Principles

Acts Contrary to Morals | Principles | QUASI-DELICTS

CIVIL LAW > XI. QUASI-DELICTS > A. Principles > 5. Acts Contrary to Morals

Overview

Acts contrary to morals, as a principle in quasi-delicts under Philippine civil law, stem from the broader legal mandate that no person shall unjustly cause damage to another, whether willfully or negligently, without a valid legal or moral justification. This principle is codified under the Civil Code of the Philippines and operates as a cornerstone of liability, particularly where harm arises not from breaches of specific laws but from violations of fundamental moral principles.

Legal Basis

  1. Article 19, Civil Code of the Philippines:

    • "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."
    • This provision introduces the general duty to adhere to moral principles when exercising rights or performing duties.

  2. Article 20, Civil Code of the Philippines:

    • "Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same."
    • An act contrary to morals may be considered a violation of "law" in the context of this provision if such act breaches general principles of justice and fairness.

  3. Article 21, Civil Code of the Philippines:

    • "Any person who wilfully 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."
    • This article specifically establishes liability for acts that violate moral standards or good customs, regardless of whether they constitute a violation of a written law.

Elements of Liability Under Article 21

For an act contrary to morals to give rise to liability under quasi-delict principles, the following elements must be present:

  1. There is an act or omission by the defendant:

    • The act must be deliberate or negligent, and it must violate societal standards of morality, good customs, or public policy.

  2. The act is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy:

    • Morals refer to universally accepted standards of right and wrong.
    • Good customs pertain to the accepted practices within the community that embody societal values.
    • Public policy involves considerations of fairness and equity that transcend individual interests.

  3. There is damage or injury caused to the plaintiff:

    • The plaintiff must prove that actual harm, whether material, emotional, or reputational, was caused by the defendant’s act.

  4. Causal connection:

    • A direct link between the act contrary to morals and the injury sustained must be established.

Nature and Scope

  1. Moral Obligations in Law:

    • Acts contrary to morals address instances where legal technicalities might not strictly apply but where justice demands the imposition of liability. For example, adultery may not result in criminal liability under certain circumstances but can give rise to a claim for damages under Article 21.

  2. Scope of Moral Violations:

    • Includes acts such as fraud, abuse of rights, betrayal of trust, malicious gossip, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others.
    • Acts contrary to morals often intersect with violations of Article 19 and Article 20, creating a framework for civil liability even in non-contractual disputes.

Application in Jurisprudence

  1. Case Examples:

    • Filipinas Broadcasting Network v. Ago Medical Center:
      • The court ruled that disparaging remarks or publications made with malice and intended to harm the reputation of an institution violated morals and warranted damages.
    • Aquino v. Aure:
      • A case involving a lover who abandoned his pregnant partner was deemed an act contrary to morals, entitling the woman to damages.
    • Alonzo v. Cebu Country Club:
      • The expulsion of a club member without just cause, violating the principles of fair play and justice, was held to be contrary to good customs and public policy.

  2. Standards of Morality and Interpretation:

    • Courts generally defer to societal norms and moral standards prevailing in the Philippines. However, these standards are not fixed and may evolve with societal progress.

  3. Overlaps with Other Legal Principles:

    • Acts contrary to morals often overlap with tortious conduct under quasi-delicts and abuse of rights under Article 19. Courts take a comprehensive approach to assess liability.

Remedies Available

  1. Indemnification for Actual Damages:

    • Plaintiffs may recover compensation for tangible losses directly caused by the act.

  2. Moral Damages:

    • These are awarded to compensate the victim for emotional or psychological suffering resulting from the act.

  3. Exemplary Damages:

    • In cases where the act contrary to morals is particularly egregious or involves gross malice, exemplary damages may be imposed as a deterrent.

  4. Attorney’s Fees:

    • Courts may also award attorney’s fees if the act forced the plaintiff to litigate.

Key Defenses

  1. Justification:

    • The defendant may argue that the act was justified by valid moral, legal, or societal considerations.

  2. Absence of Damage:

    • Without proof of actual harm, the plaintiff’s claim may fail.

  3. Absence of Causal Connection:

    • The defendant may assert that the damage was not directly caused by the act.

  4. Good Faith:

    • A bona fide exercise of rights or duties, even if it incidentally causes harm, may negate liability.

Conclusion

Acts contrary to morals serve as a safety net for imposing liability in the absence of explicit statutory provisions. By upholding societal values and good customs, this principle reinforces the Civil Code’s overarching aim of fairness and equity in interpersonal relations. In the Philippine legal context, it underscores the judiciary’s commitment to justice not merely by adherence to written law but by rooting its decisions in fundamental moral principles.

Acts Contrary to Law | Principles | QUASI-DELICTS

CIVIL LAW: QUASI-DELICTS

XI. QUASI-DELICTS

A. Principles

4. Acts Contrary to Law

Overview

Quasi-delicts (or culpa aquiliana) refer to acts or omissions that, without constituting a crime, cause damage to another by fault or negligence. The governing provision is Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which states:

"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."

Among quasi-delicts, acts contrary to law highlight instances where the law is breached, yet the breach does not rise to the level of a criminal act. These acts create a civil obligation to indemnify for damages caused.

Key Principles: Acts Contrary to Law

  1. Definition of "Acts Contrary to Law":
    Acts contrary to law refer to behaviors or omissions that violate legal norms or statutory provisions, causing harm to another person, without constituting a criminal offense.

    • Example: A person disregards a traffic regulation (e.g., driving through a red light) and causes a vehicular accident, resulting in injury or property damage.

  2. Fault or Negligence (Culpa):
    The existence of fault (culpa) or negligence is essential to hold a person liable for a quasi-delict. Fault involves intentional acts contrary to law, while negligence refers to the failure to exercise the care required by law.

    • Requisite Elements for Liability:
      a. There is an act or omission.
      b. The act or omission is contrary to law.
      c. Damage or injury results.
      d. There is a causal connection between the wrongful act or omission and the damage caused.
      e. There is no pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties.

  3. Standard of Care Expected:
    The test for negligence in quasi-delicts involves the reasonable person standard. The defendant must have acted as a prudent person would under the circumstances to avoid causing harm. Failure to meet this standard results in liability.

  4. Presumption of Negligence:
    Under Article 2184 of the Civil Code, certain circumstances give rise to a presumption of negligence, such as in vehicular accidents. A driver violating traffic laws, for instance, is presumed negligent unless evidence proves otherwise.

Distinctions from Criminal Acts

  • Intent:
    Quasi-delicts are based on negligence or fault, not malice or intent, unlike criminal acts.

  • Separate Liabilities:
    An act contrary to law can give rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. However, the acquittal of an accused in a criminal case does not preclude civil liability under a quasi-delict, as stated in Article 2177 of the Civil Code:

    "Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding Article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant."

Extent of Liability

  1. Direct Liability:
    A person who directly commits an act contrary to law that causes damage is directly liable.

  2. Vicarious Liability:
    Under Articles 2180 and 2181 of the Civil Code, certain individuals are held liable for the acts of persons for whom they are responsible, such as:

    • Parents for their minor children.
    • Employers for their employees (if the damage was within the scope of their duties).
    • Teachers and schools for students under their supervision.

  3. Solidary Liability:
    Persons jointly responsible for an act contrary to law may be held solidarily liable if the circumstances justify it.

  4. Proximate Cause Doctrine:
    Liability attaches only if the act contrary to law is the proximate cause of the injury or damage. Proximate cause is defined as the primary cause that sets others in motion and without which the injury would not have occurred.

Defenses Against Liability

  1. Lack of Negligence or Fault:
    Demonstrating that the defendant exercised due diligence or that the act was not contrary to law.

  2. Force Majeure or Fortuitous Event:
    When the act or omission results from circumstances beyond human control, such as natural disasters.

  3. Contributory Negligence (Article 2179):
    If the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the harm, the amount of damages recoverable may be mitigated.

  4. Absence of Causal Connection:
    If the act or omission was not the proximate cause of the damage, liability cannot attach.

Case Illustrations

  1. Violation of Traffic Laws:
    A motorist disregards a stop sign, causing an accident. The violation of the traffic law constitutes an act contrary to law, and the motorist is liable for damages under quasi-delict.

  2. Construction Law Violations:
    A contractor fails to comply with safety regulations, leading to the collapse of a structure and resulting injuries. The breach of the law creates civil liability.

  3. Environmental Laws:
    A company violates environmental regulations, causing harm to neighboring properties. The act is contrary to law and gives rise to liability for damages under quasi-delict.

Remedies for Acts Contrary to Law

  1. Compensatory Damages:
    Awarded for actual losses suffered, including expenses, loss of income, and emotional distress.

  2. Moral Damages:
    If the act contrary to law caused mental anguish or suffering, the court may award moral damages.

  3. Exemplary Damages:
    To deter similar conduct, exemplary damages may be imposed in cases of gross negligence.

  4. Attorney's Fees:
    If justified, the court may award attorney's fees to the injured party.

Concluding Insights

Acts contrary to law within the scope of quasi-delicts emphasize the civil obligations arising from negligent or wrongful conduct. The law aims to balance the protection of individual rights against harm caused by another’s failure to comply with statutory requirements, reinforcing the principle that individuals must act with prudence and within the bounds of the law.

Liability without Fault | Principles | QUASI-DELICTS

CIVIL LAW

XI. QUASI-DELICTS

A. Principles

3. Liability without Fault

Introduction

Under Philippine law, quasi-delicts (culpa aquiliana) are governed by Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which states that a person who, by act or omission, causes damage to another by fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damages caused. However, liability without fault presents an exception to the traditional requirement of negligence in quasi-delicts.

This concept is rooted in the principle of social justice and equity aimed at protecting victims of harm even when there is no fault or negligence on the part of the defendant. Below is a detailed examination of this principle, including its statutory basis, jurisprudence, and scope.

Statutory Basis

  1. Article 2176, Civil Code:
    While this article typically requires fault or negligence, liability without fault can arise as a special doctrine or under specific provisions.

  2. Article 2180, Civil Code:
    Vicarious liability for persons who, though not personally negligent, are held responsible for the acts or omissions of others (e.g., parents, employers, or teachers). This is a form of indirect liability without requiring proof of personal fault.

  3. Article 2187, Civil Code:
    Manufacturers and producers are held liable for damages caused by defective products or services, regardless of fault or negligence. This is a form of strict liability.

  4. Special Laws:

    • Consumer Act of the Philippines (R.A. 7394): Provides strict liability for manufacturers and sellers for product defects causing harm.
    • Laws on environmental protection, e.g., under the Clean Air Act (R.A. 8749) or the Clean Water Act (R.A. 9275), which impose liability on polluters even without direct proof of negligence.

General Principles of Liability Without Fault

  1. Strict Liability Doctrine:

    • Liability is imposed irrespective of negligence or intent.
    • The focus is on causation, i.e., whether the defendant's act or product caused the harm.
    • Examples:
      • Defective products under Article 2187.
      • Ultrahazardous activities (e.g., operation of nuclear plants or storage of explosives).

  2. Vicarious Liability:

    • Under Article 2180, certain individuals or entities are liable for the acts of others.
    • The law presumes fault or negligence, but even in its absence, liability attaches due to relationships (e.g., employer-employee, parent-child).

  3. Presumption of Negligence or Fault:

    • In some cases, the law presumes negligence or fault as a matter of policy, and the defendant must rebut this presumption.
    • Example: Parents under Article 2180 are presumed liable for the acts of their unemancipated children.

Key Doctrines in Jurisprudence

  1. Yu Bun Guan v. Ong

    • Established that liability may arise even without direct negligence when public policy and safety are at stake.

  2. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. IAC

    • Common carriers are presumed negligent when their passengers are harmed. However, the court clarified that strict liability principles may apply even absent fault when harm arises during the performance of their duty.

  3. Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan

    • Reaffirmed that liability under Article 2187 does not require proof of negligence, only causation and defect in the product.

Types of Activities Giving Rise to Liability Without Fault

  1. Use of Dangerous Substances or Activities:

    • Those engaging in inherently dangerous or ultrahazardous activities are held strictly liable for damages resulting from their actions.
    • Example: Use of explosives or dangerous chemicals.

  2. Ownership of Animals:

    • Article 2183 imposes liability on owners for harm caused by their animals, unless the animals were under another's possession or acted due to force majeure.

  3. Common Carriers:

    • Under Article 1756, common carriers are presumed liable for any damage to goods or passengers in their custody, regardless of fault.

Defenses Against Liability Without Fault

  1. Force Majeure (Act of God):

    • Liability can be avoided if the harm was caused by extraordinary, unforeseen events beyond human control.

  2. Intervening Cause:

    • The defendant may prove that a third party’s actions or negligence was the proximate cause of the damage.

  3. Victim’s Fault:

    • Contributory negligence or willful misconduct by the victim may reduce or eliminate liability.

Special Considerations

  • Policy Rationale:

    • Liability without fault is designed to protect public welfare and ensure that those harmed are compensated.
    • It shifts the burden of risk to those better positioned to bear it (e.g., manufacturers, employers).

  • Balancing Justice:

    • While promoting accountability, the law ensures that liability is not absolute by allowing defenses like force majeure or victim's contributory fault.

Conclusion

Liability without fault in Philippine civil law embodies the principles of equity and justice, ensuring that victims are adequately protected even in the absence of personal negligence. While rooted in traditional civil law principles, its evolution aligns with the demands of modern society, particularly in addressing risks associated with complex activities, relationships, and products.

Unjust Enrichment | Principles | QUASI-DELICTS

CIVIL LAW: QUASI-DELICTS > UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Unjust enrichment is a fundamental principle in civil law enshrined under Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which states:

"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."

This principle seeks to ensure equity and fairness by preventing one party from benefitting unjustly at the expense of another. Below is a comprehensive analysis of this principle:

I. Legal Basis and Principles

  1. Article 22 of the Civil Code

    • The basis of unjust enrichment in Philippine law is rooted in the maxim: "Nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest" (No one shall enrich himself at the expense of another).
    • This provision applies universally to all situations where a person benefits at another's expense without a legal or contractual justification.

  2. Relation to Quasi-Delicts

    • While unjust enrichment is distinct from quasi-delicts, it often operates within the broader framework of obligations arising from law. Quasi-delicts address fault or negligence, whereas unjust enrichment focuses on the absence of a legal basis for benefit.

II. Elements of Unjust Enrichment

To invoke the principle of unjust enrichment, the following must be established:

  1. Enrichment of one party:

    • One party gains something, whether tangible (e.g., money or property) or intangible (e.g., services or benefits).

  2. Impoverishment of another party:

    • The other party suffers a loss or is deprived of something that benefits the enriched party.

  3. Lack of just or legal ground:

    • There is no valid law, contract, or other legal justification that allows one party to retain the benefit.

  4. Causal link between enrichment and impoverishment:

    • The enrichment must be directly tied to the impoverishment of the other party.

III. Remedies for Unjust Enrichment

  1. Restitution

    • The enriched party must return what was acquired at another's expense.
    • This may include:
      • Actual property or money.
      • The value of services rendered.
      • Profits derived from the enrichment.

  2. Indemnification

    • When restitution is not possible (e.g., the property has been destroyed), the party unjustly enriched must pay the equivalent monetary value.

  3. Quasi-Contractual Obligations

    • Under Articles 2142-2175, quasi-contracts such as solutio indebiti (payment by mistake) and negotiorum gestio (voluntary management of another's affairs) may arise to correct the imbalance caused by unjust enrichment.

IV. Applications in Philippine Jurisprudence

Philippine courts have applied the principle of unjust enrichment in various cases, emphasizing its equitable nature:

  1. Solutio Indebiti (Article 2154)

    • When someone receives something not due to them by mistake, they are obligated to return it.
    • Example: Overpayment in a transaction must be refunded.

  2. Negotiorum Gestio (Article 2144)

    • When one voluntarily manages the property or affairs of another without authority, any benefits unjustly retained must be returned.

  3. Case Law Examples:

    • Filipinas Life Assurance Co. v. Basco: The court ordered restitution where one party mistakenly paid another without any obligation.
    • Esteban v. City of Baguio: A city government was held liable for unjust enrichment when it benefited from the use of private property without compensating the owner.

V. Limits and Exceptions to Unjust Enrichment

  1. Existence of a Legal Ground

    • If there is a valid legal, contractual, or moral justification for the enrichment, the principle does not apply.
    • Example: Enrichment arising from a donation or lawful contract.

  2. Voluntary or Gratuitous Acts

    • A person who voluntarily and knowingly confers a benefit cannot invoke unjust enrichment.
    • Example: If someone freely donates a gift, they cannot demand its return.

  3. Prescriptive Periods

    • Claims for unjust enrichment are subject to the general prescriptive periods for actions under Philippine law. For quasi-contracts, the prescriptive period is generally 6 years under Article 1145 of the Civil Code.

  4. Double Recovery Prohibited

    • A party cannot recover unjust enrichment if they are simultaneously compensated under a different legal basis, such as contract or tort.

VI. Comparative Analysis with Related Concepts

  1. Quasi-Delicts vs. Unjust Enrichment

    • Quasi-Delicts: Based on fault or negligence.
    • Unjust Enrichment: Focused on the absence of a lawful basis for benefit.

  2. Contract Law vs. Unjust Enrichment

    • Contracts govern agreed-upon obligations, whereas unjust enrichment addresses situations where no prior agreement exists.

  3. Equity and Justice

    • Unjust enrichment serves as an equitable remedy, ensuring fairness in circumstances not covered by statutory law or contracts.

VII. Conclusion

Unjust enrichment under Philippine civil law reflects the overarching principle of equity. It serves to address situations where one party gains an advantage at the expense of another without legal justification. By requiring restitution or indemnification, the law ensures that justice prevails even in the absence of explicit agreements or negligent acts. This principle remains a cornerstone of fairness in the dynamic interplay of obligations arising from law.

Abuse of Right; Elements | Principles | QUASI-DELICTS

CIVIL LAW: Quasi-Delicts

Abuse of Right: Principles and Elements

The doctrine of abuse of rights under Philippine law is a foundational principle enshrined in Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides that every person must act with justice, give everyone their due, and observe honesty and good faith. This principle underpins the prohibition against using one's rights in a manner that causes damage to another. The abuse of rights principle plays a significant role in quasi-delicts, as it provides a basis for liability even in the exercise of what would otherwise be lawful rights.

I. The Principle of Abuse of Right

Abuse of rights arises when a person exercises a legal right or privilege in bad faith, with malice, or in a manner contrary to justice, fairness, and good faith. While a person is generally free to exercise their rights, this freedom is not absolute. The exercise of a right becomes actionable when it is used:

  • To prejudice another,
  • Beyond its intended purpose,
  • Contrary to the moral standards of society.

The rationale for this limitation is that no right should exist in isolation from the obligations imposed by law, morality, or public order.

II. Elements of Abuse of Rights

To establish the presence of an abuse of rights, the following elements must be proven:

  1. Legal Right or Duty

    • The defendant must have exercised a legal right or duty recognized by law. This right must be legitimate and ordinarily protected by legal norms.

  2. Bad Faith or Intent to Prejudice

    • The exercise of the right must have been motivated by bad faith, malice, or an intent to cause harm. Bad faith implies a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.

  3. Damage or Injury

    • There must be actual harm or injury suffered by another party as a result of the exercise of the right. The harm may be in the form of pecuniary loss, emotional distress, or other recognized forms of damage.

  4. Absence of Justification

    • The exercise of the right must lack any legitimate justification or purpose. Even if a right is legally conferred, its abuse cannot be justified if it causes harm without a legitimate objective.

III. Legal Basis

The principle of abuse of rights is anchored on the following provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines:

  1. 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."

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

  3. Article 21:
    "Any person who wilfully 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."

  4. Article 2176:
    "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."

IV. Applications and Examples

Abuse of rights may manifest in various ways, such as:

  1. Vindictiveness in Litigation

    • Filing multiple baseless cases or motions against another party to harass or intimidate them.

  2. Abuse of Property Rights

    • Using one's property in a way that unreasonably interferes with the rights of neighbors, such as deliberately creating excessive noise or blocking access to pathways.

  3. Malicious Termination of Contracts

    • Terminating a contract with the sole purpose of prejudicing the other party, despite no legitimate business or legal justification.

  4. Interference with Third Parties

    • Using one's influence or rights to unjustly damage the business, relationships, or reputation of another.

V. Liability for Abuse of Rights

When an abuse of right is proven, the offending party may be held liable for damages. The following types of damages may be awarded:

  1. Actual Damages

    • Compensation for the quantifiable harm or injury suffered by the victim.

  2. Moral Damages

    • Awarded when the abuse of rights causes mental anguish, emotional distress, or similar harm.

  3. Exemplary Damages

    • Imposed to set an example and deter others from engaging in similar abusive conduct.

  4. Attorney's Fees and Costs of Litigation

    • May be awarded if the victim is compelled to litigate due to the abusive acts of the defendant.

VI. Distinction from Other Doctrines

  1. Abuse of Rights vs. Negligence

    • Abuse of rights involves intentional acts or malice, whereas negligence is the failure to exercise due care or prudence.

  2. Abuse of Rights vs. Good Faith Exercise of Rights

    • The exercise of rights in good faith and with legitimate justification, even if it results in harm, does not constitute abuse.

  3. Abuse of Rights vs. Legal Malice

    • Abuse of rights overlaps with malice, but the latter may be more specific in requiring a deliberate intent to harm, as seen in libel or slander cases.

VII. Jurisprudence

Philippine case law has elaborated on the doctrine of abuse of rights:

  1. Velayo v. Shell Co. of the Philippines (G.R. No. L-7813, 1955)

    • Held that a party's right to enforce a contract is limited by the principle of good faith.

  2. Cruz v. CA (G.R. No. 119155, 1996)

    • Clarified that the exercise of a legal right that unnecessarily prejudices another constitutes abuse of rights.

  3. Far East Bank and Trust Co. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 117654, 1998)

    • Emphasized that the abuse of rights doctrine requires proof of bad faith or malice.

  4. Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC (G.R. No. L-64693, 1987)

    • Highlighted that rights must be exercised in a manner consistent with justice and equity.

VIII. Conclusion

The doctrine of abuse of rights serves as a vital safeguard against the misuse of legally conferred powers or privileges. It reflects the civil law’s emphasis on equity, fairness, and moral responsibility. In cases involving quasi-delicts, the doctrine ensures that rights are exercised within the bounds of good faith, justice, and societal norms, providing remedies to victims of abusive conduct.

Principles | QUASI-DELICTS

CIVIL LAW: QUASI-DELICTS (XI. QUASI-DELICTS > A. PRINCIPLES)

Quasi-delicts, governed by Article 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, are a fundamental aspect of obligations arising from damages caused by negligence or fault. Below is a detailed discussion of the principles governing quasi-delicts:

1. Definition and Nature

Article 2176 of the Civil Code defines a quasi-delict as:

“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.”

Key Points:

  • Essence: A quasi-delict involves an act or omission that is negligent or wrongful and results in damage to another, independent of contractual obligations.
  • Basis: The liability arises from a breach of the general duty of care owed to others under the principle of damnum absque injuria—"no one should cause harm to another."

2. Requisites for Quasi-Delict

To establish liability for a quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur:

  1. Act or omission by the defendant.
  2. Fault or negligence attributable to the defendant.
  3. Damage caused to the plaintiff.
  4. Causal connection between the act/omission and the damage.
  5. Absence of pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.

3. Fault and Negligence

  • Fault (Culpa): Implies wrongful or intentional acts resulting in damage.
  • Negligence: Involves the omission of due diligence required in a given set of circumstances, as determined by the reasonable person test.

4. Liability for Quasi-Delicts

Quasi-delicts are premised on the legal obligation to repair harm caused to another. Liability under quasi-delicts can arise in several situations:

  • Personal Liability: The person committing the negligent act is directly liable.
  • Vicarious Liability: A third party may be held liable for the acts of another under specific circumstances (e.g., employer-employee relationships).

5. Vicarious Liability

Under Articles 2180 and 2181 of the Civil Code, liability may extend to third parties, subject to the following conditions:

Article 2180:

  1. Employers are liable for damages caused by their employees, provided the acts are within the scope of their duties.
  2. Parents are liable for damages caused by their unemancipated children living with them.
  3. Guardians are liable for damages caused by minors or incapacitated persons under their authority.
  4. Teachers and heads of establishments are liable for damages caused by students or apprentices under their supervision.

Presumption of Negligence:
In vicarious liability, the presumption of negligence lies with the supervising or responsible party, who must prove that proper diligence was exercised to prevent the damage.

6. Principle of Solidary Liability

Article 2194 of the Civil Code provides:

“The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary.”

Key Points:

  • When two or more persons are responsible for damage caused by a quasi-delict, their liability is solidary (joint and several).
  • This ensures full compensation to the injured party.

7. Damages in Quasi-Delicts

The party responsible for a quasi-delict is obligated to indemnify the injured party for all damages sustained. These include:

  • Actual Damages: To cover measurable pecuniary loss.
  • Moral Damages: For mental anguish, emotional suffering, or social humiliation.
  • Exemplary Damages: When the act is grossly negligent or shows wanton recklessness.
  • Nominal Damages: When no substantial loss occurred but a legal right was violated.
  • Temperate Damages: When the exact value of loss cannot be determined.
  • Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Expenses: If justified under Article 2208.

8. Defenses in Quasi-Delicts

A defendant may avoid liability by raising valid defenses:

  • Due Diligence: Proving reasonable care and diligence was exercised.
  • Contributory Negligence: If the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the damage, it may reduce the liability.
  • Fortuitous Event: Unavoidable events beyond human control may absolve liability (force majeure).
  • Consent: When the injured party consented to the act causing the damage.

9. Relation to Other Legal Concepts

  • Quasi-Delict vs. Crime: While both involve wrongful acts, quasi-delicts are civil in nature and focus on indemnity, whereas crimes involve punishment and are prosecuted by the state.
  • Quasi-Delict vs. Breach of Contract: The former arises independent of a contractual relationship, whereas the latter is based on the breach of a contractual obligation.
  • Overlap with Criminal Negligence: A single negligent act can give rise to both criminal prosecution and civil liability, but they are pursued under separate legal remedies.

10. Application in Philippine Jurisprudence

The principles of quasi-delicts have been elucidated in numerous Supreme Court cases:

  • Barredo v. Garcia (1942): Distinguished quasi-delicts from crimes and established that civil liability under quasi-delict exists independently of criminal liability.
  • LBC v. CA (2005): Emphasized the liability of employers for quasi-delicts of employees when acting within the scope of employment.
  • Phoenix Construction v. IAC (1987): Defined the parameters of contributory negligence in reducing damages.

Conclusion

Quasi-delicts under Philippine Civil Law are pivotal in addressing civil wrongs arising from negligence or fault, ensuring that victims are compensated for damages. The principles emphasize accountability, the duty of care, and fairness in apportioning liability. Understanding these principles equips parties to address civil liabilities and protects the rights of those who suffer harm.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login