Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
-
Upload
erika-anne-therese -
Category
Documents
-
view
256 -
download
2
Transcript of Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
1/25
TORTS AND DAMAGES REVIEWER
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Sources of Obligations under Philippine Law
Article 1156. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do, or not to do.
1157. Obligations arise from:
(1)
Law;(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts.
1158. Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly
determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and shall be
regulated by the precepts of the law, which establishes them; and as to what
has not been foreseen, by the provisions of this Book.
1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the
contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.
1160. Obligations derived from quasi-contracts shall be subject to the
provisions of Chapter 1, Title XVII, of this Book.
1161. Civil obligations derived from criminal offenses shall be governed by
the penal laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent
provisions on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book, regulating
damages.
1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the
provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws.
2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damages to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damages done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,
is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Report of the Code Commission: what is contemplated by the Civil Code
in Article 2176 is not a TORT as used in the context of American
jurisprudence, but a quasi-delict. However, jurisprudence has made a tort
synonymous with a quasi-delict under Philippine jurisprudence.
Causes of actionanswer any of the sources of obligations: law, contract,
quasi-contract, delict, quasi-delict.
THE THREE MAIN CAUSES OF THE COURSE:
1. Quasi-delict
2. Contract
3. Quasi-delict
B. Quasi-delict distinguished form other sources of obligations
Quasi-delict v. Br each of Contract:
Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.:
There is a difference between culpa, substantive and independent, which of
itself constitutes the source of an obligation between persons not formerlyconnected by any legal tie and culpa considered as an accident in the
performance of an obligation already existing.
The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a
voluntary act or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere
negligence or inattention, has caused damage to another.
Two things are apparent: (1) That when an injury is caused by the
negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of
law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either
in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him, after
the selection, or both; and (2) that that presumption is juris tantum and not
juris et de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily
that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selectionand supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of
a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.
This theory bases the responsibility of the master ultimately on his own
negligence and not on that of his servant.
Every legal obligation must of necessity be extracontractual or contractual.
Extracontractual obligation has its source in the breach or omission of
those mutual duties which civilized society imposes upon its members, or
which arise from these relations, other than contractual, of certain members
of society to others, generally embraced in the concept of status. The legal
rights of each member of society constitute the measure of the
corresponding legal duties, mainly negative in character, which the
existence of those rights imposes upon all other members of society. Thebreach of these general duties whether due to willful intent or to mere
inattention, if productive of injury, gives rise to an obligation to indemnify
the injured party. The fundamental distinction between obligations of this
character and those which arise from contract, rests upon the fact that in
cases of non-contractual obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or
omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas in contractual
relations the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary
duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation.
Extra-contractual liability is limited to cases in which moral culpability can
be directly imputed to the persons to be charged. This moral responsibility
may consist in having failed to exercise due care in one's own acts, or in
having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one's
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
2/25
agents or servants, or in the control of persons who, by reason of their
status, occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person made
liable for their conduct.
The position of a person who undertakes by contract to render service to
another is wholly different from a person charged with liability for the
violation of an extra-contractual obligation.
When the source of the obligation upon which plaintiff's cause of action
depends is a negligent act or omission, the burden of proof rests upon
plaintiff to prove the negligence. If he does not, his action fails. But whenthe facts averred show a contractual undertaking by defendant for the
benefit of plaintiff, and it is alleged that plaintiff has failed or refused to
perform the contract, it is not necessary for plaintiff to specify in his
pleadings whether the breach of the contract is due to willful fault or to
negligence on the part of the defendant, or of his servants or agents. Proof
of the contract and of its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to
warrant a recovery.
In case of extracontractual culpa, a suing creditor should assume the
burden of proof of its existence, as the only fact upon which his action is
based; while on the contrary, in a case of negligence which presupposes the
existence of a contractual obligation, if the creditor shows that it exists and
that it has been broken, it is not necessary for him to prove the negligence. If the negligence of servants or agents could be invoked as a means of
discharging the liability arising from contract, the anomalous result would
be that persons acting through the medium of agents or servants in the
performance of their contracts, would be in a better position than those
acting in person. If such a theory could be accepted, juridical persons
would enjoy practically complete immunity from damages arising from the
breach of their contracts if caused by negligent acts of omission or
commission on the part of their servants, as such juridical persons can of
necessity only act through agents or servants, and it would no doubt be true
in most instances that reasonable care had been taken in the selection and
direction of such servants.
Culpa contractual are not cases of injury caused, without any preexistingobligation, by fault or negligence, but of damages caused by the defendant's
failure to carry out the undertakings imposed by the contracts.
Whether negligence occurs as an incident in the course of the performance
of a contractual undertaking or is itself the source of an extra-contractual
obligation, its essential characteristics are identical. There is always an act
or omission productive of damage due to carelessness or inattention on the
part of the defendant. Consequently, when the court holds that a defendant
is liable in damages for having failed to exercise due care, either directly, or
in failing to exercise proper care in the selection and direction of his
servants, the practical result is identical in either case.
The field of noncontractual obligation is much broader than that of
contractual obligation, comprising, as it does, the whole extent of juridical
human relations. These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is
to say, the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not
relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. When such a
contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such
conditions that the same act which constitutes a breach of the contract
would have constituted the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no
contract existed between the parties.
A duty that is contractual is direct and immediate, and its non-performance
cannot be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable todefendant's servants.
The doctrine of comparative negligence: if the accident was caused by
plaintiff's own negligence, no liability is imposed upon defendant,
whereas if the accident was caused by defendant's negligence and
plaintiff's negligence merely contributed to his injury, the damages
should be apportioned.
Air France v. Carrascoso
"Bad faith" contemplates a "state of mind affirmatively operating with
furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior
purpose"
The responsibility of an employer for the tortious act of its employees neednot be essayed. It is well settled in law.
Article 21 of the Civil Code says: Any person who willfully causes loss or
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage."
A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from
any other contractual relation. And this, because of the relation that an air-
carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with the travelling
public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers.
The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a
public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees, naturally,
could give ground for an action for damages.
Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to
be treated by the carriers employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and
due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal
misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such
employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of
employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages
against the carrier.
Although the relation of passenger and carrier is "contractual both in
origin and nature" nevertheless "the act that breaks the contract may
be also a tort".
The stress of Carrascoso's action as we have said, is placed upon his
wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the petitioner air
carriera case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
3/25
Singson v. BPI
The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the
commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent
recovery of damages therefor
Citing Air France: although the relation between a passenger and a carrier
is contractual both in origin and nature x x x the act that breaks thecontract may also be a tort.
PSBA v. CA A perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasidelicts
or tort, also known as extracontractual obligations, arise only between
parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied.However, this impression has not prevented this Court from determining
the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract. In Air France vs.
Carrascoso (124 Phil. 722), the private respondent was awarded damages
for his unwarranted expulsion from a firstclass seat aboard the petitioner
airline. It is noted, however, that the Court referred to the
petitionerairline's liability as one arising from tort, not one arising from a
contract of carriage. In effect, Air France is authority for the view that
liability from tort may exist even if there is a contract, for the act that
breaks the contract may be also a tort. A contractual relation is a condition sine qua non to the school's liability.
The negligence of the school cannot exist independently on the contract,
unless the negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in Article 21
of the Civil Code.
A school, like a common carrier , cannot be an insurer of its students against
all risks. This is especially true in the populous student communities of the
socalled "university belt" in Manila where there have been reported several
incidents ranging from gang wars to other forms of hooliganism. It would
not be equitable to expect of schools to anticipate all types of violent
trespass upon their premises, for notwithstanding the security measures
installed, the same may still fail against an individual or group determined
to carry out a nefarious deed inside school premises and environs. Shouldthis be the case, the school may still avoid liability by proving that the
breach of its contractual obligation to the students was not due to its
negligence, here statutorily defined to be the omission of that degree of
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time and place.
Fabre v. CA
It is unnecessary for our purpose to determine whether to decide this case
on the theory that petitioners are liable for breach of contract of carriage or
culpa contractual or on the theory of quasi delict or culpa aquiliana as both
the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals held, for although the
relation of passenger and carrier is contractual both in origin and nature,
nevertheless the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort. In either
case, the question is whether the bus driver, petitioner Porfirio Cabil, was
negligent.
Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or
both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the
public.
The above article makes no distinction between one whose principal
business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one whodoes such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a
sideline). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction
between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular
or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic
or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a
carrier offering its services to the general public, i.e., the general
community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business
only from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that
Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.
Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers
through the negligence or wilful acts of the formers employees, although
such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or inviolation of the orders of the common carriers.
This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they
exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of their employees.
Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad
Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature
of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of
exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers.
The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or
injury to passengers a) through the negligence or willful acts of its
employees or b) on account of willful acts or negligence of otherpassengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees through the
exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or
omission.
In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or
been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of
the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its
employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is
due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.
In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the carrier on how the
accident occurred, the presumption would be that it has been at fault, an
exception from the general rule that negligence must be proved.
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
4/25
The premise, however, for the employers liability is negligence or fault on
the part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can
then be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the
employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection
and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be
negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee, a factual matter that has not been shown. Absent such a
showing, one might ask further, how then must the liability of the common
carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand,be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be
breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one
resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194
of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even
under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated
differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have
itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract
existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached
by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
Quasi-delict v. Delicts
Revised Penal Code
100. Civil liability of persons guilty of felony. Every persons criminally liable
for a felony is also civilly liable.
365. Imprudence and negligence. Any person who by reckless imprudence,
shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave
felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period; if it would have constituted a less
grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods
shall be imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act
which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer a penalty of
arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would haveconstituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in
damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine
ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such
value, but which shall in no case be less than 25 pesos.
A fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person
who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if dne
maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the courts shall exercise their discretion,
without regard to the rules prescribed in article 62.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or greater than
those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case
the courts shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that
which should be imposed, in the period which they may deem proper to
apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the
Automobile Law, the death of a person shall be caused, in which case
the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods.Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or
failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing
to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time, and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in
which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger
clearly manifest.
Barredo v. Garcia
A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under theCivil Code, with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely
apart and independent from a delict or crime.
The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising
from a crime punishable by the Revised Penal Code or create an action for
quasi-delict under the Civil Code.
Under the Revised Penal Code, an employers liability is subsidiary to the
employees, while under the Civil Code, responsibility is not only for
personal acts or omissions but also for those for whom another is
responsible: includes the subordinates and employees (children, even)
Crime Quasi-delict
Affect public interests Of private concern
Purpose to punish Purpose to repair
Not as broad, punish only when
there is a specific law punishing
Covers any kind of fault or
negligence
Quantum of proof: beyondreasonable doubt
Quantum of proof: preponderance ofevidence
Possibility of compromise: NO Possibility of compromise: YES
Not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility, such as
being in contravention of ordinances, violation of game laws, infraction of
the laws of traffic, WHEN NOBODY IS HURT
The title upon which action for reparation is based cannot be confused with
civil responsibility born of a crime because there exists in the latter,
whatever each nature a culpa surrounded with aggravating aspects which
give rise to penal measures which are more or less severe.
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
5/25
Such civil actions in the case (without referring to contractual faults, which
are not pertinent and belong to another scope) are derived from every act or
omission causing losses and damages in which culpa or negligence
intervenes
Actions arising from quasi-delict can be brought directly against he who
may be held responsible, even without impleading the author it is thenegligence of the person responsible in allowing the incident to happen
When there is an injury by the servant, there arises a rebuttable
presumption that there was negligence in the selection and/or supervisionof said servant (employee)
Basis: pater familias
Elcano v. Hill
A prior acquittal for a crime will not be a bar for liability for quasi-delict
A quasi-delict contemplates responsibility arising from fault or negligence
and covers acts not punishable by law AS WELL AS acts criminal in nature
whether intentional or negligent
While emancipation terminates parental authority, the same is not absolute,
for example, an emancipated minor cannot encumber or alienate property,
or borrow money, without the consent of his guardian, neither can he sue or
be sued without the assistance of his guardian
A father can still be held liable for the tort of his son under the principles of
2180
2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones
own acts or omission 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 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.
II. QUASI-DELICT
A. Elements
1. Damage to the plaintiff
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant or of some other person for whom the
defendant must respond
3.
Causal connection between the first two elements
Andamo v. IAC
Elements of a quasi-delict:
1. Damages suffered by plaintiff
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant (and persons the defendant is
responsible for)
3. Connections of cause and effect
4. No pre-existing contractual obligation
Limitations on the use of property, cannot injure the rights of a third person
A separate civil action lies whether or not the person criminally prosecuted
is guilty or acquitted provided that the offended cannot recover damages on
both scores
Acquittal or conviction is entirely irrelevant
Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers Inc.
Under quasi-delict, there is no negligence presumed, and this means that
the negligence complained of must be proven
Under breach of contract, negligence is presumed for so long as the injured
can show a breach
The requisites of quasi-delict:
1. Damage
2. Fault, clearly established
3. Causal connection
It is upon he who alleges the tort that the burden of proof must rest
The person injured cannot claim damages for an injury caused by his or her
own negligence
Res ipsa Loquitor:
1. Accident wouldnt happen without negligence of the defendant
2. Accident caused by a thing under the agency of the defendant (under
his control
3. Accident not contributed to by the person injured
Lucas v. Tuao
In a medical negligence suit, prove:
1.
The physician failed to exercise that degree of skill, care, and learningpossessed by persons in the same profession (neighborhood doctrine)
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
6/25
2. That this was the proximate result of the injury, which led to damage
Four essential elements:
1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Injury
4. Proximate Causation
Proof of breach: through expert testimony, whether a person in the same
profession would have acted the same way or followed the same procedures
or not Proximate cause: that cause which, in the natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury and without which the result would not have occurred
Expert testimony is needed to establish:
1. Standard of care
2. Failure of dutyinjury
3. That the injury was a result of the doctors failure
B. No Double Recovery Rule
1161. Civil obligations derived from criminal offenses shall be governed by the
penal laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent
provisions on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book, regulating
damages.
2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damages to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damages done. Such fault or negligence,
if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence
under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the defendant.
Joseph v. Bautista
A cause of action is understood to be a delict or wrongful act or omission
committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the
plaintiff. A single act or omission can violate various rights at the same
time, resulting in several separate and distinct legal obligations.
When there is only one delict and wrong, there is ONE single cause of
action regardless of the number of rights violated. Similarly, if only ONE
injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only ONE cause of action arises.
Well-settled in the jurisprudence is the proscription against double
recovery, wherein the recovery by the petitioner under one remedy bars
recovery under the other.
Fundamental rule against unjust enrichment.
Padua v. Robles
Civil liability coexists with criminal responsibility
Therefore, a person has two choices, to hold someone responsible for:
1. Civil liability based on crime under the Revised Penal Code, or
2. Civil liability based on culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code
2177 precludes recovery twice for the same act/omission
It is immaterial which one is chosen first and its subsequent denial will not
bar the other one so long as there is no double recovery
Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila v. CA
It is, therefore, clearly apparent that petitioner was guilty of two culpable
transgressions on the property rights of private respondents, that is, for the ruination
of the agricultural fertility or utility of the soil of their property and, further, for the
unauthorized use of said property as a dump site or depot for petitioners heavy
equipment and trucks. Consequently, albeit with differing amounts, both courts
correctly awarded damages both for the destruction of the land and for the unpaid
rentals, or more correctly denominated, for the reasonable value of its use and
occupation of the premises. There is consequently no merit in said objection of
petitioner.
Lim v. Ping
A single act or omission that causes damage to another may give rise to two
separate civil liabilities:
1. Civil liability ex delicto- Article 100 of the RPC
2. Independent Civil Action as provided in Art. 31 (breach of
contract/tort) Art 33 (cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries)
Since both cases arose from different causes of action which, under the law,
are considered separate, distinct and independent, both cases can proceed to
their final adjudication subject to the prohibition on double recovery under
Articl 2177 of the Civil Code.
C. Person/s liable; nature of liability
2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict
is solidary.
Worcester v. Ocampo
Each joint tortfeasor is not only individually liable for the tort in which he
participates, but is also jointly liable with his tortfeasors.
If several persons jointly commit a tort, the plaintiff or person injured, has
his election to sue all or some of the parties jointly, or one of themseparately, because the tort is in its nature a separate act of each individual.
It is not necessary that the cooperation should be a direct, corporeal act, for
all are principals.
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
7/25
He who aided or assisted or counseled, in any way, the commission of a
crime, was as much a principal as he who inflicted or committed the actual
tort.
Joint tortfeasors: all the persons who command, instigate, promote,
encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the
commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for
their benefit.
Joint tortfeasors are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the
same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. The damages cannot be apportioned
among them, except among themselves. They cannot insist upon an
apportionment, for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part. They are
jointly and severally liable for the full amount.
Philippine National Construction Corporation v. CA
Negligence refers to the conduct which creates undue risk of harm to
another, the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance
that the circumstance justly demand, whereby that other person suffers
injury. The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an
act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is
this: could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligenceis attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable
consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty
on the actor to refrain from that course or to take precautions to guard
against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes
negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the
admonition born of this provision, is always necessary before negligence
can be held to exist.
Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or
more persons, although acting independently of each other, are, in
combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third
person and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each
contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, eventhough his act alone might not have caused the entire injury.
Chan, Jr. v. Iglesia Ni Cristo, Inc.
Requisites of quasi-delict:
1. Act or omission
2. Damage from such act or omission
3. Act or omission through fault or negligence
4. No pre-existing contractual relation
Solidary responsibility
Joint tortfeasors: all who command, instigate, promote, encourage,
advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid, or abet the commission of the
tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit.
Cerezo v. Tuazon
It is elementary that a single negligent act in the case at bar, may produce
civil liability arising from delict (RPC Art. 103 on subsidiary liability) or
action for quasi delict under Art. 2180. The aggrieved party may choose
between the two remedies. Moreover, the action on quasi delict may
proceed independently from the criminal action. Choosing which remedy
would also affect the procedural and jurisdictional issues of the action.
The liability of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict issolidary.
An employers liability based on quasi delict is primary and direct, while
on the other hand, the employee based on delict is subsidiary. This refers tothe remedy provided by law and not the character and limits of the
obligation. While the employer is civilly liable in a subsidiary capacity for
the employees criminal negligence, the employer is also civilly liable
directly and separately for his own civil negligence in failing to exercise
due diligence in selecting and supervising his employees.
To hold an employer subsidiarily liable in a criminal action, the
complainant must initiate a criminal action where the employees delict and
corresponding primary liability are established. This necessarily implies
that jurisdiction over the person accused must be acquired.
Spouses Perea v. Spouses Zarate
A common carrier is expected to observe extraordinary diligence
A carrier is considered common carrier if it holds itself out as ready
transportation indiscriminately even to just limited clientele, in this case,
the students of Don Bosco, Makati.
The moment an accident occurs, negligence is presumed for the common
carrier
If the burden of proving extraordinary diligence has not been discharged by
the common carrier, it must be held liable
In this case, the operators of the common carrier were held solidarily liable
as joint tortfeasors with the train company for the death of the student
III. NEGLIGENCE
A. Concept
2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-
delict.
1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind
of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the
courts.
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
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
8/25
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.
1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any waiver
of an action for future fraud is void.
2201, par. 2.XXX
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice, or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be
responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-
performance of the obligation.
1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise
declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could
not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of
public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them,
according to all the circumstances of each case.Such extraordinary diligence in vigilance over the goods is further expressed in
Articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary
diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in Articles 1755
and 1756.
Picart v. Smith
The control of the situation was passed to Smith when he saw that the rider
would not go to the proper side of the road: either stop or take the other
side
When Smith exposed Picart and his horse to this danger, he was negligent
Test: Did he use reasonable care which an ordinarily prudent man would
have used?
Imaginary conduct, pater familiasgood father of a family
Problem: discover who is immediately, directly responsible
The person with the last fair chance to avoid impending harm and fails is
chargeable without reference to the negligence of the other party
Corliss v. Manila Railroad Company
Determine: damage + fault = indemnity
Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances
There must be observance of that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance
which the situation demands
Corliss was so sufficiently warned in advance of the oncoming train tha t it
was incumbent upon him to avoid a possible accident.
US v. Bonifacio
No obligation to do anything unless there was something that would cause
a prudent man to anticipate the possibility of danger
Before that, it is safe to assume that all persons know of danger involved
and will take reasonable steps to avoid accidents
Injury, to be penalized, must have resulted from imprudence or negligence:no proof, no criminal liability
The presumption of negligence arises only out of violation of a regulation
Cusi v. PNR
Negligence is that failure to observe for the interests of another
There must be observance of that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance
which the situation demands
Wright v. Manila Electric
Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of intoxication
establish a want of ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be considered
with other evidence tending to prove negligence
GR: it is immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary
care or diligence can be imputed to him and no greater degree of care is
required to be exercised by an intoxicated man for his own protection than
by a sober one
If ones conduct is characterized by a proper degree of care and prudence,
sobriety is immaterial
To conclude that a sober man wouldnt have fallen while a drunken man
did is to draw a conclusion in the realm of speculations and guesswork
People v. de los Santos
In the face of two conflicting theories, pick the one consistent withinnocence and lesser liability
TEST OF NEGLIGENCE: Could a prudent man, in the position of a person
to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to a person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course of action? If so, there is a duty of the
actor to refrain or take precautions
Reasonable foresight of harm + ignoring the admonition born of the
prevision = negligence
Jarco v. CA
Accident: an unforeseen event where no fault or negligence attaches to
the defendant. It is a fortuitous circumstance, event, happening. It is an
event happening without human agency, or wholly or partially with
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
9/25
human agency, that which under the circumstances is unusual or
unexpected by the person to whom it happens.
Negligence: the omission to do something which a reasonable man,
guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct
of human affairs would do, or the doing of something which a prudent
and reasonable man would not do. It is that failure to observe, for the
protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury. Test of negligence: Did the defendant in so doing the alleged negligent acts
use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent mad
would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence
Conclusive presumption that children below 9 years old are incapable of
contributory negligence
Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance: one who maintains on his premises
dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to
attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liableto a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is
technically a trespasser in the premises
The doctrine of attractive nuisance is generally not applicable to bodies of
water, artificial or natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or
artificial feature other than mere water and its location.
Sarmiento v. Cabrido
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the
contracting parties.
Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence or delay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor
thereof, are liable for damages.
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.
GR: Moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages for breach
of contract.
Exception: When there is proof that the defendant acted in bad faith or was
guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith or in wanton disregard of
his contractual obligation.
Francisco v. Chemical Bulk Carriers
Standard of conduct: the level of expected conduct that is required by
the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of
the person, the time and the place
Most common: Good father of a family
In this case, Francisco failed to exercise the standard of conduct expected
of a responsible person who is blind
Pacis v. MoralesA HIGHER DEGREE OF CARE is required of someone who has in his possession
an instrumentality which is extremely dangerous in character. He had the duty to
take EXCEPTIONAL PRECAUTION. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life andbusiness which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous weapons
requires the exercise of a higher degree of care.
Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Harper
Negligence is that omission to do something which a reasonable man,
guided by those consideration which ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do.
Negligence is relative, comparative, and not an absolute: where the dangeris great, a higher degree of care is necessary
Imaginary conduct: pater familias
Measure with perspective as that of an ordinary reasonable person similarly
situated
Liability is based on the fact of who was in a better position to foresee and
prevent injurious occurrences
Premises liability rule: it is enough that guests are injured while inside
the hotel premises to make the hotel keeper liable
CBTC v. CA
The relationship with regard to bank deposits: debtor-creditor, governed by
the provisions on simple loan
The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a degree of
diligence higher than pater familias
1172
When a passbook is left in the possession of tellers, there is a higher degree
of diligence in the keeping thereof: tellers must insure the return of the
passbook only to the depositor or his authorized representatives because
they know that possession of the passbook is enough to raise the
presumption of ownership thereofto give the same to the wrong person is
giving that wrong person presumptive ownership
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
10/25
Proximate cause: that cause which in natural and continuous sequence
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause produces the injury and
without which the result would not have occurred
Proximate cause is determined by the facts, by logic, by common sense, by
policy, and by precedent
Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio
Medical malpractice/medical negligence: that claim available to a
victim to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional whichcaused bodily harm
Prove: that the failure to do something that a reasonably prudent health care
professional would have or would not have done is what caused the injury
Duty, Breach, Injury, Proximate Causation
Prove that the doctors presented themselves as having the needed training
and skill and would employ the same
Duty: use the same level of care any other reasonable and prudent health
care professional would under the circumstances (neighborhood doctrine)
A breach leading to injury becomes actionable malpractice
Negligence = injury from want of due care or skill
2-pronged evidence for res ipsa loquitur:
1.
Standard
2. Departure from that standard
Causation:
1. Did the doctor cause harm?
2. Were his actions the proximate cause of the injury?
Li v. Soliman
Doctrine of informed consent: a physician has a duty to disclose what a
reasonably prudent physician in the medical community in the exercise
of reasonable care would disclose to his patient as to whatever grave
risks of injury might be incurred from a proposed course of treatment,
so that a patient, exercising ordinary care for his own welfare, andfaced with a choice of undergoing the proposed treatment, or
alternative treatment, or none at all, may intelligently exercise his
judgment by reasonably balancing the probable risks against the
probable benefits.
The disclosure rule only requires of the physician a reasonable explanation,
which means generally informing the patient in nontechnical terms as to
what is at stake; the therapy alternatives open to him, the goals expectably
to be achieved, and the risks that may ensue from particular treatment or no
treatment.
The scope of the physicians communications to the patient must be
measured by the patients need, and that need is whatever information is
material to the decision. The test therefore for determining whether a
potential peril must be divulged is its materiality to the patients decision.
There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice
action based upon the doctrine of informed consent:
1. The physician had a duty to disclose material risks;
2. He failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks;
3. As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient
consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to;
and4. Plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment.
The gravamen in an informed consent case requires the plaintiff to point to
significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment that would
have altered her decision to undergo it.
Adarne v. Aldaba
An attorney is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence but only a
reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the character of the
business he undertakes to do
Humans are prone to err
An attorney is not answerable for every error or mistake
He is protected as long as he acted in honesty and good faith
Isaac v. A.L. Ammen
Principles governing the liability of the common carrier:
1. Contractual: arises out of breach of obligation
2. Utmost diligence: of a very cautious person
3. Rebuttable presumption: of fault or negligence (prove extraordinary
diligence)
4. Not an insurer of all risks
The driver did what a prudent man would have done
Calvo v. UCPB
Common carriers: persons engaged in the business of
carrying/transporting passengers, good, both, by land, water, air, for
compensation, offering services to the public
There is no distinction whether the business need be the principal or
ancillary activity; neither a distinction as to clientele
A common carrier is expected to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over goods: requires the common carrier to follow or know
the required precaution for avoiding damage to, destruction of goods,
and render skills with greatest skill and foresight and use all
reasonable means to ascertain the nature/characteristics of good and
exercise due care in handling and storage
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
11/25
The common carrier must prove that it used all reasonable means to
ascertain the nature and characteristics of goods tendered for transport and
that it exercised due care in the handling thereof
Ridjo Tape v. CA
Public utilities have a duty to make reasonable and proper inspection oftheir apparatuses and equipment and ensure no malfunction. Their due
diligence consists in the discovery and repair of defects. Failure, therefore,
is negligence. Notice of the defect need not be direct and express. It is enough that the
same existed for such a length of time wherein it would be reasonable to
presume that it had been detected the presence of a conspicuous defect
which existed for a considerable length of time creates a presumption
of constructive notice thereof
If the personnel inspected the meters regularly to find out the payment,
why were the defects not reported on time? Failure to discover the defect
amounts to inexcusable negligence
Public utilities run the risk of forfeiting amounts originally due from
customers if they completely disregard the duty of keeping their meters in
serviceable condition by reason of their own negligence
Those who do not exercise such prudence in the discharge of its dutiesshall be made to bear the consequences of their oversight
B. Negligence as proximate cause
Bataclan v. Medina
Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury and without which the result would not have occurred.
Remember the fire and the overturned bus
Urbano v. IAC
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and
logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. And
since we are dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused
caused the victims death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable
doubt. The wound, for failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus
may have been the proximate cause of Javiers death with which the
petitioner had nothing to do.
A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such
remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the
occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened
between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive,
unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would
not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed
in the condition except because of the independent cause, such condition
was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or
defective condition sets into operation the circumstances, which result in
injury because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or
condition is the proximate cause.
Gabeto v. Araneta
The stopping of the rig by Agaton Araneta in the middle of the street was too
remote from the accident that presently ensued to be considered the legal orproximate cause thereof. Moreover, by getting out and taking his post at the head of
the horse, the driver was the person primarily responsible for the control of the
animal, and the defendant cannot be charged with liability for the accident resulting
from the action of the horse thereafter.
Phoenix Construction v. IAC
When the dump truck parked askew without EWDs or lights, the collision was no
more than a foreseeable consequences of risk created by negligent parking. a man
must respond to the foreseeable consequences of his own acts.
Austria v. CA
That he had no opportunity to avoid the collision is of his own making and [this]should not relieve him of his liability.
Umali v. Bacani
Though the parents of the victim MAY have been negligent in allowing their child
to roam around after the storm that caused the electric wire to fall, ANYBODY
could have met the same fate that befell the victim. The real proximate cause was
the live wire. The negligence of the employees in failing to remedy the situation is
equal to the negligence of the employer due to his failure to supervise.
Calalas v. CA
For breach of contract, simply prove:
1.
Existence of a contract2. Breach
In case of injury, a common carrier is presumed to be at fault unless he
proves extraordinary diligence
The doctrine of proximate cause applies only to quasi-delict and not to
breach of contract the doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a
person where there is no relation between parties
Question: Did the carrier carry the passenger safely, as far as human care
and foresight could provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons with due regard for all circumstances?
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
12/25
C. Proof of negligence
Rules of Court
Rule 131
Section 1. Burden of proof.Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law.
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions.The following are instances of
conclusive presumptions:(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular
thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify
it;
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time
of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
Section 3. Disputable presumptions.The following presumptions are
satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other
evidence:
XXX
(d)
That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;XXX
Ong v. Metropolitan Water District
Owners of resorts are bound to exercise ordinary care and prudence in
management of resorts, to keep them reasonably safe for visitors
Although the proprietor of a natatorium is liable for injuries for lack of
ordinary care, he is not deemed an insurer of safety
They cannot be held liable when there is sufficient evidence to show that all
the necessary precautions were taken to avoid danger to patrons lives
D. Presumption of Negligence
(i) Res ipsa loquitu r
Africa v. Caltex
Fire cannot be considered a fortuitous event as it arises invariable from
some act of man
Where the thing which caused the injury is shown to be under the
management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such that in
the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its
management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in
the absence of an explanation by the defendant that the accident arose from
want of care
The intervention of an unforeseen or unexpected cause is not sufficient to
relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of negligence, if such negligence
directly and proximately cooperates with the independent cause in the
resulting injury
DM Consunji v. CA
Res ipsa loquitur warrants the presumption that the fall was a result of the
perso having control og the instrumentality being negligent
Prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof, furnishes asubstitute for specific proof of negligence
Facts and circumstances accompanying the injury raise the presumption or
permit an inference on the part of the person charged with negligence
Theoretical base: the necessary evidence is absent or unavailable
Once the elements of res ipsa loquitur are established, the burden shifts to
the defendants to explain
National Power Corporation v. CA
Res ipsa loquitur: where the thing that causes injury is shown to be
under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in
the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it afford reasonable evidence, in the
absence of an explanation bu the defendant, that the accident arose
from want of care
What if there was a fortuitous event (in this case, the heavy rains)?
Negligence or imprudence is a human factor which makes the whole
occurrence humanized as it were and removed from the rules applicable to
acts of God
In a quasi-delict, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the
natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of
Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works Inc. v. William Lines Inc.
In res ipsa loquitur, prove:
1.
Accident does not ordinarily occur unless someone was negligent
2. What caused the incident was under the exclusive control of the person
charged with negligence
In any case, the court found direct evidence of negligence which trumps res
ipsa loquitur
Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Spouses Sarangaya
Res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself, relates to the fact of an
injury that sets out an inference to the cause thereof or establishes the
plaintiffs prima facie case
The facts of the case warrant the supposition of negligence and they furnish
the circumstantial evidence of negligence when direct evidence is lacking
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
13/25
The doctrine provides a means by which a plaintiff can pin liability on a
defendant who, if innocent, should be able to explain the care he exercised
to prevent the incident complained of
Requisites of res ipsa loquitur:
1. The accident does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent
2. The cause of injury was under the exclusive control of the person incharge
3. The injury suffered was not due to any voluntary action or contribution
of injured Requisites of caso fortuito:
1. A cause independent of human will
2. Impossible to foresee, or, if foreseen, impossible to avoid3. Event renders the obligation impossible to perform in a normal manner
4. The person tasked with performance had no participation in any cause
to aggravate the accident
The employer may be held liable base on his or her lack of supervision over
the erring employee
2180 does not only apply to the transportation business
Batiquin v. CA
The primary objective of the medical profession: preservation of life andmaintenance of the health of the people
When a physician strays from his sacred duty and endangers instead the life
of his patients, he must be made to answer therefor
Remember the requisities of res ipsa loquitur
The proceedings were entirely under Dr. Batiquins control, nobody knows
whose fault it was but the injury wouldnt occur without negligence
No other operation, this could have been a by-product of Batiquins
procedure
There was here failure to overcome the presumption of negligence in res
ipsa loquitur
Cantre v. Go
Physicians are not the guarantors of care and never set out to intentionally
cause injury
Once negligence is proven, intent is immaterial and a right to reparation
arises
Requisites of res ipsa loquitur evidenced by:
1. The gaping wound, which is not normal
2. Instruments, whether the BP cuff or the droplight, was in Dr. Can tresexclusive control
3. The patient, Nora, had nothing to do with the wound
Captain of the ship doctrine: a surgeon is in charge of the operation
and is therefore liable for the negligence of his or her assistants
Professional Services Inc. v. Agana
All the major circumstances taken together makes Dr. Ampil the negligent
party:
o Gauzes used to control the bleeding
o The nurses announcement of lack of sponges and, though Ampil
searched, none were found, therefore he closed the incision
o Gauzes were found where the surgery was performed
Leaving sponges constitutes prima facie negligence
o
So inconsistent with due care as to raise an inference of negligenceo Even negligence per se
o Exception: leave the sponge when delay is detrimental to the
patients life BUT INFORM IN DUE TIME so they can explore
possible remedies thereto
No such information was given to Agana, who was even misled to believe
that the pains were a necessary consequence of the operationthe original
negligence then became a deliberate wrongful act
Clear case of medical malpractice or medical negligence; only prove:
1. That the health care provider failed to do something a reasonably
prudent health care provider would do or did something a reasonably
prudent health care provder wouldnt
2.
An injury was caused by the failing/doing Dutyto remove all the objects. Breach: failure to remove the same, leading
to the Injury the Proximate Causeof which was Ampils negligence in
closing the incision despite knowledge of the lacking sponges which was
further aggravated by the deliberate concealment
Captain of the ship doctrine: the operation surgeon is incomplete
charge of the surgery room and all personnel whose only duty is to
obey the surgeon
Res ipsa loquitur does not dispense with the requirement to prove the
negligence of a person
2180 in relation to 2176: respondeat superior, apparent authority, ostensible
authority, agency by estoppel
For purposes of apportioning responsibility in medical negligence cases, an
employer-employee relationship on effect exists between hospitals and
attending/visiting physicians
Hospitals hire, fire, exercise real control
Holding out theory: liability will attach because of acts of the principal
in misleading the public into believing such a relationship exists
1869: agency can be implied from the acts of the principal
If corporations can be lauded for providing quality health care when it does
a job well, why shouldnt it be held liable for a fuck up, too?
Doctrine of corporate negligence or corporate responsibility: the
judicial answer to the allocation of a hospitals liability for negligent
acts of health professionals
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
14/25
Hospitals have the duty to meet the standards of responsibilities for patient
care including proper supervision of medical staff
To escape liability, the physician must prove that he has that reasonable
degree of skill, learning, and experience required by the profession, and
reasonable care and diligence in the exercise of skill and application of
knowledge and exert best judgment
Ramos v. CA
Where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting injurywould not have occurred to the patient if due care had been exercised, an
inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an application of the
doctrine res ipsa loquitur without medical evidence, which is ordinarilyrequired to show not only what occurred but how and why it occurred.
The real question is whether or not in the process of the operation any
extraordinary incident or unusual event outside of the routine performance
occurred which is beyond the regular scope of professional activity in such
operations, which, if unexplained would themselves reasonably speak to the
average man ad the negligent cause or causes of the untoward consequence.
Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital
Res ipsa loquitur is generally restricted to situations in malpractice caseswhere a layman is able to say, as a matter of common knowledge and
observation, that the consequences of professional care were not as such as
would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised...It must be
conceded that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have no application in a
suit against a physician or a surgeon which involves the merits of a
diagnosis or of a scientific treatment. The physician or surgeon is not
required at his peril to explain why any particular diagnosis was not correct,
or why any particular scientific treatment did not produce the desired result
NOTE: Expert testimony may be dispensed with if res ipsa loquitur is
applicable. Hence, in cases where the res ipsa loquitur is applicable, the
court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of injury
to the patient, without the aid of expert testimony, where the court from itsfund of common knowledge can determine the proper standard of care.
The standard contemplated is not what is actually the average merit among
all known practitioners from the best to the worst and from the most to the
least experienced, but the reasonable average merit among the ordinarily
good physicians
The medical profession is one, which, like the business of a common
carrier, is affected with public interest. Moreover, since the law imposes
upon common carriers the duty of observing extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers, physicians
and surgeons should have the same duty toward their patients. There is no
need to expressly require of doctors the observance of extraordinary
diligence. As it is now, the practice of medicine is already conditioned
upon the highest degree of diligence. The standard contemplated for
doctors is simply the reasonable average merit among ordinarily good
physicians
Medical negligence: particular form of negligence consisting in failure
of the physician or surgeon to apply that degree of care and skill
ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar
conditions, in like surrounding circumstances.
(ii ) Vi olation of rul es and statutes
a. Traff ic Rules
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 due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputable presumed that a drvier was negligent,
if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations ar
least twice within the next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are
applicable.
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 violatingany traffic regulation
b. Republic Act N o. 10586: A n Act penalizing persons driving u nder the inf luence
of al cohol, dangerous drugs, and simi lar substances, and for other pur poses.
Section 13. The owner and/or operator of the motor vehicle driven by the
offender shall be directly and principally held liable together with the offender
for the fine and the award against the offender for civil damages unless he/she
is able to convincingly prove that he/she has exercised extraordinary diligence
in the selection and supervision of his/her drivers in general and the offending
driver in particular.
This section shall principally apply to the owners and/or operators of publicutility vehicles and commercial vehicles such as delivery vans, cargo trucks,
container trucks, school and company buses, hotel transports, cars or vans for
rent, taxi cabs, and the like.
United States v. Juanillo
Generally, pedestrians and vehicles have equal rights on the highway but
the automobiles use cannot be countenanced unless accompanied by
prudence in management and consideration for the rights of others
consistent with safety
Where danger is great and there is a high degree of care necessary, failure
to observe it is want of ordinary care under the circumstances
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
15/25
Though the best course of action is to let the vehicle pass, the occurrence of
an accident will lead to the accountability of the driver
Negligence is that failure to recognize the great injury that would accrue to
the victim from the collision
Great care is due from the deadliness of the machine
Chapman v. Underwood
The owner will not be responsible for his driver when the latter commits a sudden
act of negligence for which the owner would have no reasonable opportunity toprevent it
Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai
An owner would be held liable if he could have prevented the accident on
the basis not of respondeat superior but rather of pater familias
A presumption arises: the negligence of the driver is ultimately the
negligence of the owner
Test under 2184: The omission to do that whichthe evidence of his own
senses tells him he should do to avoid the accident
The standard is subjective
Serra v. Mumar
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for the damages
caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to another,
there instantly arises a presumption that the employer failed to exercise the
due diligence of a good father of the family in the selection or supervision
of its employees.
The liability of the employer is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned
upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of
insolvency of such employee.
Moreover, under Article 2184 of the Civil Code, if the causative factor was
the drivers negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was present is
likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap by the exercise
of due diligence.
Mallari v. CA
The rule is settled that a driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose
of overtaking another vehicle in an ordinary situation has the duty to see to
it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do so in safety.
When a motor vehicle is approaching or rounding a curve, there is special
necessity for keeping to the right side of the road and the driver does not
have the right to drive on the left hand side relying upon having time to turn
to the right if a car approaching from the opposite direction comes into
view.
Under Art. 2185 of the Civil Code, 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 a traffic regulation.
In an action based on contract of carriage, the court need not make an
express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to
hold it responsible for the payment of damages sought by the passenger.
By the contract of carriage, a common carrier assumes the express
obligation to transport the passengers to their destination safely and to
observe extraordinary diligence with due regard for all the circumstances,and any injury or death that might be suffered by its passengers is right
away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier.
FGU Insurance Corporation v. CA
The liability imposed by Art. 2180 arises by virtue of a presumption juris
tantum of negligence on the part of the persons made responsible
thereunder, derived from their failure to exercise due care and vigilance
over the acts of subordinates to prevent them from causing damage.
Yet, as correctly observed by respondent court, Art. 2180 is hardly
applicable because none of the circumstances mentioned therein obtains in
the case under consideration.
Respondent FILCAR being engaged in a rent-a-car business was only theowner of the car leased to Dahl-Jensen. As such, there was no vinculum
juris between them as employer and employee. Respondent FILCAR
cannot in any way be responsible for the negligent act of Dahl-Jensen, the
former not being an employer of the latter.
Neither is Art. 2184 applicable because of the absence of master-driver
relationship between respondent FILCAR and Dahl-Jensen.
Clearly, petitioner has no cause of action against respondent FILCAR on
the basis of quasi-delict; logically, its claim against respondent FORTUNEcan neither prosper.
Petitioner's insistence on MYC-Agro-Industrial Corporation is rooted in a
misapprehension of our ruling therein. There, the true nature of the alleged
lease contract was nothing more than a disguise effected by the corporationto relieve itself of the burdens and responsibilities of an employer.
PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
The registered owner of the vehicle driven by a negligent driver may still
be held liable under laws on compulsory motor vehicle registration and the
liabilities of employers for quasi-delicts under the Civil Code.
For damage or injuries arising out of negligence in the operation of a motor
vehicle, the registered owner may be held civilly liable with the negligent
driver either
1. Subsidiarily, if the aggrieved party seeks relief based on a delict or
crime under Articles 100 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code; or
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
16/25
2. Solidarily, if the complainant seeks relief based on a quasi-delict
under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
It is the option of the plaintiff whether to waive completely the filing of the
civil action, or institute it with the criminal action, or file it separately or
independently of a criminal action; his only limitation is that he cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
In case a separate civil action is filed, the long-standing principle is that the
registered owner of a motor vehicle is primarily and directly responsible for
the consequences of its operation, including the negligence of the driver,with respect to the public and all third persons.
In contemplation of law, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is the
employer of its driver, with the actual operator and employer, such as alessee, being considered as merely the owner's agent. This being the case,
even if a sale has been executed before a tortious incident, the sale, if
unregistered, has no effect as to the right of the public and third persons to
recover from the registered owner. The public has the right to conclusively
presume that the registered owner is the real owner, and may sue
accordingly.
Since a lease, unlike a sale, does not even involve a transfer of title or
ownership, but the mere use or enjoyment of property, there is more reason,
therefore, in this instance to uphold the policy behind the law, which is toprotect the unwitting public and provide it with a definite person to make
accountable for losses or injuries suffered in vehicular accidents. Such
principles apply to all vehicles in general, not just those offered for public
service or utility.
The rule remains the same: a sale, lease, or financial lease, for that matter,
that is not registered with the Land Transportation Office, does not bind
third persons who are aggrieved in tortious incidents, for the latter need
only to rely on the public registration of a motor vehicle as conclusive
evidence of ownership.
Aonuevo v. CA
The rule on negligence per se must admit qualifications that may arise fromthe logical consequences of the facts leading to the mishap.
A driver of an automobile, is required to use a greater degree of care than
drivers of animals, for the reason that the machine is capable of greater
destruction, and furthermore, it is absolutely under the power and control of
the driver; whereas, a horse or other animal can and does to some extent aid
in averting an accident. An automobile driver must at all times use all the
care and caution which a careful and prudent driver would have exercised
under the circumstances. Simply put, the standards applicable to motor
vehicle are not on equal footing with other types of vehicles.
NEGLIGENCE PER SE, DOES NOT BAR RECOVERY. Negligence per
se, arising from the mere violation of a traffic statute, need NOT be
sufficient in itself in establishing liability for damages.
Negligence consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other
negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of
the injury.
To determine if Villagracia was negligent, it is not sufficient to rely solely
on the violations of the municipal ordinance, but imperative to examine
Villagracias behavior in relation to the contemporaneous circumstances ofthe accident.
The violation of a traffic statute must be shown as the proximate cause of
the injury, or that it substantially contributed thereto. Negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the
injury, and not simply a condition for its occurrence.
c. Statutes and ordi nances/admin istrati ve ru les
Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. v. Workmens Compensation Commission
Mere riding on haulage truck or stealing a ride thereon is not negligence,
ordinarily. It couldnt be, because transportation by truck is not dangerous
per se. It is argued that there was notorious negligence in this particular
instance because there was the employers prohibition. Does violation of
this order constitute negligence? Many courts hold that violation of a
statute or ordinance constitutes negligence per se. Others consider thecircumstances.
Violation of a rule promulgated by a Commission or board is not
negligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence.
This order of the employer (prohibition rather) couldnt be of a greater
obligation than the rule of a Commission or board. And the referee
correctly considered this violation as possible evidence of negligence; but it
declared that under the circumstance, the laborer could not be declared to
have acted with negligence. Correctly, it is believed, since the prohibition
had nothing to do with personal safety of the riders.
Nevertheless, even granting there was negligence, it surely was not
notorious or gross negligence implying conscious indifference to
consequences pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally andprobably result in injury utter disregard of consequences.
Getting or accepting a free ride on the companys haulage truck couldnt be
gross negligence, because as the referee found, no dan ger or risk was
apparent.
FF Cruz and Co., Inc. v. CA
Res ipsa loquitur: where the thing which caused the injury complained
of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his
servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things
does not happen if those who have its management or control use
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
-
8/21/2019 Torts and Damages Midterm Reviewer
17/25
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of
care
The failure to comply with an ordinance providing for safety regulations
[is] an act of negligence
Cipriano v. CA
The violation of a statutory duty amounts to negligence per se
The person is thus liable for destruction for failure to comply with the
ordinances Where the very injury intended to be prevented by the ordinance happened,
non-compliance shall constitute negligence
A contract does not bar negligence from a quasi-delict when the negligence
led to a breach
Sanitary Steam Laundry v. CA
The petitioner has the burden of showing a causal connection between the
violation of the law and the injury received
One must show that the statutory violation was the proximate or legal cause
of injury or substantially contributed thereto
Negligence consisting of violation of law, like any other negligence, is
without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of the injury
(ii i) Dangerous weapons and substances
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 firearms and poison, except when the
possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business.
Araneta v. Arreglado
Licensed possessors of firearms have the peremptory duty to adequately safeguard
weapons at all times and to take required measures to prevent unauthorized parties
access thereto.
IV. DEFENSES
A. Plaintiffs negligence is the proximate cause of the injury
2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damage to be awarded
Taylor v. Meralco
Doctrine of implied invitation to visit premises of another: children are
actuated by childish instincts and impulses
Owners must calculate upon this and take precautions accordingly The
owner cannot be heard to say that because a child was trespassing, the
owner owes him no duty or obligation
The owner knows or ought to know the nature of a child and failure to take
measures to guard the child against injury is a breach of duty or a negligent
omission for which he should be he