TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta.
Barbara
5. What is the Chain of Causation? Draw an example and
1. Article1172
Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of
every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such
liability may be regulated by the courts according to the
circumstances.
2. Article 2201
In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the
obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that
are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of
the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen at the
time the obligation was constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the
obligor shall be responsible for all the damages which may
be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the
obligation.
6. What is a cone of Causation? Draw a cone of causation
3. Article 2202
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants shall be liable for
all the damages which are the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not
necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could
have reasonably foreseen by the defendant.
4. 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.
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
explain.
We pick out the cause which our judgment ought to be
treated as the dominant one with reference, not merely to the
event itself, but to the jural consequences that ought to attach
to the event. There is an opinion by Lord Shaw in the
English House of Lords in which he refers to the common
figure of speech whereby a succession of causes is
represented as a chain. He reminds us that the figure though
convenient, is inadequate. (page 313. Aquino)
The causal connection between an original cause and its
subsequent effects especially as a basis for criminal or civil
liability [intervening acts of third parties will not break the
chain of causation (Brownell v. Figel, Internet)
and differentiate from the chain of causation.
H.L.A Hart and A.M Honore refer to the “cone of
causation”. They observed that “if we look into the past of
any given event, there is an infinite number of events, each
of which is a necessary condition of the given event and so,
as much as any other, it is its cause. This is the “cone” of
causation so called because, since any event has a number of
simultaneous conditions, the series fans out as we go back in
time. (page 312, Aquino)
In the Chain of Causation, there is only the causal
connection of the original cause and its subsequent effects
while in the cone of causation, there is an infinite number of
events as the cause.

7. What is the net of Causation? Draw net/web of causation
and explain.
In Paradoxes of Legal Science, Justice Cardozo also
discussed infinite numbers of events that preceded an event
in question. He cited Lord Shaw who referred to what is
known as the “net” of causation. Justice Cadozo discussed
the problem of causation in law in this wise:
“xxx The law has its problems of causation. It must trace
events to its causes, or say with Hume that there is no cause,
but only juxtaposition or succession.
At each point, influences, forces, events, precendent and
simultaneous meet, and the radiation from each point
extends to infinitely. From this complex web the law picks
out now this cause and now that one. Thus, the same event
may have one jural cause when it is considered as giving rise
to a cause of action for a tort. The law accepts or rejects one
or another as it measures its own ends and the social benefits
or evils of rejection or acceptance. (page 313, Aquino)
Sps. Vergara v Torrecampo Sonkin
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
Doctrines: Contributory negligence is the conduct on the part of the
injured party contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has
suffered, which falls below the standard he is required to conform for
his own protection.
The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff
who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to
recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his
negligence.
Key words: Contributory Negligence
Sps Sonkin- failed to observe the 2 meter set back of the National
Building Code and disregarded legal easement constituted on their
property.
Sps. Vergara- failed to provide adequate drainage system
Facts: The petitioners Sps. Vergara and Sps. Sonkin are adjoining
landowners in Poblacion, Norzangaray, Bulacan. The property
owned by the Sps. Sonkin (Sonkin Property) is slightly lower in
elevation than that owned by Sps. Vergara (Vergara Property).
When Sps. Sonkin bought the property sometime in 1999, they
raised the height of the partition wall and caused the construction of
their house thereon. The house itself was attached to the partition
wall such that a portion thereof became a part of the wall of the
master’s bedroom and bathroom.
Thereafter, the Sps. Vergara levelled the uneven portion of their
property by filling it with gravel, earth and soil, making it even
higher than that of the Sonkin Property.
Eventually, Sps. Sonkin began to complain that water coming from
the Vergara Property was leaking into their bedroom through the

partition wall, causing cracks, as well as damage, to the paint and the
wooden parquet floor. Sps. Sonkin repeatedly demanded that Sps.
Vergara build a retaining wall on their property in order to contain
the landfill that they had dumped thereon, but the same went
unheeded.
Sps. Sonkin filed the instant complaint for damages and injunction
with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and issuance of a
temporary restraining order.
RTC – found Sps. Vergara Civilly liable to Sps. Sonkin for damages
and directed them a) to scrape the earth and other filling materials
dumped in the adjacent parameter wall of the Sonkin property and
erect a retaining wall in accordance with the standards of the
National Building Code; b) Install and provide an adequate drainage
system in accordance with the same code; c) jointly and severally
pay Sps. Sonkin for damages.
CA - on appeal ruled that while the act of the Sps Vergara in
elevating their property was the proximate cause of the water
seepage, the Sps. Sonkin were guilty of contributory negligence in
building their house directly abutting the perimeter wall. Thus, it
deleted the actual damages ordered by the RTC. It nevertheless
awarded the Sonkins moral damages and attorney’s fees.
Issue: W/N it should have ordered the demolition of the portion of
the Sps. Sonkin’s house that adjoins the partition wall.
Held: YES
Art. 2179. When the plaintiffs 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
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
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.
Verily, contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured
party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered,
which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for
his own protection.
The CA correctly held that while the proximate cause of the damage
sustained by the house of Sps. Sonkin was the act of Sps. Vergara in
dumping gravel and soil onto their property, thus, pushing the
perimeter wall back and causing cracks thereon, as well as water
seepage, the former is nevertheless guilty of contributory negligence
for not only failing to observe the two (2)-meter setback rule under
the National Building Code, but also for disregarding the legal
easement (to receive water from higher estates) constituted over their
property. As such, Sps. Sonkin must necessarily and equally bear
their own loss.
In view of Sps. Sonkin’s contributory negligence, the Court deems it
appropriate to delete the award of moral damages in their favor.
While moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendant’s
wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiffs
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation and similar injury in the cases specified or analogous to
those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, they are only given
to ease the defendant’s grief and suffering and should, therefore,
reasonably approximate the extent of hurt caused and the gravity of
the wrong done.
Note: Article 637 of the Civil Code: Lower estates are obliged to
receive waters which naturally and without intervention of man

descend from the higher estates, as well as stones or earth which they
carry with them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will
impede this easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate
make works which will increase the burden.
8. Explain relativity of causation e.g. fire
When we speak of the cause of an event we are only picking out
what is relevant to the standpoint of a special inquiry, and is
determined in its scope by the particular concept which our
purpose makes us have in view.
Cause,’ says Lord Halden in his Book, The Reign of Relativity, ‘is
very indefinite expression. Externality of the effect is of its essence,
but its meaning is relative in all cases to the subject-matter. For the
house maid the cause of the fire is the match she lights and applies.
For the physicist the cause of the fire is the conversion of potential
energy to kinetic energy, through the combination of carbon atoms
with those of oxygen and the formation of oxides in the shape of
gases which become progressively oxidized. For the judge who is
trying a case of arson, it is the wicked action of the prisoner in
the dock. In each case there is a different field of inquiry,
determined from a different standpoint. But no such field is even
approximately exhaustive. ( Aquino, page 313).
9.What is Proximate cause?
Proximate cause is 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.
10.What is Remote cause?
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
9. 1 Why does the law or courts insist in using proximate
cause when in identifying who is liable, when it is not a
case of proximity but with what is remote? Why do courts
insist in suing proximate cause when it is not a function of
proximity? Why not use not-so-far cause?
In a given situation, a cause cannot be considered remote
without identifying the proximate cause which sets the chain
of events into action. Liability attaches to the person whose
negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. [ Short
opinion ko lang].
It was held in Abrogar v Cosmos Bottling:
In the course of decisions of cases in which it is
necessary to determine which of several causes is so far
responsible for the happening of the act or injury
complained of, what is known as the doctrine of
proximate cause is constantly resorted to in order to
ascertain whether the act, omission, or negligence of the
person whom it is sought to hold liable was in law and
in fact responsible for the result which is the foundation
of the action.
When the intervening cause is set in operation by the
original negligence, such negligence is still the proximate
cause. XXX.. But whenever a new cause intervenes, which
is not a consequence of the first wrongful cause, which
is not under control of the wrongdoer, which could not
have been foreseen by the exercise of reasonable
diligence, and except for which the final injurious
consequence could not have happened, then such
injurious consequence must be deemed too remote.

Remote cause is that cause which some independent force merely
took advantage of to accomplish something not the natural effect
thereof. It cannot be considered the legal cause of the damage
(Aquino, 302).
A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an
action, if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the
condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was
made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote
cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated and
efficient cause, even though such injury would not have
happened but for such condition or occasion. If no damage
exists in the condition except because of the independent cause,
such condition was not the proximate cause.
11. What is Immediate Cause?
Immediate cause is the cause closest in time to the injury (Abrogar v
Cosmos Bottling). It is the nearest cause, the last link in the chain
of events.
Immediate cause vs Proximate cause (compare not merely
define)
To be considered the proximate cause of the injury, the
negligence need not be the event closest in time to the injury;
a cause is still proximate, although farther in time in relation to
the injury, if the happening of it set other foreseeable events
into motion resulting ultimately in the damage.
12. Is proximate cause a requirement for a cause of action? .Is
proximate cause a requirement under Article 2176? What are
the requisites of a quasi delict?
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
Proximate cause is a requirement for a cause of action in a quasi-
delict case. Quasi- delictual actions involve 3 requirements:
negligence, damage, and causal connection between the damages and
the negligent act or omission. Proof of negligence is not enough. It is
still required that the plaintiff presents proof that the proximate cause
of the damage to the plaintiff is the negligent act or omission of the
defendant. (Aquino, 307).
13. How is causation determined in quasi- delict ?
It was observed that proximate cause is determined by the
facts if each case upon mixed considerations of logic,
common sense, policy and precedent.
Proximate cause may be determined using cause-in-fact tests
and policy tests of negligence.
• CAUSE-IN- FACT TEST: The initial step in determining
proximate cause is to determine if the negligent act or
omission of the defendant is the “cause-in-fact” of
plaintiff’s injury. In this test, courts address the empirical
questions of causal connection. In an ordinary vehicular
accident, the defendant will not be made liable for the
injury if he can establish that thr plaintiff had that injury
prior to the accident. The defendant did not cause any
harm which occurred before his wrongful conduct.
• POLICY TESTS: If the damage or injury to the plaintiff is
beyond the scope or limit of the liability fixed by law, the
defendants conduct cannot be considered the proximate
cause of the damage. Such scope or limit of liability is
determined by applying policy tests.
14.How about in action for culpa contractual?
In culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves a breach of
contract, there is a presumption that the defendant was at fault
or negligent. The burden is on the defendant to prove that he

was not at fault or negligent. In contrast, in culpa aquiliana the
plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was
negligent. .
How is it different in contractual obligations?
In contractual obligations, 1170 provides that those who in
the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence,
or delay, or those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, is
liable for damages. Here, negligence is only one of the causes for
breach of contract.
Consolidated Bank v. CA
How did SC decide on this case on the theory of culpa
contractual?
Article 1172 of the Civil Code provides that
“responsibility arising from negligence in the
performance of every kind of obligation is demandable.”
For breach of the savings deposit agreement due to
negligence, or culpa contractual, the bank is liable to its
depositor.
Solidbank is bound by the negligence of its employees
under the principle of respondeat superior or command
responsibility. The defense of exercising the required
diligence in the selection and supervision of employees
is not a complete defense in culpa contractual, unlike in
culpa aquiliana. The bank must not only exercise “high
standards of integrity and performance,” it must also
insure that its employees do likewise because this is the
only way to insure that the bank will comply with its
fiduciary duty.
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
• In Consolidated Bank, the court took effort in determining
the proximate cause; is the court correct in doing so? Why
did the SC still decide on who was the proximate cause in
this case?
The court took effort in determining the proximate cause
because the trial court and CA disagree as to who is the
proximate cause of the unauthorized withdrawal. By
determining the proximate cause, the SC can resolve whether
there is a breach of contract of loan.
In this case, SC held that : Proximate cause is determined
by the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of
logic, common sense, policy and precedent.L.C. Diaz was
not at fault that the passbook landed in the hands of
the impostor. Solidbank was in possession of the
passbook while it was processing the deposit. Solidbank
failed to fulfill its contractual obligation because it gave
the passbook to another person.
• What is the juridical tie between the parties?
Simple contract of loan. There is a debtor-creditor
relationship between the bank and its depositor. The bank is the
debtor and the depositor is the creditor. The depositor lends the
bank money and the bank agrees to pay
• In Consolidated bank, the SC still delved on the culpa
contractual.( you just have to answer the 2 requisites.
1. Proof of existence of the contract
2. Breach of the contract
• Is the doctrine of last clear chance applicable in culpa
contractual?

No. We do not apply the doctrine of last clear chance
to the present case. Solidbank is liable for breach of
contract due to negligence in the performance of its
contractual obligation to L.C. Diaz. This is a case of
culpa contractual, where neither the contributory
negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to
avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant from
liability. Such contributory negligence or last clear
chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the
recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not
exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract.
• What is the Theory of Culpa Contractual
The mere proof of the existence of the contract and the
failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right
of relief.
Article 1172 of the Civil Code provides that
“responsibility arising from negligence in the
performance of every kind of obligation is demandable.
• What was the duty breached by the Bank, particular act?
The bank breach its fiduciary duty to its depositors to treat
their account with meticulous care. It was the negligent act
of Solidbank’s Teller No. 6 that gave the impostor
presumptive ownership of the passbook. Had the passbook
not fallen into the hands of the impostor, the loss of
P300,000 would not have happened. Thus, the
proximate cause of the unauthorized withdrawal was
Solidbank’s negligence in not returning the passbook to
Calapre.
• Is the proximate cause a requisite of culpa contractual? As
compared to quasi delict?
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
No. Proximate cause is not a requisite of culpa contractual
unlike in quasi-delict.
In culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves a breach
of contract, there is a presumption that the defendant
was at fault or negligent. The burden is on the
defendant to prove that he was not at fault or negligent.
In contrast, in culpa aquiliana the plaintiff has the
burden of proving that the defendant was negligent.
15.Is proximate cause a requirement under Article 20?
Yes. It is provided under that section that every person who contrary
to law willfully causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter
for the same. The willful or negligent act that is contrary to law must
be the proximate cause of the damage in this article (Hula)
16.How about under Article 21?
Yes. It is provided under Article 22 that any person who willfully
caused damage or injury to another in a way that is contrary to
morals, good custom and public policy must compensate the latter
for damages. The wllful act which is contrary to morals, good
custom or public policy must be the proximate cause of the injury in
this case (Hula)
17.How about Article 22?
No. Because it is not in the requisites of an accion in rem verso as
provided under Article 22. It is provided in that section that every
person who, through an act of performance by another, or any other
means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the
expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the
same to him. In Accion in rem verso, it need not be that the act of the

defendant is the proximate cause of the loss. When the enrichment of
the defendant is without legal ground despite the fact that it is not the
proximate cause of the plaintiff’s loss, there can still be a valid action
against the former. (Hula lang ito. Walang nakalagay sa book)
What are the requisites of accion in rem verso?
(1) That the defendant has been enriched
(2) That the plaintiff has suffered a loss
(3) That the enrichment of the defendant is without just or
legal ground
(4) That the plaintiff has no other action based on contract,
quasi contract, crime and quasi delict ( Aquino,p. 709)
18.How about Article 2187?
Yes. It is provided under article 2187 that 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. The noxious or harmful substance used
must be the proximate cause of the injury or death of the person
( Hula)
19.How about under the Consumer’s Act?
Yes. Proximate cause is necessary to institute an action for strict
liabilities under the Consumer’s act
Under Art. 97, the defects resulting from design, manufacture,
construction, assembly and erection, formulas and handling and
making up, presentation or packing of their products must be the
proximate cause of the damage caused to the consumer
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
Under Art. 99 the defects relating to the rendering of the services, as
well as for insufficient or inadequate information on the fruition and
hazards must be the proximate cause of the damage caused to the
consumer.
State a pertinent provision on consumer Act relating to the
matter
Article 97. Liability for the Defective Products. – Any Filipino or
foreign manufacturer, producer, and any importer, shall be liable for
redress, independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers by
defects resulting from design, manufacture, construction,
assembly and erection, formulas and handling and making up,
presentation or packing of their products, as well as for the
insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazards
thereof.
A product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully
expected of it, taking relevant circumstances into consideration,
including but not limited to:
a) presentation of product;
b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
c) the time it was put into circulation.
A product is not considered defective because another better quality
product has been placed in the market.
The manufacturer, builder, producer or importer shall not be held
liable when it evidences:
a) that it did not place the product on the market;

b) that although it did place the product on the market such
product has no defect;
c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at fault.
Article 99. Liability for Defective Services. – The service supplier is
liable for redress, independently of fault, for damages caused to
consumers by defects relating to the rendering of the services, as
well as for insufficient or inadequate information on the fruition
and hazards thereof.
The service is defective when it does not provide the safety the
consumer may rightfully expect of it, taking the relevant
circumstances into consideration, including but not limited to:
a) the manner in which it is provided;
b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be expected of
it;
c) the time when it was provided.
A service is not considered defective because of the use or
introduction of new techniques.
The supplier of the services shall not be held liable when it is proven:
a) that there is no defect in the service rendered;
b) that the consumer or third party is solely at fault
What is the liability of a manufacturer of defective products?
Under Art. 97 it is provided that any Filipino or foreign
manufacturer, producer, and any importer, shall be liable for redress,
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects
resulting from design, manufacture, construction, assembly and
erection, formulas and handling and making up, presentation or
packing of their products, as well as for the insufficient or inadequate
information on the use and hazards thereof.
The Consumer Act contemplates 4 kinds of defects in products
according to this article
(1) Manufacturing defect-defects resulting from manufacture,
construction, assembly and erection
(2) Design Defect- defects resulting from designs and formulas
(3) Presentation defect-Defects resulting from the andling,
making up, presentation, or packagingof products
(4) Absence of Appropriate Warning-defects resulting from
insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazard
of the products. (Aquino, p. 733)
20.What are the tests in determining proximate cause?
CAUSE-IN-FACT TESTS
1. Sine Qua Non Test/But-for test
Defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of the injury if the damage
would not
have resulted had there been no negligence on the party of the
defendant
2. Substantial Factor Test
Makes the negligent conduct the cause in fact of the damage if it
was a substantial factor in producing the injuries

To be a substantial factor in producing harm, the causes set in motion
by the defendant must continue until the moment of the damage or at
least down the setting in motion of the final active injurious force
which immediately produced or preceded the damage
If the accident would not have happened had there been no
negligence of the part of the defendant, the defendant’s conduct is a
substantial factor in bringing about the damage or
Injury Important in cases where there are concurrent causes.
3. Necessary Element of
Sufficient Set (NESS) Test
Whether a particular condition qualifies as a causally relevant factor
will depend on whether it was necessary to complete a set of
conditions jointly sufficient to account for the given occurrence .
A condition was a cause under the NESS test if it was necessary for
the sufficiency of any actually sufficient set, even if, due to other
duplicative or pre- empted set of conditions, it was not – as required
by the but-for test – necessary in the circumstances for the
consequence
Meanings
Necessary- circumstance in whose absence the event cannot occur.
Its non-existence ensures in the same sense that its effect do not
exists
Sufficient- In whose presence the event must occur Existence of the
cause ensures that its effects also exist
POLICY TESTS
1.Foreseeability Test
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
The liability is within the risk created by the defendant’s negligent
act
If the defendant could not reasonably foresee any injury as a result of
his act, or if his conduct was reasonable in the light of what he could
anticipate, there is no negligence, and no liability
(De leon, p. 253)
2. Natural and Probable Consequence Test
The injury was not only the natural but also the probable
consequence of the conduct as distinguished from consequences that
are merely possible
Since what is probable is, in real sense, foreseeable, foreseeability
appears to be an implicit element of this test of proximate cause
Natural and probable consequences have been said to be hose which
human foresight anticipate because they happen so frequently, they
may be expected to recur, as contrasted with “possible
consequences” which are those that happen so infrequently that they
are not expected to happen again
3. Natural or ordinary or direct consequences test
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 injury
4. Hindsight Test
A wrongdoer is responsible for all the consequences which a prudent
man charged with knowledge of all the facts would have thought
possible to follow from his negligent act and they appear to obviate
foreseeability as an element of proximate cause

5. Orbit of risk test
If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty which the defendant
breached, liability is imposed for any resulting injury within the orbit
or scope of such risk provided the defendant’s conduct was a cause
in fact of such injury
Whether the result of the act is within the ambit of the hazards
covered by the duty imposed upon the defendant
Foreseeability is nevertheless recognized as useful in determining the
limits of the defendant’s duty and the reasonableness of his conduct,
so that the purpose of the “risk theory” is to cause the creation of
unduly hazardous situations to produce legal liability for resulting
injury where a foreseeable risk causes harm in an improbable manner
21.Is the determination of proximate cause a 2-step process?
Yes. The two tests to determine if the alleged act is the proximate
cause are the following:
1. 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?
2. Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee
harm as a
result of the course actually pursued? (Aquino, p. 47)
22.What is a Natural and probable test? (page 329 Aquino)
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable
for all damages, which are the natural and probable consequences of
the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen
by the defendant.
Natural and Probable involves two things, that is causality and
adequacy.
Causality means that the damage would not have resulted without the
fault or negligence if the defendant
Adequacy means that the fault of the defendant would normally
result in the damage suffered by the obligee.
The plaintiff must establish a sufficient link between the act or
omission and the damage or injury. The link must not be remote or
far-fetched; otherwise no liability will attach. The damage or injury
must be a natural and probable result of the act or omission
23.What is Cause-in-fact test? (Aquino)
Causation in fact is a precondition for the imposition of liability
based on quasi-delict. It appears that, at least in these cases, the
proximate cause as an element of quasi-delict is equated with factual
causation or causation in fact
24.What is the But-for test? (Sangco)
Test whether negligent conduct was the efficient or proximate cause
of the injury or loss suffered by the claimant. That such conduct is a
cause without which the injury would not have taken place, or is the
efficient cause which set in motion the chain of circumstances
leading to the injury.
Example given: Even if the bus was running very fast on its lane, it
could not have caused the collision if not for the fact that the driver
of the motorcycle tried to overtake a cargo truck and encroached on
the lane traversed by the bus while approaching a curve.

Hypo: Cars A and B are both sufficient to kill X.
Simultaneously hit X.
Do you apply the but- for test?
No, here we apply the NESS Test because there are multiple
causes. Both Cars A and B could have been the cause of hitting X.
So long as any of them facilitated the criminal act they will be held
liable and it is not necessary to deliver the fatal blow.
In NESS test, is A’s negligence a necessary element for a
sufficient set? But A’s negligence is one set, right?
Yes. Sufficient means that the existence of the cause ensures
that its effects also exist. Since Car A is sufficient to kill X
and hit him then
In the same problem, what if. Either Car A or Car B is
the proximate cause? (Explanation from Wiki)
Applying the NESS Test then the two cars will be liable to X
because it is a necessary condition for the occurrence of a
specified event (the sufficieny to kill X) which is a
circumstance in whose absence the event cannot occur while
a sufficient condition for the occurrence of an event is a
circumstance in whose presence the event must occur (the
hitting of X)
25.What is the converse proposition of this test? (Sangco)
The converse of this rule is that a negligent act cannot be said to be
the proximate cause of the accident unless the accident could have
been avoided without such negligent act.
26.What is the “NESS” test? (Aquino)
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
Applied in multiple causation causes. NESS Test means something is
a cause if it is a necessary element of set of conditions jointly
sufficient for the result
What is a set? (Sangco)
Set means the set of conditions required to bring about the result of
the victim’s injury.
What is the meaning of “necessary” and “sufficient” in the
ness test? (Aquino)
Sufficient means that the existence of the cause ensures that its
effects also exist .
Necessary means that its non-existence ensures in the same sense
that its effect do not exists.
Necessary vs. Sufficient under NESS test?
Thus for cause to be sufficient for the effect is for effect to exist if
cause does; and that for cause to be necessary for effect is for
effect not to exists if cause does not.
27.What is Substantial Factor Test? (Aquino)
The issue of proximate causation asks whether the defendant’s
conduct could be regarded as a substantial factor in bringing about
plaintiff’s harm, and that inquiry often is translated into one that asks
whether any of the human actions or natural events occur after the
defendant’s conduct but before the plaintiff’s harm severs the causal
connection between them.
Not substantial factor = Not proximate cause of injury.

The Substantial factor test is ,in fact, used in cases involving
concurrent negligence.
Who is liable in substantial factor test?
The defendant
What is Orbit of Risk test? (Sangco)
It is a test of duty and not a test of proximate cause. That the
defendant under the circumstances had no duty that was owed to the
plaintiff.
If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty which the
defendant breached, liability is imposed for any resulting injury
within the orbit or scope of such injury. It is not the unusualness of
the act resulting in injury to plaintiff that is the test of foreseeability
but whether the result of the act is within the ambit of the hazards
covered by the duty imposed upon defendant
28.What is Duplicative causation/Preemptive causation?
(Aquino)
Duplicative occurs when two or more such sets operate
simultaneously to produce the effect, in other words the effect is
over-determined.
Pre emptive causation occurs when through coming about first in
time, one causal set of trumps another, potential set lurking in the
background.
29.What is Egg- skull rule? Why is it called such?
The Egg-skull rule (also known as Thin-skull rule) basically states
that the tortfeasor is required to take the victim (plaintiff) as he finds
him. A tortfeasor whose act, superimposed upon a prior latent
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
condition, results in an injury may be made liable for damages. The
tortfeasor-defendant is liable even though the negligent act caused an
injury that is greater than what is usually experienced by a normal
person because of a prior condition of the plaintiff (Aquino, 2016; p.
334). If a tortfeasor inflicts a graver loss on his victim than one
would have expected because the victim had some pre-existing
vulnerability, that is the tortfeasor's bad luck; you take your victim as
you find him. That is the famous "eggshell skull" rule of tort law
[Schmude v. Tricam Indus., 556 F.3d 624, 628 (7th Cir. Wis. 2009)].
The rule has its roots has its roots in Dulieu v. White & Sons, where
it was observed that “if a man is negligently run over or otherwise
negligently injured in his body, it is no answer to the sufferer’s claim
for damages that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at
all, if he had not had and unusually thin skull or unusually weak
heart” (Aquino, 2016; p. 334). The term comes from the idea that if
an individual’s skull was especially fragile—like the shell of an egg
—and another person struck them in the head, the defendant would
be liable for any damages they caused when they struck the thin-
skulled person.
Hypo: X was hit by Car A. It was sinful for religion of X to
receive blood transfusion. X died due to severe blood loss. Is the
act of Car A the Proximate cause?
YES. The act of Car A is the proximate cause. Proximate cause is
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 (Aquino, 2016; p. 300). In
this case, the act of Car A is that cause which, in the natural and
continuous sequence, caused the injury.
Will the refusal break the chain?
NO. The refusal will not break the chain. Proximate cause will only
be broken by an efficient intervening cause. An efficient intervening

cause is one that destroys the causal connection between the
negligent act and injury and thereby negatives liability (Aquino,
2016; p. 334). A cause is not an intervening cause if it is already in
operation at the time the negligent act is committed as shown in the
case of Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad Company. In this case, the
refusal was not an intervening cause because the restriction by the
religion was already existing or in operation by the time the
negligent act was committed. Also the refusal did not break the chain
of causation between the negligence of Car A and the resulting injury
to X.
30.Hypo: Owner of Car A (20% damage) filed a complaint
against Car B owner (80%) The latter filed a counterclaim
against the former. 1M for each.
How much can B recover. Note: first sentence of 2179.
In the usual situation where the negligence of the plaintiff is at issue,
as well as that of the defendant, there will undoubtedly be a
counterclaim filed. The cross-plaintiff, guilty of some degree of
negligence would be entitled to a verdict awarding him such
damages as in the judgment were proportionate with his negligence
and the negligence of cross-defendant. This could result in two
verdicts—one for plaintiff and one for cross-plaintiff. In such event,
the Court should enter one judgment in favor of the party receiving
the larger verdict, the amount of which should be difference between
the two verdicts. In rare cases the net result of two such claims will
be that the party more responsible for an accident will recover more
than the party less responsible. The liability of the defendant in such
a case should not depend upon the damages he suffered but upon the
damages he caused (Sangco, 1984; pp. 144-145). In this case, B can
recover 80% of the total damages.
What if no counterclaim was filed but each car incurred
50% damage each?
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
If plaintiff and defendant are both at fault, the former may recover,
but the amount of his recovery may only be such proportion of the
entire damages plaintiff sustained as the defendant’s negligence
bears to the combined negligence of both the plaintiff and the
defendant. For example, where it is found that the plaintiff’s
negligence is at least equal to that of the defendant, the amount
awarded to the plaintiff should be reduced by ½ from what it
otherwise would have been (Sangco, 1984; pp. 144).
31. State Art 2179
Art. 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.
Is the 2nd sentence of Art. 2179 the Anglo-American
settting?
It is a statutory enactment of the rule in Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf &
Pacific Co. wherein the Supreme Court rejected contributory
negligence of the plaintiff as a complete defense, and held that the
same merely mitigates the amount of damages recoverable by the
plaintiff, which rule was reiterated and applied in subsequent cases
(Sangco, 1984; pp. 158). “Where he contributes to the principal
occurrence, as one of its determining factors, he cannot recover.
Where in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to his
own injury he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible
for the event should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed in a
suitable equivalent for his own imprudence” (Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf
& Pacific Co. qtd. in Aquino, 2016; pp. 267-268).
32. What is the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence

The relative degree of negligence of the parties is considered in
determining whether and to what degree, either should be
responsible for his negligence. It does not completely bar recovery
but merely mitigates the same (Aquino, 2016; pp. 266-267).
Pure vs Modified Comparative Negligence
Pure comparative negligence permits recovery from a negligent
defendant regardless of the extent of the plaintiff’s own negligence.
Modified comparative negligence provides that contirbutory
negligence shall not bar a recovery in an action by any person or his
legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in
death or injury to person or property, if such negligence was not as
great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is
sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminised by the jury in
proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person
recovering (Sangco, 1984; pp. 151-152).
33.What is contributory negligence
Contributory negligence is a conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls
below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own
protection (Aquino, 2016; p. 269).
34.What is the test of contributory negligence
The test is still foreseeability. There is contributory negligence when
the party’s act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that such
act could cause him harm or put his life in danger.
35.Differentiate Modified Comparative negligence vs. Pure
Comparative negligence vs. Contributory negligence
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
Modified comparative negligence provides that contirbutory
negligence shall not bar a recovery in an action by any person or his
legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in
death or injury to person or property, if such negligence was not as
great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is
sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminised by the jury in
proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person
recovering.
Pure comparative negligence permits recovery from a negligent
defendant regardless of the extent of the plaintiff’s own negligence
(Sangco, 1984; pp. 151-152).
Contributory negligence is a conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls
below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own
protection (Aquino, 2016; p. 269).
36. State the Humanitarian doctrine.
If a plaintiff negligently puts himself in a place of danger and his
negligence and danger are discovered by the defendant, there
devolves upon the defendant a new duty which intervenes or arises
subsequent to the negligence of the plaintiff, and that duty is to save
the plaintiff if he can from the consequence of his negligence.
(Sangco, p. 128)
37.Why is it called as such?
The humanitarian negligence doctrine proceeds upon the precepts of
humanity and natural justice to the end that every person shall
exercise ordinary care for the preservation of another’s life after
seeing him in peril when such injury can be averted without injury to
the defendant or others. (Sangco, supra)

38. It is otherwise called as?
Doctrine of last clear chance, doctrine of discovered peril, or as the
doctrine of supervening negligence. (Sangco, p. 126)
39.This is to counter which common law doctrine?
The doctrine of last clear change negatives an essential element of
the defense of contributory negligence by rendering plaintiff’s
negligence a mere condition or remote cause of the accident. As
stated, in cases of this class, the subsequent negligence of the
defendant in failing to exercise ordinary care to avoid injuring the
plaintiff becomes immediate or proximate and efficient cause of the
accident, which intervenes between the accident and the more remote
negligence of the plaintiff.
Some courts regard last clear chance doctrine as the true exception
to, rather than a logical qualification of, the doctrine of contributory
negligence.
(Sangco, pp. 127-128)
40.What if the parties are concurrently negligent? Is the doctrine
of last clear chance applicable?
No. It cannot be applied it defendant’s negligence is a concurrent
cause and which was still in operation up to the time the injury was
inflicted (Aquino, p. 352). The doctrine cannot be extended into the
field of joint-tortfeasors as a it and cannot be invoked as between
defendants who are concurrently negligent. (Aquino, supra; Sangco,
p. 130)
41.Does it apply in our jurisdiction? If yes, in what way?
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
The prevailing view is that the doctrine, as was introduced in Picart
v. Smith, and reiterated, at least discussed, in the number of cases,
that the doctrine is applicable in this jurisdiction. (Aquino, pp. 347-8)
As a phase of proximate cause principle, the doctrine negatives an
essential element of the defense of contributory negligence by
rendering the plaintiff’s negligence a mere condition or remote cause
of the accident; the subsequent negligence of the plaintiff becomes
the immediate or proximate and efficient cause of the accident,
which intervenes between the accident and more remote negligence
of the plaintiff. The failure to avoid injuring a person occupying a
position of peril may be a supervening cause. Where this view is
taken, there must be a time sequence that is an interval – in which
plaintiff’s act of negligence is complete and in which defendant by
the exercise of reasonable care has had the opportunity to aver
disaster.
As separate and distinct doctrine and cause of action, if a plaintiff
negligently puts himself in a place of danger and his negligence and
danger are discovered by the defendant, there devolves upon the
defendant a new duty which intervenes or arises subsequent to the
negligence of the plaintiff, and that duty is to save the plaintiff if he
can from the consequence of his negligence. Here, the doctrine may
be invoked by the person injured not only to avoid the effect of
contributory negligence, but also as a cause of action, distinct and
separate from any cause of action based solely upon any original or
primary negligence chargeable to the defendant. (Sangco, pp. 127-8)
Examination of the cases where the Supreme Court applied the
doctrine of last clear chance reveals that the doctrine is being applied
for the purpose of determining the procimate cause of the accident.
The Supreme Court does not relate the doctrine to the rule on
contributory negligence or comparative negligence. In fact, in most
cases, the Supreme Court used the doctrine in determining if the

negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause and that of the
plaintiff as contributory. (Aquino, p. 350)
42.Is the doctrine of last clear chance applicable even if the
plaintiff is grossly negligent in placing himself in peril? Why or
why not?
A negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff, or even
to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in
peril, if he, aware of the plaintiffs peril, or according to some
authorities, should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise
of due case, had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff
to avoid an accident. (Aquino, p. 348)
43. Is the doctrine of last clear chance applicable in culpa
contractual?
No, the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable in culpa
contractual because according to the case of Consolidated Bank vs
Court of Appeals, in culpa contractual cases, neither the contributory
negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss,
would exonerate the defendant from liability. Such contributory
negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to
reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not
exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract
Note: The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties
are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than
that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault
or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with
the loss. Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of the plaintiff
does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by the
supervening negligence of the defendant, who had the last fair
chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due
diligence.
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
44. Differentiate last clear chance and supervening event.
Note: Last clear chance is also known as Doctrine of Supervening
Negligence or the Doctrine of Discovered peril (Aquino, page 347).
Is the doctrine of comparable negligence applicable in last clear
chance?. Humanitarian Doctrine/ Last Clear chance (It was
designed to temper the common law doctrine of contributory
negligence)
The common law doctrine of contributory negligence is not
applicable in last clear chance cases. Last clear chance is an
exception or modification of the doctrine of contributory negligence,
so that the application of last clear chance doctrine permits a plaintiff
to recover in spite of his prior contributory negligence (Sangco, page
165).
Humanitarian negligence doctrine is considered something more than
an exception to the law of contributory negligence; it proceeds upon
the precepts of humanity and natural justice, to end that every person
must exercise ordinary care for the preservation of another life after
seeing him in peril.
Requisites:
(1) Plaintiff was in a position of peril
(2) Defendant has notice thereof
(3) Defendant, after taking such notice, had the present ability,
with the means at hand, to have averted the impending injury
without injury to himself or to others.
(4) He failed to exercise ordinary care to avert such impending
injury
(5) By reason thereof, plaintiff was injured (Sangco, page 167)
45. Types of comparative negligence

Comparative Negligence rules include any rule under which the
relative degree of negligence of the parties is considered in
determining whether, and to what degree, either should be
responsible for the damages (Aquino, page 266).
Under the pure type of comparative negligence, the plaintiff’s
contributory negligence does not operate to bar his recovery
altogether but does serve to reduce his damage in proportion to his
fault.
Under the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, the
negligence of defendant, which contributes to his injury, completely
bars recovery. (Aquino, page 267).
Note: The contributory negligence rule in common law is different
from the concept of contributory negligence under the New Civil
Code.
Contributory negligence definition: conduct on the part of the injured
party, contributing as a legal cause, to the harm he has suffered,
which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for
his own protection.
Ruling in Consolidated Bank
Ruling:
We hold that Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to
negligence, or culpa contractual. The contract between the bank and
its depositor is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on
simple loan. "The bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its
depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary
nature of their relationship.
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
This fiduciary relationship means that the bank's obligation to
observe "high standards of integrity and performance" is deemed
written into every deposit agreement between a bank and its
depositor. The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume
a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father of a family. In
culpa contractual , once the plaintiff proves a breach of contract,
there is a presumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent.
The burden is on the defendant to prove that he was not at fault or
negligent. In contrast, in culpa aquiliana the plaintiff has the burden
of proving that the defendant was negligent. In the present case, L.C.
Diaz has established that Solidbank breached its contractual
obligation to return the passbook only to the authorized
representative of L.C. Diaz. There is thus a presumption that
Solidbank was at fault and its teller was negligent in not returning
the passbook to Calapre. The burden was on Solidbank to prove that
there was no negligence on its part or its employees.
Proximate Cause of Anauthorized Withdrawal
L.C. Diaz was not at fault that the passbook landed in the hands of
the impostor. Solidbank was in possession of the passbook while it
was processing the deposit. After completion of the transaction,
Solidbank had the contractual obligation to return the passbook only
to Calapre, the authorized representative of L.C. Diaz. Solidbank
failed to fulfill its contractual obligation because it gave the
passbook to another person.
We do not subscribe to the appellate court's theory that the proximate
cause of the unauthorized withdrawal was the teller's failure to call
up L.C. Diaz to verify the withdrawal. Solidbank did not have the
duty to call up L.C. Diaz to confirm the withdrawal. There is no
arrangement between Solidbank and L.C. Diaz to this effect. Even
the agreement between Solidbank and L.C. Diaz pertaining to
measures that the parties must observe whenever withdrawals of

large amounts are made does not direct Solidbank to call up L.C.
Diaz.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
\We do not apply the doctrine of last clear chance to the present case.
Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence in the
performance of its contractual obligation to L.C. Diaz. This is a case
of culpa contractual, where neither the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate
the defendant from liability. 31 Such contributory negligence or last
clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of
damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from
his breach of contract.
Mitigated Damages
Article 1172, "liability (for culpa contractual) may be regulated by
the courts, according to the circumstances." This means that if the
defendant exercised the proper diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employee, or if the plaintiff was guilty of
contributory negligence, then the courts may reduce the award of
damages.
Petitioner Solidbank Corporation shall pay private respondent L.C.
Diaz and Company, CPA's only 60% of the actual damages awarded
by the Court of Appeals. The remaining 40% of the actual damages
shall be borne by private respondent L.C. Diaz and Company, CPA's.
Proportionate costs.
CASE. Calalas vs CA
Facts:
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
At 10 o'clock in the morning of August 23, 1989, private respondent
Eliza Jujeurche G. Sunga, then a college freshman majoring in
Physical Education at the Siliman University, took a passenger
jeepney owned and operated by petitioner Vicente Calalas. As the
jeepney was lled to capacity of about 24 passengers, Sunga was
given by the conductor an "extension seat," a wooden stool at the
back of the door at the rear end of the vehicle.
On the way to Poblacion Sibulan, Negros Occidental, the jeepney
stopped to let a passenger off. As she was seated at the rear of the
vehicle, Sunga gave way to the outgoing passenger. Just as she was
doing so, an Isuzu truck driven by Iglecerio Verena and owned by
Francisco Salva bumped the left rear portion of the jeepney. As a
result, Sunga was injured. She sustained a fracture of the "distal third
of the left tibia-bula with severe necrosis of the underlying skin."
Closed reduction of the fracture, long leg circular casting, and case
wedging were done under sedation. Her connement in the hospital
lasted from August 23 to September 7, 1989. Her attending
physician, Dr. Danilo V. Oligario, an orthopedic surgeon, certied she
would remain on a cast for a period of three months and would have
to ambulate in crutches during said period.
Sunga led a complaint for damages against Calalas, alleging
violation of the contract of carriage by the former in failing to
exercise the diligence required of him as a common carrier. Calalas,
on the other hand, led a third-party complaint against Francisco
Salva, the owner of the Isuzu truck.
Held:
It is immaterial that the proximate cause of the collision between the
jeepney and the truck was the negligence of the truck driver. The
doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-
delict , not in actions involving breach of contract. In the case at bar,
upon the happening of the accident, the presumption of negligence at
once arose, and it became the duty of petitioner to prove that he had

observed extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers. The
fact that Sunga was seated in an "extension seat" placed her in a peril
greater than that to which the other passengers were exposed.
Therefore, not only was petitioner unable to overcome the
presumption of negligence imposed on him for the injury sustained
by Sunga, but also, the evidence showed he was actually negligent in
transporting passengers.
The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for
quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach of contract. The
doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there
is no relation between him and another party. In such a case, the
obligation is created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties
themselves who create the obligation, and the function of the law
is merely to regulate the relation thus created. Insofar as
contracts of carriage are concerned, some aspects regulated by
the Civil Code are those respecting the diligence required of
common carriers with regard to the safety of passengers as well
as the presumption of negligence in cases of death or injury to
passengers.
Urbano vs. IAC
Facts:
At about 8:00 o'clock in the morning of October 23, 1980, petitioner
Filomeno Urbano went to his ricefield at Barangay Anonang, San
Fabian, Pangasinan located at about 100 meters from the tobacco
seedbed of Marcelo Javier. He found the place where he stored his
palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal nearby
which had overflowed. Urbano went to the elevated portion of the
canal to see what happened and there he saw Marcelo Javier and
Emilio Erfe cutting grass. He asked them who was responsible for
the opening of the irrigation canal and Javier admitted that he was
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
the one. Urbano then got angry and demanded that Javier pay for his
soaked palay. A quarrel between them ensued. Urbano unsheathed
his bolo (about 2 feet long, including the handle, by 2 inches wide)
and hacked Javier hitting him on the right palm of his hand, which
was used in parrying the bolo hack. Javier who was then unarmed
ran away from Urbano but was overtaken by Urbano who hacked
him again hitting Javier on the left leg with the back portion of said
bolo, causing a swelling on said leg. When Urbano tried to hack and
inflict further injury, his daughter embraced and prevented him from
hacking Javier.
Antonio Erfe, Emilio Erfe, and Felipe Erfe brought Javier to his
house about 50 meters away from where the incident happened.
Emilio then went to the house of Barangay Captain Menardo Soliven
but not finding him there, Emilio looked for barrio councilman
Felipe Solis instead. Upon the advice of Solis, the Erfes together
with Javier went to the police station of San Fabian to report the
incident. As suggested by Corporal Torio, Javier was brought to a
physician. They go to Dr. Mario Meneses because Dr. Padilla had no
available medicine.
Upon the intercession of Councilman Solis, Urbano and Javier
agreed to settle their differences. Urbano promised to pay P700.00
for the medical expenses of Javier.
At about 1:30 a.m. on November 14, 1980, Javier was rushed to the
Nazareth General Hospital in a very serious condition. When
admitted to the hospital, Javier had lockjaw and was having
convulsions. Dr. Edmundo Exconde who personally attended to
Javier found that the latter's serious condition was caused by tetanus
toxin. He noticed the presence of a healing wound in Javier's palm
which could have been infected by tetanus
Issue: whether or not there was an efficient intervening cause from
the time Javier was wounded until his death which would exculpate
Urbano from any liability for Javier's death

Held:
The evidence on record does not clearly show that the wound
inflicted by Urbano was infected with tetanus at the time of the
infliction of the wound. The evidence merely confirms that the
wound, which was already healing at the time Javier suffered the
symptoms of the fatal ailment, somehow got infected with tetanus
However, as to when the wound was infected is not clear from the
record.
Medically speaking, the reaction to tetanus found inside a man's
body depends on the incubation period of the disease. In the case at
bar, Javier suffered a 2-inch incised wound on his right palm when
he parried the bolo which Urbano used in hacking him. This incident
took place on October 23, 1980. After 22 days, or on November 14,
1980, he suffered the symptoms of tetanus, like lockjaw and muscle
spasms. The following day, November 15, 1980, he died.
If, therefore, the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was
already infected by tetanus germs at the time, it is more medically
probable that Javier should have been infected with only a mild
cause of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus appeared on the
22nd day a f t e r the hacking incident or m o r e t h a n 1 4 d a y s
after the infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time should
have been more than 6 days. Javier, however, died on the second day
from the onset time.
Consequently, Javier's wound could have been infected with tetanus
after the hacking incident. Considering the circumstance surrounding
Javier's death, his wound could have been infected by tetanus 2 or 3
or a few but not 20 to 22 days before he died.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural,
and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
accused. And since we are dealing with a criminal conviction, the
proof that the accused caused the victim's death must convince a
rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The medical findings,
however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the
wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between
the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The infection
was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
Doubts are present. There is a likelihood that the wound was but the
remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to take
necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the proximate
cause of Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing to do.
What was the weapon involved?
Bolo (about 2 feet long, including the handle, by 2 inches wide)
Which parts of the body were hit?
right palm of Javier’s hand, which was used in parrying the bolo
hack
Date? Create a Timeline
Oct 23, 1980 8AM. Hacking incident between Urbano and Javier
October 27, 1980. Formalization of the Amicable Settlement
November 5, 1980, Javier was seen catching fish in the shallow
irrigation by Barangay Captain Soliven
November 14, 1980 1:30 a.m. Javier rushed to the hospital for
having lockjaw and convulsions.
November 15, 1980 at exactly 4:18 p.m Javier died
April 10, 1981. Filomeno Urbano was charged with the crime of
homicide before the then Circuit Criminal Court of Dagupan City

What was the ruling of the RTC?
After trial, the trial court found Urbano guilty as charged for the
crime of Homicide.
What was the ruling of the CA?
CA affirmed the decision of the Trial court.
The claim of appellant that there was an efficient cause which
supervened from the time the deceased was wounded to the time of
his death, which covers a period of 23 days does not deserve serious
consideration. True, that the deceased did not die right away from his
wound, but the cause of his death was due to said wound which was
inflicted by the appellant. Said wound which was in the process of
healing got infected with tetanus which ultimately caused his death.
How did the SC use these days?
SC used these days to determine whether or not it was the hacking of
Urbano that was the proximate cause of Javier’s death.
Medically speaking, the reaction to tetanus found inside a man's
body depends on the incubation period of the disease. In the case at
bar, Javier suffered a 2-inch incised wound on his right palm when
he parried the bolo which Urbano used in hacking him. This incident
took place on October 23, 1980. After 22 days, or on November 14,
1980, he suffered the symptoms of tetanus, like lockjaw and muscle
spasms. The following day, November 15, 1980, he died.
If, therefore, the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was
already infected by tetanus germs at the time, it is more medically
probable that Javier should have been infected with only a mild
cause of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus appeared on the
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
22nd day a f t e r the hacking incident or m o r e t h a n 1 4 d a y s
after the infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time should
have seen more than six days. Javier, however, died on the second
day from the onset time.
What is the basis for the Motion for New Trial or MR?
Based on an affidavit of Barangay Captain Menardo Soliven stating
that during first week of November, 1980, there was a typhoon that
swept Pangasinan and other places of Central Luzon including San
Fabian, a town of said province. That on November 5, 1980, while I
was conducting survey, I saw the late Marcelo Javier catching fish in
the shallow irrigation canals with some companions; "That few days
thereafter, or on November 15, 1980, I came to know that said
Marcelo Javier died of tetanus.
What was the diagnosis?
ADMITTED due to trismus DX: TETANUS
Define incubation period; onset time; reflex spasm
Incubation period: is the period between exposure to an infection and
the appearance of first symptoms
Onset time: is the duration of time it takes for a disease’s or
infection’s effects to come to prominence.
Reflex spasm: a twitch, jerk or stiffening of the muscle. This usually
occurs within 24 to 72 hours of the first symptoms, on interval
referred to as the onset time.
What is the incubation period for mild tetanus?
Mild tetanus is characterized by an incubation period of at least 14
days and an onset time of more than 6 days.

What is the implication of the incubation period for mild
tetanus?
Medically speaking, the reaction to tetanus found inside a man's
body depends on the incubation period of the disease.
What is onset time?
Onset time is the duration of time it takes for a disease’s effects to
come to prominence.
Why is hacking only a remote cause?
There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its
subsequent infection, for failure to take necessary precautions, with
tetanus may have been the proximate of Javier's death with which the
petitioner had nothing to do. A prior and remote cause cannot be
made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more
than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the
injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or
remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and
efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have
happened but for such condition or occasion.
As the plaintiff argued: the proximate cause of the death of Marcelo
Javier was due to his own negligence, that Dr. Mario Meneses found
no tetanus in the injury, and that Javier got infected with tetanus
when after two weeks he returned to his farm and tended his tobacco
plants with his bare hands exposing the wound to harmful elements
like tetanus germs.
What was the efficient intervening cause?
Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos
TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara
The medical findings lead us to a distinct possibility that the
infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause
later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his
death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime
Javier catching fish in the shallow irrigation and thereby catching
tetanus germs which subsequently lead to his death.
What is the test in determining the efficient intervening cause?
Test: where the chain of events is so broken that they become
independent and the result cannot be said to be the consequence of
the primary cause.
What was the test in this case to conclude that the independent
cause was the intervening cause? This is also used in Manila
Electric Co. case.
Test: a prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action
if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or
give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if
there intervened between such prior or remote cause and injury a
distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even
though such injury would not have happened but for such condition
or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except because of
the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause.
If an independent act or defective condition sets into operation the
circumstances that result in injury because of the prior defective
condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause
(Aquino, page 332)
Difference of contributory negligence between common law and
Philippine jurisprudence
 TORTA NOTES (Torts Finals)- Atty. Sta. Barbara

Under the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, the
negligence of defendant, which contributes to his injury, completely
bars recovery. (Aquino, page 267).
Note: The contributory negligence rule in common law is different
from the concept of contributory negligence under the New Civil
Code. Art 2179 states that if the plaintiff’s negligence is merely
contributory, the plaintiff is not barred from recovering from the
defendant (Aquino, page 266).
In Philippine jurisdiction, negligence of the plaintiff merely results in
mitigation of liability.
In Phoenix, did the driver had the last clear chance?
No, in Phoenix, the Court did not apply the last clear chance doctrine
in order to absolve Phoenix from liability. According to the court, to
accept this proposition is to come too close to wiping out the
fundamental principle of law that a man must respond for the
foreseeable consequences of his own negligent act or omission. Our
law on quasi-delicts seeks to reduce the risks and burdens of living in
society and to allocate them among the members of society. To
accept the petitioners' proposition must tend to weaken the very
bonds of society. c
the injury (Abrogar v Cosmos Bottling). It is the nearest cause,
the last link in the chain of events.
"The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the
injury, either immediately or by settling other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a
close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final
event in the chain immediately affecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under such
circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should,
as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable
ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to
some person might probably result therefrom." (Urbano vs. CA) e.g.
an individual who was driving while intoxicated crashed his/her car
and was killed. The immediate cause of death was the crash. The
proximate cause was the individual’s state of intoxication.

Determination of proximate cause is not merely an exercise of

chronology in Physics. Why?

No, it is not merely an exercise of chronology in physics.

What is immediate cause? Differentiate with Proximate cause.

Immediate cause is the final act in a series of provocations leading to

a particular event. Immediate cause is the cause closest in time to

Bonsato- Cerera- Chavez- Libiran- Pablo- Pantino- Santos