TORTS & DAMAGES
Atty. Ukol
Atty. Aquino Book
CONCEPT OF TORTS: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
TORT
• An unlawful violation of private right, not created by
contract, and which gives rise to an action for damages.
• An act or omission producing an injury to another.
• A private or civil wrong or injury, other than breach of
contract, for which the court will provide a remedy in the
form of an action for damages
• There must always be a violation of some duty that must
arise by operation of law and not by mere agreement of
the parties.
• SC: “tort is a breach of legal duty which essentially
consists in the violation of a right given or omission of
statutory duty imposed by law.
• Kinds of Tort Liabilities
(a) International Torts
- Where the actor desires to cause the
consequence of his act or believe the
consequences are substantially certain to result
from it.
(b) Negligence
- Voluntary acts or omissions that result in injury to
others, without intending to cause the same
(c) Strict Liability
- Person is made liable independent of fault or
negligence upon submission of proof of certain
facts.
- The conduct is generally not wrongful in itself but
the wrong consists in causing hard by engaging
in certain types of risky activities.
PHILIPPINE TORT LAW
• Sources
o New Civil Code is the primary statute that
governs torts.
o Art 1157 includes quasi-delict as a source of
obligation, which is classified as “extra-
CAT.VKN
contractual obligation” and governed by Art
2176 to 2194.
o Tort provisions are from Spanish, German, French
and Anglo-American Law:
a. By its contact with Western culture from the
last 4 centuries, PH is a rightful beneficiary of
the Roman Law
b. Ango-American selection of rules is proper
and advisable because:
i. Of the element of American culture
incorporated in Filipino life
ii. Economic relations between the PH-
US will continue
iii. American and English courts have
developed equitable rules not
recognizable in present Civil Code.
iv. Concepts of right and wrong are
essentially the same
o Effect of Roman Law
§ CC adopted the Roman Law precept,
Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste
vivere, alterum non laedere, suum
cuique tribuere (The basic principles of
law are: to live honorably, not to injure
another, to give each his due.)
§ Roman listed categories that arise quasi
ex delicto:
a. Liability of a judge who misconducts
a case or gives a wrong decision.
b. The liability of an occupier of a
building for double the damage
caused by anything thrown or forced
1
TORTS & DAMAGES
Atty. Ukol
Atty. Aquino Book

out of the building, no matter by Art 20 Every person who, contrary to

whom, on to a public place1 law, willfully or negligently
c. Liability of occupier if he keeps any causes damage to another,
object suspended from the building shall indemnify the latter for
which would do damage if it fell2 the same.
d. Liability of shop keeper, innkeeper, or Art 21 Any person who willfully
keeper of a stable for any theft or causes loss or injury to another
damage caused by slaves or in a manner that is contrary to
employees or in case of innkeepers, morals, good customs or
of permanent residents. public policy shall
compensate the latter for the
• Scope and Applicable laws damage.
o Tort in Anglo-American jurisprudence includes
not only negligence, but also intentional criminal § The provisions introduce malice in the
acts such as assault and battery, false commission of torts.
imprisonment and deceit. § PH laws include the ff torts, for which are
o The general plan sought to be implemented in also considered torts in American Law:
NCC was for intentional acts to be governed by Ø Defamation
RPC. Ø Fraud
Ø Physical injuries
o Catch-all Provisions Ø Violation of constitutional rights
§ The intent to adopt the expanded Ø Negligence
common law concept of intentional and Ø Interference with contractual
unintentional tort is more evident in ARTS relations
19 – 21 NCC Ø Violation of privacy
Ø Malicious prosecution
Art 19 Every person must, in the Ø Product liability
exercise of his rights and in the Ø Strict liability for possession of animals
performance of his duties, act Ø Abuse of right
with justice, give everyone his Ø Acts which violate good morals and
due and observe honesty and customs
good faith.

1 2
ART 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or part thereof is ART 2000. Hotel-keepers are liable for loss of or injury to personal
responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. property of guests caused by employees. Liability is now part of contract
law rather than tort law.

CAT.VKN 2
TORTS & DAMAGES
Atty. Ukol
Atty. Aquino Book
THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT
ELEMENTS
• Expanded Scope of Quasi-Delict
Art 1902 Any person who by any act or omission
causes damage to another by his fault or
negligence shall be liable for the damage
so done.
Art 2176 Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence,
if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
o Supreme Court applied Art 1902 to an alleged
case of malicious interference in the
performance of contract in 1919 case of
Daywalt v La Corporacion de los Padres
Agustinos Recoletos.
§ “ignoring so much of the articles as
relates to liability of negligence, the Court
takes the rule to be that a person is liable
for damage done to another by any
culpable act
§ culpable act means any act which is
blameworthy when judged by accepted
legal standards
o The SC observed in a number of cases that Art
2176 includes intentional acts.
• View that Article 2176 is limited to negligence
o In Cangco v Manila Railroad Company, SC cited
Manresa who declared that the liability arising
from extra-contractual culpa is always based
upon a voluntary act or omission which , without
CAT.VKN
willful intent, but by mere negligence or
inattention, has caused damage to another
o Intentional acts = RPC
o Negligent acts or omissions = Art 2176
• Justification for Inclusion of Intentional Acts
o The liability for fault or negligence may provide
for a general right of action that covers
intentional and negligent acts or omissions.
o It provides for a general duty of care that may
be breached intentionally or negligently.
o Aim to make the system of liabilities or obligations
in this jurisdiction more coherent.
o Makati Stock Exchange v Campos: there are no
other sources of obligation under our system
other than law, quasi-contract, delict and quasi-
delict. The problem therefore is trying to locate
intentional torts in any of the sources of
obligation.
§ Tort is a liability that arises outside of
contract and quasi-contract. It is not the
agreement that creates the vinculum
juris, legal tie, in intentional tort.
DISTINCTIONS
1 Quasi-delict v Delict
QUASI-DELICT
o Used by Code Commission to designate
negligence as a separate source of obligation
because it “more nearly correspondence to the
Roman Law classification of obligations and is in
harmony with the nature of this kind of liability.
o The liability for quasi-delict is principally
expressed in Art 2176 of the CC that states that:
Art 2177 Responsibility for fault or negligence
NCC under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from
the civil liability arising from
3
TORTS & DAMAGES
Atty. Ukol
Atty. Aquino Book

negligence under the Penal Code. reason of inexcusable lack of precaution

But the plaintiff cannot recover on the part of the person performing of
damages twice for the same act or failing to perform such act, taking into
omission of the defendant consideration his employment or
occupation, degree of intelligence,
o Requisites: physical condition and other
(1) There must be an act or omission constituting circumstances regarding persons, time and
fault or negligence place.
(2) Damage caused by the said act or omission - Simple imprudence consists in the lack of
and precaution displayed in those cases in
(3) Causal relation between the damage and which the damage impending to be
the act or omission caused is not immediate nor the danger
clearly manifest.
DELICT
Art 365 Imprudence and negligence. o Elements of the Crime
RPC - Any person who, by reckless imprudence, a. Offender does or fails to do an act
shall commit any act which, had it been b. Doing or the failure to do that act is
intentional, would constitute a grave voluntary
felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto c. It is without malice
mayor in its maximum period to prision d. The material damage results from the
correccional in its medium period; if it reckless imprudence and
would have constituted a less grave felony, e. There is inexcusable lack of precaution on
the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum the part of the offender, taking into
and medium periods shall be imposed; if it consideration his employment or
would have constituted a light felony, the occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
penalty of arresto menor in its maximum condition, and other circumstances
period shall be imposed. regarding persons, time and place.
- Any person who, by simple imprudence or
negligence, shall commit an act which o Distinction
would otherwise constitute a grave felony, Culpa Aquiliana Crimes
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its Private concern Affect public
medium and maximum periods; if it would interest
have constituted a less serious felony, the Civil code, by means Penal code
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum of indemnification, corrects or punishes
period shall be imposed. merely repairs the criminal act
- Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, damage
but without malice, doing or falling to do an Delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts
act from which material damage results by

CAT.VKN 4
TORTS & DAMAGES
Atty. Ukol
Atty. Aquino Book
Quasi-delictos include Punished only if
all acts which any kind there is penal law
of fault or negligence covering them
intervenes
Liability of employer of Liability of employer
actor-employee is of actor-employee
direct and primary in is subsidiary in
quasi-delict crimes
2 Quasi-delict v Breach of Contract
QUASI-DELICT
o Absence of contract not a requisite
§ In American Express v Cordero, the SC
held that there may be an action for
quasi-delict notwithstanding that there is
a subsisting contract between the
parties. A liability for tort may arise even
under a contract, where tort is that which
breaches the contract.
When an act which constitutes a breach
of contract would have itself constituted
the source of a quasi-delictual liability,
the contract can be said to have been
breached by tort, thereby allowing the
rules on tort to apply.
§ In Cangco v Manila Railroad, when such
a contractual relation exists the obligor
may break the contract under such
obligations that the same act which
constitutes a breach of contract would
have constituted the source of an extra-
contractual obligation had no contract
existed between the parties.
§ Should the act which breaches a
contract be done in bad faith and be
violative of Art 21 then there is a cause to
view the act as constituting a quasi-
delict.
CAT.VKN
o Cases when there is Concurrence
§ Where, without a pre-existing contract
between the parties, an act or omission
can nonetheless amount to an
actionable tort by itself, the fact that the
parties are contractually bound is no bar
to the application of quasi-delict
provisions to the case.
o Duty need not be alleged and proved
§ Duty refers to the underlying “general
duty of care”, which is in the nature of
public duty. This duty is a given and no
longer part of the elements of the cause
of action that must be established.
o General Duty of Care
§ Art 2176 was based on Art 1902 of Spanish
Civil Code.
§ What is contemplated under NCC is a
general duty of care that is owed to the
whole world. Hence, duty is not an
element of liability for negligence in the
relational sense.
§ It is not a pre-requisite to liability that
courts in PH determine if defendant owes
a duty to the particular person who is the
plaintiff in the case.
§ In Cangco v Manila Railroad, the legal
rights of each member of society
constitute the measure of the
corresponding legal duties, which the
existence of those rights imposes upon all
other members of society. The breach of
these general duties, whether due to
willful intent or to mere inattention, if
productive of injury, gives rise to an
obligation to indemnify the injured party.
5
TORTS & DAMAGES
Atty. Ukol
Atty. Aquino Book

o Distinction
o Concurrence of Causes of Action Culpa Aquiliana Culpa Contractual
§ A single act may give rise to two or more Independent of Foundation of the
causes of action contract liability: Contract
§ The obligation based on one is separate Violation basis: general Violation basis:
and distinct from the other obligation or duty to contract
§ A liability for tort may arise even under a observe the standards
contract, where tort is that which of care set by society
breaches the contract in dealing with other
§ There may be concurrence of causes of persons
action even if only one person is sought The wrongful act Does not create
to be held liable creates vinculum juris vinculum juris.
• Common carriers: ex contractu, and gives rise to an Presupposes a pre-
quasi ex-delicto, ex delicto obligation existing vinculum
§ It is also possible that two persons are juris
liable for such breach even if there is only Incident in the
one act or omission that causes the injury performance of an
§ Since, these two civil liabilities (ex delicto obligation, which
and ex quasi delicto) are distinct and already existed,
independent of each other, the failure to and which
recover in one will not necessarily increases the
preclude recovery in the other. Although, liability from such
an act or omission may give rise to two already existing
causes of action, the plaintiff cannot obligation
recover twice for the same act or Art. 2176 onwards Art. 1170-1174
omission of the defendant

§ In Elcano vs Hill, under the proposed

Article 2177, acquittal from an
accusation of criminal negligence,
whether on reasonable doubt or not,
shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil
action, not for civil liability arising from
criminal negligence, but for damages
due to a quasi-delict or ‘culpa aquiliana’
But said article forestalls a double
recovery.

CAT.VKN 6