BOOK I – TORTS I. PRINCIPLES
A. ABUSE OF RIGHT; ELEMENTS
Q: What is the principle of abuse of rights?
A: 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. (Art. 19, NCC)
NOTE: This principle is based upon the famous maxim suum jus summa injuria (the abuse of a right is the greatest possible wrong). (Arlegui v. CA G.R.
No. 126437, Mar. 6, 2002)
Q: What are the elements of the principle of abuse of rights?
A:
1. Legal right or duty
2. The right or duty is exercised in bad faith, and
3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another
B. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Q: What is the principle behind the prohibition against unjust enrichment?
A: “Nemo cum alteris detrimento locupletari potest” or no one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another.
Coverage: the article applies only if:
i. Someone acquires or comes into possession of “something” which means delivery or acquisition of “things”; and ii. Acquisition is undue and at the expense
of another which means without any just or legal ground.
NOTE: The government is not exempted from the principle of unjust enrichment.
Q: What is the remedy for unjust enrichment?
A: Accion In Rem Verso. It is an action for recovery of what has been paid without just cause.
NOTE: This is only a subsidiary action.
NOTE: Mistake is not an essential element, as opposed to solutio indebiti where mistake is an essential element.
Protection of Human Dignity – Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.
Q: What are the requisites for accion in rem verso?
A:
1. That the defendant has been enriched;
2. That the plaintiff has suffered a loss;
3. That the enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal ground
4. That the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi‐contract, crime or quasi‐delict.
Q: When may accion in rem verso be availed of?
A: It can only be availed of if there is no other remedy to enforce it based on contract, quasi‐
contract, crime or quasi‐delict.
Q: Distinguish accion in rem verso from solutio indebiti.
A:
ACCION IN REM VERSO SOLUTIO INDEBITI It is not necessary that
payment be made by mistake
Payment by mistake is an essential element
Q: Is rendition of services included under Art.
22?
A: No. If services were rendered by someone benefiting another, it does not mean that the latter is exempted from indemnifying the former.
The liability will lie on quasi‐contract under Article 2146.
C. LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT
Q: Is Liability Without Fault different with Damnum Absque Injuria?
A: Yes. Liability without Fault includes:
a. Strict Liability – there is strict liability if one is made independent of fault, negligence or intent after establishing certain facts specified by law. It includes liability for conversion and for injuries caused by animals, ultra‐hazardous activities and nuisance.
b. Product Liability – is the law which governs the liability of manufacturers and sellers for damages resulting from defective products. (Aquino, T., Torts and Damages, 2005, Second Ed.)
Q: What is the concept of Damnum Absque Injuria?
A: A person who only exercises his legal rights does no injury. If damages result from such exercise of legal rights, 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.
501
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S F a c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o C i v i l
ACADEMICS CHAIR: LESTER JAY ALAN E. FLORES II
VICE CHAIRS FOR ACADEMICS: KAREN JOY G. SABUGO & JOHN HENRY C. MENDOZA VICE CHAIR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE: JEANELLE C. LEE
VICE CHAIRS FOR LAY‐OUT AND DESIGN: EARL LOUIE M. MASACAYAN & THEENA C. MARTINEZ
Q: Is the owner of a property obliged to take reasonable care towards a trespasser for his protection or from concealed danger?
A:
GR: No.
XPN:
1. Visitors – Owners of buildings or premises owe a duty of care to visitors.
2. Tolerated Posession – The owner is still liable if the plaintiff is inside his property by tolerance or by implied permission.
Common carriers may be held liable for negligence to persons who stay in their premises even if they are not passengers.
3. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
4. State of Necessity (Art. 432) – A situation of present danger to legally protected interests, in which there is no other remedy than the injuring of another’s also legally protected interest.
D. ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW
Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. (Art. 20, NCC)
Q: Does the above stated rule apply to all cases violation of law?
A: No. Generally, laws provide for their own sanctions and methods of enforcement thereof.
Article 20 applies only in cases where the law does not provide for its own sanction. Said article provides for a general sanction –indemnification for damages. (Pineda, 2004)
Q: In view of the general sanction provided for under Art. 20, may a person have an absolute right to be indemnified?
A: No. It is essential that some right of his be impaired. Without such, he is not entitled to indemnification. (Pineda, 2004)
E. ACTS CONTRARY TO MORALS
Q: Differentiate Article 20 from Article 21 of the Civil Code.
A: Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction. Article 21 on the other hand, speaks of act which is legal but is contrary to morals, good custom, public order or public policy and is done with intent to injure.
NOTE: 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. (Art. 21, NCC)
Q: What are the elements of acts contra bonus mores under Art. 21, NCC?
A:
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.
Q: When is breach of promise to marry an actionable wrong?
A: It becomes actionable if there are additional circumstances such as:
1. there was financial damage;
2. social humiliation was caused by to one of the parties; and,
3. where there was moral seduction.
(Aquino, T., Torts and Damages, Second Ed., p351)
II. CLASSIFICATION OF TORTS
A. ACCORDING TO MANNER OF COMMISSION
Q: What are the classes of torts according to manner of commission?
A:
1. Negligent torts – It involves voluntary acts or omissions which results in injury to others, without intending to cause the same.
2. Intentional torts – The actor desires to cause the consequences of his act or believes the consequences are substantially certain to result therefrom.
3. Strict liability – The person is made liable independent of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts.
4. Constitutional torts – The violation of a person’s rights under Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution as contemplated in Article 32 constitutes constitutional tort.
5.
B. ACCORDING TO SCOPE: GENERAL OR SPECIFIC
6.
1. General – the catch‐all provisions on torts provided for in the civil code i.e.
Articles 19, 20 and 21. The effect is that
“there is a general duty owed to every person not to cause harm either willfully or negligently. Articles 19, 20, and 21 are provisions on human relations that “were intended to expand the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide for in the statutes.” (Aquino, 2005, citing PNB v.
CA, et al. 83 SCRA 237)
2. Specific torts ‐ It includes trespass, assault and battery, negligence, products liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As defined, torts fall into three different categories: intentional, negligent and liability (manufacturing and selling defective products), product liability tort.
a. art 19, 20, 21 (catch‐all provisions)
b. unjust enrichment (arts. 22, 23, 2142 & 2143)
c. violation of right of privacy and family relations
d. dereliction of official duty of public officers
e. unfair competition f. malicious prosecution
g. violation of rights and liberties of another person
h. nuisance
III. THE TORTFEASOR
A. THE DIRECT TORTFEASOR
Q: Who are the persons liable for a quasi‐delict?
A: Defendants in tort cases can either be natural or artificial beings.
Q: Can a corporation be held liable for torts?
A: Yes. A corporation is civilly liable in the same manner as natural persons. (PNB v. CA, 83 SCRA 237)
NOTE: With respect to close corporations, the stockholders who are personally involved in the operation of the corporation may be personally liable for corporate torts under Section 100 of the Corporation Code.
RE: Corporation by Estoppel: all persons who assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result thereof.
With respect to partnerships, the partnership is solidarily liable with the partner if the latter commit tortuous acts while acting in the pursuit of partnership business. This principle is consistent with the mutual agency rule in partnership.
Subject to rules regarding waiver of immunity from suits, defendants may include the State, its political subdivisions, and government‐owned and controlled corporations.
B. PERSONS MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR OTHERS
503
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S F a c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o C i v i l
ACADEMICS CHAIR: LESTER JAY ALAN E. FLORES II
VICE CHAIRS FOR ACADEMICS: KAREN JOY G. SABUGO & JOHN HENRY C. MENDOZA VICE CHAIR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE: JEANELLE C. LEE
VICE CHAIRS FOR LAY‐OUT AND DESIGN: EARL LOUIE M. MASACAYAN & THEENA C. MARTINEZ
1. IN GENERAL
Q: Who are the persons made responsible for others?
A:
1. Father/ mother for their minor children.
2. Guardians are liable for the minors and incapacitated persons under their authority.
3. Owners/managers of establishment or enterprise for their employees
4. Employers for their employees and household helpers.
5. State for their special agents
6. Teachers/Heads of establishment of arts and trades for their pupils/students/apprentices (Art. 2180, NCC).
Q: What is the difference between a minor child and an incapacitated person in the preceding number?
A: Minors here refer to those who are below twenty‐one years (21) and not to those below 18 years. While incapacitated persons refer to persons beyond twenty‐one (21) years of age but are incapacitated such as those who are insane or imbecile. (Pineda, Torsts and Damages, 2009, p.81)
Q: What are the requisites of vicarious liability of parents?
A:
1. The child is below twenty‐one (21) years of age
2. The child committed a tortuous act to the damage and prejudice of another person
3. The child lives in the company of the parent concerned whether single or married.
Q: Who is responsible for an illegitimate child?
A: If the child is illegitimate and acknowledged by the father and lives with the latter, the father is responsible. However, an illegitimate child who is not recognized by the putative father but is under the custody and supervision of the mother, it is the latter who is the one vicariously liable.
Q: Is the mother liable simultaneously with the father?
A: No. The law does not make the father and mother simultaneously liable. It is only in the case of death or incapacity of the father, that the mother may be held liable.
NOTE: Consequently, the wife as a co‐defendant with the husband or if impleaded alone while the husband is alive and well, may move to dismiss the case filed against her for being premature. (Romano v. Parinas, 101 Phil. 141)
Q: Are de facto guardians vicariously liable?
A: Yes. It is but just that if the children commit tortuous acts while living with them and are below 21 years of age, the law should be applied by analogy.
Note: De facto guardians are relatives and neighbors who take unto themselves the duty to care and support orphaned children without passing through judicial proceedings.
Q: What is the rule in vicarious liability of owners and managers?
A:
GR: A mere manager, who does not own the business, is not to be considered an employer because as a manager, he is just a high class employee.
XPN: A manager who is not an owner but who assumes the responsibility of supervision over the employees of the owner may be held liable for the acts of the employees.
NOTE: To be liable, the manager must be acting as an employer of with the same authority as the owner.
Q: When is the employer liable for the tortuous act of the employee?
A: To make the employer liable under Art 2180(5 and 6), it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was performing his functions.
Note: If there is deviation from the scope of employment, the employer is not liable, no matter how short in time is the deviation.
(Pineda, Torsts and Damages, 2009, p.97)
Q: What is the rule on independent contractors?
A:
GR: An independent contractor is not an employee of the person who engaged his services. The independent contractor is free to execute the work without being subject to the orders of the employer on the details of work.
XPN: If the employer retains the control and supervision over the person engaged with respect to the work to be done, there is between them an employer‐employee relationship.
A. QUASI‐DELICTS UNDER ARTICLE 2180, HOW INTERPRETED
Q: How is quasi‐delict under Art. 2180 interpreted?
A: A person or juridical entity is made liable solidarily with a tortfeasor simply by reason of his relationship with the latter. The relationship may either be a parent and child; guardian and ward;
employer and employee; school and student.
NOTE: Art. 2176, NCC ‐ Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being no 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.
Q: When is the actual tortfeasor not exempted from liability?
A: The minor, ward, employee, special agent, pupil, students and apprentices who actually committed the delictual acts are not exempted by the law from personal responsibility. They may be sued and made liable alone as when the person responsible for them or vicarious obligor proves that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family or when the minor or insane person has no parents or guardians. In the latter instance, they are answerable with their own property.
Q: What are the remedies of an injured party for the tortuous act of an employee?
A:
1. Filing a civil action for damages based on quasi‐delict under Art. 2180 – liability of the employer is primary, direct and solidary
2. Filing a criminal case: (offender found guilty) the civil liability of the employer is subsidiary.
Q: What is the defense for the persons liable under Art. 2180?
A: The persons liable shall be exempted from liability if they can prove that they have exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
Q: What is the basis of quasi‐delicts under Art.
2180?
A: Pater Familias. The reason for the master’s liability is the negligence in the supervision of his subordinates.
Note: The “master”, however, in pater familias under Art. 2180 will be freed from liability if he can prove that he had observed all the diligence of a good father of a family.
Q: What is the nature of responsibility if the vicarious obligor?
A: The liability of the vicarious obligor is primary and direct and not subsidiary. He is solidarily liable with the tortfeasor. His responsibility is not conditioned upon the insolvency of or prior recourse against the negligent tortfeasor.
FAMILY CODE
Q: Who is a minor under Art 221 of the Family Code?
A: The term “unemancipated minor” found in Art 221(FC) means children below 18 years of age.
This is in contrast with the “minor children” found in Art 2180(2)(NCC) which refers to children below 21 years. To avoid the overlapping in ages, the better option to settle the conflict is to consider Art 221 as totally superseded by Art 236(FC) as amended by R.A. 6809. Thus:
GR: 18 years of age – parental authority ceases (emancipation)
XPNS: 21 years of age in the following cases 1. marriage
2. Art. 2180(2) NCC
Note: Art 221. Family Code provides that parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the act or omission or their unemancipated