CASE/ KEY RULING/

DESCRIPTION IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES

IV. CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN ACT OR OMISSION AND DAMAGE
38. Tison et al vs.  In this case, no casual connection was established between the tractor-trailer driver’s restrictions on his license
Sps Pomasin to the vehicular collision.
“Jitney”  Art. 2185: The legal presumption of negligence arises if at the time of the mishap, a person was violating any
Note: This term was traffic regulation. (WAS NOT APPLIED)
used  SC: A causal connection must exist between the injury received and the violation of the traffic regulation
interchangeably by (Sanitary Steam Laundry vs. CA)
the lower court with  Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other negligence, is without legal
the word jeepney consequences unless it iis a contributing cause of the injury (Anonuevo vs. CA) – CONTROLLING DECISION
 Presumptions in law, though convenient, are not intractable so as to forbid rebuttal rooted in fact.
39. Ocean Builders  To successfully prosecute an action anchored on torts three elements must be present: (1) duty (2) breach (3)
vs. Sps Cubacub injury and proximate causation
“Chickenpox case”  The issue in this case is essentially factual in nature. The dissent, apart from adopting the appellate court's
findings, finds that Bladimir contracted chicken pox from a co-worker and Hao was negligent in not bringing
that co-worker to the nearest physician, or isolating him as well. This finding is not, however, borne by the
records.
 Nowhere is there any such definite finding that Bladimir contracted chicken pox from a co-worker. At best, the
only allusion to another employee being afflicted with chicken pox was when Hao testified that he knew it to
heal within three days as was the case of another worker, without reference, however, as to when it happened
A. Doctrine of  While it may be true that the public respondent has been remiss in its duty to re-empty the septic tank annually,
Proximate such negligence was not a continuing one.
Cause  It is an undisputed fact that despite the public respondent's failure to re-empty the septic tank since 1956,
people in the market have been using the public toilet for their personal necessities but have remained
40. Fernando vs. CA unscathed.
”Bodies in the  An accident such as toxic gas leakage from the septic tank is unlikely to happen unless one removes its covers.
septic tank” The accident in the case at bar occurred because the victims on their own and without authority from the public
respondent opened the septic tank.
41. Dyteban vs. Jose  There is no exact mathematical formula to determine proximate cause. It is based upon mixed considerations
Ching infra of logic, common sense, policy and precedent. Plaintiff must, however, establish a sufficient link between the
act or omission and the damage or injury. That 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.
42. Bataclan vs.  The coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the
Medina bus, the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for outside help.
“Torch” “Bus on  The driver should and must have known that in the position in which the overturned bus was, gasoline could
fire” and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around the bus, this aside from the
fact that gasoline when spilled, specially over a large area, can be smelt and directed even from a distance,
43. Manila Electric  Magno was negligent. He could not have been entirely a stranger to electric wires and the danger lurking in
Co. vs. Remoquillo them. But unfortunately, in the instant case, his training and experience failed him
“Media Agua”  SC: Rule on remote and proximate cause with respect to injuries ---prior and remote cause cannot be made
“Electric Wire the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the
Electrocution” 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.
44. Taylor vs.  SC: We are satisfied that plaintiffs action in cutting open the detonating cap and putting match to its contents
Manila Electric was the proximate cause of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff, and that the
“Boys stealing defendant, therefore is not civilly responsible for the injuries thus incurred.
explosive materials”  Plaintiff at the time of the accident was a well grown youth of 15, more mature both mentally and physically
than the average boy of his age; he had been to sea as a cabin boy; was able to earn P2.50 a day as a
mechanical draftsman thirty days after the injury was incurred; and the record discloses throughout that he
was exceptionally well qualified to take care of himself.
 He well knew the explosive character of the cap. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that he had reason to
anticipate that the explosion might be dangerous, in view of the fact that the little girl, 9 years of age, who
was within him at the time when he put the match to the contents of the cap, became frightened and ran
away.
  Note: The law fixes no arbitrary age at which a minor can be said to have the necessary capacity to
understand and appreciate thenature and consequences of his own acts, so as to make it negligent on his part
to fail to exercise due care and precaution in the commission of such acts. A minor can be said to have such
ability will necessarily vary in accordance with the varying nature of the infinite variety of acts which may be
done by him.
45. Sanitary Steam  It has not been shown how the alleged negligence of the Cimarron driver contributed to the collision between
laundry vs. CA the vehicles. Petitioner has the burden of showing a causal connection between the injury received and the
“Truck vs. violation of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code.
Cimarron”  He must show that the violation of the statute (i.e driving an overloaded vehicle with only one functioning
“Overloading; one headlight during night time) certainly increases the risk of accident was the proximate or legal cause of the
headlight” injury or that it substantially contributed thereto.
 SC: Proximate cause of the accident was negligence of petitioners’ driver. He was running at a high speed and
was tailgating the jeepney ahead of him.
 With respect to the requirement of passing psychological and physical tests prior to his employment, although
no law requires it, such circumstance would certainly be a reliable indicator of the exercise of due diligence.
 “Accordingly, it behooves employers to exert extra care in the selection and supervision of their employees.
They must go beyond the minimum requirements fixed by law.”
46. Mercury Drug  Art. 2176: Quasi-delict in relation to Art. 2180 on the solidary liability of the employer for the negligent acts of
vs. Baking his employee. There is an automatic legal presumption that there has been negligence on the part of the
“Wrong pill” employer.
 Note: This presumption may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he has exercised
the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.
 Petitioner’s employee was grossly negligent in selling to respondent Dormicum, instead of the prescribed
Diamicron. Considering that a fatal mistake could be a matter of life and death for a buying patient, the said
employee should have been very cautious in dispensing medicines.
 The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved, and the skill employed must correspond
with the superior knowledge of the business which the law demands.
47. BPI vs. Suarez  There is nothing in Suarez’s testimony which convincingly shows that the erroneous marking of DAIF on the
“Erroneous marking checks proximately caused his alleged psychological or social injuries. Suarez merely testified that he suffered
of DAIF by BPI” humiliation and that the prospective consolidation of the titles to Tagaytay properties did not materialize due
to the dishonor of his checks, not due to the erroneous marking of DAIF on his checks. –PROXIMATE CAUSE
WAS NOT ESTABLISHED
 Hence, Suarez had only himself to blame for his hurt feelings and the unsuccessful transaction with his client
as these were directly caused by the justified dishonor of the checks. In short, Suarez cannot recover
compensatory damages for his own negligence.
48. Ramos vs. C.O.L  Art. 2179: “When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
Realty cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of
“Violated MMDA the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall
prohibition against mitigate the damages to be awarded.”
corssing Katipunan  Art. 2185: “Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been
Avenue from Rajah negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.”
Matanda”  Applying the foregoing principles of law to the instant case, Aquilino’s act of crossing Katipunan Avenue via
Rajah Matanda constitutes negligence because it was prohibited by law. Moreover, it was the proximate
cause of the accident, and thus precludes any recovery for any damages suffered by respondent from the
accident.
 If Aquilino heeded the MMDA prohibition against crossing Katipunan Avenue from Rajah Matanda, the
accident would not have happened. And since his own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of
his injury, he cannot recover damages.
49. Vallacar Transit  Petitioner-employer (Ceres bus) not liable since the liability of his employee-driver for quasi-delict was never
vs. Catubig established.
“Motorcycle  Liability of employer under Art. 2180, flows from the negligence of their employees. In this case, negligence is
overtakes collided attributed solely to the negligence of the motorcycle driver, Catubig.
with Ceres bus”  The evidence shows that the driver of the bus, Cabanilla, was driving his vehicle along the proper lane, while
the driver of the motorcycle, Catubig, had overtaken a vehicle ahead of him as he was approaching a
curvature on the road, in disregard of the provision of the law on reckless driving, at the risk of his life and
that of his employee, Emperado.
B. Doctrine of  NOTE: At the time of the incident, Jabon w as prohibited from driving the truck due to the restriction imposed
Imputed of his driver's license, i.e., restriction code 2 and 3.
Negligence  Going downward, the jitney had the tendency to accelerate. The fall into the shoulder of the road can result in
the loss of control of the jitney, which explains why it was running in a zigzag manner before it hit the tractor-
50. Tison vs. trailer. There was no showing that the tractor-trailer was speeding. There is a preponderance of evidence that
Pomasin infra case the tractor-trailer was in fact ascending. Considering its size and the weight of the tractor-trailer, its speed
#38 could not be more than that of a fully loaded jitney which was running downhill in a zigzagging manner
 In hindsight, it can be argued that Jabon should have swerved to the right upon seeing the jitney zigzagging
before it collided with the tractor-trailer. Accidents, though, happen in an instant, and, understandably in this
case, leaving the driver without sufficient time and space to maneuver a vehicle the size of a tractor-trailer
uphill and away from collision with the jitney oncoming downhill.
 SC: Clearly, the negligence of Gregorio's daughter, Laarni was the proximate cause of the accident. We did not
lose sight of the fact that at the time of the incident, Jabon was prohibited from driving the truck due to the
restriction imposed on his driver's license, i.e., restriction code 2 and 3.
 Driving without a proper license is a violation of traffic regulation. Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, the
legal presumption of negligence arises if at the time of the mishap, a person was violating any traffic
regulation. However, in Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held that a causal connection
must exist between the injury received and the violation of the traffic regulation.
 Note: Negligence per se, arising from the mere violation of a traffic statute, need not be sufficient in itself in
establishing liability for damages.
 The rule on negligence per se must admit qualifications that may arise from the logical consequences of the
facts leading to the mishap. The doctrine (and Article 2185, for that matter) is undeniably useful as a judicial
guide in adjudging liability, for it seeks to impute culpability arising from the failure of the actor to perform up
to a standard established by a legal fiat. But the doctrine should not be rendered inflexible so as to deny relief
when in fact there is no causal relation between the statutory violation and the injury sustained.
51. Caedo vs. Yu  Art 2184 is indeed the basis of a master’s liability in a vehicular accident. Note however that the 2nd sentence
Khe Thai of Art 2184 qualifies before the owner can be made solidarity liable with the negligent driver. This is because
“Caratela driver vs. the basis of the master’s liability is not RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR but rather the relationship of PATERFAMILIAS.
Cadillac driver”  The theory is that, the negligence of the servant is known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by
“Hiring of him, reflects the master’s negligence if he fails to correct it order to prevent injury or damage.
professional driver”  Test of imputed negligence in Art 2184 is necessarily subjective.
 IMPORTANT: Car owners are not held in a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional
drivers. The law does not require that a person must possess a certain measure of skill or proficiency either in
mechanics of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before he can own a motor vehicle. The test of his
intelligence, within the meaning of Article 2184, is his omission to do that which the evidence of his own
senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident. And as far as perception is concerned, absent a
minimum level imposed by law, a maneuver that appears to be fraught with danger to one passenger may
appear to be entirely safe and commonplace to another. Were the law to require a uniform standard of
perceptiveness, employment of professional drivers by car owners who, by their very inadequacies, have real
need of drivers' services, would be effectively proscribed.
 No negligence can be imputed to Khe Thai because he could not have anticipated his driver's sudden decision
to pass the carretela on its left side in spite of the fact that another car was approaching from the opposite
direction. The time element was such that there was no reasonable opportunity for Yu Khe Thai to assess the
risks involved and warn the driver accordingly.
52. Kapalaran Bus  Gen Rule; Vehicles on the national highway has the right of way against a feeder road.
Line vs. Coronado
“Traffic sign that
says ‘YIELD’”
53. Mendoza vs.
Soriano
“Pedestrian hit by a
Tamaraw FX”
54. Anonuevo vs.
CA
“Non-motorized
vehicle: Bicycle”
55. Filipinas
Synthetic Fiber v.
Delos Santos
“Musical Play:
Woman of the
Year”
C. Res Ipsa
Loquitor

56. Maao Central

Co. vs. CA
“Cargo train
derailed: Victim
riding in caboose”
57. FF Cruz & Co. vs
CA
“Fire wall”
58. US vs. Crame
“US Army got struck
by the car”
59. Africa vs. Caltex
“Fire at Caltex
Station”
60. Layugan vs. IAC
“Repairing the tire
of the cargo truck”
“Warning device”
61. Perla Compania
de Seguros vs. Sps
Sarangaya
“Super A Bldg” “Car
on fire”
62. Carmen, Jr. vs.
Bacoy
“Family got ran
over by a Fuso jeep’
63. Solidum vs.
People
“Colostomy gone
bad”
64. Rosit vs. Davao
Doctors Hospital
“Jaw surgery:
wrong screws”
65. Cf: Doctrine of
Common
Knowledge in
Borromeo vs.
Family Care
Hospital
“Appendicitis or
not?”
D. Burden of
Proof

66. Alano vs.

Magud Logmao
“Organ donor: Fell
from overpass”

67. BJDC
Construction vs.
Lanuzo
“Illuminated
warning signs”
TORTS AND DAMAGES CASE OUTLINE (STUDY GUIDE/MEMORY AID)