Philippine Legal Guide: Torts and Damages Notes Outline 2 (part 2 Defenses)

VI. Defenses

1) Plaintiff’s Negligence as the Proximate Cause (Art. 2179 first clause)

Civil Code

Art. 2179

Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

Cases:

Manila Electric v. Remonquillo, 99 Phil 117

The Le Kim v. Philippine Aerial Taxi Co., G.R. No. 39309, November 24, 1933

Philippine Long Distance Telephone, Co. v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 57079, September 29, 1989

2) Contributory Negligence (Art. 2179 last clause)

the theory here is that the plaintiff was also negligent together with the defendant; to constitute a defense, proximate cause of injury/damage must be the negligence of defendant

Civil Code

Art. 2214

Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.

Cases:

Gregorio Genobiagon v. CA, GR No. 40452, October 12, 1989

Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. IAC

Philippine Bank of Commerce v. CA, 269 SCRA 695

3) GR: Fortuitous Event

Civil Code

Art. 1174

Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable

caso fortuito presents the following essential characteristics:
(1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will.
(2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid.
(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner.
(4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.

Cases:

Roberto Juntilla v. Clemente Fontanar (1985)

Teodoro M. Hernandez v. Commission on Audit, GR No. 71871, November 6, 1989

Amparo Servando v. Philippine Steam Navigation, GR No. L-36481-2, October 23, 1982

National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR Nos. 103442-45, May 21, 1993

Southeastern College, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 126389, July 10, 1989

4) EX: Assumption of Risk (Volenti non fit injuria) -complete defense

Intentional exposure to a known danger
One who voluntarily assumed the risk of an injury from a known danger cannot recover in an action for negligence or an injury is incurred
Plaintiff’s acceptance of risk (by law/contract/nature of obligation) haserased defendant’s duty so that his negligence is not a legal wrong
Applies to all known danger
Elements

a.The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;

b.He must further understand its nature

c.His choice to incur it is free and voluntary.

Cases:

Margarita Afialda v. Basilio Hisole, GR No. L-2075, November 29, 1949

Ilocos Norte Electric Company v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 53401, November 6, 1989

5) Due Diligence

diligence required by law/contract/depends on circumstances of persons, places, things

Cases:

Placido Ramos and Augusto Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., G.R. No. L-22533, February 9, 1967

Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104408. June 21, 1993

6) Prescription

Injury to right of plaintiff/quasi delict

- 4 years

Defamation

- 1 year *** When no specific provision, must be counted from the day they may be brought (quasi-delict is incurred)

Cases:

Ernesto Kramer v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83524. October 13, 1989

Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85868. October 13, 1989

7) Double Recovery

Responsibility for fault or negligence under quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from civilaction arising from the RPC but plaintiff cannot recover damages 2x for same actor omission of the defendan

Civil Code

Art. 2177

Art. 2177. 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.

Strict Liability

When the person is made liable independent of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts specified by law.
NOTE: Strict liability tort can be committed even if reasonable care was exercised and regardless of the state of mind of the actor at that time

A. Possessor of Animals

Civil Code

Art. 2183

Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.

Vestil v. IAC, G.R. No. 74431, November 6, 1989

B. Things thrown or falling

Civil Code

Art. 2193

Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same

C. Death or Injuries in the course of employment

Civil Code

Art. 1711-1712

Art. 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other employees, even though the event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or personal injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. The employer is also liable for compensation if the employee contracts any illness or disease caused by such employment or as the result of the nature of the employment. If the mishap was due to the employee's own notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall not be liable for compensation. When the employee's lack of due care contributed to his death or injury, the compensation shall be equitably reduced.

Art. 1712. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow worker, the latter and the employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow worker's intentional malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury, the employer shall not be answerable, unless it should be shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff's fellow worker.

D. Product Liability

Civil Code

Art. 2187

Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, 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.

The Consumer Act Of The Philippines (RA No. 7394)

Articles 50-52

Art. 50. Prohibition Against Deceptive Sales Acts or Practices. - A deceptive act or practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates this Act whether it occurs before, during or after the transaction. An act or practice shall be deemed deceptive whenever the producer, manufacturer, supplier or seller, through concealment, false representation of fraudulent manipulation, induces a consumer to enter into a sales or lease transaction of any consumer product or service.

Without limiting the scope of the above paragraph, the act or practice of a seller or supplier is deceptive when it represents that:

(a) a consumer product or service has the sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, ingredients, accessories, uses, or benefits it does not have;

(b) a consumer product or service is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model when in fact it is not;

(c) a consumer product is new, original or unused, when in fact, it is in a deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed or second-hand state;

(d) a consumer product or service is available to the consumer for a reason that is different from the fact;

(e) a consumer product or service has been supplied in accordance with the previous representation when in fact it is not;

(f) a consumer product or service can be supplied in a quantity greater than the supplier intends;

(g) a service, or repair of a consumer product is needed when in fact it is not;

(h) a specific price advantage of a consumer product exists when in fact it does not;

(i) the sales act or practice involves or does not involve a warranty, a disclaimer of warranties, particular warranty terms or other rights, remedies or obligations if the indication is false; and

(j) the seller or supplier has a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation he does not have.

Art. 51. Deceptive Sales Act or Practices By Regulation. - The Department shall, after due notice and hearing, promulgate regulations declaring as deceptive any sales act, practice or technique which is a misrepresentation of facts other than these enumerated in Article 50.

Art. 52. Unfair or Unconscionable Sales Act or Practice. - An unfair or unconscionable sales act or practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates this Chapter whether it occurs before, during or after the consumer transaction. An act or practice shall be deemed unfair or unconscionable whenever the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller, by taking advantage of the consumer's physical or mental infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, lack of time or the general conditions of the environment or surroundings, induces the consumer to enter into a sales or lease transaction grossly inimical to the interests of the consumer or grossly one-sided in favor of the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller.
In determining whether an act or practice is unfair and unconscionable, the following circumstances shall be considered:

(a) that the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller took advantage of the inability of the consumer to reasonably protect his interest because of his inability to understand the language of an agreement, or similar factors;

(b) that when the consumer transaction was entered into, the price grossly exceeded the price at which similar products or services were readily obtainable in similar transaction by like consumers;

(c) that when the consumer transaction was entered into, the consumer was unable to receive a substantial benefit from the subject of the transaction;

(d) that when the consumer was entered into, the seller or supplier was aware that there was no reasonable probability or payment of the obligation in full by the consumer; and

(e) that the transaction that the seller or supplier induced the consumer to enter into was excessively one-sided in favor of the seller or supplier

Art. 97

Art. 97. Liability for the Defective Products. - Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer, and any importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects resulting from design, manufacture, construction, assembly and erection, formulas and handling and making up, presentation or packing of their products, as well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazards thereof.

A product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it, taking relevant circumstances into consideration, including but not limited to:

(a) presentation of product;

(b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;

(c) the time it was put into circulation.

A product is not considered defective because another better quality product has been placed in the market.

The manufacturer, builder, producer or importer shall not be held liable when it evidences:

(a) that it did not place the product on the market;

(b) that although it did place the product on the market such product has no defect;

(c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at fault.

Art .99

Art. 99. Liability for Defective Services. - The service supplier is liable for redress, independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects relating to the rendering of the services, as well as for insufficient or inadequate information on the fruition and hazards thereof.

The service is defective when it does not provide the safety the consumer may rightfully expect of it, taking the relevant circumstances into consideration, including but not limited to:

(a) the manner in which it is provided;

(b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be expected of it;

(c) the time when it was provided.

A service is not considered defective because of the use or introduction of new techniques.
The supplier of the services shall not be held liable when it is proven:

(a) that there is no defect in the service rendered;

(b) that the consumer or third party is solely at fault.

Arts. 106-107

Art. 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. - The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing, exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify for damages effected, as provided for in this and in the preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there is more than one person responsible for the cause of the damage, they shall be jointly liable for the redress established in the pertinent provisions of this Act. However, if the damage is caused by a component or part incorporated in the product or service, its manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who incorporated the component or part are jointly liable.

Art. 107. Penalties. - Any person who shall violate any provision of this Chapter or its implementing rules and regulations with respect to any consumer product which is not food, cosmetic, or hazardous substance shall upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by imprisonment of not more than one (1) year or both upon the discretion of the court.

an act to ensure the safety and purity of foods, drugs, and cosmetics being made available to the public by creating the food and drug administration which shall administer and enforce the laws pertaining thereto (RA No. 3720)

Sec. 11

Section 11. The following acts and the causing thereof are hereby prohibited: (a) The manufacture, sale, offering for sale or transfer of any food, drug, device or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.

(b) The adulteration or misbranding of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic.

(c) The refusal to permit entry or inspection as authorized by Section twenty-seven hereof or to allow samples to be collected.

(d) The giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in Section twelve (b) hereof which guaranty or undertaking is false, except by a person who relied upon a guaranty or undertaking to the same effect signed by, and containing the name and address of, the person residing in the Philippines from whom he received in good faith the food, drug, device, or cosmetic or the giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in Section twelve (b) which guaranty or undertaking is false.

(e) Forging, counterfeiting, simulating, or falsely representing or without proper authority using any mark, stamp, tag label, or other identification device authorized or required by regulations promulgated under the provisions of this Act.

(f) The using by any person to his own advantage, or revealing, other than to the Secretary or officers or employees of the Department or to the courts when relevant in any judicial proceeding under this Act, any information acquired under authority of Section nine, or concerning any method or process which as a trade secret is entitled to protection.

(g) The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to, a food, drug, device, or cosmetic, if such act is done while such article is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded.

(h) The use, on the labeling of any drug or in any advertising relating to such drug, of any representation or suggestion that an application with respect to such drug is effective under Section twenty-one hereof, or that such drug complies with the provisions of such section.

(i) The use, in labeling, advertising or other sales promotion of any reference to any report or analysis furnished in compliance with Section twenty-six hereof.

Coca Cola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110295, October 18, 1993

E. Interference with Contractual Relations

Civil Code

Art. 1314

Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party

Gilchrist v. Cuddy, G.R. No. 9356, February 18, 1915

So Ping Bun v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120554, September 21, 1999

F. Liability of LGUs

Civil Code

Art. 2189

Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.

Guilatco v. City of Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516, March 21, 1989

Interference with Contractual Relations

Civil Code

Article 1314

Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.

Gilchrist v. Cuddy (1915)

Summary: Cuddy was the owner of the film Zigomar. He rented it to C. S. Gilchrist for a week for P125. But, a few days to the date of delivery, Cuddy sent the money back to Gilchrist and rented it to Espejo and his partner Zaldarriaga for P350 so Gilchrist filed for injunction against these parties. RTC, CA and SC: granted bec. there is a contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy
Doctrines:

Cuddy was liable in an action for damages for the breach of that contract, there can be no doubt.
mere right to compete could not justify the appellants in intentionally inducing Cuddy to take away the appellee's contractual rights
Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill and credit. He has no right to be free from malicious and wanton interference, disturbance or annoyance. If disturbance or loss come as a result of competition, or the exercise of like rights by others, it is damnum absque injuria(loss without injury), unless some superior right by contract or otherwise is interfered with

Cuddy contract on the part of the appellants was a desire to make a profit by exhibiting the film in their theater. There was no malice beyond this desire; but this fact does not relieve them of the legal liability for interfering with that contract and causing its breach.
liability of the appellants arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual obligations, as they were under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist
So that if the action of Gilchrist had been one for damages, it would be governed by chapter 2, title 16, book 4 of the Civil Code.
Article 1902 of that code provides that a person who, by act or omission, causes damages to another when there is fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the damage do done
There is nothing in this article which requires as a condition precedent to the liability of a tort-feasor that he must know the identity of a person to whom he causes damages

An injunction is a "special remedy" which was there issued by the authority and under the seal of a court of equity, and limited, as in order cases where equitable relief is sought, to cases where there is no "plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law," which "will not be granted while the rights between the parties are undetermined, except in extraordinary cases where material and irreparable injury will be done," which cannot be compensated in damages, and where there will be no adequate remedy, and which will not, as a rule, be granted, to take property out of the possession of one party and put it into that of another whose title has not been established by law

irreparable injury

not meant such injury as is beyond the possibility of repair, or beyond possible compensation in damages, nor necessarily great injury or great damage, but that species of injury, whether great or small, that ought not to be submitted to on the one hand or inflicted on the other; and, because it is so large on the one hand, or so small on the other, is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law

Gilchrist was facing the immediate prospect of diminished profits by reason of the fact that the appellants had induced Cuddy to rent to them the film Gilchrist had counted upon as his feature film

It is quite apparent that to estimate with any decree of accuracy the damages which Gilchrist would likely suffer from such an event would be quite difficult if not impossible

the remedy by injunction cannot be used to restrain a legitimate competition, though such competition would involve the violation of a contract
NOTE:

In tort under Interference with Contractual Relations, there is no need to know the identity of a person to whom he causes damages unlike in breach of contract
There is damage even malice

But in this case no damage was awarded because of the impossible to determine the amount

Separate Opinion:
- MORELAND, J., concurring:

So Ping Bun v. Court of Appeals (1999)

Summary: Tek Hua Trading Co., through So Pek Giok has been leasing the warehouse of Dee C. Chuan & Sons Inc. (DCCSI) from on a month-to-month basis after the initial one year term. Soon, Tek Hua Trading Co. was dissolved and Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. was formed by the same owners. When So Pek Giok died, So Ping Bun used the place for his own textile business, Trendsetter Marketing. He did not respond to the letter containing the new leasing contract and was asked to vacate but he refused so a suit for injunction was filed. RTC, CA,SC: granted with attorney's fees (no damages)
Doctrines:

Damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from injury, and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. One becomes liable in an action for damages for a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of asset if

(a) the other has property rights and privileges with respect to the use or enjoyment interfered with,
(b) the invasion is substantial,
(c) the defendant's conduct is a legal cause of the invasion, and
(d) the invasion is either intentional and unreasonable or unintentional and actionable under general negligence rules

elements of tort interference are:

(1) existence of a valid contract;
(2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of contract; and
(3) interference of the third person is without legal justification or excuse

NOTE: damage is NOT an essential element of tort interference
lower courts did not award damages, but this was only because the extent of damages was not quantifiable
Lack of malice precludes damages. But it does not relieve petitioner of the legal liability for entering into contracts and causing breach of existing ones.

The injunction saved the respondents from further damage or injury caused by petitioner's interference.

Intentional Torts

A. Abuse of Rights

Civil Code

Art. 19

Art. 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.

Albenson Enterprises Corp, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 88694, January 11, 1993

Barons Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 126486, February 9, 1998

University of the East v. Romeo A. Jader, G.R. No. 132344, February 17, 2000

Sergio Amonoy v. Spouses Jose Gutierrez and Angela Fornilda, G.R. No. 140420, February 15, 2001

B. Acts contra bonus mores

Civil Code

Art. 21

Art. 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.

Enrique J.L. Ruiz, et al., v. The Secretary of National Defense, et al, G.R. No. L-15526, December 28, 1963

1) Breach of promise, seduction and sexual assault

Beatriz P. Wassmer v. Francisco X. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964

Apolonio Tanjanco v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-18630, December 17, 1966

Conrado Bunag, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101749, July 10, 1992

Amelita Constantino, et al., v. Ivan Mendez, et al., G.R. No. 57227, May 14, 1992

2) Malicious prosecution

Civil Code

Art. 2219

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;

(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.

Magtanggol Que v. IAC, G.R. No. 66865. January 13, 1989

Franklin M. Drilon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107019. March 20, 1997

Andres Lao v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 47013, February 17, 2000

3) Public humiliation

Grand Union Supermarket et al., v. Jose J. Espino, Jr., et al., (1979)

Summary: Jose J. Espino. Jr., a civil engineer and an executive of Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc, together with his wife and two daughters went to shop at South Supermarket in Makati. He forgot to pay for the "rat tail" file which was partially exposed in his breast pocket. He was initially holding it because of its tiny size and placed it there when he saw the maid of his aunt and talked to her. As he was exiting, he was approached by the guard and was brought to the rear of the supermarket to fill out the Incident Report and soon to the desk of Ms. Fandino who remarked: "Ano, nakaw na naman ito". He said he was going to pay for the file because he needed it but Ms. Fandino replied "That is all they say, the people whom we cause not paying for the goods say... They all intended to pay for the things that are found to them." He brought out P5 to pay for the P3.85 file but instead it was taken as a fine to be rewarded to the guard. People were staring at them. He soon paid for the file and got out as fast as they could. He file a case against Grand Union Supermarket founded on Article 21 in relation to Article 2219 of the New Civil Code. RTC: Dismissed CA: reversed and granted damages of P75,000 by way of moral damages, P25,000 as exemplary damages, and P5,000 as attorney's fee SC: affirmed with modification lowering moral damages to P5,000 and removing the exemplary damages.
Laws:

Everyone must respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons (Article 26, Civil Code)

Doctrines:

Considered intention, personal circumstance
the mode and manner in which he was subjected, shouting at him, imposing upon him a fine, threatening to call the police and in the presence and hearing of many people at the Supermarket which brought and caused him humiliation and embarrassment, sufficiently rendered the petitioners liable for damages under Articles 19 and 21 in relation to Article 2219 of the Civil Code
It is against morals, good customs and public policy to humiliate, embarrass and degrade the dignity of a person
His forgetfulness led to his embarassment and humiliation thereby causing him mental anguish, wounded feelings and serious anxiety. His act of omission contributed to the occurrence of his injury or loss and such contributory negligence is a factor which may reduce the damages that private respondent may recover (Art. 2214, New Civil Code).
Grand Union Supermarket acted in good faith in trying to protect and recover their property, a right which the law accords to them. - eliminate the grant of exemplary damages

Rafael Patricio v. Hon. Oscar Leviste, et al., (1989)

Summary: During a benefit dance, the drunk Bacalocos struck on the table a bottle of beer and injured and caused blood to his hand. He then approached Patricio, a Catholic priest and asked if he has seen his wound. But before, Patricio could reply, Bacalocos hit his face with his bloodied hand. Patricio filed a criminal charge slander by deed against Bacalocos but it was dismissed so he filed for a civil case for damage in the court a quo. Court a Quo: granted moral and exemplary damage and attorney's fees. CA: reversed SC: reinstated court a quo
Laws:

ART. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts.

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;

(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

ART. 23. 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.

Doctrines:

The hitting on the face is contrary to morals and good customs and causing mental anguish, moral shock, wounded feelings and social humiliation
drunkenness is definitely no excuse and does not relieve him of his liability
Exemplary or corrective damages are required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of the offender

The amount of exemplary damages need not be proved where it is shown that plaintiff is entitled to either moral, temperate or compensatory damages, as the case may be
such award cannot be recovered as a matter of right

In cases where exemplary damages are awarded to the injured party, attorney's fees are also recoverable

4) Unjust dismissal

Ernesto Medina et al., v. Hon. Floreliana Castro-Bartolome (1982)

Summary: Cosme de Aboitiz, acting in his capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc., went to the Pepsi-Cola Plant in Muntinlupa and without any provocation, shouted and maliciously humiliated Ernesto Medina and Jose G. Ong "GOD DAMN IT. YOU FUCKED ME UP ... YOU SHUT UP! FUCK YOU! YOU ARE BOTH SHIT TO ME! YOU ARE FIRED (referring to Ernesto Medina). YOU TOO ARE FIRED! '(referring to Jose Ong )" A joint criminal complaint for oral defamation against Aboitiz. Provincial Fiscal: dismissed the complaint since uttered not to slander but to express anger and displeasure. Petition for Review with the office of the Secretary of Justice (now Ministry of Justice): reversed CFI: dismissed motion to dismiss then granted second motion to dismiss due to the amendment in Art. 217 of the Labor Code since jurisdiction over employee-employer relations and claims of workers have been removed from the Courts of First Instance. CA: reinstated CFI
Doctrines: simple action for damages for tortuous acts is governed by the Civil Code and not the Labor Code

Singapore Airlines v. Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano, et al. (1983)

Summary: Carlos E. Cruz was offered employment Engineer Officer with the opportunity to undergo a B-707 I conversion training course requiring him to enter into a bind with Singapore Airlines Limited for 5 years. Soon, he went on a leave despite receiving notice that it his pplication for leave was disapproved. SIA filed suit for damages against Cruz and his surety, Villanueva, for violation of the terms and conditions. RTC: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction CA: reversed jurisdiction over the present controversy must be held to belong to the civil Courts
Doctrines:

claim for damages is grounded on the "wanton failure and refusal" without just cause of private respondent Cruz to report for duty despite repeated notices served upon him of the disapproval of his application for leave of absence without pay. This, coupled with the further averment that Cruz "maliciously and with bad faith" violated the terms and conditions of the conversion training course agreement to the damage of petitioner removes the present controversy from the coverage of the Labor Code and brings it within the purview of Civil Law
The primary relief sought is for liquidated damages for breach of a contractual obligation. The other items demanded are not labor benefits demanded by workers generally taken cognizance of in labor disputes, such as payment of wages, overtime compensation or separation pay. The items claimed are the natural consequences flowing from breach of an obligation, intrinsically a civil dispute.
Additionally, there is a secondary issue involved that is outside the pale of competence of Labor Arbiters. Is the liability of Villanueva one of suretyship or one of guaranty? Unquestionably, this question is beyond the field of specialization of Labor Arbiters.

C. Other Torts

1) Dereliction of Duty

Civil Code

Art. 27

Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

Cornelio Amaro, et al., v. Ambrocio Sumanguit (1962)

Summary: Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot at near the city government building of Silay so the next day he, his father Cornelio Amaro and his witnesses went to the office of the chief of police Ambrosio Sumanguit who harassed and terrorized them in their daily work, ordering them thru his police to appear in his office when he is absent and he is about to order the arrest of the plaintiffs to take their signatures in prepared affidavits exempting the police from any dereliction of duty in their case against the perpetrator of the crime. A case was filed against Sumanguit on the basis of:

ART. 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
ART. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
CFI: dismissed upon appellee's motion in the court below on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
CA: reversed and remanded to CFI

Doctrines:

Under the new Rules of Court, an action cannot be dismissed upon the ground that the complaint is vague, ambiguous, or indefinite (see Rule 8, section 1), because the defendant, in such case, may ask for more particulars (Rule 16) or he may compel the plaintiff to disclose more relevant facts under the different methods of discovery provided by the Rules.
having another recourse (in connection with the crime of illegal discharge of firearm supposedly committed against one of them) as by filing their complaint directly with the city attorney of Silay or by lodging an administrative charge against appellee herein, does not preclude this action for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code and hence does not justify its dismissal

2) Unfair Competition

Civil Code

Art. 28

Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.

3) Violation of Human Dignity and Privacy

Civil Code

Art. 26

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

St. Louis Realty Corporation v. Court of Appeals (1984)

Summary: St. Louis Realty caused to be published with the permission of Arcadio S. Arcadio (but without permission of Doctor Aramil) in the issue of the Sunday Times of December 15, 1968 and January 5, 1969 an advertisement with the heading "WHERE THE HEART IS". Doctor Aramil wrote to St. Louis Realty about the mistake and stating how it has affected his professional and personal integrity as he has invited in several occasions numerous medical colleagues, medical students and friends to my house. Because of it he received sly remarks although in light vein as "it looks like your house," "how much are you renting from the Arcadios?" "like your wife portrayed in the papers as belonging to another husband," etc., have resulted in no little mental anguish on my part. He I have referred the matter to the Legal Panel of the Philippine Medical Association and their final advice is pending upon my submission of supporting ownership papers. Ernesto Magtoto, an officer of St. Louis Realty in charge of advertising received the letter. He stopped publication of the advertisement and contacted Doctor Aramil and offered his apologies but no rectification or apology was published. When Aramil's counsel asked for actual, moral and exemplary damage, they said they would publish an apology instead they just publish the Arcadio's at their real house without any apology or explanation of error. So Aramil filed for damages after which St. Louis Realty published in the issue of the Manila Times a "NOTICE OF RECTIFICATION". RTC,CA,SC: favored Aramil since he suffered mental anguish and his income was reduced by about P1,000 to P1,500 a month. Moreover, there was violation of Aramil's right to privacy

Rodrigo Concepcion v. Court of Appeals (2000)

Summary: Spouses Nestor Nicolas and Allem Nicolas resided in an apartment leased to them by the owner Florence "Bing" Concepcion who joined Nestor's business venture by contributing capital on condition that after her capital investment was returned to her, any profit earned would be divided equally among them. Rodrigo Concepcion, brother of the deceased husband of Florence, angrily accosted Nestor at their apartment in the presence of his wife and children, neighbors and friends and accused him of conducting an adulterous relationship with Florence by shouting "Hoy Nestor, kabit ka ni Bing! x x x Binigyan ka pa pala ni Bing Concepcion ng P100,000 para umakyat ng Baguio. Pagkaakyat mo at ng asawa mo doon ay bababa ka uli para magkasarilinan kayo ni Bing." To clarify matters, Nestor went with Rodrigo. But the same accusation was hurled by Rodrigo against Nestor when they confronted Florence at the terrace of her residence. Nestor Nicolas felt extreme embarrassment and shame to the extent that he could no longer face his neighbors, Florence stopped contributing capital so their business declines, not being able to meet demands and the spouses had frequent bickerings and quarells as Allem was doubting his fidelity. He demanded an apology but it was ignored. RTC, CA, SC: granting P50,000 moral damages, P25,000 exemplary damages, P10,000 attorney's fees, plus costs of suit
Laws: Article 26,Art. 2217 of the Civil Code
Doctrines:

under article 26, the rights of persons are amply protected, and damages are provided for violations of a person’s dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind.

The violations mentioned in the codal provisions are not exclusive but are merely examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages therefore are allowable for actions against a person’s dignity, such as profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous or abusive language

Under Art. 2217 of the Civil Code, moral damages which include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury, although incapable of pecuniary computation, may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.

Torts with Independent Civil Action

A. Violation of Civil and Political Rights

Civil Code

Art. 32

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;

(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;

(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;

(5) Freedom of suffrage;

(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;

(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;

(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;

(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;

(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;

(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;

(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;

(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances;

(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;

(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;

(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;

(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;

(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and

(19) Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

Delfin Lim, et al., v. Francisco Ponce De Leon, et al., (1975)

Rogelio Aberca, et al., v. Major General Fabian Ver, et al., G.R. No. 69866, April 15, 1988

MHP Garments, Inc., et al., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86720. September 2, 1994

B. Defamation, Fraud and Physical Injuries

Civil Code

Art. 33

Art. 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.

Revised Penal Code

Art. 353

Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Art. 354

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

Art. 355

Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

Art. 356

Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a compensation. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of the latter or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or money consideration.

Art. 357

Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor or manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned.

Art. 358

Art. 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

Art. 359

Art. 359. Slander by deed. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

Maximo Marcia, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-34529. January 27, 1983

Carmen L. Madeja v. Felix T. Caro, et al., G.R. No. L-51183. December 21, 1983

Catalino Arafiles, v. Philippine Journalists, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 150256, March 25, 2004

1) Defamation

MVRS Publications, Inc., et al., v. Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Philippines, G.R. No. 135306. January 28, 2003.

2) Fraud

Almario Salta v. Jesus De Veyra, G.R. No. L-37733, September 30, 1982

3) Physical Injuries

Victoria Capuno, et al., v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company, et al., G.R. No. L-19331. April 30, 1965

Laura Corpus, et al., v. Felardo Paje, et al., G.R. No. L-26737. July 31, 1969

Maria Benita Dulay, et al., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108017, April 3, 1995

C. Neglect of Duty

Civil Code

Art. 34

Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

D. Action for damages where no independent civil action is provided

Civil Code

Art. 35

Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.

The Defendants

A. Concurrent Negligence or Acts

1) Joint Tort-feasors

Civil Code

Art. 2194

Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.

Dean Worcester v. Martin Ocampo, et al., G.R. No. 5932, February 27, 1912

2) Motor Vehicle Mishaps

Civil Code

Art. 2184

Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable.

J.H. Chapman v. James Underwood, G.R. No. 9010. March 28, 1914

Marcial T. Caedo, et al., v. Yu Khe Thai, et al., G.R. No. L-20392. December 18, 1968

B. Vicarious Liability

Civil Code

Art. 2180

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable 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.

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.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

Art. 2181

Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.

Art. 2182

Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed.

Art. 2183

Art. 2184

Presidential Decree No. 603

Article 58

Article 58. Torts. - Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under their parental authority in accordance with the Civil Code.

Family Code

Art. 218

Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.

Art. 219

Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.

The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances.

All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.

Art. 221

Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.

Art. 236

Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life.

Revised Penal Code

Article 101

Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. - The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship, or control or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damage has been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution.

Article 102

Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. - In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.

Article 103

Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

R.A. 9344

SEC. 6

SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.

1) Parents

Cresencio Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70890. September 18, 1992

Macario Tamargo et al., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85044. June 3, 1992.

2) Guardians

Family Code

Art. 216

Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following person shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated:

(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;

(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and

(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified.

Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes necessary, the same order of preference shall be observed.

Art. 218

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.

3) Teachers and Heads of Institutions

Maximo Soliman, Jr., et al., v. Ramon Tuazon, G.R. No. 66207. May 18, 1992

St. Mary’s Academy v. William Carpitanos, et al., G.R. No. 143363. February 6, 2002

4) Owners and Managers

Philippine Rabbit Bus Line, et al., v. Philippine-American Forwarders, Inc., et al., G.R. No. L-25142. March 25, 1975.

5) Employers

Castilex Industrial Corporation v. Vicente Vasquez, et al., G.R. No. 132266, December 21, 1999

Light Rail Transit Authority v. Marjorie Navidad, G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003

6) State

City of Manila v. Genero Teotico, et al., G.R. No. L-23052. January 29, 1968.

Spouses Jose and Virginia Fontanilla v. Inocencio Maliaman, et al., G.R. Nos. 55963 & 61045. February 27, 1991.