torts reviewer (gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy)

8/10/2019 Torts Reviewer (Gianna.ranx.Tina.gi.Sam.katz.Alex.emjo.Didy)

1/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 1TORTS

not defined in the NCC nor in any Philippine Law BUT manyscattered provisions on tortuous acts

usually defines as: (1) what it is not (!) remedies "ranted (#)social$pu%lic policy protected

&hy not use the concept of tort' t is too %road vis a vis culpaauiliana*

&hy the need for tort'+ to fill the vacuum %etween delicts and uasi, delicts+ for e-pediency (proof %eyond reasona%le dou%t vspreponderance of evidence)+ a way for the .tate to allocate ris/s and payment ofdama"es$restoration cost

Damages% much lon"er treatment in the NCC more practicalimportance on dama"es

&ra'ti'al !egal Rele(an'e: vehicular accidents

ntentional tort%not a delict (any act or omission punisha%le %y law)&hy' ntentional act causin" dama"e to another0 not a crime

A't%intentional0 voluntary,dama"e,may or may not violate a criminal law

Negligen'e%any act or omission causin" dama"e to another %ut w$ointent (only difference w$intentional tort)

Stri't lia)ility%it doesnt matter if youre ne"li"ent or if you intendedit as lon" as sets of circumstances ma/e you lia%le

. TORT

A. De*initions

+. Tort and ,-asideli'ta. Tort

NAG/AT ( N!R$FA$TS%Na"uiat is the president and a stoc/holder of Clar/ 2ield Ta-i0nc* (C2T)* 3ue to the phase,out of the U. %ases in the country0 Clar/4ir Base was closed and the ta-i drivers of C2T were separated fromservice* The drivers filed a complaint for the payment of sep* pay dueto the termination$phase,out* NL5C held Na"uiat and the companysolidarily lia%le for the payment of sep* pay*SS/E% &6N Na"uait should %e held solidarily lia%le with C2T* 78.*0E!D% Under the Corporation Code0 Na"uait is lia%le %ec: (1) heactively mana"ed the %usiness (!) there was evidence that C2T

o%tained reasona%ly adeuate insurance and (#) there was acorporate tort in this case*

6ur 9urisprudence is wantin" of the definite scope of corporate tort*;Essentially1 2tort3 'onsists in t4e (iolation o* a rig4t gi(en ort4e omission o* a d-ty im5osed )y la6. Sim5ly stated1 it is a)rea'4 o* legal d-ty.

NOTES%$OR&ORATE TORT% in re"ards to lia%ility of President of C2T: no

definition of corporate tort! definitions: lon" and short (le"al %asis)S4ort de*inition%from a law dictionary&hats wron" with the definition in Na"uiat' TOO 7ROAD* 4ny %reachof le"al duty %ecomes a tort so it would include criminal acts0


2/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 2%y contract0 and which "ives rise to an action for dama"es* 4nact or omission producin" an in9ury to another0 without anyprevious e-istin" lawful relation of which the said act oromission may %e said to %e a natural out"rowth or incident(other definitions not discussed)

no universal formula for torts lia%ility

includes intentional tort0 ne"li"ence0 and strict lia%ility

ntentional tort% ncludes conduct where the actor desires to causethe conseuences of his act or %elieves the conseuences aresu%stantially certain to result from it*

includes assault0 %atter0 false imprisonment0 defamation0invasion of privacy and interference of property

Negligen'e% involves voluntary acts or omissions which result inin9ury to others0 without intendin" to cause the same

actor fails to e-ercise due care in performin" such acts oromissions

Stri't !ia)ility%where the person is made lia%le independent of faultor ne"li"ence upon su%mission of proof of certain facts

DE !EON 955. +


3/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 3punisha%le %y law;

4ccordin" to this case0 culpa auiliana may include acts oromissions punisha%le %y law* The overlap does not destroy thedistinction %etween crimes and


4/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 40E!D% 78.* &hile it may %e true that the pre,e-istin" contract%etween the parties may0 as a "eneral rule0 %ar the applica%ility of thelaw on uasi,delict0 the lia%ility may itself %e deemed to arise fromuasi,delict0i*e*0 the act which %rea/s the contract may also %e ed or rarely allowed under oldcode0 particularly on su%9ect of moral dama"es

S'o5e o* a55li'a)ility o* 5ro(isions on damages% applica%le to allo%li"ations arisin" from sources enumerated in 411?0 NCC0 withoutpre9udice to special provisions on dama"es formulated elsewhere in

said code*,dont apply to compensation of wor/men and other employees incases of death0 in9ury or illness,in other special laws: same rules o%served insofar as not in conflictwith Civil Code

$on'e5t o* damages%Damages% the sum of money which the law awards or imposes aspecuniary compensation0 recompense0 or satisfaction for an in9urydone or a wron" sustained as a conseuence of a %reach of acontractual o%li"ation or a tortious act,pecuniary conseuences which law imposes for %reach of some dutyor violation of some ri"ht*

Cinds% compensatory0 punitive0 liuidated dama"es (dama"esrecovera%le upon %reach of a contract0 as stipulated %y the parties)0nominal dama"es ("iven in vindication of a %reach of duty which doesnot result in any actual or pecuniary dama"es)

Damage1 damages1 inj-ry% material distin'tionsnj-ry%lle"al invasion of a le"al ri"htDamage% loss0 hurt0 or harm which results from an in9ury in a popular

sense0 it is the depreciation in value0 re"ardless if caused %y awron"ful or le"al act as defined %y statutes providin" for dama"es:actiona%le loss0 in9ury or harm which results from unlawful act0omission or ne"li"ence of another,not synonymous to e-ample0 fine0 penalty0 punishment0 reven"e0discipline0 chastisementDamages% recompense or compensation awarded for dama"essuffered*&e'-niary loss% loss of money or somethin" %y which money orsomethin" of money value may %e acuired

&EO&!E ( 7A!!ESTEROSFA$TS%Ballesteros et al were convicted of murder* They were orderedto pay actual0 compensatory0 and moral dama"es to the heirs of thedeceased*SS/E%&6N dama"es were correctly awarded* 78.0E!D% Damages may %e defined as the pecuniary compensation0recompense0 or satisfaction for an in9ury sustained0 or as otherwisee-pressed0 the pecuniary conseuences which the law imposes for the%reach of some duty or the violation of some ri"ht*

A't-alor 'om5ensatorydamagesare those awarded in satisfactionof0 or in recompense for0 loss or in9ury sustained* The party claimin"such must present the %est evidence availa%le such as receipts*

Moral damages may %e invo/ed when the complainant hase-perienced mental an"uish0 serious an-iety0 physical sufferin"0 moralshoc/ and so forth0 and had furthermore shown that these were thepro-imate result of the offenders wron"ful act or omission*

$/STODO ( $AFA$TS%Custodio et al %uilt an ado%e fence ma/in" the passa"eway toa%asas apartment narrower* a%asa filed a civil action for the "rantof easement of ri"ht of way a"ainst them* C40 aside from "rantin" ri"htof way0 awarded dama"es to a%asa*SS/E%&6N award of dama"es was proper* N60E!D% n the case at %ar0 althou"h there was dama"e0 there was nole"al in9ury* Custodio et als act of constructin" a fence within their lot

is a valid e-ercise of their ri"ht as owners*


5/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 5nj-ryis the ille"al invasion of a le"al ri"ht* Damageis the loss0 hurtor harm0 which results from the in9ury*

Damages are the recompense or compensation awarded fro thedama"e suffered* Thus0 there can %e dama"e without in9ury in thoseinstances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation ofa le"al duty* These situations are often called damn-m a)s-einj-ria* n such cases0 the conseuences must %e %orne %y the in9ured

person alone*

Damn-m a)s-e inj-riaA,/NO 955. ed in the 1OOJ Civil Code

+? $i(il $ode

1. Civil iability !rising "rom Criminal #ffenses41GOJ: Civil o%li"ations arise only from law0 contracts0 uasi,contracts0acts or omissions punished %y law and uasi,delicts*,civil o%li"ations from crime or misdemeanor was "overned only %yPenal Code (41GJ!) so when criminal action was instituted0 the civilaction arisin" from the crime is impliedly instituted with the criminalaction unless the offended party e-pressly waives the civil action orreserves his ri"ht to institute it separately (41!!0 Law of CrimPro),ri"ht to recover dama"es arisin" from crime is completely dependenton the result of the criminal case* f an earlier civil action is instituted0upon start of criminal case0 the civil action is suspended and would %edetermined %y the result of the criminal case* f criminal action isdismissed0 civil action is also deemed dismissed0 re"ardless ifinstituted with the criminal action or separately* Civil lia%ility is treatedas purely incidental to the criminal lia%ility of the offender* The casesof .prin"er vs* 6din0 5a/es vs* 4tlantic Qulf and Pacific Co*0 U. vs* Quy.ayco0 U. vs* Bernardo0 and &ise R Co* vs* Larion were ruled usin" thisprinciple* 4s ruled in ra/es0 any civil action not predicated on offensecommitted or char"ed (%ased on law0 contract0 uasi,contract0 or


6/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 6,said articles are not applica%le to acts of ne"li"ence which constituteeither punisha%le offenses(delicts) or %reach of contract*,thus0 the lia%ility of employers0 et* al* under now 4!1OG are onlysu%sidiary (in accordance with penal laws),%& or culpa aquiliana or e'tra(contractual culpa) causative act oromission not punished %y law and is done 6NL7 ne"li"ently0 where civillia%ility could arise as "overned %y the Civil Code (not %y penal laws)0and the party a""rieved could file an ordinary civil action for dama"es

usin" only preponderance of evidence* t "ives rise only to civil lia%ility*Here0 the employers lia%ility for his employees N6NC5N4LN8QLQ8NC8 is direct and primary and not su%sidiary0 and he could %edirectly imputed in an action for recovery of dama"es*,an act or omission will "ive rise to civil lia%ility only if it causesdama"e or in9ury to another or others*

DE !EON 955.;Tort law emer"ed out of criminal law ori"inally concerned principallywith violent %reaches of the place*

(1) Common law tort S 9ud"es usually define what counts as tortsand how compensation is to %e measured* .till0 a statute oreven Consti may ma/e certain conduct le"ally wron"ful and

may permit recovery of dama"es for such conduct*(!) No clear distinction %etween tort and crime S initially0 this wasthe case sine the development of anythin" li/e a clearlyformulated conception of a tort is comparatively recent*

(#) Notion of tort as a specific wron" S there was an attempt in1!G to consider several specific wron"s in a wor/consolidatin" them under the "eneral headin" of torts* Torts ofa specific character have %een increasin"*

(D) Place of torts in the Philippine law S even if 5P was a civil lawcountry0 some of the provisions in the 1OOJ CC dealth withcases of the nature of torts with U. occupation0 a num%er oflaws patterned after 4n"lo,4merican models have %een passedamplifyin" the field of torts in Philippine le"al system*

F-n'tions or goals o* tort la6edieval 8n"land: discoura"e violence and reven"eToday: compensation of in9ured persons and deterrence of undesira%le%ehavior:

System o* t4o-g4ts 9sorry1 no 5arallelism in t4e en-merationo* de leon;%9+; Morality or 'orre'ti(e j-sti'eS defendants should %e lia%le froharms they wron"fully caused and no others lia%ility imposed whenand only when it is ri"ht; to do so9:; So'ial -tility or 5oli'y S a "ood,for,all,of,us view: provide asystem of rules that wor/s toward the "ood of society9es %ased on the deposits she supposedly made* The fraudulentacts were done %ecause of the alle"ed ne"li"ence of BP tellers in notretrivin" the deposit slips* Lifetime sued BP for dama"es* 5TC and C4awarded dama"es to Lifetime*

S$% Elements o* ,D

1* fault or ne"li"ence of the defendant0 or some person forwhose acts he must respond


7/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 7!* dama"es suffered %y the plaintiff#* connection of cause and effect %etween the fault or

ne"li"ence of the defendant and the dama"es incurred %y the plaintiffLifetime incurred dama"es* BP was ne"li"ent0 and such ne"li"encewas the pro-imate cause of the loss

GAR$A ( SA!"ADORFA$TS: Because of a wron" medical e-amination 5anida .alvador lost

opportunity to %e employed and her father suffered a heart attac/upon findin" out of the incorrect medical e-amination result*S$% 2or health care providers0 the test of the e-istence of ne"li"enceis: did the health care provider either fail to do somethin" which areasona%ly prudent health care provider would have done0 or that heor she did somethin" that a reason%ly prudent health care providerwould not have done and that failure or action caused in9ury to thepatient if yes0 then he is "uilty of ne"li"ence*

The elements of an actiona%le conduct are: 1) duty0 !) %reach0#) in9ury0 and D) pro-imate causation* 4ll are present in the case at%ar*

NOTES%

.ir: This is a poorly crafted decision* The .C did not even citethe %asis for the elements*

3oes this pertain to


8/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 8(!) fault or ne"li"ence of the defendant0 or some other person forwhose acts he must respond and(#) the connection of cause and effect %etween the fault or ne"li"enceof the defendant and the dama"es incurred %y the plaintiff*

NOTES% mportant: Ta/e note of # elements of


9/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 9o%served in the performance0 that which is e-pected of a "ood father ofa family shall %e reuired*

Art. :+=.The provisions of articles 11! to 11D are also applica%le toa uasi,delict*

NOTES%Ne"li"ence for BoC and es the e-istence of a contractof carria"e %etween it and petitionerAs assured0 and admits that thecar"oes it has assumed to deliver have %een lost or dama"ed while inits custody* n such a situation0 a default on0 or failure of compliancewith0 the o%li"ation "ives rise to a presumption of lac/ of care and

correspondin" lia%ility on the part of the contractual o%li"or the %urdenon him to esta%lish otherwise*


10/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 10

4s to lia%ility of driver: a contract can only %ind the parties who haveentered into it or their successors and can neither favor nor pre9udice athrid person* T4e a'tion against t4e dri(er 'an only )e )ased onculpa aquiliana, 64i'41 -nlike culpa contractual, 6o-ld re-iret4e 'alimant *or damages to 5ro(e negligen'e or *a-lt on t4e5art o* t4e de*endant.

$A!A!AS ( $AFA$TS% 8li>a .un"a0 a passen"er of a 9eepney owned %y Calalas0 wasin9ured when a truc/ hit the rear end of the 9eepney* The 9eepeney wasfilled to the capacity* &hen the truc/ hit the 9eepney .un"a was "ivin"way to passen"ers who were ali"htin" the 9eepney* .un"a filedcomplaint for dama"es a"ainst Calalas0 alle"in" violation of thecontract of carria"e %y the latter in failin" to e-ercise the dili"encereuired of him as a common carrier* Calalas on the other hand filed#rd,party complaint a"ainst the owner of the truc/*

The lower court rendered 9ud"ment a"ainst the owner of the truc/0holdin" that it was the driver of said truc/ that was responsi%le for theaccident* t also a%solved Calalas*

C4 reversed the rulin" on the "round that .un"aAs cause ofaction was %ased on a contract of carria"e0 not uasi,delict0 and thatthe common carrier failed to e-ercise the dili"ence reuired under theCivil Code*

S$%


11/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 11uasi,delict since it is not e-pressly prohi%ited*

The rulin" on the interpretation of 4!1F is not ratio0 9usto%iter*

Case is not %asis of mutual e-clusivity

FAR EAST ( $AFA$TS% Plaintiff Luna "ot a 2ar 8ast credit card which was dishonoredat a despedida party due to a hotlist policy compelled %y the loss of

the complementary card* He sues for dama"es* 5TC awarded himmoral and e-emplary dama"es*0E!D%Complaint is %ased on contract %ecause without the contract0the act or omission complained of cannot %y itself %e an actiona%letort* oral dama"es were deleted %ecause ne"li"ence in failin" to "ivepersonal notice to Luna is not "ross as to amount to malice or %adfaith* 8-emplary dama"es were deleted %ecause

DO$TRNE% The test to determine whether >;white man

Carrascoso was issued a first class tic/et from anila to 5ome* Hetravelled first class from anila to Hon"/on"* But the airline mana"erin H told him to vacate his seat %ecause a white man has a %etterri"ht to it* Commotion ensued and Carrascoso transferred seatsa"ainst his will* 4ir 2rance ar"ues that since the action is planted on%reach of contract there must %e fraud or %ad faith to authori>e awardof moral dama"es*0E!D%There is a contract and it was %reached* There was also %adfaith when he was told to leave after he was already seated %y reasonof which he suffered inconvenience and humiliation resultin" in moraldama"es* Passen"ers have a ri"ht to %e treated %y the carriersemployees with /indness0 respect0 courtesy and due consideration*4ny discourteous misconduct on the part of employees toward a

passen"er "ives the latter an action for dama"es (4!1)*

DO$TRNE%The act that %rea/s a contract may %e also a tort*

&S7A (. $A 9+??:;Certainly, no student can absorb the intricacies of physics*whenbullets are flying or grenades e'ploding in the air*4 student of P.B4 was sta%%ed %y non,students within the schoolspremises* The parents sued P.B4 and its officers under 4!1OG and4!1F*

0E!D%The school is not lia%le under 4!1OG %ecause the assailants arenon,P.B4 students* t is also not lia%le under 4!1F %ecause it appliesonly if there is no contractual o%li"ation* The ne"li"ence of the schoolwould not %e relevant a%sent a contract* The ne"li"ence cannot e-istindependently of the contract0 unless the ne"li"ence occurs under thecircumstances in 4!1* The case was remanded to lower court todetermine if there was %reach of contract %y its ne"li"ence to provideproper security measures*

DO$TRNE: .hould the act which %reaches a contract %e done in %adfaith and %e violative of 4!10 then there is a cause to view the act asconstitutin" a


12/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 12The ne"li"ence of 8scartin is not proven thus the a"ency is not lia%le*The driver is also a%solved*

The statutory provisions render a common carrier lia%le for death orin9ury to passen"ers (a) throu"h the ne"li"ence or willful acts of itsemployees or (%) an account of willful acts or ne"li"ence of otherpassen"ers or of stran"ers if the common carriers employees thou"hthe e-ercise of due dili"ence could have prevented or stopped the act

or omission*

$ONSO!DATED 7ANC (. $A 9:@@ has an account with .olid%an/* t entrusted the pass%oo/ totheir messen"er to ma/e a deposit* The messen"er left the pass%oo/to the teller %ut when he came %ac/ the teller said that some%ody elsetoo/ it* That same day there was an unauthori>ed withdrawal %y acertain Tamayo of #GG/ from the savin"s account* LC 3ia> then filed acriminal complaint a"ainst another messen"er and a certain =erda>olafor estafa %ut the case was dismissed* LC 3ia> filed this complaint fordama"es a"ainst .olid%an/*0E!D% .olid%an/ is lia%le for BoC due to ne"li"ence (41JOG deposits in%an/ is "overned %y provisions concernin" simple loan0 54 OJ1 sec*!*

the .tate reco"ni>es the fiduciary nature of %an/in" that reuires hi"hstandard of inte"rity and performance)* .olid%an/ %reached itscontractual o%li"ation to return the pass%oo/ only to authori>edrepresentative of LC 3ia>* There is a presumption of ne"li"ence and.olid%an/ must prove otherwise* (There is althou"h contri%utoryne"li"ence on the part LC 3ia> for allowin" a withdrawal slip to "et intothe hands of an impostor*)

Note: n BoC ones last clear chance or contri%utory ne"li"ence will note-onerate the defendants lia%ility %ut will only reduce dama"e*

DE !EON 955.+=+>@;+. Re-isites o* ,D%a* 4n act or omission %y defendant%* 2ault or ne"li"ence %y defendantc* 3ama"e or in9ury to plaintiffd* 3irect relation of cause and effect %etween act or omission and thedama"ee* No pre,e-istin" contractual relationship

:. 7-rden o* &roo*a* 2alls on the person claimin" dama"es%* To %e esta%lished with satisfactory evidencec* Ne"li"ence is not presumed* 6nly under 4rts* !1OG0 !1O#0 and !1J1is presumed and %urden of proof shifts to defendant


13/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 13%ein" pertur%ed %y the novelty of the apparition or the rapidity ofthe approach;Picart is ridin" his pony in the wron" side of a %rid"e when the car of.mith approached it* .mith %lew his horn* Picart didnt move to theother side %ecause he thou"ht he didnt have enou"h time* The cardidnt reduce its speed* t turned to the ri"ht to avoid the horse %ut itwas too close to the horse that it "ot fri"htened and turned its %odytowards the railin" and across the %rid"e* t "ot hit on the hind le" and

Picart was thrown off* The horse died and Picart suffered in9uries*0E!D% Qiven that Picart is on the wron" side and he cant escape%ein" run down %y "oin" to the place of safety the control of thesituation passed over to .mith0 it was his duty to stop or ta/e the otherside upon seein" that no%ody else is on the %rid"e to avoid the dan"er*The person who has the last fair chance to avoid impendin" harm andfails to do so is char"ea%le with the conseuences without reference tothe prior ne"li"ence of the other party* The ne"li"ence of .mith is theimmediate and determinin" cause of the accident*

&$ART TEST% 3id the defendant in doin" the alle"ed ne"li"ent actuse that reasona%le care and caution which an ordinarily prudent manwould have used in the same situation'

Ne"li"ence in a "iven case is not determined %y reference to thepersonal 9ud"ment of the actor in the situation %efore him* 4s to whatwould constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a "iven situationmust of course %e always determined in the li"ht of human e-perienceand in view of the facts involved in the particular case*

Conduct is said to %e ne"li"ent when a prudent man in the position ofthe tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to anotherwas sufficiently pro%a%le to warrant his fore"oin" the conduct or"uardin" a"ainst its conseuences*

&NR (. 7R/NTB 9:@@>;ercilita overtoo/ a car0 not /nowin" that they were approachin" arailroad trac/0 and hit the train0 she died instantly* Brunty was amon"the passen"ers %rou"ht to the hospital %ut she died after* Bruntysparent sued PN5*0E!D% PN5 is ne"li"ent (under 4!1F) in not providin" adeuatewarnin" si"ns* 5ailroad companies owe to the pu%lic a duty ofe-ercisin" a reasona%le de"ree of care to avoid in9ury to persons andproperty at railroad crossin"s0 which duties pertain %oth in theoperation of trains and in the maintenance of the crossin"s*

N8QLQ8NC8 is the omission to do somethin" which a reasona%le man0"uided those considerations which ordinarily re"ulate the conduct ofhuman affairs0 would do0 or the doin" of somethin" which a prudentand reasona%le man would do*

N8QLQ8NC8 is want of the care reuired %y the circumstances*(Corliss vs* anila 5aildroad)


14/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 144mores was drivin" his car* He slowed down and came to a full stopwhen he reached the railroad trac/s* &hen he was crossin"0 the trainhit the car was dra""ed 1G meters from the crossin"* 4mores died*0E!D%The failure of the PN5 to put cross %ar0 si"nal li"ht0 f la"man orswitchman0 or semaphore is evidence of ne"li"ence and disre"ard ofthe safety of the pu%lic* The train was fast for it dra""ed the carmeters away from the crossin" even after the %rea/s was applied*

DO$TRNE%There is no hard and fast rule where%y such de"ree ofcare and vi"ilance is cali%rated it is dependent upon thecircumstances in which a person finds himself* 4ll that the law reuiresis that that care and dili"ence e-pected of sensi%le men undercompara%le situation*

$ORNT0AN GARDENS ASSO$. (s. TANKANG$O 9:@@;Corinthian referred the Cuasos to 8n"r* 3e 3ios ("eodetic) for therelocation survey of their lot* They constructed their house with C*BPara> as %uilder* 8very now and then0 Corinthian ma/es an ocularinspection to ma/e sure compliance with the approved plan* Theirperimeter fence encroached the ad9oinin" lot owned %y theTan9an"cos*

0E!D% Corinthian is responsi%le in insurin" compliance with theapproved plans0 inclusive of the construction of the perimeter walls* tsfailure to prevent encroachment of the other property despite theinspection constitutes ne"li"ence*

The case is one for tort under 4!1F1* 3ama"e!* 2ault$Ne"li"ence#* Connection of cause and effect %etween such ne"li"ence and

dama"e*

DO$TRNE%4 ne"li"ent act is one from which an ordinary prudentperson in the actors position0 in the same or similar circumstances0would foresee such an apprecia%le ris/ of harm to others as to causehim not to do it in a more careful manner*

The law considers what would %e rec/less0 %lameworthy0 or ne"li"entin a man of ordinary intelli"ence and prudence0 and determines lia%ilityaccordin" to that standard*(2ernando vs* C4)

SANG$O 9&&. =;STANDARD OF $OND/$T , it is impossi%le to fi- in advance definite rules for all conceiva%lehuman conduct %ecause of the infinite variety of situations which mayarise , standard of conduct must %e: i* e-ternal and o%9ective

ii* the same for all persons

iii* must ma/e allowance for the ris/ apparent to the act for hiscapacity to meet it and for the circumstances under which he must act


15/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 158d"ardo 4uino ordered his students to di" %eside a 1 ton concrete%loc/ in order to ma/e a hole to %ury hu"e stones* He left four of themto level the loose soil around the open hole %ut told them not to touchthe stone;* They0 however0 playfully 9umped into the pit and causedthe top of the concrete %loc/ to fall towards the openin"* 7larde wasnta%le to clim% out and he died after # days %ecause of the in9uriessustained*0E!D% 7larde cannot %e char"ed with rec/less imprudence* The

de"ree of care reuired to %e e-ercised must vary with the capacity ofthe person en"endered to care for himself* 4 minor should not %e heldto the same de"ree of care as an adult0 %ut his conduct should %e9ud"ed accordin" to the avera"e conduct of persons of his own a"eand e-perience* 4uino is ne"li"ent for he should have foreseen that%rin"in" children to e-cavation site and leavin" them there may resultin an accident*

DO$TRNE%The standard of conduct to which a child must conform forhis own protection is that de"ree of care ordinarily e-ercised %ychildren of the same a"e0 capacity0 discretion0 /nowled"e ande-perience under the same or similar circumstances*

SANG$O 955. =@=;UN385 J 7845. conclusively presumed to have acted withoutdiscernment and is e-empt from criminal lia%ility

6=85 J BUT UN385 1? may or may not %e "uilty of contri%utoryne"li"ence0 dependin" upon his mental development and othercircumstances (re%utta%le presumption)

6=85 1? 7845. presumed to have sufficient capacity andunderstandin" to %e sensi%le of dan"er with the power to avoid it(.T4N3453 is still that of a child his a"e and capacity0 and not that ofan adult*).T4N3453: 653N45L7 P5U38NT CHL3

The standard of conduct which a child must conform for hisown protection is that of a reasona%le person of li/e a"e0

intelli"ence and e-perience under li/e or similar circumstancesor that de"ree of care ordinarily e-ercised %y children of thesame a"e0 capacity0 discretion0 /nowled"e and e-perienceunder the same or similar circumstances*

T8.T as to whether an infant can %e su%9ected to the same standard ofcare as an adult:

1* type of activity involved is one that is usually en"a"ed in %ychildren!* one involvin" the use of potentially dan"erous0 adult,oriented; instrument0 li/e a car*

#0ERE $0!D S 0E!D TO T0E STANDARD OF $ARE OF ANAD/!T0 his violation of a statute or other enactment entails thesame conseuences as those of an adult*

). Ex5ertsL &ro*essionals$/!ON $E (s. &0!&&NE MOTORS 9+?


16/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 16irrelevant* The dru""ist is responsi%le as an a%solute "uarantorof what he sells*

DO$TRNE% The profession of pharmacy is one demandin" care ands/ill* The responsi%ility to use care has %een variously ualifiedas ordinary care;0 care of a specially hi"h de"ree;0 t4e4ig4est degree o* 'are kno6n to 5ra'ti'al men3.

MER$/RB DR/G (s. DE !EON 9O't. +=1 :@@;a isang parmasyuti-a, ang pag-a-amali ay -apabayaan at angpag-alinga ay hindi ang-op na depensa(Eud"e) 3e Leon was "iven a prescription %y his doctor friend for hiseye* He %ou"ht them from ercury dru" %ut he was "iven drops for theears* The sheriff assisted him in applyin" the drops in his eyes and hefelt searin" pain* 6nly then he discovered that he was "iven the wron"medicine* He returned the medicine* The pharmacist didnt apolo"i>eand 9ust told him that she wasnt a%le to read the prescription properly*t was the supervisor who apolo"i>ed and told him that they do nothave stoc/ of the ri"ht one* ercury says that 3e Leon was ne"li"entfor not loo/in" at the la%el*0E!D%4s active players in the field of dispensin" medicines to the

pu%lic0 the hi"hest de"ree of care and dili"ence is e-pected of them* nthe purchase and sale of dru"s0 the %uyer and seller do not stand atarms len"th* There is an imperative duty on the seller or the dru""istto ta/e the precaution to prevent death or in9ury to any person whorelies on ones a%solute honesty and peculiar learnin"*

DO$TRNE%The profession of pharmacy demands care and s/ill0 anddru""ists must e-ercise care of a specially hi"h de"ree0 the hi"hestde"ree /nown to practical men* n other words0 dru""ist must e-ercisethe hi"hest practica%le de"ree of prudence and vi"ilance0 and themost consistent with the reasona%le conduct of %usiness0 so thathuman life may constantly %e e-posed to the dan"er flowin" from thesu%stitution of deadly poisons for harmless medicines*

'. Medi'al Negligen'e$R/8 (s. $A 9No(. +1 +??=;

&octors are protected by a special rule of law. 2hey are notguarantors of care. 2hey do not even warrant a good result. 2hey arenot insurers against mishaps or unusual consequences. "urthermorethey are not liable for honest mista-es of judgment*Lydia Umali was found to have myoma in the uterus and underwentsur"ery under 3r* Ninevetch Cru> wherein the untidy clinic ran out ofmedicine0 %lood and o-y"en that she had to %e transferred to anotherhospital0 where she died*0E!D% &hether a physician or sur"eon has e-ercised the reuisitede"ree of s/ill and care in the treatment of his patient is0 in the"enerality of cases0 a matter of e-pert opinion* The deference of

courts to the e-pert opinion of ualified physicians stems from itsreali>ation that the latter possess unusual technical s/ills which laymen

in most instances are capa%le of intelli"ently evaluatin"* 8-perttestimony should have %een offered to prove that the circumstancescited are constitutive of conduct fallin" %elow the standard of careemployed %y other physicians in "ood standin" when performin" thesame operation* No co"ent proof that the circumstances causedpetitioners death*3ispositive: acuitted from rec/less imprudence %ut civilly lia%le

DO$TRNE% &hether or not a physician has committed anIine-cusa%le lac/ of precautionI in the treatment of his patient is to %edetermined accordin" to the standard of care o%served %y othermem%ers of the profession in "ood standin" under similarcircumstances %earin" in mind the advanced state of the profession atthe time of treatment or the present state of medical science* n therecent case of Leonila Qarcia,5ueda v* &ilfred L* Pascasio0 et al*0 thisCourt stated that in acceptin" a case0 a doctor in effect representsthat0 havin" the needed trainin" and s/ill possessed %y physicians andsur"eons practicin" in the same field0 he will employ such trainin"0care and s/ill in the treatment of his patients* He therefore has a dutyto use at least the same level of care that any other reasona%lycompetent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same

circumstances*

&ROFESSONA! SER"$ES (s. AGANA 9Kan. e protrudin" in her va"ina* 3r* 4mpil removed this %y hand* .hewent to see another doctor and they detected another "au>e in herva"ina which infected it* .he underwent another operation* Pendin"the case0 4"ana died*0E!D%leavin" spon"e and other forei"n su%stance in the wound afterthe incision has %een closed is prima facie ne"li"ence* f the sur"eon iscompelled %y necessity to leave a spon"e it is his le"al duty to informthe patient of what he has %een compelled to do so that the patientmay see/ relief* 3r* 4mpil misled 4"ana to thin/in" that the pain wasnormal* &hat was initially an act of ne"li"ence in leavin" spon"es hasripened to a deli%erate wron" in concealin" the missin" "au>es*

DO$TRNE% to successfully pursue a medical ne"li"ence case0 apatient must prove that a health care provider either failed to dosomethin" which a reasona%ly prudent health care provider wouldhave done0 or that he did somethin" that a reasona%ly prudentprovider would not have done and that failure or action caused in9ury

to patient* (duty0 %reach0 in9ury0 pro-imate causation)


17/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 17$ANTRE (s. GO 9:@@=;

Qo "ave %irth and attended %y 3r* Cantre* Cantre used a dropli"ht towarm Nora and her %a%y while she was massa"in" Qos uterus to stopthe %leedin"* Qo "ot a wound in her inner arm which the nurses saywas a %urn* 4ccordin" to NB test it was a %urn caused %y a dropli"ht*The hospital says its %ecause of BP cuff* Qo underwent s/in "raftin" atthe hospitals e-pense*0E!D%&hether the in9ury was caused %y the dropli"ht or %y the %lood

pressure cuff is of no moment* Both instruments are deemed withinthe e-clusive control of the physician in char"e under the Icaptain ofthe shipI doctrine* This doctrine holds the sur"eon in char"e of anoperation lia%le for the ne"li"ence of his assistants durin" the timewhen those assistants are under the sur"eons control* However0 thefact that Cantre promptly too/ care of Qos wound %efore infection andother complications set in is also indicative of her "ood intentions* Qowas also sufferin" from a critical condition when the in9ury happened0such that savin" her life %ecame Cantres elemental concern*Nonetheless0 it should %e stressed that all these could not 9ustifyne"li"ence*

DO$TRNE%n cases involvin" medical ne"li"ence0 the doctrine of res

ipsa loquitur allows the mere e-istence of an in9ury to 9ustify apresumption of ne"li"ence on the part of the person who controls theinstrument causin" the in9ury*The Hippocratic 6ath mandates physicians to "ive primordialconsideration to the well,%ein" of their patients* f a doctor fails to liveup to this precept0 he is accounta%le for his acts* This notwithstandin"0courts face a uniue restraint in ad9udicatin" medical ne"li"ence cases%ecause physicians are not "uarantors of care and0 they never set outto intentionally cause in9ury to their patients* However0 intent isimmaterial in ne"li"ence cases %ecause where ne"li"ence e-ists and isproven0 it automatically "ives the in9ured a ri"ht to reparation for thedama"e caused*

$ABAO!ASAM (s. RAMO!ETE 9:@@;

5amolete underwent raspa (3RC procedure ) under CayaG,Lasam andwas dischar"ed the followin" day* .he was %rou"ht to the hospitala"ain for severe a%dominal pains and vomitin"* .he was informed thatthere is a dead fetus in her womd* .he underwent laparatomy and shewas found to have massive intraa%dominal hemorrha"e and a ruptureduterus* .he had to under"o hysterectormy and as a result she cant%ear a child anymore* 5amolete says that the hysterectomy is due tothe ne"li"ence of Cayao,Lasam in performin" raspa (not /nowin" thatwhat she had was an ectopic pre"nancy)* Cayao,Lasam says that itwas %ecause of 5amoletes insistence to %e dischar"ed immediatelyand failin" to "o to her chec/ up*0E!D%5amolete did not present any e-pert testimony to support theirclaim* Cayao,Lasam presented an e-pert on the su%9ect who stated

3RC was not the pro-imate cause of the rupture of 8dithas uterusresultin" in her hysterectomy* The 3RC was conducted in accordance

with the standard practice0 with the same level of care that anyreasona%ly competent doctor would use to treat a condition under thesame circumstances* 4ssumin" that there was in fact a misdia"nosis0the same would have %een rectified if 5amolete followed the order toreturn for a chec/,up* .he omitted the dili"ence reuired %y thecircumstances which could have avoided the in9ury* The omission innot returnin" for a follow,up evaluation played a su%stantial part in%rin"in" a%out her in9ury* Had she returned0 Cayao,Lasam could have

conducted the proper medical tests and procedure necessary todetermine her health condition and applied the correspondin"treatment which could have prevented the rupture of her uterus*

DO$TRNE% edical malpractice is a particular form of ne"li"encewhich consists in the failure of a physician or sur"eon to apply use atleast the same level of care that any reasona%ly competent doctorwould use to treat a condition under the same circumstances* 4s tothis aspect of medical malpractice0 the determination of thereasona%le level of care and the %reach thereof0 e-pert testimony isessential* 2urther0 inasmuch as the causes of the in9uries involved inmalpractice actions are determina%le only in the li"ht of scientific/nowled"e0 it has %een reco"ni>ed that e-pert testimony is usually

necessary to support the conclusion as to causation*4ll told0 doctors are protected %y a special rule of law* They are not"uarantors of care* They are not insurers a"ainst mishaps or unusualconseuences specially so if the patient herself did not e-ercise theproper dili"ence reuired to avoid the in9ury*

!/$AS (s. T/ANO 9:@@?;Lucas had a sore eye and used ma-itrol (steroid %ased) for it* He thenconsulted 3r* Tuano (opthal) on 6cto%er 1JOO* He was prescri%ed adifferent medicine* The sore eyes was cured %ut the eye developed8C (a viral infection) and he was told to use ma-itrol* 8C tapereddown and Lucas was told "radually reduce the dosa"e of ma-itrolotherwise 8C mi"ht recur* His 8C recurred and he was told toresume the ori" dosa"e of ma-itrol* Blephamide (also steroid %ased)was used when ma-itrol is unavaila%le* Lucas discovered thatprolon"ed used of ma-itrol is dan"erous to the eyes (may develop"laucoma)* He told Tuano a%out it %ut the doctor 9ust %rushed it aside*By 3ecem%er his ri"ht eye was %lind and he was told to stop the use ofma-itrol and was prescri%ed different medicines* Tuano referred Lucasto another 3octor for the treatment of "laucoma and Tuano treatedhim accordin" to the advice of that doctor* Lucas consulted 3r* 4uinoon his own initiative and was told that his condition needs lifetime medand follow ups* Lucas underwent two operations (1JJG and 1JJ1) oflaser tra%eculoplasty* He said that what he had is steroid,induced"laucoma and sued Tuano* Tuano says that Lucas "laucoma is notsteroid induced for if it were0 it would disappear with the discontinue ofthe use of ma-itrol*


18/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 180E!D% No e-pert testimony was presented* 4%sent a definitivestandard of care or dili"ence reuired of the 3r* Tuano under thecircumstances0 the Court cant determine whether he was a%le tocomply with the same in his dia"nosis and treatment of Lucas* There isno causation %etween use of ma-itrol and "laucoma* Lucas failed toprove %y preponderance of evidence that Tuani failed to e-ercise thatde"ree of s/ill0 care and learnin" possessed %y other persons in thesame profession and that as a pro-imate result if such failure0 the

patient or his heirs suffered dama"es* The mere fact that the patientdoes not "et well or that a %ad result is not determinative of theperformance of the physician and he is not reuired to %e infalli%le*

&hen a patient en"a"es the services of a physician0 a physician,patient relationship is "enerated* 4nd in acceptin" a case0 thephysician0 for all intents and purposes0 represents that he has theneeded trainin" and s/ill possessed %y physicians and sur"eonspracticin" in the same field and that he will employ such trainin"0care0 and s/ill in the treatment of the patient* Thus0 in treatin" hispatient0 a physician is under a dutyto Kthe former to e-ercise thatde"ree of care0 s/ill and dili"ence which physicians in the same"eneral nei"h%orhood and in the same "eneral line of practiceordinarily possess and e-ercise in li/e cases* .tated otherwise0 thephysician has the duty to use at least the same level of care that anyother reasona%ly competent physician would use to treat the conditionunder similar circumstances*

This standard level of care0 s/ill and dili"ence is a matter %estaddressed %y e-pert medical testimony0 %ecause the standard of carein a medical malpractice case is a matter peculiarly within the/nowled"e of e-perts in the field*

d. $or5orate Negligen'e&ROFESSONA! SER"$ES (s. AGANA 9Kan. es

amounts to callous ne"li"ence* Not only did P. %reach its duties tooversee or supervise all persons who practice medicine within its walls0it also failed to ta/e an active step in fi-in" the ne"li"ence committed*This renders P.0 not only vicariously lia%le for the ne"li"ence of 3r*4mpil under 4rticle !1OG of the Civil Code0 %ut also directly lia%le for itsown ne"li"ence under 4rticle !1F*DO$TRNE% 4 patient who enters a hospital does so with thereasona%le e-pectation that it will attempt to cure him* The hospitalaccordin"ly has the duty to ma/e a reasona%le effort to monitor andoversee the treatment prescri%ed and administered %y the physicianspracticin" in its premises* t has the duty to e-ercise reasona%le careto protect from harm all patients admitted into its facility for medicaltreatment*

&ith the passa"e of time0 more duties were e-pected from hospitals0amon" them: (1) the use of reasona%le care in the maintenance of safe

and adeuate facilities and euipment (!) the selection and retentionof competent physicians (#) the overseein" or supervision of allpersons who practice medicine within its walls and (D) the formulation0adoption and enforcement of adeuate rules and policies that ensureuality care for its patients*

e. intoxi'ation*. insanity

Art. :+:. f the minor or insane person causin" dama"e has noparents or "uardian0 the minor or insane person shall %e answera%lewith his own property in an action a"ainst him where a "uardian ad litemshall %e appointed* (n)

7. Degrees o* Negligen'e

Art. ::e to the sea*He drowned*0E!D% He failed to e-ercise even the sli"htest care and dili"ence;0that he displayed a rec/less disre"ard of the safety of his person0 thathe could not have %een %ut conscious of the pro%a%le conseuences;of his carelessness and that he was indifferent0 or worse0 to thedan"er of his in9ury;* There is more reason to hold that his death wascaused %y his notorious ne"li"ence* f while he was wor/in"0 his %illmerely fell from his poc/et0 and as he pic/ed it up from the floorsomethin" accidentally fell upon him and in9ured him0 he would surely%e entitled to compensation0 his act %ein" o%viously innocent* Eumpin"into the sea0 however0 is entirely different0 the dan"er which it entails%ein" clear0 potent and o%vious*

DO$TRNE%Notorious ne"li"ence; has %een held to %e tantamount togross negligen'e;0 which is 6ant o* e(en slig4t 'are anddiligen'e* By "ross ne"li"ence is meant Asuch entire want of care asto raise a presumption that the person in fault is conscious of thepro%a%le conseuences of carelessness0 and is indifferent0 or worse0 tothe dan"er of in9ury to person or property of others*A *The ne"li"encemust amount to a rec/less disre"ard of the safety of person orproperty*

NOTE: &hat determines if an act if ne"li"ent is the dan"er of an act(apparent and imminent)* The nature of the act of 9umpin" into the seainvolves dan"er per se*

MARND/,/E RON MNES ( #ORCMENS $OM&ENSATON9+?;


19/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 19FA$TS% amador hitched a ride to"ether with other la%orers on acompany,owned truc/* &hen the truc/ tried to overta/e another truc/0it collided with a coconut tree0 which resulted in his death* There was acompany prohi%ition a"ainst la%orers ridin" the haula"e truc/s*Petitioner claims that such violation was the la%orerAs notoriousne"li"ence; which0 under the law0 precludes recovery*0E!D% ere ridin" on a haula"e truc/ or stealin" a ride thereon is notne"li"ence0 ordinarily* =iolation of a rule promul"ated %y a commission

or %oard is not ne"li"ence per se %ut it may %e evidence ofne"li"ence* Under the circumstances0 the la%orer could not %edeclared to have acted with ne"li"ence since the prohi%ition hadnothin" to do with the personal safety of riders* Qettin" or acceptin" afree ride on the companyAs haula"e truc/ couldnAt %e "ross ne"li"ence0%ecause no dan"er or ris/ was apparent;*

R/!E% "iolation o* a r-le 5rom-lgated )y a 'ommission or)oard is not negligen'e 5er se %ut it may %e evidence ofne"li"ence*

NOTES% .5: the "radation of laws0 rules0 ordinances0 etc* is N6T a

settled rule* Theres only an alle"ed prohi%ition on part of employer

8ven if there was indeed a prohi%ition0 violation of policy is notnecessarily ne"li"ence per se %ut it may %e an evidence ofne"li"ence

!AOORETA ( S&O/SE RON,/!!O 9+?>;FA$TS% 5ounuillo spouses decided to ta/e on the services of 3r* lao,6reta %ecause 8va 5onuillo as havin" a difficult time while %ein"pre"nant* They scheduled 8va for a laparoscopic procedure scheduledom 4pril ? at !pm* am on the said date0 8va underwent pre,sur"ery*3r* lao,6reta did not arrive on the scheduled day and time of theoperation* t turns out she was on her honeymoon and was still on afli"ht from Hawaii and did not arrive until 1Gpm* .he apolo"i>ed0ar"ued that she did not intentionally mean to miss her operation0 andoffered to reschedule the procedure* .pouses did not want toreschedule and are now claimin" dama"es from 3r* lao,6reta*SS/E% &6N 3r* was "rossly ne"li"ent when she missed 8vasoperation*0E!D% NO. .he was ne"li"ent althou"h not "ross* The circumstancesof the case: she tried to contact the spouses as soon as she arrivedshe apolo"i>ed and even tried to reschedule the procedure* The Courtwas sympathetic over the fact that she was on her honeymoon0 andhuman e-perience dictates that the e-citement over this matter wouldnormally cloud ones attention over minute details li/e time (3r* lao,6reta for"ot to account for the nternational 3ate Line in %etweenHawaii and the Philippines)*

NOTES%

i"ht also have somethin" to do with the nature of theprocedure S the act or omission is not dan"erousper se;

SANG$O 9+@+:;The amount of care demanded %y the standard of reasona%le conductmust %e proportionate to the apparent ris/*

DEGREES OF NEG!GEN$E%S!G0T NEG!GEN$E, an a%sence of that de"ree of vi"ilance whichpersons of e-traordinary prudence and foresi"ht are accustomed touse* (failure to e-ercise care)

GROSS NEG!GEN$ES descri%ed as failure to e-ercise even that carewhich a careless person would use* There is no "enerally acceptedmeanin"0 %ut the pro%a%ility is that it si"nifies more than ordinaryinadvertence or inattention0 %ut less than conscious indifference toconseuences* (e-treme departure from the ordinary standard of care)

#!F/!1 #ANTON1 AND RE$C!ESSS uasi,intent;0 lyin" %etweenintent to do harm and the mere reasona%le ris/ of harm to another*

They apply to conduct which is still merely ne"li"ent %ut which is so farfrom a proper state of mind that it is treated in many respects as if itwere intended (actor has intentionally done an act of unreasona%lecharacter in disre"ard of a ris/ /nown to him or so o%vious that hemust %e ta/en to have %een aware of it0 and so "reat as to ma/e ithi"hly pro%a%ly that harm would follow)*

There is often NO $!EAR DSTN$TON %etween the a%ove and"ross;0 and the two have tended to mer"e and ta/e on the samemeanin" as an 4QQ54=4T83 form of ne"li"ence0 differin" in


20/102


.ec* #* Conclusive presumptions*

.ec* D*


21/102


22/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 22!* it is caused %y an instrumentality within the e-clusive

control of the defendant or defendants#* the possi%ility of contri%utin" conduct which would ma/e

plaintiff responsi%le is eliminated*

The fundamental element is control of instrumentality; which causedthe dama"e* Qenerally0 e-pert testimony is relied upon in malpracticesuits to prove a physician has done a ne"li"ent act or that he has

deviated from the standard medical procedure0 when the doctrine isavailed of %y the plaintiff0 the need for e-pert medical testimony isdispensed with %ecause the in9ury itself provides the proof ofne"li"ence* n cases where the doctrine is applica%le0 the court ispermitted to find a physician ne"li"ent upon proper proof of in9ury topatient0 without aid of e-pert testimony0 where the court from itscommon /nowled"e can determine the proper standard of care* Thedoctrine is "enerally restricted to situations in malpractice cases wherea layman is a%le to say0 as a matter of common /nowled"e ando%servation0 that the conseuences of professional care were not assuch as would ordinarily have followed if due care had %een e-ercised*

R/!E%n cases where the doctrine is applica%le0 the court is permittedto find a physician ne"li"ent upon proper proof of in9ury to the patient0without aid of e-pert testimony0 where the court from its fund ofcommon /nowled"e can determine the proper standard of care*

NOTES%

$AN ARG/E% pre,op procedure 5TC did not /now a%out it %utthe .C said it was common /nowled"e;

$ase 'o(ered )y R! %ut still possi%le to apply Cru> v C4

$*% "oss ( 7rid6ell: n9ury occurred prior to operation (li/e5amos)* ay%e Cru> v C4 will apply if in9ury was caused %yiperation*

5L applica%le:

No e-pert testimony

Court ad9udicated %ased on common /nowled"e fund The foundation of 5L is common /nowled"e

evidentiary rule: doesnt do away with presentin" evidence

must prove these elements:

accident doesnt occur w$o persons ne"li"ence

defendant has e-clusive control over the instrumentality

no contri%utory ne"li"ence on plaintiffs part

5L R malpractice suits:

o Qen rule: e-pert testimony needed (Cru> v C4) to

esta%lish the standard of care reuired

o 8-ception: f case can %e "leaned from common

/nowled"e (5amos v C4) directly to esta%lish

ne"li"ence (8-pert testimony dispensed with ine-ception why then allow testimony of Cru>')

o T8.T6N8. (nature)

Cru>: demeanor0 sound0 etc*

E4654: not as to personal e-perience %ut ifdru" had that effect in the system*

in Cru>0 they didnt provide e-pert testimony therefore theylost

in 5amos0 can use common /nowled"e medical malpractice

domain of medical science: e-pert needed

5L

common /nowled"e: no need for e-pert

preparation for procedure

if theres failure $ didnt "et the results e-pected0 5L n$a

uestion: when is a medical malpractice case common/nowled"e or in the domain of medical science'

5L is N4 in malpractice suits if the only showin" is that thedesired result was not accomplished if the pro%lem is %ased onmedical science (Cru> vs* C4)* But if common /nowled"e can

%e applied0 5L applies*

TAN ( KAM TRANSTFA$TS: Petitioner Tan owned a 9itney %ein" driven %y 4le-ander5amire>* t was loaded with %alut and salted e""s* 4round ? am0 whileit was ne"otiation" a left turn0 it collided with a E4 transit %us %ein"driven %y 8ddie 3imayu"a* The 9itney turned turtle alon" the shoulderof the road and the car"o of e""s was destroyed* 5amire> and hishelper were in9ured and hospitali>ed*

SS/E: &6N E4 Transit is solidarily lia%le with driver 3imayu"a

0E!D: 78.0 &henever an employees ne"li"ence causes dama"e orin9ury to another0 there instantly arises a presumption 9uris tantum

that the employer failed to e-ercise dili"entissimi patris families in theselection (culpa in eli"iendo) or supervision (culpa in vi"ilando) of itsemployees* 4n employer must overcome the presumption0 %ypresentin" convincin" proof that he e-ercised the care and dili"ence ofa "ood father of a family in the selection and supervision of hisemployee

n this case0 aside from the testimony of 3imayu"a0 E4 did notpresent any other evidence0 whether documentary or testimonial0 in itsfavor* nevita%ly0 the presumption of its ne"li"ence as 3imayu"asemployer stands and it is0 thus0 solidarily lia%le for the dama"essustained %y petitioner*

NOTES% 5L applies when there is no direct evidence when there is acollision %etween a delivery 9eep and %us*


23/102


$ANTRE ( GOFA$TS% rs* Qo "ave %irth to her Dthchild* There were some parts ofthe placenta that were not completely e-pelled from her wom% afterdelivery* This caused rs* Qo to suffer hypovolemic shoc/ resultin" inthe drop of her %lood pressure* 3r* Cantre performed numerousmedical procedures to stop the %leedin"* 4fter the procedure0 rs* Qohad a wound on her which loo/ed li/e a %urn mar/ from the dropli"ht*

3r* Cantre claims the wound was from the %lood pressure cuff whichwas used to monitor the heart%eat of rs* Qo durin" the procedure*SS/E% &6N 3r* Cantre is lia%le for the in9uries suffered %y rs* Qo*0E!D% 78.* The Hippocratic method mandates physicians to "iveprimordial concern to the well,%ein" of their patients*n 'ases in(ol(ing MED$A! NEG!GEN$E1 t4e do'trine o* resipsa loquiturallo6s t4e mere existen'e o* an inj-ry to j-sti*y a5res-m5tion o* negligen'e on t4e 5art o* t4e 5erson 64o'ontrols t4e instr-ments 'a-sing t4e inj-ry.

Re-isites%a* The accident is of a /ind which ordinarily does not

occur in the a%sence of someones ne"li"ence S thewound on Noras arm is not an ordinary occurrence inthe act of deliverin" a %a%y*

%* t is caused %y an instrumentality within the e-clusivecontrol of the defendant or defendants S Both adropli"ht and a %lood pressure apparatus are deemedto %e within the e-clusive control of the physician inchar"e under the captain ship; doctrine*

c* The possi%ility of contri%utin" conduct which wouldma/e the plaintiff responsi%le is eliminated S thewound on Noras arm could only %e caused %ysomethin" e-ternal to her*

8ven if petitioners contentions are true0 that the wound was notcaused %y a dropli"ht %ut %y the %lood pressure cuff0 petitioner is not

e-empt from lia%ility*

7ATG/N ( $A&ositi(e Testimony ( Negati(e Testimony

FA$TS% 3r* Batiuin performed a caesarian operation on a patient*4fterwards0 she was found to %e feverish* &hen the patient su%mittedherself to another sur"ery0 she was found to have an ovarian cyst onthe left and ri"ht side of the ovaries and a piece of ru%%er material wasem%edded on the ri"ht side of the uterus*

0E!D% 5es ipsa S &here the thin" which causes the in9ury is shown tounder the mana"ement of the defendant0 and the accident is such asin the ordinary course of thin"s does not happen if those who have the

mana"ement used proper care0 it affords reasona%le evidence0 in thea%sence of an e-planation %y the defendant0 that the accident arose

from ordinary want of care* 4ll the reuisites are present in this case*(1) The entire proceedin"s of the caesarian were under the e-clusivecontrol of 3r* Batiuin*(!) The patient underwent no other operation which could ha%e causedthe offendin" piece of ru%%er to appear in her uterus0 it stands toreason that it could ha%e only %een a %y,product of the caesariansection*

R/!E% 5es ipsa S &here the thin" which causes in9ury is shown to %eunder the mana"ement of the 3efendant0 and the accident is such asin the ordinary course of thin"s does not happen if those who have themana"ement use proper care0 it affords reasona%le evidence0 in thea%sence of an e-planation %y the defendant0 that the accident arosefrom want of ordinary care*

NOTES% 5L applies all elements present:

o entire C,section under control R mana"ement of doctoro no other operation after C,sectiono would not have happened ordinarily

althou"h there is no proof directly lin/in" 3r* Batiuin to the

ru%%er0 applyin" 5L0 3r* is lia%le Theoretical %asis for 5L: The proof should come from the

defendant (5L is the %rid"e; which allows the plaintiff toreach the defendant)*

P56BL8: there was evidence (testimony0 piece of ru%%er)*4r"ua%ly0 not direct evidence'

&ROFESSONA! SER"$ES ( AGANAFA$TS%Natividad 4"ana was rushed to the edical City Hospital (6wned %yP.) %ecause of difficulty of %owel movement and %loody analdischar"e* 3r* 4mpil dia"nosed her as havin" cancer of the si"moid*

3urin" sur"ery 3r* 4mpil performed an anterior resection sur"ery andfound that the mali"nancy has spread to her left ovary necessitatin" ahysterectomy* 4fter which0 3r* 4mpil too/ over0 completed theoperation and closed the incision*

6ne of the nurses included in her notes that the spon"e count waslac/in" (missin" ! spon"es) %ut still 3r* 4mpil proceeded with closin"the incision* rs* 4"ana complained of pains %ut was reassured %y thedoctors that it is normal after her procedure* The 4"anas alsoconsulted an oncolo"ist in the U. affirmin" that she no lon"er hascancer* # months after the operation0 the dau"hter of rs* 4"anafound "au>e protrudin" from her va"ina*SS/E% &6N 5L applies to 3r* 2uentes*0E!D% NO


24/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 24The doctrine of res ipsa louitur does not apply to 3r* 2uentes *5euisites: (1) occurrence of an inj-ry (!) the thin" which caused thein9ury was under the ex'l-si(e 'ontrol and management o* t4ede*endant (#) in the ordinary course of thin"s the in9ury 6o-ldnt4a(e 4a55ened if the person in control used proper care and (D)a%sence of e-planation %y the person at fault* T4e :ndre-irementis 6anting )e'a-se Dr. Am5il1 not Dr. F-entes 6as t4e leads-rgeon 92$a5tain o* t4e S4i53 r-le;.

DM $ONS/NK ( $AFA$TS% 4 construction wor/er fell from the 1Dth floor when theplatform assem%ly he was standin" on fell down*0E!D%The theoretical %asis for the doctrine is its necessity0 i*e*0 thatthe necessary evidence is not availa%le* The defendant in char"e ofthe instrumentality which causes the in9ury either /nows the cause ofthe accident or has the %est opportunity of ascertainin" it and theplaintiff has no such /nowled"e* t furnishes a %rid"e %y which theplaintiff0 without /nowled"e of the cause0 reaches over to defendantwho /nows or should /now the cause0 for any e-planation of caree-ercised %y the defendant in respect of the matter of which theplaintiff complains* t is a rule of necessity*

R/!E% The theoretical %asis for the doctrine is its necessity*

NOTES% 5L applies

theoretical %asis:o proof is in e-clusive control of defendanto %rid"e that connects plaintiff to the proof

Prof* Casiss pro%lem: theres evidence (police report0testimony R affidavit)* t is li/e sayin" that even if there isevidence0 one could still ar"ue 5L to win the case*

Prof* Casis thin/s that it is the victims fault for fallin" off theplatform*

2D-e 'are3 de*ense 'omes into 5lay only a*ter t4e'ir'-mstan'es *or t4e a55li'ation o* t4e do'trine 4as)een esta)lis4ed.

$O!!EGE ASS/RAN$E ( 7E!FRAN!TFA$TS% Belfranlt leased several unit of a %uildin" to C4P andcomprehensive annuity Plans and Pension Corporation (C4PP)*However0 as fire occurred which destroyed portions of the %uildin"includin" the units they leased* 4n investi"ation report found out thatthe ori"in of the fire was from C4Ps storeroom due to an overheatedcoffee percolator*SS/E% &6N 5L applies*0E!D% BES.

The reuisites of 5L are present;

a* The accident is of a /ind which does not ordinarily occur unlesssomeone is ne"li"ent S fire that dama"ed the %uildin" was nota spontaneous natural occurrence %ut the outcome of a humanact or omission

%* The cause of the in9ury was under the e-clusive control of theperson in char"e S ori"inated in the storeroom which C4P hadpossession and control of

c* The in9ury suffered must have %een due to any voluntary

action of contri%ution on the part of the person in9ured XBelfranlt had no hand in the incidentC4P alone0 havin" /nowled"e of the cause of the fire or the %estopportunity to ascertain it and Belfranlt havin" no means to find outfor itself0 it is s-**i'ient *or t4e latter to merely allege t4at t4e'a-se o* t4e *ire 6as negligen'e o* t4e *ormer and to rely ont4e o''-rren'e o* t4e *ire as 5roo* o* s-'4 negligen'e. t was allup to C4P to dispel such inference of ne"li"ence0 %ut their %are denialonly left the matter unanswered*

SAN$O 9:=


25/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 25a) Picart Test%) .tandard Care

D) P56W4T8 C4U.8?) PL4NT22. N8QLQ8NC8

a) P56W4T8 C4U.8 S Cannot recover%) C6NT5BUT657 N8QLQ8NC8 S can recover %ut miti"ated

Art. :+=?1 N$$

&hen the plaintiffs own ne"li"ence was the immediate and pro-imatecause of his in9ury0 he cannot recover dama"es* But if his ne"li"encewas only contri%utory0 the immediate and pro-imate cause %ein" thedefendants lac/ of due care0 the plaintiff may recover dama"es0 %utthe court shall miti"ate the dama"es to %e awarded*

NOTES% 4pplies only when %oth parties are ne"li"ent*

Cf* 4studillo S pu%lic place0 should %e stricter

Cf* Last Clear Chance 3oes not apply if civil lia%ility arises from crime

MAN!A E!E$TR$ ( REMON,/!!O

FA$TS% a"no was repairin" the media a"ua; when he waselectrocuted to death* The "alvani>ed iron sheet he was holdin" camein contact with the electric wire*

0E!D% Court said eralco was not ne"li"ent* But assumin" it wasa"nos heirs still cant recover %ecause the pro-imate cause of theelectrocution was not the electric wire %ut the rec/less and ne"li"entact of a"no in turnin" around and swin"in" the "alvani>ed iron sheetwithout precaution* t is assumed that due to his a"e and e-perience0he was ualified to do the 9o%*.C: assumed he was a tinsmith; S hi"her standard of care

NOTES%

pro-imate cause: ne"li"ence of repairman in turnin" with Qsheet

difference %etween this R 4studillo v* anila 8lectric Co*:o eralco wouldve had to have %een more careful if

pu%lic place

The son could have sued step%rother of his father for %uildin"the house so close to the wire

7ERNARDO ( !EGAS&9* )ot4 negligent 'annot re'o(er *rom ea'4 ot4er;

FA$TS% C2 dismissed the complaint filed in an action to recoverdama"es for in9uries sustained %y plaintiffs automo%ile %y reason ofdefendants ne"li"ence in causin" a collision* Court also dismissed a

cross,complaint filed %y the defendant0 prayin" for dama"es on the

"round that the in9uries sustained %y his automo%ile0 and those to theplaintiffs car were caused %y plaintiffs own ne"li"ence*

0E!D% Court found that %oth plaintiff and defendant were ne"li"ent inhandlin" their automo%ile so %oth cannot recover* &here plaintiff in ane"li"ence action %y his own carelessness contri%utes to the principaloccurrence as one of the determinin" causes thereof0 he cannotrecover*

R/!E% &hen the ne"li"ence of %oth the plaintiff and the defendant isthe pro-imate cause of the accident0 they cannot recover from eachother*

N6T8.:

3eterminin" Cause of Principal ncident:A. $ASE%

4ct$6mission of 4 as the Pro-imate Cause 4ct$6mission of Bas the Pro-imate Cause X Principal ncident

7. SR 95ro5er 6ay;%4ct$6mission of 4 4ct$6mission of B X Pro-imate Cause Principal ncident

7ERNA! ( 0O/SE97e*ore N$$;

FA$TS% other and child were wal/in" alon" a street0 with the child afew steps ahead* .he "ot startled %y an automo%ile and ran %ac/ toher mother* .he fell into a ditch with hot water and later died* C2denied dama"es to parents %ecause they were ne"li"ent*

0E!D% .C held they were not* other and child had a ri"ht to %e onthat street* There was nothin" a%normal in lettin" a child run alon" afew paces ahead of the mother* Contri%utory ne"li"ence of the childand her mother0 if any0 does not operate as a %ar to recovery %ut couldonly result in reduction of dama"es*

NOTES% No contri%utory ne"li"ence of mother R /id

8ven if they did have contri%utory ne"li"ence0 it is not a %ar torecovery only mitigates

&!DT ( $A9Mo-nd o* Eart4;

FA$TS% 4ntonio and Qloria 8ste%ans 9eep ran over a mound of earthand fell into an open trench0 an e-cavation alle"edly underta/en %yPL3T for the installation of its under"round conduit system*

0E!D% The accident was due to the lac/ of dili"ence of 4ntonio* His9eep was runnin" alon" the inside lane of the street %ut it swerveda%ruptly0 causin" the 9eep to hit the mound* Pro-imate cause was the


26/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 26une-plained and a%rupt swervin" of the 9eep* Court also found that the9eep was runnin" too fast* The ne"li"ence of 4ntonio was not onlycontri%utory to his in9uries and those of his wife0 %ut "oes to the verycause of the occurrence of the accident and there%y precludes theirri"ht to recover dama"es*

NOTES% ne"li"ence imputed included /nowled"e of the place

The 8ste%ans passed that mound several times* Cause$Condition

:. $ontri)-tory Negligen'eN&$ ( 0ERS OF$ASONAN

FA$TS% No%le and his co,poc/et miner0 elchor Eimene>0 were at3alicno* They cut two %am%oo poles for their poc/et minin"* 6ne was1O to 1J feet lon" and the other was 1D feet lon"* 8ach man carriedone pole hori>ontally on his shoulder*4s No%le was "oin" uphill andturnin" left on a curve0 the tip of the %am%oo pole he was carryin"touched one of the dan"lin" hi"h tension wires* elchor0 who waswal/in" %ehind him0 narrated that he heard a %u>>in" sound whenthe tip of No%les pole touched the wire for only a%out one or two

seconds* Thereafter0 he saw No%le fall to the "round* elchor rushedto No%le and shoo/ him %ut the latter was already dead* Their co,wor/ers heard elchors shout for help and to"ether they %rou"ht the%ody of No%le to their camp*SS/E% &6N there was contri%utory ne"li"ence on the part of thevictim'0E!D%7esNegligen'e is the failure to o%serve0 for the protection of theinterest of another person0 that de"ree of care0 precaution0 andvi"ilance which the circumstances 9ustly demand0 where%y such otherperson suffers in9ury* 6n the other hand0 contri%utory ne"li"ence isconduct on the part of the in9ured party0 contri%utin" as a le"al causeto the harm he has suffered0 which falls %elow the standard which heis reuired to conform for his own protection*

The underlyin" precept on contri%utory ne"li"ence is that aplaintiff who is partly responsi%le for his own in9ury should not%e entitled to recover dama"es in full %ut must %ear theconseuences of his own ne"li"ence* f indeed there wascontri%utory ne"li"ence on the part of the victim0 then it isproper to reduce the award for dama"es*

n this case0 the trail where No%le was electrocuted wasre"ularly used %y mem%ers of the community* There were nowarnin" si"ns to inform passers%y of the impendin" dan"er totheir lives should they accidentally touch the hi"h tensionwires* 4lso0 the trail was the only via%le way from 3alicon toto"on* Hence0 No%le should not %e faulted for simply doin"what was ordinary routine to other wor/ers in the area*

NOTES% No contri%utory ne"li"ence

Pro-imate Cause X N6Cs sa""in" lines

f PL3T was followed0 he should have /nown a%out the wires%oth without warnin" si"ns

NPC v 854LC6o .5 a"rees more with NPC X contri%utory ne"li"ence

NPCs definition contradictory to 4rt* !1J

Art. ::+1 N$$

n uasi,delicts0 the contri%utory ne"li"ence of the plaintiff shall reducethe dama"es that he may recover*

NOTES% Contri%utory ne"li"ence is a miti"atin" factor in awardin"

dama"es*

GENO7AGON ( $A

FA$TS%5i" (ima"ine 6ptimus Prime ) driven %y appellant %umped anO1 y*o* lady who was crossin" the street* His defense was that it wasthe old lady who %umped his car* TC and C4 found him "uilty ofhomicide throu"h rec/less imprudence*

0E!D% Court said that the alle"ed contri%utory ne"li"ence of thevictim0 if any0 does not e-onerate accused* The defense of contri%utoryne"li"ence does not apply in criminal cases committed throu"hrec/less imprudence since one 'annot allege t4e negligen'e o*anot4er to e(ade t4e e**e'ts o* 4is o6n negligen'e*

RACES ( AT!ANT$FA$TS%The truc/ plaintiff was ridin" fell %ecause the trac/ sa""ed*The rails that they were transportin" slid off the truc/ and cau"ht hisla"* Later0 his le" was amputated* Company said 5a/es was ne"li"ent%ecause: (1) he continued his wor/ despite havin" noticed thedepression in the trac/0 and (!) he wal/ed on the ends of the ties at

the side of the car instead of alon" the %oards*

0E!D% 4s to the first0 Court held that 5a/es had %een wor/in" for lessthan ! days* He could not have /nown that one rail was lower than theother or that the strin"ers and rails 9oined in the same place* 4s to thesecond0 Court found that there was a "eneral prohi%ition a"ainstwal/in" %y the side of the car* The diso%edience of the plaintiff inplacin" himself in dan"er contri%uted in some de"ree to the in9ury as apro-imate0 althou"h not its primary cause* The Court made adistinction %etween the accident and the in9ury* f the plaintiffsne"li"ence contri%uted to the accident0 he cannot recover* But if hisne"li"ence only contri%uted to his in9ury0 he may recover the amountthat the defendant responsi%le for the accident should pay fpr the

in9ury0 less a sum deemed an euita%le euivalent for his ownimprudence*


27/102


NOTES% 1) not followin" orders !) should have /nown (only a %it

%ecause hes new on the 9o% 2oreman should have repaired)

accident v* in9ury 9RACES TEST;o accident: cant recover

contri%* to primary evento in9ury: may recover

3efendants contri%* S Plaintiffs contri%* X5ecovery

4merican Common Law:

3raconian Contri%utory: ne"li"encepolicy even if little X Barred fromrecovery

P56P65T6N4L 344Q8. X5ela-ation of 3raconian

o Comparative Ne"li"ence and

Contri%utory Ne"li"ence ifdefendant contri%uted more0plaintiff allowed to recover

PHLPPN8.: Comparative and Proportional

Pro%lem0 what if its eual' 4pplyB85N4536'

! /inds of contri%ution: (1) contri%ution to the principal event(!) contri%ution to his own in9ury

!AM7ERT ( 0ERS OF $AST!!ONFA$TS% 6n Ean* 1#0 1JJ10 5ay CastillYn visited the house of his %rotherEoel in li"an City and %orrowed his motorcycle* He then invited hisfriend0 .er"io La%an" to roam around the city* 5ay drove themotorcycle with .er"io on the rear*SS/E% &6N a "reater reduction in the award of dama"es to the heirsof CastillYn is proper

0E!D% )78.* &hile the Court a"rees with the trial court that 5ay wascontri%utorily ne"li"ent under 4rt* !1J of the Civil Code0 they also findit euita%le to increase the ratio of apportionment of dama"es onaccount of his ne"li"ence* CastillYn was drivin" the motorcycle at ahi"h speed0 dran/ one or two %ottles of %eer and was not wearin" aprotective helmet* 4lthou"h Qamot was also ne"li"ent in not chec/in"whether the road %ehind him was clear %efore ma/in" a sharp left turn0it cannot %e denied that CastillYns actuations have also led to thesame effect* His heirs shall only recover dama"es of up to only ?G@ ofthe award* The ?G@ will %e %orne %y them while Lam%ert shall %e onlylia%le to pay ?G@ of the dama"es*

NOTES% .5: %orrowed motorcycle0 assumed not to have a license

Pro-imate cause X ne"li"ence of Tamaraw driver

Contri%utory ne"li"ence' 78.M (?G@ dama"es ?G@ no

e-planationloo/ at previous cases)


28/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 28 Caso 2ortuito is HU4NV83 even if only contri%utory 4rt*

!1J applies only to plaintiff echanical defect: carrier still lia%le %ecause its part of the

contract of carria"e

Not enou"h that there was 2ortuitous 8vent0 there should %eN6 ne"li"ence on person char"ed

SO/T0EASTERN $O!!EGE ( $A

FA$TS% 3urin" a typhoon0 schools roof was partly ripped off and%lown away0 landin" on and destroyin" portions of the roofin" ofrespondents house* 4 team of en"ineers conducted an ocularinspection and found that the causes may have %een the U,shapedformation of the %uildin" and the improper anchora"e of the trusses tothe roof %eams*

0E!D% Court found that other than the report su%mitted %y theen"ineers0 no investi"ation was conducted to determine the real causeof the incident* 5espondents did not even show that the plans0 specsand desi"n of the school %uildin" were defective* 6n the other hand0city %uildin" official testified that the school o%tained %oth %uildin"permit and certificate of occupancy same official "ave "o si"nal for

repairs of dama"e of typhoon and su%seuently authori>ed the use ofthe entire Dthfloor of the %uildin" annual maintenance inspection andrepair of the school %uildin" was re"ularly underta/en and that nocomplaints have %een lod"ed in the past* Therefore0 petitioner has not%een shown ne"li"ent or at fault re"ardin" the construction andmaintenance of the school %uildin"* Typhoon was the pro-imate cause*

$ASO FORT/TO e(ent 64i'4 takes 5la'e )y a''ident and'o-ld not 4a(e )een reasona)ly *oreseen1 it is an -nex5e'tede(ent or a't o* God 64i'4 'o-ld neit4er )e *oreseen norresisted.

! Q8N854L C4U.8.:

1* By nature, earthua/es0 storms0 floods0 etc*!* By the act of man, armed invasion0 attac/ %y %andits0 "overnmentalprohi%ition0 etc*

NOTES% typhoon is 28: only issue is whether there was ne"li"ence on

part of .outhern

flyin" roof is 28

typhoon was pro-imate cause of dama"e to nei"h%orin" house

ta/e this case for definition of force ma9eur credi%ility of ocular inspection discredited so this is stran"e

%ecause this runs counter to Qotesco

they could have used 5L: mi"ht have done %etter' But there

is evidence of dili"ence*

S$AM ( KORGEFA$TS% Lulu Eor"e pawned her 9ewelry with 4"encia de 5*C* .icam0 apawnshop in ParaZaue0 in 6cto%er 1JO to secure a loan in theamount of P?J0?GG*GG* 6n 6cto%er 1J0 1JO0 armed men entered thepawnshop and too/ away whatever cash and 9ewelry were found in thevault* 6n the same day0 .icam notified Eor"e of the ro%%ery incidentand that conseuently all here 9ewelry is "one* Eor"e did not %elievehim*

SS/E% &6N the ro%%ery is a fortuituous event which can a%solve.icam from lia%ilty*0E!D% N6

, Fort-ito-s e(ents )y de*inition are extraordinary e(entsnot *oreseea)le or a(oida)le. t is t4ere*ore1 not eno-g4t4at t4e e(ent s4o-ld not 4a(e )een *oreseen oranti'i5ated1 as is 'ommonly )elie(ed )-t it m-st )e oneim5ossi)le to *oresee or to a(oid. T4e mere di**i'-lty to*oresee t4e 4a55ening is not im5ossi)ility to *oresee t4e

same.!!, The %urden of provin" that the loss was due to a fortuitous event

rests on him who invo/es it* 4nd0 in order for a fortuitous event toe-empt one from lia%ility0 it is necessary that one has committed

no ne"li"ence or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss*, Ro))ery 5er se1 j-st like 'arna55ing1 is not a *ort-ito-s

e(ent. t does not *ore'lose t4e 5ossi)ility o* negligen'e ont4e 5art o* 4erein 5etitioners

NOTES% 4ustria 4%ad: social situation N6T prevalent: 1JF1 v 1JO

Hernande>: pu%lic utility (no control) 9eep v Pawnshop canscreen people

Cru>: rode train e-erted enou"h effort

$O!!EGE ASS/RAN$E ( 7E!RAN!TFA$TS%Belfranlt leased several unit of a %uildin" to C4P and comprehensiveannuity Plans and Pension Corporation (C4PP)* However0 as fireoccurred which destroyed portions of the %uildin" includin" the unitsthey leased* 4n investi"ation report found out that the ori"in of the firewas from C4Ps storeroom due to an overheated coffee percolator*SS/E% &$N the fire was a fortuitous event*0E!D% N6*
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_159617_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_159617_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_159617_2007.html#fnt22


29/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 29, Arti'le ++= o* t4e $i(il $ode de*ines a *ort-ito-s e(ent as

t4at 64i'4 'o-ld not )e *oreseen1 or 64i'41 t4o-g4*oreseen1 6as ine(ita)le.

, &hether an act of "odor an act of man0 to constitute a fortuitousevent0 it must %e shown that: a) the cause of the unforeseen andune-pected occurrence or of the failure of the o%li"or to complywith its o%li"ations was independent of human will %) it wasimpossi%le to foresee the event or0 if it could have %een foreseen0

to avoid it c) the occurrence rendered it impossi%le for the o%li"orto fulfill its o%li"ations in a normal manner and d) said o%li"or wasfree from any participation in the a""ravation of the in9ury or loss*f the ne"li"ence or fault of the o%li"or coincided with theoccurrence of the fortuitous event0 and caused the loss or dama"eor the a""ravation thereof0 the fortuitous event cannot shield theo%li"or from lia%ility for his ne"li"ence*

n the present case0 it was fire that caused the dama"e to the units%ein" occupied %y petitioners* The le"al presumption therefore is thatpetitioners were responsi%le for the dama"e*

NOTES% 2ire is not always a fortuitous event in this case0 it was caused

%y C4Ps ne"li"ence when one of its employees left thepercolator on*

8=38NC8: could not have %een fortuitous event (4rsoninvesti"ators report0 testimony0 etc*)

Ne"li"ence was esta%lished first0 5L was secondary totestimonial evidence

. Ass-m5tion o* RiskAFA!DA ( 0SO!E

9F-n Fa't% 0isoles re*erred to as 2s5o-ses3 in t4e 'ase e(ent4o-g4 t4eyre )ot4 males;

FA$TS% Careta/er of cara%aos was "ored %y a cara%ao and he laterdied as a conseuence of his in9uries* 4ction was predicated on 4rt

1JG? CC*

0E!D: Court said 41JG? ma/es possessory user of animal lia%le forany dama"es it may cause* n this case0 the animal was under thecontrol of the careta/er* t was his %usiness to try to prevent theanimal from causin" in9ury to anyone0 includin" himself* Bein" in9ured%y the animal under these circumstances was one of the ris/s of theoccupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he mustta/e the conseuences*

NOTES% inherent ris/s voluntarily R /nowin"ly assumed %y careta/er

when he a"reed to %e careta/er

.5: part of the 9o%

applied to cases where a person has towor/ with animals0 li/e Con"ress*

!O$OS NORTE ( $AFA$TS% 4fter a !,day typhoon0 sa%el went out of her house to chec/on her "rocery store* .he waded in waist,deep flood and "otelectrocuted* 4ccordin" to the NPC 8n"r0 there were no N8LC6linemen who were "oin" around*

0E!D: Court said that contrary to petitioners claim0 the ma-im

violenti non fit in9uria; does not apply here* sa%el should not %epunished for e-ercisin" her ri"ht to protect her property from thefloods %y imputin" upon her the unfavora%le presumption that sheassumed the ris/ of personal in in9ury* 4 person is e-cused from theforce of the rule0 that when he voluntarily assents to a /nown dan"er0he must a%ide %y the conseuence0 if an emer"ency is found to e-ist0or if the life or property of another is in peril or when he see/s torescue his endan"ered property*

NOTES%

8-emption to =iolenti Non 2it n9uria: 4 person is e-cused fromthe force of the assumption of ris/ rule0 that when hevoluntarily assents to a /nown dan"er he must a%ide %y theconseuences:

o i* an emergen'y is *o-nd to existo i* t4e li*e or 5ro5erty o* anot4er is in 5eril

o 64en 4e seeks to res'-e 4is endangered

5ro5erty*

2To 64i'4 a 5erson as'ends to )e inj-red1 4e 'annotre'o(er damages3

NCCO 0OTE! ( RO7ERTO REBESFA$TS% this is the case of 4may Bisaya who claimed that he wasinvited to a %irthday party at said hotel %ut who was then as/ed toleave %y the hotels e-ecutive .ecretary0 5u%y Lim0 who on the otherhand claimed that 5eyes was uninvited*

0E!D% The doctrine of volenti non fit in9uria (to which a personassents is not esteemed in law as in9ury;re*ers to sel*in*li'tedinj-ry or to t4e 'onsent to inj-ry 64i'4 5re'l-des t4e re'o(eryo* damages )y one 64o 4as kno6ingly and (ol-ntarily ex5osed4imsel* to dan"er0 even if he is not ne"li"ent in doin" so*

4s formulated %y petitioners0 however0 this doctrine does not findapplication to the case at %ar %ecause e(en i* res5ondent Reyesass-med t4e risk o* )eing asked to lea(e t4e 5arty15etitioners1 -nder Arti'les +? and :+ o* t4e Ne6 $i(il $ode16ere still -nder o)ligation to treat 4im *airly in order not toex5ose 4im to -nne'essary ridi'-le and s4ame*

n the case at %ar0 5u%y was close enou"h to /iss him; as testified %y5eyes when she as/ed him to leave0 showin" that she did not want to


30/102

TORTS AND DAMAGES|gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy| FNA!S RE"E#ER| $ASS 30cause him any em%arrassment* There was also no evidence that shewas driven %y animosity a"ainst 5eyes* 4t most she may only %e "uiltyof %ad 9ud"ment0 done with "ood intentions0 thus not amountin" to %adfaith*

SANG$O 955.+;NOTES:

"O!ENT NON FT NK/RA: applies to non,contractual

relations# reuisites:(1) plaintiff had actual /nowled"e of the dama"e(!) he understood an appreciated the ris/ from dan"er(#) he voluntarily e-posed himself to such ris/*

. &res'ri5tionCRAMER ( $A

FA$TS% 1JF: ! vessels collided, 1JO1: Phil Coast Quard concluded that the collision was due to $=4sias ne"li"ence,1JO!: Coast Quard suspended !ndmate of $= 4sia*,1JO?: Petitioners instituted complaint for dama"es a"ainstrespondent* otion to dismiss was filed on the %asis of prescription*

0E!D% .C dismissed the case0 sayin" that accordin" to 4rt* 11DF0action %ased on uasi,delict must %e instituted within D yrs*Prescriptive period %e"ins from the day the uasi,delict wascommitted*

" $A/SATON

A. &roximate 'a-se

NOTES%Usually its the shorter definition thats %ein" cited in the other cases*.o for our purpose,shorter versionThe lon"er version can %e shortened %y removin" sufficientintervenin" cause;memori>e definition of pro-imate cause

+. De*inition7ATA$!AN ( MEDNA

FA$TS% 4 %us speedin" on its way to Pasay City at !am when one ofits front tires %urst0 as a result of which the vehicle >i">a""ed0 fell intoa canal or ditch0 and turned turtle* D passen"ers were una%le to "etout of the %us* Calls and shouts for help were made in thenei"h%orhood* 4t !:#Gam0 1G men came0 one of them carryin" ali"hted torch made of %am%oo with a wic/ fueled with petroleum*&hen they approached the %us0 a fierce fire started0 %urnin" the %us

and the D passen"ers* t appears that as the %us overturned0 the

"asoline %e"an to lea/ and escape from the "asoline tan/0 spreadin"over the %us and the "round under it0 and that the li"hted torch set iton fire*SS/E% &hat was the pro-imate cause of the accident'0E!D% The overturnin" of the %us0 and not the fire that %urned the%us0 is the pro-imate cause* The comin" of the men with the torchwas to %e e-pected and was a natural seuence of the overturnin" ofthe %us0 the trappin" of the passen"ers and the call for outside help*

NOTES%

3efinition [1 of pro-imate cause accordin" to 3ataclan v.edina)Pro-imate cause is that cause which0 in natural and continuousseuence0 un%ro/en %y any efficient intervenin" cause0produces the in9ury0 and without which the result would nothave occurred*

3efinition [! of pro-imate cause accordin" to 3ataclan vs.edina)ore comprehensively0 the pro-imate le"al cause is that actin"first and producin" the in9ury either immediately or %y settin"

other events in motion0 all constitutin" a natural andcontinuous chain of events0 each havin" a close causalconnection with its immediate predecessor0 the final event inthe chain immediately effectin" the in9ury as a natural andpro%a%le result of the cause which first acted0 under suchcircumstances that the person responsi%le for the first eventshould0 as an ordinarily prudent and intelli"ent person0 havereasona%le "round to e-pect at the moment of his act ordefault that an in 9ury to some person mi"ht pro%a%ly resulttherefrom*

SR%%ein" %urned is not part of the foreseea%le conseuencesof ridin" a %us

MER$/RB DR/G ( 7ACNGFA$TS%5 "ot into a car accident %ecause he fell asleep while drivin"*t was found out that* Prior to the accident0 5 %ou"ht severalmedications for his %lood su"ar and tri"lyceride at ercury 3ru"0,4la%an"* However0 the saleslady misrea

torts reviewer (gianna.ranx.tina.gi.sam.katz.alex.emjo.didy)

Documents