so when we say torts and damages what comes to mind is quas idelic or pulpa ailana because that's uh the civil law concept of uh Tor and when we say k pakana or felic it refers to fault or negligence which results in damage to another there being no pre-existing contractural relation between the parties and is governed by article 2176 six of the civil code yeah quas delic is a civil law concept but uh our legal system adapts also the common law concept of torts torts is a much broader concept and includes both intentional and malicious acts and torts are covered by articles 19 20 and 21 of the civil code as well as by the revised penal code if you will recall your law on uh human relations articles 192 and 21 are the triumverate of the abuse of Rights principles so Article 19 gives us the standards of good human relations article 20 n is the basis for an action for damages in case a wrongful Act is done and that act is contrary to law now if an act is wrongful but it is not unlawful meaning to say but it is nevertheless wrongful because it is against morals against good Customs or against you know General civility then article 21 of the civil code so if it's a negligent act which results in some injury or damage to another person Papas article 2176 that's quas idelic but if it is an in intentional act which is either uh unlawful me to say against a law an ordinance or even administrative regulations but that it results in an injury to an uh to a third person or if it is wrongful because it's you know in bad taste it is against morals good Customs Etc article 21 so intentional T intentional Tor articles 192 and 21 but generally whether it is quid delic or Tor these are the requisites before a person may be held liable for damages remember T Orel effect is Damages a liability to pay damages criminal punishment because if it is uh subject to imprisonment or some criminal punishment applicable law the revised Penal Code because the revised Penal Code also covers acts which are reckless in nature or negligent in nature criminal negligence so for the purpose of this uh lecture we will only talk about the Civil aspect and that is quas idelic or TS so the result of which is an award of Damages so what are the requisites before a person may be held liable under as delic so first there must be an act or Omission there must be damage or Prejudice next there must be causal relation between the act or Omission as well as the Damage Done and there must be no pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties but take note that uh in several cases of the Supreme Court including load Masters versus glodell brokerage the Supreme Court said that a liability for Tor may arise even under a contract where the torque is that which breaches the contract okay meaning to say if by reason of the negligence of one party injury is damaged by another so that can be a basis for a qu quidel or a tort action because the act or Omission that breaks the contract or that breaches the obligation of one party is a tort in itself so negligent or malicious Act all right so take note of those requisites okay next torts are classified into intentional torts negligent torts as well as strict liability torts so as I have said earlier intentional torts refer to articles 20 21 and 26 of the civil code 26 now also negligent TS refers to any other act or Omission where there is fault or negligence and lastly strict liability which is a kind of Tor which results in liability independent of fault or negligence as you will know later there are certain activities or certain transactions which can result in strict liability now strict liability uh for purposes of just you know having a general idea is mostly um The Way of the law or the way by which the legislature wants people engaged in these activities to be more responsible notice that in intentional ORS instead the focus of the law in intentional towards and negligent towards is but in strict liability the focus of of the law or the emphasis of the law is on the activity itself so that when you engage in that activity you are expected to be more circumspect and to be more responsible okay so later now next is the concept of the Tor feor in the law on torts and damages we call the uh party or the guilty party as the torer or the offending party or the offender okay simply the offender the tor now the Tor fer can be the Principal or the Tor or the soulle Tor fer or the Tor fer can be called The Joint Tor fizer as the names or the terms suggest principal or Soul Tor fizer it is the person whose act or Omission directly or principally causes the injury or damage by the way explain act or Omission that's that's uh something being done but then when you say Omission it's the um it's the inaction the point is certain situations require a positive action and when the law requires you to act or when you know simple rules on good human relations require you to act like to help a person in need or to um take your property away from let's say the line of uh danger Etc that Omission or that inaction can also be uh actionable sorry for the andam actions do the sentence okay the person who did not act according to the demands of law or morality shall be liable for damages Omission just because because sometimes you know the situation calls for a positive action on your part especially if it is meant to uh help someone else or or if it is meant to avoid some injury that could possibly result if you don't act okay all right so Union so that's the first type of thought Fe or the person who acted or who did not act and as a result of such action or inaction injury or damage is caused to another now the concept of joint thir feers is present or it exists when there are two or more principal or uh direct Tor visors but their actions okay conspire or that their actions are concurrent to such a point that the the direct or the uh person directly responsible cannot be identified uh death in a tumultuous array in your revised Penal Code or in your criminal law all of them did their respective acts and then death occurred or death happened as a result now identify direct cause or who really you know um made or did the Fatal blow so everyone shall be responsible so G then joint T visors if all of the acts or the omissions of the parties involved contributed to the damage or injury suffered by a third person then that third person can sue all of them and all of them will be solidarily liable to the offended party an so that's the concept of joint tour okay now let's go to the concept of negligence what is negligence according to article 1173 of the civil code the fault or negligence of the obliger consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons of the time and of the place okay the revised Penal Code gives us a different concept um although similar article 1173 according to article 365 of the vied Penal Code Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily but without malice doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act taking into consideration his employment or occupation degree of intelligence physical condition and other circumstances regarding person's time and place notice that when it is Criminal negligence but then voluntary act D um you intended something okay but then out of lack of precaution but then it happened so notice that there must still be an intention to do the ACT okay which however did not result to what you intended so for example when you are driving and uh you uh collided with another vehicle or maybe you hit a pedestrian criminal negligence because there is an intention to um to drive the car of course your intention was really to you know reach your destination and yet because of the lack of precaution accid or you figured in an accident but in negligence as a general concept it's simply the lack of you know the failure to exercise the kind of diligence required under the circumstances it's more General intent but in criminal negligence my intent I hope you get the point no in fact which this brings us now to at least uh what has been discussed recently no clearly I am referring to Angel oim um a lot of uh lawyers in fact one Dean said that there was no liability at least Criminal liability because there was no Criminal Mind okay uh to that uh in that point Tam because he is referring to criminal negligence under criminal negligence in uh to do to do it voluntarily no um and uh the intention is wrong in the beginning although uh would have would have to be distant or or separate from your from your act direct relation but then because you intended a careless act then you are liable criminally civil damages if you look at the situation was there lack of deligence context negligence was there lack of um uh degree of diligence required was there a failure to exercise the diligence required under the circumstances is the Civil liability if you ask me um negligence but then the negligence there is only or should be civil liability criminal negligence because we can't say that it was wrong okay to do community Pantry under the circumstances because everybody was doing it okay everybody wanted to help everybody so Criminal Intent in the ACT but then civil liability is Criminal Mind or criminal liability the fact is there was a failure to foresee and the failure to foresee there can be also considered negligence but then okay it's one thing to say that it could be civil negligence but then is there a liability look at or study what happened after that immediately when uh you know and it became out of control immediately they they stopped the community pandemic secondly when um one person died as you all know from the news uh immediately Angel luin went to help okay and uh in fact uh paid for all the bills as I understand although of course mayor Joy Belmonte also offered to pay for all the burial expenses in civil civil damages that act on the part of the offender okay cancels out his negligence in other words the law on Torch and damages uh is biased towards reparations okay at least liability there may be negligence but the liability is somehow cancelled out because of the contemporaneous ACT of the offender okay so uh civil liability we can argue that there was negligence there was lack of foresight but she cannot be held civil liable anymore because of the contemporaneous and succeeding acts that she did no but then for criminal negligence negligence under the revised all right see let me now proceed so when we say negligence there are certain standards or tests no to uh to check no if present then there can be there is negligence and this test is provided Us by the case of picart versus Smith and uh here the Supreme Court stated that the test of negligence is did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent Act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation uation if not then he is guilty of negligence most of human activity uh or most of these you know acts that are subject to or that have become um you know uh prone to negligence stands okay so for example when you use your motor vehicle standards of NE uh standards of diligence when you um construct a building standards of diligence uh what else uh construction driving uh even when you go about with your work no for example standards because of the codes of conduct so all these have become the basis of what a person should do properly and diligently so it's simply a question of what would an ordinary prudent person do Under the situation okay so is already subject to a certain code of conduct if you will but if the ACT is okay very novel standards okay let's see but there's there will always be something that is novel and that can be done or that will be done for the first time but situations because it becomes now a case of trial and error so do a test of negligence if you are the plaintiff and you have to and it is your burden to show that the defendant is negligence you have to show first degree of diligence required because if of set of Standards okay of diligence then if the defendant failed to follow these standards then clearly the defendant was negligent okay now in the case of Pier versus Smith it involved um a motor vehicle crossing a bridge and then okay so clearly Supreme cour standards of the traffic code as well as standards of Common Sense Bridge uh it should be at least you know and all that so these standards were not invented uh only for convenience but also invented to maintain uh you know an orderly or yes an orderly way of using the vehicle as well as you know Crossing Bridges and all that defendant so that's why the Supreme Court said that there was negligence because uh the defendant did not follow what was expected of a prudent person an ordinary prudent person in fact when we say degree of D [Music] requ that the basic standards of diligence although you will notice that under article 1173 the Supreme Court or the the law says that uh the question of negligence shall be based on the circumstances of the persons of the time and of the place um what is negligent with respect to an older person may not be negligent part why because uh an older person because of his age and maybe experiences in life is expected to know more about the activity or to know more about the dangers of the activity on the other hand a child may be innocent consequences actions so you cannot impose the standards of diligence of an adult okay on a child so similarly s time okay acts can be done uh both during the day and during the night per the degree of diligence may be greater when visibility is limited when uh the uh the time of the day is different no so during the day since you see a lot of uh things uh simple diligence but then at night it should be extraordinary diligence okay so you so the test of negligence also varies depending on the time and lastly place so if it's a congested place so a greater or higher degree of diligence is required compared to an open and can place yeah all right now the general rule is that the party relying on negligence as his cause of action as the burden of proving the existence of the same so if the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is negligent then the plaintive has the burden of showing that there are standards required for that activity but then the defendant failed to exercise or follow these degrees or the standards of diligence okay now in the following cases okay there is a presumption of negligence and because there is a presumption of negligence the burden of proof now shifts to the defendant to show that he was not negligent and that he exercise the required degree of diligence so what are these situations which raise um a presumption of negligence so first if the driver was violating traffic rules and regulations at the time of the Collision if you don't have if the driver did not have his driver's license at the time or if he um uh beat the red light or if he uh drove into a oneway street B violation and traffic regulations there is a presumption that he was negligent okay next when common carriers uh oh sorry common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost destroyed or deteriorated and and this is because the law requires that common carriers exercise extraordinary diligence so if these goods are lost during Transit then there is a presumption that you did not exercise extraordinary diligence so the common carrier has the burden to prove or to show that it exercise extraordinary diligence okay also in case of death off or injuries to passengers the law presumes said common carriers to get fault or to have acted negligently okay now simple is it is it normal for people to die when they uh or die uh for people to be injured while in transit or is it normal for goods to be spoiled and uh damaged during Transit what is the status quo if the status quo is that well destination safe and uh comfortable if if that is the status quo then if something breaks that status quo then there must have been something wrong in the transportation or in the uh in the uh Way by which the driver drove the vehicle or the truck or whatever so all we have to do is just look at the status quo and if the status quo does not create okay uh the loss or injury then uh the presumption is that there was negligence um I know sit it depends but we will look at restor later because resta locator is not just about status quo no but rather what is expected no especially in the case of U special uh expertise or competence in that activity all right by the way uh despite having said that uh there is a presumption of negligence in the case of common carriers when um passengers are injured or when uh goods are lost or destroyed the law however stated that or sorry the Supreme Court however stated that the law does not make the carrier an urer of the absolute safety of its passengers in other words uh for as long as the common carrier exercise the extraordinary diligence required under the circumstances if damage or injury still happens to the passengers or to the goods and these are already beyond what was expected of the common carrier liable common carrier in fact if you remember uh there was this case involving a bus uh and the bus was stoned okay uh by by um people living in that andem here the common carrier is not liable because the common carrier is not an insurer of the absolute safety of the passengers for as long as when they rode the bus they were safe and then uh there there was nothing that uh the bus could have done to prevent that uh then the bus is not liable okay actually we can apply that to other situations like uh having let's say a restaurant um well generally no uh a restaurant or a cook must exercise the required diligence to make sure that the food is safe okay but then there can be certain situations that are beyond the control of the person beyond the control of the restaurant or beyond the control of the cook so in that case we can still apply the same principle that despite the exercise of the diligence required okay the actor is not the urer of the absolute safety of the activity or the third person persons who may um patronize or use his uh services or his products okay now the finding of negligence on the part of the employee also gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer in the selection and supervision of the employee automatic attach and that's because of the vicarious liability of employers as and and the same also applies to the vicarious liability of parents with respect to their children and teachers or schools with respect to their um students no we will discuss uh the cars liability more in a while also lastly with respect to um forged instruments no meaning to say checks in case of a forged endorsement of a check and the check was in cash the collecting bank is presumed negligent okay it's the collecting bank that is presumed negligent because uh the endorsement is what was forged but when the signature of the draw meaning to say the person uh who executed or who issued the check was the one forged and it was still paid then the bank who is negligent is the drow Bank why the reason is that if you allowed this in the case of a collecting bank if the collecting Bank allowed the endorsement for has an account with you and considering that you are the depositary bank you should have had a signature card by which you can compare the signature on the check as well as the true signature of the depositor in the signature card similarly is signed by a depositor of this draw bound uh it's the drawi bank who is liable or responsible to verify if the signature of the draw or the drawer okay is genuine based on the signature cards with the draw bank so presumptions created by law now remember on uh in your rules and evidence the reason why we have these presumptions this is to do away with the need to prove an affirmative allegation sove that there was negligence on the part of this persons because okay so based on what has happened it creates now a presumption defant burden to prove negligence all right now speaking of common carriers however the common carrier is not presumed negligent if the loss destruction or deterioration of the goods is due to any of the following causes so most of these causes are fortuitous events now so you have flood storm Earth earthquake lightning or other natural disaster or Calamity Act of the Public Enemy in war whether International or civil act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods the character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers as well as order or act of competent Public Authority so notice that these are already beyond the control of the common carrier you will uh appreciate uh more the uh defense of fortuitous events no if you recall your obligations and contracts because for Tous events are grounds or are um uh modes for extinguishing an obligation including obligation for quas delic all right so what are the defenses in negligence cases so if you are now the defendant uh what are the uh defenses so first we have prescription So speaking of prescription the the law provides that actions based on quasi delic must be filed within 4 years years from The Happening of the event no or me say from the occurrence of the negligent or intentional act or the tortous act so four years from the ACT not from the demand but from the ACT okay but take note rules overlap rules insurance law under your insurance code uh prescriptive period done is from the uh denial of the claim for damages so like say the Act is uh say vular accident claim against the insurance company but to make sure that the uh claim uh filed with insurance company must be within the period within the 4E period okay but then let's say it took the insurance company one year to file or to deny your claim years because oftion in court 4year period why because this time action for Recovery was um told or suspended because you sought payment from the insurance company but make sure that para successful action beyond the four years insurance company as a defendant all right anyway that's more procedural Basta import that you file the action for damages within 4 years from The Happening of the event and not from the demand you know we are demanding that you pay um say 1 million pesos for the damages uh that you have caused what if years the action is already stale okay next for ttus event as I've said earlier is a ground is a defense in negligence cases but take note that uh for ttus event to be a valid defense the actor or the uh offender must be free of negligence or free of Acts that aggravated no or that um yes that aggravated or increased the damage or injury okay so Omission you did not proactively cause the incident because there was a storm Etc but for failing okay to do what was necessary to mitigate or to reduce the damage or the injury because the Omission there is considered negligent in fact it can also even be considered malicious so next is Assumption of risk when the plaintiff or the person complaining had assumed the risk whether directly or me say whether expressly or impliedly then he is not entitled to recovery what is Assumption of risk meaning to say uh uh Assumption of risk means you engage in that activity knowing the risks and uh assumed or owned up to those risks no and then you continued with that activity examples waiver for example you ride or you engage in a very uh dangerous sport wer because uh you assume the risk of uh possible damage or injury from that activity but if you don't sign that risk you don't assume the risk then the person offering the activity or sponsoring that activity must uh exercise the required diligence okay but uh you know sponsor or author activity and you know it's bad or it's dangerous okay persons who want to Avail that or to engage in that must be informed of the risks and ask them to assume the risk that's the the right thing to do all right next is contributory negligence now here contributory negligence means that both parties are negligent but the plaintiff the plaintiff's negligence is only minimal or must have only contributed to his damage or injury ultimately it is still the defendant who was negligent so is that sharing in the um what do you call this in the damage Kuma if the plaintiff was negligent contributorily okay then maybe he will assume 30% of the the damage let's say the damage was 1 million pesos is 300,000 700,000 defendant okay that's contributory negligence we will talk about contributory negligence in a while now next is doctrine of last clear chance um the doctrine of last clear chance simply postulates that the defender has the sorry the plaintiff has the last clear chance but he did not avoid the incident so okay so for example vular accidents you are on your right of way okay so right of way you are negligent because you crossed the lane you counter defense is this okay I know it sounds ridiculous well sadly we have this doctrine of last C chance so ingrained in our you know legal system and it's not just here in the Philippines even in other jurisdictions so the point here is that you must be impelled by the you know the concept or the idea of self-preservation so will you risk it not a normal person or an ordinary prudent person to use the term in the law would avoid it because he wants to protect himself so you now of course this is a defense okay so I know uncomfortable with the doctrine of last chance okay hello James dickon okay James dickon is the perhaps the most um uh um person who really criticizes this Doctrine vocal the most vocal critic of the doctrine of last Christians well because he is an expert on Mot in and all that and uh he he he believes that this is the reason why um a lot of drivers uh are negligent because they will using the of last chance but then again as I said this is a defense then it is really up to the Court's appreciation if it is valid and if it is available all right next is emergency rule involuntariness all right we will discuss that later all right now strict liability I just want to to to to show what are these uh different activities or situations where the law imposes strict liability to be liable the fact is you maintain this property you use this property or you engage in this activity if something happens you are automatically liable concept strict liability the point here is that the nature of the activity requires you to be very careful because of this law on strict liability very few people engage in this or if they do engage in this they are expected to know that they could be held liable for untoward incidents or for damages or injuries caused to third persons so first is possess of animal so if you are a possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same he you are responsible for the damage which it may cause although it may Escape or be lost this responsibility however shall cease only in case the damage should have should have come from Force measure which is of course expected a forus event is a defense and also from the fault of the person who suffer damage so for example third person in in the past several years I think I remember there was this um um woman who was beaten by a K9 dog inside a mall so uh uh K9 owner or K9 trainer okay and as well as the company of course the security company uh well he was like she was the she was the reason why why the dog was agitated so in that case that's a good defense but generally okay the person who possesses this animal is liable for any injury or damage cause to a third person next Food manufacturers and processors manufacturers and processors of food stuffs drinks toilet articles and similar Goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers now this is also complemented by your uh consumer Act of the Philippines as well as the food safety act no the reason is that [Music] buyers in the preparation that doesn't matter that immaterial the point is this product was sold and it caused health risks or health dangersous to those who bought it or who ate it so strict liability all right now also provinces cities and municipalities are liable for damages for the for the death of or injury suffered by any person by Reasons by reason of the defective condition of Roads streets Bridges public buildings and other Public Works under their control or supervision this is also strict liability you can file a case against these local government units but okay take note that article 2189 refers to this public works or these infrastructures that are under their control and supervision so usually lgus if it's a national project they put up a big billboard and write there that this road is maintained by the the national government so that way they tell every well it's it's a public declaration it's a public um uh what exoneration if you will if something happens all right so but then if there is no such statement or if there is no such uh notice to the public then the the lgu would still be liable or responsible not withstanding that because of and all that holes and all that so it's not a defense all right now Proprietors of buildings now also this is a case of a strict liability because we don't especially the public know the community the community does not have control about the state of the building an owner has the control No in fact it is in a better position to know if this building is still in good condition well of course in those cases now the government the loal government will declare the building as dilapidated and therefore condemned is for it to be condemned but generally it is the the owner okay who is responsible for the good state of the building so if there is some uh damage or injury resulting from the uh total or partial collapse of the building then uh the owner of the building shall be liable all right so okay T fer no I'll just skip that that's do now of vicarious liability so article 218 2180 of the civil code gives us the rule on vicarious liability now vicarious liability is that concept whereby one person shall be liable for the acts or omissions of another command responsibility in administrative law but of course here we call it byus liability so what are those situations where a person be liable for the other uh especially if the other is negligent so we have the father in case and in case of his death or incapacity the mother uh with respect to the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company now in varar Li under article 2180 every word has a meaning every term is significant when you study article 218 defenses like for example in case of the father okay okay let's say the child although uh minor okay but the child was not living with the with the parents let's say Alim the child was uh living in a dormitory or in a boarding school so if that child causes injury to another but this child was not living or staying with the parents then the parents will not be liable okay next Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their Authority and live in their company word end so Authority and live with their company so for as long as there is still the legal Guardianship and the child is still living with them then the guardian is liable guardianship or guardianship but the child is not living with the guardian my defense Guardian also the owners and managers of an establishment or Enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their function if however the employees were not engaged in their official functions like for example if either off duty or even if on duty but he did something outside of his job description as defense by the owner or by the manager of the establishment like [Music] example all that but then anyway so next employers shall be reliable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry this is only to more or less justify uh the vicarious liability of um so for example the household help are you know are uh household helpers of a government employee for example so the government employee there am government employee is not engaged in business or industry and yet uh he is vicariously liable for the damages caused by the said house helper all right now the state is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable to the Supreme Court said now uh the special agent is an agent who is uh who is an employee but who does ACT outside of His official job description so for example um a clerk of an office is made to drive a service vehicle of the government office okay so agent per special agent because uh for that time only uh she was authorized to drive a motor vehicle a service vehicle special agent state if that clerk who was uh asked or who was authorized to drive cause damage to a third person but if it was the official chauffeur or the driver of that service vehicle who caused the damage okay or injury to a pedestrian the state is not liable ordinary AG in which case the liability is article 2176 liability all right now but then aside from knowing the character of the agent or the employee who caused the damage or injury because if the office is a government instrumentality a local government unit or any other office which performs governmental functions thenly if that government office or agency is a government-owned or controlled Corporation or an instrumentality whose creation was purposely to perform proprietary functions like in one case the national irrigation Administration Supreme Court private capacity the state in its private Capac capacity in which case liability is as Employer okay situation to where the state is liable uh for acts of the special agents all right now lastly teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils or students or apprentices so long as they remain in their custody cases explaining or interpreting okay this provision in fact today like number one according to the Supreme Court dis provision like teachers shall be liable for damages of students okay uh sorry yes correct teachers shall be liable for damages or injuries caused by their student if these teachers are are teachers of uh non Vocational School the General academic institutions so a university um what else a college G vocational school or schools of arts and trades then liable head of that school okay trade schols so if it's a general academic institution then the teacher shall be responsible head of establishment all right now the doctrines uh these are just um reiteration or just examples of cases uh about uh or in relation to the defenses that I discussed earlier except that proximate cost now for the definition of proximate cost we have the case of bua debak Medina I'm sure but it's it's not what it is today because this was a 1957 case so the the bus overturned and as a result um a lot of people were uh injured so except that seat now because of this the driver went out to the nearest neighborhood nearest community and asked for help so the people from that neighborhood came with torches in light Tores flashlight so torches so and as a result uh the um the gasoline CAU fire so here the Airs of that passenger filed a case against the bus company but the bus company said it but here the Supreme Court said that was maybe an immediate cause but that's not the proximate cause so it's important to know in in a series of events no um that led to to the damage or injury to find the proximate cause because there could be several causes some of these causes may be remote causes and they just contributed maybe to the damage or to the injury but there is that one event that has to be blamed it's like from A to Z there can be no B CDE e up to Z if there is no letter A so G so here the proximate cause is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence and broken by any event any efficient intervening cause produces the injury and without which the result would not have happened all right so yeah anyway uh also we have uh the case of Manila electric versus so Supreme cour if there is one thing or one person or one event that was already there and uh by reason of the negligence or the act of another uh damage was caused and this person who was already there or this act or property which was already standing there only contributed to the uh injury this is only a direct or immediate cause but the proximate cause is the negligence of the other party so it's your negligence okay all right so that's uh the case of M Electric and approximate cost I'll just skip that I'll go to the emergency rule so the emergency rule as I said is a defense but here is that it should be an emergency like for example um uh you are driving a motor vehicle and then you lost your uh hopefully no knock on wood you lost your brakes okay so well it depends again test of negligence is based on Persons ways to deal with a lost break then you should do that immediately no but then if like in this situation in Valenzuela versus court of appeals you did not have time okay to contemplate or to do what you should do under the circumstances it becomes now an emergency situation and an emergency situation may result in an injury okay but because you had no uh way of uh doing something else or taking a different course of action that is an emergency situation that is an a defense okay in case a case or action for damages is filed okay now is what we call the thing speaks for itself now the case of Africa versus CeX is one of the earliest cases exemplifying or illustrating the case of FR ipsa litur so here a gasoline station caught fire and while while refilling uh and as a [Music] result the reason why we caught fire was because of the negligence in the um um sorry because of the fire that happened in the adjacent um castolin station CeX uh did you show standards required did you prove that we did not um comply or follow or observe those standards of diligence so on appeal reverse victim or a griev person in this situation negligence because the thing speaks for itself a gasoline station does not catch fire on a normal or regular basis it's a flammable instit it's a it's a flammable establishment you should exercise due diligence prove that it was because of for event it was because of assumption of risk Etc it's AAS station all right now I'm sure you are more familiar with this because of the medical malpractices cases here uh if the resulting ailment is not supposed to happen usually surgery it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say operation like in cases like the thing speaks for itself negligent why because under ordinary and natural circumstances Medical malpractices but of course if the rest if the Lo will not apply because this is a question of discretion or this is a question of expertise so defense loor B remember if aor is just you know it's like a presumption that can be rebutted or disputed all right so attractive nuisance uh is the rule that a person who owns or maintains a property shall be liable if he maintains in his property some Appliance or some item or some some attraction that attracts children okay of tender age who have no discernment or who are innocent that they do not know the dangers of what they're doing or getting into so Alim imagine let's say Hansel and Gretel they saw this cookie house or whatever Bread House witch so they got attracted to it so it's an attractive nuisance and then of course we know know the story of Hansel and grle so uh but then in this case of hialgo Enterprises and other uh cases attractive nuisance the Supreme Court defined attractive nuisance by saying or by by showing situations when it is not applicable in this case my okay so so the children came in and played and then so they drowned Supreme Court under the doctrine of attractive Nance blah blah blah blah blah but in this case this is not an attractive Nance Supreme Court every child should know the dangers that lurk in the water also every parent should teach their children of the dangers that lurk in the water Supreme Court attractive nuisance must be such that it it does not I know it deceives children or that even adults no if they don't know what dangers lie beneath it or under it then that's an attractive nuisance consen responsible a person with ordinary intelligence and you know the dangers attractive nuisance you go in there and assume the riskem attractive all right you know last okay contributory negligence definition contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered which Falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection Supreme Court just because okay the other person was the first person who was negligent it doesn't mean to protect yourself you should also be aware and be careful okay in your own sphere so if you are driving a motor vehicle or if you are a passenger you should also exercise some degree of care and some you know degree of self- protection if you failed to observe that then I contributorily negligent okay concept victim blaming call it victim blaming per okay this is a civil case okay but then let's not use victim blaming in criminal cases say because the negligence or the Innocence okay of the victim does not cancel out the Criminal Mind of the accused blaming so go blame blame the victim only if you can show that the victim was in fact contributorily negligent all right for accident uh I just want you to uh check and refer to our discussion on forus events uh under our our lecture video on obligations and contracts okay so one hour as promised damages now when you say damage without an S it refers to the injury with s plural form then we refer to the compensation for the injury or damage suffered like pay uh you are liable to pay damages so you are referring to the amount the amount or the compensation but then when you say you are liable for the Damage Done you are referring to the injury in which case it could mean many forms of Damages you are liable to pay damages is it actual moral Etc all right so what are the different types of Damages we have actual and compensatory damages start here FP slides so we'll start with actual and compensatory damages actual or compensatory damages are those that are the necessary consequence of well all are consequences but then these are the direct consequence of the injury and these damages must be proved no they are uh capable of pecuniary estimation if you will so usually what falls under actual compensatory damages are hospital bills or Hospital costs um unearned income or unearned profit uh what else uh consequential expenses like Transportation costs Etc B if these costs are incurred because of the injury or damage caused by the defendant then the plaintiff can claim this no but then the rule is that this actual or compensator damages must be proved okay must be actually proved through receipts a witness okay or an expert let's say an appraiser okay so but if it cannot be proved then it cannot be claimed all right next are moral damages here moral damages are the damages or the compensation for the physical suffering mental anguish fright serious anxiety bmer reputation wounded feelings moral shock social humiliation and similar injury similar injury moral damages simply imagine a situation where the victim or the plaintiff suffered some psychological nonphysical harm or damage no like and all that but anything that you feel out of the ordinary that can be considered as suffering that that entitles you to be paid moral damages okay but then take note that these moral damages must be the consequence or the the immediate or the natural consequence of the actions of the defendant so let's say uh because of the Cyber liel okay um you suffered bmer reputation social humiliation anxiety or uh maybe uh ostra you you have become ostracized in your work and all that then that can be a ground for moral damages but let's say because of the Cyber liel in case because of the Cyber lies but then if it has no connection whatsoever because of um because the result would be independent of the acts or omissions of the defendant as basis for moral moral damages all right but now the question is is there a way to determine the value or the amount of moral damages unfortunately okayo to prove it so you can just Testify the plaintiff can just testify or present other witnesses to prove the effects on the plaintiff of the acts of the defendant now because there are no uh clear and strict standards to prove moral damages the judge or the court can also temper the award of moral damages usually G is claim one million 500,000 as moral damages usually as as a way of uh to milon suffered moral damages in the amount of 10,000 pesos moral d only so you can just forget iton pesos it gives that impression moral damages but then the court has the discretion and has the power to temper that why because Supreme Court moral damages are not intended to enrich the pl th at the expense of the defendant this is not a penalty on the defendant this is not also a way for the plaintiff okay to enrich himself the reason is that uh the reason for M damages is just to alleviate the feeling of the plaintiff now that's a big question how do you alleviate a person a person's feeling is it about money or is it about material things Etc well dep personality all right if you want to you know demand and moral damages all right okay now this is um a favorite question in the bar and even in your exams in law schools no um is a judical entity entitled to moral damages generally no okay because feelings entity meaning to say a corporation it's an artificial person so normally you will notice that if the plaintiff is a judical entity prayer in a civil case but okay in Republic Versa the Supreme Court said that a judical entity May Avail of moral damages under analogous cases listed in article 2219 such as liel slander or any other form of defamation so in cases where the jic entity has a name to protect so if the act of the defendant liel or slandered or damaged the reputation of that judical entity then that judical entity can demand moral damages but only in case good reputation all right I'll skip that now nominal damages are damages which may be awarded okay in those cases uh oh sorry arising from any Source enumerated article 1157 or in every case where there is any property right has been invaded now nominal damages are generally awarded when may damage particularly property right butal dages so nominal it's like consolation okay so yeah nominal damages awarded but you cannot award nominal damages actual damages or moral damages or Worse liquidated damages liquidated damages stipulated Dage Dames so because you know the interest of Justice demand that this plaintiff should be paid some form of Damages but prove but the evidence uh you know is is glaring in showing that this plaintiff has in fact damaged some hurt so ninal damages all right now temporate damages to explain this very simply are actual damages that cannot be proved clearly there is evidence of some cost or expense or loss that's capable of Peary estimation not because negligent or um the plainy failed to present uh receipts huh if the evidence is available or should have been available actual damages temperate damages as a substitute because temperate damages cannot take the place of actual damages which could have been proved okay but temperate damages as I've said earlier are actual damages but without proof but you know the court knows that these expenses were incurred or defrayed by the pl for example back then as Transportation cost back then charge but clearly because you had to do something you had to go to therapy Etc so that can be you know accepted by the court and the plaintiff can be given temperate damages as a parang an estimate Transportation tempor damages all right now liquidate damages are like penalties they're already stipulated in the contract now most of the time these liquidated damages are in Le off all other damages that is you let's say if there is the breach of the contract okay and the part is agreed that the person or the party who is guilty of the breach shall be liable to the other for liquidated damages in the amount of let's say 10% of the total obligation so yeah so that uh liquidated D those liquidated damages are in Li of all other damages but if the stipulation is void such as I mean say if the contract is void then the provision or the stipulation on on liquidated damages will also become void because liquidated damages are accessory to the main contract so if by reason of the invalidity of the contract is party suffered some injury like lost income unearned profits Etc lost income and uned earned profits defendant by way of actual damages okay by the way actual damages also includes pal attorney's Feast okay attorney fees are cost of litigation but these attorney's fees are different from the attorney's fees in legal ethics attorney's fees under legal ethics or the code of professional responsibility these are the attorney's fees or the uh compensation agreed upon between the parties you say between the client and the lawyer but attorney's fees as actual damages those are awarded directly to the plti as a way of reimbursement of his legal costs right arrange now of course this is legal ethics I'm just saying that um the parties me say the lawyer and the the client can agree that you attorney's fees recover as actual damages will also be paid to the lawyer by way of as a form of contingency okay all right okay exemplary or corrective damages are damages for the public good and these are usually awarded together with more moral damages okay now sometimes then actual damages then if for example by reason of the malice by reason of the fault of one party to the situation okay actual damages but the court feels that well of course this should be prayed for by the plaintiff court if the plaintiff says this actuation of the defendant so there should be some corrective damage or corrective penalty imposed of course when I say penalty damages penalty under the rice Penal Code penalty as you know in its General uh meaning means you damages all right so so the court can award corrective or exemplary damages for the public good and uh together with moral damages all right now damages in case of death uh this is also called Death Indemnity but um civil I think 3000 3,000 under article 2206 3000 before 3,000 was the death emity so Automatic by the happening or by the proof of death automatic the HS are entitled to death Indemnity in the amount of 3,000 pesos per in due time in increas as of 2017 the death in is 75,000 pesos all right now in addition to that computation of lost income reason of the untimely death of the person but because sometimes it's too prohibitive so it becomes now impractical and it becomes now almost impossible to pay so but of course if there is a prayer for that it can be prayed but again as I said these damages can be tempered by the courts all right now all damages or all prayer for damages as I said subject to the discretion and the power of the core to temper them now what are the factors that can be considered or that can be used to mitigate okay or to reduce the amount of damages so number one the pl's negligence contributed to the damage contribut negligence 30 70% of the total damage defs 30% okay next also the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract okay another victim blaming situation okay next the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract okay so set off okay if you have studied partnership law okay partnership law uh rule if a capitalist partner has breached the prohibition against uh engaging in the same kind of business okay uh his liability his say his liability for damages okay to the uh partnership may be reduced if that capitalist partner has contributed okay to the partnership in terms of income in terms of progress capitalist partner sucessful partnership okay whether because he invested too much or because he brought in uh you know uh so many clients for this partnership or claim for damages benefit reive partnership because of the efforts of this capitalist partner notwithstanding that this capitalist partner violated the prohibition against engaging the same kind of business so concept all right next in cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel because sometimes your advice can be taken as gospel Truth by other people especially the uneducated or the un uh unguided in the law all right so that's a defense now of course the responsibility of lawyers is to make sure that you give Good Counsel or good advice no and not uh deceive or not misrepresent go ahead do it consist okay next the loss would have resulted in any event okay so if the loss would have resulted in any event except that all right and lastly since the filing of the action the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury meaning if the defendant has offered to compromise has uh in fact uh spent for the plaintiffs hospital bills and other expenses civil Cas especially uh Tor cases that the plain that that the defendant offer no make a compromise because these acts of compromise are taken positively okay in favor of the defendant well of course the case is different the criminal cases because an offer of of compromise is usually an Evidence of guilt an so applicable to civil cases when the issue is how much should this defendant be a judge to pay as damages soas or let's give du credit to this defendant who offered to pay the plaintiff and lessen the suffering of the pl all right an it's 9:13 sorry I thought okay so guys thank you very much for watching huh uh I really appreciate you staying uh I really appreciate you listening to um my uh my lecture um this is a live stream but this will be saved in my channel so you can uh check this out later if you're reviewing for the bar or reviewing for your exams and and this will stay in the channel you can just watch this again I will not make a different recording again actually because of thei and all that okay so I so I hope you learned something if you have some questions on torts and damages yeah just write them down in the comment section next week you can ask me questions uh on torts and damages about this topic all right so so that's it guys thank you very much for watching this live stream lecture on torts and damages I'll see you in my next video Ang batas bye guys