consent li, When a peusenger boards.a common cere, he takes the risks incidentat to tte mode -of travel he has taken, (Yobido v, Gourt of Appeals, G.R..NO. 113003 Cotabor $7, 1997) 6. Dangorurs Activitias: Persons votuttasly patticlzathg © in-dangerous activities assume tho disks usually present in such actives, (6.0; professional athletes) 4. Defendants “negligence: When the plaintit ts aware of the risk created by the defendant's Hegligence, but he voluntarily decided ty proceed to encounter It, there is ay Implied “admission (Prosser ond Keeton, p.481).£,9, Plaintiff assunics tisk of using unsafe product if he know itto be vunsate DEATH OF THE DEFENDANT 1 is NOT a defense end ft does nol exlinquish the obligation based on quastdelict. ‘An action survives evan If the detendant dies during the pendency of the case if it is an action fo recover fore Injury to persons or property by’ reason of tort committed by the deceased. ‘The case will continus through the egal representative who will substitute the deceased. (Aquino, Torts and Damages, p. 27 268 |2009 CENTRALIZED RAR OPERATIONS INVOLUNTARINESS * Itls.a comple’ dafensa In quast-delict cases Example: When the delandant was forced to drive his vehicle by armed men. He was, 7 pain of death, forced to drive at a very fast clip beceuse ine armed men were escaping, {rom the policemun. The defendant cannot bs held able, if a bystander is hit as a Consequence, (Aquino, Torts a! Oamago, pp. 248-249) + Persons using. vilence or causing feer are primary Wable for acts committod by third Persons. actiny under irrasistibie forse or uncontrollable “fear. It there ba no such Persons, those doing the uct shall be liable secondarily, (Article 101. Revised Penal Code). Natural and continuous: sequenco, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces tha Injury, without which tne result weuld ot nave eceuried, REMOTE CAUSE - That cause which some Independent force merely took advantage of to ccompish scmeihiog ot the nalua! fect thereof NEAREST CAUSE > That cause which Is the fast ‘ink in the chain of events; the nearest in point of Aime or relation, Note: Proximate cauge Is NOT necessarily the Nearest cause, CONCURRENT CAUSES Whore several causes producing the Injury are concurrent and each iy an effclent-cause without wich the Injury: would nat have happened, the Injury may bo aitributed to all or any of the causes ‘and recovery may ba had against any o° all of the ‘esponsible peruons, ‘+The actor Ie. lable even if the’ active and ‘substantially simulteneat's operation af the effects of @ third person's innocent. tortuous (ot criminal act Is also a substantial factor in Eringing about tha harm go long as the acor's egilgent conduct actively and contauostly ‘purate to bring about hai to anther (A/ie2 ¥,Callox. G.R No. L-12986, March 31 1966). Doctrine of Laat Glear Shanco - the person who hae the last fair chanca. to avoid tho Impending harm and fale to do 20 ly chargeable with the consequences, without refsienve «@ the ores negligence of the other party. 7 + The doctrine of last slear chance cannot be extended into tha feld of joint tortfeasors as a {ust of whather enly one cf them should be hheld liable to the injured person and It cannot be Invoked <1 between — defendants concurrantly negligent. (Bustamante v. Court of Appeals, G.P. No. 89890, Fobruary 6, 1991) Concurrent negligence of 2 or more persons - Where tha concurren:. or successive negligent acts oF umissiens of two oF more persons, although acting indepercently, are in combination ing direct and proximate cause of a single Injury {ou third person, and itis Impossiale to determine Jn what proportion: ea contributed to the Injury, cather Is responsitle for the whole Injury, evan though his set alone might not have caused the entire injury, or:the ema ‘damage might have Tesuited from the’ acts of the other tortfeasor. (Subléo v. Custodio, GR No, L-21542. August 91, 1966) ¥ ‘+n case of an injury to a passenger dus'to the » egiigance of the-driver of the bus on which he was riding ané’the driver of the: other vehicle, the divais and owners of the two Vohicies ure jointly and severally lable for damages (Vinlvan v, CA. GR Nos. L-21477- 81. Apri 29, 1986) Tests cf proximate ciatso Tworpart test 1. Cause-in-fact Teat — must first determine if defendant's nagligunce was the eause-ln-fact Of the damage w plainlif. The inquiry stope if ‘twas nat. 2 Policy Test ~ if-d:fendant’s negligence wat tha cause-In-fact, inquiry shifts to question of limit __/bin Beda College of Latw Sean Beda Collegs 17 ty + The cauins! get in motion by the defendant fist continue. unill the moment ols; damage’ or at toast down the 4tlng in rotiin of the fine! active. friurinus — forve whith immediately: produced or preceded the damay3. Note: The. Siibstantial Factor Test is Important in (stermining eause-mfact in ‘concurrent ca'1pe8 NESS Test, + Tho det ok shiasion fa a caune-hefact if It Is. Botadsary glemant of & sgufficlent itis, + Whether, particular eanditon quaitn iy Substantial folevnl factor vil epend on whether It wae necessary} 10. complete a set of conditions jointly suificient to account foi the glvad occurence, + Used to, Zolve problema regarding ‘concurrent 3ause8 Ways* by Which -eo-prosonce may manifest fisolt ‘a. Duplicatlva causation: When two cr yo ate AVI GL LA) 26, 3. Natural and Ondinury or Diract Consequence Test Hindsight rout Orbit of Risk Test Substantial Factor Test 4 6 6 Policy Tosts may bo dike’ into two groups: 1, Foresight Peispective/ Foroseeabiity Tests The ‘defendant is.:not ‘leble for the unforesensble consaquencds of. his acts and. liabllly. 1a fimited within ' the. tsk created by defendants! negligent acts, Includes the’ nelural and provable congequerce inst, . 2. ‘Direct Perapective/ < Direct Consequences Tests “ The defendant is” table for ‘damages ‘which are beyond the risk. Direct cunsequendes, are. those which follow in sequence. from the effect of defendants ect upon condtoné existing and forces already i operatisi at the time witheut Intervention of any extemal forces, which ome Into active operation later. (Prossor Gift Keatin, .294) more sets operate simutlaneously to produce the effract; In othor words, the EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE ‘On3 which cesiroys the “causal connection effect is over-determined, Setween the negligent aet “and the injury and b. Preemptive’ causation: — When, hereby - nogatives iabiliy. (Novus actus through “ceming about first in time, Intorviens) “ene causal set trumps _ancther potential set furking in the background; the causal potency of the latte: Is frustrated. ‘There is NO efficient intervening cause If the force created by the regiigent act or om’ssion have elther: ica 4. Remained acive itself, or Nocossary 00; 3ilion ~ a circumstanca in 2. Created another force whicly remained active ‘whose absence the event cannot over unt it dicecty caused the result, or 3. Created a now active tisk of being actod upon Sutfcient coreition = a circumstance in 1468? Nhe i Ly the agtivarat the ronvi whose prasen:s the avert must cour fig 2 % A of Butidiéney: “Nl Must ap it Multiple cause tn ndent dRUARSCR cont ane ‘+ Ariges wiisto, in addition to merc backgrourit conditions, we are ware of more'thah ohe candidate condition ‘competing for the tile ‘cause’ of the event, + Gan lea a2eur I there are a numbor of oandidtte"condtiona (davintion» from the nein)which, taken one at a time, wotls not’ Infact have been eufficient'0. ¢omplete the set in fervering conjunetio “only with the background to guard conditions: | Policy tost . Gsreurrent feature 4, Foresecabiity Test 4 not an_elficlent 2. Nature! and Probaliie, Consequence Test intervening case becthise It's foreseeable pe 365 270 {2009 CEN"RALIZEN BAR OPERATIONS * A tosfoasor is lablo fer the consequence of ugigence, mistake or jack of skill ot a physician or surgeon. whoso_ treatment ‘aggravated the original injury, The same is conaldered # normal and foreseeable risk. + Tha original torfeasor-is not lable where the Injuced "pary falled to exerrise reasonable care in securing the services of e competent surgeon or phyrician.. Such can be considarad as an efficient intervening cause. Unforacoen and Unexpected Act or Cause + The intervention of an UNFORESEEN AND UNEXPECTED CAUSE Is nol sufficiont to roliave the wrongdoer fiom coneaquences of negligence If such negigence directly ard proximately cooperates with the independent cause in the vasulting injury, (Africa v. Catex, GR. No, L-12906, March 31 1965). + An unforeseen and unexpected act of a third person may not. be. cansidered an offcient Interyening cause if Its duplicadve in natuie or itt merely. aggravated the injury that fesuited because of the prior cause, The ‘sume conclusion can be reactied If the third person's oct is part of the causal eet, together wih: tha. defendant's negligence, thet operates to cause the injury. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Compound Causos ‘+ Plaintiff's: negligence may have duplicative ‘offact, that s, IIs sufficient to bring about the effect but his “negigence occurs sinultanecusty with the dafendunt; the latter's egligence is equally. sutticient, but. not Recessary for the tact because damage would stil hava resyited due 10 tho negligence of . the 'plainif, Pialnut's inegigenco is not merely contributcry Lecnuse tis @ concuring. proximate czuse. No ecovery can be had (Aquino, Torts and Damages, p.303), Part of the samo causal sot + Plainil's negligence ts not sufficient to cause ihe Injury while defendant's negligence is aiso not equally sufficient, Tha effect would oniy Tecult If bota are present together with normal background conditions. Plaintif's negligence ean be considered merely contributor In this situation, en appertionnnent sivould to mado and each of the candidate causes is given a percentage of rarticipation. However, eduction ot defendunt’s lability cannot be mre than 60% since to vo go (s no loncer Consistent with. tha finding that tno Gefondant’s negligence way the proximaty San Zed College of Zaw cause of the damagh.' (Aquino, Torts and Dameges, p. 310) Note: If plaintif's negigence Increased or aggrevated the resulting damage or Injury tlabllity of tne defendant should also be milgaled under contributory negligence ruly or under the doctrine of avoidable consequences, DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE OR DISCOVERED PERIL OR DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING "NEGLIGENCE OR HUMANITARIAN DOCTRINE The negligence of the piaintkt dows not praciude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant \where il appears that the defendent, by exorcising Feasonabie care and’ pnidence,’ might have avoided Injurlous consequarces to the plalnttt notwithstanding the plajatfa. negligence, (Sangeo, Torts and Damage, 2.78) Elomants: 1. Plalntit by hie own negiijence placed himself ina dangerous situation, 2 Defendant saw. ar).by. the: exercise of Teasonabie care should ‘inve discovered the porous position of the plot {in tie to avotd injuring ym; Nowithstanding such tice and imminent Peril, sno defondant aigiigently failed or fefused 9 use evaty rovgonable means at hie command jo avoid the leazending Fury 5. AS a rocut of when plaintif was In fact injured. (Sangco, Torts énd Damages, p.G5) + The weight of authority Indicates that thle doctrine Is applicable in ths Jurisdiction, Cases wien tho was CY ee ee Shan Pedy College if ah een ge RN i, lal CATCH ALL ROWS (Articles 19-21 of the Noo) Serve as basis of rny imaginable tort ection: ‘These are provislers. 3n human relations that “were Intended to exBand the concept ct torts. in this jurisdiction by‘granting adequate lega! remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which 1 Impossible for human foresight 1o specifzaily provide in the statutes, (Phiippina-Notione! Bank v. Court of Appoa's ot al, G.R. No, L-27185, May 18, 1978). PRINCIPLE GF ABUSE OF RIGHTS (Art. 19) Sets certain standard. whic must be observed rot only in the oxerciou f ont's rights but also in tha performiance of ona's duties. These standards are: 4. Toartwith Justice, 2. To give everyone his.due; and 3. Observe honesty ané good faith Etements: . 4, There is a legal rig or duty; 2, Which is exercised ja bad faith; 3, For the sole intent of prejudieing o> injuring another. 4, There is no hard and fast rule to doterrsins whether or noi the pcinelple mey be invnked. ARTICLE 20 OF THE G.VIL CODE Speaks of the gereis! sanction for all other provisions of law whieh do nol etpecialy provide for thelr ewn sanction. Nota: Article 20 doos net distinguish; the uct nay be done willfully or neg iyenity. ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES (Ar. 24 Civit Code) or Elements: 41. Ant wihich is tegal; 2. The act fs contrary o morals, good customs, public order or publi: potley; and 3, The ets done wit itt nore Note: Damages are \ecaverabid even it nc positive aw wae violatée, Kinga: Ao stauPicy Breach of prom’se 4 marty General rule: Brei:h of promise to marry by Iself isnot action!» Exceptions: \rf cauins Wheto there is an act Independent of thi breach of promise to marry which gives rite to llabhity: 8, Cases where there was financial damage, jay sey eo mc tay) 272 b. Socinl_huntintion. caused to ong of the parties. c. Where there was moral seduction, The setlon may prospet if the broich was done in such a thenner that Is clearly ‘contrary to godd morals: + Moral seduction; although not punishable, connotes th re: of ducelt, enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence on the parc ol the seduce: to. which the woman has yielded (Baksti v. CA-GR No. 97836, Fobrupry 19, 1993). + Mere sexust Intercourse Is not by Itself a hanic for recovery. Damages Gould only 02 awarded if texual Intercourre is not a product of vouriarinest oF mutual desire {Constantino ¥. Mende, G.R, No. 57227, May 14, 1992). + For one whole year, the plainti, a weiman of adult aga, mahntbinoe intimate sexual relations with the eppellant with repeated | aes of hteronurve, There is hare voluntariness ard inutual passion. Hence. No vasa-i3 macie under Article 21, NOC, fnd'na erret was commited by the CFU In dismissIng the complaint. (Tahjanco 2 CA, GR No. 118630. Decamber 17, 1968), ‘Sexual Assault © Defendant js lable. for all forms of sexual acsait, These Include the crimes defined in the Rovised Penal Code us rape, cc's of lascivicusness and seduction. isconnection of Uiities + In case & porson falls to poy 1 of ? ‘everduo bis aad ddnsaquenty, hi tine gets discontec éd without prior notice, the SC ruled that the state may regulato, as it bas done through S>ctlon 97 of the Reylaad oe rise Sige Seen cain lah He lor under ‘whiels and ihe manne aa public fii such fea ERNE. may saan 4 i oy empioyed power or (OESA) in extial_intercourss er ever ha sutstied his ‘ust with: an wi 272 |2009 CENTHALIZED DAR OPERATIONS ee pen Open _ without rromisitg 6° mony He offended patty + It may fot even inaiter. that the plaintiff und the defendant are of the sume dancer, 5. [resoass and Deprivation of Property Kings: 4, Trespass to. pndigr, deprivation of Real Property ‘Trespass to real property is lor that ts comialted when pervon untowitelly {avades the rsal propany af another. {nlent or Bag Faith's required for liaiity for damages under the RPC and Art 454 eANCC to attuch + No action for vamages Is allowed where the bulkier, plantur, or sower acted in goad fal. The landowner is limited to the options provided for Under Art 448. (Art 448, 4856 +A builder In quod faith who acted negligently may be held fable under Art 2176 b. Trespass to of deprivation of Personal Propacty + Theft or robbery of personal property Is trespass, + In the field of tor, trespass extends to all cages where a person is deprived of his personel property even in the absence of criminal labiity Note: it may cover vases wire the defendant was deprived of parsons! Property fo" the purpose of obtaining ossession of real property Exanple: The defendant, who was lenclord, was “held Hable because he doprived the plaintiffs, his tenants, of ‘Water in order to foroa them to vacate the lot they ware euitivaling (Megbanua ¥. WAC, GR, Mo, L-66870-72, Juno 23, 1985), 6. Abortion and Wrongful Death Darnages may be recoverad by bowh spouses if a. Tha abartion was caused through the physician's negligence, or 5. Was “done intentionully without thair consent + Adoctor who performs an legal abortion |s criminally lable under Article 259, RPC. + The husband of a weman who voluntariy procured rer abortion may recaver damages from the physician who caused the same on’ account of distress and ‘mental anguish altendant to tne loss of the undorn child end the disappointment of his parental expectation (Geluz v. CA, GR No. 1-16439. July 20, 1961). nnn St Leda College of Law 7. Malicious Provecution|jAdds. 19-21, 2, 32,99, 35, 2217, 2299 (8), NGO) ‘An action for dams brought by “one ‘against another whom 1 eriminal prosecution, Civil suk, oF other tegal proceeding has been Inattuted ‘melicougly ivd without probable cause, after thé “tecmination of such prosecution, wult ar procaeding in favor of tha defendant therein:!(Magoanua: vs.” Junsoy, ‘UR. Ne. 192689, Fobrubty 12, 2007) + The gist of thé actian-is the puitng of legat process in fo:u, regularly, for the mere purpose of vexation or injury. (Brilon 'v. “Court “ot Appeals, G.R, No. 107019 Maren 20.1337) Elenorts: a The fact of the plosecutlon and the fecther fact that ite defendant was himseit the proseeitor, and that the ation wes finally (srminated with an acquittal Z ‘That in Bringing the adtion, the prosecutor acied without probatis cause; ¢. Tho prosecutor was actuated or Impetied by legal mace. Note: + Presence of probitle cause signifies absuncg of malice, + Absence of malice s'¢nifies good faith on the part of the defercant; good falth may ve" be based on m & ake of law. + Acquttal presuppcecs thal criminal information fg fad h court and final Judgment rendurad damnissing the case; evertheless, prior acquittal may laclude dismissal by tho: prosecutor after peliminaiy Investigation (Gobo Mookay ‘and Radio Corp. v. Ue person is-not only fnble for torts commilted iby imself, out also for torts ‘cornmitted by others ’h whow he has a certain relation of for whom he ig vesponaitie (Ait, PARQ Civil Goce). Datense - exercise of dligance of @ govd father of afaraly to prevert damage Decirine of Respondeat Superior Liability le stristy imputed and the employer Is liable not becaue> ot ‘his act or omission but because of the act ar omission of the eniployee; Non-ofenso - mptoyer cannot escape libilty by claiming that he exercived due siigance hi the selection oF supervision of he employes. Gonerat euie: Vicadous tlahity in the Phlippines '5 nat governed by thé cootrine of tespondest superict; employes or patents aze made tishie not only kecause of the negligent or wrongful «ct of the person for waar they are responsible but also beenese of their own negligence in failing to oxercise rive uityence in 1. Enyployer the selection 6 super ssioh ut the employee 4%. Parents - the auporvision of their eb wno lives in their company Exceptions: 4. Liabilly of employers under Articte 108 of the REC 2, Llobilty of @ parinership for the tor. committed bya partner PERSONS VICARIOULY LIABLE (Art, 2180 of the Civil Code): 1, Tho Father, oreiipmcans lt, tin mt Fot elamage calleéd by" wxho a Helfiehntbany. This was. noalied by rile 2 Famiy sae 4 i atfnaiyp aubliten in ane arpls ha. ndk.e ekotsh of death or 280 2009 CENTRALIZED BAW OPERATIONS il, “Chile's actual: cxistodion, over 21 yeare old unless unfit or disqualified Those “exercising special parental authorty (Amticle 218, Fainiy Goda) i. Schoo! il Administraters il, Teachers WW. Incividyal, entity or instition ‘engeged in child cara Note: + The basis of tublity for the acts. or inissions cf the minor childien is the parental authority that thay exeiciso over them, Lisblty based on parental authority is not tited to parents, but also imposed on person's exercising substitute parental aulhorlly and special parental authority + The same foresueablily test of nopligene should apely to parants when they are cought to Lo held tiabie under At 2180, NCG Liability for ucts of those na fonger minors #8. A teacher in charge is stil lable for the acts of thelr atudante evan If the minor sludent reacnes tho age of majority + Parental authority is mi the sole basis of liability b. The parents or guardians con sill be held lable even if the minor is

    You might also like