CIVIL LAW > XI. QUASI-DELICTS (Philippine Law)

Quasi-delicts, also known as torts, are governed by the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly under Articles 2176 to 2194. They deal with acts or omissions causing damage to another, there being fault or negligence, but without a pre-existing contractual relationship. Below is a detailed breakdown of the relevant provisions and principles:

1. Definition and Essential Elements (Article 2176)

Article 2176 defines quasi-delicts:

"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."

Essential Elements:

Act or Omission: There must be a wrongful act or omission by the defendant.
Damage: The plaintiff must have suffered actual damage or injury.
Fault or Negligence: The act or omission must be accompanied by fault or negligence.
Causation: A direct causal connection must exist between the act or omission and the damage.
No Pre-existing Contract: There must be no prior contractual obligation between the parties. (If there is a contract, the governing principle is contractual liability, not quasi-delict.)

2. Liability of Employers and Masters (Article 2180)

General Rule:

Employers and masters are liable for the quasi-delicts committed by their employees and servants, provided the latter acted within the scope of their assigned duties.

Specific Provisions:

Parents: Liable for the quasi-delicts of their minor children living with them.
Guardians: Liable for minors or incapacitated persons under their authority.
School Administrators or Teachers: Liable for damage caused by their students or apprentices under their supervision.
Employers: Liable for their employees' acts committed within the scope of employment.
Owners of Enterprises: Liable for damages caused by their managers in the operation of their business.

Requisites for Liability:

A superior-subordinate relationship exists.
The act or omission was within the scope of the subordinate’s duties.
The superior did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of the subordinate.

Defense:

Employers may escape liability by proving due diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.

3. Liability of Persons Possessing Animals (Article 2183)

Owners of animals are responsible for damages caused by their animals. This liability is not dependent on fault or negligence unless it can be proven that the animal acted due to external causes beyond the owner’s control.

4. Liability for Ruin of Structures (Article 2190)

Owners are liable for damages caused by the total or partial collapse of their buildings due to lack of necessary repairs or defects in construction.

5. Liability for Damages Caused by Things Under One’s Control (Article 2187)

Manufacturers and producers are liable for damages caused by defective products placed on the market. This provision incorporates the principle of strict liability for manufacturers, even if there is no proof of negligence.

6. Concurrent Liability with Crimes

Under Article 2177, the existence of a criminal case does not bar a separate civil action for quasi-delict, unless the civil liability arising from the criminal act has already been adjudicated. This allows a plaintiff to recover damages under both criminal and civil jurisdictions.

Key Doctrine:

Independence of Civil and Criminal Actions: A criminal act may also be a quasi-delict. Thus, civil liability based on quasi-delict may be pursued independently of criminal prosecution.

7. Kinds of Damages Awarded in Quasi-Delicts

Quasi-delicts may result in the awarding of:

Actual Damages: Compensation for actual loss or injury sustained.
Moral Damages: For physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, social humiliation, or similar injury.
Exemplary Damages: Awarded when the defendant’s actions are particularly egregious or malicious.
Nominal Damages: To vindicate a violated right when no substantial loss or injury is proven.
Attorney's Fees and Costs: If justified under the circumstances.

8. Causal Connection

In cases of quasi-delicts, the damage must be the proximate result of the wrongful act or omission. Proximate cause refers to an event that sets off a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, which produces injury.

9. Jurisprudence on Quasi-Delicts

Philippine jurisprudence has clarified and expanded on the principles of quasi-delicts, including:

Filipinas Broadcasting Network v. Ago Medical Center (2011): Reinforced the principle that negligence must be proven as proximate cause of damage.
Air France v. Carrascoso (1966): Highlighted that carriers may be liable for quasi-delicts separate from contractual liability.
Phoenix Construction v. IAC (1987): Established the standard of care expected in negligence cases, requiring diligence commensurate to the circumstances.

10. Statutory Presumptions

In quasi-delict cases, negligence may sometimes be presumed under specific circumstances, such as:

Res ipsa loquitur: The principle that the thing speaks for itself. It applies when:
- The incident would not ordinarily occur without negligence.
- The instrumentality causing the injury was under the defendant’s control.
- The plaintiff did not contribute to the injury.

11. Comparative Negligence

Under Philippine law, if both the plaintiff and defendant are negligent, liability may be apportioned. This is based on the comparative degree of fault or negligence of the parties.

12. Solidary Liability in Quasi-Delicts

Article 2194 provides that if two or more persons are liable for a quasi-delict, their liability is solidary. This means the injured party may recover the full amount of damages from any one of the responsible parties.

Conclusion

Quasi-delicts under Philippine law provide remedies for injuries or damages arising from negligence or wrongful acts where no contractual relationship exists. They embody principles of fairness, deterrence, and the balancing of interests between injured parties and potential defendants. Understanding the nuances of Articles 2176 to 2194 is essential for any practitioner handling tort cases in the Philippine jurisdiction.