OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS / Title 1: Obligations / Chapter 1: General Provisions / Article 1162

ARTICLE 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws. (1093a)

Quasi – Delict

·         Is an act or omission by a person which causes damage to another in his person, property, or rights giving rise to an obligation to pay for the damage done, there being fault or negligence  but there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.

Requisites of Quasi – Delict

1.   There must be an act or omission by the defendant;

2.   There must be fault or negligence of the defendant;

3.   There must be damage caused to the plaintiff;

4.   There must be a direct relation or connection of cause and effect between the act or omission and the damage; and

5.   There is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.

Crime Distinguished from Quasi-Delict

1.   In crime or delict, there is criminal or malicious intent or criminal negligence, while in quasi-delict, there is only negligence;

2.   Crime affects public interest, while quasi-delict concerns private interest;

3.   In crime, there are generally two liabilities: criminal and civil,23 while in quasi-delict, there is only civil liability;

4.   In crime or delict, the purpose is punishment, while in quasi-delict, indemnification24 of the offended party;

5.   Criminal liability can not be compromised or settled by the parties themselves, while the liability for quasi-delict can be compromised as any other civil liability;

6.   In crime, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while in quasi-delict, the fault or negligence of the defendant need only be proved by preponderance of evidence; and

7.   In crime, the liability of the person responsible for the author of the negligent act or omission is subsidiary, while in quasi-delict, it is direct and primary.

Discussion:

Let me ask a question, Can you file an independent civil action without making a reservation?

Let’s go back to ARTICLE 100 of the RPC as well as Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. 

If you will remember, Article 29, 30, 31, 35 and Articles 21, 77 (civil code), connect it to Article 100 of RPC and Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court.

Why? If you go back to Articles 29, 30, 31 and 35 of the Civil Code, this provisions refer to an Obligations arising from a Delict. And delict is one of the sources of an obligation.

What provision in the RPC confirms that? Article 100 = a person who is criminally liable is civilly liable. So when you file a libel case, you can also file for damages. So one single act which is defined as a crime will also give rise to Damages – civil obligations. 

And that is the reason why, under the Rules of Court, Section 1, Rule 111, if you file a criminal case the civil case is deemed instituted.

Very practical. Why? Because we are talking here of a civil liability ARISING from a DELICT.

But then it is not mandatory. That is simply a general rule because the same provision provides for exemptions. What are the Exemptions?

1.   If the civil action was filed ahead of a criminal action.

2.   If there is a waiver in filing a civil action

3.   If there is a reservation in filing an independent civil action.

Thus, if it is asked, CAN YOU FILE AN INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT MAKING A RESERVATION?

          If the problem doesn’t mention what is the source of the obligation, you qualify. If the obligations arises from LAW, from CONTRACT, QUASI-CONTRACT, QUASI-DELICT (article 32, 33, 34, 21 and 77), yes, I can file an independent civil action without making reservation.

(Again, it arises from another sources of obligations and not from a delict)

But if the obligation arises from DELICT, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, together with Article 100 of the  RPC, I have to make a reservation before I can file for an independent civil action.

REMEMBER: reservation to file an independent civil action is a requirement if you are talking of an obligation arising from a delict but other sources of an obligation, you can file an independent civil action without making any reservation.

WHEN DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE RESERVATION if your are talking about civil liability arising from a delict?

-      You can make reservation before the prosecutor present it’s evidence in the criminal case.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CIVIL LIABILITY WHEN AN ACCUSED DIES IN A CRIMINAL CASE?

          Will the Civil liability arising from the Delict also be extinguished?

§  Remember the Case of BAYOTAS. According to SC, if the accused died, the civil liability arising from the delict is also extinguished. Because take note that under RPC, the death of the accused will extinguished the criminal liability.

But then the SC, further said, that the victim or the relatives of the victim may still pursue the civil liability provided that it will now be based on other sources of Obligations. Is that possible? YES.

Why? Because remember in Criminal Law, an act can only be considered a crime if it is defined as a crime under the RPC or any special penal law. 

NOW AMONG THESE SOURCES, WHAT CAN BE AN ACT WHICH CAN BE AT THE SAME TIME BE A DELICT?

It cannot be arising from Law. It cannot be arising from Contract, or Quasi-Contract.

So the only possible thing is – it may arise from a Quasi – Delict.

And it Quasi-delict, WHAT IS ONE IMPORTANT OF ELEMENT OF THE QUASI-DELICT?

-      It is NEGLIGENCE.

IS THERE ANY ACT OF FELONY WHEREIN THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENCE? Yes. Reckless imprudence resulting to Homicide or Serious physical injuries.

So if the accused died and the crime charge is reckless imprudence resulting to homicide or serious physical injuries, the civil liability arising from that Delict is Extinguish but the victim or the relatives of the victim may still file a civil action for damages but this time treating the act not as a Delict but a Quasi-Delict.

NOW WHO WILL BE THE RESPONDENT?

·         The estate of the accused. Remember in Persons, in the case of Pedro fragante vs limjauco, the SC declared the estate as juridical person.

(kaya sa mga civil cases pag namatay, hinde mu sinusubstitute yung mga compulsory heirs, ang isusubstitute mu ay yung estate ng defendant)

Now, what is important here is that, even if in one single act wherein Negligence is involved, you can treat is as a Quasi-delict or as a Delict, and therefore there is a civil liability arising from the Delict and civil liability arising from the Quasi-Delict, you have no right to file two cases for civil damages. Why? Because that will be tantamount to Unjust Enrichment.

So if there already a civil action that is deemed instituted in the criminal action and the accused did not die, you just to pursue that. But you do not anymore have to file another civil action, this time, treating the action as a Quasi-delict. Because if you will do that, that will be tantamount to double recovery and it is unjust enrichment against the accused.

QUASI-DELICT = again, here there is an element of negligence