Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fernando vs. CA G.R. No. 92087 May 8, 1992
Fernando vs. CA G.R. No. 92087 May 8, 1992
*
G.R. No. 92087. May 8, 1992.
_____________
* FIRST DIVISION.
715
the omission and the damage. He must prove under Article 2179
of the New Civil Code that the defendant’s negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury. Proximate cause
has been defined as 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
(Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186). Proof of
such relation of cause and effect is not an arduous one if the
claimant did not in any way contribute to the negligence of the
defendant. However, where the resulting injury was the product
of the negligence of both parties, there exists a difficulty to
discern which acts shall be considered the proximate cause of the
accident.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
716
expired there. The City Engineer’s office investigated the case and
learned that the five victims entered the septic tank without
clearance from it nor with the knowledge and consent of the
market master. In fact, the septic tank was found to be almost
empty and the victims were presumed to be the ones who did the
re-emptying. Dr. Juan Abear of the City Health Office autopsied
the bodies and in his reports, put the cause of death of all five
victims as ‘asphyxia’ caused by the diminution of oxygen supply in
the body working below normal conditions. The lungs of the five
victims burst, swelled in hemorrhagic areas and this was due to
their intake of toxic gas, which, in this case, was sulfide gas
produced from the waste matter inside the septic tank.” (p. 177,
Records)
717
718
719
721
“ATTY. ALBAY:
“Q Mr. Witness, you mentioned the several aspects of the
approval of the building permit which include the plans
of an architect, senitary engineer and electrical plans.
All of these still pass your approval as building official,
is that correct?
“DEMETRIO ALINDADA:
“A Yes.
“Q So there is the sanitary plan submitted to and will not
be approved by you unless the same is in conformance
with the provisions of the building code or sanitary
requirements?
723
“x x x. Could the victims have died if they did not open the septic
tank which they were not in the first place authorized to open?
Who between the passive object (septic tank) and the active
subject (the victims herein) who, having no authority therefore,
arrogated unto themselves, the task of opening the septic tank
which caused their own deaths should be responsible for such
deaths. How could the septic tank which has been in existence
since the 1950’s be the proximate cause of an accident that
occurred only on November 22, 1975? The stubborn fact remains
that since 1956 up to occurrence of the accident in 1975 no injury
nor death was caused by the septic tank. The only reasonable
conclusion that could be drawn from the above is that the victims’
death was caused by their own negligence in opening the septic
tank. x x x.” (Rollo, p. 23)
726
Decision affirmed.
——o0o——