TORTS AND DAMAGES ULTIMATE REVIEWER

[c o n c h a, r e n (3LM1, UST)]

The Field of Tort Liability
Originally, civil liability of one person to may arise from
one to three main sources. It may arise from:
o Contracts
o Crimes
o Torts

Origin and Meaning of Tort
Tort is an old French word derived from the Latin
tortus which means twisted or crooked. At one
time it was in common use in English as a general
synonym of wrong. In time however, the word
passed from the realm of general literature into that of
the law, ceased to be used in its earlier general sense,
and acquired its more specialized meaning as
designating a class of legal wrongs.
Broadly speaking, a tort is a civil wrong, other than
breach of contract, for which the court will provide a
remedy in the form of action for damages.

A Tort is not:
A crime.
A breach of contract.
Necessarily concerned with property rights or
problems of the government.

Definitions of Tort:
Earlier writers defined tort as an unlawful violation of
a private legal right, not created by contract, which
gives rise to common-law action for damages.
(Cooley, Burdick, Salmond)
Winfield proposes: Tortious liability arise from the
breach of duty primarily fixed by the laws; such duty is
toward persons generally, and its breach is redressible
by an action for unliquidated damages.
Prosser: Tort is a term applied to a miscellaneous and
more or less unconnected group of civil wrongs other
than breach of contract, for which a court of law will
afford a remedy in the form of an action for damages.
The law of torts is concerned with the compensation of
losses suffered by private individuals in their legally
protected interests, through conduct of others which is
regarded as socially unreasonable.

Tort distinguished from Crime
The distinction lies in the interests affected and the
remedy afforded by the law.
A crime is an offense against the public at large, for
which the state, as the representative of the public, will
bring proceedings in the form of a criminal prosecution.
The purpose of such proceeding is to protect and
vindicate the interests of the public as a whole, by
punishing the offender or eliminating him from society,
either permanently or for a limited time, by reforming
him or teaching him not to repeat the offense and by
deterring others imitating him.
The civil action for a tort is commenced and
maintained by the injured person himself, and its
purpose is to compensate him for the damage he has
suffered, at the expense of the wrongdoer. If he is
successful, he receives a judgment for a sum of
money, which he may enforce by collecting It from the
defendant.
The same act may be both a crime against the state
and a tort against an individual. In such a case, the
interests are not the same, and the objects to be
accomplished by the two suits are different, there may
be both a civil tort action and a criminal prosecution for
the same offense.

Tort distinguished from Breach of Contract
A tort consists in the violation of a right given or the
omission to perform a duty imposed by law, while in a
breach of contract the right is granted and the
obligation is assumed by agreement of the parties.
To determine the form in which redress must be
sought, it is necessary to ascertain the source or origin.
If it be found that the right or duty was created
independently of the consent of the parties concerned,
it is a tort. If because of such consent, it is on contract.
However, the existence of a contractual relation
between the parties does not necessarily imply that all
obligations that may arise between them will be
contractual. The obligor may break the contract under
such conditions that the same act which constitute a
breach of contract would constitute a tort if no contract
existed between the parties, in which case an action in
tort will lie.
Again, the breach of contract may give rise to a tort,
for example, one who wrongfully induces a party to
contract to break such contract will be liable for
interference of a contractual relation.
The remedy in an action of tort is the award of
damages only. On the other hand, while damages
may be awarded in an action ex contractu, may also
be reformed and specially enforced. There is a
material difference as to the measure of damage and
the extent to which liability for consequences can be
carried.

Classification of Tort under Philippine Law
Intentional: Art 19 to 35, NCC.
o It is intentional if an actor desires to cause the
consequences of his act or that he believes
that the consequences of his acts are certain
to cause damage in another.
o It is considered as the equivalent of deceit or
folo in the Penal Code or one with deliberate
intent.
Negligent: Art. 2176 to 2194, CC, Quasi-Delicts.
Strict Liability Tort: Art, 694-707, CC, Nuisance.
o There is no intention to cause damage. No
negligence necessary.
o It is sufficient that the act caused injury to
another.

SPECIAL TORTS: HUMAN RELATIONS

The old civil code merely states the effects of the law,
but fails to draw out the spirit of the law.

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Manner of exercising rights and duties.
Principle of abuse of rights.
Standards:
o To act with justice
o To give everyone his due.
o To observe honesty and good faith.
Rights: Every well-grounded claim on others is called
a right, and, since the social character of man gives
the element of mutuality to each claim, every right
conveys along with it the ideas of obligation.
Duty: A human action which is exactly conformable to
the laws which requires us to obey them. A moral
obligation or responsibility. It differs from a legal
obligation, because a duty cannot always be enforced
by the law; it is our duty to be temperate in eating, but
we are under no legal obligation to be so; we ought to
love our neighbors, but no law obliges us to love them.
Justice: The constant and perpetual disposition to
render to every man his due. The conformity of our
actions and our will to the law.
Good Faith: An honest intention to abstain from taking
any unconscientious advantage of another, even
though the forms of technicalities of law, together with
an absence of all information or belief of facts which
would render the transaction unconscientious.
It rejects the classical and traditional theory that he
who uses a right injures no one.
It establishes the norm to be observed by persons in
the exercise of their rights and the performance of
their duties.
Needless to say, every sound legislation from time
immemorial has sought to act as an arbiter between
the conflicting rights of individuals. To accomplish so
noble a mission, the lawmaker makes it imperative
that everyone duly respect the rights of others.
The absence of good faith is essential to abuse of
right. Good faith, however, is always presumed but the
court is given the direction to determine under the
circumstance whether or not there has been an abuse
of right.
Elements of an abuse of right:
o There is legal right or duty.
o Which is exercised in bad faith.
o For the sole intent of prejudicing another.

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.
Damages for acts contrary to law.
Willful or negligent act done contrary.
This is intended to provide a remedy in cases where
the law declares an act illegal but fails to provide a
relief to the party injured.
It speaks of the general sanction for all other
provisions of law which do no especially provide for
their own sanction.
Under this provision of law, the following requisites
must exist in order that liability will arise:
o Act must be willful or negligent
o Must be contrary to the law
o Damages must be suffered by in the injured
party
This article refers to willful or negligent acts contrary to
law not constituting quasi-delicts or crimes.
The rule in this provision compliments the principle of
abuse of rights enumerated in Article 19. It pervades
the entire legal system, and renders it impossible that
a person who suffers damage because another has
violated some provisions should find himself without
relief.
There is a common element with Art. 19 to 21, that is,
the act must be intentional. However, Art. 20 does
not distinguish, the act may be done either willfully or
negligently.

Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damage.
Liability for acts contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy.
This provision seeks to remedy the countless gaps in
the statutes which leave so many victims of moral
wrongs helpless, even though they have actually
suffered material and moral injury.
Elements:
o There is an act which is legal
o Morals, good customs, public order, or public
policy.
o It is done with intent to injure.

Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance
by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into
possession of something at the expense of the latter
without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
Return of things acquired with just or legal course.
Acquisition of benefit without just and legal causes.
This provision embodies the doctrine that no person
should unjustly enrich himself at the expense of
another, which has been one of the mainstays of
every legal system for centuries,
In order that the principle of unjust enrichment may be
applied, the following requisites must be present:
o There be an enrichment on the part of the
defendant
o There be a damage or loss suffered by the
plaintiff
o There be no just or legal ground for
defendants enrichment.
o The enrichment is at the expense of the
plaintiff.
Example, when a building contractor is denied
payment for increased labor cost validly incurred and
additional work validly rendered with the owners
express or implied agreement.

Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to
another's property was not due to the fault or negligence
of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if
through the act or event he was benefited.
Liability for benefits received although not due to fault
or negligence.
Ordinarily a person is liable only for the damage
caused by his fault or negligence. However, there are
situations where a person may receive benefits
through acts or events not imputable to his fault or
negligence but which results in damage to another. In
such cases, equity and good conscience demands
that the person who received the benefit must
indemnify the person damaged.
Example: Without As knowledge, a flood drives his
cattle to the cultivated highland of B. As cattle were
saved, but Bs crop is destroyed. True, A was not at
fault, but he was benefited. It is but right and equitable
that he should indemnify B. Obviously, the indemnity
to be paid should not be beyond the extent of benefit
received. Otherwise the party injured would be unjustly
enriched at the expense of the party who received the
benefit.

Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when
one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his
moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental
weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must
be vigilant for his protection.
Duty of courts to give protection in certain cases.
Intended to implement the provision of the constitution
on the promotion of social justice.
Imposes upon courts the duty of protecting those who
by reason of moral dependence, ignorance, indigence,
menial weakness, tender age or other handicap, are at
a disadvantage in contractual property or relations.
Under the doctrine of parens patria (parent or
guardian of the country), the State has the sovereign
powewr to provide protections to rights and property of
persons who are non sui juris such as minors, insane
and incompetent persons.

Art. 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for
pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or
emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the
instance of any government or private charitable
institution.
Extravagant expenses in periods of public want or
emergency.
They are likely to cause dissatisfaction among the
suffering masses and the less fortunate and may even
incite them to acts of public disturbance or disorder.
The use of property, however, bears a social function
to contribute in the common.

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other
persons. The following and similar acts, though they may
not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of
action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his
friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth,
physical defect, or other personal condition.
Disrespect, to the dignity, personality or privacy and
peace of mind of others.
In order to exalt human personality. The sacredness of
human personality is concomitant of every plan for
human amelioration. The touchstone of every system
of laws, of the culture and civilization of every country
is how far it dignifies man. If in legislation, inadequate
regard is observed for human life and safety; if the
laws do not sufficiently forestall human suffering or do
not try effective to curb those factors or influences that
wound the noblest sentiment; if the statutes
insufficiently protect persons from being unjustly
humiliated, in short, if human personality id not
properly exalted=then the laws are deemed defective.

Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss
because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects,
without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an
action for damages and other relief against he latter,
without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action
that may be taken.
Refusal or neglect to perform official duty.
Not every refusal or neglect of duty will render the
public official liable. It is only such neglect or refusal to
perform a duty which is owing to the plaintiff and which
causes his damage is actionable. Other relief such
as mandamus to compel the performance of a duty is
also available to the plaintiff in addition to damages
and disciplinary administrative action.
Presupposes that the refusal or omission of a public
official is attributable to malice or inexcusable
negligence.

Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial 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 a right
of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
Refers to unfair competition in agricultural, commercial
or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of
force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other
unjust, oprresive, or highhanded method.
Necessary in a system of free enterprise. Democracy
becomes a veritable mockery if any person or group of
persons by any unjust or high handed method may
deprive others of a fair chance to engage in business
or earn a living.
It may constitute a criminal offense.
Whether competition is fair or unfair depends
principally on the method used, and not on the
damage caused.

Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for
the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action
requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion
of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file
a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint
should be found to be malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based
upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the
absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be
inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the
acquittal is due to that ground.
Civil action where accused is acquitted on reasonable
doubt.

Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand
civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no
criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency
of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall
likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.
Proof required in civil action where no criminal action
is instituted.

Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not
arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony,
such civil action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the
latter.
Civil action on obligation not constituting a felony.

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.
Violation or obstruction of civil and political rights.
Defense of good faith not available. The person liable
may be any public officer or employee even if he did
not act with malice or bad faith.

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical
injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the
injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence.
Separate and independent civil action for defamation,
fraud and physical injuries.

Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force
refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person
in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer
shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or
municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor.
The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of
any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
evidence shall suffice to support such action.
Refusal or failure of a policeman to render aid.
Civil action for damages against city or municipal
police force.
A policeman is an agent of a person in authority and is
charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection of and security of life and property.

Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a
criminal offense, charges another with the same, for
which no independent civil action is granted in this Code
or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no
reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been
committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to
institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a
civil action for damages against the alleged offender.
Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of
evidence. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may
require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the
defendant in case the complaint should be found to be
malicious.

If during the pendency of the civil action, an information
should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil
action shall be suspended until the termination of the
criminal proceedings.
Where no independent civil action is granted and the
municipal judge or fiscal fails or refuses to lastitute
criminal action.
Right of victim of criminal offenses to file independent
civil action.

Art. 36. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided
before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may
proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the
Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in
conflict with the provisions of this Code.
Prejudicial questions.
A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case,
the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
issue involved in said case and cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal (De Leon vs. Alabanag,
70 Phil 202)
It only arises when a criminal proceeding is involved. It
constitutes an exception to the general rule that the
civil action is suspended to await the final termination
of the criminal case.
There is none involved in cases where the law permits
civil action for damages independently of the criminal
prosecution.