Torts and Damages
Torts and Damages
I . Concept/ Definition
The term “Tort” is of Anglo-American law-common law which is broader in scope than the
Spanish-Phil concept which is limited to negligence while the former includes international or
criminal acts. Torts in Philippine law is the blending of common-law and civil law system.
Quasi Delict refers to acts or omissions which cause damage to another, there being fault or
negligence on the part of the defendant, who is obliged by law to pay for the damages done.
Elements of Quasi Delict:
1. Damages suffered by the plaintiff
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant
3. Casual connection between the fault or negligence of the
defendant’s act and the damages incurred by the plaintiff (Andamo vs
IAC, 191 SCRA 426, ’96)
Article 2176 of the Civil Code applies when there’s no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties. However, the supreme court held
that even if there is contractual relation, there will still be quasi-delict since
“the act that break the contract may be also be tort”, in cases of Air France
vs Carrascaso, 18 SCRA 155; Singson vs BPI, 23 SCRA 1117, ’63; and
Fabre Jr vs CA, 259 SCRA 426
II. Distinctions
1. a. Fault signifies voluntary act or omission causing damages to the right of another giving rise
to an obligation of the actor to repair such damage.
Fault is of two (2) kinds:
• (1) Civil Case No. 2196 for quasi-delict filed by UY vs NFA &
GSIS – recover damage to property. Won
• (2) Civil Case No. 2225 for culpa contractual filed by injured
passenger Taer vs Victor Uy and Mabuhay. Won.
• (3) Civil Case No. 2256 for quasi-delict NFA and driver
Corbeta, GSIS vs Victor Uy for culpa contractual and Mabuhay.
(Note: no criminal action was filed although it may be done had any of the injured parties
minded to. The action against the Insurers GSIS and Mabuhay are based on the insurance
contract of CMVLI whereby passengers injured have the right to sue directly the insurers)
2. Emergency Rule – one who suddenly finds himself in a place danger, and is required to act
without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails not to adopt what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to be the better method, unless the emergency in which he finds
himself is brought about by his own negligence. (Gan vs CA, 165 SCRA 378, ’88, cited
in McKee case)
McKee vs IAC:
Facts: Two boys suddenly darted before McKee’s car forcing McKee to swerve the car to avoid
hitting the boys and in the process entered into the opposite lane and collided with the oncoming
cargo truck in the opposite lane.
Cases: to illustrate the exception expressed in “unless the emergency in which he finds himself is
brought about by his own negligence”.
Proximate cause is that cause which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produce the injury and without which the result would have not
occurred.
Held: Proximate cause of collision is Austria’s driving recklessly such that he had no chance to
avoid the collision which was of her own making. She had the last clear chance but failed to take
steps to avoid hitting the cargo truck because she had no opportunity to do so.
Held: the mere breach of promise of marry is not an accionable wrong, but to formally set
a wedding and go thru rites in preparing and publishing incurring expenses is palpably
and unjustly contrary to good customs for which the defendant is answerable in damages
under Art. 21 NCC.
Case: Batiquin vs CA, July 5, ’96 - a surgeon left a piece of rubber in the woman’s
uterus in caesarian operation
Person Vicariously Liable for Acts of Others (Art 2180)
The basis of vicarious liability is responsibility of a person over other persons under their
legal authority, control or influence. Violation or remission of duty arising from such
relationship makes them liable for damages caused by other person under their care or
charge.
1. Parent – father, if dead or incapacitated, mother are responsible for damages caused
by minor children living in their company (Art 2180 NCC)
2. Guardians – are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated person
who are under their authority and live in their company. (ibid)
Art 221. Family Code provides that parents and other persons exercising parental
authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the act or omission
or their unemancipated children living in their company and under parental authority
subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.
The Basis of the civil liability which is primary-direct and solidary imposed by law is the
necessary consequence of parental authority exercise over their children. This authority
imposed a duty upon parents to support them, keep them company, educate and instruct
them, and grand the right to correcting punish with moderation. The parents are relieved
of this liability only upon proof that they have exercise the diligence of a good father of a
family (Exconde vs Capuno, 101 Phil 843) to prevent damage.
This liability is made natural as logical consequences of the duties and responsibilities of
parents exercising parental authority which includes controlling, disciplining and
instructing their children. In this jurisdiction the parent’s liability is vested by law (NCC
and FC) which assumes that when a minor or unemancipated child living with their
parent, commits a tortuous act, the parents are presumed negligent in the performance of
their duty to supervice the children under their custody. A presumption which muris
tantum, not juris es de jure, rebuttable-overcome by proof having exercised and observed
all the diligence of a good father of a family (diligentissimi patris familias).
Note in this case the boy was adopted but it was the natural parent who were held liable
as they the actual physical custody of the boy at the time of the shooting. The adoption
was approved only after the shooting although the adoption proceeding was filed before
the shooting and in between the time the adaptor was abroad.
Held: The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Art 2176 is the fault or negligence
accompanying the act or omission there being no willfulness or intent to cause damage
thereby and in Art 2180 providing vicarious liability of parent although primarily.
It was not shown that the parent could have prevented the damage as their child was in
school and they have the right to expect their child to be under the care and supervision
of the teacher. Beside the act was an innocent prank and unusual among children at play
and which no parent could have any special reason to anticipate much less guard against.
Parent not held liable.
Where the minor or insane person causing damage to others has no parent or guardian/
the minor or insane person’s property shall answer the damage caused. (Art 2182)
3. Teachers or Heads of school of arts and trade (non-academic) are liable for
damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices remaining under
custody (Art 2180 NCC)
Exconde vs Capuno, 201 Phil 843
Facts: 15 year old elementary student after attending Rizal Day Parade boarded a jeep on
the way home. He took over the wheel and driving recklessly caused the vehicle to turn
over resulting to death of two passengers.
Held: Upon being found guilty of double homicide with reckless imprudence filed against
him, a separate civil action was filed whereby the father was hold solidarily liable for
damages under Art 1903 nor Art 2180 NCC. The school head was held no liable being
academic school.
Held: Reiterated Exconda case – school not liable as it was not an establishment of arts
and trade (aside from the fact that it was not sued). Parent was held to be liable.
Held: The school is being non-academic (arts and trade), the head of the school and
teacher in charge were solidarily liable with the assailant.
Held: Art 2180 NCC applies to all schools, academic or non-academic. Teachers are
liable for acts of their student except where the school is technical in nature (arts and
trade establishment) in which case the head thereof shall be answerable.
“There is really no substantial difference distinction between the academic and non-
academic schools in so far as torts committed by their students are concerned. The same
vigilance is expected from the teacher over the student under their control and
supervision, whatever the nature of the school where he is teaching”. “x x x x The
distinction no longer obtains at present. x x x “
The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control
and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not ended,
or has ended or has not yet begun. The term “custody” signifies that the student is within
the control and influence of the school authorities. The teacher in charge is the one
designated by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior to exercise supervision
over the pupils or students in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. It
is not necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher is physically present and in a
position to prevent it.
Thus, for injuries caused by the student, the teacher and not the parent shall be held
responsible if the tort was committed within the premises of the school at any time when
its authority could be validly exercised over him.
In any event, the school may be held to answer for the acts of its teacher or the head
thereof under the general principle of respondent superior, but it may exculpate itself
from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. Such
defense they had taken necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of and
thus be exonerated from liability imposed by Art 2180.
Basis of teacher’s vicarious liability is, as such, they acting in Loco Parentis (in place of
parents). However teachers are not expected to have the same measure of responsibility
as that imposed on parent for their influence over the child is not equal in degree. x x x
The parent can instill more lasting discipline more lasting disciple on the child than the
teacher and so should be held to a greater accountability than the teacher or the head for
the tort committed by the child.
As the teacher was not shown to have been negligent nor the school remised in the
discharged of their duties, they were exonerated of liability.
(Note – the court view on increasing students activism likely causing violence resulting
to injuries, in or out of the school premises – J. Guttierez, Jr concurringly said many
student x x x view some teachers as part of the bourgeois and or reactionary group whose
advice on behavior deportment and other non-academic matters is not only resented but
actively rejected. It seems most unfair to hold teacher liable on a presumption juris
tantum of negligence for acts of students even under circumstances where strictly
speaking there could be no in loco parentis relationship.
The provision of Art 2180 NCC involved in this case has outlived its purpose. The court
cannot make law, it can only apply the law with its imperfections. However the court can
suggest that such a law should be amended or repealed.
4. The state is responsible when it acts thru a special agent but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task is done properly pertains (i.e.
function or duty) in which case Art 2176 is applied.
As a general rule, the state cannot be sued without its consent. (principle of immunity
from suit) This “consent” is manifested in legislative acts – enactment of laws making the
state suable as in this specific provision of the Civil Code, in RA 7160 – LGC of 1991
providing that LGU and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury to
person or damage to property (Sec 24).
The state – the state may not be sued without its consent. (Sec 3 Art XVI ’87
Constitution) This is the doctrine of immunity from suit or principle of non liability
(enuciated in the 1910 case of Forbes vs Chuco Tiaco & Crossfield, 16 Phil 534) was
originally founded upon an old maxim that “The King can do no wrong” prevailing
during the medieval England when the King was generally accepted as the State himself.
With the development of democratic thoughts and institution, the concept eventually lost
is moral force, the natural person-king is no longer the state but merely its representative
who may be removed by the people. i.e. thru impeachment. The modern basis of the
principle is that “immunity from suit is inherent in all sovereign states. The reason is
based on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the
authority that makes the law on which the right depends. (Kawananakoa vs Plyblank, 206
US 349 cited by Hector S. Deleon, 2002 Ed Textbook on the Phil Const)
The state (Govt) may be sued only with its consent which may be given
The functions of govt is classified into (a) governmental or constituent involving exercise
of sovereignty and is compulsory, (b) proprietary or ministrant which is optional
(Fontanilla vs Maliaman)
The state – for the governmental function – the state can not be sued without its consent.
For the proprietary function of the govt may be sued without its consent which is
presumed have been given in advance.
The state may be sued only thru its Special Agent but not when the damage had been
caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act performed (Merritt
Fontanilla case, 194 SCRA 503)
Held: the state or govt agency performing governmental function may be held liable for
tort committed by its employees when it acts thru a special agent.
Thus NIA was held responsible for the negligent act of its employee Garcia who is not a
special agent. (J. Padilla separate opinion in Fontanilla vs Maliaman Resolution in 1991,
194 SCRA 499)
Held: The province was not liable because its employee driver at the time of the accident
was performing his regular duties and is not a special agent.
Held: As ECA or its officers were shown to have acted not as special agent of the govt in
storing gasoline in the warehouse, the Govt is not responsible for the damages caused
thru such negligence.
Held: The ISU being an office in the govt and its fund is a public fund. It is being shown
that the ISU was guilty of tort, however the sate not its fund is not liable because the ISU
was not a special agent. Under Art 2180 the state is liable only for tort caused by its
special agent.
LGU are liable for damages for the death or injuries suffered by any person by reason of
defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public building and other public works
under their control or supervision. (Art 2189)
LGU’s and their official are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or
damage to property. (Sec 24, RA 7160 LGC of 1991)
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vas Firme, 195 SCRA 692, ‘91
Facts: Municipal’s dump truck on way to the Naguilian River to get gravel and sands for
the repair of roads (a governmental function) collided with a passenger jeep resulting the
death of passenger of the latter vehicle. Civil action was filed against the Municipality.
However, they may be held liable if it can be shown acting thru a special agent. The
Municipality’s driver is not a special agent and so the Municipal is not liable, only the
driver.
Held: when a govt thru its agency takes away private property without going to legal
process of expropriation and paying just compensation, a suit may be properly
maintained against the govt. The civil action may be based under Art 32 NCC and the
constitutional provisions on rights against privation of property without due process of
law and without just compensation.
The doctrine of immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for the perpetration of
injustice on its citizens. (J. Romero)
Resume on State’s liability for tort
The state is liable fro the tortuous acts only of its special agent but not of its public
officials in the performance of their assigned usual duties and functions who are liable
under Art 2176 NCC and not Art 2180 NCC
Rationale: there can be no legal rights as against the authority that grants such rights. This
is known as doctrine of immunity from suit which is very essence of sovereignty. It is
expressed in the constitution that the state cannot be sued without its consent (Sec 3, Art
XVI). The state’s consent is manifested expressly in the form its legislative enactments of
statues (Art 2180 NCC, Sec 24 LGC of 1991, Act No 3083 relating money claims arising
from contract) and impliedly when the state enters into contract in its proprietary or
private capacity, or when the sate itself sues, opens itself to counterclaim, or perpetrate
injustice to its citizen.
5. Employers: Master
a. Owner and Manager of establishment or enterprises are liable for damage
caused by their employees in the service of employment or on the occasion of
their functions.
b. Employer of household helper though not engaged in any business or industry
are liable for damages caused by helper acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks.
Basis of Liability is not “Respondent Superior (Anglo-American doctrine where the
negligence of the employee is conclusively presumed to be the negligence of the
employer) but on the relationship of Pater-Familias, (master-servant) a theory basing the
liability of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not that of the servant as
manifested in his negligence in the selection of their employee-servant (culpa eligiendo)
or in the supervision over their employee-servants (culpa in vigilando). This negligence is
prima facie presumption juris tantum- overcome or rebutted by proof that they have
observed and exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family (diligantissimi bonus
fater familias). The theory is deduced from the last par of Art 2180 NCC providing the
responsibility shall cease upon proof of exercise of the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage.
The term “Manager” in Art 2180 is used in the sense of employer, not employee.
Case: Phil Rabbit Bus Lines Inc vs Phil Am Forwarder, Mar 25, 1975
Facts: An action for damages was brought against Phil Am Forwarded and its Manager
Balingit for negligent act of their driver. Balingit moved to dismiss the action against him
for though he was manager, however, he was just an employee of the company.
Held: Balingit is not liable because he was just a mere employee though designated as
“Manager”.
Held: Phil Shell is not liable because Feliciano was not its employee. It was shown that
Phil Shell has no control over Feliciano who do business of his own, used his own tools
and worked on his own time charging a fixed lump sum for every piece of work.
Feliciano was an independent contractor and not an employee and thus he alone is liable.
Held: Ora beingan employee of the company, the latter is responsible for the negligence
in the loading of logs which caused the death of the boy.
Distinction of employer’s liability under Art 2180 NCC and Revised Penal Code.
Civil Code
1. Direct and primary – solidary, employer is sue even without suing the employee
2. Defense of exercise of diligence of a good father of the family to be relieve of liability
3. Employer is liable even if not engaged in business
4. Proof of negligence is by mere preponderance of evidence
Revised Penal Code
1. Subsidiary – arising after the employee’s guilt
2. Diligence of a good father is not a defense
3. Must prove employer is engaged in business
4. Proof beyond reasonable doubt of evidence
5. Owners of Motor vehicle (Art 2184)
a. Owner is in the motor vehicle is solidary liable with his driver
b. Owner is not in the motor vehicle with the driver is subsidiary liable
Case: Chapman vs Underwood, 27 Phil 374
Facts: Underwood riding in his car and his driver suddenly turned to the wrong side of
the street and hit the plaintiff. Driver was negligent. Was the owner liable too?
Held: Where the owner had reasonable opportunity to observe his driver and to direct the
latter to cease there from, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On the other hand,
if the driver, by sudden act of negligence and without opportunity to prevent the acts or
its continuance, the owner is not responsible.
Held: The basis of the master/employer’s liability in civil law is not respondent superior
but rather the relationship of Pater Familias. The theory is that ultimately the negligence
of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction, reflects the
master’s negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent the injury or damage (J.
Makalintal)
The owner of the car Yu was not liable because he did not see the carretela at a distance,
however, he could not anticipated his driver’s sudden decision to pass the carretela. The
time element was such that there was not reasonable opportunity for Yu to assess the
danger involved and warn the driver accordingly.
Former owner of Motor Vehicle are liable for the tortuous acts of the new owner.
Held: This court (SC) has consistently held that regardless of the sales made of motor
vehicle, the registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as the public and third persons
are concerned. Consequently it is directly and primary liable for the consequences of its
operation in contemplation of the law. The owner of record is the employer of the driver
while the actual owner is considered as merely its agent.
Since “Equitable” remained the registered owner, it could not escape primary liability.