Intentional | Classification of Torts | QUASI-DELICTS

CIVIL LAW

XI. QUASI-DELICTS

D. CLASSIFICATION OF TORTS

1. INTENTIONAL TORTS

Intentional torts under the framework of quasi-delicts involve deliberate acts that cause harm to another person, their property, or rights. While quasi-delicts under Philippine law (Article 2176 of the Civil Code) generally address acts of negligence, intentional torts focus on wrongful acts done with the intent to cause harm. This subset bridges aspects of quasi-delicts with liability arising from intentional wrongdoing. Below is a comprehensive exploration:

---

I. Definition and General Principles

An intentional tort is a civil wrong resulting from an act committed with the intent to cause harm or knowledge that harm is substantially certain to occur. Unlike negligence, which arises from carelessness, intentional torts stem from a deliberate breach of legal duty.

Key Elements:

1. Intent: The act must be deliberate, and the actor must have intended the consequences or have been substantially certain they would result.
2. Act or Omission: A voluntary act or failure to act when there is a duty to do so.
3. Causation: A direct causal link between the intentional act and the harm suffered.
4. Harm or Injury: Damage to the person, property, or legal rights of another.

---

II. Examples of Intentional Torts

Common intentional torts recognized in Philippine jurisprudence include but are not limited to:

1. Assault and Battery

   • Assault: The act of intentionally creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
   • Battery: The intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact on another person.

2. False Imprisonment

   • Unlawful restraint or confinement of a person without legal justification.

3. Defamation

   • The act of harming another's reputation through false statements, whether oral (slander) or written (libel).
   • Governed by Article 33 of the Civil Code, which allows for separate civil liability independent of criminal proceedings.

4. Fraud (Deceit)

   • Intentional misrepresentation of a material fact to induce another to act to their detriment.

5. Trespass to Land

   • Unauthorized and intentional entry onto another's property without lawful excuse.

6. Trespass to Chattels and Conversion

   • Trespass to Chattels: Intentional interference with another's personal property, causing damage or loss of use.
   • Conversion: The wrongful exercise of dominion over another's personal property inconsistent with their rights.

7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

   • Extreme or outrageous conduct intended to cause severe emotional distress.

---

III. Key Doctrines and Principles in Philippine Law

1. Article 19, Civil Code (Abuse of Rights Doctrine)

   • Requires everyone to act with justice, give everyone their due, and observe honesty and good faith. Intentional torts often involve violations of this principle.

2. Article 20, Civil Code

   • Provides for liability when a person causes damage to another in violation of law.

3. Article 21, Civil Code

   • Covers intentional acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy that cause damage to another, even if not specifically prohibited by law.

4. Article 33, Civil Code

   • Allows for separate civil actions for damages in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, independent of criminal prosecution.

---

IV. Intentional Torts and Criminal Law Overlap

Intentional torts often overlap with criminal offenses, but they are distinct in terms of focus:

• Criminal Law: Aims to punish offenders and protect public interest.
• Civil Law (Quasi-Delicts): Aims to compensate the injured party for damages suffered.

Under Philippine law, an act can give rise to both criminal liability and civil liability. For example:

• A person committing physical injuries can be prosecuted criminally while also being sued for damages in a civil action based on tort principles.

---

V. Damages in Intentional Torts

1. Actual or Compensatory Damages

   • To compensate for quantifiable pecuniary loss.

2. Moral Damages

   • Awarded under Article 2219 of the Civil Code for physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, or similar harm caused by the wrongful act.

3. Exemplary Damages

   • Granted to set a public example or to deter future misconduct, under Article 2229 of the Civil Code.

4. Nominal Damages

   • For recognition of a violation of rights where no substantial loss occurred.

5. Attorney's Fees

   • Recoverable when the intentional tort necessitates litigation, as provided in Article 2208.

---

VI. Judicial Interpretation and Case Law

Philippine jurisprudence has refined the application of intentional torts through landmark rulings:

1. Cabrera v. People (G.R. No. 138379)

   • Highlighted the overlap between intentional criminal acts and the civil remedies available to victims.

2. Reyes v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 118956)

   • Addressed the role of intent in determining liability under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code.

3. Garcia v. Salvador (G.R. No. 168512)

   • Emphasized the importance of moral and exemplary damages in cases involving deliberate harm.

---

VII. Defense Against Intentional Torts

1. Consent: When the injured party consented to the act.
2. Self-Defense: Actions taken to protect oneself or others from harm.
3. Necessity: Actions to prevent greater harm, even if it involved interference with another's rights.
4. Justification or Privilege: Legitimate legal authority for the act, such as law enforcement actions.

---

VIII. Conclusion

Intentional torts are significant within Philippine law as they provide a framework for holding individuals accountable for deliberate harm while balancing the remedies available to aggrieved parties. Anchored in the Civil Code and enriched by case law, they ensure that justice is served by addressing not only negligence but also willful misconduct.