Principles

Question 1

Article 19. NCC

Answer 1

ARTICLE 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Question 2

Elements of Abuse of Rights

Answer 2

1. Existence of a legal right or duty
2. Which is exercised in bad faith
3. With the sole intent of injuring or prejudicing another

Question 3

Article 20

Answer 3

ARTICLE 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Question 4

Article 21

Answer 4

ARTICLE 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Question 5

Article 22

Answer 5

ARTICLE 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.

Question 6

Article 26

Answer 6

ARTICLE 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; dumrrI

(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.

Question 7

Article 2176

Answer 7

ARTICLE 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.

Question 8

Article 2180

Answer 8

ARTICLE 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts 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.

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.

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 in their custody.

The responsibility treated 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. (1903a)

Question 9

Requisites of Unjust Enrichment

Answer 9

1. A person is benefitted without a valid basis or justification
2. Such benefit is derived at the expense of another

Question 10

Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Answer 10

1. There is an act which is legal
2. Contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
3. Act is done with an intent to injure

Question 11

Elements of quasi-delicts

Answer 11

1. Damage to the plaintiff
2. Negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty
3. Connection of the cause and effect between such negligence and damage
4. There is no pre-existing contractual relations between the parties

Question 12

What is the nature of liability between joint tortfeasors?

Answer 12

The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solitary.

Question 13

Proximate Cause

Answer 13

The proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred St. Mary’s Academy vs. Carpitanos, 376 SCRA 473, G.R. No. 143363 February 6, 2002

Question 14

What is the defense that may be used by persons who are vicariously liable in order to evade liability?

Answer 14

When they are able to show proof that they have exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage caused by a negligent act.

Question 15

Res ipsa loquitur

Answer 15

“The thing or transaction speaks for itself”

Where the thing which causes the injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant,

and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management have the proper care

it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.R

Question 16

Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitur

Answer 16

1. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent
2. the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence; and
3. The injury must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the injured.

Question 17

Damnum absque injuria

Answer 17

One who merely exercises a right does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable for damages. This is premised on the valid exercise of a right.

Question 18

Exercise of diligence in the selection and supervision of employees

Answer 18

The employer is made responsible for not the act of his employees, but for failing to properly and diligently select and supervise his erring employees.

Thus, proof of diligence in selection and suoervisio shall exempt the employer

Question 19

Test of negligence in a quasi-delict

Answer 19

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. If not, he is guilty of negligence

Question 20

Who can be held liable for a minor’s tort?

Answer 20

Parents, Guardians or Teachers/Heads. Liability of which is solidary subject to reimbursement.

Negligence of supervision.

Question 21

St. Francis Case

Answer 21

The teachers/peti-tioners were not in the actual performance of their assigned tasks. The incident happened not within the school premises, not on a school day and most importantly while the teachers and students were holding a purely private affair, a picnic. It is clear from the beginning that the incident happened while some members of the I-C class of St. Francis High School were having a picnic at Talaan Beach. This picnic had no permit from the school head or its principal, Benjamin Illumin because this picnic is not a school sanctioned activity neither is it considered as an extra-curricular activity. St. Francis High School vs. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 341, G.R. No. 82465 February 25, 1991

Question 22

Elements of an ER-EE relationship

Answer 22

1. Selection and engagement of the employee
2. Payment of wages
3. Power of Dismissal
4. The employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.

Question 23

Boundary System

Answer 23

Find the case which states that there is an ER-EE relp in a boundary system. ER liable

Question 24

Liability of parties under the Kabit System

Answer 24

Driver and Operator are jointly liable because the arrangement is contrary to public policy

Question 25

Article 2189

Answer 25

Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. (n)

Question 26

Negligence attributable to Local Government Units

Answer 26

Strict Liability Rule

Question 27

Air France vs. Carroscoso

Answer 27

Check jurisprudence

Question 28

Remote Cause

Answer 28

The cause that happened a long time ago.

That cause which some independent force merely took advantage of to accomplish something not the natural effect thereof.

A remote cause cannot be considered the legal cause of the damage.

Question 29

Immediate Cause

Answer 29

Refers to the last event before the occurrence of the injury.

Suggests proximity to the time of the loss. What is usually contemplated is a situation where at least two causes are involved, one cause occurs after another.

Ex. An explosion occurred in a building which was followed by a fire which destroyed the building. The fire is the immediate cause.

Question 30

Concurrent Cause

Answer 30

Contemplates two or more causes.

Plaintiff cannot recover if the negligence of both the plaintiff and defendant can be considered the concurrent proximate cause of the injury.

Question 31

Intervening Cause

Answer 31

The event in between the proximate cause and the immediate cause.

An intervening cause, to be considered efficient, must be “one not produced by a wrongful act or omission, but independent of it, and adequate to bring the injurious results. Any cause intervening between the first wrongful cause and the final injury which might reasonably have been foreseen or anticipated by the original wrongdoer is not such an efficient intervening cause as will relieve the original wrong of its character as the proximate cause of the final injury.”

Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Company, Inc., 820 SCRA 301, G.R. No. 164749 March 15, 2017

Question 31

Sine Qua Non Test / But For Test

Answer 31

Defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of the injury under the “but-for-test” if the damage would not have resulted had there been no negligence on the part of the defendant.

Conversely, the defendant’s negligent conduct is not the cause in fact of the plaintiff’s damage if the accident could not have been avoided in the absence thereof.

Question 32

Substantial Factor Test

Answer 32

This test makes the negligent conduct the cause in fact of the damage if it was a substantial factor in producing the injuries.

This test is applied when there are concurrent causes. Check which of the causes impacted the tortious act more.

Question 33

Effect of contributory negligence in the award of damages

Answer 33

Mitigates the damages that may be awarded to the injured

Question 34

Art. 2184

Answer 34

ARTICLE 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 of 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)

Question 35

Art. 2185