1. Standard of Care

Definition

Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. (Layugan v. IAC, G.R. 73998, 1998)

Standard of Care required from the Medical Profession

Given these safeguards, there is no need to expressly require of doctors the observance of extraordinary diligence. As it is now, the practice of medicine is already conditioned upon the highest degree of diligence. The standard contemplated for doctors is simply the reasonable average merit among ordinarily good physicians. That is reasonable diligence for doctors or, the reasonable skill and competence that a physician in the same or similar locality should apply.

Standard of Care required from the Medical Profession

Given these safeguards, there is no need to expressly require of doctors the observance of “extraordinary” diligence. As it is now, the practice of medicine is already conditioned upon the highest degree of diligence. The standard contemplated for doctors is simply the reasonable average merit among ordinarily good physicians. That is reasonable diligence for doctors or, the reasonable skill and competence that a physician in the same or similar locality should apply.

Diligence of a good father of a family

It is the ordinary degree of care which a reasonable and prudent person will do given the same circumstances the officious manager is in. (Sta. Maria)

BANKS

Sec. 2 of the General Banking Law (RA 8791) declares that the State recognizes the fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance.

Banking is a business that is impressed with public interest. It affects economies and plays a significant role in business and commerce. xxx This is why the Court has recognized the fiduciary nature of banks’ functions and attached a special standard of diligence for the exercise of their functions. (Philippine National Bank v. Santos, G.R. No. 208293 & 208295, December 10, 2014)

DOCTORS

General Practitioner: The standard of the care demanded is ordinary care and diligence in the application of his knowledge.

Specialist: Generally considered to be that of an average specialist and not of an average physician. (Solis, Medical Jurisprudence 1998)

Degrees of negligence

• Simple negligence – Failure to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.
• Gross negligence – Refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property. (Office of the Ombudsman v. Samson De Leon, G.R. No. 154083, February 27, 2013)

Circumstances to be considered in determining whether an act is negligent

• Person Exposed to the Risk – A higher degree of diligence is required if the person involved is a child.
• Emergency – The actor confronted with an emergency is not to be held up to the standard of conduct normally applied to an individual who is in no such situation.
• Social Value or Utility of Action – Any act subjecting an innocent person to unnecessary risk is a negligent act if the risk outweighs the advantage accruing to the actor and even to the innocent person himself
• Time of the day – May affect the diligence required of the actor (NCC, Art. 1173); e.g. a driver is required to exercise more prudence when driving at night.
• Gravity of the Harm to be Avoided – Even if the odds that an injury will result are not high, harm may still be considered foreseeable if the gravity of harm to be avoided is great
• Alternative Cause of Action – If the alternative presented to the actor is too costly, the harm that may result may still be considered unforeseeable to a reasonable man. More so if there is no alternative thereto
• Place – A man who should occasion to discharge a gun on an open and extensive marsh, or in a forest would be required to use less circumspection and care, than if he were to do the same thing in an inhabited town, village or city. (A Selection of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort, Kenny, 1928)
• Violation of Rules and Statutes
• Statutes
• Administrative Rules
• Private Rules of Conduct
• Practice and Custom – A practice which is dangerous to human life cannot ripen into a custom which will protect anyone who follows it. (Yamada v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. 10073, December 24, 1915) Verify the G.R. number; the case is also identified as G.R. No. L-10073.
• Physical Disability

GR: A weak or accident-prone person must meet the standard of a reasonable man, otherwise he will be considered as negligent.

XPN: A physical disability is considered in assessing reasonable care, but it does not excuse precautions the circumstances require. In Francisco, blindness did not absolve the buyer of the duty to verify the seller’s authority. (Francisco v. Chemical Bulk Carriers Incorporated, G.R. No. 193577, September 10, 2012)

LAWYERS

An attorney is bound to exercise only a reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the business he undertakes. Prone to err like any other human being, he is not answerable for every error or mistake, and will be protected as long as he acts honestly and in good faith to the best of his skill and knowledge. (Adarne v. Aldaba, A.M. No. 801, June 27, 1978)

Intoxication not negligence per se

Mere intoxication is not negligence per se nor establishes want of ordinary care. But it may be one of the circumstances to be considered to prove negligence. (Wright v. MERALCO, G.R. No. L-7760, October 1, 1914)

Rule on Standard of Care

• That which the law requires; or
• That stipulated by the parties; or
• In the absence of the above, diligence of a good father of a family (CIVIL CODE, art. 1163)

Parties may stipulate a different standard of care, subject to law and public policy. A common carrier’s limitation of liability for goods is valid only if it satisfies Article 1744; stipulations described in Article 1745 are unreasonable and contrary to public policy. (Heacock vs. Macondray, G.R. No. L16598; CIVIL CODE, arts. 1306, 1744, 1745)

Diligence of a good father of a family – ordinary care or that diligence which an average or reasonably prudent person would exercise over his own property.

Standard of care of disabled person

A disabled person is required to use the same degree of care that a reasonably careful person having the same disability would use. Physical handicaps are treated as part of the circumstances under which a reasonable person must act. Physical disability does not dispense with a duty to inquire. In Francisco, the buyer’s blindness did not excuse the failure to verify the seller’s authority. (Francisco v. Chemical Bulk Carriers, Incorporated, G.R. No. 193577)

Instances where the law requires a higher standard of care

• Banks – as a business affected with public interest, and because of the nature of its functions, banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. (Simex v. CA, G.R. No. 88013)

Exception: Extraordinary diligence does not cover transactions outside bank deposits, i.e. commercial transactions. (Reyes v. CA, G.R. No. 94214)

• Realty Corporations – A corporation engaged in the buying and selling of real estate is expected to exercise a higher standard of care and diligence in ascertaining the status and condition of the property subject of its business transaction. Similar to investment and financing corporations, it cannot simply rely on an examination of a Torrens certificate to determine what the subject property looks like, as its condition is not apparent in the document. (Eagle Realty Corp. v. Republic, G.R. No. 151424)
• Common Carriers – from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, common carriers 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. (CIVIL CODE, art. 1733)