The untimely and heartbreaking deaths of two collegiate basketball players have captured the attention of the entire nation, drawing an outpouring of grief, sympathy and concern. These young athletes were not only promising talents on the basketball court but also symbols of dedication, discipline and the bright future that awaited them.
Beyond the sorrow, lies the collective call for truth, accountability and justice. While public discussions often focus on criminal liability, there are also some discussions on whether which civil remedy is more appropriate, culpa aquiliana or culpa contractual.
Understanding these concepts is crucial in determining who may be held liable and what remedies may be available to the victims’ families, and this will be the center of this week’s column.
To begin with, Article 1157 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that obligations may arise from law, contracts, acts or omissions punishable by law, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts.
Negligence may either result in culpa aquiliana or culpa contractual.
Culpa contractual pertains to negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation while culpa aquiliana refers to negligence independent of any contractual relationship.
Culpa aquiliana is “the wrongful or negligent act or omission which creates a vinculum juris and gives rise to an obligation between two persons not formally bound by any other obligation,” and is governed by Article 2176 of the Civil Code:
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Negligence in culpa contractual, on the other hand, is “the fault or negligence incident in the performance of an obligation which already existed, and which increases the liability from such already existing obligation.” This is governed by Articles 1170 to 1174 of the Civil Code:
“Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
Article 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void.
Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances.
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father or a family shall be required.”
Actions based on contractual negligence and actions based on quasi-delicts differ in terms of conditions, defenses, and proof. They generally cannot co-exist. In contractual negligence, once a breach of contract is proved, the defendant is presumed negligent and must prove not being at fault. In a quasi-delict, however, the complaining party has the burden of proving the other party’s negligence
In Miguel Kim vs Slimmer World International[1] citing Dr. Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., the Court expounded on the distinctive characteristics as follows:
In that regard, this Court finds it significant to take note of the following differences between quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) and breach of contract (culpa contractual). In quasi-delict, negligence is direct, substantive and independent, while in breach of contract, negligence is merely incidental to the performance of the contractual obligation; there is a pre-existing contract or obligation. In quasi-delict, the defense of “good father of a family” is a complete and proper defense insofar as parents, guardians and employers are concerned, while in breach of contract, such is not a complete and proper defense in the selection and supervision of employees. In quasi-delict, there is no presumption of negligence and it is incumbent upon the injured party to prove the negligence of the defendant, otherwise, the farmer’s complaint will be dismissed, while in breach of contract, negligence is presumed so long as it can be proved that there was breach of the contract and the burden is on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence in the carrying out of the terms of the contract; the rule of respondent superior is followed.
The Court has consistently held that in actions involving contractual negligence, once a breach of contract is proved, the defendant is presumed negligent and must prove not being at fault. For the presumption to apply, however, the plaintiff must first establish the existence of the contract and the defendant’s failure to perform his or her obligation therein. In Sps. Carbonell v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., the Court emphasized:
In order to maintain their action for damages, the petitioners must establish that their injury resulted from a breach of duty that the respondent had owed to them, that is, there must be the concurrence of injury caused to them as the plaintiffs and legal responsibility on the part of the respondent. Underlying the award of damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of law. In this regard, there must first be a breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach before damages may be awarded; and the breach of such duty should be the proximate cause of the injury.[2]
[1]G.R. No. 206306, April 03, 2024
[2] Idem