CHAPTER XIX TORTS AND CRIMES

Submitted By: Listones, Bradly Silva, Chris Ian Valerio, Exequiel 4-B Concept and Purpose of Tort Liability Concept of Tort/quasi-delict 1. Tort in General Tort is a common law term. It has no exact equivalent in civil law. Roman law used the term quasi-delict to cover cases where, although there was no intention nor fault, liability is imposed on grounds of expediency. 2. Tort in the Philippine Law is embodied in Art 2176 NCC Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter (art 2176 2194). Purpose of Tort The purpose of Tort is to protect certain rights which relate to person, property, or reputation and to provide compensation or redress for any wrongs that infringe them. It hasTwo-fold purpose: deter the wrongdoers, and compensate the injured person. Historical Development Law of the Place of Wrong(Lex Loci Delicti Commissi) Philips vs. Eyre (1870)

As a General Rule, in order to found suit in England for a wrong alleged to have been committed abroad, two conditions must be fulfilled. First, the wrong must be of such character that it would have been actionable if committed in

England. Secondly, the act must not have been justifiable by the law of the place where it was done. (The defendant must have offended both the law of the locus delicti and of england) Slater vs. Mexican National Railway Co. (1904)

The theory of the foreign suit is that, although the act complained of was subject to no law having force in the Forum, it gave rise to an obligatio, which like other obligations, follows the person and may be enforced wherever the person may be found. But the only source of obligation is the law of the place of the act, it follows that that law determines not merely the existence of the obligation but equally determines the extent. Where is the Place of Wrong? Concepts of place of wrong Place of wrong could be at the Place of conduct - The situs of the tort is the place where the tortuous acts was committed. Or it could be at Place of injury - Looks to the place where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort occurs. This is inline with the vested rights theory Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. Carroll (1892) Where the negligence which causes the injuries is committed in one jurisdiction and the injuries inflicted in another, the law of the latter place governs. Criticisms: As to the place of conduct rule. This could result to unfairness , where in the nature of things his act is likely to cause injury outside the place of execution As to the place of injury rule first, the place where the injury is sustained may be entirely fortuitous. Second, where the conduct of the actor is required or permitted by the law of the state of execution, it would be unfair to subject him to liability under the State of the alleged injury. Third, where the act is actionable by the law of the state of injury, the latter may have no interest in shielding the actor from liability, whereas the place of execution may have a more significant relationship to the parties and to the occurrence. Revolt Against the Rule of Lex Loci Delicti Commissi

 Prof. Stumberg: Once a case is clessified as a tort problem, all that a judge should do is to apply the athe proper connecting factor in this case the place of injury determines the nature and the extent of tort liability. The judge does not have to consider the policies That is why it has been criticized as the blindfold test one which obliges the content of their respective domestic laws. Its simplicity is its chief demerit. It is too simple for complex cases. Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel (1957) The court held that the Minnesota Dramshop Act applies in a case where a Minnesota Citizen was served too much alcohol and got intoxicated in Minnesota and Uverturned his automobile while driving in Wisconsin. Kilberg v. northeast Airlines (1961) In airplane flights, the place of injury becomes entirely fortuitous. Our courts should, if possible provide protection for our own states people against unfair anachronistic treatment of the lawsuits which result from these disasters. Grant v. McAuliffe (1953) Judge Taylor Applied the Law of the Domicile of the Parties, California, rather than the Law of the place of injury Arizona. Haunschild v. Continental Casualty Co. (1959) The Wisconsin Court applied in this case, a suit between spouses, the law of their domicile rather than the law of the place of injury. Modern Theories and Rules on Tort Liability 1. Elective Concurrence In this theory, the injured person may choose to sue under one law or the other; he can elect the law most advantageous to his demand, but he is not permitted to cumulate the benefits from more than one law. The place of tort is assumed to be wherever an essential part of the tort has been committed. This has been followed by the Swiss Federal Tribunal and, in case of unfair competition, by the Italian Supreme Court. 2. The Most Significant Relationship Rule.

The rights and Liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to the particular issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties. Factors in determining the state which has the most significant relationship: Place where the injury occurred Place of conduct causing the injury Domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties Place where the relationship between the parties is centered Rules for Different Torts and for Different Issues in Tort The identity of the state of the most significant relationship depends upon the nature of the tort and upon the particular issue. Place of injury in cases of injuries and of injuries to tangible things. Location of defendants conduct: cases of fraudulent representation, or of unfair competition, such as by false advertising and the misappropriation of trade values. Place of plaintiffs domicile or the state of his nationality, or on occasion, his place of business; where there is multistate publication of matter that injures the plaintiffs reputation, or causes him financial injury, or invades his rights to privacy. Place where the relationship is centered; where there is a relationship between the parties and when the injury was caused by the act done in the course of the relationship Bobcock v. Jackson (1963) Justice, Fairness and the best practical result may be best achieved by giving controlling effect to the law of the jurisdiction which, because of the relationship or contract with the occurrence or the parties, has the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation. The merit of such rule is that it gives to the place having the most interest in the problem paramount control over the legal issues arising out of the particular factual content and thereby allows the forum to apply the policy of the jurisdiction most intimately connected with the outcome of the particular litigation

3. The State-Interest Analysis The traditional method in most legal systems, including the Philippines is to classify a conflicts problem under its proper category such as torts, contracts, property succession or family relations then identify the appropriate concerning factor or point of contract, such as the place of wrong or locus delicti in case of torts and finally apply its law without further inquiry into its purposes or underlying policies. But many leading writers and jurists exposed the injustices and the absurdity of the traditional method. Having systematically destroyed the whole system, the critics found it necessary to formulate new method of solving problems in Conflict of Laws. One of such method is the governmental or state interest analysis advanced by Prof. Currie. Governmental or state-interest analysis includes all the relevant concerns that a state may have in an issue, not only as a sovereign in a set of facts or an entity but as a repository of justice. Let us see how it applies to tort problems, where there is no statutory directive as to the law that should govern the conflicts problem. The first step in the analysis is to separate false or spurious conflicts from true conflicts - there is a false or spurious conflicts, when two or more rules pointing to different results, but upon analysis of the purposes underlying the divergent rules, it becomes apparent that the purpose of only one of them would be advanced by its application in the case. The second step is to make distinction between interested forum and a disinterested forum - Where the forum can reasonably assert an interest in the application of its law and policy, as against interest of another state, the forum should apply its own internal law. But when the forum is disinterested forum, an occurence which is extremely rare the court should generally dismissed the case on the ground of forum non conveniens.

4. Cavers Principle of Preference When a state, as in the case of the Philippines, has no codal or statutory provision as to the law that should regulate the question of tort liability in conflicts cases, its courts should be guided by certain rules or principles in determining which of the conflicting rules of two or more affected States

should apply to an alleged tort, in every case where there is a true or unavoidable conflict. Lacking of such rules or principles of preference the court within the state would be left without any compass and ever decision would be an ad hoc decision, thereby creating what has been called a free law jurisprudence. We shall now consider four suggested principles in the area of torts 1. Where the liabilityof the state of injury set a higher standard of conduct or of financial protection against injury than do the laws of the state where the person causing the injury has acted or has his home, the laws of the state of injury should determine the standard and protection applicable to the case 2. Where the liability laws of the state in which the defendant acted and caused injury set a lower standard of conduct or of financial protection than do the laws of the home state of the person suffering injury, the laws of the state of conduct and injury should determine the standard 3. Where the state in which the defendant has acted has established special controls including the sanction of civil liability, the plaintiffs should be accorded the benefit of the special standard of defendants conduct even though the state of injury had impose no such controls or sanctions 4. When the law of a state in which a relationship has its seat has imposed a standard of conduct on one party to that relationship for the benefit of the other party which is higher than the like standard imposed by the state of injury, the law of former state should determine the standard Philippine Conflicts Rule on Tort Liability If our internal law on torts found in the Civil Code is in conflict with the law of another State that has a connection with the parties of the event, a Philippine court should face up to the conflict and resolve the conflict by the following method First ascertain and weigh the purpose underlying the tort law of the forum as applied to the particular case.

Second examine and weigh Enforcement of Claim for Foreign Tort As a general rule, an action for a foreign tort, like any other personal action, may be brought in any place where the defendant may be served with process or is subject to suit. Exception: in Anglo American law, there is one tort action that is considered local, not transitory, so that recovery is not allowed outside the State where the wrong occurred. F. Conditions of Enforcement of a Tort Right An action for an alleged foreign tort which is transitory may nevertheless be refused enforcement in some cases, to wit:

(A) Where foreign tort is in nature penal. A state will generally refuse to enforce penalties imposed by another state. (B) Where the enforcement of the tort right would infringe the public policy of the forum, an obstacle which may be presented in practically all conflicts problem. (C) Where the local judicial machinery is inadequate for its proper enforcement G. Tort Liability Arising from Acts of Official Torture For many years, international treatises, declarations, and conventions condemning official torture that is to say acts of public official inflicting injuries or dehumanizing punishment on persons, whether nationals or aliens, during or after interrogation were regarded as no more than mere scrap of papers. The crucial question is whether American courts may be held liable for damages in tort suits filed against them in the United States. The question is answered in several leading cases, the first one involving Stroessner dictatorship in Paraguay and subsequent cases among them those involving the regime of former president Marcos Read also the case of Filartiga vs. Pena Irala U.S. court of Appeals In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Human Rights Litigation, Maximo Hilao, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals

The district court issued an order preliminarily enjoining the Estate of Marcos from transferring, secreting, or dissipating assets pendente lite Estate challenges the courts subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Alien Tort Act, claiming that plaintiffs do not state a cause of action and contended that any cause of action abated upon Marcos death Trajano v. Imee Marcos-Manotoc and Fabian Ver and Hilao v. Marcos, et al. two cases inter alia which highlight the plight of the plaintiffs and their allegations of torture and killings against the Marcos regime Meanwhile, trial on liability proceeded and eventually the jury awarded compensatory damages amounting to almost $800 million Estate argues that a foreign state is immune to damages for personal injury or death unless it occurs in the U.S. Although sometimes criticized as a ruler and sometimes invested with extraordinary powers, Marcos does not appear to have had the authority of an absolute aristocrat. He was not the State but the head of the state, bound by the laws that apply to him. Our acts have had no difficulty in distinguishing the legal acts of a deposed ruler from his acts for personal profit that lack a basis in law. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Under the Alien Tort Act, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States The prohibition against official torture caries with it the force of a jus cogens norm, which enjoys the highest status within international law... We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in founding jurisdiction on a violation of the jus cogens norm prohibiting official torture Compliance with international law does not determine whether the U.S. May apply the Act to his conduct. Only two restrictions exist in giving extraterritorial effect to Congress directives: (1) we require Congress to make clear its intent to give extraterritorial effect to its statutes, and (2) as a matter of constitutional law, we require that

application of the statute to the act in question does not violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment In sum, the Alien Tort Act creates a cause of action for violations of specific, universal, and obligatory international human rights standards which confer fundamental rights upon all people vis-a-vis their own governments Keep in mind that what is at issue here is the civil liability of the Marcoses, not their criminal liability. In case of tort liability, the case may be filed in any place where the tortfeasor may be found so he can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court. But the question of damages is governed by the laws of the Philippines, where the tort was allegedly committed Aside from the Alien Tort Act, another basis for the U.S. courts assumption of jurisdiction is the obligatio theory in Conflict of Laws that a tort committed anywhere in the world gives rise to an obligation which follows the defendants wherever they may be found Principles of Criminal Liability Lex Loci Delicti crimes are strictly local in character and are to be punished by the State where they are committed and in accordance with its laws Nationality Theory determines jurisdiction by reference to the nationality or national character of the offender Protective Principle determines jurisdiction by reference to the national interest injured by the offense Universality Principle determines jurisdiction by reference to the custody of the offender Passive Personality Principle determines jurisdiction by reference to the nationality or national character of the offended party