Civil Law SUMMER REVIEWER TORTS AND DAMAGES CHAPTER 1: CONCEPT OF TORTS PDF

Preview

Summary

ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Civil Law SUMMER REVIEWER TORTS AND DAMAGES CONTRACT QUASI DELICT Pre- There is a pre- No pre-existing CHAPTER 1: CONCEPT OF TORTS existing existing contract contract contract Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes Burden of Contractual Victim. damage to anot...

Description

ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 Civil Law SUMMER REVIEWER TORTS AND DAMAGES CHAPTER 1: CONCEPT OF TORTS 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. (1902a)

Preexisting contract Burden of proof

ELEMENTS OF QUASI DELICT/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

Vinculum Juris

NEGLIGENCE • The omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of the persons, time and place. (Art. 1173, NCC)

Proof Needed Defense available

KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE 1. Quasi delict (Art. 2176 NCC) 2. Criminal negligence (Art. 356 RPC) 3. Contractual negligence (NCC provisions on contracts particularly Arts. 1170 to 1174) DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER SOURCES OF OBLIGATION:

Vinculum Juris Proof Needed Defense available

CONTRACT Contract

QUASI DELICT Negligent act/ omission (culpa, imprudence) Preponderance Preponderance of evidence of evidence Exercise of Exercise of QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor extraordinary diligence of are needed to see this picture. diligence (in good father of a contract of family in the carriage), Force selection and Majeure supervision of employees

Preexisting contract Burden of proof

CONTRACT There is a preexisting contract

QUASI DELICT No pre-existing contract

Contractual party. Prove the ff.: 1. existence of a contract 2. breach

Victim. Prove the ff.: damage 1. negligence 2. causal connection between negligence and damage done

CONTRACT Contract

DELICT Act / omission committed by means of dolo (deliberate, malicious, in bad faith) Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Preponderance of evidence Exercise of extraordinary diligence (in contract of carriage), Force Majeure There is a preexisting contract Contractual party. Prove the ff.: 1. existence of a contract 2. breach

No pre-existing contract Prosecution. Accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.

CIVIL LIABILITY IN QUASI-DELICT VS. DELICT

Liability of Employer Reservation Requirement

QUASI DELICT Solidary

DELICT Subsidiary

Civil aspect of the quasi-delict is impliedly instituted with criminal action,

Civil aspect is Impliedly instituted with criminal action

—Adviser: Dean Cynthia del Castillo Head: Joy Ponsaran, Eleanor Mateo; Understudy: Joy Tajan, John Paul Lim; Subject Head: Jomi Legaspi;

Civil Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007

Effect of judgment of acquittal in a criminal case involving same act/omission

•

but under 2000 Crimpro Rules it is independent and separate Not a bar to recover civil damages EXCEPT when judgment pronounces that the negligence from which damage arise is non-existent

Not a bar to recover civil damages

GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY (pater familias) • The only standard of conduct used in the Philippines (Art. 1173 NCC) • A reasonable man is deemed to have knowledge of the facts that a man should be expected to know based on ordinary human experience. Corliss v. Manila Railroad – The law presumes or requires a man to possess ordinary capacity to avoid harming his neighbors unless a clear and manifest incapacity is shown and the law does not hold him liable for unintentional injury unless, possessing such capacity, he might and ought to have foreseen the danger.

NOTE: It is an existing doctrine that the failure of the court to make any pronouncement, favorable or unfavorable, as to the civil liability of the accused amounts to a reservation of the right to have the civil liability litigated and determined in a separate action. The rules nowhere provide that if the court fails to determine the civil liability it becomes no longer enforceable Castillo v. CA, 176 SCRA 591– A quasidelict 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 a delict or crime — a distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extracontractual.

TESTS OF NEGLIGENCE • Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? • If not, then he is guilty of negligence • Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course pursued? QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor • If so, it as the duty the actor to take are needed to seeof this picture. precautions to guard against harm CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER • Time • Place • Personal circumstances of the Actors

Corliss v. Manila Railroad – The law works only within the sphere of the senses. Moral consideration are not normally accorded great weight.The knowledge and experience of the actor is also considered in determining whether he observed due diligence.

CHAPTER 2: SPECIAL RULES 1. CHILDREN •

The action of the child will not necessarily be judged according to the standard of an adult. But if the minor is mature enough to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of his actions, he will be considered negligent if he fails to exercise due care and precaution in the commission of such acts. Taylor v. Meralco, 16 Phil 8 – The law fixes no arbitrary age at which a minor can be said to have the necessary capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of his acts

•

•

NOTE: Applying the provisions of the RPC, Judge Sangco takes the view that a child who is 9 or below is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence. On the other hand, if the child is above 9 years but below 15, there is a disputable presumption of absence or negligence. Absence of negligence does not necessarily mean absence of liability. A child under 9 years Page 237 of 297

Civil Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 •

can still be subsidiarily liable with his property (Art. 100 RPC) Absence of negligence of the child may not excuse the parents from their vicarious liability under Art. 2180 NCC or Art. 221 FC.

2. PHYSICAL DISABILITY •

•

GENERAL RULE: a weak or accident prone person must come up to the standard of a reasonable man, otherwise, he will be considered as negligent Exception: If the defect amounts to a real disability, the standard of conduct is that of a reasonable person under like disability.

3. EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS Fernando v. CA – They should exhibit the case and skill of one who is ordinarily skilled in the particular field that he is in; The rule regarding experts is applicable not only to professionals who have undergone formal education 4. NATURE OF ACTIVITY •

There are activities which by nature impose duties to exercise a higher degree of diligence (ex. Banks, Common Carriers)

5. INTOXICATION •

GENERAL RULE: Wright v. Manila Electric – Mere intoxication is not negligence nor establishes want of ordinary care. But it may be considered to prove negligence.

•

EXCEPTION: Under Art. 2185 of the NCC it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation

6. INSANITY •

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

An insane person is exempt from liability. However, by express provision of law, there may be civil liability even when the perpetrator is held to be exempt from criminal liability. The insanity of a person does not excuse him or his guardian from liability based on quasi delict (Art. 2180 and 2182 NCC)

CHAPTER 3: WHAT MUST BE PROVED 1. NEGLIGENCE - plaintiff must prove negligence of defendant Exceptions: a. In cases where negligence is presumed or imputed by law this is only rebuttable/presumption juris tantum b. Principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) - grounded on the difficulty in proving thru competent evidence, public policy considerations 2. DAMAGE / INJURY 3. CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN NEGLIGENCE AND DAMAGE – Defendant’s negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the plaintiff to enable plaintiff to recover. Thus, if plaintiff’s own conduct is the cause of the injury there can be no recovery. •

NOTE: If plaintiff's negligence is only contributory, he is considered partly responsible only. Plaintiff may still recover from defendant but the award may be reduced by the courts in proportion to his own negligence Proximate Cause – the adequate and efficient cause which in the natural order of events and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, would naturally produce the event

CHAPTER 4: DEFENSES 1. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - the plaintiff was also negligent together with the defendant; to constitute a defense, proximate cause of injury/damage must be the negligence of defendant 2. CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE – if both parties are equally negligent the courts will leave them as they are; there can be no recovery 3. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE - even though a person’s own acts may have placed him in a position of peril and an injury results, the injured is entitled to recover if the defendant thru the exercise of reasonable care and prudence might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff. This defense is available only in an Page 238 of 297

Civil Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 action by the driver or owner of one vehicle against the driver or owner of the other vehicle involved. REQUISITES: a. Plaintiff was in a position of danger by his own negligence b. Defendant knew of such position of the plaintiff c. Defendant had the least clear chance to avoid the accident by exercise of ordinary care but failed to exercise such last clear chance and d. Accident occurred as proximate cause of such failure • •

Who may invoke: Plaintiff NOTE: The doctrine is inapplicable to a. Joint tortfeasors b. Defendants concurrently negligent c. As against 3rd persons

4. EMERGENCY RULE - "one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence."

•

5. DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK – Volenti non fit injuria REQUISITES: a. Intentional exposure to a known danger b. One who voluntarily assumed the risk of an injury from a known danger cannot recover in an action for negligence or an injury is incurred c. Plaintiff’s acceptance of risk (by law/contract/nature of obligation) has erased defendant’s duty so that his negligence is not a legal wrong d. Applies to all known danger 6. DUE DILIGENCE - diligence required by law/contract/ depends on circumstances of persons, places, things 7. FORTUITOUS EVENT - no person shall be responsible for those events which cannot be foreseen, or which through foreseen were inevitable REQUISITES: a. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will; b. It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes caso fortuito or if it can be foreseen it must be impossible to avoid c. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner d. The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.

Valenzuela v. CA, 253 SCRA 303 – An individual will nevertheless be subject to liability if the emergency was brought about by his own negligence.

NOTE: Applicable only to situations that are sudden and unexpected such as to deprive actor of all opportunity for deliberation (absence of foreseeability); the action shall still be judged by the standard of the ordinary prudent man FACTORS TO CONSIDER: • Gravity of the HarmQuickTime™ to be avoided and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor • Alternative courses ofto see action - If the alternative are needed this picture. presented to the actor is too costly, the harm that may result may still be considered unforeseeable to a reasonable man • Social Value and Utility of the Action - The act which subjects an innocent person to an unnecessary risk is a negligent act if the risk outweighs the advantage accruing to the actor and even to the innocent person himself.

Person exposed to the risk - A higher degree of diligence is required if the person involved is a child.

• •

•

GENERAL RULE: Fortuitous Event is a complete defense and a person is not liable if the cause of the damage is a fortuitous event. EXCEPTION: It is merely a partial defense and the courts may mitigate the damages if the loss would have resulted in any event [Art. 2215(4) NCC] NOTE: A person may still be liable for a fortuitous event if such person made an ASSUMPTION OF RISK.

Page 239 of 297

Civil Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 8. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA – a principle that involves damage without injury, therefore no liability is incurred; there is no legal injury 9. LAW – specific provision of law

2. PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE – the obligation imposed in 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own act or omission but also for those persons for whom one is responsible (art 2180).

10. EXERCISE OF THE DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES 11. PRESCRIPTION a. Injury to right of plaintiff/quasi delict - 4 years b. Defamation - 1 year c. When no specific provision, must be counted from the day they may be brought

Vicarious Liability – law on imputed negligence; a person who himself is not guilty of negligence is made liable for conduct of another

•

12. PROSCRIPTION AGAINST DOUBLE RECOVERY - Responsibility for fault or negligence under quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from civil action arising from the RPC but plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for same act or omission of the defendant • 13. ACT OR OMISSION IS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE 14. OTHER GROUNDS – Motion To Dismiss: a. lack of jurisdiction over person of defendant b. lack of jurisdiction over subject matter c. venue improperly laid d. plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue e. there is another action pending between same parties for same cause f. cause of action is barred by prior judgment /statute of limitations g. pleading asserting claim states no cause of action h. claim set forth in pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, extinguished i. claim is unenforceable under the provision of statute of fraud j. condition precedent for filing claim has not been complied with

CHAPTER 5: PERSONS LIABLE FOR QUASI DELICT QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

WHO SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR A QUASI-DELICT: 1. TORTFEASOR - Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being no fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done (art 2176).

NOTE: Vicarious liability is not governed by the doctrine of respondeat superior. Employers or parents are made liable not only because of the negligent or wrongful act of the person for whom they are responsible but also because of their own negligence (i.e. liability is imposed on the employer because he failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees) EXCEPTION: the doctrine of respondeat superior is applicable in: a. Liability of employers under Article 103 of the RPC b. Liability of a partnership for the tort committed by a partner

WHO ARE THE PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE: 1. PARENTS - The father, and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother are responsible for damage caused by minor children who live in their company. •

Father and Mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over common children. In case of disagreement, father's decision shall prevail (art 211).

•

NOTE: Persons liable for the act of minors other than parents. a. Those exercising substitute parental authority b. Surviving grandparents c. Oldest sibling, over 21 years old unless unfit or unqualified d. Child’s actual custodian, over 21 years old unless unfit or disqualified

2. GUARDIANS - Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minor or incapacitated persons who are: a. under their authority b. who live in their company Page 240 of 297

Civil Law Summer Reviewer ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2007 3. OWNERS & MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENT/ENTERPRISE - Owners & managers of establishment or enterprise are responsible for damages caused by their employees who are: a. in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed OR b. in occasion of their function 4. EMPLOYERS - Employers shall be liable for damages caused by their: a. employees and b. household helpers c. who are acting w/in the scope of their assigned task even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry (unlike in RPC – subsidiary liability of employer attaches in case of insolvency of employer for as long as the employer is engaged in business/industry) •

DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYERS: a. exercise of due diligence ins election and supervision of employees b. act/omission was made outside working hours and in violation of company's rules and regulations

5. STATE - The state is responsible when it acts through a special agent, but not when the same is caused by an official to whom task done properly pertains in which case art 2176 is applicable 6. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER Teachers or heads of establishments of arts & trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils, students & apprentices as long as they remain in their custody even if they are beyond the age of majority • NOTE: Art. 2180 applies to all including academic institution per weight of jurisprudence based on obiter of Justice JBL Reyes in the Exconde case.

SCHOOL’S LIABILITY: • •

GENERAL RULE: The School itself is NOT liable as party defendants EXCEPTIONS: a. FC 218 – schools are expressly made liable b. St. Francis ruling – school’s liability as employer c. PSBA ruling – school has liability based on contract, therefore: i. If culprit is a teacher, follow St. Francis ruling (sue school as employer) ii. If culprit is a stranger, follow PSBA ruling (sue school based on contract iii. If culprit is a student - apply 2180

FAMILY CODE PROVISIONS: a. Family Code, Art 218 - The school, its administration & teachers or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental authority & responsibility over the minor child under their supervision, instruction or custody (authority & responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises or the school, entity or institution). b. Family Code, Art 219 - Those given the authority & responsibility shall be solidarily & principally liable for damages caused by act/omission of th...