CIVIL LAW > XI. QUASI-DELICTS > B. THE TORTFEASOR

1. Definition of a Tortfeasor

A tortfeasor in the context of quasi-delicts refers to the individual or entity who commits a negligent act or omission that causes damage to another person, without pre-existing contractual relations. Under Philippine law, quasi-delicts are governed by Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code. The tortfeasor's liability arises when the elements of a quasi-delict are present.

2. Elements of a Quasi-Delict

To hold a tortfeasor liable for a quasi-delict, the following elements must be proven:

Negligence or fault (culpa)—The tortfeasor acted without due care or diligence.
Damage or injury—The plaintiff suffered an actual injury or loss.
Causal connection—There is a direct causal relation between the tortfeasor's negligence and the damage.

3. Who Can Be a Tortfeasor?

A tortfeasor can be:

Natural Persons – Any individual who commits a negligent act or omission.
Juridical Persons – Entities such as corporations, which can be held liable for the acts of their employees or agents acting within the scope of their functions.

4. Types of Negligence or Fault

Negligence or fault can manifest as:

Acts of Commission – Doing something that a reasonably prudent person would not do under the circumstances.
Acts of Omission – Failing to do something that a reasonably prudent person would do.

5. Standards of Liability

The liability of a tortfeasor is determined by the standard of care expected from a prudent person in similar circumstances. Key doctrines include:

Proximate Cause – The tortfeasor is liable only for damages that are the natural and probable consequences of their negligence.
Foreseeability – The harm must be foreseeable as a result of the tortfeasor's actions or inactions.

6. Solidary Liability

Under Article 2194, when two or more persons are liable for a quasi-delict, their liability is solidary. This means that the injured party can demand the full amount of damages from any one of the tortfeasors.

7. Vicarious Liability

A tortfeasor may also include persons who are indirectly liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability (Article 2180). Examples:

Parents – Liable for the quasi-delicts of their minor children living with them.
Employers – Liable for the acts of their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
Teachers or heads of establishments – Liable for the acts of their students or apprentices while under their supervision.

8. Exceptions to Liability

The tortfeasor may be exempted from liability if:

Due diligence – The person responsible for others (e.g., employers) can prove that they exercised proper diligence in selecting and supervising their employees or wards.
Force majeure – The damage was caused by an unforeseen event beyond human control.
Contributory Negligence – The plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury, which may mitigate or eliminate liability.

9. Defenses Available to the Tortfeasor

Absence of Negligence – Proving that the act or omission was not negligent.
Lack of Causal Connection – Demonstrating that the damage was not the proximate result of the tortfeasor's negligence.
Superseding Cause – Another act intervened, breaking the causal chain between the tortfeasor's act and the damage.

10. Remedies Against Tortfeasors

The injured party has the following remedies:

Compensatory Damages – To indemnify the actual harm suffered.
Moral Damages – For emotional suffering, if applicable.
Exemplary Damages – To serve as a deterrent against gross negligence.
Attorney’s Fees – In specific cases under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.

11. Tortfeasor’s Extent of Liability

The tortfeasor's liability is not limited to physical damage but includes:

Economic Loss – Loss of earnings or property.
Non-Economic Loss – Emotional distress or pain and suffering.

12. Prescriptive Period for Filing Claims

Claims based on quasi-delicts must be filed within four years from the time the cause of action arises, as provided by Article 1146 of the Civil Code.

13. Relevant Jurisprudence

Picart v. Smith (G.R. No. L-12219) – Established the test of negligence as the conduct of a prudent person under the circumstances.
Philippine National Railways v. Brunty (G.R. No. 125018) – Highlighted the proximate cause principle in quasi-delicts.
Ylarde v. Aquino (G.R. No. 186567) – Reinforced the doctrine of vicarious liability in employer-employee relationships.

By meticulously understanding the intricacies of a tortfeasor’s role and liability under quasi-delict law, practitioners can effectively navigate claims, defenses, and remedies in accordance with Philippine jurisprudence.