DEFENSE AGAINST THE CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE

The above findings clearly show that the negligence of

Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate respondent Antonio Esteban was not only contributory to his
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only injuries and those of his wife but goes to the very cause of
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's the
lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded.  occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors,
and thereby precludes their right to recover damages. 30 The
The court f ound upon the evidence that both the perils of the road were known to, hence appreciated and
plaintiff and the defendant were negligent in handling their assumed by, private respondents. By exercising reasonable
automobiles and that said negligence was of such a character care and prudence, respondent Antonio Esteban could have
and extent on the part of both as to prevent either from avoided the injurious consequences of his act, even
recovering. assuming arguendo that there was some alleged negligence
on the part of petitioner.
BERNARDO VS Where the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his The presence of warning signs could not have completely
LEGASPI own carelessness contributes to the principal prevented the accident; the only purpose of said signs was to
occurrence, that is, to the accident, as one of the inform and warn the public of the presence of excavations on
determining causes thereof, he cannot recover. This is the site. The private respondents already knew of the
equally true of the defendant; and as both of them, by presence of said excavations. It was not the lack of
their negligent acts, contributed to the determining knowledge of these excavations which caused the jeep of
cause of the accident, neither can recover. respondents to fall into the excavation but the unexplained
sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the
PLDT VS CA We find no error in the findings of the respondent court in its accident mound. As opined in some quarters, the
original decision that the accident which befell private omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of
respondents was due to the lack of diligence of respondent warning signs on the site of the excavation,
Antonio Esteban and was not imputable to negligent constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing
omission on the part of petitioner PLDT. of the said omitted act would have prevented the
injury.31 It is basic that private respondents cannot charge
“First. Plaintiff’s jeep was running along the inside lane of PLDT for their injuries where their own failure to exercise due
Lacson Street. If it had remained on that inside lane, it would and reasonable care was the cause thereof. It is both a
not have hit the ACCIDENT MOUND. societal norm and necessity that one should exercise a
reasonable degree of caution for his own protection.
Second. That plaintiff’s jeep was on the inside lane before it Furthermore, respondent Antonio Esteban had the last
swerved to hit the ACCIDENT MOUND could have been clear chance or opportunity to avoid the accident,
corroborated by a picture showing Lacson Street to the south notwithstanding the negligence he imputes to petitioner
of the ACCIDENT MOUND. PLDT. As a resident of Lacson Street, he passed on that
street almost everyday and had knowledge of the presence
Third. Plaintiff’s jeep was not running at 25 kilometers an and location of the excavations there. It was his negligence
hour as plaintiff-husband claimed. At that speed, he could that exposed him and his wife to danger, hence he is solely
have braked the vehicle the moment it struck the ACCIDENT responsible for the consequences of his imprudence.
MOUND.

Fourth. If the accident did not happen because the jeep was
running quite fast on the inside lane and for some reason or MANILA ELECTRIC Where it is shown that the death of the deceased was
other it had to swerve suddenly to the right and had to climb VS REMOQUILLO primarily caused by his own negligence, the company could
over the ACCIDENT MOUND, then plaintiff-husband had not not be held guilty of negligence or as lacking in due
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid diligence. To hold the latter liable in damages for the death
the accident. of the deceased, such supposed negligence of the company

Torts and Damages Midterm|1

 must have been the proximate and principal cause of the consonance with the Civil Code provision that liability will be
accident. But in the case at bar, the act of the deceased in mitigated in consideration of the contributory negligence of
turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet with the injured party
his hands was the proximate and principal cause of the In this case, the trail where Noble was electrocuted was
electrocution, therefore his heirs cannot recover. regularly used by members of the community. There were no
"A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an warning signs to inform passersby of the impending danger
action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish to their lives should they accidentally touch the high tension
the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury wires. Also, the trail was the only viable way from Dalicon to
was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or Itogon. Hence, Noble should not be faulted for simply doing
remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, what was ordinary routine to other workers in the area.
and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury
would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. The pocket miners, although they have no permit to do
If no danger existed in the condition except because of the pocket mining in the area, are also human beings who have
independent cause, such condition was not the proximate to eke out a living in the only way they know how. The fact
cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective that they were not issued a permit by the DENR to do pocket
condition sets into operation the circumstances which result mining is no justification for NPC to simply leave their
in injury because of the prior defective condition, such transmission lines dangling or hanging 8 to 10 feet above the
subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause."  ground posing danger to the life and limb of everyone in said
community. x x x”19 (Italics added)

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF In sum, the victim was not guilty of contributory
negligence. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to a mitigation of
Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the its liability.
damages that he may recover.
Same; Same; This Court ruled that the violation
NPC VS HEIRS OF Moreover, We find no contributory negligence on Noble’s of a statute is not sufficient to hold that the violation
CASIONAN part. was the proximate cause of the injury, unless the
Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of the very injury that happened was precisely what was
interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution, intended to be prevented by the statute.—In Añonuevo
and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, v. Court of Appeals, 441 SCRA 24 (2004), this Court ruled
whereby such other person suffers injury.11 On the other that the violation of a statute is not sufficient to hold that the
hand, contributory negligence is conduct on the part violation was the proximate cause of the injury, unless the
of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to very injury that happened was precisely what was intended
the harm he has suffered, which falls below the to be prevented by the statute. In said case, the allegation of
standard which he is required to conform for his own contributory negligence on the part of the injured party who
protection.12 There is contributory negligence when the violated traffic regulations when he failed to register his
party’s act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that bicycle or install safety gadgets thereon was struck down.
such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. 13 It is
an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the Quasi-Delicts; Damages; In quasi delicts,
part of the person injured which, concurring with the exemplary damages are awarded where the offender
defendant’s negligence, is the proximate cause of the was guilty of gross negligence.—In quasi delicts,
injury.14 exemplary damages are awarded where the offender was
The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that guilty of gross negligence. Gross negligence has been
a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should defined to be the want or absence of even slight care or
not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the diligence as to amount to a reckless disregard of the safety
consequences of his own negligence.15 If indeed there was of person or property. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
contributory negligence on the part of the victim, then it is consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.
proper to reduce the award for damages. This is in

Torts and Damages Midterm|2

 otherwise have lived; and
The alleged contributory negligence of the victim, if any, 2. the rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the
does not exonerate the accused. “The defense of deceased.
contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases
GENOBIAGON VS
committed through reckless imprudence, since one cannot Jurisprudence provides that the first factor, i.e., life
CA
allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his expectancy, is computed by applying the formula (2/3 x [80
own negligence . -age at death]) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of
Mortality or the Actuarial Combined Experience Table of
The negligence of the injured person contributing to his Mortality. As to the second factor, it is computed by
injury but not being one of the determining causes of the multiplying the life expectancy by the net earnings of the
MH RAKES VS THE principal accident, does not operate as a bar to recovery, but deceased, i.e., the total earnings less expenses necessary in
ATLANTIC & CO only in reduction of his damages. Each party is chargeable the creation of such earnings or income and less living and
with damages in proportion to his fault. other incidental expenses. 
The net earning is ordinarily computed at fifty
LAMBERT VS Clearly, the abrupt and sudden left turn by Reynaldo, without percent (50%) of the gross earnings . Thus, the
HEIRS OF first establishing his right of way, was the proximate cause of formula used by this Court in computing loss of
CASTILLON the mishap which claimed the life of Ray and injured Sergio. earning capacity is: 
Proximate cause is defined as that which, in the natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient, intervening Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 x (80 – age at
cause, produces the injury, and without which the result time of death) x (gross annual income –
would not have occurred. The cause of the collision is reasonable and necessary living expenses)] .22
traceable to the negligent act of Reynaldo for, as the trial
court correctly held, without that left turn executed with no ART. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a
precaution, the mishap in all probability would not have crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos,
happened. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances.
In addition:

In the case at bar, it was established that Ray, at the time of (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the
the mishap: (1) was driving the motorcycle at a high speed; earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be
(2) was tailgating the Tamaraw jeepney; (3) has imbibed one paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every
or two bottles of beer; and (4) was not wearing a protective case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the
helmet.21 These circumstances, although not constituting the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not
proximate cause of his demise and injury to Sergio, caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the
contributed to the same result. The contribution of these time of his death;
circumstances are all considered and determined in terms of
percentages of the total cause. Hence, pursuant to Rakes v. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to
AG & P, the heirs of Ray Castillon shall recover damages only the provisions of article 291, the recipient who is not an heir
up to 50% of the award. In other words, 50% of the damage called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or
shall be borne by the private respondents; the remaining intestate succession, may demand support from the person
50% shall be paid by the petitioner. causing the death, for a period of not exceeding five years,
the exact duration to be fixed by the court;
COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and
In considering the earning capacity of the victim as an ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for
element of damages, the following factors are considered in mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
determining the compensable amount of lost earnings: However, the amount has been gradually increased through
the years. At present, prevailing jurisprudence fixes the
1. the number of years for which the victim would amount at P50,000.00.26

Torts and Damages Midterm|3

 Paragraph 3 of the same provision also serves as the (2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or
basis for the award of moral damages in quasi-delict. The some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty; and
reason for the grant of moral damages has been explained, (3) connection of cause and effect between such negligence
thus: and damage.
. . . the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration,
within the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; DAMAGES
and therefore, it must be proportionate to the suffering
inflicted. The intensity of the pain experienced by the Actual or compensatory damages are those
relatives of the victim is proportionate to the intensity of awarded in order to compensate a party for an injury or loss
affection for him and bears no relation whatsoever with the he suffered. They arise out of a sense of natural justice,
wealth or means of the offender. 2 aimed at repairing the wrong done. To be recoverable, they
Note.—The rule is that the antecedent negligence of a must be duly proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. A
person does not preclude the recovery of damages caused by court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture, or guesswork as
the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon
fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of competent proof that they have suffered, and on evidence of
due diligence. (Canlas vs. Court of Appeals, 326 SCRA the actual amount thereof. Respondents, however, failed to
415 [2000]) present evidence for such damages; hence, the award of
actual damages cannot be sustained. However, as the heirs
of Rhonda Brunty undeniably incurred expenses for the wake
PNR VS BRUNTY Torts and Damages; Quasi-Delicts; Negligence; Words and burial of the latter, we deem it proper to award
and Phrases; Negligence is want of the care required by the temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 pursuant to
circumstances—it is a relative or comparative, not an prevailing jurisprudence. This is in lieu of actual damages as
absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation it would be unfair for the victim’sheirs to get nothing, despite
of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the the death of their kin, for the reason alone that they cannot
circumstances reasonably require.— Negligence is the produce receipts.
omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided
by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct Same; Same; Same; The relatives of the victim
of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which who incurred physical injuries in a quasi-delict are
a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In Corliss v. not proscribed from recovering moral damages in
Manila Railroad Company, 27 SCRA 674 (1969), this Court meritorious cases.— We, therefore, sustain the award of
held that negligence is want of the care required by the moral damages in favor of the heirs of Rhonda Brunty. Moral
circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an damages are not punitive in nature, but are designed to
absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation compensate and alleviate in some way the physical
of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
circumstances reasonably require. In determining whether or besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
not there is negligence on the part of the parties in a given shock, social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly
situation, jurisprudence has laid down the following test: Did caused a person. Although incapable of pecuniary
defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that computation, moral damages must nevertheless be somehow
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent proportional to and in approximation of the suffering
person would have used in the same situation? If not, the inflicted. In the instant case, the moral suffering of the heirs
person is guilty of negligence. The law, in effect, adopts the of Rhonda Brunty was sufficiently established by Ethel Brunty
standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct in her deposition.
of the discreet pater familias of the Roman law.

Same; Same; Same; Requisites to Sustain a Claim FORTUITOUS EVENT

Based on Quasi-Delict.—In a long line of cases, the Court
held that in order to sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise
the following requisites must concur: (1) damage to plaintiff; declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption

Torts and Damages Midterm|4

of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, nature."
or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. In discussing and analyzing the term caso
fortuito the Enciclopedia Jurídico, Española says: "In a legal
ELEMENTS (Lasam v. Smith): sense and, consequently, also in relation to contracts, a caso
fortuito presents the following essential characteristics:
(1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the
debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will; (1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply
(2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which cons- titutes the caso fortuito, with his obligation, must be independent of the
or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid. human will.

(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his (2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which
obligation in a normal manner; constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be
foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid.
(4) The debtor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury
(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it
resulting to the creditor.
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner. And
Note: The elements, while lacking in statutory basis, are applied by the court anyway.
(4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any
EXCEPTIONS: participation in the aggravation of the injury
resulting to the creditor." (5 Enciclopedia Jurídica
(1) specified by law; Española, 309.)

(2) when it is declared by stipulation; or As will be seen, these authorities agree that some
extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the
(3) required by the nature of the obligation. obligor, or of his employees, is an essential element of
a caso fortuito. Turning to the present case, it is at once
apparent that this element is lacking. It is not
suggested that the accident in question was due to an
LASAM VS SMITH What is meant by "events which cannot be foreseen and act of God or to adverse road conditions which could
which, having been foreseen, are inevitable?" The Spanish not have been foreseen. As far as the record shows,
authorities regard the language employed as an effort to the accident was caused either by defects in the
define the term caso fortuito and hold that the two automobile or else through the negligence of its
expressions are synonymous. (Manresa, Comentarios al driver. That is not a caso fortuito,
Código Civil Español, vol. 8, pp. 88 et seq.; Scævola, Código
Civil, vol. 19, pp. 526 et seq.) In the case at bar, the cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence was not independent of the human
The antecedent to article 1105 is found in Law 11, Title will. The accident was caused either through the negligence
33, Partida 7, which defines caso fortuito as (An event that of the driver or because of mechanical defects in the tire.
JUNTILLA VS
takes place by accident and could not have been foreseen. Common carriers should teach their drivers not to overload
FONTANAR
Examples of this are destruction of houses, unexpected fire, their vehicles, not to exceed safe and legal speed limits, and
shipwreck, violence of robbers. * * *)" to know the correct measures to take when a tire blows up
Escriche defines caso fortuito as "an unexpected event or thus insuring the safety of passengers at all times.
act of God which could neither be foreseen nor resisted, such
as floods, torrents, shipwrecks, conflagrations, lightning, SOUTHEASTERN In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from
compulsion, insurrections, destruction of buildings by COLLEGE VS CA liability, it is necessary that he be free from any previous
unforeseen accidents and other occurrences of a similar negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may

Torts and Damages Midterm|5

 have been occasioned. When the effect is found to be partly from the floods by imputing upon her the unfavorable
the result of the participation of man – whether it be from presumption that she assumed the risk of personal injury?
active intervention, or neglect, or failure to act – the whole Definitely not. For it has been held that a person is excused
occurrence is hereby humanized, and removed from the rules from the force of the rule, that when he voluntarily assents
applicable to fortuitous events. to a known danger he must abide by the consequences, if
an emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of
Robbery; Robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not a another is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his
fortuitous event; Merely presenting the police report on the endangered property (Harper and James, "The Law of
robbery committed based on the report of the employees of Torts." Little, Brown and Co., 1956, v. 2, p. 1167).
the pawnshop owner is not sufficient to establish robbery.
Clearly, an emergency was at hand as the deceased's
An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has property, a source of her livelihood, was faced with an
failed to take steps to forestall the possible adverse impending loss. Furthermore, the deceased, at the time the
SICAM VS JORGE consequences of such a loss. One's negligence may have fatal incident occurred, was at a place where she had a
concurred with an act of God in producing damage and injury right to be without regard to petitioner's consent as she
to another; nonetheless, showing that the immediate or was on her way to protect her merchandise. Hence, private
proximate cause of the damage or injury was a fortuitous respondents, as heirs, may not be barred from recovering
event would not exempt one from liability. damages as a result of the death caused by petitioner's
negligence.

A person is excused from the force of the rule when (1) an

emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of
PLAINTIFF’S ASSUMPTION OF RISK/VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA another is in peril, or (2) when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property.
AFIALDA VS HISOLE Article 1905 names the possessor or user of the animal as
the person liable for "any damages it may cause," since he CALALAS VS CA The fact that Sunga was seated in an "extension seat"
has the custody and is in a position to prevent it from (extension seat in a placed her in a peril greater than that to which the other
causing damage. jeepney) passengers were exposed. Therefore, not only was
petitioner unable to overcome the presumption of
In the present case, the animal was in custody and under negligence imposed on him for the injury sustained by
the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work as Sunga, but also, the evidence shows he was actually
such. Obviously, it was the caretaker's business to try to negligent in transporting passengers.
prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to We find it hard to give serious thought to petitioner's
anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal contention that Sunga's taking an "extension seat"
under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the amounted to an implied assumption of risk. It is akin to
occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the
he must take the consequences. tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely
because those passengers assumed a greater risk of
ILOCOS NORTE The maxim "volenti non fit injuria" relied upon by petitioner drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry. 
ELECTRIC VS CA finds no application in the case at bar. It is imperative to NIKKO HOTEL V The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to which a person
note the surrounding circumstances which impelled the REYES assents is not esteemed in law as injury" 47 ) refers to self-
deceased to leave the comforts of a roof and brave the (The Gate Crasher) inflicted injury48 or to the consent to injury49 which
subsiding typhoon. As testified by Linda Alonzo Estavillo precludes the recovery of damages by one who has
and Aida Bulong, the deceased, accompanied by the former knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even
two, were on their way to the latter's grocery store "to see if he is not negligent in doing so.
to it that the goods were not flooded." As such, shall We Elsewhere, we explained that when "a right is exercised in
punish her for exercising her right to protect her property a manner which does not conform with the norms
enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a

Torts and Damages Midterm|6

 legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer Civil Code, an action based upon a quasidelict must be
must be responsible." 60 The object of this article, therefore, instituted within four (4) years. The prescriptive period
is to set certain standards which must be observed not only begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed. In
in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance Paulan vs. Sarabia, this Court ruled that in an action for
of one’s duties.61 These standards are the following: act damages arising from the collision of two (2) trucks, the
with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty action being based on a quasi-delict, the four (4) year
and good faith.62 Its antithesis, necessarily, is any act prescriptive period must be counted from the day of the
evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Its elements are the collision.
following: (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.63 When Article 19 is violated, an action The right of action accrues when there exists a cause of
for damages is proper under Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil action, which consists of 3 elements, namely:
Code. Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means
violation of law64 which does not obtain herein as Ms. Lim and under whatever law it arises or is created;
was perfectly within her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave.
Article 21, on the other hand, states: b) an obligation on the part of defendant to respect such
right; and

PANTALEON V In Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes , 452 SCRA 532 c) an act or omission on the part of such defendant
AMERICAN EXPRESS (2005), we ruled that a person who knowingly and violative of the right of the plaintiff x x x. It is only when
voluntarily exposes himself to danger cannot claim the last element occurs or takes place that it can be said in
damages for the resulting injury: “The doctrine of volenti law that a cause of action has arisen x x x.”
non fit injuria (“to which a person assents is not esteemed
in law as injury”) refers to self-inflicted injury or to the
consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages CAUSES
by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself
to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so.” This A. PROXIMATE CAUSE
doctrine, in our view, is wholly applicable to this case.
Pantaleon himself testified that the most basic rule when BATACLAN VS Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and
travelling in a tour group is that you must never be a cause MEDINA continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
of any delay because the schedule is very strict . When cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
Pantaleon made up his mind to push through with his would not have occurred. More comprehensively, it is that
purchase, he must have known that the group would acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or
become annoyed and irritated with him. This was the by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural
natural, foreseeable consequence of his decision to make and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal
them all wait. connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event
in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural
and probable result of the cause which first acted, under
PRESCRIPTION such circumstances that the person responsible for the first
event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent
Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment
of his act or default that an injury to some person might
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; probably result therefrom.

(2) Upon a quasi-delict. When a vehicle turned not only on its side but completely
on its back, the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was
KRAMER CS CA he petition is devoid of merit. Under Article 1146 of the not unnatural or unexpected; that the coming of the men

Torts and Damages Midterm|7

 relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one
with lighted torch was in response to the call for help, of them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the
made not only by the passenger, but most probably by the person charged with injury is an efficient cause without
driver and the conductor themselves, and that because it which the injury would not have resulted to as great an
was very dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the
had to carry a light with them; and coming as they did person injured. It is no defense to one of the concurrent
from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not tortfeasors that the injury would not have resulted from his
available, they had to use a torch the most handy and negligence alone, without the negligence or wrongful acts
available; and what was more natural, than that said of the other concurrent tortfeasor. Where several causes
rescuers should innocently approach the overturned vehicle producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient
to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from cause without which the injury would not have happened,
them, Held: That the proximate cause of the death of B the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and
was the overturning of the vehicle thru the negligence of recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible
defendant and his agent. persons although under the circumstances of the case, it
may appear that one of them was more culpable, and that
the duty owed by them to the injured person was not the
same. No actor’s negligence ceases to be a proximate
MERCURY DRUG VS Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of
BAKING injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire
any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause
not have occurred otherwise. Proximate cause is of the injury.
determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined
consideration of logic, common sense, policy, and
precedent.
C. INTERVENING CAUSE
Here, the vehicular accident could not have occurred had
PHEONIX Nonetheless, we agree with the Court of First Instance and
petitioner’s employee been careful in reading Dr. Sy’s
CONSTRUCTION VS the Intermediate Appellate Court that the legal and
prescription. Without the potent effects of Dormicum, a
IAC proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisio's injuries
sleeping tablet, it was unlikely that respondent would fall
was the wrongful — or negligent manner in which the
asleep while driving his car, resulting in a collision.
dump truck was parked in other words, the negligence of
petitioner Carbonel. That there was a reasonable
Notes: There is a possibility that there was contributory
relationship between petitioner Carbonel's negligence on
negligence, since a considerable amount of time has lapsed
the one hand and the accident and respondent's injuries on
since the sale of the medicine. In any case, proximate
the other hand, is quite clear. Put in a slightly different
cause is usually confused with the standard of care.
manner, the collision of Dionisio's car with the dump truck
Proximate causation should emphasize the connection
was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck
between negligence and the injury. The case, however,
driver's negligence.
only focused on the degree of care required.

B. CONCURRENT CAUSE We believe, secondly, that the truck driver's negligence far
from being a "passive and static condition" was rather an
indispensable and efficient cause. The collision between the
FAR EASTERN It may be said, as a general rule, that negligence in
dump truck and the private respondent's car would in an
SHIPPING VS CA order to render a person liable need not be the sole cause
probability not have occurred had the dump truck not been
of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring
parked askew without any warning lights or reflector
with one or more efficient causes other than plaintiff’s, is
devices. The improper parking of the dump truck created
the proximate cause of the injury. Accordingly, where
an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone driving down
several causes combine to produce injuries, a person is not
General Lacuna Street and for having so created this risk,
Torts and Damages Midterm|8
 3. DETERMINING PROXIMATE CAUSATION
the truck driver must be held responsible. In our view,
Dionisio's negligence, although later in point of time than There is no exact mathematical formula to determine proximate cause. It is based
the truck driver's negligence and therefore closer to the upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent. Plaintiff
accident, was not an efficient intervening or independent must, however, establish a sufficient link between the act or omission and the
cause. What the Petitioners describe as an "intervening damage or injury. That link must not be remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no liability
cause" was no more than a foreseeable consequent will attach. The damage or injury must be a natural and probable result of the act or
manner which the truck driver had parked the dump truck. omission. [Dy Teban v. Ching, 2008]
In other words, the petitioner truck driver owed a duty to
private respondent Dionisio and others similarly situated DY TEBAN VS CHING There is no exact mathematical formula to determine
not to impose upon them the very risk the truck driver had proximate cause. It is based upon mixed considerations of
created. Dionisio's negligence was not of an independent logic, common sense, policy and precedent. [28] Plaintiff
and overpowering nature as to cut, as it were, the chain of must, however, establish a sufficient link between the act
causation in fact between the improper parking of the or omission and the damage or injury. That link must not
dump truck and the accident, nor to sever the juris be remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no liability will
vinculum of liability. It is helpful to quote once more from attach. The damage or injury must be a natural and
Professor and Keeton: probable result of the act or omission. In the precedent-
setting Vda. de Bataclan v. Medina,[29] this Court discussed
Foreseeable Intervening Causes. If the intervening the necessary link that must be established between the
cause is one which in ordinary human experience is act or omission and the damage or injury, viz.:
reasonably to be anticipated or one which the  
defendant has reason to anticipate under the  
particular circumstances, the defendant may be It may be that ordinarily, when a
negligence among other reasons, because of failure passenger bus overturns, and pins down
to guard against it; or the defendant may be a passenger, merely causing him physical
negligent only for that reason.  Thus one who sets a injuries, if through some event,
fire may be required to foresee that an ordinary, unexpected and extraordinary, the
usual and customary wind arising later wig spread it overturned bus is set on fire, say, by
beyond the defendant's own property, and lightning, or if some highwaymen after
therefore to take precautions to prevent that event. looting the vehicle sets it on fire, and the
The person who leaves the combustible or explosive passenger is burned to death, one might
material exposed in a public place may foresee the still contend that the proximate cause of
risk of fire from some independent source. ... In all his death was the fire and not the
of these cases there is an intervening cause overturning of the vehicle. But in the
combining with the defendant's conduct to produce present case and under the
the result and in each case the defendant's circumstances obtaining in the same, we
negligence consists in failure to protect the plaintiff do not hesitate to hold that the
against that very risk. proximate cause of the death of Bataclan
was the overturning of the bus, this for
the reason that when the vehicle turned
We hold that private respondent Dionisio's negligence was
not only on its side but completely on its
"only contributory," that the "immediate and proximate
back, the leaking of the gasoline from the
cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's "lack of due
tank was not unnatural or unexpected;
care" and that consequently respondent Dionisio may
that the coming of the men with a lighted
recover damages though such damages are subject to
torch was in response to the call for help,
mitigation by the courts (Article 2179, Civil Code of the
made not only by the passengers, but
Philippines)
most probably, by the driver and the
conductor themselves, and that because
Torts and Damages Midterm|9
 it was very dark (about 2:30 in the bring about the fire as the spark; and since that is
morning), the rescuers had to carry a the very risk which the defendant has created, the
light with them; and coming as they did defendant will not escape responsibility. Even the
from a rural area where lanterns and lapse of a considerable time during which the
flashlights were not available, they had to "condition" remains static will not necessarily affect
use a torch, the most handy and liability; one who digs a trench in the highway may
available; and what was more natural still be liable to another who fans into it a month
than that said rescuers should innocently afterward. "Cause" and "condition" still find
approach the overturned vehicle to occasional mention in the decisions; but the
extend the aid and effect the rescue distinction is now almost entirely discredited.  So far
requested from them. In other words, as it has any validity at all, it must refer to the type
the coming of the men with the torch of case where the forces set in operation by the
was to be expected and was natural defendant have come to rest in a position of
sequence of the overturning of the bus, apparent safety, and some new force
the trapping of some of its passengers intervenes. But even in such cases, it is not the
bus, the trapping of some of its distinction between "cause" and "condition" which
passengers and the call for outside help. is important but the nature of the risk and the
  character of the intervening cause. 9
The ruling in Bataclan has been repeatedly cited in
subsequent cases as authority for the proposition that the We believe, secondly, that the truck driver's negligence far
damage or injury must be a natural or probable result of from being a "passive and static condition" was rather an
the act or omission. Here, We agree with the RTC that the indispensable and efficient cause. The collision between the
damage caused to the Nissan van was a natural and dump truck and the private respondent's car would in an
probable result of the improper parking of the prime mover probability not have occurred had the dump truck not been
with trailer. As discussed, the skewed parking of the prime parked askew without any warning lights or reflector
mover posed a serious risk to oncoming motorists. Limbaga devices. The improper parking of the dump truck created
failed to prevent or minimize that risk. The skewed parking an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone driving down
of the prime mover triggered the series of events that led General Lacuna Street and for having so created this risk,
to the collision, particularly the swerving of the passenger the truck driver must be held responsible.
bus and the Nissan van.

PHOENIX Cause and condition. Many courts have sought to

CONSTRUCTION VS distinguish between the active "cause" of the harm
4. LAST CLEAR CHANCE DOCTRINE
IAC and the existing "conditions" upon which that cause
operated. If the defendant has created only a
passive static condition which made the damage CONSOLIDATED The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both
possible, the defendant is said not to be liable. But BANK VS CA parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is
so far as the fact of causation is concerned, in the appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is
sense of necessary antecedents which have played impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused
an important part in producing the result it is quite the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to
impossible to distinguish between active forces and avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the
passive situations, particularly since, as is invariably loss. Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of the
the case, the latter are the result of other active plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering damages
forces which have gone before.  The defendant who caused by the supervening negligence of the defendant,
spills gasoline about the premises creates a who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending
"condition," but the act may be culpable because of harm by the exercise of due diligence.
the danger of fire. When a spark ignites the
gasoline, the condition has done quite as much to We do not apply the doctrine of last clear chance to the

Torts and Damages Midterm|10

 present case. Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due failed to avail himself of that opportunity; while the plaintiff
to negligence in the performance of its contractual could by no means then place himself in a position of
obligation to L.C. Diaz. This is a case of culpa contractual, greater safety.
where neither the contributory negligence of the plaintiff
nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate BUSTAMANTE VS CA The doctrine cannot be extended into the field of joint
the defendant from liability. 31 Such contributory tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be
negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff merely held liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery
serves to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff of the latter's peril, and it cannot be invoked as between
but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of defendants concurrently negligent. As against third
contract. persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that
another had negligently failed to take action which could
PHIL BANK OF Furthermore, under the doctrine of "last clear chance" (also have avoided the injury.
COMMERCE VS CA referred to, at times as "supervening negligence" or as
"discovered peril"), petitioner bank was indeed the culpable Notes: The case defined the doctrine both in terms of its
party. This doctrine, in essence, states that where both effect on recovery and as a test to establish liability, that is,
parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is to determine proximate cause. However, part of the
appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it definition provided does not help at all in determining
is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should proximate cause since it even includes cases where it is
be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear impossible to determine whose negligence caused the
opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do occurrence. In other words, it seems to include those cases
so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. 19 Stated where proximate cause cannot be determined at all.
differently, the rule would also mean that an antecedent
negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of
damages for the supervening negligence of, or bar a 5. PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE
defense against liability sought by another, if the latter,
who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the Article 2180. The obligations imposed in Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's
impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. 20 Here, own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
assuming that private respondent RMC was negligent in
entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, thus providing xxx The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
the latter with the opportunity to defraud the company, as mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
advanced by the petitioner, yet it cannot be denied that the prevent damages.
petitioner bank, thru its teller, had the last clear
opportunity to avert the injury incurred by its client, simply
PERSONS EXERCISING PARENTAL AUTHORITYArticle 2180. xxx
by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation
procedure.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
PICART VS SMITH The plaintiff was riding a pony on a bridge, Seeing an
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
automobile ahead he improperly pulled his horse over to
the railing on the right. The driver of the automobile,
however, guided his car toward the plaintiff without Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who
diminution of speed until he was only a few feet away. He are under their authority and live in their company. xxx
then turned to the right but passed so closely to the horse
that the latter being frightened, jumped around and was Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees
killed by the passing car. Held: That although the plaintiff may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
was guilty of negligence in being on the wrong side of the
bridge, the defendant was nevertheless civilly liable for the Article 216, Family Code. In default of parents or a judicial- ly appointed guardian,
legal damages resulting from the collision, as he had a fair the following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the
opportunity to avoid the accident af ter he realized the order indicated:
situation created by the negligence of the plaintiff and

Torts and Damages Midterm|11

(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214; imputed to the parents is considered direct and primary,
that diligence would constitute a valid and substantial
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or defense. We believe that the civil liability of parents for
disqualified; and quasi-delicts of their minor children, as contemplated in
Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is primary and not subsidiary.
(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or In fact, if we apply Article 2194 of said code which provides
disqualified. for solidary liability of joint tortfeasors, the persons
responsible for the act or omission, in this case the minor
Whenever the appointment of a judicial guardian over the property of the child and the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
becomes necessary, the same order of preference shall be observed. mother, are solidarily liable. Accordingly, such parental
liability is primary and not subsidiary, hence the last
Article 217, Family Code. In case of foundlings, abandoned, neglected or abused paragraph of Article 2180 provides that “(t)he responsibility
children and other children similarly situated, parental authority shall be entrusted in treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
summary judicial proceedings to heads of children's homes, orphanages and similar herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence
institutions duly accredited by the proper government agency. of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

TAMARGO VS CA We do not believe that parental authority is properly

Article 221, Family Code.
Parents and other persons exercising parental regarded as having been retroactively transferred to and
authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused vested in the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, at
by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in the time the air rifle shooting happened. We do not
consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree
their company and under their parental authority subject to of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting
appropriate defenses provided by law. parents accruing at a time when the adopting parents had
no actual or physical custody over the adopted
LIBI VS IAC In imposing sanctions for the so-called vicarious child. Retroactive effect may perhaps be given to the
liability of petitioners, respondent court cites Fuellas vs. granting of the petition for adoption where such is essential
Cadano, et al. which supposedly holds that “(t)he to permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor
subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their of the adopted child. In the instant case, however, to hold
minor children imposed by Article 2180 of the New Civil that parental authority had been retroactively lodged in the
Code covers obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and Rapisura spouses so as to burden them with liability for a
criminal offenses,” followed by an extended quotation tortious act that they could not have foreseen and which
ostensibly from the same case explaining why under Article they could not have prevented (since they were at the time
2180 of the Civil Code and Article 101 of the Revised Penal in the United States and had no physical custody over the
Code parents should assume subsidiary liability for child Adelberto) would be unfair and unconscionable. Such
damages caused by their minor children. The quoted a result, moreover, would be inconsistent with the
passages are set out two paragraphs back, with pertinent philosophical and policy basis underlying the doctrine of
underscoring for purposes of the discussion hereunder. vicarious liability. Put a little differently, no presumption of
Now, we do not have any objection to the doctrinal rule parental dereliction on the part of the adopting parents, the
holding the parents liable, but the categorization of their Rapisura spouses, could have arisen since Adelberto was
liability as being subsidiary, and not primary, in nature not in fact subject to their control at the time the tort was
requires a hard second look considering previous decisions committed.
of this court on the matter which warrant comparative
analyses. Our concern stems from our readings that if the
liability of the parents for crimes or quasidelicts of their TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS
minor children is subsidiary, then the parents can neither
invoke nor be absolved of civil liability on the defense that Article 2180. xxx Lastly, teachers or head of establish-ments of arts and trades shall
they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to be liable for damages cause by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as
prevent damages. On the other hand, if such liability they remain in their custody. xxx

Torts and Damages Midterm|12

Article 218, Family Code. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the phrase used in the cited article — "so long as (the
individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental students) remain in their custody" means the protective
authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and
instruction or custody. teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long
as they are at attendance in the school, including recess
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or time. There is nothing in the law that requires that for such
outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. liability to attach the pupil or student who commits the
tortious act must live and board in the school, as
Article 219, Family Code. Those given the authority and responsibility under the erroneously held by the lower court, and the dicta
preceding Article shall be princip- ally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the in Mercado  (as well as in Exconde) on which it relied, must
acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the now be deemed to have been set aside by the present
persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily decision. 
liable.

The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not AMADORA VS CA After an exhaustive examination of the problem, the Court
apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the has come to the conclusion that the provision in question
particular circumstances. should apply to all  schools, academic as well as non-
academic. Where the school is academic rather than
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort
the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. committed by the student will attach to the teacher in
charge of such student, following the first part of the
PALISOC VS The rationale of such liability of school heads and teachers provision. This is the general rule. In the case of
BRILLANTES for the tortious acts of their pupils and students, so long as establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof,
they remain in their custody, is that they stand, to a certain and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the
extent, as to their pupils and students, in loco parentis  and general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be
are called upon to "exercise reasonable supervision over liable for the acts of their students except where the school
the conduct of the child."11 This is expressly provided for in is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof
Articles 349, 350 and 352 of the Civil Code. 12 In the law of who shall be answerable. Following the canon of reddendo
torts, the governing principle is that the protective custody singula singulis "teachers" should apply to the words
of the school heads and teachers is mandatorily substituted "pupils and students" and "heads of establishments of arts
for that of the parents, and hence, it becomes their and trades" to the word "apprentices."
obligation as well as that of the school itself to provide
proper supervision of the students' activities during the From a reading of the provision under examination, it is
whole time that they are at attendance in the school, clear that while the custody requirement, to repeat Palisoc
including recess time, as well as to take the necessary vs. Brillantes, does not mean that the student must be
precautions to protect the students in their custody from boarding with the school authorities, it does signify that the
dangers and hazards that would reasonably be anticipated, student should be within the control and under the
including injuries that some student themselves may inflict influence of the school authorities at the time of the
willfully or through negligence on their fellow students. . occurrence of the injury. This does not necessarily mean
that such custody be co-terminous with the semester,
beginning with the start of classes and ending upon the
close thereof, and excluding the time before or after such
The lower court therefore erred in law in absolving
period, such as the period of registration, and in the case
defendants-school officials on the ground that they could
of graduating students, the period before the
be held liable under Article 2180, Civil Code, only if the
commencement exercises. In the view of the Court, the
student who inflicted the fatal fistblows on his classmate
student is in the custody of the school authorities as long
and victim "lived and boarded with his teacher or the other
as he is under the control and influence of the school and
defendants officials of the school." As stated above, the
within its premises, whether the semester has not yet

Torts and Damages Midterm|13

 begun or has already ended. business of manufacturing and selling furniture it is therefore not
covered by said provision. Instead, the fourth paragraph should
SALVOSA VS IAC In line with the case of Palisoc, a student not “at apply. Petitioner’s interpretation of the fifth paragraph is not
attendance in the school” cannot be in “recess” thereat. A accurate. The phrase “even though the former are not engaged in
“recess,” as the concept is embraced in the phrase “at any business or industry” found in the fifth paragraph should be
attendance in the school” contemplates a situation of interpreted to mean that it is not necessary for the employer to be
temporary adjournment of school activities where the engaged in any business or industry to be liable forthe negligence of
student still remains within call of his mentor and is not his employee who is acting within the scope of his assigned task.
permitted to leave the school premises, or the area within
which the school activity is conducted. Recess by its nature The mere fact that ABAD was using a service vehicle at the time of
does not include dismissal. Likewise, the mere fact of being the injurious incident is not of itself sufficient to charge petitioner
enrolled or being in the premises of a school without more with liability for the negligent operation of said vehicle unless it
does not constitute “attending school” or being in the appears that he was operating the vehicle within the course or scope
“protective and supervisory custody” of the school, as of his employment.
contemplated in the law.
JAYME VS Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that a person is not only
Upon the foregoing considerations, we hold that APOSTOL liable for one’s own quasi-delictual
Jimmy B. Abon cannot be considered to have been “at acts, but also for those persons for whom one is responsible for. This
attendance in the school,” or in the custody of BCF, when liability is popularly known as vicarious or imputed liability. To sustain
he shot Napoleon Castro. Logically, therefore, petitioners claims against employers for the acts of their employees, the
cannot under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code be held solidarily following requisites must be established: (1) That the employee was
liable with Jimmy B. Abon for damages resulting from his chosen by the employer personally or through another; (2) That the
acts. service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer
has the authority to give at all times; and (3) That the illicit act of the
ST. MARY’S ACADEM Under Article 218 of the Family Code, the following shall employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions
VS CARPITANOS have special parental authority over a minor child while entrusted to him. Significantly, to make the employee liable under
under their supervision, instruction or custody: (1) the paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180, it must be established that the
school, its administrators and teachers; or (2) the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee
individual, entity or institution engaged in child care. This was performing his functions.
special parental authority and responsibility applies to all Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that a person is not only
authorized activities, whether inside or outside the liable for one’s own quasi-delictualacts, but also for those persons for
premises of the school, entity or institution. Thus, such whom one is responsible for. This liability is popularly known as
authority and responsibility applies to field trips, excursions vicarious or imputed liability. To sustain claims against employers for
and other affairs of the pupils and students outside the the acts of their employees, the following requisites must be
school premises whenever authorized by the school or its established: (1) That the employee was chosen by the employer
teachers. Under Article 219 of the Family Code, if the personally or through another; (2) That the service to be rendered in
person under custody is a minor, those exercising special accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give
parental authority are principally and solidarily liable for at all times; and (3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the
damages caused by the acts or omissions of the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him. Significantly,
unemancipated minor under their supervision, instruction, to make the employee liable under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article
or custody. 2180, it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act was
committed at the time the employee was performing his functions.
Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that a person is not only
liable for one’s own quasi-delictual
_______________
CASTILEX Petitioner contends that the fifth paragraph of Article 2180 of
VS the Civil Code should only apply to instances where the employer * THIRD DIVISION.
VASQUEZ is not engaged in business or industry. Since it is engaged in the 42

Torts and Damages Midterm|14

 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED duties, and their employer cannot be held liable for such fault or
2 negligence. In the context of the present case, “a hospital cannot be
Jayme vs. Apostol held liable for the fault or negligence of a physician or surgeon in the
acts, but also for those persons for whom one is responsible for. This treatment or operation of patients.
liability is popularly known as vicarious or imputed liability. To sustain
claims against employers for the acts of their employees, the LAMPESA Once negligence on the part of the employee is established, a
following requisites must be established: (1) That the employee was VS DE VERA presumption instantly arises that the employer was negligent in the
chosen by the employer personally or through another; (2) That the selection and/or supervision of said employee. 18 To rebut this
service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer presumption, the employer must present adequate and convincing
has the authority to give at all times; and (3) That the illicit act of the proof that he exercised care and diligence in the selection and
employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions supervision of his employees.
entrusted to him. Significantly, to make the employee liable under
paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180, it must be established that the MERCURY The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is direct
injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee DRUG V or immediate. It is not conditioned on a prior recourse against the
was performing his functions. HUANG negligent employee, or a prior showing of insolvency of such
employee. It is also joint and solidary with the employee. 11
FILAMER Funtecha is an employee of petitioner Filamer. He need not have an
VS IAC official appointment for a driver's position in order that the petitioner To be relieved of liability, petitioner Mercury Drug should show that it
may be held responsible for his grossly negligent act, it being exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, both in the
sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident was for selection of the employee and in the supervision of the performance
the benefit of the petitioner. Hence, the fact that Funtecha was not of his duties. Thus, in the selection of its prospective employees, the
the school driver or was not acting within the scope of his janitorial employer is required to examine them as to their qualifications,
duties does not relieve the petitioner of the burden of rebutting the experience, and service records.12 With respect to the supervision of
presumption juris tantum that there was negligence on its part either its employees, the employer should formulate standard operating
in the selection of a servant or employee, or in the supervision over procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary
him. The petitioner has failed to show proof of its having exercised measures for their breach. To establish compliance with these
the required diligence of a good father of a family over its employees requirements, employers must submit concrete proof, including
Funtecha and Allan. documentary evidence.

NPC VS CA STATE
VALENZUEL In fine, Alexander Commercial, inc. has not demonstrated, to our
A VS CA satisfaction, that it exercised the care and diligence of a good father Article 2180.
xxx The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
of the family in entrusting its company car to Li. No allegations were
made as to whether or not the company took the steps necessary to through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused
determine or ascertain the driving proficiency and history of Li, to by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which
whom it gave full and unlimited use of a company car. 31 Not having case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. xxx
been able to overcome the burden of demonstrating that it should be
absolved of liability for entrusting its company car to Li, said
JAYME VS It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are
company, based on the principle of bonus pater familias, ought to be
APOSTOL suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue
jointly and severally liable with the former for the injuries sustained
and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts
by Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela during the accident.
committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions
and can only be held answerable only if it can be shown that they
POFESSION A prominent civilist commented that professionals engaged by an
were acting in proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to
AL employer, such as physicians, dentists, and pharmacists, are not
be sued, the State merely gives the claimant the right to show that
SERVICES “employees” under this article because the manner in which they
the defendant was not acting in governmental capacity when the
VS AGANA perform their work is not within the control of the latter
injury was committed or that the case comes under the exceptions
(employer). In other words, professionals are considered personally
liable for the fault or negligence they commit in the discharge of their
Torts and Damages Midterm|15
 recognized by law. Failing this, the claimant cannot recover. of the performance of official duty is presumed pursuant to Section
3(m) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court. Hence, We rule
SAN Stated in simple parlance, the general rule is that the State that the driver of the dump truck was performing duties or tasks
FERNANDO may not be sued except when it gives consent to be sued. Consent pertaining to his office.
VS LA UNION takes the form of express or implied consent.
Express consent may be embodied in a general law or a
special law. The standing consent of the State to be sued in case MERITT VS The Government of the Philippine Islands its only liable for the
of money claims involving liability arising from contracts is found in GOVERNMENT negligent acts of its officers, agents, and employees when they are
Act No. 3083. A special law may be passed to enable a person to acting as special agents within. the meaning of paragraph 5 of
sue the government for an alleged quasi-delict, as in Merritt v. article 1903 of the Civil Code, and a chauffeur of the General
Government of the Philippine Islands (34 Phil 311). (see United Hospital is not such a special agent.
States of America v. Guinto, G.R. No. 76607, February 26,
1990, 182 SCRA 644, 654.)
Consent is implied when the government enters into business
contracts, thereby descending to the level of the other contracting
party, and also when the State files a complaint, thus opening
itself to a counterclaim. (Ibid)
Municipal corporations, for example, like provinces and cities,
are agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental
functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from
suit. Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in the
performance of such functions because their charter provided that
they can sue and be sued.

Anent the issue of whether or not the municipality is liable

for the torts committed by its employee, the test of
liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the
driver, acting in behalf of the municipality, is performing
governmental or proprietary functions. 

It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are

suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue
and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts
committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions
and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were
acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to be
sued, the State merely gives the claimant the right to show that
the defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when
the injury was committed or that the case comes under the
exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimant cannot
recover. (Cruz, supra, p. 44.)

In the case at bar, the driver of the dump truck of the

municipality insists that “he was on his way to the Naguilian river
to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando’s
municipal streets.” (Rollo, p. 29.)

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the regularity

Torts and Damages Midterm|16