Definition Of Personal Injury

What is Personal Injury Case Under Philippine Law?
Tort or quasi-delict, commonly referred to as personal injury, is defined by the following provisions of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, or the Philippine Civil Law:

Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

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 the Civil Code. Article 20, as quoted above, derived its definition from the American Law concept of personal injury which included acts done with deliberate intent ( Handbook on Conflict of Laws, 2004 ed., Sempio-Diy, page 130).

On the other hand, Article 2176 retained the Spanish concept of culpa aquiliana, which included only those acts done with fault or negligence (ibid., page 131)

In sum, Philippine tort are acts done either with negligence or with deliberate intent as long as those acts 1) cause damage or injury to persons and property; and 2) are independent of contract.

The test in determining whether a person is negligent was pronounced by the Philippine Supreme Court in the case of Hedy Gan Yu v. CA, L-44264, September 10, 1988, to wit:

Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligent is attributed foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the Philippine law imposes the duty on the doer to take precaution against its mischievous results and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.

There is however, an exception to the above rule on negligence, that is, the emergency rule. In the same case cited above, the same High Court explained the rule as follows:

Under the emergency rule, one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means to be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.

It must be noted that the prudent man referred to in the mentioned test of negligence is one of ordinary intelligence or a reasonable man who is able to foresee the harm or undue risk of his own acts to others.

As regards the issue of whether personal injury may be committed if there is a contract between the parties, the laws of the Philippine state that the answer is in the affirmative. A person may still be liable for such if the personal injury done is not specifically provided for by the terms and conditions of the contract. Simply put, if the contract itself does not provide a sanction for the act, then the provisions of the law on personal injury or quasi-delict will apply. Otherwise, the doer will go scot-free for the act committed.

Indeed, whatever harm done to others, either wilfully or negligently, has legal consequences. These sanctions remind us that in the exercise of our rights, we must always take into consideration the equal rights of other persons.