Defenses Provided by Law

1. Plaintiffs own negligence cause his own injury and damage

Doctrine of Proximate Cause: The Court applied the principle that a

defendant is liable for the consequences of its negligence only if the injury
is a direct result of that negligence. In this case, the plaintiff’s actions were
found to be the direct and immediate cause of the explosion.

2. Contributory negligence – that a plaintiff (the person who brings a lawsuit)

may have contributed to their own harm or injury by failing to act with the
required level of care.

Contributory Negligence: The Court applied the principle that a plaintiff

cannot recover if their own negligence was a contributing cause to the
injury.

3. Imputed Contributory Negligence – May still be utilized by the defendants

whose liability is simply imputed by law.

• imputed by law - where the negligence of one party is "imputed" or

attributed to another party, often because of a relationship between
them.

4. Assumption of Risk - The doctrine asserts that if the plaintiff voluntarily and
knowingly exposes themselves to a risk of harm, they cannot later claim
damages for that harm. It is based on the idea that the plaintiff had the
choice to avoid the risk but chose to accept it instead.

Requisites:

• Knowledge of the Risk - The plaintiff must have actual or constructive

knowledge of the specific risk involved. They must be aware of the
potential dangers that may arise from a particular activity or situation.

• Voluntary Acceptance of the Risk - The plaintiff must voluntarily choose

to take on the risk. It cannot be forced or coerced. This may occur
 explicitly (e.g., signing a waiver) or implicitly (e.g., participating in a
known dangerous activity).

• Inherent Risk of the Activity - The risk assumed must be inherent in the
activity the plaintiff is engaging in. If the danger is a normal and
expected part of the activity, such as playing a contact sport or
driving, the plaintiff is considered to have assumed the risk.

• The Risk Must Be Specific to the Activity - The risk assumed by the
plaintiff must be related to the activity they are participating in. For
example, in sports, players assume the risk of injuries that typically
occur during the game but not unrelated dangers (e.g., negligence in
maintaining facilities).

5. Last Clear Chance Doctrine - In situations where both parties are negligent,
the party who has the last clear chance to avoid the accident and fails to
do so is liable for the resulting harm. The defendant, despite being aware
of the danger, continued to approach the horse and rider without making
efforts to avoid the collision. This doctrine places the burden of responsibility
on the party with the last fair opportunity to prevent harm, even if the other
party contributed to the situation.

Requisites:

• Plaintiff is in a position of peril - The plaintiff is in a dangerous situation

from which they cannot escape by their own actions.

• Defendant has knowledge of the plaintiff’s perilous situation - The

defendant is aware, or should be aware, that the plaintiff is in a
dangerous position.

• Defendant has the ability to avoid the accident - The defendant has a
reasonable opportunity to avoid the harm and prevent the accident
from occurring.

• Defendant fails to act or exercise reasonable care to avoid the accident

- Despite having the ability to prevent the harm, the defendant fails to
take reasonable steps to avoid the accident.
 • Defendant’s failure to act causes the harm - The defendant’s failure to
act results in the plaintiff’s injury or harm, which would have been
avoidable had the defendant acted.

6. Doctrine of Self-Help – refers to the right of an individual to take matters into

their own hands to protect their rights or interests without involving the
courts or law enforcement. This concept allows someone to take action to
remedy a wrong or defend themselves from harm, typically when there is
no immediate legal remedy available or when immediate action is
necessary to prevent further harm.

Note: However, self-help is limited by legal principles to ensure it does not

lead to excessive force, an escalation of the situation, or violate the law.

7. Exercised Due Diligence - taking all reasonable steps to investigate, assess,

or prevent potential issues or dangers before proceeding with a certain
action.

8. Exempting Circumstances - refer to situations where an individual’s actions,

which would normally be considered unlawful or negligent, are excused or
justified due to certain conditions or facts that negate liability or
responsibility.

o Art. 3 - A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he
has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of article 80 of
this Code.

When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court,

in conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph,
shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be
charged with his surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be
committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said
article 80.

o Art. 4 - Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
 causing it.

o Art. 5 - Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible

force.

9. Doctrine of necessity - justifies actions or decisions that would otherwise be

illegal or unconstitutional, based on the idea that they were necessary to
achieve a higher goal or to address an emergency. It is often invoked in
times of crisis where a government or authority takes exceptional measures
to preserve the greater good or maintain order, even if these actions are
not fully in accordance with the law or constitutional provisions.

10. Doctrine of Good Samaritan -The Good Samaritan law provides legal
protection to individuals who voluntarily provide emergency assistance to
others in need, such as offering first aid or helping in an accident, without
the fear of being held liable for unintentional harm caused during their
assistance. These laws are designed to encourage people to help others in
emergencies without the concern of lawsuits if they make a mistake while
acting in good faith.

• Good Samaritan laws protect individuals from liability if they act

reasonably and in good faith while rendering emergency aid.

• The law generally does not impose liability for unintentional harm
resulting from actions taken during the assistance, as long as the
person is not grossly negligent or acting recklessly.

11. Prescription – the lapse of time

Prescription of Action – It means that the moment you have cause of action
you file your case in court within the prescribed period.

o Prescription of time
 Quasi-Delict: 4 years from the time of arising of the cause of
action (If not filed within 4 years you are barred forever)
12. Latches - within the prescriptive period but more of someone’s failure to
institute action or enforce his right, even if he was given the opportunity, yet
he did not enforce his right.

• Latches are based on equity

o In Tagalog tinulugan mo yun karapatan mo

13. Damnum Absque Injuria - is a Latin legal phrase that translates to "damage
without injury." It refers to a situation where harm or loss occurs, but no legal
wrong or violation of a person's rights has taken place. In other words, it is
the idea that a person may suffer a loss or damage but does not have a
legal claim because no unlawful act has been committed.

14. Waiver - refers to the formal process or document through which an

individual voluntarily relinquishes or gives up a specific legal right, claim, or
privilege. This is often done in situations where a person or entity wants to
forgo certain legal protections or claims in exchange for participation in an
activity or agreement. The waiver's formality can vary depending on the
jurisdiction, type of waiver, and the legal context in which it is used.

15. Extinguishment of Right - refers to the legal process through which a right or
claim is completely nullified or rendered void, meaning it no longer exists
or has any effect. The extinguishment of a right typically occurs when
certain conditions are met, or specific events take place that eliminate the
right from being enforceable or applicable.
(Nagkaroon ng bayaran)

16. Lack of Jurisdiction –when a court does not have the authority or power to
hear a case or make a ruling on it therefore, is a ground for dismissal of
action.

• Jurisdiction over the person

i. When a person is served with summons
ii. When a person voluntarily shows up to the court

Ad cautelam - "for caution" or "as a precaution."

• Jurisdiction over the property

 o Above 2 Million Pesos – RTC
o 2 Million below – MTC

Note: Interest should not be included in counting the jurisdiction

17. Venue – If a party believes that the case has been filed in an inappropriate
venue, they can raise venue as a defense to seek dismissal or transfer of the
case to a different court.

Note: This is a civil case so it would depend on the choice, discretion,

or election of the plaintiff

18. Res Judicata in Prison Gray - “Double jeopardy in Criminal cases” meaning
a person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offense after a
final judgment.

19. Failure of the complainant to state a cause of action – In every action, there
must be a cause of action. If there is no cause of action, then there is no
action.

Requisites of Cause of Action:

• Legal Right: The plaintiff has a legal right to be free from harm
caused by another’s negligent actions.
• Breach or Violation of the Right: The defendant owed the plaintiff
a duty of care (e.g., to drive safely) and breached that duty by
acting negligently (e.g., running a red light).
• Causation: The defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's
injury (e.g., the plaintiff was hit by the defendant’s car).
• Harm or Injury: The plaintiff suffered harm, such as physical injury
or financial loss, due to the accident.
• Jurisdiction: The court has jurisdiction over the case, such as being
in the proper geographic location or having authority over the
parties.
• Legal Standing: The plaintiff was directly harmed by the accident
(i.e., they were the person hit by the car).
• Timeliness: The plaintiff filed the lawsuit within the statute of
limitations for personal injury claims.
 • No Defenses: There are no defenses, such as contributory
negligence or assumption of risk, that would bar the plaintiff's
claim.

Notes:

If Quasi-Delict is within your family members

- Allege in your complain that you have exerted all efforts or
harmoniously settle within your family or relatives

If your case fall within the jurisdiction of the lupong tagamapayapa

- Need a certification to file action

Vicarious Liability – Hold someone responsible for the action/s of another

Imputable Liability = Indirect Responsibility

Doctrine of Vicarious Liability - Is embodied in Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's
own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

Subject:
• Parents in respect to children,
• Guardians in respect to ward,
• States in respect to special agents,
• Teachers in respect to students

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.

Difference of Solidary and Subsidiary

• Subsidiary – Contingent
• Solidary – Direct and Primary Liable
Solidary liability - places full responsibility for the debt on each debtor, allowing
the creditor to collect the full amount from any debtor, while subsidiary liability is
contingent upon the failure of the primary debtor to meet their obligation, and
the secondary debtor becomes responsible only if the primary debtor defaults.

• Employer can be sued including the employee, the victim can go directly
to the employer for the payment of damages

• Parents are solidary liable for causes committed by minor which cause
damage or injury to another outside school.

o In criminal liability the parents are contingent liable but if the

damage is caused by civil liability arising from torts, then the parents
are solidary liable.

• Special Agent – performing a proprietary function at the time when he

committed the act or omission when he committed the damage to
another

Subsidiary Liable - In some cases, a parent company might be vicariously liable

for a subsidiary’s torts if the subsidiary is acting as the parent’s agent. This often
happens when the subsidiary is performing duties on behalf of the parent
company, and the subsidiary’s torts are directly linked to the parent’s business
activities.

• Contingent Liability – you will only pay for damages if the primary offender
cannot pay the damages.

Examples:

Employer can only be charged if the primary offender cannot pay for
the damages

If the subsidiary is conducting business under the parent company’s name

and is involved in a car accident while performing business duties, the
parent company may be held vicariously liable for the tort of the subsidiary.
Redendo singula singilis - Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin legal principle
meaning "by referring each to each" or "by assigning each one to its
corresponding object". It dictates that when a sentence or document contains
multiple items, each element should be interpreted to refer to its most appropriate
and closely related object, ensuring precision and avoiding misapplication or
absurd interpretations.
Sources:

Article 2180 amended by 218 and 219 of the Family Code

Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or
institution engaged in childcare shall have special parental authority and
responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or
custody.

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities, whether inside
or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a)

Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article
shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or
omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the
persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily
liable.

Boarding School Doctrine - is a legal principle used in certain jurisdictions

(including the Philippines) to establish vicarious liability for damages caused by
students or pupils under the care of teachers or school authorities while the
students are under the school’s supervision, particularly in boarding schools or
institutions where students reside on the premises for extended periods.

Other examples of Vicarious Liability not mentioned in Art. 2180

1. Inn keepers and hotelkeepers – They are liable for loss of things within their
premises even if it is through their employees

• Doctrine of necessary deposits - refer to amounts that are required to

ensure the performance of certain obligations.
 2. Partnership – Partners may be liable for the acts of their partners who acted
within the scope of their business

3. Husband and wife – Governed by Art. 94 of the Family Code

Strict Liability Tort - holds a party responsible for damages or harm caused by their
actions, regardless of fault, negligence, or intent. In a strict liability case, the
defendant can be held liable for the harm caused to another, even if they took
all reasonable precautions and did not intend to cause harm.

How would you distinguish straight liability and vicarious liability?

Vicarious liability occurs when one party is held responsible for the actions or
damage caused by another, typically in the context of an employer being liable
for the actions of an employee. On the other hand, Strict liability tort holds a
person accountable for damages caused by another, even if they are not at fault
nor negligent.

Specific Situations / Specific Persons made to be held liable for the damages:

1. Possessors or users of animals – The law doesn’t require ownership, if you

are in possession of or use the animal you will be liable for the damage
caused by the animal. (Even if the animal escaped)

2. Owners of Motor vehicles – Strict liability applies when the damage caused
was by the vehicle specially when driven by the authorized driver

3. Manufacturers and Processors - Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,

drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries
caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no
contractual relation exists between them and the consumers.

Exception:

Chain of custody
If that item is not “good for consumption”
 4. Municipal Corporations - Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable
for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason
of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and
other public works under their control or supervision.

Exception:

If owned by Private Corporation

• (SLEX owned by San Miguel / NLEX owned by Pangilinan)

In this case you will file a case against the said Private Corporation

5. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:

(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with
due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which
have not been kept in a safe and adequate place;

(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property;

(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not

caused by force majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious
matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place. (1908)

6. Head of the Family – someone who has custody or control (Person who has
control over the household)

Example:

Yaya – She is not in control because she is under the control of the
employer (Parents of the child), so if there is anything thrown outside the
window by the child, then the maid is not liable but the parents (Employer
of the Yaya).
Special Torts - Provisions of law outside quasi-delict, but makes the act or omission
punishable because the act or omission cause damage to another.

Why do we have Special Torts?

There are a lot of situations which cannot be found in ordinary Quasi-Delict

Human Relations Provisions under the Civil Code

Fall Back Commission

ART. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of
his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith.

ART. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage
to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

ART. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that
is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter
for the damage.

act contra bonos mores - “an action against good morals”

Differentiate Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code:

Focus Basis of Liability

19 Abuse of Rights Violation of fairness, good faith (Malice, Bad Faith,

Injustice)

20 Violation of Law Breach of Legal Duty

21 Acts against morals Violation of moral standards

Similarity – payment of damages for the damage or injury caused by the act or
omission

Difference – Their omissions are not the same

Human Standards – Standards we need to perform to exercise our right or duty

Article 19
• Act with Justice – Act would not result injustice
• Give everyone his due – “Give to Ceasar what is Caesar’s and God what
is due to God”
• Observe Honesty and good faith – Do not manipulate your dealings

Source of Legal Rights

Title:
ROY PADILLA, FILOMENO GALDONES, ISMAEL GONZALGO, and JOSE FARLEY
BEDENIA, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.

DOCTRINE:

An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically extinguish the civil liability
arising from the same act. If the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, the civil
liability remains, and the aggrieved party may pursue damages based on
preponderance of evidence.

Civil liability for damages may be awarded in the same proceedings, even if the
defendant is acquitted in the criminal case, provided that the facts giving rise to
the civil liability are established.

Example of Injustice:

School holding transcript of record of student even if student has complied

Bank holding money of depositor

Elements:
 1. There should be a legal right that is being exercised or
2. There is a performance of one's duty

Article 20

There is a violation of law (Can either be willful or negligence)

Willful – Done with intent or malice

Negligence – Unintentional but done without proper care or caution

Observe ordinary diligence “Diligence of a good father of a family”

The damage must be directly caused by the unlawful act or omission (Causal link)

Example:

1. A driver beating the red light he hits a pedestrian

• Willful violation of traffic rules (beating the red light)

• Injury damage to pedestrian
• Causal link was beating the red light and hitting the pedestrian

2. There is a company that dumps toxic waste in a river and harm a nearby
residence

• Willful violation of Environmental law (dumping of toxic waste)

• Harm caused to nearby residence (Deprivation use of the river)
• Causal link (Waste thrown made the water toxic which is harmful to the
health of the people)

3. If a person spreading false accusation against me

• Slander (Oral defamation [spreading false accusation])

Article 21
Act contra mores (Act against morals) - Act against moral standards based on
jurisprudence

Note: There is a separate moral standard for church and state

In Article 21 it’s not always necessary that you violate a specific law, but your act
may offend moral sensibility or social norms thus making you civilly liable

Trigger: Violation against morals (Immoral or indecent act) by reason of which

causes injury to another brought by offending moral sensibility or social norms

Examples:

• Breach of promise to marry – it is not actionable, but if there are seduction

and no intent to have a relationship then it is liable under Article 21. (Or if
there are expenses regarding the wedding)

• Desertion by spouse if done maliciously (abandonment), but if valid

grounds it is not actionable

• Landowner or apartment owner (Lessor) and Lessee does not pay for a
couple of months would the cutting of water supply fall under Article 21?

o Yes, cause there are other ways to collect rental payment

• Abortion

Note: If not intentional not a violation, if intentional then it is a violation

• Dismissal of an employee

o If it is under due process and just cause it is valid and not actionable
o But if it is out of revenge or fabricated or illegal dismissal then it will fall
under Article 21

• A person is charged then convicted by lower court for reclusion Perpetua

then later reversed by the Supreme court
• Does not suffice to make the person criminally or civilly liable

• If it would amount to malicious prosecution