Jexelle Pestaño

TORTS AND DAMAGES

A comprehensive analysis of the law on quasi-delicts or torts, the nature, classes and extent of
damages, as provided for in the Civil Code and elaborated upon by pertinent jurisprudence.

PART ONE

TORT
A. Etymology and Meaning
B. Concept of Torts
C. Kinds of Torts
D. Tortfeasor defined
E. Tortious defined

PART TWO

Quasi-Delict
A. Article 2176 – Statutory Definition of Quasi Delict
A.1. Definition of Quasi- Delict
- Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. CA, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993, 219 SCRA
115
- Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines vs. CA, G.R. No. 110295, October 18, 1993

James Fusilero

A.2. Concept
A.3. Elements
- Taylor vs. Manila Electric Company, 16 Phil. 8, March 22, 1910
- Heirs of Pedro Tayag vs. Alcantara, 98 SCRA 723
A.4. Coverage
- Elcano vs. Hill, G.R. No. L-2403, May 26, 1977
- Santos vs. Pizardo, 465 SCRA 232
 Revised Penal Code – Article 100, 101
Sophia Briones-Hilot

A. Article 2177 – Civil Liability for fault or negligence separate and distinct from
negligence under the Revised Penal Code
B.1. Castillo et al. vs. CA, 176 SCRA 591 (Culpa Aquiliana is a separate legal
institution under the Civil Code)
B.2. Report of the Code Commission (p. 162, cited in Elcano vs. Hill supra)
B.3. Jarantilla vs. CA, G.R. No. 80194, March 21, 1989 (Same act or omission can
create two kinds of liability subject to the caveat of Article 2177 Civil Code)

Vladimir Tolentino
B.4. Culpa Aquiliana distinguished from Culpa Criminal
B.5. Barredo vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 48006, July 8, 1942
B.6. Rule on Recovery of Damages under the Revised Penal Code and Civil Code
of the Philippines
B.7. Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
129029, April 3, 2000
B.8. Casupanan vs. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002
B.9. Section 1 Rule 111
- Spouses Santos et al. vs. Pizardo, G.R. No. 151452, July 29, 2005

Aejay Varias

B. Article 2178 (Civil Code) – Applicability of Articles 1172 to 1174 to Quasi Delict
C.1. Article 1172 – Article 1174
C.2. Pre-existing contract generally bars Quasi- Delict
- PSBA vs. CA, 205 SCRA 729
C.3. Exceptions
- Singson vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 23 SCRA 1117
- Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155

Pastor Janolo
- Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines vs. CA, G.R. No. 110295, October 18, 1993
- Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Navidad et al., 397 SCRA 75
C.4. Negligence Defined
- Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA, G.R. No. 97626, March 14, 1997
Faye Alcazar
C.5. Article 1173 Civil Code
- Smith Bell vs. Borja, G.R. No. 143008, June 10, 2002
C.6. Test to determine existence of Negligence
- Heddy Gan Y. Yu vs. CA, L-4264, September 10, 1988
- Vergara vs. CA, G.R. No. 77679, September 30, 1987

Reggie Lubigan
- Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil 809; People vs. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 131588, March
27, 2001
- Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. CA, G.R. No. L-51806, September 8, 1988
C.7. Nature of the Concept of Degrees of Negligence
- US vs. Juanlilio, G.R. No. 7255, October 3, 1912

Annie Martinez
- Taylor vs. Manila Electric Company, 16 Phil. 8, March 22, 1910
- S.D. Martinez vs. Buskirk, G.R. No. L-5691,December 27, 1910
- Ylarde et al. vs. Aquino, et al., G.R. No. L-33722, July 29, 1988

Jhones Pawen
- Associated Bank (Westmont Bank vs. Tan, G.R. No. 156940, December 14,
2004)
- Astudillo vs. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 33380, December 17, 1930
C.8. Factors to be considered
- Pangonorom et al. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 143380, April 11, 2005

Howell Esguerra
- US vs. Reyes, 1 Phil. 375
- US vs. Clemente, G.R. No. 8142, January 25, 1913
- Wright vs. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 7760, October 1, 1914
- Syquia vs. CA, G.R. No. 98695, January 27, 1993

Andrielle dela Cuesta

A. Article 2179 (Civil Code) – Consequences of Plaintiffs own negligence
D.1. Proximate Cause Defined
- Mckee vs. intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 681,02, July 16, 1992
D.2. How determined
- The Consolidated Bank and Trust Company vs. CA, 410 SCRA 562
D.3. Theories in Determining Proximate Cause
A. The “but for” or sine qua non rule
B. Beforeseability Test
C. Cause and Condition Test
D. Natural and Probable Consequences Test
- Maranan vs. Perez, G.R. 22272, June 26, 1967
Roy Rebusura

- Silva vs. Peralta, G.R. No. L-13114, August 29, 1961

D.4. Concurrence of Efficient Causes
- Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. CA, G.R. No. 130068 and 130150,
October 1, 1998
D.5. Burden of Proof
- CEA vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-5446, March 10, 1911
- PLDT vs. CA, G.R. No. 57079, September 29, 1989

Christian Castillo
D.6. Damnum Absque Injuria
- Brown vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, G.R. No. 6666,
October 24, 1911
D.7. Presumption of Negligence
- Article 2184,Article 2185, Article 2188
- Anonuevo vs. CA et al, G.R. 130003, October 20, 2004
- Kapalaran Busline vs. Coronado, G.R. No. 85331, August 25, 1989

2nd Round

Jexelle Pestaño
D.8. Res Ipsa Loquitur
- Layugan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73998,
November 14, 1988
- Africa vs. Caltex, March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 448
- FGU Insurance Corporation vs. G.P. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 141910,
August 6, 2002
D.9. Nature of Tortfeasors
-Singapore Airlines Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 107356,
March 31, 1995

James Fusilero
E. Article 2180 (Civil Code) – Responsibilities for personal acts or omissions
-Liability of Tortfeasors
- Doctrine of Vicarious Liability
- Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Company, 38 Phil. 768
- Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. CA., G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993
- Cerezo vs. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141548, March 23, 2004

Sophia Briones-Hilot
E.1. Vicarious Liability of Parents
- Article 221 of the Family Code
- Tamargo et al. vs. CA, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992
- Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Company, 36 Phil. 768
- Libi vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70890, September 18, 1992
Vladimir Tolentino
E.2. Vicarious Liability of Guardians
- Article 320 Civil Code Kinds of Guardian under the Law
E.3. Vicarious Liability of Employers
E.4. Distinction of Paragraph 4 and 5 of Article 2180
- Castilex Industrial Corporation vs. Basquez et al.,
G.R. No. 132266, December 21, 1999

Aejay Varias
- Lanuzo vs. Ping, 100 SCRA 205
- Pacific Banking vs. CA, 173 SCRA 102
- Go vs. IAC, 197 SCRA 22
- Martin vs. CA, 205 SCRA 591

Pastor Janolo
E.5. - Rationale for the Rule on Vicarious Liability
E.6. - In Quasi- Delict
- Baliuag Transit vs. CA, G.R. No. 116110, May 15, 1996
E.7. Liability of Employer
 Victory Liner vs. Heirs of Malecdan, December 27, 2002
 Filamer Christian Institute vs. IAC, 212 SCRA 637


 Faye Alcazar

 Poblete vs. Fabros, G.R. No. L-29803, Sept. 14, 1979

 Pantranco North Express vs. Baesa 179 SCRA 384
 Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC 148 SCRA 353
 Yambao vs. Zuñiga, et. al., G.R. NO. 146173, Dec. 11, 2003

 Reggie Lubigan

 Perla Compania de Seguros vs. Sps. Sarangaya, October 25, 2005,

G.R. No. 147746
 Equitable Leasing Corp. vs. Suyom, G.R. No. 143360, Sept. 5, 2002

E.8. Employers Vicarious Liability under Art. 2180 and Employers

Subsidiary Liability under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code distinguished.
-Art. 111, Section 3 Rules of Court
  Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code
 Rafael Reyes Trucking Corp. vs. People, et. al., G.R. No. 129029, April 3,
2000

Annie Martinez
-Baza Marketing Corp. vs. Bolinao, 117 SCRA 156
-Equitable Leasing Corp. vs. Suyom, G.R. No. 143360, Sept. 5, 2002
-Franco vs. IAC, G.R. No. 71137, Oct. 5, 1989
-Cerezo vs. Tuazon, Mar. 23, 2004 (Quasi Delict vs. Delict)

Jhones Pawen
F. Arts. 2181, 2184 and 2186 of the Civil Code, Vicarious Liability of Employers
- Chapman vs. Underwood, G.R. No. 9010, March 28, 1914
- Duavit vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82318, May 18, 1989

G. Vicarious Liability of State

- Lung Chea Kung Kee vs. Aldanese, G.R. No. L21362, March 6, 1924
- Fontanilla, et. al. vs. Maliaman, et. al., G.R. No. 55963, Dec. 1, 1989

Howel Esguerra
E. Meritt vs. Government of Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 11154, March 21,
1916
-United States of America vs. Guinto, G.R. No. 76607, Feb. 26, 1990

H. Provinces, Cities and Municipalities, Art. 2189, Civil Code

- City of Manila vs. Teotico, G.R. No. L-23052, Jan. 29, 1968
- Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516, Mar. 21, 1989

Andrielle dela Cuesta

- Jimenez vs. City of Manila and IAC, G.R. No. 71049, Mar. 29, 1987
- Section 24 of the Local Government Code
- San Fernando, La Union vs. Firme, G.R. No. 52179, April 8, 1991
 - Torio vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. L-29993, Oct. 23, 1978, 85 SCRA 599

Roy Rebusura

I. Vicarious Liability of Teachers and Heads of Establishments

- Exconde vs. Capuno, G.R. No. L-10134, June 29, 1957
- Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 14342, May 30, 1960, 108 Phil. 414
- Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47745, April 15, 1988
- Palisoc vs. Brillantes, G.R. No. L-29025, Oct. 4, 1971, 41 SCRA 548

Christian Castillo
- St. Mary's Academy vs. Carpitanos, G.R. No. 143363, Feb. 6, 2002
- PSBA vs. C.A., G.R. No. 84698, Feb. 4, 1992, 205 SCRA 729
- Soliman, Jr. vs. Hon. Tuazon, G.R. No. 66207, May 18, 1992
- U.E. vs. Jader, G.R. No. 132344, Feb. 17, 2000

3rd Round

Jexelle Pestano

J. Proprietor of Building or Structure, Art. 2192, Civil Code

- De Roy, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. L-80718, Jan. 29, 1988
K. Art. 2193
L. Art. 2194. Solidary Liability
- Escano vs. Ortigas, Jr., 536 SCRA 36
- Malipol vs. Tan, 55 SCRA 202
 Viluan vs. C.A., 17 SCRA 742
James Fusilero
PART THREE

Defenses in an Action for Quasi Delict

A. Plaintiffs own negligence (Art. 2179, Civil Code)

 Ilusorio vs.Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 139130, Nov. 27, 2002

B. Theory of Implied Invitation to Visit the Premises of Another

 Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, G.R. No. 4977, Mar. 22, 1910, 16 Phil.
8

C. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance

 Hidalgo vs.Balandan, G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952, 65 Corpus Juris Secundum 812-813
 Ylarde, et. al. vs. Aquino, et. al., G.R. L-33722, July 29, 1988, 163 SCRA 697

Sophia Hilot
D. Assumption of Risk
 Menchavez, et. al. vs. Teves, Jr., G.R. No. 153201, Jan. 26, 2005 (Principle of Volenti non Fit
Injuria Neques Dolus)
 Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, et. al. vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 154259, Feb. 28, 2005 (Doctrine of
Volenti non Fit Injuria)
 Culion Ice, Fish and Electric Co. vs. Phil. Motors Corp., 55 Phils.129, 133
 Fernando, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92087, May 8, 1992
 65 CJS 301

Vladimir Tolentino
D.1. Exeptions
 Ilocos Norte Electric Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 53401, Nov. 6, 1989

E. Doctine of Last Clear Chance

 Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District, G.R. No. L-7664, Aug. 29, 1958
 Mckee vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68102, July 16, 1992, 211 SCRA 517
 Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 809

Aejay Varias
 LBC Air Cargo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101683, Feb. 23, 1995
 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384
 Glan People's Hardware vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 173 SCRA 464

F. Emergency Rule
 Gan vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. L-44264, Sept. 19, 1988
 Mckee vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68102, July 16, 1992, 211 SCRA 517

Pastor Janolo
 Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 115024 & 117944 Feb. 7, 1996 253 SCRA 303
 Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. vs. C & A Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 156034 Oct. 1, 2003

G. Prescription (Art. 1146, Civil Code)

 Kramer vs. Court of Appeals, Oct. 13, 1989

H. Diligence (Art. 2180 Civil Code & Art. 219 (Family Code)
 Franco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71137, Oct. 5, 1989

Faye Alcazar

 Wild Valley Shipping Co. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. No. 119602, Oct. 6, 2000
 Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993
 Secosa vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 160039, June 29, 2004
 Cangco vs. Manila Railroad, Supra.

Reggie Lubigan
I. Partial Defense: Doctrine of Contributory Negligence (Art. 2179, Civil Code)
 Rakes vs. Atlantic, G.R. No. 1719, Jan. 23, 1907
 Syki vs. Bigasa, G.R. No. 149149, Oct. 23, 2003

J. Contributory Negligence Distinguished from Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

 Ma-ao Sugar Central Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83491, Aug. 27, 1990
 Picart vs. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918
Annie Martinez

- Jarco Marketing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 129792, Dec. 21, 1999
 PCIB vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 121413, Jan. 29, 2001
 Genobiagon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 40452, Oct. 12, 1989

K. Republic Act 9344, Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act

Jhones Pawen
L. Enforcement of Liability

a. Available Remedies
 Santos vs. Pizardo, et. al., G.R. No. 151452, July 29, 2005
 LG Foods Corporation vs. Hon. Philadelfa B. Pagapong-Agraviador

b. Rules governing reservation

 Mañago vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104392, Feb. 20, 1996
 San Ildefonso Lines, Inc., et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119771, April 24, 1998

Howell Esguerra
c. Rule 111, Section 3, Rules of Court
 DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative vs. Hon. Velez, G.R. No. 129282, Nov. 29, 2001
 Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 37404, Nov. 18, 1991
 Castillo vs. CA, G.R. No. 48541, August 21, 1989

d. Nature of Liability
 Hernandez vs. Dolor, G.R. No. 160286, July 30, 2004

Andrielle dela Cuesta

- Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines vs. Estrella, G.R. No.
147791, Sept. 8, 2006
 M. The Rule on Strict Liability Torts (Art. 2183, Civil Code)
a. Possessor of animals
 Johnson vs. David, G.R. 2789, February 27, 1906
 Vestil vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74431, Nov. 6, 1989

b. Manufacturers and possessors of food stuffs, etc.

 Article 2187 (Civil Code)
 U.S. vs. Pineda, G.R. No. L-12858, Jan. 22, 1918

Roy Rebusura

Head of the Family

 U.S. vs. Topino, 35 Phil. 901
 People vs. Llamo, G.R. No. 132138, Jan. 28, 2000

N. Human Relations (Special Torts)

a. Coverage of Special Torts
 Malonzo vs. Galang, et. al. G.R. No. L-13851, July 27, 1960
 Quezon City Government vs. Dacara, G.R. 150304, June 15, 2005

Christian Castillo
b. Standards in the Exercise of Rights (Art. 19 Civil Code)
 Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 81262, Aug.
25, 1989

c. Abuse of Right
 Sea Commercial Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122823, Nov. 25, 1999

d. Elements of Abuse of Rights

 Albenson Enterprises vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 88694, Jan. 11, 1993

e. Article 20 (Civil Code)

 Occena vs. Icamina, G.R. No. 82146, Jan. 22, 1990
3rd Round

Jexelle Pestano
f. Article 21 (Civil Code)
 Manila Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39019, Jan. 22, 1988
 MVRS Publications, et. al. vs. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, G.R. No. 135306, Jan.
28, 2003
 Breach of promise to marry, seduction, sexual assault
 Wassmer vs. Velez 12 SCRA 648
 Tanjanco vs. Santos, 18 SCRA 994

James Fusilero
- Bunag vs. CA, 211 SCRA 441
 Pe, et. al. vs. Pe, 5 SCRA 200
 Hermosisima vs. CA 109 SCRA 629
g. Article 22 (Civil Code)
 Obana vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-36249, March 29, 1985

Sophia Hilot
h. Article 23 (Civil Code)

I. Article 24 (Civil Code)

 Heirs of John Sycip, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76487, Nov. 9, 1990
 Amarante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76386, Oct. 26, 1987
 Article 25 (Civil Code)

k. Article 26 (Civil Code)

 In relation to Section 34 of R.A. 9262 and 1314 of the Civil Code
 Lagon vs. C.A., G.R. No. 119107, March 18, 2005

Vladimir Tolentino
- So Ping Bun vs. CA, 373 Phils. 532
 St. Louis Realty vs. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 179
 l. Article 27 (Civil Code)
 Zulueta vs. Nicolas, 102 Phils. 945
 Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 54598, April. 15, 1988

Aejay Varias

m. Article 28 (Civil Code)

n. Article 29 (Civil Code)

 Drilon vs. CA, 270 SCRA 211
 Urbano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72964, Jan. 7, 1988

o. Article 30 (Civil Code)

p. Article 31 (Civil Code)

q. Article 32 (Civil Code)

 Aberca vs. Ver, G.R. No. 69865, April 15, 1988

Pastor Janolo
O. Other kinds of Torts

a. Medical malpractice/ medical negligence

 Reyes, et. al. vs. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, et. al., G.R. No. 130547, Oct. 3, 2000
 Garcia Rueda vs. Pascasio, September 5, 1997

b. Elements of Medical Negligence

c. Error in judgment Rule

d. Evidential Rule

e. Liability of Hospital
 Ramos vs. CA, G.R. 124354, Dec. 29, 1999
Faye Alcazar

PART FOUR

1. Damages Defined
2. Concept of Damages
3. Purpose of the Award of Damages
4. Applicability on the Law of Damages (Art. 2195 of the Civil Code)
5. Article 2196 (Civil Code)
6. Kinds of Damages, Art. 2197 (Civil Code)
7. Amount of Damages must be Proved (Art. 2199 of the Civil Code)
 Ribo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. NO. 50911, March 12, 1986
8. Damages to property of a person are either or special and general
9. Actual Damages
 Albenson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88694, Jan. 11, 1993
 Algarra vs. Sandejas, G.R. 8385, March 24, 1914
 MV Transit and Taxi Company vs. CA, G.R. No. L-23882, Feb. 17, 1968

Reggie Lubigan
Requirements for the grant of actual damages
 Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516, March 21, 1989
 People vs. Degoma, G.R. No. 89404 to 405, May 22, 1992
 Oarde vs. CA, G.R. No. 104774-75, Oct. 8, 1997

Burden of Proof
 Salas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86500, Nov. 21, 1990

Annie Martinez
  GQ Garments Inc., vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 161722, July 20, 2006
 Baliwag Transit vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116110, May 15, 1996
 David vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111168 to 69, June 17, 1998

Components of Actual Damages

 Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 365 SCRA 326

Jhones Pawen
Actual Damages in Contracts and Quasi Delict
 Sulpicio Lines vs. CA, G.R. No. 113578, July 14, 1995
 Marikina Autoline Transport Corp. vs. People, G.R. No. 152040, March 31, 2006

Actual Damages in Crimes

 Public Estates Authority vs. Chu, G.R. No. 145291, Sept. 21, 2005
 People vs. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998

Howell Esguerra
 People vs. Degoma & Taborada, 209 SCRA 266
 People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875 to 76, Nov. 16, 2001
 People vs. Plana, G.R. No. 128285, Nov. 27, 2001

Article 285- Damages for Loss of Earnings

 Dangwa Trans Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 955582, Oct. 7, 1991

Andrielle dela Cuesta

 Villarey Transit , Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 31 SCRA 511
 People vs. Quilaton, G.R. No. 69666, Jan. 23, 1992
 People vs. Balanag, et. al., G.R. No.103225, Sept. 15, 1994
 People vs. Sia, 21 Nov. 2001, G.R. No. 137457

Roy Rebusura
Exception
 People vs. Duban, G.R. No. 141217, Sept. 26, 2003
 People vs. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993, June 17, 2003
 People vs. Caraig, G.R. No. 116224 to 227, March 28, 2003

Interest in Actual Damages

  Eastern Shipping Lines vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 78

Christian Castillo
Attorney's Fees (Art. 2208, Civil Code)
 Citytrust Banking Corp. vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 141011 & 141028, July 19, 2001
 Lacson, et. al. vs. Reyes, et. al., G.R. No. 86250, Feb. 26, 1990
 Quirante vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73886, Jan. 31, 1989
 Sps. Samatra vs. De Parinas, G.R. No. 142958, April 24, 2002
 Subrogatory Right of Insurer (Art. 2007, Civil Code)

4th Round

Jexelle Pestano
10. Moral Damages (Art. 2217, Civil Code)

 Del Mundo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104576, Jan. 20, 1995
 PT & T vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139268, Se3pt. 3, 2002
 Makabali vs. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 253, 260, Jan. 22, 1988
 Lamis vs. Ong, G.R. No. 148923, Aug. 11, 2005

James Fusilero
Requirements for the grant of moral damages
 R & B Surety & Insurance Co., vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 129 SCRA 736
 Siasat vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 139 SCRA 238
 Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 126363,
June 26, 1998
 Kierulf, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 99301, March 13, 1997

Sophia Hilot
People vs. Egala, G.R. No. 129292-93, June 20, 2001
 People vs. Hate, G.R. No. 145712, Sept. 4, 2002
 People vs. Caballes, et. al., G.R. Nos. 102723-24, June 19, 1997
 Gregorio, et. al. vs. Angeles, et. al., G.R. No. 85847, Dec. 21, 1989

Vladimir Tolentino
 Filinvest Credit Corporation vs. IAC, 166 SCRA 155
Instances where moral damages may be recovered

Seduction
 Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. L-14628, Sept. 30, 1960

Quasi Delict
 Quezon City Gov., et. al. vs. Dacara, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005

Rape
 People vs. Gregorio Corpuz Y Espiritu, G.R. No. 168101, February 13, 2006, en banc

Aejay Varias
Defamation
 Brillante vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 118757 & 121571, Oct. 19, 2004
 MVRS Publications, et. al. vs. Islamic Da'wa Council of the Philippines, et. al., G.R. No. 135306,
Jan. 28, 2003
 del Mundo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104576, January 20, 1995

Pastor Janolo

 GMA Network (formerly known as “Republic Broadcasting System, Inc”) and Rey Vidal vs. Bustos,
et. al., G.R. No. 146848, Oct. 17, 2008
Doctrine of fair comment
 Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 126466, Jan. 14, 1999

 Filipinas Broadcasting Network vs. Ago Medical and Educ. Center- Bicol Christian College of
Medicine, et. al., G.R. No. 141994, Jan. 17, 2005

Faye Alcazar

Public figure
 Ayer Production Pty, Ltd. vs. Capulong, G.r. Nos. 82380 and 82398, 29 April 1988, 160 SCRA 861
 U.S. vs. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731, 1918
 Phil. Journalists, Inc., et. al. vs. Thoenen, G.R. No. 143372, Dec. 13, 2005
Reggie Lubigan

 Alonzo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110088, Feb. 1, 1995

Group Libel
 Occena vs. Icamina, et. al., G.R. No. 82146, Jan. 22, 1990
 Ponce vs. Legaspi, G.R. No. 79184, May 6, 1992

Annie Martinez

Malicious Prosecution
 Espiritu vs. Court of Appeals, 137 SCRA 50

Article 19, 20 and 21

 Albenson Enterprises Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 16, 25 [1993]

Breach of Promise to Marry

Culpa Contractual Cases

 Trans World Airline vs. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 143

Jhones Pawen
Analogue Cases
 Lazatin vs. Twaño, L-12736, July 31, 1961
Moral Damages in favor of corporation, general rule
 Mamburao Lumber Co. vs. PNP, 130 Phil 366

Exception
11. Nominal Damages
Nature and concept
Instances where nominal damages are adjudicated
 Agabon vs. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 158693, Nov. 17, 2004

Howell Esguerra
12. Temperate Damages
Nature and Concept
Instances where temperate damages are adjudicated
 People vs. Orbes, G.R. No. 132743, Nov. 22, 2001
13. Liquidated Damages
Liquidated Damages defined
- HL Carlos Construction vs. Marina Properties Corp., G.R. No. 147614, Jan. 29, 2004

Nature and Concept

 Napocor vs. National Merchandising Corporation, et. al., G.R. No. L-33819 & L33897, Oct. 23,
1982

Andrielle dela Cuesta

14. Exemplary Damages

Nature and Concept

 People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, Aug. 23, 2001

Requisites for the award of exemplary damages

 Medelo vs. Gorospe, G.R. No. L-41970, March 25, 1988

Rationale
 Lopez, et. al. vs. Pan American World Airways, 16 SCRA 431

Roy Rebusura
 Instances where exemplary damages are adjudicated
 PNB vs. Gen. Acceptance an Finance Corp., 161 SCRA 449

15. Assessment of Damages

Guiding principle
 del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 118325, Jan. 29, 1997

In crimes
 People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, Aug. 23, 2001

In quasi delicts
 Art. 2214, Civil Code

Christian Castillo

Doctrine of avoidable consequences

Judgment on the pleadings improper

Good faith not a defense in action for damages for damages founded on violation of constitutional
rights
 Lim, et. al. vs. de Leon, et. al., G.R. No. L-22554, Aug. 29, 1975