Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Torts (Title I - Conceptual Framework), Article 21. Any person who…

- - - - Various definitions, but common theme being a reference to situations where one person causes harm to another.
  - - - Later incorporated into the chapter concerning Quasi-Delicts
    - - No statutory definition of a tort.
        
        Can be classified into either
        
        Intentional Torts;
        
        Negligent Torts;
        
        Strict Liability Torts;
        
        Independent Civil Action Torts
        
        IT - NCC 19,20,21,26
        
        NT - NCC 2176 and those under other laws
        
        ST - NCC 1171, 2183, 2187, Workmen's compensation Act.
        
        NCC 32-25
        
        Jurisprudence offers various definitions of torts
        
        Naguiat v. NLRC - Torts as a breach of legal duty
    - - Civil Code reflects this, no mention of the term torts. Instead, described in NCC 2176
        
        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. (1902a)
    - - A duty or obligation recognized by law, requiring a person to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks;
      - A failure on the person's part to conform to the standard: a breach of a duty;
      - A reasonably close causal connection between the conduct and resulting injury; (legal cause; proximate cause)
      - Actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another.
      - ARTICLE 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
- - - - Scope
        
        Elements
        
        Elements under 2176
        
        Act or Omission;
        
        Damage to another
        
        No pre-existing contractual relations
        
        JURISPRUDENCE
        
        Damage to the plaintiff
        
        Negligence, by act or omission by the defendant or someone that they are responsible for
        
        Connection of cause and effect between fault or negligence and damage done
        
        Concerned with acts that were committed voluntarily, but with no intent to cause the harm done.
        
        Generally, does not cover criminal acts but may cover acts done with criminal negligence.
        
        If 2176 would not cover intentional injurious acts that are not criminal, NCC 21 addresses that issue.
        
        Covers damage to persons and property.
- - - - All QDs are Torts, not all Torts are QDs
      - Civil Liability under RPC 100 - based on NCC 20/21 but under the category of civil liability arising from criminal offenses or delicts; Quasi-delicts not covered there.
      - Discussed in Baksh v. CA
      - A quasi-delict is a tort committed by negligence
- - - - Overlap between QDs and Delicts
        
        As explained in Barredo, the same negligent act may be the cause of both an action for independent civil liabilities such as quasi-delicts or those arising from NC 33 and civil liability arising from a crime, if it is criminally negligent.
        
        While Delicts require a finding of criminal liability, QDs do not. Therefore, QDs may be an easier remedy.
        
        NCC Article 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
  - - - Burden of proof - If QD, burden of proof on plaintiff to prove the negligence in order to recover.
        
        In CC, sufficient to show that there has been a breach of contractual obligations, irrelevant if there was willful fault or negligence to establish a prima facie case or presumption of fault or negligence against the defendant, which they must overturn.
        
        Prima Facie case overturned by demonstrating force majeure or exercise of due diligence.
        
        Doctrine of Proximate Cause - Proximate cause only applicable for Quasi-Delicts as the civil liability arises from the fault or negligence that caused the damage; whereas in CCs prima facie proof of liability arises from a demonstration of breach of contract.
        
        Proximate cause applies in order to impute the liability between parties that have no pre-existing relations, but in CCs parties themselves, via contracts have already established this, therefore doctrine not applicable.
        
        Liability of Employer for Negligence of Employee -
        
        In QDs, the Employee is made liable on the basis of his own negligence (non-supervision) therefore, defense of due diligence available.
        
        However, in CC proof of employer's negligence is not required for a finding of liability, only to show that there was a breach of contract. Therefore,defense of due diligence on the part of the employer cannot be raised.
        
        Note that even in QDs relating to negligence of employer, presumption of negligence still applies.
    - - An act can both be a breach of contract and a tort at the same time (Air France v. Carrascoso) but a tort is not necessarily equivalent to a QD.
        
        There, a breach of contract warrants damages only if there is bad faith under NCC 21. But this itself is not a QD specifically.
        
        Under doctrine in Lunas, a QD can exist between contractual parties if the cause of action exists without a contract.
        
        In cases decided prior to New Civil Code (Cangco v. Manila Railroad) it was ruled that the same act that constituted a breach of contract can also be a source of extra-contractual obligations (Not specifically QD)
        
        In LRT v. Navidad -If the tort itself is the cause of the breach of the contract, the rules on tort may apply.
      - Note that recovery from a tort/cc if from same cause, bars recovery in the other action.