Bukidnon State University

COLLEGE OF LAW
Torts & Damages

FINAL EXAMINATION

Answer the following questions thoughtfully with sufficient legal and factual
basis.
1. In light of the health emergency caused by COVID-19 and the various laws
and rules that the government has set in relation to this health emergency, how
do citizens become liable for torts?
In common law, tort is an unlawful violation of private right, not created by
contract, which gives rise to an action for damages. Tort is also defined as a private
or civil wrong violating a right for which the law provides a remedy in the form of
damages.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic that is causing fears and deaths, we all have
a social responsibility to help mitigate the spread of the virus. With just simply staying
at home we can help in flattening the curve. In relation to the status quo on COVID-
19, Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code applies. Because, in these stated
provisions, an individual has the 'social responsibility' to comply with the demands of
the government, which intention lies with the promotion of health and safety. Thus,
the principle of abuse of rights stated in Article 19 which state that “Every person
must, in the exercise of his rights and performance of duties, act with justice, and give
everyone his due, observe honesty and good faith.” Consequently, a person who
violates the mandatory rules or laws prescribed by the government in exigency of its
public service and in exercise of police power, such individual may be held liable for
torts. There are other provisions found in the New Civil Code, the Revised Penal
Code and other special laws which can make a person liable for torts in relation to the
health emergency that we are facing right now.
In our New Civil Code, aside from the Catch-all provisions in Articles 19, 20,
and 21. Article 26 states that Every person shall respect the dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and
other similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense shall produce a
cause of action for damages other relief: (1) Prying into the privacy of another’s
residence; (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relation of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; (4) Vexing or
humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of
birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
Article 28 states that unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial
enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or
any unjust, oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right of action by
the person who thereby suffers damage. Thus, a person may be held liable for selling
goods above the suggested retail price set by the State. If a person is selling medical
supplies, personal protective equipment, alcohol and basic necessities above the
suggested retail price, then he may be held liable for damages.
Article 33 also states that in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries,
a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may
be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the
criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Under
Article 33, a person may be held liable for defamation, libel, or intrigue against honor,
this may happen if a person would accuse another to have contracted the COVID-19.
For fraud a person may be held liable if he would sell alcohol saying that it is 70%
ethel alcohol, when in fact it has been diluted. For physical injuries an example for
this is with what happened to one of our front liner in Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat
wherein he was splashed on his face with bleach, causing an injury to his eyes. In all
the example given any person causing any of these injuries may be held liable for
damages.
Under the Revised Penal Code, Article 353-357, deals with Libel. Libel is a
public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary,
or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead. Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is
shown, except in the following cases: (1) A private communication made by any
person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and (2) A fair
and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature,
or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other
act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. Libel has been
expounded by Republic Act No. 10175 also known as the “Cybercrime Prevention
Act of 2012”. SEC. 4 thereof enumerates the acts which constitute the offense of
cybercrime. Paragraph (c)(4) states that “Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of
libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed
through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the
future.”.
Republic Act No. 11332, Otherwise Known as the "Mandatory Reporting of
Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of Public Health Concern Act". The following
shall be prohibited under this Act: (a) Unauthorized disclosure of private and
confidential information pertaining to a patient’s medical condition or treatment; (b)
Tampering of records or intentionally providing misinformation; (c) Non-operation of
the disease surveillance and response systems; (d) Non-cooperation of persons and
entities that should report and/or respond to notifiable diseases or health events of
public concern; and (e) Non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as having
the notifiable disease, or affected by the health event of public concern. Disclosure
of confidential information will not be considered violation of this Act under this
section if the disclosure was made to comply with a legal order issued by a court of
law with competent jurisdiction.
Republic Act No. 11469 also known as “Bayanihan to Heal As One Act” was
enacted, authorizing the President of the Republic of the Philippines for a limited
period and subject to restrictions, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry
out the declared national policy and other purpose in view of the continuing rise of
confirmed cases of COVID-19, the serious threat to the health, safety, security and
lives of our countrymen,
Under Sec 6 of RA 11469 the following acts or omissions are penalized:
1. Local officials disobeying national government policies;
2. Hospitals who refuse to cooperate with the president;
3. Hoarding, profiteering, cartels;
4. Refusal to accept contracts for essential materials, services;
5. Refusal to give 30-day grace period to payments, loans, etc;
 6. Spreading of False Information regarding COVID-19;
7. Failure to comply with suspension of transport;
8. Impeding access to roads, bridges, etc.
Some of the act and omission in Sec. 6 of RA 11469 are already made
punishable by other laws. The acts punished under Section 6 are already punished
by existing laws. For example, Paragraph (1) disobeying local executives can be
punished under the Code of Conduct of Public Officials and even graft. Paragraph
(3) is already punished under Art 186 of the RPC and may be held liable for
damages under Art. 28 of the NCC. Paragraph (6) may be punished under Art. 355
of the Revised Penal code or Republic Act No. 10175 also known as the
“Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012”. Paragraph (8) os considered as nuisance
under Article 694 of the NCC.

2. Suppose a government uses a vaccine for the treatment of COVID-19 which

will cause vaccine-related injury or death. Who may be held liable? What are
the liabilities that may be attached? What should be proven in order to impose
such liability? Are Philippine laws in place to address the possibility of issues
that may arise specifically on vaccine-related damages?
It is a basic Constitutional rule that the State cannot be sued without its
consent. Consent of the State to be sued can be manifested through a special law or
a general law allowing the State to be sued. An example of such law is the fifth
paragraph of Article 2180 of the new Civil Code: “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”.
The first sensationalized vaccine-related damage case in the Philippines was
the Dengvaxia, which was developed by Sanofi which is aimed at protecting
hundreds of thousands of school children from dengue. On February 11, 2016, the
Philippines, under Health Secretary Janette Garin, hosts the nationwide launch of
Dengvaxia. On March 2016 the World Health Organization (WHO) released a paper
saying Dengvaxia may be ineffective or may even increase that risk in those who
have not yet had dengue at the time of first vaccination. On April 4, 2016 the
government kicks off its ₱3.5-billion, school-based dengue immunization program. On
January 26, 2018, Duque reveals health officials did not wait for the results of clinical
trials of the Research Institute for Tropical Medicine (RITM) on Dengvaxia to know its
risks before launching the nationwide immunization program. On February 05, 2018,
PAO's findings state the deaths showed "strong links" to Dengvaxia, although it
added the results are inconclusive. Meanwhile, the findings by the UP-PGH found no
direct link between the deaths and the vaccine. The PAO also files a civil case
against Garin, former Undersecretary Kenneth Uy, and other health officials of
implementing the program in undue haste even if "the product has no proven safety
and efficacy." Also included in the case are Sanofi and distributor Zuellig Pharma
Philippines for failing to inform the public of the vaccine's risks.
Sadly, there is no judgment yet with regards to the Dengvaxia case. Based on
the facts gathered The PAO have anchored their case on Article 2176 which states
that: “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, their 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”.
However, if a court with jurisdiction, renders a judgment finding no negligence on the
part of then DOH Secretary Garin and other health officials then the State will be held
liable for damages suffered by the persons who are affected by vaccine injuries
according to the provisions of Article 2180.
Like all other civil cases preponderance of evidence are required to be able to
award damages. There must be causal relation with the injury and the vaccination. It
must be proven that the injury has occurred after the vaccine was introduced into the
body of the victim. The pharmaceutical company and distributor of the vaccine in the
Philippines will also be held liable under Article 2176 if they would fail to inform the
public of the vaccine's risks.
Currently there is no specific law in the Philippines that would address vaccine
related damages. However, Republic Act No. 9711 also known as the “Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) Act of 2009” was enacted to adopt, support, establish,
institutionalize, improve and maintain structures, processes, mechanisms and
initiatives that are aimed, directed and designed to: (a) protect and promote the right
to health of the Filipino people; and (b) help establish and maintain an effective health
products regulatory system and undertake appropriate health manpower
development and research, responsive to the country's health needs and problems.
Under the FDA Act of 2009 , Center for Drug Regulation and Research (including
veterinary medicine, vaccines and biologicals) was established to regulate the
manufacture, importation, exportation, distribution, sale, offer for sale, transfer,
promotion, advertisement, sponsorship of, and/or, where appropriate, the use and
testing of health products. The Centers shall likewise conduct research on the safety,
efficacy, and quality of health products, and to institute standards for the same.
In the United States, vaccine manufacturers have attained an extremely high
level of liability protection through legislation and judicial interpretation. The 1986
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (the Vaccine Act); the 2005 Public Readiness
and Emergency Preparedness Act (the PREP Act).
The United States Congress passed the Vaccine Act in October 1986, to
balance the goals of victim injury compensation, stable vaccine supply, and the
creation of safer vaccines. Part of the Vaccine Act’s compromise is that families must
file a claim in the NVICP within three years of the first manifestation of injury. The
Vaccine Act requires that claimants exhaust their administrative remedies first by
bringing their claims to the NVICP. But, at least in theory, it allows them to exit the
NVICP and bring a civil action in federal district or state court after filing on two
conditions. First, the claimant can opt out of the compensation program if the special
master fails to hand down a decision within the statutorily prescribed period of 240
days. Second, the claimant may reject the special master’s decision if she is
dissatisfied with it and file a civil suit if the Vaccine Act’s other provisions do not
preempt litigation.
In 2005, United States Congress passed a tort shield law, the PREP Act, to
protect manufacturers of drugs and other “covered countermeasure[s],” including
vaccines, from the risk of damages in the event of a declared public health
emergency. This statute goes considerably further than the Vaccine Act to create an
exclusive limited administrative remedy. The PREP Act disallows those injured to
apply to the NVICP; they must apply to an administrative program that HHS
administers itself. The PREP Act covers vaccines, antidotes, medications, medical
devices, and other products used to respond to pandemics and biological and
chemical threats. If the HHS Secretary declares a public health emergency, then
liability protection covers not only manufacturers, but all medical administrators of the
covered countermeasures to prevent, treat or mitigate an epidemic.
Reference
 https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/12/09/The-Dengvaxia-controversy.html
 https://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-67/issue-3/articles/liability-vaccine-
injury-united-european-world.html
 Timoteo B. Aquino, Torts and Damages (2019)
 Justice Edgardo L. Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated Persons
and Family Relations (2016)