TORTS
and DAMAGES IN
PHILIPPINE LAW
Chapter I: General Considerations
The field of tort liability
Ordinarily,
civil liability of one person to another may arise from one of three
main sources. It may arise from “contracts,” it may arise from “crimes”
or it may arise from “torts”. The field of “torts” lies between
the field of “contracts” and the field of “crimes” but the boundary
lines between
Origin and meaning of “tort”
“Tort” is an old French word derived from the Latin “tortus” which means “twisted” or crooked”. At one time it was in common use in English as a general synonym for “wrong.” In time, however, the word passed from the realm of general literature into that of the law, ceased to be used in its earlier general sense, and acquire its more specialized meaning as designating a class of legal wrongs.1
Difficulty of defining “tort”
A really satisfactory definition of tort has yet to be found. The numerous attempts which have been made to define the term have succeeded only in achieving language so broad that it includes other matters than torts, or else so narrow that it leaves out some torts themselves.2
The difficulty of defining tort, it has been well said, is due to the fact that there is no such thing as a typical tort, that is to say, an actual tort which contains all the elements entering into the rest. One tort is as perfect as another, and each tort differs from the other in its legal constituents. Particular torts can be defined well enough but the term “tort” is also used to denote wrong in general. It includes the unclassified residuum as well as the specific definable wrongs. It is used alike for all sorts of wrongs, nominate and innominate, other than breaches of contract.3
The demarcation line between civil liability for contract and torts, on the one hand, and between torts and crimes, on the other, is not clearly defined. Between actions plainly ex contractu and those clearly ex delicto there exists what has been termed a borderland where the lines of demarcation are shadowy and obscure and the tort and contract so approach each other, and become so nearly coincident, as to make their practical separation somewhat difficult. Also, the same act may sometimes constitute breach of a contract as well as a tort, or the same act may constitute both a tort and a crime.4
Broadly speaking, a tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages. This, of course, says nothing more than that a tort is one kind of legal wrong, for which the law will give a particular redress. But even this vague statement is inaccurate in one respect, since one important form of remedy for a tort is an injunction, granted in a court of equity before any damage occurs, while another is he restitution of what has been wrongfully taken, and still another is self-help by the injured party. But the availability of all such remedies will depend on the first instance upon the possibility that an action for damages would lie for the wrong thus averted, and so the statement made is sufficiently accurate to serve the purpose.
It might be possible to define a tort by enumerating the things that it is not. It is not a crime, it is not breach of contract, it is not necessarily concerned with property rights or problems of government, but is the occupant of a large residuary field remaining if these are taken out of the law. But this again is illusory, and the conception of a sort of legal garbage-can to hold what can be put nowhere else is of no help. In the first place, tort is a field which pervades the entire law, and is so interlocked at every point with property, contract and other accepted classifications that, as the student of law soon discovers, the categories are quite arbitrary and there is no virtue in them. In the second, there is a central theme, or basis or idea, running through the cases of what are called torts, which, while it is difficult to put into words, does distinguish them in a greater or less decree from other types of cases.5
Definition of “tort”
The earlier written defined “tort” as “an unlawful violation of a private legal right, not created by contract, which gives rise to a common-law action for damages.”6 Cooley, Burdick, Salmond and others also defined tort in substantially the same manner7. Later writers have, however, found this definition unsatisfactory and proposed other definitions. Winfield proposed the following definition:
“Tortuous liability arise[s] from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the laws: such duty is toward persons generally, and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.”8
Clerk and Lindsell agree with this definition.9
Prosser did not attempt to define tort. Instead, he tried to describe tort as follows:
“Tort is a term applied to a miscellaneous and more or less unconnected group of civil wrongs, other than breach of contract, for which a court of law will afford a remedy in the form of an action for damages. The law of torts is concerned with the compensation of losses suffered by private individuals in their legally protected interests, through conduct of others which is regarded as socially unreasonable.”10
However, as already pointed out, there is a general agreement among writers on the subject that a satisfactory definition of tort has yet to be found. That is the reason why some writers on torts do not attempt to define the term.11
Tort distinguished from crime
A torte is not the same thing as a crime, although the two sometimes have many features in common. The distinction between them lies in the interests affected and the remedy afforded by the law. A crime is an offense against the public at large, for which the state, as the representative of the public, will bring proceedings in the form of a criminal prosecution. The purpose of such a proceeding is to protect and vindicate the interests of the public as a whole, by punishing the offender or eliminating him from society, either permanently or for a limited time, by reforming him or teaching him not to repeat the offense, and by deterring others imitating him.
The civil action for a tort, on the other hand, is commenced and maintained by the injured person himself, and its purpose is to compensate him for the damage he has suffered, at the expense of the wrongdoer. If he is successful, he receives a judgment for a sum of money, which he may enforce by collecting it from the defendant.
The same act may be both a crime against the state and a tort against an individual. In such a case, since the interests invaded are not the same, and the objects to be accomplished by the two suits are different, there may be both a civil tort action and a criminal prosecution for the same offense.
Tort distinguished from breach of contract
A tort consists in the violation of a right given or the omission to perform a duty imposed by law; while in a breach of contract the right is granted and the obligation is assumed by agreement of the parties. Hence, to determine the form in which the redress must be sought, it is necessary to ascertain the source or origin. It if be found that the right or duty was created independently of the consent of the parties concerned, the action is in tort; if because of such consent, it is on contract. However, the existence of a contractual relation between the parties does not necessarily imply that all obligations that may arise between them will be contractual. The obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes a breach of contract would constitute a tort if no contract existed between the parties, in which case an action in tort will lie. Again, the breach of contract may give rise to a tort, as for example, one who wrongfully induces a party to a contract to break such contract will be liable for interference of a contractual relation.12
The rule as to parties to an action on the contract and on the tort varies materially. Parties to a contract are determined by its terms. Contract rights are in personam. Parties to a tort are indeterminate. Many persons may be held liable for tort who cannot bind themselves by contract. Rights of contribution between defendants and judgment debtors are different in the two classes of action.
Finally, the remedy in an action on a tort is the award of damages only. On the other hand, while damages may be awarded in an action ex contractu, the contract may also be reformed and specifically enforced. There is a material difference as to the measure of damage and the extent to which liability for consequences can be carried.13
Modern writers on American tort law have devoted considerable attention to determining what is the basic principle underlying the development of this law in order to achieve a more systematic exposition of the subject and rationalize its development and growth. It is now well accepted that the unitary character of American tort law is found not in its doctrinal development but in the broad notions of policy from which these doctrines derive and that it is in the social rather than the legalistic basis of tort law that affords the unifying principles.14 Liability for tortuous acts must be based on conduct which is socially unreasonable and, in determining whether an act is unreasonable or not, it must be viewed from the social and not the individual viewpoint.15 It should not be understood, however, that the theory of social policy is applicable to tort law only. In 1920 Dean Pound advanced the Theory of Social Interests as the basis of law in general.16 But in no other field of law does the theory find a better application than in the field of Torts.
Professor Harper explains these ideas as follows:
“Law, as a social institution has to do with human relations from which emerge the wants, needs and desires of life. Society is composed of interested men. It is these interests that demand and dictate the mores, habits and laws of a community. Thus, the process of making and applying law is one of creating protection for human interests. Life being what it is, the interests of one man conflicts with those of many others. However comfortable may be a social philosophy that I the ultimate ideal social order, the welfare of every man depends upon the welfare of all, the realities of the moment constantly disclose a continuous clash of interests, now of this individual with that, and again of one group with another. The law, in some way, must effect a reasonable compromise between conflicting interests, marking out the limits of permissible invasion of one man’s interests by another to advance his own adverse interests.
“But such a process implies an evaluation of interests. Some norm of standard must be available whereby the compromise or adjustment may take place. This norm is concealed in the philosophic notion of justice. Interests are to be adjusted in a manner that is just. It is not quite an accident that the words ‘justice’ and ‘adjustment’ have an etymological kinship. But again the question is begged, for there must be some basic postulate or assumption of value concealed in the notion of justice. How can the abstract concept of justice assist in the determination of the line beyond which A shall not go in invading B’s interests to advance his own? A standard of reference or a value standard is inevitable. This value-standard is to be found implicit in the general notions and culture of a people. Here, we need to concern ourselves with its origin or development. Among Anglo-Americans peoples, it is tacitly assumed that the collectivist welfare is the norm to which all individual conflicts of interests shall be referred for adjustment. This is expressed in various ways. The judges, in the step-by-step development of the common law have been guided by and have often expressly referred to “public policy” as the final standard of ‘justice.’ Dean Pound has elaborated the idea more scientifically, describing it as a process of weighing or balancing individual interests to arrive eat a result which will best advance and preserve the paramount ‘social interests’ involved. Upon an analysis, it will be observed that general notions of policy incorporating tacitly assumed social objectives have shaped the law and have furnished the final standard by which the adjustments of the conflicting individual interests have been made.
“Interests of individuals may be classified and arranged in a number of different ways. It has been found convenient to organize them, for purposes of the study of tort law, according to the following outline:
(a) The interests in personality, that is, the physical integrity of the body. and freedom from confinement.
(b) The interest in property, that is tangible or physical things and such intangible ‘property’ rights as are ordinarily treated under the head of property.
(c) The interest in honor and reputation.
(d) The interest in economic relations and transactions, including,
1) The interest in obtaining accurate knowledge concerning the subject-matter of the transactions,
2) The interest in the integrity of contracts already made, and
3) The interest in entering into advantageous economic relations.
(e) The interest in the domestic relations, including,
1) Marital interest,
2) Parental interests, and
3) Filial interests.
(f) Miscellaneous interests, such as
1) The interest in freedom from annoying litigation.
2) The interest in privacy,
3) The interest in reputation of goods and title to property, and
4) Political interests.”
Each interest which receives recognition and protection by the law, receives such protection to the extent of the social significance of the individual interests, as compared with the other conflicting individual interests. In other words, public policy requires that some interests not be invaded too far in the advancement of other interests. These principles of policy have become crystallized in rules and doctrine, as found in ensuing chapters. The extent and measure of the application of any legal rule, therefore, [is] determined by the social policy represented thereby. Thus law is, in the phrase of an American judge, ‘practical politics’ which the courts are working out a system to promote the public good by a fair and workable adjustment of the interest of the individual citizens.”
Dean Prosser calls this balancing of conflicting interests “social engineering.” He discusses the subject as follows:
“Perhaps more than any other branch of the law, the law of torts is a battleground of social theory. Its primary purpose, of course, is to make a fair adjustment of the conflicting claims of the litigating parties. But the last half century has brought an increasing realization of the fact that the interests of society in general may be involved in disputes in which the parties are private litigants. The notion of ‘public policy’ involved in private cases is not by any means new to tort law, and doubtless has been with us ever since the troops of the sovereign first intervened in a brawl to keep the peace; but it is only in recent decades that it has played a predominant part. Society has some concern even with the single dispute involved in a particular case; but far more important than this is the system of precedent on which the entire common law is based, under which a rule once laid down is to be followed until the courts find good reason to depart from it, so that others now living and even those yet unborn may be affected by a decision made today. There is good reason, therefore, to make a conscious effort to direct the law along lines which will achieve a desirable social result, both for the present and the future.
“Individuals have many interests for which they claim protection from the law, and which the law will recognize as worthy of protection. Various interesting attempts have been made to classify these interests into categories, which of course have no virtue in themselves, and only serve to suggest the wide extent to which the law is concerned with human welfare. Men wish to be secure in their persons against harm and interference, not only as to their physical integrity, but as to their freedom to move about and their peace of mind. They want food and clothing, home and land and goods, money, automobiles and entertainment, and they want to be secure and free from disturbance in the right to have these things, or to acquire them if they can. They want freedom to work and eat with others, and protections against interference with their private lives, their family relations, and their honor and reputation. They are concerned with freedom of thought and action, with opportunities for economic gain, and with pleasant and advantageous relations with their fellow men. The catalogue of their interests might be as long as the list of legitimate human desires; and not the least of them is the desire to do what they please without restraint and without undue consideration for the interest and claims of others.
“In any society, it is inevitable that these interests shall come into conflict. When they do, the primitive man determines who shall prevail with sword and club and tomahawk; and there is recent melancholy evidence that the law of the jungle is not yet departed from the affairs of nations. But in a civilized community, it is the law which is called upon to act as arbiter. The administration of law becomes a process of weighing the interests for which the plaintiff demands protection against the defendant’s claim to untrammeled freedom in the furtherance of his own desires together with the importance of those desires themselves. When the interest of the public is thrown into the scale and allowed to swing the balance for or against the plaintiff, the result is a form of “social engineering” that deliberately seeks to use the law as an instrument to promote that ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number,’ which by common consent is the object of society. This process of ‘balancing the interests,’ is by no means peculiar to the law of torts, but it has been carried to its greatest lengths and has received it most general conscious recognition in this field.
“The process is not a simple one and the problems which arise are complex, and seldom easy of solution. T is usually far easier to describe what has been done than to give a clear reason for it, and harder still to predict what the future may hold. It its (sic) is a simple matter to say that the interest of individuals are to be balanced against one another in the light of those of the general public, but far more difficult to say where the public interest may lie. Most of the writers who have pointed out the process have stopped short of telling us how it is to be done. It is easy to say that the law will require of every man reasonable conduct not unduly harmful to his neighbors; but what is reasonable and what is undue harm? In determining the limits of the protection to be afforded by the law, the courts have been pulled and hauled by many conflicting considerations, some of them ill defined and not often expressed, no one of which can be said always to control. Often they have had chiefly in mind the justice of the individual case, which may not coincide with the social interest in the long run. If we are to have general rules, and the law is to have not favorites, occasional injustice is inevitable to someone who does not fit into the rule; and the constant struggle is to make the rule sufficiently flexible to allow for the particular circumstances, and yet so rigid that lawyers may predict what the decision may be and men may guide their conduct by that prediction. It is only by a slow, halting, confused and often painful progress that any agreement is reached as to the best general rule. Ultimately, the law must coincide with public opinion, and cannot stand against it; but when that opinion is in a state of division and flux, it is not surprising that the courts’ decisions reflect the battle which is raging about them.”
Tort in Philippine law
“Tort” is a common law term. It came to be used in the Philippine legal system only after the advent of the American regime. The English word “tort” has no exact equivalent in Spanish legal terminology. However, an act or conduct is sometimes referred to in Spanish as “torticero” or tortuous.
Many of the legal wrongs classified as “torts” in common law are actionable in Philippine law as quasi-delicts, while other are considered and treated as crimes and, therefore, governed by the Revised Penal Code.
There are some differences between the common law on torts obtaining in the United States and the law governing quasi-delicts in the Philippines. This arises from the fact that some provisions of the Philippine Civil Code prescribe different rules from those prescribed by the common law.
The Philippines is a civil law country. A great number of Philippine laws are found in codes mainly based on the Spanish codes which were continued in force with certain modifications after the advent of the American regime and in laws passed by the Philippine legislature from time to time. These later laws were based on, or greatly influenced by, American ideas and principles. In the interpretation and application of our codes and legislation our courts have freely drawn upon American precedents and authorities. The result is that many common law principles have been engrafted in our law.
Another factor that contributed to the rapid assimilation of many common law principles in our law is the fact that a great majority of the members of the bar were educated and trained along the American system of legal education and although they studied the Spanish codes they became thoroughly familiar with the common law system obtaining in the United States.
This has resulted in the harmonious blending of the two great legal systems of the modern world – the civil law and the common law – in the Philippines and has given rise, so to speak, to a legal system different in certain respects from both its civil and common law parents. This blending did not stop when the Philippines became independent. It is still going on. It will continue because of the close historical, cultural, economic and friendly ties that bind the Filipino and American peoples together.
The influence of American legal thought on Philippine law and jurisprudence is likely to increase because of the commanding importance of the United States in world affairs. However, it may be confidently asserted that the American influence will not obliterate or supersede the civil law system in the Philippines. Three centuries of Spanish domination had left its permanent imprint in Philippine law, culture and customs. The inherent merit and excellence of the civil law system, which enabled it to emerge triumphant through the dark ages and the barbarian invasion and caused it to be adopted in many civilized countries of the world today, is the main reason why the civil law system will continue to be the basic legal system of the Philippines.
Perhaps in no branch of Philippine law is the blending of the common law and the civil law systems better exemplified than in the filed of torts. A true understanding of the Philippine law on torts cannot be attained without a correct appreciation of the proper place of the civil and the American laws on the subject.
It should be emphasized, however, that the legal provisions governing fault and negligence, which are the principal sources of tort liability, are found in the Civil Code. It is, therefore, indisputable that the Philippine law on torts is basically civil law, and not common law. This important fact must constantly be borne in mind because the philosophy underlying some of the provisions of the Civil Code are different from those of the common law and, in applying the provisions of the Civil Code to actual cases, our courts may arrive at conclusions different from those arrived at by American courts.
It must be remembered that the codal provisions and decisions of our Supreme Court are primar[il]y authority and possess an imperative force. On the other hand, American precedents and authorities are merely secondary authority and have only a persuasive force in our jurisdiction. This persuasive force of American precedents become[s] stronger when the laws to be interpreted are of American origin. But sometimes this obvious truth has been overlooked by our courts in the consideration of tort problems. This is due to over-emphasis on American cases and authorities even on questions that called for the application of specific provision of our Civil Code. Often American cases applying the common law are cited and followed by our courts when the law to be applied and interpreted is the civil law. While such a practice if discriminately followed is beneficial, a slavish reverence for American precedents as such is not desirable because it tends to create confusion in our legal system which is basically civil law.
Bearing these fundamental considerations in mind, we have tried to expound all and illustrate the subject with cases decided by our Supreme Court except on those rare occasions when no Philippine case or precedent is available. It must also be explained that in the exposition of our law on damages we have availed ourselves of American sources because some changes effected by our Civil Code on our law on damages have been patterned after the American law on damages. But even on the subject of damages we have tried to illustrate the application of the law with decisions of our Supreme Court.