CAUSATION

Proximate Cause Remote Cause

Cause which, in natural and continuous
Proximate Cause v. sequence, unbroken by any efficient
Remote Cause intervening cause, produces the injury,
and without which would not have
occurred.
A cause distant in time from the effect;
an event in the distant past that helps
cause some effect.

1. Reasonable care: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used
Two Tests in in the same situation?
determining negligence
2. Foreseeability: Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee
harm as a result of the course actually pursued?

Why does the Supreme

“Proximate” to mean “efficient cause” and not to refer to proximity (nearness) or
Court insist on using
function of time.
Proximate Cause
Case: Spouses Vergara v. Terracampo

Art. 2179. Contributory Negligence

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.

Art. 2201. Liability in contracts and quasi contracts

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 or could have
Codal Provisions
reasonably 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 damages which may be reasonably attributed to the nonperformance of the
obligation.

Art. 2202. Liability in crimes and quasi delicts

In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants 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 damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been
foreseen by the defendant.

Case: Phoenix Construction v. IAC

Case: Urbano v. IAC

The tortfeasor-defendant is liable even though the negligent act caused an injury that
Egg-skull or thin-skull
is greater than what is usually experienced by a normal person because of a prior
rule
condition of the plaintiff.

Humanitarian Doctrine
A principle of Tort law which requires an individual to take all reasonable action to
Last Clear Chance
avoid an accident where peril to another human being is otherwise imminent.
Doctrine
Is the doctrine applicable if the plaintiff is guilty of gross negligence? No.

Page 1 of 6
 Anglo-American Philippines
Contributory Negligence Contributory Negligence
Anglo-American
Contributory Negligence
Complete defense to an action based Art. 2179 and Art. 2214
v. Philippines
on negligence Results in the mitigation of the
Contributory Negligence
defendant’s liability and the plaintiff’s
indemnity.

Contributory Negligence Comparative Negligence

Conduct on the part of the injured party,
Contributory contributing as a legal cause to the
Negligence v. harm he has suffered, which falls below
the standard to which he is required to
Comparative conform for his own protection.
Negligence
A comparison is made in terms of the
degree of the negligence of the plaintiff
and that of the defendant and the
amount of damages recoverable by the
plaintiff is reduced to the extent of his
negligence

Pure comparative
Pure Modified
negligence vs. Modified Comparative Negligence Comparative Negligence
comparative Allows the plaintiff to recover Can recover only if his negligence is
negligence regardless of the extent of his less than or equals that of the
negligence. defendant

Rule followed in Philippine jurisdiction

CAUSE IN FACT
Test Definition

Defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of the injury

But-for test (Sine Qua
if the damage would not have resulted had there
Non Test)
been no negligence on the party of the defendant.

Makes the negligent conduct the cause in fact of the

damage if it was a substantial factor in producing
the injuries.
Substantial Factor Test
Important in cases where there are concurrent
Tests of Proximate
causes.
Cause

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
preempted set of conditions, it was not – as
required by the but for test – necessary in the
Necessary Element of
circumstances for the consequence.
Sufficient Set (NESS) Test
Necessary Sufficient
Circumstance in In whose presence the
whose absence the event must occur.
event cannot occur.

Page 2 of 6
 POLICY TESTS
Test Definition

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,
Foreseeability Test
there is no negligence, and no liability.

Applied in contracts and quasi contracts. (Art. 2201)

Natural and probable consequences have been

said to be hose which human foresight anticipate
because they happen so frequently, they may be
Natural and Probable
expected to recur, as contrasted with “possible
Consequence Test
consequences” which are those that happen so
infrequently that they are not expected to happen
again.

Tests of Proximate Defendant is liable for all the damage that flows as
Cause the ordinary and natural, or direct consequence of
Natural or ordinary or his conduct to be determined from the
direct consequences test circumstances of the case rather than upon whether
he might or must have reasonably expected the
resulting injury.

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
Hindsight Test
appear to remove foreseeability as an element of
proximate cause.

Applied in crimes and quasi delicts. (Art. 2202)

If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty

which the defendant breached, liability is imposed
Orbit of risk test 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.

Page 3 of 6
 PERSONS LIABLE

Elements of Tort 1. Existence of a valid contract;

Interference 2. Knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of the contract; and
3. Interference of the third person without legal justification or excuse.

A tort for which a non-perpetrator is held liable. Here,, a person who did not actually
commit a wrong is anyway held liable.
Quasi-tort
For instance, a master will be held liable for a tort committed by a servant under the
principle of vicarious liability.

Two or more persons whose negligence in a single accident or event causes damages
to another person.
Joint Tortfeasors
In many cases the joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the damages,
meaning that any of them can be responsible to pay the entire amount, no matter how
unequal the negligence of each party was.

Situation where someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another
person, for whom one is responsible (Art. 2180).

The liability is primary and direct/solidary (Art. 2194).

Vicarious Liability
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage. (Art. 2180 last par.)

Deep Pocket Theory Refers to the idea that the risk of an activity should be borne by a person who is in a
relatively good position to handle it.

Persons exercising
Parents Persons exercising
substitute parental
parental authority
authority

The father and, in case Guardians are liable for a. Surviving

of his death or
incapacity, the mother,
are responsible for the
Liability of Parents damages caused by the
minor children who live in
their company.
damages caused by the grandparents;
minors or incapacitated b. Oldest sibling over
persons who are under 21yo, unless unfit;
their authority and live in c. Child’s actual
their company. custodian over 21yo,
unless unfit

Solidary liability Solidary liability Subsidiary liability

(no direct custody)

Includes minors 18-21 years old who are not gainfully employed.

Should the minor be Aquino Tolentino Sangco

impleaded in a tort case
given that s/he has no
criminal liability under
the RPC?

Page 4 of 6
 Nature of Vicarious Art. 2181 Art. 2194
Liability
Whoever pays for the damage caused The responsibility of two or more
(reimbursable by his dependents or employees may persons who are liable for quasi-delict is
and solidary) recover from the latter what he has paid solidary.
or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.

Does Art. 2181 not

obliterate the sanction
against the negligent
parent or employer?

Persons who, though of full age, were incapable of managing their affairs, and of the
obligations which attended them, in consequence of their bad conduct, and for whom
a curator was therefore appointed.
Prodigal
Can the guardian be liable for the quasi-delict committed by the prodigal?
No. Art. 31. Guardianship extends only to the administration of property of the
prodigal.

Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their
custody.

Reddendo Singula Singulis "teachers" should apply to the words "pupils” and
“students" and "heads of establishments of arts and trades" to the word "apprentices."

Liability of Teachers  General Rule: Where the school is academic rather than technical or
vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student will
attach to the teacher in charge of such student.

 ER: In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof,
and only he, who shall be held liable.

(Amadora vs. CA)

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
Liability of Employees helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are
not engaged in any business or industry.

Case: Loadmaster
Case: Nogales vs. CMC
Case: Amadora

Page 5 of 6
 TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION

1. violation of civil rights

2. violation of political rights
Independent civil action 3. defamation
4. fraud
5. physical injuries
6. neglect of public officers

To allow the citizen to enforce his rights in a private action brought by him regardless
of the action of the State Attorney. x x x while the State is the complainant in the
Concept criminal case, the injured individuals is the most concerned because it is he who has
suffered directly. He should be permitted to demand reparation for the wrong which
particularly affects him.”

Art. 32
Independent civil action
for violation of civil and
political rights.
Case: Vinzons-Chato

Page 6 of 6