Discussion-torts.docx

March 9, 2019 Torts and Damages IV. Liability a.

Vicarious Liability (Art. 2180) i.

Parents & Guardians

ii.

Owners and Managers of Establishments

iii. State 

ARTICLE 2180 (PAR. 6) -- 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. 

b.

The government may be held liable under this rule only if it first allows itself to be sued through any of the accepted forms of consent. Moreover, the agent performing his regular functions is not a special agent even if he is so denominated at the case at bar.



The Government of the Philippine Islands is not liable in damages for the negligent acts of its regular officers or employees in the performance of their ordinary functions.



The State is responsible only when it acts through a special agent.



The liability of the State has two aspects: 1)

Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts of special agents only; and

2)

Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary employee.



When is the State liable:



SPECIAL AGENT -- If the State’s agent is not a public official, and is commissioned to perform non-governmental functions, then the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for its agent’s tort. Where the government commissions a private individual for a special governmental task, it is acting though a special agent within the meaning of the provision.

Primary/Strict Liability i.

Possessors and Owners of Animals (Art. 2183) 

ARTICLE 2183 -- “The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.”



ELEMENTS: (1) Person in possession of an animal; (2) Animal escapes from the person’s custody; and (3) Animal causes injury to another.



GENERAL RULE: Possessor liable when animal escapes or be lost.



EXCEPTIONS:





force majeure; or



from the fault of the person who has suffered damage

VESTIL v. INTERMIDIATE APPELLATE COURT -- Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal should “escape or be lost” and so be removed from his control. And it does not matter either the dog was tame and was merely provoked by the child into biting her. The law does not speak only of vicious

animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause injury… It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause. 

AFIALDA v. HISOLE -Facts: Deceased Loreto Afialda was employed by the defendant spouses as caretaker of their carabaos at a fixed compensation. On March 21, 1947, while he was tending the animals, he was gored by one of them and consequently died of his injuries. Thus, herein appellant, Loreto’s elder sister who depended on him for support, filed the action for damages. The complaint was dismissed by the trial court upon granting a motion to dismiss filed by spouses Hisole. Subsequently, the plaintiff had taken the present appeal. Issue: Whether or not defendants may be HELD liable for damages when damage is caused to the animal’s caretaker. Ruling: Under Article 1905 of the old Civil Code, the owner of an animal is answerable only for damages caused to a stranger, and that for damage caused to the caretaker of the animal the owner would be liable only if he had been negligent or at fault under Article 1902 of the same code. In the case at hand, the animal was in custody and under the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work as such. Thus, it was his business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. Being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences. Deceased does not fall within the ambit of “stranger”, which is significant for the claim for damages under the said article. Moreover, under the said circumstances, the action should not come under Article 1905 of the Civil Code but under the labor laws, i.e. Workmen’s Compensation Act. The complaint contained no allegation as to constitute liability under the Civil Code or the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Hence, it alleges no cause of action. The order appealed from was affirmed.

ii.

Owners of Motor Vehicles (Art. 2184) 

ARTICLE 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. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. (n)



VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF OWNERS -- The owner of an automobile, present in the vehicle, is not liable for the negligent acts of a competent driver unless such acts are continued for such a length of time as to give the owner a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct the driver to desist therefrom, and to fail to do so. If a competent driver of an automobile in which the owner there of is at the time present, by a sudden act of negligence, without the owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, violates the law, the owner of the automobile is not responsible, either civilly or criminally, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that he, by acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own.



REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IS A REQUISITE FOR OWNER OF A VEHICLE TO BE LIABLE. -- Solidary liability is imposed on the owner of the vehicle not because of his imputed liability but because his own omission is a concurring proximate cause of the injury. This rule was first laid down in Chapman vs. Underwood (27 Phil. 374, 376-377 [1914]), where the Supreme Court explained that the owner who was present is liable if the negligent acts of the driver are

continued for such a length of time so as to give the owner a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct his driver to desist therefrom. An owner who sits in his automobile and permits his driver to continue in violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct the driver to desist therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts. (Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai, No. L-20392, Dec. 18, 1968) 

An owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the said vehicle if the same was driven without his consent or knowledge and by a person not employed by him. (Duavit v. CA, et.al.)



Difference of Art. 2184 with the liabilities of employers in Art. 2180 (5): encompasses all possibilities and with limited liability (owner is in the vehicle and owner could have by use of diligence prevented the misfortune)



Exception: If owner was not in the vehicle…



REGISTERED OWNER RULE -- Well-settled is the rule that the registered owner of the vehicle is liable for quasi-delicts resulting from its use. Thus, even if the vehicle has already been sold, leased, or transferred to another person at the time the vehicle figured in an accident, the registered vehicle owner would still be liable for damages caused by the accident. The sale, transfer or lease of the vehicle, which is not registered with the Land Transportation Office, will not bind third persons aggrieved in an accident involving the vehicle. The compulsory motor vehicle registration underscores the importance of registering the vehicle in the name of the actual owner.

iii. Manufacturers and Possessors (Art. 2187) 

ARTICLE 2187 -- Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers.



Persons Liable: o Manufacturer The strict liability under the Act is imposed on the manufacturer. A manufacturer is “any person who manufactures, assembles or processes consumer products, except that if the goods are manufactured, assembled or processed for another person who attaches his own brand name to the consumer products, the latter shall be deemed the manufacturer. In case of imported products, the manufacturer’s representatives or, in his absence, the importer, shall be deemed the manufacturer.” (Article 4[as], Consumer Act). Thus, a supermarket that sells certain products using its own trademark, is considered the manufacturer even if, in fact, it was produced by another person or entity. o Seller Ordinarily the tradesman or seller is not liable for damages caused by defective products under the Consumer Act. He is liable only when: a) it is not possible to identify the manufacturer, builder, producer or importer; b) the product is supplied, without clear identification of the manufacturer, producer, builder or importer; and c) he does not adequately preserve perishable goods. (Article 98, Consumer Act). A seller under the Act means “a person engaged in the business of selling consumer products directly to consumers. It shall include a supplier or distributor if: (1) the seller is a subsidiary or affiliate of the supplier or distributor; (2) the seller interchanges personnel or maintains common or overlapping officers or directors with the supplier or distributor; or (3) the supplier or distributor provides or exercises supervision, direction or control over the selling practices of the seller.” (Article 4[bn]). On the other hand, a distributor and a supplier are defined as follows

“a) Distributor means any person to whom a consumer product is delivered or sold for purposes of distribution in commerce, except that such term does not include a manufacturer or retailer of such product. b) Supplier means a person, other than a consumer, who in the course of his business, solicits, offers, advertises, or promotes the disposition or supply of a consumer product or who other than the consumer, engages in, enforces, or otherwise participates in a consumer transaction, whether or not any privity of contract actually exists between that person and the consumer, and includes the successor to, or assignee of, any right or obligation on of the supplier.’’ Article 106 provides that “if the damage is caused by a component or part incorporated in the product or service, its manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who incorporated the component or part are jointly liable.” It may happen that the manufacturer was not the one who actually manufactured all the components used in the product. Usually, the manufacturer also gets components or parts from other manufacturers. In such cases, the liability of the persons involved is joint. 

Article 97: A product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it, taking relevant circumstances into consideration, including but not limited to: a)

presentation of product;

b)

use and hazards reasonably expected of it;

c)

the time it was put into circulation.

A product is not considered defective because another better quality product has been placed in the market. 







Article 98: TRADESMAN/SELLER is likewise LIABLE (pursuant to the preceding article): a)

It is not possible to identify the manufacturer, builder, producer or importer;

b)

The product is supplied, without clear identification of the manufacturer, producer, builder or importer;

c)

He does not adequately preserve perishable goods.

Article 99: Service defective when it does not provide the safety the consumer may rightfully expect of it, taking the relevant circumstances into consideration, including but not limited to: a)

The manner in which it is provided;

b)

The result of hazards which may reasonably be expected of it; and

c)

The time when it was provided.

Suppliers are jointly liable for imperfections in the quality of the product when, in due regard for variations inherent thereto, their net content is less than that indicated on the container, packaging, labeling or advertisement, the consumer having powers to demand, alternatively, at his own option: a)

The proportionate price;

b)

The supplementing of weight or measure differential;

c)

The replacement of the product by another of the same kind, mark or model, without said imperfections; and

d)

The immediate reimbursement of the amount paid, with monetary updating without prejudice to losses and damages, if any.

SEE RA 7374 -- The service supplier is liable for any quality imperfections that render the services improper for consumption or decrease their value, and for those resulting from inconsistency with the information contained in the offer or advertisement, the consumer being entitled to demand alternatively at his option: a)

the performance of the services, without any additional cost and when applicable;

b)

the immediate reimbursement of the amount paid, with monetary updating without prejudice to losses and damages, if any;

c)

a proportionate price reduction.

Reperformance of services may be entrusted to duly qualified third parties, at the supplier's risk and cost (Art. 102). iv. Municipal Corporations (Art. 2184, Sec. 24 RA 7160) 

ARTICLE 2189 -- Provinces, cities and municipalities… liable for damages for the death of, or injury suffered by, any person by reason --- specifically --- of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. (City of Manila v. Teotico)



GUILATCO v. CITY OF DAGUPAN, et.al. -- It is not necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province, city or municipality for liability to attach. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. Facts: Florentina Guilatco, a Court Interpreter, was about to board a tricycle along a sidewalk when she accidentally fell into a manhole that was partially covered by a concrete flower pot leaving a gaping hole about 2 ft long by 1 ½ feet wide and 150 cm deep. Florentina suffered a fracture on her right leg and as result thereof, had to be hospitalized. Florentina averred that she suffered mental and physical pain, and that she has difficulty in locomotion. She became incapable of reporting for duty within quite some time and thus lost income. She also lost weight, and is no longer her former jovial self. Florentina sued the City of Dagupan. The City contends that the manhole is owned by the National and the sidewalk on which it is found is located in Perez Blvd., which was also under the supervision of the National Government. While the lower court HELD the City of Dagupan liable, the appellate court reversed the RULING on the ground that no evidence was presented to prove that the City of Dagupan had "control or supervision" over the Boulevard, where the manhole is located. Issue: Whether or not the City of Dagupan is liable for damages? Ruling: Yes. The City of Dagupan is liable for damages. The liability of public corporations for damages arising from injuries suffered by pedestrians by reason of the defective condition of roads is expressed in the Art. 2189 of Civil Code, which states: 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. For liability to attach, it is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province, city or municipality. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. In the case at bar, this control or supervision is provided for in the charter of Dagupan City and is exercised through the City Engineer. This function of supervision over streets, public buildings, and other public works is coursed through a Maintenance Foreman and a Maintenance Engineer. Although these last two officials are employees of the National Government, they are detailed with the City of Dagupan and receive instruction and supervision from the city through the City Engineer. The express provision in the charter holding the city not liable for damages or injuries sustained by persons or property due to the failure of any city officer to enforce the provisions of the charter, cannot be used to exempt the city from liability. The charter only lays down general rules regulating the liability of the city. On the other hand article 2189 applies in particular to the liability arising from "defective streets, public buildings and other public works. Damages were awarded against the City of Dagupan although the street involved is a National Road. Exemplary damages were awarded to serve warning to the city or cities concerned to be more conscious of their duty and responsibility to their constituents, especially when they are engaged in construction work or

when there are manholes on their sidewalks or streets which are uncovered, to immediately cover the same, in order to minimize or prevent accidents to the poor pedestrians. The Court also explained that too often in the zeal to put up “public impact” projects such as beautification drives, the end is more important than the manner in which the work is carried out. Because of this obsession for showing off, such trivial details as misplaced flower pots betray the careless execution of the projects, causing public inconvenience and inviting accidents. v.

Building Proprietors (Art. 2190-2193) 

The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.



Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused: 1)

By the explosion of machinery which has bot been taken care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place;

2)

By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property;

3)

By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure; and

4)

By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place.

vi. Architects and Engineers (Art. 2192 and 1723) 

If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of ANY DEFECT IN THE CONSTRUCTION mentioned in Article 1723, the third person suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed.



Liability of Engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specification: if the building collapses within 15 years due to: (1) A defect in those plans and specifications; or (2) Due to the defects in the ground.



Liability of Contractor: if the edifice falls within 15 years due to: (1) Defects in the construction; (2) The use of materials of inferior quality furnished by the contractor; or (3) Due to any violation of the terms of the contract.

VI. Kindred Torts/Medical Malpractice 

"This is a Medical particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances."



CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP -- The relationship between physician and patient is a consensual one wherein the patient knowingly seeks the assistance of a physician and the physician knowingly accepts him as patient.  NOT DEPENDENT UPON FEES -- The relationship is not dependent upon payment of fees, for a physician may accept a patient and thereby incur the consequent duties although his services are performed gratuitously.  NO DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATION BETWEEN PHYSICIAL AND EXAMINEE -- However, the generally accepted rule is that where a job applicant or employee is examined by a doctor engaged by the prospective or actual employer, there is no doctor-patient relationship between the physician and the examinee.



Physicians have a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances. The breach of these professional duties of skill and care, or their improper performance, by a physician surgeon whereby die patient is injured in body or in health, constitutes ACTIONABLE MALPRACTICE.



It is a universal rule that a physician or surgeon has the duty to use reasonable care and skill in diagnosis and treatment. The standard by which the requirement of reasonable skill and care is determined is the average standard of the profession.



In particular, a doctor has the duty to inform the patient fully of his condition, and of the results of the tests made.



PHYSICIAN’S RIGHT TO WITHDRAW -- It is also the settled rule that one who engages a physician to treat his case impliedly engages him to attend throughout the illness, or until his services are dispensed with, but it is recognized that a physician has the right to withdraw from a case by giving due notice to the patient and affording him the ample opportunity to secure other medical attendance of his own choice. As corollary to the physician's right to withdraw from a case upon giving proper notice, he is also under duty not to abandon the patient and to continue attendance until all the conditions for his rightful withdrawal are complied with.



DOCTORS NOT GUARANTORS OF CARE -- As a general rule, "[djoctors are protected by a special rule of law. They are not guarantors of care. They do not even warrant a good result. They are not insurers against mishaps or unusual consequences. Furthermore they are not liable for honest mistakes of judgment. . ."



FOUR ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: 1)

Duty

2)

Breach

3)

Injury

4)

Proximate Causation



In the ABSENCE OF A SPECIAL CONTRACT, a physician or surgeon is not required to exercise extraordinary skill and care or the highest degree of skill and care possible; but as a general rule, he is only required to possess and exercise the degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and exercised under similar circumstances by the members of his profession in good standing, and to use ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, and his best judgment, in the application of his skill to the case.



LOCALITY RULE -- The locality in which a physician practices is likewise important in determining the degree of skill and care required of him, and the rule is frequently stated that a physician or surgeon is required, or is only required, to exercise the same degree of care and skill exercised by physicians and surgeons in good standing engaged in the same general line of practice in the same locality or neighborhood"



SOME ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONSTITUTING NEGLIGENCE OR MALPRACTICE: a)

wrong diagnosis, when such results from want of requisite skill or care;

b)

Unwarranted abandonment of a case after its assumption, at least where he does not give reasonable notice or provide a competent physician in his place;

c)

Operating without patient's consent where a patient is in possession of his faculties and in such physical health as to be able to consult about his condition, and no emergency exists in making it impracticable to confer with him, or without the consent of the parents, spouse or guardian, in the absence of an emergency;

d)

failing to give the patient or his family or attendants all necessary and proper instructions as to the care and attention to be given to the patient and the cautions to be observed;

e)

allowing a foreign substance to enter or remain in the body of the person operated on, and this extends to the sponges and pads;

f)

failing to give warning when attending to a patient afflicted with contagious or infectious disease,

g)

writing an erroneous prescription; or

h)

issuing wrongful certificate of insanity or inebriety



ERROR IN JUDGMENT RULE -- "a physician is not liable for error in his judgment when he applies ordinary and reasonable skill and care, or his best judgment, or keeps within recognized and approved methods or common practice, or if he forms his judgment after a careful or proper examination or investigation"



RAMOS v. CA --

FACTS: Plaintiff Erlinda Ramos was, until the afternoon of June 17, 1985 a 47-year old robust woman. Except for occasional complaints of discomfort due to pains allegedly caused by presence of a stone in her gall bladder, she was as normal as any other woman. Married to Rogelio Ramos, an executive of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), she has three children whose names are Rommel, Roy Roderick, and Ron Raymond. Because of the discomforts somehow interfered with her normal ways, she sough professional advice. She was told to undergo an operation for the removal of a stone in her gall bladder. She underwent series of examination which revealed that she was fit for the said surgery. Through the intercession of a mutual friend, she and her husband met Dr. Osaka for the first time and she was advised by Dr. Osaka to go under the operation called cholecystectomy and the same was agreed to be scheduled on June 17,1985 at 9:00am at the Delos Santos Medical Center. Rogelio asked Dr. Osaka to look for a good anesthesiologist to which the latter agreed to. A day before the scheduled operation, she was admitted at the hospital and on the day of the operation, Erlinda’s sister was with her insider the operating room. Dr. Osaka arrived at the hospital late, Dr. Guttierez, the anesthesiologist, started to intubate Erlina when Herminda heard her say that intubating Erlinda is quite difficult and there were complications. This prompt Dr. Osaka to order a call to another anesthesiologist, Dr. Caldron who successfully intubated Erlina. The patient’s nails became bluish and the patient was placed in a trendelenburg position. After the operation, Erlina was diagnosed to be suffering from diffuse cerebral parenchymal damage and that the petitioner alleged that this was due to lack of oxygen supply to Erlinda’s brain which resulted from the intubation. ISSUE: Whether or not the doctors and the hospital are liable for damages against petitioner for the result to Erlinda of the said operation. HELD: Yes. The private respondents were unable to disprove the presumption of negligence on their part in the care of Erlinda and their negligence was the proximate case of her piteous condition. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the scope of res ipsa liquitor has been measurably enlarged, it does not automatically follow that it apply to all cases of medical negligence as to mechanically shift the burden of proof to the defendant to show that he is not guilty of the ascribed negligence. Res ipsa liquitor is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used but a rule to be cautiously applied, depending upon the circumstances of each case. It is generally restricted to situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able to say, as a matter of common knowledge and observation, that the consequences of professional care were not as such as would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised. A distinction must be made between the failure to secure results, and the occurrence of something more unusual and not ordinarily found if the service or treatment rendered followed the usual procedure of those skilled in that particular practice. It must be conceded that the doctrine of res ipsa liquitor can have no application in a suit against a physician or surgeon which involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment. Scientific studies point out that intubation problems are responsible for 1/3 of deaths and serious injuries associated with anesthesia. Nevertheless, 98% or the vast majority of difficult intubation may be anticipated by performing a thorough evaluation of the patient’s airway prior to the operation. As stated beforehand, respondent, Dra. Guttierez failed to observe the proper pre-operative protocol which could have prevented this unfortunate incident. Had appropriate diligence and reasonable care been used in the pre-operative evaluation, respondent physician could have been more prepared to meet the contingency brought about by the perceived atomic variations in the patient’s neck and oral area; defects which could have been easily overcome by a prior knowledge of those variations together with a change in technique. In other words, an experienced anesthesiologist, adequately alerted by a thorough pre-operative evaluation, would have had little difficulty going around the short neck and potruding teeth. Having failed to observe common medical standards in pre-operative management and intubation, respondent Dra. Guttierez negligence resulted in cerebral anoxia and eventual coma of Erlinda. 

VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS -- In assessing whether such a relationship in fact exists, the control test is determining. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, for the

purpose of allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians. 

UNIVERSAL RULE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR and APARENT AUTHORITY and RES IPSA LOQUITOR (Ramos v. CA)

VII. Special Torts in Human Relations a.

Abuse of Rights Principle (Art. 19) 

ARTICLE 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.



CARPIO v. VALMONTE -Facts: Respondent Leonora Valmonte is a wedding coordinator. Michelle del Rosario and Jon Sierra engaged her services for their church weddinng on October 10, 1996. At about 4:30 pm on that day, Valmonte went to the Manila Hotel and when she arrived at Suite 326-A, several persons were already there including Soledad Carpio, the aunt of the bride. After reporting to the bride, Valmonte went out of the suite to go to the reception hall to give the meal allowance to the band and to pay the suppliers. Upon entering the suite, Valmonte noticed the people staring at her and it was at this juncture that Soledad Carpio allegedly uttered the following words to Valmonte: “Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, ikaw ang kumuha” It turned out that after Valmonte left the room to attend to her duties, petitioner discovered that the pieces of jewelry which she placed ins i de the comfort room in a paper bag were lost and these include diamond rings, earrings, bracelet and diamong necklace with a total value of about 1M pesos. Valmonte was allegedly bodily searched, interrogated and trailed by the police officers, but the pe titioner kept on saying the words “Siya lang ang lumabas ng kwarto.” Valmonte’s car was also searched but the search yielded nothing. Few days after the incident, petitioner received a letter from Valmonte demanding a formal letter of apology which she wanted to be circulated to the newlyweds’ relatives and guests to redeem her smeared reputation but the petitioner did not respond. Valmonte filed a suit for damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint and ruled that when sought investigation for the loss of her jewelry, she was merely exercising her right and if damage results from a person exercising his legal right, it is damnum absque injuria. It added that no proof was presented by Valmonte to show that petitioner acted maliciously and in bad fai th in pointing to her as the culprit. The CA ruled out differently and opined that Valmonte has clearly established that she was singled out by the petitioner as the one responsible for the loss of her jewelry. However, the court find no sufficient evidence to justify the award of actual damages. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether the respondent is entitled to the award of actual and moral damages Held: The Court ruled that the respondent in entitled to moral damages but not to actual damages. In the sphere of our law on human relations, one of the fundamental precepts is the principle known as “abuse of rights” under Article 19 of the Civil Code. To find existence of an abuse of right, the following elements must be present: 1) there is legal right or duty; 2) which is exercised in bad faith; 3) for the sole intent or prejudicing or injuring another. Thus, a person should be protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his right, that is when he acts with prudence and good faith; but not when he acts with negligence or abuse. The Court said that petitioner’s verbal reproach against respondent was certainly uncalled for considering that by her own account nobody knew that she brought such

kind and amount of jewelry inside the paper bag. This being the case, she had no right to attack respondent with her innuendos which were not merely inquisitve but outrightly accusatory. By openly accusing respondent as the only person who went out of the room before the loss of the jewelry in the presence of all the guests therein, and ordering that she be immediately bodily searched, petitioner virtually branded respondent as the thief. Petitioner had willfully caused injury to respondent in a manner which is contrary to morals and good customs. Certainly, petitioner transgressed the provisions of Article 19 in relation to Article 20 for which she should be held accountable. 

SEA COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. CA, et.al. -- That where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to liability.



ELEMENTS OF AN ABUSE OF RIGHT:





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.

ARTICLE 21 deals with CONTRA BONUS MORES; ELEMENTS: 1)

There is an act which is legal;

2)

but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and

3)

it is done with intent to injure.

SECOND RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW, to recover for the international infliction of emotional distress the plaintiff must show that: a)

The conduct of the defendant was intentional or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff;

b)

The conduct was extreme and outrageous;

c)

There was a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's mental distress; and,

d)

The plaintiff's mental distress was extreme and severe.



ARTICLE 1314 -- provides that Interference any third person who induces another to violate his con- with contractract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting relations party. The tort recognized in that provision is known as interference with contractual relations. The interference is penalized because it violates the property rights of a party in a contract to reap the benefits that should result therefrom (Lagon vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 119107, March 18, 2005).



ELEMENTS OF TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE with contractual relations: a)

existence of a valid contract;

b)

knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of the contract and

c)

interference of the third person without legal justification or excuse.  Knowledge of the contract is important because a defendant in such a case cannot be made liable for interfering with a contract he is unaware of.

MARCH 16, 2019 DAMAGES Damage is the sum of money which the law awards or imposes as pecuniary COMPENSATION, recompense or satisfaction for an injury done. 

imposed (refers to burden of paying) upon PERPETRATOR



Claimed by PERSON INJURED

Damage v. Damages Damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone, the law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. In other words, in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. 

If damage results from a person’s exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria.



Purpose - To compensate the injury



Complaint for damages is a personal action --- it can only be brought forth by the person concerned.



If injury is composed of personal property (eg cp), can the court just order the loss of the cellphone with another? Every loss or injury must be equated with its monetary value.



When you are injured, sustained damage, are you automatically entitled to damages? No. You must prove that injury was made.



Proof of loss - pecuniary damages



INJURY OR INVASION OF RIGHT - that is the basis not only physical or actual losses, so long as your right has been invaded, you are entitled to damages. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA (#3 - page 144)



6 kinds of damages (forms) - MORAL, EXEMPLARY, NOMINAL, TEMPERATE, ACTUAL, LIQUIDATED

ACTUAL DAMAGES Actual and compensatory damages - are those recoverable because of pecuniary loss - in business, trade, property, profession, job or occupation. 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. Actual damages, under the American system, include pecuniary recompense for pain and suffering, injured feelings, and the like. Actual damages in the Philippines do not extend to such incidents. Aside from this exception, actual damages, in this jurisdiction, in the sense that they mean just compensation for the loss suffered, are practically synonymous with actual damages under the American system (Algarra vs. Sandejas, G.R. No. 8385, March 24, 1914). In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages and quasi- which may be awarded are dependent on whether the contracts obligor acted with good faith or otherwise. In case of good faith, the damages recoverable are those which 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 of the constitution of the obligation. If the obligor acted with fraud, bad faith, malice, or wanton attitude, he shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation (Art. 2201, NCC). In actions based on torts or quasi-delicts, actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is the loss of what a person already possesses (dano emergente), and the other is the failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro

cesante) (Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation vs. People, et al, G.R. No. 152040, March 31, 2006). In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of, whether or not such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant (Public Estates Authority vs. Chu, G.R. No. 145291, September 21, 2005). In the United States, this rule is otherwise referred to as the eggshell skull rule (or thin-skull rule) which makes an individual responsible for all the consequences of his act, whether foreseen or unforeseen. The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor or assailant who did not know of that condition were to tap that person on the head, causing the skull to break, the responsible party would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even though they were not foreseeable. The general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victim as they find them" (Internet-http:// www.answers.com/ / torts). 

Actual losses - pertains to losses caused by injuries



Future income, future rentals, future harvest is included.



Can Future income be awarded with concurrent losses - YES

Anent the amount of lost income, the formula for its computation is "Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 x (80 - age at time of death) x (gross annual income — reasonable and necessary living expenses)]" (People vs. Sia, et al, G.R. No. 137457, 21 November 2001). In the absence of proof of living expenses of the deceased, net earnings are computed at fifty (50%) percent of the gross Earnings. 

What if the one who was killed was a student, is it necessary that the person who can claim for earning capacity even the person killed is a student? 

Formula - loss of earning capacity



A student was hit by your car, causing a fracture on his pinky toe, because of this there was an infection which caused his eventual death. What are you liable? ARTICLE 2202, 2203 (In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of, whether or not such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.)



Construction of bldng -> defect -> death - liable to all



Construction of bldng -> defect -> injury -> infection - liable



Construction of bldng -> defect in Good Faith -> injury/death - article 2201

QUASI AND DELICTS - ALL POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES, presuposes intent CONTRACTS - GOOD FAITH factor, those that can only be reasonably foreseen BURDEN OF PROOF - HE WHO ALLEGES ABSENCE OF PRECISE AMOUNT - NOT FATAL, TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGE IN PLACE OF ACTUAL DAMAGES, BASIS OF PROPERTY - REAL VALUE - WEAR AND TEAR, REAL PROP-MARKET VALUE USUFRUCT - POSSIBLE

ATTORNEY’S FEES - When awarded? See #32, page 157 Legal interest - 6% In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees 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; (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime; (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded; (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered (Article 2208, NCC). Provisions on mitigation of liabilitues Article 2203, 2204, 2214 (contibutory negligence) MORAL DAMAGES 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 or omission (Art. 2217, NCC). Limited to physical sufferings xxx sleepless nights Purpose - to compensate; Moral damages are awarded to compensate one for manifold injuries such as physical suffering, mental anguish, serious, anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation. In order that an award of moral damages can be aptly justified, the claimant must be able to satisfactorily prove that he has suffered such damages and that the injury causing it has sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Then, too, the damages must be shown to be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. The claimant must establish the factual basis of the damages and its causal tie with the acts of the defendant. Basis: factors determining the amount - FACTUAL (SEE #3, PAGE 161) EXTENT OF HUMILIATION PAIN OR SUFFERING OFFICIAL POLITICAL SOCIAL STANDING AGE CORPORATION - is it entitled to moral damages? NO. Exception: libel, besmirched reputation Is there moral damages in breach of contracts? #13 page 164, only awarded if there is bad faith, fraud or wanton chu2 Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35 (Art. 2219, NCC).

NOMINAL DAMAGE -Article 2221-2223 Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, "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." 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 (Article 2222, Civil Code of the Philippines). Can nominal damage co-exist with moral damages? YES Nominal + actual - YES Nominal + exemplary - yes Nominal + temperate/moderate - no Nominal + Liquidated - no When you are awarded with actual - presuposes that a right has been violated LABOR LAWS - afford employee due process even if there is just cause otherwise nominal TEMPERATE AND ACTUAL - YES #6 PAGE 195 Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty (Art. 2224, Civil Code). Liquidated - not in quasi and delict and in quasi contract, only contracts Includes attorney’s fees Purpose: (two fold) - avoid inconvenience of submiting proof + deter the contracting party from violating terms of contracts ONLY APPLIES IN CONTRACTS EXEMPLARY - corrective, used to be punitive damages Required as public policy to suppress wanton acts, reprehensible acts BASIS

EXAMS KINDRED SPECIAL DAMAGES PRIMARY AND STRICT LIABILITY FOCUS ON PRINCIPLES NOT TOO MUCH ON THE CASES