TORTS AND DAMAGES

Torts
Elements
The elements of torts are: AFDD
1. there must be act or omission by the defendant;
2. there must be fault or negligence of the defendant;
3. there must be damage or injury caused to the plaintiff; and
4. there must be a direct relation or connection of cause of action and effect between the act or
omission and the damage.

Culpa aquiliana vs. culpa contractual vs. culpa criminal

Article 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.
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But
the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence,
or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
Article 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an
action for future fraud is void.
Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of
obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to
the circumstances.
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence
which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the
persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of
articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance,
that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.
Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person
shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen,
were inevitable.
Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. - Every person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable.
Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. - The exemption from criminal liability
established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this
Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the
following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an
imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but
under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those
having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no
fault or negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal
guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall
respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance
with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the
harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have
received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one
shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the
liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and,
in all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the consent of the authorities or
their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or
regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or
causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those
doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from
execution.
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of
establishments. - In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any
other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or
special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft
within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof,
provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person
representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have
followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with
respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's
employees.
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The subsidiary liability established in the
next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

Vicarious liability
Article 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.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case
what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused
by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

OJ was employed as professional driver of MM Transit bus owned by Mr. BT. In the course of
his work, OJ hit a pedestrian who was seriously injured and later died in the hospital as a result
of the accident. The victim’s heirs sued the driver and the owner of the bus for damages. Is
there a presumption in this case that Mr. BT, the owner, had been negligent? If so, is the
presumption absolute or not? Explain.
Yes, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. However, such
presumption is rebuttable. The liability of the employer shall cease when they prove that they
observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage (Art. 2180). When the
employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own duties, there
arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of
observance of the diligence of a good father of a family. Likewise, if the driver is charged and
convicted in a criminal case for criminal negligence, BT is subsidiarily liable for the damages
arising from the criminal act.

Silvestre leased a car from Avis-Rent-A-Car Co. at the Mactan International Airport. No sooner
had he driven the car outside the airport when, due to his negligence, he bumped an FX taxi
owned and driven by Victor, causing damage to the latter in the amount of 100,000.00. Victor
filed an action for damages against both Silvestre and Avis, based on quasi-delict. Avis filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint against it on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
Resolve the motion.
The motion to dismiss should be granted, AVIS is not the employer of Silvestre; hence,
there is no right of action against AVIS under Art. 2180. Not being the employer, AVIS has no
duty to supervise Silvestre. Neither has AVIS the duty to observe due diligence in the selection
of its customers. Besides, it was given in the problem that the cause of the accident was the
negligence of Silvestre.

Mabuhay Elementary School organized a field trip for its Grade VI students in Fort Santiago,
Manila Zoo, and Star City. To be able to join, the parents of the students had to sign a piece of
paper that reads as follows: "I allow my child (name of student), Grade – Section, to join the
school’s field trip on February 14, 2014. I will not file any claim against the school, administrator
or teacher in case something happens to my child during the trip." Joey, a 7-year-old student of
Mabuhay Elementary School was bitten by a snake while the group was touring Manila Zoo. The
parents of Joey sued the school for damages. The school, as a defense, presented the waiver
signed by Joey’s parents. Was there a valid waiver of right to sue the school? Why?
No, there was no valid waiver of the right to sue the school. A waiver to be valid must
have three requisites: 1) existence of the right; 2) legal capacity of the person waiving the right
and 3) the waiver must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. In the case presented, the
waiver may be considered contrary to public policy as it exonerates the school from liability for
future negligence. The waiver in effect allows the school to not exercise even ordinary
diligence.

Arturo sold his Pajero to Benjamin for 1 Million. Benjamin took the vehicle but did not register
the sale with the Land Transportation Office. He allowed his son Carlos, a minor who did not
have a driver's license, to drive the car to buy pandesal in a bakery. On the way, Carlos driving
in a reckless manner, sideswiped Dennis, then riding a bicycle. As a result, he suffered serious
physical injuries. Dennis filed a criminal complaint against Carlos for reckless imprudence
resulting in serious physical injuries. Can Dennis file an independent civil action against Carlos
and his father Benjamin for damages based on quasi-delict? Explain.
Yes, Dennis can file an independent civil action against Carlos and his father for damages
based on quasi-delict there being an act or omission causing damage to another without
contractual obligation. Under the Rules of Court, what is deemed instituted with the criminal
action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the act or omission punished by
law. As such, an action based on quasi- delict may be filed separately.

Assuming Dennis' action is tenable, can Benjamin raise the defense that he is not liable because
the vehicle is not registered in his name? Explain.
No, Benjamin cannot raise the defense that the vehicle is not registered in his name. His
liability, vicarious in character, is based on Art. 2180. He is the father of a minor who caused
damage due to negligence. While the suit will prosper against the registered owner, it is the
actual owner of the private vehicle who is ultimately liable. The purpose of car registration is to
reduce difficulty in identifying the party liable in case of accidents.

As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A and another taxicab owned by B, X, a
passenger of the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal action against both
drivers. May both taxicab owners raise the defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of their drivers to be absolved from liability for damages to X? Reason.
Yes, if the civil action is based on a quasi-delict, the taxicab owners may raise the
defense of diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the driver.
If, however, the action against is based on culpa contractual or civil liability arising from a crime,
they cannot raise the defense.
Is it necessary for X to reserve his right to institute a civil action for damages against both
taxicab owners before he can file a civil action for damages against them? Why?
Yes, if the separate civil action is to recover damages arising from the criminal act,
reservation is necessary. If, however, the civil action against the taxicab owners is based on
culpa contractual, or on quasi-delict, there is no need for reservation.

Primo owns a pet iguana which he keeps in a man- made pond enclosed by a fence situated in
his residential lot. A typhoon knocked down the fence of the pond and the iguana crawled out
of the gate of Primo’s residence. N, a neighbor who was passing by, started throwing stones at
the iguana, drawing the iguana to move toward him. N panicked and ran but tripped on
something and suffered a broken leg. Is anyone liable for N’s injuries? Explain.
No one is liable. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility
shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage (Art. 2183).

A driver of a bus owned by company Z ran over a boy who died instantly. A criminal case for
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against the driver. He was convicted and
was ordered to pay P2 Million in actual and moral damages to the parents of the boy who was
an honor student and had a bright future. Without even trying to find out if the driver had
assets or means to pay the award of damages, the parents of the boy filed a civil action against
the bus company to make it directly liable for the damages. Will their action prosper?
Yes, the action will prosper. The liability of the employer in this case may be based on
quasi-delict and is included within the coverage of independent civil action. It is not necessary
to enforce the civil liability based on culpa aquiliana that the driver or employee be proven to
be insolvent since the liability of the employer for the quasi- delicts committed by their
employees is direct and primary subject to the defense of due diligence on their part (Art. 2176;
Art. 2180).

If the parents of the boy do not wish to file a separate civil action against the bus company, can
they still make the bus company liable if the driver cannot' pay the award for damages? If so,
what is the nature of the employer's liability and how may civil damages be satisfied?
Yes, the parents of the boy can enforce the subsidiary liability of the employer in the
criminal case against the driver. The conviction of the driver is a condition sine qua non for the
subsidiary liability of the employer to attach. Proof must be shown that the driver is insolvent
(Art. 103, RPC).

A Gallant driven by John and owned by Art, and a Corolla driven by its owner, Gina, collided
somewhere along Adriatico Street. As a result of the accident, Gina had a concussion.
Subsequently, Gina brought an action for damages against John and Art. There is no doubt that
the collision is due to John's negligence. Can Art, who was in the vehicle at the time of the
accident, be held solidarily liable with his driver, John?
Yes. Art may be held solidary liable with John, if it was proven that the former could
have prevented the misfortune with the use of due diligence. In motor mishaps, the owner is
solidary liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of
due diligence, prevented the misfortune (Art. 2184).

Romano was bumped by a minivan owned by the Solomon School of Practical Arts (SSPA). The
minivan was driven by Peter, a student assistant whose assignment was to clean the school
passageways daily one hour before and one hour after regular classes, in exchange for free
tuition. Peter was able to drive the school vehicle after persuading the regular driver, Paul, to
turn over the wheel to him (Peter). Romano suffered serious physical injuries. The accident
happened at night when only one headlight of the vehicle was functioning and Peter only had a
student driver's permit. As a consequence, Peter was convicted in the criminal case. Thereafter,
Romano sued for damages against Peter and SSPA. Will the action for damages against Peter
and SSPA prosper?
Yes. It will prosper (Art. 2180) because at the time he drove the vehicle, he was not
performing his assigned tasks as provided for by Art. 2180. With respect to SSPA, it is not liable
for the acts of Peter because the latter was not an employee. As held by Supreme Court in a
case, Peter belongs to a special category of students who render service to the school in
exchange for free tuition fees.

Will your answer be the same if, Paul, the regular driver, was impleaded as party defendant for
allowing Peter to drive the minivan without a regular driver's license?
I would maintain the same answer because the incident did not occur while the
employee was in the performance of his duty as such employee. The incident occurred at night
time, and in any case, there was no indication in the problem that he was performing his duties
as a driver.

Is the exercise of due diligence in the selection and supervision of Peter and Paul a material
issue to be resolved in this case?
In the case of Peter, if he were to be considered as employee, the exercise of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of peter would not be a material issue since the
conviction of Peter would result in a subsidiary liability where the defense would not be
available by the employer. In the case of Paul, since the basis of subsidiary liability is the pater
familias rule under Art. 2180, the defense of selection and supervision of the employee would
be a valid defense.

After working overtime up to midnight, Alberto, an executive of an insurance company drove a

company vehicle to a favorite Videoke bar where he had some drinks and sang some songs with
friends to "unwind". At 2:00 a.m., he drove home, but in doing so, he bumped a tricycle,
resulting in the death of its driver. May the insurance company be held liable for the negligent
act of Alberto? Why?
The insurance company is not liable because when the accident occurred, Alberto was
not acting within the assigned tasks of his employment. It is true that under Art. 2180 (par. 5),
employers are liable for damages caused by their employees who were acting within the scope
of their assigned tasks. However, the mere fact that Alberto was using a service vehicle of the
employer at the time of the injurious accident does not necessarily mean that he was operating
the vehicle within the scope of his employment. The Supreme Court held that notwithstanding
the fact that the employee did some overtime work for the company, the former was,
nevertheless, engaged in his own affairs or carrying out a personal purpose when he went to a
restaurant at 2:00 a.m. after coming out from work. The time of the accident (also 2:00 a. m.)
was outside normal working hours.

Under the law on quasi-delict, aside from the persons who caused injury to persons, who else
are liable under the following circumstances: When a 7-year old boy injures his playmate while
playing with his father's rifle. Explain.
The parents of the 7-year old boy who caused injury to his playmate are liable under Art.
219, FC, in relation to Art. 2180 of the Civil Code since they exercise parental authority over the
person of the boy.

When a domestic helper, while haggling for a lower price with a fish vendor in the course of
buying foodstuffs for her employer's family, slaps the fish vendor, causing her to fall and sustain
injuries. Explain.
Employer of the domestic helper who slapped a fish vendor. Under Art. 2180, par. 5,
"employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry."

A carpenter in a construction company accidentally hits the right foot of his co-worker with a
hammer. Explain.
The owner of the construction company. Art. 2180, par. 4 states that "the owners and
managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by
their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions."

A 15-year old high school student stabs his classmate who is his rival for a girl while they were
going out of the classroom after their last class. Explain.
The school, teacher and administrator as they exercise special parental authority. (Art.
2180, par. 7 of the Civil Code in relation to Art. 218 and Art. 219,FC)

What defense, if any, is available to them?

The defense that might be available to them is the observance of a good father of the
family to prevent the damage. (Last par., Art. 2180)

On May 5, 1989, 16-year old Rozanno, who was issued a student permit, drove to school a car,
a gift from his parents. On even date, as his class was scheduled to go on a field trip, his teacher
requested him to accommodate in his car, as he did, four (4) of his classmates because the van
rented by the school was too crowded. On the way to a museum which the students were
scheduled to visit, Rozanno made a wrong maneuver, causing a collision with a jeepney. One of
his classmates died. He and the three (3) others were badly injured. Who is liable for the death
of Rozanno’s classmate and the injuries suffered by Rozanno and his 3 other classmates?
Explain.
At the time the incident occurred in May 1989, Rozanno was still a minor. Being a minor,
Art. 218, (FC) applies. Pursuant to Art. 218, the school, its administrators and teachers shall be
liable for the acts of minor Rozanno because of the special parental authority and responsibility
that they exercise over him. The authority applies to all authorized activities, whether inside or
outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. The field trip on which occasion
Rozanno drove the car, was an authorized activity, and, thus, covered by the provision.
Furthermore, the parents of Rozanno are subsidiarily liable pursuant to Art. 219 (FC), and
principally liable under Art. 221 (FC), if they are negligent.

How about the damage to the jeepney? Explain.

With respect to the damages caused to the jeepney, only Rozanno should be held liable
because his negligence or tortuous act was the sole, proximate and immediate cause thereof.

Under the same facts, except the date of occurrence of the incident, this time in mid-1994,
what would be your answer? Explain.
Since Rozanno was 16 years old in 1989, if the incident happened sometime in the
middle of 1994, Rozanno have been 21 years old at the time. Hence, he was already of legal
age. The law reducing the age of majority to 18 years took effect in December 1989. Being of
legal age, Arts. 218, 219, and 221(FC), are no longer applicable. In such case, only Rozanno will
be personally responsible for all the consequences of his act unless his school or his parents
were themselves also negligent and such negligence contributed to the happening of the
incident. In that event, the school or his parents are not liable under Art. 218, 218 or 221 (FC),
but will be liable under general provision on the Civil Code on quasi-delict.

Res ipsa loquitur

Res ipsa loquitor is a Latin phrase which literally means “the thing speaks for itself.” It is a
maxim for the rule that the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances,
may permit an inference of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a
question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation.
Under local jurisprudence, before resort to the doctrine may be allowed, the following
requisites must be satisfactorily shown: ACP
1. The accident is of a kind or character which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someone’s negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality or agency within the exclusive management or control of
the defendant; or
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is
eliminated.

Last clear chance

The doctrine may be invoked by the injured person, if the following facts are present: PDT
1. That the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence, became unable to
escape from such position by the use of ordinary care, either because it became physically
impossible for him to do so or because he was totally unaware of the danger;
2. The defendant knew that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and further knew, or in the
exercise of ordinary care should have known, that the plaintiff was unable to escape therefrom;
and
3. That thereafter the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident by the exercise
of ordinary care but failed to exercise such last clear chance, and the accident occurred as a
proximate result of such failure.

Explain the following concepts and doctrines and give an example of each: concept of trust de
son tort (constructive trust) and doctrine of discovered peril (last clear chance)
A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST is a trust not created by any word or phrase, either expressly or
impliedly, evincing a direct intention to create a trust, but is one that arises in order to satisfy
the demands of justice. It does not come about by agreement or intention but mainly operation
of law and construed as a trust against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence,
obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience
to hold. The following are examples of constructive trust: 1. Art. 1455 which provides: “If
property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law
considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person for whom the property
comes.
2. Art. 1451 which provides: “When land passes by succession through any person and he
causes the legal title to be put in the name of another, a trust is established by implication of
law for the benefit of the true owner.”
3. Art. 1454 which provides: “If an absolute conveyance of property is made in order to secure
the performance of an obligation of the grantor toward the grantee, a trust by virtue of law is
established. If the fulfillment of the obligation is offered by the grantee when it becomes due,
he may demand the reconveyance of the property to him.”
4. Art. 1455 which provides: “When any trustee, guardian or any person holding a fiduciary
relationship uses trust funds for the purchase of property and causes conveyance to be made to
him or to third person, a trust us established by operation of law in favor of the person to
whom the funds belong.”
The DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE states that where the plaintiff was guilty of prior or
antecedent negligence, but the defendant, who had the ultimate opportunity to avoid the
impending harm failed to do so, it is the defendant who is liable for all the consequences of the
accident notwithstanding the prior negligence of the plaintiff. An example is where a person
was riding a pony on a bridge and improperly pulled the pony to the wrong side when he saw a
car coming. The driver of the car did not stop or change direction, and nearly hit the horse, and,
the frightened animal jumped to its death. The driver of the car is guilty of negligence because
he had a fair opportunity to avoid the accident and failed to avail himself of that opportunity.
He is liable under the doctrine of last clear chance.

Mr and Mrs R own a burned-out building, the firewall of which collapsed and destroyed the
shop occupied by the family of Mr and Mrs S, which resulted in injuries to said couple and the
death of their daughter. Mr and Mrs S had been warned by Mr & Mrs R to vacate the shop in
view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do so. Mr. & Mrs. S filed
against Mr and Mrs R an action for recovery of damages the former suffered as a result of the
collapse of the firewall. In defense, Mr and Mrs R rely on the doctrine of last clear chance
alleging that Mr and Mrs S had the last clear chance to avoid the accident if only they heeded
the former’s warning to vacate the shop, and therefore Mr and Mrs R’s prior negligence should
be disregarded. If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? State your reasons.
I would decide in favor of Mr. & Mrs. S. The proprietor of a building or structure is
responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the
lack of necessary repairs (Art. 2190). As regards the defense of “last clear chance,” the same is
not tenable because according to the SC the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable to
instances covered by Art 2190 of the Civil Code. The role of the common law "last clear chance"
doctrine in relation to Art. 2179 is merely to mitigate damages within the context of
contributory negligence.

Damnum absque injuria

Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right, damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from
the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage
suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm
was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum
absque injuria.
In every situation of damnum absque injuria, therefore, the injured person alone bears the
consequences because the law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act that does
not amount to a legal injury or wrong.

DT and MT were prominent members of the frequent travelers’ club of FX Airlines. In

Hongkong, the couple were assigned seats in Business Class for which they had bought tickets.
On checking in, however, they were told they were upgraded by computer to First Class for the
flight to Manila because the Business Section was overbooked. Both refused to transfer despite
better seats, food, beverage and other services in First Class. They said they had guests in
Business Class they should attend to. They felt humiliated, embarrassed and vexed, however,
when the stewardess allegedly threatened to offload them if they did not avail of the upgrade.
Thus they gave in, but during the transfer of luggage DT suffered pain in his arm and wrist. After
arrival in Manila, they demanded an apology from FX’s management as well as indemnity
payment. When none was forthcoming, they sued the airline for a million pesos in damages. Is
the airline liable for actual and moral damages? Why or why not? Explain briefly.
FX Airlines committed breach of contract when it upgraded DT and MT, over their
objections, to First Class because they had contracted for Business Class passage. However,
although there is a breach of contract, DT and MT are entitled to actual damages only for such
pecuniary losses suffered by them as a result of such breach. There seems to be no showing
that they incurred such pecuniary loss. There is no showing that the pain in DT's arm and wrist
resulted directly from the carrier's acts complained of. Hence, they are not entitled to actual
damages. Moreover, DT could have avoided the alleged injury by requesting the airline staff to
do the luggage transfer as a matter of duty on their part. There is also no basis to award moral
damages for such breach of contract because the facts of the problem do not show bad faith or
fraud on the part of the airline. However, they may recover moral damages if the cause of
action is based on Art. 21 for the humiliation and embarrassment they felt when the
stewardess threatened to offload them if they did not avail of the upgrade.

Dr. and Mrs. Almeda are prominent citizens of the country and are frequent travelers abroad. In
1996, they booked round-trip business class tickets for the Manila-Hong Kong-Manila route of
the Pinoy Airlines, where they are holders of Gold Mabalos Class Frequent Flier cards. On their
return flight, Pinoy Airlines upgraded their tickets to first class without their consent and, in
spite of their protestations to be allowed to remain in the business class so that they could be
with their friends, they were told that the business class was already fully booked, and that they
were given priority in upgrading because they are elite members/holders of Gold Mabalos Class
cards. Since they were embarrassed at the discussions with the flight attendants, they were
forced to take the flight at the first class section apart from their friends who were in the
business class. Upon their return to Manila, they demanded a written apology from Pinoy
Airlines. When it went unheeded, the couple sued Pinoy Airlines for breach of contract claiming
moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. Will the action prosper? Give reasons.
Yes, the action will prosper. Art. 2201 entitles the person to recover damages which may
be attributed to non- performance of an obligation. According to the Supreme Court in a case,
when an airline issues ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, a contract of
carriage arises and the passenger expects that he would fly on that day. When the airline
deliberately overbooked, it took the risk of having to deprive some passengers of their seat in
case all of them would show up. For the indignity and inconvenience of being refused the
confirmed seat, said passenger is entitled to moral damages. In the given problem, spouses
Almeda had a booked roundtrip business class ticket with Pinoy Airlines. When their tickets
were upgraded to first class without their consent, Pinoy Airlines breached the contract. As
ruled by the Supreme Court, in case of overbooking, airline is in bad faith. Therefore, spouses
Almeda are entitled to damages.

Proximate cause
It is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
‘But for’ test or sine qua non rule simply states that defendant’s conduct is the cause of the
injury which would not have been sustained if the defendant had not been negligent.
Cause-in-fact test postulates that in call cases where proximate cause is in issue, a “cause-in-
fact” relation must exist between the defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s injury before liability
may arise.

Negligence
Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of
his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the
immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
Standard of care
Presumptions
Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible
for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage.
Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the
former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the
misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two
months.
Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor
vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
Article 2187. 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.
Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the
death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as
firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business.
Article 2189. 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.
Article 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting
from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
Article 2191. 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.
The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused
by things thrown or falling from the same.

Dr. Jack, a surgeon, holds clinic at the St. Vincent's Hospital and pays rent to the hospital. The
fees of Dr. Jack are paid directly to him by the patient or through the cashier of the hospital.
The hospital publicly displays in the lobby the names and specializations of the doctors
associated or accredited by it, including that of Dr. Jack. Marta engaged the services of Dr. Jack
because of recurring stomach pain. It was diagnosed that she is suffering from cancer and had
to be operated on. Before the operation, she was asked to sign a "consent for hospital care,"
which reads: "Permission is hereby given to the medical, nursing and laboratory staff of the St.
Vincent's Hospital to perform such procedures and to administer such medications and
treatments as may be deemed necessary or advisable by the physicians of this hospital for and
during the confinement." After the surgery, the attending nurses reported that two sponges
were missing. Later, Marta died due to complications brought about by the sponges that were
left in her stomach. The husband of Marta sued the hospital and Dr. Jack for damages arising
from negligence in the medical procedure. The hospital raised the defense that Dr. Jack is not
its employee as it did not hire Dr. Jack nor pay him any salary or compensation. It has absolutely
no control over the medical services and treatment being provided by Dr. Jack. Dr. Jack even
signed an agreement that he holds the hospital free and harmless from any liability arising from
his medical practice in the hospital. Is St. Vincent's Hospital liable for the negligence of Dr. Jack?
Explain your answer.
Yes, St. Vincent’s Hospital is liable. In a similar case, the Supreme Court held that the
hospital is liable not under the principle of respondent superior for lack of evidence of an
employer-employee relationship but under the principle of ostensible agency for the negligence
of the Dr. and, pro hac vice, under the principle of corporate negligence for its failure to
perform its duties as a hospital. While it is true that there was insufficient evidence that St.
Vincent’s Hospital exercised the power of control or wielded such power over the means and
the details of the specific process by which Dr. Jack applied his skills in Maria’s treatment, there
is ample evidence that St. Vincent’s Hospital held out to the patient, Marta, that Dr. Jack was its
agent (principle of ostensible agency). The two factor that determine apparent authority are
present: (1) the hospital’s implied manifestation to the patient which led the latter to conclude
that the doctor was the hospital’s agent; and (2) the patient’s reliance upon the conduct of the
hospital and the doctor, consisted with ordinary care and prudence. The corporate negligence
ascribed to St. Vincent’s Hospital is different from the medical negligence attributed to Dr. Jack.
The duties of the hospital are distinct from those of the doctor-consultant practicing within its
premises in relation to the patient; hence, the failure of St. Vincent’s Hospital to fulfill its duties
as a hospital corporation gave rise to a direct liability to Marta distinct from that of Dr. Jack.

Damages
General provisions
Article 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively applicable to all obligations
mentioned in article 1157.
Article 2196. The rules under this Title are without prejudice to special provisions on damages
formulated elsewhere in this Code. Compensation for workmen and other employees in case of
death, injury or illness is regulated by special laws. Rules governing damages laid down in other
laws shall be observed insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code.
Article 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
Article 2198. The principles of the general law on damages are hereby adopted insofar as they
are not inconsistent with this Code.
Kinds of damages
Actual or Compensatory Damages
Article 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such
compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
Article 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss
suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain.
Article 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in
good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach
of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the
time the obligation was constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all
damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.
Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are
the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary
that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the
defendant.
Article 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a
family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question.
Article 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or
lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Article 2205. Damages may be recovered:
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal
injury;
(2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.
Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at
least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In
addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the
indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed
and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not
caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of article 291, the
recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support from the person causing the death, for a period not
exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may
demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
Article 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from
the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract
complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against
the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the
insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled
to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.
Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than
judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's
plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.
Article 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs
in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the
payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which
is six per cent per annum.
Article 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon damages awarded for
breach of contract.
Article 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the damages may, in a proper
case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the court.
Article 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded,
although the obligation may be silent upon this point.
Article 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when
the demand can be established with reasonable certainty.
Article 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the
damages that he may recover.
Article 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate
the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article, as in
the following instances:
(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract;
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract;
(3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant acted upon the
advice of counsel;
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
(5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's
loss or injury.
Other Kinds of Damages
Article 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate,
liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages,
except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of
each case.
Moral Damages
Article 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.
Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the
proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.
Article 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental value of property, real or
personal, may be considered.
Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this
article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned
in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the
court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule
applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
Nominal Damages
Article 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has
been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Article 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source
enumerated in article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded.
Article 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right
involved and all accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs
and assigns.
Temperate or Moderate Damages
Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than
compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has
been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.
Article 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances.
Liquidated Damages
Article 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid
in case of breach thereof.
Article 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be
equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
Article 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one
contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law shall determine
the measure of damages, and not the stipulation.
Exemplary or Corrective Damages
Article 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction
for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
Article 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be
imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such
damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
Article 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with
gross negligence.
Article 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
Article 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide
whether or not they should be adjudicated.
Article 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff
must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court
may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. In case
liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no proof of loss is necessary in order that
such liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless, before the court may consider the
question of granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show
that he would be entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the
stipulation for liquidated damages.
Article 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance shall be null
and void.

Johnny Maton's conviction for homicide was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and in addition
although the prosecution had not appealed at all. The appellate court increased the indemnity
for death from 30,000 to 50,000. On his appeal to the Supreme Court, among the other things
Johnny Maton brought to the high court's attention, was the increase of indemnity imposed by
the Court of Appeals despite the clear fact that the People had not appealed from the appellate
court's judgment. Is Johnny Maton correct?
No. The Supreme Court said that even if the issue of damages were not raised by the
appellant in the Court of Appeals but the Court of Appeals in its findings increased the
damages, the Supreme Court will not disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals.

Rommel’s private car, while being driven by the regular family driver, Amado, hits a pedestrian
causing the latter’s death. Rommel is not in the car when the incident happened. Is Rommel
liable for damages to the heirs of the deceased? Explain.
Yes, Rommel may be held liable for damages if he fails to prove that he exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family (Art. 2180, par 5) in selecting and supervising his family
driver. The owner is presumed liable unless he proves the defense of diligence. If the driver was
performing his assigned task when the accident happened, Rommel shall be solidarily liable
with the driver.

Would your answer be the same if Rommel was in the car at the time of the accident?
1. In case the driver is convicted of reckless imprudence and cannot pay the civil liability,
Rommel is subsidiarily liable for the damage awarded against the driver and the defense of
diligence is not available.
2. Yes, my answer would be the same. Rommel, who was in the car, shall be liable for damages
if he could have prevented the misfortune by the use of due diligence in supervising his driver
but failed to exercise it (Art. 2184). In such case, his liability is solidary with his driver.

Peter, a resident of Cebu City, sent through Reliable Pera Padala (RPP) the amount of 20,000 to
his daughter, Paula, for the payment of her tuition fee. Paula went to an RPP branch but was
informed that there was no money remitted to her name. Peter inquired from RPP and was
informed that there was a computer glitch and the money was credited to another person.
Peter and Paula sued RPP for actual damages, moral damages and exemplary damages. The
trial court ruled that there was no proof of pecuniary loss to the plaintiffs but awarded moral
damages of 20,000 and exemplary damages of P5,000. On appeal, RPP questioned the award of
moral and exemplary damages. Is the trial court correct in awarding moral and exemplary
damages? Explain.
No, the trial court is not correct in awarding moral and exemplary damages. The
damages in this case are prayed for based on the breach of contract committed by RPP in failing
to deliver the sum of money to Paula. Under the provisions of the Civil Code, in breach of
contract, moral damages may be recovered when the defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty
of gross negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton disregard of his contractual
obligation. In the same fashion, to warrant the award of exemplary damages, the wrongful act
must be accomplished by bad faith, and an award of damages would be allowed only if the
guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner. (Art. 2232, CC) Bad
faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or
some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some
motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. In this case, however, RPP’s
breach was due to a computer glitch which at most can be considered as negligence on its part,
but definitely does not constitute bad faith or fraud as would warrant the award of moral and
exemplary damages.

On her third month of pregnancy, Rosemarie married to Boy. For reasons known only to her,
and without informing Boy, went to the clinic of X, a known abortionist, who for a fee, removed
and expelled the fetus from her womb, Boy learned of the abortion six months later. Availing of
that portion of Section 12 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution which reads: The State xxx shall
equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception, xxx which he
claims confers a civil personality on the unborn from the moment of conception. Boy filed a
case for damages against the abortionist, praying therein that the latter be ordered to pay him:
(a) 30,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the fetus, (b) 100,000 as moral damages for the
mental anguish and anxiety he suffered, (c) P50, 000.00 as exemplary damages, (d) 20,000 as
nominal damages, and (e) 25,000 as attorney's fees. May actual damages be also recovered? If
so, what facts should be alleged and proved?
Yes, provided that the pecuniary loss suffered should be substantiated and duly proved.

If a pregnant woman passenger of a bus were to suffer an abortion following a vehicular

accident due to the gross negligence of the bus driver, may she and her husband claim damages
from the bus company for the death of their unborn child? Explain.
No, the spouses cannot recover actual damages in the form of indemnity for the loss of
life of the unborn child. This is because the unborn child is not yet considered a person and the
law allows indemnity only for loss of life of person. The mother, however may recover damages
for the bodily injury she suffered from the loss of the fetus which is considered part of her
internal organ. The parents may also recover damages for injuries that are inflicted directly
upon them, e.g., moral damages for mental anguish that attended the loss of the unborn child.
Since there is gross negligence, exemplary damages can also be recovered

Ortillo contracts Fabricato, Inc. to supply and install tile materials in a building he is donating to
his province. Ortillo pays 50% of the contract price as per agreement. It is also agreed that the
balance would be payable periodically after every 10% performance until completed. After
performing about 93% of the contract, for which it has been paid an additional 40% as per
agreement, Fabricato, Inc. did not complete the project due to its sudden cessation of
operations. Instead, Fabricato, Inc. demands payment of the last 10% of the contract despite its
non-completion of the project. Ortillo refuses to pay, invoking the stipulation that payment of
the last amount 10% shall be upon completion. Fabricato, Inc. brings suit for the entire 10%.
Plus damages, Ortillo counters with claims for (a) moral damages for Fabricato, Inc.’s
unfounded suit which has damaged his reputation as a philanthropist and respect businessman
in his community, and (b) attorney’s fees. Does Ortillo have a legal basis for his claim for moral
damages?
There is no legal basis to Ortillo’s claim for moral damages. It does not fall under the
coverage of Art. 2219.

How about his claim for attorney’s fees, having hired a lawyer to defend him?
Ortillo is entitled to attorney’s fees because Fabricato’s complaint is a case of malicious
prosecution or a clearly unfounded civil action. (Art. 2208 [4] and [11]).

Rodolfo, married to Sharon, had an illicit affair with his secretary, Nanette, a 19-year old girl,
and begot a baby girl, Rona. Nanette sued Rodolfo for damages: actual, for hospital and other
medical expenses in delivering the child by caesarean section; moral, claiming that Rodolfo
promised to marry her, representing that he was single when, in fact, he was not; and
exemplary, to teach a lesson to like-minded Lotharios. If you were the judge, would you award
all the claims of Nanette? Explain.
If Rodolfo's marriage could not have been possibly known to Nanette or there is no
gross negligence on the part of Nanette, Rodolfo could be held liable for moral damages. If
there is gross negligence in a suit for quasi-delict, exemplary could be awarded.
Rosa was leasing an apartment in the city. Because of the Rent Control Law, her landlord could
not increase the rental as much as he wanted to, nor terminate her lease as long as she was
paying her rent. In order to force her to leave the premises, the landlord stopped making
repairs on the apartment, and caused the water and electricity services to be disconnected. The
difficulty of living without electricity and running water resulted in Rosa's suffering a nervous
breakdown. She sued the landlord for actual and moral damages. Will the action prosper?
Explain.
Yes, based on quasi-delict under the human relations provisions of the New Civil Code
(Arts. 19, 20 and 21) because the act committed by the lessor is contrary to morals. Moral
damages are recoverable under Art. 2219 (10) in relation to Art. 21. Although the action is
based on quasi-delict and not on contract, actual damages may be recovered if the lessee is
able to prove the losses and expenses she suffered.

In case of death