Torts and Damages: Midterms

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. (Art. 2176, New Civil Code)

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. (Art. 2176, New Civil Code)

1.  Acts giving rise to civil liability but are not necessarily the consequences of crimes or contractual obligations. (Paras, Pre-week Handbook in Civil Law, p. 588, 2012)

2.  An unlawful violation of a private right, not created by contract, and which gives rise to an action for damages. It is a wrongful act or omission resulting in breach of a private legal duty, as distinguished from a mere breach of contractual duty, and damage from said breach of duty of such a character as to afford a right of redress at law in favor of the injured party against the wrongdoer (Aquino, Torts and Damages, p.1, 2013)

1. Damage suffered by plaintiff

2. Fault or Negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond

3. Connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff

4. No pre-existing contractual relation between the parties (Andamo v. International Appellate Court G.R. No. 74761, 1990)

Article 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.

A strict liability tort is imposed by law despite the absence of fault or negligence on the part of the person liable. You need not be negligent to be liable. You maintain this property or use this property or engage in this activity, if something happens then you are automatically liable. The nature of the activity requires you to be careful. Few people engage in this or if they do, they are expected to know that they could be held responsible for damages or injuries caused to other persons. 

a. Article 2183 (Possessor/User of Animal)

b. Article 2187 (Manufacturers and Processors)

c. Article 2193 (Head of Family Things Thrown or Falling from Building)

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

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

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

10 years

4 years

1 year

(1) Existence of a valid contract; 

(2) Knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of a contract; and 

(3) Interference of the third person is without legal justification.

Yes. But it does not relieve petitioner of the legal liability for entering into contracts and causing breach of existing ones.

Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall.

It is the "process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule."  The purpose of “characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law.

Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual situation, event, or operative fact.

SAFE-PINS/SAFE-JINS

1. Nationality

2. Seat of/Principal Place of Business,

3. Locale or the Situs of a thing

4. Place of Contract/Act

5. Place of Performance/Effect

6. Intent

7. Place of Judicial/Legal Proceedings

8. Flag of a Ship

Under the state of the most significant relationship rule, to ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute, the court should determine which state has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. In a case involving a contract, the court should consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties. This rule takes into account several contacts and evaluates them according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be resolved.

Joint tortfeasors are all the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves.

Other Defn.: The person or persons whose negligence or concurrent and whose responsibility is deemed solidary.

• There must be an act or omission;

• There must be damage or prejudice;

• There must be causal relationship between the act or omission and the damage done;

• There must be no pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties.

(1) the existence of a legal right or duty, 

(2) an exercise of such right or discharge of such duty in bad faith, and 

(3) such exercise of right or discharge of duty was made with the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.

Article 19 is a mere moral precept. While it lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.

1. There’s an act contrary to law

2. Act is committed wilfully or negligently

3. Act causes damage to another

1. There is an act which is legal

2. Act is contrary to morals, good customs, public order or public policy

3. It is done with intent to injure

This is the person whose act or omission directly or principally causes the injury or damage.

Ask “Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation?”

If not, then he is guilty of negligence.

*Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 809

A tortfeasor has no right to any mitigation of damages because of payments or compensation received by the injured person from an independent source.

1. Corporate tort

2. Environmental tort

3. Medical tort

4. Maritime tort

5. Product liability tort

No. SC held that Shell was liable to CALI's creditors for damages. Shell's actions were a violation of Article 19 of the Civil Code, which provides that "any person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performances of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith". The basis of such liability, in the absence of law, is Article 21 of the Civil Code which states:

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

Thus at one stroke, the legislator, if the forgoing rule is approved (as it was approved), would vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold numbers of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes. A moral wrong or injury, even if it does not constitute a violation of a statute law, should be compensated by damages. Moral damages (Art. 2217) may be recovered (Art. 2219). In Article 20, the liability for damages arises from a willful or negligent act contrary to law. In this article, the act is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

No. In the case of Cachero v. Manila Yellow Taxi, the SC held that a mere perusal of plaintiff complaint will show that his action against the defendant is predicated on an alleged breach of contract of carriage, i.e., the failure of the defendant to bring him "safely and without mishaps" to his destination, and it is to be noted that the chauffeur of defendant's taxicab that plaintiff used when he received the injuries involved herein, Gregorio Mira, has not even been made a party defendant to this case. The defendant herein has not committed in connection with this case any "criminal offense resulting in physical injuries". The one that committed the offense against the plaintiff is Gregorio Mira, and that is why he has been already prosecuted and punished therefor. We, therefore, hold that the case at bar does not come within the exception of paragraph 1, Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

The SC held that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. But where a man's promise to marry is the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that the promise was only a deceptive device to inveigle her to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Art. 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

(Gashem Shookat Baksh v. CA, G.R. No. 97336, 19 Feb. 1993)

Essentially, "tort" consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law. Simply stated, tort is a breach of a legal duty.

Naguiat v. NLRC

No, the award of damages is unjustified at best.

Under Article 2220, in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, it is a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due.

In this case, Union Bank neither breached its contract with Rico nor acted with willful intent to cause harm when it revoked Rico's credit card privileges when he failed to pay the minimum amount due on his SOA. Nobody can be faulted for Rico's alleged humiliation or embarrassment in Gourdo's Restaurant but himself. Damnum absque injuria – there can be no damage without injury when the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. 

Rico v. Union Bank

YES. Article 1170 of the New Civil Code provides that 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. In this case, the right to disconnect the electric service of a delinquent customer shall be accompanied by a given notice 48 hours in advanced as provided for in Section 97 of the Revised Order No. 1 of the Public Service Commission. In accordance with the previous rulings, failure to give such prior notice amounts to a tort. And since, MERALCO & YAMBAO in this particular case disregarded the rule on 48-hour notice prior to disconnection which is protected by law, MERALCO & YAMBAO is liable for damages

Meralco v. Yambao

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. (1101)

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.

Yes. According to the case of Naguiat v. NLRC, the Corp Code provides that stockholders of close family corporations shall be personally liable for corporate torts. Petitioners conceded that CFTI and NE were close family corporations. Tort is a breach of a legal duty. The Labor Code mandates the employer to grant separation pay to employees in case of closure or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, which is the condition obtaining at bar. In this case, CFTI failed to comply with this law-imposed duty or obligation. Petitioners stopped their taxi business within Clark Air Base because of the phase-out of U.S. military presence thereat. It was not due to any great financial loss because petitioners' taxi business was earning profitably at the time of its closure.

Naguiat v. NLRC

No. Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that 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. Additionally, it is a settled rule in Philippine jurisdiction that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. In this case, the allegations in the Amended Joint-Complaints of NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., attribute to defendant companies certain acts and/or omissions that led to their exposure to nematocides containing the chemical DBCP. According to NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., such exposure to the said chemical caused ll effiects, injuries and illnesses, specifically to their reproductive system. These allegations in the complaints constitute the cause of action of plaintiff claimants — a quasi-delict, which under the Civil Code is defined as an act, or omission which causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence.

Navida et. al. v. Hon. Dizon

No. According to the Corporation Code, stockholders actively engaged in the management or operation of the business and affairs of a close corporation shall be held to strict fiduciary duties to each other and among themselves. The stockholders shall be personally liable for corporate torts unless the corporation has obtained reasonably adequate liability insurance. In this case, neither the CA nor the RTC showed its basis for finding that MSI is a close corporation. The courts a quo did not at all refer to the Articles of Incorporation of MSI. The Petition submitted by respondent in the rehabilitation proceedings before the RTC did not even include those Articles of Incorporation among its attachments. Neither did the RTC or the CA explain the factual circumstances for this Court to discuss the personally liability of respondents to their creditors because of "corporate torts."

Bustos v. MSI

Petitioner’s contention fails. In the case of Aleson v. CGU, the court held that an action based on quasi-delict resulting from maritime collision is not specifically regulated by the Civil Code, but by the Code of Commerce. Under the Code of Commerce, to be cleared of liability under the provisions on Collisions, a vessel must show that it exercised ordinary diligence. This level of diligence is the diligence which "an ordinary prudent man would exercise with regard to his own property." Applying this standard to petitioner, it failed to observe the diligence by the law. Based on the testimony of its own witness, M/V Aleson was recklessly operated. Captain Cabeltes admitted that M/V Romeo was still in the pier when M/V Aleson was about to enter the Apo channel. Despite knowledge of this information, Captain Cabeltes failed to act with caution. He himself declared that he was informed by the pier operator to standby and to not enter the wharf yet, but it still proceeded.

NO. According to the case of Sanggacala v. NPC, essential elements of an environmental tort based on negligence are the following: that the environmental harm is (1) is to a well-defined area or specific person or class of persons, (2) is readily supported by general and specific causation, and (3) closely fits the traditional elements of a tort cause of action.

In this case, the essential elements of an environmental tort action based on negligence are present.

1. The environmental harm in a well-defined area or specific person or class of persons is the damage to the farmlands and other properties of petitioners sited along the shore of Lake Lanao.

2. The finding of the respondent's negligence in operating the Agus Regulation Dam caused inundation and damage to petitioners' properties shows a general and specific causation and closely fits the traditional elements of a tort cause of action.

SFW

1. that the environmental harm is to a Well-defined area or specific person or class of persons;

2. is readily Supported by general and specific causation, and;

3. closely Fits the traditional elements of a tort cause of action.

Environmental harm may include "immediate and future physical injury to people, emotional distress from fear of future injury, social and economic disruption, remediation costs, property damage, ecological damage, and regulatory harms."

Sanggacala v. NPC

YES. In the case of De Jesus v. Uyloan, medical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim (patient) has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. For lack of a specific law geared towards the type of negligence committed by members of the medical profession in this jurisdiction, such claim for damages is almost always anchored on the alleged violation of Art. 2176 of the Civil Code. Hence if it’s a violation of Article 2176, the action should have been instituted within four years. De Jesus’ cause of action accrued on September 15, 2010, the day Dr. Uyloan and Dr. Ojeda performed the operation on his gallbladder. Clearly, the filing of the case against said physicians on November 10, 2015, is already barred by prescription.

Article 1144 of NCC - 10 years:

The statutory basis for a civil action for damages for malicious prosecution are found in the provisions of the New Civil Code on Human Relations and on damages, particularly Articles ____.

'An action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. The gist of the action is the putting of legal process in force, regularly, for the mere purpose of vexation or injury (Cabasaan v. Anota, 14169-R, November 19,1956).'

What constitutes malicious prosecution?

No

(1) the prosecution did occur, and the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement;

(2) the criminal action finally ended with an acquittal;

(3) in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and

(4) the prosecution was impelled by legal malice an improper or a sinister motive.

the deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the charges were false and groundless not the filing of a complaint based on the wrong provision of law

This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith.

No. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.

(1) the existence of a legal right or duty,

(2) an exercise of such right or discharge of such duty in bad faith, and

(3) such exercise of right or discharge of duty was made with the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.

Bad Faith

This article imposes upon all persons exercising their legal rights the duty to act with justice, give everyone his due, and to observe honesty and good faith.

Article 20

Article 21

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

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

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

Bad faith under the law cannot be presumed; it must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

No. In the case of Go v. Cordero, the Supreme Court held that joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. The damages can not be apportioned among them, except among themselves. They cannot insist upon an apportionment, for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part. They are jointly and severally liable for the whole amount.

No. In the case of MMPSEU vs. Mitsubishi Motors, the Supreme Court held that according to the collateral source rule, "a tortfeasor has no interest in, and thereby no right to benefit from, money received by the injured person from sources unrelated to the defendant."

This rule was originally applied to tort cases wherein the defendant is prevented from benefiting from the plaintiff’s receipt of money from other sources. Under this rule, if an injured person receives compensation for his injuries from a source wholly independent of the tortfeasor, the payment should not be deducted from the damages which he would otherwise collect from the tortfeasor.

10 YEARS from the time of payment by the insurer to the insured, which gave rise to an obligation created by law.

RATIONALE: Since the Vector doctrine was the prevailing rule at this time, issues of prescription must be resolved under Vector's, parameters.

4 YEARS from the time the tort is committed against the insured by the wrongdoer.

RATIO: The Vector doctrine, which espoused unique rules on legal subrogation and prescription as aforedescribed, was not yet a binding precedent at this time; hence, issues of prescription must be resolved under the rules prevailing before Vector, which, incidentally, are the basic principles of legal subrogation vis-a-vis prescription of actions based on quasi-delicts.

the subrogee-insurer is given a period not exceeding four (4) years from the time of the finality of this Decision to file the action against the wrongdoer: provided, that in all instances, the total period to file such case shall not exceed ten (10) years from the time the insurer is subrogated to the rights of the insured.

RATIO: The erroneous reckoning and running of the period of prescription pursuant to the Vector doctrine should not be taken against any and all persons relying thereon because the same were based on the then- prevailing interpretation and construction of the Court. Hence, subrogees-insurers, who are, effectively, only now notified of the abandonment of Vector, must be given the benefit of the present doctrine on subrogation as ruled in this Decision.

However, the benefit of the additional period (i.e., not exceeding four 4 years) under this Decision must not result in the insured being given a total of more than ten (10) years from the time the insurer is subrogated to the rights of the insured (i.e., the old prescriptive period in Vector); otherwise, the insurer would be able to unduly propagate its right to file the case beyond the ten (10)-year period accorded by Vector to the prejudice of the wrongdoer.

the Vector doctrine would hold no application. The prescriptive period is four (4) years from the time the tort is committed against the insured by the wrongdoer.

Rationale: Since the cause of action for quasi-delict and the consequent subrogation of the insurer would arise after notice of Vector's abandonment, all persons would now be bound by the present doctrine on subrogation as ruled in this Decision.

Regular Courts

SC held that in deciding whether a case arises out of employer-employee relations, the Court formulated the "reasonable causal connection rule", wherein if there is a reasonable connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relations, then the case is within the jurisdiction of the labor courts.

In this case, petitioners' claim for damages is grounded on respondents' gross negligence which caused the sinking of the vessel and the untimely demise of their loved ones. Based on this, the subject matter of the complaint is one of claim for damages arising from quasi-delict, which is within the ambit of the regular court's jurisdiction.

The SC applied paragraph 1(b) of the Henson Ruling Guidelines. Since the action was filed on February 1, 2012, prior to Vector, the applicable prescriptive period is four (4) years pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil Code. Respondent, therefore, had four (4) years from November 16, 2007 when the vehicular mishap took place or until November 16, 2011 within which to file its action for sum of money against Vergara and his employer Filcon.

Within the four (4) year prescriptive period, or on September 1, 2011, respondent sent petitioners a demand letter of even date. The latter never denied receipt thereof. Pursuant to Article 1155 of the Civil Code, respondent's demand letter and petitioners' receipt thereof had the effect of interrupting the four (4) year prescriptive period and gave respondent a whole fresh period of four (4) years from petitioners' receipt of the demand letter within which to file the action for sum of money. Records show that respondent filed the action just within five (5) months from September 1, 2011, the date when it sent the demand letter to petitioners, who, as stated, never denied receipt thereof.

The Court of Appeals, thus, correctly reversed the dispositions of both MeTC and RTC and in lieu thereof, properly ruled that complaint was filed within the prescriptive period of four (4) years.

SAFE-JINS

(1) The Nationality of a person, his [or her] domicile, his [or her] residence , his [or her] place of sojourn, or his [or her] origin;

(2) the Seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;

(3) the Situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved;
(4) the place where an Act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts;

(5) the place where an act is intended to come into Effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised;

(6) the Intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis,·

(7) the place where Judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex fori -the law of the forum is particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, matters of ‘procedure’ not going to the substance of the claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law, and

(8) the Flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment.

Law of the place of the wrong or tort

The SC held under the Doctrine of Qualification, it was necessary to determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This is to enable the forum to select the proper law to apply to a case. Additionally, choice-of-law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (like a property right or a contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing. In this case, pursuant to these guidelines and upon scrutiny of the records, this Court holds that the following "points of contact" are material: (1) the parties' nationality; (2) Kenya Air’s principal place of business; (3) the place where the tort was committed; and (4) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement.

To recall, the parties to this case are Filipinos. However, Kenya Air is a foreign corporation, with principal place of business in Kenya. The tort was committed aboard one of its planes, and it granted the disputed amount of money to petitioner as settlement. Moreover, the Release and Receipt stipulated that it "shall be subject to the laws of Kenya[,]"and that it "was signed in the Philippines simply as a matter of convenience of Claimant [petitioner]." It appears that the only "point of contact" with Philippine law was that Efren, petitioner, and respondents happened to be Filipino.

Courts do not take judicial notice of foreign law. However, this Court finds that petitioner properly pleaded and proved the applicable Kenyan law.

The test of negligence is: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.

Picard v. Smith *Not in discussion/Added Info

No. Article 21 of the Civil Code states that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, shall compensate the latter for the damages. In this case, the pleadings do not show that damages were ever asked or alleged, in connection with this case, predicated upon the article aforecited. And under the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, one cannot plausibly sustain the contention that the failure or refusal to extend the recognition was an act contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

Ruiz v. Secretary

Article 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.

Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

PMVI

(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

Article 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

Article 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

Article 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.

Article 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: 

(1) Freedom of religion;

(2) Freedom of speech;

(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;

(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;

(5) Freedom of suffrage;

(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;

(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;

(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;

(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;

(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;

(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;

(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;

(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of grievances;

(14) The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in any form;

(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;

(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;

(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;

(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and

(19) Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

NO. Article 21 of the New Civil Code provides that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy, shall compensate the latter for the damages. In the case at bar, plaintiff Araceli was a woman of adult age, maintained intimate sexual relations with appellant with repeated acts of intercourse. Such is not compatible to the idea of seduction. Plainly, there is voluntariness and mutual passion; for had the appellant been deceived she would not have again yielded to his embraces much less for one year without exacting fulfillment of the alleged promises of marriage and she would have cut all relationship upon finding that the defendant did not intend to fulfill his promises. One cannot be held liable for a breach of promise to marry.

Tanjanco v. CA, 1966

NO. Article 19 of the New Civil Code provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. In this case, it must be underscored that Globe Mackay have been guilty of committing several actionable tortious acts, i.e., the abusive manner in which they dismissed Tobias from work including the baseless imputation of guilt and the harassment during the investigations; the defamatory language heaped on Tobias as well as the scornful remark on Filipinos; the poison letter sent to RETELCO which resulted in Tobias' loss of possible employment; and, the malicious filing of the criminal complaints.

No. In the case of Albenson Enterprise v. CA, the court held that a civil action for damages for malicious prosecution is allowed under the New Civil Code and in order that such a case can prosper, however, the following three (3) elements must be present, to wit:

(1) The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action was finally terminated with an acquittal;

(2) That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause;

(3) The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice (Lao vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 58, [1991]).

In this case, there is no proof of a sinister design on the part of petitioners to vex or humiliate private respondent by instituting the criminal case against him. While petitioners may have been negligent to some extent in determining the liability of private respondent for the dishonored check, the same is not so gross or reckless as to amount to bad faith warranting an award of damages.

YES. Article 19 of the New Civil Code provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights, and performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. In the case at bar, the assailed stipulation was violative of the mutuality principle under Article 1308 of the same code and is null and void. The nullity of the stipulation should have prevented GF Equity from the right to pre-terminate the contract. The pre-termination must have legal basis, for it be declared justified. However, GF Equity failed, to advance any ground to justify the pre-termination. It simply invoked the assailed provision which is null and void. While GF Equity's act of pre-terminating Valenzona's services cannot be considered willful as it was based on a stipulation, albeit declared void, it, in doing so, failed to consider the abuse of rights principle enshrined in Art. 19 of the Civil Code.

G.F. Equity v. Valenzona

No. Article 19 of the New Civil Code provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights, and performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. In this case, there was no bad faith on the part of Dart Phil. Bad faith involves a dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Petitioner’s exercise of its rights under the agreement to conduct an audit, to vary the manner of processing purchase orders, and to refuse the renewal of the agreement was supported by legitimate reasons, principally, to protect its own business. The exercise of its rights was not impelled by any evil motive designed, whimsically and capriciously, to injure or prejudice respondents. The rights exercised were all in accord with the terms and conditions of the distributorship agreement, which has the force of law between them.

Dart Phil. v. Sps. Francisco

Yes, Lomarda and Raso are liable for damages under Article 19, in relation to Article 21 since Article 19 by itself does not provide an actionable tort, it may be alleged together with Article 20 and 21 for the granting of adequate legal remedy. Thus, Article 19 of the New Civil Code provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. While, Article 21 of the New Civil Code provides that any person who willifully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy, shall compensate the latter for the damages. In this case, while it appears that petitioners were engaged in a legal act, i.e., exacting compliance with the requirements for the installation of respondent's electricity in his farmhouse, the circumstances of this case show that the same was conducted contrary to morals and good customs, and were in fact done with the intent to cause injury to respondent. Petitioners did not only fail to apprise respondent of the proper procedure to expedite compliance with the requirements, they also misled him to believe that everything can be settled, extorted money from him when only a meager amount was due, and worse, publicly humiliated him in front of many people which ended up in the disconnection of his electricity altogether.

Lomarda v. Fudalan

NO. According to the case of UP v. Philab, unjust enrichment claims do not lie simply because one party benefits from the efforts or obligations of others, but instead it must be shown that a party was unjustly enriched in the sense that the term unjustly could mean illegally or unlawfully. Article 22 of the New Civil Code provides that every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. In this case, the essential requisites for the application of Article 22 of the New Civil Code do not obtain as Philab had a remedy against the FEMF via an action based on an implied-in-fact contract with the FEMF for the payment of its claim. UP legally acquired the laboratory furniture under the MOA with FEMF; hence, it is entitled to keep the laboratory furniture.

Yes. Under Article 22 of the Civil Code, "every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him." In this case, Catadman received the amount of P115,002.68 through his bank account when the same was erroneously credited with the amount. Notwithstanding the knowledge that the money was not his, he spent the same and kept his silence about it at the expense of Land Bank.

(1) that the defendant has been enriched,

(2) that the plaintiff has suffered a loss,

(3) that the enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal ground, and

(4) that the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi-contract, crime or quasi-delict

No. In the case of NPC v. Beneco, the Court held that the principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code is not a catch-all provision that can be conveniently invoked when a party has suffered a loss and that this is especially true when a contract exists between the parties. It further held that,  it is necessary to show that the enrichment of one party is without a just or legal ground, and that the plaintiff has no other action against the other party. In other words, there is no unjust enrichment when the person who benefited has a valid claim to such benefit. Here, NPC and BENECO executed a Contract of Sale of Electricity and a Transition Contract for the Supply of Electricity to govern their rights and obligations in the supply of electric power and energy. Therefore, any action that one may bring against the other shall be based on the provisions of their contract and the principle of unjust enrichment will not apply.

YES. Article 22 of the New Civil Code provides that every person who through an act or performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. In this case, the contract of loan does not fall under any of the allowed transactions of RA 8282, Section 26 and is therefore void. For the sake of justice and equity, and in consonance with the salutary principle of non-enrichment at another's expense, the parties must restore to each other what they had received by virtue of the contract of loan. They should not be allowed to benefit from entering into the contract of loan in violation of the SSS law, and must be restored to their relative positions prior to the execution of said contract.

Waterfront et. al. v. SSS

An accion in rem verso is considered merely an auxiliary action, available only when there is no other remedy on contract, quasi-contract, crime, and quasi-delict.

1. There is enrichment or gain on the part of the defendant

2. The enrichment was through the expense of the plaintiff

3. The enrichment on the part of the defendant is without just or legal ground

No. In the case of Concepcion v. CA, the court held that under Article 26 and Article 2219 of the New Civil Code, the rights of persons are protected, and damages are provided for violations thereof. The violations mentioned in the codal provisions are not exclusive but are merely examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. Due to the incident, respondent Nestor Nicolas suffered mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation as a proximate result of petitioner’s abusive, scandalous and insulting language. As such, the Supreme Court held that the incident clearly falls under the aforementioned articles and the person who violated those rights should be liable of the damages.

Yes. Article 21 and 26 of the New Civil Code provides:

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

Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

( 1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

In the case at bar, Spouses Dorao undoubtedly exposed AAA to public ridicule which caused the latter mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and social humiliation. These acts are contrary to public policy; therefore, petitioners are liable for damages pursuant to Articles 21 of the Civil Code. In the same vein, petitioners' acts of spreading malicious rumors against AAA and publicly hurling defamatory accusations against respondents undoubtedly constitute an invasion of respondents' rights under Article 26 of the Civil Code.

No. Article 27 of the Civil Code provides that "any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken." In this case, it cannot be said that the city treasurer acted wilfully in not refunding to the plaintiff the taxes that it paid under protest on out-of-town sales of matches. The record clearly reveals that the city treasurer honestly believed that he was justified under section 9 of the tax ordinance in collecting the sales tax on out-of-town deliveries, considering that the company's branch office was located in Cebu City and that all out-of-town purchase order for matches were filled up by the branch office and the sales were duly reported to it. The city treasurer acted within the scope of his authority and in consonance with his bona fide interpretation of the tax ordinance.

As a rule, Where an officer is invested with discretion in matters brought before him and when so acting he is usually given immunity from liability to persons who may be injured as the result or an erroneous or mistaken decision, provided the acts complained of are done within the scope of the officer's authority and without malice, or corruption. It has been held previously by the SC that an erroneous interpretation of an ordinance does not constitute nor does it amount to bad faith that would entitle an aggrieved party to an award for damages Cabungcal vs. Cordovan 120 Phil. 667).

Phil. Match v. City of Cebu

No. Article 27 of the New Civil Code provides that any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that maybe taken. In this case, Article 27 is inapplicable as this particular article covers a case of nonfeasance or non-performance by a public officer of his official duty; it does not apply to a case of negligence or misfeasance in carrying out an official duty.

The Court of Appeals in its decision now under review held that the celebration of a town fiesta by the Municipality of Malasiqui was not a governmental function. We upheld that ruling. The legal consequence thereof is that the Municipality stands on the same footing as an ordinary private corporation with the municipal council acting as its board of directors. It is an elementary principle that a corporation has a personality, separate and distinct from its officers, directors, or persons composing it and the latter are not as a rule co-responsible in an action for damages for tort or negligence (culpa aquiliana) committed by the corporation’s employees or agents unless there is a showing of bad faith or gross or wanton negligence on their part.

Torio v. Rosalina