CIVIL LAW > XI. QUASI-DELICTS > E. DEFENSES

Quasi-delicts, also known as culpa aquiliana under Philippine law, are governed by Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides for liability arising from damage caused to another through fault or negligence without a pre-existing contractual relationship. However, the defendant in a quasi-delict case may invoke defenses to exculpate themselves from liability. These defenses, which are rooted in both jurisprudence and statutory law, are discussed comprehensively below:

1. ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE (DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY)

A defendant may prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
Article 2180 imposes vicarious liability on certain individuals (e.g., parents, employers), but they can be absolved by proving that all reasonable care and supervision were exercised to prevent the harmful act.
- Example: An employer is not liable for the negligent act of an employee if it can show adequate measures were taken to properly select and supervise the employee.

2. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA (DAMAGE WITHOUT LEGAL INJURY)

A defendant may argue that the damage suffered by the plaintiff is not actionable because it does not constitute a legal injury.
- Example: An inconvenience caused by lawful construction work, though causing discomfort, may not be actionable under quasi-delict.

3. ACT OF GOD (FORTUITOUS EVENT OR FORCE MAJEURE)

Liability may be avoided if the defendant proves that the damage was caused by an act of God or natural disaster beyond human control and without fault or negligence on their part.
- Requirements:
  1. The event was independent of human intervention.
  2. It could not have been foreseen or avoided despite the exercise of reasonable diligence.
- Example: A tree falling and damaging property due to a typhoon may absolve the owner of liability if no negligence is involved in maintaining the tree.

4. ACT OF THIRD PARTY

Under Article 2179, if the damage was due to the act of a third person for whom the defendant is not responsible, the latter may avoid liability.
- The defendant must show:
  - The third party was entirely at fault.
  - The defendant exercised due diligence to avoid the consequences of the third party's act.
- Example: If a contractor’s equipment damages a neighbor’s property due to the negligence of a subcontractor, the contractor may be able to shift liability.

5. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF

Article 2179 also provides that if the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury, the damages awarded may be reduced proportionately.
- Key Principles:
  - The plaintiff’s negligence must have been a contributory, not the proximate, cause of the damage.
  - The court applies the principle of comparative negligence to determine the reduction in liability.
- Jurisprudence: In Filinvest Land v. Roderos, the Supreme Court emphasized that contributory negligence diminishes the defendant's liability but does not entirely absolve them.

6. CONSENT OR VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK

A person who voluntarily exposes themselves to a known danger cannot claim damages for injuries sustained.
- Doctrine of Volenti Non Fit Injuria: No injury is done to one who consents.
- Example: A spectator injured at a sporting event where risks are inherent may have difficulty claiming damages if the risk was apparent and voluntarily accepted.

7. SELF-DEFENSE OR DEFENSE OF ANOTHER

If the act causing harm was done in lawful defense of oneself or another, liability may be avoided.
- Requirements:
  1. There was an imminent and real threat.
  2. The response was proportionate to the threat.
  3. There was no negligence in the act of defense.

8. EXERCISE OF A LAWFUL RIGHT

A defendant may invoke that they were exercising a legitimate right, and any damage caused was incidental and not due to negligence.
- Example: A landowner clearing their property of hazardous materials that inadvertently causes damage to a neighboring property may argue the defense of exercising a legal right.

9. LACK OF CAUSATION (NO PROXIMATE CAUSE)

A key element in quasi-delict is causation, and the defendant may argue that their act or omission was not the proximate cause of the damage.
- Proximate cause: The act or omission must be the primary and direct cause of the injury.
- Example: If multiple factors contributed to the harm, the defendant may argue that another factor, not their negligence, was the proximate cause.

10. PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION

Claims based on quasi-delicts must be filed within the prescriptive period provided by law.
- Under Article 1146, actions arising from quasi-delicts must be filed within four (4) years from the time the cause of action accrued.
- If the plaintiff fails to file within this period, the defendant may invoke prescription as a defense.

11. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Even if liability is not entirely avoided, the defendant may present mitigating circumstances to reduce liability. Examples include:
- Emergency situations where immediate action was necessary.
- Acts performed out of necessity to avoid a greater harm.

12. CONFLICTING CLAIMS OR EXONERATION BY LAW

Certain statutes may explicitly exempt individuals or entities from liability under specific circumstances.
- Example: Under the Labor Code, employers are not liable for acts beyond the scope of an employee’s duties unless negligence in supervision or hiring is proven.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN LITIGATING DEFENSES

Burden of Proof: While the plaintiff has the burden of proving the elements of a quasi-delict, the defendant must substantiate their defenses with clear and convincing evidence.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance: In situations where both parties are negligent, the party with the last clear opportunity to avoid the harm may be held liable.
Jurisprudential Trends: Philippine courts lean heavily on jurisprudence, particularly Supreme Court rulings, in evaluating defenses under quasi-delicts.

These defenses collectively form the arsenal for defendants in quasi-delict cases in the Philippines. Their proper invocation depends on the facts of each case, meticulous presentation of evidence, and skillful legal argumentation.