4. Liability Despite Absence of Fault or Negligence

Liability without fault or negligence

Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. (NCC, Art. 23)

COMMON CARRIERS

Common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary diligence for the safety of their passengers.

NOTE: The Supreme Court stated in a ruling that the law concerning the liability of a common carrier has now suffered a substantial modification in view of the innovations introduced by the new Civil Code. These innovations are the ones embodied in Articles 1733, 1755, and 1756 in so far as the relation between a common carrier and its passengers is concerned, which, for ready reference, quote hereunder:

ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each case. Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.

ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. (Isaac v. A.L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-9671, August 23, 1957)

Possessor and User of an Animal

Under Article 2183 of the NCC, 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.

According to Manresa, the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause. (Vestil v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74431, November 6, 1989, 258-A PHIL 612-619)

The language of Art. 2183 reveals an evident intent to make the possessor or whoever makes use of the animal, liable independent of fault. The only exception is when the damage was caused by force majeure or by the person who suffered the damage. Additionally, there is an opinion to the effect that the owner or possessor of the animal is still liable even if damage was caused by the animal through the fault of third persons. If the acts of a third person cannot be foreseen or prevented, then the situation is similar to that of force majeure and the possessor is not liable.

In the case of Afialda v. Hisole, the animal was in the custody and under the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work as such. Obviously, the Court ruled that it was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences. (Afialda v. Hisole, G.R. No. L-2075, November 29, 1949, 85 PHIL 67-70) Owner check: verify the citation; the supplied case source lists G.R. No. L-2075, November 29, 1949.

Consumer’s Act (R.A. No. 7394)

Section 97 of R.A. No. 7394 provides that 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. (See Sections 92 – 107 of R.A. No. 7394)

Liability of Provinces, Cities and Municipalities

As for local government units, “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.” (NCC, Art. 2189)

When hotelkeeper not liable:

• The loss or injury is caused by force majeure. Robbery by a stranger committed with the use of firearms or irresistible force is deemed force majeure; theft is not force majeure merely because a stranger committed it, and theft or robbery by the hotelkeeper’s servant or employee does not fall within that exception (Civil Code, Arts. 2000–2001)
• Exception: Unless the hotelkeeper is guilty of fault or negligence in failing to provide against the loss or injury from such cause
• The loss is due to the acts of the guests, his family, servants, visitors
• The loss arises from the character of the things brought into the hotel