Civil Law Review II: Atty.

Uribe on Special Contracts - SALE

IF you wa t to invoke this defense, the cause of action of the

plaintiff, mt t be under QUASI DELICT.

NATURE OF LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER.

IF his employee caused an injury to another under DELICT, the
TORTS AND DAMAGES liability of the employer is SUBSIDIARY. In other words, the
employee can only be held liable after exhausting the properties of
QUASI DELICT — heavily loaded in jurisprudence; only few provisions. the employee. In OBLICON, this is the reason why, under DELICT,
the employee cannot be held SOLIDARILY LIABLE with its employee.
DEAN PINEDA: Kasi nga subsidiary ang liability nya. So he cannot be held liable
Recommended that "Torts and Damages" should be replaced with immediately because kailangan mag exhaust pa ng property ng
"Quasi Delict and Damaaes". His basis is that TORTS is a much employee nya.
broader term than quasi delict. And Quasi-Delict may only be based
on negligence. In other words, if the act is an intentional act, it BUT if the sources of the obligation is QUASI DELICT or CONTRACT,
cannot be the basis of a claim under QUASI DELICT. the liability of the employer is DIRECT AND PRIMARY. Hindi
kailangang maging insolvent ang employee para maging liable ang
ATTY. URIBE: employer.
DEAN PINEDA'S CLAIM IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SC.
SC rulings: Quasi Delict as a source of obligation, may not only be IF there is !ready a criminal case filed because the act is punished
based on negligent acts. Even intentional act, malicious acts, even by law, and the injured filed a civil action under QUASI DELICT, may
acts punishable by idW, can oe basis of d Claim under quasi this action quasi CitilLf.) prosper? OR wouiu a. at ieclbl result LU Li le
BASIS OF ATTY. URIBE'S CLAIM: suspension f the civil action under quasi delict during the pendency
(Art. 1902 of the Old Civil Code), there was a requirement that for a of the minal action? SC: The civil action may proceed
quasi delict to arise, the act must not be punishable by law. Today, independently of the criminal action. The fact that a criminal action is
there is no such requirement. It was intentionally deleted by the pending will not bar the filing, nor itwill suspend the civil action under
CODE Commission. In other words, even if the act is punishable by quasi delict. Why? Because they are separate and distinct
law, it can be a basis for quasi-delict. proceedings.
BUT the present law, provides for a limitation as to the recoverable REASONS:
amount. under Art. 2177 (Double-Recovery Rule). 1. Parties in interest — sa delict, state ang party in interest. in quasi
delict, private parties.
So if the act can be a basis of a claim under DELICT and QUASI-
DELICT, the injured cannot recover twice. 2. Quantum of evidence required — in delict, proof beyond reasonable
doubt; in Quasi-delict, preponderance of evidence lang.
EX. Nag file ng criminal complaint, in this case, the court may award This is why, even if in the criminal case, the accused was
damages (civil liability arising from the criminal act). BUT the injured ACQUITTED. Then there is a pending civil case under QUASI DELICT.
may also file a CIVIL ACTION under QUASI DELICT, say P500K. Kung Will the acquittal of the accused result in the automatic dismissal of
nag award na sa CRIMINAL CASE, assuming 300K, and thereafter the case under QUASI DELICT? NO.
nag award sa civii action, would the injured be enutied CO recover the In fact, in one bar exam, the reason why the accused was acquitted
entire 500K? No more. P200K na lang. In this scenario, Art. 2177 is a was because of the conclusion of the court that the accused was not
partial defense. NEGLIGENT. Despite this pronouncement of the court, the answer to
the question of whether the civil action may still prosper is YES
Pero kung ang naunang i-award is a bigger amount (500K), and the because when the court in the criminal case rule that the accused
injured already claimed this award, and the 2"6 award is a smaller was not negligent, the quantum of evidence was the proof beyond
amount, the injured cannot recover a @Ingle Centavo anymore. This reasonable doubt. But if you will use the same pieces of evidence in a
time, Double Recovery Rule, will be a total defense. civil action under QUASI DELICT, where the quantum required is only
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, those pieces of evidence may he
But this claim (that quasi delict may be based on intentional acts) has sufficient to conclude that the act was a negligent act.
a basis even in the definition of Quasi Delict under Art. 2176. EXAMPLE:
In the case of 03 SIMPSON. In the criminal case, he was acquitted.
What is quasi-delict? Briefly, it means Fault or Negligence. And fault But thereafter, a civil action was filed by the heirs of the victim, and
is not the same as negligence. In other words, fault can be the heirs won. Even if the same pieces of evidence were used,
intentional. Consistent ito sa concept natin sa Filipino. Kapag sinabi because preponderance of evidence lang ang required, they may be
natin na: "Kasalanan mo!" in English, "It's your fault." Does it mean sufficient to conclude that there was negligence, hence, liable.
na negligent ang taong Ito? Not really because it could be intentional.
Kaya hindi pareho ang negligence sa fault. Because fault can be in a problem, always consider wnat is the cause of action. i his is
intentional. very important. WHY? EXAMPLE:
In a vehicular mishaps, the usual complainant here is the passenger
A single act can be a basis of a claim, not only under 1, possibly 2, or in one of the vehicles. In other words, if the cause of action is
even 3 sources of obligations (SALUDAGA CASE — Delict, Quasi- CONTRACT, it can only be against one of the defendants. It cannot
Delict and Contracts). be a contract against two defendants who are both owners of the
two vehicles. Isa lang sa two vehicles. Pero if it is QUASI DELICT,
If a person is claiming that he is entitled to damages, the source of pwede. Whether he has a contractual obligation with one vehicle
the nhligation mutt he Hoar. Renal Ise there are certain nrinrirlac nr owner or none, an action for q
quasi rlfalirt may nrocner .
rules which may or may not be applicable, depending on the source,
which is the basis of the claim. ESSENTIAL LEMENTS:

Ex.: What are the requisites in order that the defendant may be held
The defense of "diligence required of a good father of a family" in the liable under QUASI DELICT case.
selection and supervision of employees. This defense can be raised In TORTS atilt! DAMAGES books, some of the authors will enumerate
by the employer if his employee caused injury to another. BUT if you 5, others 4,! others 3. BUT kung 5 ang nakaenumerate sa libro na
remember the case of Canco vs. MRR, MRR raised this as a defense. yan, I am 99% sure that the 5th requisite is "that there is no pre-
was this defense sustained by the SC? NO. Because SC said mat the existing contractual relation between the parties.- in other words,
cause of action was based in a contract. AND in contracts, that ang effect nito ay: "if before the act was committed, there was
defense is not applicable. Neither is this defense available in already a pre-existing contractual obligation, a claim under QUASI
DELICTS. DELICT cannot prosper...which is really wrong. Despite the

Brian M. Javier, 2011-0101, AUSL Page 5

 Civil Law Review II: Atty. Uribe on Special Contracts - SALE

contractual obligation, that may not BAR an action for QUASI EXAMPLE:
DELICT.
In DULAY vs. CA, the issue was the nature of the act.
EXAMPLE. Atty. Dulay had an altercation with the security guard. Binaril sya rig
guard. In the case, the defense of the employer was thot. the act of
Sa mga airline cases, may ticket ka...you went to the airport, tapos
the guard was not a negligent act, therefore, they cannot be held
you were told, "wala na pong upuan." Is there a breach of contract?
liable under quasi delict. Tama yun, hindi negligent yung act. So MTD
YES, kasi confirmed yung seat mo as evidenced by the ticket. Pero
was filed y the employer which was granted by the judge. So
the fact that you were told that there were no seats available, is DULAY's he rs went to the SC. SC ruled that for an action under quasi
there a tortious act? WALA NAMAN.
delict to sper, the act need not be a negligent act, pwedeng
intentional, rongful, or even punished by law.
BUT in CARASCOSO case (AIR FRANCE vs. CARASCOSSO) it is
different. Carascoso was already inside the airplane when he was 2. DAMAGE or INJURY
asked to cede his seat (from business class to economy class) to a
These two are not synonymous. Because there can be damage
white man. Obviously, there was a pre-existing contractual
without an Injury (damnum absque injuria. Injury requires wrongful
obligation, (contract of carriage)kasi may ticket sya. BUT the manner
acts. Damage is the harm, hurt or loss. Pero pag may premise ka na
of communicating to Carascoso that he should give up his seat, it
ng fault, ang damage is the same as injury. Kasi may fault, kasi may
was a tortious act. May pagka racist ang manager ng airlines. So, the wrongful act na.
fact that there was a pre-existing contractual obligation between
Carascoso and Air France, did not bar the finding of liability under 3. CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACT OR OMMISSION
QUASI DELICT. And this is not limited to airline companies. Even in
lei scenarios, like in ESciiik.S. (SINGSON vs. BPI)
Ducuthe of orriparative Negligence (An L. 2179, which also contains
the Doctrine. of Contributory Negligence) — ang premise ng doctrines
In Singson vs. BPI, Singson has an account with BPI, so there was a
na ito, is that both parties are negligent. But, under the DOCTRINE
pre-existing contractual obligation. Singson was one of the
OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, if the negligence of the plaintiff was
defendants in a civil case. The court ruled on favor of the plaintiff.
the direct and proximate cause of the injury sustained by him, he
Singson appealed. The other defendants did not appeal so the
cannot recover. The action will not prosper.
decision as to them became final and executory. So nagfile ng motion
for execution ang plaintiff but only against the other defendants and
BUT if the direct and proximate cause of the injury was due to the
not Singson. and this was granted. Nankaroon no ORDER of
neolioence of the defendant. even if the plaintiff himself was
Garnishment, and one of the banks involved was BPI. Nung nakita ng negligent, the action can prosper. He can recover from the defendant
BPI yung name ni Singson sa title ng case, finreeze nila yung account
but the liablity of the defendant will be mitigated, because the
ni Singson. Eh may mga checks na inissue si Singson sa mga
plaintiff is also negligent (DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY
suppliers. So nagbounce ang mga checks. It turned out, negligent NEGLIGENCE)
ang BPI. Because it was very clear in the Order of Garnishment
"EXCEPT SINGSON" even if in the title Singson's name was there. In
WHEN WOULD AN ACT BE CONSIDERED NEGLIGENT?
fairness to BPI, when they realized their mistake, they unfroze all the
There is negligence when there is an omission of the diligence
accounts of Singson—but the SC held that the damage has already
required, which corresponds to the circumstances as to the person,
been done to Singson for which BPI can be held can be held liable
the ume, an ' the piece. based on this definition, there is no such
under QUASI DELICT even if there was a pre-existing contractual
obligation. thing as NE LIGENCE PER SE...because it always depends in the
circumstance . BUT, an important factor in determining whether the
act is negligent or not is the degree of diligence required of the
Although, if you read 2176, yung qualifying phrase: "there being no person involved.
pre-existing contractual obligation", hindi naman sinabi ng batas na if
ORDINARY DILIGENCE — diligence of a good father of the family.
there is a pre-existing contractual obligation, a claim under quasi
delict will not prosper. EXTRA ORDINARY DILIGENCE (higher degree of diligence)
UTMOST DILIGENCE
HIGHEST DFC.REF OF DILIGENCE
WHY WILL THE INJURED PARTY FILE AN ACTION UNDER QUASI
DELICT WHEN THEY CAN FILE AN ACTION UNDER CONTRACT, AND
How important is the degree of diligence in determining if the person
IT IS VERY CLEAR IN THE CONTRACT THAT THERE WAS BREACH?
is negligent or not? This is answered in the case of Philippine Bank of
Eh di mas madali ma prove that there was breach. In fact, in
Commerce vs. CA. — The plaintiff company here, asked one of its
common carriers, the fact that they fail to deliver their passengers to
secretaries to deposit a sum of money, owned by the company, to a
their destination, the presumption is that they are at fault. Whereas
branch of Phil. Bank of Commerce. Pero ang ginawa ng secretary,
in quasi delict, as a rule, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that
instead sa account ng company, she deposited the money sa account
the defendant was negligent. BUT WHY INSIST IN QUASI DELICT?
FUR MONEY REASONS. because tne biggest amount that may be
ng asawa nya doon sa branch na yon. Several times nya ginawa. So
na-discover ng company. The modus operandi or the secretary was
awarded in action for damages is MORAL DAMAGES. Napakahirap to fully fill out the front page of the slip, but the in the duplicate
iclaim ng MORAL DAMAGES sa contracts. Because in a claim of
copy, walang nakalagay sa account name. ang nakalagay lang
MORAL DAMAGES under CONTRACT, the plaintiff must prove that the
account number ng asawa nya. Kaya pag binigay na sa kanya un
defendant has acted in bad faith or in wanton disregard of his
carbon copy, tsaka pa lang nya ilalagay ung name ng company, to
obligations under contract which is not easy to prove.
make it appear that the money was deposited in the name of the
Whereas in QUASI DELICT, napakadali. Magalusan ka lang, physical
company. The claim of the company against the bank was that the
injuries arising from QUASI DELICT, entitled ka na sa MORAL
DAmAC,Fs, direct and proximate cause of the injury they suffered was the
negligence of the hank One of the defences raised by the hank was
the DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE. WHY? Because when we
Aside from this element (that there must be no pre-existing
have an account in a bank, we are given a statement. Sabi ng bank,
contractual obligation), what else are the elements?
1. Act or omission, there being fault or negligence; how come you did not notice for several months na walang laman
2. Damage or injury; ang account nyo? Eh sa ibang company, ilang tao ang nagbabasa ng
3. Causal Connection between the act or omission; financial statement. The Majority of the Justices ruled that the direct
and proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of the bank.
1. ACT OR OMMISSION Only one justice (sabino padilla) dissented, invoking the doctrine of
last clear chance.
*un Bang autnors, will separate the elements act or omission trom
I don't agree with me dissenting opinion, because banks are required
fault or negligence. I will not agree that they should be separated
to exercise the highest degree of diligence. Kung ibang degree of
from fault. Because fault or negligence cannot be separated from the
diligence lang, ordinary diligence lang, I would have agreed with
very act or omission. Whether there is fault or negligence is
Justice Padilla. Kava mukhang negligent talaqa ang bank kasi hindi
ultimately dependent on the act or omission. fully filled up Yung deposit slip eh pero inallow nila. Kaya ganito

Brian M. Javier, 2011-0101, AUSL

Page 6
 Civil Law Review II: Atty. Uribe on Special Contracts - SALE

kaimportante ang determination of the degree of diligence to the GF. Unil these two were both found death. Kaya the parents of
determine if the act is a negligent act. the GF sued the parents of BF — ang theory ng parents ni GF was
that BF killed GF, then after, BF committed suicide, because the gun
that was uSed is owned by the father of OF. Out the theory of Eirs
PRESUMPTIONS: parents was third person killed the two teenagers. SC believed the
General Rule: parents of the boy, so the parents of BF were held liable.
It is the burden of the plaintiff to prove that that @Et Of th@ defendant
is a negligent act. 2. OWNERS/MANAGERS (Art. 2184, BAR FAVORITE)
If the owner of the vehicle was inside the vehicle at the time of the
In ONG vs. Meto water Distrinct — the spettiaaaIgia Child drowned mishap, ani: 1 the driver caused injury due to his negligence. Is it
in a pool managed by Metropolitan Water Digrig: Naga ItJnitlteng na automatic at the owner is solidarily liable? NO. Under 2184, he will
lana ana batana ito sa isa sa maa swIMMInn 0E015 §a Ilk061 ng UP only he hel solidarily liable with his driver if he failed to exercise the
Diamen. So nung namatay yung beta, Spouses Dig ailed. But SC diligence required under the circumstances to prevent the mishaps.
dismissed the case, because the spouses fall@ri to prim that there In other words, even if he is inside the vehicle, but if he doesn't have
was negligence on the part of the defendant. And it was their the opportunity to prevent the mishap, he cannot be held solidarily
burden. TO the contrary, ang defendant pa ang nakapag prove na liable with his negligent driver.
diligent sila. Kasi may measures sila — may warning signs, may
lifeguard and they tried to revive the child. Pero DOA talaga un bata. MANAGERS — read Philippine Rabbit vs. Philippine American
Forwarders.
Exception: In this ca , Phil. Rabbit claims that the driver of Phil. American
Older LtrLdifi cirLurnstariLes, die iayv would raise a presumption that Forwarders as fieyilyer It, causing uarnaye LU Phil. Rabbit's bus. our
the act was a negligent act. In some scenarios, the presumption is the issue g es to the fact the Philippine Rabbit impleaded also as
only a disputable presumption. BUT in two scenarios, ang defendant, a passenger, Mr. Balingit, who was an accounting
presumption ay conclusive. manager of(c the company, and who was inside the vechile when the
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS — Art. 2183, 2184, 2185 and 2188 — accident oc ured...nonetheless, sinama si Mr. Balingit kasi manager
dito ang pinaka common, pertains to vehicular mishaps. Ang pinaka sya. SO Mr. Balingit filed a MTD, claiming that, as a mere accounting
common tlaga is — the driver who was violating a traffic regulation is manager, he cannot be held liable under the code. RTC dismissed the
presumed to be negligent. Like yung walang driver's license or case as to Balingit. Phil. Rabbit went up to the SC. SC sustained the
expired na; or Yung naoddrive na walang helmet. decision of e trial court because vuno word na "manager" is not in
the concep of a salary manager. Yung sa Spanish word in the
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS — Spanish e, the word was "directores", hence, a manager like an
1. When a thing is thrown from a building, the head of the family employer. H ndi katulad lang ng position ni Balingit,
occupying the unit is presumed to be negligent. — maganda ang rule
because hindi yung owner of the unit, kasi baka nga naman 3. EMPLOY :ERS — in the case of MARTIN vs. CA, the complainant is
pinalease nya or pinahiram un unit. Meralco. M rtin, who is a driver, caused damage to the post of
Meralco ka binangga. The other Martin, the defendant, is the
2. Manufacturers of products containing noxious substances are employer of the driver. SC: Action was dismissed on the ground that
conciusiveiy presumed to be negligent. — keys yung may mga mere was rk) tmpioyer-Empioyee Relationship. Kung ang cause of
salmonella, or milk na galing sa China, may presumption. action mo ay dahil employer sya kaya dapat syang managot, dapat
may E-E Re ationship. Malay natin, hiniram lang ang sasakyan, or
When an employee is negligent, does this mean that the employer is independent contractor.
also negligent? NOT NECESSARILY. Because we have not adopted
the common law principle of RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR. In this BAR EXAM QUESTION:
jurisdiction, SC has adopted the RELATIONSHIP OF PATER FAMILIAS. After working overtime after midnight, ALBERTO, an executive of an
In other words, if the employee is negligent, it is not automatic that insurance company, drove a company vehicle to a videoke bar,
the employer was nenligent HOWFVFR this would only raise a where he had come drinks and some songs with friends, to unwind
presumption that he is negligent. BUT he can raise a defense that he At 2AM he drove home but in doing so, he bumped a tricycle,
exercised the diligence required in the selection and supervision resulting in the death of its driver. May the insurance company be
of his employees. held liable for the negligent act of Alberto. Why?
Selection vs. Supervision
SELECTION — sa drivers, dapat magtanong ang employers as to the ANS: NO. Because even if there is an EE Relationship, another
history of the drivers. requirement for the employer to be held liable is that the employee
SUPERVISION — this can only be used as a defense in 3 aspects: (1) must be acting within his assigned task. And in this scenario, galing
there are rules that the employer implements; (2) may monitoring ka na sya sa videoke, hindi na sya galing sa opisina.
if rules are impiementea. ; (3) may penalty imposed. ne question has nothing to ao with an insurance contract, so uon t
discuss this.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY (Art. 2180)
Vicarious Liability means he is not the one who cause the injury but 4. TEACHERS/ADMINISTRATORS
because he is responsible for this person, he may be held liable Ang unang issue dito, may the school itself be held vicariously liable?
under this concept. On its face, sa 2176, parang hindi. Kasi ang liable lang ay ang mga
teachers/administrators.
1. PARENTS Pero in the 980s, ang mga justices, could no longer agree kuing
OWNFRS/MANAC4FRS dapat hang 11 tale ang mga schools, Because some Justices will take it
3. EMPLOYERS literally.
4. TEACHERS/SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS Today, under the FC, the school can be held liable.
How about e teachers in La Salle or Ateneo, can the teachers in
1. PARENTS. those school be held vicariously liable? ANg nakalagay sa NCC ay
For parents to be liable, dapat minor ang child. Can the parents be "teachers of its and trades" ang Ateneo and La Salle are not schools
held jointly liable as a result of the negligent act of their minor child? of art and tr de. Can this mean that they cannot be held vicariously
YES, under the FC. They can be held solidarily liable with the child. liable? Hindi. Lahat pwedeng maging liable. It doesn't matter what
kind of schopl you are — kahit vocational schools or school for
Nature of the liability of the parents as to their minor child? toddlers. THE K. does not distinguish, Pasta institution or learning.
In LIBI vs. IAC, the SC held that parents have direct and primary
liability, hindi lang subsidiary. Kaya they are solidarily liable. IF the student who caused the injury is already of age, can the
In this case, it happened in Cebu city. Mga teenagers ang bida dito. teachers/administrators/school, still be held vicariously liable?
Mag BF and GF. Nakipag split si GF. But the BF continued to follow ANS:

Brian M. Javier, 2011-0101, AUSL Page 7

 Civil Law Review II: Atty. Uribe on Special Contracts - SALE

The civil code is silent on this. It did not say "minors". The law uses appreciable interval of time. Kasi otherwise, kung simultaneous ang
the word "pupil". MEron bang 25 years old na pupil? Wala. negligence nila, this doctrine is not applicable. Kasi one of them
In the case of PALISOC vs. BRILLANTES, in this case, the student would have the opportunity to prevent the mishap.
who caused the death of his classmate was already of age. Sinuntok LANDMARK CASE. PICCART vs. SMITH — the plaintiff here was
nya, but nabagok un ulo sa concrete and namatay. So the parents of negligent. ause he was riding his horse in the left lane of the
the deceased student sued the teachers and the school. The defense bridge. And the defendant was on the right lane of the bridge, kaya
of the school is that the student who caused the death, is already of tama sya. ero they both continued to move to the center of the
age, hindi na minor. bridge. Ang defendant naka kotse, the plaintiff is riding the horse.
In this case, hirap ang mga justices. It was a 6-1-4 decision (11 The horse jumped off the bridge kasi nagreact sya dun sa
justices pa lang at that time). And by a majority of 6, SC held that approachin car. The horse died (yung plaintiff, buhay kaya nga
even if the student is already of age, the schools can still be held nakapag fll ng case). When the case was filed, the defense of the
liable. 4 dissenting opinion. Atty. Uribe aorees with the dissent. Kasi defendant i that the plaintiff was negligent kasi naa tama daw vuno
nga ang teachers, they can only be held liable in lieu of parents. Ang lane nya. B SC held, under the doctrine of last clear chance, the
batang of age na, hindi na liable ang parents. So bakit ang teachers, defendant as liable, because he was also negligent. He had the
who are just acting in lieu of parents, may be held liable? Maganda opportunity to prevent the mishap by just exercising the diligence
ang argument na ito. required, ev n if the plaintiff is negligent. He could have stopped the
TODAY, UNDER THE FAMILY CODE, ang dissent ay batas na. car. In failin to do this, there was negligence on his part.
Malinaw ang batas na before a teacher can be held liable, the - Other mes; DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING NEGLIGENCE.
student must be a minor, which I think a good law. When I started DOCTRINE OF so and so... remember all the names.
teaching I was only 27 years old. Yung mga students ko, mas
iiidtdndd pa Sd akin. Why should I be held liabie if my students are Al Tr. UKitSc
older than me?? ANURAN vs. BUNYO and similar cases.
In this case, the jeepney was overcrowded. One of the passengers
ALSO, in the FC, if the student caused damage while inside the said PARA kasi bababa na sya. The driver parked the car, pero
school, ang teachers/administrators, solidary liable sila. Pero ang irregularly. Naka abbut sa hiway....here comes the other driver, ni-
liability ng parents, is only a subsidiary liability. Pero even if ram nya ang jeepney... causing injuries among the passengers,
subsidiary laiblity, the can also invoke the defense that they including the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued 4 parties — 2 drivers and 2
exercised the diligence required. Which was not true in earlier laws. employers. The owner of the jeepney filed a motion to dismiss, citing
Rano lane tone betas na ito. the doctrine of last clear chance — arm argument. the driver of the
vehicle had the last clear opportunity to prevent the mishap by just
DEFENSES: exercising the diligence required. PARANG TAMA ang defense. BUT
SC HELD "NO". This doctrine can only be invoked if the case is
1. "One of the elements is lacking" or "there was no between th se who are negligent. Peg sila sila lang ang
negligence" — see Ong vs. Metro Water District. naglalabana , pwede. This cannot be invoked by those who are
negligent as against another who is not negligent. That would be
2. FORTUITOUS EVENT inequitable.. is is a good ruling.
- always bear in mind that there should be no concurring negligence
on me part of me person raising such defense in order for tnem to DAMAGES
be exempt from liability. Like in the NAPOCO CASES, when NAPOCO 1. Under 21 , there are 6 kinds of damages. Ang tanong lang, can A
released the waters from the dam, causing flood, damage to the hold B liable for all award of damages. Can this be possible? NO.
properties. Ang defense ng NAPOCOR was fortuitous event, kasi nga Kasi ang award for actual damages will preclude an award for
may typhoon naman talaga. BUT the court held that there was nominal da ages and temperate damages. Kasi ang actual, may
concurring negligence because they released the water only when pecuniary I nay an. Sa nominal, walang pecuniary loss, pero may
the dam was already full. In other words, dapat konti konti ang violation of e right which should be indemnified. Kaya inconsistent
pagrelease nila. yang dalawa a yan. On the other hand, and temperate damages will
he awarded i a scenario where there is pecuniary Inca. But it may be
Phil. Bank of Commerce vs. CA — there was contributory negligence so difficult to prove pecuniary loss, under the circumstances.
ang plaintiff in asking just a mere secretary to deposit, instead na
treasurer or finance officer. Kaya ang inaward lang ng SC ay hindi Lately, may development sa death as a result of a quasi delictual act.
100%. 60% lang. SC is not saying that this is always the case (60- More often than not, the heirs will find it difficult to prove actual
40)...dpende lagi sa extent ng contributory negligence. damages, un ess na hospital, kasi may receipts. Pero you will not
bother to k p the receipts. So ang SC, mule nung 2012, has been
BEST CASE TO ILLUSTRATE — PNR vs. TUPANG consistent in awarding 25K even if the injured may not be able to
Coming from Bicol, nasa QUEZON na, may sharp curve. Si Tupang ay prove actual damages. Basta may death, courts will award 25k. If
nasa BAR wnicn connect me two coacnes...waia sya sa less tnan 25i ang maprove nya, automatically, the trial court must
loob...nakaupo sya dun sa metal bar. Dahil sharp curve ito, he fell award 25K y way of temperate damages. Kasi namatayan ka,
and he died. Syempre, the heirs of Tupang sued PNR. necessarily, g mastos ka. Kaya tama lang ang batas na ito.
SC: The death of Tupang was due to the negligence of PNR because
Tupang was outside the coaches because the coaches were What are the other damages that may be awarded in case of death
overcrowded, kaya di sya naaccomodate sa boob. BUT THERE WAS due to Quasi-Delictual Acts?
CONTRIBUTORY negligence on the part of TUPANG because he did Anim (6) ang nakalagay sa 2206 (Favourite source of Bar exam
not hold tenaciously to the metal bar...OH DI BA? Ang galing ng SC? questions) Indemnity, loss of earning capacity, interest, moral and
Namatay na nga yung tan (TAIA/ANIAN) Kaya hina%nrAcan 'm nn award exemplary_ surrort,..
sa heris.
Can all these be awarded by the court everytime may namamatay
3. PRESCRIPTION because of quasi delictual act? NO.
- 4 years from the time the cause of action has accrued (which is the Always read the facts. Kasi possible that the heirs may not be entitled
date of the incident) to all. Halimbawa, 4 years old yung namatay, so hindi mo pwede
- ESCUETA vs. FANDIALAN — action was filedafter 15 years. The award un loss of earning capacity, or yung support...
action had long prescribed.
Indemnity for damages
4. DOUBLE RECOVERY RULE. In case or death, wherein the imposable penalty should be death, but
because there is a law prohibiting the imposition of death penalty,
5. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE. ang dapat na indemnity ay 100K. Hindi na 50k. Plus MORAL
- Anq premise nito, both parties were negligent. BUT here, the DAMAGES - 100K; EXEMPLARY - 100K; TEMPERATE - 25K.
negligent of one, is preceded by the negligence of the other by an

Brian M. Javier, 2011-0101, AUSL Page 8

Civil Law Review II: Atty. Uribe on Special Contracts - SALE

Pero if homicide lang, pag hindi death penalty ang imposable penalty,
ang award lang is 75K for indemnity, 75K moral, 75K exemplary, and
temperate damages.

LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY

Formula:
Gross income in one year MINUS the necessary expenses or
the expenses that will be incurred in earning the amount. (pag
tambay ang namatay, walang loss of earning capacity)

Yung necessary expenses, pag walang proof, the court will allow 1/2
deduction from the aross earninas. So:

Gross earnings minus 1/2 of the gross, times 2/3 of (80 minus x). The
80 refers to life expectancy. X refers to the age of the deceased at
the time of his death.
80 is not a fixed figure. Other factors may be considered, like yung
nature ng work, if hazardous, yung health nya, if hindi na maganda.
EX.
When the deceased was a dentist, yung figure na 80 binawasan ng 5,
yinawang 75. Pay blIldVVd5c1f1, any effect ay iumiiiit any earning
capacity. Which is not good to the claimants. Bias ba ang SC sa mga
dentist? No. Kasi hindi ka naman magpapabdentist sa isang 75 years
old...baka dila yung mabunot... usually, retired na ang mga dentist at
the age of 50. So ang earning capacity nya hindi umaabot ng 75
years old.

MORAL DAMAGES (Bar Favorite)

Not evervtime a person suffers mental annuish. besmirched
reputation, sleepless nights, he will be entitled to moral damages.
The reason why he suffered mental anguish must be one of the
grounds enumerated by law...Ang grounds nasa Art. 2219 (na hindi
naman exlusive, kasi 2220 is also a ground for moral damages).
But if you read the case of MAYO vs. PEOPLE - wherein Mayo caused
injuries to several persons...kasi nagkarambola ng mga sasakyan.
One of the injured was a certain Navarette...who claims na iniwan
sya nya boyfriend nya because of the deformities in her face. But SC
neid (via justice Romero): in the first place, there is no proof that the
boyfriend left her because of the deformities. BUT even if the BF left
her because of the deformities, it is not one of the grounds
enumerated by law...pero may inaward pa din, kasi may Physical
Injuries naman...which is one of the grounds enumerated by law.

Art. 2219 - recent development:

Malicious prosecution - historically, SC tells us that the award for
damages due to malicious prosecution must be based on a criminal
complaint. Pero in recent cases, even if disbarment suit can already
be a ground for a claim for moral damages under malicious
prosecution.

Pero there are some cases na bumabalik sa dating rulings na

bumabalik sa criminal complaint ang basis...but i hope that the SC
will consider the ruling that even a civil suit can be a basis for a claim
of moral damages, basta unfounded yung action.

BASTA in case criminal prosecution, dapat malinaw na yung finding

ng prosecutor na may malicious prosecution must be final...kasi if
nag appeal pa sa DO) secretary, hindi pa final yun.

Brian M. Javier, 2011-0101, AUSL Page 9