1. Intentional

Torts are classified as follows:

• Negligent Torts;
• Intentional Torts; or

An intentional act may give rise to civil liability under Articles 32 and 2176 of the NCC even if the same act constitutes a crime; liability under the Civil Code is distinct from civil liability arising from the delict. Intentional torts are found under Articles 32 and 34 of the NCC. (See Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. v. Tangco, G.R. No. 165732, December 14, 2006, 540 PHIL 86-111)

Intentional Physical Harms

• Battery

Damages for mental suffering are recoverable without the necessity for showing actual physical injury in a case of willful battery because the basis of that action is the unpermitted and intentional invasion of the plaintiff's person and not the actual harm done to the plaintiff's body.

Personal indignity is the essence of an action for battery. Consequently, the defendant is liable not only for contacts which do actual physical harm, but also for those which are offensive and insulting. (Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S. W2d 627, 1967)

• Assault

Neither fear, nor terror, nor apprehension of harm is an essential ingredient of the common law crime of assault. Hence, the common law conception is that fear on the part of the victim need not be proved in the crime of assault. (Commonwealth v. Slaney, 345 Mass. 135)

• False imprisonment

False imprisonment is also known as “dignitary tort.” A civil action for damages arising from arbitrary or illegal detention is provided under Article 32(4) of the NCC. Arbitrary detention and serious illegal detention are separately punished under Articles 124 and 267 of the RPC, respectively.

Serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the RPC includes deprivation of a person’s liberty without physical imprisonment, but requires an applicable statutory qualifying circumstance; the required duration depends on the circumstance invoked. It includes a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. (People v. Bisda, G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003, 454 PHIL 194-240)

• Trespass to land

The court may award nominal damages to vindicate an invaded property right even when no substantial injury or pecuniary loss is proved.

In the case of National Power Corp. v. Spouses Campos, Jr., the Court ruled that the petitioner, in blatant disregard of the respondents' proprietary right, trespassed the subject property and conducted engineering surveys thereon. Under the circumstances, the award of nominal damages is likewise warranted. (National Power Corp. v. Spouses Campos, Jr., G.R. No. 143643, June 27, 2003, 453 PHIL 79-97)

• Trespass to chattels
• Conversion

Conversion is an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel. (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222A)

In determining the seriousness of the interference and the justice of requiring the actor to pay the full value, the following factors are important: (a) the extent and duration of the actor’s exercise of dominion or control; (b) the actor’s intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other’s right of control; (c) the actor’s good faith; (d) the extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other’s right of control; (e) the harm done to the chattel; (f) the inconvenience and expense caused to the other. (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222A)

INCIDENTAL FRAUD (DOLO INCIDENTE)

Fraud is the deliberate or intentional evasion of the normal fulfillment of an obligation. (8 Manresa, 5th Ed., Book, 1, 72)