英语论文网

食物被菲律宾消费者法案定义为“任何物质，无论是加工、半加工或原材料,用于人类消费的，包括口香糖、酒、饮料和已被用作制造、准备或处理食物的一种成分或组成的任何物质。”[25]另一方面, 捐赠在菲律宾的民法典中是指,“是一种慷慨的行为,即一个人无偿地为他人处理一件事或一项权利，其他人接受它的过程。”[26]与此同时,法院将诚信定义为“指一种精神状态，是由个人的行为表现出来的。它包括一个人放弃利用对别人不合理和不道德的优势的诚实的意图。这是欺诈的对立面,而说其缺乏诚信是需要令人信服的证据的。” (27)

有些人可能会说如果捐款是诚信的，那么捐赠人要对得到食物的受益人承担一个受伤的捐助责任是不公平的。毕竟,捐赠者无意造成伤害。

Involving Food Donations Made In Good Faith Law Essay

Food is defined by the Consumer Act of the Philippines as “any substance, whether processed, semi-processed or raw, intended for human consumption and includes chewing gum, drinks and beverages and any substance which has been used as an ingredient or a component in the manufacture, preparation or treatment of food.” [25] Donation, on the other hand, as found in the Civil Code of the Philippines, “is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it.” [26] Meanwhile, the Court defined good faith as “refer[ring] to a state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the honest intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. It is the opposite of fraud, and its absence should be established by convincing evidence.” [27]

Some may say that it is unfair to hold a donor liable for an injury sustained by the beneficiary of donated food, if the donation was made in good faith. After all, the donor did not intend to cause the injury. They would further argue that several poor families in the Philippines even eat “pagpag” or recycled garbage food [28] to justify the position that a donor in good faith must not be held liable should the food given cause injury or death to the recipient, since the donated food is in all probability safer to eat than those picked up from the garbage. In this regard, a minor oversight or negligence of a donor in good faith, and which act caused the injury, should be excused.

While it may be true that donated food is safer to consume than that which was merely obtained from the garbage, there is a very important element in the first scenario that is absent in the latter and cannot be overlooked. It is the active participation of the donor in the event which led to the injury or death of the beneficiary. Considering this, he should not be immediately exculpated for the damage done.

In explaining the need for a general theory of liability, J. Cezar S. Sangco’s book on Torts and Damages provides:

In an ideal society, the victim of a wrongful act or omission, whether done willfully or negligently, must not be left without any remedy or recourse to obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained. When there is a wrong, a remedy for its redress must be provided. [29]

Since this thesis will only discuss donations made in good faith, the focus shall only be on the liability of a person for donations made in this manner but where injury was also caused due to his negligence.

Negligence is defined as “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.” [30] To determine whether or not a person is negligent, the Court in Picart vs. Smith provides:

The e