Professional Documents
Culture Documents
As for the argument that the dog Article 2193 ascribes liability to
was a tame dog, the Court clarified that “the law the head of a family that lives in a building or part
does not speak only of vicious animals but covers thereof for damages caused by things thrown or
even tame ones as long as they cause injury”. falling from the said building or part thereof.
As for the argument that the dog As can be discerned from the
was provoked to probably invoke the exception in provision, the liability is absolute as it does not
Article 2183 (fault of the person who has suffered indicate a presumption or admit proof of care.
damage), the Court emphasized that the victim was (Aquino, Torts & Damages, pp. 697)
only three years old at the time she was attacked by
the dog, thus “could hardly be faulted for whatever Head of the Family
she might have done to the animal”.
The import of the case Dingcong v
In this case, the Court had the Kanaan, 72 Phil 14, shows that the phrase “head of
occasion to state that, quoting Manresa, the a family” is not limited to the owner of the building
obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil and it may even include the lessee thereof.
Code is not based on the negligence or on the
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user In this case, Dingcong, a co-lessee
of the animal causing the damage. It said, it is in a building was made liable for the act of his
based on natural equity and on the principle of guest who left the faucet open causing water to fall
social interest that he who possesses animals for from the second floor, damaging the goods of
utility, pleasure, or service, must answer for the Kanaan in the floor below.
damage which such animal may cause.
However, although the basis for
According to Manresa (as quoted the liability was Article 1910 of the Old Civil
by Aquino, citing Torts & Damages by Francisco), Code, from which Article 2183 of the New Civil
the reason for the law imputing liability to the Code was derived, the Court then anchored the
possessor is that by “having his possession said liability on the failure of the petitioner to exercise
animal, or in using it, the possessor already knew diligence of a good father of a family.
what they may be exposed to.”
In this case, the widow and To come within the term “injury
children of Leopoldo Madlangbayan brought an received in the course of the employment”, it must
action against Singer Sewing Machine for burial be shown that the injury originated in the work,
expenses and compensation under Act 3428, and, further, that it was received by the employee
alleging that the deceased died due to and in while engaged in or about the furtherance of the
pursuance of the employment. affairs of the employer. If it be conceded that the
injury originated in the work…it would still be
The deceased, who was a necessary to show that the employee was engaged
Collector of Singer Sewing Machine, met his in the furtherance of his employer’s business.
untimely death when, on his way home riding a
bicycle, he was run over by a truck driven by In this case, Madlangbayan met
Vitaliano Sumoay. The truck driver was later his death on a Sunday, on his way home.
convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to Madlangbayan’s area of collection was in the
homicide and ordered to pay the heirs Php 1,000.00 district of San Francisco del Monte, where he also
as indemnity. used to live. Unknown to his employer, he
transferred his residence in Manila, where the
At the time of the accident, Act accident happened resulting to his death. The
3428 was not yet amended, hence the said law used company, however, neither required him or the
the phrase “due to and in pursuance of the former’s employee to work on said day, nor
employment”. Less than a month after the accident, furnished or required its agents to use bicycles.
said phrase was changed to “arising out of and in
the course of employment.” Under the facts obtaining, the
Court said that even if he made collections on that
Rejecting the contention of the Sunday, he did not do so in pursuance of his
petitioner widow, the Court ruled that the words employment, hence, Singer Sewing Machine was
“arising out of” refer to the origin or cause of the not liable for any injury sustained by him.
accident, and are descriptive of its character, while
the words “in the course of” refer to the time, place, The Court, however, opined that
and circumstances under which the accident takes they did not imply that the employee can never
place. recover for injuries suffered while on his way to or
from work, which would depend on the nature of
Quoting the Supreme Court of the employment.
Illinois in the case Mueller Construction Co. vs
Industrial Board, the Court ruled:
Product Liability
“By the use of these words it was
not the intention of the legislature to make the In Coca-Cola Bottler’s
employer an insurer against all accidental injuries Philippines vs Court of Appeals, the Supreme
which might happen to an employee while in the Court defined product liability law as the law that
course of the employment, but only for such governs the liability of manufacturers and sellers
injuries arising from or growing out of the risks for damages resulting from defective products.
peculiar to the nature of the work in the scope of Liability for defective products may be based on
the workman's employment or incidental to such fraud, warranty, or strict liability.
employment, and accidents in which it is possible
to trace the injury to some risk or hazard to which Constitutional Basis
3. Contractual relation between the
Article XVI, Section 9 of the 1987 manufacturers and processors on the one
Constitution provides that the State “shall protect hand and the consumers on the other hand
the consumers from trade malpractices and from is not necessary.
substandard and hazardous products”.
According to Casis, the provision does not
According to Father Joaquin require that the manufacturer or processor
Bernas, the State policy to protect consumers “is knowingly or intentionally use the noxious or
intended not only against traders but also harmful substance. (Torts & Quasi-Delicts, 2012
manufacturers who dump defective, substandard, Edition, pp. 479)
or even hazardous products in the market”. (The
Intent of the 1986 Constitutional Writers, 1995 Casis further stated that Article 2187
Edition, citing Records of the Constitutional “appears to be intended to provide a remedy for the
Commission, Volume V, pp-231-235, as cited by injured consumer regardless of how he came to be
Aquino, Torts & Damages, pp. 712). in possession and use of the product”. (Torts &
Quasi-Delicts, 2012 Edition, pp. 479)
Prior to the enactment of RA 7394 RA 7394
or the Consumer Act of the Philippines, there were
special laws passed by the legislature which protect The Consumer Act of the Philippines was
consumers and impose liability to manufacturers promulgated on 13 April 1992. The law reiterates
and sellers. the State policy to “protect the interests of the
consumer, promote his general welfare, and
In particular, Article 2187 of the Civil establish standards of conduct for business and
Code provides for the strict liability of industry.” (Section 2)
manufacturers and processors of products under
certain circumstances. For purposes of this report, the discussant
will only focus on the pertinent provisions of RA
Article 2187 provides: 7394 on product and service liability, specifically,
Articles 97, 99, 106, and 107.
“Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles, and similar goods Privity of Contract Not Required Under
shall be liable for the death or injuries caused by Articles 97 and 99.
any noxious or harmful substances used, although
no contractual relation exists between them and the Privity of contract is not required under
consumers.” Article 97 and 99 because the responsibility of the
manufacturers is owed to the consumer.
From the provision, the following
can be deduced: Under Article 4 (n), consumer is defined as
any natural person who is a purchaser, lessee,
1. The liability under Article 2187 is recipient or prospective purchaser, lessor or
only for manufacturers and processors of recipient of consumer products, services or credit.
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles, and
similar goods, and does not include the According to Aquino, the term “recipient”
vendors. is broad enough to cover any person who might use
the product even if he was not the one who
2. The liability extends for the death purchased the same. (Torts & Damages, 2016
or injuries caused by any noxious or m Edition, pp. 731)
harmful substances used in foodstuffs,
drinks, toilet articles, and similar goods. Article 97
Article 97 provides:
3. Presentation defect – defects
Article 97. Liability for the resulting from handling, making up,
Defective Products. – Any Filipino or foreign presentation, or packing of the product
manufacturer, producer, and any importer, shall be
liable for redress, independently of fault, for 4. Absence of appropriate warning –
damages caused to consumers by defects resulting defect resulting from the insufficient or
from design, manufacture, construction, assembly inadequate information on the use and
and erection, formulas and handling and making hazards of the products.
up, presentation or packing of their products, as
well as for the insufficient or inadequate Manufacturing Defect
information on the use and hazards thereof.
A manufacturing or production defect is
A product is defective when it one that differs from the manufacturer’s intended
does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it, result or from other ostensibly identical units of the
taking relevant circumstances into consideration, same product line. (Aquino, Torts & Damages,
including but not limited to: 2016 Edition, pp. 733)
2. distribution of goods; or
3. transportation of goods.
Prohibition
Penal Provision