32972910 torts magic notes

8/13/2019 32972910 Torts Magic Notes

1/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"

PRELIMINARY MATTERS:*Those in SMALLCAPS (and underlined) were highlighted by SirCasis during the class. If none are found !ust refer to those inbold letters and those in the Notes . "ood luc# class$ates%

&torts $agic notes tea$

VI. PERSONS LIABLE A. The Tortfeasor

Art. 2!". 'hoeer by act or o$ission causesda$age to another there being fault or negligenceis obliged to ay for the da$age done. Such faultor negligence if there is no ree+isting contractualrelation between the arties is called a ,uasidelictand is goerned by the roisions of this Chater.(-/0a)

Art. 2#.'hoeer ays for the da$age causedby his deendents or e$loyees $ay recoer fro$the latter what he has aid or deliered insatisfaction of the clai$. (-/1)

Art. 2$%. The resonsibility of two or $oreersons who are liable for ,uasidelict is solidary.(n)

& L A S S N O T E S There 'an be (ore than one tortfeasor and

the) are 'alled *OINT TORT+EASORS

Are )o, s,--ose to s,e all of the( NObe'a,se )o, 'an /et relief fro( one ofthe(.

0o the) ha1e to a't in 'on'ert NO

or'ester 1. O'a(-o2ebruary 03 --0

+A&TS: 4ean 'orcester filed an action to recoerda$ages resulting fro$ an alleged libelous ublicationagainst Martin 5ca$o Teodoro M. 6alaw Loe 6.Santos 2idel A. 7eyes 2austino Aguilar et al as theowners directors writers editors and ad$inistrators ofthe daily newsaer 89l 7enaci$iento: (Sanishersion) and 8Muling Pagsilang: (tagalong ersion).'orcester alleged that the defendants hae been$aliciously ersecuting and attac#ing hi$ in the

newsaers for a long ti$e and they ublished aneditorial entitled 8;irds of Prey: with the $alicious intent

of in!uring 'orcester both as a riate erson and as agoern$ent official as the editorial obiously referred tohi$.

'orcester alleged that he was li#ened to 8birds of rey:in the following $anner< 8Such are the characteristics ofthe $an who is at the sa$e ti$e an eagle whosurrises and deours a ulture who gorges hi$self onthe dead and utrid $eats an owl who affects aetulant o$niscience and a a$ire who silently suc#sthe blood of the icti$ until he leaes it bloodless.:

T&: In faor of 'orcester= 4efendants 3ointl) andse1erall)liable for the P>/# total da$ages.

ISS?9< '5@ the defendants indiidual roerties canbe $ade !ointly and seerally liable for the da$agesunder the ciil and co$$ercial codes

4EL0: Bes. TC $odified. 4a$ages reduced Santos

absoled.

The resent action is a tort.

5ni1ersal do'trine: each !oint tortfeasor is not onlyindiidually liable for the tort in which he articiatesbut is also !ointly liable with his tortfeasors.

If seeral ersons co$$it a tort the laintiff or ersonin!ured has his election to sue all or so$e of the arties!ointly or one of the$ searately be'a,se the TORTISINITSNAT5REASEPARATEA&TO+EA&4IN0IVI05AL.

It is not necessary that cooeration should be a directcororal act e.g. assault and battery co$$itted byarious ersons under the co$$on law they are allrincials.

?nder co$$on law he who aided or counseled in anyway the co$$ission of a cri$e was as $uch arincial as he who inflicted or co$$itted the actualtort.

6eneral R,le: oint tortfeasors are all the ersons whoco$$and instigate ro$ote encourage adisecountenance cooerate in aid or abet the co$$issionof a tort or who aroe of it after it is done if done for

their benefit. They are each liable as rincials to the

sa$e e+tent and in the sa$e $anner as if they haderfor$ed the wrongful act the$seles.

oint tortfeasors are !ointly and seerally liable for thetort which they co$$it.

oint tortfeasors are not liable -ro rata. The da$agescan not be aortioned a$ong the$ e+cet a$ongthe$seles. They cannot insist uon an aortion$entfor the urose of each aying an ali,uot art. The)are 3ointl) and se1erall) liable for the f,ll a(o,nt.A ay$ent in full of the da$age done by one tortfeasorsatisfies any clai$ which $ight e+ist against the others.The release of one of the !oint tortfeasors by agree$entgenerally oerates to discharge all.

The court howeer $ay $a#e findings as to which ofthe alleged !oint tortfeasors are liable and which arenot een if they are charged !ointly and seerally.

Art. 2#%7.In $otor ehicle $ishas the owner issolidarily liable with his drier if the for$er who was inthe ehicle could hae by the use of the due diligencereented the $isfortune. It is disutably resu$ed thata drier was negligent if he had been found guilty orrec#less driing or iolating traffic regulations at leasttwice within the ne+t receding two $onths.

*this was drafted with Cha$an . ?nderwood in $ind.

& L A S S N O T E S Sir highlighted that 8Tort is in its nature a

searate act of each indiidual: & so no need

to sue all of the tortfeasors%

&ha-(an 1. 5nder8oodMarch 0D --1

+A&TS: .E. Cha$an was trying to board a 8SanMarcelino: car trough the rear latfor$ when he wasstruc# by Mr. a$es ?nderwoords auto$obile whichwas at that ti$e drien by his chauffer.

?nderwoods drier was guilty of negligencebecause he was assing an onco$ing car uon thewrong side when he ran oer Cha$an. Cha$an wasnot obliged for his own rotection to obsere whether acar was co$ing uon hi$ fro$ where he was because

according to the law no auto$obile or other ehicle

1


2/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"co$ing fro$ his left should ass uon his side of thecar.

T&: In faor of ?nderwood

ISS5E: '5@ ?nderwood is resonsible for thenegligence of his drier.

4EL0: @o. TC affir$ed. The interal between unlawfulact and the accident was so s$all as not to be sufficientto charge ?nderwood with the negligence of the drier.The drier does not fall within the list of ersons in Art.-/F (now 0-D/) for whose acts ?nderwood would beresonsible.

This rule alies een if the owner of theehicle was resent at the ti$e of the accident ,nlessT4ENE6LI6ENTA&TSO+T4E0RIVERARE&ONTIN5E0+ORS5&4 A LEN6T4 O+ TIME AS TO 6IVE T4E ONER AREASONABLE OPPORT5NITY TO OBSERVEAN0 TO 0IRE&T

4IS0RIVERTO0ESISTT4ERE+ROM.

hen 8ill the o8ner be liable9An owner who sits inhis ehicle and er$its his drier to continue in aiolation of the law by the erfor$ance of his negligentacts after he had A 79AS5@A;L9 5PP57T?@ITB T55;S97G9 TE9MA@4 T5 4I79CT TEAT TE9 47IG97 C9AS9TE979275M ;9C5M9S EIMS9L2 79SP5@SI;L9 257 S?CE

ACTS.

hen 8ill the o8ner be NOT liable9if the drier by asudden act of negligence and without the owner haingreasonable oortunity to reent the act or itscontinuance in!ures a erson or iolates the cri$inallaw the owner of the ehicle resent therein at theti$e the act was co$$itted is not resonsible etiherciilly or cri$inally therefor.

The a't 'o(-lained of (,st be 'ontin,ed in the-resen'e of the o8ner for s,'h a len/th of ti(e thatthe o8ner b) his a';,ies'en'e (a


3/61


& L A S S N O T E SThe standard set in this 'ase is still REASONABLEOPPORT5NITY.

0ifferen'e bet8een res-ondeat s,-erior 1s.-aterfa(iliasRes-ondeat s,-erior: acts under orders (- negligent &the one who gae the orders)Paterfa$ilias< acts under guidance (0 negligent & boththe owner and the drier)T9ST of i$uted negligence< S?;9CTIG9*not all owners are learnedHrofessional driers & thatswhy they hire driers for the$%

GICA7I5?S LIA;ILITB< found in Article 0-D/ (but usethe ter$ 8tortfeasors: instead of 8one:a tortfeasor would be liable not only for his own acts oro$issions but also for those of ersons for who$ he is

resonsible

Ta#e note of difference between @CC and 2C there being no 8fault ornegligence: but deliberate intent to cause in!ury.

S&: *,ris-r,den'e -ro1es hi( 8ron/.

Araneta v. Arreglado9Cthe Arre/lados9father(other and son 8ere held liable for da(a/esD 'i1illa8 liabilit) ,nder 2#@ is not res-ondeat s,-eriorb,t pater familias which bases the liability of thefather ulti$ately on his own negligence and not on thatof his $inor son and that if an in!ury is caused by thefault or negligence of his $inor son the law resu$esthat there was negligence on the art of his father.

Exconde v. Capuno(the father was held solidarilyliable with his son for da$ages) The ciil liability of thefather is a necessary conse,uence of the arentalauthority he e+ercises. 5nly defense is roof ofdiligence of a good father of the fa$ily to reent theda$age.

Manresa: Children and wards do not hae the caacityto goern the$seles so arents and guardians haethe duty to e+ercise secial igilance. If they fail toco$ly with this duty they should suffer theconse,uences of their abandon$ent or negligence byreairing the da$age caused.

2.Agaito clai$s that he could only be liable if theaction was based on the subsidiary liability of thearents under the 7PC. And since 7ico acted withdiscern$ent the roisions do not coer the case.

S&: &ase la8 is a/ainst hi( a/ain.

Salen and Salbarena v. Balce (where father was$ade to ay the inde$nity his -D year old son wassentenced to ay because his son was insolent) Sincethe 7PC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of a $inoroer but under -K who acted with discern$ent resortshould be $ade to the general law which is the CiilCode secifically 2#@.

. CA decided the case based on the eidencesub$itted by both arties indeendently of the cri$inalcase. 7esonsibility for fault or negligence under 0-3>(uon which this action is instituted) is entirely searateand distinct fro$ the ciil liability arising fro$ fault ornegligence under the 7PC hence any discussion of7icos cri$inal intent is of no $o$ent.

& L A S S N O T E S In this 'ase -arental liabilit) 8as -ri(ar).

6,tierreF 1. 6,tierreFSete$ber 0F -F-

@ote< The in!ured and the accused hae the sa$e surna$e.

+A&TS: The car owned by Mr. and Mrs. "utierre anddrien by ;onifacio "utierre -D years old with his$other and 3 other $e$bers of the fa$ilyEG&L50IN6Mr. "utierre the father collided with aassenger truc# while atte$ting to ass each other.As a result @arciso "utierre a assenger suffered afractured leg.

ISS5ES: -. '5@ Manuel "utierre the father is liablefor da$ages (yes)

0. '5@ the truc# owner and drier are liablefor da$ages. (yes)

4EL0: Manuel "utierre the owner and the drier ofthe truc# are !ointly and seerally liable for da$ages.

. Anent Man,el 6,tierreF=s liabilit):

6


7/61


8/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"4en'e the liabilit) of -arents for H0s of their (inor against hi$. 5n the other hand thelaw i$oses ciil liability uon the father and in case ofhis death or incaacity the $other for any da$agesthat $ay be caused by a $inor child who lies withthe$.

The rincile of arental liability is a secies of what isfre,uently designated as 1i'ario,s liabilit) or thedoctrine of 8i(-,ted ne/li/en'e: where a erson isnot only liable for the torts co$$itted by hi$self butalso for torts co$$itted by others with who$ he has acertain relationshi and for who$ he is resonsible.

Thus arental liability is $ade a natural or logicalconse,uence of the duties and resonsibilities ofarentstheir arental authoritywhich includes the

instructing controlling and discilining of the child.

8


9/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"The basis for the do'trine of 1i'ario,s liabilit) 8ase?-lained in Cangco v. Manila Raildroad:

'ith resect to e+tra contractual obligationsarising fro$ negligence whether of act or o$ission thelegislature has elected to li$it such liability to cases inwhich the erson uon who$ such an obligation isi$osed is $orally culable or on the contrary for

reasons of ublic olicy to e+tend that liability withoutregard to the lac# of $oral culability so as to includeresponsibility for the negligence of those personswhose acts or omissions are imputable, by legal fictionto others who are in a position to exercise an absoluteor limited control over them.

The legislature which adoted our ciil codeelected to limit extra contractual liabilitywith certainwelldefined e+cetionsto cases in which moralculpabilityu can be directly imputed to the persons tobe charged. This $oral resonsibility $ay consist inhaing failed to e+ercise due care in ones own acts orin haing failed to e+ercise due care in the selection

and control of ones own agents or serants or in thecontrol of persons ho! by reasons of their status!occupy a position of dependency ith respect tothe person liable for their conduct.

Basis of 'i1il liabilit) i(-osed on -arents for tortsof their (inor


10/61


arF)

Ta(ar/o1s. &A(adotedchild stillwitharents atti$e ofincident)

Cri$inalco$laintCiilco$laints. @aturalarents ofchild

SC< ;undocs(naturalarents) areindisensableartiesthe adotingarents hadno actualcustody yet

Art. 2!"-arentala,thorit)'o,-led 8ith-res,(ed-arentaldereli'tion inthe dis'har/eof d,tiesa''o(-an)in/s,'h a,thorit)do'trine of1i'ario,sliabilit) ase?-lained in&AN6&OVS.MANILARAILROA07IMPORTANT:PARENTSM5ST4AVEA&T5ALORP4YSI&AL&5STO0YOVERT4EMINORTOBE4EL0LIABLE

2. 6,ardians

+a(il) &ode

Art. 2".In default of arents or a !udicially aointedguardian the following erson shall e+ercise substitutearental authority oer the child in the order indicated isde$andable not only for ones own acts or o$issionsbut also for those of ersons for who$ one isresonsible.

The father and in case of his death or incaacity the$other are resonsible for the da$ages caused by the$inor children who lie in their co$any.

6,ardians are liable for da(a/es 'a,sed b) the(inors or in'a-a'itated -ersons 8ho are ,ndertheir a,thorit) and li1e in their 'o(-an).

The owners and $anagers of an establish$ent orenterrise are li#ewise resonsible for da$ages causedby their e$loyees in the serice of the branches inwhich the latter are e$loyed or on the occasion oftheir functions.9$loyers shall be liable for the da$ages caused bytheir e$loyees and household helers acting within

the scoe of their assigned tas#s een though thefor$er are not engaged in any business or industry.The State is resonsible in li#e $anner when it actsthrough a secial agent= but not when the da$age hasbeen caused by the official to who$ the tas# doneroerly ertains in which case what is roided inArticle 0-3> shall be alicable.

Lastly teachers or heads of establish$ents of arts andtrades shall be liable for da$ages caused by theiruils and students or arentices so long as theyre$ain in their custody.

The resonsibility treated of in this article shall ceasewhen the ersons herein $entioned roe that they

obsered all the diligence of a good father of a fa$ily toreent da$age. (-/Fa)

Art. 2#.'hoeer ays for the da$age caused by hisdeendents or e$loyees $ay recoer fro$ the latterwhat he has aid or deliered in satisfaction of theclai$. (-/1)

. Tea'hers and 4eads of Instit,tions

+a(il) &ode

Art. 2#.The school its ad$inistrators and teachers orthe indiidual entity or institution engaged in child areshall hae secial arental authority and resonsibilityoer the $inor child while under their suerisioninstruction or custody.

Authority and resonsibility shall aly to all authoriedactiities whether inside or outside the re$ises of theschool entity or institution. (F1a)

Art. 2$.Those gien the authority and resonsibilityunder the receding Article shall be rincially andsolidarily liable for da$ages caused by the acts oro$issions of the une$anciated $inor. The arents!udicial guardians or the ersons e+ercising substitutearental authority oer said $inor shall be subsidiarilyliable.

The resectie liabilities of those referred to in thereceding aragrah shall not aly if it is roed thatthey e+ercised the roer diligence re,uired under thearticular circu$stances.

All other cases not coered by this and the recedingarticles shall be goerned by the roisions of the CiilCode on ,uasidelicts. (n)Art. 2#@.The obligation i$osed by Article 0-3> isde$andable not only for ones own acts or o$issionsbut also for those of ersons for who$ one isresonsible.

The father and in case of his death or incaacity the$other are resonsible for the da$ages caused by the$inor children who lie in their co$any.

"uardians are liable for da$ages caused by the $inors

or incaacitated ersons who are under their authorityand lie in their co$any.

10


11/61


The owners and $anagers of an establish$ent orenterrise are li#ewise resonsible for da$ages causedby their e$loyees in the serice of the branches inwhich the latter are e$loyed or on the occasion oftheir functions.

9$loyers shall be liable for the da$ages caused bytheir e$loyees and household helers acting withinthe scoe of their assigned tas#s een though thefor$er are not engaged in any business or industry.

The State is resonsible in li#e $anner when it actsthrough a secial agent= but not when the da$age hasbeen caused by the official to who$ the tas# doneroerly ertains in which case what is roided inArticle 0-3> shall be alicable.

Lastl) tea'hers or heads of establish(ents of artsand trades shall be liable for da(a/es 'a,sed b)

their -,-ils and st,dents or a--renti'es so lon/ asthe) re(ain in their ',stod).

The resonsibility treated of in this article shall ceasewhen the ersons herein $entioned roe that theyobsered all the diligence of a good father of a fa$ily toreent da$age. (-/Fa)

Mer'ado 1. &A et alMay F/ ->/

+A&TS: Augusto years old lent his itogo to;enedicto who lent it to 7enato. 'hen Augusto tried to

retriee his itogo Manuel r thin#ing it was;enedictos interfered and told Augusto not to get itfro$ 7enato as 7enato was better at utting the chaininto the holes of the itogo. Augusto resented thisre$ar# and aggressiely oushed hi$. A fight ensuedand Augusto wounded Manuel r. on the right chee#with a iece of raor.

The doctor who testified did not declare the a$ount hecollected as fees and Manuel r. was not hositalied.

T&: dis$issed the co$laint filed by Manuel r. andhis father

&A: 5rdered Ciriaco Mercado (the father) to ay for the$edical e+enses and M4 but no M4 for the arents.

ISS5E: '5@ the teacher or head of the school shouldbe held resonsible (instead of the father) since thefight haened during recess ti$e in school (LourdesCatholic School).

4EL0: @o. The uils were not in the 8custody: of the

school. CA 7eersed as to M4 but affir$ed the awardof $edical e+enses.

This was answered in Exconde v. Capuno throughustice ;autista< 8we find $erit in this clai$. It is truethat under the law teachers or directors of arts andtrades are liable for any da$age caused by their uilsor arentices while they are under their custody. B,tthis -ro1ision onl) a--lies to an instit,tion of artsand trades and not to an) a'ade(i' ed,'ationalinstit,tion.

Custody ($e$orie%)< 8SO LON6 AS T4EY REMAIN IN

T4EIR&5STO0Y: C5@T9MPLAT9SASIT5ATION4ERET4EP5PILLIVESAN0BOAR0SIT4T4ETEA&4ER S5&4T4ATT4E &ONTROL 0IRE&TION AN0 IN+L5EN&E ON T4E P5PILS5PERSE0ES T4OSE O+ T4E PARENTS. In thesecircu$stances the control or the influence oer theconduct and actions of the uil would ass fro$ thefather and $other to the teacher= and so would theresonsibility for the torts of the uil.

S,'h a sit,ation does not a--ear in the 'ase at bar.The uils go to school during school hours and gobac# ho$e to their arents after.The sit,ated 'onte(-lated in the last -ar. of art.2#@ (I thin# he $eant 0nd to the last ar) does not

a--l) nor does -ar 28hi'h (a the facts show that Augustos act wasoccasioned by the fact that Manuel r. tired to intereneor interfere with Augustos atte$t to recoer his itogo.Eence the -ro?i(ate 'a,seof Manuel rs in!ury is his

own fault or negligence for haing interfered.

Eence no M4 co the cases in Art. 00- were notshown to e+ist.

R5LE:

1. e+conde . cauno doctrine3. Augusto was only and was not shown to act withdiscern$ent

3. 9en if there was a O4 on Augustos art thero+i$ate cause of the in!ury was Manuel rs ownact of interference.

0O&TRINE: what Art. 0-D/ $eans by 8custody:

Paliso' 1. Brillantes5ctober 1 -3-

+A&TS: 4o$inador Palisoc -> years old and Girgilio4affon of age were class$ates at the ManilaTechnical Institute. 4uring recess while wor#ing on a$achine 4affon $ade a re$ar# that Palisoc was li#e afore$an because he was $erely watching the$. Ir#edPalisoc bitchslaed 4affon. In retaliation 4affon gae

6Art. 00-. Moral da$ages $ay be recoered in the following and analogous casesIN6 4O5RS

+ila(er 1. IA&August -0

19


20/61


21/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"0 boys who darted into the street causing 6ho drier ofthe 2ord to swere into the truc#s lane.

ISS5E:'5@ the e$loyer of "alang is liable

4EL0:B9S. There is a resu$tion of negligence onthe art of the e$loyer. The only defense is due

diligence of a good father of a fa$ily. They did notinterose nor roe this defense.@ote< 'hy is there a resu$tionJ Sir says it isbecause it is difficult to roe the e$loyer did note+ercise due diligence in the selection and suerisionof the e$loyee.

& L A S S N O T E S resu$tion that they are negligent flows fro$

the negligence of their e$loyee

liability< ri$ary direct and solidary

ValenF,ela 1. &A

2ebruary ->

+A&TS:Galenuela had a flat tire and had to ar# hermidnight blue Mitsubishi lancer on the side of the road.'hile standing on the left rear side of the car watchingso$eone changed her tire she was bu$ed by Li(allegedly drun#). The car of the latter was registered toAle+ander Co$$ercial. She had lost her left leg (onlyso$e s#in and $uscle connected to the rest of herbody) and had to be f itted with a rosthetic leg.

ISS5E:'5@ Ale+ander was liable

4EL0: B9S. The relationshi between Li andAle+ander is ater familiasnot #espondeat superior, inwhich the ulti$ate liability falls uon the e$loyer. Inthis case the Court aerred the riilege of using aco$any car seres 0 urosesK of the 7PC= (0) a ciil action for hysical in!uriesarising fro$ a ,uasidelict under Art. 0-3> of the CiilCode= (F) a ciil action for hysical in!uries under Art.FF also of the Ciil Code.

&. Ne/le't of 0,t)

Art. %.'hen a $e$ber of a city or $unicial oliceforce refuses or fails to render aid or rotection to anyerson in case of danger to life or roerty such eaceofficer shall be ri$arily liable for da$ages and the cityor $uniciality shall be subsidiarily resonsible therefor.

The ciil action herein recognied shall be indeendentof any cri$inal roceedings and a reonderance ofeidence shall suffice to suort such action.

San/'o %9 C$$D

The basic function of goern$ent is the protection oflife and property and it is also the main /ustificationfor the existence and maintenance of its policeforce.2or this $e$bers of the force are directly andersonally liable for da$ages caused by their refusal orfailure to render this basic serice.

Since olice$en are usually insolent the law securesay$ent by holding the City or $uniciality subsidiarilyliable. This is clearly an e?'e-tion to its non9s,abilit)as a -oliti'al s,bdi1ision of the State. This isanalogous but not identical to that roided in Art -/0and -/F of the 7PC because the 'on1i'tion of thedefendant -oli'e(en is absol,tel) i((aterial andirrele1ant to the 'it)=s or (,ni'i-alit)=s liabilit).

The dire't and -ersonal liabilit) for nonfeasancecontained in Art 03 is general and does not constitute acri$inal act nor roide for subsidiary liability of thelocality. Art F1 secifically alies onl) to (e(bers of

the -oli'e for'e of the 'it) or (,ni'i-alit).

6ey ele$ents of a ciil action for da$ages under Art F1of the Ciil Code or by a secial law any erson whobeliees that he is the icti$ of a cri$inal offense butthe !udge or the rosecuting attorney finds noreasonable ground to beliee that a cri$e has beenco$$itted and the latter refuses or fails to institutecri$inal roceedings $ay bring a ciil action forda$ages under Art. FK. I$licit are the ff roositions of fact and law>

+A&TS: Tan!anco courted the Santos both being ofadult age. In consideration of Tan!ancos ro$ise of$arriage Santos consented to se+ual intercourse.Tan!anco succeeded in haing carnal access with

Santos until 4ec. -K. As a result Santos gotregnant. To aoid e$barrass$ent Santos resignedfro$ her !ob. Santos then sued Tan!anco for da$ages.

ISS5E: '5@ Tan!anco was liable for da$ages. @5

4EL0: To constitute seduction there $ust in all casesbe so$e sufficient ro$ise or induce$ent and thewo$an $ust yield because of the ro$ise or otherinduce$ent. If she consents $erely fro$ 'arnal l,stand the intercourse is fro$ (,t,al desire there is nosed,'tion. In this case Santos was ofa/e. Also she$aintained se+ual relations with each other for one

year. Such conduct is in'o(-atible 8ith the idea ofsed,'tion.

& L A S S N O T E S Issue of deceit< 4eceit can co$e in $any

for$s and can result in attraction (so there isno $oral seduction.)

Criti,ue of Tan!anco< 8Seduction: in this caseonly coers the initial se+ual contact.

7ule in 1uenaventura< 2or seduction to beactionable there $ust be decetion and the

wo$an $ust hae yielded because of theinduce$ent.

There is no seduction when there is $utualdesire and the oortunity was $erelyafforded to the wo$an.

Code co$$issionda$ages for seduction

CA $isalied the e+a$le.

Seduction< -. induce$ent by deceit 0. yieldbecause of that

Sir< as if seduction can be ratified if court ta#es intoconsideration ti$e and fre,uency and subse,uentse+ual acts

Ba


34/61


35/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"ay$ent for canass strollers were dishonored. @icolasallegedly did not continue ay$ent because of thedefectie canass strollers which he neer returned toOue. The charge was dis$issed in the fiscal leel.@icolas filed a co$laint for $alicious rosecution.

ISS5E: '5@ Oue was guilty of $alicious rosecution.

@5.

4EL0: @either of the$ is "?ILTB 52 MALIC9. Toconstitute $alicious rosecution there $ust be -roofthat the rosecution wasE ONE LIABLE +ORMALI&IO5S PROSE&5TION. Eoweer in this case thecircu$stances of the case showed that there was$alicious intent in the filing of the co$laint for ,ualifiedtheft.

& L A S S N O T E 4is$issal of ,ualified theft case in fiscal leel

onlystill ossible to file MP.

If the case only reached fiscal leelR

"9@ 7?L9< no MP9NC9PTI5@< if ;2 with Malicious intent

'. P,bli' 4,(iliation

Patri'io 1. Le1iste

Aril 0> -D

+A&TS: Leiste s$ashed a beer bottle on the tablecausing his hand to bleed. Ee then aroachedPatricio a Catholic riest and slaed hi$. Patriciofiled a co$laint for slander by deed which wasdis$issed. Ee then filed for da$ages.

ISS5E: '5@ Leiste was liable for da$ages. B9S.

4EL0:Arti'le 22$ a--lies. The act of slaing wascontrary to $orals and good custo$s and causedPatricio $ental anguish $oral shoc# wounded feelings

and social hu$iliation.

On Moral 0a(a/es: The fact that no A4 or C4 wasroen before the TC does not adersely affect theetitioners right to recoer M4.

M4 $ay be awarded in aroriate cases referred to inthe chater on hu$an relations of the CC (Arts. -F>)without need of proof that the wrongful act complainedof has caused any physical injury upon thecomplainant.

TE9 REASON 5N0ERLYIN6 T4E AAR0 O+ 0AMA6ES5N0ER ART. 2 IS T5 C5MP9@SAT9 TE9 I@?794 PA7TB257TE9MORALIN*5RYCA?S94?P5@EISP97S5@. (fromreport of the code0

& L A S S N O T E Art 0- alies to een a sla in the face

6rand 5nion 1. Es-ino4ece$ber 0D -3

+A&TS< ose 9sino forgot to ay for a cylindrical rattail file when he left "rand ?nion Suer$ar#et. Ee wasaroached by the guard and $ade to file an incidentreort. 9sino offered to ay for the file but instead his

36


37/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"$oney was ta#en as an incentie to the guards forarehending ilferers. A lot of eole witnessed theincident.ISS5E: ON Es-ino 'an 'lai( da(a/es. YES.

4EL0: 9sino was falsely accused of sholifting.4efendants willfully caused loss or in!ury to the laintiff

in a $anner contrary to $orals good custo$s or ublicolicy $a#ing the$ a$enable to da$ages under Arts.- and 0- in relation to Art. 00- of the Ciil Code.

It is against $orals "C and ublic olicy to hu$iliatee$barrass and degrade the dignity of a erson.9eryone $ust resect the dignity ersonality riacyand eace of $ind of his neighbors and other ersons.(Art. 0>). And one $ust act with !ustice gie eeryonehis due and obsere honesty and "2 (Art. -).

P5RPOSE O+ M0: 9SS9@TIALLB I@49M@ITB 5779PA7ATI5@ ;5TEP5NIS4MENTOR&ORRE&TION @5T I@T9@494 T5 9@7ICEA C5MPLAI@A@TAT TE99NP9@S952A4929@4A@T= TE9BA79A'A74945@LBT59@A;L9TE9I@?794PA7TBT55;TAI@M9A@S 4IG97SI5@57 AM?S9M9@TS TEAT 'ILL S97G9 T5 ALL9GIAT9 TE9M57AL S?2297I@" E9 EAS ?@497"5@9 ;B 79AS5@ 52TE94929@4A@TSC?LPA;L9ACTI5@. I@ 5TE97 '574S< TE9A'A74 52 M4 ISAIM94AT79ST57ATI5@ 'ITEI@TE9LIMITS52TE9P5SSI;L9 52TE9 SPI7IT?AL STAT?S O?5 A@T9 A@4 IT M?ST ;9P75P57TI5@AT9T5TE9S?2297I@"I@2LICT94.

P5RPOSEO+E0 OR&ORRE&TIVE0AMA6ES: IMP5S94;B'AB529NAMPL957C5779CTI5@257TE9P?;LIC"554I@A44ITI5@ T5 TE9 M57AL T9MP97AT9 LIO?I4AT94 57

C5MP9@SAT57B4AMA"9S(A7T. 000). CA@@5T;979C5G9794ASAMATT97527I"ET= TE9C5?7T'ILL49CI49'5@ TE9BC5?L4;9A4?4ICAT94. C5@SI497I@"TEATTE9BA79A'A7494257'A@T5@

ACTS TEATTE9BA79P9@ALI@CEA7ACT97"7A@T94@5T;B'AB52C5MP9@SATI5@;?TASAP?@ISEM9@TT5TE95229@497A@4ASA'A7@I@"T55TE97SASAS57T5249T9779@T.

&ar-io 1s. Val(onteSete$ber 0//1

+A&TS: Gal$onte a wedding coordinator was ublicly

accused by the brides aunt Cario of stealing her!ewelry. She was searched and ,uestioned by the

guard and the olice. Cario refused to aologie soGal$onte filed a suit for da$ages.

ISS5E: '5@ Gal$onte should be awarded da$ages.B9S

4EL0: Cario willfully caused Gal$onte in!ury in a

$anner contrary to $orals and good custo$s.Although Cario had the right to #now the identity of thethief she should not hae oenly accused Gal$ontewithout further roof.

Moral da$ages are awarded wheneer the defendantswrongful act or o$ission is the ro+i$ate cause of thelaintiffs hysical suffering $ental anguish frightserious an+iety bes$irched reutation woundedfeelings $oral shoc# social hu$iliation and si$ilarin!ury secified or analogous to those roided in Article00- of the Ciil Code.To warrant recoery of da$ages there $ust be both a

right of action for a wrong inflicted by the defendantand the da$age resulting therefro$ to the laintiff.

ron/ 8itho,t da(a/e or da(a/e 8itho,t 8ron/does not 'onstit,te a 'a,se of a'tion.

Arts. 0/ 0- roide the legal bedroc# for the award ofda$ages.

M4 not awarded to enalie defendant or to enrichco$lainant but to enable the latter to obtain $eansdiersions or a$use$ents that will sere to alleiate the$oral suffering he has undergone by reason of

defendants culable action.

In any case award of M4 $ust be roortionate to thesufferings inflicted.

& L A S S N O T E Manner of attac#ing without any a$ount of

roof contrary to $orals and good custo$s.

d. 5n3,stified 0is(issal

H,isaba 1. Sta. IneF

A,/,st @ $!%

+A&TS: Ouisaba an internal auditor of Sta. Ines wasordered by 7obert Eyde the GP to urchase logs forthe co$anys lant. Ouisaba refused because itwasnt art of his !ob. As a result he was de$oted.Ouisaba filed a co$laint for da$ages ter$ination ayand attorneys fees. Sta. Ines said that the @L7C had

!urisdiction.

ISS5E: '5@ the regular courts had !urisdiction. B9S

4EL0: Ouisabas co$laint was grounded not on hisdis$issal but rather 5@ TE9 MA@@97 52 EIS 4ISMISSAL

A@4 ITS C5@S9O?9@T 9229CTS. I+ T4E 0ISMISSAL AS0ONE ANTI9SO&IALLY OR OPPRESSIVELY T4EN T4ERESPON0ENTS VIOLATE0 ARTI&LE !@ which rohibitsacts of oression by either caital or labor against theother and Article 0- which $a#es a erson liable forda$ages if he willfully causes loss or in!ury to anotherin a $anner that is contrary to $orals good custo$s orublic olicy.

& L A S S N O T E Standard of dis$issal laid down in this case[ er annu$.

@o interest howeer shall be ad!udged on unli,uidatedclai$s or da$ages e+cet when or until the de$and

can be established with reasonable certainty.

Accordingly where the de$and is established withreasonable certainty the interest shall begin to run fro$the ti$e the clai$ is $ade !udicially or e+tra!udicially butwhen such certainty cannot be so reasonablyestablished at the ti$e the de$and is $ade theinterest shall begin to run only fro$ the date the!udg$ent of the court is $ade (at which ti$e the,uantification of da$ages $ay be dee$ed to haebeen reasonably ascertained).

The actual base for the co$utation of legal interestshall in any case be +++ the a$ount finally ad!udged.

.'hen the !udg$ent of the court awarding a su$ of$oney beco$es final and e+ecutory the rate of legalinterest whether the case falls under aragrah - oraragrah 0 aboe shall be -0[ er annu$ fro$ suchfinality until its satisfaction this interi$ eriod beingdee$ed to be by then an e,uialent to a forbearance ofcredit.

In 6eng Eua Paer Products Co. Inc. . CA we alsoruled that the $onetary award shall earn interest attwele ercent (-0[) er annu$ fro$ the date of thefinality of the !udg$ent until its satisfaction

regardless of whether or not the case inoles a loanor forbearance of $oney. The interi$ eriod is dee$edto be e,uialent to a forbearance of credit.

R,le thedefendant notified the laintiff that the following $onth itwould be necessary to send the casco off for reairs.Plaintiff then infor$ed defendant that he would li#e torent the casco again after the reairs had beenco$leted to which the defendant indicated that hewas willing but that the rent would be increased to PD/.

About one wee# before the end of the reair eriod thedefendant sold the casco to Siy Cong ;ieng and Co.Santos the $an who had been e$loyed by thelaintiff as the atron of the casco went to the office ofSiy Cong ;ieng and was hired by the latter in the sa$ecaacity.

?on the arrial of the casco in Manila howeer thelaintiff clai$ing that he was entitled to the ossessionof the casco under his contract with the defendantinduced Santos to refuse to ta#e orders fro$ the newowners.

After trial the lower court found defendant liable to thelaintiff for da$ages resulting fro$ breach of contract.

ISS5E: '5@ the laintiffs right is li$ited to therecoery of the difference between the contract rice atwhich the casco was hired by hi$ and such higher rateas he $ight hae been co$elled to ay for the hire ofa si$ilar casco in the oen $ar#et.

4EL0: @o.70O&TRINEO+AVOI0ABLE&ONSEH5EN&ES:ITISA'9LL79C5"@IU94P7I@CIPL952LA'TEAT4AMA"9S79S?LTI@"275MAG5I4A;L9 C5@S9O?9@C9S 52 TE9 ;79ACE 52AC5@T7ACTA79@5T79C5G97A;L9. ITISTE94?TB525@9

I@?794 ;B TE9 ACT 52 A@5TE97 T5 TA69 S?CEM9AS?79SASP7?49@TM9@?S?ALLB TA69?@497 S?CECI7C?MSTA@C9S T5 794?C9 TE9 4AMA"9AS M?CEASP5SSI;L9.

B,rden of Proof< rests on the defendant that thePLAI@TI22 MI"ET EAG9 (C5?L4 EAG9) 794?C94 TE94AMA"9.

In the instant case the defendant $ade no effortwhatsoeer to show that any other si$ilar cascos werein fact aailable to the laintiff or the rice he wouldhae been able to obtain the use of one.

In the absence of eidence it will not be resu$ed thatlaintiff could hae secured another casco at the sa$erice had he loo#ed for one.

& L A S S N O T E S 'hats the connection of this case with the

4octrine of Aoidable Conse,uencesJ

4efendant says that liability is $itigated

because laintiff could hae found anothercasco at the sa$e rice

SCno $itigation of liability

4a$age Q rofit which he would hae $ade

had the contract been erfor$ed

CASC5< a barge

PAT75@< the catain of the barge

B. Moral. &on'e-t

Art. 22!. Moral da$ages include hysical suffering$ental anguish fright serious an+iety bes$irchedreutation wounded feelings $oral shoc# socialhu$iliation and si$ilar in!ury. Though incaable ofecuniary co$utation $oral da$ages $ay berecoered if they are the ro+i$ate result of thedefendants wrongful act for o$ission.

& L A S S N O T E SIf the rofessor allowed you to stand for three (F) hoursyou cant clai$ $oral da$ages because there was aninterening causeyour inability to answer the,uestions

>ier,lf 1. &AMarch -F -3

+A&TS: 5ne of Pantrancos buses was traeling along94SA when the drier lost control of the bus causing itto swere to the left and then to fly oer the centerisland ending u on the wrong side of the road.

The front of the bus bu$ed the front ortion of anIsuu ic#u drien Porfirio Legasi causing da$ageto both ehicles and in!uries to both Legasi and hisassenger Lucila 6ierulf wife of Gictor 6ierulf owner ofthe ic#u and e$loyer of Legasi.

As a conse,uence of the incident Lucila sufferedin!uries which re,uired $a!or surgery and rolongedtreat$ent by secialists.

;oth the trial court and the Court of Aeals found forLegasi and the 6ierulfs.

The souses 6ierulf howeer aerred that the

disfigure$ent of Lucilas hysical aearance due to

47

48


48/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"the accident could not but affect their $arital right ofconsortiu$ and as#ed that the $oral da$ages awardedbe increased fro$ P-// /// to one $illion esos notonly for Lucila but also for her husband.

They also aerred that the social and financial standingof Lucila should also be considered in fi+ing the awardof $oral da$ages.

ISS5E: '5@ an increase in the a$ount awarded as$oral da$ages is warranted gien the circu$stances.

4EL0: The Court increased the $oral da$agesawarded but ruled against awarding $oral da$agesbased on loss of consortiu$ or considerations of socialand financial standing.

In order that $oral da$ages $ay be awarded there$ust be leading and roof of $oral suffering $entalanguish fright and the li#e. 'hile no roof of ecuniaryloss is necessary in order that $oral da$ages $ay be

awarded it is neertheless essential that TE9CLAIMA@TSE5' TE9 9NIST9@C9 52 TE9 +A&T5AL BASIS 2574AMA"9S A@4 ITS &A5SAL &ONNE&TION T5 TE94929@4A@TSACTS.

In 0rancisco vs. 1S*S the Court held that there $ustbe clear testi$ony on the anguish and other for$s of$ental suffering. Thus if the laintiff fails to ta#e thewitness stand and testify as to hisHher social hu$iliationwounded feelings and an+iety $oral da$ages cannotbe awarded.

In Cocoland 4eelo$ent Cororation s. @ational

Labor 7elations Co$$ission the Court held that\additional facts $ust be leaded and roen to warrantthe grant of $oral da$ages under the Ciil Code thesebeing + + + social hu$iliation wounded feelings graean+iety etc. that resulted therefro$.\

*M57AL4AMA"9SA79A'A7494T59@A;L9TE9I@?794PA7TB T5 5;TAI@ M9A@S 4IG97SI5@S 57AM?S9M9@TSTEAT 'ILL S97G9 T5ALL9GIAT9 TE9 M57AL S?2297I@"E9HSE9 EAS ?@497"5@9 ;B 79AS5@ 52 TE94929@4A@TSC?LPA;L9ACTI5@.

ITS A'A74 IS AIM94 AT 79ST57ATI5@ AS M?CE ASP5SSI;L9 52TE9 SPI7IT?ALSTAT?SO?5A@T9= TE?S ITM?ST ;9 P75P57TI5@AT9 T5 TE9 S?2297I@" I@2LICT94.

SI@C9 9ACE CAS9 M?ST ;9 "5G97@94 ;B ITS 5'@P9C?LIA7 CI7C?MSTA@C9S TE979 IS @5 EA74A@4 2AST7?L9I@49T97MI@I@"TE9P75P97AM5?@T.

The yardstic# should be that the a$ount awardedshould not be so alably and scandalously e+cessieas to indicate that it was the result of assion re!udiceor corrution on the art of the trial !udge.

@either should it be so little or so altry that it rubs saltto the in!ury already inflicted on laintiffs.

In the instant etition a California case 7odrigue .;ethlehe$ was cited as authority for the clai$ ofda$ages based on loss of $arital consortiu$.

The Court noted that the 7odrigue case clearlyreersed the original co$$on law iew first enunciatedin the case of 4eshotel s. Atchison that a wife couldnot recoer for the loss of her husbands serices by theact of a third arty.

7odrigue ruled that when a erson is in!ured to thee+tent that heHshe is no longer caable of giing loeaffection co$fort and se+ual relations to his or hersouse that souse has suffered a direct and realersonal loss.

The loss is i$$ediate and conse,uential rather thanre$ote and unforeseeable= it is ersonal to the souseand searate and distinct fro$ that of the in!urederson.

Eoweer Gictors clai$ for deriation of his right to

consortiu$ although argued before 7esondent Courtwas not suorted by the eidence on record.

Eis wife $ight hae been badly disfigured but he hadnot testified that in conse,uence thereof his right to$arital consortiu$ was affected. Clearly Gictor (andfor that $atter Lucila) had failed to $a#e out a case forloss of consortiu$ unli#e the 7odrigue souse.

The social and financial standing of Lucila cannot beconsidered in awarding $oral da$ages. The factualcircu$stances rior to the accident show that no \rudeand rough\ recetion no \$enacing attitude\ no\suercilious $anner\ no \abusie language and highly

scornful reference\ was gien her.

The social and financial standing of a clai$ant of $oralda$ages $ay be considered in awarding $oralda$ages only if he or she was sub!ected toconte$tuous conduct desite the offenders#nowledge of his or her social and financial standing.

;e that as it $ay it is still roer to award $oralda$ages to Petitioner Lucila for her hysical sufferings$ental anguish fright serious an+iety and woundedfeelings. She sustained $ultile in!uries on the scalli$bs and ribs. She lost all her teeth. She had toundergo seeral correctie oerations and treat$ents.4esite treat$ent and surgery her chin was still nu$band thic#. She felt that she has not fully recoered fro$her in!uries. She een had to undergo a secondoeration on her gu$s for her dentures to fit. Shesuffered sleeless nights and shoc# as a conse,uenceof the ehicular accident.

R5LES:hen so'ial finan'ial standin/ (a) be'onsidered in a8ardin/ M0< only if he or she wassub!ected to conte$tuous conduct desite theoffenders #nowledge of his or her social and financialstanding.

On E?e(-lar) 0a(a/esD

50

51


51/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"+A&TS: 4efendant ;ienenido Carciller while8rec#lessly: driing a truc# owned by his codefendant5ctaio Traya ran oer the three year old son oflaintiff souses Mel,uiades and Adela 7aagascausing the childs instantaneous death.

The lower court rendered a !udg$ent on the leadingsconde$ning the defendants to ay to the laintiffsa$ong others the su$ of P0 /// for $oral da$ages.

ISS5E: '5@ $oral da$ages were roerly awardeddesite there being a !udg$ent on the leadings.

4EL0: The court reaffir$ed the rule that although analle/ation is not necessary in order that $oralda$ages $ay be awarded it is neerthelessESSENTIAL T4AT T4E &LAIMANT SATIS+A&TORILY PROVET4E EGISTEN&E O+ T4E 2ACT?AL ;ASIS O+ T4E 0AMA6EAN0ITSCA?SALC5@@9CTI5@ TO0E+EN0ANT=SA&TS.

& L A S S N O T E S

'hats wrong with udg$ent on the leadings

in the granting of M4J the rule on AC asregards roing cannot be done with a!udg$ent on the leadings

udg$ent on the leadingsri$ary

sub$ission only (nothing to suort)

Ener1ida 1. 0e La Torreanuary 0D -31

+A&TS: Petitioner 7o,ue 9nerida filed a co$laintagainst the defendantsouses Lauro and 7osa de laTorre raying that the deed of sale e+ecuted by hisdeceased father Ciriaco 9nerida oer a arcel of landcoered by a ho$estead atent be declared null andoid for haing been e+ecuted within the rohibitederiod of fie years. Ee further rayed that he beallowed to reurchase the said arcel for being thelegiti$ate son and sole heir of his deceased father.

4efendants filed their answer stating a$ong otherthings that the laintiff had no cause of action againstthe$ as his father was still alie and it was not true thathe was the only son of Ciriaco 9nerida and that thesale did not ta#e lace within the rohibited eriod.

7uling in faor of the defendant the Court found thelaintiffs ciil action to be entirely unfounded.

ISS5E: '5@ the defendant souses are entitled to$oral da$ages by reason of the unfounded ciil actionfiled against the$.

4EL0: @o. The Sure$e Court ruled that 03 0D 0 F/ F0 and F1 FK on the chater onhu$an relations (ar. -/ Art. 00-).

2urther$ore while no roof of ecuniary loss isnecessary IN OR0ER T4AT MORAL 0AMA6ES MAY BEAAR0E0 T4EAMO5NTO+IN0EMNITYBEIN6LE+TTOT4E0IS&RETION O+ T4E &O5RT (Art. 00->) i t isneertheless essential that the &LAIMANTSATIS+A&TORILYPROVET4E EGISTEN&EO+T4E+A&T5ALBASIS O+ T4E 0AMA6E CART. 22!D AN0 ITS &A5SALRELATIONTO0E+EN0ANTSA&TS.

This is so because $oral da$ages though incaableof ecuniary esti$ation are in the category of an awarddesigned to co$ensate the clai$ant for actual in!urysuffered and not to i$ose a enalty on the wrongdoer.

The trial court and the Court of Aeals both see$ tobe of the oinion that the $ere fact that resondentwere sued without any legal foundation entitled the$ toan award of $oral da$ages hence they $ade nodefinite finding as to what the suosed $oral da$agessuffered consist of.

Such a conclusion would $a#e of $oral da$ages aenalty which they are not rather than a co$ensationfor actual in!ury suffered which they are intended to be.Moral da$ages in other words are not correctie ore+e$lary da$ages.:

R5LE: ?nfounded suitnot a basis of M4 for it is notart of 00-

& L A S S N O T E S Motion for su$$ary !udg$ent (theres no $ore

controersy if its su$$ary !udg$ent)

Eere M4 was not awarded not because ofroof but because unfounded suits do notwarrant M4

Peo-le 1. B,/a)on/4ece$ber 0 -D

+A&TS: 7odelio ;ugayong alias 8;oy: was conicted ofraing and co$$itting acts of lasciiousness againstArlene Cauan his eleen year old stedaughter.

ISS5E: '5@ the icti$ is entitled to $oral da$ages.

51


52/61

T t M i N t f FINALS i d b A2010 P f C i S Y 20053


53/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"Nat,re of M0< not unitie but are designed toco$ensate and alleiate in so$e way the hysicalsuffering $ental anguish fright serious an+ietybes$irched reutation wounded feelings $oral shoc#social hu$iliation and si$ilar in!ury un!ustly caused to aerson.

A(o,nt of M0< though incaable of ecuniaryesti$ation $ust be P75P57TI5@AL T5 A@4 I@

APP75NIMATI5@52TE9S?2297I@"I@2LICT94.

7REH5ISITESO+M0 and its sace was leased out toSolo$on Silerio who also ut u a drugstore. MM4$ade delieries to Silerios store for al$ost a yeara$ounting to F06. Silerio issued a chec# for artialay$ent under the account na$e of his store whichwas dishonored. MM4 filed a co$laint to collect fro$9ditha desite haing been infor$ed that they nolonger did business in 5sital. Court found suit to beunfounded.

ISS5E:'5@ Moral da$ages should be awarded to theMi!ares souses.

4EL0: @o. Mi!ares souses 2AIL94 T5 SE5' TEATMM4 'ASM5TIGAT94;B;A42AITE'E9@ IT I@STIT?T94

TE9ACTI5@257C5LL9CTI5@. It is $erely an unfoundedsuit not Malicious Prosecution.

7ELEMENTSO+MP:(-) MALIC9=(0) A;S9@C952P75;A;L9CA?S9.

0O&TRINE:Moral 4a$ages cannot be recoered fro$a erson who has filed a co$laint against another ingood faith or without $alice or bad faith.

& L A S S N O T E S Court alied sa$e ele$ents for MP and

unfounded suits

Sir< this should not hae been the case

because it lu$s together the two (0) #inds ofaction

The enu$eration of the ele$ents was

robably a $ista#e because $alicious

rosecution is not e,uialent to unfoundedsuits.

*. Mar


54/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"da$ages can be charged on those who $ay e+ercisetheir right to litigate in good faith een if doneerroneously.

&o(eta 1. &A

+A&TS: SITI (Co$eta< resident) e+tended loans to

"I4C ("ueara< resident) which the latter failed toay. SITI foreclosed the $ortgages and was thehighest bidder in the foreclosure sale. Co$eta filed afalsification case against "ueara which was dis$issedby the rosecutor for lac# of robable cause. 45Secretary reersed rosecutors finding but the 7TCeentually dis$issed the case. "ueara filed aco$laint for $alicious rosecution against Co$eta.

ISS5E:'5@ the case for $alicious rosecution statesa cause of action and warrants a full blown trial on the$erits.

4EL0: Bes. All the re,uire$ents for a alid cause of

action were resent.

0O&TRINE:'hat $ust be alleged in a co$laint for$alicious rosecution so that there is a alid cause ofaction< (-) defendant hi$self instigated the rosecution=

(0) rosecution ter$inated in the laintiffsac,uittal=

(F) rosecutor acted without robable cause=(1) the rosecutor was actuated by $alice.

NOTE:SC did not e,uate $ with an unfounded suit

& L A S S N O T E S

Lesson here as oosed to earlier discussion

to sue as $any as you can< dont i$leadeole without any reason or a suit will also befiled against you

MP was filed against SITI and Co$eta not

unfounded suit

Ind,strial Ins,ran'e &o(-an) 1. Bondad

+A&TS: A Fauto$obile collision inoling a bus a!ee and a car. The bus bu$ed the !ee that wasar#ed at the shoulder to fi+ a tire and the bus went on

to hit the car. The owner of the car (Morales) and the

insurance co$any filed a co$laint for da$agesagainst the bus co$any its drier and the !eesdrier and owner (Ligorio and Pablo ;ondad). The;ondads denied any resonsibility or liability to IIC andMorales. TC and CA< e+culated the ;ondads.5rdered IIC to ay the$ $oral da$ages for rec#lesslyand baselessly i$leading the$ in site of the clearlanguage in the Traffic Inestigation reort that theywere not resonsible in any way for the accident.

ISS5E: '5@ the award of Moral and e+e$laryda$ages and attorneys fees was roer.

4EL0:Bes. The award of Moral 4a$ages is !ustified.IIC was RE&>LESS4EN IT IMPLEA0E0T4EBON0A0S INSPITEO+&LEAREVI0EN&ET4ATT4EYERENOT LIABLE+ORT4E0AMA6ETOMORALES= &AR. II& A&TE0 INBA0+AIT4 4EN IT &OMPELLE0 T4E BON0A0S TO TRAVEL+ROM LA65NA TO MA>ATI TO LITI6ATE AN 5N+O5N0E0&LAIM. The effects of this was that Ligorio could notwor# and Pablo beca$e sic# and een suffered a $ild

stro#e.

0O&TRINE: 7e,uire$ents to sustain an award of$oral da$ages< (-) Clai$ant suffered in!ury= (0) In!urysrung fro$ any of the cases listed in Art. 00- or 000/(CC)= (F) @ecessary that such acts be shown to haebeen tainted with bad faith or illwill. It is not enoughthat the clai$ant alleges $ental anguish seriousan+iety wounded feelings social hu$iliation etc. as aresult of the other artys acts.

& L A S S N O T E S Purose of re,uire$ents< to te$er the filing

of suits in order to get da$ages.

Sue so$eone who could readily be i$leaded(based on legal basis)

i. Labor &ases

Tri-le Ei/ht Inte/rated Ser1i'es 1. NLR&

+A&TS: 9rlinda 5sdana was recruited by Trile D as a

food serer in Saudi Arabia. ;ad wor#ing conditions

$ade her ill and she had to be confined in a hosital.She was transferred seeral ti$es but she againbeca$e ill and re,uired 0 surgeries. After this she wasno longer gien any assign$ents een if she waswilling and able to do light wor#. She was dismissedfrom wor4and not given any separation pay. Trile Drefused to hel her so she filed an illegal dis$issalcase. LA and @L7C both ruled in her faor andawarded her damages.

ISS5E: '5@ the award of $oral and e+e$laryda$ages was !ustified.

4EL0:Bes. The award of da$ages was roer.

0O&TRINE: Moral da(a/es are re'o1erable wherethe dis$issal of the e$loyee was attended by badfaith or fraud or constituted an act oressie to laboror was done in a $anner contrary to $orals goodcusto$s or ublic olicy.

& L A S S N O T E S Moral da(a/es are not 3,st a8arded

be'a,se of 1iolations of the Labor &ode.

The 'ase fo',sed (ore on ho8 Osdana8as treated 8hen she 8or


55/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS revised by A2010 Prof Casis S Y 20056


56/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"against hi$. TC awarded hi$ actual (F//6) $oral(-K/6) and e+e$lary (-//6) da$ages.

ISS5E:'5@ the award of da$ages is roer.

4EL0:Bes. PAL acted in bad faith in disregarding itsduties as a co$$on carrier to its assengers and indiscri$inating against Pante!o. It was PALs standardolicy to e+tend cash assistance or hotelacco$$odations to stranded assengers. The refundof hotel e+enses was discri$inatorily $ade since itwas not $ade #nown to all its assengers.

0O&TRINE: 2actors< Pante!o was e+osed tohu$iliation and e$barrass$ent esecially because ofhis 6OVERNMENT POSITION and SO&IAL PROMINEN&Ewhich altogether necessarily sub!ected hi$ to ridiculesha$e and anguish. S)BS,A',*A( 3AMA1ES 3& '&,,RA'S(A,E*',&E6CESS*+E3AMA1ES

ValenF,ela 1. &A

+A&TS:Lourdes Galenuela was fi+ing a flat tire on theroadside when she was hit by Ale+ander Li who wasdriing a co$any car. Eer left leg was seered shehad to get a rosthetic leg. Galenuela filed a caseclai$ing da$ages< -M ($oral) -//6 (e+e$lary) -D/6($edical e+enses loss of earnings). Li and hise$loyer were found !ointly and seerally liable. TCawarded but CA reduced $oral da$ages to K//6.

ISS5E: '5@ the reduction of the award of $oralda$ages was !ustified.

4EL0: @o. Galenuelas left leg was a$utated. Theda$age done was er$anent and lasting the artificialleg would hae to be ad!usted to the hysiologicchanges her body would nor$ally undergo through theyears. The a$ount of da$age which goes with theS?449@ S9G97I@" 52A GITAL P57TI5@ 52 TE9 E?MA@;54B A@4 TE9 79S?LTA@T A@NI9TB SL99PL9SS@9SSPSBCE5L5"ICAL I@?7BA@4 M9@TALA@4 PEBSICAL PAI@ISI@9STIMA;L9. P-M in $oral da$ages is roer.

0O&TRINE:The award should be C5MM9@S?7AT9 T5TE9S?2297I@"I@2LICT94.

& L A S S N O T E S &asis &o((entar): Galenuela $ust hae

been really beautiful.

Per$anent nature of da$age

S,(al-on/ 1. &A

+A&TS:Su$along shot twice at 7a$os but $issed.They graled for the gun and in doing so he bit7a$os ar$ and left ear $utilating the latter. Ee wasconicted of atte$ted ho$icide and was $ade tosere sentence and ordered to inde$nify 7a$os forloss of cros hositaliation e+enses and Moral4a$ages (K6). CA $odified the award of da$agesincreasing Moral 4a$ages to -/6.

ISS5E: '5@ the increase in the a$ount of Moral4a$ages was roer.

4EL0:Bes. The CA has in $any cases increased theda$ages awarded by the TC although the offendedarty had not aealed fro$ said award. The SC findsthe -/6 award of Moral 4a$ages !ustified under thecircu$stances. The nature of the in!uries and thedegree of hysical suffering endured by 7a$oswarrants it. The incident caused the $utilation of7a$os ear and a er$anent scar on his ar$. Thesein!uries hae left indelible $ar#s on his body and willsere as a constant re$inder of his trau$atice+erience.

0O&TRINE: The a$ount of $oral da$ages awarded49P9@4S 5@ TE9 @AT?79A@4 9NT9@T 52 TE9 PEBSICALI@?7I9S.

Lo-eF 1. Pan A(eri'an

+A&TS: Senate President Pro Te$ore 2ernandoLoe resered first class tic#ets with PanA$ for hi$his wife his daughter and her husband. The tic#etswere issued and aid for but on the day of the flightthey were infor$ed that they could not beacco$$odated as first class assengers because firstclass was already fully boo#ed. They were constrainedto ta#e the flight as tourist assengers 8under rotest.:Loe filed a suit for da$ages alleging breach of

contracts in bad faith and as#ed for K//6 as actual and$oral da$ages. C2I awarded -K/6 in $oral da$ages.

ISS5E:'5@ the a$ount of da$ages was roer.

4EL0:SC raised the a$ount to 0//6 to be diideda$ong Senator Loe (-//6) his wife (K/6) hisdaughter (0K6) and his soninlaw (0K6). The Loeessuffered social hu$iliation wounded feelings seriousan+iety and $ental anguish as a result of PanA$sbreach in bad faith of their contracts. Although it is nothu$iliating to trael as tourist assengers IT IS45MILIATIN6 ,& BE C&M"E((E3 TO 0O SO. SenatorLoe was the Senate President Pro Te$ore and a forGicePresident of the Philiines. Considering therestige of his ran# and osition the a$ount awardedis aroriate. As to the $e$bers of his fa$ily theyshare his restige and therefore his hu$iliation. Theda$ages awarded to each of the$ are reasonable.

NOTES: his stat,re de$anded that he be gien M4.

Eis fa$ily too co they shared in his -resti/e andh,(iliation.

Prod,'er=s Ban< 1. &A

+A&TS: The Chuas had substantial saings andcurrent deosits with the ;acolod ;ranch of Producers;an#. They obtained a P0M loan secured by a realestate $ortgage. The Chuas deosited >/6 but thea$ount was not credited to their account because the;ranch Manager absconded with the $oney of theban#s deositors. The ban# dishonored chec#s drawnout by the Chuas on the ground of insufficient funds

desite their haing oer -M in saings. The Chuasre,uested to see the ledgers of their account but theban# refused. They filed an action for da$ages againstthe ban# who in turn filed a etition for e+tra!udicialforeclosure of the $ortgage. The Chuas filed aco$laint for in!unction and da$ages. The TCawarded the$ 0M in $oral da$ages. CA reduced it toK//6.

ISS5E:'5@ the award of $oral da$ages is roer.

4EL0: SC reduced $oral da$ages to F//6. Thedishonor of the Chuas chec#s and the foreclosureinitiated by the ban# A++E&TE0 T4E &RE0IT STAN0IN6AN0 T4E B5SINESS 0EALIN6S O+ T4E &45AS as their

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS revised by A2010 Prof Casis S Y 20057


57/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"suliers discontinued credit lines resulting in thecollase of their businesses. The da$age to theirREP5TATION AN0 SO&IAL STAN0IN6 entitles the$ to$oral da$ages. The ban# caused the$ seriousan+iety e$barrass$ent and hu$iliation.

0O&TRINE:The financial credit of a business$an is aried and aluable asset it being a significant art ofthe foundation of his business. Any aderse reflectionthereon constitutes so$e financial loss to hi$.

& L A S S N O T E S 7ule on 4a$ages is !urisrudential< a$ounts

do not change but basis for fi+ing da$ages arechanged%

'. ho Ma) Re'o1er

Strebel 1. +i/,eras et al

+A&TS:Strebel a Mobilgas station owner sued ActingLabor Secretary 2igueras 4irector of Labor ose andAssistant City 2iscal 7uerto. In one of his causesaction he cited the incident of the transfer of his soninlaw (Eernande) fro$ the ;5I to the ;ureau of Prisons.Ee clai$s that 2igueras influenced the 45 Secretaryto effect such transfer and is see#ing $oral and actualda$ages.

ISS5E: Can Strebel recoer da$ages for theinconenient transfer of EernandeJ

4EL0:@o. The transfer was within the ower of the45 Secretary. Assu$ing that such act a$ounted toany wrong the right of action would accrue in faor ofEernande.0O&TRINES:(-) The 7I"ET5279C5G97B257M9@TALS?2297I@" 79S?LTI@" 275M ;54ILB I@?7I9S isrestricted to the person ho has suffered the bodilyhurt!and there can be no recoery for distress causedby sy$athy for anothers suffering or for fright due toa wrong against a third erson.(0) MENTALAN65IS4 is restricted to such $ental ain

or suffering as arises fro$ an in!ury or wrong to theerson hi$self as distinguished fro$ that for$ ofMENTAL S5++ERIN6 which is the acco$ani$ent of

sy$athy or sorrow for anothers suffering or which

arises fro$ a conte$lation of wrongs co$$itted onthe erson of another.

NOTES:one cannot be awarded M4 for the sufferingone did not endure (sy$athy) cf Art. 00- lastaragrah.

& L A S S N O T E S

Cf< Loe & wife shared in 8restige: of hubby

(goes into the a$ount of M4)

'hat about Strebel and soninlawJ

Sufferering suffered by icarious relationsJ

ABS9&BN 1. &A

+A&TS: A;S and Gia e+ecuted a 2il$ 9+hibitionAgree$ent whereby Gia gae A;S an e+clusie rightto e+hibit so$e Gia fil$s. A;S was gien a right offirst refusal to 01 fil$s. Gias agent gae A;S (through

Charo Santos) a list of F> fil$s to choose 01 fro$.Santos only li#ed -/ (including 8Maging Sino 6a Man:)and did not accet it. According to Loe of A;S therewas a 8na#in agree$ent: for Gia to sell -1 fil$s forPF>M. Gias agent denied such agree$ent. 4eals withA;S failed so then Gia $ade a deal with 7;S grantingthe latter the e+clusie right to -/1 fil$ including the -1fil$s in the 8na#in agree$ent.: 7;S $ade rint ads ofthe anticiated airing of 8Maging Sino 6a Man.: A;Sfiled a co$laint for secific erfor$ance wH a rayerfor in!unction. Co$laint was dis$issed and $oralda$ages were awarded to 7;S for haing itsreutation debased by the filing of the co$laint.

ISS5E: '5@ the award of da$ages to 7;S wasroer.

4EL0:@o. The award of $oral da$ages cannot begranted in faor of a cororation being an artificialerson and haing e+istence only in legalconte$lation it has no feelings no e$otions nosenses. It therefore cannot e+erience hysicalsuffering and $ental anguish which can bee+erienced only by one haing a nerous syste$.

On A't,al 0a(a/es$ theca#e was not there. They $ade a followu call andwere assured that it was on its way but was delayed bytraffic. They were later infor$ed that there would be noca#e because the order sli got lost. 2errer wasco$elled to buy a sans rial ca#e instead. Thewedding ca#e arried at -/$ but they refused toaccet it because it only had 0 layers. 2rancisco(owner of 2ountainhead) sent a letter of aology andK6 which was denied for being dee$ed inade,uate.2errer and Lo filed a case against 2rancisco for breach

of contract wH da$ages. T& and &A awarded moraland exemplary damages.

ISS5E: '5@ $oral and e+e$lary da$ages shouldhae been awarded.

4EL0:@o. Eoweer NOMINAL0AMA6ESAREPROPER.Petitioners gae la$e e+cuses for the delay in thedeliery of the ca#e. Their rearication $ade the$liable for no$inal da$ages for insensitivity,inadvertence or inattention to their customers anxietyand need of the hour.

0O&TRINE:@o$inal da$ages are recoerable where(-) a legal right is technically iolated and $ust beindicated against an inasion that has roduced noactual resent loss of any #ind or (0) where there hasbeen a breach of contract and no substantial in!ury oractual da$ages hae been or can be shown.

0. Te(-erate

Sir:awarded when there is no basis for A4

Art. 222%.Te$erate or $oderate da$ages which are$ore than no$inal but less than co$ensatoryda$ages $ay be recoered when the court finds thatsome pecuniary loss has been sufferedbut its amountcan not! from the nature of the case! be providedith certainty.

Art. 222. Te$erate da$ages $ust be reasonableunder the circu$stances.

& L A S S N O T E S7e$e$ber 7a$os s. CA where te$erate da$ageswere awarded for continuing in!ury

Pleno 1. &A

+A&TS:A red 2ord cargo truc# hit a blue Gol#swagen#o$bi drien by Pleno causing it to hit a cargo truc#

ar#ed along the shoulder hitting its drier who was

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS revised by A2010 Prof Casis S Y 200!60


60/61

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200!200"urinating in front of it. Pleno was seriously in!ured andwas confined for K $onths in Ma#ati Med and had toundergo K surgeries. Pleno filed a co$laint forda$ages against the owner of the red truc# and itsdrier. C2I ruled in faor of Pleno. CA reduced thea$ount of da$ages for being e+cessie (Te$erate

32972910 torts magic notes

Documents