Civil law: Torts and Damages: Notes for Midterms

Quasi-Delict: Definition

Art. 2176: Fault or negligence of a person, who, by his act or omission, connected or unconnected with, but independent from, any contractual relation, causes damage to another.

Elcano v. Hill: An act, whether punishable or not punishable by law, whether criminal or not criminal in character, whether intentional or voluntary or negligent, which result in the damage to another.

Quasi-Delict v. Torts

QD is known as culpa-aquiliana is a civil law concept while Torts is Anglo-American or common law concept. Torts is broader than culpa-aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but intentional criminal acts as well. However, Article 21 with Art 19 and 20, greatly broadened the scope of the law on civil wrongs; it has become more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law on torts.

Quasi-Delict: Scope

Art. 2176 and Elcano v. Hill: covers not only punishable by law, but also criminal in character, whether intentional, voluntary, or negligent.

Presence of pre-existing contract generally bars the applicability of the law on quasi-delict. However, Air France v. Carrascoso and some other cases provides that the mere existence of a contract does not automatically negate the existence of quasi-delict xxx the act that breaks the contract may also be tort. Air France is reiterated in PSBA vs. CA.

Types of Quasi-Delicts:

Intentional Torts: When the law tries to serve its highest purpose; to regulate the relations among men; to promote mutual respect, dignity and justice.

Sea Commercial v. CA: Article 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrong which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law.

Elements of Abuse of Right
1. there is a legal right or duty
2. which is exercised in bad faith
3. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another

Article 19 together with the succeeding articles on human relations was intended to embody certain basic principles “that are to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of their social orders. (Sea Commercial supra)
Strict Liability Torts:

The rule on strict liability is said to be applicable in situations in which social policy requires the defendant make good the harm which results to others from abnormal risks which are inherent in activities that are not considered blameworthy because they are reasonably incident to desirable industrial activities.

Provisions:
1. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost (Art. 2183)
2. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, etc. (Art 2187)
3. RA 7394 or the “Consumer Acts of the Philippines”.
The product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it, taking relevant circumstances into consideration, including but not limited to:
a. presentation of product
b. use and hazard reasonably expected of it
c. the time it was put into circulation
4. Head of the family that lives in a building is responsible for the damages causes by things thrown or falling from the same ( Art 2193)

Human Dignity

Refer to Jacutin v. People. GR No. 140604, March 6, 2002.

Art. 26 of NCC.

Nuisance

Refer to nuisance in property.

Scope: Public and private
Nature: per se and per accidense

Nuisance is the limitation of the use of property

Bengzon v. Province of Pangasinan: The pumping station should have foreseen the consequences of the construction of such station. The duty shifted to pumping station that they should have thought that the construction may give damage to Bengzons.

Attractive Nuisance: Requisites
1. it must involve children
2. it must have dangerous instrumentality
3. there is a failure to take reasonable precaution

Attractive nuisance is an implied license to enter and a breach of duty.

Quasi-Delict: Person Responsible

Art. 2176: One who directly responsible for the damages is responsible, others are:
1. Father or mother with respect to the damages of their minor child.
2. Guardians with authority to minor child or incapacitated who lives with them
3. Owners and managers of the establishment with respect to employees
4. Employers
5. The State
6. Teachers or heads of establishment of arts and trades with respect to students

Schloendoerff doctrine regards a physician, even if employed by a hospital, as an independent contractor, because of his skill the exercises and the lack of control exerted over his work. Under this doctrine, the hospital is exempt from the application of the repondeat superior principle for fault or negligence committed by physician in the discharge of their profession. HOWEVER, Ramos v. CA weakens this doctrine- hospitals are no longer exempt from universal rule of respondeat superior.

Doctrine of Corporate Negligence, hospitals have now the duty to make reasonable effort to monitor and oversee the treatment prescribed and administered by physicians practicing in its premises.

Doctrine of ostensible agency- imposes liability upon hospital because of the hospitals’ actions as principal or as employer in somehow misleading the public into believing that the relationship or the authority exists.

Quasi-Delict: Requisites

Taylor v. Manila Electric Co.:
1. Fault or negligence of the defendant
2. Damage suffered or incurred by plaintiff
3. The relation of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.

Traditional Quasi-Delict: Elements

Art. 2176:
1. act or omission
2. damage or injury is caused to another
3. fault or negligence is present
4. no pre-existing contractual obligation
5. causal connection between damage done and act or omission

Quasi-Delict and Crime: Difference

Barredo v. Garcia:
1. Crimes affect public interest, while quasi-delict concerns only private concerns
2. The RPC punishes the criminal act, while NCC, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damages incurred
3. Crimes are not broad as quasi-delicts, because the former are punished only if there is a law clearly covering them, while the latter include all acts in which any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.

Quasi-Delict and Culpa contractual: Difference

Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.: Culpa aquiliana (QD) the culpa is substantive and independent, which of itself constitutes the source of an obligation between persons not formerly connected by any legal tie, while culpa contractual, culpa is considered as an accident in the performance of an obligation already existing.

Test of Negligence

Negligence is statutorily defined to be 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 (Art 1173)

Test: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not he is guilty of negligence. (Roman Law paterfamilias).

CASES

Sea Commercial v. CA- discussion on Art. 19
Afialda v. Hisole- Defense in torts: Assumption of Risk
Jacutin v. People- Human Dignity
Bengzon v. Prov. Of Pangasinan- Nuisance
Taylor v. Manila Electric Co.- Attractive Nuisance
University of the East v. Jader- Art. 19
Uypitching v. Quiamco- Art. 20
Vestil v. IAC- Strict Liability Tort (Art. 2183)
Amonoy v. Gutierrez- Damnum absque injuria (not applied but discussed)
Albenson Enterprise v. CA- Art. 21 (not applied but cited)
Daywalt v. Corporacion- Intentional Tort, Culpable act, wrongful interference of third party in a contract (not applied)
Gilchrist v. Cuddy- Wrongful interference of a third party in a contract (applied), Intentional act
Wylie v. Rarang- Intentional act/ criminal act
Barredo v. Garcia- Independence of civil liability based on NCC from civil liability based on RPC
Elcano v. Hill- Civil action lays even the acquittal in criminal case
Dulay v. CA- Master servant rule
Air France v. Carrascoso- Bad faith, Exception in Art. 2176 as basis for quasi-delict, contractual breach may be subject to torts.
Tenchavez v. Escano- Bad faith
Civil Aeronautics v. CA- Bad faith
Mandarin Villa v. CA- Negligence, test in determining negligence
RCPI v. CA- Negligence
Metropolitan Bank v. CA- Deligence of a good pater familias