Article 1162

Article 1162
March 22, 2016

Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of
Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws. (1093a)
Ang mga obligasyon na nagmula sa quasi-delicts ay nasasakupan ng probisyon ng

Chapter 2, Title XVII ng Aklat na ito, at ng mga espesyal na batas.
Discussion:
A quasi delict is an act or omission by a person which causes damage to another giving
rise to an obligation to pay for the damage done, there being fault or negligence but
there isno pre existing contractual relation between the parties. Requisites of Quasi
delict.
Before a person can be held liable for quasi delict, the following requisites must be
present:
1. There must be an act or omission;
2. There must be fault or negligence
3. There must be damage caused;
4. There must be a direct relation of cause and effect between the act or omission and
the damage; and
5.There is no pre existing contractual relation between the parties.
Crime Distinguished from Quasi delict.
1. In crime, there is criminal or malicious intent or criminal negligence, while in quasi

delict, there is only negligence;
2. In crime, the purpose is punishment, while in quasi delict, indemnification of the

offended party;
3. Crime affects public interest, while quasi delict concerns private interest In crime,
there are generally two liabilities: criminal and civil, while in quasi delict, there is only
civil liability;
4. Criminal liability can not be compromised or settled by the parties themselves, while
the liability for quasi delict can be compromised as any other civil liability;
5. In crime, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while in
quasi de1ict the fault or negligence of the defendant need only be proved by
preponderance (i.e., superior or greater weight) of evidence.
ARTICLE 1162
March 17, 2017
obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 2,

title xvii of this book, and by special laws (1093a)
Reported by: Jay R. Bautista
Quasi-Delicts define in Article 2176 of the Civil Code state:
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
According to Article 29 of the civil code
When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act
or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence.
Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer
for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
Elements of Quasi Delict:

1.Damages suffered by the plaintiff
2.Fault or negligence of the defendant
3.An injury to the plaintiff through such failure
Kinds of negligence
1.Culpa aquiliano
2.Culpa contractual
Quasi-delict (culpa Aquiliana) distinguished from Culpa Contractual
Culpa Aquiliana Culpa Contractual
1. Only private concern

2. Repairs the damage by
1. Pre-existing obligation between
indemnification.
the parties
3. Covers all acts that are
2. Fault or negligence is incidental to
faulty or negligent.
the performance of the obligation
4. Preponderance of
evidence.
Quasi-delicts distinguished from Crime
Quasi-delicts Crime
1. Against the
1. Against the State
individual
2. Criminal intent is necessary for the
2. Criminal Intent is
existence of criminal liability
not necessary
3. Only when there is a penal law clearly
3. Ground for Civil
penalizing it.
action for damages
Proximate Cause
It is generally stated, is such adequate and efficient cause as, in the natural order of
events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, would necessarily
produce the event.
Case Digest
FILOMENO URBANO, petitioner,

vs
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.
G.R. No. 72964 January 7, 1988
Facts:
On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano was on his way to his ricefield. He
found the place where he stored palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation
canal. Urbano went to the elevated portion to see what happened, and there he saw
Marcelino Javier and Emilio Efren cutting grass. Javier admitted that he was the one
who opened the canal.
A quarrel ensued, and Urbano hit Javier on the right palm with his bolo, and again on
the leg with the back of the bolo. On October 27, 1980, Urbano and Javier had an
amicable settlement. Urbano paid P700 for the medical expenses of Javier. On
November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed to the hospital where he had lockjaw and
convulsions.
The doctor found the condition to be caused by tetanus toxin which infected the healing
wound in his palm. He died the following day. Urbano was charged with homicide and
was found guilty both by the trial court and on appeal by the Court of Appeals.
Urbano filed a motion for new trial based on the affidavit of the Barangay Captain who
stated that he saw the deceased catching fish in the shallow irrigation canals on
November 5. The motion was denied; hence, this petition.
Issue
Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the proximate cause of the latter’s
death
Held
A definition of proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred.
The symptoms of tetanus appeared on the 22nd day after the hacking incident or more
than 14 days after the infliction of the wound.
The more credible conclusion is that at the time Javier’s wound was inflicted by the
appellant, the severe form of tetanus that killed him was not yet present. Consequently,
Javier’s wound could have been infected with tetanus after the hacking incident.
Considering the circumstance surrounding Javier’s death, his wound could have been
infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to 22 days before he died.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical
consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused.
the proof that the accused caused the victim’s death must convince a rational mind
beyond reasonable doubt. The medical findings, however, lead us to a distinct
possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause
later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The infection
was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
The decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of homicide.
Costs de oficio.

Article 1162

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 1162

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 1162

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 1162

March 22, 2016

Ang mga obligasyon na nagmula sa quasi-delicts ay nasasakupan ng probisyon ng

1. There must be an act or omission;

2. There must be fault or negligence

3. There must be damage caused;

5.There is no pre existing contractual relation between the parties.

Crime Distinguished from Quasi delict.

1. In crime, there is criminal or malicious intent or criminal negligence, while in quasi

2. In crime, the purpose is punishment, while in quasi delict, indemnification of the

obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 2,

Reported by: Jay R. Bautista

Quasi-Delicts define in Article 2176 of the Civil Code state:

According to Article 29 of the civil code

Elements of Quasi Delict:

2.Fault or negligence of the defendant

3.An injury to the plaintiff through such failure

Quasi-delict (culpa Aquiliana) distinguished from Culpa Contractual

Culpa Aquiliana Culpa Contractual

1. Only private concern

Quasi-delicts distinguished from Crime

FILOMENO URBANO, petitioner,

G.R. No. 72964 January 7, 1988

A definition of proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous

You might also like