I.

INTRODUCTION
 CONCEPT OF TORTS
 Classes of Torts
o Negligent
 Involve voluntary acts or omissions which result in injury to
others without intending to cause the same or because the actor
fails to exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions.
o Intentional
 Include conduct where the actor desires to cause the
consequences of his act
or believes that the consequences are substantially certain to
result from it.
 They are found in Chapter 2 of the Preliminary Title of the NCC
entitled “Human Relations”. Although this chapter covers
negligent acts, the torts mentioned herein are mostly intentional
in nature or torts involving malice or bad faith.
o Strict
 When the person is made liable independent of fault or
negligence upon
submission of proof of certain facts specified by law.
NOTE: Strict liability tort can be committed even if
reasonable care was exercised and regardless of the state of
mind of the actor at that time.

II. SOURCES OF CIVIL LIABILITY (based on Negligent torts)

 Articles 29 to 31; Articles 1159 to 1162 of the Civil Code
 Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code
 Sections 1 and 2, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

Kinds of Negligence
Arising from Crime
 People of the Philippines vs. Bayotas (G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994, 236
SCRA 239)
 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People of the Philippines

Arising from Contract

 Air France vs. Carascoso, et al

Arising from Tort

 Andamo, et al vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al
 Castro vs. People of the Philippines

CULPA AQUILANA/CULPA CONTRACTUAL/CULPA CRIMINAL

 Article 2177 of the Civil Code
 Fabre, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
 Calalas vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

III. CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT

1. ELEMENTS OF A QUASI-DELICT
 Article 2176 of the Civil Code
  Cinco vs. Canonoy, et al (90 SCRA 369)

2. DISTINCTIONS
A. Quasi-delict v. Delict
 Article 2177, CC
 Article 365, RPC
 Philippine Rabbit vs. People, GR No. 147703 (2004)

B. Quasi-delict v. Breach of contract

 Articles 1170-1174, CC
 Article 1174, CC
 Article 2178, CC
 Far East vs. CA, 241 SCRA 671
 Calalas vs. Sunga, 332 SCRA 356 (2000)
 Jarantilla vs CA GR No. 80194
 Rafael Reyes Trucking Corp vs People GR No. 129029
 Casupanan vs Laroya GR No. 145391
 Sps. Santos vs Pizardo GR No. 151452

IV. NEGLIGENCE
 Del Prado vs. Manila Electric Company G.R. No. L-29462 Test of

Concept of Negligence
Definition; Elements
 Article 20, CC
 Article 1173 of the Civil Code
 Picart vs. Smith, Jr. (37 Phil 809)
 Syquia vs CA G.R. No. 98695

Negligence as the Proximate Cause

 Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
 American Express International vs Cordero G.R. No. 138550
 McKee vs Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 68102
 Calalas vs CA G.R. No. 122039
 Abrogar vs Cosmos Bottling Company G.R. No. 164749

Proof of Negligence
A. Burden of proof
 Rule 131, Rules of Court (“ROC”)
 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
B. Presumption of Negligence
 Articles 2184-2185, 2188, 1733-1735, 1755 CC
 Sec 3(d) Rule 131 Rules of Evidence
 Tison v. Pomasin G.R. No. 173180
 Raynera vs Hiceta G.R. No. 120027
 Sps. Jayme vs Apostol G.R. No. 163609
C. Res ipsa loquitur
 Layugan vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 363
 Batiquin vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
 Maitim v. Aguila G.R. No. 218344
 Respondeat superior
 Castilex Industrial Corporation vs. Vasquez, Jr., et al.

Violation of Traffic Rules

 Article 2184 of the Civil Code
 Caedo, et al. vs. Yu Khe Thai, et al.
 BLT Bus co. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.

Dangerous weapons and substances

 Article 2188 of the Civil Code
Medical Malpractice
 Rubi Li vs. Sps Soliman G.R. No.
165279
Doctrine of Informed Consent
 Garcia vs Salvador G.R. No.
168512
 Lucas vs Tuaño GR No.
178763
Captain of the Ship Doctrine
 Professional Services Inc. vs Agana GR No. 126927
 Cantre v. Go G.R. No. 160889
Doctrines of Apparent Authority
Borrowed Servant
Independent Contractor
 Nogales vs Capitol Medical Center GR No. 142625
 Casumpang vs Cortejo G.R. No. 171127
Legal Malpractice
 STI Drivers Association, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143196
 Richards vs. Asoy, G.R. No. AC No. 2655
 Tesoro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 36666

V. DEFENSES
a. Contributory negligence
 Article 2179, 2214 of the Civil Code
 Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company (GR No 1719 (1907))

b. Assumption of Risk
 Afiada vs. Hisole (85 Phil 67)
 Abrogar vs Cosmos Bottling Company G.R. No. 164749

c. Last clear chance

 Picart vs. Smith, Jr (37 Phil 809)
 Spouses Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District (104 Phil 397)
 Ofracio v. People G.R. No. 221981
 Acheverra vs Ramos G.R. No. 175172
 Bustamante vs CA G.R. No. 89880
 LBC Air Cargo vs CA G.R. No. 101683
 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs IAC G.R. No. 66102-04

d. Prescription
  Article 1146 of the Civil Code
 Article 169 of the Consumer Act of the Philippines
 Ferrer vs Ericta G.R. No. L-41767
 Kramer vs CA G.R. No. L-83524

e. Force majeure/ Fortuitous event

 Article 1170, 1174 of the Civil Code
 Gotesco vs Chatto G.R. No. L-87584
 National Power Corp vs CA GR No. 103442-45
 Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v. Transport Venture G.R. No. 150255
 Yobido v. CA G.R. No. 113003

f. Exercise of diligence
 Article 2180 of the Civil Code
 Ramos vs. Pepsi, (19 SCRA 289)
 Cuadra v. Monfort G.R. No. L-24101
 Pilapil v. CA G.R. No. 52159
 Layugan v. IAC G.R. No. L-49542

g. Mistake and waiver

 Gatchalian vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

h. Damnum absque injuria

 National Power Corp vs CA GR No. 103442-45
 Orchard Golf and Country Club vs Robles G.R. No. 191033
 Equitable Banking Corporation vs Calderon G.R. No. 156168
 Lagon vs CA G.R. No. 119107
 Amonoy v. Gutierrez G.R. No. 140420
 Bernas v. Estate of Felipe Yu Han Yat G.R. Nos. 195908 & 195910

i. Emergency Rule
 Volenti Non Fit Injuria Neques Dolus
 Gan vs CA G.R. No. L-44264
 Valenzuela vs CA G.R. No. 115024
 McKee vs Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 68102
 Delsan Transport Lines vs C&A Construction G.R. No.
156034

j. Mutual Negligence
 Bernardo v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 9308

k. Quantum of Proof (Sec. 1, Rule 133)

l. Good Faith
 DBP v. CA G.R. No.
137916
 Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344

VI. CAUSATION
Proximate Cause
1. Definition
 Fernando vs. CA, 208 SCRA 714
 Pilipinas Bank vs. CA, 234 SCRA 435

2. Distinguished from other

kinds Remote
 Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA
1 Concurrent Negligence
 Far East Shipping vs. CA, 297 SCRA 30
 Sabido v. Custodio G.R. No. L-21512
 Tiu v. Arriesgado G.R. No. 138060

VII. VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Article 2180 to 2182 of the Civil Code
Article 216, 218-219, 221, 236 of the Family Code
Articles 101-103, RPC
Sec. 6 RA 9344

1. PARENTS AND GUARDIANS

 Article 2180, 2181 and 2182 2194 of the Civil Code
 Articles 216 and 218, Family Code
 Art. 101 RPC
 Republic Act No. 6809
 Republic Act No. 8552
 Canlas vs. Chan Lin Po, et al. Spouses Libi vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
et al
 Tamargo v. CA G.R. No. 85044
 Bartolome v. SSS G.R. No. 192531

2. TEACHERS AND HEADS OF INSTITUTIONS

 Articles 218-219, FC
 Article 2180, CC
 Ylarde v. Aquino G.R. L-33722
 Amadora v. CA G.R. No. L-47745
 PSBA vs CA G.R. No. 84698
 St. Luke’s College of Medicine vs Perez G.R. No. 222740
 Saladaga vs FEU G.R. No. 179337

3. OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS

 Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. Phil. American Forwarders, Inc. G.R. No. L-25142
 Marquez v. Castillo G.R. No. 46237
 Filamer Christian Institute v. IAC G.R. No. 75112
 Jayme v. Apostol G.R. No. 163609

4. EMPLOYERS
 Castilex Industrial Corp vs Vasquez G.R. No. 132266
 Filamer Christian Institute vs IAC G.R. No. 75112
 Martin vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
 Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al
 5. STATE
 Merrit vs Government 11154 (1916)
 Rosete vs Auditor L-1120
 City of Manila v Teotico L-23052 (1991)

6. DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE

 Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v. Balandan G.R. No. L-
3422

VIII. PRIMARY LIABILITY (in relation to strict torts)

1. POSSESSORS /USERS OF ANIMALS

 Article 2183 of the Civil Code
 Vestil, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. (179 SCRA 47)

2. OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES

 Article 2184 of the Civil Code
 Caedo, et al. vs. Yu Khe Thai, et al.
 Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al

3. REGISTERED OWNER RULE

 Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas G.R. No. 174156
 Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. v. Ermilinda R. Abejar G.R. No. 170631
 Equitable Leasing Corporation vs Suyom G.R. No. 143360

4. MANUFACTURERS AND PROCESSORS

 Article 2189 of the Civil Code
 in general, Consumer Act of the Philippines

5. PRODUCT LIABILITY
 Article 2187 of the Civil Code
 Republic Act. 7394 (Sec. 97)

6. BANK
 Sec 2, General Banking Law (RA No. 8791)
 Philippine National Bank v. Santos G.R. Nos. 208293 & 208295
 Metropolitan Bank v. CA G.R. No. 112576

7. STATE, PROVINCE, CITIES and MUNICIPALITIES

 NIA v. Fontanilla G.R. No. 61045
 Jimenez v. City of Manila G.R. No. 71049 Guilatco v. City of Dagupan G.R. No. 61516
 Mun. of San Juan v. CA G.R. No. 121920
 Mun. of San Fernando vs Firme G.R. No. L-52179
 Republic vs Palacio G.R. No. L-20322
 City of Manila vs Teotico G.R. No. L-23052

8. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
a. Article 2189 of the Civil Code
b. Section 24 of the Local Government Code
c. City of Manila vs. Teotico, et al.
9. TORTUOUS INFERENCE
a. Article 1314 NCC
b. So Ping Bun vs CA G.R. No. 120554

10. BUILDING PROPRIETORS

a. Articles 2190, 2191, 2192, 2193, 1723, 482 and 483 of the Civil Code

11. ENGINEERS /ARCHITECTS /CONTRACTORS

a. Article 2192 and 1723 of the Civil Code
b. Nakpil & Sons, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

IX. SPECIAL TORTS (in relation to intentional torts)

1. ABUSE OF RIGHTS

Article 19 of the Civil Code

 Velayo vs. Shell Company of the Philippines Islands, Ltd (100 Phil 186)

2. ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONTRARY TO MORALS

 Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code
 Wassmer vs. Velez

3. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
 Articles 22 and 23 of the Civil Code

4. JUDICIAL VIGILANCE
 Article 24 of the Civil Code

5. THOUGHTLESS EXTRAVAGANCE
 Article 25 of the Civil Code

6. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
 Article 26 of the Civil Code
 St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
 Castro vs. People of the Philippines

7. DERELICTION OF DUTY
 Article 27 of the Civil Code
 Torio, et al. vs. Fontanilla, et al

8. UNFAIR COMPETITION
 Article 28 of the Civil Code

9. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 Article 32 of the Civil Code
 Lim vs. Ponce de Leon

10. INTERFERENCE IN CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

  Article 1314 of the Civil Code
 Daywalt vs. La Corporacion delos Padres Agustino Recoletos, et al

X. DAMAGES

CONCEPT/KINDS
 Article 2195 to 2198 of the Civil Code
 Filinvest Credit vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
 Spouses Custodio, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al

A. ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
 Article 2199 to 2215 of the Civil Code
a. In General
 PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (297 SCRA 402)
b. Death and permanent incapacity
 Article 2206, CC
 Manzanares vs. Moreta
 Borromeo vs. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co

c. Attorney’s Fees
 Article 2208, CC
 Agustin vs. Court of Appeals

d. Interest
 Articles 2209-2213, CC
 Eastern Shipping vs. Court of Appeals

B. MORAL
DAMAGES
CONCEPT
 Article 2217 to 2220 of the Civil Code
 Lopez vs. Pan American World Airways

C. NOMINAL AND TEMPERATE DAMAGES

 Articles 2221 to 2225 of the Civil Code
 Japan Airlines vs. Court of Appeals
 Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Spouses Vasquez

D. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
 Articles 2226 to 2228 of the Civil Code
 Country Bankers vs. Court of Appeals

E. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES

 De Leon vs. Court of Appeals
 People of the Philippines vs. Cristobal