Chapter 5

CAUSATIO
N
 Topics to be discussed
I. PROXIMATE CAUSE
A. Definition
B. Tests of Proximate Cause
II. EFFICIENT & INTERVENING CAUSE
A. Definition & Concept
III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
A. Definition
B. Plaintiff’s Negligence is the Cause
C. Compound Cases
D. Part of the same Causal Set
E. Defendant’s Negligence is the Only Cause
IV. LAST CLEAR CHANCE
A. Elements and Conditions of the Last Clear Chance
Doctrine
B. When Doctrine is not applicable

2
 reporters:

KRYSTEL SEIGFRED GLEEMARIE

SALES CORTAN SORIA

3
What is CAUSATION
in Tort Law?q1
“Plaintiff, however, must 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. “
[Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v. Ching, G.R. No. 161803
(2008)]
Take Note
It is not required that it be shown that
the injury would not have occurred
without the act or omission
complained of. It only requires some
reasonable connection between the
act or omission in the injury.

6
 “If it was not for the
action by the
defendant, would the
harm have occurred?”

7
PROXIMATE
CAUSE
Proximate Cause Immediately
Resulting In Injury
1. 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.
[ Bataclan V. Medina, G.R No. 10126 (1957)]

9
 Bataclan V.
Medina
Issue: Whether or not the overturning of
the bus was the proximate cause of the four
(4) people’s death or the fire that burned
the bus.

10
RULING:
The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus. The
leaking of the gasoline from the tank was unnatural or
unexpected when the vehicle overturned. The coming of the men
with a lighted torch was in response to help especially that it was
dark when the incident took place (2:30 am). The rescuers had to
carry a light with them since they come from a rural area where
flashlights and lanterns were not available. The coming of the
men with a torch was to be expected and was a natural
sequence of the overturning of the bus, the trapping of some
of its passengers and the call for outside help.
Proximate Cause Not Immediately
Resulting In Injury but sets in motion a
chain of events, which eventually result in
injury:
1. That cause, acting first and producing the injury, by setting other
events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain,
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 first cause, 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 that an injury
might probably result therefrom.

12
Mercury Drug V.
Sebastian Baking

Issue: Whether or not the wrong medicine

sold by the employee of Mercury
Drugstore to Baking, which he took for 3
consecutive days was the proximate cause
of his accident since it made him fall
asleep while driving.

13
RULING:
The proximate cause was the negligence of Mercury Drug
store’s employee. It is generally recognized that the drug store
business is imbued with public interest. The health and safety of
the people will be put into jeopardy if the drugstore employee will
not exercise the highest degree of care and diligence. The care
required must be commensurate with the danger involved, and the
skill employed must be correspondent with the superior
knowledge of the business which the law demands.
Take Note
In Mercury Drug V. Baking, 3 days have
elapsed from the time of the negligent act
determined by the Court as the proximate
cause. Thus, the Court did not consider the
time element in determining proximate
cause but the nature and gravity of the
injury.

15
 Proximate Cause distinguished from Other
Causes
REMOTE CAUSE CONCURRENT
Is one which would have been CAUSE
a proximate cause, had there Is one which along with other
been no efficient intervening causes, produces the injury.
cause after it prior to the Each cause is an efficient
injury. cause without which the injury
would not have happened.
Injury is attributed to any or all
the causes, and recovery may
be had against any or all of
those responsible.

16
 Proximate Cause distinguished from Other
Causes
NEAREST CAUSE INTERVENING
That cause which is the last CAUSE
link in the chain of events; the Is an event that takes place
nearest in point of time or after the first cause and before
relation. the injury.

17
TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE APPLICABLE IN THE
PHILIPPINES
I. CAUSE-IN-FACT TEST
Tort theory generally has required that a plaintiff identify that the
defendant’s act or omission was sufficiently connected to the plaintiff’s
injury.

A. But-For Test
- A plaintiff in a negligence action must prove on a balance of
probabilities that, for the defendant’s negligent conduct, the
plaintiff would not have suffered injury.
A. Substantial Factor Test
- The defendant’s act or object needed to be possessed by the
defendant and produced the plaintiff’s injury.
- Was the defendant a substantial factor, or big contributor in
causing the injury to the plaintiff?

18
 TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE APPLICABLE IN THE
PHILIPPINES

C. Necessary Element of Sufficient Set Test

- The negligent act or omission, is a cause-in-fact of the damage
if it is a necessary element of a sufficient set (NESS).
- Whether a particular condition qualifies as casually relevant
factor will depend on whether it was necessary to complete a
set of conditions jointly sufficient to account for the given
occurrence.

19
TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE APPLICABLE IN THE
PHILIPPINES
II. POLICY TEST OR CUT-OFF TEST
A finding that the defendant’s negligence was the cause in fact of the
damage to the plaintiff will not necessarily result in a finding that the same
negligence is the proximate cause of the damage to the plaintiff. The law, as
a matter of policy, may limit the liability of the defendant to certain
consequences of his action.
a. FORSEEABILITY
- In order to be liable for negligence, the type of harm that occurred
must have been foreseeable. However, the extent of the harm is not
limited by what or what was forseeable
- “Whether the person causing the injury should have reasonably
foreseen the general consequences that would result because of his or
her conduct.”

20
 FORSEEABLITY
A. Unforeseeable Type of Harm
a. A person who causes injury to another is not liable if the type of
harm does not forseeably flow from the negligent act.
Example:
If Francis drops a glass bottle on the floor and does not clean it up, he
would be liable for injuries caused to anyone who cut themselves on the
glass. However, if a fire is somehow caused by sunlight that is magnified
through the broken glass then Francis may not be liable for injuries caused
by the fire because the fire is not a foreseeable result that might stem from
leaving shards of glass on the ground.

21
 FORSEEABLITY
B. Unforeseeable Manner of Harm
a. A person who causes injury to another person is not liable for a
superseding cause when the superseding cause itself was not
foreseeable.
Example:
Khian left a lighted/burning candle in his apartment while he was at
work, subsequently, a burglar broke into his apartment and knocked the
candle over, burning down the entire building. Khian would unlikely be
liable for injuries sustained because the burglar was unforeseeable,
seperseding cause.

22
OTHER EXAMPLES OF SUPERSEDING CAUSE
A. DEEMED UNFORSEEABLE
a. Acts of God ( i.e, earthquakes)
b. Criminal Acts of third persons
c. Intentional Torts of third persons (i.e, assault, battery, false
imprisonment)
B. DEEMED FORSEEABLE (so that the defendant does not escape
liability)
a. Harm caused by rescuers ( firefighters or other people that
come to the injured person’s aid)
b. Ordinary negligence of health care providers (doctors, nurses),
and
c. Disease or subsequent injury that is sustained as a result of the
injured person being in a weakened condition.

23
 FORSEEABLITY
C. Unforeseeable Extent of Harm
a. A person who causes injury to another person is liable for a full
extent of harm, whether or not the extent of the harm is
foreseeable.
Example:
If Marky is negligently driving through a small, suburban town and
collides with Cake’s Ferrari, Marky is liable for the full amount of damage
caused to the car, despite the fact that it would not be foreseeable to see such
a car driving through a small, suburban town.

24
 EFFICIENT
INTERVENING CAUSE
Definition & Concept
Efficient & Intervening Cause (novus actus
intervens)
- Is one that destroys the causal connection
between the negligent act and injury which
negates liability.

26
An intervening cause will be regarded
as the proximate cause and the first
cause will be regarded as too remote,
where the chain of events is so broken
that they become independent and
cannot be said as the consequence of
the primary cause.
 When Efficient Intervening Cause Is Not
Applicable
There is no efficient intervening cause if the
force created by the negligent act or omission
have either:
> Remained Active itself; or
> Created another force which remained
active until it directly caused the result; or
> Created a new active risk of being acted
upon by the active force that caused the
result.
28
 Test of Sufficiency of Intervening Cause
The intervening cause It must break the
must be new and continuity of causal
independent, not under connection between the
control of the original
original negligent act
wrongdoer, or one by
and the injury so that the
which by the exercise of
act or omission cannot
reasonable foresight and
diligence, he should have
be said to have been the
anticipated and guarded efficient cause of the
against it. injury.

29
Take Note
A cause is not intervening if it is already
in operation at the time the negligent act
is committed.

30
 Negligence of the Defendant

> The efficient intervening cause may be the

negligence of the defendant
> The plaintiff may be negligence but the
defendant’s negligence pre-empted the effect of
such negligence.

31
 Urbano vs IAC (G.R. No. 72964)

although the petitioner did hack the victim with his bolo, leaving a wound, his death 22 days
later, was due to an efficient intervening cause, not attributable to the petitioner. According to
the medico legal report, there was no tetanus found in the wound when the victim was being
treated. It is indeterminable when the victim got infected with tetanus, but he was seen weeks
later after the incident, tending to his farm with his bare hands, exposing his wound. The Court
held that 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.

32
 Foreseeable Intervening Cause

In out jurisdiction, foreseeable intervening causes cannot be considered sufficient

intervening causes.

In the case of Phoenix Construction vs. IAC (148 SCRA 353), if the intervening
cause is one which in ordinary experience is reasonably to be anticipated, or which the
defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances, the defendant may
be negligent, among other reasons, because of his failure to guard against it; or the
defendant may be negligent only for that reason.

If the intervening cause is a recurrent feature of the environment, it is not an

efficient intervening cause because it is foreseeable.

33
 Medical Treatment as Intervening Cause
A tortfeasor is liable for the consequence of negligence, mistake, or lack of skill of a physician
or surgeon whose treatment aggravated the original injury.

Basis for the Rule

The additional harm is either:

1. Part of the original injury

2. The natural and probable consequences of the tortfeasor’s original negligence
3. The normal incidence of medical care necessitated by the tortfeasor’s original negligence

There will only be an efficient intervening cause where the original tortfeasor is not liable or
a circumstance that mitigates liability depending on the circumstance if the injured failed to
exercise reasonable care in securing the services of a competent physician or surgeon.

34
 Unforeseen and Unexpected Act or Cause

An unforeseen and unexpected act of a third person may not be considered

an efficient intervening cause if it is duplicative in nature or if merely aggravated
the injury that resulted because of the prior cause. The same conclusion can be
reached if the third person’s act is part of the causal set, together with the
defendant’s negligence, that operated to cause the injury.

35
 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.

Plaintiff’s Negligence is the

Cause
The negligence of the plaintiff is not contributory negligence if it is the only cause, that is,
it is necessary and sufficient to produce the result.

36
COMPOUND
CAUSES
● Plaintiff’s negligence occurs
simultaneously with that of the defendant
(Aquino Textbook, 2019 Edition)
● No recovery can be had (Article 2179).

37
 Sabido v. Custodio, GR No. L- 21512 31 Aug. 1966
Facts: Two vehicles going in opposite directions met each other in a road curve. One belonging to Laguna
Tayabas Bus Co. (LTB) driven by Nicasio Mudales and the other was a truck driven by petitioners Sabido
and Lagunda.

Agripino Custodio, the deceased spouse of the defendant was hanging on the left side of the LTB bus
when when sideswiped by the truck of petitioners. As testified, petitioners and the bus were equally
negligent for both drivers must have drove in their proper lanes to avoid the accident. 3Moreover, the
deceased passenger must not have been allowed to hang on the side of the bus and truck should have
drove in a moderate speed.

Issues: W/N petitioner was solidarily liable with LTB bus

Held: Yes.

According to the great weight of authority, where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission
of two or more persons, although acting independently of each other, are in combination, the direct and
proximate cause of a single injury to a third person a third person, and it is impossible to determine in
what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even though his
act alone might not have caused the entire injury or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of
the other tort-feasor.
38
 Part ofwith
-Plaintiff’s negligence, together the Same Causalnegligence
defendant’s Set is part of the
same causal set.
- To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal
link, although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the
succeeding injury.
- The effect would result only of both are present together with normal
background conditions.

39
 PNR v. Brunty and Garcia, G.r. No. 169891, 2 Nov 2006

Facts: Ethel Brunty, daughter of respondent traveled to Baguio together with respondent Garcia
and Mercelito, the latter as driver on board a Mercedez Benz sedan. By 2am Brunty, Garcia and
Mercelita were approaching the railroad crossing at an approximate speed of 70km/hr, drove past
a vehicle, unaware of the railroad track up ahead collided with PNR train Mercelita was killed,
Brunty died later on as a result of the serious physical injuries obtained and Garcia was sent for
treatment.

Respondent- appellees demanded payment of damages for the death of her daughter. They
pointed out that there was no flagbar or red light signal to warn motorists who were about to
cross the railroad track and that the flagman or switchman was only equipped with a hand
flashlight.

Petitioner- appellant argued that the sole and proximate cause of the accident was the negligence
and recklessness of Garcia and Mercelita for they violated the traffic rules and regulation- had
overtaken another vehicle a few yards before the railroad track. It insisted that it had provided
adequate warning signals at the railroad crossing and had exercised due care in the selection and
supervision of its employees.
40
 PNR v. Brunty and Garcia, G.r. No. 169891, 2 Nov 2006
Issue: W/N Mercilita was guilty of contributory negligence,

Held: Yes.

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 to which he is required to conform for his own protection.

To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about
his injuries in disregard of warning signs of an impending danger to health and body. To prove contributory
negligence it still necessary to establish causal link, although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and
the succeeding injury. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury
and not simply a condition for its occurrence,

Moreover, it was found that there was a slight curve before approaching the tracks; the palce was not properly
illuminated; ones view was blocked by a cockpit arena; and Mercilita was not familiar with the road. Yet, it was also
established that Mercelita was then driving at the speed of 70km/hr and in fact, had overtaken a vehicle a few yards
before reaching the railroad track. Mercelita should not have driven the car the way he did. However, while his acts
contributed to the collision, they nevertheless negate petitioner’s liability. Pursuant to Article 2179 of the New Civil
Code, the only effect is to mitigate liability which however, is not applicable in this case for Garcia never interposed
an appeal before the CA nor the SC. Likewise there was no proof of relationship between deceased Mercelita(driver)
and deceased Brunty.

41
 Defendant’s Negligence is the Only Cause
Damage to the plaintiff was the sole result of the defendant’s negligence. (Aquino Textbook, 2019 Edition)
Philippine National Railways Corporation, et.al. vs. PURIFICACION VIZCARA, G.R. No.
190022, February 15, 2012

Facts:

● 3:00 o’clock in the morning

● Reynaldo Vizcara, driver of passenger jeepney headed to Bicol
● Train operated by respondent Estranas collided with the passenger jeepney resulting to the
instantaneous death of three persons.
● No level crossing installed at the railroad crossing
● “Stop, Look and Listen” signage was poorly maintained.

Issue: W/N PNR’s negligence was the proximate cause of the accident

42
Held: Yes.
PNR fell short of the diligence expected of it, taking into consideration the nature
of its business, to forestall any untoward incident. In particular, the petitioners
failed to install safety railroad bars to prevent motorists from crossing the tracks in
order to give way to an approaching train. Aside from the absence of a crossing bar,
the "Stop, Look and Listen" signage installed in the area was poorly maintained,
hence, inadequate to alert the public of the impending danger. A reliable signaling
device in good condition, not just a dilapidated "Stop, Look and Listen" signage, is
needed to give notice to the public. It is the responsibility of the railroad company
to use reasonable care to keep the signal devices in working order. Failure to do so
would be an indication of negligence. Having established the fact of negligence on
the part of the petitioners, they were rightfully held liable for damages.

43
DOCTRINE OF
LAST CLEAR
CHANCE

44
● Known as Doctrine of Supervening Negligence or the Doctrine of Discovered Peril (Ngo
Sin Sing and Ngo v. Li Seng Giap & Sons, Inc., et.al.)
● States that where both parties are negligent but the negligence of one is appreciably later
in time than of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid
the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof.
Stated differently, the rule would also mean that an antecedent negligence of a person
does not preclude the recovery of damages for the supervening negligence of or bar a
defense against the liability sought by another, if the latter, who had the last fair chance,
could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. (NGO SIN
SING vs. LI SENG GIAP & SONS, INC. and CONTECH, G.R. No. 170596, 28 Nov
2008)
● The law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and
fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior
negligence of the other party. (Picart v. Smith,G.R. No. L-12219,March 15, 1918)

45
 Elements and Conditions of the Last Clear Chance Doctrine

1. Both parties are negligent

2. The negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than
that of the other
3. It is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought
about the occurrence of the incident
4. One who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending
harm failed to do so.

46
Case: Greenstar Express, Inc. And Sayson,Jr v. Universal Robina Corporation
and Nissin Universal Robina Corporation, G.R. No. 205090, October 17, 2016

47
Issue: W/N the last clear chance is applicable

Held: Yes.

The collision took place with Bicomong(driver of the L300 van) barely
encroaching on bus lane. This means that prior to and at the time of
collision, Sayson(driver of the bus) did not take any defensive maneuver
to prevent the accident and minimize the impending damage to life and
property, which resulted in the collision in the middle of the highway,
where a vehicle would normally be traversing. If Sayson took defensive
measures, the point of impact should have occurred further inside his
lane or not at the front of the bus - but at its side, which should have
shown that Sayson either slowed down or swerved to the right to avoid a
collision.

48
Despite having seen Bicomong drive the L300 van in a precarious
manner while the same was still a 250 meters away from his bus, Sayson
did not take the necessary precautions, as by reducing speed and adopting
a defensive stance to avert any untoward incident that may occur from
Bicomong's manner of driving. This is precisely his testimony during
trial. When the van began to swerve toward his bus, he did not reduce
speed nor swerve his bus to avoid collision. Instead, he maintained his
current speed and course, and for this reason., the inevitable took place:
An experienced driver who is. presented with the same facts would have
adopted an attitude consistent with a desire to preserve life and property;
for common carriers, the diligence demanded is of the highest degree.

49
 Doctrine of Last Clear Chance- Not
Applicable
1. Only the defendant was negligent.

2.Defendant or the party charged is required to act instantaneously and the injury cannot be
avoided by application of all means at hand.

3.Incident occurred in an instant and no appreciable time had elapsed that could have afforded
the victim a last clear opportunity to avoid the collision.

4.Defendant’s negligence is a concurrent cause and which was still in operation up to the time
the injury was inflicted.

5.The plaintiff is a passenger who filed an action against the carrier based on contract.

6.Actor, though negligent, was not aware of the danger or risk brought about by a prior fraud or
negligent act.

50
 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Baesa G.R. 79050-51 November 14,
1989
ISSUE: W/N the last clear chance applies thereby making David Ico who had
the chance to avoid the collision negligent in failing to utilize with reasonable
care and competence

HELD: NO.

● Generally, the last clear chance doctrine is invoked for the purpose of
making a defendant liable to a plaintiff who was guilty of prior or
antecedent negligence, although it may also be raised as a defense to
defeat claim for damages
● For the last clear chance doctrine to apply, it is necessary to show that
the person who allegedly has the last opportunity to avert the accident
was aware of the existence of the peril, or should, with exercise of due
care, have been aware of it.
51
 ○ There is nothing to show that the jeepney driver David Ico knew
of the impending danger
■ When he saw at a distance that the approaching bus was
encroaching on his lane, he did not immediately swerve the
jeepney to his right side since he must have assumed that the
bus driver will return to its own lane upon seeing the
jeepney approaching from the opposite direction
■ Even assuming that the jeepney driver perceived the danger
a few seconds before the actual collision, he had no
opportunity to avoid it
● Last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is
required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by
the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been
discovered

52
Example of Incident occurred in an instant and no appreciable time
had elapsed that could have afforded the victim a last clear
opportunity to avoid the collision

53
Thanks for Listening!

54