QUASI DELICT

NEGLIGENCE, Kinds
• Culpa aquiliana
• Culpa contractual
• Culpa criminal
• Art 2176 of CC. 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 quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this chapter.
• Article 2177 CC. 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.
 Quasi-delicts, elements
• Damages suffered by the plaintiff
• Fault or negligence of the defendant or
some other person for whose acts he must
respond
• Connection of cause and effect between
the fault or negligence of defendant and
the damages incurred by the plaintiff
 Elements (Paras version)
• Act or omission
• Presence of fault or negligence
• Damages to another
• Causal connection between fault or
negligence and the damage
• No pre-existing contractual relation
(Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Inc vs CA)
 NEGLIGENCE
• Omission of that degree of diligence required by
the nature of the obligation and corresponding to
the circumstances of persons, time and
place(Art 1173)
• Omission to do something which a reasonable
man guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs,
would do or the doing of something which a
prudent and reasonable man would do
• Conduct which creates undue risk of harm to
another, the failure to observe that degree of
care, precaution and vigilance that the
circumstance justly demand, whereby that other
person suffers injury
• It is the failure to observe for the protection of
interest of another person that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand. It is want of care
required by the circumstances.
 Questions to test negligence
• Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use the reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person
would have used in the same situation?
• Could a prudent man, in the case under
consideration, foresee harm as a result of
the course actually pursued?
 NEGLIGENCE; FACTORS TO
CONSIDER
• Employment or occupation
• Degree of intelligence
• Physical condition
• Other circumstances regarding persons,
time and place
• To constitute quasi-delict, it is not enough
to establish negligence. It is equally
imperative that the fault or negligence be
the proximate cause of the damage or
injury suffered by the plaintiff
• One who alleged negligence must prove it
 PROXIMATE CAUSE
• 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
 PROXIMATE CAUSE
• Proximate legal cause s that acting first and producing
the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in
motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of
events, each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under
such circumstances that the person responsible for the
first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent
person, have reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act or default that an injury to some
person might probably result therefrom
 PROXIMATE CAUSE
• The dominant or immediate cause; the cause
that sets the others in motion; the efficient
cause, the one that necessarily sets the other
causes in operation. Had it not happened, the
injury would not have occurred
• It need not be the sole cause or necessarily the
direct cause or the one which is nearest in time
or place to the result
 PROXIMATE CAUSE
• It is determined by the facts of each case
upon mixed considerations of logic,
common sense, policy and precedent.
 Proximate cause; examples
• A passenger boxes a bus driver who
subsequently loses control of the vehicle
• Meralco leaves an exposed live wire and a
subsequent electrocution follows because
somebody touches the wire
• Somebody neglects to cover his ditch filled with
hot water and a child carelessly falls into it, the
negligence is the proximate cause, though the
contributory negligence of the child would
reduce the account of recoverable damages
(Bernal v House)
• If the damaged vehicle is driven by a reckless
driver who made the vehicle travel at a very high
rate of speed and on the wrong side of the road,
it is clear that this negligence was the proximate
cause of the collision(Tuason v Luzon
Stevedoring)
• Omission to perform a duty such as the placing
of warning signs on the site of the excavation
constitutes the proximate cause only when the
doing of said act would have prevented the
injury (PLDT v CA)
 Instances when negligence is
presumed by law
• Driver was negligent, if he had been found
guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next
preceding 2 months (Art 2184 CC)
• A person driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of mishap, he was
violating traffic rules (Art 2185, CC)
• 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.
 CASES
• GR 175512, VILLACAR TRANSIT V
CATUBIG, 2011
• GR 190022, PNRC, et al V VIZCARA,
2012
• GR 162987, GUILLANG v BEDANIA, 2009
• GR 184905, RAMOS v COL Realty Corp,
2009
• GR 156037, Mercury Drug v Baking, 2007
 LAST CLEAR CHANCE
• Negligence of the plaintiff does not
preclude a recovery for the negligent of
the defendant where it appears that the
latter , by exercising reasonable care and
prudence, might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff
notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence
• Where both parties are negligent, but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later in
time than that of the other, or when it is
impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence should be attributed to the
incident, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the impending harm
and failed to do so, is chargeable with the
consequences thereof(Pantranco case)
 LAST CLEAR CHANCE:
ELEMENTS
• Plaintiff was in a position of danger and by
his own negligence, become unable to
escape from such position by the use of
ordinary care, either because it became
physically impossible for him to do so or
he was totally unaware of the danger
• Defendant knew that 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
• Thereafter, defendant had the last clear
chance to avoid the accident by the
exercise of ordinary care but failed to do
so and the accident occurred as a
proximate cause of such failure
• LCC not applied where the party charged
is required to act instantaneously and if,
the injury cannot be avoided by the
application of all means at hand after the
peril is or should have been discovered
• LCC does not apply to a case where a
building collapses and causes damage to
another
• LCC does not apply if the plaintiff was not
negligent, that is only the defendant was
negligent.
• It cannot be applied if defendant’s negligence is
a concurrent cause and which was still in
operation up to the time the injury was inflicted.
In other words, it cannot be applied in the field of
joint tortfeasors and it cannot be invoked as
between defendants who are concurrently
negligent
• LCC does not arise where the plaintiff, a
passenger, filed an action against a carrier
based on contract
• LCC is not applicable if the actor , though
negligent, was not aware of the danger or
risk brought about by a prior fraud or
negligent act.
 RES IPSA LOQUITUR
• Where the thing which causes injury is
shown to be under the management of the
defendant, and the accident is such as in
the ordinary course of things does not
happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation by defendant that the accident
arose from want of care (Ma-ao Central
Co v CA, GR 83491)
• It is a recognition of the postulate that, as a
matter of common knowledge and experience,
the very nature of certain types of occurrences,
may justify an inference of negligence on the
part of the person who controls the
instrumentality causing the injury in the absence
of some explanation by the defendant who is
charged with negligence. It is grounded in the
superior logic of ordinary human experience and
on the basis of such experience or common
knowledge, negligence maybe deduced from the
mere occurrence of the accident itself. Hence, it
is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of
common knowledge
 RIL: REQUIREMENTS
• Accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily
occur unless someone is negligent
• That the instrumentality or agency which caused
the injury was under the exclusive control of the
person charged with negligence
• That the injury suffered must not have been due
to any voluntary action or contribution on the
part of the person injured
 RIL; examples
• Absence of the fish plates whatever the cause or
reason- is by itself alone proof of the negligence
of the petitioner; guilty of negligence
notwithstanding the defense of due diligence(
derailment of locomotive was caused by
protruding rails which had come loose because
they were not connected and fixed in place by
fish plates-strips of iron attached to the rails by 4
bolts, 2 on each side, to keep the rails aligned)
(Ma-ao Central vs CA)
• The doctrine recognizes that parties may
establish prima facie negligence without
direct proof of negligence . This is invoked
when under the circumstances, direct
evidence is absent and not readily
available. (Ludo v CA)
• Caltex liable for the damage done to the
property of its neighbor when fire broke
out in a Caltex service station while
gasoline from a tank truck was being
unloaded into an underground storage
tank through a hose and the fire spread to
and burned neighboring houses. (no
explanation given-want of care (Africa v
Caltex)
• Fire started in a furniture manufacturing
shop which spread through the
neighboring house; previous to the fire,
several demands were made to the owner
of the shop to construct firewall but the
latter never heeded; cause of fire
unknown; owner liable for damages (FF
Cruz v CA)
• A barge was towed down the Pasig River
by tugboats of the same company, the
barge rammed against one of the wooden
piles of the bridge, smashing the posts
and causing the bridge to list; company
liable for the damage ( presumption of
fault against a moving vessel that strikes a
stationery object)
RP v Luzon Stevedoring)
• Applied to a doctor performing simple
caesarian section leaving a piece of
rubber (torn of a surgeon’s glove) on the
right side of the uterus of the plaintiff
causing infections to plaintiff’s uterus and
ovary (Batiquin v CA)
• Plaintiffs injured because ceiling of
moviehouse collapsed without sufficient
explanation (Gotesco v Chatto)
• Vessel of William lines caught fire and
sank while it was in the dockyard of Cebu
shipyard for annual dry docking and repair
(Cebu shipyard v William lines)
 RIL; not applicable
• If there is a direct proof of absence or
presence of negligence
• If other causes, including the conduct of
the plaintiff and third persons, are not
sufficiently eliminated by the evidence.
(unexplained accident may be attributable
to one of several causes, some of which
defendant could not be responsible)
• If property not in control
 ASSUMPTION OF RISK
• Plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of
harm arising from the negligent or reckless
conduct of the defendant cannot recover
for such harm
• Assumes through contract which maybe
implied, the risk of known danger,
intentional exposure to known danger;
embraces mental state of willingness;
pertains to the preliminary conduct of
getting into a dangerous employment or
relationship; it means voluntarily incurring
the risk of accident, which may not occur,
and which the person assuming the risk
may be careful to avoid; and it defeats
recovery because it is a previous
abandonment of the right to complain if an
accident occurs
 ELEMENTS
• Plaintiff must know that the risk is present
• He must further understand its nature, and
• His choice to incur it is free and voluntary
• Volenti non fit injuria – to which a person
assents is not esteemed in law as an
injury OR one is not legally injured if he
has consented to the act complained of or
was willing that it should occur.
 examples
• Maintaining a house near a railroad track
assumes the usual dangers attendant to the
operation of a locomotive
• Spectators at sports events, customers at
amusement parks, guests who find dangerous
conditions when they enter business premises
are deemed to have assumed the risk ordinarily
attendant thereto, so long as proper warning
was made
• Despite warning that that it is still
dangerous to take the vehicle from the
repair shop because the repairs are still
untested, one nevertheless took the
vehicle from the shop with the express
waiver of liability in favor of the proprietor
• Caretaker of carabaos who was gored and
thereafter died as a result of the injuries
• Professional athletes who are deemed to
assume the risks of injury incident to their
trade
• Plaintiff has been supplied with a product
which he knows to be unsafe, he is
deemed to have assumed the risk of using
such unsafe product; defense in
Consumer Act; implied admission
Assumption of Risk; not applicable
• Not available to employer in cases covered by
the Workmen’s Compensation Act
• Where one person created a danger and
another person, with knowledge and
appreciation of its existence, voluntarily
assumes the risk of such danger but is not
injured by it, even though he is injured in some
other way in attempting to withdraw from the
scene after the degree of danger increases
• When one voluntarily assents to a known
danger, he must abide by the
consequences, if an emergency is found
to exist or if the life or property of another
is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property
 DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE
• Invoked as a partial defense
• Conduct on the part of the plaintiff which
falls below the standard to which he
should conform for his own protection and
which is legally contributing cause ,
cooperating with the negligence of the
defendant in bringing about the plaintiff’s
harm
• Act or omission amounting to want or
ordinary care on the part of the person
injured which, concurring with the
defendant’s negligence, is the proximate
cause of the injury. To hold a person as
having contributed to his injuries, it must
be shown that he performed an act that
brought about his injuries in disregard of
warnings or signs of an impending danger
to health and body(GR 83491)
“When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of 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.”
(Art 2179, CC)
• Plaintiff who is partly responsible for his
own injury should not be entitled to
recover damages in full but must bear the
consequences of his own negligence
• Children below nine years old are
incapable of contributory negligence
• Not a defense in criminal cases committed
through reckless imprudence(GR 40452)
 EFFECT OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF
• If contributory negligence was the
proximate cause of the accident, there can
be no recovery (walking along the railroad
track and suddenly cross the path about 3
meters from the running locomotive;
bumping the vehicle in front of him)
• If proximate cause was still the negligence of the
defendant, the plaintiff can still recover
damages, but the amount of damages will be
mitigated due to his contributory negligence
(plaintiff hurrying home at night, driving faster,
turned off headlights near the intersection, did
not see the dump truck that was parked askew
and sticking out onto the road lane without any
warning lights or reflector devices)
 FORTUITOUS EVENT
• ART. 1174. A person is not liable if the
cause of the damage was fortuitous ; an
event which could not be foreseen or
which though foreseen, was inevitable
• A defense
 ELEMENTS
• The cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of
the debtor to comply with his obligation,
must be independent of the human will
• It must be impossible to foresee the event
or if it can be foreseen, it must be
impossible to avoid
 ELEMENTS
• Occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner, and
• Obligor must be free from any participation
in the aggravation of the injury resulting to
the creditor
When an act of God combines or concurs
with the negligence of the defendant to
produce an injury, the defendant is liable if
the injury would not have resulted but for
his own negligent conduct or omission.
The whole occurrence is humanized and
removed from the rules applicable to acts
of God.
It is believed that even if the defendant is
still liable, the court may equitably mitigate
the damages if the loss, even in part,
would have resulted in any event because
of fortuitous event( art 2215 (4), CC)
Any aggravation of the injury due to
fortuitous event should be taken into
consideration in the assessment of
defendant’s liability.
 CASES
LCC
• GR 167363 Sea Loader v Grand Cement
(2010)
• GR 166869 Phil Hawk Corp v Lee (2010)
• GR 190022 PNRC et al v Vizcara (2012)
CN
• GR 173259 PNB v Cruz et al (2011)
• GR 160709 Lambert v Castillon (2005)
 Cases, continuation
RES IPSA
• GR 187926 Jarcia Jr v People(2012)
• GR 146635, Macalinao v Ong (2005)

Assumption of risk
• GR 165548 and 167879 Phil Realty v Ley
Construction and vice versa (2011)
 VICARIOUS LIABILITY
• ART 2180. The obligation imposed by Art.
2176 is demandable not only for one’s
own acts or omissions, but also for those
persons for whom one is responsible
• Father or mother with respect to minor children
who live in their company
• Guardians with respect to persons under their
authority who live in their company
• Owners and managers of enterprise with respect
to employees
• Employers with respect to their employees and
household helpers
• State acting through a special agent
• Teachers and heads of arts and trades with
respect to students and apprentices under their
custody
 FATHER/MOTHER
• PD 603 ART 58. Torts. Parents and
guardians are responsible for the damage
caused by the child under their parental
authority in accordance with the civil code
• Responsibility not simultaneous but
alternative, father first if alive or
capacitated
• Ordinary diligence as a defense
• Extends to those exercising substitute parental
authority or special parental authority (art.221,
Family Code)
• In the absence of parents or guardian, parental
authority is exercised in the following order:
surviving grandparents, oldest brother or sister,
over 21 years of age unless unfit or disqualified;
child’s actual custodian, over 21 years of age
unless unfit or disqualified
 OWNERS/MANAGERS
REQUISITES
• Employee was chosen by employer
personally or through another
• Services are to be rendered in accordance
with orders which the employer has the
authority to give at all times
• Illicit act of employee was on the occasion
or by reason of the functions entrusted to
him
• There is a presumption of negligence of
employer
• Defense; exercised diligence of good father of
family in the selection and supervision of
employee
• Employee must be engaged in employer’s
business at the time of injurious occurrence and
not deviating from employer’s business for his
own purpose (except common carriers)
• Injured party may recover from the
employers directly, regardless of the
solvency of their employees (Philtranco vs
CA)
• 2180 liability is direct and primary
 LIABILITY OF STATE
• State’s agent, a public official must be specially
commissioned to do a particular task but that
such task must be foreign to said official’s usual
governmental functions
• If agent is not public official commissioned to do
non-governmental functions, state assumes the
role of employer
• Private individual is commissioned to do special
government task- covered by this provision
• GR 55963 Fontanilla vs Maliaman
• GR 61045 NIA vs Fontanilla
 TEACHERS/HEADS
• Responsibility like that of parents
• Defense of observing the diligence
required
• May include students of age already
• May cover activities outside the school but
authorized
 Summary of liability
(Amadora v CA)
• Makes teachers and heads liable for acts of
students and apprentices whether the latter are
minors or not
• Teacher-in charge is liable for the acts of his
students; school and administrators not liable
• Head of school not teacher, is liable where injury
is caused in a school of arts and trade
• Liability of a teacher subsists whether the
school is academic or non-academic
• Liability is imposed only if the pupil is
already in the custody of the teacher or
head. The student is in the custody of
school authorities as long as he is under
the control and influence of the school and
within its premises, whether the semester
has not yet begun or has already ended
 EMPLOYER, HEAD OF OFFICE,
EDUCATIONAL/TRAINING
INSTITUTION
• Sexual harassment cases (RA 7877),
solidary liability
• Working scholars considered employees
for purposes of applying Art 2180 (Filamer
vs IAC)
• Employee and employer solidary liable
• Registered owner rule; except stolen
vehicle
 OTHERS
• Motor vehicle: Owner present solidarily
liable with the driver (Art 2184)
• Provinces, cities and municipalities liable
for damages for death or injuries as a
result of defective roads, streets, bridges,
public building etc under their control or
supervision