Proximate cause has been defined as that which, in natural and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred.

the general rule is that the party who relies on negligence for his cause of action has
the burden of proving the existence of the same, otherwise his action fails.

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon

those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct to human affairs, would
do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

The whole theory of negligence presuppose some uniform standard of behavior

which must be an external and objective one, rather than the individual judgment
good or bad, of the particular actor; it must be, as far as possible, the same for all
persons; and at the same time make proper allowance for the risk apparent to the
actor for his capacity to meet it, and for the circumstances under which he must act.

ABROGAR v. COSMOS BOTTLING COMPANY and INTERGAMES, INC March 15, 2017,
G.R. No. 164749

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by

those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would
do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would do.32 It
also refers to the conduct which creates undue risk of harm to another, the failure to
observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstance justly
demand, whereby that other person suffers injury.33 The Court declared the test by
which to determine the existence of negligence in Picart v. Smith,

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may
be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in
the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect
adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the
discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case
is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation
before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in
the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.

G.R. NO. 159270 : August 22, 2005 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION

CORPORATION v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS