8/12/2019 Classes of Torts

1/3

CLASSES OF TORTS:

Art. 1156. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do. (n)

Art. 1157. Obligations arise from:

(1) Law;(2) Contracts;(3) Quasi-contracts;(4) Acts or omissions punished by law;and(5) Quasi-delicts. (1089a)

Art. 1158. Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly

determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and shall be regulated bythe precepts of the law which establishes them; and as to what has not been foreseen,

by the provisions of this Book. (1090)

Art. 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the

contracting parties and should be complied with in goo d faith. (1091a)

Art. 1160. Obligations derived from quasi-contracts shall be subject to the provisions of

Chapter 1, Title XVII, of this Book. (n)

Art. 1161. Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by the penal

laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent provisions of

Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book,

regulating damages. (1092a)

Art. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of

Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Bo ok, and by special laws. (1093a)TORT- a wrong; a tortuous act which has been defined as the commission or omission

of an act by one without right whereby another person receives some injury, directly or

indirectly, in person, property or reputation.

DAMAGES- sum of money which the law awards or imposes as pecuniary

compensation;

Amounts recoverable or that can be awarded for the damage done or sustained.

DAMAGE- pertains to the actionable loss, hurt, or harm which results from unlawfulact, omission or negligence of another.

INJURY- illegal invasion of a legal right.

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 pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is

governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

QUASI-DELICT- an act whereby a person without malice, but by fault, negligence, or

imprudence causes injury to another.

ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION:

1. A right in favor of t he plaintiff

2. An obligation on part of the defendant to respect or not violate such right.3. Act or omission on the part of the defendant violative of the right of the

plaintiff.

REQUISITES OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES:

1. Damage suffered by plaintiff2. Fault or negligence of the defendant3. Connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the

defendant and the damage suffered by the plaintiff.

Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely

separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal

Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of

the defendant.

Art. 100.Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.

TWO KIND OF LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SAME ACT/OMISSION:

1. civil liability ex delicto2. civil liability ex quasi delicto

*Acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on a reasonable ground

or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising fromcriminal negligence but for damages due to a quasi-delict.

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that

diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the

circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad

faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the

performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.

(1104a)

NEGLIGENCE- the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon

those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do,

or the doing of something which a prudent man and reasonable man could not do.

It is the want of care required by the circumstances.

TEST FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS NEGLIGENT:

-would a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed,

foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to

be pursued.

PROXIMATE CAUSE- natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient

intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the r esult would not have

occurred.

PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE- a person claiming for damages has the burden of proving the

existence of such fault or negligence causative thereof.

8/12/2019 Classes of Torts

2/3

PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE:

A. RES IPSA LOQUITUR (thing speaks for itself)- Where the thing that causesinjury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and th e

accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those

who have the management use proper care; Rebuttable presumption that

defendant is negligent.

REQUISITES:1. accident is of a kind that does not occur in the absence of someones

negligence.

2. Caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of thedefendant.

3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiffresponsible is eliminated.

B. REPONDEAT SUPERIOR:Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human

care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons,

with a due regard for all the circumstances.

Art. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumedto have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed

extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755.

C. VIOLATION OF TRAFFIC RULES:Art. 2184.In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the

former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented

the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been

found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the

next preceding two months.

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable.

(n)

Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, 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. (n)

D. COMMON CARRIER:Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or

deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following

causes only:

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster orcalamity;

(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;

(3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;

(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in th e containers;(5) Order or act of competent public authority.

*The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely as far as human care and

foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person with due

regard for all the circumstances.

E. DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND SUBSTANCES:Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the

defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous

weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the

possession or use thereof is indispensable in his o ccupation or business. (n)

DEFENSES:

A. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE:Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and

proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his

negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the

injury being the defendant's lack of due care, t he plaintiff may recover

damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE- conduct on part of the injured party,

contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered. This cannot be

presumed and has to be proven t o serve as a defense in the same way that

negligence has to be proven.

Underlying precept: Plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own i njury

should not be entitled to recover damages in full, but must proportionately

bear the consequences of his own negligence.

EMERGENCY RULE- one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and

is required to act without time to consider is not guilty of negligence unless

the emergency is brought about by his own negligence.

B. ASSUMPTION OF RISK:Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise

declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption

of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or

which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)

C. LAST CLEAR CHANCE:The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent

but th negligent act of o ne is appreciably later than of the other, o r where it is

impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one

who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but has failed to do so, ischargeable with the loss.

8/12/2019 Classes of Torts

3/3

D. PRESCRIPTION:Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:

(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; (2) Upon a quasi-delict;However, when the action arises from or out of any act, activity, or conduct of any

public officer involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial Law

including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same must be brought

within one (1) year. (As amended by PD No. 1755, Dec. 24, 1980.)

E. FORTUITOUS EVENTS:REQUISITES:

A. the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence must beindependent of human will.

B. It must be impossible to foresee the event or if it can be foreseen, itmust be impossible to avoid.

C. Occurrence must be such to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfillhis oligations in a normal manner.

D. Obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of theinjury/loss.

F. DILIGENCE:The responsibilitytreated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein

mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to

prevent damage. (last par. Of Art.2180)

G. MISTAKE AND WAIVER:Art. 1331. In order that mistake may invalidate consent, it should refer to the substance

of the thing which is the object of the contract, or to those conditions which have

principally moved one or both parties to enter into the contract.

*Error in this article to invalidate a consent must include both: IGNORANCE (absence of

knowledge with respect to a thing.) and; MISTAKE (wrong conception about said thing.)

H. OTHERS..brrrr!

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

-A person is liable for torts committed by himself and also those committed by others

with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible.

This liability is based on RELATIONSHIP between the parties.

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's ownacts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the

damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who

are under their authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible

for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the

latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. (ER-EE relationship must be

present.)

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household

helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not

engaged in any business or industry.

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. (Definite

order to do task, foreign to usual functions)

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for

damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain intheir custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when t he persons herein

mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to

prevent damage. (1903a)

*Failure to prove employees negligence is fatal to proving the employers vicarious

liability.

*Liability imposed by these provisions upon owners, managers and employers is based

on their own negligence in the selection of their employees and/or in the supervision

over their employees.

*as to the STATE:

STATE cannot be sued without its consent EXCEPT:

A. When it is performing proprietary functions.B. When the state enters into a contract with a private person.C. Acts through a special agent.

SPECIAL AGENT- one who receives fixed compensation foreign to t he exercise of the

duties of his office.