Torts Mid Reviewer (2) 6w1w37

MEANING OF TORT AND TORTIOUS ACT 1. Tort - wrongful act or omission resulting in a breach of private duty and damage from said breach of duty of such a character as to afford a right of redress at law in favor of the inured party against the wrongdoer. ESSENCE OF TORT 1.Defendant's potential for civil liability - the defendant's potential civil liability to the victim for harmful wrongdoing and correspondingly the victims potential for compensation or other relief. 2. Existence of physical harms, not essential 3. variations of torts KINDS OF WRONG 1. civil - involves a violation of private legal right criminal - regarded as an offense against the public and is penalized by law as a crime or felony 2. intentional - defendant is consciously aware that his conduct is wrongful, or negligent if the defendant does not intend an invasion of plaintiff's right but is aware that, by his behavior, he is taking unreasonable risk 3. reckless, wrong, wanton wrong - species of negligence which imports knowledge and consciousness of the high risk of harm resulting from his conduct as to be equivalent to an intentional wrong. FUNCTIONS OR GOALS OF TORT 1. morality or corrective justice 2. Social Utility or policy 3. Legal process 4. potential conflicts 5. Distribution of loss 6. redress of social grievances 7. summary - a mixed system TWO GENERAL CLASSES OF TORTS 1.Property torts - embrace all injuries and damages to property, whether realty or personalty Licuanan, Apple Jade S. Torts reviewer - mid ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)

2. Personal Torts - include all injuries to the person, whether to the body, reputations or feelings. a tort which is not an injury to property is a personal tort. CONCEPT OF PERSONAL INJURY IN TORT LAW - it embrace all actionable injuries to the individual himself. it may denote an injury affecting the reputation, character, conduct, manner and habits of a person. DEFINITION OF INJURY, DAMAGES AND DAMAGE 1. Injury - illegal invasion of a legal right 2. damage - loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury 3. damages - recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. TORT AND CONTRACT 1. contract duties are created by the promises of the parties while tort duties are imposed as rules of law 2. contracts are largely about economic matters such as buying and selling many torts involve physical harms 3. contract law is at least formally strict liability law. most tort law on the other hand, is at least formally fault based. 4. it is a character of torts that the duties from the violation of which tort result are creatures of the law and not of particular agreements. a contract is not essential to the existence of tort 5. a breach of contract may be treated as a tort where the law casts its separate obligation. DAMAGES AND OTHER REMEDIES 1.Restitution; injunction - forces the tortfeasor to disorge gains he wrongfully obtained by tort, and injunction, which compels him to cease his tortous conduct. 2.Compensation of harm suffered - the award is usually a money award called damages and is

intended as a kind of compensation for the harm suffered. PERSONS ENTITLED TO SUE FOR TORT 1. Particular individual injured 2. Persons upon whom tort committed 3. person injured by tort committed upon another 4. Several persons wronged by the same act 5. persons especially injured by contract violation 6. Person directly, not collaterally, injured PERSONS LIABLE FOR TORT 1. Tortfeasor 2. Person incapable of making a contract 3. Person other than tortfeasor a. mere presence at the commission of a wrongful act by another will not render him liable as a participant. however, proof that a person is present at the commission of a wrongful act b. Mere knowledge - that a tort is being committed against another will not be sufficient to establish liability c. mere acquiescence in the commission of a tort after the act does not make a person liable d. ratification must be founded on full knowledge of the facts constituting wrong which has been committed or with a purpose on the part of the principal to take the consequences on himself without inquiry. e. no duty to control conduct of a third peron as to prevent him from causing bodily harm to another unless a special relationship exists between one and the third person. t tortfeasor - two or more persons who act together in committing a wrong or contribute to its commission or assist or participate therein actively and without common intent, so that injury results to a third person from the t wrongful act of the wrongdoers. ELEMENTS AND TYPES OF TORTS ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION 1. legal right in favor of a person (plaintiff) 2. correlative legal obligation on the part of another to respect or not to violate such right Licuanan, Apple Jade S. Torts reviewer - mid ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)

3. a wrong in the form of an act or omission in violation of said legal right and duty with consequent injury or damage to plainitff. Legal right - well founded claim enforced by sanctions Legal duty - which the law requires to be done or forborne to a determinate person or to the public. Motive - impelling force or underlying or subjective reason for doing an act, or the mental state or force which induces an act of violation Motive is material: lawful act constitutes an actionable tort when unlawful means are employed purposely to injure another. Motive is immaterial: conduct which does not either by itself or because of the manner of its exercise, constitute an invasion of the right of another is not tortuous , however bad or malicious the actor's motives. Purpose - denotes the object of an act or the external or objectives result desired Intent - an external act or an intelligent volition and is thus distinguishable from the term "motive" their use in statements of legal principles has not always been mutually exclusive. MATERIALITY OF INTENT 1.Intentional act is done in ignorance - voluntary act, presenting the elements of duty, breach, and damage is tortious although unaccompanied by a deliberate design to injure or to commit an unlawful act. 2. Resulting damage is different from that contemplated - fortiori where defendant voluntarily engages in conduct designed to cause some damage, it is immaterial, on the question of the existence of a tort that the damage actually brought is different from that contemplated by him 3. Act complained of is not done unlawfully or without care - although the ultimate motive is not

bad, if the intent is to accomplish that purpose be deliberately inflicting injury, the goodness of the motive will not render non- tortiuos acts which are torts by reason of the badness of the intent. PARTICULAR KINDS OF TORTIOUS ACTS 1. acts intended to inflict injury General rule - a cause of action arises whenever one person, by an act not in the exercise of a lawful right, causes loss or does damage to another with an intent, either actual or constructive, to produce such harm, without just or lawful excuse or justifiable cause or occasion. 2. acts not intended to inflict injury - a casue of action may be predicated upon negligence, or the failure to observe a standard of case prescribed by law, without a conscious design to do wrong 3. malicious acts - defined not only as relating to the intentional commission of a wrongful act, but also as involving wickedness, depravity and evil intent. * there is no liability in tort for doing a lawful act even though it is done for the malicious purpose of injuring another party, where there are also legitimate reasons for doing the act. 4. willful and wanton act willful act - one done intentionally, or on purpose, and not accidentally and willfulness implies intentional wrongdoing wanton act - wrongful act done on purpose or in malicious disregard of the rights of others 5. willful or wanton negligence - imports premeditation or knowledge and consciousness that injury is likely to result from the act done or from the omission of the act. 6. Acts arising out of a contractual relationship PARTICULAR TYPES OF TORTS 1. General types a. culpable and intentional acts resulting in harm b. acts involving culpable and unlawful conduct casing unintentional harm Licuanan, Apple Jade S. Torts reviewer - mid ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)

c. non culpable acts or conduct resulting in accidental harm which because of hazards involved, the law imposes absolute liability notwithstanding the abuse of fault. 2. Interference with property rights 3. Interference with right to services 4. Interference with contractual rights 5. Interference with personal rights 6. Rudeness, threats, abusive language 7. obstruction of, and compelling resort to, legal remedies 8. Malicious prosecution of a criminal action 9. unauthorized suit in another's name 10. other particular torts; a. Acts of public officers b. injurious falsehood c. interference with right or destruction of will d. trade secrets, inventions or patents Prima Facie Tort Doctrine - the infliction of intentional harms resulting in damage without excuse or justification by an act or a series of acts which would otherwise be lawful.

Doctrine of absolute or strict liability - the actor, realizing the hazard of his undertaking nevertheless assumes the risk connected therewith and, notwithstanding he is free from all wrong, and has used utmost care, he nevertheless is liable for any invasion of the person or property rights of another. QUASI - DELICTS 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. (1902a) *Fault - when a person acts in a manner contrary to what should have done.

only juridical fault, but not moral fault gives rise to liability for damages. lack of charity or altruism, constituting moral fault, does not constitute quasidelict. * The fault referred to Art. 2176 is a fault substantive and independent which in itself is a source of obligations and is also known as culpa aquilana as distinguished from culpa contractual. If the fault is committed intentionally to cause damage to another, it becomes a dolo punished as a crime by the RPC.

or of one for whose acts he must respond and the damages suffered by him As a rule, negligence is not presumed. Mere suspicion, surmise or speculation cannot be the basis of an award for damages. where, however, negligence is presumed by law, , the burden of proving its non existence is shifted to the party to whom the presumption applies.

Negligence - failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that the degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand whereby such another person suffers injury.

CULPA AQUILANA VS. CULPA CONTRACTUAL 1.culpa aquilana- is the wrongful act or omission which of itself is the source of the obligation separate from, and independent of, contract culpa contractual - act or omission considered as an incedent in the performance of an obligation already existing and which constitutes a breach thereof

Distinction between fault and negligence A Person guilty of negligence is necessarily at fault, but there may be fault without negligence as here the damage or injury resulting from the wrongful act or omission as cause wilfully and not by reason of lack of care.

a. where liability arises from culpa aquilana, not a breach of positive obligation, an employer or master may excuse himself under the last paragraph of Article 2180 by proving that he had exercised " all diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage"

No Duty to Act Rule Unless the defendant has assumed a duty to act, or stands in a special relationship to the plaintiff, defendants are not liable in tort for a pure failure to act for the plaintiffs benefit.

b. in culpa aquilana, the plainitff has the burden of proving that the defendant was at fault or negligent.

REQUISITES OF QUASI-DELICT 1. act or omission by the defendant 2. fault or negligence of the defendant 3. damage or injury caused to the plaintiff 4. there must be a direct relationship or connection of cause and effect between the act or omission and the damage 5. no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties BURDEN OF PROOF the burden of proof is generally on the person claiming damages to establish by satisfactory evidence that the legal cause of his damage or injury was the fault or negligence of the defendant Licuanan, Apple Jade S. Torts reviewer - mid ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)

in culpa contractual, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead or prove that the violation of the contract was due to fault or negligence. c. culpa aquilana- there is no preseumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent Culpa contractual - the mere proof of the existence of the contract and its breach raises such presumtion that the burden is on the defendant to prove that he was not at fualt or negligent. d. culpa aquilana - primarily governed by Article 2176 Culpa Contractual - governed by 1170 to 1174

Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.(n)

These two cases of action may be availed of subject to the caveat that the offended party cannot recover twice for the same act or omission or under both causes.

CRIME VS. QUASI- DELICT 1. crime -there is criminal or malicious intent or criminal negligence quasi delict - there is only negligence

This proscription in our law stems from the fundamental rule against unjust enrichment. Since these two civil liabilities are distinct and independent of each other, the failure to reciver in one will not necessarily preclude recovery in the other.

2. Crime - there are 2 liabilities: criminal and civil QD - there is only civil liability

Article 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. (n)

3. Crime - affects public interest QD - concerns private interest or concern 4. crime - purpose is punishment or correction QD - indemnification of the offended party

* quasi - delict and an act or omission punishable by law are two different sources of obligations.

Statutory definition of Fault or negligence 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 of a family shall be required. (1104a) Negligence - conduct that creates undue risk or harm to another. it is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person , that justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury Test for determining whether a person is negligent 1.Reasonable care and caution expected of an ordinary prudent person 2. No hard and fast rule from measuring degree of care 3.Negligence, a legal question

The offended party has the option between an action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal under Art. 100 of RPC and an action for recovery of damages based on culpa aquilana under Art. 2177 of the NCC.

Factors to be considered 1. nature of the obligation 2. circumstances of the person or thing 3. Circumstances of time 4. Circumstances of the place

5. Criminal liability cannot be compromised Liability for QD can be compromised as any other civil liability 6. In crime, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, QD - the fault or negligence of the defendant need only be proved by preponderance of evidence 7. Crime - the liability of the person responsible for the author of the negligent act or omission is subsidiary QD - it is direct and primary Recovery of damages twice for the same act or omission is prohibited

Fortuitous Event Licuanan, Apple Jade S. Torts reviewer - mid ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)

Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)

Requisites: 1. plaintiff had actual knowledge of the danger 2. he understood and appreciated the risk form the danger 3. he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk

Fortuitous Event vs. Force Majeure

Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)

Fortuitous Event - event independent of the will of the obligor but not of other men (Acts of Men)

Effect of negligence on the part of the injured party

Force Majeure - those events which are totally independent of the will of every human being (Acts of God)

Negligence merely contributed to the injury - to be entitled to the damages, the law does not require that the negligence of the defendant should be the sole cause of the damage.

Fortuitous Event - any event which cannot be foreseen, or which though foreseen, is inevitable. it is an event which is either impossible to foresee or impossible to avoid.

Requisites of Fortuitous Event 1. Event must be independent of the human will or at least the obligor's will 2. the event could not be foreseen or if foreseen, must have been impossible to avoid

There is a contributory negligence on the part of the injured party where his conduct has contributed, as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which fall below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. Legal cause of damage, harm or injury

3. Event must be of such a character as to render it impossible for the obligor to comply with his obligation in a normal manner 4. Obligor must be free from any participation in, or the aggravation of the injury to the obligee Doctrine of assumption of risk Meaning - assumption of risk may be invoked as a complete defense by the defendant in a quasidelictual action. it assumes that a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm from the negligent conduct of the defendant cannot recover from such harm. Licuanan, Apple Jade S. Torts reviewer - mid ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)

A person claiming damages for the fault or negligence of another has the burden of establishing at least 3 conditions: 1. fault or negligence of the defendant 2. Damage, harm or injury to the plaintiff 3. Connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damage. Proximate cause - that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

Tests of Proximate cause 1. But for test - defendant's conduct is the cause of the injury which would not have been sustained if the defendant had not been negligent. 2. cause-in-fact test - a cause in fact relation must exist between defendants conduct and plaintiff's injury before liability may arise. 3. substantial factor test - if the actors conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred, does not prevent him from being liable 4. Foreseability test - if the defendant could not reasonably foresee any injury as a result of his act, or if his act is reasonable in the light of what he could anticipate, there is no negligence and no liability. 5. Natural and probable consequence test - it must appear that the injury was not only the natural but also the probable consequence of the conduct as distinguished from consequences that are merely possible. since shat is probable is, in a real sense, foreseeable, foresee ability appears to be an implicit element of this test of proximate cause. 6. Direct consequence test - the defendant is liable for all the damage that flows as the ordinary and natural or direct consequence of his conduct to be determined from the circumstances of the case rather than upon whether he might or must have reasonably expected the resulting inury. Doctrine of contributory negligence - negligence on the part of the injured party which merely contributes to, but is not the proximate cause of, his inury, and resulting in the mitigation of the defendant's liability and plaintiff's indemnity. Doctrine of comparative negligence - a comparison is made in of the degree of the negligence of the plaintiff and that of the defendant and the amount of damages recoverable Licuanan, Apple Jade S. Torts reviewer - mid ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)

by plaintiff is reduced to the extent of his negligence. Doctrine of Last clear chance - the negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence. Elements - The doctrine may be invoked by the injured person, if the following facts are present. 1. the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own negligence , became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care , either because it became physically impossible for him to do so or because he as totally unaware of the danger. 2. the defendant knew that the plaintiff as in a position of danger and further knew , or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known , that the plaintiff was unable to escape there from 3. that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident by the exercise of ordinary care but failed to exercise such last clear chance, and the accident occurred as a proximate result of such failure.

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor - the thing or transaction speaks for itself. it is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. the doctrine is applied only if unsure and if no direct evidence of who is at fault. when you cannot tell who is at fault but you can tell what contributed to the injury.

Requisites of the doctrine: 1. the accident is of a kind or character which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence 2. it is caused by an instrumentality or an agency within the exclusive management or control of the defendant or defendants 3. the possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated. Emergency Rule - a person who, without fault or negligence on his part , is suddenly placed in an emergency or unexpected danger and compelled to act instantly and instinctively with no time for reflection and exercise of the required precaution, is not guilty of negligence and therefore, exempt from liability, if he did not make the wisest choice of the available courses of conduct to avoid injury which reasonably a prudent person would have made under normal circumstances. - the rule is not available where the situation or danger was caused by his own negligence.

Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting Licuanan, Apple Jade S. Torts reviewer - mid ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)

within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a) Principle of vicarious liability - a person is made liable not only for torts committed by himself but also for torts committed by others with whom he has certain relationship and for whom he is responsible , subject to certain conditions. Liability of parents both parents shall be liable as amended by the family code Scope of liability 1. minor children who live in their company 2. minor child is already married and minor is not living with parents if the separation of unjustifiable because of the failure of the parents to properly exercise their parental authority and responsibility. Respondent superior - negligence Vicarous libility - liability Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904) Does not concern on either t or solidary liability.

-persons enumerated under 2180 are given the right to seek reimbursement from the author for "what he has paid of or delivered in satisfaction of the claim " of the plaintiff. Article 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)

Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (1905) Main consideration for liability: if there is control. He who possesses the animal for utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause. Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are applicable. (n) Applicability of 2184 the article applies only if the owner was at the vehicle at the time of the mishap otherwise, the provisions of article 2180 would be applicable, where the owner even if not in the vehicle will be liable unless he exercised due diligence to prevent the damage.

Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle Licuanan, Apple Jade S. Torts reviewer - mid ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)

has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. (n) Article 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the proper government office a bond executed by a government-controlled corporation or office, to answer for damages to third persons. The amount of the bond and other shall be fixed by the competent public official. (n) Article 2187. 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. (n) This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that negligence is not presumed. Requisites for liability 1. defendant is a manufacturer or processor 2. products manufactured or processed are foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles, and similar goods 3. defendant used noxious or harmful substances in the manufacture of processing 4. death or injury was caused by the product consumed or used containing such noxious or harmful substances. 5. victim is the consumer, or purchaser

Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (n) Prima facie presumption that the defendant was negligent if: 1. a person dies or in injured 2. death or injury results from the defendant's possession of dangerous weapon or substances.

Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. (n)

Head of the family - may not be the owner of the building and it may include lessee who lives in the building or a part thereof.

Article 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. (1907)

Proscription of action upon quasi-delict Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:

Liability of proprietor - if he failed to make necessary repairs Article 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused: (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place; (2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property; (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure; (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place. (1908) Article 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of any defect in the construction mentioned in article 1723, the third person suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed. (1909) 2190 talks about the defect in the construction engineer or architect shall be liable for any damage or injury y the defect. Article 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. (1910) Licuanan, Apple Jade S. Torts reviewer - mid ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)

Article 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n)

(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; (2) Upon a quasi-delict; However, when the action arises from or out of any act, activity, or conduct of any public officer involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial Law including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same must be brought within one (1) year. (As amended by PD No. 1755, Dec. 24, 1980.)