Civil Law and Land Titles and Deeds › Torts and Quasi-delicts
A. Principles
A. Common Principles
Quasi-delict compared with a crime
| Quasi-delict | Crime | |
|---|---|---|
| Source of liability | Fault or negligence causing damage, even where the parties have a contract if the act constitutes a tort independently of the contractual breach (Civil Code, Art. 2176) | An act or omission punished by law |
| Nature of the wrong | A private wrong, against the injured person | A public wrong, against the State |
| Intent | Not required; negligence is enough | Criminal intent is generally required for intentional crimes. Crimes committed through negligence do not require intent to cause the harm; for offenses under special laws, the required mental state depends on the law and the nature of the offense (Revised Penal Code, Art. 3; People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994) |
| Proof needed | Preponderance of evidence | Proof beyond reasonable doubt |
| What the wrongdoer answers for | Reparation or indemnity for the damage | The penalty, and civil liability as well, since every person criminally liable is also civilly liable (Revised Penal Code, Art. 100) |
The two liabilities are separate: responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176 is distinct from civil liability arising from a crime, but the injured party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission (Civil Code, Art. 2177).
Quasi-delict compared with breach of contract
| Quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) | Breach of contract (culpa contractual) | |
|---|---|---|
| Source of liability | The negligent act itself; even where the parties have a contract, quasi-delict may arise if the act constitutes a tort independently of the contractual breach (Art. 2176) | The contract; negligence arises only in performing it (Art. 1170) |
| Role of negligence | Negligence is the very basis of the obligation | Negligence is incidental to the performance of the obligation |
| Burden of proof | The injured party must prove the defendant's negligence | The creditor proves the contract and its breach; negligence need not be proved |
| Employer's defense of diligence in selecting and supervising employees | A complete defense: liability ends on proof of the diligence of a good father of a family (Art. 2180) | Not a defense to liability for the breach |
The leading case drawing this line is Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-12191, 14 October 1918, which held that the defense of diligence in the selection and supervision of employees applies only to extra-contractual liability.
Main functions of punishing tort
- Compensation and Restitution – To compensate persons sustaining loss or harm as a result of another’s act or omission, placing the cost of that compensation on those who, in justice ought to bear it.
- Prevention – To prevent future losses and harm.