Acts of Commission or Acts of Omission

When we hear “commission” the first thing that comes into our mind is that-a fee paid to an agent or
employee for transacting a piece of business or performing a service.
When we came in law school, When we hear “commission”, we know that there’s a crime or damage done

An act of commission (doing something wrong) or omission (failing to do the right thing) that leads to an
undesirable outcome or significant potential for such an outcome.
 They both come from
 the decision to do something &
 occur when individuals initiate some course of action

(DIFFERENCE) We have good reasons for the distinction between omissions and commissions:
 omissions- may result from ignorance, and
 commissions- usually do not; commissions usually involve more malicious motives and intentions than
the corresponding omissions; and commissions usually involve more effort, itself a sign of stronger
intentions.

And that, acts of commission or omission, when done, results to damage

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a QUASI-DELICT and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

QUASI-DELICT (base on the provision is

 a wrong which occurs unintentionally, as a result of something like negligence

 in civil law to refer to a negligent act or omission which results in harm or damage to an individual or to
the property of another. The person causing the harm or damage may do so without any malice, but
may nonetheless be found at fault as a result of being negligent and/or imprudent. This exposes the
individual to civil liability in the same way as if the act or omission was intentional.
NEGLIGENCE
Is defined as the failure to observe the degree of diligence required by law.
Ex. A driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian in a crosswalk

Under this provision, it is the plaintiff who has to prove by a preponderance of evidence the….
ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICTS
1. An act or omission by the one complained of (the respondent or defendant)
 Omission is the failure to do what a person is supposed to do

2. Fault or negligence by the one complained of (the respondent or defendant)

 there should be fault or negligence
 Negates the existence of intent
 Lack of foresight
3. Damage or injury on the one complaining
 Damage or injury is always an element in civil cases because you need to establish that you are the
injured party and that’s why the action is taken
 One of the more important elements
Absence of a pre-existing contractual relations between the persons involved
If there were a pre-existing contract, any act or omission caused by the fault or negligence of the respondent or
defendant is governed by the provisions of the contract
In quasi-delict there should be no pre-existing contract
Not a hard and fast rule as there are cases ruled by the Supreme Court that sets the exceptions where
respondent or defendant was still held liable even with the existence of a contractual relations due to
negligence.
it may be true that the pre-existing contract between the parties may, as a general rule, bar the
applicability of the law on quasi-delict , the liability may itself be deemed to arise from quasi-delict, i.e., the
acts which breaks the contract may also be a quasi-delict.
 O AN ACT OR OMISSION CAUSING DAMAGE TO ANOTHER MAY GIVE RISE TO TWO SEPARATE
CIVIL LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF THE OFFENDER
1. Civil Liability ex delicto
 the liability sought to be recovered in a civil action deemed instituted with the criminal
case."
 Under Art 100 of the RPC- Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
 Underlying the legal principle that a person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable is
the view that from the standpoint of its effects, a crime has dual character: (1) as an
offense against the state because of the disturbance of the social order; and (2) as an
offense against the private person injured by the crime
 what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation of everyone to repair or to make
whole the damage caused to another by reason of his act or omission, whether done
intentionally or negligently and whether or not punishable by law.
Civil liability under the Revised Penal Code includes (1) restitution, (2) reparation of the damage caused, and
(3) indemnification (compensation for harm or loss) for consequential damages.
Ex. A was convicted of serious physical injuries through negligence under the Revised Penal Code, and B, the
injured party, was indemnified (compensated) in the criminal case for the damages caused to him,
2. Independent Civil Liabilities
> They may proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence
> This is the principle of independent civil actions it can proceed independently from the criminal action.
Such as those:
a) Culpa Contractual- as governed by the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts particularly
Articles 1170 to 1174, refers to those, who in the performance of the obligation are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay, are liable for damages.
 Negligence incident to the performance of a contractual obligation (such as for breach of contract or
for tort)
 Arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code of the Phil. - When the civil action is based on
an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may
proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.

 Intentional torts Under Article 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 a 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 may 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.

 Under Article 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.; and
 Culpa Aquiliana or Quasi Delict under Art. 2176

b) Under Article 33- In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely
separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

Either of the 2 liabilities may be enforced subject to the condition or limitation under:
Article 2177 of the civil code w/c provides- 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.(n)

 Where the party claiming payment for the damage done cannot recover twice for the same act .or
omission of the defendant.
 acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a
bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages
due to a quasi-delict or “culpa aquiliana.’’ But said article forestalls a double recovery.”
Ex. if A was convicted of serious physical injuries through negligence under the Revised Penal Code, and
B, the injured party, was indemnified in the criminal case for the damages caused to him, the latter cannot
recover damages in a separate civil action for the same act or omission of A.

Dulay vs. C.A

Facts: an altercation between Benigno Torzuela and Atty. Napoleon Dulay occurred at the “Big Bang Sa
Alabang,” Alabang Village, Muntinlupa as a result of which Benigno Torzuela, the security guard on duty at the
said carnival, shot and killed Atty. Napoleon Dulay. Petitioner Maria Benita A. Dulay, widow of the deceased
Napoleon Dulay, in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor children, filed an action for damages against
Benigno Torzuela and private respondents Safeguard and/or Superguard(as alternative defendants), alleged
employers of defendant Torzuela; alleged that the incident was due to the concurring negligence of the
defendants, 1) Torzuela’s cruel and reckless discharge of the firearm issued to him; and 2) Superguard’s
failure to exercise the diligence in the supervision and control pf its employees.
Respondent Superguard filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not state a valid
cause of action;
 claimed that Torzuela’s act of shooting Dulay was beyond the scope of his duties, and that since the
alleged act of shooting was committed with deliberate intent (dolo), the civil liability therefor is
governed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code;
 further alleged that a complaint for damages based on negligence under Article 2176 of the New Civil
Code, such as the one filed by petitioners, cannot lie, since the civil liability under Article 2176 applies
only to quasi-offenses under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
 argued that petitioners’ filing of the complaint is premature considering that the conviction of Torzuela in
a criminal case is a condition sine qua non for the employer’s subsidiary liability.
Respondent Safeguard also filed a motion praying that it be excluded as defendant on the ground that
defendant Torzuela is not one of its employees. Petitioners opposed both motions, stating that their cause of
action against the private respondents is based on their liability under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code.

Meanwhile, an Information dated March 21, 1989 charging Benigno Torzuela with homicide was filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Makati and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 89-1896.

Respondent judge declared that the complaint was one for damages founded on crimes punishable under
Articles 100 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code as distinguished from those arising from, quasi-delict.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not Torzuela’ s act of shooting Napoleon Dulay constitutes a quasi-delict actionable under
Article 2176 of the New Civil Code;
(2) Whether or not Article 33 of the New Civil Code applies only to injuries intentionally committed; and
(3) Whether or not the liability or respondents is subsidiary under the Revised Penal Code.
Held:
(1) Yes. Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides that “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.” Contrary to the theory of private respondents, there is no justification for limiting the
scope of Article 2176 of the Civil Code to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. Well-entrenched is the
doctrine that article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence, but also acts which are voluntary
and intentional.
(2) No. The term “physical injuries” in Article 33 has already been construed to include bodily injuries causing
death. It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. It includes not only physical
injuries but also consummated, frustrated, and attempted homicide. Although in the Marcia case, it was held
that no independent civil action may be filed under Article 33 where the crime is the result of criminal
negligence, it must be noted, however, that Torzuela, the accused in the case at bar, is charged with homicide,
not with reckless imprudence, whereas the defendant in Marcia was charged with reckless imprudence.
Therefore, in this case, a civil action based on Article 33 lies.
(3) No. Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, when an injury is caused by the negligence of the employee,
there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer
either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after selection or both. The liability
of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the
negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such employee. Therefore, it is incumbent upon
the private respondents to prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection
and supervision of their employee.
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.