Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

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

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 uploads/Geographie/ guide 70 .pdf