Torts and Damages Midterms (Torts and Damages by Aquino)

Question 1

Session 1. August 17, 2023.

LEB Memo 13-02.
20% absences => Fail
20% (36 hours) = 7 hours = 4 meeting

Excused: Seminars

“The fight starts in the walls of the law office.”

Question 2

Session 2. August 24, 2023.

1st Classification of Torts:
A. Intentional
B. Negligence
C. Strict Liability

2nd Classification of Torts:
A. Property Torts
B. Personal Torts

Question 3

A torts case is essentially a plaintiff versus defendants (civil) case.

Plaintiff - injured party; can be natural or artificial persons
A. Parents
B. Unborn Child: Cutting of umbilical cord is necessary to consider life.
C. Heirs

Question 4

B. Unborn Child

Discuss Articles 40-42 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Answer 4

Article 40.
Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article.

Article 41.
For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother’s womb. However, if the foetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb.

Article 42. Civil personality is extinguished by death.

The effect of death upon the rights and obligations of the deceased is determined by law, by contract and by will.

Question 5

Tortfeasors. Vicarious liability.

General rule for joint tortfeasors:
The exoneration of one joint tortfeasor does not exonerate the other, unless the liability of one results from his responsibility for the other’s act, rather than from his own act.

Joint tortfeasors have solidary liability. (Article 2194 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines)

Question 6

Concurrent Negligence

It refers to negligence of two or more persons acting independently.

Ruling of PNCC vs. CA

Question 7

What are the purposes and nature of the remedies of torts?

Answer 7

(1) Compensatory. This is the primary purpose of a tort action. Compensation is provided to a person who was injured by the tortious conduct of the defendant.

(2) Preventive. The defendant may be enjoined from continuing with the performance of a tortious conduct.

(3) Restitution. The injured person may restore gains by restitution.

Question 8

Elements of Causes of Action in Tort

(1) A legal right in favor of a person;

(2) A correlative legal obligation on the part of defendant to respect/not violate such right; and

(3) A wrong (i.e., an act or omission in violation of said legal right and duty with consequent injury or damage to the plaintiff.
Note: Damnum absque injuria

Question 9

*Concurrence of Cause of Action

*Materiality of Motive

*Materiality of Intent

*Proscription on Double Recovery. Article 2177, NCCP

Question 10

Kind of Tort Liabilities
* Intentional Torts
* Negligent Torts
*Strict Liability
Example: Article 2187 NCCP and Article 100 of the Consumer Act

Question 11

Strict Liability Torts
* Liability to Damages Caused by Animals
* Falling Objects
* Liability of Employers

Question 12

CHAPTER 2
NEGLIGENCE

Definition of Negligence

What is the definition of negligence?

Answer 12

Negligence involves voluntary acts or omissions that result in injury to others, without intending to cause the same. The actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions.

Question 13

CHAPTER 2
NEGLIGENCE

Definition of Negligence

What is the definition of negligence in Article 1173 of the New Civil Code?

Answer 13

Article 1173 of the New Civil Code defines negligence as the omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time, and place.

Question 14

CHAPTER 2
NEGLIGENCE

Definition of Negligence

What are some jurisprudential definition of negligence?

Answer 14

Jurisprudential definitions of negligence include the following:

(1) Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not.

(2) Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.

(3) Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require. Where the danger is real, a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances.

(4) Negligence, as it is commonly understood, is conduct which creates undue risk of harm to others.

Question 15

Define the two (2) types of negligence.

Answer 15

The following jurisprudential definitions of the two (2) types of negligence are based from Trinidad, Jr. v. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 227440, December 02, 2020).

The two types of negligence are:
(1) Simple negligence. Simple negligence is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task expected of him, or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference.

(2) Gross negligence. gross negligence is characterized by want of even the slightest care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, or by flagrant and palpable breach of duty. It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty. Gross negligence, thus, involves an element of intent, more than mere carelessness or indifference to do one’s duty.

Question 16

CHAPTER 2
NEGLIGENCE

Is motive material in negligence?

Answer 16

No. Motive is not material in negligence cases. The defendant may still be held liable for damages even if the act was meant to be a practical joke.

Question 17

In Equitable Banking Corporation, Inc. vs.
Special Steel Products (G.R. No. 175350, June 13, 2012), what degree of negligence was shown by Equitable Banking Corporation?

Answer 17

A crossed check with the notation “account payee only” can only be deposited in the named payee’s account. It is gross negligence for a bank to ignore this rule solely on the basis of a third party’s oral representations of having a good title thereto.

The fact that a person, other than the named payee of the crossed check, was presenting it for deposit should have put the bank on guard. It should have verified if the payee (SSPI) authorized the holder (Uy) to present the same in its behalf, or indorsed it to him. Considering however, that the named payee does not have an account with Equitable (hence, the latter has no specimen signature of SSPI by which to judge the genuineness of its indorsement to Uy), the bank knowingly assumed the risk of relying solely on Uy’s word that he had a good title to the three checks. Such misplaced reliance on empty words is tantamount to gross negligence, which is the “absence of or failure to exercise even slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care, evincing a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.The fact that a person, other than the named payee of the crossed check, was presenting it for deposit should have put the bank on guard. It should have verified if the payee (SSPI) authorized the holder (Uy) to present the same in its behalf, or indorsed it to him. Considering however, that the named payee does not have an account with Equitable (hence, the latter has no specimen signature of SSPI by which to judge the genuineness of its indorsement to Uy), the bank knowingly assumed the risk of relying solely on Uy’s word that he had a good title to the three checks. Such misplaced reliance on empty words is tantamount to gross negligence, which is the “absence of or failure to exercise even slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care, evincing a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.”

Question 18

Requisites of Quasi-Delict

(1) There must be an act or omission constituting fault or negligence.

(2) There is damage caused by the said act or omission.

(3) There is causal relation between the damage and the act or omission.

Question 19

Maniclic v. Calaunan
G.R. No. 150157
January 25, 2007

Nature:
Criminal case filed before the civil case.

The civil case for damages was one arising from, or based on, quasi-delict. Petitioner Manliclic was sued for his negligence or reckless imprudence in causing the collision, while petitioner PRBLI was sued for its failure to exercise the diligence of a good father in the selection and supervision of its employees, particularly petitioner Manliclic.

Manliclic was acquitted of the criminal case before the CA.

Can Manliclic still be held liable for the collision and be found negligent notwithstanding the declaration of the Court of Appeals that there was an absence of negligence on his part?

Answer 19

Yes.

Petitioner Manliclic can still be held liable for the mishap. The afore-quoted section (Section 2(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure) applies only to a civil action arising from crime or ex delicto and not to a civil action arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. The extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111 [now Section 2 (b) of Rule 111], refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused.

Question 20

What is the reason of Manliclic’s liability?

Answer 20

A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime – a distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual. The same negligence causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. It is now settled that acquittal of the accused, even if based on a finding that he is not guilty, does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability based on quasi delict.

In other words, if an accused is acquitted based on reasonable doubt on his guilt, his civil liability arising from the crime may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. However, if an accused is acquitted on the basis that he was not the author of the act or omission complained of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist), said acquittal closes the door to civil liability based on the crime or ex delicto. In this second instance, there being no crime or delict to speak of, civil liability based thereon or ex delicto is not possible. In this case, a civil action, if any, may be instituted on grounds other than the delict complained of.

As regards civil liability arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, same will not be extinguished by an acquittal, whether it be on ground of reasonable doubt or that accused was not the author of the act or omission complained of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist). The responsibility arising from fault or negligence in a quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. An acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.

Question 21

Can civil liability arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana be extinguished by an acquittal?

Answer 21

No.

As regards civil liability arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, same will not be extinguished by an acquittal, whether it be on ground of reasonable doubt or that accused was not the author of the act or omission complained of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist). The responsibility arising from fault or negligence in a quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. An acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.

Question 22

Session 3. September 7, 2023.

Cases to read:
G.R. No. L-11318
G.R. No. 122039
G.R. No. 194403

Question 23

Session 3. September 7, 2023.