i. Quasi-delicts

Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance

Attractive Nuisance - dangerous instrumentality or appliance which is likely to attract children to play.

Reason for the Doctrine: The principal reason for the doctrine is that the condition or appliance in question although its danger is apparent to those of age, is so enticing or alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to approach, get on or use it, and this attractiveness is an implied invitation to such children. (Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v. Balandan, GR No. L-3422, 1952)

One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises. (Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v. Balandan,, GR No. L-3422, 1952)

Note: Generally not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location.

Tort arising from Breach of Contract

An act or omission that breaches a contract may also give rise to liability under quasi-delict if it would be actionable as a tort independently of the contract.

Where, without a pre-existing contract between two parties, an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself, the fact that the parties are contractually bound is no bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the case.

This rule can govern only where the act or omission complained of would constitute an actionable tort independently of the contract. (Far East Bank and Trust Company v. CA, G.R. No. 108164, February 23, 1995; Orient Freight International, Inc. v. Keihin-Everett Forwarding Company, Inc., G.R. No. 191937, August 9, 2017)

NOTE: The act that breaks the contract may be also a tort. (Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. L21438, September 28, 1966; Orient Freight International, Inc. v. Keihin-Everett Forwarding Company, Inc., G.R. No. 191937, August 9, 2017)

Basis of Life Expectancy

Life expectancy should not be based on the retirement age of government employees, which is pegged at 65. In calculating the life expectancy of an individual for the purpose of determining loss of earning capacity under Art. 2206 (1), it is assumed that the deceased would have earned income even after retirement from a particular job. (Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corp. v. Borja, G.R. No. 143008, June 10, 2002)

Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises.

The principal reason for the doctrine is that the condition or appliance in question although its danger is apparent to those of age, is so enticing or alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to approach, get on or use it, and this attractiveness is an implied invitation to such children. (Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v. Balandan, G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952, 91 PHIL 488-492; Jarco Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999, 378 PHIL 991-1008)

Example: Swimming pool with “attractive floats or paraphernalia.”

However, it should be noted that the attractive nuisance doctrine, generally, is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location. (Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v. Balandan, G.R. No. L-3422, [June 13, 1952], 91 PHIL 488-492)

Manufacturers or Processors

Under Article 2187 of the NCC, 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.

In case where there is a “Management and Operating Contract” between a local government unit and a private corporation

Sta. Ana Public Market, despite the Management and Operating Contract between respondent City and Asiatic Integrated Corporation remained under the control of the former. X X X There is no argument that it is the duty of the City of Manila to exercise reasonable care to keep the public market reasonably safe for people frequenting the place for their marketing needs. X X X To recapitulate, it appears evident that the City of Manila is likewise liable for damages under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, respondent City having retained control and supervision over the Sta. Ana Public Market and as tort-feasor under Article 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (Jimenez v. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-71049, May 29, 1987)

Owner check: Verify the G.R. number and, if confirmed, print “Jimenez v. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-71049, May 29, 1987.”

NOTE: It is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province, city or municipality for liability to attach. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. (Guilatco v. City of Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516, 21 Mar 1989)