Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PRELIMINARY MATTERS: *Those in SMALL CAPS (and underlined) were highlighted by Sir Casis during the class. If none are found, just refer to those in bold letters and those in the Notes. Good luck classmates! torts magic notes team
government official as the editorial obviously referred to him. Worcester alleged that he was likened to birds of prey in the following manner: Such are the characteristics of the man who is at the same time an eagle who surprises and devours, a vulture who gorges himself on the dead and putrid meats, an owl who affects a petulant omniscience and a vampire who silently sucks the blood of the victim until he leaves it bloodless. TC: In favor of Worcester; Defendants jointly and severally liable for the P60k total damages. ISSUE: WON the defendants individual properties can be made jointly and severally liable for the damages under the civil and commercial codes, HELD: Yes. TC modified. Damages reduced, Santos absolved. The present action is a tort. Universal doctrine: each joint tortfeasor is not only individually liable for the tort in which he participates, but is also jointly liable with his tortfeasors. If several persons commit a tort, the plaintiff or person injured, has his election to sue all or some of the parties jointly, or one of them separately, because the TORT IS IN ITS NATURE A SEPARATE ACT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL. It is not necessary that cooperation should be a direct, corporal act- e.g. assault and battery committed by various persons, under the common law, they are all principals. Under common law, he who aided or counseled, in any way, the commission of a crime, was as much a principal as he who inflicted or committed the actual tort. General Rule: Joint tortfeasors are 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. They 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 jointly and severally liable for the tort which they commit. Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. The damages can not 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. A payment in full of the damage done by one tortfeasor satisfies any claim which might exist against the others. The release of one of the joint tortfeasors by agreement generally operates to discharge all. The court however may make findings as to which of the alleged joint tortfeasors are liable and which are not, even if they are charged jointly and severally. Art. 2184*. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. *this was drafted with Chapman v. Underwood in mind.
CLASS NOTES There can be more than one tortfeasor and they are called JOINT TORTFEASORS Are you suppose to sue all of them? NO because you can get relief from one of them. Do they have to act in concert? NO
CLASS NOTES Sir highlighted that Tort is in its nature a separate act of each individual so no need to sue all of the tortfeasors!
the Cadillac of Yu Khe Thai, driven by Rafael Bernardo. They were both traveling at moderate speeds and the headlights were mutually noticeable from a distance. Ahead of the Cadillac was a carretela. Bernardo testified that he saw the carretela only when it was st already only 8 meters away from him (This is the 1 sign of negligence because the carretela was lightedhence shouldve given him sufficient warning). But Bernardo, instead of slowing down or stopping, tried to overtake the carretela by veering to the left. The cars right rear bumper caught the wheel of the carretela and collided with the Mercury. Caedo in the meantime, slowed down, and thought that the Cadillac would wait behind the carretela. He tried to avoid the collision at the last moment by going farther to the right but was unsuccessful. TC: Bernardo and Thai jointly and severally liable for damages ISSUE: WON Yu Khe Thai, as the owner of the Cadillac, is solidarily liable with his driver. HELD: No. TC modified. Thai not solidarily liable with Bernardo. Art. 2184 applies: In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. Under Art. 2184, 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. This rule is not new, although formulated as a law for the first time in the new Civil Code. It was expressed in Chapman v. Underwood. Basis of masters liability in civil law: NOT respondeat superior but paterfamilias. The theory is that ultimately, the negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage.
Bernardo was a pretty good driver and had no record. No negligence for having employed him may be imputed to Thai. The only negligence that can be imputed to Bernardo was when he tried to overtake the carretela instead of stopping or waiting-and this cannot be imputed to Thai because there were no signs for him to be in any special state of alert. He could not have anticipated his drivers sudden decision to pass the carretela. The time element was such that there was no reasonable opportunity for Thai to assess the risks involved and warn the driver accordingly. Test of imputed negligence under 2184: -to a great degree, necessarily subjective. Car owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional drivers. The law does not require that a person must possess a certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the mechanic of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before they can own a motor vehicle. Test of negligence within the meaning of 2184: -his omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident. RULE: negligence must be sought in the immediate setting and circumstance of the accident, i.e. in his failure to detain the driver form pursuing a course which not only gave him clear notice of the danger but also sufficient time to act upon it. NOTES: Art. 2184 is based on Chapman. Unless the owner couldve prevented the negligence, or he was negligent in selection and supervision, he cannot be held liable. Art. 2184: owner can be held solidarily liable with the driver only if the owner is IN the car. Courts test: 1. senses of owner 2. circumstances
When will the owner be liable?- An owner who sits in his vehicle, and permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of his negligent acts, after he had A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
OBSERVE THEM AND TO DIRECT THAT THE DRIVER CEASE THEREFROM, BECOMES HIMSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH ACTS.
When will the owner be NOT liable?-if the driver by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the vehicle, present therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible, etiher civilly or criminally, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his drivers act his own. RULE: Underwood is not liable for his drivers act even if he was inside the car at the time of the accident (unless he let the negligence continue for a long time without correcting it) because the driver is not listed in 1903 (now 2180) as one of the persons whose acts Underwood would be responsible for.
CLASS NOTES
The standard set in this case is still REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. Difference between respondeat superior vs. paterfamilias
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations
CLASS NOTE In this section, a person is held liable for acts not his own but because of the existence of a relationship.
property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
CLASS NOTE Basis: parental authority Are the parents still liable for if above 18 but below 21? Yes. Legal basis: PD 603
1. Parents (see table after cases) Exconde v. Capuno June 29, 1957
FACTS: Dante Capuno, 15 years old, a student of the Balintawak Elementary School, was instructed by the city schools supervisor to attend a parade in honor of Rizal in San Pablo City. From the school, the students boarded a jeep, and when it started to run, Dante took hold of the wheel, while the driver sat on his left side (remember that the steering wheel is at the LEFT side). The jeep turned turtle and 2 passengers died. Delfin Capuno, the father, was not with Dante at the time of the accident, nor did he know that Dante was going to attend a parade. He only found out after the accident when Dante told him about it. Criminal case: TC: Dante was convicted for Double homicide through reckless imprudence. CA: affirmed Civil case: against Delfin and Dante Capuno (reserved by Sabina Exconde, mother of one of the deceased): TC: Convicted ONLY Dante to pay the damages. CA: certified to SC ISSUE: WON Delfin Capuno can be held civilly liable, jointly and severally with his son for damages. HELD: Yes. TC Modified. Delfin and Dante are jointly and severally liable for the damages. Art. 1903 applies: The obligation imposed by the next preceding articles is enforceable not only for
12180 now: The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. 1
The phrase teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades does not qualify teachers but only heads of establishments. If the basis of presumption of negligence in Art. 1903 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents, teachers, etc. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority, hence, when the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher, the teacher, and not the parent should be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his custody. Why? for the very reason that the parent is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher while the child is under instruction. If there is no authority, there can be no responsibility. Hence, Delfin should not be made liable for a tort that he was in no way able to prevent, and which he had every right to assume the school authorities would. He rebutted the presumption of negligence under 1903 when he proved that he entrusted custody of Dante to the school authorities. RULES: Majority: Liability of teachers or directors institutions of arts and trades.
(Salens), the parents (and heirs) of Carlos, demanded from Jose to pay but he refused. Hence the suit. TC: dismissed. Sustained Joses theory that the civil liability of Gumersindo arises from his criminal liability and therefore must be determined under the RPC, and not under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, which only applies to obligations arising form QDs. There is no law which holds the father either primarily or subsidiarily liable for the civil liability incurred by the son who is a minor of 18 years. ISSUE: WON Jose Balce can be held SUBSIDIARILY liable to pay the indemnity his son was sentenced to pay in the criminal case against him (the son). HELD: Yes. Jose Balce is ordered to pay the indemnity. TC reversed. As a rule, the civil liability arising form a crime shall be governed by the RPC. But since the RPC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of parents for a minor over 15, who acts with discernment, resort should be made to the general law which is the Civil Code. And Art. 2180 is the law that applies. To hold that Art. 2180 applies only to QDs will result in an absurdity that while for an act where mere negligence intervenes, the father or mother may be held subsidiarily liable, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent. The void that apparently exists in the RPC is subserved by 2180 of the Civil Code as may be gleaned from some recent SC decisions: Exconde v. Capuno-where the father was held solidarily liable for the crime his son committed. Araneta v. Arreglado-(where Arreglado fired at Araneta because he resented the remarks Araneta made about his leaving Ateneo and enrolling in La Salle. The court convicted Arreglado but suspended his sentence because he was only 14.) The court held the father, the mother and the son to pay the Aranetas damages.
are
limited
to
Dissent: 1. Art. 1903 interpretation too limited. Teacher, master, or in the absence of, school authorities should be liable for the negligence. 2. Once the parent entrusts custody to the school authorities, presumption is rebutted and burden of proof is shifted to claimant to show actual negligence on the part of the parent in order to render him liable. NOTES: This case is cited as basis of liability arising from parental authority.
CLASS NOTE In this case, the liability of father was deemed to be subsidiary.
Note: The injured and the accused have the same surname.
FACTS: The car, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Gutierrez and driven by Bonifacio Gutierrez, 18 years old, with his mother and 7 other members of the family, EXCLUDING Mr. Gutierrez, the father, collided with a passenger truck while attempting to pass each other. As a result, Narciso Gutierrez, a passenger, suffered a fractured leg. ISSUES: 1. WON Manuel Gutierrez, the father is liable for damages (yes) 2. WON the truck owner and driver are liable for damages. (yes) HELD: Manuel Gutierrez, the owner and the driver of the truck are jointly and severally liable for damages. 1. Anent Manuel Gutierrezs liability: The guaranty given by the father at the time the son was granted a license to operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for the acts of his son. Bonifacio was an incompetent driver, was speeding and lost his head when he approached the bridge and the truck. Based on these facts, and pursuant to 1903 (now 2180) the father alone, and not the minor or the mother, would be held liable for the damages caused by the minor. In the US, it is uniformly held that the head of a house, the owner of an automobile, who maintains it for general use of his family is liable for its negligent operation by one of his children, whom he designates or permits to run it, where the car is occupied and being used at the time of the injury for the pleasure of other members of the owners family than the child driving it. The theory of this law is that running of the machine by the child to carry the other members of the family is within the scope of the owners business, so that he is liable for the negligence of the child because of the relationship of master and servant. 2. Anent the owners and drivers liability:
The Libis were grossly negligent from preventing Wendell from having access to the key to the safety deposit box where the gun was stored. Diligence required is that of instruction and supervision of the kid. BUT, liability is not subsidiary, it is PRIMARY Rule on parents liability is correct but characterization of their nature must be given a second look (coz SC held in some cases that the liability of parents is subsidiary). If the liability of the parents for crimes or QDs of their minor children is subsidiary, then they can neither invoke nor be absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. But if the liability is direct and primary, the diligence would constitute a valid and substantial defense. Hence, the liability of parents for QDs of their minor kids as contemplated in 2180 is PRIMARY and not subsidiary. In fact, applying 2194 (solidary liability of join tortfeasors) the parent is also solidarily liable with the child. The liability of parents for felonies is likewise PRIMARY & not subsidiary. Art. 101, RPC says so. For both QDs and crimes, the parents primarily respond for such damages is buttressed by the corresponding provisions in both the RPC and CC that the minor transgressor shall be answerable or shall respond with his own property only in the absence or in case of the 2 3 insolvency of the parents. Arts. 2182 , CC and 101 , RPC support this.
2 Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n) 3 Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases.
The dela Rosas failed to pay because they had no cash. The writ of execution yielded only a nominal amount. Present status of Luis: married with 2 kids, living with uncle in Madrid, earnings hardly enough to support his family, has no assets of his own. ISSUE: Whether the father, Jose, should be made primarily or subsidiarily liable for the liability of his son Luis. HELD: Primary liability. Jose is liable for his sons nd st liability. 2 CA set aside. 1 CA reinstated with the modification that the attys fees will earn interest. Dela Rosas invoke Elcano v. Hill to support their calim for subsidiary liability only. In Elcano, it was held that Art. 2180 applied to Atty. Hill despite the emancipation by marriage of his son, but since his son attained age, as a matter of equity, Atty. Hills liability had become merely subsidiary to that of his son.
xxx Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.
that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. The principle of parental liability is a species of what is frequently designated as vicarious liability, or the doctrine of imputed negligence, where a person is not only liable for the torts committed by himself, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible. Thus, parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parentstheir parental authoritywhich includes the instructing, controlling and disciplining of the child. The basis for the doctrine of vicarious liability was explained in Cangco v. Manila Raildroad: With respect to extra contractual obligations arising from negligence, whether of act or omission, the legislature has elected to limit such liability to cases in which the person upon whom such an obligation is imposed is morally culpable, or on the contrary, for reasons of public policy, to extend that liability, without regard to the lack of moral culpability, so as to include responsibility for the negligence of those persons whose acts or omissions are imputable, by legal fiction, to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them. The legislature which adopted our civil code elected to limit extra contractual liabilitywith certain well-defined exceptionsto cases in which moral culpabilityu can be directly imputed to the persons to be charged. This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to exercise due care in ones own acts, or in having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of ones own agents or servants, or in the control of persons who, by reasons of their status, occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person liable for their conduct. Basis of civil liability imposed on parents for torts of their minor kids living with them: PARENTAL AUTHORITY vested by the civil code. In other words, parental liability is anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. Parental dereliction is only a PRESUMPTION which can be overturned under
FACTS: Adelberto Bundoc, 10 years old, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle, causing injuries which resulted in her death. Adelbertos natural parents for damages. Adelberto was living with his natural parents at the time of the accident but a petition for his adoption has already been filed by the Rapisura spouses. This petition was granted after the shooting of Jennifer. The Tamargos filed: 1. criminal complaint for homicide through reckless imprudence but Adelberto was acquitted and exempted from criminal liability on the ground that he had acted without discernment. 2. civil complaint against the Bundocs, the natural parents of Adelberto. The Bundocs claimed that the Rapisuras should be held liable instead, that they are indispensable parties because parental authority had already shifter to them the moment the successful petition for adoption was filed. TC: dismissed the complaint. The Bundocs are not indispensable parties to the action. CA: dismissed petition. Tamargos lost their right to appeal. ISSUE: Who are the indispensable parties? The Bundocs or the Rapisuras? HELD: The natural parents, the Bundocs, are the indispensable parties. CA reversed and set aside, complaint reinstated and case remanded. When Adelberto shot Jennifer, parental authority was still lodged in the Bundocs, his natural parents. Hence, they who had actual custody of Adelberto, are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages. Ratio: The act of Adelberto gave rise to a cause of action on QD, under 2176 against him. On the other hand, the law imposes civil liability upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages
CLASS NOTES What is the basis of the doctrine that liability of parents is primary and not solidary? Why? o 2 legal bases: 101 RPC and 2182 CC Why?-provisions provide for such defense liability of parents is primary According to the Court, the reliance on Fuellas v. Cadano was NOT correct because the liability in fuellas was PRIMARY (syllabus can be wrong kasi) Why primary liability? 1. law provides a defense; 2. property of minor only liable when parents are insolvent
Guitierrez vs. Guitierrez (bus collision, family except pa in the car driven by minor) RodriguezLuna vs. IAC (go-cart vs. Toyota)
Civil action vs. Manuel Guitierrez (the father) only (+ bus driver and owner)
SC: The father, bus driver and owner jointly and severally liable
SC: Bundocs (natural parents) are indispensable parties -the adopting parents had no actual custody yet
SC: Pa made primarily liable for the injury caused by son (son already of age, said to be insolvent but in Madrid!) SC: Libis are primarily and directly liable
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. 2. The liability of parents for felonies is likewise Primary and not subsidiary under A101 of RPC: minor only liable if parents are insolvent (A101 par3) Art. 2176, parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of duties accompanying such authority, doctrine of vicarious liability as explained in CANGCO VS. MANILA RAILROAD *IMPORTANT: PARENTS MUST HAVE ACTUAL OR PHYSICAL
CUSTODY OVER THE MINOR TO BE HELD LIABLE
10
but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)
CLASS NOTE
What is a foundling? A baby deserted by unknown parents. (e.g. those left at the doorstep) Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has
11
mother responsible for the damages caused by their minor children. Hence, the claim of Mercado that responsibility should pass to the school, must be held to be without merit. Anent the MD: Only possible circumstance in which MD may be granted is if a felony or QD has been committed. 1. no criminal action for physical injuries has been presented 2. even if this is a QD within the meaning of Art. 6 Art. 2219, par 2 , the facts show that Augustos act was occasioned by the fact that Manuel Jr. tired to intervene or interfere with Augustos attempt to recover his pitogo. Hence, the proximate cause of Manuel Jrs injury is his own fault or negligence for having interfered. Hence, no MD coz the cases in Art. 2219 were not shown to exist. RULE: 7 1. exconde v. capuno doctrine : academic institutions not included in Art. 2180 2. exconde v. capuno doctrine: responsibility passes from parents to teachers or heads of ONLY institutions of arts and trades 3. Lourdes is not liable because they dont retain custody (custody=living with the teachers or heads) of their pupils. 4. Ciriaco Mercado is not responsible even under Art. 2180 par. 2-probably because Manuel Jr. did not die nor was he incapacitated. 5. No moral damages because cases in Art. 2219 were not shown to exist. 6. Augusto was only 9 and was not shown to act with discernment 7. Even if there was a QD on Augustos part, the proximate cause of the injury was Manuel Jrs own act of interference. DOCTRINE: what Art. 2180 means by custody
FACTS: Dominador Palisoc, 16 years old and Virgilio Daffon, of age, were classmates at the Manila Technical Institute. During recess, while working on a machine, Daffon made a remark that Palisoc was like a foreman because he was merely watching them. Irked, Palisoc bitch-slapped Daffon. In retaliation, Daffon gave Palisoc a strong flat blow on the face, followed by fist blows on the stomach. Palisoc tried to retreat, but Daffon followed him. They exchanged fist blows until Palsioc stumbled on an engine block which caused him to fall face downward. He fainted and never regained consciousness. The autopsy report said he died of broken ribs and hemorrhage on the brain caused probably by strong fist blows. TC: Daffon liable for QD under 2176. Absolved the following because 2180 is not applicable: It applied Mercado v. CAs definition of custody 1. Brillantes-member of the board of directors of MTI 2. Valenton, president of MTI 3. Quibulue, instructor of the class. ISSUE: WON the other defendants (board member, president and instructor) should be held solidarily liable with Daffon HELD: Yes. TC Modified. Daffon, Valenton and Quibulue are solidarily liable for damages. Under 2180, the president and instructor are liable solidarily for damages. Brillantes is not liable because he is a mere member of the board (he could have been liable if not for the incorporation of the school, making a corporation the owner of the school and not him anymore). The school cannot be held liable as it was not impleaded as a party defendant. The TC based its decision on Mercado v. CA, which in turn was based on a dictum in Exconde v. Capuno. The case here was instituted directly against the defendants (as against the cited cases where the father was the defendant). The parents here are not involved since Daffon was already of age at the time of the incident. MTI is unquestionably a non-academic school.
In these circumstances the control or the influence over the conduct and actions of the pupil would pass from the father and mother to the teacher; and so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil. Such a situation does not appear in the case at bar. The pupils go to school during school hours and go back home to their parents after. The situated contemplated in the last par. of art. nd 2180 (I think he meant 2 to the last par) does not 5 apply, nor does par 2 which makes the father or
AND OF
THE
PUPIL
6Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
5 The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. 7 Although later cases say this is a mere obiter because the issue was won the father had civil liability
12
teacher while the child is under instruction. If there is no authority, there can be no responsibility. Hence, the president and instructor must be held solidarily liable unless they prove that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage-which they failed to do. Dissent: Makalintal Wants Mercado sustained. Its unfair to hold teachers and/or administrative heads responsible for tortuous acts of their students considering the high number of enrollment. It would demand responsibility without the commensurate authority. Moreover, since the responsibility stems from loco parentis, then it follows that 1. custody= live in company (like for parents and guardians) and 2. responsibility limited to minors only (like for parents and guardians) Concurring: Reyes Concurs with majority but dissents with the dissent. Makalintals interpretation not in accord with the law. 1. Only the guardians and parents are exempt once the child reaches majority 2. The authority and custodial supervision (of the teachers and heads) over the pupil exists regardless of the pupils age. RULE: 1. Mercado doctrine abandoned/overturned 2. Wants to overturn Exconde (to include academic institutions in the scope of 2180) but has no chance because MTI is anon-academic institution. 3. Definition of custody= the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time. (MEMORIZE)
Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. The Amadoras sued for damages against the School (Colegio), the dean of boys and, the physics teacher and Daffon. TC: defendants are liable for damages CA: All the defendants were absolved. Colegio is not a school of arts and trades and Daffon was not in custody since the semester already ended. ISSUE: Interpretation of Art. 2180 HELD: Petition denied. None are liable. The SC summarized 3 cases which have been decided in connection with 2180: Exconde-school not liable because it is not a school of arts and trades -Reyes dissent-rule was imposed on teachers in general and heads OF establishments of arts and trades. Mercado-reiterated Exconde. School not liable because it is not an establishment of arts and trades -Defined custody as living and boarding with the teacher Palisoc- Set aside/abandoned the doctrines in Exconde and Mercado. -Defined custody to mean that the protective and supervisory custody of the school and its heads and teachers over the students are in force so long as they remain in school including recess time. -in a footnote, Tehankee (the ponente) said that he agreed with Reyes in his Exconde dissent to include academic schools but had no chance because the school involed is a non-academic one. Amadora is the case! 1. Art. 2180 applies to both academic and nonacademic schools Reddendo Singula Singulis a. if academic- teacher is liable for the pupils and students (General Rule)
8 Referring each to each; referring each phrase or expression to its appropriate object or let each be put in its proper place, i.e. the words should be taken distributively 8
NOTHING IN THE LAW REQUIRES THAT FOR SUCH LIABILITY TO ATTACH, THE PUPIL-TORTFEASOR MUST LIVE AND BOARD IN THE SCHOOL. 2. Rationale of the liability The rationale of the liability of school heads and teachers is that they stand to a certain extent, as to their pupils and students, in loco parentis, and are called upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. 3. Governing Principle in law of torts In the law of torts, the governing principle is that the protective custody of the school heads and teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, and hence it becomes their obligation as well as that of the school itself to provide proper supervision of the students activities during the whole time that they are at attendance in the school, including recess time, as well as to take the necessary precautions to protect the students in their custody from dangers and hazards that would reasonably be anticipated, including injuries that some students themselves may inflict willfully or through negligence on their fellow students. 4. Mercado overturned. Reyes dissent rules! Adheres to Reyes dissent in Exconde: If the basis of presumption of negligence in Art. 1903 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents, teachers, etc. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority, hence, when the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher, the teacher, and not the parent should be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his custody. Why? for the very reason that the parent is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the
13
b.
If at all, the school, whatever its nature may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers and heads under the general principle of respondeat superior, it may exculpate itself by proof of exercise of diligence of bonus paterfamilias.defense which is also available to the teacher or the head. 4. Pupil not required to be a minor to hold teacher liable Unlike the parent who will be liable only for his minor child, the teacher is answerable for torts of his students regardless of the students age. Hence: 1. Alfredo Amadora was still in the schools custody when the incident happened 2. rector, high school principal and dean of boys NOT liable because none of them were the teacher-in charge (they only exercised a general authority and not the direct control and influence exerted by the teacher-incharge) Dean of boys not liable although he earlier confiscated a gun because it was not shown that the gun he confiscated and the gun that was used in the shooting were the same. 3. Physics teacher not liable because there was no showing that he was negligent in his duties. His absence cannot be taken against him as he was not required to report to school that day. 4. Colegio not liable because 2180 does not apply to school but only to its teachers and heads. CONCURRING & DISSENTING: Melencio-Herrera -teacher in 2180 should not be limited to the teacherin-charge -the school may be held responsible under 2180 as the employer of the teachers and heads CONCURRING: Gutierrez, Jr. -reiterates the need for an amendment due to the nonexistent disparity between teachers of academic schools and heads of arts and trades RULE: 1. Custody definition 2. application of 2180 to both academic and non-academic schools 3. teachers is to pupils and students as heads is to apprentices 4. school not directly liable under 2180 par 7.
NOTES: dangerous definition of custody because it is so broad (even if just walking around school enjoying its ambience and atmosphere)
CLASS NOTE facts: in Academic school, by student of the school, after sem ends A2180 applies to both ACADEMIC and NONACADEMIC schools Academic: teacher-in-charge:: Institute of Arts and Trades: Heads Custody does not connote INFLUENCE exerted on the child and the DISCIPLINE instilled in him as a result of such influence pupil is not required to be a minor for the teacher to be liable! (A2180 doesnt require minority) Applicability to academic institutions WAS an issue prior to this casesee Exconde Despite the broadness of the definition of custody, NO ONE was held liable in Amadora!
Even if the student should be doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the company of his classmates and friends and enjoying the ambience and atmosphere in the school, he is still within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of Art. 2180. Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence. 3. Liability imposed not on the school itself It should be noted that the liability imposed is supposed to fall directly on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself.
9 This disparity no longer exist in view of the increase in enrollment. But thats a task for the legislature.
14
4. Ylarde cannot be charged with reckless imprudence The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the person to care for himself. A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an adult, but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his age and experience, The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances.
CLASS NOTE facts: by students, w/n school premises, against ACADEMIC school A2180 doesnt include Academic schools (this is the case where the court researcher was not aware of the ruling in Amadora vs. CA) Dont sue school based on 2180 (7)
CLASS NOTE facts: students, teachers and principal impleaded Applied Amadora doctrine: (teacher:ACAD::heads:Establishments of arts and trade)
15
DISSENT: Padilla 1. teachers were negligent. a. They failed to observe the proper diligence BEFORE THE INCIDENT (water was deep, only oral instructions were given) b. The supposed life guards were not there! They were having a drinking spree 2. Principal was negligent He knew of the activity and he did not take the appropriate measures to ensure the safety of his students. 3. School is liable under 2180 par. 5 The negligence of an employee in causing injury or damage gives rise to a presumption of negligence on the part of the owner and/or manager of the establishment. Activity was stamped with school authority. Many of the teachers were present, and the activity was organized by the teachers for the students. RULE: Liability only for failure to perform assigned tasks NOTES: Authority in saying that diligence should be BEFORE and not after the FACT
RECESS
IS
TEMPORARY
ADJOURNMENT EMBRACED IN THE CONCEPT OF AT ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL. IT IS A SITUATION WHERE THE STUDENT STILL REMAINS WITHIN THE CALL OF HIS MENTOR AND IS NOT PERMITTED TO LEAVE THE SCHOOL PREMISES OR THE AREA WITHIN WHICH THE SCHOOL ACTIVITY IS CONDUCTED. RECESS BY ITS NATURE DOES NOT INCLUDE DISMISSAL. Plus, the mere fact of being enrolled or being
in the premises of a school without more does not constitute attending school or being in the protective and supervisory custody of the school, as contemplated in the law. Abon cannot be considered to have been in attendance in the school, or in the custody of BCF when he shot Napoleon. Plus, he was supposed to be working when the incident happened. RULE: Defines recess Qualified Custody NOTE: Salvosa mitigates the effects of Amadora-but this was not cited in Salvosa.
THE ACT OR OMISSION MUST HAVE OCCURRED WHILE AN EMPLOYEE WAS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS ASSIGNED TASKS. The picnic
was not a sanctioned school activity nor an extracurricular activity. 3. The Principal is not liable under 2180 Mere knowledge of the picnic is not enough He did not consent to the picnic 4. Teachers are not negligent hence not liable a. instructors and scout masters who had st knowledge in 1 aid and swimming were invited b. life savers were brought
CLASS NOTE School: ACAD + Institute of Arts and Trade time: dismissal, where: in parking lot of school, against who: student of University of Baguio Memorize: recess and custody Amadora: legitimate student objectiveVictim is own student
16
This case should have used the provisions from the Family Code.
CLASS NOTE A2180 applies to schools only if student liable but if student a victim, BOC
12 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. 13 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
institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a) Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
remain in their custody. 14 Art. 349. The following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority: (2) Teachers and professors; xxx (4) Directors of trade establishments, with regard to apprentices; Art. 350. The persons named in the preceding article shall exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. Art. 352. The relations between teacher and pupil, professor and student, are fixed by government regulations and those of each school or institution. In no case shall corporal punishment be countenanced. The teacher or professor shall cultivate the best potentialities of the heart and mind of the pupil or student.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n)
17
Important to note that: Under the FC, no distinction is made WON School is ACADEMIC or NONACADEMIC Incident happened WITHIN OR OUTSIDE school premises. 2180 not limited to minors and liability of teacher is only when academic and not arts and trades Summary of cases: 1. Exconde: Primary liability of parent 2180 applies only to arts and trades 2. Salen: subsidiary liability of parent 3. Fuellas: primary liability of parent (did categorically state that parent is subsidiarily liable) 4. Rodriguez-Luna: primary liability of parent 5. Libi: Primary liability of parent-CLEARED UP ISSUE ON PRIMARY OR SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY 6. Mercado: Custody=living and boarding with teacher or head 7. Palisoc: custody-protective and supervisory custody. Does not have to live or board with teacher or head Overturned Mercado. No chance to Overturn Exconde. 8. Amadora: 2180 applies to all schools. Overturned Exconde -Academic school-teacher-pupil -Arts & trades-head-apprentice Broad definition of custody 9. Pasco: 2180 applies to teachers or heads not to school itself. 10. Ylarde: head of an academic school not liable. 11. Salvosa: defines recess; (mitigates amadoras effects) qualifies custody not
CLASS NOTE school liable if Proximate Cause of the injury is their negligence special parental authority applies as long as the activity was approved by an office of the school FC A218: school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child have special parental authority and responsibility to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution Minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody A219: unemancipated minor Principally and solidarily liable schools Subsidiarily liable parents, judicial guardians, persons exercising substitute parental authority NCC A2180, par7: teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades *In St. Francis Case, activity should be inside school premises
Who liable
Their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody Primarily and directly
12. St. Francis: 2180 applies to school sanctioned activities and in the failure to perform assigned tasks.
18
solidary with the driver (Art 2194) . The employers only recourse is to recover what it has paid from the employee who committed the fault or negligence (Art 17 2181) .
4. Owners Establishments
and
Managers
of
2. PAF is a corporation with a personality separate and distinct from that of Balingit (this was not alleged in the complaint). The argument that PAF is a mere business conduit of the Balingit spouses implies the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction. Since this was not raised in the lower court, it cannot be countenanced in this appeal.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. PhilAmerican Forwarders, Inc March 25, 1975
FACTS: Fernando Pineda, driver of a Philippine American Forwarders freight truck hit a Philippine Rabbit Bus along a national highway. The bus driver suffered injuries and the bus was unusable for 79 days resulting in loss of income. Balingit, as the manager of PAF and Pineda were sued based on a QD. (Balingits defense was that he was not the employer of Pineda) TC: Dismissed complaint against Balingit as he is not the manger contemplated under 2180. ISSUE: WON Balingit is liable under 2180. (WON employers/owners/managers of an establishment/enterprise includes managers of corporations) HELD: No. 1. Balingit is not the manager contemplated in 2180 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.
5. Employers
NOTES: JURIS TANTUM (REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION) WHY?-coz hard for victim to prove that employer was not negligent (similar to res ipsa), hence employer should prove diligences as a defense WHY OWNER?-deeper prockets
5 par Employers, in general, WON engaged in a business or industry Encompasses negligent acts of employees as long as they were acting within the scope of their assigned tasks
th
16 Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasidelict is solidary. (n) 17 Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
19
th
presumption of liability of an employer includes ANY ACT DONE BY THE EMPLOYEE, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE INTERESTS
OF THE EMPLOYER OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME OF THE INFLICTION OF THE INJURY. THAT IS APPLICABLE EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEE DERIVES SOME BENEFIT FROM THE ACT. In this case, Funtecha drove the jeep not
cf Valenzuela-why different results? coz Valenzuela, Abad came from a different place.
CLASS NOTES Castilex sold furniture (relevance: on engaged in a business or industry under A2180, par5) RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR: CONCLUSIVE FAULT/NEGLIGENCE OF EMPLOYEE PATERFAMILIAS: PRESUMPTION JURIS TANTUM (REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION) Whats the rule if we combine 2180 (4) and (5) as regards the liability of employer for the acts or omissions of employees? Requisites to hold the employer liable for torts under 2180: 1. ER-EE relationship 2. Employee must be acting within the scope of his assigned task American Jurisprudence: 3 situations (General Rule: Employer NOT liable; Exception: Employer LIABLE when he derives special business benefit) 1. GOING TO AND FROM MEALS General rule: ER is not liable. Exception: Benefit to the ER 2. GOING TO AND FROM WORK General rule: ER not liable 3. OUTSIDE REGULAR WORKING HOURS
for his enjoyment but for the service of Filamer. The fact that he was not the school driver is insignificant. Besides, Filamer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family. Presumptive liability of employer (when employee is driving a company vehicle) is determined by answering this Q: WON the servant was at the time of the accident performing any act in furtherance of his masters business. Supervision includes: 1. formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of its employers; and 2. the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations through his employees. NOTE: Sir thinks this is a dangerous doctrine because even if the activity is far removed from the business/institution, the employer may be held liable if it is in furtherance of the latters interests. Q: is there an ER-EE relationship between the school and the student working part-time in the school?
CLASS NOTE Labor Code provision that there is an ER-EE relationship is not applicable
par,
20
Through negligence or willful acts of its employees On account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented the act or omission
In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, it may hire its own employees or avail of the services of a contractor. In either case, the carrier is not relieved of its responsibility under the contract of carriage. Employers liability under 2180: st 1. establish 1 employees fault or negligence 2. presumption juris tantum that employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in selection and supervision 3. PRIMARY LIABILITY-but can be negated by due diligence in selection and supervision
FACTS: Valenzuela had a flat tire and had to park her midnight blue Mitsubishi lancer on the side of the road. While standing on the left rear side of the car, watching someone changed her tire, she was bumped by Li (allegedly drunk). The car of the latter was registered to Alexander Commercial. She had lost her left leg (only some skin and muscle connected to the rest of her body) and had to be fitted with a prosthetic leg. ISSUE: WON Alexander was liable HELD: YES. The relationship between Li and Alexander is Pater familias not Respondeat superior,, in which the ultimate liability falls upon the employer. In this case, the Court averred the privilege of using a company car serves 2 purposes: 1. Image of success 2. Practical and utilitarian reasons (to reach clients conveniently) Thus, the use of the car principally serves the business the private purposes and the goodwill of the company and only incidentally the private purposes of the employee who uses the car. Li, an Asst. Mngr of the company, uses the car to facilitate meetings with clients. At the time of the accident, he came from a coemployees place in BF Homes Pque. The presumption is they came from a company function or discussed work-related matters.
CLASS NOTES par4 and 5 of 2180, NCC applies! LC not strictly applied, just used to determine the existence of EER
CLASS NOTES not liable simply because of company car but because of bonus pater familias standard in nd A2180 did not prove diligence and under 2 instance discussed in Castilex juris tantum presumption (rebuttable) vs. juris et jure (conclusive) cf with Castilex: compare the place where Abad and Li came from along with the nature of Lis job which required him to have a car. This case is more of a roving commision Valenzuela case says that A2180 was modified by FC. take note of discussion on practice of companies in issuing company cars
CLASS NOTES presumption that they are negligent flows from the negligence of their employee liability: primary, direct and solidary
21
6. State
-not liable for acts of its officers, agents and employees (unless special agent; and except when state acts as a juridical person capable of acquiring rights and contracting obligations)
CLASS NOTES when state acts in their proprietary function, they can be suedindividual members of municipal council can be sued Does A2180 apply to municipalities? Yes delegation of powers
RULE: OFFICIALS: comprises all officials and employees of the government who exercise duties of their respective public officers SPECIAL AGENTS: all others who are acting by commission of the government, whether individual or juridical bodies.
CLASS NOTES This case defined actually defined special agent (although sir didnt seem to remember): receives a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of duties of his office if he is a special officer So in this case the chauffeur still was acting within his duty as a driver when he hit Merritt
CLASS NOTE Differentiated special agent from officials The case used Merritts definition of special agent Perfecto dissented, saying ECA special agent, as opposed to ordinary government officials who were also agents
HELD: YES. NIAs functions are basically proprietary and incidentally governmental. RA 3601 and PD 552 provide that NIA is a body corporate invested with a corporate personality and distinct from the government. So, it may be sued. At the time, the driver was an agent. Where a private individual is commissioned to do a special task, he may be considered a special agent within the contemplation of the provision.
22
CLASS NOTES added special agent: aside from special commission, COMMISSION HAS TO BE FOREIGN FROM ITS FUNCTIONS (but this was already in the definition given in Merritt so ewan ko kay sir kung ano bago dito!)
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. (n)
HELD: YES. Vicente and Luis were informed about Taylors trip and gave their approval. All threes acts made them liable for the unauthorized disbursement of company funds. They were joint tortfeasors and have solidary liability under Art 2194. Aranetas defense of good faith falls on its face when he didnt testify to prove it. He remained passive and even approved the payroll thrice. The existence of a contract between parties is not a bar to the commission of a tort by one against the other and consequent recovery of damages.
CLASS NOTES Relevance: A2176 in this case was used to show a liability of a fellow employee
3. Engineer/Architect
Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a building is liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure, the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor. Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. (n)
? ?
CLASS NOTES
2. Employees
CLASS NOTES A2176 to make fellow employee liable Sir: take note of 1723 (interesting provision)
CLASS NOTES comment ni sir: charter is supposed to be more specific since it only applies to city of manila but civil code is more specific in determining liability for defective streets You can argue either way. Court always makes someone liable. Its all about allocating risks.
De Leon 455-456 Liability of engineer or architect/contractor for collapse of building constructed: 1. Liability of engineer or architect.-The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications shall be liable for damages, if: a. The collapse took place within 15 years from the completion of the structure
23
acceptance of the building after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the causes of action arising from any defect in the construction. VII. TORTS W/ INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION A. Violation of Civil and Political Rights
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) Freedom of religion; (2) Freedom of speech; (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication; (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention; (5) Freedom of suffrage; (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law; (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use; (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws; (9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same; (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence; (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law; (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances; (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form; (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail; (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and
to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf; (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness; (18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and (19) Freedom of access to the courts. In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
rd
CLASS NOTES Art. 32 is the basis for a civil action for violation of civil liberties. Special rule: Judges are not covered unless done in excess of jurisdiction. Take note: Art. 32 says DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY Private persons may be sued under this!
24
immunity is misplaced because there is no blanket license to transgress upon rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
CLASS NOTE May superiors be liable? Yes, because they are indirectly responsible Writs effect: suspension immaterial Respondeat superior: liable because INDIRECTLY responsible (A32)
CLASS NOTES Who can contest? Only the parties whose rights have been impaired Why is good faith not a defense? It will be contrary to purpose of the law. Subordinate officer not liable illogical because Court already said that good faith is not a defense. Provincial commander NOT LIABLE because of chain of command Subordinate, just follow orders but GF not needed
- Code Commission: The creation of an absolutely separate and independent civil action for the violation of civil liverties is essential to the effective maintenance of democracy,for these reasons: (1) In most case, the threat to freedom originates from abuse of power by government officials and peace officers. (2) The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt often prevented the appropriate punishment. (3) Direct and open violations of the Penal code trampling upon the freedoms named are not so frequent as those subtle, clever and indirect ways which do not come within the pale of penal law. - A violation of any of the individual rights and liberties enumerated in Art. 32 may or may not constitute a criminal offense. - If act constitutes a criminal offense, the victim may opt between a civil action under Art. 100 of the RPC and an independent civil action under Art. 32. - If act is not a criminal offense, the civil action to enforce liability for damages is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code according to Art. 1162 thereof, and the Rules on Civil Procedure. - The right to institute an independent civil action under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is a substantive right intended as an exception to and held as an amendment of the general rule in Sec. 1 of Rule 107 of the 1940 Rules of Court ( Sec. 1 Rule 111 of the 1964 Revised rules of Court) - These independent actions should not be deemed instituted with the criminal action and the right to institute them should not be made subject to their prior reservation.
HELD: YES. The Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The evidence presented did not justify the treatment of the respondents. MHP was indirectly involved. They instigated the raid which was conducted with the active participation of De Guzman. The proper method would have been to report the matter and secure a warrant.
CLASS NOTE Take note: even private persons who participate can be held liable under Article 32
25
Art. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases: (1) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and (2) A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party. Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a compensation. The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of the latter or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or money consideration.
Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor or manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned. Art. 358. Slander. Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. Art. 359. Slander by deed. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
CLASS NOTE Reckless Imprudence is not included in Art. 33 no independent civil action Article 33 construed strictly
26
The machinery was sold and the proceeds kept. Prudential filed an action for damages against Rayon and its president. ISSUE: WON Rayon is liable HELD: YES. There is a fiduciary relationship between Rayon and Prudential. Rayon sold the machinery without turning over the proceeds to Prudential as agreed upon so it violated the agreement. Rayon wilfully and fraudulently misapplied or converted the money for their own use. There is no obstacle for the filing of a separate complaint for damages even if there is already a criminal complaint for violation of Sec 3 of the Trust Receipts Law. Sec 13 of the same law considers the violation as Estafa. ESTAFA COMES UNDER FRAUD AND SO AN ACTION UNDER ART. 33 MAY BE BROUGHT.
CLASS NOTE Art 33 does not affect in any way the criminal action.
CLASS NOTES violation of a trust receipt is a violation under Article 33 Since there is FRAUD, can file independent and distinct civil action based on Article 33
this case. Art 33 applies, there being an allegation of fraud and negligence.
They cannot be held liable just because the words were insulting or offensive. According to Puno, there are prerequisites to recovery: 1. published statement 2. which is defamatory 3. of and concerning the plaintiff If the article refers to a group, for a member to have a cause of action, he must prove that the article particularly pertains to him. NOTE: cf Worcester
CLASS NOTES fraud here is not simply estafa. Swindling is just a specie of an offense committed by means of fraud.
27
CLASS NOTE
This case demonstrates a literal reading of A33 The action filed was based on A31 and A33 ON A33: civil action for damages could have been commenced by Capunos immediately upon death of Cipriano Capuno
FACTS: Torzuela, a security guard, shot Atty. Dulay while he was on duty at the Big Bang sa Alabang due to some altercation. Dulays widow filed an action for damages against Torzuela, Superguard and Safeguard (both companies believed to be Torzuelas employers). ISSUE: WON an independent civil action may proceed HELD: YES. The act of the Dulays of instituting a separate civil action under Art 33 is allowed. The term physical injuries has been held (in Madeja vs. Caro) to include consummated, attempted and frustrated homicide. SC, looking at Art 111 of the ROC, said that the civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party (Civil action deemed instituted): 1. waives the civil action 2. reserves the right to institute it separately 3. institutes it prior to the criminal action This case differs from Marcia v CA, in that, here, the crime is homicide not reckless imprudence so a separate civil action may be filed.
CLASS NOTES
Art. 33: ex-delicto acts acts should constitute a crime. In Corpus v Paje, only 9 justices took part, 4 of which merely concurred with the result. However, based on the Constitution, a division case cannot overturn an en banc decision. Sir does not think that physical injuries should be limited to the crime with the same name. 2 things to remember about A33, CC: 1. Physical injury refers to bodily injury and is not the same as physical injury as defined in the RPC. 2. Civil action is ex-delicto
CLASS NOTES
Law punishes the negligent act. Action has also already prescribed. According to Sangco, reckless imprudence is included in A365. Rule: RI not included in Art. 33 hence the effect: NO independent civil actionArt. 100 will apply with respect to civil liability In Criminal negligence, act punished negligent/careless act, not the result
28
3. Civil Code or any special law does not grant him the right to institute a civil action for damages independently of the criminal action 4. He is granted the right to institute such civil action for damages WON the criminal action upon which it is based is filed; prosecute it to final judgment, and prove the same by a preponderance of evidence, if no criminal action is filed during its pendency. 5. If the criminal action is filed during its pendency, such civil action shall be suspended until final judgment in the criminal case, which may or may not affect it, is rendered. It may also be consolidated with the criminal action. because it is based on civil liability arising from a criminal offense 6. Where no criminal action is instituted because a prima facie case cannot be established, plaintiff may file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. there is a bond because of the high probability that the suit may be malicious 7. Where a criminal action is subsequently instituted, presumably no indemnity bond may be sought or required since there is no apparent justification for it. - Distinguished from Art. 30: Under Art. 30, plaintiff is not required to file an indemnity bond because there is no possibility that it was maliciously instituted. But this must be further qualified. Under Art. 35, there is no need to file an indemnity bond where a crime has indubitably been committed or such a criminal action is subsequently instituted. - An aggrieved party need not be the victim of a criminal or punishable act or omission to be entitled to damages. So long as the act or omission complained of, WON it is punishable, is alleged and shown to be the proximate cause of the damage or injury he sustained, he is entitled to bring a civil action therefor and obtain a judgment on the basis thereof.
29
Velayo, etc. v. Shell Co. of the Phils, et al. October 31, 1956
FACTS: CALI informed its principal creditors that it was in a state of insolvency and had to stop operations. The creditors agreed to form a committee that would take charge of the distribution of assets. Fitzgerald, an employee of Shell, was appointed a member of the committee. After the committee met, Shell made a transfer of credit against CALI to American Shell Oil Company. American Shell Oil filed a complaint against CALI and a writ of attachment was issued on CALIs C54 plane. ISSUE: WON Shell can be held for damages. YES HELD: Even though Arts. 19, 21, and 23 only came into effect after the incident, they are still applicable. Shell had no vested right to betray the confidence of the insolvent CALI or of its creditors. Shells act of taking advantage of his knowledge of the plane showed bad faith and betrayed the confidence and trust of the other creditors. Standards: 1. A- to act with justice 2. G- to give everyone his due 3. O -to observe honesty and GF
FACTS: Tobias was employed by Globe Mackay as a purchasing agent. He uncovered certain fraudulent transactions. However, Hendry, an EVP, accused him of being a crook and a swindler. Tobias was charged with estafa. The cases against him were dismissed. Despite this, Tobias was fired. Hendry then sent a letter to Tobias potential employer alleging his dishonesty. Tobias filed an action for damages against Hendry and Globe. ISSUE: WON Tobias was entitled to damages. YES HELD: There is no rigid test to determine when Art. 19 has been violated; this is to be determined upon the unique circumstances of each case. Upon the facts of the present case, it is clear that the petitioners abused the right that they invoke right to dismiss an employee. Although an employer who suspects an employee to be dishonest may dismiss the latter, the employer may not do so in an abusive manner. RULE: Q of WON the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under Art. 20 or 21 or other applicable provisions, depends on the circumstances of each case.
CLASS NOTES Right to dismiss should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised: there was name-calling, threats, You Filipinos cannot be trusted! A19: Principle of abuse of rights; set certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of ones rights but also in performance of ones duties to act with justice to give everyone his due to observe honesty and good faith
CLASS NOTES In the context of international law, this case is actually wrong: If the concept of Lex Loci delicti commisi would be followed, the place where most of the crimes was committed would determine what law should be applied. In this case, most of the violation of rights were committed in SAUDI! BUT COURT HELD THAT RP LAWS SHOULD BE APPLIED: no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience shown by either parties if RP + Saudi already submitted to the jurisdiction of QC RTC This case demonstrates the broad application of A19 and A21. A 19, 20, 21 are not conflicts of law provisions but were applied in a conflicts of law case.
CLASS NOTES
A19 is a mere declaration of principle which provides for the standard of conduct. A21 implements A19 by providing for a consequence which is not found in A19. A19s lofty ideal is to VOUCHSAFE ADEQUATE LEGAL
REMEDY FOR THAT UNTOLD NUMBERS OF MORAL WRONGS WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HUMAN FORESIGHT TO PROVIDE FOR SPECIALLY IN THE STATUTES
CATCH ALL What constitutes the abuse of right? Not the transfer of credit per se but Mr. Fitzgerald was
30
SUFFICIENTLY
ESTABLISHED FOR A SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION BY THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IN A SUIT FOR ABUSE OF RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19. Good faith connotes an honest intention to
abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even though the forms and technicalities of the law, together with the absence of all information or belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious. On Art. 19:-intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. -the ultimate thing in the theory of liability is justifiable reliance under conditions of civilized society -A person should be protected only when he acts with providence and in GF, but not when he acts with negligence or abuse NOTES: -does not adhere strictly to the 3 elements -seems to say that Art. 19 can be committed via negligence - abuse of duty is not a right
CLASS NOTES Rule: Action which was originally legal can become illegal if exercised abusively. The legal principle applied in this case is damnum absque injuria. What we have here is an illegal act. There was no more right for him to abuse! This is not a case of abuse of right. A19 presupposes an existing right; What Amonoy did was contempt of court Problem: relied upon Testimony solely of Guitierrez (when it is self-serving)
CLASS NOTES Schools and professors cannot just take students for granted and be indifferent to them, for without the latter, the former are useless. Petitioner (university) cannot just give out its students grades at any time Can you sue professor for not giving grades on time? No. Should be the school.
CLASS NOTE Question: Why did this case enumerate the elements of an abuse of right under Art. 19 when there is supposedly no hard and fast rule? Art 19 and 21- intentional acts; Art 20intentional or negligent acts (does not distinguish) Albenson claims that MP should have been filed, not a civil case based on A19 Baltao did not clarify that there were 3 of them
31
1. The terms and conditions of the contract were clear=automatic suspension for failure to pay outstanding balance after 30 days from original bill. =automatic cancellation after 60 days 2. Marasigan was not able to comply with their agreement. He issued a postdated check. Settled doctrine: check is not a substitute for money. 3. Elements of Art. 19: 1. there is a legal right or duty 2. which is exercised in bad faith 3. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another BF (on BPIs part) was not proven. GF presumed. BPI did not capriciously and arbitrarily canceled the use of the card. It gave Marasigan a chance to settle his account. There is no need for BPI to notify Marasigan of the suspension or cancellation. Their contract provides for automatic suspension or cancellation.
The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of the law.
CLASS NOTE Respondents did not physically prevent her from working Teachers were simply exercising Right to speech, right to dissent from boards decision Board ordered her to report to work!
CLASS NOTE Violate concept of social solidarity BF not proven (that Phelps just wanted to directly deal with Meralco); Rejection of offer of payment is not an abuse of right
BPI v. CA FACTS: Atty. Marasigans credit card was denied at Caf Adriatico after he failed to pay his outstanding balance. One of his guests had to pay the bill. He sued BPI for damages claiming that he had an agreement with BPI and that he sent a check to BPI to cover the balance and future bills in exchange for non-suspension of his credit card. TC: in favor of Marasigan. BPI abused its right to suspend or cancel the card because it did not mention to Marasigan that his card will be suspended despite several communciations. CA: Affirmed ISSUE: WON BPI abused its right to suspend the card. HELD: No.
CLASS NOTE There was no arbitrariness on the part of BPI. Damnum absque injuria; there was damage but no injury (Custodio vs. CA)
32
inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse is from mutual desire, there is no seduction. In this case, Santos was of age. Also, she maintained sexual relations with each other for one year. Such conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction.
CLASS NOTES
Issue of deceit: Deceit can come in many forms and can result in attraction (so there is no moral seduction.) Critique of Tanjanco: Seduction in this case only covers the initial sexual contact. Rule in Buenaventura: For seduction to be actionable, there must be deception and the woman must have yielded because of the inducement. There is no seduction when there is mutual desire and the opportunity was merely afforded to the woman. Code commission damages for seduction CA misapplied the example. Seduction: 1. inducement by deceit, 2. yield because of that Sir: as if seduction can be ratified if court takes into consideration time and frequency and subsequent sexual acts
33
CLASS NOTE Compare this case with Tanjanco In this case, Bunag just wanted to marry Cirilo to ESCAPE LIABILITY (so promise to marry BUT NO INTENT TO MARRY so actionable)
FACTS: Quimiguing and Icao, a married man, were neighbors. Icao succeeded in having carnal intercourse with Quimiguing several times through force and intimidation. She became pregnant. Quimiguing sued for damages and support. ISSUE: WON Quimiguing had cause of action. YES HELD: Independently of the right to support the child she was carrying, Quimiguing herself had a cause of action for damages. A victim of rape may recover moral damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code. It is also supported by Article 2219.
CLASS NOTES Judicial notice that the cherished possession of every single Filipina is her virginity If the man never intended to marry the woman BUT STILL promised to marry her, it would be equivalent to inducement and he would be liable under A21
CLASS NOTE Sexual assault = rape There was a criminal action for rape in this case
CLASS NOTE This case is similar to say Tanjanco. Even if there is deceit but the deceit resulted in attraction of the woman to the man, then there will be no more seduction.
CLASS NOTE The lower court presented a more romantic version of the love story
34
2. THAT IN BRINGING THE ACTION, THE PROSECUTOR ACTED 3. THAT THE PROSECUTOR WAS ACTUATED OR IMPELLED BY A LEGAL MALICE THAT IS BY IMPROPER OR SINISTER MOTIVE Once cannot be held liable for maliciously instituting a prosecution where one has acted with probable cause. WHY? coz it would be a very great discouragement to public justice, if prosecutors, who had tolerable ground of suspicion, were liable to be sued at law when their indictment miscarried. A suit for MP will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause.
CLASS NOTES Reminder: memorize the definition of malicious prosecution. There is no malicious prosecution because none of the three elements were present (not terminated with an acquittal, Drilon acted with probable cause as found in PI, no sinister motive could be imputed). If there is probable cause, there is no malice. Take note of the statutory basis of malicious prosecution. Hernandez case ruling: - If doubtful or difficult question of law is applied the law always accords to public officials the presumption of good faith - This is not applicable if the doctrine is clear enough.
General Rule: one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with Probable Cause. In other words, a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause. If the charge, although false, was made with an honest belief in its truth and justice, and there were reasonable grounds on which such a belief could be founded, the accusation could not be held to have been false in the legal sense. To constitute MP, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for MP.
TO CONSTITUTE MP, THERE MUST BE PROOF THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS PROMPTED BY A SINISTER DESIGN TO VEX AND HUMILIATE A PERSON, AND THAT IT WAS INITIATED DELIBERATELY BY THE DEFENDANT KNOWING THAT HIS CHARGES WERE FALSE AND GROUNDLESS. CONCEDEDLY, THE MERE ACT OF SUBMITTING A CASE TO THE AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR MP. 3 ELEMENTS OF MP: 1. THE FACT OF THE
PROSECUTION AND THE FURTHER FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS HIMSELF THE PROSECUTOR AND THAT THE ACTION FINALLY TERMINATED WITH AN ACQUITTAL.
35
CLASS NOTE Competent proof of bad faith in filing the suit is essential. Cited Manila Gas definition of Malicious prosecution
However, in this case, the circumstances of the case showed that there was malicious intent in the filing of the complaint for qualified theft.
CLASS NOTE Dismissal of qualified theft case in fiscal level only still possible to file MP. If the case only reached fiscal level GEN RULE: no MP EXCEPTION: if BF, with Malicious intent
2. 3.
36
Although Carpio had the right to know the identity of the thief, she should not have openly accused Valmonte without further proof. Moral damages are awarded whenever the defendants wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiffs physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. To warrant recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action, for a wrong inflicted by the defendant and the damage resulting therefrom to the plaintiff. Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a cause of action. Arts. 20 & 21 provide the legal bedrock for the award of damages. MD not awarded to penalize defendant or to enrich complainant, but to enable the latter to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of defendants culpable action. In any case, award of MD must be proportionate to the sufferings inflicted.
HELD: Quisabas complaint was grounded not on his dismissal but rather ON THE MANNER OF HIS DISMISSAL AND ITS CONSEQUENT EFFECTS. IF THE DISMISSAL WAS DONE ANTI-SOCIALLY OR OPPRESSIVELY, THEN THE RESPONDENTS VIOLATED ARTICLE 1701, which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the other, and Article 21, which makes a person liable for damages if he willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.
CLASS NOTE Standard of dismissal laid down in this case: dismissal was done anti-socially or oppressively.
PURPOSE
OF ED OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES: IMPOSED BY WAY OF EXAMPLE OR CORRECTION FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, IN ADDITION TO THE MORAL, TEMPERATE, LIQUIDATED OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES (ART. 2229). CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT; THE COURT WILL DECIDE WON THEY COULD BE ADJUDICATED. CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE AWARDED FOR WANTON ACTS, THAT THEY ARE PENAL IN CHARACTER GRANTED NOT BY WAY OF COMPENSATION BUT AS A PUNISHMENT TO THE OFFENDER AND AS A WARNING TO OTHERS AS A SORT OF DETERRENT.
CLASS NOTE Manner of attacking without any amount of proof- contrary to morals and good customs.
37
Damages fixed by TC are sanctioned by Arts. 2200, 2208 and 2219 of the Civil Code. Art. 2219 allows moral damages for acts and actions mentioned in Art. 26.
CLASS NOTE This is an action for damages for wrongful advertisement shows that Art 26 is very broad.
CLASS NOTE
Elements: (1) material or moral loss (2) public servants refusal or neglect to perform duty (3) without just cause
B. Unfair Competition
Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to aright of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
Human personality must be exalted. Sacredness of human personality is the concomitant consideration of every plan for Human Amelioration.
Custodio v. CA
FACTS: built Adobe fence on the right of way CLASS NOTE Damages is not limited to quasi-delicts (also includes contracts, quasi-contracts and delicts). There is a material distinction between damages and injury. INJURY is the ILLEGAL INVASION OF A LEGAL RIGHT; DAMAGE is the LOSS, HURT, OR HARM WHICH RESULTS FROM THE INJURY; and DAMAGES are the RECOMPENSE OR COMPENSATION AWARDED FOR THE DAMAGES SUFFERED.
38
It is expressly provided for in Art. 2199 that there should be proof of pecuniary damages for AD or CD Take note of what indemnity is included in Art. 2200 Art. 2205 provides for the kinds of AD which the plaintiff may recover
CLASS NOTES Important for the distinction between damage, injury and damages Mere fact that plaintiffs suffer damage doesnt mean that theres right of action To warrant recovery of damages: -Legal right on the part of plaintiff -Injury caused to plaintiff
Algarra v. Sandejas
FACTS: Plaintiff Algarra received personal injuries from a collision with the defendant Saldejas automobile due to the negligence of the defendant, who was driving the car. Plaintiff sold the products of a distillery as a commission agent and had about twenty regular customers, who purchased his wares in small quantities, necessitating regular and frequent deliveries. Being unable to attend to their wants during their wants during the two months he was incapacitated due to the accident, his regular customers turned their trade to other competing agents. HELD: Under both the Spanish Civil Code and American law of damages, actual damages for a negligent act or omission are confined to those which were foreseen or might have been foreseen or those which were the natural and probable consequences or the direct and immediate consequences of the act or omission. In this jurisdiction, the author of a negligent act or omission which causes damage to another is obliged to repair the damage done. No distinction is made between damage caused maliciously and intentionally and damages caused through mere negligence in so far as civil liability is concerned. Nor is the defendant required to do more than repair the damage done or to put the plaintiff in the same position that he would have been in had the damage not been inflicted. This is practically equivalent to compensatory or actual damages as those terms are used in American law. *THE
PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN AWARDING ACTUAL DAMAGES IS TO REPAIR THE WRONG THAT HAS BEEN DONE, TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INJURY INFLICTED, AND NOT TO IMPOSE PENALTY.
People v. Ballesteros
FACTS: Murder, through gunshot wounds, question amt of damages awarded *DAMAGES may be defined as THE PECUNIARY COMPENSATION, RECOMPENSE, OR SATISFACTION FOR AN INJURY SUSTAINED, OR AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSED, THE PECUNIARY CONSEQUENCES WHICH THE LAW IMPOSES FOR THE BREACH OF SOME DUTY OR THE VIOLATION OF SOME RIGHT. Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained, whereas moral damages may be invoked when the complainant has experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety, physical suffering, moral shock, and so forth, and had furthermore shown that these were the proximate result of the offenders wrongful act or omission.
CLASS NOTES Important for the definition of damages For actual damages, the party making claim must present best evidence.
39
Meanwhile, IPC entered into an additional printing contract with Philacor. Unfortunately, IPC failed to fully comply with its contract for the printing of Philacors books and thus Philacor demanded compensation for delay and damage suffered. Because IPC also not able to fully settle its indebtedness to Fil-Anchor, the latter filed a collection suit against it. In its counterclaim, IPC alleged that because Fil-Anchor was only able to deliver 1097 reams of paper it was unable to fulfill its contract with Philacor and thus failed to realize expected profits. Indemnification for damages comprehends not only the loss suffered, that is to say actual damages (damnum emergens), but also profits which the obligee failed to obtain (lucrum cessans).
1. Kinds PNOC v. CA
FACTS: The M/V Ma. Efigenia XV, owned by respondent Ma. Efigenia Fishing Corp. collided with the vessel Petroparcel which at the time was owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Co. The Board of Marine Inquiry rendered a decision finding the Petroparcel at fault and thus the respondent filed an action for damages against Luzon Stevedoring and the Petroparcels captain. During the pendency of the case, petitioner PNOC acquired the Petroparcel and was substituted in place of Luzon Stevedoring in the complaint. HELD: ACTUAL
OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE THOSE AWARDED IN SATISFACTION OF, OR IN RECOMPENSE FOR LOSS OR INJURY SUSTAINED. THEY PROCEED FROM A SENSE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ARE DESIGNED TO REPAIR THE WRONG THAT HAS BEEN DONE, TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INJURY INFLICTED AND NOT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY.
CLASS NOTES
The basic rule in recovering AD: it is sufficient that damages are capable of proof in order to recover (AD) There should be a record to serve as proof presented before the Court There are cases which say that providing a list of expenses is not enoughthere has to be receipts, etc.PROOF SHOULD BE VERY FACTUAL Proof required: reasonable certainty upon competent proof Two (2) kinds of AD or CD: 1. Dano emergente-actual 2. Lucro cesante-loss of profit
CLASS NOTES The Court here gave the two kinds CDdano emergente and lucro cesante Problem with the evidence presentedmere estimates Court disallowed mere estimates because they are highly speculative and manifestly hypothetical CD here was strictly construed
2. Extent
Art. 2201, CC - In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. 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. Art. 2202, CC - In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such
Integrated Packing v. CA
Petitioner Integrated Packing Corporation (IPC) and respondent Fil-Anchor Paper entered into an agreement whereby Fil-Anchor bound itself to deliver 3,450 reams of printing paper to IPC, to be paid within 30 to 90 days from delivery. Later, IPC entered into a contract with the Philippine Appliance Corporation (Philacor) to print three volumes of Philacor Cultural Books. However, IPC encountered problems paying Fil-Anchor and became heavily indebted to the latter. This led to Fil-Anchor suspending deliveries of paper to IPC. Thus, out of the agreed upon 3,450 reams, only 1097 were delivered., despite demand by IPC for Fil-Anchor to deliver the balance.
In actions based on QD-AD include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. 2 kinds of AD or CD: 1. The loss of what a person already possesses (dao emergente) 2. the failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante) On Nominal Damages: When awarded: in the absence of competent proof on the AD suffered-entitled to ND, which the law says is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be
40
? C L A S S
NOTES Art. 2201 lays down the distinction between good faith and bad faith (in bad faith whatever damage happens) Last sentence of Art. 2202 problematicsome cases use forseeability as an element of QD Forseeability: In elements: may be required In damages: not required Reasonable certainty required: allege specific facts, Present best evidence Quantum of evidence required: preponderance of evidence
DBP v. CA
Lydia Cuba was the grantee of a fishpond lease agreement with the government, the rights to which she assigned to DBP as security for loans the latter extended to her. After Cuba failed to meet the terms of payment on the loans, the DBP, without foreclosure proceedings of any kind, appropriated Cubas leasehold rights over the fishpond. Subsequently, DBP executed a deed of conditional sale in favor of Cuba over the same fishpond. However, Cuba once again was unable to meet the amortizations stipulated which led to DBP rescinding the deed of conditional sale and taking possession of not only the fishpond but also a house Cuba had built next to it as well, along with all the personal belongings, machineries, equipment, and tools therein, which subsequently, it was claimed, went missing. DBP allegedly also prevented Cuba and her representatives from feeding the fish already in the fishpond which led to their loss. As to the losses Cuba allegedly suffered when DBP took possession of the fishpond, the court said: Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. It must point to specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne.
Problem with AD here: Court said AD was speculative because actual ocular inspection was done after the filing of the complaint and that they should have made an inventory Sir: Just because certain damages were found out after the filing of the compliant doesnt make the damages speculative. Besides who in the provinces makes an inventory of bangus, etc. This case shows that you should be ready with documents
Fuentes, Jr. v. CA
Julieto Malaspina was at a benefit dance when Alejandro Fuentes, Jr. put his arm on the formers shoulder saying Before, I saw you with long hair but now you have a short hair, whereupon Fuentes stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting knife and fled. Subsequently, Fuentes was convicted of murder. During the trail, Malaspinas sister testified that she incurred expensed of P8,300 in connection with his death and the trial court awarded this amount as actual damages. However, the Supreme Court held that the trial court was in error to have awarded the P8,300 as actual damages on the basis of mere testimony of the victims sister, without any tangible document to support such claim. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant is liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. To seek recovery for actual damages it is essential that the injured party proves the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages. Of the expenses alleged to have been incurred, the Court can only give credence to those supported by receipts and which appear to have been genuinely expended in connection with the death of the victim.
3. Certainty
-possible that the exact value (peso) is not known.
PNOC v. CA
FACTS: Collision of 2 vessels Certainty: to enable an injured party to recover AD or CD, he is required to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available. Burden of Proof: on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would be presented on either side. Evidence Required: He must establish his evidence by PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, which means that the evidence, as a whole, adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. Damages are not presumed: damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award must point out specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever CD or AD are borne.
CLASS NOTES Problem here with preponderance of evidence is that it became COMPARATIVEall things being equal, the person who has more pieces of evidence wins
41
CLASS NOTES This case demonstrates how important the quality of your evidence is (i.e. testimony for damages by someone who is an interested party is weak)
HELD: Yes. The rule is that damages consisting of unrealized profits, frequently referred to as ganancias frustradas or lucrum cessans, are not granted on the basis of mere speculation, conjecture or surmise but rather by reference to some reasonably definite standard such as market value, established experience or direct inference from known circumstances. Uncertainty as to whether or not a claimant suffered unrealized profits at all, i.e. uncertainty as to the very fact of injury, will, of course, preclude recovery of this species of damages. Where, however, it is reasonably certain that injury consisting of the failure to realize otherwise reasonably expected profits had been incurred, uncertainty as to the precise amount of such unrealized profits will not prevent recovery or the award of damages. The problem then would be ascertainment. In the instant case, plaintiffs computations as to the amount of unrealized profit were based on fairly definite standards utilized by the governmental agency having relevant administrative jurisdiction over the subject matter and accounting standards widely employed in the world of business and commerce. Combined with credible testimony, these provide sufficient basis for a reasonable estimate of the unrealized net income or profit sustained by plaintiffs.
Where goods are destroyed by the wrongful act of the defendant the plaintiff is entitled to their value at the time of destruction, that is, normally, the sum of money which he would have to pay in the market for identical or essentially similar goods, plus in a proper case damages for the loss of use during the period before replacement. In other words, in the case of profit-earning chattel s, what has to be assessed is the value of the chattel to its owner as a going concern at the time and place of the loss, and this means, at least in the case of ships, that regard must be had to existing and pending engagements. In the instant case, the pieces of documentary evidence proffered by private respondent with respect to the items and equipment lost show similar items and equipment with corresponding prices approximately ten years after the collision. NOTES: Rule: amount at the time of the loss. cf Gatchalian v. Delim (where the girl was given 15k for plastic surgery)
CLASS NOTES Financias Postradas? o Lost profits o Standard required by the Court for this: accounting standards, pricing of Sugar Quota Administration When a property is damaged and you claim AD, PNOC case provides for guidelines on how to determine value of property (at what point do you count) Court here said: value AT TIME OF LOSS. If this takes into account profits=FMV Bottom line if FMV-but this can be construed in a # of ways Why FMV: Assessed value is lower (thats why this is being used as basis for tax) The company in PNOC did differentit took into account inflation
?
o
CLASS NOTES PNOC gives guidance as to how actual damages are computed: 1. Price (fair market value) at the time of loss, not what the price is at the time of the ruling 2. In PNOC, inflation was taken into account. 3. If fair market value already includes the possible contracts, then that is the value to be used.
42
Later, while the bus was running along the highway, a snapping sound was suddenly heard and shortly thereafter, the vehicle bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the road, went off the road, turned turtle and fell into a ditch. Several passengers, including Gatchalian, were injured and were promptly taken to a hospital for medical treatment. The aforementioned events led Gatchalian to file an action extra contractu to recover compensatory and moral damages. She alleged in her complaint that her injuries had left her with a conspicuous white scar on her forehead, generating mental suffering and feeling of inferiority on her part. She also alleged that the scar diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of opportunities for employment. ISSUE: WON the Delims are liable for the cost of plastic surgery to remove the scar on Gatchalians forehead. HELD: Yes. A
PERSON IS ENTITLED TO THE PHYSICAL INTEGRITY OF HIS OR HER BODY; IF THAT INTEGRITY IS VIOLATED OR DIMINISHED, ACTUAL INJURY IS SUFFERED FOR WHICH ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE DUE AND ASSESSABLE. Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be
CLASS NOTES According to the Court, the standard is the correct minimum cost of proper care and not what they actually spent in order not to prejudice those who are poor SC is limited to 8k/month because of the NATURE OF AD: must be proven Ramos case is important because AC is not just those up to the time of trial but also those certain to be suffered Lesson here: dramatize plight of your client If opposition: minimize plight of victim
CLASS NOTES Art. 2206 provides for earning capacity which is NOT equal to actual income
placed as nearly as possible in the condition that she was in before the mishap. A
SCAR, ESPECIALLY ONE ON THE FACE OF A WOMAN, RESULTING FROM THE INFLICTION OF INJURY UPON HER, IS A VIOLATION OF BODILY INTEGRITY, GIVING RISE TO A LEGITIMATE CLAIM FOR RESTORATION TO HER CONDITION ANTE.
CLASS NOTES This case is always cited to support that plastic surgery can be the subject of AD. Nature of action here: breach of contract of common carrier Sir: is there a health risk if you have a scar? So purely aesthetic? What was the proof offered for the scar? Expert testimony: alleged cost of 5-10k
43
In the instant case, the trial court awarded P88, 339 as actual damages. While these are duly supported by receipts, these included the amount of P5, 90, the cost th of one pig, which had been butchered for the 9 day death anniversary. This item cannot be allowed, PRIMARY Responsibility of employers: for the negligence of their employees in the performance of their duties, therefore the injured party may recover from the employers DIRECTLY, regardless of the solvency of their employees. On Exemplary Damages: imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions.
CLASS NOTES
CLASS NOTES The Court cherry-picked! Specifically deleted an item which was too extravagant.
Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Heirs of Andres Malecdan December 27, 2002
FACTS: While Andres Malecdan, a 75 year-old farmer, was crossing the National Highway on his way home from the form, a Dalin Liner bus stopped to allow him and his carabao to pass. However, as Malecdan was crossing the highway, a bus of petitioner Victory Liner bypassed the Dalin bus and in doing so hit the old man and his carabao, eventually killing both of them. The trial court found both the driver and Victory Liner, Inc. guilty of gross negligence and awarded, among others, actual damages amounting to P88, 339. ISSUE: WON the award of P88, 339 in actual damages is proper. HELD: No, it is not. To justify an award for actual damages, there should be proof of the actual amount of loss incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim. The Court cannot take into account receipts showing expenses incurred some time after the burial of the th th victim, such as expenses relating to the 9 day, 40 day st and 1 year death anniversaries.
5.
Attorneys Fees
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded; (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim; (6) In actions for legal support; (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;
44
Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum. Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point. Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonably certainty.
CLASS NOTES Attorneys fees are in the form of damages (nasa title on damages) Also in the form of AD MEMORIZE THIS ARTICLE! You cant recover outside the listing of 2008 unless there is a stipulation AS regards the gen rule and exception, sir said it can be BOTH Why may one recover attorneys fees under those listed? person is forced to protect his interest and for at least double judicial costs, the person must have done something really bad AND be liable for a greater degree Why ED only? Why not for other damages as well? What is the rationale for the enumeration? A person is free to litigate. (Except 2208)
CLASS NOTES Attorneys fees referred to by Quirante not the same as attorneys fees in 2208 What the difference?Attys fees in 2208 are a form of AD and hence need to be proven. This is not something that goes to the attorney but to the litigant
45
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event; (5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.
CLASS NOTES 2203 is known as the Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences which is different from the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence DOCTRINE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES, the party has to minimize the damages; in CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, the damages to be paid would be diminished if you contributed to the damage incurred! There is an obligation on the part of the party suffering to mitigate the loss.
8. Mitigation of Liability
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences: -if the plaintiff does not try to reduce damages, he might not be able to recover -plaintiff must try to avoid further damage Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts , the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. Art. 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasidelicts, the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article, as in the following instances: (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract; (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract; (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
Forbearance of money: contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain during a given period of time, from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due or payable.
46
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.
HELD: The Court increased the moral damages awarded but ruled against awarding moral damages based on loss of consortium or considerations of social and financial standing. In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. While no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, it is nevertheless essential that THE CLAIMANT
SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR DAMAGES AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO THE DEFENDANTS ACTS.
CLASS NOTES
If the professor allowed you to stand for three (3) hours, you cant claim moral damages because there was an intervening causeyour inability to answer the questions
In Francisco vs. GSIS, the Court held that there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. Thus, if the plaintiff fails to take the witness stand and testify as to his/her social humiliation, wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages cannot be awarded. In Cocoland Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court held that "additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being, x x x social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc., that resulted therefrom." *MORAL
DAMAGES ARE AWARDED TO ENABLE THE INJURED PARTY TO OBTAIN MEANS, DIVERSIONS OR AMUSEMENTS THAT WILL SERVE TO ALLEVIATE THE MORAL SUFFERING HE/SHE HAS UNDERGONE, BY REASON OF THE DEFENDANT'S CULPABLE ACTION.
Burden of Proof: rests on the defendant that the PLAINTIFF MIGHT HAVE (COULD HAVE) REDUCED THE DAMAGE. In the instant case the defendant made no effort whatsoever to show that any other similar cascos were in fact available to the plaintiff, or the price he would have been able to obtain the use of one. In the absence of evidence it will not be presumed that plaintiff could have secured another casco at the same price had he looked for one.
CLASS NOTES Whats the connection of this case with the Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences? Defendant says that liability is mitigated because plaintiff could have found another casco at the same price SC-no mitigation of liability Damage = profit which he would have made had the contract been performed CASCO: a barge PATRON: the captain of the barge
ITS AWARD IS AIMED AT RESTORATION, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, OF THE SPIRITUAL STATUS QUO ANTE; THUS, IT
MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE SUFFERING INFLICTED. SINCE EACH CASE MUST BE GOVERNED BY ITS OWN PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST RULE IN DETERMINING THE PROPER AMOUNT.
The yardstick should be that the amount awarded should not be so palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial judge. Neither should it be so little or so paltry that it rubs salt to the injury already inflicted on plaintiffs.
B. Moral 1. Concept
47
Rodriguez case-different from what happened to Lucila (there was nothing wrong with possible performance. Equipment was not damaged.) Sir: what kind of evidence will you present without embarrassing yourself to prove loss of consortium? This case can be used in the futureeven if reason is only lack of visual stimulation Another factor to determine amount of moral damages: social and financial standing (but wouldnt it be discriminating since you only award damages to those who are rich?) Epilogue by ponente: there should be: Factual basis of mental anguish, etc. Causal connection between factual basis and defendants wrongful act or omission
CLASS NOTES
48
FACTS: The Compania Maritima and the Allied Free Workers Union entered into a written contract whereby the Union agreed to perform arrastre and stevedoring work for the companys vessels at Iligan City. It was stipulated that the management could revoke the contract before the expiration of the term if the union failed to render proper service. The contract itself could be renewed by agreement of the parties. The Union found out later that the contract was to be oppressive and unduly favorable to the company. This was because while he shippers and consignees paid the Union only for the arrastre work, claiming that the company was the one obligated to pay for the stevedoring services, the company itself also refused to pay for the stevedoring services because the contract explicitly provided that the compensation for both arrastre and stevedoring would be paid by the shippers and consignees. Thus the Union was only compensated for arrastre work performed and not for stevedoring. This led to a labor dispute and a strike by the workers of the Union. During the litigation, the company claimed actual and moral damages resulting from the strike. The court, however, found that their claim for actual damages was baseless. ISSUE: WON the company is entitled to moral damages. HELD: No. Considering that the companys claim for moral damages was BASED ON THE SAME FACTS ON WHICH IT PREDICATED ITS CLAIM FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES, WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE GROUNDLESS (NO SALES INVOICES PRESENTED, JUST SELF-SERVING TESTIMONIES; THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR HIRED WAS ACTUALLY A FRIEND OF THE BRANCH MANAGER), it follows that the company, a juridical person, is not entitled to moral damages. Also, the COMPANY DID NOT PLEAD AND PROVE moral damages. It MERELY CLAIMED MORAL DAMAGES in the prayer of its complaint. This was not held to be sufficient.
CLASS NOTES
Nature of contract was for arrastre and stevedoring services ARRASTRE: hauling of cargo, handling of cargo on the wharf or between the establishment of the consignee or shipper and the ships tackle STEVEDORING: handling of cargo in the holds of the vessel or between the ships tackle and the holds of the vessel
Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of the defendants culpable action. Its award is aimed at the restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante, and it must be proportional to the suffering inflicted.
CLASS NOTES
What to prove in breach of contract: Defendants acted fraudulently and in bad faith Purpose of MD reiterated in this case *SC held that Visayan Sawmill DID NOT HAVE ANY OBLIGATION to sell because RJH breached agreement on 3 counts (did not comply with suspensive conditions)
49
and mental trauma actually suffered by the Del Rosarios, the grant to them of moral damages is warranted. Over a period of about a month, they experienced "feelings of shock, helplessness, fear, embarrassment and anger." *IT
IS ESSENTIAL IN THE AWARD OF DAMAGES THAT THE CLAIMANT MUST HAVE SATISFACTORILY PROVEN DURING THE TRIAL THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGES AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO DEFENDANT'S ACTS. THIS IS SO BECAUSE MORAL DAMAGES THOUGH INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION, ARE IN THE CATEGORY OF AN AWARD DESIGNED TO COMPENSATE THE CLAIMANT FOR ACTUAL INJURY SUFFERED AND NOT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY ON THE WRONGDOER AND ARE ALLOWABLE ONLY WHEN SPECIFICALLY PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT.
FACTS: Petitioner Roque Enervida filed a complaint against the defendant-spouses Lauro and Rosa de la Torre, praying that the deed of sale executed by his deceased father Ciriaco Enervida over a parcel of land covered by a homestead patent be declared null and void for having been executed within the prohibited period of five years. He further prayed that he be allowed to repurchase the said parcel for being the legitimate son and sole heir of his deceased father. Defendants filed their answer stating, among other things, that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them as his father was still alive and it was not true that he was the only son of Ciriaco Enervida and that the sale did not take place within the prohibited period. Ruling in favor of the defendant, the Court found the plaintiffs civil action to be entirely unfounded. ISSUE: WON the defendant spouses are entitled to moral damages by reason of the unfounded civil action filed against them. HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that: with respect to moral damages, we are inclined to agree with petitioner that these damages are not recoverable herein, notwithstanding the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that his complaint against respondents were clearly unfounded or unreasonable. It will be observed that unlike compensatory or actual damages which are generally recoverable in tort cases as long as there is satisfactory proof thereof (Art. 2202), the Code has chosen to enumerate the cases in which moral damages, may be recovered (Art. 2219). A like enumeration is made in regard to the recovery of attorney's fees as an item of damage (Art. 2208). But the two enumerations differ in the case of a clearly unfounded suit, which is expressly mentioned in Art. 2208 (par. 4), as justifying an award of attorney's fees, but is not included in the enumeration of Art. 2219 in respect to moral damages.
CLASS NOTES Whats wrong with Judgment on the pleadings in the granting of MD? the rule on AC as regards proving cannot be done with a judgment on the pleadings Judgment on the pleadings-primary submission only (nothing to support)
demonstrated by the recorded proofs. The law explicitly authorizes the award of moral damages "in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith." There being, moreover, satisfactory evidence of the psychological
50
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named. Art. 2220, CC - Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
CLASS NOTES For Rape, Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness and Physical injuries: NO NEED to prove MD. Damage automatically comes from being a victim of such crimes and it is assumed that the victim suffered mentally, emotionally... P50k awarded as indemnity ex delicto + P50k as MD
CLASS NOTES
51
If the rule were otherwise, then moral damages must every time be awarded in favor of the prevailing defendant against an unsuccessful plaintiff. Nature of MD: not punitive, but are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused to a person. Amount of MD: though incapable of pecuniary estimation, must be PROPORTIONAL TO AND IN APPROXIMATION OF THE SUFFERING INFLICTED. *REQUISITES OF MD: 1. THERE MUST 2. 3. 4.
BE AN INJURY, WHETHER PHYSICAL, MENTAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL THERE MUST BE A CULPABLE ACT OR OMISSION FACTUALLY ESTABLISHED THE WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY THE AWARD OF DAMAGES IS PREDICATED ON ANY OF THE CASES STATED IN ART. 2219 (CASIS: PENDING ISSUE)
3.
4. 5.
in Culpa Aquiliana or QD: a. when an act or omission causes P b. where the defendant is guilty of an intentional tort (casis: Arts. 19, 20, 21, 26-huma relations torts) -also applies to contracts when breached by tort In Culpa Criminal: when accused is found guilty of a. PI b. Lascivious acts c. Adultery or concubinage d. Illegal detention e. Illegal arrest f. Illegal search; or g. Defamation Malicious Prosecution The term analogous causes in Art. 2219, following the ejusdem generis rule must be held similar to those expressly enumerated by the law.
a. Unfounded Suits
Unfounded suits Malicious prosecution
When MD allowed: must be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission, the factual basis for which is satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party. 1. Under Culpa contractual or breach of contract: when the defendant acted in: a. BF; or b. was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to BF); or c. in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation; & exceptionally: d. when the act of breach of contract itself is constitutive of torts resulting in physical injuries (PI). special rule: e. in Art. 1746 in relation to Art. 2206: when death results from a breach of carriage
Mijares v. CA
FACTS: Metro Manila Drug supplied pharmaceutical products to the Mijares spouses drugstore and to the Ospital ng Maynila Consumers Cooperative Drugstore, which is also operated by Editha Mijares, as an officer of the Co-op. The Co-op was dissolved and ceased operations in 1986, and its space was leased out to Solomon Silverio who also put up a drugstore. MMD made deliveries to Silverios store for almost a year, amounting to 32K. Silverio issued a check, for partial payment under the account name of his store, which was dishonored. MMD filed a complaint to collect from Editha, despite having been informed that they no longer did business in Ospital. Court found suit to be unfounded.
52
them to sue him, so J could not be deemed to have done so with bad faith. DOCTRINE: The adverse result of an action does not make a complainant subject to pay moral damages. No damages can be charged on those who may exercise their right to litigate in good faith, even if done erroneously.
Cometa v. CA
FACTS: SITI (Cometa: president) extended loans to GIDC (Guevara: president), which the latter failed to pay. SITI foreclosed the mortgages and was the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale. Cometa filed a falsification case against Guevara which was dismissed by the prosecutor for lack of probable cause. DOJ Secretary reversed prosecutors finding but the RTC eventually dismissed the case. Guevara filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Cometa. ISSUE: WON the case for malicious prosecution states a cause of action and warrants a full blown trial on the merits. HELD: Yes. All the requirements for a valid cause of action were present. DOCTRINE: What must be alleged in a complaint for malicious prosecution so that there is a valid cause of action: (1) defendant himself instigated the prosecution; (2) prosecution terminated in the plaintiffs acquittal; (3) prosecutor acted without probable cause; (4) the prosecutor was actuated by malice. NOTE: SC did not equate mp with an unfounded suit
FACTS: A 3-automobile collision involving a bus, a jeep, and a car. The bus bumped the jeep that was parked at the shoulder to fix a tire and the bus went on to hit the car. The owner of the car (Morales) and the insurance company filed a complaint for damages against the bus company, its driver, and the jeeps driver and owner (Ligorio and Pablo Bondad). The Bondads denied any responsibility or liability to IIC and Morales. TC and CA: exculpated the Bondads. Ordered IIC to pay them moral damages for recklessly and baselessly impleading them in spite of the clear language in the Traffic Investigation report that they were not responsible in any way for the accident. ISSUE: WON the award of Moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees was proper. HELD: Yes. The award of Moral Damages is justified. IIC was RECKLESS WHEN IT IMPLEADED THE BONDADS IN
SPITE OF CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE NOT LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO MORALES CAR. IIC ACTED IN BAD FAITH WHEN IT COMPELLED THE BONDADS TO TRAVEL FROM LAGUNA TO MAKATI TO LITIGATE AN UNFOUNDED CLAIM.
CLASS NOTES Court applied same elements for MP and unfounded suits Sir: this should not have been the case because it lumps together the two (2) kinds of action The enumeration of the elements was probably a mistake because malicious prosecution is not equivalent to unfounded suits.
The effects of this was that Ligorio could not work, and Pablo became sick and even suffered a mild stroke. DOCTRINE: Requirements to sustain an award of moral damages: (1) Claimant suffered injury; (2) Injury sprung from any of the cases listed in Art. 2219 or 2220 (CC); (3) Necessary that such acts be shown to have been tainted with bad faith or ill-will. It is not enough that the claimant alleges mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, social humiliation, etc. as a result of the other partys acts.
CLASS NOTES Purpose of requirements: to temper the filing of suits in order to get damages. Sue someone who could readily be impleaded (based on legal basis)
CLASS NOTES Lesson here as opposed to earlier discussion to sue as many as you can: dont implead people without any reason or a suit will also be filed against you MP was filed against SITI and Cometa, not unfounded suit
53
ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages should be increased. HELD: Yes. SC increased the award to 200K. SC took into account the following: that despite the fact that Mr. Flores character and personality are irrelevant to the issues in the case, PNB, without proofs, attacked his character by alleging that he was a known gambler and big time casino player. The bank also alleged that the proceeds of the checks were used by Flores in gambling. From this it is obvious that PNB besmirched Flores reputation causing him undue humiliation. Flores also testified in court regarding his woes when PNB refused to honor his checks; that this had caused him his integrity and dependability as a businessman in Baguio. That because of the incident whenever he tries to make a deal people doubt his capacity to pay. Casis Commentary: SC reduced the award, considered 1M in Moral Damages to be excessive because (1) Flores did not prove that he lost the Baguio House; (2) 1M in Moral Damages is grossly disproportionate to the 100K in actual damages.
FACTS: Carlos Arcona was convicted of homicide and was ordered to pay 10K as moral damages. He appealed claiming self-defense. ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages was correct. HELD: Yes. Moral damages should be increased to 50K. AS BORNE OUT BY HUMAN EXPERIENCE A VIOLENT
DEATH INVARIABLY AND NECESSARILY BRINGS ABOUT EMOTIONAL PAIN AND ANGUISH ON THE PART OF THE VICTIMS FAMILY. IT IS INHERENTLY HUMAN TO SUFFER SORROW, TORMENT, PAIN AND ANGER WHEN A LOVED ONE BECOMES THE VICTIM OF A VIOLENT OR BRUTAL KILLING. SUCH BRUTAL DEATH NOT ONLY STEALS FROM THE FAMILY OF THE DECEASED HIS LIFE, LOVE, SUPPORT AND AFFECTION BUT ALSO LEAVES THEM WITH A GNAWING FEELING THAT AN INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE TO THEM. For this reason,
CLASS NOTES Moral damages are not just awarded because of violations of the Labor Code. The case focused more on how Osdana was treated when she worked in Saudi Arabia.
moral damage must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs emotional sufferings.
CLASS NOTES This seems to be in conflict with the Pirame case. Cruz presents a possible distinction between Arcona and Pirame: the manner of death was taken into account (violent nature of the death) which Prof. Casis does not seem to agree with.
Fule v. CA
FACTS: Fule, a banker/jeweler bartered his 10 ha. Property for a pair of diamond earrings from Dr. Cruz under a Deed of Absolute Sale with Atty. Belarmino. Fule was able to examine the jewelry and accepted them (he had already examined them before and even made a sketch). 2 hours later, he complained that the earrings were fake. He filed a case against Cruz and Belarmino seeking the nullification of the Deed on the ground of fraud and deceit. TC & CA dismissed the complaint and ordered him to pay Cruz 300K, and Belarmino 250K as moral damages. ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. HELD: Yes. The case is analogous to malicious prosecution under Art. 2219 (8), as shown by Fules wanton bad faith and his filing of a malicious and unfounded case against Cruz & Belarmino.
Torrenuevas widow
absence of any generic aggravating circumstance precludes the award of exemplary damages. DOCTRINE: Proof of suffering must be attested to justify the award of moral damages.
54
convicted of attempted homicide and was made to serve sentence and ordered to indemnify Ramos for loss of crops, hospitalization expenses and Moral Damages (5K). CA modified the award of damages, increasing Moral Damages to 10K. ISSUE: WON the increase in the amount of Moral Damages was proper. HELD: Yes. The CA has in many cases, increased the damages awarded by the TC, although the offended party had not appealed from said award. The SC finds the 10K award of Moral Damages justified under the circumstances. The nature of the injuries and the degree of physical suffering endured by Ramos warrants it. The incident caused the mutilation of Ramos ear and a permanent scar on his arm. These injuries have left indelible marks on his body and will serve as a constant reminder of his traumatic experience. DOCTRINE: The amount of moral damages awarded
DEPENDS ON THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PHYSICAL INJURIES.
Valenzuela v. CA
FACTS: Lourdes Valenzuela was fixing a flat tire on the roadside when she was hit by Alexander Li who was driving a company car. Her left leg was severed & she had to get a prosthetic leg. Valenzuela filed a case claiming damages: 1M (moral), 100K (exemplary), 180K (medical expenses + loss of earnings). Li and his employer were found jointly and severally liable. TC awarded, but CA reduced moral damages to 500K. ISSUE: WON the reduction of the award of moral damages was justified. HELD: No. Valenzuelas left leg was amputated. The damage done was permanent and lasting, the artificial leg would have to be adjusted to the physiologic changes her body would normally undergo through the years. The amount of damage which goes with the
SUDDEN SEVERING OF A VITAL PORTION OF THE HUMAN BODY AND THE RESULTANT ANXIETY, SLEEPLESSNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY AND MENTAL AND PHYSICAL PAIN IS INESTIMABLE. P1M in moral damages is proper.
NOTES: Q: why ANALOGOUS TO MP only and not MP? A: cant be MP coz no prior case that ended or was qualified as MP
CLASS NOTES
PAL v. CA
FACTS: Pantejo, the City Fiscal of Surigao took a PAL flight from Manila to Surigao. Due to a typhoon, the flight to Surigao was cancelled while on a stopover in Cebu. PAL gave out cash assistance to its stranded passengers. Pantejo requested that he be billeted at a hotel at PALs expense because he wasnt carrying cash, but PAL refused. He had to share a room with another passenger whom he promised to repay in Surigao. On the flight, he learned that the hotel expenses of some passengers were reimbursed. Pantejo sued PAL for damages for discriminating against him. TC awarded him actual (300K), moral (150K), and exemplary (100K) damages. ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. HELD: Yes. PAL acted in bad faith in disregarding its duties as a common carrier to its passengers and in
COMMENSURATE TO
CLASS NOTES Casis Commentary: Valenzuela must have been really beautiful. Permanent nature of damage
Sumalpong v. CA
FACTS: Sumalpong shot twice at Ramos, but missed. They grappled for the gun, and in doing so, he bit Ramos arm and left ear, mutilating the latter. He was
HELD: SC raised the amount to 200K, to be divided among Senator Lopez (100K), his wife (50K), his daughter (25K) and his son-in-law (25K). The Lopezes suffered social humiliation, wounded feelings, serious anxiety and mental anguish as a result of Pan-Ams breach in bad faith of their contracts. Although it is not humiliating to travel as tourist passengers, IT IS HUMILIATING TO BE COMPELLED TO DO SO. Senator Lopez was the Senate President Pro Tempore and a for Vice-
55
Producers Bank v. CA
FACTS: The Chuas had substantial savings and current deposits with the Bacolod Branch of Producers Bank. They obtained a P2M loan, secured by a real estate mortgage. The Chuas deposited 960K, but the amount was not credited to their account because the Branch Manager absconded with the money of the banks depositors. The bank dishonored checks drawn out by the Chuas on the ground of insufficient funds, despite their having over 1M in savings. The Chuas requested to see the ledgers of their account, but the bank refused. They filed an action for damages against the bank, who in turn filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. The Chuas filed a complaint for injunction and damages. The TC awarded them 2M in moral damages. CA reduced it to 500K. ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages is proper. HELD: SC reduced moral damages to 300K. The dishonor of the Chuas checks and the foreclosure initiated by the bank AFFECTED THE CREDIT STANDING AND THE BUSINESS DEALINGS OF THE CHUAS, as their suppliers discontinued credit lines resulting in the collapse of their businesses. The damage to their REPUTATION AND SOCIAL STANDING entitles them to moral damages. The bank caused them serious anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation. DOCTRINE: The financial credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable asset, it being a significant part of the foundation of his business. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some financial loss to him.
FACTS: ABS and Viva executed a Film Exhibition Agreement whereby Viva gave ABS an exclusive right to exhibit some Viva films. ABS was given a right of first refusal to 24 films. Vivas agent gave ABS (through Charo Santos) a list of 36 films to choose 24 from. Santos only liked 10 (including Maging Sino Ka Man) and did not accept it. According to Lopez of ABS, there was a napkin agreement for Viva to sell 14 films for P36M. Vivas agent denied such agreement. Deals with ABS failed, so then Viva made a deal with RBS granting the latter the exclusive right to 104 film, including the 14 films in the napkin agreement. RBS made print ads of the anticipated airing of Maging Sino Ka Man. ABS filed a complaint for specific performance w/ a prayer for injunction. Complaint was dismissed and moral damages were awarded to RBS for having its reputation debased by the filing of the complaint. ISSUE: WON the award of damages to RBS was proper. HELD: No. The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no senses. It therefore cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which can be experienced only by one having a nervous system. On Actual Damages: -One is entitled to compensation for AD only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved (except as provided by law or by stipulation) -Indemnification shall comprehend: 1. value of he loss suffered 2. value of the profits that the oblige failed to obtain In Contract and Quasi-Contracts: the damages which may be awarded are dependent on whether the obligor acted in GF or otherwise In case of GF: damages recoverable are those which are the NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES of the breach of the obligation which the parties have FORESEEN or COULD HAVE REASONABLY FORESEEN at the time of the constitution of the obligation
HELD: No. The transfer was within the power of the DOJ Secretary. Assuming that such act amounted to any wrong, the right of action would accrue in favor of Hernandez. DOCTRINES: (1) The RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR MENTAL SUFFERING RESULTING FROM BODILY INJURIES is restricted to the person who has suffered the bodily hurt, and there can be no recovery for distress caused by sympathy for anothers suffering, or for fright due to a wrong against a third person. (2) MENTAL ANGUISH is restricted to such mental pain or suffering as arises from an injury or wrong to the person himself, as distinguished from that form of MENTAL SUFFERING which is the accompaniment of sympathy or sorrow for anothers suffering or which arises from a contemplation of wrongs committed on the person of another. NOTES: one cannot be awarded MD for the suffering one did not endure (sympathy) cf Art. 2219, last paragraph.
CLASS NOTES Cf: Lopez wife shared in prestige of hubby (goes into the amount of MD) What about Strebel and son-in-law? Sufferering suffered by vicarious relations?
CLASS NOTES
56
Code lists all kinds of suffering but MENTAL ANGUISH should be involved open question
C. Nominal
Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded. Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.
NAPOCOR v. PHIBROS
FACTS: NAPOCOR issued invitations to bid for the supply and delivery of imported coal. PHIBROs bid was accepted. PHIBRO was not able to deliver, so NAPOCOR advertised again for bidding of the same products. PHIBRO participated in the bidding again, but NAPOCOR disapproved their application. PHIBRO filed an action for damages on the ground that NAPOCORs act of disqualifying them was tainted with malice and bad faith. Lower courts ruled in favor of PHIBRO and awarded actual, moral and exemplary damages. ISSUE: WON PHIBRO is entitled to damages. HELD: No. NAPOCOR did not act in bad faith in disapproving PHIBROs application for prequalification to bid. It merely exercised its reserved right to reject bid applicants who previously failed to perform properly. Moral Damages not proper: (1) there was no bad faith, and (2) as a general rule, moral damages are not awarded to corporations. DOCTRINE: Besmirched reputation cannot cause mental anguish to a corporation, unlike in the case of a natural person, for A CORPORATION HAS NO REPUTATION IN THE SENSE AN INDIVIDUAL DOES. It is inherently impossible for a corporation to suffer mental anguish. * A CORPORATION BEING AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON AND HAVING EXISTENCE ONLY IN LEGAL CONTEMPLATION, HAS NO FEELINGS, NO EMOTIONS, NO SENSES; THEREFORE, IT
CANNOT EXPERIENCE PHYSICAL SUFFERING AND MENTAL ANGUISH.
Ventanilla v. Centeno
FACTS: Ventanilla hired Atty. Centeno to represent him in an action for recovery with damages. Centeno screwed up the filing of appeal. Ventanilla now seeks to recover damages against Centeno. TC: awarded him P200 as nominal damages. ISSUE: WON the TC erred in awarding only P200 instead of P2000 as nominal and other damages. HELD: No. The damages awarded are proper. Assessment of Nominal Damages is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of the case. Considering that nominal damages are not for the indemnification of loss suffered, but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded, and that the perfection of the appeal was no assurance that Ventanilla would succeed in his first action for recovery, the amount that he seeks to recover here as nominal damages is excessive. DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are not indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded.
57
CLASS NOTES ND small but ok according to SC because it is not supposed to account for anything ND only symbollic
FACTS: Gopio raped and molested Princess Millano, a minor. He was convicted of statutory rape and ordered to indemnify the victim through damages (actual= P3727, moral= P30K) ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. HELD: Actual damages should be deleted as no proof was presented to show the actual amount of pecuniary loss. However, Nominal Damages (P2K) should be awarded in order that the right of the victim, violated by the accused may be vindicated or recognized. This is not for the purpose of indemnifying any loss suffered. *DOCTRINE: WHENEVER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF AN ASCERTAINED LEGAL RIGHT, ALTHOUGH NO ACTUAL DAMAGES RESULTED OR NONE ARE SHOWN, THE AWARD OF NOMINAL DAMAGES IS PROPER.
CLASS NOTES Why ND cant coexist with AD? Sir says that award of AD already presupposes invasion of right so awarding ND would lead to double recovery
Francisco v. Ferrer
FACTS: Rebecca Lo and her daughter Anette Ferrer ordered a 3-layer wedding cake from Fountainhead Bakeshop. On the wedding day, at around 6pm, the cake was not there. They made a follow-up call and were assured that it was on its way, but was delayed by traffic. They were later informed that there would be no cake because the order slip got lost. Ferrer was compelled to buy a sans rival cake instead. The wedding cake arrived at 10pm, but they refused to accept it because it only had 2 layers. Francisco (owner of Fountainhead) sent a letter of apology and 5K, which was denied for being deemed inadequate. Ferrer and Lo filed a case against Francisco for breach of contract w/ damages. TC and CA awarded moral and exemplary damages. ISSUE: WON moral and exemplary damages should have been awarded. HELD: No. However, NOMINAL DAMAGES ARE PROPER. Petitioners gave lame excuses for the delay in the delivery of the cake. Their prevarication made them liable for nominal damages for insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their customers anxiety and need of the hour. DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are recoverable where (1) a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind, or (2) where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages have been or can be shown.
Armovit v. CA
FACTS: Dr. Armovit and his family decided to spend Christmas in the Philippines and bought 3 round-trip US-Manila tickets from Northwest Airlines. On the return trip (Manila-US), they were rudely informed that they cannot be accommodated because their supposed flight was already taking off and the time on their tickets was wrong. Dr. Armovit was unable to keep his appointments with his US patients, he and his family suffered anguish, wounded feelings and serious anxiety until they were finally able to fly back to the US. They filed an action for damages in the Manila RTC after NWA refused to give them compensatory damages for breach of contract of air-transport carriage. RTC awarded damages (Dr.: actual: P1300, moral: 500K, exemplary: 500K, nominal: 100K; Mrs.: moral: 300K, exemplary: 300K, nominal: 50K; daughter: moral: 300K, exemplary: 300K, nominal: 50K). CA modified: sustained award of actual damages, deleted moral and nominal damages. ISSUE: WON the deletion of nominal damages was proper. HELD: Yes. Nominal damages should not be awarded when actual damages were. Assessment of ND is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of the case.
CLASS NOTES 20K award of ND by TC excessive Penal clause issue: no penal clause because even if without it Millan still entitled to legal interest more than 4% p.a. (could be wrong because SC seemed to equate penal clause with liquidated damages)
People v. Gopio
D. Temperate
58
People v. Singh
FACTS: Dalvir, et al ganged up on Surinder, killing him. Dilbag, who was cleaning his motorbike nearby, tried to stop the attack, but he too was stabbed. The accused were convicted of murder and frustrated murder. Lower courts awarded hospitalization and medical expenses, actual damages, civil indemnity, moral damages, attorneys fees and compensation for loss of earning capacity. ISSUE: WON damages should be awarded. HELD: Yes, although award for loss of earning capacity should be deleted. Such AWARDS PARTAKE OF DAMAGES
WHICH MUST BE PROVEN NOT ONLY BY CREDIBLE AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE, BUT ALSO BY UNBIASED PROOF (Such as income tax reports). Bare allegation is
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof. Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an INDEMNITY OR A PENALTY, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
CLASS NOTES LD intended as indemnity or penalty Juris: LD vs. Penal clause -intent behind LD penalty is deterrent -LD is measure of damage which does not matter in penalty -LD is perceived loss if other party does not comply with his obligation because AD would be difficult to determine But in A2227: indemnity or penalty
CLASS NOTES
Remember Ramos vs. CA where temperate damages were awarded for continuing injury
Pleno v. CA
FACTS: A red Ford cargo truck hit a blue Volkswagen kombi driven by Pleno, causing it to hit a cargo truck parked along the shoulder, hitting its driver who was urinating in front of it. Pleno was seriously injured and was confined for 5 months in Makati Med and had to undergo 5 surgeries. Pleno filed a complaint for damages against the owner of the red truck and its driver. CFI ruled in favor of Pleno. CA reduced the amount of damages for being excessive (Temperate: 200K 100K, moral: 200K 100K). ISSUE: WON the reduction of damages was proper. HELD: No. The lower courts award of damages are more in consonance with the factual circumstances of the case. Each item of damages is adequately supported by evidence. Temperate damages were based on the impairment of income of actual capacity (since the actual income of Pleno as president of Mayon Ceramics company was not proven). DOCTRINE: Temperate damages may be `awarded in cases where definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, but the court is convinced that there was an injury or loss.
DEFINITE PROOF OF PECUNIARY LOSS CANNOT BE OFFERED AND THE FACT THAT LOSS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, appellants
CLASS NOTES
Art. 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of damages, and not the stipulation.
F. Exemplary or Corrective
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party. Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
People v. Plazo
FACTS: Edison Plazo boxed and stabbed Romeo Fabula. Plazo was convicted of murder. ISSUE: WON temperate damages should be awarded. HELD: Yes. Temperate damages under Art. 2224 may be recovered where it has been shown that the victims family suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof cannot be proved with certainty. 15K as temperate damages was awarded.
E. Liquidated
CLASS NOTES Casis: 3 parties are not bound by the stipulation of LD in the contract.
rd
59
CLASS NOTES
CLASS NOTES How did court arrive at final amount? Compare with other cases