Proximate Cause

WHAT IS “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.

And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by
setting 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 effecting 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 ordinary
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.

De Bataclan vs Medina

Facts: Pass-midnight in September 1952, Juan Bataclan rode a bus owned by Mariano Medina from Cavite to Pasay. While on
its way, the driver of the bus was driving fast and when he applied the brakes it cause the bus to be overturned. The driver, the
conductor, and some passengers were able to free themselves from the bus except Bataclan and 3 others. The passengers
called the help of the villagers and as it was dark, the villagers brought torch with them. The driver and the conductor failed to
warn the would-be helpers of the fact that gasoline has spilled from the overturned bus so a huge fire ensued which engulfed
the bus thereby killing the 4 passengers trapped inside. It was also found later in trial that the tires of the bus were old.

ISSUE: Whether or not the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan et al was their burning by reason of the torches which
ignited the gasoline.

HELD: No. The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus which was caused by the negligence of the driver because he
was speeding and also he was already advised by Medina to change the tires yet he did not. Such negligence resulted to the
overturning of the bus. The torches carried by the would-be helpers are not to be blamed. It is just but natural for the villagers
to respond to the call for help from the passengers and since it is a rural area which did not have flashlights, torches are the
natural source of lighting. Further, the smell of gas could have been all over the place yet the driver and the conductor failed to
provide warning about said fact to the villagers.

MANILA ELECTRIC CO. vs. REMOQUILLO, et als.

Facts: Efren Magno went to repair a ¨media agua¨ of the house pf his brother-in-law. Whilw making the repair, a galvanized
iron roofing which was holding came into contact with the electric wire of the petitioner Manila Electric Co. strung parallel to
the edge of the ¨media agua¨ and 2 1/2 feet from it. He was electrocuted and died as a result thereof. In an action for damages
brought by the heirs of Magno against manila Electric Co. the CA awarded damages to the heirs of Magno and that the
company was at fault and guilty of negligence because although the electric wire had been installed long before the
construction of the house the electric company did not exercise due diligence. Hence, this petition.

Issue: WON Manila Electric Co., is gulity of negligence.

Ruling : Decision of the CA reversed.

Ratio: 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 occassion 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 occassion.

Calalas v CA (Torts)

FACTS:
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 filled 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.
On October 9, 1989, Sunga filed 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, filed a third-party
complaint against Francisco Salva, the owner of the Isuzu truck.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:

1. RTC – Dumaguete – rendered judgment against Salva holding that the driver of the Isuzu truck was responsible It took
cognizance of another case (Civil Case No. 3490), filed by Calalas against Salva and Verena, for quasi-delict, in which Branch 37
of the same court held Salva and his driver Verena jointly liable to Calalas for the damage to his jeepney.

2. CA – reversed the RTC, awarding damages instead to Sunga as plaintiff in an action for breach of contract of carriage since
the cause of action was based on such and not quasi delict. Hence, current petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:
Whether (per ruling in Civil Case) negligence of Verena was the proximate cause of the accident negates his liability and that to
rule otherwise would be to make the common carrier an insurer of the safety of its passengers In relation thereto, does the
principle of res judicata apply?

RULING:
No.
The issue in Civil Case No. 3490 was whether Salva and his driver Verena were liable for quasi-delict for the damage caused to
petitioner's jeepney. On the other hand, the issue in this case is whether petitioner is liable on his contract of carriage.

Quasi-delict / culpa aquiliana / culpa extra contractual

1. Has as its source the negligence of the tortfeasor

2. negligence or fault should be clearly established because it is the basis of the action

3. doctrine of proximate cause is applicable

(device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party, obligation is created by law
itself)

Breach of contract / culpa contractual

1. premised upon the negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation

2. action can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the contract and the fact that the obligor (here, the common
carrier) failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination

3. not available; it is the parties themselves who create the obligation and the function of the law is merely to regulate the
relation thus created

In case of death or injuries to passengers, Art. 1756 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are presumed to have been
at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as defined in Arts. 1733 and
1755 of the Code. This provision necessarily shifts to the common carrier the burden of proof.

Hence, Vicente Calalas (operator) is liable since he did not exercise utmost diligence. 
1. Jeepney was not properly parked;

2. Overloading of passengers. 

Fernando vs CA

FACTS:

 November 7, 1975: Bibiano Morta, market master of the Agdao Public Market filed a requisition request with the
Chief of Property of the City Treasurer's Office for the re-emptying of the septic tank in Agdao wherein Bascon won

 November 22, 1975: bidder Bertulano with four other companions namely Joselito Garcia, William Liagoso, Alberto
Fernando and Jose Fajardo, Jr. were found dead inside the septic tank. 
  The bodies were removed by a fireman.

 The body of Joselito Garcia, was taken out by his uncle, Danilo Garcia and taken to the Regional Hospital
but he expired there. 

 The City Engineer's office investigated the case and learned they entered the septic tank without clearance from it
nor with the knowledge and consent of the market master. 

 Since the septic tank was found to be almost empty, they were presumed to be the ones who did the re-
emptying.

 Dr. Juan Abear of the City Health Office found them to have died from "asphyxia" - diminution of oxygen supply in
the body and intake of toxic gas

 November 26, 1975: Bascon signed the purchase order 

 RTC: Dismissed the case

 CA: Reversed - law intended to protect the plight of the poor and the needy, the ignorant and the indigent

ISSUE: W/N Davao city is negligent and its negligence is the proximate cause therefore can be liable for damages

HELD: NO. CA affirmed.

 test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case:

 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? If not, then he is guilty of negligence

standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet pater familias of the Roman law

 Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an
effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable warrant his foregoing the conduct or guarding against its
consequences

 The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of
course be always determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the
particular case

 Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this provision, is always
necessary before negligence can be held to exist

 Distinction must be made between the accident and the injury

 Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its determining factors, he can not 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 a
suitable equivalent for his own imprudence

 Toilets and septic tanks are not nuisances per se as defined in Article 694 of the New Civil Code which would
necessitate warning signs for the protection of the public

 While the construction of these public facilities demands utmost compliance with safety and
sanitary requirements, the putting up of warning signs is not one of those requirements

 accident such as toxic gas leakage from the septic tank is unlikely to happen unless one removes its covers

 Considering the nature of the task of emptying a septic tank especially one which has not been cleaned for years, an
ordinarily prudent person should undoubtedly be aware of the attendant risks. The victims are no exception; more
so with Mr. Bertulano, an old hand in this kind of service, who is presumed to know the hazards of the job. His
failure, therefore, and that of his men to take precautionary measures for their safety was the proximate cause
of the accident.

 proximate and immediate cause of the death of the victims was due to their own negligence.  Consequently, the
petitioners cannot demand damages from the public respondent.