1.

j. (Efficient) Intervening Cause

One that destroys the casual connection between the negligent act and injury and thereby
negates liability. It is sometimes called, novus actus interviens. An intervening cause will be regarded as
the proximate cause and t first cause as too remote, 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. There
is no efficient intervening cause if the force created by the negligent act or omission have either: (1)
remained active itself, or (2) created another force which remained active until it directly caused the
result, or (3) created a new active risk of being acted upon by the active force that caused the result. An
efficient intervening cause is equivalent to the preemptive cause referred to in the NESS test of
Professor Wright.
k. Remote Cause
Defined as that cause which some independent force merely took advantage of to accomplish
something not the natural effect thereof.
A remote cause cannot be considered the legal cause of the damage.
2. Distinguish Tort from Other Obligations
1. Torts are legal wrongs against individuals eg. Defamation, Assault and battery.
~Crimes are wrongs agaist the society punishable by the state eg, Murder, Treason and Rape

2. Torts lead the victim to be provided compesation.
~Crimes result into imposing punishment on guilt persons.

3. Torts are pursued as suits in courts of law.
~ Crimes are prosecuted by the state.

4. Torts are mostly creatures of courts eg Negligence, Trespassing and Nuisance.
~ Crimes are creature of the parliament eg, The Penal Code.
The Diffference pointed above do not always come out easily sometimes they are
blurred. For instance, while the ;law of torts is expected to award compasation only at times it
imposes pun ishments through awards of PUNITIVE DAMAGES. It is more interested to not when
one conduct leads to crime and torts. For instance where A without reasonable cause inficted
bodily injury to B' Leading to parmanent disfigurement, this would result into A' being held
criminal liable under the Penal Code and may also be liable in Tourts in case the victim decided
to claim for compensation.

Perpetration of torts and breaches of contract is worthy examining because of their
close resemblance.
1. In tort the duty arises from the law.
~ In contract the duty arises from the agreement of the parties.
2.In torts the limitation period is three years.
~ In contract the limitation period is six years
3. In tort reasonable foereseability is applied to determine damages.
~ In contract only laws which arises 'naturally'and which was within reasonable contemplation
of the parties is used to determined damages.
3. Abuse of Rights
The decision in Albenson Enterprises v. CA enumerates the elements of abuse of rights under Art. 19, to
wit:
a. There is a legal right or duty.
b. The legal right or duty is exercised in bad faith; and
c. The exercise is for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Spain cites the following elements:
a. The exercise of a right which is objective and apparently legal
b. Damage or injury to an interest not specifically protected by a legal precept; and
c. Immorality or anti-social character of the damage or injury caused either with intent to injure or
without serious or legitimate purpose.