Group-1-torts-and-damages.docx

TORTS AND DAMAGES

I.

THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

A. THE CONCEPT OF A TORT

1. TORT IN COMMON LAW

a. Etymology

Quasi-delict is what is known as“Tort” in Anglo-American Law. It is taken directly from the French word and is a derivation of the Latin word “torquere” or “tortus” meaning to twist or crook. The term was adopted in the old English language but it gradually disappeared from common usage as a general synonym for wrong.

b. Definition

TORT is an unlawful violation of private right, not created by contract, and which gives rise to an action for damages. It is an act or omission producing injury to another, without any previous existing lawful relation of which the said act or omission may be said to be a natural outgrowth or incident.

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.

c. Common Theme

It is a legal wrong committed upon person or property independent of contract.

2. TORT UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW

a.

Existence of Philippine Tort Law

I. Intent of the framers

The framers of the Code, seeking to remedy the defect of the old Code which merely stated the effects of the law, but failed to draw out its spirit, incorporated certain fundamental precepts which were "designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of

good conscience" and which were also meant to serve as "for human conduct [that] should run as golden threads through society, to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal, which is the sway and dominance of justice."

To fix the dividing lines between those cases in which a man is liable for harm which he has done, and those in which he is not.

II. Civil Code Test

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 preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

limited to negligent act or omission and excludes willingness or intent

b. Scope of Philippine Tort Law

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.

Article 20 provides that every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Article. 21. Any person who willfully 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.

Thus, if the provision does not provide a remedy for its violation, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code would be proper.

c.

Definition of tort under Philippine Law

NAGUIAT vs. NLRC[ G.R. No. 116123 March 13, 1997]

“tort” consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law. Simply stated, tort is a breach of a legal duty.

VINZONS-CHATO v. FORTUNE[ G.R. No. 168512 June 19, 2007]

A tort is a wrong, a tortuous act which has been defined as the commission or omission of an act by one, without right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation.

Civil liability in tort is determined by the conduct and not by the mental state of the tortfeasor, and there are circumstances under which the motive of the defendant has been rendered immaterial.

D. Elements of Tort

ELEMENTS OF TORTS 1.Act or omission; 2.Damage or injury is caused to another; 3.Fault or negligence is present; 4.There is no pre-existing contractual relations between the parties; 5.Causal connection between damage done and act/omission.

GARCIA v. SALVADOR[ G.R. No. 168512 March 20, 2007] 1.Duty; 2.Breach; 3.Injury; 4.Proximate causation.

LUCAS v. TUAŇO[ G.R. No. 178763 April 29, 2007] 1.Duty - to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence; 2.There is breach of duty of care, skill and diligence, or the improper performance of such duty, when the patient is injured; 3.Negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. And the proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

3. PURPOSE OF TORT LAW

1.To provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might otherwise take the law into their own hands; 2.Deter wrongful conduct; 3.To encourage socially responsible behavior; and 4.To restore injured parties to their original condition, insofar as the law can do this, by compensating them for their injury.

B. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI DELICT

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

FAUSTO BARREDO v. SEVERINO GARCIA AND TIMOTEA ALMARIO [ G.R. No. L-48006, July 8, 1942]

Doctrines: Quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana" is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime. Upon this principle and on the wording and spirit article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.

PEDRO ELCANO, ET AL., V. REGINAL HILL ET AL.

Doctrines: Acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him. The marriage of a minor child does not relieve the parents of the duty to see to it that the child, while still a minor, does not give answerable for the borrowings of money and alienation or encumbering of real property which cannot be done by their minor married child without their consent.

2. Nature

Art. 1157. Obligations arise from: 1.Law; 2.Contracts; 3. Quasi-contracts; 4.Acts or omissions punished by law; and 5.Quasi-delicts. (1089a)

3. Governing Provisions

Art. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws. (1093a)

4. Definition

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. (1902a)

5. Scope

a.

Intentional Acts

JOSE CANGCO v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.[ 30 Phil 768]

If the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the selection and direction of the servant, he is not liable for the acts of the latter, whatever done within the scope of his employment or not, if the damage done by the servant does not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person injured.

The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has caused damage to another.

ELCANO v. HILL[ 77 SCRA 100 – May 26, 1977]

While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place “by the marriage

of the minor child”, it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus “Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over the child’s person. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian.”

NATIVIDAD ANDAMO, ET AL., v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ET AL. (1990)

The adjoining landowners have mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each must use his own land in a reasonable manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others. Although we recognize the right of an owner to build structures on his land, such structures must be so constructed and maintained using all reasonable care so that they cannot be dangerous to adjoining landowners and can withstand the usual and expected forces of nature. If the structures cause injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third person, the latter can claim indemnification for the injury or damage suffered.

GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH v. COURT OF APPEALS[ 219 SCRA 115]

Article 21 of the Civil Code which provides: Any person who willfully 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.

Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. Article 21 was meant to expand the concepts of torts and quasi delict. It is meant to cover situations such as this case where the breach complained of is not strictly covered by existing laws. It was meant as a legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books – such as the absence of a law penalizing a the breach of promise to marry.

b. Damage to Property

PORFIRIO P. CINCO v. HON. MATEO CANONOY ET AL. (1979)[ G.R. No. L33171 May 31, 1979]

Nature and character of his action was quasi-delictual predicated principally on Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant primary and direct responsibility of employers and their presumed negligence are principles calculated to protect society.

The separate and independent civil action for a quasi-delict is also clearly recognized in Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 3. When civil action may proceed independently.—In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. Secs. 3(a) and 3(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which should be suspended after the criminal action has been instituted is that arising from the criminal offense not the civil action based on quasi-delict. 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. Article 2176 of the Civil Code (supra), is so broad that it includes not only injuries to persons but also damage to property The word "damage" is used in two concepts: the "harm" done and "reparation" for the harm done.

6. ELEMENTS

NATIVIDAD v. ANDAMO, ET AL., V. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ET AL. (1990)

All the Elements of a Quasi-delict are Present, to wit: (a) Damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; (c) The connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.

C.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TORT AND QUASI-DELICT

QUASI-DELICT is HOMOLOGOUS BUT NOT IDENTICAL to tort under the common law, which includes not only negligence, but also intentional criminal acts, such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit.

1.District Concept

Spanish concept: Quasi-delict is a civil law concept.

Anglo-American or common law concept: TORT is broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence , but intentional criminal acts as well, viz., assault and battery, deceit and the like.

Philippine concept: Torts is the blending of common-law and civil law system

2.Framework

In Philippines legal system (envision by the commission responsible for the drafting of the NCC): intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions are to be governed by the RPN, while negligent acts or omissions are to be governed by the CC.

The term quasi-delict was deliberately used by the code commission to designate obligations which do not arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or criminal offenses. The term tort was not used because it is broader in coverage as it covers, acts which are intentional or malicious, which latter acts in the general plan of the Philippine legal system,are governed by the Penal code (see: Report, Code Commission, pp. 161-162) The province of torts is wrongs (imposed as rules of law) and the province of contract is agreements or promises (created by promises of parties (H.De Leon).

D. QUASI-DELICT AND DELICT

1.Distinguishing Quasi-Delict and Delict

1 .

BASIS Legal basis of liability

2 .

Criminal Intent

3

Nature of

QUASI-DELICT There can be a quasi-delict as long as there is fault or negligence resulting in damage or injury to another. It is broader in scope than crime Criminal intent is not necessary for quasi-delict to exist. Fault or negligence without intent will suffice. Right violated is a private right.

DELICT OR CRIME There can be no crime unless there is a law clearly punishment the act. Criminal intent is essential for criminal liability to exist Right violated is a public one.

.

right violated Liability for damages

Quasi-delict is a wrongful act against a private individual. Every quasi-delict give rise to liability for damages

5 .

Proofs needed

6 .

Sanction or penalty

Proof of the fault or negligence requires only preponderance of evidence Reparation or indemnification of the injury or damage

4 .

Crime is wrong against the state. Some crime (e.g. contempt, illegal possession of firearm) do not give rise to liability for damages The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt Punishment is either imprisonment, fine or both; sometimes other accessory penalties are imposed

BARREDO V. GARCIA,

Quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code of the Philippines is entirely distinct and independent from a delict or crime under the Revised Penal Code.

2.

Overlap Between Quasi-Delict and Delict

BARREDO v. GARCIA

The same negligent act causing damage may produce civil liability (subsidiary) arising from a crime under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines; or create an action for quasi-delicto or culpa aquiliana under Articles 2179 and 2180 of the Civil Code and the parties are free to choose which course to take.

In the instant case, the negligent act of Fontanilla produces two (2) liabilities of Barredo:

1. a subsidiary one because of the civil liability of Fontanilla arising from the latter’scriminal negligence under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, and

2.Barredo’s primary and direct responsibility arising from his presumed negligence as an employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Since the plaintiffs are free to choose what

remedy to take, they preferred the second, which is within their rights. This is the more expeditious and effective method of relief because Fontanilla was either in prison or just been released or had no property. Barredo was held liable for damages.

ELCANO V. HILL

Art. 2176 covers not only punishable by law, but also criminal in character, whether intentional, voluntary, or negligent. Civil action lays even the acquittal in criminal case Culpa Aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.

ANDAMO V. IAC

The recitals of the complaint, the alleged presence of damage to the petitioners, the act or omission of Respondent Corporation supposedly constituting fault or negligence, and the causal connection between the act and the damage, with no pre-existing contractual obligation between the parties make a clear case of a quasi delict or culpa aquiliana.

L.G. FOODS V. PHILDELFA[ G.R. No. 158995, Sept. 26, 2006]

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the liability of the employer is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of insolvency of such employee.